Category: Aggregated

New events have occurred this week in the campaign to force the U.S. Government to declassify and disclose to the public, the 28-page chapter of Congress’s report on the September 11, 2001, attacks which was withheld when the report was published in December 2002.

On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Bob Graham (ret.) was interviewed by Larry King on King’s Internet-TV show PoliticKING to urge release of the chapter. Graham co-chaired the joint US Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence Committees’ investigation of U.S. agencies’ failure to prevent the attacks, the subject of the report. In his introduction, King said that Graham is seeking disclosure of the 28 pages, because he says they implicate Saudi citizens in helping the terrorists who attacked the US.

King’s first question was why the 28-page section is classified. “It’s a mystery to me,” Graham said, and confirmed that he’s read the chapter, and helped write it, but cannot discuss the details, because it’s classified. However, he said, it’s been reported that it concerns who financed the attacks, and implicates Saudi Arabia. To flesh this out, he discussed at some length, events that were not in the 28 pages but about which much is known: the actions of Saudi agents and two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. After he mentioned funds transferred by the wife of Saudi Ambassador Bandar, King said he knows Prince Bandar, and asked why Bandar would get involved in this. Graham sketched out a hypothesis that Osama bin Laden had demanded — under threat of launching an insurrection in Saudi Arabia — that the Saudi Royal Family provide assistance from Saudi intelligence assets in preparing the 9/11 attacks.

The previous day, Jerusalem Post columnist Michael Freund quoted Sen. Graham‘s April 17 opinion piece published in the Tampa Bay Times, about the “unanswered question” of whether the 9/11 hijackers while in the US acted alone, or whether others facilitated them; Freund noted that Graham and others say there is a host of evidence that “senior figures from Saudi Arabia financed and assisted the atrocity.” Freund also endorsed Graham’s efforts to get the 28 pages released, quoting Graham that “Saudi Arabia was the home of al-Qaeda and was instrumental in the creation of ISIS.” These, he quoted Graham, “are the poisonous fruits that have grown from our refusal to sanction the kingdom for what it did.”

Freund concluded his article, “… the Saudis must finally be made to understand that they cannot continue to spread extremism and intolerance with impunity. Release the 28 pages from the 9/11 report, President Obama, and let the public decide for itself if Saudi Arabia is truly worthy of being called ‘friend’ or ‘foe.'” Freund is described as having “served as Deputy Communications Director in Israeli Prime Minister’s Office under Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term,” 1996-1999.

New events have occurred this week in the campaign to force the U.S. Government to declassify and disclose to the public, the 28-page chapter of Congress’s report on the September 11, 2001, attacks which was withheld when the report was published in December 2002.

On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Bob Graham (ret.) was interviewed by Larry King on King’s Internet-TV show PoliticKING to urge release of the chapter. Graham co-chaired the joint US Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence Committees’ investigation of U.S. agencies’ failure to prevent the attacks, the subject of the report. In his introduction, King said that Graham is seeking disclosure of the 28 pages, because he says they implicate Saudi citizens in helping the terrorists who attacked the US.

King’s first question was why the 28-page section is classified. “It’s a mystery to me,” Graham said, and confirmed that he’s read the chapter, and helped write it, but cannot discuss the details, because it’s classified. However, he said, it’s been reported that it concerns who financed the attacks, and implicates Saudi Arabia. To flesh this out, he discussed at some length, events that were not in the 28 pages but about which much is known: the actions of Saudi agents and two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. After he mentioned funds transferred by the wife of Saudi Ambassador Bandar, King said he knows Prince Bandar, and asked why Bandar would get involved in this. Graham sketched out a hypothesis that Osama bin Laden had demanded — under threat of launching an insurrection in Saudi Arabia — that the Saudi Royal Family provide assistance from Saudi intelligence assets in preparing the 9/11 attacks.

The previous day, Jerusalem Post columnist Michael Freund quoted Sen. Graham‘s April 17 opinion piece published in the Tampa Bay Times, about the “unanswered question” of whether the 9/11 hijackers while in the US acted alone, or whether others facilitated them; Freund noted that Graham and others say there is a host of evidence that “senior figures from Saudi Arabia financed and assisted the atrocity.” Freund also endorsed Graham’s efforts to get the 28 pages released, quoting Graham that “Saudi Arabia was the home of al-Qaeda and was instrumental in the creation of ISIS.” These, he quoted Graham, “are the poisonous fruits that have grown from our refusal to sanction the kingdom for what it did.”

