Adam Dick

Much American public attention is focused on the US military escalation in Iraq and, to some extent, the rivalry for leadership in that nation where Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has worn out his US government welcome. Among other offenses, Maliki failed to ensure Iraq agreed in 2011 to a status of forces agreement that would have enabled the continued presence of thousands of US troops by protecting them from liability for violations of Iraqi laws.

Americans seem to be paying much less attention to the continuing, drawn-out Afghanistan national election. International reporter and columnist Eric Margolis suggests the election is being orchestrated by the US government to establish a new status of forces agreement with Afghanistan.

Margolis, an RPI Academic Board member, described on the Scott Horton Show this week the covert intrigue behind the Afghan presidential election:

[Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai has proven to be a naughty puppet. He came from central casting — CIA central casting. He was put in power. But, as he stayed in power, he started adopting policies that were more nationalistic than obedient to the US.

The main thing was that the US wanted what is called a status of forces agreement — it’s a fancy word for colonial agreement — that would have allowed US troops to stay on in Afghanistan indefinitely and exempt them from any kind of legal restraints. Karzai wouldn’t agree with this because he wanted to carve himself out a future as a genuine Afghan nationalist leader rather than a cat’s paw of Washington.

But, his term is expiring, so Washington has come up with two other candidates who are both also from central casting. And they fought ostensibly an election, which turned out rigged and unfair. . . Washington is trying to bang their heads together to create some kind of ostensive legitimate Afghan government that will then sign this document allowing the US to stay on for a number of years or forever.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Former US House of Representatives member and Democratic Party presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, speaking Wednesday with Bill Hemmer on Fox News, explained that “Christians, in effect, are receiving the blowback from the US war against Iraq,” and that further US intervention in that country is not the answer.

Kucinich elaborates that the US government’s invasion and occupation of Iraq starting in 2003 fueled the situation today with the Christian population of Iraq reduced by three-quarters. Kucinich explains that this population reduction arose in large part from Christians, along with people in other religious minorities, being “targeted by jihadists who did not have a presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion.”

Regarding ISIS’ persecution of Christians in Iraq, Kucinich, an RPI Advisory Board member, notes that ISIS has benefited from financial aid from the US and US “allies” including Saudi Arabia, as well as from US-supported training in Jordan. Kucinich additionally suggests that the US Congress should investigate possible ties between the US Central Intelligence Agency and ISIS.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

As libertarians participate in a trans-ideological and trans-partisan effort that may overturn the warfare-police-surveillance state, the old media leaders seem to be taking on a mission to tame libertarianism’s adherents by defining them as mainly a subgroup in the Republican Party.

First, the Associated Press and Washington Post ran articles, respectively, in June and July absurdly portraying Libertarian Party candidates as “spoilers” for Republican candidates — as if Republican candidates have an automatic claim to the votes of people who desire to support libertarian ideas.

With August upon us, the New York Times takes its turn, publishing Thursday an article “Has the ‘Libertarian Moment’ Finally Arrived?”

The Times article is open enough in its presentation of this supposed libertarian-Republican natural bond that it mentions briefly US House of Representatives Republican leadership’s consideration in 2010 of denying then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) the chairmanship of a monetary policy subcommittee in which Paul had served as ranking member under Democrat control of the House. But the article’s sanitized retelling leaves out entirely the history of the Republican leadership’s earlier successful actions to twice — in 2003 and 2005 — deny Paul a monetary policy subcommittee chairmanship.

This historical truncation related to the former libertarian representative and current RPI chairman conveniently makes more palatable the article’s message that libertarians support the Republican Party. Here, the article briefly states that message:

But not since the days of the Vietnam War and Nixon’s imperial presidency have libertarians seen much profit in an alliance with the big-government Democrats. Instead, ever since a newly inaugurated President Reagan declared, “Government is the problem,” politically practical libertarians have been more apt to cast their lot with the G.O.P.

This characterization of libertarians as bound to supporting Republican Party candidates permeates the entire article. For example, seven of the most talked about potential Republican presidential candidates are presented as potentially appealing to libertarian voters. Meanwhile, the article names no potential candidate outside of that purported libertarian electoral “home” as having any appeal to libertarians.

Like the AP and Washington Post articles, the Times article provides no real evidence to support its grand assertion. The Times and its counterparts seem to be following the tried-and-true course of repeatedly stating a false message to make it become conventional wisdom. With the rise of alternative news sources and the internet, this is a strategy that should with time be less and less successful.

The reality obvious to people familiar with Paul’s House campaigns, terms in the House, and presidential campaigns is that that the Republican Party leadership often acted to stifle Paul’s political efforts — from opposing Paul’s campaign to return to the House in 1996, to denying Paul his seniority for time served in the House in the 1970s and 80s after he won that 1996 election, to suppressing Paul presidential nomination votes at the Republican National Convention.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Speaking on Voices of Liberty, RPI Chairman and Founder Ron Paul explains that, while he agrees with the often repeated in the media declaration that “Israel has a right to defend herself,” he wonders why more people in the media don’t voice support for Palestinians’ right to defend themselves too.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Did former US House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) announce his resignation from the House so he can speed up private negotiations to make the big bucks in the financial industry? That is the suggestion of a new Politico article.

The Politico article also indicates that Wall Street is already knocking on Cantor’s door and quotes a “headhunter” who says Cantor has “relevant talents”:

Cantor has not made any public comments about what he will do next or if he has already decided his next move.

However, GOP insiders said Cantor has already been approached by a number of K Street lobby shops, companies and Wall Street firms, but has not engaged in any serious negotiations with any of these potential suitors at this point, according to several sources familiar with the conversations.

‘He will have opportunities in the traditional Washington political world,’ said Nels Olson, a top headhunter at Korn Ferry. ‘I think he could have Wall Street, investment banks or private equity firms interested given his relevant talents.’

While Cantor would be widely sought after in Washington, he is more seriously considering potential hedge fund, private equity or big bank opportunities, according to sources familiar with his post-Congress thinking.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) — who replaced Cantor as House Majority Leader and who Cantor described in his Thursday House floor farewell speech as “my closest confidant and my good friend” — pipes up in the article that Cantor “knows financial markets well.”

When and how did Cantor gain this knowledge that the Politico article suggests will help him land a million dollars-plus salary on Wall Street?

An answer to that question is not apparent. But, any Wall Street firm or firms that hire Cantor will not have to provide a justification that satisfies curious onlookers.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.