Category Archives: globalism

One-world-government Walter Cronkite: ‘I’m glad to sit at the right hand of Satan’

The late CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite with the avuncular demeanor was called “the most trusted man in America”. He retired from anchoring the CBS Evening News in March 1981, succeeded by Dan “fake news” Rather.

Cronkite was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

On October 19, 1999, Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at a ceremony at the United Nations. In his speech, Cronkite declared his support and allegiance to a one-world government. He blamed the refusal of the U.S. Congress to ratify one-world-government treaties on “a handful” of obdurate senators who “pander” to the Christian Coalition and the “religious right wing”.

Identifying Pat Robertson as the leader of the Christian Coalition, Cronkite quoted Robertson, that “any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil.” Cronkite then mocked Robertson by declaring, “I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.”

Below are two videos of Cronkite’s remarks, followed by my transcription of his words.

Introduced by a speaker declaring that a one “world government is the structure necessary for global justice,” Cronkite said:

I’m in a position to speak my mind and, by god, I’m going to do it. (Audience laugh uproariously)

First, we Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That’s going to be for many a bitter pill.

Today, we must develop federal structures on a global level to deal with world problems. We need a system of enforceable world law, a democratic federal world government. Most important, we should sign and ratify the treaty for a permanent international criminal court. That is now at the core of the world federalist movement’s drive. That court will enable the world to hold individuals accountable for their crimes against humanity.

And the third point: Just consider if you will, after 55 years, the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision-making at the UN. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system in the General Assembly.

Some of you may ask, although I think most of you know the answer, why the Senate is not ratifying these important treaties, and why the Congress is not even paying UN dues, even as with the American rejection, so many years now, the League of Nations after World War I.

Our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written in a book a few years ago that we should have a world government but only when the Messiah arrives. (Derisive laughs from the audience.) He (Robertson) wrote, “Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil.”

Well, join me. I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan. (Audience applause)

Curiously, the version of Cronkite’s 1999 speech on the website of Renew America, an organization founded by Alan Keyes, leaves out Cronkite’s “right hand of Satan” declaration.

From LifeSiteNews:

[U]p until his death Cronkite served as honorary chair of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization dedicated to countering the influence of conservative Christianity on federal politics.  In 2007, the Alliance initiated a campaign to force Christianity out of the public sphere by promoting policies that would silence the Christian voice…[and the banning of] faith-based schools….

Part and parcel with Cronkite’s campaign against religion in public life was his outspoken vocal support of abortion and same-sex marriage.

Walter Cronkite died on July 17, 2009, ten years after his “I’m glad to sit at the right hand of Satan” speech. May he, like Saul Alinsky and Fidel Castro, be granted his wish.

H/t FOTM‘s greenworxx

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Red-Green axis is on fire in Connecticut.

 From trevorloudon.com, a graphic flier exposes the cozy relationship between Connecticut legislators and eight organizations that support extreme-left-wing and/or Islamic interests.

The organizations include:

  • Muslim Brotherhood (via CAIR and other organizations)
  • Communist Party USA
  • Democratic Socialists of America
  • Progressive Democrats of America
  • Alliance for Retired Americans
  • Council for a Livable World
  • AFSME, SEIU, AFL-CIO
  • Working Families Party

Legislators are listed with the committees they serve, so readers can understand the full gravity of the situation.

 Treacherous associations. The big shocker is that all of Connecticut’s finest collude with, promote or are supported by the Communist Party USA.

And all but one (Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro) is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Congressman Jim Himes gets the anti-trophy for his alliance with all of the organizations. All of the legislators are on good terms with at least five of them.

The back of the flier includes links to youtube videos and other sources. For instance, you can view Senator Richard Blumenthal speaking at a 2011 CAIR-CT banquet here.

In case someone doesn’t get the implications, the flier explains:

“The “Red-Green Axis” is the unholy alliance between Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy America. Both seek to destroy America’s government but for different reasons. Where the Muslim Brotherhood aims to institute an Islamic, Sharia-ruled government through “Civilization Jihad,” the Communists/Progressives/Socialists seek to establish a totalitarian, Marxist government.”

The flier also provides helpful educational links. Nice work!

~C.

(Flier posted with permission.)

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

George W. Bush’s love-fest with Michelle ‘Big Mike’ Obama

In July 2010, in an article in the American Spectator, “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution,” Boston University Professor Emeritus made the trenchant observation that the real divide in America is not so much between liberals and conservatives as between the bipartisan political ruling class vs. the American people.

Whereas the majority of the American people are religious (Christians) and patriotic, the bipartisan “regime class” — stripped of their lip-service rhetoric — are irreligious, arrogant and contemptuous of the American people, and love neither America nor her people.

Read an excerpt of Codevilla’s long article here.

We saw another display of that bipartisan ruling class at RINO Sen. John McCain’s funeral on September 1, when former president George W. Bush, 72, behaving like an impish schoolboy, snuck a piece of candy to a beaming Michelle “Big Mike” Obama, as their respective spouses, Barack and Laura, smiled indulgently.

Who knew that a funeral is an occasion for jovial frivolity?

