The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Search Results

for:

West is Gunning for Russian Media Ban

undefined

It would be monumental, but Western states seem to be moving, ineluctably, towards banning Russian news media channels from satellite platforms and the internet. That outcome – albeit with enormous ethical and political implications – seems to be a logical conclusion of the increasingly frenzied transatlantic campaign to demonize Russia.

Washington, London and Paris appear to be coordinating an unprecedented media onslaught that is vilifying Russia for almost every conceivable malfeasance, from alleged war crimes in Syria to threatening the security of Europe, to shooting down civilian airliners, to subverting American presidential elections. And that’s only a sample.

British foreign secretary Boris Johnson declared this week that Russia is in danger of becoming a “pariah state.” Ironically, that fate has less to do with Russia’s actual conduct and more to do with the desired objective driving Western policy towards Moscow – to isolate and portray Russia as an international reprobate.

If Russia can be sufficiently demonized in the eyes of the Western public by their governments, then the political context is created for drastic measures, which would otherwise be seen as unacceptable infringements of democratic rights. Measures that go way beyond economic sanctions and into the realm of media censorship. How weird is that? The “free world” which deplores “Russian authoritarianism” moving towards media censorship and policing what it deems as “thought-crime.”
read on...

DOJ Drops Charges Against Arms Dealer - Why?

Why did the Justice Department suddenly drop charges against arms dealer Marc Turi, who said he was shipping weapons to "rebels" in Libya via other US allies in the Gulf? The government said he broke the arms control export laws, Turi insisted he was acting on instructions from the State Department and US intelligence agencies. Did the government fear that the discovery phase of the trial would expose the secret US plan to arm what turned out to be radical jihadists in Libya? RPI's Daniel McAdams comments on this RT segment about the case...
read on...

Prepare Yourself for Blowback From Yemen

undefined

If there is another terrorist attack on US soil, this time because of the death and destruction that the US government is wreaking in Yemen, I can already hear the laments and complaints of statist-Americans: “Oh my gosh, another terrorist attack against us! Why do the terrorists and the Muslims hate us for our freedom and values? Why can’t they see that we’re good people who just want to live our lives in peace? We must now give more power and more money to the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA so that they can keep us safe from those who hate us because we’re good.”

In other words, the last thing they’re going to acknowledge is that the Tomahawk missiles that the US military fired against radar sites in Yemen yesterday, killing whoever happened to be manning those radar sites, will have had anything to do with retaliatory terrorism against the United States.
read on...

The Imperial President’s Toolbox of Terror: A Dictatorship Waiting to Happen

undefined

Presidents don’t give up power.

Executive orders don’t expire at the end of each presidential term.

And every successive occupant of the Oval Office since George Washington, who issued the first executive order, has expanded the reach and power of the presidency.

The Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers. In recent years, however, American presidents have anointed themselves with the power to wage war, unilaterally kill Americans, torture prisoners, strip citizens of their rights, arrest and detain citizens indefinitely, carry out warrantless spying on Americans, and erect their own secretive, shadow government.

These are the powers that will be inherited by the next heir to the throne, and it won’t make a difference whether it’s a President Trump or a President Clinton occupying the Oval Office.
read on...

FBI Comes Clean On Homegrown Terror

What motivates terrorists to attack the US and US targets overseas? US foreign policy primarily characterized by US bombs fired by drone into countries primarily in the Middle East. This has been Ron Paul's contention for years. Now we see that the FBI agrees. On today's Liberty Report we discuss a recent article about a leaked FBI internal counter-terrorism study and its (not so) surprising conclusions. Will Washington listen to the work of its own agency and work to change its foreign policy?
read on...

The Legacy of United States Interventionism

undefined

There are really two questions here – when is the use of force justified in the context of the key word “abroad” and what have Americans learned regarding overseas interventions from the Iraq experience. As a foreign policy adviser for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, I lean in a non-interventionist direction, but that is at least somewhat due to that fact that recent interventions have not worked very well and have in fact increased the number of enemies rather than reduce them while also killing nearly 7,500 American soldiers and more than a million inhabitants of the countries Washington has become entangled with.

One might also reasonably argue based on post 9/11 developments that destabilizing or attacking other countries consistently makes bad situations worse and has a tendency to allow problems to metastasize. This is sometimes referred to as blowback.

Nevertheless, anti-intervention does not necessarily mean anti-war when war becomes the only option to protect vital interests, but armed conflict cannot be entered into lightly. There is in fact a simple answer to when to use force: it is to defend the United States itself against a clearly defined threat to the country or to a genuine vital interest.
read on...

Hillary's Public Vs. Private Positions - Deceit?

In a leaked 2013 speech by Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the candidate told the audience that it is necessary to take a public and a private position on each issue. It is an indication of the attitude of the elites, particularly the neocons, that the public cannot be told what their leaders are really up to on any issue. So the question is whether she had a "public" and "private" position on Syria? ISIS? Saudi Arabia? We discuss in today's Liberty Report...
read on...

Enough Sabre Rattling Already!

undefined

Folks, this is starting to sound pretty ominous. The Washington War Party is coming unhinged and appears to be leaving no stone unturned when it comes to provoking Putin's Russia and numerous others. The recent collapse of cooperation in Syria----based on the false claim that Assad and his Russian allies are waging genocide in Aleppo---- is only the latest example.

So now comes the US Army's chief of staff, General Mark Milley, doing his best imitation of Curtis LeMay in a recent speech dripping with bellicosity. While America has no industrial state enemy left on the planet that can even remotely challenge its economic might, technological superiority and overwhelming military power, General Milley unloaded a fusillade of bluster at the Association of the United States Army's annual meeting in Washington DC:
The strategic resolve of our nation, the United States, is being challenged and our alliances tested in ways that we haven't faced in many, many decades," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told the audience.

I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military -- despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing -- we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.
That is rank nonsense. We are not being "tested" by anyone. To the contrary, Imperial Washington is provoking tensions and confrontations everywhere -- from the South China Sea to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, the Black Sea, the Baltics and Ukraine---that have no bearing whatsoever on the safety and security of the citizens of  Spokane WA, Topeka KS and Springfield MA.
read on...

Kerry’s Anger as Assad Poised to Win; the US Still Serves Israel and Saudi Arabia

undefined

The headline reads “John Kerry calls for war crimes investigation of Russia and Syria over Aleppo attacks”. John Kerry is angry that the Syrian army is about to take eastern Aleppo. He’s angry because the US has no viable force to stop this. He’s angry because Assad is still in power. He’s angry that Assad has allies in Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. He’s angry that the chemical rap didn’t stick on Assad. He’s angry that the US didn’t launch a massive air attack on Syria’s infrastructure and military in 2013. He’s angry that no viable force of “moderate” rebels exists. He’s taking his anger out on Russia.

Kerry attacks Russia with phony charges because his other options are so unpalatable. He acts as if attacking a city to win a war has suddenly become a war crime, today, in 2016, in Aleppo. He acts as if it was not a crime for Saudi Arabia to attack Yemen, for NATO to attack Libya and for the US to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. He acts as if the moral designation of acts of war has changed drastically from the time that the US mercilessly bombed Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. This was a mere 45 years ago. Does the turning of a calendar page into the 21st century mean that an act of war that was always in mankind’s arsenal of killing suddenly has become a war crime? If so, then the US stands in the docket too.

Kerry is so angry and frustrated that he launches a propaganda salvo to obtain what he cannot win on the battlefield. He attacks Russia and Syria on grounds that apply to Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia in the 21st century. Is this also blindness? Is it also confidence that the American public and media will not call him on this because he’s gotten a free pass up to now? Is it that in the lame duck presidency, he feels free to express his frustration and lash out at convenient objects?
read on...

Debate Round Two: Issues Vs. Character

Both presidential candidates spoke a good deal about Syria, Russia, Iran, Libya, and foreign policy in general. After they finished the exercise in mutual character assassination, that is. But which is more important, character or issues? And why are the candidates seemingly so ill-informed about basic aspects of the war in Syria? Bad advisors? Propaganda? We take a look at the second debate in today's Liberty Report...
read on...


Authors

Tags