The basis of the "New World Order"

Since it is a long dry spell, I decided to publish this post, written over a year ago and held for a time when I would not have time/be able to write. On Memorial Day, we need to think about what our military is fighting and dying for. I hope to God it is not this:

The quotations below are documented quotations of businessman David Rockefeller, found in Wikiquote. Mr. Rockefeller has been highly influential (some would say controlling) in the Bilderburg Group (no direct link – here is the Wikipedia article, which is well-researched), the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations.

People who are quick to dismiss discussion of those organizations as conspiracy theories need to be made aware of the documentation, because these groups hold inordinate influence over the policymakers of the Empire, as I reported on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July 2009. Their ideas are the basis of the "New World Order," which seeks to eliminate the sovereignty of nations under a global order (not necessarily a single world government).

We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

-- At a meeting of the Trilateral Commission (June 1991); as quoted in Matrix of
Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge
(2000) by Jordan Maxwell pp. 15-16

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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

-- Page 405 of Rockefeller's autobiography, Memoirs, ISBN-13: 978-0812969733.

Those who think this is an April Fool's joke are themselves fools

The time is very short. If we cannot rally our fellow Americans in the next two or three months, the only thing left that we can do is ... prepare.

From the blog Reditus.

The Decentralist Manifesto

We need a new world order. Capitalism is broken.  We must return power to the people!

The solution is not a hierarchical global order with a single world government. We don’t need two hundred nations – we need two thousand nations, each respecting the human and cultural freedom of its people, each minding its own business. 

You say no one can manage two thousand nations. 

You’re right, and that’s the whole idea. We don’t need world government, we need world networks, that enable people in those two thousand nations to link up for specific purposes when it is to their mutual advantage to do so. Networks of trade, of information, of sharing cultures. Networks to extradite criminals, to keep dispersed families in touch, to solve problems. Networks that everyone participates in, but no one owns.

Idealistic? Perhaps, but “with no vision, the people perish.” *

Capitalism isn’t inherently evil, but it has been corrupted from years of large corporations buying favors from governments. We need to stop losing ourselves in corporate and governmental bureaucracies. Instead, we need to look within ourselves to solve problems locally through citizenship and entrepreneurship. We need to restore a system in which government grants no privileges, and creates no roadblocks except as necessary to maintain public safety.

We don’t need big banks – we need honest money – money that is a store of real value and is accessible to all people.

We don’t need religious theocracies, but we do need, within each of us, faith in God that we can do good according to His purposes.

We don’t want other people telling us how to live, so why do we let a bureaucrat in Washington (let alone in some faraway land) tell us what we can eat, drive, or do with our own money, or what medical care we will be allowed to get?

We need to create governments, churches, schools, and businesses that are built on a human scale – that we all understand and can influence. We need to make laws we can understand and respect, then respect the laws we make.

Our new world order wants nothing to do with empires or imperialism; so those who share this vision must work through their local councils and state legislatures. We must take some risks by starting our own businesses and avoiding those who help enrich other countries at our expense. We must help our neighbor in need through our churches and community chests, and stop depending on government to do our giving for us. We must raise and educate our children in the values that will make them strong and independent. Charity – and prosperity, sound government, and proclaiming the truth – begin at home, so let us begin there. Every community that embraces these values will find others like it. Together (independently, but in cooperation), they will move states. States will move nations, and nations will change the world.

People of the world, cooperate! You have nothing to lose but your humanity!

*  Proverbs 29:15 kjv

George Soros, in his own words

On Nov. 10, I published an article on billionaire financier George Soros, who is actively promoting the destruction of the United States dollar in favor of a global currency. (Followup article, Dec. 3).

In this article from The Economic Collapse, there is a video in which Mr. Soros explains his vision in greater detail. The article includes a textual summary of the video.

I do not advocate spending too much time reading about Mr. Soros, because his agenda is essentially the same as that of other backers of the "New World Order," but his statements do lend urgency to our need to be vigilant, and to make necessary reforms to protect our freedom, as suggested in my 2011 Legislative Program and the Platform of The Ohio Republic.

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.

Understanding the gold standard

Libertarians have been calling for a gold standard to replace our fiat currency (meaning, currency backed by nothing -- or even worse, currency backed by debt). But there are two kinds of gold standards, as Michael Rozeff points out in DumpDC: a free-market gold standard, which ensures that there is a natural relationship between gold (or silver) and economic activity; and a gold standard based on government-created currency. With a natural relationship (which requires that there is no governmental intervention, event that of coining the money), inflation is rare and mild, and the value of money tends to rise over time, protecting the savings of the people.

The alternative, which, as Mr. Rozeff points out, is the one being pressed by the central bankers, is a gold-based world currency, which will in time become a fiat currency, just as the dollar did -- leading to periodic panics/depressions, and robbery of the people by the central bankers.

The take-home is, we must watch what officials are trying to push on us.

Only a return to a really free market, currency included, will act in the interest of all of us. Otherwise, we will continue the same old, same old, until we are robbed into slavery by the bankers and their friends in government.

Read the link to gain a greater understanding of the underlying ideas.

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.

Goldman Sachs + Andy Stern = ?

This little bit of Hegelian dialectic contains relatively few words, but if you read the links, you will see that it packs a punch.

Thesis: The Obama Administration is owned by Goldman Sachs.

Antithesis: The Obama Administration is owned by the Service Employees International Union under Andy Stern.

Synthesis: It doesn't matter -- both are working the same agenda.* The end game is to have the slaves people of the world standing in a circle singing Kumbayah while the Supreme Council of the revised United Nations calls the shots "heals the earth" with a New World Order. (Here is their detailed plan for the "Americas Union").

* This is the only way I can think of that the New York bankers, who plowed millions of dollars into the Obama campaign, and the SEIU, which plowed more millions, could be working toward the same end. Please convince me that I'm wrong...!

Will Mr. Obama be a one-term President?

Not a chance, says Craig Hill. In his insightful analysis of Mr. Obama's Presidency, Mr. Hill describes him as "the [black] overseer keeping the peace for the smooth running of his master's plantation." He is carrying out, and giving political cover to, President Bush's military and foreign policy agenda, and taking virtually none of the flak.

What alternatives do the Republicans offer him in 2012? Mr. Hill thinks none: "The Republicans are guaranteeing themselves nothing but disgust in 2012 from the average Republican, even, let alone the average American."

So how will Obama lose in 2012?? There is no acceptable opposition to him for his masters. He neuters Peacenik America into docile complicity. There is none of the opposition to Bushism, American fascism, that plagued Bush. Note how he just yesterday essentially pulled the plug on abortion rights by agreeing with blue dogs and Republicans it not be covered in guaranteed health reform, and will suffer nary a whimper of protest from it!. No Republican could get away with that giant step backward. He is the Republican agenda's essential man. He can not lose. He will not lose. He will leave office with the country in even greater shambles than Bush left it, with high honors, in 2017.

Assuming, of course, that the United States of America remains in one piece that long.

Virtual buckeye to Ethan Allen at Vermont Commons.

The Bilderberg Group

This report, by the Canadian Centre for Research on Globalization, is six months old, but which I just rediscovered. For those who think the activities of the Bilderberg Group (Wikipedia article) are just a "conspiracy theory", here is a report that should establish that they are quite real, quite active, and ... quite controlling.



If the defenders of freedom do not watch what is going on at this level, we may fail in our timing, which is likely to result in defeat.

A world of sissies

In November 1993, Ms. magazine (published by the radical feminist organization NOW) ran a feature article with a cover photo of a baby boy, with the headline, "It's a Boy: Now What?" It appears that they won't have to worry much longer...

According to the [London] Telegraph, research conducted by the Danish Government and confirmed by studies elsewhere indicates that a number of common chemicals are causing male births to decline in many advanced industrial nations. In areas with heavy concentrations of chemical plants, birth rates of two girls for each boy have been reported. (Normally, there are around 106 boys born for each 100 girls -- believed to be to account for losses of males due to hunting accidents and war). Boys born in these areas have reduced sperm counts, and even feminine behavior:

Research at Rotterdam's [Netherlands] Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes.

Yet gender-benders are largely exempt from new EU regulations controlling hazardous chemicals. Britain, then under Tony Blair's premiership, was largely responsible for this – restricting their inclusion in the first draft of the legislation, and then causing even what was included to be watered down.Confidential documents show that it did so after pressure from George W Bush's administration, which protested that US exports "could be impacted".

Sounds like slow genocide to me.

Virtual buckeye to Stephen Hopkins at Ohio Freedom Alliance.

Bu-shi

Bu-shi is the Chinese word for "no" or "incorrect." It perfectly describes my reaction to the news story this morning that proclaimed "Analysts: Recession is over." Unemployment continues to rise and government debt is spiraling upward; but because a few firms have paid back their "stimulus" payments and stocks are making a slight uptick in the Dow, we're supposed to believe that everything is just hunky-dory.

It also is my reaction to charges that the "New World Order" conspiracy is a figment of the right wing extremists' and John Birchers' imagination. As evidence, I present this French blog, La Crise (The Crisis) by Eva R-Sistons, an avowed leftist. (The content is mostly in French, but the link is to an English-language post). The cartoon at the head of the post is certainly in the leftist tradition.

In the linked post, Mme. R-Sistons quotes an article by Olga Chetverikova giving detailing how the present situation was, in fact, manufactured. It is quite long, but suffice it to say that it supports this chilling conclusion:

Soon [the U.S. and the EU] will sign the agreement on personal data communication, in accordance with which the American authorities will be able to obtain such personal information as credit card numbers, bank account details, investments, travel routes or communication via Internet, as well as the information concerning race, political and religious beliefs, habits, etc.

It was under the US pressure that the EU countries have introduced biometric ppassports. The new EU regulation implies the overall switch of EU citizens to electronic passports from the end of June 2009 by 2012. New passports will contain a chip with not only passport info and a photo, but also fingerprints.

We are witnessing the creation of the global electronic concentration camp, and crisis, conflicts and wars are used to justify it. As Douglas Reed wrote “people tend to tremble in the face of an imaginary danger* and are too lazy to see the real one. [Emphasis added]”

Obviously, the technology she describes is available for governments to use. All that was lacking was the will to use it. Apparently we are about to see that will exercised. The challenge of information control is one that our media will not discuss. Instead, they play the handlers' game of misinformation and disinformation.

Decentralism is not right-wing extremism, either, as Brion McClanahan explains in a piece entitled "Decentralization for Socialists" at LewRockwell.com. He writes an article that traces decentralism to nineteenth-century American socialism, wherein he describes in great detail the desire of utopian idealists to "secede" from the larger society in pursuit of religious or economic goals.

Mr. McClanahan gives the Left this warning:

Leftists would do well to remember that their complaints about a slow and unresponsive federal government could be solved by decentralization. They have more control over state and local governments and could implement their utopian vision of an egalitarian society more quickly and easily. And, if you don’t like where you live, you can always move to a more suitable republic of your choice. There would be plenty of "conservative" and "liberal" republics to choose from in North America.

So to you, I say about reports that the recession is over, or that the Afghanistan war is in our national interest, or that my ideas are only for kooks and right-wing extremists, "bu-shi." Any resemblance to a well-known American expletive is completely intended.

* Islamic terrorism

Fascism defined

jcbrook at Vermont Commons quotes Carroll Quigley, Georgetown professor* and noted chronicler of the insider class, which he admired. Fortunately, Dr. Quigley valued truth over fawning:

"Fascism is the adoption by the vested interests in a society of an authoritarian form of government in order to maintain their vested interests and prevent the reform of the society." (Tragedy and Hope, p. 55o).

I guess we do live in a fascist society...

* I have a graduate degree (M.S. in Foreign Service, 1975) from Georgetown, but never had a class with Dr. Quigley. I have sometimes thought that the reason I was meant to go there (not having benefitted professionally from the education) was to better prepare me for the present situation.

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.