And you wonder why they want to shut down the internet…….
The highly influential Council on Foreign Relations (aka CFR) declared this month in their online publication “Foreign Affairs” that it is now time to attack Iran.
Politics, rantings, comments and such!
June 22, 2011
news, Politics Bilderberg, CFR, Fareed Zakaria, Libya, New World Order, one world government, Trilateral commission, United Nations Comments Off on CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria : Dump the Constitution
CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria argues that the Constitution is outdated and its principles should be “debated and fixed” to conform with the modern era. He suggests “a set of amendments to modernize the Constitution for the 21st Century.”
It should come as no surprise Fareed Zakaria wants to do away with the Constitution. He is a darling of the Council On Foreign Relations and a Bilderberg member. He also sits on the board of the Trilateral Commission. He is a serious globalist and as such an avowed enemy of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.
Zakaria’s rants about the Constitution have little to do with updating an old document perceived to now be irrelevant and dysfunctional. Zakaria and his globalist coconspirators are determined to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because the document stands in the way of establishing a one-world government.
November 21, 2009
General, Politics Bilderberg, Brussels, CFR, copenhagen, council on foreign relations, EU, European Union, G20, global governance, global government, New World Order, Obama, Rompuy, Trilateral commission Comments Off on New EU President Rompuy announces 2009 as “first year of global governance”
Many of us already knew this was what the G-20 and other groups were working on, while others called us conspiracy theorists. Now they just come out in the open and tell you, “we now have global government” (1m:56sec into video) and most hardly noticed the change. Just as they denied the Council on Foreign Relations existing and now you see them on TV all the time as a “think tank”.
By Daniel Taylor
“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”
Rompuy attended a Bilderberg dinner at Hertoginnendal, Brussels on November 15th, during which he announced a plan to implement EU wide taxes that will be paid directly to Brussels. Recently Mario Borghezio (Italy), member of the European Parliament, spoke openly against the influence of globalist organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. “Is it possible that no one has noticed that all 3 (EU Presidential candidates) frequently attend Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings?,” asked Borghezio. Rompuy will undoubtedly serve globalist interests during his reign of the European Union.
September 28, 2009
Just wanted to post this to show Steve knows what he’s talking about.
BILDERBERGERS WANT GLOBAL CURRENCY NOW
Bilderberg has had front-men call anew for creating a global currency and establishing major European Union-style regions for the administrative convenience of a planned world government. Both steps were taken in September, one by the new Bilderberg-crowned prime minister of Japan and one separately by the UN.
The Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called for a global currency in a report made public on September 7. UN countries should agree on a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, UNCTAD said. The dollar’s role in international trade should be reduced to protect emerging markets from the “confidence game” of financial speculation, it said.
Heiner Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister, is co-author of the report calling for a global currency. He worked with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in 1997-98 to contain the Asian financial crisis. Summers is a longtime Bilderberg luminary and has been photographed by AFP at annual secret Bilderberg confabs.
Eliminating national currencies has long been a goal of Bilderberg as a crucial step in its plan to establish a world government. A nation’s currency is a symbol of sovereignty, so Bilderberg wants to divide the world into three giant regions, each with its regional currency, for the administrative convenience of its world government bureaucrats.
Bilderberg used its immense power to get Yukio Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan elected over the Liberal Democratic Party, which had led the nation for 64 years. Hatoyama obediently called for an Asian economic bloc, similar to the EU, complete with a regional currency.
Bilderberg’s goal is an “Asian-Pacific Union” and an “American Union,” both modeled after the EU. The EU has its common currency, the euro, and a European Parliament that can impose laws on the once sovereign nations of Europe and a European Court superior to the highest courts of member states. The EU is effectively a single super-state.
The “American Union” is to evolve from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as it extends throughout the Western Hemisphere. The common currency is to be the “amero.” Fortunately, Bilderberg’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere have been stalled but the campaign continues using “free trade” propaganda.
Ultimately, the UN is to function as a world government with the General Assembly serving as a world parliament. Bilderberg, a secret organization of international financiers and political leaders, will serve as a world shadow government that dictates to the UN.
