Global Monetary System Nearing its End - May 19 2010

Hello everyone,

This will be the final email I send out regarding what’s going on with our economy and the world’s financial system. I have a blog – and will continue to add to it – but this stuff is becoming repetitive – and I’m not sure that sending you updates at this point really benefits anyone. These things are not exactly uplifting and it’s getting worse every day.

So – here’s what you need to know. There are four – very important things you need to understand as events unfold in the coming days/months.

1. The world’s economy is collapsing – and has been collapsing for the past 3 years. It has always been unsustainable – we just happen to be alive at the end of our exponential debt/money growth curve. Exponential growth always ends with a steep incline up – then a catastrophic fall – always. Unlike our political and financial leaders – math doesn’t lie. You may not believe this now – but it will become clear to everyone very soon. Things are accelerating rapidly. At some point – you’ll begin hearing the talking heads on TV using the term ‘free fall’ quite often. If you don’t understand why everyone isn’t saying this now – ask yourself how many times (high school, college, economists, etc.) you’ve heard someone explain how our banking/monetary system works. Enough said. If you want a refresher – here are a couple of links to related blog posts:

http://endtimediscussions.blogspot.com/2006/09/our-monetary-system.html

http://endtimediscussions.blogspot.com/2006/09/our-monetary-system-part-ii-market.html

2. This global economic collapse is not an accident or random event – nor is it going to be a surprise to many of the world’s political and financial leaders. There is an agenda at work here – and it is evil. No other way to say it. The people behind this are the richest, most powerful people in the world – and they have been scheming for hundreds of years – to bring the world to the brink of the abyss. Why? They have used their financial strength to cause financial panics in the past to move their plans forward – we’re watching the same game plan play out before us on a global scale. The goal has always been a one world socialist government (very similar to the USSR or China) with the global elite running the show. If you think Obama appears to lean toward Socialism – you’d be correct – but probably not in the way you think. George W. had his role as well. Alice – this rabbit hole goes far deeper than most people know.

3. Regardless of what you’re told - all of the government stimulus plans, positive media spin and central bank ‘actions’ over the past 2 years have been done for one purpose – to give the impression that the world’s governments and world’s central banks have done everything possible to save the system. They are attempting to shift the focus (blame) for all of this to sovereign fiscal mismanagement, individual and corporate debt loads, bad mortgages, etc. What they don’t tell you is that exponential debt growth is required for the system to function. The problem today is that the global system is now saturated with debt – a direct result of the debt based monetary system itself. This is why trying to solve a debt problem with more debt (see U.S. and European bailouts) is doomed to failure. Systemic failure may happen today, tomorrow, next month – but it is coming – and there is nothing that anyone can do that will prevent this (except changing the system). Again – math doesn’t lie. At some point – even mainstream media will begin acknowledging that something is seriously wrong – you’ll know we’re at the end when this happens.

4. Don’t panic. If God could see these people and their evil plans since the foundation of the earth – and told us about them 2,000 years ago (Revelation 13, 17, & 19 are some of His references to these people) – I feel confident that He has a plan for His people to stand against them. He always has a plan for His people – and He always will. Regardless of what happens here – our focus needs to remain with Him. If this makes you uncomfortable – time to pick-up a Bible and start learning the truth. We have allowed our enemy to blind us – time to turn things around and focus on what’s important.

There are some very intelligent money managers/institutional investors/Economists/Arm-chair quarterbacks, etc. – who are now saying what I’ve been trying to tell people since 2005 – the system appears to be unsustainable – and it’s going to lead to some very unpleasant things. Read the exerpts below.

As for today – we’re seeing some massive Central Bank intervention and German efforts (ban on naked short selling) to save the Euro and keep all of the balls in the air. Other than a possible short term uplift - it won’t help. We followed the same game plan in 2008 – and the result was not good (See: Lehman Brothers bankruptcy). Asian and European stocks are tanking again today (down 2% on average) and the Dow is currently down 120 after plunging 200 points earlier. Over 80% of the stocks on the NYSE are currently declining (same story as yesterday). Expect this type of volatility to increase until we experience another ‘event’ like May 6th – then – all bets are off. Wealthy people will then find out that they have built their lives on a foundation of sand. Sound familiar? If not – again – it’s time to pick-up a Bible and start learning how to build your life on a solid foundation.

Take Care,

John – May 19, 2010
__________________________
Bears Come Roaring Forth

By Barry Ritholtz - May 19th, 2010, 9:30AM

I am on an email list that is from a group smart hedgies and strategists. The discussions range far and wide, and while I sometimes disagree with the conclusions, but I always find the conversation provocative.

Lately, they’ve been emailing a collection of warnings of various fund managers and strategists:

• Long time Dow Theorist Richard Russell set out this dire warning:

“Do your friends a favor. Tell them to “batten down the hatches” because there’s a HARD RAIN coming. Tell them to get out of debt and sell anything they can sell (and don’t need) in order to get liquid. Tell them that Richard Russell says that by the end of this year they won’t recognize the country. They’ll retort, “How the dickens does Russell know — who told him?” Tell them the stock market told him.”

• Reuters reported that well regarded hedge fund manager Seth Klarman “sees few bargains in the current environment and predicted on Tuesday that the stock market could suffer another lost decade without any gains.” Klarman is concerned that we could see “another 10 years of zero returns.” He has 30 percent of assets at his $22 billion Baupost Group in cash, he said. (His firm started in 1982 with $27 million and has averaged 20 percent annual gains ever since).

• Raoul Pal of Global Macro Investor got even more specific warning in his newsletter: Crash Is Coming In Two Days-To-Two Weeks. He sees as an “archetypal crash pattern — a sharp decline followed by a failed rally followed by a collapse.”

• But as Art Cashin of UBS pointed out in his morning missive, stark bear warnings are not restricted to equities. He cites Nouriel Roubini warned on the U.S. Treasury Market:

“Bond market vigilantes have already woken up in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal, in Ireland, in Iceland, and soon enough they could wake up in the U.K., in Japan, in the United States, if we keep on running very large fiscal deficits,” Roubini said at an event at the London School of Economics yesterday. “The chances are, they are going to wake up in the United States in the next three years and say, ‘this is unsustainable.”
_______________________

Global Macro's Raoul Pal: Here's Why A Crash Is Coming In Two Days-To-Two Weeks

Joe Weisenthal
May. 18, 2010, 2:15 PM


We don't mean for it to be doom and gloom day, but Richard Russell isn't the only big name pundit to be calling for a fall.

Raoul Pal, who writes Global Macro Investor newsletter, and whose bio cites stints at GLD and Goldman Sachs, is out with a very specific crash call. In his latest note he calls for a big move down in just two days to two weeks.

That's refreshingly specific!

So what's the reason?

It's all about what he sees as an archetypal crash pattern -- a sharp decline followed by a failed rally followed by a collapse.

It looks like this:

Image: Global Macro Investors

That's an unspecific chart, but here's a more specific one, based on the current post-flash crash market.

Image: Global Macro Investors

And now, here's the kicker. It's the current market vs. 1929, which is what prompts him to see a crash as imminent.

Image: Global Macro Investors

And finally, here's the flash crash vs. 1987

Image: Global Macro Investors

Get the picture?

The Astounding Failure of the US Educational System - October 21, 2010

If you have read through the posts on this blog – then you have seen me ask you a very simple question multiple times:

How many times in your life has someone educated you on our debt based monetary system – how it works, who controls it, etc?

If you are like most people in the world – the answer is - never.

Chances are that when you were taught ‘Economics’ – you were taught about ‘micro’ or ‘macro’ economics – which taught you about supply/demand curves, investment strategies, interest rates, bond prices/yields, GDP, unemployment figures, etc. 

What you are never taught are things like – how is money created?  What is the Federal Reserve and who owns it? How does the Federal Reserve control interest rates and money supply volume? Why are private banks allowed to create money?

The biggest question of all:

How in the world did we let a private banking cartel control the world’s economy?

No – we are never educated on the really important questions.  As I’ve said before – you can play the game all you want – just don’t change the game.

By ‘change the game’ – I mean replacing the Federal Reserve and its debt based money with a sound monetary system and giving the power to manage our money supply back to Congress (as mandated by the Constitution) and the American people.

In doing so – the American people would – once again – become a sovereign nation – indebted to no one.

Regardless of what you are taught – we are not a sovereign nation as long as we are indebted to a private banking cartel. 

In case you didn’t learn this in history class or ‘social studies’ – central bankers run the world – not governments – and certainly not the world’s people.

It’s time we started thinking on our own (become critical thinkers) - and stop blindly accepting the lies we are told.

As with most things we are told/taught by our government and world leaders – there is a hidden agenda behind what has happened to our educational system.

Think about it.

jg – October 21, 2010
__________________________

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/astounding-failure-us-educational-system

The Astounding Failure of the US Educational System

Submitted by smartknowledgeu on 10/21/2010 04:23 -0500

The below article titled “The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Docile”, by John Taylor Gatto is a fine read as a complement to my latest article “Inside the Illusory Empire of the Banking Commodities Con Game.”  Who is John Taylor Gatto? Mr. Gatto was the NYC “Teacher of the Year” three times, and a teacher that became highly disillusioned with the formal education system due to its failures to stimulate critical thinking in children.

I find it odd that people that find value in the information I provide to my clients as well as information that I provide publicly on my blog often desire to know of me, “Where did you go to school?” I find it even odder that many people find my attendance of an Ivy League university to be validating of my knowledge base and thinking skill set, as if attending an expensive university is responsible for the thought processes that have enabled many of my big picture, long-term predictions of the global economy to be accurate. I believe there is absolutely no correlation between the cost of an education and intelligence or even between formal education and knowledge, although oddly people believe this relationship to exist. If there is a provable relationship between formal education and intelligence, it is probably an inverse one. The more letters you have behind your name (MBA, PhD, JD, MFA, CPA) the greater level of stupidity one likely possesses, as the attainment of a higher level of education means that one has been exposed for a far longer time period than the average citizen to the indoctrination process.

I find oddest of all, the expressions on people’s faces, when I inform them that I sincerely believe that the knowledge I gained through formal institutions of academia was detrimental to my understanding of how capital markets operate. In fact, I explain to those that inquire of my educational background that I had to rewire my brain and purge it of nearly all of the false business concepts and stupidity I learned in school because I later found the great majority of what I had learned in school to be not only downright deceptive, but also in my opinion, deliberately erroneous. Many people express genuine shock when I tell them that my formal education was, as was my education on Wall Street, almost entirely useless to any of the investment research and analysis I perform today and that my understanding of how capital markets move is entirely the result of self-education.

"When we look at the information Gatto has uncovered regarding the purpose of the education system as designed by the men that funded and implemented the foundation of the American educational system in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, we discover, in fact, that the US educational system accomplishes exactly what it was designed to do – to dumb down people and suppress the natural inquisitiveness and critical thought processes of children."

In fact, an article I wrote titled “Delaying a College Education in this Economy is the Right Choice” probably generated some of the most perplexed responses I have ever witnessed up close and in person when discussing the content of this article with others. Some of the responses I have heard are as follows:

But isn’t this the BEST time to send my kid to college? The economy is terrible now, so after he graduates, the economy will be much better, right?

You don’t REALLY mean that, do you? Everyone needs a diploma to fall back on. Who’s going to respect you without a college degree?

How is my child going to get ahead in life without a college degree?

Even when someone saw eye to eye with my viewpoint and generally understood the points I was trying to make in that article, in the end, they still bowed down to societal norms because of the fact that he or she has been conditioned to believe in the institutional system of education.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying, he or she would tell me. But I still need to send my child to college. What other choice do I have?

And that’s exactly what the elite want you to believe – that you have no choice but to indoctrinate your child through a formal institutionalized process versus providing an alternate path of education and enlightenment for your child. In the article below, Gatto states, “It’s no secret that the US educational system doesn’t do a very good job.” But when we look at the information Gatto has uncovered regarding the purpose of the education system as designed by the men that funded and implemented the foundation of the American educational system in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, we discover, in fact, that the US educational system accomplishes exactly what it was designed to do – to dumb down people and suppress the natural inquisitiveness and critical thought processes of children.

Gatto reveals that Eldwood Cubberly, the future Dean of Education of Stanford University, argued, in his 1905 dissertation for schools that should be factory-like in production “in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products…manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry.”

I have pointed out numerous times the banker-funded state of business academia in America as my rationale for why business degrees are often useless. I have often told those considering entering business school that I could sit down and talk to them for three hours and probably grant them knowledge that will be a thousand times more valuable than anything they will learn during a two-year MBA program at Harvard Business School. I say this not out of arrogance. I acknowledge that I still have a long road to travel in my own educational journey. I say this only because I am 100% convinced that the business school curricula of all traditional institutions of academia will never provide the knowledge young adults need to succeed in today’s Empire of Illusion.

Today, revered professors all across the US teach students the nonsense that bankers want them to learn and that bankers want them to believe is real, NOT the reality of how currency markets, stock markets and commodity markets truly operate. Gatto confirms my thesis by pointing out a statement from the Rockefeller Education Board, a key institution that was a critical force in shaping modern education in America: “We shall not try to make [students] into philosophers or men of learning or men of science…The task we set before ourselves is simple…we will organize children…and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.”

The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Docile (John Taylor Gatto)

Fed Earned $2.7 Billion in 1st Quarter

It pays to be in the money creation business. Remember – the Fed doesn’t ‘loan’ existing money to banks, financial institutions, etc – it creates money. So – anytime you see the word ‘loan’ associated with the Federal Reserve’s many ‘programs’ - it’s simply a deceptive way to disguise the fact that the Fed has created money and is charging interest on the money it creates.

What we’re really being told here is that the Fed made $2.7 billion dollars last quarter by simply printing money. I think we can all agree (whether or not you have a finance background) that turning paper into money (or adding dollars to electronic accounts and then charging interest on this money) is most likely a highly profitable enterprise. Also remember – the Fed is a private corporation owned by private shareholders – which means that these shareholders earned $2.7 billion dollars in only one quarter.

Now – think about this – the Fed earned $2.7 billion dollars in one quarter - which leads to some very interesting questions. If we assume that this business of printing money (and earning interest on the money you create) has been this lucrative since the inception of this system (Federal Reserve Act of 1913) – it stands to reason that the shareholders (there are few shareholders) of this institution and their heirs are extremely wealthy. In fact, some very simple math would tell you that their wealth would dwarf Gates, Buffett – not to mention every corporation on the planet. Also remember – the same shareholders who control the Fed – also control every Central Bank in the world – so the wealth created by this elite few – is immeasurable. It dwarfs the wealth of any other person or entity in our world. It’s not even close.

If we factor in the truth that these same people have the ability to increase the cost of the money they create and the ability to contract the money supply that you and I need to survive in the system – it doesn’t take much thought to conclude that their power in this world is incalculable. If none of this bothers you – it should.

If you want a nice case of insomnia tonight – think about who we’re told are the wealthiest people in the world. Gates, Buffett, old money families and corporate tycoons – all come to mind. Is this the truth? As you’ve learned – the answer is no. So – why do the wealthiest people on the planet wish to remain in the shadows? Answer this question Alice – and you’ll find out just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

The founding fathers of our nation were wise – and understood the power (and dangers) of printing and managing a nation’s money supply. This is why our current monetary system is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. Is this surprising to you? It really shouldn’t be – if we all stopped looking at our blackberries, talking on our cell phones, watching ‘American Idol’, etc. – and actually focused on what is really important (things like…….protecting our freedom) – we might actually read something important – like the Bible and our Constitution - every once in awhile.

The founders of the United States of America forbid anyone other than the U.S. Congress from managing our money supply (and the value of our money) for one very simple reason – if you control a nation’s money – you control a nation’s economy and commerce – thereby controlling the nation. You can't have a Republic with a ruling elite.

