The neocons want us to believe that we are in a war to the death between Christian civilization and the Islamic world. But they know nothing of either Christian civilization or Islam. The only part they really want, is war. Perpetual war.
By Ron Paul
Recently, Ted Cruz made the following comment that I'd like to address: "Our enemies are at war with us. I believe our nation needs a wartime president to defend it."
That's a dangerous and immoral statement. Where does Cruz get the idea that a wartime president is wonderful, especially when we're generally the one who start all the wars? Syria's Assad did not declare war against us. We said that "Assad has to go" so now we're over there messing that country up.
George W. Bush actually said the same thing. It has been reported that Bush knew that all presidents who want to be "great" have to be wartime presidents. So he went out looking for war, and he ended up with his war. I don't know if history will ever show that George W. Bush was a great president because he was a wartime president.
The big issue with Ted Cruz is that he implies that America needs a good wartime president because we've been attacked. But we're the ones that invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, got into Libya and Ukraine, and now we're seriously involved in Syria.
To want a wartime president is another way of saying that you want an authoritarian president! Wartime presidents have unusual powers. People often give up their freedoms out of fear and in response to war propaganda. So wartime presidents are very dangerous, especially when we're the ones starting the wars!
People generally know this to be true, and ultimately come around to this feeling. Unfortunately, we now have a lot of candidates who are competing with one another to be another wartime president. I consider that very dangerous because they should instead be talking about a foreign policy where we wouldn't be militarily antagonizing other countries, and where we wouldn't get into war without proper authority.
When someone says that we need a "wartime president" be very careful, and very leery because it's very dangerous to liberty.
Ron Paul takes on some of the biggest myths that today's Presidential candidates are throwing our way. Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio fans will want to pay attention to this show. Don't miss it!
Immediately after yesterday's shooting in California, anti-gun activists and anti-Muslim activists rushed in to offer their solutions. As usual, they miss the point about such violence.
By Chris Rossini
A few days ago, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that the U.S. would send special operations troops to Iraq. This is despite countless promises that the U.S. would not put "boots on the ground" or that the Hope & Change President would end America's draining wars.
The decision to put these boots on the ground in Iraq is unconstitutional as well. Congress has not voted, which sadly has become the norm. These troops are also being placed into Iraq against the wishes of Iraq's Prime Minister Abadi who said: “Iraq does not need foreign ground combat forces on Iraqi land.”
As if that weren't enough, the U.S. troops are also being placed in a life-threatening situation as well. Iranian militias are also on the ground in Iraq battling ISIS. They do not want American troops there, and are even threatening them.
"We will chase and fight any American force deployed in Iraq," said Jafaar Hussaini, a spokesman for one of the Shi'ite armed groups, Kata'ib Hezbollah. "Any such American force will become a primary target for our group. We fought them before and we are ready to resume fighting."
So from all angles, whether it be constitutional, internationally legal, or even moral, this decision to put U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq (again) is a bad decision.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump had some criticism of the decision. However, it had nothing to do with those listed above. Donald instead made the following statement:
“Why does he have to stand up and say ‘we’re sending them’? Why can’t he send them and be quiet? We don’t have any unpredictability anymore.”
Just send them and be quiet?
We don't have any unpredictability anymore?
The President is supposed to obey the law! It's supposed to be "predictable" that Presidents follow the U.S. Constitution. They're not supposed to just do what they want without telling anyone. They're not supposed to just do what they want period!
Trump's take on this situation should scare every American to the core.
The recent sunsetting of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has been heralded as the end of NSA spying on our phone calls. In fact, this is a smokescreen. The spying continues under the "reform" FREEDOM Act and other executive orders. Will people wake up to the deception?
Ron Paul joins Kitco News to discuss whether or not the Fed will raise rates, the manipulated dollar and gold market, as well as the upcoming Presidential election:
By Ron Paul
Paris appears to be in the news once again. We all remember the tragic terrorist attack that occurred there. Now there appears to be an attack on the taxpayers taking place. Leaders from all over the world are in Paris saying that global weather changes pose a great danger to us all.
Not surprisingly, many are making the argument that the weather changes necessitates more military to combat it! Never is it considered that the biggest user of fossil fuels on the planet is the Pentagon! The argument is quite a stretch, yet I fear that many people will fall for it.
The whole climate change issue bugs me because it's so distorted. If you look at geologic history, even before there were significant numbers of humans on Earth, the variations in temperatures were much greater. There were ice ages, and periods of warming, etc. If anything, the radical changes in climate have been smoothed out!
If anything, changes in climate are enjoyable. When winter ends, we all enjoy the spring. When summer ends, we enjoy the fall. Fortunately, I believe those who are looking to terrify everyone are on the short end of the stick.
There was a Gallup poll conducted last year asking Americans what they were most concerned about. Out of 15 items, "climate change" was second to last. People are not worried about it, but are far more concerned about the economy and getting a job! That was number one on the list.
Climate alarmists are persistent though. Their new tactic is in trying to connect "climate change" to terrorism! It's not America's militant foreign policy, propping up dictators, and constant wars. No, it's the weather.
A great part of the whole climate change effort is to further the world government idea and to weaken national sovereignties. This is the fight that we have: individual liberty vs. The State.
The ideas of personal liberty and private property would go a long way to solving problems of pollution. Bigger government with even more powers over our economic lives can only make things worse.
By Chris Rossini
The Federal Reserve and the U.S. military empire are America's double-edged sword. One reinforces the other. The Fed creates the money out-of-thin air to finance military adventures, and the military makes sure *wink, wink* that foreign nations continue to accumulate and use the Fed's dollars.
As a result of this nefarious arrangement, the U.S. now has both a military presence across the globe and what has become a central banker for the world. Moral hazard now runs wild across the Earth. Tremendous risks are taken on by financial institutions and governments because the consequences of those risks (when something goes wrong) can be offloaded onto either the Fed or the U.S. military.
Moral hazard in the financial arena shouldn't be hard for the average American to understand. It wasn't too long ago when the so called "too-big-to-fail" American banks were bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of almost $1 Trillion. That's moral hazard in a nutshell.
When banks can take risks, and be bailed out by either the taxpayers or the Fed, it feeds the desire to take on greater amounts of risks. If we were able to see the Fed's books, we'd also know which foreign financial institutions and governments have been bailed out over the years as well.
It gets worse. American banks don't have to worry about depositors keeping a close eye on them either. You see, that little sign at the bank works wonders. It says that depositors are "insured" up to $250,000. So, depositors leave the banks alone and let them run amok. Can the FDIC possibly "insure" everyone should a major financial crisis occur? Of course not! But depositors don't tend to think past the words on that little sign.
Here's something to think about. If the so-called "too-big-to-fail" institutions were too-big-to-fail back in 2008, what do you think will happen the next time around? Do you think they're worried about taking crazy risks right now? They know that they have a backstop, and it's both your wallet and mine. That's the moral hazard that the Fed has produced.
What about the other blade on the double-edged sword? Where does the U.S. military's moral hazard come in? Well, the U.S. military knows that the Fed can finance any goofy military conquest that it wants. Do you recall getting a bill in the mail for the Iraq invasion? How about the disastrous invasion of Libya? Did you get an invoice? No, of course not.
You're paying for those wars, but the bill doesn't directly come to you. Instead, the Fed prints money, which in turn decreases your purchasing power of every dollar that you have. Your bills aren't rising for no reason you know. That's the round-about way that you pay for one foreign policy disaster after another. It's very sneaky and most people don't (and can't) make the connection. Government schools don't teach kids that kind of stuff.
The U.S. military also breeds moral hazard with its entangling alliances, most notably via NATO. Whenever you hear NATO, think "the U.S." Most of the alliance's money comes from you and I, and all decisions must have the blessing of the U.S. Sadly, the wise words of America's founders were not taken seriously. They warned against getting involved in entangling military alliances. That advice was tossed overboard, and now we're paying for the monstrosity known as NATO.
Well, just as how the Fed permits financial institutions to take crazy risks, so does NATO permit countries on the outskirts to do crazy things. Consider the outrageous decision of NATO-member Turkey shooting down a Russian warplane.
Dan Sanchez nails it at Antiwar.com:
Turkey would not have done something so reckless in the first place if it was not coddled in NATO’s collective security blanket. Turkey is like the little guy in the bar who picks a fight because he knows his tough friends have “got his back,” and ends up instigating a huge brawl.
In the same way that Goldman Sachs is able to do crazy stuff because they have the Fed as a backstop, so does Turkey feel it can poke at a nuclear power like Russia. After all, NATO (i.e., the U.S. military) is there as a backstop. That's a moral hazard that can lead to nuclear war!
The Fed and the military empire are a double-edged sword. They both need each other. They both breed moral hazard, the likes of which this world has never seen.
It's not good.
The two week COP21 climate change conference in Paris brings together 40,000 of the world's decision-makers and elite to craft a global agreement to fight climate change. If enacted, it will be a massive transfer of power and resources from states to global governing bodies. What are the implications for economic and personal liberty of such a drastic move?