March 31, 2009
I’ve posted this article as an addition to this one recently posted: State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era
CFR Unveils Global Governance Agenda
By Daniel Taylor
The Council on Foreign Relations, often described as the “real state department”, has launched an initiative to promote and implement a system of effective world governance.
The program, titled “The International Institutions and Global Governance Program,” utilizes the resources of the “…David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms…” The initial funding for the program came with a $6 million grant from the Robina Foundation, which claims that the grant is “…one of the largest operating grants ever received in Council history.”
The IIGG program, launched on May 1st, 2008, is the latest manifestation of an agenda that has existed since and before the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations. Former CFR member, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, stated regarding the group,
“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common – they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”
The International Institutions and Global Governance Program identifies several “global issues” that require a system of world governance. Environmental issues, terrorism, the global economy and energy are all mentioned. (what a coincidence that all these require global government are happening now at the same time.) The project then states that a system of “universal membership” could be pursued, or alternatively a regional organization, such as the European Union model.
“In each of these spheres, the program will consider whether the most promising framework for governance is a formal organization with universal membership (e.g., the United Nations); a regional or sub-regional organization; a narrower, informal coalition of like-minded countries; or some combination of all three.”
The program calls for the “Re-conceptualizing” of national sovereignty, citing the European Union’s “pooling” of sovereignty as a model. The CFR project recognizes that historically, the United States has been resistant to the ideals of global governance. The project states, “Among the most important factors determining the future of global governance will be the attitude of the United States…”
The IIGG program continues, “…few countries have been as sensitive as the United States to restrictions on their freedom of action or as jealous in guarding their sovereign prerogatives.” The program then states that the separation of powers as stated in the Constitution, along with the U.S. Congress, stand in the way of the United States assuming “new international obligations.”(Tommy Franks said the Constitution won’t stand another WMD attack, in that case the Constitution won’t stand in the way then, because there could be martial law declared.)
“…the country’s longstanding tradition of liberal “exceptionalism” inspires U.S. vigilance in protecting the domestic sovereignty and institutions from the perceived incursions of international bodies. Finally, the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations.”
The actions of the Military Industrial Complex under the Bush Administration have served globalist interests well. “Global structures” are now presented as the mechanism to prevent such atrocities. America’s demonization is central to building a system of world governance. Patrick M. Stewart, who is currently the director of the CFR IIGG program, is anticipating the Obama administration “…to seek to turn the page on what many perceived to be ‘cowboy unilateralism’ of the Bush years, by embracing multilateral cooperation, re-kindling U.S. alliances and partnerships, and engaging in sustained diplomacy within the UN framework,” as reported by Xinhua. The IIGG project itself stated in May of 2008 that, “Regardless of whether the administration that takes office in January 2009 is Democratic or Republican, the thrust of U.S. foreign policy is likely to be multilateral to a significant degree.”
Globalist forces are hard at work in the economic and political realms in an attempt to shape the future of the world, furthering the dominance of the global elite. Calls for a global currency in response to the economic crisis are regularly occurring, drawing the tacit support of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking to the CFR.
Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, anticipates that President Obama will, “…give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.“
(Here is a video of Kissinger saying this..it starts around 2:05 minutes into the video)
The Council on Foreign Relations global governance program will undoubtedly be pursued under the Obama administration, which is filled with CFR members. President of the CFR, Richard Haass, is serving as a top adviser to the Obama administration. As the IIGG program admits, regardless of who sits in the White House, the globalist agenda moves forward full speed ahead.
Read the full IIGG project report here
Read at Old-Thinker News.com
March 30, 2009
This article is written by Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism. “Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” writes Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
I’m reminded of what James Madison said, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy”
By Richard Haass
For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.
The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
Less is more
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.
Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.(Benjamin Franklin:They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.)
This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US’ preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.
Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue — correctly — that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.
The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.
The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.
The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.
The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course.
Read at Taipei Times.com
September 27, 2008