If you want another case of insomnia for tomorrow night – ask yourself how this monetary system could have been enacted when it is forbidden by the Constitution. The short version is - a decades long battle was lost in 1913. I'll leave the details for you to research.

The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

–Article 1, Section 8, U.S. Constitution

jg
_______________________________
JUNE 10, 2009, 1:45 P.M. ET

Fed Earned $2.7 Billion in 1st Quarter

By BRIAN BLACKSTONE

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Federal Reserve made almost $2.7 billion last quarter when gains and losses on its myriad lending facilities, asset holdings and loans to Bear Stearns and American International Group Inc. are tallied up, according to data released Wednesday by the Fed.
The report, which includes new details on Fed lending programs including collateral quality and concentration of loans among banks, is part of the Fed's effort to provide more details on its interventions into financial markets.

The Fed aims to release the report on a monthly basis.

The report, and other steps the Fed has taken, "significantly enhances" information the Fed is releasing "and should help the public and the Congress better judge how we are carrying out our responsibilities for stabilizing the financial system and the economy," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a statement.

According to the 20-page report, the Fed had net earnings of $1.2 billion last quarter on loan programs including overnight loans to banks and investment banks, the Term Auction Facility and Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility. It earned another $2.1 billion on the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and $4.6 billion on its portfolio of assets. In contrast, it lost a combined $5.2 billion during the first quarter on its loans to Bear Stearns and AIG, as reflecting in facilities called Maiden Lane I, Maiden Lane II and Maiden Lane III.

A senior Fed official said those Maiden Lane losses are based on mark-to-market accounting, and the Fed has been advised that if it were to hold those assets to maturity, it may not actually realize any losses.

The $2.7 billion net earnings figure doesn't include outside price services and other administrative expenses.

The report also included details of the Fed's liquidity swap lines with other central banks. As of May 27, the Fed had $101 billion in liquidity swaps outstanding with the European Central Bank (down from $291 billion on Dec. 31, 2008), $9 billion with the Swiss National Bank, $25 billion with the Bank of Japan (down from $123 billion at the end of 2008) and $13 billion with the Bank of Korea.

A total of 566 depository institutions borrowed from the Fed's discount window in the four weeks ended May 27, with the majority of borrowing done by 27 large banks with assets of more than $50 billion.

Borrowers pledged $965 billion in collateral as of May 27 against $448 billion in loans.
The report doesn't list individual banks that have borrowed from the Fed, or in what amounts. The senior Fed official said the Fed is mindful of the stigma that might be associated with being named by the Fed as a borrower, which could be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

Write to Brian Blackstone at brian.blackstone@dowjones.com

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief

The following is an article on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - health adviser to President Obama. Anytime I see someone in our government who believes something like this – I immediately think – the socialism train continues to move forward.

“Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs”

Wouldn’t it be in the best interests of society to help individual patients? Isn’t this why the Hippocratic Oath was created? What, exactly, does Dr. Emanuel mean when he says ‘the greater good of society’? The rest of the article gives us a few clues.

“In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs.”

Wow. I don’t know about you – but when I go to the Doctor – I prefer that the Doctor is focused on me – not ‘the greater good of society’. I don’t want anything that isn’t required – and I would hope that the Doctor would only do what was necessary (using his/her knowledge and expertise to determine the best course of action). I don’t want to go to the Doctor and wonder if I’m getting the care I need because the best course of action for me isn’t best for ‘society’.

‘But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care."’

I don’t believe Americans want Doctors ‘serving’ anyone or anything – least of all ‘society’ – and I feel reasonably confident when I say that I’m sure Doctors don’t want to ‘serve’ society. Let me translate - by ‘society’, Dr. Emanuel means our government. All of this socialism rhetoric is the same. We need to serve ‘society’, the ‘state’, the ‘greater good’, etc.

What we want is for our Doctor to give us an open and honest evaluation – and recommend a best course of action based on their expertise and some common sense. What we don’t want to hear is – ‘I can’t perform that procedure or administer that treatment because – in the long term – it’s not socially sustainable’. I don’t even know what that means. What nonsense.

‘Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going:’

I’ll translate again – Dr. Emanuel proposes that our government will dictate to our medical professionals how to treat individuals ‘in a way that keeps society going’. What does ‘keep society going’ mean? Let’s find out.

“Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).”

So, the health advisor to the President of the United States advocates a healthcare system that discriminates against the oldest and the youngest of us. It doesn’t matter what the condition is – or what may be required – if you are older or younger than the general population – you are at the end of the healthcare line. I imagine that the people who share Dr. Emanuel’s view must look at this issue with a coldness I do not possess. The question I would ask Dr. Emanuel is this – if his infant son or daughter needed an immediate heart operation to save their life – but couldn’t get it because of this system – what would he do? If his father or mother couldn’t get a needed operation to save their life because of this system – how would he feel then? Would that same cold intellect remain or would feelings interfere?

It’s easier to talk about healthcare discrimination from a 30,000 foot level – it’s much harder if we consider the real world consequences. If my son or daughter’s life was threatened, I’m afraid that the ‘greater good of society’ would take a backseat to my child’s health. In fact, my own life would take a backseat to the health of my child. We need to value everyone’s life – regardless of age, race, etc.

Knowing how the global elite operate and how they are pushing a socialist agenda forward around the globe – this type of healthcare discrimination rhetoric is only the start. If we allow this – it won’t stop there. Once you allow discrimination based on age – it’s a very small step to enact laws that prevent healthcare altogether to certain people - people who do not adhere to your unbiblical laws – who do not go along with your evil plans. Remember – those who do not have the ‘mark’ of this political beast – will not be able to buy or sell – or be part of the world system. A socialist healthcare system is going to be a piece of that system. I assure you – the global elite at the top of this socialist hierarchy will not have a problem getting healthcare. Once again – this isn’t simply about healthcare – it’s about control of the world’s population.

Once again we see that lies are trumpeted as the truth (below) to push an agenda. Standard operating procedure.

“Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."


This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.”

Before I decided to overhaul our healthcare system – I would start by researching the following things completely:

1. What is actually driving healthcare costs to astronomical levels? I would like to see how a hospital charges patients and their cost basis for the products and services they provide. A child of a friend of mine recently had outpatient oral surgery – no overnight stay. The price was over $10,000. Is it the products (anesthesia) or services (surgeon’s time) or both that are causing a bill this high? Are bills being excessively padded due to other people who cannot pay? How do pharmaceutical companies price drugs? Do they give any pricing consideration to high volume drugs or drugs that are crucial for some people – or do they exploit the system? I don’t know the answers – but if you want to really understand what’s happening – this is the place to start.

2. How much power and influence do healthcare insurance companies wield? Based on my own experiences – I would say – a lot. Are these companies actually trying to reduce costs and provide a needed service or are they using their power and influence to increase profits at the expense of the healthcare system? Why should we be at the mercy of a huge corporation when determining whether or not we should undergo a certain procedure or whether or not we should receive a certain type of care? Shouldn’t we have enough trust in our Doctors to let them make the decision based on our health and the most cost effective way to treat our problem? Do I trust a huge bureaucracy or my Doctor? Do these companies have certain lucrative contracts that funnel products and services to certain providers, suppliers, hospitals, etc. – that may be more expensive to us and provide substandard care? Why do we even need insurance for everything? I don’t have the answers – but someone who is really trying to solve this problem – should.

3. From what I read, malpractice insurance rates seem to be increasing by ridiculous amounts – which I’m sure is driving up costs for everyone in the system. How many malpractice lawsuits are filed each year? What are the reasons? Are the reasons valid? How much of the money from lawsuits goes to the plaintiffs versus the lawyers? Are there lawyers who specialize in this (That would tell us something – either the lawyers are simply profiting from the healthcare system or we have a tremendous amount of incompetent Doctors in the system)? The overriding question is – are we filing lawsuits because someone intentionally caused us harm – or are we simply chasing after money? If a doctor made an honest mistake – did the mistake cause significant harm requiring additional care and monetary assistance – or are we simply using the mistake to make some money?

4. To some extent, we need the ability to to manage our healthcare expenses ourselves. Most of us who have insurance – just do what we’re told – without looking for other, less expensive options. When given a prescription – do you ask if there is a less expensive option? When you need to go to the hospital (non-emergency) – do you compare prices? We typically don’t – because it’s almost impossible to get any type of idea what prices will be. This needs to change. In a truly free market – I should be able to compare prices and services and make my own decision.

5. What is the relationship between Doctors, hospitals and medical (pharmaceutical, medical equipment, etc.) companies? Are we prescribing more expensive medicine simply because we all make more money? What types of incentives are being offered to Doctors and hospitals by these companies? Are there monopolies in this business that are driving costs/prices much higher than necessary? Are the pursuit of profits driving up prices unnecessarily?

6. What would happen to our healthcare system if we all stopped eating so much fast food and processed foods and actually ate healthy, nutritional food? What if we stopped watching so much TV, stopped playing so many video games and spent time outside doing stuff with our friends and families?

You get the idea. Instead of hearing knowledgeable debate on these issues – all we ever hear is – the system needs to ‘change’, many Americans don’t have insurance, healthcare expenses are out of control, we are some of the most unhealthy people in the world, etc. etc.

What we should be asking is – why does the system need to change? Why do we need insurance for everything? Why are healthcare expenses out of control? Why, as a nation, are we unhealthy? Why don’t the people in Washington D.C. pushing for universal healthcare have the answers to these questions? No one seems to want to dig into the details and find out the real reasons for these things. No, that would require intelligence and hard work – we’d rather just change the system.

It seems to me that we all want better healthcare – but we’re not willing to do the things to be healthier (eat better, exercise) and we’re not willing to do our homework and find out the real reasons the current system is so expensive.

Nothing in this world is easy. If we want to really solve this problem – we need to work hard to solve it – and not simply give political speeches about it laced with sound bites that may or may not be true.

What we don’t need – is a government ‘solution’ that will lead to even more bureaucracy.

jg – August 27, 2009
_______________________________________
AUGUST 27, 2009

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief

Wall St. Journal

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.

"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).

Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.

Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."

This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Is this what Americans want?

—Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

Economic Winds are Shifting (Maintream Media)

I wrote last week (A Perfect Storm) that despite all of the positive economic mainstream media articles in recent weeks – underlying economic fundamentals continue to deteriorate. As I read the Wall Street Journal this morning (August 31, 2009) – I noticed a couple of articles that speak to a few problems that could lead to some serious economic problems in the near future – problems that I (and others that are studying economic data themselves) have mentioned many times over the past few months.

This is unusual for mainstream media – we normally see articles speak to negatives – only after a negative economic event has occurred. We see very little economic analysis within mainstream media that addresses our true economic condition and then reports the potential for negative impacts to our economy, earnings, markets, etc. In recent months, we’ve been fed a steady diet of positive news (based on bad economic data and horrible analysis) with very little attention given to the severe problems lurking within real economic data.

It has all been positive spin.

So – when I see a few mainstream media articles that speak to a few of the economic issues I have been following closely – I take notice.

Here are a few articles from today from the Wall St. Journal:

Raft of Deals for Failed Banks Puts U.S. on Hook for Billions
• To encourage banks to pick through the wreckage of their collapsed competitors, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has agreed to assume most of the risk on $80 billion in loans and other assets. The agency expects it will eventually have to cover $14 billion in future losses on deals cut so far. The initiative amounts to a subsidy for dozens of hand-picked banks.

Commercial Real Estate Lurks as Next Potential Mortgage Crisis
• Federal Reserve and Treasury officials are scrambling to prevent the commercial-real-estate sector from delivering a roundhouse punch to the U.S. economy just as it struggles to get up off the mat.

Can Rally Run Without Revenue?
• As stock investors turn their focus to earnings prospects for the second half and 2010, they are zeroing in on one of the market's biggest challenges: lackluster corporate revenue. The market barreled ahead this summer and is hovering near its high for the year, fueled in large part by stronger than-expected second-quarter earnings. But a significant driver of the good news was cost cutting. Many companies posted disappointing sales.

If you’ve read my previous posts – then you know that all three of these issues are going to have a severe negative impact on economic activity (and markets) in the near future. If we continue to see more articles like these – get ready.

Knowing how the global elite operate – it’s quite possible these types of articles are pre-empting some significant negative economic ‘events’. Since September and October have historically seen significant market volatility – I believe we’re in for a very rough ride.

Stay tuned.

We're Governed by Callous Children

My personal belief is that we (Americans) are beginning to wake up to many truths. We are beginning to question many of the things that are being told to us by political and financial leaders.


“The new economic statistics put growth at a healthy 3.5% for the third quarter. We should be dancing in the streets. No one is, because no one has any faith in these numbers.”

We no longer believe the lies that are being told to us on a daily basis.

“No one believes the bad time is over. No one thinks we're entering a new age of abundance. No one thinks it will ever be the same as before 2008.”

The article below by Peggy Noonan speaks to many truths today. I encourage you to read the entire article - but I’m adding it to this blog mainly for the following passage.

“The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.”

I am posting this – because the words above are true. This is something that the global elite want to happen. They want you to become disheartened. They want you to accept a world monetary system and a world government. They want to control you – every aspect of your life. They want total control of the world’s population. They want you to believe that they are too powerful. They want you to ask – ‘how can I stand against them?’ They want you - to give up.

I will admit here – that when I first began to look into the world’s monetary system and the global elite – I could not see anyway out of our predicament. It became clear that our economy was doomed and that the people controlling the world’s central banking system were much too powerful to overcome. They have infiltrated our government and they own/manipulate the world’s financial system. How can we possibly overcome this?

I won’t lie to you – when you begin to understand the magnitude of what we face – fear will begin to creep into your consciousness.

So – how do we overcome this fear and find the faith required to stand against such overwhelming odds? The only way for us to overcome our enemies and to succeed in saving our nation – is by recognizing what we have become and seeking forgiveness from our Creator. If we will seek Him and His plan for us – if we will allow Him to strengthen us – then we will be able to stand. Without Him – we fail and the United States of America will cease to exist as a sovereign nation. There will be many who ridicule this – but it’s the truth.

I do not know how this ends. I do not know the choice our nation will make.  I only know how it will start. It will start with a severe economic crash in the United States – and the world.

We will get one more chance to choose God and his way. What will we choose?

jg – November 3, 2009
_________________________________

OCTOBER 31, 2009

We're Governed by Callous Children

By PEGGY NOONAN

Wall St. Journal

The new economic statistics put growth at a healthy 3.5% for the third quarter. We should be dancing in the streets. No one is, because no one has any faith in these numbers.

Waves of money are sloshing through the system, creating a false rising tide that lifts all boats for the moment. The tide will recede. The boats aren't rising, they're bobbing, and will settle. No one believes the bad time is over. No one thinks we're entering a new age of abundance. No one thinks it will ever be the same as before 2008.

Economists, statisticians, forecasters and market specialists will argue about what the new numbers mean, but no one believes them, either. Among the things swept away in 2008 was public confidence in the experts. The experts missed the crash. They'll miss the meaning of this moment, too.

The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.

It is a story in two parts. The first: "They do not think they can make it better."

I talked this week with a guy from Big Pharma, which we used to call "the drug companies" until we decided that didn't sound menacing enough. He is middle-aged, works in a significant position, and our conversation turned to the last great recession, in the late mid- to late 1970s and early '80s. We talked about how, in terms of numbers, that recession was in some ways worse than the one we're experiencing now. Interest rates were over 20%, and inflation and unemployment hit double digits. America was in what might be called a functional depression, yet there was still a prevalent feeling of hope.

Here's why. Everyone thought they could figure a way through. We knew we could find a path through the mess. In 1982 there were people saying, "If only we get rid of this guy Reagan, we can make it better!" Others said, "If we follow Reagan, he'll squeeze out inflation and lower taxes and we'll be America again, we'll be acting like Americans again." Everyone had a path through.

Now they don't. The most sophisticated Americans, experienced in how the country works on the ground, can't figure a way out. Have you heard, "If only we follow Obama and the Democrats, it will all get better"? Or, "If only we follow the Republicans, they'll make it all work again"? I bet you haven't, or not much.

This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.

Part of the reason is that the problems—debt, spending, war—seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone—well, not those in government, but most everyone else—seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through.

And so the disheartenedness of the leadership class, of those in business, of those who have something. This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City. They took their tax dollars with them—in 2006 alone more than $4 billion.

You know what New York, both state and city, will do to make up for the lost money. They'll raise taxes.

I talked with an executive this week with what we still call "the insurance companies" and will no doubt soon be calling Big Insura. (Take it away, Democratic National Committee.) He was thoughtful, reflective about the big picture. He talked about all the new proposed regulations on the industry. Rep. Barney Frank had just said on some cable show that the Democrats of the White House and Congress "are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area." The executive said of Washington: "They don't understand that people can just stop, get out. I have friends and colleagues who've said to me 'I'm done.'" He spoke of his own increasing tax burden and said, "They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60%, 55%, I'll stop."

He felt government doesn't understand that business in America is run by people, by human beings. Mr. Frank must believe America is populated by high-achieving robots who will obey whatever command he and his friends issue. But of course they're human, and they can become disheartened. They can pack it in, go elsewhere, quit what used to be called the rat race and might as well be called that again since the government seems to think they're all rats. (That would be you, Chamber of Commerce.)

***

And here is the second part of the story. While Americans feel increasingly disheartened, their leaders evince a mindless . . . one almost calls it optimism, but it is not that.

It is a curious thing that those who feel most mistily affectionate toward America, and most protective toward it, are the most aware of its vulnerabilities, the most aware that it can be harmed. They don't see it as all-powerful, impregnable, unharmable. The loving have a sense of its limits.

When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren't they worried about the impact of what they're doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?

I think I know part of the answer. It is that they've never seen things go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don't have the habit of worry. They talk about their "concerns"—they're big on that word. But they're not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa's lap.

They don't feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases—"strongest nation in the world," "indispensable nation," "unipolar power," "highest standard of living"—and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.

We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists—they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19

A Chronological History of the New World Order

Below is a brief history of the New World Order by Dr. Cuddy. Excellent research that shows you how the global elite have moved their plans forward over the past 100 years.

Here’s a brief list of some of the world’s political and financial leaders who have spoken of and/or supported world government and the New World Order:

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton
George H.W. Bush
David Rockefeller
John Foster Dulles (U.S. Secretary of State)
Harry Truman
Glen Taylor (U.S. Senator)
Alexander Wiley (U.S. Senator)
James P. Warburg
H. Rowan Gaither (President – Ford Foundation)
William Jenner (U.S. Senator)
Dwight Eisenhower
Nelson Rockefeller
J. William Fulbright (U.S. Senator)
Jimmy Carter
Chester Ward (Navy Admiral and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy)
Strobe Talbott (U.S. Deputy Secretary of State)
George Ball (U.S. Under-Secretary of State)
Mikhail Gorbachev
Stansfield Turner (CIA Director)
Boutros-Boutros Ghali (U.N. Secretary General)
Henry Kissinger

…and the list goes on and on.

I believe historian Arnold Toyee best sums up their method of operation.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands...."

What are they telling us about the current economic crisis? They are doing everything they can to help us. What are they actually doing? Destroying our economy so that we will willingly accept the New World Order. Deception….deception….deception.

Never forget – Satan does not play fair. Never has – never will.

Fortunately for us – God gave our nation wise founders. Their wisdom in writing our Constitution has bought us time. Will we act before time runs out?

"The framers of the U.S. constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to 'turn the Founders upside down' -- we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected."- James McGregor (Author) 1984

jg – February 11, 2010
_____________________________

A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

by D.L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

Arranged and Edited by John Loeffler

In the mainline media, those who adhere to the position that there is some kind of "conspiracy" pushing us towards a world government are virulently ridiculed. The standard attack maintains that the so-called "New World Order" is the product of turn-of-the-century, right-wing, bigoted, anti-semitic racists acting in the tradition of the long-debunked Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, now promulgated by some Militias and other right-wing hate groups.

The historical record does not support that position to any large degree but it has become the mantra of the socialist left and their cronies, the media.

The term "New World Order" has been used thousands of times in this century by proponents in high places of federalized world government. Some of those involved in this collaboration to achieve world order have been Jewish. The preponderance are not, so it most definitely is not a Jewish agenda.

For years, leaders in education, industry, the media, banking, etc., have promoted those with the same Weltanschauung (world view) as theirs. Of course, someone might say that just because individuals promote their friends doesn't constitute a conspiracy. That's true in the usual sense. However, it does represent an "open conspiracy," as described by noted Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells in The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928).

In 1913, prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act President Wilson's The New Freedom was published, in which he revealed:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

On November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote a letter to Col. Edward Mandell House, President Woodrow Wilson's close advisor:

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson... "

That there is such a thing as a cabal of power brokers who control government behind the scenes has been detailed several times in this century by credible sources. Professor Carroll Quigley was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University. President Clinton has publicly paid homage to the influence Professor Quigley had on his life. In Quigley's magnum opus Tragedy and Hope (1966), he states:

"There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international ... network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

Even talk show host Rush Limbaugh, an outspoken critic of anyone claiming a push for global government, said on his February 7, 1995 program:

"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."

On May 4, 1993, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) president Leslie Gelb said on The Charlie Rose Show that:

"... you [Charlie Rose] had me on [before] to talk about the New World Order! I talk about it all the time. It's one world now. The Council [CFR] can find, nurture, and begin to put people in the kinds of jobs this country needs. And that's going to be one of the major enterprises of the Council under me."

Previous CFR chairman, John J. McCloy (1953-70), actually said they have been doing this since the 1940s (and before).

The thrust towards global government can be well-documented but at the end of the twentieth century it does not look like a traditional conspiracy in the usual sense of a secret cabal of evil men meeting clandestinely behind closed doors. Rather, it is a "networking" of like-minded individuals in high places to achieve a common goal, as described in Marilyn Ferguson's 1980 insider classic, The Aquarian Conspiracy.

Perhaps the best way to relate this would be a brief history of the New World Order, not in our words but in the words of those who have been striving to make it real.

1912 -- Colonel Edward M. House, a close advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, publishes Phillip Dru: Administrator in which he promotes "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

1913 -- The Federal Reserve (neither federal nor a reserve) is created. It was planned at a secret meeting in 1910 on Jekyl Island, Georgia by a group of bankers and politicians, including Col. House. This transferred the power to create money from the American government to a private group of bankers. It is probably the largest generator of debt in the world.

May 30, 1919 -- Prominent British and American personalities establish the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Institute of International Affairs in the U.S. at a meeting arranged by Col. House attended by various Fabian socialists, including noted economist John Maynard Keynes. Two years later, Col. House reorganizes the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

December 15, 1922 -- The CFR endorses World Government in its magazine Foreign Affairs. Author Philip Kerr, states:

"Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as [the earth] remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states until some kind of international system is created... The real problem today is that of the world government."

1928 -- The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution by H.G. Wells is published. A former Fabian Socialist, Wells writes:

"The political world of the ... Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments... The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York... The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed... It will be a world religion."

1931 -- Students at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow are taught:

"One day we shall start to spread the most theatrical peace movement the world has ever seen. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent ... will fall into the trap offered by the possibility of making new friends. Our day will come in 30 years or so... The bourgeoisie must be lulled into a false sense of security."

1931 -- In a speech to the Institute for the Study of International Affairs at Copenhagen) historian Arnold Toyee said:

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands...."

1932 -- New books are published urging World Order:

Toward Soviet America by William Z. Foster. Head of the Communist Party USA, Foster indicates that a National Department of Education would be one of the means used to develop a new socialist society in the U.S.

The New World Order by F.S. Marvin, describing the League of Nations as the first attempt at a New World Order. Marvin says, "nationality must rank below the claims of mankind as a whole."

Dare the School Build a New Social Order? is published. Educator author George Counts asserts that:

"... the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest" in order to "influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior of the coming generation... The growth of science and technology has carried us into a new age where ignorance must be replaced by knowledge, competition by cooperation, trust in Providence by careful planning and private capitalism by some form of social economy."

1933 -- The first Humanist Manifesto is published. Co-author John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator, calls for a synthesizing of all religions and "a socialized and cooperative economic order." Co-signer C.F. Potter said in 1930:

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

1933 -- The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in "criminally infected" areas. The plan for the "Modern World-State" would succeed on its third attempt (about 1980), and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq. The book also states,

"Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere."

1934 -- The Externalization of the Hierarchy by Alice A. Bailey is published. Bailey is an occultist, whose works are channeled from a spirit guide, the Tibetan Master [demon spirit] Djwahl Kuhl. Bailey uses the phrase "points of light" in connection with a "New Group of World Servers" and claims that 1934 marks the beginning of "the organizing of the men and women... group work of a new order... [with] progress defined by service... the world of the Brotherhood... the Forces of Light... [and] out of the spoliation of all existing culture and civilization, the new world order must be built."

The book is published by the Lucis Trust, incorporated originally in New York as the Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust is a United Nations NGO and has been a major player at the recent U.N. summits. Later Assistant Secretary General of the U.N. Robert Mueller would credit the creation of his World Core Curriculum for education to the underlying teachings of Djwahl Kuhl via Alice Bailey's writings on the subject.

1932 -- Plan for Peace by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger (1921) is published. She calls for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all "dysgenic stocks" including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.

October 28, 1939 -- In an address by John Foster Dulles, later U.S. Secretary of State, he proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.

1939 -- New World Order by H. G. Wells proposes a collectivist one-world state"' or "new world order" comprised of "socialist democracies." He advocates "universal conscription for service" and declares that "nationalist individualism... is the world's disease." He continues:

"The manifest necessity for some collective world control to eliminate warfare and the less generally admitted necessity for a collective control of the economic and biological life of mankind, are aspects of one and the same process." He proposes that this be accomplished through "universal law" and propaganda (or education)."

1940 -- The New World Order is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and contains a select list of references on regional and world federation, together with some special plans for world order after the war.

December 12, 1940 -- In The Congressional Record an article entitled A New World Order John G. Alexander calls for a world federation.

1942 -- The leftist Institute of Pacific Relations publishes Post War Worlds by P.E. Corbett:

"World government is the ultimate aim... It must be recognized that the law of nations takes precedence over national law... The process will have to be assisted by the deletion of the nationalistic material employed in educational textbooks and its replacement by material explaining the benefits of wiser association."

June 28, 1945 -- President Truman endorses world government in a speech:

"It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States."

October 24, 1945 -- The United Nations Charter becomes effective. Also on October 24, Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho) introduces Senate Resolution 183 calling upon the U.S. Senate to go on record as favoring creation of a world republic including an international police force.

1946 -- Alger Hiss is elected President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hiss holds this office until 1949. Early in 1950, he is convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison after a sensational trial and Congressional hearing in which Whittaker Chambers, a former senior editor of Time, testifies that Hiss was a member of his Communist Party cell.

1946 -- The Teacher and World Government by former editor of the NEA Journal (National Education Association) Joy Elmer Morgan is published. He says:

"In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher... can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation... At the very heart of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession."

1947 -- The American Education Fellowship, formerly the Progressive Education Association, organized by John Dewey, calls for the:

"... establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority... "

October, 1947 -- NEA Associate Secretary William Carr writes in the NEA Journal that teachers should:

"... teach about the various proposals that have been made for the strengthening of the United Nations and the establishment of a world citizenship and world government."

1948 -- Walden II by behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner proposes "a perfect society or new and more perfect order" in which children are reared by the State, rather than by their parents and are trained from birth to demonstrate only desirable behavior and characteristics. Skinner's ideas would be widely implemented by educators in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s as Values Clarification and Outcome Based Education.

July, 1948 -- Britain's Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR's Foreign Affairs, sees "a New World Order" taking shape:

"How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?... Out of the prevailing confusion a new world is taking shape... which may point the way toward the new order... That will be the beginning of a real United Nations, no longer crippled by a split personality, but held together by a common faith."

1948 -- UNESCO president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He states:

"Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

1948 -- The preliminary draft of a World Constitution is published by U.S. educators advocating regional federation on the way toward world federation or government with England incorporated into a European federation.

The Constitution provides for a "World Council" along with a "Chamber of Guardians" to enforce world law. Also included is a "Preamble" calling upon nations to surrender their arms to the world government, and includes the right of this "Federal Republic of the World" to seize private property for federal use.

February 9, 1950 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent Resolution 66 which begins:

"Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution."

The resolution was first introduced in the Senate on September 13, 1949 by Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho). Senator Alexander Wiley (R-Wisconsin) called it "a consummation devoutly to be wished for" and said, "I understand your proposition is either change the United Nations, or change or create, by a separate convention, a world order." Senator Taylor later stated:

"We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves."

1950 -- In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, international financier James P Warburg said:

"we shall have a world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, that "treaty laws can override the Constitution." He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights. A Senate amendment, proposed by GOP Senator John Bricker, would have provided that no treaty could supersede the Constitution, but it fails to pass by one vote.

1954 -- Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands establishes the Bilderbergers, international politicians and bankers who meet secretly on an annual basis.

1954 -- H. Rowan Gaither, Jr., President - Ford Foundation said to Norman Dodd of the Congressional Reese Commission:

"... all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives... from the White House... . The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

1954 -- Senator William Jenner said:

"Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people... outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side.... All the strange developments in the foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure.... This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government, and its own propaganda apparatus."

1958 -- World Peace through World Law is published, where authors Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn advocate using the U.N. as a governing body for the world, world disarmament, a world police force and legislature.

1959 -- The Council on Foreign Relations calls for a New International Order Study Number 7, issued on November 25, advocated:

"... new international order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, for social and economic change... an international order... including states labeling themselves as 'socialist' [communist]."

1959 -- The World Constitution and Parliament Association is founded which later develops a Diagram of World Government under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

1959 -- The Mid-Century Challenge to U.S. Foreign Policy is published, sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers' Fund. It explains that the U.S.:

"... cannot escape, and indeed should welcome... the task which history has imposed on us. This is the task of helping to shape a new world order in all its dimensions -- spiritual, economic, political, social."

September 9, 1960 -- President Eisenhower signs Senate Joint Resolution 170, promoting the concept of a federal Atlantic Union. Pollster and Atlantic Union Committee treasurer, Elmo Roper, later delivers an address titled, The Goal Is Government of All the World, in which he states:

"For it becomes clear that the first step toward World Government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political and the social."

1961 -- The U.S. State Department issues a plan to disarm all nations and arm the United Nations. State Department Document Number 7277 is entitled Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. It details a three-stage plan to disarm all nations and arm the U.N. with the final stage in which "no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force."

March 1, 1962 -- Sen. Clark speaking on the floor of the Senate about PL 87-297 which calls for the disbanding of all armed forces and the prohibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsoever. "... This program is the fixed, determined and approved policy of the government of the United States."

1962 -- New Calls for World Federalism. In a study titled, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield states:

"... if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government."

The Future of Federalism by author Nelson Rockefeller is published. The one-time Governor of New York, claims that current events compellingly demand a "new world order," as the old order is crumbling, and there is "a new and free order struggling to be born." Rockefeller says there is:

"a fever of nationalism... [but] the nation-state is becoming less and less competent to perform its international political tasks....These are some of the reasons pressing us to lead vigorously toward the true building of a new world order... [with] voluntary service... and our dedicated faith in the brotherhood of all mankind.... Sooner perhaps than we may realize... there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the free world."

