Ron Paul

These 10 members of Congress voted against a bill that could be a precursor to war with Russia:

Only 10 Members of Congress Opposed Bill Pushing for War with Russia
December 5, 2014—The passage of H. Res. 758 strongly condemning Russia is a prime example of how so many members of the current Congress are out of step...

Updated: December 5, 2014 by Tiffany Rider

Only 10 Members of Congress Opposed Bill Pushing for War with Russia

December 5, 2014—The passage of H. Res. 758 strongly condemning Russia is a prime example of how so many members of the current Congress are out of step with the U.S. Constitution, with peace, and with the American people, according to Congressman Ron Paul.
The resolution passed in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday “strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.” In an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Ron Paul describes this bill as “16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.”
This bill reminded him of a vote in 1998 on the Iraq Liberation Act, a bill that jumped all over Saddam Hussein in Iraq saying he was about to attack us with nuclear weapons. He knew the legislation would lead to war, and look where we are now. In a forthcoming episode for the Ron Paul Channel, he says, “I hope and pray that I’m absolutely wrong with this.” Check back soon for the episode.

The following 10 legislators voted against this resolution, showing that they are concerned about this reckless taunting of Russia:
#1: Justin Amash (R-MI)
#2: John Duncan (R-TN)
#3: Alan Grayson (D-FL)
#4: Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
#5: Walter Jones (R-NC)
#6: Thomas Massie (R-KY)
#7: Jim McDermott (D-WA)
#8: George Miller (D-CA)
#9: Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
#10: Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)

Is one of your representatives on this list? If not, what would you tell them about this resolution?
Here are some points from the resolution, as outlined in his article:
• The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing. Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion. None have been offered. As to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February? We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials plotting with the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine to overthrow the government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?
• The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?
• The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine even though the U.S. government has provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine. This paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence.
• The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report—conducted with the participation of all countries involved—assign blame to any side.
• Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS—which we claim is the enemy—while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!
• Paragraph 17 of the resolution condemns Russia for what the U.S. claims are economic sanctions (“coercive economic measures”) against Ukraine. This even though the U.S. has repeatedly hit Russia with economic sanctions and is considering even more!
• In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of U.S. spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?
• Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”
• The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.
• To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the U.S. president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means U.S. weapons in the hands of U.S.-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?