Saturday, April 14, 2018


RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Resurrect the Republic Radio Show on Syrian Attack
Listen to "ATTACK on SYRIA is ON - HANDS OFF SYRIA NOW!" on Spreaker.

Support our work via PayPal -

 Louis Fisher, a Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Academic Board member and United States Constitution scholar, is quoted, in a Thursday Washington Examiner article by Steven Nelson, declaring that a unilateral decision by President Donald Trump to use military force against Syria would be unconstitutional as well as not authorized under the War Powers Resolution. Yet, Trump taking such action, says Fisher, would also be in line with military actions regularly pursued by previous presidents. 

RTR - Tom Lacovara-Stewart -
We agree with Louis Fisher. We agree when he made this statement, and we agree now that this attack on Syria is a Unconstitutional action but not outside the norm of CFR controlled globalists who seek Middle Eastern Balkanization and destabilization. This departs once again from the founding principles of the Republic.

I praised the following piece for what I had hoped would remain the agenda of the Trump Administration. But a read of this and a look into the events of this military action will show anyone capable of critical analysis that we have a serious problem at hand.

"The founders advised non-interventionism."
— Ron Paul on Sunday, October 21st, 2007 in Orlando
Read the following article by clicking on the title:
The Founding Fathers Were Right About Foreign Affairs
by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
April 16, 2002

America’s Lost Tradition on Non-Intervention
February 7, 2017

By implicitly criticizing U.S. interventionism, President Trump’s inaugural speech drew denunciations from the Washington establishment as a dangerous deviation, but his message actually fit with U.S. traditions, says Ivan Eland.

By Ivan Eland

Although the media trashed Donald Trump’s inaugural address as radical and scary to the United States and the world, his views on American security policy nevertheless may be closest to that of the nation’s founders than those of any U.S. president since the early 1800s.

An artist’s rendering of the Constitutional Convention in 1787

In his speech, the new president pledged that, “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”

After George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq for no good reason and Barack Obama’s military overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, which also resulted in chaos and an increase in terrorism, U.S. re-adoption of its long abandoned foreign policy of being a “shining city on a hill,” if put into practice, would be a refreshing return to the founders’ vision.

Thus, Trump seemed to pledge less U.S. military intervention abroad while still defending the United States. He noted that “we’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own.” And he complained that the United States has “spent trillions of dollars overseas,” including on the armies of other countries, “while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.”

All of this factually true. For example, the United States alone accounts for 75 percent of the defense spending of the 28 mostly well-to-do countries of NATO, making it a very one-way street in terms of alliance costs and benefits.

Yet as the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the U.S. military — which has been geared to be an offensive force to project American power overseas to police the world rather than to be a force to defend the United States — scrambled jets and sent them ineffectually out over the ocean. In contrast, Trump promised to focus on eradicating the genuine threat to the United States of radical Islamic terrorism.

Founders’ Vision

Because the founders wanted to avoid the militarism of Europe’s monarchs, who continuously waged war with the costs in blood and treasure falling on their people, the U.S. Constitution authorizes the government only to “provide for the common defence.”

Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

The founders correctly believed that unneeded overseas martial adventures undermined the republic at home, something our post-World War II interventionist foreign policy establishment has forgotten.

So maybe Trump’s inaugural address failed to unify the Western alliance and even scared the United States’ wealthy free-loading allies. So be it; the platitude of invoking the need to “unify” is often a way to beat back uncomfortable but necessary threats to reform the status quo.

Trump was correct when he earlier labeled NATO “obsolete,” because it wasn’t a very effective vehicle for addressing terrorism, and when he accused allied nations of not paying their fair share for Western security.

And nations around the world may be alarmed that the United States will no longer spend truckloads of money attempting to solve their problems — but usually abysmally failing — by using counterproductive military intervention or feckless foreign aid.

RTR - Tom Lacovara-Stewart

I have remained as positive as I could be regarding the Trump Administration. As a Conservative, I tried with many of my friends to hope for the best. The last remnants of this illusion has been now finally torn apart. To support this is to support the globalists. I will not in any way condone, commit, support or defend violators of the U.S. Constitution, no matter what letter stands after their name, no matter what party or ideological position they claim to represent. Moral consistency and the rule of law have been once again thrown into the ash-bin of history.  I have heard all of the 4 D chess arguments and seen all of the psychological operations of the mysterious "Q" that I care to see. From compromising on the TPP to his comments on bypassing due process on gun control measures, how do we expect the swamp to be drained? All of the top pedophiles, perverts, and human traffickers still remain at large while some lower level pond scum are taken out. We have seen NOTHING of real substance. I now question all we see including the wall. With what I see now, I question.... "Is the wall to keep illegal immigrants out, (an agenda we support) or is it intended to keep us in" should the need ever come that full martial law be implemented in the wake of calls by the useful idiots to achive gun confiscation? The last few vestiges of hope I had in what purported to be an anti-establishment man has crumbled before me with the arrival of John (Neocon War-hawk) Bolton. The most likely scenario that has occurred is that the Jihadi rebel opposition to the Assad government, after being nearly destroyed, was the culprits behind this chemical attack considering the Syrian government tested and confirmed the use of Sarin

 -  "Why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons on August 21?  To cross the red line drawn by Washington and invite a missile strike upon itself?  Why would the opposition use chemical weapons?  Exactly because of the red line.  To provoke foreign military intervention in the Syrian conflict…The Russian team’s analysis concluded that ‘home-made’ sarin was used near Aleppo on March 19.  It stated that the Sarin was likely delivered by a crudely made missile.  The team also named the particular opposition group most likely behind the attack.  At the time, the Syrian government immediately requested an international investigation of the March 19 incident, but then the United Kingdom and France all of a sudden recalled a Homs case, that had not bothered them for 3 preceding months, while the US started insisting on the need to investigate ‘all incidents.’  Why did those who accused the Syrian government of this act do their utmost to derail or at least delay such investigation?”  The dragging UN probe was interfered with by the tragic events in Ghouta on August 21.  “As our experts concluded, sarin used on August 21 was of approximately the same type as the one used on March 19, though of a slightly better quality.  It means that over a few months, opposition chemists somewhat improved the quality of their product.”
According to Seymour Hersh,
“Theodore Postol, a professor of technology and national security at MIT, reviewed the UN photos with a group of his colleagues and concluded that the large calibre rocket was an improvised munition that was very likely manufactured locally.
Read more -


After acting on some good gut feelings that a further US presence in Syria was not in this country’s best interest, president Trump has allowed himself to be fooled a second time into attacking Syria based upon false assurances from US intelligence that Syria ordered a chlorine attack on the city of Douma, which by some reports killed women and children. The city of Douma was, until yesterday, the last bastion of the “Army of Islam” terror group, supported by the US and Saudi Arabia. This week I will cover the extensive evidence that US backed terrorists once again falsified a chemical attack, upon orders from Deep State actors, in order to manipulate Trump into backing away from his determination to pull US troops out of Syria.     -    Joel Skousen

Resurrect the Republic - Immediately following US attack on Syria




In this memo to the White House, the Veteran Intelligence Professions for Sanity urge President Trump to get the evidence first before deciding to strike Syria.


FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT:  Evidence Required for Military Decision on Syria

Mr. President,

We the undersigned Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity join a number of other credible experts including former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford (this recent interview on BBC Radio Scotland), former UN weapons inspectors and former military officers who are strongly recommending that you obtain and review actual evidence from the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, before ordering any military action. VIPS has previously reported credible evidence indicating that anti-government forces in Syria have themselves produced and used toxic chemical agents.

Contradictory indications exist given that the video and images of victims in the locations purportedly affected by chemical weapons  came from rebel-affiliated entities known as the “Douma Revolution” and the “White Helmets” while Russian military units which later got physical access to the supposed sites and Syrian Red Crescent personnel working in the area reportedly found no indication of a chemical weapon attack.


No comments:

Post a Comment