Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

How 'think tanks' sell war...

Weapons Money Intended for Economic Development Being Secretly Diverted to Lobbying

Alex Emmons Aug 18, 2017

undefined

The United Arab Emirates created a “slush fund” using money meant for domestic economic development projects and funneled it to a high-profile think tank in the United States, emails obtained by The Intercept show.
read on...

Everyone Is Wrong About North Korea

Darius Shahtahmasebi Aug 19, 2017

undefined

Imagine a world where one country – country X – is bombing at least seven countries at any one time and is seeking to bomb an eighth, all the while threatening an adversarial ninth state – country Y – that they will bomb that country into oblivion, as well. Imagine that in this world, country X already bombed country Y back into the Stone Age several decades ago, which directly led to the current adversarial nature of the relationship between the two countries.

Now imagine that country Y, which is currently bombing no one and is concerned mostly with well-founded threats against its own security, threatens to retaliate in the face of this mounting aggression if country X attacks them first. On top of all this, imagine that only country Y is portrayed in the media as a problem and that country X is constantly given a free pass to do whatever it pleases.

Now replace country X with the United States of America and country Y with North Korea to realize there is no need to imagine such a world. It is the world we already live in.

As true as all of this is, the problem is constantly framed as one caused by North Korea alone, not the United States. “How to Deal With North Korea,” the Atlantic explains. “What Can Trump Do About North Korea?” the New York Times asks. “What Can Possibly Be Done About North Korea,” the Huffington Post queries. Time provides 6 experts discussing “How We Can Solve the Problem” (of North Korea). “North Korea – what can the outside world do?” asks the BBC.

read on...


Marco Rubio Says It’s OK To Beat People For Their Thoughts

Shane Kastler Aug 18, 2017

undefined

In a truly “free” society, no one gets beaten up for their political views. Laws cannot be passed against thoughts or symbols. And mob violence is not allowed to rule the day. But Florida Senator Marco Rubio, like most establishment political hacks, is not interested in a free society. He’s interested in seizing power in any way possible. And if that means excusing and encouraging mob violence, to achieve his political ends, then so be it. While Rubio may rail against dictators, his statements sound eerily like the late Fidel Castro, and other tyrants like him.

Rubio’s statement came in the form of a series of tweets he posted in response to the Charlottesville circus. Here are his exact words: “When entire movement built on anger & hatred towards people different than you, it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against them.” While the trained seals who follow hucksters like Rubio will bark their approval for his “brave words”; those who love liberty will shudder at the true ramifications of what he is saying. But let’s begin by trying to parse who exactly he is saying it about. 

Like a good political opportunist, he speaks in vague terms. One might surmise that his reference to an “entire movement” is a shot at Donald Trump and his supporters. Myriads of establishment politicians have accused Trump of “anger & hatred”; yet examples of this are never forthcoming, other than disagreements over something like immigration policy. So, is Rubio saying it’s OK to physically attack any who belong to “the movement” that elected Trump? And if so, then is Rubio also saying it’s OK to physically attack Trump? The supposed leader of this “movement?” The political vagaries allow Rubio to deny this, and perhaps say that he is talking about white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or the KKK. But even if he is talking about these groups…. Is he correct in saying it’s “justifiable” to physically attack them for their views? If so, then he is no friend to freedom in general, nor to free speech in specific.
read on...

WHAT?

A Peace and Prosperity Blog


Five Minutes Five Issues: Racism, Venezuela, Saving Animals, Yemen Cholera, Roy Moore
A new episode of Five Minutes Five Issues posted on Thursday. You can listen to it, and read a transcript, below. You can also find previous episodes of the show at StitcheriTunesYouTube, and SoundCloud.
read on...


The Truth About Yemen - With Vanessa Beeley
The misery inflicted on the Yemeni people by two years of US-backed Saudi warfare is almost unimaginable. Western press are either silent or they promote pro-war propaganda. Why is Washington selling Saudi Arabia the weapons to commit genocide on the Yemeni people? We get the real news from investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley in today's Liberty Report...
read on...


Is Hate Speech Free Speech?
Where does free speech end and hate speech begin? Conservatives and liberals are squaring off after Charlottesville but is there another solution to the problem? What's the libertarian position? Join us today for the Liberty Report...
read on...


Libya Update: Russia Changes the Game
A totally unexpected strategy emerged on the Russian side after yesterday's meeting with Field Marshall Haftar in Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's announced shift in Russian policy, couched in appropriate diplomatic language as shown in his Press Release below, changed Russia's game plan at a stroke. It appears that the Russian government has totally endorsed the United Nations track on Libya, saying it was was the right and only way to go and that the dodgy Paris Accord of the 25 July was the basis for peace.
read on...


Trump Administration Demands Information On Over A Million Visitors To Anti-Trump Website
A web host called “DreamHost” has gone to court to challenge a demand from the Trump Administration for information on more than 1 million visitors to an anti-Trump website. The demand would covered 1.3 million IP addresses and raises highly troubling free speech and associational concerns. At a minimum, the demand appears wildly too broad and could easily chill political speech for those who oppose this Administration.
read on...