Category Archives: Ron Paul

By Ron Paul

President Donald Trumps proposed budget has generated hysteria among the American left. Prominent progressives have accused the president and his allies of wanting to kill children, senior citizens, and other vulnerable Americans. The reaction of the presidents allies including some conservatives who should know better is equally detached from reality as they hail Trump for launching a major assault on the welfare state and making the hard choices necessary to balance the budget.

President Trumps budget does eliminate some unnecessary and unconstitutional programs such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the National Endowment for the Arts. However, it largely leaves the welfare-warfare state intact. In fact, this so-called radical budget does not even cut domestic spending! Instead, it plays the old DC game of reducing the projected rate of growth. For example, under Trumps budget, Medicaid spending increases from $378 billion this year to $525 billion in 2027. Only in the bizzaro world of Washington, DC can a 38 percent increase be considered a cut.

President Trumps budget combines phony cuts in domestic spending with real increases in military spending. Specifically, the budget increases the military budget by $23 billion over the next ten years. Trump claims that the increase is necessary to reverse the damage done to our military by sequestration. But, despite the claims of the military-industrial complex and its defenders in Congress, on K Street, and in the media, military spending has increased over the past several years, especially when the off-budget Overseas Contingency Operations funding is added to the official budget.

The restrained American Frist policy promoted by candidate Trump does not require a large and expansive military that literally spans the globe. This budget is the latest indication that President Trump is embracing the neocon foreign policy that candidate Trump correctly denounced.

The budget also relies on rosy scenario economic projections of three percent growth without even a mild economic recession to justify the claim that the federal budget will achieve balance in a decade. This claim bears little or no resemblance to reality.

It certainly is true that some of Trumps proposed tax and regulatory reforms can increase economic growth. However, the benefits of these pro-liberty policies will not offset the continued drag on the economy caused by the continued growth of federal spending, and the resulting monetization of debt by the Federal Reserve. Far from bringing about endless prosperity, Trumps big-spending budget increases the odds that Americans will face a Greece-style crisis in the next few years, while the Federal Reserves inflation tax evaporates the benefits of any tax reductions passed as part of tax reform.

Some of President Trumps apologists claim his proposed $1 trillion infrastructure spending plan will help create jobs and grow the economy. But government spending programs do not create real wealth; they only redistribute resources from the private sector to the (much more inefficient) government sector. Therefore, any short-term gains from these programs are illusionary and outweighed by the long-term damage the expansion of government inflicts on the economy. Trumps proposed new parental leave mandate will also hurt the economy, as well as the job prospects of the new entitlements supposed beneficiaries.

Far from presenting a radial challenge to the status quo, President Trumps budget grows the welfare-warfare state, albeit with more emphasis on the warfare. This budget is thus more evidence that, for a pro-liberty political revolution to succeed, it must be preceded by an intellectual revolution that reignites the peoples desire and demand for liberty.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Go here to read the rest:
Ron Paul: Trump's Budget, Radical Change Or More Of The Same? OpEd - Eurasia Review

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan is one of the most principled members of Congress. The political newcomer rode the tea party wave of 2010 to Washington where he has never hesitated to stand up for smaller government, constitutional fidelity and the rule of law. The conservative grassroots have long adored Amash, as do many libertarians who see the congressman as the biggest liberty movement rock star this side of Ron and Rand Paul.

But this year, some of the same conservatives have soured on Amash, calling him a RINO among other insults.

What changed? Donald Trump became president.

Amash hasnt changed one bit.

RELATED:Responding to the London Bridge attack with policies made in fear is exactly what we shouldnt do

Rep. Amash had stood up to President Obama over mass surveillance, foreign policy and constitutional issues time and again, and had always claimed it wasnt about party but principle.

It still is.

Amash made headlines earlier this month when he was answered a hypothetical question from a reporter: If former FBI Director James Comeys allegations were true, that Trump asked the agency to back off its investigation of Michael Flynn, would that be an impeachable offense? Amash said it would be.

Within the hour, major news sources were reporting that a Republican had come out for impeaching the president even though thats not what Amash had actually said. I did note at the time that it was not surprising that one of the most libertarian members of Congress was unafraid to hold a Republican president to the same standards applied to Barack Obama.

Many conservatives were furious at Amash, but the congressman stuck to his guns.

The reality is if the same question were asked to me about Barack Obama with any number of things that he did my answer would have been the same and Republicans at home would have been cheering it, Amash told Battle Creek, Michigans WBCK after the controversy.

So this is not a new line of questioning, nor is it unique to this president, Amash said. Ive been asked these things before about President Obama and about several members of the Obama administration and gave similar answers.

The difference is they dont play it on the news, Amash added.

A Republican criticizing a Democrat isnt newsworthy in the same way a Republican questioning a member of his own party is, particularly the president. But it is almost always the partisanshipthe pure tribalismthat has a greater pull for most people than ideology or principles. Amash Tweeted Wednesday, An ideological person can be persuaded through reason, but a partisan cannot be persuaded of anything countering the consensus of his tribe.

Rep. Amash is one of the most conservative members of Congress, yet when conservatism or Republicanism becomes redefined as simply marching in lockstep with the president, principled leaders are inevitably going to run afoul of their base.

Its the price they pay for being principled. Its also another reminder of why most politicians arent principled.

I recall when Congressman Ron Paul ran for president in 2008, one of the most popular attacks on him from the right was that he wasnt a real Republican because he criticized George W. Bush so often, particularly about the Iraq War. Now we have a Republican president who has spoken more harshly about the Iraq War than even Ron Paul did, but most conservatives are fine with this precisely because thats what conservatism is to them now: Praising, defending and coveting Donald Trump.

Its party before policy. Its replacing ideas with a personality cult.

Its being a hack.

Democrats do this too. Nothing rallied the left more during the Bush years than the war on terrorwith millions marching in the streets around the worldand even though Obama continued and even expanded so much of Bushs foreign policy and anti-civil liberties practices, the antiwar left basically evaporated on January 20, 2009.

It wasnt as big a deal to liberals when their guy was doing it.

RELATED:Why those who warn against overlearning the lessons of Iraq are wrong

Today, many of the same conservatives who once cheered Amash and other Republicans for wanting to investigate any impropriety by Hillary Clinton concerning Benghazi cannot stomach a member of their own party even questioning whether or not Trump might have overstepped bounds.

Frankly Im highlighting the problem with our system right now, with our two party system, with how powerful it is, with how much it sways peoples opinions on things, Amash said to WBCK.

If Barack Obama were in the exact same circumstances, Republicans would be crying out for his impeachment, he added.

Yep.

View original post here:
The Trump era reminds us that partisanship, not principle, is the most powerful force in politics - Rare.us

ReasonWho is the most influential libertarian in the United States? Ron Paul, according to this fun top-100 list put together by the conservative outlet Newsmax, working from (and supplementing) a poll put together by our friends at FreedomFest, the annual liberty-movement/free-market gathering in Las Vegas. (See Reason's coverage of Ron Paul, read Senior Editor Brian Doherty's book on the man, and browse through Paul's archive in our pages.)

Paul's son Rand (coverage, most recent Reason interview, 2011 cover story) came in second place, and let the furious arguments begin! But first, a few words from the creators about their parameters:

To compile this list, our editors defined a libertarian as a consistent advocate of free-market capitalism, minimal government, and social tolerance (thus distinguishing libertarians from conservatives). Their motto might be "Keep government out of the boardroom and the bedroom." [...]

Still, a list like this is subjective at best, and should be viewed as interesting and informative, rather than definitive. We very likely missed people who should have been on the list, and we welcome your input and correction for future editions. Moreover, while selecting only 100 is difficult, coming up with a ranking is even more subjective. We tried to rank the entrants in what we believe is a somewhat logical order of influence, but we certainly recognize that many readers (and perhaps even some people whose names are on the list!) may take exception to the ranking.

Finally, it is important to note that we chose to leave out a few individuals whose credentials as libertarians might be less convincing, such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Howard Stern.

