Sunday 25th of September 2022

rejected by the empire...


The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.

The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.

A prosperous America is profoundly linked to a foreign policy rooted in peaceful relations and trade with all. With peace, comes real prosperity.

Ron Paul’s real legacy in his writing, teaching, and in politics is his success bringing people of very different backgrounds and perspectives together under the common cause of peace, individual liberties, and prosperity. His institute energetically continues this kind of “coalition-building” in all aspects of its work. The Institute board is itself one of the best examples of how broad a coalition can come together and work for the same shared goals and values.

read more:

The Peace and Freedom Party is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism and racial equality. We represent the working class, those without capital in a capitalist society. We organize toward a world where cooperation replaces competition, a world where all people are well fed, clothed and housed; where all women and men have equal status; where all individuals may freely endeavor to fulfill their own talents and desires; a world of freedom and peace where every community retains its cultural integrity and lives with all others in harmony. 

The Peace and Freedom Party was founded on June 23, 1967, by people who wanted to vote for something they could support. The Democrats were leading the nation in the war against Vietnam. As the military drained the domestic economy, Republicans and Democrats called for "law and order" to repress Americans who wished to improve their own lives. Black militants were rising up angrily in the cities, while Filipino and Latino farmworkers were organizing labor unions in the fields. Women were agitating for full equality with men. These forces of discontent united to create an electoral arm of "The Movement." A massive voter registration drive placed the Peace and Freedom Party on the California ballot in January 1968. On both the state and national level, we have shown a willingness to work with other like minded groups, trying to build a mass based socialist party throughout the country. 

read more:

“We live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are no easy or magical solutions.  As president and commander-in-chief, I will defend this nation, its people, and America’s vital strategic interests, but I will do it responsibly. America must defend freedom at home and abroad, but we must seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to military action. While force must always be an option, war must be a last resort, not the first option.

As a member of Congress, I have supported the use of force only when it was a last resort and America’s vital interests were at stake. I opposed the first Gulf War, as did many other Members of Congress, because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. I supported the use of force to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. And, in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish.

read more:



"we don't know enough"...

The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that an end be put to the “reactionary mode” blaming it all on Russia.

“We don’t know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen’s Security Forum in Colorado, when asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.

Read more:

giving syria to the saudis...


The rationale for doing so is evidently not to strengthen her public support at home but to shape the policy decisions made by the Obama administration and the coalition of external supporters of the armed opposition to Assad.

Obama’s refusal to threaten to use military force on behalf of the anti-Assad forces or to step up military assistance to them has provoked a series of leaks to the news media by unnamed officials – primarily from the Defense Department – criticizing Obama’s willingness to cooperate with Russia in seeking a Syrian ceasefire and political settlement as “naïve.”

The news of Clinton’s advisers calling openly for military measures signals to those critics in the administration to continue to push for a more aggressive policy on the premise that she will do just that as president.

Even more important to Clinton and close associates, however, is the hope of encouraging Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have been supporting the armed opposition to Assad, to persist in and even intensify their efforts in the face of the prospect of U.S.-Russian cooperation in Syria.

Even before the recommendations were revealed, specialists on Syria in Washington think tanks were already observing signs that Saudi and Qatari policymakers were waiting for the Obama administration to end in the hope that Clinton would be elected and take a more activist role in the war against Assad.

read more:


The purpose of removing Assad by whatever means has nothing to do with "freedom" nor democracy. It has to do with the USA gifting Syria to the Saudis, after removing Syria from the Russian-Iranian alliance. It's called war for regime change which is illegal under the United Nation charter, but when did the US take notice of the UN? Remember Iraq... The US got away with creating havoc in Libya because Medvedev (then President of Russia) did not veto this war at the UN. Putin was furious, knowing well the US intent was to destroy Libya's progressive society — now a hot bed for ISIS, al Qaeda and other terrorist loonies... 

Now as soon as the US troops go on the ground in Syria, this will escalate war possibilities with Russia, a prospect which has been on the agenda of the Hawks in America. Let's call these hawks by the names they deserve: Vultures, vampires, blood suckers, idiots, warmongers, beasts, rascals, rogue malignant turds...

un"democratic" sign...


Sanders Delegate: DNC Stripped My Credentials for Holding "No TPP" Sign


JULY 29, 2016

This comes as at least one Sanders delegate is saying his credentials were stripped from him after he held a protest sign during President Obama’s speech Wednesday night.

Frank Klein: "I’m Frank Klein. I’m a 61-year-old delegate from Arkansas Congressional District 4. I’m here to represent my—I’m a Bernie delegate. They had told me, because I held up a "No TPP" sign during the Obama speech—I didn’t yell, I didn’t make a commotion, I just held up a sign—that it’s against DNC rules for me to use an unofficial sign, and they refused to give me my credentials to go to the convention on the fourth day. I feel like this is a violation of my constitutional rights to free speech."


terrified that peace was going to break out...

“A victory of neo-conservatives” – that’s how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not expect peace talks to resume any time soon.


Speaking to RT, Ron Paul said that there is no proof of Damascus’ guilt that could trigger such a rash and violent response from the US.

“I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn’t been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition.”

This is not the first time something like this has happened in Syria or elsewhere, Paul said, but now it is convenient to pay attention and react immediately.

“If any of this was true, I don’t know why they couldn’t wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn’t go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can’t think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it’s helping ISIS, because it’s helping Al-Qaeda.”

“From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things,” Paul added.

A factor that contributed to the speedy reaction was of course the US president, the politician told RT.

“I have no idea what his purpose was. Maybe he just didn’t want to hear the debate, because the last time they debated it, they lost. And this time, it was necessary for them to jump onto this, before people came to know what was really going on.”

he Syrian situation now is “a victory for neo-conservatives, who’ve been looking for Assad to go,” Paul said.

“They want to get rid of him, and you have to look for who is involved in that. Unfortunately, they are the ones who are winning out on this, and the radicals, too! There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because at one minute we say, well, maybe Assad has to stay, the next day he has to go, and we’re there fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the same time, what we end up doing is we actually strengthen them! It is a mess.

read more:


See toon at top...




unknown locations...


The President had stated he wants to keep everything under his vest, because he doesn’t want people know, and he believes its proper policy,” Paul said. “The Constitution says he’s not allowed to send troops around the world without the people and the Congress knowing about it.”

Apart from the Constitution, there’s the War Powers Resolution, adopted after the Vietnam War clearly states that the US government “must report where the troops are,” Paul added. Despite that, the locations of some 44,000 of troops were simply reported as “unknown.”

“I have a suggestion for them, if they are interested in cleaning that mess, because it’s wrong. And that is that – bring the troops home. Then we can count them here at home. But it’s when they are in a 150 countries or more it gets very difficult,”Paul said. “Especially if they say this is secret, we can’t let the people know, we can’t let the enemy know where our troops are. So they put the American people in the category of the enemy, because we are not allowed to know.”

Paul said that a lack of interest from people on the issue of overseas deployments is part of the problem, giving the government free rein to damage US interests long-term by pursuing an aggressive foreign policy.



“The problem is for us to change the attitude to where the troops are, we have to change our foreign policy. That is one of our goals at the Institute – to try to say that our foreign policy is wrong, we are interventionist, we tell other people how to run their countries, we get involved in elections that we shouldn't be involved in, we're the policeman of the world. It doesn’t serve our interests.”

Americans should have a final say whether they want to see their troops intervene in yet another country, he argued.

“People are supposed to know what is going on. People are supposed to speak out, people are supposed to tell their members of Congress when we should get involved in hostilities.”

The current foreign policy has been lobbied for by the military-industrial complex, “big bucks” that profit from the campaigns. However, the US risks running out of the money it is “print[ing] like crazy,” if it continues spending it on lecturing others and waging wars overseas. 

“Every country in the world is imperfect, including ours, but our immediate goal should be trying to improve ourselves and not to pretend that we can tell other people how to live and who should run their countries,” Paul said.

read more:

read from top...

the view from ron paul...

Former Texas Congressman and leading libertarian thinker Dr. Ron Paul has shared his views on President Trump's job as president after his first year in office, the situation in Syria and the renewed debate on gun control in the wake of the Florida school shooting.

Trump's Year in Office

Sputnik: Donald Trump has been in office for over a year. What is your general assessment of his job as president?

Ron Paul: Mediocre; probably not worse than the other options. But I don't think presidents really have much control. I think the deep state – the people behind the scenes and the shadow government, who control the monetary system, who control our foreign policy and the welfare state, and are connected to the media and the military-industrial complex. – I don't think the presidency is as important as it's made out to be. But everybody talks about it; it's a political thing, and they keep churning the issue and directing everybody to ask 'is Trump a good guy or a bad guy, and are we going to impeach him or what's going to happen', rather than [asking] what kind of philosophy do we have: why do we have this philosophy of welfare-warfare, spend money, run up debt and let the central bank print all that money. 

They don't even talk about it; the major parties, including Trump, they sign even more controls on us when it comes to FISA courts and spying on us. In spite of the fact that government officials like the FBI and others actually spy on our own president, he supports this; he passes and signs bills on that. So that really raises questions about 'does the president really have much to say', and I think he has much less to say than a lot of people believe. I believe that if he had stuck to his guns and had a different relationship with Russia and started bringing troops home and not aggravating things, he wouldn't have been tolerated. Something would have happened.


Syria and America's Place in the World

Sputnik: Moving on to the Middle East, in your reports you've stated that with so many countries controlling territory in Syria, there's very little left for the Syrians. Do you think there's a good chance that government forces can regain control of the country?

Ron Paul: I do. I think there will always be a Syria. What it's going to look like is the big problem. At the moment, it's hard to predict and say that the people who have invaded —  the Turks, the Israelis, the United States will leave. They're going to have to suffer a defeat somewhere along the way. That may occur soon –another defeat like Aleppo. That might make them think differently, but it's still a hotbed…

Sputnik: There's an ongoing campaign in the east of Demascus in Eastern Ghouta, with media portrayals of it in the West comparing the ongoing campaign to Srebrenica and what happened in Bosnia. Why do you think this is, and how is the situation being portrayed in the West? Do Americans know what's actually going on?

Ron Paul: I think this, indirectly, may be a subtle bit of good news…You know Aleppo was seen as a return of Syrian territory, and a lot of people moved back! Everybody said that 'it's Assad who wants to kill his people and gas his people,' and yet they all moved back after the fighting stopped. So maybe this is one of the last desperate stands [for the anti-Damascus forces], at least for the part of Syria where Assad is stronger… 

Read more:


Please read:

the dark ages...


Read from top...

ron's view...


Last week’s second impeachment trial of former President Trump should serve as a warning that something is very wrong in US politics. Far from a measured, well-investigated, rock-solid case against the former president, America was again abused with day after day of character assassination, innuendo, false claims, and even falsified “evidence.”

The trial wasn’t intended to win a conviction of Trump for “incitement” because the Democrats already knew that the votes were not there. So, just as with the last impeachment trial, the goal was to fling as much dirt at Donald Trump as they could while the cameras were rolling. Their hatred of Donald Trump is so deep and visceral that probably a psychologist would have been more beneficial to them than yet another impeachment trial.

It would be incorrect to say that the House managers’ case fell apart, because they had no case to begin with. They never had a case because they made no effort to develop a case. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court saw from the beginning that this was no legitimate impeachment trial and informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that he would not preside. Without the Chief Justice, there was no Constitutional impeachment trial. So they put on a show trial instead.

As Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley kept asking, why didn’t the House schedule a single hearing to investigate what really happened up to and on the day of the Capitol melee on January 6th? They had weeks to do so. Professor Turley believes they might even have been able to make a decent case if they had tried.

Why did they not call witnesses? Were there no rioters who could be called to explain under oath how Trump’s speech had inspired them to enter the Capitol building to overturn the election?

Were they afraid that under cross-examination we might have found out more about Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows’ claim that Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops in Washington before January 6th but that his offer was rebuked? What about reports that Capitol Hill Police were left without back-up and unprepared for what happened? House and Senate leadership is responsible for security at the Capitol and they obviously failed. Why?

The House and Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) did not succeed in their ultimate goal: preventing Trump from ever running again for political office. But that doesn’t mean they are giving up. They are not about to give citizen Trump a moment of peace. They are intent on continuing their witch hunt but it looks less and less like any desire for justice. It looks like fear. They are afraid if he is allowed to run again he may be elected. So they cannot allow that vote to happen.

And they accuse Trump of undermining democracy.

There were a number of reasons to impeach and convict President Trump while he was in office. Bombing Syria on bogus grounds without authorization was one of them. But Democrats love war as much as Republicans so they weren’t about to uphold their Constitutional obligations.

Impeachment 2.0 may be over, but those blinded by hatred for Trump are not about to give up. They are irrational and obsessed. They are also dangerous.


Read more:



Ron is the father of Rand Paul. Rand was advising Trump to sustain peace rather than wage new wars. Now the new administration, Biden's, is about to increase the firepower on the battlegrounds of wars that have been festering since Obama, since Bush and since Clinton... and that Trump had tried to shut down...


Read from top


See also: 

questions arise for holding congress' open day when the members were discussing joe biden becoming president...



See also:



WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the US Congress will establish a special commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

"To protect our security, our security, our security, our next step will be to establish an outside, independent 9/11-type Commission to 'investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex,’" Pelosi said in a Monday letter to members of Congress.

Pelosi stressed that "we must get to the truth of how this happened," and said that the preparedness of the US Capitol Police and other law enforcement will be assessed.

The House Speaker said more funds are needed to ensure Capitol security and the safety of Congress members.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said after the acquittal of former US President Donald Trump last week that "Trump's actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty," and that the former president "is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [January 6]." Nonetheless, McConnell voted to acquit Trump on Saturday.

In the final tally on Saturday, 57 US senators endorsed and 43 rejected a single article of impeachment accusing Trump of inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The conviction required a two-thirds majority vote of at least 67 out of 100 Senators.



Read more: