Here’s some French Canadian humor to warm up this short cold Winter day.
A presentation of JustForLaughsTV, the official Just For Laughs Gags YouTube channel. Home of the funniest, greatest, most amazing, most hilarious, win filled, comedy galore, hidden camera pranks in the world!
Russian “Weaponized Default” Law Threatens Collapse Of Entire Western World
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A new report issued today by the Security Council (SC) states that President Putin has just forwarded to the Duma (legislator/parliament) one of the most feared set of laws ever seen in modern Russian history that once enacted would create the worst “economic cyclone” the Western world has ever seen and plunge both the United States and European Union into immediate depression, if not outright total economic collapse.
Adding to the growing pushback against the United States petrodollar system and its allies continuing to advocate for global war, this report continues, is China—who this past week ordered all of its banks to cease purchasing US Dollars in its bid to protect its nation and economic interests from these warmongers too.
Though the American “presstitute” mainstream media has failed to allow their citizens to know the full and dreadful impact that President Putin’s new “Weaponized Default” laws will have upon them, this report further states, the same cannot be said of that nations oligarchs—who in the past fortnight alone have caused their stock markets to lose over $1 trillion—and to put that stunning figure in context, it’s like wiping out the combined value of the following tech giants: Google (GOOGL, Tech30) ($508 billion), Facebook (FB, Tech30) ($281 billion), Intel (INTC, Tech30) ($154 billion), Netflix (NFLX, Tech30) ($50 billion) and Yahoo (YHOO, Tech30) ($29 billion).
With Russia being the world’s largest oil producer, this report continues, fully 75% of its oil can be exported which President Putin’s new “Weaponized Default” laws will protect no matter how low the price of oil goes—but the same cannot be said of the Obama regime backed barbaric Middle Eastern ally Saudi Arabia whose despotic de facto leader, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has not only brought his nation to brink of ruin—its soon collapsing will, undoubtedly, cause the Western nations to unleash a new set of oil wars too.
But before the West embarks upon these new oil wars, this report concludes, they should first re-familiarize themselves with their own history—and as recently detailed by the American foreign policy writer Michael Peck who in his article 5 Oil Wars that Ended in Disaster succinctly warned:
“For the last hundred years, oil has been a frequent reason for war. Nations have fought wars, or shaped their military strategy during a war, to conquer oil fields or prevent rivals from controlling the commodity that is the lifeblood of industrial economies and modern militaries.
But what good is capturing an oil field when you wreck your country in the process? Several nations have learned the hard way that the price for capturing oil can be much greater than its value.
For the American leaders, and plenty of others throughout history, the price of oil indeed proved to be higher than any could imagine.”
Imagine if people started marching to ban the stuff that causes cancer – such as Roundup, water fluoridation and endocrine disruptors in beauty and cleaning products.
Millions have marched for “cancer causes.” Millions more have been diagnosed “early” and now believe screening saved their lives. But a new British Medical Journal study confirms something we have been reporting on since our inception: in most cases, screening not only has not “saved lives,” but actually increases your risk of dying.
An extremely important new study published in the British Medical Journal titled, “Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives”—and what we can do about it,” confirms something we have been reporting upon at GreenMedInfo.com since our inception, namely, cancer screening has not lived up to its long held promise of “saving lives” because disease-specific reductions in mortality do not equate to reductions in overall mortality. Worse, in some cases overall mortality actually increased because of screening.
You’ve probably seen the propagandistic anti-drug ad that attempts to analogize the perils of drug use with a frying egg: “This is your brain,” the very serious narrator says, as someone holds a whole egg. The hand cracks the egg into a pre-heated pan, and as it sizzles and sputters, the narrator gravely warns, “This is your brain on drugs.”Of course, the theatrics were intended to scare the bejeezus out of kids who didn’t want to somehow end up idiots for life; but the oft-parodied advertisement has now been officially debunked. Data released for a new study proves cannabis use is not associated with lower IQ or educational performance.According to British researchers assessing the relationship of cumulative cannabis use by adolescents, once confounding factors had been adjusted, such as cigarette-smoking and childhood depression, “Those who had used cannabis 50 [or more] times did not differ from never-users on either IQ or educational performance.”
A group of 2,235 teens served as the sample group for the study, slated for publication in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, which sought to “test the relationships between cumulative cannabis and IQ at the age of 15 and educational performance at the age of 16.” Of the 15-year-olds, 24% reported having tried cannabis at least one time.
These findings further dispute a previous study published in 2012 in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that suggested heavy cannabis use by those under the age of 18 led to lower IQ twenty years later in life. Though it received a great deal of publicity, further review of the same data published in the same journal implied socioeconomic status — not cannabis use — likely explained the lowered IQ measurement.
In fact, the researchers did find a “robust” correlation between adolescent cigarette smoking and poorer educational performance that had nothing whatsoever to do with marijuana use.
So feel free to laugh — if you didn’t already — the next time anyone references that infamous Drug War fried egg.
