Top 10 Most Corrupt Politicians-2009

Washington, DC

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed aSenate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch’s complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…” The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.
3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also “under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.” Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a “federal regulator,” and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.” Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn’t until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important.According to CNN: “Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG’s impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned ‘full details’ of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG.” Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed “household help” ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington” list.
5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won’t be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton’s scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder’s former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder’s controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder’s politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama’s then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named “Senate Candidate A” in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama’s seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. According to Reuters: “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich — later charged with trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat — at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor’s aides about his desire to be appointed.” Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.
7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act requestsand is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade “artists” to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of “czars” in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President’s bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control — through fiat and threats — large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: “The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors — this is Obama’s “ethics” record — and we haven’t even gotten through the first year of his presidency.
8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2009 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA’s use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including aCIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)
9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman’s largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks — tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA’s offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, “Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills.” When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, “cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file.” The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha’s nephew received $4 million in Defense Departmentno-bid contracts: “Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military.”
10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly “forget” to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making “campaign contributions” to dig his way out of trouble. According toWCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: “The reigning member of Congress’ top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles…Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.” Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

 

The Elite Class and the Radical Transformation of America

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken (1918)

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” — Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

“News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising”. — former NBC news President Rubin Frank

If your partner were to come home one evening and announce to you that he/she is 5 days away from radically transforming you, would it be reasonable to ask a few questions, such as: Why? Into what? How are you going to do it? Who is going to transform me? How radically will I be transformed? What will it cost? What benefit will it have? Will it hurt? (Are you related to Lorraine Bobbitt?)

We are standing on the precipice of destruction, teetering unbalanced on one toe while inebriated, with the crevasse of unfathomable darkness looming menacingly below. We are about to plunge into an abyss from which there will be little hope of return. It will hurt! Both Liberals and Conservatives alike are united in their obliviousness to what is really transpiring, and what the outcome will be. Similarly, both the Left and the Right will equally suffocate when the coffin lid on America shuts tight. The radical transformation of America is completely bi-partisan in its cold neutrality.

I do not mean to be disparaging to either the Left or Right, but it becomes discouraging to see how the Left cheers the current Administration while unaware of the truth; and how the Right is easily distracted as they embroil themselves in ferreting out meaning contained within each piece of new legislation. Individuals from both sides of the fence are failing to glean the bigger picture that provides the context from which all this legislation flows. It is not that what the Conservatives are uncovering is in any way false, it is only that it is just fragments of a much bigger picture. If we continue to fail to recognize where the battlefield is, there is little hope of winning the war.

Before delving into the subject at hand, I must dispel one false hope that many Conservatives have. The biggest delusion I see my fellow Conservatives engaged in is the hope that if Obama is proved ineligible to hold office that we can then take our country back. Although I think it is important to resolve this issue, its resolution will not in any way affect the course we are on. Certainly, any laws that have been signed into being by an illegitimate President can be repealed, but this means only that the Health Care Bill (as of this writing) can be abolished. Our problems are much greater than this, with tentacles that have infested our Society and are about to choke the life out of our nation.

The international mantra that is the drive behind re-shaping the world is ‘man-made climate change’. The ‘green revolution’ has pervaded every level of our Society and there is not a day that goes by that we are not bombarded with advertisements touting how environmentally friendly some product is, or how ecologically responsible some corporation is. Its nauseating.

I am neither a Geologist nor a Climatologist, so as I pour through all the scientific arguments I must admit that I cannot confer credibility with absolutism upon either side of the debate.  However, I can ask if this ‘climate-change’ is being used as an excuse to foist a political agenda?

There have been numerous publications and statements made that certainly reveal the intent to create a crisis so that the Elitists can step in and tender their solution.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
Club of Rome-premier environmental think-tank,consultants to the United Nations

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“Adopting a central organizing principle…
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every
policy and program, every law and institution…
to halt the destruction of the environment.”
Al Gore-Earth in the Balance, member of Club of Rome, co-founder of Generations Investment Fund

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
UN Agenda 21— (signed by G.H. Bush, 1992)

This has been just a small sampling of many similar quotes,  to read more click [here].  For a list of references to all quotes, click [here].

If you are a functional human being in possession of a modicum of intellect, it should be glaringly obvious that something nefarious is afoot.  It may come as a surprise to many that revenues from Cap and Trade have already been accounted for in the 2012 budget. The Elite Class has had a plan in the hopper for some time now, and it is rapidly coming to fruition.  The universal acceptance of Agenda 21 has ushered in this new era, and just by giving a cursory glance over the 40 chapter titles that comprise Agenda 21 would reveal the depth of this Master Plan.

Never heard of Agenda 21?  Perhaps you have heard the words ‘sustainable’, ‘smart growth’, ‘social justice’, ‘biological equity’, and a plethora of similar words that have pervaded our societal lexicon.  Whenever you hear such words realize they are derivatives of Agenda 21.   Enclosed below is a description of Agenda 21 taken from the Johannesburg Summit of 2002.

This meeting will review progress in implementing Agenda 21, the plan of action for sustainable development that was agreed in Rio, and develop a plan for the further implementation of sustainable development policies and programmes worldwide. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has identified five themes for particular attention at the Summit: water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. These are critical areas for long-term development, involving complex interactions among economic, social and environmental factors and involving different sectors, organizations and disciplines. Those issues, together with population and poverty, and the relationships among them, are the focus of the material collected here.

Agenda 21 is the blueprint for globalization and is the precursor to all legislation, taxes, and regulations you see coming out of Washington.  It is the vehicle by which the Master Class has found its Utopian dream of absolute control over you while simultaneously raping the world of all its wealth.  Power and money.  Since its inception in 1992, they have held 18 annual meetings.  Between May 3-14th of 2010 they held another meeting in NYC.  In attendance were all 50 signatory nations and representatives from 2,146 CSO’s (Civil Society Organizations, which are NGO’s that are accredited by the United Nations to have consultative status).  Want to know when America as you know it is coming to an end?  Well, that information is well documented too, and is known as the Marrakech Transition Process.  It may be comforting to some to know they have a life plan.  Unfortunately, it is being planned by someone else.

Do not let the noble sounding drivel of Agenda 21 fool you-remember, this is all steeped in the contrived notion that your presence on earth is contributing to cataclysmic climate change; authored by the elitists.  This Elite Class is comprised of internationalists from the financial world, media moguls, powerful politicians, upper echelon military, and multinational CEO’s.  Regardless their country of origin, they fail to see the world as you and I might see it, because they play ball on a global field.  Where we see regions of national sovereignty, they see only potential markets to be exploited.  Where we see individuals trying to lead their lives, they see us as merely insects to be squeezed for every last ounce of juice they can wring out of us.

An example that lends veracity to the bold statements made above is the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). All of the usual global elitists got together (either directly or indirectly) to form a company that is going to capitalize on regulations that will be levied against all persons and companies via Cap and Trade.  This bill has not even been signed into law, yet the company was formed 10 years ago in preparation of what they will do to us.  Al Gore has set up his company, Generations Investment Management that is poised to profit from the re-distribution of wealth.  The following is taken directly off his website:

According to some experts, the Base of the Pyramid is an untapped market opportunity of $13 trillion in annual sales as well as significant invisible assets.

I am baffled that no seems to have put together what should be the most alarming 2 pieces of information ever announced:  Just as Generations Investment Management states they anticipate $13 trillion in annual sales, the Chicago Climate Exchange announced that they expect $10 trillion in annual sales.  The worlds entire annual GDP is $69 trillion.  The United States annual GDP is $17 trillion. What they are saying is that just these two companies alone plan on capturing 33% of the worlds entire wealth!

The Elitists behind the theoretical development of these political platforms are Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert Muller, George Soros, and about 100 others that will always appear on boards of various NGO’s (non-government organizations).  Although I can trace these individuals to connections with apprx. 1,800 other organizations, they all sit on the Board of the Club of Rome.  These names will repeat themselves as you start sifting through each and every one of these organizations. For an in-depth look at the people and organizations, click [here].

For example, it is interesting to note that the Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Club of Rome were all founded by David Rockefeller.  It is also interesting to note that all these organizations and the plethora of their alliances all carry the same message, and all have the usual people associated with them.

The collaborative efforts of these CSO’s work to shape policy. Maurice Strong is founder of the Earth Council Alliance, and is responsible for writing policy underlying the Kyoto Treaty, the Rio Earth Summit, and the Earth Charter Initiative.  The Club of Rome (via the collaborative efforts of all their different alliances), put together Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations and signed by G.H. Bush in 1992.  The Earth Charter Initiative is a global curriculum for the re-education of our children, adopted by UNESCO and signed by G.W. Bush in 2000.

Have you ever wondered where the 1.2 trillion dollars funneled through the IMF goes? What about annual payment of 46 billion dollars paid out via the Millennium Accords and Global Poverty Act?  Much of it is given to these NGO’s in the form of grants. The recent Health Care Bill had 159 such grants embedded in it. Your money is being used to dig your own grave with.

I cannot fully expose the labyrinthine corridors of corruption in a singular accounting, but it is vitally important you begin to understand the depth of the ruse being foisted upon us.  We cannot fight these powers, but we can hold our elected officials feet to the fire and have them resolve this mess.  The 2010 elections are going to be the most important event in your lifetime.  We need a supermajority in the House, and those individuals must be willing to not only restore our country through Constitutional leadership, but they must also be aware of the corruption being foisted upon us and honor-bound to fight our fight!  We cannot hold them accountable unless we ourselves are knowledgeable as to where exactly the problem exists.

Recommended Reading:

Links to NGO’s and their Masters
Understanding NGO’s
Exposing the Club of Rome
Local Government for Sustainability

 

Link Bank to Puppet Masters

Rather than write another lengthy post, I thought it might be prudent to provide members with important links that reveal WHO all the puppet masters are, WHAT they are doing, and WHY they are doing it. These links you can use to substantiate your own posts and further your own understandings of Obama & Company.

Club of Rome (Alexander King, Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ted Turner, George Soros, etc)

Club of Budapest

Club of Madrid

USACOR

CACOR

National Associations

Earth Council (founded by Maurice Strong, author of Earth Charter Initiative)

European Council on Foreign Relations (George Soros, Diego Hidalgo, Mikhail Gorbachev)

World Wisdom Council (Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest)

World Future Council

Champion of the Earth

UN University of Peace (Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, member CoR)

Global Commons (human overpopulation and eugenics)

United Nations Foundation (Timothy Wirth, CoR executive member)

Foundation for Conscious Evolution

The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization

Global Marshall Plan

Global Ethic Foundation

World Wildlife Fund

Green Belt Movement

World Wisdom Council

World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality (composed mostly of CoR members including Gore and Gorbachev)

United Nations Foundation (created by prominent CoR member Ted Turner)

Global Security Institute

Global Leadership for Climate Action (joint initiative of the United Nations Foundation and the Club of Madrid)

Gorbachev Foundation

Green Cross International

Global Green USA (Another Gorbachev Foundation)

United Nations University of Peace (founded by CoR members Robert Muller, Konrad Osterwalder, and Martin Lees)

Kosmos Journal

Generations Investment Fund (co-founded by Al Gore)

Chicago Climate Exchange (Maurice Strong, Al Gore, George Soros and all the usual suspects)

The Trilateral Commission (David Rockefeller, also founder of CoR)

The Council on Foreign Relations (founded by David Rockefeller)

Agenda 21 (the outcome of all these players, adopted by the United Nations, agreement signed by G.H. Bush in 1992)

Earth Charter Initiative (a curriculum for global education of our youth, signed by G.W. Bush in 2000)

 

America’s Impending Master Class Dictatorship

Thanks to the endless barrage of feel-good propaganda that daily assaults the American mind, best epitomized a few months ago by the “green shoots,” everything’s-coming-up-roses propaganda touted by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, the citizens have no idea how disastrous the country’s fiscal, monetary and economic problems truly are. Nor do they perceive the rapidly increasing risk of a totalitarian nightmare descending upon the American Republic.

One stark and sobering way to frame the crisis is this: if the United States government were to nationalize (in other words, steal) every penny of private wealth accumulated by America’s citizens since the nation’s founding 235 years ago, the government would remain totally bankrupt.

According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent report on wealth, America’s private net worth was $53.4 trillion as of September, 2009. But at the same time, America’s debt and unfunded liabilities totaled at least $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion), or 225% of the citizens’ net worth. Even if the government expropriated every dollar of private wealth in the nation, it would still have a deficit of $66,600,000,000,000.00 ($66.6 trillion), equal to $214,286.00 for every man, woman and child in America and roughly 500% of GDP. If the government does not directly seize the nation’s private wealth, then it will require $389,610 from each and every citizen to balance the country’s books. State, county and municipal debts and deficits are additional, already elephantine in many states (e.g., California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York) and growing at an alarming rate nationwide. In addition to the federal government, dozens of states are already bankrupt and sinking deeper into the morass every day.

The government continues to dig a deeper and deeper fiscal grave in which to bury its citizens. This year, the federal deficit will total at least $1,600,000,000,000.00 ($1.6 trillion), which represents overspending of $4,383,561,600.00 ($4.38 billion) per day. (The deficit during October and November, 2009, the first two months of Fiscal Year 2010, totaled $296,700,000,000.00 ($297 billion), or $4,863,934,000.00 ($4.9 billion) per day, a record.) Using the GAAP accounting method (which is what corporations are required to use because it presents a far more accurate and honest picture of a company’s finances than the cash accounting method primarily and misleadingly used by the U.S. government), the nation’s fiscal year 2009 deficit was roughly $9,000,000,000,000.00 ($9 trillion), or $24,700,000,000.00 ($24.7 billion) per day, as calculated by brilliant and well-respected economist John Williams. (www.shadowstats.com) Fiscal Year 2010’s cash- and GAAP-accounting deficits will likely be worse than 2009’s, given government bailout and new program spending that is on steroids and psychotic.

Putting Fiscal Year 2009’s $9,000,000,000,000.00 ($9 trillion) deficit another way, 17% of America’s private wealth, accumulated over a period of 235 years, was wiped out by just one year’s worth of government deficit spending insanity.

Given this, is it any surprise that Treasury Secretary Geithner has announced that the release of the nation’s FY 2009 supplemental GAAP financial statements has been delayed? Remember, this is the same Secretary Geithner who bullied people to cover up the sordid details of the AIG, or more accurately, the taxpayer-funded, multi-billion dollar, Santa Claus bailout and bonus bonanza for Goldman Sachs. Do you really think this government, characterized as it is by fiscal and monetary secrecy, lies, chicanery, cronyism and stonewalling, wants the people to know what is actually happening? Obviously, it does not, so it hides from the public the inexcusable facts.

It is estimated that the top 1% of Americans control roughly 40% of the nation’s wealth. In other words, 3 million people own $21,400,000,000,000.00 ($21.4 trillion) in net private assets, while the other 305 million own the remaining $32,000,000,000,000.00 ($32 trillion). 77,000,000 (77 million) Americans (the lowest 25%) have mean net assets of minus $2,300 ($-2,300.00) per person; they live from paycheck to paycheck, or on public assistance. The lower 50% of Americans own mean net assets of $27,800 each, about enough to purchase a modest car. Obviously, it would be impossible to retire on such an amount without significant government or other assistance. Meanwhile, the richest 10% of Americans possess mean net assets of $3,976,000.00 each, or 143 times those of the bottom 50%; the top 2% control assets worth more than 1,500 times those in the bottom 50%. When you combine these facts with Wall Street’s typical multi-million dollar annual bonuses, you get an idea of wealth inequality in America. Historically, such extreme inequality has been a well-documented breeding ground for totalitarianism.

If the government decides to expropriate (steal) or commandeer (e.g., force into Treasuries) America’s private wealth in order to buy survival time, such a measure will be designed to destroy the common citizens, not the elite. Insiders will be given advance warning about any such plan, and will be able to transfer their money offshore or into financial vehicles immune from harm. Assuming that the elite moves its money to safety, there would then be $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion) in American debt and liabilities supported by only $32,000,000,000,000.00 ($32 trillion) in private net worth, for a deficit of $88,000,000,000,000.00 ($88 trillion). In that case, each American would owe $285,714.29 to balance the country’s books. (Remember to multiply this amount by every person in your household, including any infant children.)

If the common people suspect that something diabolical was in the works, a portion of the $32 trillion in non-elite wealth could be evacuated as well prior to a government expropriation and/or currency devaluation, resulting in less money for the government to steal. What these statistics mean is that it is absolutely impossible for the government to fund its debt and deficits, even if it steals all of the nation’s private wealth. Therefore, the government’s only solutions are either formal bankruptcy (outright debt repudiation and the dismantling of bankrupt government programs) or unprecedented American monetary inflation and debt monetization. If the government chooses to inflate its way out of this fiscal catastrophe, the United States dollar will essentially become worthless. You can be absolutely certain that a PhD. in economics, such as Dr. Bernanke, is well aware of these realities, despite what he might say in speeches. For that matter, so are Chinese schoolchildren, who, when patronized by Treasury Secretary Geithner about America’s “strong dollar,” laughed in his face. One day, perhaps America’s school children will receive a real education so that they, too, will know when to laugh at absurd propaganda.

The government has announced that during the fiscal years from 2010 through 2019, it will create an additional $9,000,000,000,000.00 ($9 trillion) in deficits, an amount that is almost certain to be understated by trillions given the country’s current economic trajectory. The government assumes that this vast additional deficit will be funded by others, such as the Chinese, as it is a statistical fact that the United States will be incapable of funding it.

Furthermore, with the budgetary equivalent of a straight face, the Office of Management and Budget reports in its long-term, inter-generational budget projection that the United States government will experience massive, non-stop deficits for the next 70 (SEVENTY) years, requiring the issuance of tens of trillions of dollars of additional debt. The OMB does not project even one year of surplus during the entire seventy year budget period.

These deficits and debts are now so gargantuan that they have become surreal abstractions impossible even for sophisticated financiers to begin to comprehend. The common citizen has absolutely no idea what these numbers mean, or imply for his or her future. The people have been deluded into thinking that America’s arrogant, egomaniacal, always-wrong-but-never-in-doubt fiscal witch doctors and charlatans, including Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, Geithner and Ponce de Bernanke, have discovered a Monetary Fountain of Youth that endlessly spits up free money from the center of earth, in a geyser of good will toward the United States. Unfortunately, this delusion is false: there is no Monetary Fountain of Youth, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of the self-deified man-gods in Washington, D.C., the debt and deficits are real, completely out of control, and 100% guaranteed to create catastrophic consequences for the nation and its people.

When government “representatives” deliberately sell into slavery the citizens of a so-called free Republic, they have committed treason against those people. This is exactly what has happened in the United States: the citizens have been sold into debt slavery that they and their descendants can never escape, because the debts piled onto their backs can never, ever be paid. Despite expensive and sophisticated brainwashing campaigns emanating from Washington, claiming that America can “grow” out of its deficits and debt, it is arithmetically impossible for the country to do so. The government’s statements that it can dig the nation out of its fiscal hole by digging an even deeper chasm have become parodies and perversions of even totally discredited and morally disgusting Keynesianism.

The people no longer have elected representatives; they have elected traitors.

The enslavement of the American people has been orchestrated by a pernicious Master Class that has taken the United States by the throat. This Master Class is now choking the nation to death as it accelerates its master plan to plunder the people’s dwindling remaining assets. The Master Class comprises politicians, the Wall Street money elite, the Federal Reserve, high-end government (including military) officials, government lobbyists and their paymasters, military suppliers and media oligarchs. The interests and mindset of the Master Class are so totally divorced from those of the average American citizen that it is utterly tone deaf and blind to the justifiable rage sweeping the nation. Its guiding ethics of greed, plunder, power, control and violence are so alien to mainstream American culture and thought that the Master Class might as well be an enemy invader from Mars. But the Master Class here, it is real and it is laying waste to America. To the members of the Master Class, the people are not fellow-citizens; they are instruments of labor, servitude and profit. At first, the Master Class viewed the citizens as serfs; now that they have raped and destroyed the national economy, while in the process amassing unprecedented wealth and power for themselves, they see the people as nothing more than slaves.

America’s public finances are now so completely dysfunctional and chaotic that something far worse than debt enslavement and monetary implosion, terrible curses unto themselves, looms on the horizon: namely, a Master Class-sponsored American dictatorship.

Throughout history, the type of situation in which America now finds itself has been a fertility factory for tyranny. The odds of an outright overthrow of the people by the Washington and Wall Street Axis, or more broadly, the Master Class are increasing dramatically. The fact that so few people believe an American dictatorship is possible is exactly why it is becoming likely.

Dictatorships have blighted history and ruined lives since the beginning of civilization. In recent times alone, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Ceausescu, Amin, Hussein, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim, Pinochet, Milosevic, Tito, Batista, Peron, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Marcos, Somoza, Mengistu, Bokassa, Sese Seko, Franco, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Castro have power-sprayed blood onto the screen of time and ravaged mankind with murder, torture and human oppression. A full catalog of history’s tyrants would require a book of hundreds of pages. In the past 100 years alone, over 200 million human beings have been annihilated by wars, ethnic cleansings and government assassinations. Just when we think that civilization has been able to rise above tyranny’s inhumanity and disgrace, a new dictator appears on the scene to start the process all over again. Every time this happens, fear and submission paralyze the vast majority of the affected masses, leading them to “follow orders” and lick autocracy’s blood-stained boots.

History has proven to tyrants that oppression works. In fact, it is easy to control a populace, once you control the money, markets, military (including police), media and minions (the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant). This is exactly where the United States is today.

Recent American events paint an ominous picture of a Master Class that is now in total control.

When 90% of the American people vehemently rejected the $700,000,000,000.00 ($700 billion) TARP bailout plan, the Master Class put it on a fast track and approved it anyway.

When a clear majority of the American people said no to a government takeover of Chrysler and GM, the Master Class poured billions of taxpayer dollars into those corporate sinkholes and took them over anyway.

When the people said no to multi-trillion dollar crony bailouts for the bankers and insurers whose corruption had caused global financial mayhem, the government pledged to those elite insiders more than $13,000,000,000,000.00 ($13 trillion) of the people’s money anyway.

When the people expressed astonishment and anger that Wall Street planned to pay itself record 2009 bonuses, in the midst of America’s worst-ever fiscal and financial crisis caused by them, Wall Street stuffed its pockets with taxpayer-supported bonus money anyway.

When the people said no to a proposed $40,000,000,000.00 ($40 billion) bailout of AIG and its elite trading partners such as Goldman Sachs (an amount that subsequently exploded to $180,000,000,000.00+ ($180+ billion)), the Master Class went underground, covertly misappropriated taxpayer money and made the payoffs anyway.

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized at enormous taxpayer expense, the government approved $6,000,000.00 individual pay packages in 2009 (150 times the average American wage) for the CEOs of both failed companies anyway.

When a clear majority of the people said no to nationalized health care, even after being bombarded by a multi-million dollar, lie-drenched propaganda campaign designed to bamboozle them, the House and Senate passed nationalized health care bills anyway.

When more than seven million American workers lost their jobs and were subsisting on unemployment benefits and food stamps, federal government employees, who now earn DOUBLE what private sector workers earn, were given another round of pay and benefits increases anyway.

When private sector workers’ 401Ks and IRA retirement plans plummeted in value due to economic collapse and endemic Wall Street-orchestrated market corruption (including systemic front running, flash trading, naked short selling and other manipulations), government “defined benefit,” lifetime-cost-of-living-adjusted pension plans, despite already being underfunded by $2,000,000,000,000.00 ($2 trillion), were made richer than ever anyway.

The long, shameful litany of events signaling the total divorce between the Master Class and the people of the United States doesn’t stop there. It goes on and on.

The message from the American Master Class to the American people is simple and clear:

We Defy You.

Governments that openly defy the people are either already totalitarian or in the process of becoming so. Monetarily, the United States clearly functions as a totalitarian dictatorship already, with a Federal Reserve that operates in secrecy, creates limitless amounts of debt and currency at will, and showers trillions of dollars upon favored Master Class insiders with zero transparency or accountability whatsoever. The Federal Reserve is so shameless about its dictatorial powers that it flatly refuses to provide details about multi-trillion dollar bailouts and rescues of privileged elites, in open defiance of Congress and the people. The fact that they get away with these blatant acts of defiance demonstrates the true extent of the Master Class chokehold on America.

If the Master Class were a benign despot and if its policies and programs actually worked, that would be one thing. But that is not the case. Rather, its programs are in a complete shambles.

Every single government entitlement program in the United States is bankrupt. This includes Social Security ($17,500,000,000,000.00 underfunded; $17.5 trillion); Medicare Part A ($36,700,000,000,000.00 underfunded; $36.7 trillion); Medicare Part B ($37,000,000,000,000.00 underfunded; $37 trillion); Medicare Part D ($15,600,000,000,000 underfunded; $15.6 trillion), Government and military pensions ($2,000,000,000,000 underfunded; $2 trillion), Food Stamps (current underfunding difficult to measure because the number of recipients is exploding; hundreds of billions underfunded versus original projections, minimum); and the list goes on. The above underfunding amounts are NET of projected tax receipts over the next 50 years. But the current recession has invalidated virtually all long-term budget and tax receipt assumptions, meaning that the true underfunded amounts are now greater than current, already mind-boggling estimates.

While the above statistics are terrifying enough to any citizen with a functioning brain, what is Twilight Zone-eerie and a far more serious cause for alarm is the casual indifference with which the Master Class is now making the country’s dire and irreparable fiscal circumstances even worse.

The nationalized health care program will cost at least $1 trillion over the next ten years, and most likely multiples of that. It is being crammed down America’s throat by a bankrupt government that does not have the money today and will not have the money tomorrow to pay for it. Worse is the fact that the same government that has bankrupted each and every existing social program now intends to directly or indirectly control the health care of all citizens. Based on the government’s existing track record and the health care program’s enormous complexity, invasiveness and cost, the probability that it will become a national fiscal and humanitarian catastrophe is roughly 100%.

“Cap and Trade” is a multi-trillion dollar tax scam being foisted onto the American public without a legitimate debate or popular referendum. You might be surprised to learn that “Climate Revenues” are already included in the federal budget, starting with $79,000,000,000.00 ($79 billion) in fiscal year 2012, which begins only 20 months from now. During fiscal years 2012 through 2019, the government expects to collect $646,000,000,000.00 ($646 billion) in “Climate Revenues,” a completely new tax category. Have any of your elected traitors told you that they have enacted $646,000,000,000.00 ($646 billion) in “Climate” taxes beginning twenty months from now and continuing forever? These “Climate Revenues” are based on junk science, lies and hysteria, and have been pimped by greed-diseased parasites who seek to make billions from operating and manipulating the Cap and Trade “marketplace.” Favored elitists such as Hank Paulson, Al Gore, General Electric and Goldman Sachs, among others, have positioned themselves to profit from the nation’s upcoming Cap and Trade tax misery and economic debilitation.

The reality is that the giant Ponzi scheme called the United States of America is running out of money. In any Ponzi scheme, money must constantly be poured into the top of the funnel in order to pay the redeemers at the bottom. As the number of redeemers has grown, tax receipts have fallen far short of covering their withdrawals, a problem that has now become an outright government funding emergency further aggravated by the fiscal, financial and economic crises.

If the Washington and Wall Street Axis were not legally able to create and distribute counterfeit American money, the Ponzi scheme would have collapsed already. Trillions of new, out-of-thin-air, printing-press and electronic “dollars” have bought the Axis additional time, but new sources of revenue must immediately be found to keep the scam alive. Congress is fully aware of this reality. Outright tax increases would be bad politics during a recession that is morphing into a depression, and also bad for 2010 re-election campaigns, so they cannot be implemented. Therefore, Congress continues to advance the health care and Cap and Trade agendas, which are nothing but taxation Trojan Horses festooned in righteousness and sanctimony, despite overwhelming popular opposition.

With health care passed, revenues and fees will kick in immediately in 2010, whereas costs will not begin to accrue until 2012 and later. The government plans to spend the revenues immediately to forestall a total fiscal collapse. Nationalized health care has absolutely nothing to do with health care; it has to do with creating an immediate revenue stream to help fix the current government funding crisis. Similarly, Cap and Trade has nothing to do with fixing the environment. It, too, is nothing more than a massive tax increase similarly designed to address the government’s epic funding shortfall, with thick slices of pork thrown in for privileged insiders and deceitful propagandists like bloated “Father of the Internet” and now “Savior of the World” Al Gore.

The last thing the Master Class wants is for the people to understand the disastrous state of the nation’s finances. Master Class brainwashing tells the people that it is “negative” and “pessimistic” to look at the facts, despite the fact that psychological health is characterized by the ability to identify and deal with reality. The Master Class wants the people to put on Bozo the Clown happy faces and let sugar plums and green shoots dance in their brains as they write one check after another to pay for Cap and Trade, nationalized health care, and a mind-numbing assortment of other taxes and fees.

On Sunday night, November 30, 2009, North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Il (a name that says it all, even better than Made-off’s), an international poster child of Master Class psychological illness, devalued his country’s currency by 99%. This vicious tyrant, who has given birth to a national hell on earth, is chauffeured in Mercedes Benz limousines, drinks the finest imported whiskies and dines in imperial dignity on foods prepared by personal chefs while his citizens starve to death on the streets or, at best, eke out a subsistence living. Kim became paranoid that the people were actually figuring out how to improve their pitiful, impoverished lives in tiny ways, so he decided to wipe them out. The people were given one week to exchange their money at a rate of 100 old Won for 1 new Won. Any lifetime family savings in excess of roughly $700.00 were simply confiscated by the North Korean government. To keep the people in line, the military and police were put on high alert, fully prepared to kill or arrest any protesters.

On January 9, 2010, Venezuela’s strong man Hugo Chavez devalued his country’s currency by 50%, overnight and without warning, causing immediate inflation, shortages of food and supplies, and general financial chaos throughout the nation.

While you might be shaking your head in pity over the plight of the citizens of North Korea and Venezuela, ask yourself this: could this not happen in the United States?

On April 5, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, an Obama hero, outlawed gold ownership overnight by signing Executive Order 6102, which gave the people three and one-half weeks to surrender all privately-owned bullion to the government for a price of $20.67 per ounce. On January 30, 1934, nine months after collecting the people’s gold, Roosevelt devalued the dollar 69% overnight, by raising the gold price from $20.67 to $35.00 per ounce.

Since its founding in 1913, the Federal Reserve has devalued the dollar by 98+% thanks to endless money printing and debt creation, a corrosive and impoverishing process that is now accelerating. In the past year, the Fed has engineered $20+ trillion in bailouts, subsidies and guarantees for well-connected and lucky scavengers and opportunists, an amount equal to roughly 40% of the total private wealth created in this country since its inception. All because a few elitist government man-gods with an almost perfect record of error and failure have deemed in their imperial wisdom that it shall be so. The citizens, whose hard-earned wealth is being systematically destroyed by this continual, government-decreed monetary debasement were never invited to the debate or given a say, which is par for the course for dictatorships. This massive de facto devaluation now hangs over the people’s wealth like a great monetary sword of Damocles.

Conceptually, whether it is a 50% overnight devaluation in Venezuela, a 69% overnight devaluation in the United States, a 98% devaluation in America over time, or a 99% overnight devaluation in North Korea, what is the difference? The fact is: there is no difference; monetary debasements are all the same. In each and every case, the people’s wealth is stolen via government edict, while the people stand by helplessly and in shock.

So one must ask: For whom does the bell toll? A foreign “them,” or a domestic us? Who is to say that you will not be told tomorrow morning that, effective immediately, in accordance with some perversely named mandate such as the “American Monetary Security, Wealth Preservation and Terrorism Prevention Act,” enacted by emergency for “the safety of the nation and the financial well being of the citizens,” all existing currency and bank balances will be redenominated in “New Dollars,” at a conversion rate of 1 new for every 100 old currency units? Would this not simply be another, almost predictable act of defiance toward the American people by the Master Class? And if that happened, do you honestly believe that the Master Class would not have been alerted in advance and allowed to make special preparations for itself ahead of the devaluation? Do you think they intend to go down in the same ship as the people they defy? If such a currency devaluation were announced, what could you do about it? March on Washington? But how would you get there if your money had been wiped out?

Despite what you may hear from State Media, which includes virtually all establishment news organizations, particularly financial ones (e.g., CNBC), America is on the precipice. No bankrupt nation in history has ever defended or preserved the freedoms of its citizens. In fact, it has been the exact opposite: in desperation, bankrupt governments have routinely plundered their citizens’ wealth and imposed totalitarian controls. What will make things different for the United States, the largest debtor nation in all of recorded civilization?

The United States government cannot ever, possibly pay its debts, is pathologically incapable of controlling its spending or curbing its hunger for both domestic and international empire and persistently refuses to tell the American people the truth. If America’s citizens were told the truth and given the benefit of true leadership, as opposed to the guile and dishonesty of an endless array of political liars and hacks, perhaps they could rally and defeat the problems that afflict them. But instead, they are fed by the Master Class a steady diet of narcotic propaganda that deludes, confuses and enervates them. The truth cannot set people free if it is never told, and that is the essence of America’s gathering tragedy.

In a future article, we will detail specific developments you should watch for to chart the course of America’s ominous and potentially deadly national storm. The current, grave situation is already a clear call to action. When the signals become even more urgent, it will be late in the game to take protective action, and possibly too late. Citizens should begin to prepare now not just for financial survival, but for the personal security of themselves and their loved ones should a Category 5 economic and political hurricane rip into the nation, something that becomes more likely every day.

With respect to personal finances, in virtually every national currency devaluation and major political upheaval in the past, gold has represented sanctuary for the affected people. Gold has not just preserved wealth, but personal freedom as well. While governments can devalue fiat currencies, they cannot, by edict, devalue gold. Yes, they can try to manipulate its price, but unless all governments join in the collusion, ultimately the price will return to market. The market for gold is global, and demand exists in all nations and among all peoples. Should the government attempt to confiscate gold, it will be an outright admission that the financial system is collapsing, and the people will know better than to hand over to a corrupt government their only means of survival. The most important point is this: devalued currencies never rise again. Once they are destroyed, they are gone forever, and those whose wealth had once been denominated in them are wiped out. As you have no doubt heard before, not one fiat currency has survived over time, and that is an indisputable fact. More significantly, no fiat currency has ever suffered the abuse that has been inflicted upon the United States dollar, meaning that it is at extreme risk. Gold has been money for 5,000 years. It has not merely survived, it has prevailed over each and every fiat currency collapse throughout history. Given this, the most important financial question a person can ask him- or herself today is: How is my wealth denominated at this time? And given its denomination, is my wealth likely to be safe in current and evolving circumstances?

One thing is certain: as the epic David and Goliath monetary battle unfolds, between the people fighting to defend their hard-earned wealth on one side, and a Master Class that greedily and pathologically wants to plunder them on the other, the price of gold will become extremely volatile for a period of time. Volatility will, in fact, tell you that the War on Wealth has officially been declared, and will be your signal to do whatever you must to protect what is yours. As the government Goliath and its Master Class allies short tonnes of bullion into rigged futures markets in a desperate attempt to make gold look dangerous and risky, the Davids will be coming forth not just in the United States but from all corners of the globe, buying 10 grams here and one ounce there. There are 6.8 billion Davids, versus one diseased Master Class that numbers in the small millions. There is no way the Master Class can defeat the people, if the people finally rise up and say “No More of Your Plunder. No More of Your Cold and Soulless Financial Oppression. No More of Your Cynical and Godless Exploitation.”

If you find the above argument compelling, you should consider how to protect yourself from Executive Orders that could be issued at any time, under any pretext, and that could be extremely hostile to your financial and/or personal health and well being. One simple way to start is to purchase one ounce of gold for yourself and each member of your household, and much more if you can afford it. That is not financial advice; it is merely the common sense generously communicated to you by history.

Copyright 2010 by Stewart Dougherty, with all rights reserved.

Stewart Dougherty is a specialist in inferential analysis, the practice of identifying historic and contemporary patterns and then extrapolating their likely effects upon the future. Dougherty was educated at Tufts University (B.A., magna cum laude), and Harvard Business School (M.B.A. and an academic Fellow). He can be reached at stewartdougherty@cs.com. He is not affiliated with or compensated by those he references or recommends. He does not offer investment or trading advice, and nothing in this article should be construed as such. This article represents the author’s personal opinions, and nothing more. The reader has the author’s permission to share, print, forward or post this article provided that the content is not changed and the author is acknowledged.

 

Effectively Engaging Liberals

Those that know me realize I often preach that if we are to save this country, we need to engage Liberals to our cause. The problem for us all is how to have a conversation with a Liberal. I continually try to think of new ways that might have a chance.

First it is important to realize what does not work: Arguments about policy! Intellect will never reconcile emotion, and vice-versa, yet, we continually try to reason with a Liberal. Never ask a Liberal what they think, but rather, after providing a morsel of information you should ask them how they feel.

Arguments over legislation and policy will lead nowhere for it is content-driven and thereby intellectually laden. It is important to provide the contextual framework from which various policies flow, rather than engage in arguments about the merits (or lack thereof) about any given particular policy.

It is my intent here to provide resources regarding context, some examples of “feely” type questions, and substantiate all talking points with verifiable and irrefutable links to back up anything you may say.

As we Conservatives are mostly aware, our country is to be radically transformed, and the justification for so-doing is steeped in environmental survival, thus, global survival. Most of us (either from the Left or Right) are neither Geologists or Climatologists, and are in no position to confer positive/negative absolutism to this debate. What we do have though is irrefutable proof that ‘climate-change’ is a political platform. Has science been politicized to help foist some agenda? This is our first inquiry. It is not important if we believe that it is true or false, what is important is to understand it’s ontological underpinnings as a political agenda. What should be equally important to all people is understanding what this radical transformation will entail and what effect it will have upon each of our lives. At least then people are making informed decisions.

Herein I provide a few quotes, and urge you to at least look at the myriad of others provided by following the link. I will also provide links to the organizations that are hellbent on ‘radically transforming society’. In conclusion I will give some example questions to pose.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For a list of more quotes, click [here]
For a list of references to all quotes, click [here]

Circle of Corruption

Generation Investment Fund

This is Al Gores company, which has heavily invested in the startup of the Chicago Climate Exchange. Other noteworthy investors are Barrack Obama, The Joyce Foundation, The Ford Foundation, Maurice Strong, George Soros, David Rockefeller, et al.

Question: How does it make you feel to know that laws are being created that will tax you for your carbon footprint (Cap and Trade), and that the very people that have decided to penalize you are profiteering off your money?

Question: How does it make you feel (irrespective of your belief in climate change theory) that those people who are pushing radical transformation and a change of lifestyle for you, are they themselves billionaires (or ultra mega millionaires) and not willing to change their lifestyle?

Question: If we must re-distribute the wealth in order to engage a paradigm that will avert global ecological disaster, how do you feel about the fact that Maurice Strong, George Soros, Al Gore, (and all the usual players) are not re-distributing their wealth, or willing to give up their jet planes, mansions, Ferrari’s, etc?  Do you feel it is right that ultimately you may be forced to drive some car that runs on batteries so as to preserve our environment, while they drive in limousines?

In my radio shows I often point out that the re-distribution of wealth is for the benefit of these power brokers and multinational corporations.  These internationalists view the world as “markets”, not sovereign countries. Most of the world is poverty-stricken, and not a viable source of revenue through consumerism.  Al Gore’s hedge fund focuses on those companies that can find innovative ways to open these markets…(with OUR money of course).  Here is an excerpt from their website:

According to some experts, the Base of the Pyramid is an untapped market opportunity of $13 trillion in annual sales as well as significant invisible assets. InThe Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto estimates that there are well over $9 trillion such unregistered assets (houses, equipment, and so on) in the rural villages and urban slums of the world.” These are assets that could be used to collateralize loans/credit to allow people to become part of the economic system or market. Other evidence of BoP potential includes market demand for microfinance is close to $300 billion, as compared to the $4 billion of current supply. Today there are over 3,100 microfinance institutions that served close to 100 million clients. And remittances are somewhere between two and three times the level of development aid from rich to poor countries. For example, a total of $167 billion in remittances flowed to developing countries last year.

Only in the past 5-10 years have certain multinational companies begun to experiment with new business models, products, and services aimed at the Base of the Pyramid (BoP) market. Understanding how a company thinks about markets at the base of the economic pyramid can provide insight into new growth opportunities (business quality indicator) and a company’s leadership and ability to innovate (management quality indicator).

It is interesting to note that the Tri-Lateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Club of Rome were all founded by David Rockefeller.  It is also interesting to note that all the myraid organizations, alliances, IGO’s and NGO’s all carry the same message, and all have the usual people associated with them.

The ‘biggies’ behind the theoretical development of a political platform are Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, Al Gore, Alexander King, and George Soros.  These names will repeat themselves as you start sifting through each and every one of these organizations.  For an in-depth at the people and organizations, click [here].

The collaborative efforts of these politicians, globalist, industrialists, and financiers each work to shape policy. Maurice Strong is founder of the Earth Charter, and is responsible for writing policy underlying the Kyoto Treaty, the Rio Earth Summit, and the Earth Charter Initiative.  The Club of Rome (via the collaborative efforts of all their different alliances), put together Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations and signed by G.H. Bush in 1992.  The Earth Charter Initiative is a global curriculum for the re-education of our children, adopted by UNESCO and signed by G.W. Bush in 2000.

Question: It is important that we all have some plan for our life, but how do you feel about the fact it is being planned by someone else, not you?

Question: Are you beginning to understand what it is we mean when we say we are fighting to preserve our individual freedom?

Question: Do you understand that these Globalists do not care if you are Red or Blue, because when we all become subject to their vision, we all suffocate together?

 

It Pays Well to be an Illegal Resident

You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”. Both families
Have two parents, two children, and live in California .

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, And gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.

Ready? Now pay attention…

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $ 1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 Per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax;

Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes.

Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for
His family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.

Joe Legal now Has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
Local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year.

Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or Welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
Year.

Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps
And welfare.

Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year.

Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose
Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year.

Jose Illegal Still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance.

Joe Legal Now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!”

Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
Gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after Work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after School ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services,
But Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens…

You are part of the problem!

It’s way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans! Or, why not just invite the entire planet here and call the entire world America?

 

Two Party System

I would like to see truth in advertising when it comes to our political parties.  The American people are being duped into believing we have a 2 party system where in reality it seems that both parties are working in collusion with one another.

Politics in the mind’s eye of Savant Noir should be organized into the following 2 parties:  The Globalist Party and the Sovereignty Party.

The Globalist Party (whose basic tenents are outlined below)

1.Environment and Resources: This cluster relates climate change, peak oil, ecosystems and water. Radical and rapid social and economic transformations will be needed to avert runaway climate change and ecological breakdown;

2. Globalisation: This cluster relates interdependence, distribution of wealth and income, demographic change, employment, trade and finance. Rising inequalities and imbalances associated with the present path of globalisation risk the breakdown of the world economic and financial systems;

3. World Development: This cluster relates sustainable development, demographic growth, poverty, environmental stress, food production, health and employment. The scandal of abiding poverty, deprivation, inequity and exclusion in a wealthy world must be corrected;

4. Social Transformation: This cluster relates social change, gender equity, values and ethics, religion and spirituality, culture, identity and behaviour. The values and behaviour on which the present path of world development is based must change if peace and progress are to be preserved within the tightening human and environmental limits;

5. Peace and Security: This cluster relates justice, democracy, governance, solidarity, security and peace. The present path of world development risks alienation, polarization, violence and conflict; the preservation of peace is vital in itself but is also a precondition for progress and for the resolution of the issues which threaten the future.

The Sovereignty Party would have an entirely different view for this Country:

Their campaign platform would look something like this:

Environment and Resources: We want to protect our precious environmental resources and offer tax-credits to those individuals or companies that can show either a reduction of carbon emissions, water usage, pollutant water discharges, or electricity of 5% or more.  Tax Credits can be obtained in 1 or all 4 areas.  We encourage all countries to develop similar measures.  Basic international law shall establish minimum requirements of all Nations, because we recognize that abusive action can have an affect upon other nations.  Each Government can impose either a system of punitive damages or a system of incentivizing as they see fit.

Globalization: We encourage bi-lateral equal trade relations with all nations.  We believe the world is made up of many different cultures, religions, and unique regional desires.  We encourage individuality and will not impose our will upon others as they similarly will not be allowed to impose their will upon us.  We believe that the growth and defense of your Nation is your responsibility.  We will withdraw all troops from all bases around the world and focus solely on the defense of our Nation.  We believe that our founding documents that state “all men are created equal and free to pursue their unalienable rights” should apply to all people, regardless of location.  Given this belief, we take a passive role in other people’s affairs, allowing them to succeed or fail as they so choose, so long as their actions pose no threat to the United States.

World Development: We wish you the best of luck in managing your world, just don’t screw around with ours.

Social Transformation: We believe humankind is naturally evolving; physically, intellectually, and spiritually. We seek to preserve individual freedoms so that natural evolutionary processes can unfold.  We believe all people were created equal under the eyes of the Law, but recognize that all people are not created with equal aptitudes.  Every individual has the right to pursue their dreams without social impediment.  No group or individual is entitled to preferential treatment.  All groups or individuals are given equal opportunity. What one does with that opportunity resides solely within the providence of their own freedom of choice.  In the wake of any individuals, group, or corporate processes, they are free to exercise their rights so long as the exercising of those freedoms to not encroach upon other similar entities to pursue their same freedoms.

Peace and Security:  We believe the best peace one can obtain is through the freedom that allows each individual to develop the plans necessary to the achievement of their goals, be they financial, social, or spiritual.  We invite and encourage International Law that restricts all Nations from development and use of WMD’s, as these pose a potential threat to our national security, as it does to every nations security.  Failure to comply could lead to conflict.  (see World Development—don’t screw with us).

Immigration: We welcome legal immigration to those individuals that have demonstrated they offer a benefit to our society.  Basic assimilation requirements would entail learning our language, culture, and history.  We will maintain a quota that is the function of need.  Business or Government Agencies requiring job positions to be filled will file such need on a database and immigrants qualified to hold such positions may apply.  The need for employment will be the determining factor that sets each annual quota.  Successful candidates may enter assimilation process concurrent with their employment.  Immigration and legal status is non-discriminant, the best candidate wins.

 

Unraveling the Club of Rome (part 1)

So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

Many people have heard of the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. What do they have in common with the CoR?  They were all founded by Rockefeller. The head hancho’s at each organization sit on the Board of the CoR.  The T-LC and the CFR are really just the Public Relations unit of the CoR, for the CoR is where the buck stops.

I have been tirelessly talking about Agenda 21, so I hope that people are aware of this little nugget of legislation by now. It was the outcome of the Club of Rome, a think-tank that provides ‘suggestions’ to the United Nations.  We are currently seeing all these ‘suggestions’ coming to fruition as current legislation bombards us daily as America is being radically transformed.  This transformation is no accident, and it is not aimless nor mindless.  It has been carefully construed and orchestrated.  It is the work of the Club of Rome.

Their mission can be most readily surmised just by looking at the graphic they designed for their ‘mission statement’ home page….

…and for those with more time on your hands than you care to have, you can expand the synposis and follow the links provided and delve right into their rhetoric:

1.Environment and Resources: This cluster relates climate change, peak oil, ecosystems and water. Radical and rapid social and economic transformations will be needed to avert runaway climate change and ecological breakdown;

2. Globalisation: This cluster relates interdependence, distribution of wealth and income, demographic change, employment, trade and finance. Rising inequalities and imbalances associated with the present path of globalisation risk the breakdown of the world economic and financial systems;

3. World Development: This cluster relates sustainable development, demographic growth, poverty, environmental stress, food production, health and employment. The scandal of abiding poverty, deprivation, inequity and exclusion in a wealthy world must be corrected;

4. Social Transformation: This cluster relates social change, gender equity, values and ethics, religion and spirituality, culture, identity and behaviour. The values and behaviour on which the present path of world development is based must change if peace and progress are to be preserved within the tightening human and environmental limits;

5. Peace and Security: This cluster relates justice, democracy, governance, solidarity, security and peace. The present path of world development risks alienation, polarization, violence and conflict; the preservation of peace is vital in itself but is also a precondition for progress and for the resolution of the issues which threaten the future.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the ‘main Club’ is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.

Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

Diego Hidalgo – CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.

Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also aformer director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honor.

Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations ‘Champion of the Earth‘.

Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.

Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway

Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.

The Dalai Lama – The ‘Spiritual Leader’ of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Father Berry Thomas – Catholic Priest who is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, ecospirituality and global consciousness.

David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist

Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the ‘Global Commons‘ concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.

Other current influential members:
(these can be found on the membership lists of the COR (here, here, and here), Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)

Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation
Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Cabinet Member of India, Chairman of the Temple of Understanding, Ambassador to U.S.
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan
Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the Global Marshall Plan
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and ‘evoluntionary economist’
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
and many more….

As discussed previously the CoR directly spawned two affiliated ‘Clubs’ – the Club of Budapest (CoB) and the Club of Madrid (CoM). The purpose of these siblings is to “provide spiritual, cultural and political context to the Club of Rome’s technical research.”

The Club of Budapest is an offshoot of the CoR designed to promote the Global Green Agenda though ‘Art and Culture’ – “The idea of the Club of Budapest stems from discussions between its founder and president Ervin Laszlo, and The Club of Rome founder Aurelia Peccei in the late seventies. Peccei suggested that Laszlo, a fellow founding member of the Club of Rome, should bring together writers, artists and people of high spiritual qualifications to complement abstract theoretical information about current and coming global problems with the insight and creativity inherent in art, literature, and various domains of the human spirit.”

However the Club of Budapest seems to have little to do with the Arts and much more to do with the usual themes. The Mission of its WorldShift Network is to address:
– The Governance of Nations
– Education for Wisdom
– Public Health Policy
– The Ethics of Planetary Freedom
– Reverence for Nature
– Approaching a modern Subsistence Economy

The Club of Budapest has also established the World Wisdom Council. It is jointly chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Muller and consists of almost exactly the same people as the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality described below. In 1996 the Club of Budapest released THE MANIFESTO ON THE SPIRIT OF PLANETARY CONSCIOUSNESS which was signed by 16 global environmental leaders, 12 of which are also CoR members!

The Club of Madrid consists of 70 former Heads of State handpicked by the CoR to consider “appropriate forms of governance” and methods of “democratic transition to a new global order.” The Club was officially founded by Mikhail Gorbachev and Diego Hidalgo. They are both given as “executive members of the Governing Council of the Club of Rome.” The CoM is funded by the Gorbachev Foundation and Hildalgo’s organization FRIDE (the European Council on Foreign Relations).

A quick perusal of their membership list reveals that more than half are also members of CoR National Associations and contain the usual suspects such as Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair, Mary Robinson, Vaclav Havel, Romano Prodi, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Javier Perez de Cuellar, and Carl Bildt. They state that their top priority is “facilitating a global post-Kyoto climate treaty.” The Club of Madrid, in a similar fashion to the CoR, is an official consultant body to the UN and is contracted by them to produce reports and technical advice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps the most interesting of all these organizations is the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality. The purpose of this ‘Commission’ appears to be to perpetuate the spiritual aspects of the Global Green Agenda. It is basically just old-fashioned paganism dressed up as a new eco-theology. I challenge the reader to make sense of this page! The commission is composed mostly of CoR members including Gore and Gorbachev.

The United Nations Foundation was created by prominent CoR member Ted Turner. He donated one billion dollars to support the environmental activites of the UN. A significant proportion of this money was designated for “programmes specifically addressing climate change” and funding the IPCC. The Foundation has also recently created the Global Security Institute to “propose far-reaching reforms of the international system.” As would be expected the Foundation’s Board is full of the same old names including: Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Kofi Annan, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Emma Rothschild, and Muhammad Yunus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Global Leadership for Climate Action is a joint initiative of the United Nations Foundation and the Club of Madrid which “aims to design a framework for a new enforceable international agreement on climate change.” The GLCA has editorial input into reports and assessments produced by the IPCC and provides “technical expertise on the implications and communication of climate change science.” By my count more than two-thirds of the GLCA members are also members of the CoR including: George Soros, Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Mary Robinson, Sir Crispin Tickell, Kim Campbell, Wangari Maathai, Petre Roman and Richard Lagos. Now I have to wonder what qualifies George Soros and Ted Turner to provide technical advice on climate change science!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Gorbachev Foundation was created by Mikhail Gorbachev immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He described the Foundation “as a think-tank whose purpose is to explore the path that global governance should take as mankind progresses into an interdependent global society.” The overall motto of the Gorbachev Foundation is “Toward a New Civilization”. The Foundation is deeply involved in many aspects of the modern green movement. They provide advice and funding to many non-government environmental orgaizations. The Board of the Foundation includes CoR members: Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert Muller, Ted Turner, Ruud Lubbers, Wangari Maathai, Sri Chinmoy, Robert Redford, Vaclav Havel and Javier Peres de Cuellar. Who would have thought Robert Redford was involved in all of this! In a similar fashion to the CoR, the Gorbachev Foundation now has several ‘Gorbachev Foundation National Associations’ each with their own management structure.

The Foundation works very closely with the CoR and the Club of Madrid and regularly holds joint conferences. These conferences must be fairly easy to organise since they have so many members in common. In order to carry out their ‘mission’ the Foundation has created a number of susidiary organizations. Chief among these is Green Cross International.

From the Green Cross Charter:
“Life is sacred. All forms of life have their own intrinsic value and share our planetary home in an interdependent community. All parts of this community are essential to the functioning of the whole. The beauty of the Earth and its life is food for the human spirit, inspiring human consciousness with wonder, joy and creativity. Human beings are not outside or above the community of life. We have not woven the web of life, we are but a strand in it. We depend on the whole for our very existence. For the first time in history, human beings have the capacity to damage, knowingly or unknowingly, the ecological balances on which all life depends. The crisis is urgent.“

The GCI Board contains the same familiar names: Mikhail Gorbachev, Ted Turner, Basma Bin Talal, Jean Michel Cousteau, Ruud Lubbers, Wangari Maathai, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Robert Redford, Karan Singh, David Suzuki

Another Gorbachev Foundation creation is Global Green USA which promotes sustainability and ‘climate action’. Its motto is “fostering a global shift towards a sustainable future.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another organization that is closely linked to the CoR is the United Nations University of Peace. The Chancellor (Robert Muller), Rector (Konrad Osterwalder) and CEO (Martin Lees) are all prominent CoR members. In fact Martin Lees has just been appointed as the CoR Secretary-General. Dr Muller founded the UN’s University of Peace on a mountain in Costa Rica. Why did he choose this location? Because of this ancient prophecy:

“Dear children, the Great Spirit is in every animal, in every bird, butterfly, flower, insect, leaf and grass you see. The Great Spirit is also in you, the Creator’s children. Please take care of the wonderful nature created by God and some day, from this mountain, you will see the birth of a civilization of peace spread to the entire world.“

The ‘Board of Honor’ of the University includes: Betty Williams, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama Nelson Mandela, F. W. de Klerk and David Trimble. The University is also home to Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong’s infamous Earth Charter Initiative.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An excellent source of information is the Kosmos Journal, a publication dedicated to the ‘Global Awakening’ and fostering a ‘New Human Civilisation’. Many of the articles are written by CoR members. It actually makes me feel physically ill after spending a few hours wading through their nonsense. The founding partners of this journal include many of the organisations listed above and show how truly interconnected they are:

Founding Partners:
Club of Rome
Club of Budapest
World Wisdom Council
Gorbachev Foundation
World Commission for Global Consciousness and Spirituality
Goi Peace Foundation
Global Youth Network
The Future 500
Institute of Noetic Studies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These are just a few of the influential ‘environmental’ organizations that were either founded by, or are dominated by, CoR members. There are many more that I have come across but it would take forever to describe them all here. The leaders of the Global Green Agenda are deadly serious about their intention to “transform humanity into an interdependent global sustainable Earth Community, based on reverence and respect for Gaia” and they have been spreading their tentacles into every area of global politics. Some other CoR initiated organizations you may wish to research are:

Awakening Mind
Alliance for a New Humanity
Association for Global New Thought
The Ethical Globalization Initiative
Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Great Transition Initiative
The Earth Council Alliance
The World Future Council
The Alliance of Civilizations
The Global Marshall Plan
The Eden Project

 

Understanding the World Bank and the IMF

THE FUND[1]
Background

Bretton Woods is a name we have all heard of since high school history class, but do we remember what took place there? Quite a lot happened there, but what we are focused on now is what was initially called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. At that meeting five institutions were created; we are only concerned with two, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (officially the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) which were conceived in July 1944 and formally organized in July of the following year.

G. Edward Griffin explains the façade and the reality of these two entities, “The announced purpose of these organizations were admirable. The World Bank was to make loans to war-torn and underdeveloped nations so they could build stronger economies. The International Monetary Fund was to promote monetary cooperation between nations by maintaining fixed exchange rates between their currencies. But the method by which these goals were to be achieved was less admirable. It was to terminate the use of gold as the basis of international currency exchange and replace it with a politically manipulated paper standard. In other words, it was to allow governments to escape the discipline of gold so they could create money out of nothing without paying the penalty of having their currencies drop in value on world markets.”[2]

Both the IMF and the World Bank are based in Washington, D.C. The IMF always has a European head while the World Bank’s leader is an American.

Initially, as noted, they were set up to fund the reconstruction of Europe and Asia after World War II, and then to build infrastructure and provide for the basic needs of people in the developing world. But in the 1960s, the World Bank shifted the focus of its loans from infrastructure to social services and other social justice[3] sectors.

As Griffin points out, “The International Monetary Fund appears to be a part of the United Nations, much as the Federal Reserve System appears to be part of the United States government, but it is entirely independent. It is funded on a quota basis by its member nations, almost 200 in number. The greatest share of capital, however, comes from the more highly industrialized nations such as Great Britain, Japan, France, and Germany. The United States contributes the most, at about twenty percent of the total. In reality, that twenty percent represents about twice as much as the number indicates, because most of the other nations contribute worthless currencies which no one wants. The world prefers dollars.

One of the routine operations at the IMF is to exchange worthless currencies for dollars so the weaker countries can pay their international bills. This is supposed to cover temporary “cash-flow” problems. It is a kind of international FDIC[4] which rushes money to a country that has gone bankrupt so it can avoid devaluing its currency. The transactions are seldom paid back.”

“Although escape from the gold-exchange standard was the long-range goal of the IMF, the only way to convince nations to participate at the outset was to use gold itself as a backing for its own money supply – at least as a temporary expedient.”[5]

So now instead of IMF loans for concrete projects – infrastructure, private industry, and other sound investments — the loans are going to governments in pursuit of “humanitarian goals.” Actually much of the money ends up in the pockets of the leaders and bureaucrats. Some, very little, is actually used for aid to the starving citizens of those countries.

Part 1, Purpose

The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC)[6][7] has now requested that the IMF review “its mandate to cover the full range of macroeconomic and financial sector policies that bear on global stability,” and to report back to the Committee next year. On January 22, 2010, the International Monetary Fund’s Strategy, Policy, and Review Department (in consultation with the Legal Department) prepared an overview of the Fund’s Mandate and what it saw as the problems of control facing the Fund and how they could tweak the mandate “without the politically taxing process of amending the Articles of Agreement.”

What that means is how to make the IMF far more powerful than it already is without having the members vote on the changes, since the members would not be willing to make such far-reaching and drastic changes. For instance, regarding financial data of IMF members:

First, it (the IMF) has only limited and episodic access to supervisory data (e.g., in the context of FSAPs (Financial Sector Assessment Program), and members often decline to provide systemically relevant information on grounds of confidentiality. Second, the Fund has no authority to require confidential data on entities such as large complex financial institutions (LCFIs), a few dozen of which make up the basic plumbing of global finance. The reason is that Article VIII, Section 5 provides that members are under no obligation to furnish information that exposes individual corporations. Yet understanding the linkages between LCFIs, and changing patterns and concentrations in exposure, is crucial to any institution claiming to be a guardian of global stability. As amendment of the Articles to require such disclosure is unlikely to find broad support, alternative arrangements will be needed.

Already we see that the IMF is facing a brick wall if they have to go to the members for permission, but not if they go around the members via executive decisions. The IMF sees itself as a “guardian of global stability,” that is literally how they put it; yet a normal person, even one with little economics savvy, would consider them just the opposite. What the IMF, World Bank, the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, etc. are doing is working toward global instability – not stability – until they can wrest controlling power. Then they will set up stability in a world of masters (them) and slaves (us).

You don’t think so? Here is an interview of Maurice Strong, one of the world’s richest men, the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, President of the World Federation of United Nations, and on and on, speaking to journalist, Daniel Wood of WEST Magazine:

Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides:isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists – they’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…?[8]

Or as Griffin puts it in Creature, “Destruction of the economic strength of the industrialized nations is merely a necessary prerequisite for ensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement is directed totally to that end.”[9]

Capital flows

(I)t seems appropriate that Fund surveillance cover more effectively capital flows and related policies. Granting the Fund the authority to approve — or not — capital controls would require amending the Articles, which is never an easy process, especially on an issue on which the membership is highly divided.

As will be shown further into this paper, the IMF wants capital to flow from the U.S. and other First World Countries to Third World Countries – from the “haves” to the “have nots.” Capital flow is not meant to promote technological or industrial growth, but will be used for welfare in order to create dependency; the IMF does not want the poor people of the world becoming strong and healthy economically or physically.

Role in Low Income Countries

In particular, the Fund may need to expand its role as a provider of insurance against global volatility and other shocks, including from the effects of climate change.[10]

Even though the global warming scare has been shown as a fraud to promote onerous legislation like “cap and trade,” to shut down industry in the U.S., and to prevent people from using their private property, all of these actions are still being carried out so the IMF pretends there is still a basis for it.

Also, Agenda 21 – the Earth Charter, calls for the redistribution of wealth between rich and poor countries as seen in section 2.1 on page 19:

“In order to meet the challenges of environment and development, States have decided to establish a new global partnership. This partnership commits all States to engage in a continuous and constructive dialogue, inspired by the need to achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy, keeping in view the increasing interdependence of the community of nations and that sustainable development should become a priority item on the agenda of the international community….

Economic policies of individual countries, and international economic relations both have great relevance to sustainable development. …Neither will it gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness…. Therefore, it is the intent of Governments that consensus-building at the intersection of the environmental and trade and development areas will be ongoing in existing international forums, as well as in the domestic policy of each country.”

Reserves

The build-up of international reserves as a buffer against shocks is widely expected to resume as the crisis fades and to some extent already has. While such accumulation can be costly for surplus and reserve-issuing countries alike, there are three underlying problems. First, there are concerns about the availability of international liquidity in times of crisis, prompting a precautionary reserve buildup, especially when heavy capital inflows threaten to overwhelm emerging markets. Second, there is no automatic adjustment of current account imbalances, neither surplus countries nor reserve-issuing deficit countries facing pressure to adjust. Third, the concentration of reserves in US dollars reflects the absence of close substitutes as a global store of value and anchor for asset and price stability. The Fund’s overarching responsibility to promote the effective operation of the international monetary system requires that it seek solutions to the above problems. While it may draw on all its powers for this purpose, a rarely discussed one is to be found in Article VIII, Section 7, which calls on members to collaborate on reserve policies with the objective of “better international surveillance of international liquidity and making the special drawing right the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system.” Consideration may need to be given to reviving this forgotten provision as a basis for action, not least because official reserves have become large enough relative to private flows as to have significant—and potentially destabilizing—market impact from a sudden portfolio reallocation.

A key problem with using a national currency as the main global reserve asset is that instability in its value translates to the entire system. The problem can be ameliorated by the presence of several suppliers of reserve assets—the euro has emerged as an alternative to the dollar and at some point in the future the yen and, further out, the renminbi[11] might also—or by globally-issued reserves. Given the network externalities associated with a single reserve asset, neither solution is likely to emerge spontaneously any time soon. Thus, it may be necessary to consider giving content to members’ obligation, under Article VIII, Section 7, “to collaborate with the Fund and with one another with regard to policies on reserve assets” so as to facilitate a smooth transition to a more stable system.

The IMF is making the point that the U.S. Dollar should no longer be used as the main global reserve asset. While they are considering using the yuan, they actually have other plans:

A global currency. The SDR is not a currency but a right to access freely usable currencies in case of balance of payments difficulties; its stability rests on that of its component currencies. A more far reaching approach would be to introduce a new global reserve currency, similar to Keynes’ bancor[12], issued by an institution with an impeccable balance sheet and a governance structure that gives confidence that it can function as a prudent and independent world central bank. A global reserve currency that is not associated with the economic developments of any particular country would remove the vulnerabilities associated with reserve accumulation in national currencies and could remedy the lack of automatic adjustment. The operational and political challenges, however, would be huge. As such, the idea is clearly one for the long term.

While the IMF’s Overview writers predict only positive effects of a global currency, what about the fact that there is no basis in gold or oil or precious metals for their currency? Without something to define the value of a currency, some standard on which to measure it, it then becomes the monetary equivalent of moral relevancy – it’s worth changing with the whims of the power elite.

That is a quick look at the Overview of the IMF’s Mandate.

Part 2, The Lawyers; or how to get around the rules

A month to the day after that was submitted, “The Fund’s Mandate – The Legal Framework” was offered up to accompany the Overview. Interestingly, it begins with a note on the specialization of the organization and states,

While, at a certain level of abstraction, it may be said that all international organizations have been established to enhance human welfare, the assumption underlying the design of the post-war international architecture was that each organization would make its own distinct contribution to that objective; … since all of the enumerated purposes are of an economic nature, it has been understood that, unlike some other organizations, the Fund is precluded from using its powers for political objectives. (italics mine)

It would be hard to see any other use of its powers. The IMF is one of the tentacles of Agenda 21 which is totally political – working toward a totalitarian socialistic world government through the redistribution of wealth.

The powers conferred upon the Fund under the Articles can be divided into three categories: (a) oversight powers,relating primarily to the Fund’s responsibility to monitor and promote the observance of members’ obligations under the Articles; (b) the power to provide financial assistance; and (c) advisory powers. Consistent with the principles of national sovereignty (italics mine) and specialization noted above, the powers conferred upon the Fund are generally limited to those explicitly identified in the Articles.

But they go onto state:

Accordingly, while the key parameters of the Fund’s mandate are established in the Articles of Agreement, it may be said that the operational content of the Fund’s mandate has been updated over time by Executive Board decision.

In other words, the Executive Board has made many changes that the members never would have allowed.

The legal department gripes that regarding domestic policies, including financial sector policies, member obligations are limited in two important respects:

• First, the relevant text reveals that these obligations (Article IV, Section 1 (i) and (ii)) are of a “soft” nature: taking into account the fact that members retain great sovereignty in terms of the conduct of their domestic policies, they are only required to exercise “best efforts” in this area. In contrast, those obligations that relate to members’ external policies, including exchange rate policies (Article IV, Section 1 (iii) and (iv)), are of a “hard” nature—requiring the achievement of results rather than just the exercise of best efforts—reflecting the direct international impact of these policies.
• Second, members’ obligations respecting domestic policies only require members to take action to promote their own domestic stability. As long as a member is implementing domestic policies in a manner that ensures such stability, it is under no obligation to change these policies, even if a change would further enhance the stability of the overall exchange rate system.

They are not happy that the members “retain great sovereignty in terms of the conduct of their domestic policies” or that the members’ obligations are to promote their own domestic stability – not that of the rest of the world (and they say this). In order to get around the Articles in the Mandate that they find to be too restricting, the legal department suggests that the constraints could be addressed through the adoption of decisions by the Executive Board.

What they are saying is that even though a country is being fiscally responsible, if the IMF decides that their domestic policies are impacting the “the balance of payments of other countries, even where this effect is not transmitted through the member’s own balance of payment,” then the IMF could step in and make those fiscally responsible countries change their fiscally conservative policies.

In order for the type of situation identified in paragraph 15 above to be made central to bilateral surveillance, it would be necessary to amend Article IV itself. Such an amendment could reconsider the primacy that is given to exchange rate policies over domestic policies and, in that context, expand members’ obligations relating to domestic policies in a manner that would require a member to adjust its domestic policies to support systemic stability—even if the domestic policies in question are not undermining the member’s own domestic stability. This would represent, however, a significant surrender of national sovereignty. (italics mine)

Much of the review is working out how the IMF can broaden its surveillance scope of countries. Right now member countries are under no obligation to furnish information in “such detail that the affairs of individuals or corporations are disclosed.” The IMF would like to change this without having to amend the Agreement (remember member countries are unlikely to want to give up either more information or their sovereignty), so they are looking to the Executive Board to make the necessary changes and to read the Articles in a new light to change “expectations” of information from members to solid demands.

And now to the Reserve Policies of Members:

“[e]ach member undertakes to collaborate with the Fund and with other members in order to ensure that the policies of the member with respect to reserve assets shall be consistent with the objectives of promoting better international surveillance of international liquidity and making the special drawing right the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system.” (italics mine)

As stated by the Legal Department, this provision was one of several new provisions that “were designed to reduce the role of gold and to strengthen the role of SDRs in the international monetary system,” or to put it another way, to have fiat money as the sole reserves.

The Fund would also need to provide further guidance on the meaning of the obligation of members to collaborate towards the objective of making the SDR the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system. Two important features of this objective should be noted. First, making the SDR the principal reserve asset of the international monetary system is identified as an objective, but not necessarily as a result that has been—or is required to be—achieved.

In discussing the Oversight of International Capital Movements, the Legal Department admits that while they want a more active role in overseeing members’ regulation of these movements, designing “an appropriate approach is far more complex and nuanced” than it was when they were just controlling current payments and transfers.

They admit that free capital movements “help channel resources to their most productive uses and increase economic growth and welfare.” But they then blame the free markets for the recent crises.

With that, the Legal Department says it would be open for the Fund to establish policies (which they would call “recommendations” for a softer sell), that provide guidance to members;

as to: (a) what conditions should be in place before a member liberalizes its capital account, and (b) when the imposition of controls on outflows or inflows may be an appropriate response to balance of payments or macroeconomic pressures. In the conduct of bilateral surveillance, the Fund would assess the extent to which members’ actions are consistent with these recommendations. The Fund could also take up the systemic role of capital movements—and the impact of controls on such movements—in the context of multilateral surveillance.

In other words, the IMF would decide what the countries’ fiscal and economic policies MUST be.

Summary

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
— Lord Acton

That sentence sums up this document very well. What happens when a group of powerful people decide that they do not have enough wealth and power and need to find more, is what happened here, or rather at Bretton Woods. Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and John Maynard Keynes were the designers of the IMF and World Bank on behalf of themselves and their cronies in finance and government in the U.S. and Europe.

These same people also believe that what the world needs now is global governance. As a former U.S. Foreign Service Officer put it in his book, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited, the Unraveling of the American Dream, “… the golden age of individualism, liberty, and democracy is all but over. The need for a world government with enough coercive power over fractious nation states to achieve what reasonable people would regard as the planetary common interest has become overwhelming.”[13]

I have quoted G. Edward Griffin a number of times, let me add one more because he puts his finger on it so well. “Although most of the policy statements of the World Bank (and the IMF by extension, author’s note) deal with economic issues, a close monitoring of its activities reveal a preoccupation with social and political issues. This should not be surprising considering that the Bank was perceived by its founders as an instrument for social and political change. The change which it was designed to bring about was the building of world socialism, and that is exactly what it is accomplishing today.”[14]

Remember, the IMF doesn’t want the poor people of the world becoming strong and healthy economically or physically. What they want is control of the world – of both the rich and the poor countries – but they have to make the rich countries far poorer first (through their economic policies) in order to control them.

Footnotes:

[1] While the International Monetary Fund is referred to as the IMF in most media sources, insiders call themselves the Fund.

[2] Griffin, G. Edward, The Creature from Jekyll Island, A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. America Media, 2009 edition, p. 86.

[3] A system of human rights operates in concert with the pursuit of “social justice,” which can be defined as law formulated to obtain government’s social objectives at the expense of individual liberty.

[4] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

[5] Griffin, op. cit., p. 89.

[6]Quote from the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, The Fund’s Mandate—An Overview, prepared by the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department.

[7] Bank-Fund Annual Meetings and in March or April at what are referred to as the Spring Meetings. The Committee discusses matters of concern affecting the global economy and also advises the IMF on the direction of its work. At the end of the meetings, the Committee issues a communiqué summarizing its views. These communiqués provide guidance for the IMF’s work program during the six months leading up to the next Spring or Annual Meetings. There is no formal voting at the IMFC, which operates by consensus.

[8] Wood, Daniel. “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” West Magazine, May, 1990, p. 35.

[9] Griffin, op. cit., p. 534.

[10] Note that this was written after the Climate Change scandal was exposed.

[11] The renminbi or the Chinese yuan is the official currency of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with the exception of Hong Kong and Macau.

[12] John Maynard Keynes proposed a global bank, which he called the International Clearing Union. The bank would issue its own currency – the bancor – which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange. The bancor would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country’s trade deficit or trade surplus. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund)

[13] Orphuls, William, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited, the Unraveling of the American Dream, W.H. Freedman & Co., New York, 1992, p. 78.

[14] Griffin, op. cit., p. 95.

 

Understanding NGO’s

Everyone knows what a lobbyist is, but do you know what an “Adviser” is in Washington, D.C.? No matter whom we elect, no matter the person or party, if we don’t shine the light on who really is writing policy, we are in for a rude awakening.

The acronym NGO stands for Non-Governmental Organization. While NGOs go back to the early 1900s, the phrase “non-governmental organization” came into its current use with the United Nations Organization in 1945. It is in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter. It established a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member states. There is a conscious effort to replace the term NGO with a more politically-correct term — Civil Society Organization or CSO.

There is a major difference:

• NGO may apply to any non-profit organization.
• CSO designation applies only to those NGOs that are accredited by the United Nations and hold “consultative status” throughThe Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

(For-profit companies and organizations can also be accredited, but we are only writing of NGOs here.)

According to Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, published in 1995, there were 28,900 international NGOs worldwide and hundreds of thousands of national NGOs. As of late 1994, only 980 were officially “accredited” by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). However, these 980 accredited NGOs are affiliated with tens of thousands more NGOs in virtually every nation on earth. By virtue of their affiliation with accredited NGOs, these NGOs constitute what the UN describes as CSOs.

Non UN-accredited NGOs are described by globalists as “populist organizations” and the globalist feel that these organizations can upset and even destroy the work of decades of their deliberations in a short period of time. That is the potential of the “Tea Party” grass roots movement currently on the rise in the United States.

Here is some background to aid in understanding CSOs. There are two levels of accreditation:

• Accreditation by ECOSOC confers what is called “consultative” status.
• Accreditation by a subsidiary organization of ECOSOC authorizes “observer” status at a specific UN conference or event.

For a current list and locations of CSOs with consultative status go to: http://esango.un.org/irene/index.html

An example of the power of “observer” status was seen at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. Of the more than 8,000 NGOs represented at the NGO Forum held the week before the Earth Summit, 1,400 NGOs were accredited as “observers.”

NGOs with “consultative” and “observer” status are responsible for the following:

• Development of the global agenda, i.e., Agenda 21.
• Enactment of the policies at the international level.
• Converting international policy into national laws and regulations.
• Implementing the new policies, laws, and regulations on the ground.

History

The modern NGO story begins with the creation of the United Nations. One month after the UN Charter went into force, Julian Huxley signed the document that created the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the well-known UNESCO.

Two years later, the same Julian Huxley was instrumental in creating the International Union for the Conservation of Nature or IUCN. The IUCN consolidated the work of the British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society with other conservation groups that worked throughout the British Empire and aligned its work with the activities of UNESCO.

(For a brief discussion of the nature of NGO leaders, see: http://sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ngotut.htm)

To increase funding for its work, the IUCN created another, more public organization called the World Wildlife Fund or WWF in 1961. It was headed by Prince Philip.

During the 1960s, the IUCN lobbied the UN General Assembly to create a new status for NGOs. Resolution 1296, adopted in 1968, grants “consultative” status to NGOs. The IUCN is accredited with six UN organizations.

In 1982, the IUCN and WWF worked together to create still another NGO called the World Resources Institute (WRI). Russell Train, then-President of the WWF-USA, amassed $25 million in grants to create the World Resources Institute or WRI. He selected Gustave Speth, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as its first President. This triumvirate, consisting of the IUCN, WWF and WRI, is the driving force behind the rise of NGO influence at the UN and around the world.

The IUCN’s current membership includes: 92 international NGOs; 753 national NGOs; 29 affiliates; 80 state agencies; 93 government agencies with state members; and 23 government agencies without state members.

The U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year to this NGO. President Clinton issued Executive Order #12986 which grants this NGO certain diplomatic “privileges and immunities.”

WWF funding in the USA is interesting. The WWF reported 1995 income in the USA to be $138,874,116 and assets at $62,558,896. In recent years the WWF’s take increased:

• In 2003 it was $370,245,000
• In 2004 it was $468,889,000
• In 2005 it was $499,629,000
• In 2006 it was $549,827,000
• In 2007 it was $663,193,000
• That totals $2,551,783,000

WWF’s take in 2008 was not quite as good. They switched their accounting to Euros, in place of dollars and took in €447,251,000. That’s roughly $584,000,000.

Their total income since 2003 is just over $3.1 billion (this does not include 2009).

Note that the WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies.’

The WRI is perhaps the world’s most influential think-tank. It produces the so-called scientific foundation for the global agenda and coordinates much of the activity of affiliated NGOs as well. Maurice Strong has been or is currently a director or officer of each of these NGOs.

These three NGOs, IUCN, WWF and WRI, in concert with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), jointly published thedocuments from which the global agenda was developed. These documents include:

• World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
• Caring for the Earth, published in 1991 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
• Global Biodiversity Strategy, published in 1992 by UNEP, IUCN, and WRI.
• Global Biodiversity Assessment, published in 1995 by UNEP, coordinated by WRI.

From these foundational works come such policy documents as:

• The Convention on Biological Diversity
• The Framework Convention on Climate Change
• Agenda 21

NGOs play two vital roles in implementing the policies that are developed by the triumvirate:

• The ideas are first hammered into policy statements that are adopted by an official UN body.
• Then the policies are translated into practice on the ground.

NGOs fulfill both of these functions.

Writing in the January/February, 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, Jessica Mathews wrote:

• “NGOs set the original goal of negotiating an agreement to control greenhouse gases. They proposed most of its structure and content, and lobbied and mobilized public pressure to force through a pact that virtually no one else thought possible when the talks began.”
• “More members of NGOs served on government delegations than ever before, and they penetrated deeply into official decision-making. They were allowed to attend the small working group meetings where the real decisions in international negotiations are made. The tiny nation of Vanuatu turned its delegation over to an NGO with expertise in international law, a group based in London and funded by an American foundation. Thus it made itself and other sea-level island states major players in the fight to control global warming.”
• “As a result, delegates completed the framework of a global climate accord in the blink of a diplomat’s eye—16 months—over the opposition of the three energy superpowers, the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.”

In this article, Jessica Mathews is referring to NGO involvement that lead up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. This is just one example: NGOs swarm to and are deeply involved in virtually every conference arranged by the United Nations.

Agenda promoters want you to believe NGO activity is spontaneous as is involvement of CSOs. However, NGO activity is organized and meticulously coordinated by the triumvirate.

NGOs organize into coalitions. Three of the more important coalitions are:

• CAN (Climate Action Network), which concentrates on climate change issues.
• BioNET, which concentrates on biodiversity issues. Note: UNEP and IUCN are among their affiliates. (See:http://www.bionet-intl.org/opencms/opencms/partners/memberships/memberships-affiliations.jsp)
• CitNet (Citizens Network for Sustainable Development), which concentrates on sustainable development issues.

Each of these coalitions is made up of hundreds of NGOs scattered around the world. They are connected by the internet.

With a substantial grant from the Tides Foundation, the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) joined forces with theAssociation for Progressive Communications (APC) in the mid 1980s to form an Internet site, http://www.igc.org which continually morphs into ever-changing affiliate groups. The site became the communications hub for 50,000 NGOs in 133 countries, and reaches tens of millions on the Internet. This specialized NGO has contracts with the UN to provide communication services for UN meetings around the world.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created by President Clinton used this NGO website to disseminate information about its work. To a very large extent, it is responsible for the increased effectiveness of NGOs during the last decade.

Publications are important tools that NGOs provide to delegates at UN conferences. One publication titled ECO, has been published by NGOs at every UN meeting since the first Earth Summit in 1972. (It’s found at: http://www.climatenetwork.org.) At the recent global warming negotiations in Geneva, ECO listed nineteen staffers and thanked its funders which included:

• The Environment Ministries of Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands
• Rent-a-Mac
• EuroFax
• APC

Another publication, published sporadically and titled Earth Negotiations Bulletin, was published from March, 1993 to March, 1994 by the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Winnipeg. It cost $530,000 of which $279,550 came directly from Canadian taxpayers.

The activities of these NGOs are coordinated through the World Resources Institute which uses their publication titled The NGO Networker. Each coalition has its own coordinating mechanism.

For example, CITNET publishes a newsletter which lists administrative offices in California and a UN Liaison Office in New York, and proclaims that it is a Tides Foundation project. Its internet address is: http://igc.apc.org. Some of the organizations included in this coalition are:

• The Sierra Club
• Faith in Action
• The Humane Society of the United States
• Greenpeace International
• The IUCN
• Friends of the Earth
• Second Nature
• The Earth Council (Maurice Strong’s newest NGO)
• World Resources Institute
• and many others

One function of these NGOs is to urge their members to support specific policy measures as they are presented to Congress. Because they hold “consultative” status they are contractually required to support any item that is presented to them from their peers. They are also required to support individual candidates who support the overall agenda. The Sierra Club was deeply involved in the 1996 Congressional elections spending millions of dollars in support of candidates friendly to their cause.

Here’s how they are affecting Congress:

• The Federal Government has been accepting UN promoted policies through advisory committees.
• These committees are set up to gull the public into thinking that they themselves are involved in Federal decision-making.

In response to the growing number of advisory committees, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). It established guidelines under which all Federal advisory committees must operate. The number of advisory committees is carefully managed, ensuring that committees are only established when essential to the attainment of clearly defined Executive Branch priorities.

What has transpired since 1972, is that only organizations, businesses, NGOs, or employees of these organizations who hold “consultative” status with ECOSOC are “Registered” to be hired as an Adviser to a Congressional Committee. According to a recent government report, there are no organizations, businesses, or NGOs who represent American Citizens’ interests on this list.

When a Congressional Committee or Federal Agency needs an Advisory Committee, they can only pick from those registered with the Federal Interagency Databases Online (FIDO GOV Database). There are about 1,000 of them listed at:http://www.fido.gov/facadatabase. This means that the NGOs that compile this data base are determining where the money is spent.

Funding:

The underlying coordination of NGO activity is driven by the funding sources. The Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is an informal association of more than 120 foundations and businesses assembled by the Rockefeller Foundation. The EGA meets annually to decide which NGOs and which projects will be funded. Annual grants to NGOs through this organization are estimated to be in the range of $500,000,000.

The federal government also funds NGOs. During a recent eighteen-month period the Department of Interior awarded grants totaling $242,000,000 to more than 800 NGOs.

Even more money comes from the UN. According to the 1996 First Quarter Report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a total of $2.3 billion was spent on global warming projects. Most went to accredited NGOs around the world. The report identified thirty-nine such projects which were coordinated by the IUCN, the WWF, or the WRI worth a total of $350 million.

These NGOs are funded to achieve specific objectives. The Tides Foundation operates an “Incubator Program.” This program creates new NGOs to perform specialized tasks. The Environmental Working Group is one such program. Among its tasks is a project called The Clearinghouse for Environmental Research. One of its functions is to identify “populist organizations” that oppose the global agenda and attempt to discredit those organizations.

Another organization created in 1992 is The Greater Ecosystem Alliance. It was created for the purpose of generating public acceptance of the idea of ecosystem management in the Northwest, specifically, to introduce the concept of the Wildlands Project. The Wildlands Project was subsequently renamed the Wildlands Network. See: http://www.twp.org/

Every community has one or more such NGOs. They often consist of only two or three professionals funded by a foundation such as The Tides Foundation. They are placed in a community to build public support for some component of the international agenda.

Currently, Sustainable Communities are the hot item. NGOs have been dispatched to targeted communities to develop what they often call “visioning councils.” They are eligible for federal grants to develop a community plan for a Sustainable Community. The criteria for a Sustainable Community comes directly from Agenda 21. It was adopted in Rio de Janeiro, Americanized by The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and designed to translate international policy into local ordinances and state and federal law.

NGOs in the Future

The power gained by NGOs in the recent past is nothing compared to what they have planned for the future. At Habitat II, UN Rule 61 gave accredited NGOs full participation in negotiating sessions with official delegates. Our Global Neighborhood recommends the creation of a new Assembly of the People. It is to consist of 300-to-600 representatives of accredited NGOs. The Assembly will meet annually before the UN General Assembly meeting to provide ideas and information to the official delegates on the next steps to implement Agenda 21 policies.

Another new UN entity being recommended is a Petitions Council. The Petitions Council would be a small council of representatives from accredited NGOs whose job would be to receive petitions of non-compliance from NGOs on the ground. The UN calls this an early warning system. Petitions would be screened by the council and forwarded to the appropriate UN organization for enforcement action.

Another recommendation is to restructure the UN Trusteeship Council to be governed by representatives from accredited NGOs. They would have “trusteeship” over the global commons. This is defined to be:

“The atmosphere, outer space, oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.”

NGOs provide the interface between globalists and the rest of society. NGOs not affiliated with an accredited NGO, which confers CSO status, are discredited, discounted, and labeled as populist activists. Every CSO-NGO is empowered by a funding source that pays for a specific function designed to advance a broader agenda. The funding source, whether public or private, works to advance an agenda that is coordinated by, and developed through, the NGO triumvirate working with UN agencies and national governments.

As the NGOs see it, the result is phenomenal effectiveness at influencing policy at the international, national, and local levels. They believe that their effectiveness will increase.