1963 -- J. William Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee speaks at a symposium sponsored by the Fund for the Republic, a left-wing project of the Ford Foundation:

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable... government by the people is possible but highly improbable."

1964 -- Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II is published. Author Benjamin Bloom states:

"... a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs."

His Outcome-Based Education (OBE) method of teaching would first be tried as Mastery Learning in Chicago schools. After five years, Chicago students' test scores had plummeted causing outrage among parents. OBE would leave a trail of wreckage wherever it would be tried and under whatever name it would be used. At the same time, it would become crucial to globalists for overhauling the education system to promote attitude changes among school students.

1964 -- Visions of Order by Richard Weaver is published. He describes:

"progressive educators as a 'revolutionary cabal' engaged in 'a systematic attempt to undermine society's traditions and beliefs.'"

1967 -- Richard Nixon calls for New World Order. In Asia after Vietnam, in the October issue of Foreign Affairs, Nixon writes of nations' dispositions to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a "new world order."

1968 -- Joy Elmer Morgan, former editor of the NEA Journal publishes The American Citizens Handbook in which he says:

"the coming of the United Nations and the urgent necessity that it evolve into a more comprehensive form of world government places upon the citizens of the United States an increased obligation to make the most of their citizenship which now widens into active world citizenship."

July 26, 1968 -- Nelson Rockefeller pledges support of the New World Order. In an Associated Press report, Rockefeller pledges that, "as President, he would work toward international creation of a new world order."

1970 -- Education and the mass media promote world order. In Thinking About A New World Order for the Decade 1990, author Ian Baldwin, Jr. asserts that:

"... the World Law Fund has begun a worldwide research and educational program that will introduce a new, emerging discipline -- world order -- into educational curricula throughout the world... and to concentrate some of its energies on bringing basic world order concepts into the mass media again on a worldwide level."

1972 -- President Nixon visits China. In his toast to Chinese Premier Chou En-lai, former CFR member and now President, Richard Nixon, expresses "the hope that each of us has to build a new world order."

May 18, 1972 -- In speaking of the coming of world government, Roy M. Ash, director of the Office of Management and Budget, declares that:

"within two decades the institutional framework for a world economic community will be in place... [and] aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to a supernational authority."

1973 -- The Trilateral Commission is established. Banker David Rockefeller organizes this new private body and chooses Zbigniew Brzezinski, later National Security Advisor to President Carter, as the Commission's first director and invites Jimmy Carter to become a founding member.

1973 -- Humanist Manifesto II is published:

"The next century can be and should be the humanistic century... we stand at the dawn of a new age... a secular society on a planetary scale.... As non-theists we begin with humans not God, nature not deity... we deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds.... Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.... The true revolution is occurring."

April, 1974 -- Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner's article The Hard Road to World Order is published in the CFR's Foreign Affairs where he states that:

"the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down... but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

1974 -- The World Conference of Religion for Peace, held in Louvain, Belgium is held. Douglas Roche presents a report entitled We Can Achieve a New World Order.

The U.N. calls for wealth redistribution: In a report entitled New International Economic Order, the U.N. General Assembly outlines a plan to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor nations.

1975 -- A study titled, A New World Order, is published by the Center of International Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Studies, Princeton University.

1975 -- In Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign A Declaration of Interdependence, written by historian Henry Steele Commager. The Declaration states that:

"we must join with others to bring forth a new world order... Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation."

Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the Declaration saying:

"It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a 'new world order' that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people."

1975 -- Retired Navy Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and former CFR member, writes in a critique that the goal of the CFR is the "submergence of U. S. sovereignty and national independence into an all powerful one-world government... "

1975 -- Kissinger on the Couch is published. Authors Phyllis Schlafly and former CFR member Chester Ward state:

"Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. government should espouse a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound, discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition... "

1976 -- RIO: Reshaping the International Order is published by the globalist Club of Rome, calling for a new international order, including an economic redistribution of wealth.

1977 -- The Third Try at World Order is published. Author Harlan Cleveland of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies calls for:

"changing Americans' attitudes and institutions" for "complete disarmament (except for international soldiers)" and "for individual entitlement to food, health and education."

1977 -- Imperial Brain Trust by Laurence Shoup and William Minter is published. The book takes a critical look at the Council on Foreign Relations with chapters such as: Shaping a New World Order: The Council's Blueprint for Global Hegemony, 1939-1944 and Toward the 1980's: The Council's Plans for a New World Order.

1977 -- The Trilateral Connection appears in the July edition of Atlantic Monthly. Written by Jeremiah Novak, it says:

"For the third time in this century, a group of American schools, businessmen, and government officials is planning to fashion a New World Order... "

1977 -- Leading educator Mortimer Adler publishes Philosopher at Large in which he says:

"... if local civil government is necessary for local civil peace, then world civil government is necessary for world peace."

1979 -- Barry Goldwater, retiring Republican Senator from Arizona, publishes his autobiography With No Apologies. He writes:

"In my view The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -- political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future."

1984 -- The Power to Lead is published. Author James McGregor Burns admits:

"The framers of the U.S. constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to 'turn the Founders upside down' -- we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected."

1985 -- Norman Cousins, the honorary chairman of Planetary Citizens for the World We Chose, is quoted in Human Events:

"World government is coming, in fact, it is inevitable. No arguments for or against it can change that fact."

Cousins was also president of the World Federalist Association, an affiliate of the World Association for World Federation (WAWF), headquartered in Amsterdam. WAWF is a leading force for world federal government and is accredited by the U.N. as a Non-Governmental Organization.

1987 -- The Secret Constitution and the Need for Constitutional Change is sponsored in part by the Rockefeller Foundation. Some thoughts of author Arthur S. Miller are:

"... a pervasive system of thought control exists in the United States... the citizenry is indoctrinated by employment of the mass media and the system of public education... people are told what to think about... the old order is crumbling... Nationalism should be seen as a dangerous social disease... A new vision is required to plan and manage the future, a global vision that will transcend national boundaries and eliminate the poison of nationalistic solutions... a new Constitution is necessary."

1988 -- Former Under-secretary of State and CFR member George Ball in a January 24 interview in the New York Times says:

"The Cold War should no longer be the kind of obsessive concern that it is. Neither side is going to attack the other deliberately... If we could internationalize by using the U.N. in conjunction with the Soviet Union, because we now no longer have to fear, in most cases, a Soviet veto, then we could begin to transform the shape of the world and might get the U.N. back to doing something useful... Sooner or later we are going to have to face restructuring our institutions so that they are not confined merely to the nation-states. Start first on a regional and ultimately you could move to a world basis."

December 7, 1988 -- In an address to the U.N., Mikhail Gorbachev calls for mutual consensus:

"World progress is only possible through a search for universal human consensus as we move forward to a new world order."

May 12, 1989 -- President Bush invites the Soviets to join World Order. Speaking to the graduating class at Texas A&M University, Mr. Bush states that the United States is ready to welcome the Soviet Union "back into the world order."

1989 -- Carl Bernstein's (Woodward and Bernstein of Watergate fame) book Loyalties: A Son's Memoir is published. His father and mother had been members of the Communist party. Bernstein's father tells his son about the book:

"You're going to prove [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy was right, because all he was saying is that the system was loaded with Communists. And he was right... I'm worried about the kind of book you're going to write and about cleaning up McCarthy. The problem is that everybody said he was a liar; you're saying he was right... I agree that the Party was a force in the country."

1990 -- The World Federalist Association faults the American press. Writing in their Summer/Fall newsletter, Deputy Director Eric Cox describes world events over the past year or two and declares:

"It's sad but true that the slow-witted American press has not grasped the significance of most of these developments. But most federalists know what is happening... And they are not frightened by the old bug-a-boo of sovereignty."