Postdoctoral Fellow in Aeromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Leon Vanstone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
The Conversation is funded by Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Knight Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Alfred P Sloan Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation and the Simons Foundation. Our global publishing platform is funded by Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
The implications of driverless cars are huge because the transportation industry is huge, employing almost five million people in the U.S. alone. Suddenly you don’t need drivers for taxis, buses, garbage trucks, deliveries, you name it. Not just cars either – boats, planes, anything that moves could be completely automated. Once this process begins, it’s likely to happen quickly, because there’s an incredible amount of money to be saved this way. What happened to the horses when we didn’t need them to pull carts?
Drivers are vital to our transport system today
The people who today drive these vehicles are currently some of the most valuable to society. Modern life would grind to a halt if they all suddenly disappeared. Together, these millions of people move food to our supermarkets, take garbage from our houses and take our children to school. What happens to all those people, who through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed with a skill set society no longer wants or needs?
Obviously, jobs have disappeared from society before: how many people are blacksmiths, cobblers or chimney sweeps? Entire professions have faded from society before with little effect, so why care now?
Imagine you were alive hundreds of thousands of years ago. The average life expectancy is low. Technology is primitive. Food is scarce. Wi-Fi signal is beyond terrible. You spend most of your time foraging for food, and what little spare time you have during daylight hours is spent essentially doing science. Now this isn’t very advanced science – I’m talking about bashing rocks together, discovering fire, making spears – but none the less these explorations are science and progress is slow.
Now imagine you went back just a thousand years. You are now a peasant, along with almost everyone else. The average life expectancy is still low. You spend most of your time growing enough food so a few very privileged people don’t have to farm at all. As a whole, society has a little more free time to invent and discover. Progress is faster but not that fast. Life for the peasants still stinks. Wi-Fi signal is still terrible.
Now you are you. Your average life expectancy is higher than ever before. You are either part of the 1.5 percent of American society that does all the farming for everyone else or you’re part of the 98.5 percent that does other things. Either way your life probably doesn’t stink, Wi-Fi coverage is phenomenally better and you essentially live like royalty (at least in comparison to the other two versions of you). So what changed?
When the transition happens too fast
Farmers were replaced by machinery and they became manufacturers. Manufacturers were replaced by automated assembly lines and they went on to become computer engineers. The more people in a society who can be free to think, create and do things that don’t involve sustaining that society (like farming or moving things), the more people you have available to be artists, scientists and entrepreneurs. This leads to more discoveries, which in turn, frees more people to think and so on. Humanity has been doing this for millennia.
But this process of replacing one occupation with another has always been slow. Society needs time to adjust to a change in required skill sets. In truth, few farmers really retrain as manufacturers and few manufacturers go on to become computer engineers. It is much more likely to be the next generation that trains into the new skill set modern society requires. The farmers’ children go on to be manufacturers and the manufacturers’ children become computer scientists. But at some point, the rate of change may happen quicker than children take to grow up. At some point, the manufacturer has to retrain as a computer engineer… or confront a life with no livelihood.
From a social view point, having millions more people free to do more complex tasks is good. It leaves more people to be artists and scientists and entrepreneurs in much the same way reducing the number of farmers and manufacturers did.
We need to decide now what we will do about those drivers displaced in the name of progress because what we do now will set a precedent. A precedent for what society does with the rest of us when technology comes for our jobs. How long before we have to retrain the computer scientists? What will their children want to be?
Researcher Waldemar Perez from Verify Events Research joins me to expose decades of covert human experimentation. From the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to radiating US soldiers without their knowledge, there has been a long and horrifying history of the US government, military and CIA experimenting on an unaware public. And it’s still going on today. From geoengineering and chemtrails in our skies to poisons in our vaccines – it’s all being done deliberately and covertly. This is the apex of the tyranny of the Deep State.
“Government science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population. We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’ I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Introduction: Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.
Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.
They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”
Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.
These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.
Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.
The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:
“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”
“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”
“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”
“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”
“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”
“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”
“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”
We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.
The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.
For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.
For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist and/or not proven to cause human illness (Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)
A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.
Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.
As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.
Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:
In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”
“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”
This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by “official science.”
The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.
They are created by the State.
They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.
This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.
This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.
That’s quite a trick.
One of my favorite examples of double-think or reverse-think is the antibody test. It is given to diagnosis diseases. Antibodies are immune-system scouts sent out to identify germ-intruders, which can then be wiped out by other immune-system troops.
Prior to 1985, the prevailing view of a positive test was: the patient is doing well; his body detected the germ and dispensed with it. After 1985, the view was suddenly: this is bad news; the patient is sick or he is on the verge of getting sick; he has the germ in his body; it does harm.
Within the medical community, no one (with very few exceptions) raised hell over this massive switch. It was accepted. It was actually good for business. Now, many more people could be labeled “needs treatment,” whereas before, they would have been labeled “healthy.”
While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-8, I wrote the FDA asking about a possible AIDS vaccine. I was told the following: every person given such a vaccine would, of course, produce antibodies against HIV. That is the whole purpose of a vaccine: to produce antibodies.
However, I was informed, patients receiving this vaccine would be given a letter to carry with them, in case they were ever tested for HIV and came up positive. The letter would explain that the antibodies causing the positive test were the result of the vaccine, not the result of “natural” action inside the patient’s body.
In other words, the very same antibodies were either protective against AIDS (good) or indicative of deadly disease (bad).
This was the contradictory and ridiculous and extraordinary pronouncement of official science.
Extrapolated to a more general level, the Word is: synthetic medical treatment is good; the action of the body to heal itself is incompetent.
This is a type of superstition that would astonish even the most “primitive” societies.
It no longer astonishes me. I see it everywhere in official science.
From the medical establishment’s point of view, being alive is a medical condition.
We are now living in a society where an incurable itch to meddle everywhere and at all times is the standard.
A new definition of Reality emerges: “that which needs to be monitored and surveilled.”
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
BETHLEHEM, OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES – NOVEMBER 6: Palestinians protest Israeli settlements in the midst of peace negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, November 6, 2013. Photo Credit: Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com
“Laissez faire” capitalists love to argue that the market itself is magic. You don’t need government or regulation to rein in bad companies — consumers will do it. The principle involved is called “reputation”. It’s amazing how vigorously, then, some governments will get involved to defend bad companies from shame.
Several years ago, activists in North America, Europe and Israel began campaigning for a boycott of companies based in occupied territory. Among those is the Ahava Corporation. In the US, women organized by CodePink started showing up at Ahava stores dressed in bikinis daubed in mud. It’s not pretty to be predatory, the women of the Stolen Beauty campaign said: while Ahava’s packages say their skin creams come from the Dead Sea, Israel, the mud actually comes from a site inside occupied territory; it’s manufactured into cosmetics in an illegal settlement deep within the occupied West Bank.
While Ahava’s using Palestinian resources without permission or compensation, Palestinians themselves are denied access to the Dead Sea’s shores — although one-third of the western shore of the Dead Sea lies in the occupied West Bank.
For years, the European Union’s been considering what to do about this and as you can imagine, they’ve come under withering attack. This fall, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu went all out and accuse the Europeans of singling out Israel, invoking the holocaust and threatening to shun a series of high level meetings. The rhetorical onslaught worked to the extent that instead of a boycott, the Europeans opted for labelling.
The tepid option, products made in occupied territory will bear labels that include the term “Israeli settlement,” while Palestinian products will be labelled “product from the West Bank (Palestinian product),” “product from Gaza,” or “product from Palestine.” The labeling will be mandatory for fruit and vegetables, wine, honey, olive oil, eggs, poultry, organic products, and cosmetics, and voluntary for industrial products and processed foods.
It’s tepid, but better than anything the US government’s has done so far. The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign continues. Truth in labelling’s at least a start. Now if only we could get the “laissez faire” label removed from laissez faire capitalism.
Laura Flanders is the host and founder of “GRITtv with Laura Flanders.” She is the author of “Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species” and “Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians.” A regular contributor for MSNBC, Flanders has appeared on shows from “Real Time with Bill Maher” to “The O’Reilly Factor.” For more information, visit GRITtv.org.
This Thursday, the Senate voted to reject Rand Paul’s proposal to audit the Federal Reserve. The bill needed 60 votes to pass but was rejected by a narrow margin of 53-44.“We’ve had a lot of Democrats who claim that they’re concerned about big banks and big banks controlling things and a revolving door between Wall Street and big banks and the Federal Reserve. We’ll see if any of those loud voices — Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren — are they loud voices that really are for more oversight of the banking system?” Paul said.Sanders was actually one of the senators who voted for the bill, while Warren was one of the senators who voted against it. Sanders had previously voted against a bill to audit the Federal Reserve several years ago despite showing vocal support for the bill at the time.
“Requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the Fed each and every year, would be an important step towards making the Federal Reserve a more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street,” Sanders said in a statement.
“What that bill is about is about Congress supplanting its judgment as to what monetary policy should be. Congress shouldn’t be telling the Fed what to do with monetary policy,” a White House Spokesperson said in a statement.
Many people believe that the Federal Reserve is an organization that operates as a public service, there are not many out there who realize that this is a for-profit business.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with providing a service and turning a profit, but there is something wrong with using the government to monopolize a vital aspect of society, forcing the whole society to use a particular service whether they like to or not.
It turns out that The Federal Reserve makes billions per year through this coercive monopoly, and this much activists and researchers have known for a long time. However, until now there has been very little hard evidence or sources to reference, which tell us exactly how much money they really do make. Recently, some numbers were revealed that can at least shed some light on a portion of their income, and these preliminary figures amount to at least $90 Billion per year.
“While leaders in Washington stare down the fiscal cliff, let’s not forget the fiscal fact that brought us to the edge: The annual U.S. government deficit of more than a trillion dollars. But through it all, one government-related entity has been hauling in record surpluses. New data capture the scope of profits at the U.S. Federal Reserve, estimated to be $90 billion this year.”
“The last five or six years their profits have roughly tripled,” says Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large at Fortune Magazine.
According to Sloan, the Federal Reserve owes its success to its practice of buying securities with newly printed money.
“If you go out and buy $2 or $3 trillion of securities that pay interest and you don’t have to pay any interest on the money used to buy the securities, you make a lot of money,” says Sloan.
An Alzheimer’s researcher predicts an effective treatment for the disease will be available by the year 2025, while a new pill to slow its onset could be ready by 2018.
Speaking at University College London this week, Professor John Hardy said his predictions were based on the success of current drug trials.
Hardy is confident that over the next decade, methods of preventing or slowing down Alzheimer’s will reach the next level. He said that current research places us in an “era of optimism”, predicting that “by 2050, such advances should be benefiting at least a million people a year in the UK.”
“All of us are excited about drug trials that are going on now,” Hardy said. “In the coming year, we will know if we are at the start of a new era of better treatments for slowing or stopping the development of Alzheimer’s disease.”
Hardy developed the amyloid cascade hypothesis, an explanation for the disease that has dominated research for the past 20 years. It proposes that amyloid beta proteins form long fibres that become plaque on the brain, preventing neurons from communicating with each other.
Last year a pharmaceutical company reported successful results after using the antibody solanezumab to fight the early onset of the condition.
The experimental drug binds itself to the amyloids in their early soluble form, clearing them before they become harmful plaques.
There are an abundance of scientists refuting the idea of Manmade Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) with some very solid research. Representatives from almost 200 countries met last month at COP 21 (the Paris Climate Change Conference) to push forward the New World Order agenda of a World Court and a worldwide carbon tax, but fortunately […]
Many scientists refute AGW (manmade global warming) with solid facts, data and research. Some even show evidence of global cooling.
There are an abundance of scientists refuting the idea of Manmade Global Warming
or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) with some very solid research. Representatives from almost 200 countries met last month at COP 21 (the Paris Climate Change Conference) to push forward the New World Order agenda of a World Court and a worldwide carbon tax, but fortunately for freedom lovers the final agreement which was signed lacked enforceability. However, you can be sure they will be back to try again. The fearmongering around manmade global warming is a favorite trick of the manipulators, who long ago hijacked the environmental movement. The manmade global warming movement is riddled with corruption, having been exposed numerous times for fudging the data and cooking the books, notably in the Climategate scandal of the leaked East Anglia University emails. The science is far from settled. There are a plethora of scientists and researchers all over the world opposed to the notion of AGW, including the 1000+ dissenting scientists who signed the Climate Depot report, and the 31000+ who signed the OISM Global Warming Petition.
Below is a small sampling of well-known and respected scientists who explain why manmade global warming is a fallacy with a very political agenda – to bring in the One World Government. Even mainstream politicians acknowledge it; for example, Maurice Newman, chairman of former Australian PM Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, stated that “The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook [to create] a New World Order.” AGW is about controlling you, not the climate. Climate has been the master excuse for decades now, ever since the idea was hatched and exposed in documents like Report from Iron Mountain in 1966, The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution? in 1991, and by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987.
Here’s what these 10 people have to say about AGW:
As Dr. David Evans reveals, the manmade global warming agenda is about politics and power.
Scientist #1 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. David Evans
Dr. David Evans used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office (the main modeler of carbon in Australia’s biosphere) from 1999 to 2005. He has 6 degrees, including a PhD from Stanford in electrical engineering. Evans believes that CO2 has been causing global warming over the last century, but investigates the question: how much global warming does CO2 cause? In 2012, Evans pointed out how the IPCC (the very political Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) models were flawed. These models are based on data sourced by NASA and Argo satellites, and assume that CO2 is the only warming agent. They fail to take into consideration other warming agents. He shows how the models, both for air and water, have consistently over-estimated, predicting warming that never happened.
Evans shows data from Envisat (European satellites) which reveal how the sea level is rising 0.33 mm per year (3.3 cm per century), far below what the IPCC predicts (26-59 cm per century) and fearmonger Al Gore predicted (20 feet per century!). Evans compares the models vs. reality, and concludes:
“The climate model’s understanding of the atmosphere is incompatible with the data … the data is being suppressed … this is not about science and truth, it’s about power and politics.”
“The Copenhagen Treaty that was almost signed in 2009 would have created a worldwide bureaucracy that could override, tax, and fine national governments. This was a narrowly-averted silent coup, with clearly flawed climate “science” just an excuse … (we still face) the threat of a bureaucratic coup using climate as an excuse.”
Money train: the manmade global warming or AGW movement is a gravy train.
Scientist #2 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Denis Rancourt
Dr. Denis Rancourt believes that the idea that global warming, on its own, could negatively impart the environment, is tenuous at best. He describes manmade global warming as a psychological and social phenomenon backed by no solid scientific evidence. The problem is that the AGW movement has become a giant gravy train (estimated to be worth anywhere between $22 billion to $1.5 trillion per year). It’s hard for scientists and politicians alike to get off such a comfortable and profitable moving vehicle, since their prestige, reputations and salaries all depend on it. He reveals how real activists understand that the AGW is not true activism, but rather an invention of the privileged world:
“NGOs and environmental groups who agree to buy into the global warming thing benefit from it a lot, in the sense that the powerful interests … fund them.
They have to pretend they are doing important research without ever criticizing powerful interests.
They look for comfortable lies … they look for elusive, sanitized things like acid rain, global warming … it helps to neutralize any kind of dissent … if you’re really concerned about saving the forest, habitat destruction and so on, then fight against habitat destruction; don’t go off into this tenuous thing about CO2 concentration …”
If only the hijacked environmental movement could see the obvious: carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a poison.
Scientist #3 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Freeman Dyson
The 91-year-old mathematical physicist and scientist at Princeton University, Freeman Dyson, started studying the effects of carbon dioxide on vegetation 37 years ago! His work has shown how the increase in CO2 has been overall very beneficial for the Earth:
“There are huge non-climate effects of carbon dioxide which are highly favorable … The whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, forests and all kinds of growth in the biological world – and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate.
It’s enormously important for food production … “
Dr. Judith Curry fell into groupthink on the topic of manmade global warming.
Scientist #4 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Judith Curry
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She used to be on board with the AGW agenda, but after the November 2009 ClimateGate email scandal, she changed her mind. She saw a lot of “sausage-making and bullying” was needed to build a consensus. She realized she had fallen into groupthink, based on second-order evidence: the (mere) assertion that a consensus existed. She was subsequently labeled a climate heretic. This is interesting, and suggests parallels between the religious fanaticism of the manmade global warming movement and the Inquisition – which persecuted and killed those who thought differently. Many have said that AGW is a religion. In her testimony Curry states:
“No one questions that surface temperatures have increased since 1880 … however there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes vs. natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether the warming is dangerous.
We have been misled in our quest to understand climate change by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate variability, in particular to the sun and from the long term oscillations and ocean circulations. How, then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem, that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate …”
Carbon dioxide – not the enemy! (CO2 is the basis of the manmade global warming myth)
Scientist #5 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Professor & Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever
Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, talks about how manmade global warming has become the new religion which cannot be challenged. He likens CO2 fearmongering to the story of the Emperor’s new clothes. The purported 97% consensus and the hockey stick graphs are both utterly fake. He states that:
“Global Warming is pseudoscience … from 1880 to 2013 the temperature has increased from ~288K to 288.8K (0.3%) … the temperature has been amazingly stable.
Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of “global warming”, not the CO2?
CO2 is not pollution.”
Giaever also mentions the solution proposed by Steven Chu, former US Energy Secretary and 1997 Nobel Prize winder in Physics. Chu suggested painting all roof tops white – which would help reflect sunlight and lower warming, if in fact global warming is occurring.
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows copious evidence to refute manmade global warming, by demonstrating that global cooling is in effect.
Scientist #6 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Don Easterbrook
While the above 5 scientists believe there is some kind of global warming occurring (manmade or not), the following 5 scientists refute AGW by claiming the world is undergoing global cooling. Dr. Don Easterbrook (in his presentation of 2013), Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, exposes how the data has been tampered with (by NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation). He points out that:
– all high temperature records were set in 1930s before the rise of CO2;
– global cooling has been in effect since 1998, according to ground and satellite measurements;
– both the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are growing;
– CO2 is incapable of causing global warming (given that it constitutes 38/1000th of 1 percent of atmospheric gases);
– there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature;
– CO2 follows temperature rather than preceding or causing it;
– the sea level is rising (Seattle in specific) and falling (US Pacific Northwest in general) depending on where you are, and that the sea is rising at a very slow and constant rate;
– extreme weather (such as hurricanes) has not increased;
– snowfall has increased across the US; and
– that the oceans are still very alkaline (pH 8.2) not acidic.
Meteorologist and physicist Piers Corbyn, brother of UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, claims the world is cooling. He states outright that “there is no such thing as manmade climate change“. He also states that “the truth is the IPCC of the UN is a political not a scientific body, and it even amends scientific documents before publication to conform to diplomatic niceties.” The scientists are politically appointed to the IPCC. Corbyn explains that “science” as we think of it gets so entrenched in its current thinking that it’s often difficult for new theories or more accurate explanations to break through the status quo. As esteemed scientist Max Planck once said:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
This Aussie cartoon depicts how the manmade global-warming scam works all over the world. Credit: Steve Hunter.
Scientist #8 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Professor and Geologist Bob Carter
Former Professor and marine geologist Bob Carter points out that 280 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or even 390 or 560 ppm, is suboptimal for plant growth. There could be way higher levels and it still wouldn’t be anything like “dangerous”! In this presentation on climate change, he exposes how kids are being trained to spy on their parent’s energy usage and become “climate cops”, and how the UN predicted 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 (whoops!!). Interestingly, although he is Australian, Carter quotes the former US President Eisenhower in his famous farewell speech to show how Government money corrupts honest science and free, critical thinking:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity … the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
That is exactly what has happened now around the world – Government in general has become too big and is interfering too much in many things, including its paid-for “science”, so mainstream research has lost its independence and credibility.
John Casey provides evidence of sun-driven global cooling, and shows that manmade global warming is nonsense.
Scientist #9 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Engineer & Former White House Advisor John Casey
John Casey is a former White House national space policy advisor, NASA headquarters consultant, space shuttle engineer and author. He wrote the book Cold Sun which contains his research into global cooling. Casey investigated solar activity and concluded that we are now in a solar cycle or phase which could will lead to global cooling, not global warming, for the next 30 years to come. He claims this new cold climate will have a severe and dangerous affect on the world. In Cold Sun he provides evidence for the following:
– the end of global warming;
– the beginning of a “solar hibernation”;
– a historic reduction in the energy output of the Sun;
– a long-term drop in the Earth’s temperatures;
– the start of the next climate change to decades of dangerously cold weather; and much more.
Casey experienced firsthand in the White House how the US Government fired anyone not toeing the line with AGW propaganda – and has the power easily destroy the career and livelihood of any contractor (scientist) who dissented.
