Beck Does the Fed Creature with Griffin and Calabria


Recommended Posts

Beck Does the Fed Creature with Griffin and Calabria

I just saw the Beck show today on the Federal Reserve System. You can only do so much in a little under an hour, but I think Beck did a marvelous job of getting some essential points out to the general public.

His guest were Mark Calabria from CATO and G. Edward Griffin, the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (no longer an affiliate link thanks to the idiots running the Illinois state government). Here is Griffin's opinion, which I posted yesterday on another thread:

Glenn Beck will plug The Creature from Jekyll Island

G. Edward Griffin

March 24, 2011

Canada Free Press

From the article:

On Friday 2011 March 25, the entire Glenn Beck show will be devoted to an exposé of the Federal Reserve. I was invited to be a guest on the program and, when it was taped last Tuesday, I was amazed to find that Beck, not only has read the book but praised it highly. In fact, almost his entire opening monologue was based on the information and, in some cases, the very same phrases used in the book and in my lectures. I was delighted to know that someone, either Beck or his researchers, had spent a great deal of time studying The Creature from Jekyll Island. But what is even more encouraging is that several million viewers will be exposed to an hour of economic and monetary truth. This will bring us a giant step closer to actually slaying the Creature.

I am a fan of Griffin, although not an unconditional one. Some kooky stuff, plus that John Birch Society connection will give liberals a heyday. But his work on the Fed is brilliant as was a lecture I saw that I posted here on OL in another thread (scroll to the second post for the lecture):

MAD - Too Big to Fail

Anyway, enjoy the show. I believe this one will make an impact, whether people like it or not. It will certainly push Griffin's book to the top of the list at Amazon. I just hope the publisher is prepared.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G3sqMqNFCb4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kBN36EAFAwA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-x7F85umrac?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tGjtVlFIStc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/unPh7fuQ4VE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just checked Amazon.

Beck's show went on the air 5 hours ago. The Creature from Jekyll Island is right now No. 10 on the bestseller list.

This is great news for the no-spin economic education of middle America.

This kind of information will be reflected in elections.

Michael

Oh, no. Not again. Just when we got most of the art history majors out of the country. Clive Runnels tells me that they're hiring like crazy at Border Services and Red Green is polishing his screenplay and putting a jacuzzi in his barn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol,

Jekyll Island is an island off the coast of Georgia--a retreat for billionaires.

Back at the beginning of last century, several of the richest men in the world met in secret there to form the plans for the USA Federal Reserve.

Before that time, the USA did not have an official central bank (despite flirting with the idea a couple of times before). Since the Fed is privately owned--and is not a government agency--but has a virtual monopoly on creating legal tender currency, the USA now has a sort of bastard central bank.

That is the creature. In essence,

It is a cartel of banks, sort of like the drug cartels, but with the sanction of the USA government.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Griffin makes an argument for a gold-backed dollar. Wouldn't this imply his belief that a gold-backed dollar no longer exist? Yet some people argue that we actually do have a gold-backed dollar in existence today....

Again, in our time, we do have competing currencies - and we do have a gold-backed dollar.

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristocrates,

The con goes like this. Powerful bankers get in cahoots with the government, but they stage a charade that goes something like the following: the government has to step in to protect the people from the greedy bankers (or greedy Wall Street). This isn't just limited to banks, either. Greedy automobile companies serve just as well if they get big enough to play.

The show is staged. Then the money and protections flow--all in the favor of the institutions the government was supposed to be protecting the people against--along with some very juicy deals for the politicos. All this is veiled and cloaked in doublespeak, of course. It wouldn't do for the public to realize that the institutions and government were fleecing them while staging a mock conflict.

EDIT: I have no idea what Michael is referring to. Much of the USA money is not even printed anymore--it is "digitized."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristocrates,

The con goes like this. Powerful bankers get in cahoots with the government, but they stage a charade that goes something like the following: the government has to step in to protect the people from the greedy bankers (or greedy Wall Street). This isn't just limited to banks, either. Greedy automobile companies serve just as well if they get big enough to play.

The show is staged. Then the money and protections flow--all in the favor of the institutions the government was supposed to be protecting the people against--along with some very juicy deals for the politicos. All this is veiled and cloaked in doublespeak, of course. It wouldn't do for the public to realize that the institutions and government were fleecing them while staging a mock conflict.

EDIT: I have no idea what Michael is referring to. Much of the USA money is not even printed anymore--it is "digitized."

Michael

Hey Michael, I am already well informed on the realities of the bailout(s). I just felt compelled to make a short and sarcastic statement about it.

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its disappointing that here at Tennessee Tech I've had economics and money&banking professors who swear by the Federal Reserve System. The particular economics professor talked about how great we had it, how great our monetary system is, and how "everything's going to be ok"

Just wanted to add: I'm loving these videos.

Something else I wanted to add: If the fed is pulling all the political strings how can people expect a presidential election or midterm elections to solve our problems? What other methods might the public take?

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a drastic increase in representatives(i.e. redistricting without the gerrymandering), and overral improvement in representation, especially in the Senate, could help.

EDIT: The economics professor also laughed at and made fun of the idea of bringing back the gold standard.

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristocrates,

I believe that there is a good possibility of electing Tea Party leaning candidates for the 2012 election. If we get a Tea Party leaning President along with Tea Party leaning congress members, they will do a lot of government dismantling on principle.

I don't know about getting rid of the Fed, but many of these Tea Party folks get inspiration from Glenn Beck. I was glad to see him getting on board with Griffin about the Fed. So I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a strong attempt to bury it if the elections go well.

If the elections go poorly--for instance, if the old-boy Republicans (and neocons) keep power within the party, or if the Democrats pull off a miracle--then the Fed will probably get even more powers than it already has, especially after the ideological assault on it that is coming..

EDIT: Let the professor laugh and mock. Lots of folks laughed at and mocked the Tea Party before the mid-terms. I don't see many of those people laughing any more.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that one of my posts wasn't added. I said something like,"If the fed has so much influence over the government how can we expect a presidential election or midterm elections to change anything and what are other methods we can take"

Personally, I think it will take something much more powerful than our vote.

Oh no....I'm sorry. I see that the post actually is up. Well, I'll reiterate. What do we do once we realize that elections are a scam on the American public and that whoever wins, whether they be democrat, republican, or tea party is meaningless?

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristocrates,

The votes help. This is not a quick process. That's not a bad thing, either.

If it were easy to change the government quickly, it would be easy for a popular person with dictatorial designs to change it.

Look at what even an incompetent like Obama was able to do. He got the entire Congress to vote on and pass massive laws without reading them first. If he was able to pull that off, imagine what a really evil dude could do. But. just like Obama is learning, he would get blocked by the inertia the mechanism of checks and balances imposes.

One of the virtues of our system of government is that a coup is highly unlikely.

This means that if you want real change, you have to commit to the long haul. There are no short-term fixes.

The good guys have been checked out for too long and are now coming awake. I believe they will eventually get this thing turned around and fixed, but, then, will gradually check out again as the bad guys try another approach. And the cycle will keep repeating.

All the good guys want to do is live their lives in peace, so they keep checking out once the danger passes. I doubt this will ever change.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristocrates,

The votes help. This is not a quick process. That's not a bad thing, either.

If it were easy to change the government quickly, it would be easy for a popular person with dictatorial designs to change it.

Look at what even an incompetent like Obama was able to do. He got the entire Congress to vote on and pass massive laws without reading them first. If he was able to pull that off, imagine what a really evil dude could do. But. just like Obama is learning, he would get blocked by the inertia the mechanism of checks and balances imposes.

One of the virtues of our system of government is that a coup is highly unlikely.

This means that if you want real change, you have to commit to the long haul. There are no short-term fixes.

The good guys have been checked out for too long and are now coming awake. I believe they will eventually get this thing turned around and fixed, but, then, will gradually check out again as the bad guys try another approach. And the cycle will keep repeating.

All the good guys want to do is live their lives in peace, so they keep checking out once the danger passes. I doubt this will ever change.

Michael

The aim wouldn't be a coup of the government but of the FED. The "good guys bad guys" dichotomy is a tremendous over-simplification of the situation. It's juvenile, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(My bold below.)

Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Unions or the Big Banks? They're both playing the same types of games.

The aim wouldn't be a coup of the government but of the FED. The "good guys bad guys" dichotomy is a tremendous over-simplification of the situation. It's juvenile, really.

Aristocrates,

Well, that's intelligent.

I'm done.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(My bold below.)

Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Unions or the Big Banks? They're both playing the same types of games.

The aim wouldn't be a coup of the government but of the FED. The "good guys bad guys" dichotomy is a tremendous over-simplification of the situation. It's juvenile, really.

Aristocrates,

Well, that's intelligent.

I'm done.

Michael

You fail to see the difference. Good guys bad guys wasn't my explanation but a question asked in hopes that you would acknowledge there aren't really good guys or bad guys, which you did and I was happy to see. But then you used that dichotomy to explain something even more complex. You don't think I could see the subtle derision? That's why I replied the way I did.

Edited by Aristocrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a transcript of Beck's opening monologue. You can get the whole transcript here.

During the financial crisis, most Americans have heard a lot about the Federal Reserve, but most Americans don't know anything about it -- how it works, what it is, who even runs it or how it's run. They know that it buys our debt. It sets up interest rate. It has a lot to do with the economic well-being of our nation. What did you say? Where did it come from?

Tonight, as part of the E4 focus, we're going to delve into E2 and get educated on the Fed.

G. Edward Griffin, he is author of this book. And if one more person hands me this book -- I really, I'm going to snap because I get this from so many -- I go out and people are, like, have you read this book? Yes, I have.

May I recommend -- have you read this book? If not, read it. It is "The Creature from Jekyll Island." It is a fascinating book on the Fed. The author is one of our guests tonight.

We're going to start at the beginning. We're going to talk a little bit about what they're doing now, but I want you to know, we're just going to start at the beginning and, really, we're going to give the history of the Fed as told by the Fed -- the happy tale on their own Web site. Are you ready for this? It's great. Here we are.

Here it is. Watch this. Quote -- on their Web site -- "After Alex Sander Hamilton spearheaded a movement advocating the creation of a central bank, the first bank of the United States was established in 1971."

You see how great this is? The Fed was started by a Founding Father. No. No. No, it wasn't. No.

The first bank isn't the fed. So, what does it have to do with anything? Well, nothing. But they just wanted to throw a Founding Father's name in there.

The bank's charter ran for 20 years and because it took about 20 years before Americans realized, hey, that Bank of America thing, that's not working out. They've got way too much power and influence, just like all the other Founders said, a proposal to renew it failed.

Now, back to happy story from the Fed's Web site. Quote, "The situation deteriorated to such an extent in 1860, a bill to charter a second bank of the United States was introduced in Congress."

Second bank was very much like the first, except bigger -- about 3.5 times bigger. It's always that way, isn't it? Anyway, the charter lasted 20 years before people went, what are we doing? Americans realized it wielded too much power and influence and proposal to renew it also failed.

Then according to the Fed Web site, they got rid of the nasty charter thing and will of the people. Quote, "In 1907, a severe financial panic jolted Wall Street and forced several banks into failure. Many Americans thought their banking structure was sadly out of date and needed major reform."

The first draft of the Federal Reserve Act was called the Aldrich bill because of the guy who wrote it was named Aldrich and it failed. President Taft refused to support it. He was so fat they had to have a special bathtub for him.

And then it underwent some surgery and reemission as the Glass-Owen bill and, of course, got a signature from progressive Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

Well, that's the Fed's story. It was introduced in 1907. And in 1913, it finally came to be. Isn't everything great in sunshine and lollipop world?

The Federal Reserve Act wasn't drafted in Congress. It was drafted on a private island off the coast of Georgia in 1910. Here is the island, Jekyll Island. And it was drafted under great secrecy.

Jekyll Island was retreat for billionaires like William Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan. And in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, the Republican whip in the Senate and the chair of the National Monetary Commission, sent his private railroad car to the New Jersey railroad station where he and five other men were instructed to come one at a time and everybody pretend they just didn't know each other.

Aldrich who was the guy -- remember, he, wrote the original bill -- he was a business associate of J.P. Morgan -- oh, and the father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr. So, there is no special interest happening there. There was also Abraham Piatt Andrew, assistant secretary of the treasury, and Frank Vanderlip representing William Rockefeller. Henry Davidson and Benjamin Strong with J.P. Morgan.

And Paul Warburg --he is a partner -- he was a partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Company. He was representing the Rothschild banking family. Oh, he's going to talk about the Rothschild now. He actually is an interesting character. If you ever saw little orphan Annie, Daddy Warbucks was named after Warburg.

These are the men that represented one-fourth of the entire wealth of the world. You think we've got a problem with wealth now? Those guys -- one quarter of all the money in the world. The Morgans, the Rockefellers, Warburgs, and Rothschild all in one room.

Yes. But when do they start sacrificing chicken? No, it doesn't happen. That I'll tell you.

These guys were all competitors. According to G. Edward Griffin, who we will talk to in a minute, they all came together to form a banking cartel so they didn't have to compete against each other. He says it was like an oil cartel or a sugar cartel, but this cartel actually went in partnership with the government. I mean, how great is that, huh? It's kind of like the drug cartels in Mexico. Wait, I didn't say that out loud, did I?

So, for more than a week, these men sat around there. And they sat around this big table and they hammered out all the details of what became the Federal Reserve System with five objectives. How many of these do you agree with?

One -- to stop the growing competition from the nation's newer banks. That doesn't sound good.

Two -- to obtain franchise to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending. That one doesn't sound good either.

Three -- to get control of the reserves of all of the banks so the reckless ones wouldn't exposed to currency drains or bank runs. Oh, that's the charity part. Oh, gee, Beave, thank you so much.

Then to shift the losses from the bank owners to the taxpayers. It just gets better and better for you and me, doesn't it? No. Again, the answer is no.

And then, finally -- to convince Congress the purpose was to protect the public.

Well, they started the Federal Reserve with no money, just a checkbook. The government could go to the Fed and obtain instant money without having to consult the taxpayer. What a country!

Money is created out of nothing and then given to the government. It's loaned by the banks to you and me and then we pay interest on it and it goes to them -- interest on nothing. Again, the Fed is nothing more than a cartel like OPEC, except it's a money cartel. And this cartel brought the federal government in to a partnership, where you and I have to answer to it.

And it's only to enforce the rules of the cartel, you know, to bring those into agreement with the federal laws to protect you. It operates under the protection of the federal government and the government has virtually given a monopoly to create the nation's money supply. There are no elected officials. There's virtually no accountability to anyone.

The president doesn't get to say, I'm going to name Glenn Beck as the head of the Fed, which -- oh, please! Sarah, when you're in, I'm available. Oh, did I say that one out loud, too? You can't do that.

The Fed gives the president a list to choose from. Really? Well, thank you, Chairman Mao.

The Fed is privately owned but by whom? Good question no one knows. We can't open their books and we don't know who owns them. Really?

Now, here's an interesting spin from the Federal Reserve board Web site. "Although they're set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve banks owe their resistance to act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public." Therefore, they're not really private companies, but rather owned by the citizens of the United States.

Well, that's fantastic. Let's all go to the bank and make a withdrawal. Or how about we lower interest rates at the bank we own. Yes.

The next question and the answer on the site is -- are Federal Bank employees considered government employees? Answer? No.

Employees of the Federal Reserve Bank are not government employees. They're paid as part of their expenses. They're employee and reserve bank. Also, it's like charity. That's interesting.

So, it's not really private. It's not really public. It's just this mysterious, magic money dispenser that buys all of our own debt, sets our interest rate, sets our economic policy, loans billions of dollars to other countries, helps us borrow billions of dollars from other countries and then prints money out of free -- just out of thin air and there's no drive- thru window, but everything else sounds magical, doesn't it? Yes.

I have news for you -- there is a lot of people when you start talking about the Federal Reserve, they start going into -- and then, the Bilderbergs, along with Colonel Sanders, got together and they start going down crazy roads. There's no reason to do it. It's crazy enough.

Let's talk about just the facts, shall we?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This is a new story which ponders the possible reasons that Glenn Beck "left" Fox, by mutual agreement with Roger Ailes, six (6) months before his contract ended.

Story here

One point that is made in this article, is that it might not be that Glenn went after the "Spooky Dude," who doubled down and went after Fox with a vengeance, which I fully understand.

And, it might not be due to Beck exposing Van Jones as some have thought.

It may be, as this article argues, that Glenn's poking into the Fed and the issue of why Congressmen have been denied their request to verify or "see" the gold that is at Fort Knox, according to the Fed.

Hmmmm

Curiouser and curiouser. as Alice looked through the looking glass.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

The premise of this article is that Beck would have stayed on at Fox if not for [fill in the blank].

I disagree. It seems to be very, very hard for people to imagine that people like Beck are out of the box innovators who take risks. Look at the slew of innovations he brought to a 5 o'clock cable news show, starting with the 20 minute opening monologue. Look at what he did with the Restoring Honor rally, which could have flopped and turned him into the biggest laughing stock in America. I could go on, but it's pretty clear what I think of Beck's achievements.

I use Occam's razor, i.e., what's the simplest explanation in several that don't make sense?

To me, Thoreau nailed it.

Beck constantly marches out of cadence because he marches to a different drummer.

My thing is I hear the same beat in the distance.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael.

Understood.

Posting the article was an FYI. I agree that Beck sets his own sails and tacks into the wind. Thoreau certainly nails it. So many of the folks who have supported me in my political runs

have constantly suggested that I stop marching to that different drummer. I always smile, thank them and march on.

Beck critics need to find their own internal justifications for his actions. As you know, I have been an admirer of his work for over eight years. I have not had the time to hear it, but supposedly he wowed the Knesset.

We agree.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from Israeli TV and has about 7 and 1/2 minutes of the Beck appearance at the Knesset:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now