Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Re: Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Postby Daglord » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:55 pm

about that "bromance with Putin"...

Speaking during the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin couldn't help but take a jibe at US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. When speaking about foreign investments in Russia's Far East regions, and the cases of Japanese and Chinese businessmen receiving Orders of Friendship for their efforts, the highest honor a non-Russian can receive from the Russian state, Putin recalled handing one such order to then-Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, now US Secretary of State. Putin said that Tillerson has since "fallen in with bad company."

Putin rues giving Rex Tillerson Russia's 'Order of Friendship' — 'he seems to have fallen in with the wrong company'

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia (Reuters) - Vladimir Putin took a jab at Rex Tillerson on Thursday, joking that the U.S. Secretary of State had "fallen in with the wrong company" since he had awarded him a Russian state honor for his contribution to Russian-U.S. relations.

Hopes of detente in Moscow's relations with Washington under Donald Trump, who had praised President Putin before winning the White House, have faded as the countries have imposed sanctions and expelled diplomats in recent months.

Addressing a U.S. citizen at a plenary session of an economic forum in the far eastern city of Vladivostok, Putin said: "We awarded your compatriot Mr. Tillerson the Order of Friendship, but he seems to have fallen in with the wrong company and to be steering in the other direction."


"I hope that the wind of cooperation, friendship and reciprocity will eventually put him on the right path," Putin added, drawing cheers from the crowd.

In 2013 Putin awarded Tillerson, then CEO of energy giant Exxon Mobil, the Order of Friendship, a Russian state honor, for his "significant contribution to strengthening cooperation in the energy sector".


Russia's relations with the United States deteriorated over its annexation of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014 and support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, prompting Washington to impose economic sanctions against Moscow.

The Kremlin, which has denied U.S. allegations it meddled in the presidential vote, had heaped praise on Trump during his election campaign, saying it supported efforts to improve Russian-American relations.

But Trump, who was faced scrutiny over the alleged ties of his entourage with Russia, reluctantly signed into law fresh sanctions against Moscow, further straining relations.


User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:05 pm


‘I’m risking my life telling you all this’: Alex Jones has a bizarre theory about Trump’s mental decline

Alex Jones admitted President Donald Trump seems mentally impaired in the evening, but he floated a wild conspiracy theory to explain it away.

The Trump-backing broadcaster claimed Monday on his “InfoWars” radio program that “high-level sources” had confirmed a plot to control the president through sedative drugs — although Jones never explained who was doing that, reported Media Matters.

“They drug presidents because the power structure wants a puppet,” Jones claimed. “The president needs his blood tested by an outside physician he trusts.”

The 71-year-old Trump has a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, and analyses have found he showed some symptoms of age-related cognitive impairment — including observations that he shows symptoms of late-day confusion known as “sundowning.”

“I’ve talked to people, multiple ones, and they believe that they are putting a slow sedative that they’re building up that’s also addictive in his Diet Cokes and in his iced tea, and that the president by 6 or 7 at night is basically slurring his words and is drugged,” Jones said. “Now first they had to isolate him to do that. But, yes, ladies and gentleman, I’ve talked to people that talk to the president now at 9 at night, he is slurring his words, and I’m going to leave it at that. I’ve talked to folks that have talked to him directly.”

Jones compared Trump’s behavior to former President Ronald Reagan, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease that likely started during his time in the White House.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I was told this by high level sources and it was evident and especially after [Ronald] Reagan was shot in his first year in office when he was acting like Trump, and doing the right things, that he never really recovered,” Jones said. “They gave him cold blood, and his transfusion that causes brain damage. They slowly gave him small amounts of sedatives. It’s known that most presidents end up getting drugged. Small dosages of sedatives till they build it up, Trump’s such a bull he hasn’t fully understood it yet.”

This isn’t the first time one of Trump’s associates has attempted to explain away rumors about the president’s mental health.