The list definitely tilts to the right, and some libertarian credentials have already been greeted with skepticism by the listees themselves, such as #75 Charles Gasparino of Fox News ("Ok I guess I'm a libertarian sort of"). But these things are fun, and, well, let's go ahead and get the most controversial sequence out of the way:

22) Nick Gillespie

23) Clint Eastwood (Reason archive about)

24) Matt Welch

SMDH!

The Reason family overall is well represented on this list, which is as good a reminder as any to subscribe to the damn magazine, donate to the Foundation that makes it all possible, re-read Brian Doherty's great 2008 oral history of the magazine, and by all means come out to FreedomFest this year to see me and Nick and Katherine Mangu-Ward from the main stage, and also a whole universe of futuristic Reason Day goodness on Saturday, July 21.

After the jump, the rankings of our employees, donors, contributors, ex-staffers, and friends.

Reason4) John Stossel (Reason archive, most recent Reason interview, 2004 cover story)

6) Reason Trustee David Koch (archive about)

8) Andrew Napolitano (archive, most recent Reason interview)

17) Trustee Drew Carey (archive, Reason Saves Cleveland)

19) Robert Poole, Jr. (archive, most recent interview)

40) Courtney and Ted Balaker (archive, archive about, 2015 interview)

48) Radley Balko (archive, archive about, most recent interview)

51) Kennedy (archive, archive about)

62) Trustee Joan Carter and John Aglialoro (archive about, 2014 interview)

84) Veronique de Rugy (archive)

87) Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (archive)

Plenty of other friends, contributors, donors, and interview subjects on the list, including Penn Jillette (21), Matt and Terry Kibbe (28), Trey Parker and Matt Stone (43), Andrea and Howie Rich (53-54), Jeffrey Miron (76), Matt Ridley (83), and many more. Only non-Paul politicians on the list are Gary Johnson (7), Justin Amash (20), and Thomas Massie (55).

Am I giving away too much? Go read the full list! And then check out Reason's 35th anniversary "35 Heroes of Freedom" feature, which features several people from this list, and several others who no sane person would precisely describe as "libertarian." And though you need no urging from me, let's hear it in the comments: What's your own top 10? Greatest omission/worst inclusion? And who deserves the top slot on the "100 Most Influential Libertarian Commenters" list?

Read the rest here:
List of '100 Most Influential Libertarians' Topped by Ron and Rand Paul, Riddled with Reasonites - Reason (blog)

How long until we accept that collateral damage is just another word for murder?

A Kurdish boy, center background, walks between buildings that were destroyed during the U.S. bombing campaign in Kobani, north Syria.

When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.

What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.

Last week alone, US and coalition attacks on Syria left more than 200 civilians dead and many hundreds more injured. In fact, even though US intervention in Syria was supposed to protect the population from government attacks, US-led air strikes have killed more civilians over the past month than air strikes of the Assad government. That is like a doctor killing his patient to save him.

Do we really believe we are fighting terrorism by terrorizing innocent civilians overseas? How long until we accept that collateral damage is just another word for murder?

The one so-called success of the recent G7 summit in Sicily was a general agreement to join together to fight terrorism. Have we not been in a war on terrorism for the past 16 years? What this really means is more surveillance of innocent civilians, a crackdown on free speech and the Internet, and many more bombs dropped overseas. Will doing more of what we have been doing do the trick? Hardly! After 16 years fighting terrorism, it is even worse than before we started. This can hardly be considered success.

They claim that more government surveillance will keep us safe. But the UK is already the most intrusive surveillance state in the western world. The Manchester bomber was surely on the radar screen. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem? Yet somehow even in Orwellian UK, the authorities missed all the clues.

Related: Manchester Bomber May Have Been Groomed By UK Intelligence

But it is even worse than that. The British government actually granted permission for its citizens of Libyan background to travel to Libya and fight alongside al-Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. After months of battle and indoctrination, it then welcomed these radicalized citizens back to the UK. And we are supposed to be surprised and shocked that they attack?

The real problem is that both Washington and London are more interested in regime change overseas than any blowback that might come to the rest of us back home. They just do not care about the price we pay for their foreign policy actions. No grand announcement of new resolve to fight terrorism can be successful unless we understand what really causes terrorism. They do not hate us because we are rich and free. They hate us because we are over there, bombing them.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

See the original post:
Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terrorism, Or Creating It? - Mintpress News (blog)

Opposing Views

Ron Paul Compares Trump To JFK Opposing Views "The President goes back and forth, one minute saying 'we're not going into Syria,' while the next seeming to favor another surge," Paul wrote on his website on May 14. "He has given the military much decision-making latitude and may be persuaded by ...

Continued here:
Ron Paul Compares Trump To JFK - Opposing Views

RE-THINKING OUR APPROACH

When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.

What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.

Last week alone, US and coalition attacks on Syria left more than 200 civilians dead and many hundreds more injured. In fact, even though US intervention in Syria was supposed to protect the population from government attacks, US-led air strikes have killed more civilians over the past month than air strikes of the Assad government. That is like a doctor killing his patient to save him.

Do we really believe we are fighting terrorism by terrorizing innocent civilians overseas? How long until we accept that collateral damage is just another word for murder?

The one so-called success of the recent G7 summit in Sicily was a general agreement to join together to fight terrorism. Have we not been in a war on terrorism for the past 16 years? What this really means is more surveillance of innocent civilians, a crackdown on free speech and the Internet, and many more bombs dropped overseas. Will doing more of what we have been doing do the trick? Hardly! After 16 years fighting terrorism, it is even worse than before we started. This can hardly be considered success.

They claim that more government surveillance will keep us safe. But the UK is already the most intrusive surveillance state in the western world. The Manchester bomber was surely on the radar screen. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem? Yet somehow even in Orwellian UK, the authorities missed all the clues.

But it is even worse than that. The British government actually granted permission for its citizens of Libyan background to travel to Libya and fight alongside al-Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. After months of battle and indoctrination, it then welcomed these radicalized citizens back to the UK. And we are supposed to be surprised and shocked that they attack?

The real problem is that both Washington and London are more interested in regime change overseas than any blowback that might come to the rest of us back home. They just do not care about the price we pay for their foreign policy actions. No grand announcement of new resolve to fight terrorism can be successful unless we understand what really causes terrorism. They do not hate us because we are rich and free. They hate us because we are over there, bombing them.

Ron Paulis a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column reprinted with permission can be foundhere.

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? In addition to our always lively comments section (below), please feel free to submit your own guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE or via our tip-line HERE

Banner via iStock

Read the original post:
Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terror? Or Creating More Terrorists ... - FITSNews

|

Posted: Jun 01, 2017 12:01 AM

Controversies over surveillance of President Trump and members of his administration, including the leaks that forced President Trumps first National Security Advisor to resign, have brought new attention to Section 702 of the FISA Reform Act. Section 702, which was added to the law in 2008, authorizes wiretapping of non-U.S. persons. The statue explicitly forbids the intentional targeting of U.S. citizens, but allows agencies to collect information on U.S. citizens if it is incidental to a 702 investigation.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has exploited the incidental loophole to turn Section 702 into a routinely-used justification for wiretapping America citizens, including General Michael Kelly and (allegedly) other members of Donald Trump's campaign staff and transition team.

Given the way the federal snoop state uses every inch of (unconstitutional) power granted them to take a mile of liberty, the last thing Congress should do is pass legislation giving the surveillance state a new excuse to spy on us -- especially if the legislation also violates the Tenth Amendment. Yet Congress will do just that if it listens to the special interests pushing the Restoration of Americas Wireless Act (RAWA).

RAWA makes online gaming a federal crime. Thus, it gives federal agents another excuse to monitor our Internet usage. Those tempted to say, I dont gamble online, so I have no need to worry, should ask themselves what if their name appeared in the email contacts of friends or relatives who gambled online. Individuals may also be targeted if their browsing habits match that of a profile of an online gambler.

One of the justifications for RAWA is the claim that Internet gaming sites are controlled by drug cartels and terrorists groups. This claim gives law enforcement all the justification it needs to bring the full weight of the post-9-11-surveillance state down on those suspected of gambling online.

The irony of this argument is if Congress passes RAWA, they would be helping terrorists and other criminals. Criminalizing online gaming is not going stop individuals from seeking out opportunities to gamble online, any more than prohibition stopped people from wanting to drink alcoholic beverages. Instead, just as prohibition lead to the rise of organized crime, banning online gambling will ensure that only criminals (and terrorists) will run online casinos.

In contrast, if Congress leaves regulation of Internet gambling to individual states and the free-market, websites owned and operated by legal casinos would likely dominate the online gaming market. In order to avoid any legal troubles, as well as bad public relations, these sites would likely use technology that enables them to identify those prohibited from gambling online. Those who support RAWA should ask themselves who is more likely to use this technology: a website controlled by legal casinos who want to stay within the boundaries of the law or an offshore website controlled by a drug cartel or a terrorist organization?

Even if this technology did not exist, the Constitution does not grant Congress any authority regarding any type of gaming, and the Tenth Amendment does not expand Congressional power to create new federal crimes in order to protect state laws. In fact, the idea that federalism requires federal action to ensure one states laws do not interfere with laws in other states turns federalism on its head! This bizarro federalism promoted by RAWA supporters could be used to justify other expansions of federal power, including new gun control laws.

Federal laws outlawing Internet gambling are also incompatible with the fundamental principles of a free society. Gambling is a peaceful activity that does not violate anyones rights. Therefore, the government has no legitimate reason to forbid adults from gambling online. This is not to say that gambling is a good thing, only that government force should not be used to discourage it.

RAWA usurps state authority over gambling in order to further empower the surveillance state to snoop into our personal lives. Instead of ending online gaming, RAWA guarantees the online gambling marketplace will be dominated by criminals. Congress should reject RAWA rather than gamble our liberties away.

Read more:
Internet Gambling Ban a Losing Bet For Liberty - Townhall

President Trump will visit Saudi Arabia and Israel later this month. His meetings in Saudi Arabia will include a presentation on religious extremism. After pledging to keep the US out of other countries affairs, it seems President Trump is digging

Continue reading

by Ron Paul President Trump is about to embark on his first foreign trip, where he will stop in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican, before attending a NATO meeting in Brussels and the G-7 summit in Sicily. The media

Continue reading

Alex Jones exclusive interview with Dr. Ron Paul.

Republican political leaders in Washington who condemned Obamas plan to bomb Syria in 2013 are gung ho over President Trumps bombing last week. Even progressives are jumping on the bomb band wagon. Are we all neocons now?

Why the sudden turn toward regime change in Syria, just days after the White House said it no longer viewed removing Assad as a priority? We are joined in-studio by Lew Rockwell to discuss this and other issues.

President Trumps decision to fire 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria in retaliation for an alleged Assad chemical attack is said by the president to be in the vital national security interest of the United States. Does he think Syria is

Continue reading

Just days after the US Administration changed course on Syrian President Assad, saying he could stay, an alleged chemical weapon attack that killed dozens of civilians has been blamed on the Syrian government. Did Assad sign his own death warrant

Continue reading

One hundred years ago today, President Woodrow Wilson, who was elected on his antiwar slogans, asked a joint House-Senate session for a declaration of war on Germany. His war has launched endless wars ever sinceand only made the world safe

Continue reading

If government can just take your property from you, is it really your property to begin with? Eminent domain is legalized theft and President Trump is a big fan. Ron Paul defends individual liberty, property rights, and voluntary interactions on

Continue reading

See more here:
Ron Paul .com

Write A Letter To The Editor

Letters to the editor are encouraged. Each letter must include the author's name, mailing address and daytime telephone number.

The author's name and city of residence will be used if the letter is used in print or online.

Addresses and phone numbers will not be published. Letters have a 250-word limit.

Letters may be edited for length, style and grammar. Send to letters@tulsaworld.com.

Mail to Tulsa World, Letters to the Editor, Box 1770, Tulsa, OK 74102.

For more information, call 918-581-8330 Monday-Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Op/ed space in the Tulsa World is limited. To preserve the space for the pieces we think our readers will most appreciate, we have these guidelines for submissions:

1. Op/eds should to be about public policy issues not personalities.

2. They should be debatable in nature: They should take a stance that some but not all of our readers would agree with.

3. They should not be in direct response to previous op/ed columns, syndicated columns, letters to the editor or Tulsa World editorials. The proper forum for such responses is our letter to the editor space.

4. They should come from authors who are authoritative on the topic or offer some unique identifiable perspective.

5. They should to be about 600 words long.

6. They cannot be election endorsements or un-endorsements, although at times the editorial department will solicit op/ed columns on both sides of an election for publication.

7. They cannot be product endorsement.

8. They should come from an author who lives within our circulation area.

9. They should not have been published elsewhere or submitted for publication elsewhere.

10. They cannot be libelous, incendiary or offensive to broad portions of our readership.

11. They should to be accompanied with an electronic photo of the author for publication.

These are not hard-and-fast rules. Sometimes, typically because of relative light demand for op/ed space, the editorial editor may waive one or more of the guidelines. At times of high demand, he may not be able to do so.

Columns should be submitted to: wayne.greene@tulsaworld.com

See more here:
Ron Paul: What will bury Trump's presidency? It's not what you think - Tulsa World

PRESIDENT RISKS BEING BURIED IN GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES

By the end of this month, Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster will deliver to President Donald Trump their plans for military escalations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. President Trump would be wise to rip the plans up and send his national security team back to the drawing board or replace them. There is no way another surge in Afghanistan and Iraq (plus a new one in Syria) puts America first. There is no way doing the same thing over again will succeed any better than it did the last time.

Near the tenth anniversary of the U.S. war on Afghanistan seven years ago I went to the floor of Congress to point out that the war makes no sense. The original authorization had little to do with eliminating the Taliban. It was a resolution to retaliate against those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. From what we know now, the government of Saudi Arabia had far more to do with the financing and planning of 9/11 than did the Taliban. But were still pumping money into that lost cause. We are still killing Afghanis and in so doing creating the next generation of terrorists.

The war against ISIS will not end with its defeat in Mosul and Raqqa. We will not pack up and go home. Instead, the Pentagon and State Department have both said that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. The continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq will provide all the recruiting needed for more ISIS or ISIS-like resistance groups to arise, which will in turn lead to a permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq. The U.S. experts have completely misdiagnosed the problem so it no surprise that their solutions will not work. They have claimed that al-Qaeda and ISIS arose in Iraq because we left, when actually they arose because we invaded in the first place.

SPONSORED CONTENT

General David Petraeus is said to have a lot of influence over H.R. McMaster, and in Syria he is pushing for the kind of U.S. troop surge that he still believes was successful in Iraq. The two are said to favor thousands of U.S. troops to fight ISIS in eastern Syria instead of relying on the U.S.-sponsored and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to do the job. This surge into Syria would also lead to a lengthy U.S. occupation of a large part of that country, as it is unlikely that the U.S. would return the territory to the Syrian government. Would it remain an outpost of armed rebels that could be unleashed on Assad at the U.S. Presidents will? Its hard to know from week to week whether regime change in Syria is a U.S. priority or not. But we do know that a long-term U.S. occupation of half of Syria would be illegal, dangerous, and enormously expensive.

President Trumps Generals all seem to be pushing for a major U.S. military escalation in the Middle East and south Asia. The President goes back and forth, one minute saying were not going into Syria, while the next seeming to favor another surge. He has given the military much decision-making latitude and may be persuaded by his Generals that the only solution is to go in big. If he follows such advice, it is likely his presidency itself will be buried in that graveyard of empires.

Ron Paulis a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column reprinted with permission can be foundhere.

Banner viaMarines

Go here to read the rest:
Ron Paul: Donald Trump Should Toss Generals' War Plans - FITSNews