Truth about the "movers and shakers"

I rarely get into the conspiracy theories surrounding the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, because there is little that can be constructively done about their influence at this time. However, it is important for all of us to at least be aware of their existence and the extent of their influence. I found this article from a blog called the August Review, which takes an unusually common-sense approach to this subject. The article agrees with previous reading I have done on the subject.

The article gives a good introduction to the Trilateral Commission, in particular; identifying its members in 1979 and at present; and discusses its role in U.S. policy. While it is highly readable, its content would be difficult to summarize here, so I will simply recommend that you check it out.

Another virtual buckeye to Andrew Scott McCleese via Facebook.

Of puppets and men

Yesterday, some of my Facebook friends were all atwitter* about Glenn Beck’s series about George Soros, "The Puppet Master?” The evidence I have seen (not all of it from Mr. Beck – for example, go to muckety.com) verifies Mr. Beck’s statements about George Soros’ associations with organizations backing an extremely socialist agenda for the United States. In addition, a Google search on Mr. Soros lists many instances where Mr. Soros himself has been very open about his intentions.

But one thing troubles me. There is no question that Mr. Soros is very wealthy. According to Forbes (Sept. 10) he is the 14th richest American with a fortune of $14.2 billion. But even with that kind of money, it is difficult to understand how he can afford to give hundreds of millions of dollars to political causes without significantly decreasing his own wealth.

So here is my conspiracy theory, which has backing from some admittedly unreliable sources on the Internet. I think Mr. Soros is a front man for the Rothschilds. Proving such a connection will be difficult, because the Rothschilds are extremely secretive people (you will note, for example, that no one in that family appears in the Forbes list of the world’s richest people). And, for that matter, neither does anyone surnamed Rockefeller. Let me stress here, that while such theories have been used to support anti-Semitism, my conclusions are only against the power brokers, not Jews in general. **.

So I have a suggestion for Mr. Beck and his Blaze news organization. Start investigating the connections between Mr. Soros and the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. But be very careful. I suspect that, once you start down that road, your life will be in great danger.

In general, I believe that pursuing conspiracy theories is a waste of time – so why do I advocate investigating this one? Because the enemies of freedom are extremely wealthy and extremely powerful. The more we know about them – and the more they are exposed, the better we will be able to deal with it. Shine a flashlight on the rats and they will scatter.

There is a linkage between U.S. foreign and immigration policy that is detrimental to our interest (check out the connection between the Rockefellers and the American foreign policy establishment through organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission), the systematic robbery of the American people by Wall Street bankers through the Federal Reserve Bank, and the bankrupting of the federal and state governments. This linkage betrays an agenda that seeks a global concentration of power and wealth. These linkages are public record and are easily verifiable.

This is truly a battle of good vs. evil. Obviously, we cannot win it alone; but with God’s help, the wisdom to make the right calls, the willingness to dare greatly, and hard work, we shall win it.

Update Nov. 10:
Here is some additional background on George Soros, from The Blaze.

* sorry, couldn’t resist the temptation…
** For one thing, while I am a Christian, I have Jewish friends, and I am a life member of a Jewish college fraternity.

Free market may kill "cap and trade" before it starts

From 21st Century Wire, via The Liberty Voice:

Plagued by a free fall in carbon emissions prices and the perennial failure of Washington to pass any binding Cap and Trade Bill, it seems that the Chicago Climate Exchange is on its last leg, announcing that it will be scaling back its operations.

Chicago Climate Exchange or CCX, is North America’s sole voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas trading and carbon “offset” projects in North America and Brazil. Reuters reported on Aug 11th that Intercontinental Exchange Inc, the operating body for the CCX, will be scaling back major operations this month, a move that includes massive layoffs. This is likely due to the complete market free-fall of their only product… carbon emissions.

Anthony Watts from the climate watchdog website Watts Up With That posts a graph from the CCX which shows carbon prices dropping like a stone, bottoming out this week at the embarrassingly low figure of 10 cents per tonne. Compare this to trading prices during its brief heyday in May and June 2008 where market highs reached $5.85 and $7.40 respectively, and you can say that most investors will be evaluating carbon as one of today’s more worthless commodities [as any rational person would have pointed out in the first place].

Further down in the article, they get to the truth of the matter:

Like all government rigged quasi-commercial schemes, the only real beneficiaries are the initial shareholders- a special inner circle who are naturally ahead of the curve knowing about legislation and policy before it comes into existence. They are sometimes called the great and the good, the in-crowd, or the smartest men in the room (again, see Enron). Of these, almost all have jumped ship out of the market while their preferred shares- or in the case of the larger energy and manufacturing monopolies, their gratis “carbon allowances” given to them free by their governments- are still worth something. If you’re on the inside, it’s simple: get in early, make money and then get out.