Roger Stone, a Jones associate and longtime Trump ally, previously acknowledged whispers in May about the president’s possible mental decline by claiming the rumors were intended to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the president from office.

Alex Jones tells how a source claimed President Trump is slowly being drugged by traitors within his administration with incremental doses slipped into his Coca-Cola, making him drowsy and slightly sedated.


User avatar
The Anti-Archon
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:11 pm
Reputation: 210

Postby The Anti-Archon » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:22 pm

^^LOL at that. While I may still cling to my hopes for President Trump, I have always maintained how much I dislike Jones. What a fucking clown. If anyone is sipping drugs, it's him.

User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:25 pm

The Anti-Archon wrote:^^LOL at that. While I may still cling to my hopes for President Trump, I have always maintained how much I dislike Jones. What a fucking clown. If anyone is sipping drugs, it's him.

lol. not the first time he's tried to cover for Trump. IMO, his job is to push the Trump vs. the Deep State narrative.

insider infiltration, coup attempts, assassination plots, & now they're drugging him.

March: Exclusive: Koch-Soros Insiders Attempt to Take Over Trump Campaign (

A major effort is underway to co-opt the Donald Trump campaign by infiltrating it with Koch brothers/George Soros-linked operatives, inside sources have exclusively told Yesterday it was revealed that Steven Mnuchin would become the Trump campaign’s national finance chair. Mnuchin was an Investment Professional with Soros Fund Management LLC and spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs. He also has innumerable other affiliations with establishment financial institutions and corporations.


July: National Emergency: Trump Must Move Against Coup Plotters

August: Deep State Is 'Going to Kill the President,' Alex Jones Claims (

“They’re saying, 'A month or two we’re going to kill the president, month or two we’re going to remove him,'” Jones said. “This is so sinister.”

September: Alex Jones: High Level Sources Tell Me Trump Is Being Drugged Via Diet Coke


User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:35 pm

about that disarming of Syrian rebels...interesting read.

it's the first time I can remember the OP being named.

Even More US-Made Anti-Tank Weapons Are Turning Up In ISIS Hands


With the heart of ISIS’s self-proclaimed “caliphate” in Mosul in ruins and Secretary of Defense James Mattis in Baghdad to assess the U.S.-led campaign against the terror group, Iraqi security forces are working overtime to expunge more than 2,000 militants from the strategically crucial city of Tal Afar. The offensive could signal “the end of ISIS’s military presence” in the country’s northern region, according to a spokesman for the U.S. coalition, but the ISF and their Western military partners have run into a familiar obstacle: American-made anti-tank weapons.

Raw footage posted to YouTube by Iraqi television station Al-Mawsleya appears to show an FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile and launcher among a cache of weapons recovered just outside Tal Afar. The Javelin has a range of up to 2.7 miles with an 18-pound tandem warhead (two shaped charges, one to pierce reactive armor the other to wreak havoc) and designed to penetrate even the toughest armor — including the skin of the Pentagon’s beloved M1 Abrams tank.

The discovery of the Javelin is disturbing. Despite ISIS’s reliance on unconventional weaponry like their beloved vehicle-borne IEDs, this isn’t the first time militants have wielded heavier American-made weapons against the very troops meant to carry them. An ISIS propaganda video released in June 2015, after the capture of the Syrian city of Palmyra, revealed militants targeting Syrian government forces with U.S.-made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles. One year later, the same missiles, allegedly fired by U.S.-backed Syrian rebels, were used to down a Russian Mi-25 assault helicopter.

It’s likely ISIS fighters came upon the Javelin in the same way it acquires most of its other conventional weapons: by looting Syrian and Iraqi military weapons caches. A 2003 Government Accountability Office report published after the invasion of Iraq found that at least 36 Javelin missile command launch-units had gone missing in the country as a result of lax chain-of-custody standards at U.S. weapons depots. If more are in enemy hands, those launchers would be added to the tons of armored vehicles, Humvees, artillery, surface-to-air missiles, and Turkish variants of the U.S.-made M72 LAW anti-tank weapons and Russian RPGs that are confirmed to be in ISIS’s arsenal. Most of those arms were simply abandoned by the Iraqi Army and left for militants to pick up.

