“In an admission stunning for its frankness Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (D-Pa.) chairman of the House Capitol Markets subcommittee admitted on C-SPAN that the current economic problems were the result of an “electronic run on the bank” that resulted in the hemorrhaging of $550 billion in just “an hour or two.”??

Kanjorski was accosted by an irate American caller charging that the economic stimulus package is solely for the benefit of fat cats on Wall Street rather than for Joe Six-pack on Main Street. With barely concealed?panic in his voice, the congressman tried explaining the severity of the financial problem with the following comments:

Why did we do that? We did that because. . . .Look, I was there when the secretary of the treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve came and talked with members of Congress about what was going on, it was about Sept. 15. . . .

Here’s the facts; and we don’t even talk about these things. ??

“On the previous Thursday [Sept. 11] at about 11 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of 550 billion dollars, being drawn out in the matter of about an hour or two.

The Treasury opened up its window to help, pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized they could not stem the tide. . . 

We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.

If they had not done this, their estimation was that by 2 o’clock that afternoon, 5.5 trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, [which] would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. . . .??

We talked about what would happen—it would have been the end of our economic and political system as we know it, and that’s why we had to act and do things quickly.

Why? Because if you don’t have a banking system you don’t have an economy, and although we did that it wasn’t enough. The economy has been falling and we’re really no better off today than we were three months ago, as other assets are going sour by the moment. . . .??

Somebody threw us in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean without a life raft and we’re trying to determine which is the closest shore and whether?there’s any chance in the world to swim that far. We don’t know.

Put in less “gentle” terms, the 2-hour/half-a trillion dollar/$4.6 billion-per-minute event Kanjorski described was the equivalent of having a major economic artery “Jack-the-Rippered” in a way that threatened the very existence of not only the U.S. but the entire world whose economies and political stability are intrinsically tied to the monetary good mood of the land of the free and home of the brave.

According to some of the economic experts interviewed for this piece (who insisted upon anonymity,?due to the “sensitive” nature of the topic) it is one of the largest—if not the largest—singular transfers of money in history in such a short time frame.??

Furthermore, the general consensus of those interviewed is that had the bloodletting been permitted to run its course—meaning the evaporation of 5.5 trillion dollars—it would have resulted in the elimination of 90% percent of America’s liquidity (again the “blood” that keeps the economic body alive) in the span of just five hours.?

Based upon the unnerving words of the congressman in this television exchange, what is known is as follows: ??

First, that the potentially apocalyptic events leading up to the bailout of America’s banks are not “talked about,” something to remember when President Obama or his monetary magicians are promising “this and that” with regard to curing America’s economic ills.

By the very words of Rep. Paul “Vallachi” Kanjorski, a “code of silence” exists among the “made members” of the political and financial elite preventing them from telling the truth.

The fact that it took close to five months for this information concerning a deliberate run on the banks to be made public is proof that the captain and crew of the Titanic have decided to allow the passengers to go about their lives unencumbered while they try to find a way to “deal with” the current situation.??

Second, that on Sept. 15, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Shalom Bernanke testified before Congress that on the previous Thursday, Sept. 11, an “electronic run” on the U.S. banking system took place between the hours of 9 and 11 am. . . . That had stop-gaps not been executed, by 2 p.m. (again, on Sept. 11) the hemorrhaging of “$5.5 trillion” would have taken place, resulting in the collapse of not only “the entire economy” of the United States but as well of the world within just “24 hours,” leading to “the end of our economic and political system as we know it.” ??

Eliminating the possibility that the event was all part of some fluke or “market correction,” the congressman ended his comments by saying “someone” was responsible for the slashing of that financial jugular that nearly bled America to death, as well as indicating the worries on the part of the power elite in Washington as to whether or not at the end of the day America would survive it, despite the unprecedented transfusions.??

The date on which the hemorrhaging is said to have taken place, Sept. 11, is the same date America’s financial headquarters were attacked seven years earlier.

It started the “war on terror” benefiting a certain ethno-theocratic state in the Middle East. The time frame this monetary hemorrhaging is said to have taken place was between 9 and 11 a.m., which coincides with the time frame of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,* with the first tower being struck by an airliner shortly before 9 a.m. and the second tower collapsing at roughly 10:30 a.m.?

People who note the hundreds of “odd” items dealing with 9-11, including but not limited to the arrest of hundreds of Israeli intelligence operatives, some seen cheering as the Twin Towers were crumbling, will consider that the current financial crisis—rather than being an “accident”—may be another act of sabotage on the part of the same malicious entity.”

About The Author: A former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn is a prolific writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and his wife Vicki and their eight children maintain a ranch in northern Idaho.”

Bilderberg Group: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of politics, business and banking.

The elite group meets annually at luxury hotels or resorts throughout the world — normally in Europe, and once every four years in the United States or Canada. It has an office in Leiden in the Netherlands. The 2008 conference took place in Chantilly, Virginia.

Origin and purpose:

The original Bilderberg conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in The Netherlands, from May 29 to May 31, 1954. The meeting was initiated by several people, including Joseph Retinger, concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, who proposed an international conference at which leaders from European countries and the United States would be brought together with the aim of promoting understanding between the cultures of United States of America and Western Europe.

Retinger approached Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who agreed to promote the idea, together with Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland, and the head of Unilever at that time, the Dutchman Paul Rijkens. Bernhard in turn contacted Walter Bedell Smith, then head of the CIA, who asked Eisenhower adviser C. D. Jackson to deal with the suggestion. The guest list was to be drawn up by inviting two attendees from each nation, one each to represent conservative and liberal points of view.

The success of the meeting led the organizers to arrange an annual conference. A permanent Steering Committee was established, with Retinger appointed as permanent secretary. As well as organizing the conference, the steering committee also maintained a register of attendee names and contact details, with the aim of creating an informal network of individuals who could call upon one another in a private capacity. Conferences were held in France, Germany, and Denmark over the following three years. In 1957, the first U.S. conference was held in St. Simons, Georgia, with $30,000 from the Ford Foundation. The foundation supplied additional funding of $48,000 in 1959, and $60,000 in 1963.

Dutch economist Ernst van der Beugel took over as permanent secretary in 1960, upon the death of Retinger. Prince Bernhard continued to serve as the meeting’s chairman until 1976, the year of his involvement in the Lockheed affair. There was no conference that year, but meetings resumed in 1977 under Alec Douglas-Home, the former British Prime Minister. He was followed in turn by Walter Scheel, ex-President of West Germany, Eric Roll, former head of SG Warburg and Lord Carrington, former Secretary-General of NATO.

Attendees:

The steering committee does not publish a list of attendees, though some participants have discussed their attendance publicly. Others have been legally required to declare their involvement.

For example, members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom must declare their participation in its Register of Members’ Interests.

Historically, attendee lists have been weighted towards politicians, bankers, and directors of large businesses, but academics, journalists, and representatives from the non-profit sector are also invited to attend.

Heads of state have attended meetings, including Juan Carlos I of Spain and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. While serving members of government do not usually attend, prominent politicians from North America and Europe are past attendees.

In recent years, board members from many large publicly-traded corporations have attended, including IBM, Xerox, Royal Dutch Shell, Nokia and Daimler.

Criticism:

The group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots by groups such as the John Birch Society. This thinking has progressively found acceptance within both elements of the populist movement and fringe politics. Radio host Alex Jones claims the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure called the North American Union, similar to the European Union.

Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states:

“No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted... In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.”

According to investigative journalist Chip Berlet, the origins of Bilderberger conspiracy theories can be traced to activist Phyllis Schlafly. In his 1994 report Right Woos Left, published by Political Research Associates, he writes:

“The views on intractable godless communism expressed by Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly’s A Choice, Not an Echo which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.”

Denis Healey, a Bilderberg founder and former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, denies the meeting determines government policy. He was quoted by BBC News as saying:

“There’s absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It’s simply a place for discussion.”

Etienne Davignon, a former vice president of the European Commission and Bilderberg attendee, stated:

“This is not a capitalist plot to run the world.”

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921 and based at 58 East 68^th Street (at Park Avenue) in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C.

Some international journalists and American paleoconservatives believe it to be the most powerful private organization to influence United States foreign policy. It publishes the bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs. It has an extensive website, featuring links to its think tank, The David Rockefeller Studies Program, other programs and projects, publications, history, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.

Mission:

The Council’s mission is promoting understanding of foreign policy and the United States’ role in the world.

Meetings are convened at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members debate major foreign-policy issues. It has a think tank that employs prominent scholars in international affairs and it commissions subsequent books and reports.

A central aim of the Council, it states, is to “find and nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders.” It established “Independent Task Forces” in 1995, which encourage policy debate. Comprising experts with diverse backgrounds and expertise, these task forces seek consensus in making policy recommendations on critical issues; to date, the Council has convened more than fifty times.

The internal think tank is The David Rockefeller Studies Program, which grants fellowships and whose programs are described as being integral to the goal of contributing to the ongoing debate on foreign policy; fellows in this program research and write on the most important challenges facing the United States and the world.

At the outset of the organization, founding member Elihu Root said the group’s mission, epitomized in its journal Foreign Affairs, should be to “guide” American public opinion. In the early 1970s, the CFR changed the mission, saying that it wished instead to “inform” public opinion.

Early history:

The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of about 150 scholars, called “The Inquiry,” tasked to brief President Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated.

Through 1917–1918, this academic band, including Wilson’s closest adviser and long-time friend Col. Edward M. House, as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered at 155^th Street and Broadway at the Harold Pratt House in New York City, to assemble the strategy for the postwar world.

The team produced more than 2,000 documents detailing and analyzing the political, economic, and social facts globally that would be helpful for Wilson in the peace talks. Their reports formed the basis for the Fourteen Points, which outlined Wilson’s strategy for peace after war’s end.

These scholars then traveled to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 that would end the war; it was at one of the meetings of a small group of British and American diplomats and scholars, on May 30, 1919, at the Hotel Majestic, that both the Council and its British counterpart, the Chatham House in London, were born. Although the original intent was for the two organizations to be affiliated, they became independent bodies, yet retained close informal ties.

Some of the participants at that meeting, apart from Edward House, were Paul Warburg, Herbert Hoover, Harold Temperley, Lionel Curtis, Lord Eustace Percy, Christian Herter, and American academic historians James Thomson Shotwell of Columbia University, Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard, and Charles Seymour of Yale.

In 1938 they created various Committees on Foreign Relations throughout the country. These later became governed by the American Committees on Foreign Relation in Washington D.C.

About the organization:

From its inception the Council was non-partisan, welcoming members of both Democratic and Republican parties. It also welcomed Jews and African Americans, although women were initially barred from membership. Its proceedings were almost universally private and confidential.[12] It has exerted influence on U.S. foreign policy from the beginning, due to its roster of State Department and other government officials as members; as such, it has been the focus of many controversies.[13] A study by two critics of the organization, Laurence Shoup and William Minter, found that of 502 government officials surveyed from 1945 to 1972, more than half were members of the Council.[14]

Today it has about 4,300 members (including five-year term members), which over its history have included senior serving politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, former national security officers, bankers, lawyers, professors, former CIA members and senior media figures. As a private institution however, the CFR maintains through its official website that it is not a formal organization engaged in U.S. foreign policy-making.[citation needed]

In 1962, the group began a program of bringing select Air Force officers to the Harold Pratt House to study alongside its scholars. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps requested they start similar programs for their own officers.

Vietnam created a rift within the organization. When Hamilton Fish Armstrong announced in 1970 that he would be leaving the helm of Foreign Affairs after 45 years, new chairman David Rockefeller approached a family friend, William Bundy, to take over the position. Anti-war advocates within the Council rose in protest against this appointment, claiming that Bundy’s hawkish record in the State and Defense Departments and the CIA precluded him from taking over an independent journal. Some considered Bundy a war criminal for his prior actions.

Seven American presidents have addressed the Council, two while still in office – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Journalist Joseph Kraft, a former member of both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, said the Council “comes close to being an organ of what C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite – a group of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes.”

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith resigned in 1970, objecting to the Council’s policy of allowing government officials to conduct twice-a-year off-the-record briefings with business officials in its Corporation Service. The Council says that it has never sought to serve as a receptacle for government policy papers that cannot be shared with the public, and they do not encourage government officials who are members to do so. The Council says that discussions at its headquarters remain confidential, not because they share or discuss secret information, but because the system allows members to test new ideas with other members.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the “New York establishment”:

“In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community—that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs.”

The Power Elite: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“The Power Elite is a book written by the sociologist, C. Wright Mills, in 1956. In it Mills called attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggested that the ordinary citizen was a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities.

The structural basis of The Power Elite was that, following World War II, the United States was the leading country in military and economic terms.

The book is something of a counterpart of Mills’ 1951 work, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, which examined the growing role of middle managers in American society. While White Collar characterized middle managers as agents of the elite, The Power Elite did not differentiate them from the rest of the non-elite in society.

A main inspiration for the book was Franz Leopold Neumanns book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came in position of power in a democratic state as Germany.

Behemoth had a major impact on Mills and he claimed that Behemoth had given him the “tools to grasp and analyse the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy”.

The Power Elite Exposed:

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=PowerEliteExposed

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“The Power Elite Exposed:

·      The Open Conspiracy

·      Freedom From War

·      The Third Way

·      Full Coverage

·      Problem, Reaction, Solution 

There is... little doubt that the American power elite has... planned and plotted... The power elite is not altogether 'surfaced.'... With the wide secrecy covering their operations and decisions, the power elite can mask their intentions, operations and further consolidation…. New men come into it [the power elite] and assume its existence without question.

--from "The Power Elite" (1956) by Columbia University sociologist C. Wright Mills

The nation's immediate problem is that while the common man fights America's wars, the intellectual elite sets its agenda.

Today, whether the West lives or dies is in the hands of its new power elite: those who set the terms of public debate, who manipulate the symbols, who decide whether nations or leaders will be depicted on 100 million television sets as 'good' or 'bad.' This power elite sets the limits of the possible for Presidents and Congress. It molds the impressions that move the nation, or that mire it.

--from "The Real War" (1980) by President Richard Nixon

At the national level, this conditioning of the public might be brought about via certain crises, such as a terrorist attack... For the sake of peace and security, people may be willing to give up certain of their freedoms to some extent.

--from "The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed" (published July 2001, two months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001) by Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

Popular national radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly refers to anyone who believes in a one-world government conspiracy involving the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a “kook.” However, on his February 7, 1995 program, he remarked:

“You see, if you amount to anything in Washington these days, it is because you have been plucked or handpicked from an Ivy League school... Harvard, Yale, Kennedy School of Government ... you’ve shown an aptitude to be a good Ivy League type, and so you’re plucked so to speak, and you are assigned success. You are assigned a certain role in government somewhere, and then your success is monitored and tracked, and you go where the pluckers and the handpickers can put you....

The Open Conspiracy:

While there are conspiracies going on in the world today, the pursuit of world government now is no longer conspiratorial in the sense of being hidden or secret. Rather, it’s what socialist author H.G. Wells called “The Open Conspiracy,” as prominent people such as Bill Clinton have openly written in support of world government.

It will probably be a World Socialist Government, synthesizing western capitalism and eastern communism. In fact, Joseph Stalin in a speech at Sverdlov University in April 1924 pronounced that “the amalgamation and collaboration of nations within a single world system of economy... constitutes the material basis for the victory of Socialism.” And regarding what world government will ultimately mean, it will be authoritarian and repressive, for as Lord Acton wrote: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In 1891, gold and diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes formed a secret society, the “Society of the Elect”, to “absorb the wealth of the world” and “to take the government of the whole world,” according to Rhodes. According to Prof. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, in The Anglo-American Establishment, Rhodes’ conspiratorial secret society lasted almost 60 years. By that time, enough members of the society and Rhodes Scholars had penetrated the areas of politics, economics, journalism and education, so that the society was simply replaced by a network of power elite, who would openly pursue world government.

According to Quigley:

“The [Rhodes] scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out Rhodes’ purpose.”

And in case anyone doubts the credibility of Prof. Quigley regarding this matter, The Washington Post article (March 23, 1975) about him and his information obtained from the power elite’s “secret records” was titled “The Professor Who Knew Too Much.”

Cecil Rhodes’ secret society was comprised of a small “Circle of Initiates” and a larger semi-secret “Association of Helpers” which formed Round Table Groups.

Members of these groups along with members of the Fabian (Socialist) Society as well as “The Inquiry” (a group formed by President Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor, Col. Edward M. House) formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Great Britain, and its American branch, the CFR. Both Prof. Quigley in Tragedy and Hope and CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in A Thousand Days have referred to the CFR as a “front” for the power elite. And in Men and Powers, former West Germany chancellor Helmut Schmidt referred to the CFR as “the foreign policy elite,” which prepared people for “top-level missions” in government and “other centers of international policy” and “had very silent but effective ways of seeing to its own succession.”

Members of Rhodes’ secret society networked with Fabian Socialists, who established the London School of Economics in 1895. One early Fabian, H.G. Wells, in New Worlds for Old explained what he called “a plot,” whereby heads of state would come and go, but bureaucrats trained at the London School of Economics, for example, would remain in government making rules and regulations furthering the goals of the Fabian Socialists.

Wells broke with the Fabians, not in terms of goals, but only in believing they should be open about them, as he explained the coming synthesis of western capitalism and eastern communism into a world socialist government. In this regard, he authored The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928) and The New World Order (1939), in which he said sovereign states (nations) would end and “countless people... will hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it.”

The power elite understood that it would be difficult to get the people of the world to accept a world government all at once, and so a gradualistic approach was suggested. Association of Helpers member and Canadian Rhodes scholar P.E. Corbett in Post-War Worlds (1942) wrote:

“A world association binding together and coordinating regional groupings of states may evolve toward one universal federal government... World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development.”

Freedom From War:

More recently, at Mikhail Gorbachev’s first “State of the World Forum” in 1995, Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor) announced that

“[we] cannot leap into world government through one quick step, but rather via progressive regionalization.”

During the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the trend toward socialism was obvious, but even after World War II it continued, as U.S. Rep. Carroll Reece on April 6, 1956 delivered a speech saying, “We approach closer and closer to socialism,” and “The foundation-financed cartel promotes the idea of government by an elite.”

One of the elite was Rhodes scholar Walt Rostow who, in “The United States in the World Arena” (1960), proposed “an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined.” He became Deputy National Security Advisor for President John F. Kennedy, whose Secretary of State was Rhodes scholar Dean Rusk, who in September 1961 issued “Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World”.

The same year “Freedom From War” was issued, another Rhodes scholar, Richard Gardner, became Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and three years later, while still in that position, authored “In Pursuit of World Order”. The Foreword to this book was written by Rhodes scholar Harlan Cleveland, who has been a CFR member, Ambassador to NATO, Director of International Affairs at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and Chairman of the U.S. Weather Modification Advisory Board. Cleveland’s books include “The Third Try at World Order”, “Birth of a New World”, and “The Global Commons: Policy for the Planet”.

How would “World Order” be pursued? In the April 1974 edition of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs, Richard Gardner wrote in “The Hard Road to World Order”, that it would involve “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.”

He believed that approach would “accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault,” and he further explained how GATT could be involved in the process. Gardner would eventually become an advisor on the United Nations to CFR member Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, after which he would become U.S. Ambassador to Spain, from which would come Marxist Javier Solana as the head of NATO with the support of the Clinton administration.

The Third Way:

Bill Clinton had become a Rhodes scholar in the late 1960s with support from Prof. Quigley and Rhodes scholar U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, who had authored “Old Myths and New Realities” (1964), announcing:

“Indeed, the concept of national sovereignty has become in our time a principle of international anarchy... The sovereign nation can no longer serve as the ultimate unit of personal loyalty and responsibility.”

During then Governor Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, his Rhodes scholar roommate at Oxford University, CFR director Strobe Talbott, wrote in Time magazine (July 20, 1992) that

“perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all... But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”

For that article, Talbott would receive the World Federalist Association (WFA)’s “Norman Cousins Global Governance Award,” and on June 22, 1993, President Clinton would send a congratulatory letter to the WFA regarding the award, saying that previous WFA president Norman Cousins had worked for world peace “and world government.” President Clinton ended the letter by wishing the WFA “future success.” The WFA’s objective is world federal government, and in 1994 it published “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation Is the Answer to Global Problems”, in which it strategized:

“Let the U.N. establish new agencies such as the International Criminal Court... National sovereignty would be gradually eroded until it is no longer an issue. Eventually a world federation can be formally adopted with little resistance.”

In November 2003, the WFA merged with the “Campaign for United Nations Reform” to form a new organization called “Citizens for Global Solutions” with the motto “Building a World Community Under Law.”

During his presidency, Bill Clinton would also develop a close relationship with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (a vice-president of Socialist International), whose “The Third Way: New Politics for the New Century” calling for “ethical socialism” was published in September 1998 by the Fabian (Socialist) Society. And in The Washington Post (April 7, 1999), Rhodes scholar E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote “A World Safe for Socialism,” describing how the Democratic Leadership Council

“...found itself playing host... to four Western European leaders whose parties have socialist and social democratic roots... All subscribe to versions of the ‘Third Way’ approach to politics that Blair and Clinton have been marketing.”

When Bill Clinton was first campaigning for the presidency, he took a “tough” stand concerning policy toward Communist China. However, over the years of his presidency, his policies toward that nation took a dramatically more friendly shift. On ABC’s “This Week” (March 15, 1997), Rhodes scholar and former Clinton administration communications director George Stephanopoulos (CFR member) revealed: “There were a lot of reasons the president changed his policy on China... It had little to do with [Chinese] contributions.”

And when Cokie Roberts on the same program, said, “It had more to do with American money,” Stephanopoulos replied: “ Council on Foreign Relations, Lehman Brothers, Goldman-Sachs, absolutely.” Quite a few Rhodes scholars have occupied high-level positions with Goldman-Sachs over the years.

At this point, someone might say that they understand that Cecil Rhodes had a secret society to take over the world, and that Rhodes scholars like Robert Reich, Ira Magaziner, James Woolsey and others played important roles in the Clinton Administration. But, they might say, “That’s all over, isn’t it, now that Clinton has left office?”

Full Coverage:

It’s important to remember, though, in this regard what Prof. Quigley said in “Tragedy and Hope”. He noted that William C. Whitney and others of wealth in the late 19^th century developed a plan whereby they would control both major political parties through financial contributions, and then have those parties alternate power so that the public would think it had a choice.

Prof. Quigley said that Whitney’s plan lasted about 16 years, and after that, the “Eastern Establishment” (power elite) moved the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates toward the political center, “assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes.” Prof. Quigley also said “the process was concealed, as much as possible,” and Quigley himself believed

“the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

William C. Whitney and his son were members of Yale University’s secret society Skull & Bones. And while Rhodes scholars were penetrating the areas of education, economics, journalism and politics, Skull & Bones member and Fabian Socialist ally Daniel Coit Gilman brought G. Stanley Hall to Johns Hopkins University, where he mentored Fabian Socialist ally John Dewey, the “father of progressive education,” who said in “Individualism, Old and New” that “we are in for some kind of socialism.”

...in Economics:

In economics, Skull & Bones member Thomas Daniels was Chairman of the Board of Archer-Daniels-Midland transnational corporation, and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes was promoting his debt-laden “Keynesian economics,” which President Richard Nixon (CFR member) in a January 4, 1971 interview with Rhodes scholar Howard K. Smith said he had now adopted. On September 30, 2001 on “Fox News Sunday,” Skull & Bones member President George W. Bush’s chief-of-staff Andrew Card also said he believed a combination of supply-side and Keynesian economics works best.

...in Journalism:

In journalism, just as Rhodes scholars like Erwin Canham (president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors) and newsmen Howard K. Smith and Charles Collingwood along with Fabian (Socialist) Society members like Walter Lippmann (member of “the Inquiry” and CFR founding member) became prominent Skull & Bones members, Richard Ely Danielson became publisher of Atlantic Monthly, Russell Wheeler Davenport became editor of Fortune, William F. Buckley, Jr. became publisher of National Review, and Henry Luce became the founder of Time. Luce biographer Robert Herzstein wrote:

“Early on, young Harry [Henry Luce] learned that a powerful circle of contacts and friends could move the world.”

...in Politics:

In politics, Skull & Bones member William Howard Taft in 1912 lost his presidential re-election bid in a three-way race similar to that of 1992 when Skull & Bones member George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton. In 1912, Taft lost to Gov. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat whose chief advisor Col. Edward M. House had promoted in “Philip Dru: Administrator”: “...socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” And in 1992, President George H.W. Bush lost to Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, who soon thereafter introduced a health care plan about which Milton Friedman on C-Span (Nov. 20, 1994) said: “You can’t think of a more Socialist program than the health care program that he [Bill Clinton] tried to get us to adopt.”

Relevant to Prof. Quigley’s reference to William C. Whitney’s plan for an alternation of power and the power elite’s promotion of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates whose foreign policy views are similarly globalist, Skull & Bones member George W. Bush then succeeded Bill Clinton as president, but foreign policy remained basically the same, which is what the power elite want. George W. Bush, his father, and Bill Clinton all supported such things as NAFTA, GATT, the World Trade Organization, U.N. peacekeeping operations, and “Most Favored Nation” trading status for Communist China. And like his father and Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush (whose website for his presidential campaign of 2000 was [hosted] with “Illuminati Online”) has appointed notable CFR members to high-level positions in his administration. They include Colin Powell, Christine Todd Whitman, Elaine Chao, Condoleeza Rice and Robert Zoellick. Vice-President Dick Cheney is also a CFR member, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a former CFR member.

In the presidential campaign of 2004, among the leading Democratic challengers to President Bush were General Wesley Clark (Rhodes scholar from Little Rock, Arkansas) and U.S. Senator John Edwards, whose primary domestic policy advisor was Bruce Reed (Rhodes scholar who was President Clinton’s Domestic Policy Council deputy assistant). Though each of these candidates won a state’s primary, U.S. Senator John Kerry has won far more primary states and is the presumptive Democratic nominee for President. Like President George W. Bush, Sen. Kerry is also a member of Skull & Bones, so whether the Democratic or Republican nominee wins the election in November 2004, a member of Skull & Bones will be President. And like President Bush, Sen. Kerry has also supported NAFTA, GATT, etc., which are vitally important to the power elite.

At this point, someone might argue that neither President George H.W. Bush nor his son, President George W. Bush, promotes Socialism per se, and that is correct. But it should be remembered that what is at work is a “process,” and when President George H.W. Bush gave us national education goals and his son’s federal education budget is the largest ever, including an element of “accountability” to the federal Department of Education, that cannot be considered a movement away from socialism.

Similarly, when President George H.W. Bush and his son both show some deference to the U.N., which is overwhelmingly dominated by Socialist nations, that cannot be considered a movement away from a world socialist government. Is there really any substantial difference between President George H.W. Bush saying the Gulf War against Iraq was conducted under the authority of a U.N. resolution, and Bill Clinton saying on October 19, 1993 regarding Somalia that his administration is engaging in a political process “to see how we can... do all things the United Nations ordered [us] to do”? And in case one doesn’t believe the U.N. is pursuing world government status, what else can one call it when the U.N.’s International Criminal Tribunal claims the right to indict even an elected head of state of a sovereign nation and pursue him anywhere in the world?

Concerning the United Nations, one can find examples of both Rhodes scholar and Skull & Bones involvement. At the suggestion of President Clinton, U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali made Rhodes scholar James Gustave Speth head of the U.N. Development Program. This was after Vice-President Bush in 1986 had recommended Skull & Bones member William Henry Draper III for the same position. Incidentally, Draper in 1977 had contributed $93,000 to Skull & Bones member George W. Bush’s first company, Arbusto Energy, of which Salem bin Laden (Osama bin Laden’s brother) was also a founder.

Regarding other Skull & Bones members around George H.W. Bush (whose brother, Jonathan, is a member), Christopher Buckley (William F. Buckley, Jr.’s son) is a member of this Yale University secret society and was a speechwriter for Vice-President Bush. And member Bruce S. Gelb (CFR member) was director of the U.S. Information Agency and later Ambassador to Belgium after Vice-President Bush became President. And regarding President George W. Bush, he appointed a number of fellow Skull & Bones members including Edward McNally (General Counsel to the Office of Homeland Security), William Howard Taft IV (legal counsel to Secretary of State Colin Powell), and William Henry Donaldson (Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission).

...in the U.S. Government:

In the U.S. Government, there has also been matching Rhodes scholar and Skull & Bones involvement. In the executive branch, at the same time Rhodes scholar Strobe Talbott was becoming number two at the State Department, President Clinton had appointed Skull & Bones member Winston Lord (former CFR president) as an Assistant Secretary of State. And just as President John F. Kennedy had a number of Rhodes scholars at high levels in his administration, Skull & Bones members McGeorge Bundy and brother William Bundy occupied high-level positions then as well.

William Bundy also worked for the CIA as have other Skull & Bones members such as William F. Buckley, Jr., his brother James Buckley, William Sloane Coffin, Archibald MacLeish, Richard Bissell, F. Trubee Davison, Amory Bradford Howe (general manager of The New York Times form the mid-1940s until 1963), Richard Drain, Howard Weaver, and Hugh Cunningham (also a Rhodes scholar). Skull & Bones member George H.W. Bush actually headed the CIA as have Rhodes scholars Stansfield Turner and James Woolsey.

...in the Military:

Regarding the military, Skull & Bones member Henry Stimson (who initiated George H.W. Bush into the same secret society) was Secretary of War in the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt, and President Clinton appointed Rhodes scholar Gen. Wesley Clark as head of NATO forces. President Clinton also appointed Rhodes scholar Richard Danzig as Secretary of the Navy and Rhodes scholar Admiral Dennis C. Blair as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.

...in the Legislature:

In the legislative branch, a number of Rhodes scholars and Skull & Bones members have been in Congress, and former U.S. Senator David Boren (CFR member) is both a Rhodes scholar and Skull & Bones member, who on August 26, 1992 wrote an article in The New York Times advocating a rapid deployment force for the U.N. to facilitate “the new world order.” During the Clinton presidency, Sen. Boren (as a Rhodes scholar) persuaded President Clinton to make George Tenet head of the CIA, and then Sen. Boren (as a Skull & Bones member) persuaded fellow Bonesman President George W. Bush to keep Tenet in that important position.

...in the Judiciary:

In the judicial branch, the U.S. Supreme Court has included Skull & Bones members Potter Stewart and William Howard Taft (Chief Justice), and Rhodes scholars John Harlan, David Souter, and Byron White. One of Justice White’s law clerks was Rhodes scholar David Kendall, who was also President Clinton’s attorney during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Outside of government, of course, Rhodes scholars and Skull & Bones members have also been involved in important areas of American life, such as finance. Earlier it was mentioned how quite a few Rhodes scholars have worked for Goldman-Sachs over the years, and Skull & Bones members Averell Harriman, his brother E. Roland Harriman, and [Senator] Prescott Sheldon Bush (George H.W. Bush’s father) were partners in Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co..

Problem, Reaction, Solution:

These individuals have formed a network of power over the years, and although not every Rhodes scholar and Skull & Bones member has been plotting to take over the world, they are, for the most part, an elite whose globalist goals must be resisted by Americans who oppose any diminution of our Constitutional freedoms or our national sovereignty.

How might this diminution occur? At the top of page 303 of my book, “The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed”, published in July 2001, I state:

“At the national level, this conditioning of the public might be brought about via certain crises, such as a terrorist attack... For the sake of peace and security, people may be willing to give up certain of their freedoms to some extent.”

Then on September 11 2001, terrorists attacked the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the World Trade Center in New York City, and a few hours later ABC News/Washington Post released poll results showing two-thirds “say they would sacrifice some personal liberties in support of anti-terrorism efforts.” Does this mean the power elite plotted the attacks on September 11?

After all, didn’t the public affairs website IndiaReacts.com report on June 26 that “...the U.S. and Russia plan ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime”? And didn’t the PBS program “Jihad in America” in 1994 show radical Muslims speaking in the U.S. over a decade ago and saying they would attack our airplanes and go after our high buildings?

And in the same year of 1994, didn’t Islamic terrorists hijack a plane in Algiers, intending to fly the passenger aircraft full of fuel into a tall prominent structure, the Eiffel Tower, exploding the plane over Paris?

Closer to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, didn’t AirlineBiz.com on June 23, 2001 carry a report by a Muslim who had just interviewed Osama bin Laden and concluded that it was a race to see whether the U.S. would attack bin Laden first or he would attack the U.S. first?

Shortly after this report, didn’t the Northwest Airlines flight attendants’ website carry a “Backgrounder” by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz referring to “Project Bojinka” with hijacked airliners flying into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and other buildings?

Then on September 10, 2001, didn’t some top Pentagon officials suddenly cancel their travel plans for the next morning apparently because of security concerns, according to two reports by Newsweek? And on the evening of September 10, 2001, eight hours before the terrorist attacks of September 11, didn’t San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s security people at the airport there call him before his flight to New York City the morning of September 11 and advise him that he and all Americans should be cautious about their air travel (see The San Francisco Chronicle, September 12, page A17)?

How could our leaders following the September 11 terrorist attacks here say that no one could have imagined such a thing would occur?

I filed a Freedom of Information request regarding any warnings, alerts, or emergency rulings by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) or other government agencies pertaining to transportation between May 2001 and September 15 of that year. The Department of Homeland Security replied they had found 12 relevant Information Circulars, but they would not let me see them.

Wasn’t Marcus Mabry’s Newsweek Web Exclusive of September 15, 2001, about the terrorist attacks and their aftermath titled, “Welcome to the New World Order”? And didn’t Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien say on September 29, 2001, that “there will probably be a new order in the world that will probably be better than we have now”?

No, the power elite actually didn’t plot the attacks of September 11 -- they didn’t have to.

Remember that Rhodes’ conspiracy ended as such around 1960 because enough like-minded globalists were in key positions in politics, economics, education and journalism, and his conspiracy was no longer necessary (being replaced by a global network of power elite pursuing world government). When a student several years ago went on a shooting rampage, the press rarely reported that he was stopped by a teacher with a gun, because the press is overwhelmingly for gun control. The power elite did not have to call editors of the nation’s newspapers and tell them what to say.

Similarly, the power elite didn’t call up terrorists and tell them to fly into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. However, if I could forecast terrorist attacks, so can the power elite.

Rather, there is a dialectic at work here. You may recall that under at State Department contract, CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield in 1962 wrote:

“A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by... some ability to employ physical force... [But] if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government.”

Interestingly, Bloomfield also wrote that the world government could come about by means of

“...a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose... The order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.”

Relevant to today, it is the reaction (public willingness to give up some Constitutional freedoms) to the action (terrorist attack wherever and whenever and however it occurs) that is important to the power elite.

Thus, they don’t have to cause the action, but only anticipate that it will occur sometime, and emphasize the public reaction to it to further their goals. And in case anyone doesn’t believe the power elite wants a diminution of our Constitutional freedoms and our national sovereignty, just look at “Our Global Neighborhood:

The Basic Vision”, a document produced several years ago by the Commission on Global Governance, whose work was supported by then U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Members of the Commission included Maurice Strong (Secretary-General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author of the current Earth Charter, and right-hand man of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan) and Barber Conable (former president of the World Bank). Among the Commission’s proposals are that:

“...a new world order must be organized... In certain fields, sovereignty has to be exercised collectively... The principle of sovereignty must be adapted in such a way as to balance... the interests of nations with the interests of the global neighborhood... We strongly endorse community initiatives to... encourage the disarming of civilians... We would like to see a permanent international criminal court instituted as a matter of the highest priority.... We are... in need of a mobilizing principle... a new world order that secures the ascendancy of global neighborhood values over divisive nationalism.”

Of course, the public will have to be prepared to accept world government, and what better way to do that than via education. The primary arm of the U.N. dealing with education is UNESCO, and in its first Director-General Sir Julian Huxley’s “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy” (1948), he wrote: “Political unification in some sort of world government will be required.”

On October 3, 2003, on the occasion of the U.S. rejoining UNESCO (after President Reagan had withdrawn the U.S.), U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige declared:

“The United States is pleased to return to UNESCO... Our governments have entrusted us with the responsibility of preparing our children to become citizens of the world... UNESCO is a powerful forum for sharing our views, developing a common strategy, and implementing joint action.”

The problem with the concept of “world citizens” is that just as “citizens” of a state have to obey the laws of that state, “citizens of the world” will be expected to obey world laws. And the clear majority of the world’s nations are Socialist, so that world laws will reflect a socialist perspective.

The conditioning of the public in the past has been gradual, but as famous author H.G. Wells noted, the process will speed up in the end as the synthesis toward a World Socialist Government gains greater momentum.

Hopefully, Americans will wake up before it’s too late and resist this global effort on the part of the power elite.”

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and The New World Order: By William Blase:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“For those who may be confused by the controversies surrounding the “New World Order”, a One-World-Government, and American concern over giving the UN more power; those unaware of the issues involved; and those wishing more background, I offer the following.

Originally presented for an Honors Class, “Dilemmas of War and Peace,” at New Mexico State University, the paper was ridiculed and characterized by Dr. Yosef Lapid, (an acknowledged and locally quoted “expert” on Terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs) as “paranoid... possibly a symptom of mental illness.” You may judge for yourself.

Citing source data is the “scientific method,” but does not seem to apply to “Conspiracy Theories.” A thousand sources may be quoted, yet will not convince the “skeptics,” the “realists.” It seems to me the “symptoms of mental illness” are on their side, if they refuse to look at evidence (“There are none so blind as those who WILL not see”); or perhaps something more sinister is at work, such as a knowledge of the truth, that does not want YOU to know.

To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution. If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional. To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.

The issue involves much more than a difference of philosophy, or political viewpoint. Growing up in the midst of the “Cold War,” our generation were taught that those who attempted to abolish our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional government were committing acts of treason. Please judge for yourself if the group discussed is guilty of such.

If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the “New World Order”, as they have for over seventy years.

The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ “experts” write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900’s, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs).

That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, “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.” February 23, 1954,

Senator William Jenner warned in a speech: “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.”

Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, “Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.”

All that is needed to effectively control a government is to have control over the nation’s money: a central bank with a monopoly over the supply of money and credit. This had been done in Western Europe, with the creation of privately owned central banks such as the Bank of England.

Georgetown professor Dr. Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor while at Georgetown) wrote about the goals of the investment bankers who control central banks: “... 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... 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.”

The Bank of the United States (1816-36), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation. He wrote: “The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had wantonly produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Question: Does that not describe the situation in America today?-You Decide:

Reality About the Council on Foreign Relations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKps6Dy9yRo&feature=related

Lou Dobbs- The New World Order:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekL2xk9dpmw&feature=related

One World Government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UouRwSa0Ybs&feature=related

Vote Fraud: What Main Stream Media Won’t Tell You:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URoOAPDZibk&feature=related

Looming Financial Crisis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYjrzK0NDwk&feature=related

How Television Affects Your Brain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_acfHQiIhk0&feature=related

Revolution Now! Anonymous American Patriot God Bless America!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bggXQxhyo4s&feature=channel_page_

“Food For Thought”