Category Archives: Ron Paul

Washington Business Journal

Guest Comment: Second regional kidney center needed Washington Business Journal Should the certificate of need be denied, a very real and painful disservice will have been done to the thousands of kidney disease patients and their families who live and work in the District of Columbia. Ronald D. Paul is chairman and CEO of ...

Read the original here:
Guest Comment: Second regional kidney center needed - Washington Business Journal

PHOENIX Backers of a proposal exempting the sale of U.S. gold coins from state capital gains taxes brought in former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul on Wednesday to tout their effort at the state Senate.

The Republican testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the measure takes an important step by not taxing money.

What youre doing here, the way I understand it, is maybe we ought not to tax money, Paul said. And I think thats a good idea. Id like to not tax a lot of things, but certainly it makes no sense to tax money.

Rep. Mark Finchems House Bill 2014 is the latest effort to exempt gold coins from taxation. The Oro Valley Republican argues that taxing exchanges of legal tender like gold coins is a tax on money alone and also is essentially a tax on inflation.

Paul got pushback from Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, who called the effort a way to give tax breaks to speculators and gold coin dealers.

Im trying to wrap my mind around how this isnt just another tax giveaway to coin collectors, Farley said. I get your point that you dont tax money when exchanged money for money. And I would buy that, if the $20 gold piece from 1850 was going to be traded for a $20 bill.

Instead, he noted, the price on coins is based on how much precious metal they contain and condition, not face value.

Similar efforts have earned two vetoes from Gov. Doug Ducey and one from former Gov. Jan Brewer in recent years. Ducey cited unintended consequences, while Brewer cited potential lost state revenue and a special tax break for coin dealers.

Finchems latest measure has already passed the House and was approved on a party-line 4-3 vote in the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday. It now heads to the full Senate for consideration.

Read the rest here:
Backers of tax cut on gold coin sales bring in Ron Paul - KTAR.com

History shows that, if individuals have the freedom to choose what to use as money, they will likely opt for gold or silver. Of course, modern politicians and their Keynesian enablers despise the gold or silver standard. This is because linking a currency to a precious metal limits the ability of central banks to finance the growth of the welfare-warfare state via the inflation tax. This forces politicians to finance big government much more with direct means of taxation.

Despite the hostility toward gold from modern politicians, gold played a role in US monetary policy for sixty years after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, in 1971, as concerns over the US governments increasing deficits led many foreign governments to convert their holdings of US dollars to gold, President Nixon closed the gold window, creating Americas first purely fiat currency.

Americas 46-year experiment in fiat currency has gone exactly as followers of the Austrian school predicted: a continuing decline in the dollars purchasing power accompanied by a decline in the standard of living of middle- and working-class Americans, a series of Federal Reserve-created booms followed by increasingly severe busts, and an explosive growth in government spending. Federal Reserve policies are also behind much of the increase in income inequality.

Since the 2008 Fed-created economic meltdown, more Americans have become aware of the Federal Reserve's responsibility for America's economic problems. This growing anti-Fed sentiment is one of the key factors behind the liberty movements growth and represents the most serious challenge to the Fed's legitimacy in its history. This movement has made Audit the Fed into a major national issue that is now closer than ever to being signed into law.

Audit the Fed is not the only focus of the growing anti-Fed movement. For example, this Wednesday the Arizona Senate Finance and Rules Committees will consider legislation (HB 2014) officially defining gold, silver, and other precious metals as legal tender. The bill also exempts transactions in precious metals from state capital gains taxes, thus ensuring that people are not punished by the taxman for rejecting Federal Reserve notes in favor of gold or silver. Since inflation increases the value of precious metals, these taxes give the government one more way to profit from the Federal Reserves currency debasement.

HB 2014 is a very important and timely piece of legislation. The Federal Reserves failure to reignite the economy with record-low interest rates since the last crash is a sign that we may soon see the dollars collapse. It is therefore imperative that the law protect peoples right to use alternatives to what may soon be virtually worthless Federal Reserve notes.

Passage of HB 2014 would also send a message to Congress and the Trump administration that the anti-Fed movement is growing in influence. Thus, passage of this bill will not just strengthen movements in other states to pass similar legislation; it will also help build support for the Audit the Fed bill and legislation repealing federal legal tender laws.

This Wednesday I will be in Arizona to help rally support for HB 2014, speaking on behalf of the bill before the Arizona Senate Finance Committee at 9:00 a.m. I will also be speaking at a rally at noon at the Arizona state capitol. I hope every supporter of sound money in the Phoenix area joins me to show their support for ending the Feds money monopoly.

See the article here:
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Arizona ...

On Wednesday, March 8, Dr. Ron Paul will testify before the Arizona State Senate Finance Committee in support of a state bill that would restore the status of sound money within the sovereign borders of the Grand Canyon State.

The measure HB2014 would "exempt from gross income the exchange of one kind of legal tender for another" and redefines legal tender to include "specie," that is to say, "coins having precious metal content."

In plain English, this proposal would provide a way for Arizonans to buy and sell gold and silver without having to treat it as a capital gain, thus reducing the reach of the Federal Reserve inside the state of Arizona.

In a statement published by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace, Dr. Paul lauds the bill for "ensuring that people are not punished by the taxman for rejecting Federal Reserve notes in favor of gold or silver. Since inflation increases the value of precious metals, these taxes give the government one more way to profit from the Federal Reserves currency debasement."

"HB 2014 is a very important and timely piece of legislation. The Federal Reserves failure to reignite the economy with record-low interest rates since the last crash is a sign that we may soon see the dollars collapse. It is therefore imperative that the law protect peoples right to use alternatives to what may soon be virtually worthless Federal Reserve notes," the former presidential candidate and constitutionalist icon added.

Over the past several years, The New American has chronicled the efforts of many states to enact some version of a sound currency bill. Others are debating proposals aimed at abolishing or auditing the Federal Reserve.

By placing the lions share of the blame squarely at the feet of the federal government, particularly its unrepentant, unchecked, and (most importantly) unconstitutional manipulation of the monetary system of the United States through the creation and perpetuation of the Federal Reserve system, bills to restore the value of sound money such as Arizona's HB 2014 reassert the sovereignty of the states and re-enshrine the 10th Amendment to the Constitution wherein the Founding Fathers intended to erect an impregnable barricade, one that would protect the people from the usurpations they knew would be attempted by the general government.

In 2011, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke weighed in the issue of restoring gold and silver as legal currency. "You need to be attentive to where the economy is and not move too quickly to reverse the policies that are helping the recovery," Bernanke said, apparently without being purposefully facetious.

The only hope of a recovery lies where hope for liberty has always lain: with the people and the states.

If any state authorizes gold and silver as an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, economists say that the economy of such a state would stabilize and increase. A happy side effect of such a system would be the weakening of the Federal Reserve notes and a strengthening of the appeal of gold and silver.

This genuine recovery (as opposed to the boom and bust pseudo-recovery espoused by Bernanke) would obliterate the fiat money monopoly exercised by the Federal Reserve. The history of that monstrosity was described most ably in G. Edward Griffins The Creature From Jekyll Island. Griffin writes:

The American Heritage Dictionary defines fiat money as "paper money decreed legal tender, not backed by gold or silver." The two characteristics of fiat money, therefore, are (1) it does not represent anything of intrinsic value and (2) it is decreed legal tender. Legal tender simply means that there is a law requiring everyone to accept the currency in commerce. The two always go together because, since the money really is worthless, it soon would be rejected by the public in favor of a more reliable medium of exchange, such as gold or silver coin."

And that is the key to restoring fiscal soundness to the once-enviable economy of the United States.

In 2008, Ron Paul, then serving as a congressman from the state of Texas, echoed Griffins predictions:

Gresham's Law states that bad money drives out good money. Meaning, if someone is forced to accept your bad money, it is to your advantage to pass it off, like a hot potato, in exchange for something of value. Any good money you have, you will hoard. Eventually, real money is driven out of circulation and under people's mattresses, so to speak. In the absence of legal tender laws, people are free to accept the medium of exchange of their choice, and are likely to insist on payment in something of real value.

Of course, despite the obvious benefits of a return to sound money, the federal government will not sit idly by and watch its monopoly be rendered irrelevant by state governments. In a host of issues, the plutocrats on the Potomac have demonstrated that they will go to any length to maintain their monolithic economic status.

There is some precedence, though, for support of sound money from one branch of the federal government.

Here's a brief recitation of the facts of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Lane County v. Oregon (1868):

At the end of the 19th century in Oregon, the state was collecting its taxes in gold, requiring payments of taxes in gold. There was a taxpayer who claimed they could pay in Greenbacks, because Greenbacks were legal tender for all debts. The Supreme Court gave two reasons why the taxpayer was wrong:

1) A tax is not a debt, a tax is an involuntary contribution to the government.

2) But even if that werent true, a State is a quasi-sovereign entity. It does not have all the sovereign powers it had at the War of Independence, because some powers have been limited by the Constitution. But it retains sovereign powers in the areas of taxation, borrowing, spending, eminent domain and judgements in the courts.

Regardless of past decisions and sound reasoning, the federal government will not back down, and Americans should not rely on the federal courts to sustain state sovereignty, principally as they have shown that they will not commit political suicide by weakening the power of those that give them power.

When it comes to the central bank and its machinations, the fix is in. The Fed ostensibly a non-profit organization owns the mint, the money, and sets the terms of the loans it makes to the federal treasury. Whats more, there is no product; there is nothing being loaned other than worthless paper that can never be traded in for anything of value because all that is used to secure the worth of the currency is now owned by the very bankers who control the Federal Reserve.

The fact is that since that day in 1913 when the Fed was created, the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power. Most, if not all, of this precipitous decline was caused by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

And the Fed will continue to accumulate power. There is no limit to the lengths global bankers will go to in order to control the economic policies that affect the entire population of the world. There is no hope of regulating restraint. Power of this magnitude operates beyond the reach of regulations.

As it has since 1958, The John Birch Society offers Americans a well-established, experienced, and influential way of organizing with like-minded constitutionalists who demand the Federal Reserve be not only audited but also abolished. A statement from The John Birch Society declares the group's position:

The powers of Congress are described in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the creation of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is not listed as one of those powers. The Federal Reserve is charged with protecting the value of the dollar through managing our nation's monetary policy. However, since its inception in 1913, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value under the Federal Reserve's monetary oversight. The John Birch Society advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve.

The key to restoring sound money in the manner prescribed by the Constitution is for the people to call on Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve and to elect state legislators (all of whom took an oath to "support the Constitution") committed to busting up the Fed's fiat money monopoly by enacting gold and silver currency bills such as Arizona's HB 2014.

In support of sound money and Arizona HB 2014, Dr. Paul also will speak at the state capitol at a rally scheduled for noon on March 8. "I hope every supporter of sound money in the Phoenix area joins me to show their support for ending the Feds money monopoly," Paul said in his statement.

Excerpt from:
Ron Paul to Hold Rally in Arizona in Support of Sound Money Bill - The New American

It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Donald Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute.

Consider his speech last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference. It was reported as fiery and blistering, but it was also full of contradictions.

In the speech, Trump correctly pointed out that the last 15 years of U.S. military action in the Middle East has been an almost incomprehensible waste of money $6 trillion, he said and that after all that U.S. war and meddling the region was actually in worse shape than before we started.

It would have been better for U.S. presidents to have spent the last 15 years at the beach than to have pursued its Middle East war policy, he added, stating that the U.S. infrastructure could have been rebuilt several times over with the money wasted on such militarism.

All good points.

But then minutes later in the same speech he seemed to forget what he just said about wasting money on militarism. He promised he would be upgrading all of our military, all of our military, offensive, defensive, everything, in what would be one of the greatest military buildups in American history.

This greatest military buildup is in addition to the trillions he plans on spending to make sure the U.S. nuclear arsenal is at the top of the pack in the world, as he told the news media last Thursday.

And that is in addition to the trillion-dollar nuclear modernization program that is carrying over from President Barack Obamas administration.

Of course when it comes to nuclear weapons, the United States already is at the top of the pack, having nearly 7,000 nuclear warheads. How many times do we need to be able to blow up the world?

At CPAC, Trump is worried about needlessly spending money on military misadventures, but then in the same speech he promised even more military misadventures in the Middle East.

Where is the money going to come from for all this? Is Trump going to raise taxes to pay for it? Is he going to make massive cuts in domestic spending?

In the same CPAC speech, Trump reiterated his vow to massively lower taxes on the middle class, reduce taxes on American business, and make our tax code more simple and much more fair for everyone. And thats all good. So its not coming from there.

Will he cut domestic spending? Trump has indicated that he also wants a massive infrastructure modernization program launched in the near future. The plan will likely cost far in excess of the trillion dollars he has suggested.

That leaves only one solution: printing money out of thin air. It has been the favorite trick of his predecessors.

While Trump correctly condemns the $20 trillion national debt passed down from previous administrations, his policies promise to add to that number in a massive way. Printing money out of thin air destroys the currency, hastening a U.S. economic collapse and placing a very cruel tax on the working and middle classes as well.

Following Trumps constantly changing policies can make you dizzy. Thats a shame because the solution is very simple: end the U.S. military empire overseas, cut taxes and regulations at home, end the welfare magnet for illegal immigration and end the drug war.

And then get out of the way.

Ron Paul is a retired congressman, former presidential candidate, and founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @RonPaul, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Read this article:
Ron Paul: On Military and Spending, It's Donald Trump vs. Donald Trump - Noozhawk

AMERICAS NEW PRESIDENTIS ALL OVER THE MAP WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSSING OUR NATIONS FAILED INTERVENTIONISM

It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Donald Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute. Consider his speech last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). It was reported as fiery and blistering, but it was also full of contradictions.

In the speech, President Trump correctly pointed out that the last fifteenyears of US military action in the Middle East has been an almost incomprehensible waste of money six trillion dollars, he said and that after all that U.S. war and meddling the region was actually in worse shape than before we started.

It would have been better for U.S. Presidents to have spent the last fifteen years at the beach than to have pursued its Middle East war policy, he added, stating that the U.S. infrastructure could have been rebuilt several times over with the money wasted on such militarism.

All good points from the President.

But then minutes later in the same speech he seemed to forget what he just said about wasting money on militarism. He promised he would be upgrading all of our military, all of our military, offensive, defensive, everything, in what would be one of the greatest military buildups in American history.

This greatest military buildup is in addition to the trillions he plans on spending to make sure the U.S. nuclear arsenal is at the top of the pack in the world, as he told the press last Thursday. And that is in addition to the trillion dollar nuclear modernization program that is carrying over from the Obama Administration.

Of course when it comes to nuclear weapons, the United States already is at the top of the pack, having nearly 7,000 nuclear warheads. How many times do we need to be able to blow up the world?

At CPAC, President Trump is worried about needlessly spending money on military misadventures, but then in the same speech he promised even more military misadventures in the Middle East.

Where is the money going to come from for all this? Is the President going to raise taxes to pay for it? Is he going to make massive cuts in domestic spending?

In the same CPAC speech, President Trump reiterated his vow to massively lower taxes on the middle class, reduce taxes on American business, and make our tax code more simple and much more fair for everyone. And thats all good. So its not coming from there.

Will he cut domestic spending? The President has indicated that he also wants a massive infrastructure modernization program launched in the near future. The plan will likely cost far in excess of the trillion dollars the President has suggested.

That leaves only one solution: printing money out of thin air. It has been the favorite trick of his predecessors. While he correctly condemns the $20 trillion national debt passed down from previous Administrations, his policies promise to add to that number in a massive way. Printing money out of thin air destroys the currency, hastening a U.S. economic collapse and placing a very cruel tax on the working and middle classes as well.

Following the Presidents constantly changing policies can make you dizzy. Thats a shame because the solution is very simple: end the U.S. military empire overseas, cut taxes and regulations at home, end the welfare magnet for illegal immigration, and end the drug war. And then get out of the way.

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.

Read the rest here:
Ron Paul: Trump Versus Trump On Military Spending - FITSNews

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. The "Stand With Rand" shirts were out, and the "Make America Great Again" were in among the younger crowd at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference.

Libertarians, who normally make up the loudest and most vocal faction at the annual nationwide gathering of conservatives, had a noticeably diminished presence at the 2017 political confab.

"I think it's disheartening," said Michael Hall, a spokesperson for Students for Liberty. "I'd like to see more libertarians here."

In previous years, armies of supporters swarmed the conference halls championing Sen. Rand Paul and formerly Ron Paul as the future of the Republican Party. These attendees argued that an embrace of libertarianism would usher in a wave of youth support and rescue the GOP from assured death.

But, after President Donald Trump's surprise November victory, the CPAC program conspicuously changed, underscoring nationalistic ideals while tepidly moving away from principles of small government that were popular among conservatives during President Barack Obama's eight years in office.

The ideological shift at the conference aligned with the dominance of a new populist strain that took hold of the Republican Party in the 2016 campaign.

12 PHOTOS

Scenes from CPAC 2017

See Gallery

Joe Enders of Chicago, Illinois, wears a "Make America Great Again" cap as he listens to remarks during the opening day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual gathering of conservative politicians, journalists and celebrities, at National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 22, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Theiler

A man uses a rifle at a virtual shooting range hosted by the National Rifle Association at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

US President Donald Trump addreses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Maryland, on February 24, 2017. / AFP / Mike Theiler (Photo credit should read MIKE THEILER/AFP/Getty Images)

Kelly Anne Conway during the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center February 23, 2017 in National Harbor, Maryland. Hosted by the American Conservative Union, CPAC is an annual gathering of right wing politicians, commentators and their supporters. (Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Richard Spencer taking questions at CPAC from reporters, before he was removed from the convention during the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center February 23, 2017 in National Harbor, Maryland. Hosted by the American Conservative Union, CPAC is an annual gathering of right wing politicians, commentators and their supporters. (Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

US President Donald Trump addreses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Maryland, on February 24, 2017. / AFP / Mike Theiler (Photo credit should read MIKE THEILER/AFP/Getty Images)

A woman uses a pistol at a virtual shooting range hosted by the National Rifle Association at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

A man wears a yarmulke supporting U.S. President Donald Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Eric Golub, a conservative comedian, poses for a portrait at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) arrives to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 23, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

HIDE CAPTION

SHOW CAPTION

Matt Kibbe, president of Free the People, a nonprofit organization that promotes libertarian principles, said this year's agenda and lineup of speakers may, in part, explain the lack of libertarians present.

"I was shocked when I looked at the schedule and, except for Ted Cruz, there are no liberty Republicans on the stage," he said. "There's no Rand Paul, obviously there's no Ron Paul but there's no Justin Amash, there's no Thomas Massie, there's no Mike Lee."

"So maybe part of the reason the liberty youth is not here is there is no liberty on the stage," he added. "It's very much driven by Trumpism and nationalism."

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Nick Gillespie, editor-in-chief of the libertarian Reason magazine, agreed, contending that the American Conservative Union, the organization that hosts CPAC, had "started squeezing out" those who believed in libertarian ideals.

"During the Obama years, Paul pere et fils were the only ones offering a serous critique of mainstream Republicanism, which the party recognizes is drifting," he said an email. "Trump's victory, however narrow, allows the GOP regulars to go about their business as if nothing is wrong."

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the ACU, denied suggestions CPAC had abounded libertarianism, insisting in a brief interview that it was a "very big and important part of the conference."

Asked if he sensed a smaller libertarian presence from previous years, Schlapp replied, "No, not at all."

Yet, despite his claims, Students for Liberty was perhaps the only libertarian-minded youth organization advocating for libertarian ideals at CPAC. Other groups, like Young Americans for Liberty, chose to forego the conference this year.

Cliff Maloney, president of YAL, said his group's purpose in the past has primarily been to "deliver a win for liberty minded folks in the CPAC straw poll" and that with Trump in the White House, influencing the straw poll would not achieve much.

"I'm interested if it makes sense for us to be there, if the straw poll matters," Maloney said, pushing back against the idea that YAL aimed to make a statement by skipping this year's conference.

Others also rejected the idea that the sizable decrease in numbers was reflective of how popular libertarianism is more broadly among the American people.

"Rand isn't there and we have a newly elected president who is," said Doug Stafford, who served as chief strategist for Paul's 2016 presidential bid. "I don't find this at all mysterious or any indicator of the broader fight for liberty."

Still, the absence of a vocal faction of libertarians left many attendees disappointed and dismayed. Kibbe said he was "surprised by the lack of liberty groups," and others who have been active in the movement said they too were disconcerted.

"As someone who came into this movement through Dr. Paul's 2008 campaign, I'm disappointed more of my libertarian friends aren't here," said Matthew Hurtt, a libertarian activist and former Ron Paul-supporting delegate at the Republican National Convention.

He added: "We need their voices at this event now more than ever."

NOW WATCH: Trump's doctor and a hair surgeon explain what's going on with his hair

See Also:

SEE ALSO: Behind the anonymous Twitter account that took down Milo Yiannopoulos

Read the original:
There was one group noticeably absent from CPAC, the biggest conservative conference of the year - AOL News

MORE CRITICAL COVERAGE FOR AMERICAS NEW AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS

U.S. ambassador to the United NationsNikki Haley was slammed this week by former U.S. Rep. Ron Pauls organizationfor being completely cluelesson the world stage.

Just when we thought the great national embarrassment of UN Ambassador Samantha Powerwas over, we are suddenly faced with a new US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who almost makes Ms. Power look like a giant in world affairs and diplomacy, the institutes executive director Daniel McAdams noted.

Ouch

Hisreview didnt get any nicer, either.

Addressing the UN Security Council Open Debate on Conflicts in Europe (Tuesday), Ambassador Haley managed to get nearly every single point spectacularly wrong while mixing in the most banal of platitudes to further deaden the delivery, McAdams continued.

Wow

McAdams was referring to Haleys ongoing efforts to blame the current Ukrainian crisis on Russia when in fact the blame for the situation falls squarely on the administration of Barack Obamaand its Nazi alliesin the region. Oh, and onGeorge Soros(hes guilty heretoo).

According to McAdams, Haley has no clue what is happening in eastern Ukraine and so (she) has just dusted off the dusty old talking points of the Obama administration.

A.k.a. exactly what we said three weeks ago

McAdamsalso questioned U.S. president Donald Trumps selection of Haley for this post in light of the fact that Trump sharply (and correctly) criticized the Obama administrations militaristic foreign policy in Ukraine and other parts of the world during his 2016 campaign.

Clearly McAdams doesnt know the real reason Haley was tapped for this position

Nonetheless, his critique of her failure to conform withTrumps promises of bringing new people to bear on American foreign affairs not those with a long history of failed policies is damning.

Mr. President, I am sorry to have to inform you of this, but when it comes to Ambassador Nikki Haley, you may technically have new people in positions but you most certainly do not have new ideas, he wrote.

Thats for damn sure

This website doesnt believe America should be part of the UN. We dont recognize its sovereignty and we sure as hell dont think American taxpayers should foot the bill for its ongoing operations (let alone subsidize the largest percentage of its operational, peacekeeping and humanitarian budgets).

But if our country is going to participate in this global goat show, shouldnt our representative at least be required to toe the line laid down by our nations leader? As opposed to engaging in this sort of fact-challenged freelancing in the opposite direction?

Seriously we thought Trump appointed Haley to this post, not Obama.

Banner via @USUN

See the original post here:
Ron Paul Institute: Nikki Haley Completely Clueless - FITSNews

Just over a week into his administration, President Donald Trump issued an executive order giving Defense Secretary James Mattis 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. According to the order, the plan should make recommendations on military actions, diplomatic actions, partners, strategies and how to pay for the operation.

As we approach Trumps deadline, it looks like the military is going to present him with a plan to do a whole lot more of what weve been doing and somehow expect different results.

Proving the old saying that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, we are hearing increasing reports that the military will recommend sending thousands of U.S. troops into Syria and Iraq.

This would be a significant escalation in both countries, as currently there are about 5,000 U.S. troops still fighting our 13-year war in Iraq, and some 500 special forces soldiers operating in Syria.

The current Syria cease-fire, brokered without U.S. involvement at the end of 2016, is producing positive results, and the opposing groups are talking with each other under Russian and Iranian sponsorship. Does anyone think sending thousands of U.S. troops into a situation that is already being resolved without us is a good idea?

In language reminiscent of his plans to build a wall on the Mexican border, Trump told a political rally in Florida over the weekend that he was going to set up safe zones in Syria and would make the gulf states pay for them. There are several problems with this plan.

First, any safe zone set up inside Syria, especially if protected by U.S. troops, would amount to a massive U.S. invasion of the country, unless President Bashar al-Assad approves them. Does Trump want to begin his presidency with an illegal invasion of a sovereign country?

Second, there is the little problem of the Russians, who are partners with the Assad government in its efforts to rid the country of ISIS and al-Qaeda. ISIS is already losing territory on a daily basis. Is Trump willing to risk a military escalation with Russia to protect armed regime-change forces in Syria?

Third, the gulf states are the major backers of al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria as Trumps own recently resigned national security adviser, Michael Flynn, revealed in a 2015 interview. Unless these safe zones are being set up to keep al-Qaeda and ISIS safe, it doesnt make any sense to involve the gulf states.

Many will say we should not be surprised at these latest moves. As a candidate, Trump vowed to defeat ISIS once and for all.

However, does anyone really believe that continuing the same strategy we have followed for the past 16 years will produce different results this time? If what you are hammering is not a nail, will hammering it harder get it nailed in?

Washington cannot handle the truth: solving the ISIS problem must involve a whole lot less U.S. activity in the Middle East, not a whole lot more.

Until that is understood, we will continue to waste trillions of dollars and untold lives in a losing endeavor.

Ron Paul is a retired congressman, former presidential candidate, and founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @RonPaul, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Visit link:
Ron Paul: Does Donald Trump's ISIS Plan Include Another US Invasion? - Noozhawk

When it was announced that Fox News liberal pundit Alan Colmes passed away on Thursday, I couldnt help but recall one of my all-time favorite memories of him.

The scene was the 2008 election. Congressman Ron Pauls presidential campaign had begun to gather significant grassroots momentum, and the Republicans libertarian brand irritated not only most of the GOP which then was still staunchlyin the Bush-Cheney Iraq War defense mode but Pauls growing popularity seemed to get under the skin of Sean Hannity.

RELATED:The Fox News family is mourning the death of one of the titans of the cable network

Especially when Paul kept winning Fox News presidential polls, something Colmes would reportwith a tinge of glee.

The more this irritated Hannity, the more Colmes seemed amused by it. See for yourself in the short clip below:

Here we go again, Hannity says in the clip, talking over Colmes, Its driving me crazy.

In a separate segment, Colmes continued to report that Paul is winning and Hannity protested, Wait, wait, wait, you know what? Theyre redialing by the second.

Was Hannity saying that Fox News own poll,his poll, in a sense, was rigged and of no value?

When the three menshared the television screenduring the election, it was often liberal Colmes who waswarm to Pauls antiwar views to Hannitys chagrin.

RELATED:Sean Hannity shared a personal reflection about dearly departed friend Alan Colmes

Regardless, Ron Paul always seemed amused by Hannitys antipathy toward him, but Hannitys longtime friend, Colmes, perhaps even more so.

Its like a part of me left today, Hannity said on Thursday of his friends death. Its been a really tough day.

RIP Alan Colmes, and thanks for the memories.

Continue reading here:
Remember when Alan Colmes and Ron Paul used to drive Sean Hannity crazy? - Rare.us