But the anti-tank weapons like the Javelin and TOW didn’t just turn up in Iraq and Syria amid the chaos of the 2003 invasion: they were sent there more recently by the U.S.-led coalition in Syria. Under Timber Sycamore, the covert CIA program established during the Obama administration to arm Syrian rebels locked in a protracted civil war against the Bashar al-Assad regime, at least 500 TOW missiles were reportedly transferred through Saudi Arabia to the Free Syrian Army in late 2015. And in February 2016 Washington Post reporter and Marine veteran Thomas Gibbons-Neff identified a Javelin in the hands of Kurdish YPG forces at work in northern Syria. (The Pentagon and State Department both denied sending any anti-tank weapons to regional forces fighting ISIS in Syria.)


Operation Timber Sycamore:


In July, President Donald Trump moved to end Timber Sycamore, telling the Wall Street Journal, ”It turns out it’s — a lot of al-Qaeda we’re giving these weapons to.” He’s not totally wrong: the complex mosaic of rebel forces operating in a theater defined by complicated and shifting allegiances makes weapons transfers an even riskier proposition than arming the Afghan security forces in Kabul. Indeed, the Pentagon announced on July 27 that it would for the first time end of military support for a Syrian rebel group for pursuing objectives outside of OIR’s strict anti-ISIS mandate, namely going AWOL from the At Tanf garrison that saw escalating clashes and tensions between OIR and pro-regime forces this summer.

But despite all that, the Trump administration has continued to pursue weapons transfers to the Syrian Democratic Forces, as if the new program is without the problems that made Timber Sycamore a goldmine for American “allies” in Syria. As we’ve noted before, the Pentagon is shit at monitoring weapons transfers: A 2016 analysis revealed that DoD could barely account for half of the 1.5 million weapons provided to Afghan and Iraqi security forces since the start of the invasions there, while, while a previous 2014 report found 43% of the weapons the ANSF received simply vanished. All of these weapons flow freely between ISIS forces across the Middle East.


Perhaps the appearance of the Javelin in an ISIS cache will induce the administration to reconsider its arms transfers to the SDF. If a Taliban fighter can wave around a fully accessorized SOCOM 7.62mm assault rifle, what makes the DoD think he can’t get his hand on a U.S. anti-tank missile? In July, Gibbons-Neff received a flaccid answer to that question from OIR spokesman Col. Ryan S. Dillon: “Whenever we sign up for something, you know, we go through every serial number.”

Fat fucking chance.

US And Russia Converge On ISIS In Dangerous Showdown


One wouldn’t know it by reading establishment media headlines, but the Russian air force and the U.S. air force are about to come head to head in Syria in a battle that has been brewing for some months now.

Only the Independent, a U.K.-based media outlet, aptly phrased the looming encounter for what it was in an article titled: “US troops and Russia-backed Syrian forces set to come into contact as they close separately on Isis.”

Just recently, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies fought their way to an air base on the outskirts of Deir ez-Zor, an oil-rich region that has been besieged by ISIS for years.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a U.S.-backed force made up mostly of Kurdish and Arab fighters, has also just launched separate attacks against ISIS in the north of Deir ez-Zor in an operation to capture areas east of the Euphrates river.

The first step is to free the eastern bank of the Euphrates and the areas Islamic State still holds,” Ahmed Abu Kholeh, head of the 4,000 fighter-strong Deir ez-Zor military council, which fights under the banner of the SDF, told Reuters after the announcement. “We’re not specifying a timeframe but we hope it will be a quick operation.”

Asked if there were plans to advance on the city itself, Kholeh did not specify the council’s plans. He also said they did not expect clashes with SAA forces but that they would respond if fired upon.“If the regime wants a confrontation or directs one bullet at us we will respond.”

The SAA forces advancing on Deir ez-Zor include Iranian-backed militias, as well as Hezbollah, Reuters reported. The Guardian also recently reported that Russia was providing these troops with air support, meaning any plans for U.S.-backed forces to confront these militias could potentially amount to a confrontation with Russia. The U.S. has been providing strong air support to the SDF in other parts of the country, too, and has not shied away from striking Syrian government forces throughout 2017. The U.S. has also stepped up its material support for the SDF and just recently provided these fighters with brand new armored vehicles.

As Anti-Media previously has reported, the U.S. would rather see its own proxy forces retrieve the oil-rich region of Deir ez-Zor. As pro-Assad forces backed by Russia beat the U.S. to the punch, it is unclear how far down this road the U.S. will want to go. As Navy Times explained:

Washington has been determined to block the formation of an “Iranian corridor” — of Shiite-controlled land stretching from Tehran to Damascus — and for months has been eyeing the area southeast of Raqqa near the Iraqi border.”

Navy Times also explained further that the battle for Deir ez-Zor has been in the works for months but was ultimately foiled by the SAA and Iranian-backed militia earlier this year:

U.S.-backed Syrian rebels had been gathering in Tanf in southeastern Syria to march toward Deir el-Zour, but their plans were disrupted in June when Syrian troops reached the border with Iraq, obstructing their path. The only way left for the SDF to enter the eastern province appears to be from the northeastern province of Hassakeh, where Syrian activists say the U.S.-backed fighters have been gathering and stepping up preparations for an attack.”

One possibility, which seems likely, is that the U.S.-backed forces are making an advance now to take as much of the territory as possible without actually confronting the SAA and its allies directly. Navy Times suggested this is a potential scenario given the U.S. and Russia have an interest in avoiding a clash and “may devise a strategy that will allow both sides to share control of the vast province.”

The U.S. has a history of avoiding direct confrontations with strong militaries that are backed by world powers. With this likely strategy, America’s proxy forces can continue to act as a buffer against Assad’s looming victory in the Syrian war and potentially give some of the spoils of the region to the SDF so they can operate with financial independence from the U.S.

That being said, it is not clear that the SAA and Iranian-backed militias, independent of Russia, will just sit on their hands and allow these forces to illegally take their territory. After all, why should they?

How the U.S. can even be involved in this land-retrieving process is mind-boggling beyond belief, as it has no legal basis to conduct operations in Syria in the first place.


User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:55 pm

Megaterio Llamas wrote:The pro war fake left is one of the very worst things there is about being alive today.


Rand Paul threatens to hold up defense bill unless Congress votes to end wars in Afghanistan & Iraq


Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has vowed to delay a $700 billion defense bill until he is promised a vote on amending the use of military force in Afghanistan and Iraq, aiming to end the wars in the two countries.

The Senate on Monday took up the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passing a motion in an 89-3 vote which allowed the legislation to proceed. That action essentially limits the procedural debate on the legislation and moves the NDAA to a full vote as early as Wednesday morning.

However, Paul made clear on his Twitter account that he had every intention of slowing down the passage of the NDAA – which sets forth the Pentagon's budget and major programs for the next fiscal year beginning October 1 – until he was guaranteed a vote on amending the AUMF in Afghanistan in Iraq.

"I will object to all procedural motions and amendments unless and until my amendment is made in order and we vote on these wars,” Paul wrote.

He went on to note the length of time that the US military has been present in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“We have been there for 16 years. It is time for them to end. It is time for Congress to vote on whether or not they should end.”

Paul noted that the Senate was in a “quorum call,” unable to act because of his protest.

He vowed to continue the protest until Congress agreed to vote on whether or not to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Paul noted that his protest was for the soldiers, adding that “hypocrites” are happy to "pretend concern over our constitutional duty to declare war” but are happy to “block any vote on ending any of our 7 current wars.”

The senator said that he “sits nearly alone,” but he is happy to fight by himself if needed.


