Last week Congress passed a massive coronavirus relief and omnibus spending bill. President Trump threatened to veto the bill, saying he wants an increase in the amount for “stimulus” checks authorized by the bill from 600 dollars to 2,000 dollars. The checks are designed to help those harmed by the lockdowns. President Trump also demanded a cut in some of the wasteful spending contained in the bill, such as the ten million dollars for gender programs in Pakistan.

At the 11th hour, however, President Trump signed the bill.

President Trump’s veto threat came after many people complained that a 600 dollars one-time payment was insufficient, and that the payment could be higher if Congress cut spending on militarism, foreign aid, and corporate handouts.

The text of the 5,593-page bill was made available hours before the votes in the House and Senate. Representatives and senators were told the bill had to pass immediately or else government would shut down around Christmas. This does not excuse voting for the bill. Congress should have refused to vote for this bill until members had time to read it. Those who voted “yes” should not get away with claiming the bill needed to be passed before members could read it.

While it is understandable that many are outraged over the way this bill was rushed through, the real outrage is that the rushed passage of omnibus bills has become a yearly Christmas tradition on Capitol Hill. These spending bills are always full of outrageous special interest giveaways. This practice denies the average member of Congress a meaningful role in carrying out one of Congress’ two most significant constitutional duties — funding the government. Congress long ago abandoned its other main constitutional responsibility — declaring war.

Whether 600 dollars or 2,000 dollars, a one-time stimulus payment is hardly adequate compensation for the suffering the government lockdowns have inflicted on the American people. Stimulus checks will not reopen closed small businesses or stop increases in domestic violence and substance abuse. A government check will not restore educational and development opportunities denied to children stuck at home struggling with “virtual education.” A one-time check will not compensate workers for the health problems developed due to having to wear a mask for eight hours a day. The only just solution is to end the lockdowns, and never again allow overblown fears to justify shutting down the economy.

Funding the government via massive omnibus bills drafted in secret and rushed into law concentrates power in the hands of a select few representatives and senators. It also gives the president excessive influence over the appropriations process. This is exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended when they gave Congress power over government spending.

This situation is the inevitable result of a government that tries to maintain the fiction that republican institutions are compatible with a welfare-warfare leviathan. Congress will continue to indulge this delusion until the system collapses. This collapse will likely be brought on by a collapse in the dollar’s value.

The combination of the high-profile coronavirus bill with this year’s omnibus spending bill has brought new attention to Congress’ practice of funding the government via massive, unread appropriations bills. Hopefully, the anger people are expressing, instead of just disappearing once people receive their checks, will strengthen the movement to return to free markets and limited constitutional government. Liberty is a far better option than descent into economic chaos and totalitarianism.

ronpaulinstitute.org

President Trump’s decision earlier this month to assassinate Iran’s top military general on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraqi government – has damaged the US relationship with its “ally” Iraq and set the region on the brink of war. Iran’s measured response – a few missiles fired on an Iraqi base after advance warning was given – is the only reason the US is not mired in another Middle East war.

Trump said his decision to assassinate Gen. Qassim Soleimani was intended to prevent a war, not start a war. But no one in his right mind would think that killing another country’s top military leader would not leave that country annoyed, to say the least. Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said the Trump Administration’s briefing to Congress on its evidence to back up claims that Soleimani was about to launch attacks against the US was among the worst briefings they’d ever attended.

After initially claiming that Soleimani had to be taken out immediately because of “imminent” attacks he was launching against the US, Trump Administration officials including Secretary of State Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper have been busy walking back those claims. Esper claimed over the weekend that he had not seen the intelligence suggesting an attack on US embassies was in the works. If the Secretary of Defense did not seen the intelligence, then who did?

No doubt the Iraqi leadership recognized these kinds of deceptions: the same kinds of lies were used to push the US into attacking their own country in 2003. So it should not have come as a big surprise that the Iraqi government met last week and voted that all foreign military personnel should leave Iraqi soil.

Then a funny thing happened when the Iraqi prime minister attempted to communicate to the US government the will of the Iraqi people through their democratically-elected officials. On Thursday Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi phoned Pompeo to urgently request that Washington enact a US troop “withdrawal mechanism” in Iraq. American troops are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi government had just voted to revoke that invitation.

