Page 11234..1020..»

Category Archives: Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute: Nikki Haley Completely Clueless – FITSNews

Posted: February 24, 2017 at 5:50 pm

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

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul Institute: Nikki Haley Completely Clueless – FITSNews

Ron Paul: Does Donald Trump’s ISIS Plan Include Another US Invasion? – Noozhawk

Posted: at 5:50 pm

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

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Does Donald Trump’s ISIS Plan Include Another US Invasion? – Noozhawk

Remember when Alan Colmes and Ron Paul used to drive Sean Hannity crazy? – Rare.us

Posted: at 5:50 pm

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

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Remember when Alan Colmes and Ron Paul used to drive Sean Hannity crazy? – Rare.us

Ron Paul: Trump’s ISIS plan: Another US invasion? – Winston-Salem Journal

Posted: February 23, 2017 at 12:44 pm

Just over a week into the Trump administration, the president 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 the presidents deadline, it looks like the military is going to present Trump 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 ceasefire, 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, the president 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 the Assad government approves them.

Does President 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-Qaida. ISIS is already losing territory on a daily basis. Is President 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-Qaida and ISIS in Syria as the presidents own recently-resigned National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, revealed in a 2015 interview.

Unless these safe zones are being set up to keep al-Qaida 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.

Read the original post:
Ron Paul: Trump’s ISIS plan: Another US invasion? – Winston-Salem Journal

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Trump’s ISIS plan: Another US invasion? – Winston-Salem Journal

Ron Paul: Donald Trump Needs A New ISIS Plan – FITSNews

Posted: February 20, 2017 at 6:45 pm

AMERICA CANT AFFORD ANOTHER INVASION

Just over a week into the Trump administration, the President issued an executive order giving Defense Secretary James Mattisthird days to come up with a plan to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (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 the presidents deadline it looks like the military is going to present Trump 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 ceasefire, 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, the president 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 the Assad government approves them. Does President 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 President 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 the presidents own recently-resigned National Security Advisor, 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 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 via iStock

Excerpt from:
Ron Paul: Donald Trump Needs A New ISIS Plan – FITSNews

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Donald Trump Needs A New ISIS Plan – FITSNews

Ron Paul: Will Congress Stop Forcing Pro-Life Americans to … – Noozhawk

Posted: February 17, 2017 at 12:46 am

Last month marked 44 years since the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

Roe remains one of the courts most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.

Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the nonaggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism.

Unfortunately, many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.

While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americans should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.

Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacares abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, sinful and tyrannical.

That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully, the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing anti-war taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.

The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacares mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course, I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating the Mexico City policy implemented by President Ronald Reagan. The policy forbids U.S. taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions.

Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the U.S. government. Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Yemen drone strikes, Trump is unlikely to substantially change our militaristic foreign policy, which is responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women and children.

Ending taxpayer support for abortion is an important step toward restoring limited, constitutional government that respects the rights of all. However, those who oppose abortion must recognize that the pro-life causes path to victory will not come through politics.

Instead, pro-lifers must focus on building a culture of life through continued education and, among other things, support for crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, along with scientific advances like ultrasound, are doing more to end abortion than any politician.

Anti-abortion activists must also embrace a consistent ethic of life by opposing foreign policy militarism and the death penalty.

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 more here:
Ron Paul: Will Congress Stop Forcing Pro-Life Americans to … – Noozhawk

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Will Congress Stop Forcing Pro-Life Americans to … – Noozhawk

Ron Paul: Will Congress stop forcing Americans to subsidize abortion? – Red Bluff Daily News

Posted: February 15, 2017 at 8:45 pm

Last month marked 44 years since the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Roe remains one of the Supreme Courts most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.

Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the non-aggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism. Unfortunately many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.

While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate, or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americas should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.

Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacares abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, sinful and tyrannical. That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Trump. Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing antiwar taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.

The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacares mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

President Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating President Reagans Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy forbids US taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions. Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the U.S. government.

Ron Paul is a former Congressman and Presidential candidate. He can be reached at the RonPaulInstitute.org.

Advertisement

See more here:
Ron Paul: Will Congress stop forcing Americans to subsidize abortion? – Red Bluff Daily News

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Will Congress stop forcing Americans to subsidize abortion? – Red Bluff Daily News

Ron Paul warns Donald Trump’s tax plan won’t work without spending cuts – Economic Collapse News

Posted: at 8:45 pm

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will announce a tax plan soon, one that will likely consist of tax cuts, though not for the rich.

A tax cut is always welcomed, but what about spending cuts? That is what former Texas Republican Congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul is asking.

It is great when the government gives you back more of what it stole. However, if the government doesnt offset that with cuts then the budget deficit will balloon and the national debt will go up even more. Essentially, every piece of spending is a tax on the American people, now or in the future.

Since Trump has never really gone into detail about spending cuts, it is rather probable that you wont see any of them over the next four years.

Here is Dr. Pauls interview in the video embedded below (he makes an interesting point about P/E ratio):

Read more:
Ron Paul warns Donald Trump’s tax plan won’t work without spending cuts – Economic Collapse News

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul warns Donald Trump’s tax plan won’t work without spending cuts – Economic Collapse News

Ron Paul: Repeal Obamacare’s Abortion Mandates | FITSNews – FITSNews

Posted: February 14, 2017 at 10:45 am

WILL CONGRESS STOP FORCING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS TO SUBSIDIZE ABORTIONS?

Last month marked 44 years since the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Roe remains one of the Supreme Courts most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.

Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the non-aggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism. Unfortunately many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.

While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate, or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americas should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.

Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacares abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, sinful and tyrannical. That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Donald Trump. Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing antiwar taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.

The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacares mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

President Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating President Reagans Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy forbids US taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions. Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the U.S. government. Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Yemen drone strikes, President Trump is unlikely to substantially change our militaristic foreign policy, which is responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children.

Ending taxpayer support for abortion is an important step toward restoring limited, constitutional government that respects the rights of all. However, those who oppose abortion must recognize that the pro-life causes path to victory will not come through politics. Instead, pro-lifers must focus on building a culture of life through continued education and, among other things, support for crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, along with scientific advances like ultrasound, are doing more to end abortion than any politician. Anti-abortion activists must also embrace a consistent ethic of life by opposing foreign policy militarism and the death penalty.

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 via iStock

Originally posted here:
Ron Paul: Repeal Obamacare’s Abortion Mandates | FITSNews – FITSNews

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Repeal Obamacare’s Abortion Mandates | FITSNews – FITSNews

Ron Paul says likely Deputy Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is ‘the neocon’s neocon’ – Personal Liberty Digest

Posted: February 11, 2017 at 7:44 am

In a new interview with host Michael Tracey at The Young Turks, libertarian communicator and former presidential candidate Ron Paul expressed much concern about President Donald Trump potentially appointing Elliott Abrams to be deputy secretary of state. Paul says Abrams has a lousy record. Continuing, Paul calls Abrams the neocons neocon, noting that there has never been an intervention overseas that he didnt seem to enjoy.

Paul says in the interview that all of these interventions that Abrams supports did not work. Victory may be claimed in a sense from these interventions, Paul suggests, if they remade the Middle East so we had thriving democracies there where civil liberties are being protected and [each country] had a constitution somewhat leaning toward ours. But, in fact, Paul says that isnt the case as the wars have caused more harm than good.

Indeed, Trump has discussed this failure of US intervention in regard to the Iraq War. Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump brought up his opposition to the United States starting the Iraq War in 2003. In a February of 2016 debate, Trump called the Iraq War a big, fat mistake, a mistake that, Trump continued, cost two trillion dollars and thousands of lives. In addition, Trump asserted that Iran is taking over Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Concluding, Trump said:

George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.

Therefore, it surprises many people that reports suggest Trump is considering Abrams for a State Department appointment. Abrams continues to support President George W. Bushs decision to wage war on Iraq.

Watch Pauls complete interview here:

Paul, along with co-host Daniel McAdams, discussed in detail the potentiality of Abrams as deputy secretary of state in the Tuesday episode of the Ron Paul Liberty Report:

In the Ron Paul Liberty Report discussion, Paul argues that Abrams could be one of the most important Trump appointments, and McAdams offers a possible big reason why Trump would want to consider appointing Abrams to the State Department position. McAdams explains that, while people will say that Abrams is so different from Trump, regarding Iran they are in lockstep: Elliott Abrams agrees with Trump and with [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] and with [National Security Advisor Michael Flynn] that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism, which is absolutely not true.

For an in-depth discussion by Paul of his views regarding neoconservatism, read here Pauls July 10, 2003 US House of Representatives speech Neo-Conned.

. Bookmark the

.

Read more here:
Ron Paul says likely Deputy Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is ‘the neocon’s neocon’ – Personal Liberty Digest

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul says likely Deputy Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is ‘the neocon’s neocon’ – Personal Liberty Digest

Page 11234..1020..»