Pete asked Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel McAdams, to return to the show.
Daniel is going to use his experience of being on the Hill, and reporting on foreign policy, to answer questions about NGOs (non-governmental organizations), Think Tanks and lobbyists. Since time permitted they also took on the subjects of Venezuela, Syria and the Koreas.
Nuclear weapons are in season, and just like that old pair of jeggings in your mom’s closet, it doesn’t look like they will ever go out of style. While the trend originated in the United States, it’s found popularity all over the world, quickly becoming the hottest method of strategic deterrent and staying that way for over 70 years. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, there are 9 countries which possess nuclear weapons – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and of course everyone’s favorite – North Korea, with the combined nuclear arsenal of all of the above listed countries totaling to over 16,000 nuclear weapons. “But wait” all you clever mathematicians are saying. “That’s only eight countries. Who’s the ninth?”
If I were to ask the average American to point to a country in the Middle East which possessed nuclear weapons, half of the votes would end up in Zimbabwe…but even if we were to pretend that most Americans knew basic geography, the majority of fingers would point to Iran. But what would you think if I told you that the real culprit was in fact, the Jewish state? There are nukes in the Middle East without a doubt; but they’re owned by Israel, not Iran.
Amidst all the hullabaloo concerning forged Iranian missile blueprints and underground test sites, Israel has conveniently remained silent concerning its own history of stealing weapons grade uranium from the United States, and has declined to comment on how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was involved in smuggling nuclear triggers to develop the Israeli Nuclear Program.
Israel’s obsession with Iran has played a key role in distracting the world from its own nefarious nuclear pursuits, but Israel isn’t the only one that hypocritically denies nuclear development. American anti-proliferation think tanks regularly harass Iranian and North Korean developments, and international coalition inspector groups have conducted extensive investigations in countries who own nuclear weapons, with Israel being the exception, as always is the case.
The failure of these groups to demand transparency, or even conduct an investigation into, the possession of nuclear weapons demonstrates that these agencies are simply internationally sanctioned weapons against Iran and North Korea, and whose primary purpose is to restrict the nuclear development of select countries, rather than maintain international integrity or safety. Iran has historically practiced military conservatism, whereas Israel has repeatedly engaged in offensive campaigns in Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon. Iran is within the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and submits itself to regular inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency, whereas Israel neither recognizes the deal, nor accepts inspectors. Finally, and perhaps most notably, Iran possesses no nuclear weapons, whilst Israel totes up to 400.
Just as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was about to leave for denuclearization negotiations in Pyongyang, a spate of media stories reported that North Korea is deceiving the Trump administration by seeking to hide some of its nuclear facilities.
Those stories suggest an effort by some Trump administration officials, led by National Security Adviser John Bolton, to derail the US-North Korea negotiations by pressuring Trump and Pompeo to embrace the narrative that Kim Jong Un is deceiving the US. Before becoming national security adviser, Bolton had made no secret of his opposition to any Trump effort to reach an agreement with North Korea.
On July 1, The New York Times reported a conflict between Bolton and Pompeo over the timetable for denuclearization. The story said Bolton was determined to limit the period during which North Korea would be required to substantially disarm to one year, while Pompeo had publicly suggested it could take the remainder of Trump’s first term.
That same day on “Face the Nation,” Bolton said Pompeo would be “discussing” with North Koreans “how to dismantle all of their [weapons of mass destruction] and ballistic missile programs in a year.” But Bolton made it clear that it would be based on a “full disclosure” by North Korea of all its activities and facilities. Read the rest at truthout.org.
Mance had the pleasure of speaking with the Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel McAdams. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, including as editorial page editor of the Budapest Sun. He also served as special rapporteur for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group while based in Europe, monitoring human rights and elections on the ground in various contentious states, including Albania during the 1996-1998 civil unrest, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, and Slovakia.
Daniel joins Mance to comment on current events in Syria, N Korea and Afghanistan, as well as the current culture of the U.S. Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity RPI Peace and Prosperity 2018 Summer Conference Daniel on Twitter Mance’s Books Mance on Twitter
In a time in which President Trump is saying that the U.S. government will lift economic sanctions against North Korea if it “denuclearizes,” why not lift the decades-old U.S. economic embargo against Cuba? After all, Cuba “denuclearized” back in 1962. Why is the U.S. government still punishing the people of Cuba with its brutal economic embargo?
In fact, the continued existence of the Cuban embargo might well cause North Korea to ask: If we really do denuclearize, how can we be assured that U.S. officials will really lift their sanctions on North Korea given the continuation of their brutal embargo against Cuba after it denuclearized more than 50 years ago?
What is the point of continuing the embargo against Cuba? What is the point of continuing to target the Cuban people with economic misery and impoverishment, on top of the misery and impoverishment they already suffer from living in a socialist economic system?
The goal of the Cuba embargo has always been regime change. Ever since Cuban revolutionaries ousted the brutal and corrupt pro-U.S dictator Fulgencio Batista from power in 1959, the CIA and the Pentagon have been hell-bent on doing whatever was necessary to oust the communist regime in Cuba from power and replace it with another pro-U.S. dictatorship.
It was an electrifying sight that captured the imagination of millions of people living on the crisis-weary Korean Peninsula but sent many Americans spinning into paroxysms of anger and cynicism, depending on their politics and knowledge of the rocky history of US relations with North and South Korea.
On Tuesday, President Trump and Kim Jong-un met and shook hands on Singapore’s resort island of Sentosa, curbing decades of deep and bitter hostility between the two countries and possibly opening a new chapter for the United States in East Asia. Afterward, Trump even boasted that he had created a “special bond” with the North Korean dictator.
The unprecedented meeting was the climax of months of intensive negotiations that began in earnest in March, when Kim, through the mediation of South Korean President Moon Jae-in, unexpectedly invited Trump to meet and settle their vast differences. As their initial encounter began, Trump declared that times had changed—irrevocably. Read the rest at thenation.com.
As one of the original settlers of the sparsely populated territory situated between the deranged and warring states of Antitrumplandia and Philotrumplandia, I’m breathing easier today.
Anyone who longs for peace and an end to the big-power nuclear threat can only welcome what Trump and Kim did in Singapore this week. It’s just the beginning, of course, and things could go south at any time, but — and this shouldn’t have to be said — it’s preferable to other available alternatives. Trump’s earlier threats were insanely reckless and risky, and I stand by that judgment. One cannot point to Tuesday as proof that Trump’s initial stance was reasonable. No person with a gram of historical knowledge — not to mention moral decency — can think that peace-making required a threat to visit “fire and fury” on an entire society. In fact, Trump’s threat did not get Kim to the table; on the contrary, Kim’s nuclear tests and South Korean President Moon got Trump to the table.
I can’t be sure why Trump turned around and did what he did. Maybe he thought it through carefully and concluded what many had: an agreement that includes a cessation of the provocative U.S. rehearsals of aggressive war and “security guarantees” (a peace treaty and nonaggression pledge?) was the only way to avoid an unimaginable calamity. Or maybe he just figured this is his best shot at a Nobel Peace Prize. Who cares? Peace is the priority. If Trump’s legendary ego can be harnessed in its service, I say let’s do it.
I’ll up the ante. On the day they award Trump (and Kim and Moon) the Nobel Prize, they should take Obama’s away. He could have done what Trump did, but he wouldn’t.
The so-called progressives who bad-mouthed Trump in the months before the summit and who must not have consulted the hopeful South Koreans should be ashamed of themselves. (Bernie Sanders is an honorable exception.) Is their unending tantrum over having lost to Trump really more important than peace? Can you imagine what they would have been saying if Obama had met with Kim (or for that matter, what the Republicans would have been saying)? State-based politics is a cesspool. (Obama and his predecessors could have had a deal with Kim or his father or grandfather, but every step forward was wrecked by hardliners on the U.S. side.)
Even with this broad, first-step agreement, the inhabitants of Antitrumplandia can’t shut up. The Washington Post says there were losers from the summit. Who lost? The victims of North Korean human-rights abuses, the Post says — as though they would benefit from war or continued, increasingly unstable cold war. Their best chance is normalization of relations between Kim and the West. Isolation does them no good.
And while we’re on the subject, should Kim have raised America’s dismal human-rights record? (Oh my! Not moral equivalence!) You know, mass incarceration, CBP’s separating immigrant kids from their parents, ICE raids, cops shooting innocent people with impunity, torture, secret CIA prisons, Guantanamo, support for dictatorships, drone-bombing of civilians, painful economic sanctions, etc.
Meanwhile, the New York Timespokes Trump for thinking he can succeed with Kim merely by the force of his personality. While the architects and propagandists of America’s foreign policy for the last N years tear themselves up over whether the U.S. can trust Kim, they ought to be asking if Kim, in light of 70 years of dishonorable conduct, can trust the U.S. Kim is no doubt acquainted with the cases of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, and Iran.
And Reuters got in its shot by “reporting” on the “stunning concession” Trump made to Kim by calling a halt to regular rehearsals of the invasion and nuking of North Korea, “pulling a surprise at a summit that baffled [unnamed] allies, military officials and lawmakers from his own Republican Party.” “That was sure to rattle close allies South Korea and Japan,” the Reuters story asserted without evidence. “If implemented, the halting of the joint military exercises would be one of the most controversial moves to come from the summit. The drills help keep U.S. forces at a state of readiness in one of the world’s most tense flashpoints.”
The despicable Rachel Maddow called the cessation a “giveaway to N. Korea” and — wait for it — Putin!
But stopping the war rehearsals was the least Trump he could have done. It’s not as though his decision were irreversible, though I wish it were, and Trump said he would resume them if things don’t go well. The “progressive” hysteria over this point is especially shameful.
I’m curious: what would the critics be saying if a hostile power regularly rehearsed, along with, say, Mexico, an invasion and bombing of the U.S. just off one of the coasts?
“Critics in the United States said Trump had given away too much at a meeting that provided international standing to Kim,” Reuters continued. What critics? They were left unidentified. Might they, still smarting over Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing loss, have an ax to grind?
The choice between peacemonger and warmonger is too important to be decided according to the party or personality in the White House. “It is now urgent in the interest of liberty,” Institute for Humane Studies founder F. A. Harper wrote in the depths of the Cold War, “that many persons become ‘peace-mongers.'”
So, yes, nice work, Mr. Trump. But don’t rest on your laurels. Let’s move on to Iran. There is absolutely no good reason for his anti-Iran position. Iran was not making nuclear weapons, and American and Israeli intelligence knew it. Nevertheless, Iran agreed to the most intrusive inspections just so it could have the horrible sanctions lifted and re-enter the world economy. Iran is no threat to the American people or to anyone else, except for its internal liberal opponents. (I’m no fan of the theocracy.) Its alliance with Syria cannot be construed as aggressive in light of what the U.S. government is doing there and throughout the region. If Trump needs an excuse for changing his tune on Iran, he can say that its ally Syrian President Bashar Assad protects Christians and other religious minorities from al-Qaeda and its ilk.
We shouldn’t be naive about this. Trump’s coming to his senses on North Korea gives us no reason to think he will transfer that logic to Iran. Why not? With North Korea, Trump had South Korea’s Moon whispering good sense in his ear. With Iran, Trump is hearing different, more malevolent, voices: those of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who for their own destructive purposes prefer chaos in Iran to the status quo — and even to liberalization.
With those bad actors sitting on Trump’s shoulders, the case for optimism about the Middle East is far weaker than it is for the Korean Peninsula.
The historic Trump-Kim summit is just 48 hours away, and both leaders have arrived in Singapore. Kim arrived on an Air China plane Sunday afternoon local time, and Trump arrived just hours later at Paya Lebar Air Base.
This caps weeks of questions around the summit. President Trump withdrew from the summit after North Korea angrily condemned John Bolton’s talk of a “Libya model.” North Korea remained patient, and after another week of lower-level talks, Trump said the talks would happen as originally scheduled.
Trump has been very public about not participating in a lot of preparations before the talks, saying he believes it will be about attitude and not preparation. Trump has said a peace deal is possible in North Korea, and says any agreement will be “spur of the moment.”
A peace deal would end the Korean War, which began in 1950. Though signing such a deal isn’t specifically on the schedule, there largely isn’t anything planned, and that means such deals could happen. President Trump has said the summit is the start of a process, and raised the possibility of inviting Kim to the White House if the talks go well.
