Ron Paul on Zelensky’s Hit List: Kiev Pledges To Assassinate Putin and Other ‘Enemies’

From today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

The second in command of Ukraine’s intelligence services has admitted in an interview this week that the Ukrainian government is actively planning to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin and many of his top staff. He also pledged to kill “Russian propagandists.” This as US intelligence now believes Ukraine was behind the unsuccessful recent drone attack on the Kremlin.

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

69 thoughts on “Ron Paul on Zelensky’s Hit List: Kiev Pledges To Assassinate Putin and Other ‘Enemies’”

  1. Game on then.
    Time for Putin to start hitting politicians with missiles and drones.
    Perhaps a bomb in a few statues might work too?
    Soon Ukraine will admit they did that cafe bombing and claim terrorist attacks like that are legitimate.

  2. If Kiev is going to assassinate those on its Enemies List – it already has with some- it is setting itself up for elimination, and the sooner the better.

  3. Ron Paul is a stupid moron. Gave up on this connedspiracy idiot years ago – can’t believe anyone would listen to this clown. Most people realize that which is why he’s massively declined in popularity over the years. He’s still an idiot.

    1. He is a truth teller, a physician and a man of peace. That you condemn this great man is a black mark on your character,

    2. At a Republican debate between presidential candidates several years ago, he gave the best anti-war speech I’ve ever heard from a politician. Exactly what do you have against him? No more name-calling or don’t bother responding, just say specifically which issues you disagree with him on, and/or where you think he’s lying.

    3. While I have my differences with Paul, particularly on his anti-liberty stand on immigration, and his going soft on Trump’s defects, an honest evaluation would have to show he’s been pretty consistent on the peace issue and a non-interventionist military policy. Simply labeling him a “stupid moron” without backing it up with any type of reasoned argument seems to be to be at best unfair, at worst just an ad hominem attack.

      I would not categorize anyone as a “stupid moron” (seems like a redundancy), not even you, as everyone is the best at something, and the worst at something else. Each person has infinitely more ignorance than knowledge, and infinitely more foolishness than wisdom

      1. As to your last sentence, some people are clearly more or less knowledgeable than others and more or less wise or foolish than others. Lack of wisdom is one of the major problems with humans, and most if not all of that could be fixed if people were to value and focus on wisdom instead of worshipping their intellect.

      1. I don’t follow him so I don’t know one way or the other, but I do know that for a politician he’s excellent on the war/peace issue.

      2. He’s certainly willing to cater to racists so that they send him money. That being the case, whether he’s actually one himself doesn’t really matter.

          1. Well, if by “never catered to racists” you mean ” lauded them and printed their articles in his newsletters while begging them for money, but mildly rebuked them when caught at it,” true.

            Otherwise, not so much.

          2. He was not responsible for that ONE article plus would a racist give free medical care to black people? I think not. He never told anyone about that free medical care it was a black man, whose family received free medical care, that came to his defense when he was accuse of being racist. Many blacks are more racists than most white people.

          3. He claimed authorship of that ONE article when it was published in his newsletter, under his byline.

            When that ONE article was brought up during his campaign to return to Congress, he again claimed authorship and stood by the content.

            But when that ONE article was brought up during his presidential campaign, suddenly it was by an unnamed ghost writer and he’d never even read it.

            So was he lying the first two times, or the third time?

            As I said, I have no idea whether he’s a racist. Nor did I claim he’s a racist. But a large portion of the content in his newsletter in the early 1990s was devoted to catering to racists and parting them from their money. It was his newsletter. He founded it. He published it. He put his name on it in general and on some particular articles in it. He cashed the checks it generated. Then, when its content became inconvenient, suddenly he was no longer responsible for it.

            That doesn’t make him a racist. It just makes him a typical politician.

          4. Typical? Far from it. He’s the only politician who never violated his oath of office. He NEVER voted for any bill / law that would have violated the Constitution. He also never accepted any bribes.

          5. He didn’t just vote for bills that would have violated the Constitution, he sponsored at least one (the “Marriage Protection Act” would have violated the Full Faith and Credit clause). He also voted for legislation supporting federal regulation of immigration, which the Constitution clearly and unambiguously forbids.

          6. The Marriage Protection Act would not have violated the Full Faith and Credit clause and the Constitution does not forbid Federal Enforcment of immigration. As a matter of fact, it’s quite the opposite.

          7. The Full Faith and Credit clause requires the states to recognize each others deeds/acts/licenses. If you get married in Massachusetts, then move to Texas, you’re still married. Congress is allowed to “prescribe the effect” of that provision — but under the 14th Amendment, the states aren’t allowed to deny equal protection of the law, so Congress could not “prescribe” an “effect” that allowed Texas to recognize the Massachusetts marriages it liked and void the ones it didn’t based on the sex of the married couple.

            Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution forbade the federal government to regulate immigration prior to 1808, after which a constitutional amendment would have been required to create such a power. No such amendment was ever proposed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, so, per the Tenth Amendment, no such federal power exists. Which is exactly how Congress understood it until well after an activist SCOTUS miracled that power up out of its ass in 1875 (Chy Lung v. Freeman). Congress hung the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 on treaty provisions rather than on that clearly BS SCOTUS decisions. It wasn’t until 1947 that Congress took its unconstitutional power so far as to require passports to enter the US, and even then not from Mexico or Canada (that was a post-9/11 atrocity).

          8. ”In Fong Yue Ting v. The United States, the Court held that the federal government’s power to regulate and enforce immigration was derived from its foreign policy power, which is located in Article I and Article II of the U.S. Constitution.[11] Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the enumerated powers of Congress.[12] Specifically, “Congress’s foreign policy powers include: the power to ratify presidential treaties, the power to declare war, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the power to punish felonies on the high seas, and the power to provide advice and consent for the president’s foreign ambassador nominations.[13] Executive foreign policy powers include: the power to make treaties, the power to command the military, and the power to receive foreign ambassadors. Although power over immigration is noticeably lacking from these provisions, the Court has interpreted immigration to be an implied power based on the branches’ respective foreign policy powers.[14] This interpretation is evidenced in Ting, where the Court stated, “The power to exclude or to expel [foreigners,] being a power affecting international relations, is vested in the political departments of government, and is to be regulated by . . . act of congress, and to be executed by the executive. . . .”[15] Ting was arrested for violating the Chinese Exclusion Act because he did not having a certificate of residence to remain in the country.[16] The Act required Ting to have a certificate of residence to remain in the United States.[17] Ting contested his arrest by filing suit against the United States.[18] The Court upheld the Act, by virtue of the foreign commerce clause, which allowed the United States to regulate and prevent Chinese people from entering the United States.[19] The argument that the federal government had exclusive power to control immigration based on its foreign relations power and national sovereignty gained traction as the Court accepted more immigration cases.[20]”

          9. Yes, there were subsequent cases to Chy Lung v. Freeman in which SCOTUS tried to justify its magical-miracled, nowhere to be found in the Constitution, explicitly prohibited in the Constitution idea that there was a federal power to regulate immigration.

            The people who actually wrote the Constitution, and subsequent Congress for 90 years, disagreed with SCOTUS, for the perfectly good reason that the matter was debated. Pennsylvania flat-out said that it it wouldn’t ratify a Constitution with a federal power to regulate immigration. So the matter was put off for 20 years by Article I, Section 9; after which, per the Tenth Amendment, a constitutional amendment would have been required to create such a power.

          10. As much as I hate the Federal Government, I would hate to see how many more criminals and terrorists would enter the country if it didn’t control immigration. Look at the financial situation of all these sanctuary cities.

          11. The federal government doesn’t control immigration. It just runs a police state on the idiotic premise that it’s possible to control immigration. If every man and woman in the US armed forces, and every local police officer, was assigned to nothing but “securing the border,” the US would still have open borders, like it always has had as a practical matter and as it is constitutionally required to.

            While Reagan wasn’t the greatest thing in the world, it’s at least refreshing to remember he and Bush running against each other in 1980 on the question of which one of them could be more, in those exact words, “open borders.” It wasn’t until the late 1990s that Republicans started trying to out-authoritarian the Democrats on immigration, and they didn’t really succeed even when they nominated life-long Democrat Donald Trump on the Republican ticket in 2016.

          12. If I had command of all the military, I wouldn’t build a wall I would simply have two fences topped by barbed wire and extremely vicious dogs patrolling inside those fences, then have members of our military operate machine gun nest every half mile or so to discourage anyone that the dogs might have missed. END OF PROBLEM.

          13. “then have members of our military operate machine gun nest every half mile or so”

            So where do you plan to get the money to increase the military by a factor of 10? With 95,500 miles of border and coastline, even with only two people per machine gun team, three shifts a day, you’re already at more than half a million troops, and that’s if they work seven days a week, never take leave, never get sick, require zero logistics/support, have no backup, and nobody does anything else.

          14. I would add the Border Patrol and ICE to that list and also volunteers and if putting one at every half mile wouldn’t be feasible, I’d put them where they are needed most and let the dogs do the rest. I know of many retirees, just in my hometown who would love to spend a few weeks keeping our borders secure. I know one who was a sniper in Vietnam so he alone could cover a mile or so in every direction and it wouldn’t cost the government a dime.

          15. Nope I’m a very logical American who realizes we cannot support the world. Those who come here illegally are bankrupting those who support them. You on the other hand are a bleeding-heart Democrat who doesn’t give a damn about his own people.

          16. 1) Nobody comes here illegally, since the US Constitution (the “Supreme Law of the Land”) clearly and unambiguously forbids the federal government to regulate immigration.

            2) Immigrants, including faux-“illegal” immigrants pay more per capita in taxes, consume less per capita in government “social services,” and commit fewer crimes per capita than native-born Americans. They’re probably the only reason the Social Security Ponzi scheme, among others, hasn’t gone completely broke yet.

            3) I’m not a Democrat.

            4) I care a great deal about “my own people.” However, I don’t define that term as “people who happen to have been born on the same side of a particular gang’s turf line as me.”

          17. ”First, it’s true that most illegal immigrants are not imprisoned for committing additional crimes (beyond coming here illegally) in the United States. One might fairly deduce that most are otherwise law-abiding. But “criminal aliens” — those who engage in other criminal acts — do make up a disproportionate number of inmates in our prisons and jails.”
            ”The U.S. population is around 328 million. It’s estimated that about 11 million — or one in 30 — are illegal immigrants. Yet criminal aliens account for more than one in five federal prison inmates. Even assuming a pretty radical margin of error for the sake of argument, that would still mean illegal immigrants are drastically over-represented among the criminal population.”
            ” From 2011 through 2016, the criminal alien proportion of the total estimated federal inmate population generally decreased, from about 25 percent to 21 percent.”
            There were more than 730,000 criminal aliens in U.S. or state prisons and local jails during the period measured. They accounted for 4.9 million arrests for 7.5 million offenses. (The numbers, according to the GAO: 197,000 criminal aliens in federal prisons, arrested 1.4 million times for 2 million offenses, between 2011 and 2016; 533,000 in state or local facilities between 2010 and 2015, representing 3.5 million arrests for 5.5 million offenses.)

            The arrests include allegations of more than 1 million drug crimes, a half-million assaults, 133,800 sex offenses and 24,200 kidnappings. Even more serious, the imprisoned illegal immigrants, over a five-year period, had been arrested for 33,300 homicide-related offenses and 1,500 terrorism-related crimes.

            In terms of cost, federal taxpayers shelled out more than $15 billion during the period studied — or $2.5 billion a year — to keep criminal aliens behind bars in federal, state and local facilities.

            Many are repeat offenders. Of about 146,500 criminal aliens who finished a federal prison term, about one in six — around 24,800 — already had been imprisoned again at least once.”
            SOURCE: The Hill

          18. “Next,” what? The quote doesn’t get more than 10 words in before it describes a non-existent category of people. Under the US Constitution, there is not and cannot be any such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”

          19. Since they didn’t follow the legal way of coming into our country, they’re here illegal therefor they are illegal immigrants. I would shoot, or at least beat severely, anyone who broke into my home and since my country is my home……. Get the picture?

          20. According to the US Constitution, there is no ILLEGAL way of coming into the United States. Nor do the Very Special Magical Gang Turf Claim Lines in question constitute your property.

            So yes, I get the picture. You enjoy driving yourself into a moral panic about TEH FURRINERS so much that you have no intention of letting reality, the Constitution, etc. interfere with your enjoyment of your fantasies.

            Which is fine, so long as you don’t act on those fantasies in the ways you’ve specified. If you start acting on them, others will have to make hard decisions like “can we just institutionalize this maniac, or does the public safety require putting him down like a rabid dog?”

          21. Mohr is as smart as they come. His publication list continues to grow. Of course you are too ignorant and foolish to get it.

          22. Still proving to the world just how stupid you are. You can quit anytime. Your backlog of posts have already taken care of that.

          23. Since that is yet another thing you have no personal experience with…

          24. Ah the freedom hating anti-American globalist pops his head out again. Snark? Here have a tissue.

          25. Yes, you are an idiot for being a freedom hating anti – American globalist.

          26. That you think that proves just what an ignorant old fool you are,

      3. No he isn’t. Plus he’s the only one in DC who has never violated his oath of office. Folks tomonthe –
        payagain and his fellow shills don’t like Ron Paul because he would always show p-harma lobbyists the door.

          1. Coming from a freedom hating globalist I’ll take that with a grain of salt.

          2. I see you are once again flying your ignorance flag high and proud.

  4. Lucky for the little Napolean, no one in Russia wants to kill him. Doing so may lead to a competant new leader,

      1. Jeff, If the goal of the war is to weaken Russia, why would the U.S. want an incompetant in charge in Ukraine…????

        1. If you mean competent to be a U.S. stooge, then you’re right. But if you mean competent to run Ukraine for the benefit of its general population, then no. Yanukovych was competent, look what the U.S. did to him.

          Competence is almost never the issue with political leaders. It’s whether they rule to enrich themselves and their families & friends, or they rule for the benefit of their people and environment.

          1. He does that a lot. It’s like getting booed when playing on the road: it means I did my job.

  5. If Zelensky, Biden, Ehud Barack Obomber, George Warmonger Bush, Tony Blair Witch Project & other former & current world misleaders’ lives were threatened, the West would call it an act of war.

  6. Zelensky is the slavic world’s version of Frankie Pentangeli in the Godfather. Pentangeli’s advice to Michael Corleone was “let’s hit em all, now while we got the muscle.”

Comments are closed.