Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has plans to bring a congressional delegation to Russia. Rohrabacher is quoted in a Wednesday article by Robert Costa in the Washington Post as saying a purpose of the trip is to discuss with Russian officials “how we can work with the Duma.” The Duma is a legislative body of the Russian government.
Rohrabacher, as chairman of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has a significant role in the United States House of Representatives regarding US relations with Russia. In this position, Rohrabacher has on occasion forcefully made the case for easing tensions between the US and Russia. For example, in March of 2015, Rohrabacher, speaking during a meeting of the subcommittee concerning Ukraine, criticized the US government’s effort “to basically defeat and humiliate Russia.” He argued that the US goal should instead be “to do what is right by Ukraine and bring peace to Ukraine.”
“I think it’s politics more than anything else,” says former House of Representatives Member Ron Raul (R-TX) regarding calls for an investigation of purported hacking by the Russian government influencing the United States presidential election. Interviewed Wednesday on Fox Business, Paul continues that, even if Russia did what is alleged, Paul does not think it “made any difference.”
Paul — providing perspective on the matter — notes that the US government is interfering with elections around the world “all the time.” Paul also suggests reviewing the history of US government involvement in foreign countries, including “how many countries we invaded, how many people we have killed in order to have our guy in.” Looking to this history, Paul concludes, “we don’t have much room for condemning anybody else.”
Watch here a clip from the interview, in which Paul also comments regarding the Texas member of the Electoral College who cast a vote for Paul for president on Monday:
Speaking this week with host Kennedy at Fox Business, US House Member Thomas Massie (R-KY) insisted that Donald Trump’s performance as president should be judged according to whether Trump adheres to the nonaggression principle that Massie describes as “the heart of libertarian principles.” Massie proceeded in the interview to define briefly the nonaggression principle as that “you don’t attack somebody if they don’t attack you.”
Massie volunteered that the thing he is most optimistic about with Trump having won the presidency “is we’re not going to war with Russia.” Massie continued that such a war may have been in the future if Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had won the election. Further, Massie expressed optimism regarding some of Trump’s Cabinet choices, saying, “I wouldn’t call any of them libertarian yet, but, on the spectrum of smaller government or bigger government, I personally know some of them and they’re definitely small-government-type people.”
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in the spring, the proposal that women be required to sign up with Selective Service just as are men started on a roller coaster ride in the United States Congress. That ride had a couple more turns this week. On Tuesday, a United States Senate and House of Representatives conference committee, which was creating a compromise version of the NDAA because the two bodies had passed differing bills, released a final bill that leaves out such a requirement. Then, on Thursday, the Obama administration announced support for requiring women to register with Selective Service.
If women are mandated to register with Selective Service, then the expectation would be that women are in the pool of people for drafting into the military if conscription is reintroduced in America. Thus, such a mandate in the NDAA or other legislation may be viewed as a women draft provision.
In the spring, a women draft provision was added to the House version of the NDAA in a peculiar way. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) proposed the requirement during House Armed Services Committee consideration of the bill. Hunter said he did so to start a debate regarding the ongoing expansion of women’s involvement in US military combat, which he opposes. But, then, the committee voted on April 27 to approve the requirement, with Hunter voting against his own proposal.
The Washington Post has a history of misrepresenting Ron Paul’s views. Last year the supposed newspaper of record ran a feature article by David A. Fahrenthold in which Fahrenthold grossly mischaracterized Paul as an advocate for calamity, oppression, and poverty – the opposite of the goals Paul routinely expresses and, indeed, expressed clearly in a speech at the event upon which Fahrenthold’s article purported to report. Such fraudulent attacks on the prominent advocate for liberty and a noninterventionist foreign policy fall in line with the newspaper’s agenda. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob G. Hornberger put it in a February editorial, the Post’s agenda is guided by “the interventionist mindset that undergirds the mainstream media.”
On Thursday, the Post published a new article by Craig Timberg complaining of a “flood” of so-called fake news supported by “a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy,” To advance this conclusion, Timberg points to PropOrNot, an organization of anonymous individuals formed this year, as having identified “more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season.” Look on the PropOrNot list. There is the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity’s (RPI) website RonPaulInstitute.org listed among websites termed “Russian propaganda outlets.”
Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy, presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump’s foreign policy as president. Paul set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.
Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his “fingers crossed” regarding Trump’s potential foreign policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump’s comments in the presidential election about “being less confrontational with Russia” and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East. Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented “vague” foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.
Regarding Trump’s foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: “Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don’t think that is a good sign.”
Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched “deep state” that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have “sinister motivation for these wars,” and media propaganda that “builds up the war fever” can provide significant headwinds against Trump pursuing such an objective.