Freund concluded his article, “… the Saudis must finally be made to understand that they cannot continue to spread extremism and intolerance with impunity. Release the 28 pages from the 9/11 report, President Obama, and let the public decide for itself if Saudi Arabia is truly worthy of being called ‘friend’ or ‘foe.'” Freund is described as having “served as Deputy Communications Director in Israeli Prime Minister’s Office under Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term,” 1996-1999.

New events have occurred this week in the campaign to force the U.S. Government to declassify and disclose to the public, the 28-page chapter of Congress’s report on the September 11, 2001, attacks which was withheld when the report was published in December 2002.

On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Bob Graham (ret.) was interviewed by Larry King on King’s Internet-TV show PoliticKING to urge release of the chapter. Graham co-chaired the joint US Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence Committees’ investigation of U.S. agencies’ failure to prevent the attacks, the subject of the report. In his introduction, King said that Graham is seeking disclosure of the 28 pages, because he says they implicate Saudi citizens in helping the terrorists who attacked the US.

King’s first question was why the 28-page section is classified. “It’s a mystery to me,” Graham said, and confirmed that he’s read the chapter, and helped write it, but cannot discuss the details, because it’s classified. However, he said, it’s been reported that it concerns who financed the attacks, and implicates Saudi Arabia. To flesh this out, he discussed at some length, events that were not in the 28 pages but about which much is known: the actions of Saudi agents and two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. After he mentioned funds transferred by the wife of Saudi Ambassador Bandar, King said he knows Prince Bandar, and asked why Bandar would get involved in this. Graham sketched out a hypothesis that Osama bin Laden had demanded — under threat of launching an insurrection in Saudi Arabia — that the Saudi Royal Family provide assistance from Saudi intelligence assets in preparing the 9/11 attacks.

The previous day, Jerusalem Post columnist Michael Freund quoted Sen. Graham‘s April 17 opinion piece published in the Tampa Bay Times, about the “unanswered question” of whether the 9/11 hijackers while in the US acted alone, or whether others facilitated them; Freund noted that Graham and others say there is a host of evidence that “senior figures from Saudi Arabia financed and assisted the atrocity.” Freund also endorsed Graham’s efforts to get the 28 pages released, quoting Graham that “Saudi Arabia was the home of al-Qaeda and was instrumental in the creation of ISIS.” These, he quoted Graham, “are the poisonous fruits that have grown from our refusal to sanction the kingdom for what it did.”

Freund concluded his article, “… the Saudis must finally be made to understand that they cannot continue to spread extremism and intolerance with impunity. Release the 28 pages from the 9/11 report, President Obama, and let the public decide for itself if Saudi Arabia is truly worthy of being called ‘friend’ or ‘foe.'” Freund is described as having “served as Deputy Communications Director in Israeli Prime Minister’s Office under Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term,” 1996-1999.

When John Corzine’s MFGlobal brokerage liquidated, taking hundreds of millions in its clients’ illegally pledged deposits with it, ex-FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote a column posing the question, what if a large commercial bank had done this with its depositor’s funds? It was one of Bair’s few public flirtations with calling for the Glass-Steagall Act to be restored.

Then came the “London Whale,” where a large commercial bank (JPMorgan Chase) did just that with its depositors’ funds. Then followed Wall Street’s December 2014 rampage over Congress, forcing repeal of a regulation which prohibited the big banks from backing their riskiest derivatives trades with their FDIC-insured commercial depository units.

Now Bank of America is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, for executing large, very complex securities transactions directly inside its largest customers’ depository accounts. BoA was doing this by making large loans to its large clients, with which its brokerage unit, Merrill Lynch, then purchased extremely complex securities products for those customers. Why? So that the bank would have lower net liabilities to its big depositors (because ostensibly it had made them loans whose repayment they owed), and therefore the bank would have to set less funds aside under bank regulations to cover its obligations to those clients. BoA would have more funds with which to “trade,” or speculate. In fact, BoA was freeing up its own funds for speculation, by making complex trades with its large clients’ money, and offering those clients a small “cut” of the bank’s resulting profits.

At any moment, the exact fate of MFGlobal’s unfortunate large brokerage clients (many of whom were farmers) was hanging over the heads of these large depositors of Bank of America.

There is no difference between this and the practice of National City Bank in the 1920s, of selling its depositors shares in the bank and its stock speculations — the practice exposed by Ferdinand Pecora which directly spurred passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933.

With the SEC investigation under way, Bank of America now states it ceased this practice two years ago — not likely — and that the Fed, its safety and soundness regulator, knew all about it — likely. At worst, the SEC will extract a civil fine. All the barriers to big bank crime are down until Glass-Steagall is restored.

When John Corzine’s MFGlobal brokerage liquidated, taking hundreds of millions in its clients’ illegally pledged deposits with it, ex-FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote a column posing the question, what if a large commercial bank had done this with its depositor’s funds? It was one of Bair’s few public flirtations with calling for the Glass-Steagall Act to be restored.

Then came the “London Whale,” where a large commercial bank (JPMorgan Chase) did just that with its depositors’ funds. Then followed Wall Street’s December 2014 rampage over Congress, forcing repeal of a regulation which prohibited the big banks from backing their riskiest derivatives trades with their FDIC-insured commercial depository units.

Now Bank of America is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, for executing large, very complex securities transactions directly inside its largest customers’ depository accounts. BoA was doing this by making large loans to its large clients, with which its brokerage unit, Merrill Lynch, then purchased extremely complex securities products for those customers. Why? So that the bank would have lower net liabilities to its big depositors (because ostensibly it had made them loans whose repayment they owed), and therefore the bank would have to set less funds aside under bank regulations to cover its obligations to those clients. BoA would have more funds with which to “trade,” or speculate. In fact, BoA was freeing up its own funds for speculation, by making complex trades with its large clients’ money, and offering those clients a small “cut” of the bank’s resulting profits.

At any moment, the exact fate of MFGlobal’s unfortunate large brokerage clients (many of whom were farmers) was hanging over the heads of these large depositors of Bank of America.

There is no difference between this and the practice of National City Bank in the 1920s, of selling its depositors shares in the bank and its stock speculations — the practice exposed by Ferdinand Pecora which directly spurred passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933.

With the SEC investigation under way, Bank of America now states it ceased this practice two years ago — not likely — and that the Fed, its safety and soundness regulator, knew all about it — likely. At worst, the SEC will extract a civil fine. All the barriers to big bank crime are down until Glass-Steagall is restored.

When John Corzine’s MFGlobal brokerage liquidated, taking hundreds of millions in its clients’ illegally pledged deposits with it, ex-FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote a column posing the question, what if a large commercial bank had done this with its depositor’s funds? It was one of Bair’s few public flirtations with calling for the Glass-Steagall Act to be restored.

Then came the “London Whale,” where a large commercial bank (JPMorgan Chase) did just that with its depositors’ funds. Then followed Wall Street’s December 2014 rampage over Congress, forcing repeal of a regulation which prohibited the big banks from backing their riskiest derivatives trades with their FDIC-insured commercial depository units.

Now Bank of America is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, for executing large, very complex securities transactions directly inside its largest customers’ depository accounts. BoA was doing this by making large loans to its large clients, with which its brokerage unit, Merrill Lynch, then purchased extremely complex securities products for those customers. Why? So that the bank would have lower net liabilities to its big depositors (because ostensibly it had made them loans whose repayment they owed), and therefore the bank would have to set less funds aside under bank regulations to cover its obligations to those clients. BoA would have more funds with which to “trade,” or speculate. In fact, BoA was freeing up its own funds for speculation, by making complex trades with its large clients’ money, and offering those clients a small “cut” of the bank’s resulting profits.

At any moment, the exact fate of MFGlobal’s unfortunate large brokerage clients (many of whom were farmers) was hanging over the heads of these large depositors of Bank of America.

There is no difference between this and the practice of National City Bank in the 1920s, of selling its depositors shares in the bank and its stock speculations — the practice exposed by Ferdinand Pecora which directly spurred passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933.

With the SEC investigation under way, Bank of America now states it ceased this practice two years ago — not likely — and that the Fed, its safety and soundness regulator, knew all about it — likely. At worst, the SEC will extract a civil fine. All the barriers to big bank crime are down until Glass-Steagall is restored.

On Wednesday, April 29, a group of thirty retired generals and diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, India, Britain, Germany, France, Pakistan, South Korea, and Israel issued a dire warning that the world is in grave danger of thermonuclear extinction. The report, issued by the Global Zero Commission, chaired by former US Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, called on the US and Russia to immediately reach an agreement to end the policy of “launch on warning,” under which the world is held hostage to a hair-trigger doctrine of immediate thermonuclear exchanges.

The 100-page report, which was preceded by a New York Times op-ed on April 19, signed by Gen. Cartwright and by Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, the retired head of intelligence for Russia’s Strategic Rocket Force, echoed warnings that have been made by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, and others, for the last four years, about the growing danger of thermonuclear extinction.

LaRouche’s unique contribution to the war-avoidance drive is that he has identified the underlying reasons for the growing threat of thermonuclear Armageddon, in the desperation of the British Empire over the doom of its global financial dictatorship, and the emergence of a truly human alternative in the BRICS and New Silk Road initiatives, led by China, Russia and India in concert.

The only problem with the otherwise appropriate call, by the retired generals and diplomats, for a thermonuclear de-escalation, through an end to the short-fuse doctrine of launch on warning, is that it will never happen—so long as Barack Obama remains in office as President. Obama is a witting tool of the very forces that are desperate to eliminate the vast majority of the human race—even if it risks thermonuclear extinction. He is not only a British agent; he is too much of a relic of his mother and her killer antics in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.

Only by removing Obama from office—on readily available Constitutional grounds—can the world ever be secure.

The same Obama factor is evident in the escalation towards war in Southwest Asia. With the recent days’ purge in Saudi Arabia, the hardcore Al Qaeda faction within the Saudi Royal Family has not only tightened their grip on power. On behalf of their partners in London, they are driving the region towards a perpetual sectarian war, stretching from Yemen all the way to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in Syria and Lebanon. King Salman has sealed a secret deal with President Erdogan of Turkey to back Al Qaeda forces in an intensified drive to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus.

When Gulf Cooperation Council heads of state come to meet with Obama at Camp David on May 14, Obama is ready to throw his support behind the drive to blow up the entire Southwest Asia, Persian Gulf, Eastern Mediterranean region, by trading off support for the Saudi-led war drive in exchange for nominal support for the P5+1 deal with Iran.

Again, Lyndon LaRouche was way out ahead in warning, right after the Geneva announcement of a P5+1 framework agreement last month, that unless the U.S. really put the screws on Saudi Arabia, the deal would be nothing but a trigger for a big regional war. Obama persists in giving cover to the Saudis, by refusing to release the 28-page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, a chapter that details the Saudi funding of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

For these crimes—and many, many more—Obama must be removed from office now. Anything less than that immediate action places mankind at risk of extinction. Not only is the President guilty of impeachable crimes against the Constitution. His behavior—risking a thermonuclear Armageddon—qualifies him to be immediately ousted under the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of president who is no longer physically or psychologically fit to serve.

On Wednesday, April 29, a group of thirty retired generals and diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, India, Britain, Germany, France, Pakistan, South Korea, and Israel issued a dire warning that the world is in grave danger of thermonuclear extinction. The report, issued by the Global Zero Commission, chaired by former US Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, called on the US and Russia to immediately reach an agreement to end the policy of “launch on warning,” under which the world is held hostage to a hair-trigger doctrine of immediate thermonuclear exchanges.

The 100-page report, which was preceded by a New York Times op-ed on April 19, signed by Gen. Cartwright and by Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, the retired head of intelligence for Russia’s Strategic Rocket Force, echoed warnings that have been made by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, and others, for the last four years, about the growing danger of thermonuclear extinction.

LaRouche’s unique contribution to the war-avoidance drive is that he has identified the underlying reasons for the growing threat of thermonuclear Armageddon, in the desperation of the British Empire over the doom of its global financial dictatorship, and the emergence of a truly human alternative in the BRICS and New Silk Road initiatives, led by China, Russia and India in concert.

The only problem with the otherwise appropriate call, by the retired generals and diplomats, for a thermonuclear de-escalation, through an end to the short-fuse doctrine of launch on warning, is that it will never happen—so long as Barack Obama remains in office as President. Obama is a witting tool of the very forces that are desperate to eliminate the vast majority of the human race—even if it risks thermonuclear extinction. He is not only a British agent; he is too much of a relic of his mother and her killer antics in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.

Only by removing Obama from office—on readily available Constitutional grounds—can the world ever be secure.

The same Obama factor is evident in the escalation towards war in Southwest Asia. With the recent days’ purge in Saudi Arabia, the hardcore Al Qaeda faction within the Saudi Royal Family has not only tightened their grip on power. On behalf of their partners in London, they are driving the region towards a perpetual sectarian war, stretching from Yemen all the way to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in Syria and Lebanon. King Salman has sealed a secret deal with President Erdogan of Turkey to back Al Qaeda forces in an intensified drive to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus.

When Gulf Cooperation Council heads of state come to meet with Obama at Camp David on May 14, Obama is ready to throw his support behind the drive to blow up the entire Southwest Asia, Persian Gulf, Eastern Mediterranean region, by trading off support for the Saudi-led war drive in exchange for nominal support for the P5+1 deal with Iran.

Again, Lyndon LaRouche was way out ahead in warning, right after the Geneva announcement of a P5+1 framework agreement last month, that unless the U.S. really put the screws on Saudi Arabia, the deal would be nothing but a trigger for a big regional war. Obama persists in giving cover to the Saudis, by refusing to release the 28-page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, a chapter that details the Saudi funding of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

For these crimes—and many, many more—Obama must be removed from office now. Anything less than that immediate action places mankind at risk of extinction. Not only is the President guilty of impeachable crimes against the Constitution. His behavior—risking a thermonuclear Armageddon—qualifies him to be immediately ousted under the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of president who is no longer physically or psychologically fit to serve.

On Wednesday, April 29, a group of thirty retired generals and diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, India, Britain, Germany, France, Pakistan, South Korea, and Israel issued a dire warning that the world is in grave danger of thermonuclear extinction. The report, issued by the Global Zero Commission, chaired by former US Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, called on the US and Russia to immediately reach an agreement to end the policy of “launch on warning,” under which the world is held hostage to a hair-trigger doctrine of immediate thermonuclear exchanges.

The 100-page report, which was preceded by a New York Times op-ed on April 19, signed by Gen. Cartwright and by Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, the retired head of intelligence for Russia’s Strategic Rocket Force, echoed warnings that have been made by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, and others, for the last four years, about the growing danger of thermonuclear extinction.

LaRouche’s unique contribution to the war-avoidance drive is that he has identified the underlying reasons for the growing threat of thermonuclear Armageddon, in the desperation of the British Empire over the doom of its global financial dictatorship, and the emergence of a truly human alternative in the BRICS and New Silk Road initiatives, led by China, Russia and India in concert.

The only problem with the otherwise appropriate call, by the retired generals and diplomats, for a thermonuclear de-escalation, through an end to the short-fuse doctrine of launch on warning, is that it will never happen—so long as Barack Obama remains in office as President. Obama is a witting tool of the very forces that are desperate to eliminate the vast majority of the human race—even if it risks thermonuclear extinction. He is not only a British agent; he is too much of a relic of his mother and her killer antics in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.

Only by removing Obama from office—on readily available Constitutional grounds—can the world ever be secure.

The same Obama factor is evident in the escalation towards war in Southwest Asia. With the recent days’ purge in Saudi Arabia, the hardcore Al Qaeda faction within the Saudi Royal Family has not only tightened their grip on power. On behalf of their partners in London, they are driving the region towards a perpetual sectarian war, stretching from Yemen all the way to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in Syria and Lebanon. King Salman has sealed a secret deal with President Erdogan of Turkey to back Al Qaeda forces in an intensified drive to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus.

When Gulf Cooperation Council heads of state come to meet with Obama at Camp David on May 14, Obama is ready to throw his support behind the drive to blow up the entire Southwest Asia, Persian Gulf, Eastern Mediterranean region, by trading off support for the Saudi-led war drive in exchange for nominal support for the P5+1 deal with Iran.

Again, Lyndon LaRouche was way out ahead in warning, right after the Geneva announcement of a P5+1 framework agreement last month, that unless the U.S. really put the screws on Saudi Arabia, the deal would be nothing but a trigger for a big regional war. Obama persists in giving cover to the Saudis, by refusing to release the 28-page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, a chapter that details the Saudi funding of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

For these crimes—and many, many more—Obama must be removed from office now. Anything less than that immediate action places mankind at risk of extinction. Not only is the President guilty of impeachable crimes against the Constitution. His behavior—risking a thermonuclear Armageddon—qualifies him to be immediately ousted under the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of president who is no longer physically or psychologically fit to serve.