Memorial Day should not be a celebration of militarism. It is intended to be a day to memorialize those who have died in battle. What to memorialize? Watch today's Ron Paul Liberty Report! read on...
How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend our freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite — the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.
Let's examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the role that the troops play in them:
1. Foreign regimes
Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and “pacify” the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future. read on...
Obama’s biggest mistake was the invasion of Libya; Gaddafi was right when he warned that the overthrow of the government would lead to terrorist attacks in Europe, Daniel McAdams, executive director at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, says.
Gunfire, explosions, and artillery strikes were reported in Tripoli on Friday as clashes erupted between the forces loyal to the internationally-recognized Presidential Council which presides over the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), and rival groups loyal to the General National Congress (GNC), also called the National Salvation Government. Dozens were reportedly killed and hundreds injured.
The fighting erupted after GNC militia commander Salah Badi launched an attack on the GNA-allied Central Security militia in an attempt to recapture parts of the capital, according to the Libya Herald. Badi was a key figure in the 2011 uprising against then-leader Muammar Gaddafi. read on...
When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.
What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere. read on...
The Great White Father came to Saudi Arabia last week to harangue some 50 Arab and African despots on the glories of Trumpism, democracy and the need to fight what the Americans call terrorism.
Having covered the Mideast for many decades, I cannot think of a more bizarre or comical spectacle. Here was Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s most repressive regimes, hosting the glad-handing US president who hates Islam and the Mideast with irrational passion.
I was amazed to learn that Trump’s speech to the Arab and African attendees had been written by pro-Israel ideologue Stephen Miller, a young senior White House staffer from California who is an extreme Zionist. How very bizarre.
Not only that, Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, who are also strongly pro-Israel, were with him. So too was the powerful commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, another ardent pro-Israel cabinet member with whom I spent a weekend last year. Billionaire Ross performed the traditional Saudi sword dance with skill and verve.
Listening to Trump and Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, blast Iran as the font of terrorism provided another big joke. Trump’s tirade against Tehran was delivered in Saudi Arabia, a feudal monarchy that holds no elections, cuts off the heads of some 80-90 people annually, and treats women like cattle. read on...
Whenever you see the mainstream media in the United States take time out from trashing President Donald Trump to give him neutral or even grudgingly favorable coverage, be on your guard. It’s a sure sign he’s taken a step away from his campaign pledge to drain the Washington swamp and instead has done something to please the swamp critters.
A smug New York Times, the virulent enemy of Trump and of the deplorable people who elected him, clucked its patronizing approval of his speech to the leaders of over 50 Muslim-majority countries – pointedly excluding Iran and Syria – as a repudiation of his earlier views... read on...
Why is there one set of criminal laws for the private sector and another set for U.S. officials?
The inspectors general for the State Department and the Justice Department have released a report that states that DEA officials lied to Congress about an episode in Honduras in which DEA agents killed innocent people. According to the report, the DEA falsely told Congress that its agents had shot drug smugglers in self-defense during a nighttime shootout after a boat containing the victims had collided with a boat containing the DEA agents. The truth was that the boat containing the victims was nothing more than a commercial passenger vehicle that had the misfortune of colliding into the DEA boat.
You can read all the details in this New York Times article and this article from the Intercept.
Obvious, the DEA killings of those innocent people raise an important question: Under what constitutional authority does the DEA or any other U.S. official wage the drug war in Honduras or any other foreign country? Do you see anything in the Constitution that empowers them to do that?
In fact, I don’t see anything in the Constitution that empowers them to enact drug laws here at home? Do you? After all, if it took a constitutional amendment to empower the feds to criminalize the possession and distribution of alcohol, why doesn’t the same principle apply to drugs? read on...
Rebels living in England have claimed the UK Government waived travel bans to let them fight Colonel Gaddafi in Libya as investigators probe the Manchester bomber's visits to Tripoli.
Fighters which included Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents have described how MI5 operated an open door policy for those willing to travel to North Africa to topple the dictator.
It comes as Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted Salman Abedi, who killed 22 and injured at least 119 people when he blew himself up at Manchester Arena, was known to counter-terror authorities.
Those who travelled to Libya to fight alongside Islamic rebel groups have described how, even though they were subject to counter-terror orders banning them from leaving their homes because they posed a security threat, they were allowed to travel to the hostile warzone.
When they returned to the UK, having spent months alongside groups thought by British intelligence to have links with Al-Qaeda, rebels were said to have been allowed back into the country without hesitation. read on...
In October, 2016, the NSA was forced to admit that it had misused Sec. 702 of the FISA Amendments to spy on far more Americans than it should have. Even the normally very compliant FISA Court condemned the ramped up spying on Americans as raising serious Fourth Amendment issues. The NSA last month told us it would cease using Sec. 702 -- which is supposed to be for foreigners -- to spy in Americans. Should we trust the NSA to police itself? Today's Liberty Report urges that Section 702 of the FISA Act be allowed to sunset at the end of the year. If the government wants to spy on us, let them get a warrant! read on...
Western intervention in Libya opened the country up to radical Islamist gangs which had been suppressed under Gaddafi. Just as Gaddafi warned. Same in Syria, where western destabilization efforts have led to an al-Qaeda and ISIS presence that was not there before the west had decided on "regime change" for the secular Assad. Who benefitted from the rise of these radical groups? People like the Manchester suicide bomber, who travelled to both countries for training and radicalization. Western interventionist foreign policy has contributed to the Manchester bombing, a classic "blowback" action. The bomber is guilty, but so are those who endorsed the policies creating conditions for people like him to flourish. Tune in to today's Liberty Report... read on...