September 11, 1990 -- President Bush calls the Gulf War an opportunity for the New World Order. In an address to Congress entitled Toward a New World Order, Mr. Bush says:

"The crisis in the Persian Gulf offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times... a new world order can emerge in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.... Today the new world is struggling to be born."

September 25, 1990 -- In an address to the U.N., Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze describes Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as "an act of terrorism [that] has been perpetrated against the emerging New World Order." On December 31, Gorbachev declares that the New World Order would be ushered in by the Gulf Crisis.

October 1, 1990 -- In a U.N. address, President Bush speaks of the:

"... collective strength of the world community expressed by the U.N. ... an historic movement towards a new world order... a new partnership of nations... a time when humankind came into its own... to bring about a revolution of the spirit and the mind and begin a journey into a... new age."

1991 -- Author Linda MacRae-Campbell publishes How to Start a Revolution at Your School in the publication In Context. She promotes the use of "change agents" as "self-acknowledged revolutionaries" and "co-conspirators."

1991 -- President Bush praises the New World Order in a State of Union Message:

"What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea -- a new world order... to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind... based on shared principles and the rule of law.... The illumination of a thousand points of light.... The winds of change are with us now."

February 6, 1991 -- President Bush tells the Economic Club of New York:

"My vision of a new world order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function."

June, 1991 -- The Council on Foreign Relations co-sponsors an assembly Rethinking America's Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order which is attended by 65 prestigious members of government, labor, academia, the media, military, and the professions from nine countries. Later, several of the conference participants joined some 100 other world leaders for another closed door meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany. The Bilderbergers also exert considerable clout in determining the foreign policies of their respective governments. While at that meeting, David Rockefeller said in a speech:

"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 subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now 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."

July, 1991 -- The Southeastern World Affairs Institute discusses the New World Order. In a program, topics include, Legal Structures for a New World Order and The United Nations: From its Conception to a New World Order. Participants include a former director of the U.N.'s General Legal Division, and a former Secretary General of International Planned Parenthood.

Late July, 1991 -- On a Cable News Network program, CFR member and former CIA director Stansfield Turner (Rhodes scholar), when asked about Iraq, responded:

"We have a much bigger objective. We've got to look at the long run here. This is an example -- the situation between the United Nations and Iraq -- where the United Nations is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation... Now this is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all countries of the world... "

October 29, 1991 -- David Funderburk, former U. S. Ambassador to Romania, tells a North Carolina audience:

"George Bush has been surrounding himself with people who believe in one-world government. They believe that the Soviet system and the American system are converging." The vehicle to bring this about, said Funderburk, is the United Nations, "the majority of whose 166 member states are socialist, atheist, and anti-American."

Funderburk served as ambassador in Bucharest from 1981 to 1985, when he resigned in frustration over U.S. support of the oppressive regime of the late Rumanian dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu.

October 30, 1991: -- President Gorbachev at the Middle East Peace Talks in Madrid states:

"We are beginning to see practical support. And this is a very significant sign of the movement towards a new era, a new age... We see both in our country and elsewhere... ghosts of the old thinking... When we rid ourselves of their presence, we will be better able to move toward a new world order... relying on the relevant mechanisms of the United Nations."

Elsewhere, in Alexandria, Virginia, Elena Lenskaya, Counsellor to the Minister of Education of Russia, delivers the keynote address for a program titled, Education for a New World Order.

1992 -- The Twilight of Sovereignty by CFR member (and former Citicorp Chairman) Walter Wriston is published, in which he claims:

"A truly global economy will require ... compromises of national sovereignty... There is no escaping the system."

1992 -- The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Earth Summit takes place in Rio de Janeiro this year, headed by Conference Secretary-General Maurice Strong. The main products of this summit are the Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21, which the U.S. hesitates to sign because of opposition at home due to the threat to sovereignty and economics. The summit says the first world's wealth must be transferred to the third world.

July 20, 1992 -- Time magazine publishes The Birth of the Global Nation by Strobe Talbott, Rhodes Scholar, roommate of Bill Clinton at Oxford University, CFR Director, and Trilateralist, in which he writes:

"All countries are basically social arrangements... No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary... 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."

As an editor of Time, Talbott defended Clinton during his presidential campaign. He was appointed by President Clinton as the number two person at the State Department behind Secretary of State Warren Christopher, former Trilateralist and former CFR Vice-Chairman and Director. Talbott was confirmed by about two-thirds of the U.S. Senate despite his statement about the unimportance of national sovereignty.

September 29, 1992 -- At a town hall meeting in Los Angeles, Trilateralist and former CFR president Winston Lord delivers a speech titled Changing Our Ways: America and the New World, in which he remarks:

"To a certain extent, we are going to have to yield some of our sovereignty, which will be controversial at home... [Under] the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)... some Americans are going to be hurt as low-wage jobs are taken away."

Lord became an Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.

1992 -- President Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N said:

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

Winter, 1992-93 -- The CFR's Foreign Affairs publishes Empowering the United Nations by U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali, who asserts:

"It is undeniable that the centuries-old doctrine of absolute and exclusive sovereignty no longer stands... Underlying the rights of the individual and the rights of peoples is a dimension of universal sovereignty that resides in all humanity... It is a sense that increasingly finds expression in the gradual expansion of international law... In this setting the significance of the United Nations should be evident and accepted."

1993 -- Strobe Talbott receives the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award for his 1992 Time article, The Birth of the Global Nation and in appreciation for what he has done "for the cause of global governance." President Clinton writes a letter of congratulation which states:

"Norman Cousins worked for world peace and world government.... Strobe Talbott's lifetime achievements as a voice for global harmony have earned him this recognition... He will be a worthy recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. Best wishes... for future success."

Not only does President Clinton use the specific term, "world government," but he also expressly wishes the WFA "future success" in pursuing world federal government. Talbott proudly accepts the award, but says the WFA should have given it to the other nominee, Mikhail Gorbachev.

July 18, 1993 -- CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA:

"What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system... a first step toward a new world order."

August 23, 1993 -- Christopher Hitchens, Socialist friend of Bill Clinton when he was at Oxford University, says in a C-SPAN interview:

"... it is, of course the case that there is a ruling class in this country, and that it has allies internationally."

October 30, 1993 -- Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood does an op-ed piece about the role of the CFR's media members:

"Their membership is an acknowledgment of their ascension into the American ruling class [where] they do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it."

January/February, 1994 -- The CFR's Foreign Affairs prints an opening article by CFR Senior Fellow Michael Clough in which he writes that the "Wise Men" (e.g. Paul Nitze, Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and John J. McCloy) have:

"assiduously guarded it [American foreign policy] for the past 50 years... They ascended to power during World War II... This was as it should be. National security and the national interest, they argued must transcend the special interests and passions of the people who make up America... How was this small band of Atlantic-minded internationalists able to triumph ... Eastern internationalists were able to shape and staff the burgeoning foreign policy institutions... As long as the Cold War endured and nuclear Armageddon seemed only a missile away, the public was willing to tolerate such an undemocratic foreign policy making system."

1994 -- In the Human Development Report, published by the UN Development Program, there was a section called "Global Governance For the 21st Century". The administrator for this program was appointed by Bill Clinton. His name is James Gustave Speth. The opening sentence of the report said:

"Mankind's problems can no longer be solved by national government. What is needed is a World Government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system."

1995 -- The State of the World Forum took place in the fall of this year, sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation located at the Presidio in San Francisco. Foundation President Jim Garrison chairs the meeting of who's-whos from around the world including Margaret Thatcher, Maurice Strong, George Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev and others. Conversation centers around the oneness of mankind and the coming global government. However, the term "global governance" is now used in place of "new world order" since the latter has become a political liability, being a lightning rod for opponents of global government.

1996 -- The United Nations 420-page report Our Global Neighborhood is published. It outlines a plan for "global governance," calling for an international Conference on Global Governance in 1998 for the purpose of submitting to the world the necessary treaties and agreements for ratification by the year 2000.