John Coleman’s public memo or “Cease and Desist” Notice on manmade global warming. It would be funny if the situation weren’t embezzlement on a grand scale …
Scientist #10 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Meteorologist John Coleman
Meteorologist John Coleman has studied the facts about global warming and asserts that the data shows we are not undergoing global warming, manmade or not. He reveals how a great scientist named Roger Revelle happened to have Al Gore in his class at Harvard – and thus the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore went on to become Vice President, make a documentary, win an Oscar and win the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore said Revelle was senile and refused to debate him. Coleman shows how tax dollars are perpetuating the manmade global warming alarmist campaign despite the hard evidence.
Al Gore, champion of the manmade global warming agenda at the (satirical) Church of Climatology! Credit: David Dees.
Conclusion: The Science is FAR from Settled
This list of 10 is a tiny sample – and also noteworthy in that almost none of the above have been shown to be bought off by Big Oil, a charge often aimed at so-called climate deniers. All of the above scientists appear to be acting from a pure motive of telling the truth for truth’s sake. In actuality, there are thousands of qualified scientists all over the world opposing AGW. A few more that didn’t make the list were Piers Forster (Climate Change Professor, Leeds University) who said:
“Global surface temperatures have not risen in 15 years. They make the high estimates unlikely.”
and Dr. David Whitehouse (Global Warming Policy Foundation) who stated:
“This changes everything. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of economic or energy policy.”
How much longer before humanity wakes up to the manmade global warming hoax?
If there is manmade global warming, it’s caused by one thing: geoengineering. A crime against the Earth and every living creature on it.
Want to Help the Environment? Focus on the Elephant in the Room: Geoengineering
In conclusion, it’s important to connect all the dots and realize that if there is even such a phenomenon as manmade global warming, the main cause is unquestionably one thing: geoengineering. The spraying of toxic aerosol chemtrails (composed of oxides, nitrates and iodides of silver, aluminum, barium, strontium and other elements) is a grave crime against humanity that is still being denied by Governments all over the world.
If you care about the Earth and environment, and want to put your energy into useful activism, focus on that – not the manmade global warming scam which is an invention of the privileged world.
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.
In 2003, scientists unearthed 18,000-year-old fossils on the Indonesian island of Flores. The fossils belonged to an unknown hominin, a close relative of modern humans. Since then, scientists have suggested that this hominin, which had a brain about the size of a grapefruit, was a unique branch of the human lineage named Homo floresiensisand popularly known as “the hobbit” because of its diminutive 3-foot (1 meter) stature. [See Images of the ‘Hobbit’ and Evidence of Newfound Ancestors]
Since the hobbit’s discovery, researchers have sought to uncover its evolutionary origins. In 2010, scientists revealed that stone tools found on Flores suggest that the hobbit’s ancestors lived there 1 million years ago. As such, these potential direct ancestors of hobbits may have descended from Homo erectus, the earliest undisputed ancestor of modern humans. The first fossils of Homo erectuswere found on the Indonesian island of Java in the 19th century; subsequent research has unearthed Homo erectus specimens on Java about 1.5 million years in age.
A groundbreaking study from Princeton University is causing a lot of controversy, but its findings are undeniable.
The university study explain that U.S. democracy is pure fiction. That is, the researchers explain, it simply does not exist.
The scholars behind the study asked the question: “who really rules?”
Researchers Martin Gilens along with Benjamin I. Page concluded that over the past few decades in particular, the U.S. political system has gradually changed in a way that has warped the Democratic Republic into a nearly pure oligarchy, where the elite 1% rule with almost total influence and control over the government and even police state apparatus.
The researchers drew data from over 1,800 different policy initiatives dating from 1981 to 2002. They concluded that wealthy, well-connected families are the ones who steer the direction of nearly everything politically in the United States.
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” they explain, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”
Gilens and Page compare and contrast the political preferences of those at the 50th income percentile to preferences of those at the 90th percentile in addition to major lobbying or business groups.
The pair found that regardless of whether one is Republican or Democratic was of no significant difference. The results showed that more often than not, policy followed the interests of corporations and the 1%.
The research notes recent Supreme Court decisions that allow more money in politics – pointing to this as a likely factor in this transformation into an oligarchy – stretching back to the 1980s.
“Ordinary citizens,” they explain, “might often be observed to ‘win’ (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail.”
The world is full of wild conspiracy theories, so much so that we couldn’t just limit our entries to one list! Welcome to http://www.WatchMojo.com, and today we’re counting down our picks for Another Top 10 Conspiracy Theories of ALL TIME. For this list, we are looking at hypotheses and theories that suggest people have hidden or brought about a certain event or situation that is usually against the law or destructive to others.
The White House kept one seat vacant in the gallery during Obama’s State of the Union Address on Tuesday “for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice.” This was part of Obama’s campaign for new federal restrictions on firearms ownership.But shouldn’t there have also been chairs left empty to memorialize other casualties – including those “who no longer have a voice” thanks to Obama administration policies?
To add a Euro flair to the evening, Obama could drape tri-color flags on a few empty seats to commemorate the 42 medical staff, patients, and others slain at a last Oct. 3 when an American AC-130 gunship blasted a French Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The U.S. military revised its story several times but admitted in November that the carnage was the result of “avoidable … human error.” Regrettably, that bureaucratic phrase lacks the power to resurrect victims.
No plans were announced to designate a seat for Brian Terry, the U.S. Border Patrol agent killed in 2010. Guns found at the scene of Terry’s killing were linked to the Fast and Furious gunwalking operation masterminded by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agency. At least 150 Mexicans were also killed by guns illegally sent south of the border with ATF approval. The House of Representatives voted to hold then-attorney general Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to disclose Fast and Furious details, but Obama did not dwell on this topic in his State of the Union address.
On a more festive note, Obama could have saved seats for a wedding party. Twelve Yemenis who were celebrating nuptials on Dec. 12, 2013, would not have been able to attend Obama’s speech because they were blown to bits by a U.S. drone strike. The Yemeni government — which is heavily bankrolled by the U.S. government — paid more than a million dollars compensation to the survivors of innocent civilians killed and wounded in the attack.
Four seats could have been left vacant for the Americans killed in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya — U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. But any such recognition would rankle the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has worked tirelessly to sweep those corpses under the rug. It would also be appropriate to include a hat tip to the hundreds, likely thousands, of Libyans who have been killed in the civil war unleashed after the Obama administration bombed Libya to topple its ruler, Moammar Gadhafi.
Obama loves to salute promising young Americans but 16-year-old Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki did not get a chance to attend. That Denver-born boy was killed in a U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011, while he was in Yemen looking for his father (who was killed in a CIA drone strike two weeks earlier). If that kid’s name had been Bob, he might still be around to cheer Obama’s anti-gun crusade.
If the first lady sat alone among the other 28 seats the White House receives in the first lady’s box, it wouldn’t make room to represent the casualties of Obama administration policies at home and abroad. Presidents have the prerogative to morally grandstand in State of the Union addresses. But Obama’s righteous indignation would have more credibility if his litany had fewer glaring omissions.
An earlier version of this piece appeared yesterday at USA Today. Their headline was “First Lady’s box should be empty at State of the Union speech.” I have been catching grief from enraged feminists – but that was one double entendre that I had nothing to do with.
“The USA has a long standing practice of non intervention in foreign affairs.” OMG, these people really think that we are dumb. They’re probably right, as we keep electing them liars politicians to represent us.
Here are some hallmark examples of verbal and bodily cues that lying liars exhibit when they lie, as demonstrated for you by the president… with a bonus from the State Dept.
The question in this particular example regarded how the federal government would go about confiscating America’s guns, asked by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ husband Mark Kelly. After a lengthy subject change of nearly a minute, the president said he believed Kelly was alluding to a conspiracy to disarm American citizens and impose martial law.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
Click HERE to view the large, poster size version of this image.
The quote above comes from Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal. She is one of many physicians who have held prominent positions in the field of mainstream medicine to express this disturbing fact — that pharmaceutical companies continually distort medical science in order to push their products en masse. Another recent example comes from Dr, Richard Horton, the Editor in Chief of The Lancet, who stated that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source) Arnold Seymour Relman, Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal, has also made the reality of this corruption abundantly clear:
The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful. – (source)(source)
Something Important To Remember About Herbal and Natural Cures
Herbal cures are nothing to scoff at. There is a reason why 25 percent of the active ingredients in cancer drugs are found only in the Amazon (despite the fact that only 10 percent of its plants have even been studied for their medicinal properties.)
And herbs are not the only natural medicines we should be taking note of, as hundreds (if not thousands) of studies have been conducted examining the healing potential of various foods/plants on multiple diseases. For example, according to studies published in Life Sciences, Cancer Letters, and Anticancer Drugs, artemesinin, a derivative of the wormwood plant commonly used in Chinese medicine, can kill off cancer cells and do it at a rate of 12,000 cancer cells for every healthy cell. (source)
US police are rolling out new technology that gives them “unprecedented” powers to spy on people and determine their “threat score” based on metadata, the Washington Post reported.
The software, known as “Beware,” allows officers to analyze billions of data points, including arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep Web searches and social-media postings to calculate an individual’s alleged potential for violence, the Post reported.
Law enforcement officials say the tool, made by a company called Intrado, will assist them to thwart mass shootings and other attacks similar to those that took place last year in Paris and San Bernardino. But critics say the software further encroaches on civil liberties and will be used with little oversight.
Journalist D. Brian Burghart, who operates FatalEncounters.org, a searchable database of police killings of citizens, told Common Dreams that the swell of surveillance technology was an “outgrowth” of post-9/11 fear-mongering.
“I’m not sure what’s new about this except they put a name on it,” Burghart said. “I don’t think it’s going to get any better. Nobody ever puts away technology.”
Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Post: “This is something that’s been building since September 11. First funding went to the military to develop this technology, and now it has come back to domestic law enforcement. It’s the perfect storm of cheaper and easier-to-use technologies and money from state and federal governments to purchase it.”
Rob Nabarro, a civil rights lawyer in Fresno, remarked that, “It’s a very unrefined, gross technique. A police call is something that can be very dangerous for a citizen.”
Nabarro said the fact that only Intrado – not the police or the public – knows how Beware tallies its scores is disconcerting. He also worries that the system might mistakenly increase someone’s threat level by misinterpreting innocuous activity on social media, like criticizing the police, and trigger an unnecessarily heavy response.
A potential threat that comes from an individual should not be addressed by a machine, he said.
In addition to Beware, police departments are equipping officers with tools like Media Sonar, which analyzes social media for “illicit activity,” among other technology, the Post reported.
Others criticized the implementation of new law enforcement tools while police brutality remains widespread and activists and regular citizens continue to call for an overhaul of the policing system.
“We think that whenever these surveillance technologies are on the table, there needs to be a meaningful debate. There needs to be safeguards and oversight,” Matt Cagle, an attorney for the ACLU of Northern California, told the Post.
Over the years, dissidents in Congress (notably including former US Representative Ron Paul and current Republican and Democratic presidential contenders Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders) have periodically proposed legislation to audit the Federal Reserve. The legislation is always rejected and, when it gets any significant attention at all, roundly denounced by the Federal Reserve itself and groups like the US Chamber of Commerce.
Such was the case on January 12, when the US Senate defeated a motion to bring the latest version of “Audit the Fed” to the floor for full debate and a vote. What’s up with that?
Supporters paint a Fed audit as simple common sense; opponents as an attempt to “politicize” US monetary policy.
It seems to me that logic and reason are entirely with the pro-audit side. The Federal Reserve system was established by Congress in 1913 for the express purpose of manipulating the national currency pursuant to statutory objectives (creating and maintaining “maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates”). That’s inherently “political.”
It’s not “politicization” that audit opponents really object to. What they object to, their dark references to “conspiracy theory” and other attempts at distraction notwithstanding, is transparency.
Why? Well, given that the primary opposition to an audit comes from the the political class and the usual Wall Street suspects — the rest of us either support an audit or, more likely, don’t think much about the matter at all — it’s pretty obvious:
The Federal Reserve operates, its statutory goals be damned, for the purpose of protecting the interests of “the 1%” in preference to the interests of, and when necessary at the expense of, the rest of us.
That’s the only plausible motive for audit opponents’ insistence that the Fed be allowed to operate in secrecy, immune from public inspection or even inspection by the political authority that created it and gave it its alleged mission.
If you’re like me, you probably find lengthy discussions of monetary policy complex and, well, boring. And therein lies the danger. For more than a century, that complexity and dullness has effectively cloaked the Federal Reserve system’s operations from public scrutiny. It’s hard to get most Americans, including me, very worked up about it.
But the political class’s fear of public scrutiny makes my ears perk up. As it should yours. Yes, we should audit the Fed, if for no other reason than that they don’t want us to.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.
Dear Americans, this is how your rulers, your lords, your oligarchy, do it. They control your politicians, obviously. These are your representatives? The Democrats opposed the audit. Can you believe this? From a Canadian point of view, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between your Democrats and your Republicans. It’s pretty scary to think that a secret group has so much power that they control the US government.
When it comes to the Fed, Congress is mired in hypocrisy. The anti-regulation, de-regulation crowd on Capitol Hill shuts its mouth when it comes to the most powerful regulators of all – you and the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, Congress goes along with the out-of-control, private government of the Fed—unaccountable to the national legislature. Moreover, your massive monetary injections scarcely led to any jobs on the ground, other than stock and bond processors.
Rand Paul’s signature “Audit the Fed” legislation failed to garner the 60 votes needed in the Senate to move the measure forward. Of course, this is merely the latest in a never-ending series of banker victories, and a truly devastating blow against liberty, free markets, transparency and any hope for government by the people and for the people. Ensuring that light is never shined on the Fed’s shady, corrupt and unaccountable bailout activities has always been a key goal of the American oligarchy, and they succeeded once again.
Kudos to Rand Paul for trying, and respect to Democrat Bernie Sanders for voting in favor. Elizabeth Warren voting against is inexplicable and indefensible.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — A bill that would have allowed Congress to order reviews of Federal Reserve interest-rate policy decisions failed a procedural test in the Senate on Tuesday as supporters failed to come up with the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on the measures.
The measure to curb the powers of the Fed has been a central theme of the presidential campaign of Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky. The legislation would end a ban on the Government Accountability Office’s authority to audit the U.S. central bank’s monetary policy moves that has been in place since 1978. The Republican House has already approved the measure.
The bill was designed to “pull back the curtain and uncover the cloak of secrecy” at the Fed, Paul said on the Senate floor. He said there had not been a full accounting for the swelling of the Fed’s balance sheet — to $4.5 trillion from roughly $800 billion before the financial crisis.
Just 53 senators voted to halt debate on the bill Tuesday. Sixty or more votes for “cloture” would have paved the way for possible final passage of the bill.
The bulk of the opposition to the measure came from Democrats.
Because supporting an unelected, unaccountable bank cartel is so liberal.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, who is ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, said Congress should “keep its hands out of monetary policy.”
Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen called the bill “a grave mistake” and warned the measure could lead to higher market interest rates.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, voted for the measure.
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
Among the investigation’s key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. “No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president,” Sanders said.
The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.
For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed’s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed’s emergency lending programs.
In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. “No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed’s board of directors or be employed by the Fed,” he said.
The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.
The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.
A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18, but Sanders said one thing already is abundantly clear. “The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street.”
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone