The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Search Results

for:

Lobbyists Concealed Their Saudi Paymasters From Veterans Pressed to Lobby Against 9/11 Bill

undefined

Three veterans who were flown to Washington as part of a Saudi-sponsored campaign to lobby for changes to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) say organizers of the event concealed the Saudi role in the initiative.

Enacted in September 2016 over President Obama’s veto, JASTA altered the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in a way that cleared the path for 9/11 families and survivors to sue the kingdom for its alleged support of the hijackers.

Earlier this month, The Daily Caller and Politico were first to report that Qorvis MSLGROUP, the public relations giant that works on behalf of Saudi Arabia, has been organizing veterans to travel to Washington at no expense to lobby against JASTA. The veterans initiative is part of a much broader Saudi campaign against the law.

The central argument motivating veterans’ participation—and being used in their lobbying—is that, if other countries reciprocate and pass laws similar to JASTA, individual US service members could be sued in foreign courts. That claim is false, according to William S. Dodge, former counselor on international law at the US State Department and a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law. (See our detailed analysis of this and related claims.)

In exclusive interviews with 28Pages.org, US Marine Corps and Iraq war veterans David Casler, Tim Cord and Dan Cord shed damning new light on a brazen campaign that turns American veterans into unwitting lobbyists for a kingdom accused of aiding the 9/11 attacks and continuing to support extremism well beyond that day.
read on...

Will The Neocons 'Flynn' Jeff Sessions?

On Capitol Hill, Congressional business and campaign business is by law separate. Members or their staff must go off-site when conducting phone calls or other campaign related activities. When Senator Session said in his confirmation hearing that his campaign work did not include meetings with Russian officials he did not commit perjury, as the Democrat/Neocon alliance is claiming. But they are too lazy to have opposed Sessions on his terrible track record when it comes to civil liberties so they are determined to take down another senior member of the Trump Administration by perpetuating the laughable lie that somehow Washington, D.C. has been taken over by Putin and his KGB team. Will the Democrats and Neocons take down Sessions? We discuss the bizarre case in today's Liberty Report...
read on...

US-Backed Siege of Mosul Shows How Hypocritical Media Manipulates Us

undefined

In order to determine the truth when it comes to the mainstream media’s coverage of American-led offensives in the Middle East, be sure to scroll down to the bottom of any article. This is where the most important information can be found. As can be seen in a BBC report on the U.S.-backed offensive to retake the Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State, the last line of the article reads:
The UN said in late January that almost half of all the casualties in Mosul were civilians. At least 1,096 have been killed and 694 injured across Nineveh province since the start of October. [emphasis added]
Compared with a separate BBC report on the Russian-backed offensive to retake the Syrian city of Aleppo, the media’s coverage of these two military operations can hardly be viewed as balanced. In that report, the idea that Russia is constantly killing civilians is laid out in almost every paragraph.

A spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)  reportedly told Russian state-owned news site RT that the situation in Mosul is “incredibly desperate.”

In Mosul, 650,000 civilians are reportedly at risk, and as the U.N. has indicated, half of those being killed in the US-backed operation are civilians. The notion that American bombs are safer and more precise than Russia’s has no evidentiary basis, nor does any suggestion that the troops the US military is fighting alongside are less violent than Russian or Syrian authorities.
read on...

Was Trump's Speech Libertarian?

Dr. Paul watched President Trump's address to Congress last night with one hand on his keyboard, live-Tweeting the event with his own critique and commentary and finally giving the speech a grade from a libertarian perspective. The response to Dr. Paul's "Tweet-storm" was overwhelming, but much of it missed the point. This is not an issue of whether one "likes" or "supports" President Trump or any other politician. It is about the policies not the people. In today's Liberty Report, Dr. Paul looks back over some of his Tweets from last night to provide more context to the brevity demanded by that medium...
read on...

Expect Increased Spending under President Trump, and Not Just on the Military

undefined

The Trump administration announced Monday its support for an additional 54 billion dollars in spending for military and national security programs in fiscal year 2018 and a 30 billion dollar bump for such spending in fiscal year 2017. Meanwhile, 54 billion dollars in spending decreases in other areas in fiscal year 2018 are being put forward as an offset.

The story the White House is promoting is that, because of the offsetting cuts, the 54 billion dollars in additional spending will not increase United States government spending in the first fiscal year of Donald Trump’s presidency over the amount of Obama administration spending. This story is likely fiction, not reality.

You can count on Trump to determinedly stand by his desired military and national security spending goals, as well as his spending goals for other areas where he has pledged expansive US government actions, such as infrastructure and law and order. But, there seems to be little reason for confidence that Trump, who sees himself as a great dealmaker, won’t deal away much of his proposed cuts and even agree to various new increases in spending to ensure that his preferred additional spending receives congressional approval.

It will likely take significant dealmaking to push through Congress as large of a military spending increase as Trump proposes, even with Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate. For some perspective on what $54 billion in additional military spending means, Alex Emmons notes at The Intercept that the “increase alone is roughly the size of the entire annual military budget of the United Kingdom, the fifth-largest spending country, and it’s more than 80 percent of Russia’s entire military budget in 2015.” Expect even “pro-military conservatives” in congress to jump at the opportunity to toss some money for their own pet projects into the spending pot once the legislative bargaining is underway.
read on...

Trump’s 'Obsolete NATO' Means Europe Paying for US Militarism

undefined

When US President Donald Trump dismisses the NATO alliance as “obsolete” what he really means is not withdrawing from the military pact, but rather offloading running costs onto European nations.

Several times during his election campaign, Trump sounded contemptuous about the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization. His comments about it being “obsolete” raised hopes in certain quarters that the 45th president would scale back American military participation in NATO as part of a wider move to reduce US belligerence.

When Trump gave his inauguration speech on January 20, the thrust of his “America First” theme appeared to be a new focus on building US society and infrastructure, as opposed to squandering resources by intervening militarily around the world as under previous administrations.

Trump’s oft-stated desire to restore friendly relations with Russia also seemed in keeping with his apparently jaundiced view of NATO. The eastward expansion of the military alliance since the 1990s has been a continual provocation to Moscow. When Trump called the pact “obsolete” that suggested willingness for a new US-Russia detente.
read on...

A Troubled CIA Analyst Finds Jesus (and the devil is spelled T-R-U-M-P)

undefined

Last Monday The Washington Post featured an op-ed by one Edward Price entitled “I didn’t think I’d ever leave the CIA. But because of Trump, I quit.” I must admit that it was refreshing at first to read something in The Post that did not rush to blame BOTHTrump and Vladimir Putin for everything going wrong in the world but, not to worry, evil Russia was indeed cited a bit farther along in the narrative.

Edward “Ned” Price is a likely lad. He has a nice intense look, clean cut, neat tie, good credentials with a degree in international relations from an unidentified college. He decided on a CIA career fifteen years ago and “work[ed] proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents…” Perhaps not temperamentally cut out to be an operations officer or spy, he claims that “as an analyst…[he] became an expert in terrorist groups and traveled the world to help deter and disrupt attacks.”

Price reports that he was quite happy in his work, because both the Bush and Obama administrations “took the CIA’s input seriously.” He was seconded to the White House in 2014 and pats himself on the back for “having [his] analysis presented to the president and seeing it shape events.”

But that was before the wheels came off the car. Per Price, “I watched in disbelief when, during the third presidential debate, Trump casually cast doubt on the high-confidence conclusion of our 17 intelligence agencies, released that month, that Russia was behind the hacking and release of election-related emails.”
read on...

What's Going On In Djibouti? US/China Face-off in Africa

The sole permanent US military base in Africa is getting a new neighbor. It's the Chinese, who are building their first military base outside of Chinese territory. The Chinese are the largest investors in Africa and have been heavily involved in anti-piracy efforts near Djibouti, where the bases will be a few miles from each other. The neocons will point to this development as an example of how the US must be even more forwardly deployed to block Chinese expansion, but a more likely explanation is that the Chinese move is in response to repeated US destabilization moves in the region, including the war in Yemen, the war on Libya, and elsewhere. But will the new neighbors get along? We discuss in today's Liberty Report...
read on...

War And Peace In The Age Of Trump

A month into the new Trump Administration has been a mixed bag when it comes to foreign policy. On the one hand, the President has reiterated his desire to get along with Russia even with all the shrieking of neocon disapproval. On the other hand, neocons have infiltrated and continue to infiltrate his Administration. In today's Liberty Report we are joined by Lew Rockwell to take a look at War and Peace in the Age of Trump -- and introduce an exciting joint Mises Institute/Ron Paul Institute symposium on the topic!
read on...

Trump and Haley's Uncoordinated and Contradictory Syria Paths

undefined

Trump has stated in no uncertain terms that he’s against ISIS. He’s awaiting a military review due on Feb. 28 that provides him with options. In addition:
’The president has been very clear that he’s going to work with any country that shares our interest in defeating Isis,’ White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Monday, in his first daily press briefing.
This includes Russia and Syria. Syria’s president in response said that he’d be willing to work with the US to rid Syria of terrorists, but that his government would need to invite such cooperation. Syria has invited Russia but not the US as of now.

Syria’s military continues to defeat the terrorists of all stripes.

Given these facts, it is singularly inappropriate that Trump’s UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, should launch an attack on Syria on chemical weapons grounds and introduce a resolution that Russia will veto. Trump and Haley do not appear to be coordinating their actions.

There is no need at all for the US to escalate its military forces in Syria beyond what Obama has already placed there. That’s because Syria is winning. There is no need for Trump-styled safe zones or any other variety of US engineered safe zones of any description. Syria is resolving the matter of refugees by defeating the terrorists.
read on...


Authors

Tags