Advertisement

Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is 1-world government

topic posted Sun, October 18, 2009 - 5:13 AM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
This article reveals the real purpose of climate change treatise and legislation and why countrys are signing
this stuff. Obama is about to sign our sovereignty away. The question is, will we let him?

'Global warming' to be used as 'pretext' for 'change'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 17, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily




A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Monkton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at Bethel University in St. Paul.

"Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700 attendees.

(Story continues below)




"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."

In an hour and a half lecture illustrated by slides featuring scientific data on a wide range of climate issues, Monkton refuted claims made by former Vice President Al Gore in his movie and book entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as scientific arguments made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Monckton argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.

"So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.

"But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."

Moncton is a well-known critic of the theory of anthropogenic causes for global warming who has argued repeatedly that global warming hysteria is an ideological position of the political Left advanced in the interest of imposing global taxes on the United States in the pursuit of international control of the U.S. economy under a one-world government to be administered by the U.N.

Monkton's lecture can be viewed online and his slides also can be accessed on the Internet.

Where’s the global warming?

As evidence mounts that the United States is headed toward a cooling cycle that may last decades, global alarmists within the Obama administration remain resolved to push cap-and-trade legislation through Congress on the increasingly dubious theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming.

In what has to be seen as increasingly bad news for global warming alarmists, scientific evidence is mounting that temperatures in the United States have cooled at a rate that would be projected to lower temperatures 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.


Source. U.S. National Climate Data Center and www.c3headlines.com


Maybe Obama’s Science Czar is Right: Is a New Ice Age on the Horizon?

WND has reported White House science czar John Holdren's prediction that one billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.

Even though Holdren's current position is that the U.S. needs to enact cap-and-trade to slow global warming, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.

Holdren's prediction that one billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced by Malthusian population alarmist Ehrlich in his 1986 book entitled, "The Machinery of Nature."

Holdren based his prediction on a bizarre theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a resultant reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.

www.wnd.com/index.php
posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     
    "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

    "The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."
    • Hopefully Canada won't sign it. We have a conservative government here. Although it's a minority so they compromise on a lot of things.
      • haha right your "conservative" government follows orders from DC and NY.
        • Unsu...
           
          really? How do you know that?
          • Because conservative or not, the Canadian government pretty much has to step in line with the U.S. government, not to mention Wall street.
            • Unsu...
               
              nice try at answering the question James, but unfortunately, you failed. This is just another undefended statement.
              • <<nice try at answering the question James, but unfortunately, you failed. This is just another undefended statement. >>

                Yes you are right on this one Dan. Occasionally the Canadian government sends a big 'FUCK YOU!' to the U.S. government, and I myself and many other Canadians are happy when this happens.

                Canada still trading with Cuba in defiance of the U.S. boycott, and refusing to join the U.S. in the Iraq war are two examples which come to mind.

                Is this what you meant to say?
                • Unsu...
                   
                  James: Is this what you meant to say?

                  Cdub: haha right your "conservative" government follows orders from DC and NY

                  You were attempting to defend Cdub's statement. If you feel this is true explain how. Since this thread is about conspiracies, I have a better theory. The counterpart to the CFR in the U.S. is the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. These so called "think tanks" , along with similar organizations in other states, develop policies which are complimentary and then use their political power to enact these policies in their respective states. The are working together. In this sense Canada and the U.S. are on similar paths, but not because Canada follows orders from DC or NY.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    James: Is this what you meant to say?

                    Cdub: haha right your "conservative" government follows orders from DC and NY

                    Dan: You were attempting to defend Cdub's statement. If you feel this is true explain how.

                    James: Well for one thing, if you are a Political leader in Canada you are always walking a tightrope as far as the U.S. is concerned. The U.S. has the most powerful economy and military in the world, which you are no doubt aware of. The U.S. also happens to be Canada's largest trading partner, with 80% of Canada's GNP going to the U.S.A. The U.S. also has a foreign policy of 'Walk softly and carry a big stick'. The U.S. will make certain requests from Canada, and if Canada fails then often the U.S. threatens repercussions. Normally, these are in the form of sanctions, tariffs, and so forth.

                    On the other hand, the people of Canada like it when their Government stands up to the U.S. bully and tells them 'No'. Trudeau was applauded when he traded with Cuba in defiance of the U.S. embargo, and when he insulted Richard Nixon, he became the most popular Prime Minister in Canada's history.

                    Conversely, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney became the most unpopular Prime Minister in Canadian history, not only for legislating Free Trade with the United States but also for his close friendship with President Ronald Reagan. However, even Mulroney refused to negotiate on Canada's state-sponsored health care as a 'bargaining chip', though it ended his friendship with Reagan.

                    Mulroney knew that if he tried this, he would simply be thrown out of office just as fellow Conservative Prime Ministers Charles Tupper (In office for 67 days!) , and Joe Clark ( 9 months) had been some years before. Canada's first female Prime Minister Kim Campbell (in office for 4 months) would suffer his defeat for him.

                    What CDub is referring to by the 'shadow Mafia' are the multi-national corporations which threaten to pull out of a country unless that country makes concessions in their favor. The result of them doing so would be a recession, massive unemployment, increased deficit and in this respect they have the Governments by the throat. The demands these corporations make is usually to curtail the force of labor, and make the working class satisfied with less money and power, while increasing the profits and power for the corporate executives.

                    <<Since this thread is about conspiracies, I have a better theory. The counterpart to the CFR in the U.S. is the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. These so called "think tanks" , along with similar organizations in other states, develop policies which are complimentary and then use their political power to enact these policies in their respective states. The are working together. In this sense Canada and the U.S. are on similar paths, but not because Canada follows orders from DC or NY.>>

                    I have no idea what you are talking about. A 'think tank' is a research group. One of the Canadian think tanks you mentioned before was the Frasier Institute, who were in favor of privatized health care. They are a conservative think-tank, and yes they have been caught red-handed in manufacturing phony statistics and outright lies.

                    • Unsu...
                       
                      <<Since this thread is about conspiracies, I have a better theory. The counterpart to the CFR in the U.S. is the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. These so called "think tanks" , along with similar organizations in other states, develop policies which are complimentary and then use their political power to enact these policies in their respective states. The are working together. In this sense Canada and the U.S. are on similar paths, but not because Canada follows orders from DC or NY.>>

                      James: I have no idea what you are talking about. A 'think tank' is a research group. One of the Canadian think tanks you mentioned before was the Frasier Institute, who were in favor of privatized health care. They are a conservative think-tank, and yes they have been caught red-handed in manufacturing phony statistics and outright lies.

                      This threads is about a 1-world conspiracy James, and how it relates to the "climate change" agenda. These semi secret think tanks are conspiring to relinquish state sovereignty and foist world govenment in an end run strategy around the constitution and the voting public. This is evil and wrong. They have a variety of members from all political spectrums as cover for their agenda, but there real goal is world government. Their actions are treasonous.
              • Unsu...
                 
                Dan have you read the 181 page draft treaty?
                Which part concerns you the most? Is it the 'shared vision for long-term cooperative action"? or maybe 'International [adaptation action and] cooperation'??

                please express your personal concerns.

                www.theaustralian.news.com.au/fil....pdf
                • Unsu...
                   
                  "Dan have you read the 181 page draft treaty?"

                  No, and neither have you. But Margaret Thatcher and Lord Moniken have and both have expressed their concerns in the article below as well as in conferences available online.

                  "Which part concerns you the most? Is it the 'shared vision for long-term cooperative action"? or maybe 'International [adaptation action and] cooperation'?? please express your personal concerns."

                  You mean other than the fact that Greenpeace has taken responsiblity for having written it? Heck, even the "atheist conservatives" know what the agenda of Greenpeace is: www.theatheistconservative.com/20...nt/

                  www.greenpeace.org/seasia/e...en-treaty
                • Unsu...
                   
                  Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:


                  38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

                  World Government (heading added)
                  (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

                  To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
                  b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

                  With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
                  © The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <<Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

                    Lets be honest here Dan, you did NOT skim the treaty. What you did was use google... yes, the ADDED headers to each paragraph were put there by others, you just cut and paste the whole thing. Subsequently you have no idea as to the context of those paragraphs. Seriously Dan, there is no need to be dishonest in an attempt to look like you actually read the thing.... tsk tsk.
                    • Unsu...
                       
                      actually Jeff, I did in fact skim the treaty and did read the parts I listed.
                      • You indicated you skimmed the document, then came across this section, then cut and paste that section. It is clear that this is not the case Dan, otherwise you would not have mistakenly cut and paste the additions from someones blog (as opposed to cutting and pasting that section directly from the document itself).
                        • Unsu...
                           
                          "You indicated you skimmed the document, then came across this section, then cut and paste that section. It is clear that this is not the case Dan, otherwise you would not have mistakenly cut and paste the additions from someones blog (as opposed to cutting and pasting that section directly from the document itself)."

                          As I have already stated, I did skim the document, so what exaclty again "is not the case" Jeff? Your MO is showing. Your tact is similar to finding a mispelling in a post and declaring "see there, this proves that Dan is wrong". You have no argument Jeff, you never have.
  • Now Dan is even further associated with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, they believe in the New World Order conspiracy too!
    • Unsu...
       
      "Now Dan is even further associated with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, they believe in the New World Order conspiracy too!"

      Do you deny that a conspiracy for world government exists Jeff? Or was this a poor attempt at being humorous?
      • Another climate book i plan to read is..

        Climate Cover-Up
        The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
        by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

        Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

        The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.

        Leveraging four years of original research conducted through Hoggan’s website, DeSmogBlog.com, Hoggan and Littlemore documented the participation of lapsed scientists and ExxonMobil-funded think tanks. Then they analyzed and explained how mainstream media stood by — or in some cases colluded — while deniers turned a clear issue of science (and an issue for public safety) into a partisan argument that no one could win.

        This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up.
        www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up
        This book might partly explain why people like Dan still have such a retarded opinion about climate change..
        • Unsu...
           
          silly. this is a transparent attempt to hide the lie of global warming by claiming "conspiracy" with no foundation.

          Harmen, are you aware of the fraudulent tree ring studies, the main source of "proof" for global warming? Explain why these scientists hid their data for many years until they were forced to provide it. Explain why they limited their data to trees which supported their hypothesis, while neglecting data nearby which refuted it? Do all of this w/o consulting your silly book or wickedpedia Harmen, if you can.
          • "Harmen, are you aware of the fraudulent tree ring studies, the main source of "proof" for global warming? "

            I read about the hot air produced around these tree rings..
            They are absolutely NOT the main source of proof for global warming..
            That is typical hard core denialist bogus...

            If people want to know some details about tree trings; Realclimate wrote an article on it and there are 755 comments to read.
            have fun..


            "More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a “Yamal” climate record.

            A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 (pdf) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.

            Since long climate records with annual resolution are few and far between, it is unsurprising that they get used in climate reconstructions. Different reconstructions have used different methods and have made different selections of source data depending on what was being attempted. The best studies tend to test the robustness of their conclusions by dropping various subsets of data or by excluding whole classes of data (such as tree-rings) in order to see what difference they make so you won’t generally find that too much rides on any one proxy record (despite what you might read elsewhere).

            ****

            So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever."
            ................
            www.realclimate.org/index.ph...y-ya-mal/

            The fact remains CO2 levels are still rising so our world will keep heating up..
            • Unsu...
               
              "The fact remains CO2 levels are still rising so our world will keep heating up.."

              Like the rest of your article from the Gore apologist site, this is false:

              www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php


              Since water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas on the Earth, and since the Earth is mostly water covered, it is easy to see why the response of water to perturbations in the level and distribution of Solar insolation would be most important in the shift from glacial ages to interglacial periods. Reasonable arguments can be made for a strong positive feedback of water vapor to explain the rapid temperature increase during the transition. It is clear that such feedbacks are self-limiting, since the increase stops. However, the possible claim that the much smaller CO2 contribution, which even lags the sharp initial rise by many years, can then cause an even stronger positive feedback defies logic.

              A recent significant increase of CO2, possibly with a large anthropogenic input, still results in a total less than 7% of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect. Only about 1/3 of that is in the increase over the claimed "natural" levels. It is posited that this can somehow override the water vapor self-limiting mechanism by triggering a small increase in temperature to thus release more water vapor and supercharge a temperature rise to several times the direct effect of the CO2 itself. Since the self-limiting mechanism for the water vapor is present, this does not follow logically. Actual temperature changes have many drivers, but CO2 does not appear to be a significant driver at the levels or variations in levels present, and certainly can't have the amplifying effect claimed.


              Gore "science" is junk science. There is no proof for human caused climate change anywhere and there is no consensus in the scientific community for climate change. none!


              www.petitionproject.org/

              Of the over 31,000 scientists listed on this petition (all of which are qualified to read and understand the science involved), 4000 are in fields directly related to the issue. And they all agree that Global warming is a myth. Contrast this list with the non list of real scientists on "realclimate", which consists mainly of journalists, and you begin to get the picture.

              Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign.

              EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.

              Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.
              • Dan,
                >>>>"Gore "science" is junk science."

                Here is a joint statement on climate change by the 13 most important Academies of Sciences in the world (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences).

                "The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment on climate change concluded that large reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels.

                However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated.."
                ....................
                "The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable. For example, limiting global warming to 2 degrees C (4 degrees F) would require a very rapid implementation of all currently available low carbon technologies"
                www.nationalacademies.org/inclu...09.pdf

                I can assure you, these scientist do not work for Al Gore nor for the Bilderberg group..



                "At a time when responding to climate change is one of the nation's most important and complex endeavors, the National Academies provides helpful analysis and advice to policymakers and stakeholders through its expert, consensus reports and other activities. The reports are produced by committees of the nation's top scientists, engineers, and other experts who are convened to address key scientific and technical aspects of climate change and other topics."

                dels.nas.edu/climatechange/


                • Unsu...
                   
                  "Here is a joint statement on climate change by the 13 most important Academies of Sciences in the world (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences)."

                  You have the wrong organization if you were attempting to provide an objective source of scientific data on anthropomorphic climate change Harmen. The NIPCC would have been an better choice for objectivity.

                  www.climatechangefraud.com/poli...rming

                  Written by Dianna Cotter, Portland Examiner
                  Saturday, May 23 2009 15:21

                  In May 2006 we were told, with the most alarming language possible, that humans were causing the planet to warm with their use of Carbon based fuels. We must follow all of the recommendations of the IPCC report coming out in 2007 or humanity's existence on earth would end.

                  We were told that we must do something now, in order to prevent the deaths of untold millions, and the loss of humanity’s very ability to survive on earth. We must start taxing "Global warming Gasses" in order to stop their production, no matter the human cost!

                  It’s a complete lie.

                  The IPCC – the International Panel on Climate Change is a committee with an agenda, and one it was pre-programmed to execute. It was designed from the outset, from its very beginnings to come up with a specific result. This is in direct contradiction to every principle of real science, the aim of which is to describe reality as it is, not reality as one wishes it to be.

                  To illustrate this, in 1995 the IPCC completely ignored Satellite evidence, very clear evidence, that there was no warming according to a report from the Heartland Institute Released in 2008. The full pdf. is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate The institute claims, and is backed by anecdotal reports that the IPCC changed portions of the text of its report to make it appear that humans were the cause of the warming they artificially detected, or in other words, manufactured. Also attributed to the Heartland Institute’s report, the IPCC ignored further data confirming the lack of warming – if not showing a slight cooling – that became available after the May 2006 deadline.

                  The report the column speaks of is the NIPCC. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. A completely independent examination of all the evidence available in published peer-reviewed literature. They included every single piece or evidence available to them, positive and negative, they did not select research that proved their predetermined result as the IPCC did. They went through everything. Their conclusion, there is no human caused global warming.

                  “The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence”

                  For anyone who has any sort of intellectual honesty at all, the report from the Heartland Institute is a MUST read. Dr. Fred S. Singer who conceived and directed the NIPCC project is an honored and decorated scientist. His Raison d'être is truth, not political machinations, or power. He is deeply concerned by the absolute mis-use of science in what has now become a multi-billion dollar business, that is based on what amounts to a hoax.

                  "The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [IPCC-AR4 200 "When new errors and outright falsehoods were observed in the initial drafts of AR4(The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [IPCC-AR4 2007]), SEPP [Science and Environmental Policy Project] set up a ‘Team B’ to produce an independent evaluation of the available scientific evidence. While the initial organization took place at a meeting in Milan in 2003, ‘Team B’ was activated only after the AR4 SPM appeared in February 2007. It changed its name to NIPCC and organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007."

                  This group of scientists, who have looked at all available evidence, from satellite to very unreliable ground temperature readings to historical records, concludes correctly; if Human governments are going to be institution policies that will drastically affect the lives of its citizens, and the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy bill is without a doubt just that, then it must be utterly certain of the science that backs the supporting reasons for the existence of the legislation.

                  This report states unequivocally that there is zero evidence of man-made global warming. We are about to kill a Nation, literally for hot air that does not exist.

                  But wait, there more:

                  In an article titled Proved: there is No Climate Crisis written by Robert Ferguson July 15th 2008, he reports on mathematical proof “that there is no “climate crisis”.

                  “Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.”

                  Harmen, your profile indicates you are a smart fellow respected by all. Yet this respect is from those who share your predisposition toward junk science which fits your preconceived notion. Why not just admit that you haven't a clue whether there is any anthropomorphic climate change, but just believe it anyway? This would be more honest.
      • <<Do you deny that a conspiracy for world government exists Jeff?

        Yes, I do deny it, along with the idea that the govt. perpetrated 9-11 in order to further their new world order agenda. Get your tin foil hat Dan!
        • Unsu...
           
          <<Do you deny that a conspiracy for world government exists Jeff?

          Jeff: Yes, I do deny it, along with the idea that the govt. perpetrated 9-11 in order to further their new world order agenda. Get your tin foil hat Dan!

          I have it right here with me Jeff and I am not afraid to use it.

          The Council on Foreign Relations emerged in the aftermath of U.S. Senate’s rejection of our nation’s membership in the League of Nations. Officially in business as of 1921, the organization’s Foreign Affairs journal immediately called for the creation of a world government and an end to U.S. sovereignty. The group’s primary founder was President Woodrow Wilson’s top aide, Edward Mandell House, the author of a book in which he admitted he was working for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”

          Marx, along with all the communists who revere him, also sought world government.

          Entire books have been written to expose the CFR, the most reliable being The Shadows of Power by James Perloff. But he nevertheless did an excellent job in showing that, through its strategically placed members, the CFR is a very powerful and extremely dangerous organization. Much evidence to back up that assertion can be assembled. I am providing only a few examples of what should be termed indications of treasonous intent.

          In 1974, former State Department official Richard N. Gardner wrote in Foreign Affairs that the desired goal of world government could not be attained in a single leap. So he recommended performing “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” He said this could be accomplished via the IMF, the World Bank, a Law of the Sea treaty, disarmament programs, a United Nations military force, and more. His urging, he contended, “can produce some remarkable concessions of sovereignty that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis.” It is worth noting that no member of the CFR resigned after these flagrantly un-American ideas appeared in their publication.

          It was even earlier that Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley revealed his awareness of the existence of a “secret society” to rule the world in his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope. He calmly and delightedly mentioned that the U.S. branch of this grand undertaking was “the Council on Foreign Relations.” While accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 1992, Georgetown alumnus Bill Clinton acknowledged that his mentor had been the very same Carroll Quigley. Mr. Clinton has long held membership in the CFR, as did presidential predecessors Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Bush (the elder) while they served, and Ford and Carter who affiliated with the CFR soon after leaving the White House.

          A great deal more can be offered to confirm the subversive and un-American posture of this powerful organization. For instance, its leader for several decades was David Rockefeller. In 2002, his autobiography entitled Memoirs became available. Referring to the enormous influence he and his family have exercised over our nation’s affairs, he wrote:

          Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

          Guilty of what? Guilty of conspiring with others to build a one world government, the goal of the CFR. If successful, Rockefeller and others who share his aim would cancel the Declaration of Independence and tear up the U.S. Constitution.

          And finally in this very short listing of indictments of the organization, we turn to CFR President Richard N. Haass, the man who welcomed Mrs. Clinton to the CFR’s office in DC. In February 2006, the Taipei Times reported that he is no less a pupil of Edward Mandell House and no less an advocate of world government than any of his predecessors. In part, he stated:

          For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink that notion.

          The CFR lists only 4,338 members. But these individuals sit atop the worlds of business, mass media, academia, military, foundations and government. They are, as Washington Post writer Richard Harwood once noted, America's "Ruling Class." But they aren't supposed to admit that they have the power to direct U.S. policy. Now, however, Secretary of State Clinton has stated in very clear terms that what critics of the CFR have always maintained is correct. The CFR, she admits, tells her what to do and what to think. In following its lead, she is not alone.

          Americans who wonder why our nation’s policies are so self-defeating, even un-American, must begin to understand that the Council on Foreign Relations is their main author. Repudiation of this organization, its members, and those who willingly accept direction from it (such as Mrs. Clinton) is not just a good idea; it’s a matter of national survival.

          This is why nothing realling changes from administration to administration, even Reagan had numerous CFR members in his cabinet. Do I think Reagan was a conspirator, no. But these "wise men" have insinuated themselves into positions of power and are a pool which presidents draw from when setting up their cabinets. Their views are molded by their affiliation in the CFR.

          (Hillary's speech to the CFR referenced the fact that her views and opinions are formed by the CFR)
          • You are obviously afraid to source this article.

            Now, please demonstrate that the Council on Foreign Relations ever called on the creation of a one world govt. and an end to US Sovereignty, and do so with proof beyond WND claims and without convoluted "interpertations".
            • Unsu...
               
              The proof is so easily obtained you have to be blind or willfully ignorant not to know about it. Rochefeller, founder of the CFR published his Memoirs in 2002. On page 405 of the paperback edition, David Rockefeller says this:

              "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

              “… it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government …” - David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media for keeping secret for decades the movement of the prophetic one world government."

              CFR members have dominated every administration since its inception, both republican and democrat, which is why there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. We have an unelected shaddow government dedicated to a new world order and which is never out of power.
              • What piss poor evidence Dan. This does nothing to demonstrate that the Council on Foreign Relations proposed this as you falsely indicated, it demonstrates Rockefellers world view. You indicate that Rockefeller founded the CFR, but it does not follow that the CFR as an organization agrees with his views. You did exactly what I indicated you should not do, you put forth a convoluted argument by indicating this was proposed by CFR when in reality it was proposed by Rockefeller himself. In other words, I do believe you lied Dan.

                Beyond that, Rockefeller was not even the founder of the CFR. The CFR was founded in 1921 and Rockefeller did not join until 1949. Your whole case is based on lies, assumption, conjecture, and inuendo.....just like 911 truthers. You lose.
                • Unsu...
                   
                  "What piss poor evidence Dan"

                  Not only is he evidence solid, it is overwhelming. the only issue is why call it a conspiracy at all when it is happening right under our noses and in more or less, plain view. From the failed league of nations to the United Nations, the creation of the Federal Reserve (which is not federal and doesn't hold any reserve), to the establishment of the royal society in the UK and the CFR in the U.S., the conspiracy to step by step dissolve borders and weaken sovereignty is all too obvious. The plan has always been gradualism, regionalism and eventually world governance, world army and police force. It has been going on now for many decades. Treaties are signed by Presidents which have the effect of circumventing our constitution. The current president of the CFR even makes it abundantly clear that this is the proper direction to go:

                  www.cfr.org/publication/...lisation.html

                  "but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
                  Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
                  Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens."

                  Eliminating sovereignty is pretty clear Jeff, this occurs only with regional and world government, the purpose for the CFR from its inception. How is this a conspiracy?

                  Conspiracy can be defined as "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot."

                  A plot to gradually erode our nations sovereignty, not by vote or by the will of the people, but by treaties and gradualism, by semi secret societies who insinuate themselves into the most powerful places in government, media and entertainment (from the entire political spectrum) has most of the elements. That it is really not hard to see it and that the current president of this organization has the balls to admit it and its founder the balls to admit it speak to the fact that they know they have successfully marginalized all detractors as "kooks" and "tin foil hat wearers" just as they did those who exposed the communist conspiracy in our country in the last century.

                  Many one worlders don't consider one world government evil at all. They view the star trek version as a positive change over nationalism (world peace, social justice and other such nonsense) rather than an evil empire of slavery and rights granted only by tenable contracts. But we are not moving toward the star trek version of utopia, but rather the evil empire version of big brother, elite rule, mass slavery.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Dan, why are you ignoring the fact that your claim about Rockefeller founding the CFR is false? Why are you ignoring the fact that you attributed Rockefellers personal opinion and words to the CFR? And now you are attributing Richard Haass personal words in an op-ed piece to the CFR as an organization, this is dishonest. The CFR has people with wide ranging beliefs, and you are cherry picking individual opinions as opposed to demonstrating this is the CFRs overideing philosophy. The CFR is an organization that debates and discusses a multitude of issues and has members with a multitude of opinions. Yes, even your opinion would be welcomed in to the discussion.

                    In addition, he is not even proposing a one world govt., he is proposing a balance in the era of globalization, in particular in regards to terrorism. Here is the part of the op-ed piece you purposefully left out.

                    "Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

                    The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

                    The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another."

                    I personally don't agree with a lot of what he said in the article, but you are mischaracterizing it a bit, and you are dishonestly attributing his personal words to the CFR as a whole. You said the CFR proposed world govt., and you have failed miserably to demonstrate that the CFR as an organization proposed any such thing.
                    • Unsu...
                       
                      "Dan, why are you ignoring the fact that your claim about Rockefeller founding the CFR is false?"

                      it isn't false. Rockefeller did found the CFR and the Trilateral commission. He served as Chairman for many years. The CFR was founded through his surrogates, specifically Edward Mandel House.

                      " Why are you ignoring the fact that you attributed Rockefellers personal opinion and words to the CFR? And now you are attributing Richard Haass personal words in an op-ed piece to the CFR as an organization, this is dishonest.

                      It isn't dishonest, it is accurate. The CFR is a front group for world government, plain and simple. That you wish to ignore the "personal statements" of its founder and president or explain them away as some sort of abberation is laughable. The op ed piece was printed on the CFR web site! As is this article saying the same thing:

                      www.cfr.org/project/1369...vernance.html

                      "The CFR has people with wide ranging beliefs, and you are cherry picking individual opinions as opposed to demonstrating this is the CFRs overideing philosophy."

                      I am cherry picking the most influencil permanent member and the current president Jeff. Let's do try to be fair here. Yes, it is true that among membership are a diverse group of people. Conservative, Democrat, liberals etc.. And it is certainly true that no all members are a part of the conspiracy, many are naive "useful idiots", just like you. But there is no mistaking the purpose and intent of the CFR, Trilateral commission, the U.N. (on land donated by guess who?), the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England, the French Institute of International Relations and other organizations which are all fronts whose long range purpose is the dissolution of sovereign states and the rise of world government to take its place.

                      "The CFR is an organization that debates and discusses a multitude of issues and has members with a multitude ... "

                      Of course it does. And it is extremly influencial as Hillary noted recently when she addressed them. It is also very secretive and seldom reported on by the media. Very strange for a body which wields such enormous influence and real power. Take Reagan for example. In 1980, when was campaigning against Carter, he commented:

                      "I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction."

                      Yet after his election, President Reagan picked 10 Trilateralists for his transition team, and included in his administration such Trilateralists as Vice President George Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Yet the entire North American membership of the Trilateral Commission has never numbered much over 100.

                      Here is another "Cherry" for you to pick Jeff from a long term insider who resigned in disgust

                      "“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
                      - Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

                      How about Bill Clintons mentor who was permitted access to the inner workings of the numerous secret societies including the CFR:

                      "The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world." - Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton, quote from “Tragedy and Hope”, 1966

                      “Let us face reality. The framers (of the Constitution) have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, (or) tinkering. If we are to turn the founders upside down…we must directly confront the Constitutional structure they erected.”

                      James MacGregor Burns, Council on Foreign Relations member, 1984

                      So Jeff, if the main premise of your rebuttal is that you don't agree that Rockefeller was a founding member of the CFR go for it, buy the point is tangential to whether the CFR has a one world government agenda, which it did and does. And House founded it with the financial backing of the House of Rockefeller's National City Bank.

                      Many more quotes can be offered but these will suffice, you can source them and many others by getting a copy of the book "Shadows of Power" by James Perloff.

                      www.amazon.com/Shadows-Po.../0882791346

                      • "Dan, why are you ignoring the fact that your claim about Rockefeller founding the CFR is false?"

                        it isn't false. Rockefeller did found the CFR and the Trilateral commission. He served as Chairman for many years. The CFR was founded through his surrogates, specifically Edward Mandel House. >>

                        Now you are just pulling more conspiracy theory bullshit out of thin air Dan. It is illogical to indicate that Rockefeller founded the CFR, but waited TWENTY EIGHT Years to become a member. As a matter of fact, David Rockefeller was SIX YEARS OLD in 1921 when the CFR was founded. You are trying to tell me that a SIX YEAR OLD founded the CFR? The lengths some people will go through in order to not be wrong..... LMFAO!!!

                        <<" Why are you ignoring the fact that you attributed Rockefellers personal opinion and words to the CFR? And now you are attributing Richard Haass personal words in an op-ed piece to the CFR as an organization, this is dishonest.

                        It isn't dishonest, it is accurate.>>

                        <<" Why are you ignoring the fact that you attributed Rockefellers personal opinion and words to the CFR? And now you are attributing Richard Haass personal words in an op-ed piece to the CFR as an organization, this is dishonest.

                        It isn't dishonest, it is accurate. The CFR is a front group for world government, plain and simple.><>

                        Yeah yeah Dan, just like Rockefeller founded the CFR when he was six years old... Conspiracy theorists crack me up!

                        <<The op ed piece was printed on the CFR web site! As is this article saying the same thing: <<

                        Big Deal. Seth has written Conservative op-ed pieces for the Huffington Post....., by your logic, this would make Seth's words the backbone of what the Huffington Post is about. Your ego is really stretching in an attempt to be right Dan, hence yor claim that a 6 year old founded the CFR.

                        <<And it is certainly true that no all members are a part of the conspiracy, many are naive "useful idiots", just like you.

                        I see that you are now feeling insecure about your baseless claims and are resorting to name calling, this is against the rules, please stop.

                        Now, explain to me how this 6 year old founded the CFR Dan. Please do show us how he was a child prodigy inovolved in a giant conspiracy to take over the world..... LMFAO at you DAN!
                        • Unsu...
                           
                          Jeff: Now you are just pulling more conspiracy theory bullshit out of thin air Dan. It is illogical to indicate that Rockefeller founded the CFR, but waited TWENTY EIGHT Years to become a member. As a matter of fact, David Rockefeller was SIX YEARS OLD in 1921 when the CFR was founded.

                          Jeff, actually it was David Rockeffers father John whose money and influence helped found the CFR. It appears that you whole rebuttal hinges upon this one issue, while ignoring everything else. Wonder why?

                          Jeff"Yeah yeah Dan, just like Rockefeller founded the CFR when he was six years old... Conspiracy theorists crack me up! "

                          I am happy that I provide some amusement to you Jeff. Yet you have provided no rebuttal to anything with the exception of my confusing the Rockefeller Father with the son. There is no more virtue to being a conspiracy deniar any more than there is to believe in an unfounded conspiracy theory. There are conspiracies which are without merit and those which are clearly factual and supported by abundant data. That there is a one world conspiracy is one of the later.

                          Jeff: Big Deal. Seth has written Conservative op-ed pieces for the Huffington Post....., by your logic, this would make Seth's words the backbone of what the Huffington Post is about.

                          I don't think those two things are symetrical. The CFR web site and publications are not "newspapers". And I have provided ample evidence that his views are consistent with other publications of the CFR as well as past members and founders. It was the view of Edward Mandel House also. read Philip Drew, Administrator by the same person which is a cryptic novel about the conspiracy.

                          "Your ego is really stretching in an attempt to be right Dan, hence yor claim that a 6 year old founded the CFR."

                          that was not my claim Jeff, as I have shown above. Did you feel there was only one Rockefeller in the Rockefeller family? Did you even stop to consider it might be the father? I suspect you did, but you would rather focus upon one inaccuracy in my statements in order to smear my premise, which is well substantiated.

                          <<And it is certainly true that no all members are a part of the conspiracy, many are naive "useful idiots", just like you.

                          Jeff: I see that you are now feeling insecure about your baseless claims and are resorting to name calling, this is against the rules, please stop.

                          If you wish to take this as an insult, so be it. Run and tell ron that Dan is being mean. But it is actually a statement of fact. The term useful idiot is a term describing those who unwittingly contribute toward a cause they don't fully understand and that is how I meant it in reference to you Jeff. I don't think you are an idiot literally. But I do find it strange that you are going out of your way here to descredict my premise while really ignoring the amazing amount of suport for it simultaneously. Personally, I think you are disengenuous here.

                          "Now, explain to me how this 6 year old founded the CFR Dan. Please do show us how he was a child prodigy inovolved in a giant conspiracy to take over the world..... LMFAO at you DAN!"

                          I did explain, and you are beginning to take on the personality of Jake.

                          • <<Jeff, actually it was David Rockeffers father John whose money and influence helped found the CFR.

                            Boy your story keeps changing, nice little tap dance routine though.... LOL~ Now being that your claims have thus far proven untrustworthy, how about proving that John Rockefellers money and influence helped found the CFR.

                            <<Yet you have provided no rebuttal to anything with the exception of my confusing the Rockefeller Father with the son.

                            You said that the CFR proposed one world govt. When asked for proof, you indicate that David Rockefeller founded the CFR AND wrote and article (which turns out to be an op-ed piece). And I most certainly addressed the fact that an op-ed piece by a member of the CFR does not indicate that the CFR as a whole proposed this idea. So your claims about me not offering a rebuttal....... are much like your claims that a 6-year old founded the CFR..... it is bullshit, as everyone can clearly see.

                            <<Jeff: Big Deal. Seth has written Conservative op-ed pieces for the Huffington Post....., by your logic, this would make Seth's words the backbone of what the Huffington Post is about.

                            I don't think those two things are symetrical. The CFR web site and publications are not "newspapers".>>

                            Actually they are quite comparable. The Huffington post is a collection of BLOGS and opinions, and while it may be left leaning, there is a plethura of opinion, most of it op-ed style. The CFR is also has a plethura of differing belief systems, it is a place to discuss and debate the issues of the day.......and subsequently an op-ed piece from any individual member does not speak for the group as whole.

                            Face it Dan, you said the CFR proposed one world govt., yet you were only able to demonstrate that Rockefeller proposed a balance between nationalist and internationalist approaches in an op-ed piece. Nowhere is there ANY indication that the CFR as an organization proposed this. You are mistaking assumption and conjecture for fact Dan.

                            <<that was not my claim Jeff, as I have shown above. Did you feel there was only one Rockefeller in the Rockefeller family? Did you even stop to consider it might be the father? I suspect you did, but you would rather focus upon one inaccuracy in my statements in order to smear my premise, which is well substantiated.

                            Why would I consider that it was his father you referring too when you were very specific in indicating that it was DAVID that founded the CFR? What a strange thing to expect. So, lets say his father gave the CFR $$ as you claim (although your claims are becoming more and more dubious). And then the son wrote an op-ed piece. How exactly does that demonstrate that this op-ed piece was a declaration of the overiding CFR principle? You said the CFR, as in the organization, proposed one world govt. and have yet to demonstrate that this ever happened.

                            Assumption and conjecture do not = fact.
                            • Unsu...
                               
                              I never tap danced around anything. Nor did I every write "David Rockefeller". I just wrote "Rockefeller" and mistakenly conflated David, long time Chairman, with his father a founder. I also provided documentation supporting my contention that John Rockefeller was a financial backer of the CFR. Peter J. Johnson, The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations of America's Greatest Family, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988. (p.156).

                              I stated that the CFR is a front organization for a one world global conspiracy. I supported my contention by quotes from a long time chairman, a current president, a sympathetic liberal Professor (Carol Quigly) and other quotes as well. Your rebuttal has been, incredibly, that I confused one Rockefeller with his son, therefore everything else I have offered is therefore invalid!

                              "Why would I consider that it was his father you referring too when you were very specific in indicating that it was DAVID that founded the CFR?"

                              Perhaps because I never actually stated "David Rockefeller" was the founder, I implied it, so a bright guy like yourself my realize my mistake and suggest that I must have meant his father. Now that we have settled this, how does this fact change anything or help support your view that no world conspiracy exists? We have the father helping found the CFR and TC and the son a long time chairman and self admitted one worlder!

                              "You said the CFR, as in the organization, proposed one world govt. and have yet to demonstrate that this ever happened."

                              If a highly secretive society exists which you cannot join unless invited; An organization which a long time chairman and son of a founder admits to supporting a one world agenda, an organization whose current president admits to a one world agenda; a liberal sympathetic professor who investigates the CFR from the inside, by invitation, writes a book admitting there is a one world agenda; an organization which promotes one world sovereignty weakening policies to both republican and democratic admistrations such as NAFTA; an organization which is higly represented in EVERY adminstration regardless of political affiliation; then you have a strong argument that it is as I have stated, a fraternity of one world government elistics conspirators.
                              • More tap dancing it seems, you singled out David as the founder. "Rochefeller, founder of the CFR published his Memoirs in 2002. On page 405 of the paperback edition, DAVID Rockefeller says this:" Then tied his founding of the CFR to his writings on internationalism as proof that the CFR itself proposed one world govt. You indicated the founder wrote his memoirs, the memoir was written by David.

                                <<Your rebuttal has been, incredibly, that I confused one Rockefeller with his son, therefore everything else I have offered is therefore invalid!

                                What you did is make a statement that the CFR proposed one world govt. You then tried to indicate that the founder writings in an op-ed piece demonstrate this (ie David Rockefeller). This was false. Regardless, cherry picking individuals members words and conflating that with the CFR actually proposing one world govt. is just as disingenuous as indicating that David Rockefeller was the founder and his op-ed piece speaks for the CFR as a whole.

                                <<Perhaps because I never actually stated "David Rockefeller" was the founder, I implied it,

                                More tap dancing, you did not imply it..... you were specific. ""Rochefeller, founder of the CFR published his Memoirs in 2002. On page 405 of the paperback edition, DAVID Rockefeller says this:" Obviously this was David Rockefeller's memoirs, and obviously the above sentence is very specific.

                                <<how does this fact change anything or help support your view that no world conspiracy exists? We have the father helping found the CFR and TC and the son a long time chairman and self admitted one worlder!

                                You made the claim that the CFR as an organization proposed one world govt. Thus far you have done nothing but cherry pick individual writings, ie op-ed pieces where they are not speaking for the CFR. I could cherry pick Republican members of the CFR and subsequently use that to disengenuously demonstrate that the CFR is a Republican organization. But that would not be an intellecually honest approach now would it? And yet you are doing the same thing in regards to individual members beliefs in regards to supposed one world govt.

                                <<If a highly secretive society exists which you cannot join unless invited; An organization which a long time chairman and son of a founder admits to supporting a one world agenda.

                                Being secretive does nothing to demonstrate that their overall agenda is one world govt. As a matter of fact, you have not even demonstrated that the ACTUAL founder had any such agenda. You just posted an op-ed piece by David Rockefeller (his son), and even that piece clearly indicates that he is proposing a BALANCE between sovereignty and internationalism.

                                Face it, you made a claim you can't support..... namely that the CFR PUBLICLY announced its agenda for one world govt. Never happened, and conflating an individual members opinion with the organization as whole, an organization that has a MYRIAD of differing beliefs, is simply disengenuous.
                                • Unsu...
                                   
                                  "More tap dancing"

                                  The only person who has been tap dancing here is you Jeff. I have offered evidence of the real goals of the CFR and much more evidence is out there. I didn't state that the mission shown on the CFR web site would mention "we are for world government". They are not that stupid. After you pull your head out of the hole it is in and actually read the books I referenced, then you will have earned the right to discuss this further with me. But for now you have notthing left to offer.
                                  • In other words, you don't have the ability to respond, you are engaging in diversionary tactics and avoiding your own words on the subject.

                                    When I asked you for proof that the CFR proposed one world govt., you said the following (which has subsequently been demonstrated to be false): "The proof is so easily obtained you have to be blind or willfully ignorant not to know about it. Rochefeller, founder of the CFR published his Memoirs in 2002. On page 405 of the paperback edition, David Rockefeller says this: " An op-ed piece from a man that did not found the CFR as you falsely claimed. This hardly counts as proof that the CFR called for one world govt.

                                    <<then you will have earned the right to discuss this further with me.

                                    Wow, the ego in this sentence is unbelievable! And in the midst of a cop-out no less....
  • [This article reveals the real purpose of climate change treatise and legislation and why countrys are signing
    this stuff. Obama is about to sign our sovereignty away. The question is, will we let him? ]

    This article reveals the usual wingnut crap from WND, the world's most useless news source.

    I can't believe you continue to whine pathetically about people citing Wikipedia when you unhesitatingly go to this idiotic right wing propaganda source as the basis for your posts....
    • Unsu...
       
      "I can't believe you continue to whine pathetically about people citing Wikipedia when you unhesitatingly go to this idiotic right wing propaganda source as the basis for your posts...."

      And I will continue to go to WND because it is a great publication and fiercely independent one at that. They continue to break stories which are picked up by other mainline news stations and papers nationwide. That you hate them is reason enough why all patriotric Americans should begin reading today.
  • Unsu...
     
    Excerpts from "Shadows of Power" by Perloff on the one world intentions of the CFR:

    p3
    Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
    The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.
    p3
    John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York City, in a speech, March 26, 1922
    The real menace of our republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally referred to as "international bankers." This little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run our government for their own selfish ends.
    p4
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933
    The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.
    p4
    Senator William Jenner in a speech, February 23, 1954
    Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people .... Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side... All the strange developments in foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure .... This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government, and its own propaganda apparatus.
    p4
    the Establishment
    American Heritage Dictionary
    An exclusive group of powerful people who rule a government or society by means of private agreements and decisions.
    p5
    Columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, described the Establishment
    The word "Establishment" is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House.
    Most people are unaware of the existence of this "legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.
    p5
    In the public mind, the American Establishment is probably most associated with big business and with wealthy, old-line families. The sons of these families have long followed a traditional career path that begins with private schools, the most famous being Groton. From these they have typically proceeded to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Columbia, there entering exclusive fraternities, such as Yale's secretive Skull and Bones. Some of the brightest have traveled to Oxford for graduate work as Rhodes Scholars. From academia they have customarily progressed to Wall Street, perhaps joining an international investment bank, such as Chase Manhattan, or a prominent law firm or brokerage house. Some of the politically inclined have signed on with Establishment think tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Rand Corporation. As they have matured, a few have found themselves on the boards of the vast foundations - Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie. And ultimately, some have advanced into "public service" - high positions in the federal government.
    For the latter, there has long been a requisite: membership in a New York-based group called the Council on Foreign Relations CFR for short. Since its founding in 1921, the Council has been the Establishment's chief link to the U.S. government.
    p7
    The Council [on Foreign Relations]. while remaining largely unknown to the public, has exercised decisive impact on U.S. policy, especially foreign policy, for several decades. It has achieved this primarily in two ways. The first is by directly supplying personnel for upper echelon government jobs.
    Few Americans know how a President chooses his administrators. The majority probably trust that, aside from an occasional political payoff, the most qualified people are sought and found. But the CFR's contribution cannot be overlooked. Pulitzer Prize winner Theodore White said that the Councils "roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for cabinet-level officials in Washington." The Christian Science Monitor once observed that "there is a constant flow of its members from private life to public service. Almost half of the council's members have been invited to assume official government positions or to act as consultants at one time or another. "
    Indeed, Joseph Kraft, writing in Harper's, called the Council a "school for statesmen." David Halberstam puts it more wryly: "They walk in one door as acquisitive businessmen and come out the other door as statesmen-figures."
    The historical record speaks even more loudly than these quotes. Through early 1988, fourteen secretaries of state, fourteen treasury secretaries, eleven defense secretaries, and scores of other federal department heads have been CFR members.
    p8
    Anthony Lukas, New York Times, 1971
    Everyone knows how fraternity brothers can help other brothers climb the ladder of life. If you want to make foreign policy, there's no better fraternity to belong to than the Council [on Foreign Relations].
    p9
    Richard Barnet, a CFR member, wrote in 1972
    Failure to be asked to be a member of the Council [on Foreign Relations] has been regarded for a generation as a presumption of unsuitability for high office in the national security bureaucracy.
    p10
    The CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] advocates the creation of a world 'government. The ultimate implication of this is that all power would be centralized in a single global authority; national identities and boundaries (including our own) would be eliminated.
    p10
    Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
    [The CFR has as a goal] submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government... this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership... In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as 'America First.
    p11
    Foreign Affairs, the journal of the CFR, December 1922
    Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states... Equally obviously there is going to be no steady progress in civilization or self-government among the more backward peoples until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles incident to the attempt of every nation to make itself secure. The real problem today is that of world government.
    p11
    In 1959, the Council [CFR] issued a position paper entitled Study No. 7, Basic Aims of U.S. Foreign Policy. This document proposed that the U.S. seek to "build a new international order."
    1. Search for an international order in which the freedom of nations is recognized as interdependent and in which many policies are jointly undertaken by free world states with differing political, economic and social systems, and including states labeling themselves as "socialist."
    2. Safeguard U.S. security through preserving a system of bilateral agreements and regional arrangements.
    3. Maintain and gradually increase the authority of the U.N.
    4. Make more effective use of the International Court of Justice, jurisdiction of which should be increased by withdrawal of reservations by member nations on matters judged to be domestic.
    p12
    Foreign Affairs article, Fall 1984, by Kurt Waldheim, former Secretary General of the UN, and former Nazi
    As long as states insist that they are the supreme arbiters of their destinies - that as sovereign entities their decisions are subject to no higher authority - international organizations will never be able to guarantee the maintenance of peace.
    p12
    Naturally, everyone would like to see world harmony and peace. But if the United States traded its sovereignty for membership in a world government, what would become of our freedoms, as expressed in the Bill of Rights? How would the rulers of this world government be selected? And how could a single, central authority equitably govern a planet that is so diversified?
    p14
    Kermit Roosevelt, 1961
    What is the Establishment's view-point? Through the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations its ideology is constant: That the best way to fight Communism is by a One World Socialist state governed by "experts" like themselves. The result has been policies which favor the growth of the superstate, gradual surrender of United States sovereignty to the United Nations and a steady retreat in the face of Communist aggression.
    p14
    Senator Jesse Helms, before the Senate in December 1987, after noting the Council on Foreign Relation's (CFR's) place within the Establishment
    The viewpoint of the Establishment today is called globalism. Not so long ago, this viewpoint was called the "one-world" view by its critics. The phrase is no longer fashionable among sophisticates; yet, the phrase "one-world" is still apt because nothing has changed in the minds and actions of those promoting policies consistent with its fundamental tenets.
    ... In the globalist point of view, nation-states and national boundaries do not count for anything. Political philosophies and political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, even constitutions are irrelevant to the exercise of power ...
    In this point of view, the activities of international financial and industrial forces should be oriented to bringing this one-world design - with a convergence of the Soviet and American systems as its centerpiece - into being.
    p19
    An "international" banker is one who, among other things, loans money to the governments of nations.
    p19
    Essential to controlling a government is the establishment of a central bank with a monopoly on the country's supply of money and credit.
    p19
    Meyer Rothschild is said to have remarked
    Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws.
    p20
    Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966
    The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
    p23
    The Federal Reserve became law in December 1913. Ostensibly, the system was to act as guardian of reserves for banks; it was granted control over interest rates and the size of the national money supply. The public was induced to accept the Fed by claims that, given these powers, it would stabilize the economy, preventing further panics and bank runs. It did nothing of the kind. Not only has our nation suffered through the Great Depression and numerous recessions, but inflation and federal debt - negligible problems before the Fed came into existence - have plagued America ever since.
    p23
    Congressman Louis McFadden, who chaired the House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931
    When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here.
    A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.
    Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is - the Fed has usurped the government.
    p24
    The average American probably does not know - or even think - very much about our Federal Reserve System, but a few things should be noted about it.
    * Although it is called "Federal," it is privately owned.
    * It has never received a meaningful audit from an independent source.
    * It makes its own policies and is not subject to the President or the Congress. Private banks within the system select two-thirds of the directors of the twelve Federal Reserve banks; the Federal Reserve Board chooses the rest.
    * As to the Federal Reserve Board itself, its members are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, but, once in office, they serve fourteen-year terms. Fed Chairmen have routinely come from the New York banking community, on its recommendations, and the great majority have been members of the CFR.
    p24
    [By] staffing the Federal Reserve's management with themselves or their associates, the international bankers gained effective control over the nation's money supply and interest rates - and thus over its economic life. Indeed, the Fed is authorized to create money - and thus inflate - at will. According to the Constitution, only Congress may issue money or regulate its value. The Federal Reserve Act, however, placed these functions in the hands private bankers - to their perpetual profit.
    p25
    The Fed-was empowered to buy and sell government Securities, and to loan to member banks so that they might themselves purchase such securities, thus greatly multiplying the potential for government indebtedness to the banking community.
    However, if Washington was to incur debts, it had to have some means of paying them off. The solution was income tax. Prior to 1913, there was no income tax in America (except during the War Between the States and early Reconstruction period). The U.S. government survived on other revenue sources, such as tariffs and excise taxes. As a result, it could neither spend nor borrow heavily.
    Because income tax had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895, it had to be instituted by constitutional amendment. The man who brought forward the amendment in Congress was the same senator who proposed the plan for the Federal Reserve - Nelson Aldrich.
    Why did the American people consent to income tax? Initially, it was nominal: a mere one percent of income under $20,000 - a figure few made in those days. Naturally, there were assurances that it would never increase!
    Another pitch used to sell the tax was that, being graduated, it would "soak the rich." But Senator Aldrich's backing of the amendment implied that "the rich" desired it. America's billionaire elite, of course, are notorious for sidestepping the IRS. The Pecora hearings of 1933, for example, revealed that J. P. Morgan had not paid any income tax in 1931-32. When Nelson Rockefeller was being confirmed as Vice President under Gerald Ford, the fact arose that he had not paid any income tax in 1970.
    One of the leading devices by which the wealthy dodge taxes is the channeling of their fortunes into tax-free foundations. The major foundations, though commonly regarded as charitable institutions, often use their grant-making powers to advance the interests of their founders. The Rockefeller Foundation, for example, has poured millions into the Council on Foreign Relations, which in turn serves as the Establishment's main bridge of influence to the U.S. government. By the time the income tax became law in 1913, the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations were already operating.
    Income tax didn't soak the rich, it soaked the middle class. Because it was a graduated tax, it tended to prevent anyone from rising into affluence. Thus it acted to consolidate the wealth of the entrenched interests, and protect them from new competition.
    The year 1913 was an ominous one - there now existed the means to loan the government colossal sums (the Federal Reserve), and the means to exact repayment (income tax). All that was needed now was a good reason for Washington to borrow.
    In 1914, World War I erupted on the European continent. America eventually participated, and as a result her national debt soared from $1 billion to $25 billion.
    p38
    A dominator common to many of the early CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] members was support - material or moral - for the Bolsheviks in Russia.
    A revolution, like any other substantive undertaking, cannot succeed without financing. The 1917 Russian Revolution was no exception. It is now well known that the Germans helped Lenin - who had been exiled by the Czar - into Russia in a sealed train, carrying some $5 million in gold. The Germans, of course, had an ulterior motive: Czarist Russia was fighting them on the side of the Allies, and a successful revolution would mean one less adversary for Germany to contend with.
    p43
    Probably no name symbolizes capitalism more than Rockefeller. Yet that family has for decades supplied trade and credit to Communist nations. After the Bolsheviks took power, the Rockefellers' Standard Oil of New Jersey bought up Russian oil fields, while Standard Oil of New York built the Soviets a refinery and made an arrangement to market their oil in Europe. During the 1920's the Rockefeller's Chase Bank helped found the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, and was involved in financing Soviet raw material exports and selling Soviet bonds in the U.S..
    ... while the J. P. Morgan interests dominated the CFR in its early days, the center of influence gradually shifted to the Rockefellers. Indeed, David Rockefeller was chairman of the CFR from 1970 to 1985.
    p43
    Communism, in practice, is a system where government has total power - not only political power, but power over the economy, education, communications, etc. Socialism is essentially a lesser form - a little brother - of Communism: the government controls the means of production and distribution, but is not as pervasive in its authority.
    The American free enterprise system, as originally set up, was much the opposite of Communism. The Constitution forced the government to remain "laissez faire"; it could exert virtually no influence on business, education, religion, and most other features of national life. These were left in the private hands of the people.
    It is natural enough to suppose that rich capitalists, who made their fortunes through the free market, would be proponents of that system. This, however, has not been the case historically. Free enterprise means competition: it means, in its purest form, that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in the marketplace. But John D. Rockefeller J. P. Morgan, and other kingpins of the Money Trust were powerful monopolists. A monopolist seeks to eliminate competition. In fact, Rockefeller once said: "Competition is a sin." These men were not free enterprise advocates.
    Their coziness with Marxism ... becomes more comprehensible when we realize that Communism and socialism are themselves forms of monopoly. The only difference is that in this case, the monopoly is operated by the government. But hat if an international banker, through loans to the state, manipulation of a central bank, campaign contributions, or bribes, is able to achieve dominion over a government? In that case, he would find socialism welcome, for it would serve him as an instrument to control society.
    p44
    Frederick C Howe, in his book Confessions of a Monopolist (1906)
    ... all monopoly is bottomed on legislation.
    ... These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation.
    p45
    [The] Export-Import Bank ... was established to "promote trade". Here is how it can work. An American manufacturer wants to sell his products to, say, Poland - but the Poles have no cash to put up. So the Export-Import Bank theoretically loans Poland money to buy the goods. We say "theoretically" because in practice this step is cut out as unnecessary - the money goes straight to the manufacturer. The Poles then pay off the Export-Import Bank in installments - but at a low rate subsidized by American taxpayers. And what if the Poles default? We taxpayers pick up the whole tab! The manufacturer makes the transaction at no risk to himself, through the medium of a federal agency.
    p45
    There is nothing on earth more powerful than government, a fact long ago recognized by international bankers. Regulation, socialism, and Communism are simply different gradations of monopoly. Who cares if the government is running things, if you run the government
    ... In the final analysis, there is little difference between the goals of Marxism and capitalist monopolism.
    p46
    The Dawes Plan (1924) and the Young Plan (1930) were the international measures adopted to solve Germany's payment troubles.
    ... the Dawes Plan called for massive loans to Germany. Dr. Carroll Quigley said of the undertaking:
    It is worthy of note that this system was set up by the international bankers and that the subsequent lending of other people's money to Germany was very profitable to these bankers.

    David Lloyd George, who had been British Prime Minister from 1916 to 1922, stated:
    The international bankers dictated the Dawes reparation settlement... They swept statesmen, politicians and journalists to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees.
    Profit and arrogance, however, were overshadowed by a far more sinister aspect to the new reparations program. Three German cartels in particular were beneficiaries of credit under the Dawes Plan. This trio became the industrial backbone of the Nazi war machine, and the financial backbone of Adolph Hitler's rise to power in Germany.
    Of the three cartels, the chemical enterprise I. G. Farben stands out. The Farben company received significant assistance under the Dawes Plan, including a flotation of $30 million from the Rockefellers' National City Bank. I. G. Farben grew to be the largest chemical concern in the world.
    After World War II, an investigation by the U.S. War Department noted:
    Without I. G. [Farben's] immense productive facilities, its intense research, and vast international affiliations, Germany's prosecution of the war would have been unthinkable and impossible.
    This is entirely supported by statistics. In 1943, for example, [I.G.] Farben produced one hundred percent of Germany's synthetic rubber, one hundred percent of its lubricating oil, and eighty-four percent of its explosives. It even manufactured the deadly Zyklon B gas, used to exterminate human beings in Hitler's concentration camps.
    I. G. Farben also supplied forty-five percent of the election funds used to bring the Nazis to power in 1933.
    What is particularly odious is that certain American companies did robust business with I. G. Farben ..
    ... The Rockefellers' Standard Oil of New Jersey sold $20 million in aviation fuel to the firm. I. G. Farben even had an American subsidiary called American I. G.. Among the directors of the latter were the ubiquitous Paul Warburg (CFR founder), Herman A. Metz (CFR founder), and Charles E. Mitchell, who joined the CFR in 1923 and was a director of both the New York Federal Reserve Bank and National City Bank. There were also several Germans on the board of American I. G.; after the war, three of them were found guilty of war crimes at the Nuremburg trials. But none of the Americans were ever prosecuted.
    This story of American ties to German fascism has been avoided like the plague by the major U.S. media.
    p53
    [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt was himself a prototypic Wall Streeter. His family had been involved in New York banking since the eighteenth century. His uncle, Frederic Delano, was on the original Federal Reserve Board. FDR had a customary Establishment education, attending Groton and Harvard. During the 1920's he pursued a career on Wall Street, working as a bond writer and corporate promoter, and organizing speculation enterprises. He was on the board of directors eleven different corporations.
    p55
    FDR's bonds to the Council were affirmed by his son-in-law, Curtis Dall. Dali, a regular visitor at the Roosevelt home, eventually wrote a book entitled FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law. He wrote therein:
    For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the U.S.A. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political "ammunition," as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people - and thus paid off and retained his internationalist political support.
    p55
    Establishment historians present the '29 stock market crash as they do most events: an accident, evolved from erroneous policies, k not from deliberate planning. We have all heard how foolish speculation bid stock prices high, but that the bubble finally burst, plunging brokers out of windows and America into the Depression.
    That version is correct enough, but has several missing parts. The free enterprise system has been the traditional scapegoat for the Crash. In reality, however, the Federal Reserve prompted the speculation by expanding the money supply a whopping sixty-two percent between 1923 and 1929. When the central bank became law in 1913, Congressman Charles Lindbergh had warned: "From now on depressions will be scientifically created. Like two con men working a mark, the Fed made credit easy while Establishment newspapers hyped what riches could be made in the stock market.
    Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, declared of the Depression: "It was not accidental. It was carefully contrived occurrence .... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.
    p56
    Curtis Dall, himself a syndicate manager for Lehman Brothers, was on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on the day of the Crash. He said of the calamity:
    [The 1929 stock market crash] was the calculated "shearing" of the public by the World-Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York money market.
    p57
    It must be understood that an expedient existed on the New York exchange called a "24 hour broker call loan." In those days, one could purchase stock on extensive credit. He could lay down, say, $100, and borrow $900 from a bank through his broker, to purchase $1000 in securities. If the stock increased just ten percent in value, he could sell it, repay the loan, and walk away with his original investment doubled.
    The only problem was that such a loan could be called at any time - and if it was, the investor had to pay it off within twenty-four hours. For most, the only way to do so was to sell the stock. One can imagine the impact on the market if a great multitude of these loans were called simultaneously.
    In The United States' Unresolved Monetary and Political Problems, William Bryan explains what occurred during the '29 Panic:
    When everything was ready, the New York financiers started calling 24 hour broker call loans. This meant that the stock brokers and the customers had to dump their stock on the market in order to pay the loans. This naturally collapsed the stock market and brought a banking collapse all over the country because the banks not owned by the oligarchy were heavily involved in broker call claims at this time, and bank runs soon exhausted their coin and currency and they had to close. The Federal Reserve System would not come to their aid, although they were instructed under the law to maintain an elastic currency.
    Plummeting stock prices ruined small investors, but not the top "insiders" on Wall Street. Paul Warburg had issued a tip in March of 1929 that the Crash was coming. Before it did, John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Joseph P. Kennedy, and other money barons got out of the market.\According to John Kenneth Galbraith in The Great Crash, 1929, Winston Churchill appeared in the visitors' gallery of the New York Stock Exchange during the frenzy of the panic. It has been said that Bernard Baruch brought him there, perhaps to show him the power of the international bankers.
    Early withdrawal from the market not only preserved the fortunes of these men: it also enabled them to return later and buy up whole companies for a song. Shares that once sold for a dollar now cost a nickel. Joseph P. Kennedy's worth reportedly grew from $4 million in 1929 to $100 million in 1935. 'Not everyone was selling apples j during the Depression!
    FDR now rode an open highway to the Presidency, fueled by such men as Bernard Baruch. The latter's assistant, Hugh Johnson, said of the campaign: "Every time a crisis came, B. M. [Baruch] either gave the necessary money, or went out and got it." In the meantime, the Republicans were issued a death sentence. Newspapers blamed President Herbert Hoover for the Crash and Depression. The Federal Reserve, instead of moving to stimulate growth and recovery, contracted the money supply by more than one third between 1929 and 1933, thus sustaining the Depression and giving no relief to the thousands of banks dying from runs.
    President Hoover had a plan to bail out the banks, but he needed backing from the Democratic Congress. After losing the 1932 election, the lame duck President appealed to Roosevelt: Would he issue a statement encouraging Congressional support, and thus help end the crisis? FDR gave no reply, later claiming that he had written one, but that due to an oversight it was not sent. The banks were allowed to go on collapsing right until his inauguration, thus attaching maximum stigma to the Republican Party. Ironically, when the new President announced emergency banking measures, he used the very plan drawn up by Hoover's Treasury Secretary.
    p58
    The international bankers, having created the Depression, now loaned America the cash to recover from it. Naturally, the interest on these loans would be borne on the backs of taxpayers for years to come.
    p60
    Herbert Hoover in his memoirs
    Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) ... The origins of this scheme are worth repeating. These ideas were first suggested by Gerard Swope... Following this, they were adopted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. During the campaign of 1932, Henry I. Harriman, president of that body, urged that I agree to support these proposals, informing me that Mr. Roosevelt had agreed to do so. I tried to show him that this stuff was pure fascism; that it was merely a remaking of Mussolini's "corporate state" and refused to agree to any of it. He informed me that in view of my attitude, the business world would support Roosevelt with money and influence. That for the most part, proved true.
    p67
    Over the years, a number of books have documented that Franklin D. Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Of these, the most recent and authoritative is Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (1982) by Pulitzer-Prize winner John Toland.
    ... American military intelligence had cracked the radio code Tokyo used to communicate with its embassies. As a result, Japanese diplomatic messages in 1941 were known to Washington, often on a same-day basis. The decoded intercepts revealed that spies in Hawaii were informing Tokyo of the precise locations of the U.S. warships docked in Pearl Harbor; collectively, the messages suggested an assault would come on or about December 7. These intercepts were routinely sent to the President and to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall. In addition, separate warnings about the attack with varying specificity as to its time - were transmitted to these two men by or through various officials, including Joseph Grew, our ambassador to Japan; FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover; Senator Guy Gillette, who was acting on a tip from the Korean underground; Congressman Martin Dies; Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer in Java; Colonel F. G. L. Weijerman, the Dutch military attaché in Washington; and other sources. Captain Johan Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, recorded that U.S. naval intelligence officers told him on December 6 that Japanese carriers were only 400 miles northwest of Honolulu .'
    Despite all of this, no alert was passed on to our commanders in Hawaii, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter C. Short. Kimmel's predecessor, Admiral Richardson, had been removed by FDR after protesting the President's order to base the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, where it was quite vulnerable to attack. Roosevelt and Marshall stripped the island of most of its air defenses shortly before the raid, and allotted it only one third of the surveillance planes needed to reliably detect approaching forces. Perhaps to preserve his station in history, Marshall sent a warning to Hawaii that arrived a few hours after the attack, which left over two thousand Americans dead, and eighteen naval vessels sunk or heavily damaged.
    FDR appointed a commission to investigate what had happened. Heading it was Supreme Court justice Owen Roberts, an internationalist friendly with Roosevelt. Two of the other four members were in the CFR. The Roberts Commission absolved Washington of blame, declaring that Pearl Harbor had been caught off guard due to "dereliction of duty" by commanders Kimmel and Short. The two officers long sought court-martials so they might have a fair hearing. This was finally mandated by Congress in 1944. At the court-martials, attorneys for the defendants dug up some of Washington's secrets. The Roberts verdict was overturned: Kimmel was exonerated; Short received a small reprimand; and the onus of blame was fixed squarely on Washington. But the Roosevelt administration suppressed these results, saying public revelation would endanger national security in wartime. It then conducted "new" inquiries in which several witnesses were persuaded to change their testimony. Incriminating memoranda in the files of the Navy and War departments were destroyed. The court-martial findings were buried in a forty-volume government report on Pearl Harbor, and few Americans ever learned the truth.
    p71
    Most Americans believe the UN was formed after World War as a result of international revulsion at the horrors of the war. Actually, it originated in CFR intellects, and the term "United Nations" was in use as early as 1942.
    In January 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull formed a steering committee composed of himself, Leo Pasvolsky, Isaiah Bowman, Sumner Welles, Norman Davis, and Myron Taylor. All of these men - with the exception of Hull - were in the CFR. Later known as the Informal Agenda Group, they drafted the original proposal for the United Nations. It was Bowman - a founder of the CFR and member of Colonel House's old "Inquiry" - who first put forward the concept. They called in three attorneys, all CFR men, who ruled that it was constitutional. They then discussed it with FDR on June 15, 1944. The President approved the plan, and announced it to the public that same day.
    p72
    If the key to controlling a nation is to run its central bank, one can imagine the potential of a global central bank, able to dictate the world's credit and money supply. The roots for such a system were planted when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were formed at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. These UN agencies were both CFR creations. The idea for them hatched with the Economic and Finance Group, one of the units of the Council's War and Peace Studies Project. This group proposed the IMF and World Bank in a series of increasingly sophisticated memos to the President and State Department during 1941-42. After Bretton Woods, the two institutions were touted in Foreign Affairs.
    A. K Chesterton, the distinguished British author, declared: "The final act of Bretton Woods, which gave birth to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.., and many similar assemblies of hand-picked functionaries were not incubated by hard-pressed Governments engaged in waging war, but by a Supra-national Money Power which could afford to look ahead to the shaping of a post-war world that would serve its interest."
    p73
    Aid to the poor countries [from the World Bank] usually ends up as seed money or loans to the wealthy industrialists from the developed countries to further their overseas operations in competition with the people whose country they claim to represent .
    p74
    Barron's, 1978
    There's a saying that the [World] Bank takes tax money from poor people in rich nations to give to rich people in poor nations."
    p111
    John Kenneth Galbraith
    Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election were tolerated in the government... but foreign policy was still with the Council on Foreign Relations people.