As NATO-backed protests were beginning to take off in Ukraine after
then-president Viktor Yanukovich agreed to accept a financial deal with
Russia as opposed to the greater integration/austerity package proposed
by the European Union, evidence of US involvement in the Euromaidan
color revolution began to surface in the Ukrainian Rada.
Indeed, early on, there were individuals in the Ukrainian government who
recognized that there was an international and NATO-centered plot at
work in their country designed to overthrow the President and other
elected officials using “swarming adolescents” and other more violent elements of protest and destabilization. ***Read full article here***
Jurors in the trial of 21 year old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are hoping to return a verdict on Wednesday, following weeks of testimony in the Boston Marathon bombing trial. Tsarnaev faces either life in prison or the death penalty.
Here are five stunning questions that were not asked during this historic trial in Massachusetts… ***Read full article here***
Money Would Best Be Served With An Expiration Date
Topics
-Paying the bank to loan THEM money; what’s going on in Switzerland?
-The banks know that inflation is going to rear it’s ugly head and they don’t want your money
-Andy explains the ‘boom or bust’ cycles
-Popular Delusion and the Madness of Crowds
-The mobilization of credit and why credit is necessary
-How much money would be in the Social Security Trust Fund had it not been stolen?
-Is there a world assault on the dollar which is not shown in the index?
-A listener in the UK wants to buy a flat; Andrew advises him on the best mortgage to choose
-What should the minimum wage be in Andrew’s opinion?
-Does Andrew know of anyone affected by “Operation Choke Point”? “As first exposed by the Wall Street Journal, the Department of Justice and bank regulators are unconstitutionally pressuring banks to refuse banking services to perfectly legal industries, under the guise that they pose a “reputation risk” to the bank. Not surprisingly, two of the main industries targeted by this illegal program just happen to be two of the biggest threats to the federal government: guns and gold.”
-Why do people buy gold, when silver is so much cheaper? Even if gold price doesn’t increase, as the gold to silver ratio reverts back to historical levels, the silver buyer will earn a windfall. Seems like a no loss proposition.
-A listener asks Andy to explain William Jennings Bryant’s “cross of gold” speech. If there is a gold backed currency, isn’t it easy for “Doug and Mel” to corner the gold market in order to manipulate the supply of money, so that they can induce the inflation / deflation cycle at will?
-Are there any valuable silver numismatic coins?
-Would it be wise 90% of your net worth is in non-government backed mortgage backed securities?
-How do we insure our coins with home insurance ?
-Some time ago Andrew mentioned buying and selling US coins as a business that would allow oneself to claim the cost of the coins as an expense; what are the caveats regarding claiming coins as expenses as it relates to filing taxes?
-Is there any benefit to having a coin that says it’s worth $50 compared to a silver dollar that has more grams of silver and costs pretty much the same?
-If the Federal Reserve does the Swiss (negative 10 year notes) what would stop the exodus of past buyers of US debt?
Dr. David Duke described the debate over the nuclear deal reached with
Iran as a two factions of Jewish supremacists each trying to maximize
their conception of Jewish interests. Israeli PM Netanyahu has lined up
his paid henchmen in Congress to undermine the agreement, which thwarts
his designs for a war with Iran, but the deal itself was negotiated by
Jews from the very Zio-dominated State Department. Dr. Duke pointed out
that another faction of Jewish supremacists do not want a war with Iran
because it would detract from the currently very successful course that
world Jewry is on in terms of building economic and political power
across the globe.
Dr. Slattery then joins the show and points out the
treachery of the Republican presidential candidates falling over
themselves for position in the Sheldon Adelson primary. These
candidates, and the bulk of Congress, are siding with the big money of
the crazy faction of Jewish supremacism, which wants war with Iran at
any cost, provided the cost is born by the U.S. taxpayer! Dr. Duke
points out that the deal was negotiated with a literal gun to Iran's
head in the form of a threat of war, and that the deal is very bad for
Iran and cripples their efforts at building an independent nuclear power
industry.
This show is a home-run derby if there ever was
one. Please spread it far and wide.
For those who have difficulties believing the US would back Al Qaeda
terrorists for the purpose of overthrowing the governments of Libya,
Egypt, and Syria, they need only look at overt and continuous support
for MEK terrorists in a bid to overthrow the government of Iran to
uncover the reality of Washington’s willingness to sponsor terrorism.
Brookings would openly admit that:
…even if U.S. support for an insurgency failed
to produce the overthrow of the regime, it could still place Tehran
under considerable pressure, which might either prevent the regime from
making mischief abroad or persuade it to make concessions on issues of
importance to the United States (such as its nuclear program and support
to Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban). Indeed, Washington might decide
that this second objective is a more compelling rationale for supporting
an insurgency than the (much less likely) goal of actually overthrowing
the regime.
Brookings describes in exceptional detail how the US would organize its proxy terrorists. It would claim:
Insurgencies take a long time to succeed, when
they succeed at all. It takes time for insurgents to identify leaders
and recruit personnel, establish bases and gather equipment, and learn
tactics and proficiency with weapons. It takes even longer to win
popular support, erode the morale of the government’s armed forces, and
then undermine the government’s legitimacy.
