All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

WashingtonsBlog  April 18 2014

BankerWarsFormer managing director of Goldman Sachs – and head of the international analytics group at Bear Stearns in London (Nomi Prins) –  notes:

Throughout the century that I examined, which began with the Panic of 1907 … what I found by accessing the archives of each president is that through many events and periods, particular bankers were in constant communication [with the White House] — not just about financial and economic policy, and by extension trade policy, but also about aspects of World War I, or World War II, or the Cold War, in terms of the expansion that America was undergoing as a superpower in the world, politically, buoyed by the financial expansion of the banking community.

***

In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, andwhich wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

Now, on the other side of that war, for example, was the National City Bank, which, though they worked with Morgan in financing the French and the British, they also didn’t have a problem working with financing some things on the German side, as did Chase …

When Eisenhower became president … the U.S. was undergoing this expansion by providing, under his doctrine, military aid and support to countries [under] the so-called threat of being taken over by communism … What bankers did was they opened up hubs, in areas such as Cuba, in areas such as Beirut and Lebanon, where the U.S. also wanted to gain a stronghold in their Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. And so the juxtaposition of finance and foreign policy were very much aligned.

So in the ‘70s, it became less aligned, because though America was pursuing foreign policy initiatives in terms of expansion, the bankers found oil, and they made an extreme effort to activate relationships in the Middle East, that then the U.S. government followed. For example, in Saudi Arabia and so forth, they get access to oil money, and then recycle it into Latin American debt and other forms of lending throughout the globe. So that situation led the U.S. government.

Continue reading

Secret Space Program & The Black Budget [Audio]

RedIceRadio  April 21 2014

Catherine Austin Fitts is the Founder and President of Solari. She served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co., Inc. She also served as Assistant Secretary of Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD in the first Bush Administration and was the President and Founder of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/-cKZ0HKbijQ&w=500]

We’ll discuss if financial fraud and market manipulations are actually mechanisms for financing the black budget and if centralized governance is necessitated by high-tech secrecy. There may be as much as $100 trillion dollars worth of hardware flying the skies powered by anti-gravity and field-propulsion technologies. This has significant implications for the ownership and design of manufacturing and energy infrastructure on planet earth. Continue reading

Jonathan Turley ~ The Rise Of The Fourth Branch Of Government

Jonathan Turley May 26 2013

CongressBelow is [May 26th’s] column in the Washington Post’s Outlook Section on the dangers of America’s growing administrative state. Ask any elementary student and you will hear how the Framers carefully designed a tripartite, or three-branch, system to govern the United States. This separation of powers was meant to protect citizens from tyranny by making every branch dependent on each other to carry out the functions of government. These three branches held together through a type of outward pressure – each holding the other in place through their countervailing forces. Add a fourth branch and the structure begins to collapse. That is precisely what is happening as federal agencies grow beyond the traditional controls and oversight of the legislative and executive branches. The question is how a tripartite system can function as a quadripartite system. The answer, as demonstrated by the last two decades, is not well. The shift from a tripartite to a quadripartite system is not the result of simply the growth in the size of the government. Rather, it is a concern with the degree of independence and autonomy in the fourth branch that led me to write this column.

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.

Continue reading

The Growth Of American Fascism: From LBJ To Obama

theIntelHub January 12 2013

“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.”- David Hume

In the aftermath of the highly suspicious Sandy Hook incident, Americans have experienced a predictable escalation of the elite’s ongoing efforts to destroy their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

A disarmed civilian population has long been a principle ambition of the globalist elites. As patriots are well aware, an armed population is the last line of defense against tyranny.

It is of vital importance to the globalists that Americans be shorn of their means of defending themselves against the dystopian visionaries of the New World Order.

The globalist vision is one that has been passed down over time through each succeeding generation of the elite.

As James Warburg of the Council on Foreign Relations stated to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.”

Of course, a disarmed populace is much easier to conquer and therefore does not need to give consent to the neo-feudal rule of the NWO overlords. The American police state has continued to expand in an exponential way since Warburg spoke those words.

The elected officials supposedly charged with the task of preserving the constitutional rights of Americans have become ever more acquiescent to tyranny as the decades have passed. For instance, during the same year that Warburg proclaimed these sinister intentions, President Harry Truman, himself sympathetic to globalist designs in many ways, nevertheless vetoed the 1950 McCarran Act which would have allowed the indefinite detention of citizens without trial.

His successor President Eisenhower, himself connected to the Rockefeller internationalists, nevertheless criticized the growing dominance of American foreign policy by the merchants of death through the military-industrial complex.

Of course, the last American president to challenge the globalist agenda in any serious way was John F. Kennedy, whose quixotic efforts to halt the monetary dominance of the Federal Reserve cost him his life.

Subsequent U.S. presidents have learned well from the example that was made of Kennedy. It is no coincidence that it was JFK’s successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who presided over the unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment rights of Americans that came with the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Continue reading

Agenda 21 Is Being Rammed Down The Throats Of Local Communities All Over America

The Economic Collapse | December 24 2012

Earth SummitHave you ever heard of Agenda 21?  If not, don’t feel bad, because most Americans haven’t.  It is essentially a blueprint for a “sustainable world” that was introduced at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.  Since then, it has been adopted by more than 200 counties and it has been modified and updated at other UN environmental summits.  The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity.  Therefore, according to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good.  Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet.  If you are thinking that this sounds like it is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers intended when they established this nation, you would be on the right track.  Those that promote the philosophy underlying Agenda 21 believe that human activity must be “managed” and that letting people make their own decisions is “destructive” and “dangerous”.  Sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it.

So how is this being done?  Well, after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities.  One thing that they learned very quickly was that the “Agenda 21” label was a red flag for a lot of people.  It tended to create quite a bit of opposition on the local level.

As they try to implement their goals, they very rarely use the term “Agenda 21” anymore.  Instead, they use much more harmless sounding labels such as “smart growth”, “comprehensive land use planning” and especially “sustainable development”.

So just because something does not carry the Agenda 21 label does not mean that it is not promoting the goals of Agenda 21.

Continue reading