The big goal is denuclearization, with both sides having made clear that’s a major focus of the talks. Details of how long this will take is unclear, and some officials who are less pro-diplomacy, like Bolton, are suggesting “denuclearization” also covers North Korea’s missiles, chemical and biological arsenals, and their means to produce any of them.
That’s probably a non-starter, as North Korea has long said it needs a deterrent from a US attack. Bolton’s talk of a “Libya model,” in which Libya disarmed and a few years later the US led a NATO attack imposing regime change, underscores exactly why North Korea will want some deterrent left, even if it is non-nuclear. Retrieved from antiwar.com.
A letter from a number of ranking Senate Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), is setting out a series of demands for any denuclearization deal with North Korea. The letter suggests they intend to undermine any sort of deal made in the Trump-Kim summit next week.
The letter demands any denuclearization deal be complete and “permanent,” and threatens legislation to prevent any sanctions relief without their approval. They also demand that Trump force China to play a role in enforcing the deal.
This closely mirrors the way Congressional Republicans undermined the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, as reached by President Obama. This ultimately led to the US withdrawing from the deal just a couple of years into it.
With Iran as a precedent, Congressional Democrats likely believe they too can play spoiler for a high-profile diplomatic accomplishment of a president from the other party, and can greatly undermine any denuclearization agreement, risking US compliance with it going forward.
The White House is so far trying to downplay this, saying they don’t intend to ease sanctions until the denuclearization is completed. Yet even if they try to downplay the practical differences, that the Democrats are setting themselves up as antagonistic to the deal clearly has implications.
During the talks, President Trump must now consider his offers to North Korea both as they relate to the deal and as they relate to Congress. More importantly, North Korea will be going over US proposals to see if they can depend on Congress not to reverse an otherwise done deal. Retrieved from antiwar.com.
President Donald Trump on Thursday canceled his planned summit with Kim Jong Un, scolding the North Korean leader in a letter for “tremendous anger and open hostility” while also bluntly reminding Kim of the United States’ nuclear prowess.
The scuttling of the meeting, which had been scheduled for June 12 in Singapore, is a blow to U.S. efforts to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, as well as Trump’s desire to land a legacy-making deal with the hermetic nation.
It also raises the risk of conflict in East Asia and has rattled U.S. allies South Korea and Japan.
“Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting,” Trump wrote in the letter, which a senior White House official said was dictated entirely by the president.
Trump and his aides sought to pin the blame for the canceled summit entirely on North Korea. Read the rest at Politico.com.
Editor of FPIF.org John Feffer returns to the show to discuss his latest articles “A Nobel For Donald Trump Over Korea?” and “The Banality of Haspel.” Feffer begins by explaining why, even if Trump negotiates peace in the Korean Peninsula he would not be deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Feffer and Scott discuss the many different nuances of the peace process in North Korea and what it will take for the various sides to strike a deal. They then turn to Gina Haspel’s likely appointment as the new director of the CIA—and who might have replaced her if she was rejected. Scott then asks Feffer what his prediction is for the future of U.S. engagement in Syria.
John Feffer is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus and author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands. Follow Feffer on Twitter @JohnFeffer.
US News LA’s mayor says the city will cut power and sewer services to family homes where lockdowns are violated. [Link] Trump’s Operation Legend is expanding its deployment of federal police to St. Louis and Memphis. [Link] Foreign Policy Trump’s Envoy to Iran, Brian...
There are some subjects that must be discussed multiple times until people fully grasp them. The subject of the “double standard” when it comes to State actors and their actions is one that I think about every day. On the right of the meme is a list of actions that...
That will teach that n-word to have epilepsy! https://twitter.com/attorneycrump/status/1291207546095763457?s=21 Don't worry, thin blue line folks out there!: There is zero chance any of your beloved government-employee murderers will be held accountable for their...
One of the main arguments you hear against a massive reduction in the State (or its complete abolition) is that there are just some services the private sector can’t provide. The sophist will jump right to “who will build the roads?” The individual who has thought...
The new Netflix series that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tried to legally block. Although Clusiau and Schwartz make liberal use of text slates for statistics, Immigration Nation is mostly devoid of other context and narration. Instead, interview...
Australian journalist Mark Willacy talks to Scott about his investigations into alleged war crimes by Australian special forces units in Afghanistan. Willacy has worked closely with former SAS operative Braden Chapman, the leading figure in blowing the whistle on what...
Ray McGovern joins the show to talk about Colin Powell and Mike Pompeo: two credentialed, respected members of the foreign policy establishment that have both been hugely damaging to American interests. McGovern first responds to the claim that Powell unwaveringly and...
Branko Marcetic discusses a recent move by the Trump administration that will grant unprecedented powers to the CIA to conduct cyber attacks against foreign countries. This highlights a persistent trend throughout Trump's precedency that has seen him become perhaps...
Scott interviews Greg Mitchell about The Beginning or the End, his new book that tells the story of the making of the 1947 film of the same name. The movie was conceived as an exposé on the horrors of America's use of the nuclear bomb against Japan, partly at the...
47 Minutes Safe for Work Wally Conger is an author and Agorist who has worked in "liberty circles" since 1970. Wally used unpublished works of Samuel Edward Konkin III to put together the treatise, "Agorist Class Theory," in which he makes a devastating critique of...
108 Minutes Strong Language Curtis Yarvin is a prolific writer who used to blog under the name Mencius Moldbug. He is famous for coining the phrase and the concept of "The Cathedral" which will be explained in this episode. Pete asked Curtis to come on the show to...
55 Minutes Safe For Work Jeff Deist is the president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama and former chief of staff to congressman Ron Paul. Jeff was originally contacted by Pete to discuss his recommendation that people should stop using the term "libertarian"...
70 Minutes Safe For Work Tom Woods is a New York Times best-selling author and the host of The Tom Woods Show. Tom agreed to do his first ever "Ask Me Anything" for Pete's supporters. TomWoods.com Tom's Free Books Get Autonomy 19 Skills PDF Download Unloose The Goose...
On FPF #529, Will Porter returns to the show to discuss the massive explosion in Beirut. So far, over 150 people have been killed; however many more remain missing. The damage to the port will also significantly harm Lebanon's economy, doing billions in damage. Will...
On FPF #528, I discuss reports that an American company had signed an agreement with the Syrian Kurds to produce oil in Syria. The story was pushed by Secretary of State Pompeo and Senator Graham. However, the Syrian Kurds now say no agreement has been made. The Kurds...
On FPF #527, Will Porter returns to the show to explain why it doesn't matter to Boeing CEO who wins in November. Will and Kyle how the US will continue to wage wars throughout the world and spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars on unnecessary weapons and wars....
On FPF #525, I discuss Trump's decision to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany. Washington hawks dusted off the worn-out Russiagate narrative to try to drum up fear that Trump was sacrificing the country's security to his master Putin. Trump's move is minor as the US...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFtlXIfwfQ0 ...the Austrian theory of the trade cycle reveals that only the inflationary bank credit expansion that enters the market through new business loans (or through purchase of business bonds) generates the over-investment in...
https://youtu.be/cABLDPeCY-g The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed....
https://youtu.be/obPbgtdqTDI Businesses are always eager for consumers to buy their product or service. On the free market, the consumer is king or queen and the “providers” are always trying to make profits and gain customers by serving them well. But when government...
Tommy was joined by former Border Patrol Agent, Josh Childress. They discuss becoming a radical before circling back to Josh's days working the border. Josh talks trafficking and gives detailed accounts of specific instances that stand out in his memory. Finally, he...
Tommy is joined by Sheldon Richman, Executive Editor and Co-Founder at The Libertarian Institute. They discuss Sheldon's newest book, What Social Animals Owe To Each Other, as well as why libertarians should abandon the term Capitalism for Freed Markets....
Tommy gives his opinion on the Portland incident before diving into the differences between Fascism, Socialism, and Progressivism. Though America displays many tenets of Fascism and Socialism it is neither. But there are those actively trying to change that....
What is QAnon? Who is Q? Tommy spent this last week stuck in a Q-hole attempting to gain insight on the phenomenon that is Q. What he discovered entertained, surprised, and intrigued him. There's no way to discover every angle of Q in a week, but Tommy wanted to avoid...
