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:

CNN: It Is Illegal For Voters To Possess Wikileaks Material

undefined

There was an interesting segment on CNN last week where CNN anchor Chris Cuomo reminds viewers for it is illegal for them to “possess” Wikileaks material and that, as a result, they will have to rely on the media to tell them what is in these documents. The legal assertion is dubious, but the political implications are even more concerning. Polls show that many voters view the media as biased and this is a particularly strong view among supporters of Donald Trump who view CNN and other networks openly supporting Clinton or attacking Trump.

More importantly, the mainstream media has reported relatively little from the Wikileaks material and has not delved deeply into their implications, including embarrassing emails showing reporters coordinating with the Clinton campaign and supposedly “neutral” media figures like Donna Brazile, formerly with CNN, allegedly slipping advance question material to Hillary Clinton. The credibility of the media is at an all-time low and most voters hardly feel comfortable with this material being reported second-hand or interpreted by the mainstream media. So is it really illegal for voters to have this material?

Cuomo was about to discuss embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s inbox but he stopped to remind viewers “remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents,” Cuomo says. “It’s different for the media, so everything you’re learning about this, you’re learning from us.”
read on...

Battle For Mosul: Not False Flag, False Hope!

The US mainstream media is falling all over itself telling us how critical it is to attack Mosul, Iraq. The city of a million inhabitants has been under ISIS control for the past two years and the fight against ISIS will get a major boost if the terrorist group is expelled. How funny that the media sings a radically different tune when it comes to another town also under siege by terrorists. Aleppo in Syria has been held by al-Qaeda terrorists for twice as long as Mosul has been held by ISIS terrorists, but while the New York Times screams that no human cost is too great to liberate Mosul they at the same time accuse the Syrian government and its allies of wantonly slaughtering civilians in Aleppo. How to explain? The US mainstream media feels it is their duty not to report facts and dig up the truth behind government obfuscation, but to be complicit in government obfuscation of facts. A sad state. We look at the battle for Mosul in today's Liberty Report...
read on...

The Horror of Endless Interventionism

undefined

When the US government invaded Iraq in 2003, I wonder how many US officials contemplated the possibility that the cycle of death and destruction that they were initiating would be continuing 13 years later. And yet, here we are — more than a decade after Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched — and US and Iraqi soldiers are, once again, battling over control of Mosul. 

The battle for Mosul is being met with considerable indifference or nonchalance among many Americans. After all, there are so many more important things to talk about, such as sex scandals. But the fact that US troops are still fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq 13 years after the US invasion of the country (and 26 years after the US government’s Persian Gulf intervention) is truly remarkable. 

Not surprisingly, the US mainstream press and the US national-security establishment are doing their best to put their best spin on the upcoming battle for Mosul. They are showing how US warplanes are “softening” up the enemy with bombing raids on the city. They are reporting how Iraqi troops, counseled by US military advisers, are readying for their long-awaited attack to liberate the city from ISIS, which is the group that came into existence as a direct consequence of the US invasion of Iraq.
read on...

Who Brought the World to the Brink of World War III?

undefined

Who has the major responsibility for creating the confrontation between the US and Russia in Syria? How have these two major nuclear powers moved closer and closer to the brink of World War III?

At the moment, one clear way to resolve this clash is for Syria’s armed forces to win an unambiguous victory over the forces seeking to overturn the existing government. Bloody as it may be, the defeat of the rebel forces will defuse the military portion of the conflict between the US and Russia, at least within Syria. Russia, invited by Assad to aid him militarily, has been following that path.

Obama has haltingly and unevenly been following a different but also effective path, which is that the US pull back from the brink, that it stop calling for Assad’s resignation, and that it not directly become involved in attacking Syrian forces.

However, loud and aggressive voices within his administration and within the US government urge greater US military involvement. Hillary Clinton is counted more in this camp than not with her call for a no-fly zone in part of Syria if not all. Only 3 months remain before she is inaugurated and moves the US closer to the brink.
read on...

Iceland Today, the US Tomorrow?

undefined

During the 2008 economic crisis, Iceland’s government froze offshore accounts held by foreign investors in that country’s currency, the krona. Recently, the government of Iceland announced it would unfreeze the accounts if the account holders paid a voluntary “departure tax,” which could be as high as 58 percent. Investors who choose not to pay the departure tax would have their investment “segregated” into special funds that only invest in CDs issued by Iceland’s central bank. These CDs are expected to only provide a rate of return of at most 0.5 percent a year. So investors in offshore accounts can thus choose between having their money directly seized via the departure tax or indirectly seized via the inflation tax.
read on...

The Real Humanitarian Crisis Is Not Aleppo

undefined

Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIS mercenaries to slaughter the Syrian people? Why do we not hear about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen where the US and its Saudi Arabian vassal are slaughtering Yemeni women and children?

Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Libya where Washington destroyed a country leaving chaos in its place? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, ongoing now for 13 years, or the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan now 15 years old?

The answer is that the crisis in Aleppo is the crisis of Washington losing its ISIS mercenaries to the Syrian army and Russian air force. The jihadists sent by Obama and the killer bitch Hillary (“We came, we saw, he died”) to destroy Syria are being themselves destroyed. The Obama regime and the Western presstitutes are trying to save the jihadists by covering them in the blanket of “humanitarian crisis.”
read on...

WikiLeaks: The Two Faces of Hillary Clinton on Syria

undefined

“People don’t trust Hillary Clinton, and no one can agree on why,” begins a sympathetic piece on the Democratic Party presidential candidate in Fast Company last July.

In a CNN poll that same month, only 30 percent of Americans believed Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy.” 

If voters don’t know what to make of Clinton or how to read her, the blame may lie directly with the candidate herself. In an April 2013 speech made public by WikiLeaks last week, Clinton confided:

Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.

That last "public vs. private" comment quickly made the media rounds, and confirmed – for her critics - Clinton’s deliberate duplicity on a number of policy positions.


read on...

Russia-US Relations: Inevitable Clash?

Are cooler heads really in charge on both sides, or is the United States and Russia heading for a real clash over Syria? Ron Paul Institute Board Member Mark Almond joins RT's Crosstalk to explain why, as in the run up to World War I, we should look closely at how the media is ginning the people up for war...
read on...

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...


Authors

Tags