How the Global Warming Scare Began

The Quigley Formula - G. Edward Griffin

An excellent lecture by G. Edward Griffin entitled "The Quigley Formula: A conspiratorial view of history as taught by the conspirators themselves"

"Quigley" is the late Carroll Quigley, a Council on Foreign Relations member and historian, as well as mentor to CFR & Trilateral Commission member Bill Clinton. 

The lecture is based around the following quote from his book Tragedy & Hope, pp. 1247-1248:

"The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War)....The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. ... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

25 Fast Facts About The Federal Reserve –

 By Michael Snyder, on September 15th, 2013

As we approach the 100 year anniversary of the creation of the Federal Reserve, it is absolutely imperative that we get the American people to understand that the Fed is at the very heart of our economic problems.  It is a system of money that was created by the bankers and that operates for the benefit of the bankers.  The American people like to think that we have a "democratic system", but there is nothing "democratic" about the Federal Reserve.  Unelected, unaccountable central planners from a private central bank run our financial system and manage our economy.  There is a reason why financial markets respond with a yawn when Barack Obama says something about the economy, but they swing wildly whenever Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke opens his mouth.  The Federal Reserve has far more power over the U.S. economy than anyone else does by a huge margin.  The Fed is the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world, and if the American people truly understood how it really works, they would be screaming for it to be abolished immediately.  The following are 25 fast facts about the Federal Reserve that everyone should know...

#1 The greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history was whenthere was no central bank.

#2 The United States never had a persistent, ongoing problem with inflation until the Federal Reserve was created.  In the century before the Federal Reserve was created, the average annual rate of inflation was about half a percent.  In the century since the Federal Reserve was created, the average annual rate of inflation has beenabout 3.5 percent, and it would be even higher than that if the inflation numbers were not being so grossly manipulated.

#3 Even using the official numbers, the value of the U.S. dollar has declined by more than 95 percent since the Federal Reserve was created nearly 100 years ago.

#4 The secret November 1910 gathering at Jekyll Island, Georgia during which the plan for the Federal Reserve was hatched was attended by U.S. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department A.P. Andrews and a whole host of representatives from the upper crust of the Wall Street banking establishment.

#5 In 1913, Congress was promised that if the Federal Reserve Act was passed that it would eliminate the business cycle.

#6 The following comes directly from the Fed's official mission statement: "To provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded."

#7 It was not an accident that a permanent income tax was also introduced the same year when the Federal Reserve system was established.  The whole idea was to transfer wealth from our pockets to the federal government and from the federal government to the bankers.

#8 Within 20 years of the creation of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy was plunged into the Great Depression.

#9 If you can believe it, there have been 10 different economic recessions since 1950.  The Federal Reserve created the "dotcom bubble", the Federal Reserve created the "housing bubble" and now it has created the largest bond bubble in the history of the planet.

#10 According to an official government report, the Federal Reserve made 16.1 trillion dollars in secret loans to the big banks during the last financial crisis.  The following is a list of loan recipients that was taken directly from page 131 of the report...

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

#11 The Federal Reserve also paid those big banks $659.4 million in fees to help "administer" those secret loans.

#12 The Federal Reserve has created approximately 2.75 trillion dollars out of thin air and injected it into the financial system over the past five years.  This has allowed the stock market to soar to unprecedented heights, but it has also caused our financial system to become extremely unstable.

#13 We were told that the purpose of quantitative easing is to help "stimulate the economy", but today the Federal Reserve is actually paying the big banks not to lend out 1.8 trillion dollars in "excess reserves" that they have parked at the Fed.

#14 Quantitative easing overwhelming benefits those that own stocks and other financial investments.  In other words, quantitative easing overwhelmingly favors the very wealthy.  Even Barack Obama has admitted that 95 percent of the income gains since he has been president have gone to the top one percent of income earners.

#15 The gap between the top one percent and the rest of the country is now the greatest that it has been since the 1920s.

#16 The Federal Reserve has argued vehemently in federal court that it is "not an agency" of the federal government and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

#17 The Federal Reserve openly admits that the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are organized "much like private corporations".

#18 The regional Federal Reserve banks issue shares of stock to the "member banks" that own them.

#19 The Federal Reserve system greatly favors the biggest banks.  Back in 1970, the five largest U.S. banks held 17 percent of all U.S. banking industry assets.  Today, the five largest U.S. banks hold 52 percent of all U.S. banking industry assets.

#20 The Federal Reserve is supposed to "regulate" the big banks, but it has done nothing to stop a 441 trillion dollar interest rate derivatives bubble from inflating which could absolutely devastate our entire financial system.

#21 The Federal Reserve was designed to be a perpetual debt machine.  The bankers that designed it intended to trap the U.S. government in a perpetual debt spiral from which it could never possibly escape.  Since the Federal Reserve was established nearly 100 years ago, the U.S. national debt has gotten more than 5000 times larger.

#22 The U.S. government will spend more than 400 billion dollarsjust on interest on the national debt this year.

#23 If the average rate of interest on U.S. government debt rises to just 6 percent (and it has been much higher than that in the past), we will be paying out more than a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the national debt.

#24 According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Congress is the one that is supposed to have the authority to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".  So exactly why is the Federal Reserve doing it?

#25 There are plenty of possible alternative financial systems, but at this point all 187 nations that belong to the IMF have a central bank.  Are we supposed to believe that this is just some sort of a bizarre coincidence?

Be Sociable, Share!

Jim Sinclair: Russia Can Collapse US Economy, Gold Update, Silver is Gold on Steroids & More

http://usawatchdog.com/putin-has-nucl... Gold expert Jim Sinclair is issuing a warning of a massive downside risk to U.S. sanctions against Russia. Sinclair says watch the "struggling dollar" and Russia accepting any currency for oil and natural gas. Sinclair explains, "It's struggling . . . because it smells the real teeth of retaliation for sanctions being in the simple acceptance of any currency whatsoever for payment for gas to Europe. Believe me, they will settle in other currencies. . . . It makes energy cheaper. Why in the world would anyone want to pay in dollars if they can pay in their own currency? Russia could retaliate in a way that would have phenomenal impact on the U.S. dollar. . . . Russia has the upper hand. They have it in their ability to turn the U.S. economy upside down and into collapse. There is no question whatsoever. Putin doesn't need a nuclear bomb. He has a nuclear economic bomb that he can set off at any time." 

What would the price of gold be this year? Sinclair predicts, "Gold has $2,000 an ounce in its sites in 2014." On silver, Sinclair says, "Silver is gold on steroids. When gold takes off, silver goes up faster. . . . So, the idea you are going to get an old high on silver or better is a given."

Join greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with Jim Sinclair of JSMineset.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kremlin: If The US Tries To Hurt Russia’s Economy, Russia Will Target The Dollar

testosteronepit.com
March 15, 2014

Another warning shot was fired before an all-out assault on the dollar system begins. This time, an official shot: Alexey Ulyukaev, Russia’s Minister of Economic Development and former Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank, fired it. It was a major escalation, Valentin Mândrăşescu, editor of The Voice of Russia’s Reality Check, told me from Moscow.

Last time, it was Sergei Glazyev, an advisor to Vladimir Putin who’d fired the shot. But he wasn’t a government official. “Anonymous sources” at the Kremlin claimed he wasn’t speaking for the government. As Mândrăşescu reported in his excellent article, From Now On, No Compromises Are Possible For Russia:

From the economic point of view, everyone should get ready for tough actions from Moscow. Sergei Glazyev, the most hardline of Putin’s advisors, sketched the retaliation strategy: Drop the dollar, sell US Treasuries, encourage Russian companies to default on their dollar-denominated debts, and create an alternative currency system (reference currency) with the BRICS and hydrocarbon producers like Venezuela and Iran.

Unlike radical-sounding Glazyev, Ulyukaev is part of Dmitry Medvedev’s Cabinet. And as former Deputy Chairman of the Bank of Russia, he doesn’t take currencies lightly. He told Rossia-24 news channel about possible retaliatory measures if Washington adds economic sanctions to the political sanctions. Moscow wouldn’t worry too much about political sanctions, he said, but if Washington tries to hurt Russia’s economy, Moscow would retaliate by targeting the US dollar.

Read more

Obama’s Former Foreign Policy Adviser Said – In 1997 – that the U.S. Had to Gain Control of Ukraine

Washington’s Blog
March 16, 2014

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Battle for Ukraine Was Planned in 1997 … Or Earlier

Neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 years ago. Robert Parry correctly points out that the Neocons have successfully “weathered the storm” of disdain after their Iraq war fiasco.But the truth is that Obama has long done his best to try to implement those Neocon plans.

Similarly, ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. has pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran.

In 1997, Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, and president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard arguing arguing that the U.S. had to take control of Ukraine (as well as Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran) because they were “critically important geopolitical pivots”.

Regarding Ukraine, Brzezinski said (hat tip Chris Ernesto):

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.

***

However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.

And now Obama is pushing us into a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and the Crimea.

As Ernesto notes:

Late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.

At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland [arch-Neocon Robert Kagan's wife]  and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.  When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.

In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.

In other words, Obama is following the same old playbook that the Neocons have been pushing for more than a decade.

Woody Harrelson: Ethos

Hosted by twice Oscar nominated actor Woody Harrelson, Ethos explores the mechanisms in our systems that work against democracy, the environment and our own personal liberty.

US should not take Americans' money to pick next leader in Ukraine - Ron Paul

Photo: AFP

Play

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time0:00

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

00:00

00:00

Mute

Download audio file

"There are two things – whether or not we should be involved, with the intrigue of picking the next leader in a particular country, or whether or not we should take money from Americans and give it to somebody else. I don’t think we should be in the business of picking who should be running which country around the world," Ron Paul, a former US Congressman and a long-time Federal Reserve critic, has said in an exclusive interview to the Voice of Russia, speaking about the Ukrainian crisis.

For radio VR in Washington, I’m Samir Shakhbaz. We’ll be discussing right now the situation in and around Ukraine with a man who doesn’t need long introductions – Dr. Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul, hello and welcome!

Hello! Nice to be with you.

Viktor Yanukovych made his second address to the press since his arrival in Russia. A very interesting point – he wants to appeal to the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court regarding the US plans to lend $1 billion to Kiev. He believes it is illegal and he refers to authorization of assistance article in the US law. Can you comment on that? Can he actually do that?

I don’t know exactly what he wants to do. I mean, he can give an opinion. Congress and the President generally do what they want to do. When you look at things the way I do, in a strict constitutional sense, in moral sense – all these programs are considered illegal and we shouldn’t be doing them. But that’s not the way they look at it. They rationalize and justify it.

So, they do almost what they want and if they can’t do it with the justification of law, they do it like they did on the bailouts during our emergency. They just go ahead and do it and the Federal Reserve provides funds and sums of money. So, I think this is sort of a ritual they go through to justify it by certain legislative sanctions and certain laws. But if they are destined to bailout somebody, they will do it, whether we know about it or not.

If it is bailing out, it sounds bad. But what if we call it a friendly assistance?

From the US to the various countries?

Right!

I don’t believe it, because I think nobody has the right to come and take the money from the American taxpayer. And because they are friends and they want a bailout, they want help and they want assistance or no matter how noble the purpose seems to be, I don’t think the end justifies the means.

So, I don’t think that we should redistribute wealth within our own country and I don’t believe we should redistribute wealth around the world with the use of force. I mean, there’s obviously a lot of debt in Ukraine, as there has been around the world. We were very much involved in the bailing out of Greece and propping up the banking system.

So, Ukraine is bankrupt, they don’t have the funds and the bankers are getting worried about this, and the various people who wrote money. So, if they can get a rescue, for various reasons they will come, because people still accept the dollar. The biggest question is the political question of who get the control of this money, who is going to be in charge. That’s what the arguing is about.

So, there are two things – whether or not we should be involved, with the intrigue of picking the next leader in a particular country, or whether or not we should take money from Americans and give it to somebody else. I would say that that is the real problem that we have to face. And then, again, I don’t think we should be in the business of picking who should be running which country around the world.

Also, Yanukovych said that he still considers himself to be the legitimate President and called the new Government illegitimate. Can you comment on that? Do you believe he is still a President?

Well, my personal viewpoint doesn’t matter that much. I can have an opinion and I tend to think that that is probably the case. But that doesn’t mean that I endorse everything he ever did or the system. But, yes, I think that we have evidence that the EU and our Government had contrived to orchestrate a change in government, and they were able to achieve this.

But the only position I speak strongly to is that we shouldn’t be involved, we shouldn’t participate. If there were only the eastern Ukrainians against the western Ukrainians, that would be a better way of solving problems. But if the Europeans get involved and the Russians get involved, then that’s something else. But certainly, my very determined position is that it would be best for that region, it would be best for America if we just stayed out of the argument.

The US, the EU, Russia – everyone is appealing to the international law and each of these players say that they are abiding to that international law. And so does the Crimea, that little autonomous entity which is holding a referendum this Sunday on its independence or, maybe, even joining Russia. Do you think such actions by the Crimean people are legal, in term of law?

Well, I think they are certainly moral. I’d like to argue the case that they are legal, and they have mentioned this, you know, we went into WWI with Woodrow Wilson shouting and screaming that we want to have self-determination for all people. So, it’s been going on for a long time, but a lot of times it is just talk. So, on principle, I want everybody to be able to have self-determination.

And quite frankly, I think the smaller the unit of governance, the better. So often, if you look at the problems in Iraq, which was an artificial country, and probably making three units out of it would have been a solution a long time ago. The same way with Ukraine. Maybe, there isn’t natural division that would occur, but I think international law protects that privilege, that people have their right of self-determination.

For some people to get up and all of a sudden say that the Russians are violating international law, at the same time, we as a country, unfortunately, we have violated international law quite frequently. I mean, we are in more countries than anybody else, we are in 130 countries. We’ve invaded a lot of countries. We use drones around the world. So, I wonder if there are any international laws broken when we do that.

What in your opinion could that desired compromise between the US and Russia on the Ukrainian issue be? We understand perfectly well that these are the two major players.

My goal has always been that you try to work things out, you are willing to talk and use diplomacy, never use threat and never use money. I’ve argued the case that, unfortunately, our foreign policy has been driven by threatening people and interfering in their elections and their internal affairs, which we were so strongly advised to avoid. So, I would say that if we did that, then we should have trade. Trade back and forth is very helpful.

Now that we trade with China, we are less likely to fight with China. Now that Russia and the US are much more trading partners, it is less likely that we would go to war. Even in the situation that we are facing now, it is good that there is some economic dependence on each other. Russia sells gas to Europe and Europe claims that they can take care of themselves, if necessary, but who knows. So, I think the more trade, the better.

In talking, I would be boosting up friendly relations, staying out of the internal affairs of nations. When there is a border dispute 6,000 miles from our border, I would say – look, that’s your business, you take care of it, but what we would like to do is maintain diplomatic relations, we would like to enhance trade, rather than threaten to punish people by putting on sanctions and stealing their money by freezing assets, I think that is wrong.

Can these sanctions that the US and the EU are threatening to impose on Russia actually backfire on them? How big is the trade turnover between the two countries?

Well, that remains to be seen, but it certainly could happen. If it really-really becomes a battle, America is very vulnerable on the dollar, because there’s been the illusion of trust in the dollar and in America’s supremacy, because we are the military power of the world and we still are the economic power. But it is all based on the fact that people are still wanting our dollars and they let our Fed create money forever and ever.

And even now, whether it is the EU needing help to deal with Greece or what is happening in Ukraine, people think – well, if America would just send them more money, it is going to work. But if China and Russia, and India would happen to get together and say that we are sick and tired of it, we are going to show you that we can weaken your dollar rather quickly. Right now, it is not in their interest they are still holding a lot of dollars.

So, it remains to be seen how this pans out. But if the West gets too aggressive, I believe that they can become more vulnerable. Sometimes these things happen, there are not intended consequences. Sometimes they are accidental and sometimes there are mistakes made in the field. And sometimes people get blamed for things that they didn’t do and, then the thing escalates before you know that it is much worse than anybody ever dreamed of.

How would you evaluate the way the English language media covers the situation in Ukraine? Are they being helpful at all? Are they provoking the situation? Your comments would be interesting.

I think they are totally biased. It is an example of what happens… you know, our media is supposed to be privately owned and theoretically it is, but why is it so uniform. We are supposed to have Republican stations and Democrat stations, or pretend. And yet, when it comes to getting an op on a country, they are very uniform. When it came to being uniform on going into war against Iraq, which I considered totally unconstitutional, illegal and immoral, and based on lies, all the media supported it. In the same way right now, everybody is supporting western Ukraine and I think it is very-very biased.

Dr. Paul, thank you very much for your time and comments. It is always a pleasure talking to you.

)

Obamacare’s Too Expensive For Ya? Cancel Your Cable or cellphone, you Peasant and pay it!

Obamacare 3 million shy of target — with 19 days left to sign up

Still not enough young people signing up to make system work

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/11/obamacare-enrollment-hits-42-million-slowing/##ixzz2vlwCYSNh 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

The Ukraine fiasco

Webster Tarpley: Kiev Fascist Clique...

Why is this man a US senator involved in all the countries to be brought down?