There are many different interests that depend on the existence of the Federal Reserve and its ability to create money out of thin air. Today we discuss those groups and the reasons why they have no interest in getting rid of the Fed.
By Carey Wedler
When Barack Obama was still in office, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks, penned a letter to him. Though a judge recently ruled that letter could be sent to the White House before the outgoing president left office, the contents were to be withheld from the public until a month later — until after President Trump had assumed power.
This week, the Miami Herald obtained and published the contents of the 18-page letter, originally written in 2015 and titled “LETTER FROM THE CAPTIVE MUJAHID KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMAD TO THE HEAD OF THE SNAKE, BARACK OBAMA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE COUNTRY OF OPPRESSION AND TYRANNY.” It contains the Kuwait-born Pakistani terrorist’s insights into why 9/11 occurred, as well as surprisingly accurate assessments of American politics.
One of the main reasons for 9/11, according to Mohammed, is one terrorists have referenced before: American foreign policy. His explanation is rooted both in history and in current affairs.
“The American people were misled by the Johnson administration and the Pentagon into waging a war in Vietnam that cost 58,000 U.S. lives and millions of Vietnamese lives and ultimately led to a humiliating defeat,” he writes, correctly referencing Johnson’s false flag attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, which the Democratic president used to push the U.S. into a prolonged, messy, and ultimately failed war.
Mohammed also focused on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and the Muslim world specifically, providing a long list of reasons why the “U.S. reaped what it sowed on 9/11.” One of those grievances was the U.S. government and CIA’s scheme to back and support “the Indonesian dictator Suharto when his army-led massacres slaughtered hundreds of thousands of landless farmers,” though his examples span the globe.
He cites America’s notorious desire for oil, referencing when the U.S. built “military bases in the Arabian Peninsula in Tabuk, Dhahran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and U.A.E – which is prohibited by Sharia laws – to secure a non-stop flood of oil to [their] country at the cheapest price.” He argues this was “to support the dictatorial rule of monarchial families and oppressive, corrupt, dynastic regimes and looting the wealth of the Muslim Ummah population; and to accomplish [U.S.] military objectives there.”
He references the CIA’s 1953 coup in Iran — conducted in conjunction with their British intelligence counterparts — to overthrow the country’s democratically elected leader and empower the “Shah of Iran and Safak, the brutal Iranian intelligence agency, for 40 years.”
Discussing Iraq in the 1990s, he references “when Anglo-Saxon crusaders imposed sanctions against the Iraqi people in a manner of collective punishment that resulted in the death of half a million civilians.” He later addresses former U.N. ambassador Madeleine Albright’s claim that the deaths of half a million children were “worth it.”
Mohammed also points out hypocrisies in American foreign policy, such as the American officials’ ties to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad before they wanted to oust him. He also points out that before invading Iraq, the U.S. “supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, even when he was using poison mustard gas against the Kurds…”
Mohammed discusses at length the centuries of Western attacks on Muslims and their countries, also noting the way Western countries broke up formerly Ottoman nations in the early 20th century, dividing them up and claiming control in the region.
He circles back to indict the whole of American foreign policy, noting the U.S. has escaped prosecution for their “brutal and savage massacres against the American Indian and [their] crimes in Vietnam, Korea, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Latin America; and for [their] support for the Chinese Dictator, Chiang Kai-Shek, and Mexico’s dictator, Santa Ana.”
“You can keep your military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere,” he writes, “but Muslim land will never accept infidels army bases in their land.” He credits Allah with helping them fight back against Western aggression, frequently weaving in religious sentiments as justification for further violence.
Though Mohammed focuses largely on U.S. imperialism, one of his main grievances is the U.S. government’s support for Israel throughout the decades. He argues America reaped what it sowed on 9/11 in part because of America’s backing of Israel “in the political arena, when you blocked resolutions in the United Nations Security Council more than 45 times to protect repeated Israeli crimes.” Mohammed cites the U.S.’ support for Israel’s invasions of Lebanon throughout the years, ultimately arguing that jihadists fight for all oppressed Muslims. He claims they represent Palestinians and others who have been crushed by Western influence and invasion (of course, it is impossible to prove all victimized Muslims support terrorism as recourse, making this claim rather grandiose).
He discusses Obama’s ongoing efforts to continue providing weaponry to Israel even as the former president openly questioned Israeli settlements. “While your children may play safely in the White House backyard, the entire world is watching your weapons kill Palestinian children at play on the Gaza beach during Holy Month of Ramadan or studying in their classrooms.”
Mohammed criticizes American politicians’ repeated claims that Israel “has a right to defend itself.”
“Why can’t you or any American president before you say that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Israeli crimes?” he wonders. “The answer is very clear but you can’t say it because your lords will be very angry.” Indeed, Israel wields significant influence over American policy.
The notion that American politicians are beholden to higher powers is echoed throughout the letter, but not just with regard to Israel’s influence through lobbying organization AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). With surprising accuracy, Mohammed details corporate influence throughout government. Early in the letter, he points out that politicians must serve their donors, whether they are in the healthcare industry, the prison industry, or “Blackwater, Halliburton, or any other arms industry of weapons firm.” He says the latter industry requires politicians “to push the DoD and U.S. soldiers into more wars…”
He condemns American capitalism and the farce of democracy throughout the letter, referring to politicians as mercenaries working for their financiers. He asserts that “[i]n the end, this will lead the rich to grow richer and the poor to grow poorer. The country will sink into debt and finally the nation will die.”
Mohammed also singles out Obama, citing his drone strikes, which killed countless innocent civilians and children. He condemns Obama’s assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without trial — followed by the killing of his 16-year-old son — as well as the president’s establishment of indefinite detention and his failure to close Guantanamo, where Mohammed has been imprisoned for years.
He calls out Western media, as well. “Don’t let Fox, CNN, BBC, or American and pro-Israeli channels cover your eyes because they never show the truth, their main task is brainwashing,” he argues. “They are experts at lying and distorting the facts to achieve their masters’ ends.”
(Instead, he praises Al-Jazeera, which is, in fact, a news agency originally funded by the oil-rich Qatari government, an ally of the United States.)
Since 9/11, the political establishment’s narrative has asserted Islamic terrorists target the United States because they hate us for our freedom, because their religion is violent, and because they are hellbent on destroying anyone who disagrees with their ideology. While it’s indisputable that anyone who would seek to kill 3,000 civilians is a cold-blooded murderer, his explanation has been echoed by terrorists before; the Charlie Hebdo shooters, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the Orlando night club shooter all referenced violent, imperialistic American policy as reasons for their attacks.
“If your government and public won’t tolerate 9/11, then how can you ask Muslims to tolerate your 60 years of crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, the Arabian Peninsula and the whole Muslim World?”
As former congressman and longtime non-interventionist Dr. Ron Paul warned in 1998 — long before 9/11:
“Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it’s the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice – terror.”
This article was originally published at The AntiMedia.
By Ron Paul
I recently sat down with Michael Tracey of The Young Turks. We discussed the scary possibility of Elliott Abrams being appointed to the second most powerful position in the State Dept. We also talked about foreign policy, including Trump's error in pouring more money into the empire. The faces and slogans change in Washington, but that's about it:
By Sergey Gladysh
A group of senators led by Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Ben Cardin (D-MD) plan to introduce legislation that would impose strict new congressional oversight and veto power over the Trump administration if it decided to lift sanctions on Russia.
According to a CNN report, if passed, the new bill titled “The Russia Review Act” would require the White House to submit a report detailing why it was seeking to lift sanctions, setting into motion a 120-day review period where Congress could vote to disapprove of easing the penalties.
Trump’s long-time adversary Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is cosponsoring the Graham-Cardin measure, along with Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and the most infamous warmonger and Russophobe in Washington – Republican John McCain of Arizona.
Rubio is convinced that the anti-Russian sentiment within the Senate is broad enough to push back against the White House if decided to ease sanctions on Russia. So broad, in fact, that it could even overcome a Trump veto.
“I think if there was a real threat of lifting sanctions minus the respect for Ukrainian sovereignty and meeting those conditions, my sense is that we would have the votes to pass that in the Senate and we would be able to pass it with a veto-proof majority,” Rubio told CNN.
The new measure follows yet another Russophobic bill titled “Countering Russian Hostilities Act of 2017,” which was introduced weeks earlier by McCain and Graham. That bill, if passed, would impose a comprehensive set of new sanctions against Russia.
It is unclear when votes over the two bills could take place or if either the sanctions bill or the new review act would get a veto-proof majority of 67 senators. What is clear, however, is that a group of warmongers in Washington will not give up their anti-Russian crusade.
This article was originally published at The Duran.
New Homeland Security Director, Gen. John Kelly, told Congress yesterday that under new "extreme vetting" measures, individuals wishing to come to the US from the countries subject to such measures will be required to provide their computer passwords and the websites they have been visiting, among other things. How long before such measures are expanded to include the rest of us...for our safety and security?
By Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY 4th District)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Representative Thomas Massie introduced H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the federal Department of Education. The bill, which is one sentence long, states, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”
On the day of Betsy DeVos’ scheduled Senate confirmation for Secretary of Education, Massie said, “Neither Congress nor the President, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn."
Massie added, "Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development. States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school, or private school."
“For years, I have advocated returning education policy to where it belongs - the state and local level,” said Rep. Walter Jones, an original co-sponsor. “D.C. bureaucrats cannot begin to understand the needs of schools and its students on an individual basis. It is time that we get the feds out of the classroom, and terminate the Department of Education.”
The Department of Education began operating in 1980. On September 24, 1981 in his Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery, President Ronald Reagan said, “As a third step, we propose to dismantle two Cabinet Departments, Energy and Education. Both Secretaries are wholly in accord with this. Some of the activities in both of these departments will, of course, be continued either independently or in other areas of government. There's only one way to shrink the size and cost of big government, and that is by eliminating agencies that are not needed and are getting in the way of a solution. Now, we don't need an Energy Department to solve our basic energy problem. As long as we let the forces of the marketplace work without undue interference, the ingenuity of consumers, business, producers, and inventors will do that for us. Similarly, education is the principal responsibility of local school systems, teachers, parents, citizen boards, and State governments. By eliminating the Department of Education less than 2 years after it was created, we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than the wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children.”
Original co-sponsors include Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI), Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Congressman Jody Hice (R-GA), Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), and Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-ID).
The above was re-printed from Congressman Massie's Facebook Page.
By Senator Rand Paul
I hope against hope that the rumors are wrong and that President Donald Trump will not open the State Department door to the neocons. Crack the door to admit Elliott Abrams and the neocons will scurry in by the hundreds.
Neoconservative interventionists have had us at perpetual war for 25 years. While President Trump has repeatedly stated his belief that the Iraq War was a mistake, the neocons (all of them Never-Trumpers) continue to maintain that the Iraq and Libyan Wars were brilliant ideas. These are the same people who think we must blow up half the Middle East, then rebuild it and police it for decades.
They’re wrong and they should not be given a voice in this administration.
One of the things I like most about President Trump is his acknowledgement that nation building does not work and actually works against the nation building we need to do here at home. With a $20 trillion debt, we don’t have the money to do both.
I urge him to keep that in mind this week when he meets with Elliott Abrams, the rumored pick for second in command to the Secretary of State.
Abrams would be a terrible appointment for countless reasons. He doesn’t agree with the president in so many areas of foreign policy and he has said so repeatedly; he is a loud voice for nation building and when asked about the president’s opposition to nation building, Abrams said that Trump was absolutely wrong; and during the election he was unequivocal in his opposition to Donald Trump, going so far as to say, “the chair in which Washington and Lincoln sat, he is not fit to sit.”
Why then would the president trust him with the second most powerful position in the State Department?
Abrams was equally dismissive throughout Trump’s entire candidacy. As a Never-Trumper, he repeatedly said he would neither vote for Clinton nor Trump. He likened the choice to the one the nation faced of McGovern vs. Nixon.
I voted for Rex Tillerson for secretary of state because I believe him to have a balanced approach to foreign policy. My hope is that he will put forward a realist approach. I don’t see Abrams as part of any type of foreign policy realism.
Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda.
But just as importantly, Congress has good reason not to trust him — he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job.
Read the rest
Rumors are flying that today President Trump will name arch-neocon interventionist Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State. Will the neocons grab full control despite Trump's vows to the contrary?
By Simon Black
Every year around this time the US federal government releases an annual financial report to the public.
It would be hilarious if the numbers weren’t actually true.
Just like Apple or Exxon, the government’s annual report contains several important financial statements and detailed commentary about their finances and operations.
But unlike Apple, Exxon, the government can’t manage to turn a profit. Ever.
According to this year’s report, the government’s net loss “more than doubled, increasing $533.2 billion (103.7%) during [Fiscal Year] 2016 to $1.0 trillion.”
It’s extraordinary that they lost $533 billion in 2015, let alone a full trillion in 2016.
Bear in mind, there was no major wars, recessions, or crises to fight.
What did you really receive in exchange for that trillion-dollar loss?
Brand new highway system? Giant tax rebate?
Nope. None of the above.
The sad reality is that it now costs the government so much to run itself, along with paying massive interest on the debt and supporting all of its entitlement obligations, that they lose $1 trillion even in a “normal” year.
What will happen in a bad year?
Then there’s the issue of the government’s “net worth”.
After adding up all of its assets (like tanks, aircraft carriers, government buildings, etc.) and subtracting liabilities (the national debt), the government’s “net worth” was MINUS $19.3 trillion at the close of the 2016 fiscal year.
That’s worse than 2015’s NEGATIVE $18.2 trillion, which was worse than 2014’s NEGATIVE $17.7 trillion, which was worse than 2013’s NEGATIVE $16.9 trillion.
The US federal government is insolvent, plain and simple.
This isn’t some wild conspiracy theory. It is a statement of fact based on publicly available data published by the US government itself.
It’s concerning that the government of the largest economy in the world is bankrupt.
But it’s even more concerning that more people aren’t concerned.
Naturally most of us have been programmed to believe for decades that the US government is rich and always pays its obligations.
This is a dangerous fantasy.
Yes, the government has been able to continually destroy its finances for years without consequence.
And for that accomplishment they should be awarded some special Nobel Prize in Ponzi Schemes.
But history is packed with examples of once-dominant empires who eventually declined under the weight of their unsustainable finances, from the French monarchy to ancient Rome.
Are we really supposed to believe that this time is any different?
Are we really supposed to believe that the US government can continue to indefinitely lose $1 trillion dollars per year without consequence?
Sure, it’s great to hope for the best. And maybe, just maybe, they manage to fix everything.
But it would be dangerous to bet everything you’ve ever earned or plan to achieve on such an unreasonable expectation.
When nations go broke, there are consequences. Simple.
This isn’t some earth-shattering concept. It’s common sense.
And once again, history is generous with examples, from the nationwide bank account freeze in Cyprus in 2013, to Iceland’s capital controls following the 2008 crisis, to the wage and price controls of Emperor Diocletian in ancient Rome.
In each of those instances there were probably countless people who either chose to be willfully ignorant or simply hoped that their politicians would fix everything.
Rational people don’t choose to be ignorant, especially when the government itself puts this data in black and white.
Nor do rational people bet everything on hope.
This article was originally published at Sovereign Man.