Pointing out the obvious is always a painful thing in the world of human affairs. The real reason for the complete and total failure of the concept behind trading an atmospheric gas like CO2 is something few within the green block will dare to even mention now, and it’s the same reason why the whole movement will go down in history as one of the most
flamboyant efforts in the history of economics. It’s not just hubris. The whole idea behind making CO2 a commodity was to make it expensive and thus reduce the amount produced, which would (they hoped) reduce the effect of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, or ‘climate change’ as it’s now commonly referred to.

There was only one massive problem with this equation- there has been no global warming since 1998. So despite the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions spent on research and computer models addressing this possibility, no scientist or body has been able to show that man’s CO2 contribution has had any effect on the global temperature. Another massive blind spot for climatists is their almost religious denial that the sun might have any effect on the earth’s climate (studies show that it does, of course)- a major sore spot in any debate on global warming.

So, there you have it. Another scam exposed. And like Humpty-Dumpty, "all the king's horses and all the king's men," after having gone to great lengths to make this rotten egg, still "could not put Humpty-Dumpty together again."

But it's not dead yet. There are rumors out of Washington that one of the reasons U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to hold a lame-duck session after the election is to pass a cap-and-trade bill while that Congress is not politically accountable. We need to be alert, to ensure that such a bill never passes.

Ralph Nader: Libertarian from the left

Ralph Nader has posted a new and timely warning about the ruin we are about to experience as the result of corporate greed. That's nothing new, of course; but the way he states it sounds a lot like those of us who have supported Tea Parties and nullification.

From CommonDreams.org (reproduced in full):

The twin swelling heads of Empire and Oligarchy are driving our country into an ever-deepening corporate state, wholly incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.

Once again the New York Times offers its readers the evidence. In its February 25, 2010 issue, two page-one stories confirm this relentless deterioration at the expense of so many innocent people.

The lead story illustrates that the type of massive speculation—casino capitalism, Business Week once called it—in complex derivatives is still going strong and exploiting the weak and powerless who pay the ultimate bill.

Titled "Banks Bet Greece Defaults on Debt They Helped Hide," the article shocks even readers hardened to tales of greed and abuse of power. Here are the opening paragraphs: "Bets by some of the same banks that helped Greece shroud its mounting debts may actually now be pushing the nation closer to the brink of financial ruin."

"Echoing the kind of trades that nearly toppled the American Insurance International Group /AIG/, the increasingly popular insurance against the risk of a Greek default is making it harder for Athens to raise the money it needs to pay its bills, according to traders and money managers."

"These contracts, known as credit-default swaps, effectively let banks and hedge funds wager on the financial equivalent of a four-alarm fire: a default by a company, or in the case of Greece, an entire country. If Greece reneges on its debts, traders who own these swaps stand to profit."

"It's like buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house-you create an incentive to burn down the house," said Philip Gisdakis, head of credit strategy at UniCredit in Munich.

These credit-default swaps increase the dreaded "systemic risk" that proliferates until it lands on the backs of taxpayers, workers and savers who pay the price. And if Greece goes, Spain or Portugal or Italy may be next and globalization will eventually bring the rapacious effects of mindless speculation to our shores.

Greece got into financial trouble for a variety of reasons, but it was widely reported that Goldman Sachs and other big banks showed them, for generous fees, how to hide the country's true financial condition. Avarice at work.

Note two points. These derivatives are contracts involving hundreds of billions of dollars and are essentially unregulated. These transactions are also essentially untaxed, unlike Europe's value added tax on manufacturing, wholesale and retail purchases. The absence of government restraints produces unlimited predation.

As astute investors in the real economy have said, when money for speculation replaces money for investment, the real economy suffers and so do real people. Remember the Wall Street collapse of 2008 and who is paying for the huge Washington bailout.

The other story shows that the Presidency has become a self-driven Empire outside the law and unaccountable to its citizens. The Times reports "how far the C.I.A. has extended its extraordinary secret war beyond the mountainous tribal belt and deep into Pakistan's sprawling cities." Working with Pakistan's counterpart agency, the C.I.A. has had some cover to do what it wants in carrying out "dozens of raids throughout Pakistan over the past year," according to the Times.

"Secret War" has been a phrase applied numerous times throughout the C.I.A's history, even though the agency was initially created by Congress right after World War II to gather intelligence, not engage in lethal operations worldwide.

Unrestrained by either Congress or the federal courts, Presidents say they can and do order their subordinates to go anywhere in the world, penetrate into any country, if they alone say it is necessary to seize and destroy for what they believe is the national security. American citizens abroad are not excluded. Above the law and beyond the law spells the kind of lawlessness that the framers of our constitution abhorred in King George and limited in our country's separation of powers.

Because our founders would not tolerate the President being prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, they placed the war-declaration and appropriations authorities in the Congress.

Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama believe they have unbridled discretion to engage in almost any overt or covert acts. That is a definition of Empire that flouts international law and more than one treaty which the United States helped shape and sign.

Equipped with remote and deadly technologies like drones flying over Pakistan and Afghanistan by operators in Nevada, many civilians have been slain, including those in wedding parties and homes. Still, it is taking 15,000 soldiers (U.S. and Afghan) with the most modern armaments to deal with three hundred Taliban fighters in Marja who with many other Afghans, for various motivations, want us out of their country. Former Marine Combat Captain Matthew Hoh described these reasons in his detailed resignation letter last fall.

Mr. Obama's national security advisor, Ret. General James Jones estimated that there are about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the rest migrating to other countries. And one might add, those whose migrate are increasing their numbers because they cast themselves as fighting to expel the foreign invaders.

So many capable observers have made this point: occupation by our military fuels insurgencies and creates the conditions for more recruits and more mayhem. Even Bush's military and national security people have made this point.

The American people must realize that their reckless government and corporate contractors are banking lots of revenge among the occupied regions that may come back to haunt. We have much more to lose by flouting international law than the suicidal terrorists reacting to what they believe is the West's state terrorism against their people and the West's historical backing of dictatorships which oppress their own population.

America was not designed for Kings and their runaway military pursuits. How tragic that we have now come to this entrenched imperium so loathed by the founding fathers and so forewarned by George Washington's enduring farewell address.

Where are "We the People"?

Where, indeed?

Virtual buckeye to Rob Williams at Vermont Commons.

Finally, the President is getting it

... the President of France, that is. Nicolas Sarkozy, in his opening speech to the G20 economic summit in Davos, reminded the bankers and government officials present that there is a link -- a necessary link between economics and morality. He used a word that I thought had become archaic in our political discourse -- citizen.

The speech is fairly long, but Moshe Braner summarizes it nicely in Vermont Commons. Here is a sampling from near the beginning of the speech.

Yes, in the world of tomorrow, we must again reckon with citizens, with the demands of morality, the demands of responsibility, the demands of dignity for citizens. We must see this not as yet another problem, but as part of the solution; not as an additional difficulty, but as something healthy and virtuous, that may, perhaps, allow us to feel happier with what we are, happier with what we accomplish...

This crisis is not just a global crisis.It is not a crisis in globalisation.This crisis is a crisis of globalisation.

There are indecent behaviors that will no longer be tolerated by public opinion in any country in the world. There are excessive profits that will no longer be accepted... That those who create jobs and wealth may earn a lot of money is not shocking. But that those who contribute to destroying jobs and wealth also earn a lot of money is morally indefensible.

In the future, there will be a much greater demand for income to better reflect social utility and merit. There will a much greater demand for justice. There will be a much greater demand for protection. And no one can escape this.

President Sarkozy offers a much-needed breath of fresh air. Would that the United States could elect a President with such character!

Climategate: More common sense!

Dec. 23 update: Dr. John P. Costella, who commented on this post, has conducted exhaustive research on and published the Climategate e-mails that were released. For those who wish to go into greater depth on the facts of Climategate, Dr. Costella's page is quite readable, and he offers expert commentary to aid the reader in understanding the posts.

This time from David Crowe, an environmental and Green Party activist from Alberta, who took time to consider whether global warming has any scientific basis. His article was published today in LewRockwell.com. It is organized into 23 "frequently asked questions" about global warming, with his responses.

The answer to his first question introduces his position on global warming and gives the reader an idea of the style he uses to answer the others:

Q1. Is Global Warming Happening?

It is impossible to know if global warming is happening without waiting for hundreds or thousands of years to see if short term trends go up or down. Of course we can't wait that long, so the question is whether catastrophic global warming is imminent. That also is impossible to know. If the changes are small they are also manageable.

It is also impossible to define a global temperature. Even small biases in measurements made in a small number of points over the globe (such as heat island effects due to measurements near growing cities) can create false temperature increases. When extrapolated and fed into a mathematical model that accelerates them, dire predictions can appear on computer screens around the world.

Global warming, as I wrote on Monday, "makes no environmental sense, it makes no economic sense, and it makes no political sense." It is nothing more than a sophisticated means to rob and enslave the American people for the benefit of environmental idealists, third-world dictators, and New York bankers.

Now, I shall try to let a few days pass before I press this topic again...

Climategate: Russian data do NOT prove global warming

James Delingpole at The Telegraph is at it again (via LewRockwell.com). It seems that British researchers cherry-picked Russian climatological data to "prove" global warming from human causes:

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

In Mr. Delingpole's original post at The Telegraph, he observed that the whole Copenhagen exercise had nothing, really, to do with "global warming". When Climategate exposed the incomplete and just plain cooked scientific data, the kleptocrats from the Third World and the multinational corporations fled to a continuation of the carbon-credits system established by the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, a massive transfer of funds from our pockets (in taxes and higher energy costs) to the New York speculators and tinhorn dictators like Robert Mugabe (who stands to make sextillions of Zimbabwe dollars) and Hugo Chavez.

Folks, it is up to us to stop this robbery; first by pressuring the U.S. Senate not to ratify the Copenhagen Treaty, and secondly by cutting back the power of the federal government through assertion of state sovereignty, nullification of federal laws harmful to our states -- and, if all else fails, by secession.

British nurses plan to turn down swine flu shot

I have long had a suspicion that this so-called swine flu "pandemic" was being planned -- in much the same way as the Iraq war was planned. Otherwise, I cannot imagine why governments are putting so much planning effort into preventing an epidemic, when the extent of the epidemic is unknown and at this point unknowable.

According to Daniel Martin at the (London) Daily Mail (Aug. 18), 30% of nurses surveyed by Nursing Times will refuse the vaccine, 33% said maybe, and just 37% said that they would definitely "have the jab."

Among those who would refuse the vaccine, 60% were concerned about the safety of the vaccine, which the article notes, will not have been fully tested before it is administered to the public. Another 31% do not consider the risks of swine flu to be severe enough to warrant taking the vaccine.

The comments of two of the nurses are telling:
- "I would not be willing to put myself at risk of unknown long-term effects to facilitate a short-term solution."
- "I have yet to be convinced there is a genuine health risk and it's not just Government propaganda."

Exactly.

Of course, the British Government disagrees. The director of immunization for the British Department of Health finds that nurses have a duty to their patients and to their families: "I think you solve these responsibilities by being vaccinated."

Never mind that children under the age of 3 will not be tested, even though they are to be among the first to get the vaccine -- and that it can cause Guillain Barre Syndrome, which can lead to paralysis and even death. According to the Wikipedia article on Guillain Barre Syndrome,

GBS is a rare side-effect of influenza vaccines, with an incidence of about one case per million vaccinations. Other estimates suggest the incidence of GBS among those receiving the vaccine was one case per 105,000 and that the GBS was not directly due to the vaccine but to its being contaminated with a bacterium that triggers GBS.

Then there is this: "A mass swine flu vaccination in the U.S. in 1976 caused far more deaths than the disease it was designed to combat."

All right then. Please explain to me again how this vaccine will promote public health?

Virtual buckeye to jcbrook at Vermont Commons.

Council on Foreign Relations: Fact, not theory

For nearly 50 years, we have heard that the Council on Foreign Relations is a shadowy organization that actually controls US foreign policy. We have also heard this statement dismissed as a crackpot conspiracy theory.

This speech, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, delivered to the CFR in Washington on Wednesday, should remove all doubt. It opens with these lines:

"Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future. (Emphasis added)"

If you think she is kidding, or that I am quoting her out of context, please read the rest of her speech or view the video linked to it. You will find that interdependence is strongly emphasized. On the surface, this appears to be an admirable idea ("Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me..."); but upon closer inspection, it appears to be a way for our diplomats to ignore our real national interests in favor of some other agenda.

The interests of nations will sometimes get into conflict -- that is human nature -- and there should always be ways to peacefully resolve them. However, there can never be peace if those interests are ignored. This, I believe, is the real danger that lurks behind the Council on Foreign Relations' agenda. It sacrifices our interests (and those of other nations) to the idea of a global government; an experiment that, if implemented, will surely fail even more spectacularly than those of empires past and present -- and for the same reasons.

Virtual buckeye to Frank at the Ohio Freedom Alliance.