In addition to Paul, the NDAA cloture motion was opposed by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden. Paul took aim at both the “anti-war left” and the “conservative right” in his series of tweets.

“Where is the anti-war left demanding the wars end? Where is the constitional [sic] conservative right demanding Congress reclaim its war powers?” he wrote.


Although an increasing number of lawmakers have been calling on Congress to pass a new AUMF for Afghanistan, Paul has largely been alone in his mission to put a deadline on Congress for a vote.

Paul did appear to strike at least a partial deal with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) about an hour after initially issuing his threats to delay the NDAA passage, with McConnell guaranteeing Paul four hours on Tuesday to state his AUMF reasoning on the Senate floor, the Washington Post reported.

However, that wasn't enough to get Paul to back down, with the senator later reiterating his plan to “continue to fight, and if necessary, object, to continue this debate, secure a vote, and force Congress to do its duty.”

The war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001 as a US response to the September 11 attacks, is the longest war in US history.
Read more

Although former US President Barack Obama dropped the number of US troops in the country to around 10,000, his successor Donald Trump has since vowed a new push against the Taliban, with officials saying earlier this month that his administration is sending 3,500 additional soldiers to Afghanistan.

By the time Trump took office, the Taliban controlled more territory than it had during any time since 2001, and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) had gained a foothold in the eastern part of the country.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003, aiming to topple former leader Saddam Hussein, with the Bush administration claiming his government possessed chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons. However, no evidence of such weapons was ever found.

Obama declared an end to the combat mission in Iraq in 2010, but was later forced to send troops back to help combat the rise of IS.

Although Washington says American troops now primarily serve as advisers and will assist Iraqi forces, the spokesman for the military coalition fighting IS told reporters in February that US troops were “absolutely” in combat against extremists in Afghanistan.

“Absolutely. When someone is shooting at you, that is combat, yes,” Air Force Col. John Dorrian, the spokesman for the military coalition fighting IS, told reporters at the time.


User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:00 pm

probably already mentioned, but new development...

Jeff Sessions Announces Justice Department Will Increase Asset Forfeiture


U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department will issue new directives to increase the federal govenment's use of civil asset forfeiture, a controversial practice that allows law enforcement to seize property from suspected criminals without charging them with a crime.

Speaking at a National District Attorneys Association conference in Minneapolis Monday, Sessions said state and local law enforcement could expect changes from U.S. Attorneys in several areas: increased prosecution of gun crimes, immigration offenses, gang activity, and prescription drug abuse, as well as increased asset seizure by the federal government.

"[W]e hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers," Sessions said. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment and for more information about the directive.

Asset forfeiture became a prized hammer in law enforcement's tool chest in the 1980s, when the government was struggling to combat organized drug cartels. Law enforcement groups say the laws allow them to disrupt drug trafficking operations by targeting their proceeds—cars, cash, and guns.

However, the practice has exploded since then, and civil liberties groups and political advocacy organizations, both liberal and conservative, say the perverse profit incentives and lack of due process for property owners lead to far more average citizens having their property seized than cartel bosses.

The Justice Department plays a huge role in asset forfeiture through its Equitable Sharing Program, which allows state and local police to have their forfeiture cases "adopted" by the federal government. The feds take over the case, and the seized money is put into the equitable sharing pool. In return, the department gets up to 80 percent of those funds back. The equitable sharing program distributes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to police departments around the country.



Several House Republicans are proposing amendments to a large funding bill moving through Congress to block Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recent directive expanding the federal government's civil asset forfeiture program.

Last month, Sessions announced he was rolling back Obama-era restrictions on when federal law enforcement could "adopt" civil asset forfeiture cases from local and state police. Conservative and liberal civil liberties groups say federal "adoptions" amount to a loophole allowing local police to avoid stricter state laws and higher standards of evidence when seizing private property.

Nearly half of all states have passed some form of asset forfeiture reform over the past several years in response to bipartisan pressure and media investigations that revealed asset forfeiture abuses and their disproportionate impact on poor and minority residents.

Under typical civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property when they suspect it's connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is not convicted or even charged with a crime.

The four amendments are proposed to be added to H.R. 3354, a massive piece of legislation consolidating eight other appropriations bills. Each aims in slightly different ways to stop the Justice Department from spending any funds to implement Sessions' order.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), a vocal critic of asset forfeiture, introduced an amendment that would block the Justice Department from funding any of the activities prohibited by a 2015 directive from former attorney general Eric Holder limiting the program.

"When the government takes people's property without due process, it's a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments—and it's theft," Amash says in a statement to Reason. "I'm writing a bill to end civil asset forfeiture throughout the United States. In the meantime, my amendment will prevent state and local law enforcement from teaming up with the federal government to sidestep state laws that restrict these unconstitutional takings."


Have you ever wondered what "civil asset forfeiture" looks like when it happens? Well, someone recently caught a police officer on camera taking a hot dog vendor's wallet, and literally grabbing the cash right out of it.

User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:05 pm

Gary Johnson: Congress Must Authorize War Before the President Can Wage War


Don’t blink or you might miss it.

While much of our attention, and that of Congress, is appropriately focused on hurricane recovery, the United States Senate this week is quietly taking up the National Defense Authorization Act that will set the Pentagon’s budget and programs for next year.

There are some major issues in play, and those of us who are concerned about spending, foreign military interventions, surveillance and transgender rights need to be paying attention.

Waging wars without clear congressional authorization

Let’s begin with the basic: How have the last two presidents, and our current one, managed to wage wars on the other side of the globe without any clear congressional authorization? My copy of the Constitution doesn’t allow that.

Trillions of dollars and, more importantly, thousands of lives have been spent in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere on the basis of an Authorization for Use of Military Force approved 16 years ago in the days following the 9/11 attacks.

That authorization, which I supported, was intended to allow us to go after those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” those attacks.

Presidents Bush, Obama and now Trump have used that single authorization ever since to legally justify not only a 16-year war in Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq, our military actions in Libya and Syria, and several other interventions.

Since September of 2001, Congress has never been required to authorize putting our military members in harm’s way, dropping bombs all over the world, and spending trillions on wars that, unfortunately, have done little or nothing to make America safer.

Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, to his credit, is offering an amendment to the NDAA to repeal that 2001 authorization and force Congress and the president to “reauthorize” the interventions in which we are currently engaged. That amendment needs to be approved.

Closing unneeded and costly military bases

Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, is offering an amendment to revive a process to review and potentially close unneeded and costly military bases. Virtually everyone who looks closely at our military spending ends up agreeing that we have dozens, if not hundreds, of installations scattered around the world that we simply do not need.

Many are vestiges of the WWII and the Cold War that have no relevance to today’s realities. They are, simply put, just massive transfers of wealth from us to the nations who host those bases. And here on U.S. soil, too many are still maintained and funded purely due to politics, not need.

Will Congress have the political courage to even think about closing some of those bases and saving billions of dollars?

And a bipartisan amendment is being offered to put a statutory hold on President Trump’s Twitter-announced ban on transgendered individuals in the military. It’s an extremely sensitive issue handled in an incredibly insensitive way. Pentagon officials have wisely put the brakes on the President’s directive, but the additional assurance of legislative action would put Congress on record against hurtful discrimination.

There are dozens of other amendments in the works that will determine the potential expenditure of tens of billions of dollars. Anyone who claims or believes that we can make any real progress toward balancing the federal budget without putting military spending under a microscope is either lying or dreaming.

This week’s debate and action on the NDAA is the opportunity to face that reality and actually do something about it.

Let’s hope the Senate can show some courage and leadership for a change.


User avatar
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2959

Postby Daglord » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:15 pm


U.S. Senate Set to Vote on Sen. Rand Paul’s AUMF Repeal Amendment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate will hold a vote on U.S. Senator Rand Paul’s amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force.

This will mark the first Senate vote addressing an AUMF since 2002.

Senator Paul’s amendment would take effect six months after the 2018 NDAA becomes law, giving Congress time to hear from the American people and thoroughly debate granting any new, specific authority.

Earlier today, Senator Paul spoke on the Senate floor to demand Congress take its constitutional responsibilities seriously and vote on his amendment.

“I rise today to oppose unauthorized, undeclared, and unconstitutional war,” said Senator Paul.


Sen. Paul Calls on Congress to Sunset 2001 and 2002 AUMFs - September 12, 2017

(Remarks as prepared for delivery to the U.S. Senate - September 12, 2017)

I rise today to oppose unauthorized, undeclared, and unconstitutional war.

What we have today is basically unlimited war – war anywhere, anytime, any place on the globe.

This vote will be to sunset, in 6 months, the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force.

No one with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes these authorizations allow current wars we fight in 7 countries.

Some of the more brazen advocates of war maintain the President can even fight war in perpetuity without any Congressional authority.

These advocates of perpetual war argue that the Article II powers of the President give unlimited war-making powers to the President.

Madison disagrees.

Madison wrote that the executive is the branch of government “most prone” to war; therefore, the Constitution, “with studied care,” vested the power to declare war with the legislature.

Former President Obama, as a candidate, agreed that a President could not use military force without Congress’ permission unless we were under imminent attack.

Once in the White House, however, President Obama bombed 7 different countries without Congressional authority.

Candidate Trump repeatedly argued that the Afghan War was a disaster and should end.

Once in the White House, however, President Trump is escalating the war in Afghanistan just as President Obama did.

Today, we will debate this issue of war and whether Congress is constitutionally bound to declare war.

We will debate whether one generation can bind another generation to perpetual war.

We will debate whether the war in Afghanistan is winnable.

We will debate whether the war in Yemen is in our vital national interest.

We will debate whether our support for Saudi Arabia is exacerbating starvation and the plague of cholera in Yemen.

For five years, I have fought to get this vote. Today, members of the Senate will stand and be counted.

Will senators stand for the rule of law? Will senators stand for Congressional authority to declare war?

Or, will senators sit idly by and let the wars continue unabated and unauthorized?

Some will argue that sunsetting the old authorizations in six months is too soon, too dramatic.

Really? Six months plus 16 years of war should be plenty of time to discover one’s position on war.

Today’s vote can be seen as a proxy vote for the Constitution.

Today’s vote is not really a vote for or against any particular war.

Today’s vote is simply a vote on whether we will obey the Constitution.

Today’s vote is a vote on whether Congress will step up and do its job.

Sixteen and a half years is more than enough time to determine whether the war in Afghanistan has purpose or real meaning for our national security.

When the vote to go to war in Iraq was taken, some senators felt they were hoodwinked. That the information to justify the war was manipulated.

For years now, some senators and candidates have lamented that they voted for the Iraq War.

Today’s vote will be remembered as the first vote in 16 years on whether to continue fighting everywhere, all the time without ever having the renewed approval of Congress.

I hope senators will think long and hard about the seven ongoing wars and, at the very least, show regard for our young soldiers and go on the record to uphold their oath of office and defend the Constitution and its requirements with regard to war.

I, for one, will stand with our soldiers, young and brave. Sent to fight in distant lands in a forgotten, forever war.

I will stand for the Constitution.

I will stand with our Founding Fathers, who did everything possible to make the initiation of war difficult.

I hope my colleagues will stand for something. I hope my colleagues will finally vote to do their Constitutional duty and oversee or discontinue the many wars we are in.

It is the least we can do to honor the service of our brave young soldiers.

read his amendment here:

User avatar
Posts: 5016
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
Reputation: 2556

Postby Canuckster » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:50 pm

Smoke and mirrors, never gonna pass
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.

Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests