The US is sending special forces, SEAL Team 6, drones, B-52s, etc to South Korea. Military exercises will include practicing killing the North Korean leadership. Will such exercises provoke a North Korean response? What happens next? What about the Chinese?
By Liberty Report Staff
By Activist Post
This week, U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (S. 532) to prevent American taxpayers’ money from being used to directly or indirectly support armed militants who are allied with or often working under the command of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. The legislation serves as a companion bill to H.R. 608, which Representative Tulsi Gabbard (HI-2) reintroduced in January.
“One of the unintended consequences of nation-building and open-ended intervention is American funds and weapons benefiting those who hate us,” said Dr. Paul. “This legislation will strengthen our foreign policy, enhance our national security, and safeguard our resources.”
“For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. Rather than spending trillions of dollars on regime change wars in the Middle East, we should be focused on defeating terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, and using our resources to invest in rebuilding our communities here at home,” said Rep. Gabbard. “The fact that American taxpayer dollars are being used to strengthen the very terrorist groups we should be focused on defeating should alarm every Member of Congress and every American. We call on our colleagues and the Administration to join us in passing this legislation.”
You can read S. 532, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, HERE, and you can find more information below:
S. 532, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act:
This article was originally published at Activist Post.
By Gary North
A common cliché of protectionism is this one: the United States government needs to negotiate better deals for American companies.
It is time to call a spade a spade. This is fascism. Fascism is the economics of a government-business alliance. There should be no government-business alliance. The government should not be involved in business. Whenever government gets involved in business, it is always done to favor certain businesses at the expense of all the rest of them. It always involves a repression of decision-making on the part of individual buyers and sellers. There are no exceptions. There are always going to be a few winners and a lot of losers. But we do not see the losers. This is what Frederic Bastiat in 1850 called "the fallacy of the things not seen."
If I say this to the standard conservative, he nods his head in agreement. He is convinced that the government is up to no good when it intervenes into the free market. Then, a few minutes later, he tells me that the government should actively negotiate better trade deals for American businesses. In other words, his default setting on trade is fascism. He does not understand this. He does not understand economic logic, and he does not understand the meaning of the so-called business-government alliance.
There is only one legitimate justification for tariffs: as sources of revenue. In the United States Constitution, originally, the United States government was not allowed to tax individuals directly. This was done in order to restrict the power of the federal government. The federal government was allowed to tax liquor, which it did. The other main source of income was from tariffs. A tariff is a discriminatory tax placed on imports, but the Constitutional justification for it in 1787 was to restrict the power of the federal government to tax people directly through income tax assessments.
Once the 16th amendment was announced as having been passed, the justification for tariffs disappeared. From that point on, the tariff was just another discriminatory tax against imports and exports.
Yes, it is a discriminatory tax on exports. Because foreigners cannot sell all that they could otherwise sell to Americans, they cannot get their hands on United States dollars. When they cannot get their hands on United States dollars, they do not order American goods or invest in American companies. So, import restrictions are always export restrictions, and vice versa. I realize that almost no Americans or any other nationality understand this, because it involves economic reasoning, and people are not adept at economic reasoning.
NEGOTIATING AGAINST LIBERTY
This brings me to the idea that governments should negotiate tariffs and other quotas with foreign nations.
Why should any government agency negotiate in favor of any American business? What is the economic logic of this? This is one more example of government interference into the operations of the free market. Yet Americans who claim that they do not want government intervention in the marketplace loudly insist that some American trade negotiator has an obligation to get a better deal for America.
For America? For a collective? For all of America? How? The government cannot achieve this in any other field of economics. It is always discriminatory. There are always winners and losers. How is it possible for trade negotiators to get a better deal for all Americans? They can't. It's a myth.
Read the rest at GaryNorth.com
The Trump Administration is reportedly changing the rules of military engagement to give the generals more authority over attacks in areas not in the heat of battle. What does this do to civilian control of the military? Is this a new strategy?
By Ron Paul
Last week President Trump significantly escalated the US military presence in Syria, sending some 400 Marines to the ISIS-controlled Raqqa, and several dozen Army Rangers to the contested area around Manbij. According to press reports he will also station some 2,500 more US troops in Kuwait to be used as he wishes in Iraq and Syria.
Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission, it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. But not only is Trump’s first big war illegal: it is doomed to failure because it makes no sense.
President Trump says the purpose of the escalation is to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, its headquarters in Syria. However the Syrian Army with its allies Russia and Iran are already close to defeating ISIS in Syria. Why must the US military be sent in when the Syrian army is already winning? Does Trump wish to occupy eastern Syria and put a Washington-backed rebel government in charge? Has anyone told President Trump what that would to cost in dollars and lives – including American lives? How would this US-backed rebel government respond to the approach of a Syrian army backed up by the Russian military?
Is Trump planning on handing eastern Syria over to the Kurds, who have been doing much of the fighting in the area? How does he think NATO-ally Turkey would take a de facto Kurdistan carved out of Syria with its eyes on Kurdish-inhabited southern Turkey?
And besides, by what rights would Washington carve up Syria or any other country?
Or is Trump going to give up on the US policy of “regime change” and hand conquered eastern Syria back to Assad? If that is the case, why waste American lives and money if the Syrians and their allies are already doing the job? Candidate Trump even said he was perfectly happy with Russia and Syria getting rid of ISIS. If US policy is shifting toward accepting an Assad victory, it could be achieved by ending arms supplies to the rebels and getting out of the way.
It does not appear that President Trump or his advisors have thought through what happens next if the US military takes possession of Raqqa, Syria. What is the endgame? Maybe the neocons told him it would be a “cakewalk” as they promised before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Part of the problem is that President Trump’s advisors believe the myth that the US “surge” in Iraq and Afghanistan was a great success and repeating it would being the victory that eluded Obama with his reliance of drones and proxy military forces. A big show of US military force on the ground – like the 100,000 sent to Afghanistan by Obama in 2009 – is what is needed in Syria, these experts argue. Rarely is it asked that if the surge worked so well why are Afghanistan and Iraq still a disaster?
President Trump’s escalation in Syria is doomed to failure. He is being drawn into a quagmire by the neocons that will destroy scores of lives, cost us a fortune, and may well ruin his presidency. He must de-escalate immediately before it is too late.
WOMAN ASKS ALEXA “ARE YOU CONNECTED TO THE CIA?” ALEXA — WHO SUPPOSEDLY CAN’T LIE — REFUSES TO ANSWER
By The Daily Sheeple
So, this happened.
Following Wikileaks Vault 7 release alerting Americans to the fact that the CIA is using tons of exploits to turn all sorts of internet-connected smart devices into surveillance microphones, granting the intelligence agency access to millions of people’s private homes, people started asking questions.
Namely, this woman below asked her ever-listening Amazon Echo device if it is connected to the CIA.
Well, first she asks Alexa if Alexa would lie, then makes sure Alexa knows what the CIA is.
Twice she asks Alexa if she’s connected to the CIA… and twice Alexa refuses to answer. Must go against the “cannot tell a lie” protocol.
After this video went viral, Amazon sent Alexa an updated way to answer the question… which still doesn’t really answer the question.
Or does it?
Considering we know Bilderberg attendee Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos signed a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide its cloud hosting, Amazon is basically one Kevin Bacon degree of separation away from the CIA.
There’s a reason the Amazon Echo was offered up so cheaply last year… they want as many people to have them in their homes as possible.
Can you think why that might be?
Apparently the answer to the same question is slightly more honest when it comes from Google Home:
“I’ve got to admit… I’m not sure…”
This article was originally published at The Daily Sheeple.
By Ron Paul
Whenever I travel around the country, I'm always encouraged to see that the ideas of liberty and desire for sound money are as strong as ever. This week, I had the great pleasure of testifying before the Arizona State Senate Committee on Finance. The committee ended up passing a very important honest money bill (HB2014).
The testimony was followed by a grassroots rally on a beautiful day in the Arizona sunshine. The turnout and support was fantastic, and I invite you to watch both of these events below:
As government continues to stumble through the health crisis that it created, Ron Paul discusses what's being done, what should never be done, and of course, the solution to the crisis.