Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has been on the warpath when it comes to President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of state picks. He’s not been one to hold back commentary about former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, calling him a “menace,” and vowing that if Trump decided to go with Bolton, the Senator would gather the necessary votes to stop it. -The Blaze
As we can see from the above article excerpt, Rand Paul has made strong public comments about Trump’s pick for secretary of state. But he hasn’t been nearly so outspoken about the “fake news” debate.
This is especially startling given that his own father has been mentioned as a proponent of fake news as part of a larger list of non-mainstream media websites. Additionally, he could have spoken out about legislation just passed by the House that, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, could generate increased scrutiny of the alternative media, presumably including his father.
ZeroHedge reported the following:
On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news”, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017”, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”
The idea is that “fake news” is being promoted by Russia via various Western and especially US websites. Supposed lists have been released of these websites including one famously that has some 200 names on it, mostly involving the alternative media that is in the midst of displacing the mainstream media when it comes to influence and credibility.
Some of these websites are among the largest and most influential in the country and include TheDrudgeReport.com and a “peace and prosperity” Institute founded by Rand Paul’s father, famous libertarian and former congressman Ron Paul.
Ron Paul at one point in his political career was seen as a serious contender to become the GOP candidate for president. However, raising his profile and educating people about classical economics and republicanism was obviously an overriding goal.
But now his educational efforts may eventually be jeopardized given the inclusion of his Institute in a prominent list accusing him of knowing or unknowing support for Russian political and military goals.
Ron Paul himself has issued statements regarding “fake news.” An Internet search turns up the following:
There are not seemingly nearly so many cites for Rand Paul. He has weighed in negatively regarding New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of State in addition to Bolton. And he has been relatively positive about Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, saying, reportedly: “I think he would be a great pick … I do think that in comparison to people like Bolton or Giuliani, that he’s much more reasonable diplomatically …”
But he has seemingly not been nearly so outspoken regarding “fake news” and the focus on his own father’s organization as potentially part of a plot to advance the sociopolitical and military interests of Russia at the expense of the US and the West.
The bill – possibly intel sponsored – is being rushed through both the House and Senate before Trump takes over as President. The alternative media supported Trump as an alternative to Hillary Clinton and thus Trump might have objections to such a bill. Obama, presumably, will not.
Rand Paul is known for filibustering and did so for 13 hours to protest the appointment of CIA chief John Brennan back in 2013 to highlight the dangers of drones being used to target American civilians domestically. Paul’s filibuster did have an impact on the drone debate and his concerns were ultimately echoed by others in the Senate before he called a halt to his filibuster.
More recently, Rand Paul filibustered over National Security Agency surveillance programs authorized under the Patriot Act. This one took place in May 2015 and ran more than 10 hours. Paul, by his own admission, is interested iu protecting US constitutional freedoms, including free speech.
Nothing stops Paul from a filibuster to oppose the House bill once it reaches the Senate. Exposure would reveal for instance that the bill was introduced on November 22, two days before an article in the Washington Post highlighted the supposed dangers of US-presented Russian propaganda on November 24th. The outrage against “fake news” is apparently subject to considerable political calculations.
Conclusion: In fact, the bill’s covert supporters probably intend to attack the alternative media on both sides of the aisle. There is less than a month left for Congress to pass the bill and for President Obama to sign it. Surely such significant legislation should not be rushed but instead considered closely by the incoming regime rather than the outgoing one.