The State Department responded with a statement titled “The US Continued Partnership with Iraq,” in which it essentially said that the US would not abide by the request of its Iraqi partners because the US military is a “force for good” in the Middle East and that as such it is “our right” to maintain “appropriate force posture” in the region.

The US invaded Iraq based on Bush Administration lies and a million Iraqis died as a result. Later, President Obama ramped up the drone program and also backed al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists to overthrow the secular Syrian government. Obama also attacked Libya based on lies, leaving the country totally destroyed. Trump is assassinating foreign officials and threatening destruction of Iran.

And the State Department calls that a “force for good”?

The United States can be a true force for good, however. End the military occupation of the Middle East, end foreign military aid, stop using the CIA to overthrow governments. Allow Americans to travel and do business in any country they wish. Lead by example and demonstrate how free markets and peace benefit all. A “force for good” means not forcing others to bow to your will.

ronpaulinstitute.org

The US Constitution never granted the federal government authority to create a central bank. The Founders, having lived through hyperinflation themselves, understood that government should never have a printing press at its disposal. But from the very beginning of America’s founding, the desire for a crony central bank was strong.

In fact, two attempts were made at creating a permanent central bank in America prior to the creation of the Fed. Fortunately, the charter for The First Bank was allowed to expire in 1811, and President Andrew Jackson closed down the Second Bank in 1833.

But, unfortunately, a third attempt was successful and the Federal Reserve was unconstitutionally created by Congress in 1913. Americans have been living under a corrupt and immoral monetary system ever since. The Federal Reserve is the printing press that has financed the creation of the largest government to ever exist. Endless welfare and endless military spending are both made possible by the Federal Reserve. The Fed can just print the money for whatever the US establishment wants, so those of us who long for a Constitutional and limited government have few tools at our disposal.

Despite all the propaganda claiming “independence,” the Fed has always been a deeply political institution. Because the Fed is a government-created monopoly with key government-appointed employees, its so-called “independence” is a mere fiction. However, the US Congress created the Fed with legislation; it can also abolish the Fed with legislation.

Last week, the facade of Federal Reserve “independence” was dealt a severe blow. Ironically, the person who broadcast to the world that the Fed is anything but “independent” was ex-New York Fed President Bill Dudley. Dudley wrote that, “Trump’s re-election arguably presents a threat to the United States’ and global economy, and if the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, the Fed’s officials should consider how their decisions would affect the political outcome of 2020.”

The timing of Dudley’s threats to use Fed monetary policy to affect the outcome of a US election couldn’t come at a more striking time. After all, for more than two solid years Americans have been bombarded with fabricated stories about Russians rigging our elections. And yet here is a Federal Reserve official threatening to do the same exact thing – but this time for real!

Whether it’s the mainstream media, the CIA, the FBI, or now the Federal Reserve, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that there is a Deep State in America and its interests have nothing to do with American liberty. In fact, our liberty is what the Deep State wants to abolish.

When it comes to the Federal Reserve, I stand firmly by my conviction that it needs to be audited and then ended as soon as possible.

America’s Founders were not perfect. They were human beings just as capable of error as we are. But they had a remarkable understanding of the ideas of liberty. They understood that liberty cannot exist with a government that has access to a printing press. Sound money and liberty go hand-in-hand. If we want to enjoy the blessings of Liberty, we must audit and then end the Federal Reserve!

ronpaulinstitute.org

Jack HUNTER

The United States almost started a war with Iran only for President Donald Trump to change his mind at the last minute. Reports indicate that the usual suspect, National Security Adviser John Bolton, was the main advocate for airstrikes, with the backing of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and CIA head Gina Haspel, as well as encouragement from Senate war hawks Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton.

Earlier on Thursday, responding to news that Iran had reportedly downed an unmanned American drone, Trump said, “Look, I said I want to get out of these endless wars, I campaigned on that, I want to get out.” Trump’s cautiousness seemed as much a response to the Washington chorus crying for military action as the event itself.

More importantly, if the swamp wants war—who has the president’s back in pushing peace?

This might be the most important question in American politics right now.

TAC ’s Barbara Boland reported in early June that the purpose of wedging the now-outgoing Patrick Shanahan into his acting defense secretary position was to put Bolton at the top of the foreign policy food chain (the incoming Mark Esper could fill a similar role).

“He’s likely to default to whatever Pompeo or Bolton wants,” retired US Army colonel and defense analyst Douglas Macgregor said of Shanahan. “Pompeo and Bolton have agendas. They’re not Trump’s, but in the absence of strong leadership, Shanahan is unlikely to put up much resistance.”

In mid-June, Pompeo blamed alleged attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Iran. TAC noted that Pompeo “did not cite specific evidence as to why the US believes Iran, or its proxies, are responsible for the attacks.” One oil tanker owner said the US account was wrong. Some wondered whether this could be another Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Despite claiming to not want a military confrontation since joining the Trump administration, it’s no secret that Pompeo and Bolton have wanted war with Iran for some time.

Rand Paul Against the World

Sanctions: Trump’s Cruel Substitute for an Actual Iran Policy

Luckily—as the world was reminded Thursday night—one person who says he doesn’t want war happens to be their boss.

“I’m not somebody that wants to go in to war, because war hurts economies, war kills people most importantly—by far most importantly,” Trump told Fox News in mid-May when asked about Iran. The likely death toll was reportedly also a major factor in why the president called off airstrikes Thursday night.

Trump appears to understand the hawkish nature of the Washington foreign policy establishment that surrounds him. “Don’t kid yourself, you do have a military industrial complex. They do like war,” Trump told Fox News. “I say, ‘I want to bring our troops back home,’ the place went crazy…. You have people here in Washington…they never want to leave, they always want to fight.”

“No, I don’t want to fight,” Trump added.

Trump’s impulses, if not always his policy actions, are generally anti-war.Unfortunately, most in his immediate orbit do not share those inclinations, with unrepentant Iraq war cheerleader Bolton topping the list.

But as Bolton’s influence reportedly grows, who is the only person the president talks to who shares his more restrained “America First” foreign policy vision?

“While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the [Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul,” Politico reported in August. “He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul,” the White House aide reportedly said. (I covered Politico ’s revelations at the time for TAC. )

Politico noted, “Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change [in Iran] even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White House.”

“’Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,’ this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East,” Politico reported.

That was 10 months ago. Today, in addition to almost bombing Iran on Thursday, the saber rattling and accusations are ratcheting up along with the troop deployments, no doubt making Pompeo and Bolton happy and likely reflecting their handiwork.

But despite these moves, Trump’s gut still seems to be closer to Paul’s realism than what Republican hawks seek. Politico reported on May 20, “The president has fashioned himself far more in the mold of Paul than the hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.), who was shocked by Trump’s plans to pull out of Syria and only was able to convince Trump to leave a small force in the country.”

Politico further noted: “Trump’s hiring of John Bolton as national security adviser may have changed the approach inside the White House, but Trump’s dovish core hasn’t changed, senators said. Perhaps that can’t prevent conflict with Iran if it strikes first, but they said they were confident that Trump’s aggressive posture is far more about a Trumpian brand of diplomacy than it is about marching to war.”

Let’s hope. Amid the constant tug-of-war for Trump’s favor between his hawkish advisers and his realist champions , the president still hasn’t launched a war against Iran or anyone else.

But Trump will continue to need sound minds and advice. The Daily Beast reports that in addition to Paul’s counsel, the president might also be getting the right encouragement from Tucker Carlson. “A source familiar with the conversations told The Daily Beast that, in recent weeks, the Fox News host has privately advised Trump against taking military action against Iran,” The Daily Beast notes. “And a senior administration official said that during the president’s recent conversations with the Fox primetime host, Carlson has bashed the more ‘hawkish members’ of his administration.”

The president obviously needs all the backup he can get. Because unless I’m missing something and sane foreign policy thinkers like Andrew Bacevich or Jim Webb have had some secret correspondence with the president, there is almost no one else talking to Trump who wants to avoid war.

Rand Paul’s continuing role as unofficial adviser to the president might be his most important. Some might ask what one man could possibly accomplish.

Just ask John Bolton.

theamericanconservative.com