Don’t ‘Audit The Fed’ – Abolish It

Photo credit: International Monetary Fund (Flickr)

In recent remarks to the Senate Banking Committee, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen (pictured above) was her typical evasive and non-committal self when the topic of interest rate hikes were broached. When the subject of potential oversight of the Fed came up, however, Ms. Yellen became quite forthright in her response.

When asked about a bill introduced by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to “Audit the Fed,” Ms. Yellen declared: “I want to be completely clear: I strongly oppose ‘Audit the Fed.’”  Ms. Yellen defended her position on the grounds (which have been given by every previous Fed Chairman) that oversight would lead to politicized monetary decision making, thus compromising the central bank’s “independence.”

Senate Banking Chairman, Richard Shelby, R-Ala., countered the Chairwoman, saying “there is an even greater need for additional oversight” of the Fed since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007.

Ms. Yellen, her predecessors, and every other Fed apologist are simply wrong when they assert that the central bank is an independent agency that is free of political influence. The Federal Reserve System was created by an act of Congress (1913) and can ultimately be “reformed,” altered, and/or abolished by Congressional fiat if so desired.

That Congress does not oversee Fed policy is a result of its charter, which was originally crafted by the Big Banksters of the time (mostly the Rockefellers and Morgans) in concert with their bought-and-paid-for politicians. The lack of oversight was a deliberate part of their plan to give bankers and financers free reign to conduct monetary policy for their own benefit.

The Federal Reserve is and has always been a political creature designed for the benefit of financial elites. It is a highly privileged cartel with monopoly control of the nation’s money supply. Unlike the propaganda that emits from Fed officials, the central bank was instituted to protect banksters from financial collapse and bank runs. Fine-tuning the economy, reducing unemployment, or fighting inflation are all ancillary concerns for the Fed.

These are the simple facts that are deliberately kept from the public at large by the political establishment, academia, and the media.

The Audit the Fed movement, which began in earnest with Ron Paul’s first presidential run, is a wrongheaded approach to solve the nation’s ongoing financial crisis. Senator Rand Paul’s bill is mostly grandstanding to bolster his status among the Republican Party’s populist contingent in his anticipated race for the nomination.

In fact, instead of meaningful reform, greater public oversight of the Fed would most likely lead to worse results. Every Congressman and Senator would be pressuring the central bank to fund their pet projects. Can one imagine what the growth rate of the money supply would be if 535 ravenous politicians had a say in the conduct of monetary policy?!

Those who want to reverse the nation’s economic malaise should seek the Federal Reserve’s abolition and advocate its replacement with a de-politicized monetary order free of central banking. Such a system would most likely be based on a commodity (gold and/or silver) where “money producers” are free to engage in the creation of the “best money” and banking services to satisfy customers’ needs.

In such an order, banks would function as any other enterprise by profit and loss. If banks loan funds wisely, they will succeed; if not, they will fail and go out of business, replaced in the marketplace by more savvy entrepreneurs. There will be no bailouts at taxpayers’ expense for reckless financial speculation. Money and banking would become a sound and honest undertaking.

To actually believe that an Audit the Fed initiative would become law is beyond naïve. The political establishment will never voluntarily relinquish or allow any legitimate oversight of one of its chief pillars of power.

Instead of seeking change via politics, reformers must first change the climate of public opinion–which can only be accomplished when the prevailing ideology is debunked. Until the Federal Reserve is seen as an engine of inflation and the creator of economic disorder that needs to be eradicated, America’s financial woes will, unfortunately, continue.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Sen. Graham: I Signed Letter To Iran Because Obama Told Congress ‘To Go To Hell’

Lindsey Graham

Joining Bill Hemmer on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., discussed why he signed the Iran open letter to Iran from a number of GOP senators that would require Congress to review and accept any nuclear deal.

Graham explained that he signed the bill in retaliation for the president threatening to veto the “bipartisan legislation” that would not lift the sanctions Congress created.

“The moment that he [President Obama] told Congress, basically to go to hell, I wanted him, the Iranians and the world to know you cannot deal us out,” he said. “So if he’s contemplating a deal with the Iranians, that would give congressional sanction relief and not allow us to have a say, he’s flat wrong.”

Scandal-laden former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday criticized via Twitter the Republicans who signed the letter to Iran.

Twitter/ Hillary Clinton

Twitter/ Hillary Clinton

Graham’s response hit hard and fast:

“How about this Secretary Clinton? We want to stand up for the idea that sanctions created by the Congress, cannot be relieved by the commander-in-chief unless we agree,” Graham said. “If you were president, would you deal Congress out? Would you threaten to veto a bill that’s bipartisan requiring Congress to review your deal before Congress agreed to lift the sanctions they created?”

The responses from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., to Clinton were just as strong, if not stronger:

Twitter/ Bobby Jindal

Twitter/ Bobby Jindal

Twitter/ Tom Cotton

Twitter/ Tom Cotton

h/t: TPNN

Share this article on Facebook if you think a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel and the U.S.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Netanyahu’s ‘Fateful Crossroads’ Speech Destroys Obama’s ‘Very Bad Deal’ With Iran


For close to forty minutes in an electrifying appearance before Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eloquently and expertly laid waste to the Obama administration’s developing nuclear agreement with Iran.

Forcefully declaring that the agreement President Obama is pursuing with Iran’s “dark and brutal dictatorship of religious zealots” is not just a bad deal, but “a very bad deal,” Netanyahu told a joint meeting of Congress: “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

Opening his controversial address with a few minutes of thanks to President Obama for his past help for and support of Israel, Netanyahu then proceeded to eviscerate the administration’s deal with Iran. He methodically made his case that Obama is making a dangerous deal with a regime that “will always be the enemy of America” as well as of Israel.

Piling point upon point and example upon example, the Israeli leader argued that the deal now in the works will have the opposite effect of what President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry claim:

“The deal will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons; it will all but guarantee it gets nuclear weapons — lots of them.”

Obama’s proposed arrangement with an Iranian regime that “poses a grave threat to the peace of the entire world,” said Netanyahu, relies on the integrity of a nation that cannot be trusted. Already, he observed, nuclear inspectors have been thwarted and deceived by Iranian officials.

It’s a faulty deal, said the prime minister, that would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure available for a quick breakout to build numerous weapons capable of plunging the planet into a prolonged “nuclear nightmare.”

Dozens of times during Netanyahu’s third address to Congress, lawmakers interrupted the speech with applause — occasionally thunderous, sustained applause. Even Democrats — those who had not boycotted the appearance — often showed their approval of what the Israeli leader had to say.

Democrats applauded, for instance, when Netanyahu told the gathering there are three specific actions that Iran must take if it wants “to be treated like a normal country” in the community of nations:

– stop their aggression in the Middle East,
– stop their support of terrorism, and
– stop threatening to annihilate Israel.

However, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their Democrat colleagues were not so enthusiastic when Netanyahu proclaimed that Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to “a bad deal, a very deal deal…we’re better off without it.”

The prime minister warned the lawmakers and others attending the speech under the Capitol dome that allowing Iran a path to the bomb would “spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet” as other countries in the Middle East would surely launch their own weapons development programs.

In a firm and formidable tone, Netanyahu assured the gathering Israel would not let that happen. “The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies — those days are over.”

As he wrapped up the address which he noted came at a time when “history has placed us at a fateful crossroads,” Netanyahu acknowledged that the process of achieving a better deal with Iran would be difficult but must be undertaken. He urged world leaders not to repeat mistakes of the past that have led to such atrocities as the Holocaust.

After concluding his historic speech, which no high-ranking member of the Obama administration attended, Benjamin Netanyahu left the House chamber the same way he had entered — to several minutes of loud and appreciative applause.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

WATCH: White House Just Hinted Obama’s Next Executive Action Could Be A Huge Money Grab

Image Credit: The Blaze

In another shot at the Constitution, congressional authority and the rule of law, President Obama is reportedly considering using executive action to unilaterally raise taxes.

Considering the words of White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama intends to try to implement his agenda, not by working with Congress, but by wielding his pen — to execute vetoes as well as implement executive orders.

According to an article in Forbes, the president may try to trespass on ground that, up until now, has been held by a co-equal branch of the federal government, the Congress — making and/or changing tax law, specifically, corporate taxes.

The Forbes article notes that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — an Independent with strong Socialist leanings who generally caucuses with the Democrats — wrote a letter to the Obama administration suggesting the president could close corporate tax loopholes on his own, without getting congressional permission.

Sen. Sanders appears to have opened a veritable barn door for the President to act more broadly than is customary.

Although the actions recommended by Sen. Sanders target corporations, it is worth noting that the tax hikes included in the President’s budget are numerous.

As The Blaze notes in its coverage of the possible Obama executive action on taxes: “Obama wants Congress to pass corporate tax reform, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has said the proposal would not go anywhere.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the White House spokesman tell reporters that Obama is “very interested” in exploring the extraordinary tax change as well as all sorts of other executive actions. And as you watch, you might see that Josh Earnest’s facial expression seems to reveal a certain glee at the prospect of his boss continuing to act with what one might call unfettered, unilateral abandon.

h/t: Forbes

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

WATCH Megyn Kelly Confront Jewish Dem Lawmaker About Netanyahu And Nuclear War

Bibi Megyn Kelly

Some are calling it reminiscent of the history-changing speech Winston Churchill made on Capitol Hill before World War II.

However, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress this morning, more than 50 Democrat lawmakers will not be present, according to the latest report in The Hill.

“At least 55 Democrats — eight senators and 47 House members — are vowing to skip the speech, in which Netanyahu is expected to deliver a stinging rebuke of President Obama’s Iran strategy even as the administration is attempting to wrap up delicate talks with Iranian leaders over the future of their nuclear program.”

Many of those Democrats intending to boycott Netanyahu’s controversial speech say they are concerned about what they see as the disrespect that the prime minister and House Speaker John Boehner showed the president by not consulting with the White House before scheduling the address.

It will be interesting to see if the chair next to Boehner behind the speaker’s podium will be empty — the chair where the vice president traditionally sits during such an event. Joe Biden is out of the country.

On her Fox News show Monday night, Megyn Kelly had a contentious interview with Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee, known to be a far-left firebrand on a number of issues.

Though he is himself a Jew who claims to “love Israel,” Cohen says he will join dozens of his fellow Democrats in boycotting Netanyahu’s appearance, claiming he doesn’t want to be “part of the spectacle.”

Kelly confronted Cohen about his reasoning, and before long the conversation turned to the prospects of nuclear war with Iran.

You can watch the segment from The Kelly File by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom