By Ron Paul
If you review the history of how many elections we’ve been involved with, how many countries we’ve invaded and how many people we’ve killed to have our guy in, I’ll tell you what – we don’t have very much room for condemning anybody else. I discuss below:
If video doesn't work for you...try here.
A series of bombings and the assassination of the Russian ambassador have left Turkey reeling. Does the meeting with Russian and Iranian foreign ministers in Moscow signal that Ankara is looking for a way out?
Likely twin terror attacks in Berlin and Ankara remind us of the dangers we face. But has the US war on terror been successful at all in reducing terrorism? Or is it actually perpetuating it?
By Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Walter Jones and I sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama requesting a classified briefing on any evidence concerning Russia’s alleged interference in the recent presidential election:
December 19, 2016
Reprinted from Representative Amash's Facebook Page.
Today is the big day. The Electors meet and will select the next US president. Is this system a worn-out relic from the past or does it still make sense? What about alternatives?
By Ron Paul
Over the past week, eastern Aleppo was completely brought back under control of the Syrian government. The population began to return to its homes, many of which were abandoned when al-Qaeda-linked rebels took over in 2012. As far as I know, the western mainstream media did not have a single reporter on the ground in Aleppo, but relied on “activists” to inform us that the Syrian army was massacring the civilian population. It hardly makes sense for an army to fight and defeat armed rebels just so it can go in and murder unarmed civilians, but then again not much mainstream reporting on the tragedy in Syria has made sense.
I spoke to one western journalist last week who actually did report from Aleppo and she painted a very different picture of what was going on there. She conducted video interviews with dozens of local residents and they told of being held hostage and starved by the “rebels,” many of whom were using US-supplied weapons supposed to go to “moderates.”
We cannot be sure what exactly is happening in Aleppo, but we do know a few things about what happened in Syria over the past five years. This was no popular uprising to overthrow a dictator and bring in democracy. From the moment President Obama declared “Assad must go” and approved sending in weapons, it was obvious this was a foreign-sponsored regime change operation that used foreign fighters against Syrian government forces. If the Syrian people really opposed Assad, there is no way he could have survived five years of attack from foreigners and his own people.
Recently we heard that the CIA and Hillary Clinton believe that the Russians are behind leaked Democratic National Committee documents, and that the leaks were meant to influence the US presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor. These are the same people who for the past five years have been behind the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Isn’t supporting violent overthrow to influence who runs a country even worse than leaking documents? Is it OK when we do it? Why? Because we are the most powerful country?
We are a country sitting on $20 trillion in debt, living far beyond our means. Power can oftentimes be an illusion, and in any case it doesn’t last forever. We can be sure that the example we set while we are the most powerful country will be followed by those who may one day take our place. The hypocrisy of our political leaders who say one thing and do another does not go unnoticed.
We should end that hypocrisy starting with Syria. That government, along with its allies, seems to be on track to take their country back from ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. The only sensible Syria policy is for the US to stop trying to overthrow their government, to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. It is a rule that is always good to remember, but perhaps especially important to recall at this time of year.
By Daniel McAdams
Donald Trump won the presidency largely because the American public was tired of the last 16 years of continuous wars and disastrous foreign interventions. When he said "I think getting along with Russia is a good thing," Americans compared that with Hillary's promise of more confrontation and nuclear brinksmanship and pulled the lever for Trump. When Trump asked what's so bad about Assad and Putin fighting ISIS in Syria and promised to end the idiotic policy of arming "rebels" because "we don't know who they are," America felt the five year "regime change" policy that has left Syria in ruins was finally coming to an end and they voted Trump.
The neocons gnashed their teeth at the thought that Trump would give up on "remaking" the Middle East, one of their top priorities since at least the 1996 study by the Project for a New American Century called for exactly the same kind of regime change policy the US eventually pursued.
Hillary promised "no-fly zones" for Syria, which would have likely meant armed confrontation with Russia. Trump promised the opposite and won.
Then the predictable happened. Within minutes of the announcement that Trump beat Hillary the bloodcurdling neocon Twitter feeds came to a screeching halt, did a u-turn, and began whispering sweet nothings into Trump's ear. "Ah Mr. Trump, you will need some expert advice," they breathily cooed. "You will need to listen to us very serious people. Don't be a bumpkin, listen to the experts." And so on.
It now looks like the neocons may have successfully bamboozled Trump on Syria. Just as the Syrian army with Russian assistance was clearing the last of the al-Qaeda rebels out of eastern Aleppo and the residents began to return to the homes they had abandoned, Trump took to the stage to comment that it was "so sad" what was happening in Syria. He then pulled a Hillary, telling the crowd: “We’ll build and help build safe zones in Syria, so people will have a chance.”
This turnabout has neocon fingerprints all over it. The mainstream media -- also known as "fake news" factories -- have been mis-reporting on the defeat of forces in east Aleppo that even the US government admits are al-Qaeda's Nusra Front. In their false narrative the defeat of al-Qaeda is a terrible thing and the tragic deaths of those in east Aleppo are not because they were held hostage for four years by al-Qaeda, but rather the fault of the government that freed them from captivity.
The mainstream media has no reporters on the ground in east Aleppo. They rely on various US-government funded NGOs like the "White Helmets," who dutifully repeat the propaganda of their paymasters. Independent journalists on the ground who are actually interviewing people as they return to their homes in east Aleppo are seeing and reporting the opposite of what we see in the US mainstream media. Of course in the twisted world of modern media, credible sources interviewing people on the ground and on-camera must be ignored. It doesn't fit the narrative.
When Donald Trump says the US will build "safe zones" in Syria, what does he mean? Does he know? Does he mean safe zones to protect the people from ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups? Those "safe zones" are already being built by the Syrian army with allied assistance. Just ask the people returning to their homes in Aleppo. The best way to help would be for the United States to stay out of the way. After all, the US is currently operating illegally inside Syria according to both US and international law.
Or does he mean "safe zones" to protect the various terrorist groups from being further routed by Syrian government forces? That is the neocon plan, the Hillary plan, the "humanitarian interventionist with a bullet" plan. Is that now Trump's plan too?
The neocons are busy re-packaging their old "regime change" plans for Syria in new wrapping paper. Over at "War on the Rocks" blog one of the "experts" outlines a "Sensible Path for Trump's Syria Policy," which upon even cursory examination is essentially identical to the policy pursued to utter failure over the past five years. At its center is regime change for Syria, just as Obama called for in 2011.
Here's a real "sensible path for Trump's Syria policy": American troops home, no more weapons, no more regime change. Actually Trump's own words would serve pretty well as a sensible path for Syria policy:
We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments.
But the neocons will not let go that easily, as we see today in Trump's adoption of neocon talking points. Mr. President-elect: if you lie down with dogs you will wake up with fleas...or worse.
This article was originally published at The Ron Paul Institute.
By Ron Paul
Without any proof or evidence being presented that Russia interfered with our election, we're just seeing political grandstanding at this point by both President Obama and Secretary Clinton. Have you noticed that there's never any mention or concern about Secretary Clinton having a private server in her home? If anything, that server would have made it much easier for Russia (or anyone else) to know what was going on with our government.
I discuss this, our CIA's shenanigans, and much more below:
By Chris Rossini
American mainstream media is scraping the bottom of the barrel now. These "journalists" ruined their reputations with the American people during the run-up to the election. That should be bad enough. But now, they're being reprimanded by their masters too! Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton provided verbal spankings over the last couple of days. This is all the media's fault (along with Putin's, of course).
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton (while not taking responsibility for her electoral loss) said that:
"...the press is finally catching up to the facts, which we desperately tried to present to them during the last months of the campaign.”
No one is allowed to see the supposed "facts" of Russian hacking for some reason. But apparently the media was rejecting those "facts" prior to the election.
Why did they reject the "facts" that Hillary's campaign was feeding them? Who knows? Maybe someone will explain it to us someday.
President Obama, for his part, says that the media covered Hillary's email scandal way too much! The Russians were able to do their dirty work thanks to media reporting on all the nefarious activities of the Clinton campaign:
“every little juicy tidbit of political gossip. Including John Podesta’s risotto recipe. This was an obsession that dominated the news coverage. So I do think it’s worth us reflecting how it is that a presidential election of such importance, of such moment, with so many big issues at stake and such a contrast between the candidates, came to be dominated by a bunch of these leaks.”
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...When first we practice to deceive!
The mainstream media is now in a box. The American public thinks that they're a joke, and tune them out. And now the very people who the "journalists" were propagandizing for are kicking dirt in their eyes.
Of course, to anyone without blinders on, Clinton and Obama are way off the mark. The entire run-up to the election was anti-Trump 24/7. Those of us who have been following politics for many years have never seen anything like it. It was so blatant.
It's not that the media didn't do enough for Clinton. They hid as much as they could. But they obviously couldn't ignore everything.
In fact, if this election was held prior to the Internet, Hillary would have won in a landslide. Where would people have found out the truth? Their local library?
So what is the mainstream media to do now? They've shot themselves in the foot and no one is coming to make it better. They're hated on all sides.
Well, they should clean house and bring in actual journalists who are looking for truth and determined to be a check on government. You know, actual watchdogs on people in power.
We all know that's not going to happen.
Instead, since they too live in progressive bubbles, they'll instead say to their masters: "Thank you sir, may I have another," and continue to drive themselves into irrelevancy.
They've already started by making themselves arbiters of what constitutes "fake news."
That will be found in the non-FCC licensed portion of the Internet, as always.
By Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
Two hundred and twenty-five years ago today, a young nation made ten additions to its already revolutionary Constitution.
These amendments – this “Bill of Rights” – said we could speak our minds, worship freely, defend ourselves, be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and expect to be treated fairly if accused of a crime.
In contrast to almost all of the legislation Congress passes today, the Bill of Rights is full of language such as “Congress shall make no law” and “The right of the people… shall not be violated,” along with a guarantee that non-delegated powers or those not specifically denied the states “are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
With this document, the Founders drew a line in the sand a few inches from the government’s feet.
Not all of these 225 years have been kind to the Bill of Rights, though. It’s been challenged, debated, and far too often just ignored.
Don’t be fooled into thinking this would have surprised the Founders.
We have the Bill of Rights precisely because the Founding Fathers knew government can’t resist stretching its limits. Much like Benjamin Franklin’s reported statement that we had a Republic if we could “keep it,” the Bill of Rights relies on the people holding government accountable.
When some in government say “of course we can,” you and I are supposed to use the Bill of Rights to say, “No, you can’t.”
Some believe government has grown too large to hold down with these chains, that it’s too late to rein it back in. If the Bill of Rights were mere words on paper, perhaps we could afford to indulge that feeling.
But they are not mere words. They are principles fundamental to who we are as a people and what we represent as a nation. If we stop caring enough to preserve them, we will lose more than a few liberties.
We will become something else entirely.
Read the rest at Breitbart