Wes Walker of Clash Daily points out this isn’t the first time George W. was cozy with Big Mike:

(1) Big Mike hugs George W. during the inauguration of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, September 24, 2016:

(2) George W. kisses Big Mike, then the two hold hands and sing to one another at a memorial service for five slain police officers in Dallas, July 16, 2016:

And what was Big Mike doing with his hands in the laps of Barack and George W., as all three and Laura Bush grin as if they’re in on some private joke? What was so amusing at a memorial service for slain police officers?

Wes Walker observes:

Dubya must have finally paid off his Progressive Penance by opposing Trump’s nomination. Because it wasn’t so long ago that he was a racist, war criminal and literally Hitler.

For eight long years, the Obamas didn’t have a single nice thing to say about Bush. And now they’re best buds? He must not be the world’s most hated racist anymore.

Maybe it had something to do with Bush having joined the #Resistance.

George W.’s coziness with Michelle O. has not gone unnoticed.

Donald Francis Draper tweeted:

That tweet elicited these hilarious responses:

Michael L Arnold: “Bush gives Michelle a big boner”

Heather Terveld: “He likes men.”

NoMoreWhoresDC: “Broke Back Bush and the Tranny”

Ole George W. must have a thing for swinging nuts.

See also:

H/t Kelleigh

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Supreme Court opens floodgates to voting by illegals

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/06/18/supreme-court-opens-the-floodgate-to-voting-by-illegals/  Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:45:22 +0000  eowyn2

Nearly everywhere else around the world, voters are required to show their ID when registering to vote. This is essential to the integrity of elections because without voter ID, the door is open for massive voter fraud.

But not in the United States of America where, on May 20, 1993, then President Bill Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (aka the Motor Voter Act) into law. Before that, the bill had been approved 259 vs. 160 by the House of Reps., and by the Senate 62 vs. 37.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections.  The form, which was developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant say, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. In other words, no proof of U.S. citizenship is required to vote long as you say you’re one.

Yesterday, in the case of Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of voting by non-citizens.

SCOTUS betrayersHeads circles in red are the 7 justices who ruled against requiring  proof of US citizenship to vote. L to r: Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Uncircled are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

As reported by David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2013:

The Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law [Proposition 200] Monday and by a surprisingly lopsided vote, ruling state officials may not demand a proof of citizenship from residents who register to vote.

The 7-2 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia [et tu, Scalia?] said this “proof of citizenship” requirement conflicts with the national Motor Voter Act. The measure said states must “accept and use” a simple registration form when filled out by residents who are registering to vote.

Scalia insists on closely following the words of the law, and in this instance, the words of the federal measure were clear in their meaning, he said. As written, the Motor Voter Act “forbids states to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the federal form,” he said.

The Supreme Court ruling was a very lopsided 7-2 vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being the only two dissenters.

Justice Thomas writes, in his dissenting opinion:

(see Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., beginning p. 25):

“I do not agree, and I think that both the plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. To avoid substantial constitutional problems created by interpreting §1973gg–4(a)(1) to permit Congress to effectively countermand this authority, I would construe the [Motor Voter or National Voter Registration] law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the State free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish. Under this interpretation, Arizona did “accept and use” the federal form. Accordingly, there is no conflict between Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F) (West Cum. Supp. 2012) and §1973gg–4(a)(1) and, thus, no pre-emption. […]

Arizona has had a citizenship requirement for voting since it became a State in 1912. See Ariz. Const., Art. VII, §2. […]  In Arizona’s view, it “accepts and uses” the federal form in the same way that an airline “accepts and uses” electronic tickets but also requires an individual seeking to board a plane to demonstrate that he is the person named on the ticket. […]

The Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, provides that “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature” in elections for the federal House of Representatives. The Seventeenth Amendment, which provides for direct election of Senators, contains an identical clause. That language is susceptible of only one interpretation: States have the authority “to control who may vote in congressional elections” so long as they do not “establish special  requirements that do not apply in elections for the state legislature.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 864–865 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also The Federalist No. 57, p. 349 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (J.  Madison) (“The electors . . . are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State”).  Congress has no role in setting voter qualifications, or determining whether they are satisfied, aside from the powers conferred by the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which are not at issue here. This power is instead expressly reposed in the States.

The history of the Voter Qualifications Clause’s enactment confirms this conclusion. The Framers did not intend to leave voter qualifications to Congress. Indeed, James Madison explicitly rejected that possibility:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52, at 323 (emphasis added).

Congressional legislation of voter qualifications was not part of the Framers’ design. […]

Both text and history confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. The United States nevertheless argues that Congress has the authority under Article I, §4, “to set the rules for voter registration in federal elections.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (hereafter Brief for United States).

Neither the text nor the original understanding of Article I, §4, supports that position.”

Mike Adams of Natural News correctly calls the Supreme Court decision as “You need ID to buy beer, but not to register to vote,” and that the ruling “all but openly endorses widespread voter registration fraud” — fraud that already was pandemic in the 2012 election. He concludes:

“With these two plans — widespread voter fraud and the instant citizenship of 11 million undocumented immigrants — democrats may very well be able to continue to hold power in Washington as they drive America into complete financial bankruptcy. But they don’t care about the long-term impact of their actions. The only thing that matters to them is to stay in power and keep milking the system for as long as possible before total economic collapse arrives.”

Just remember as things get worse and worse in America, it was the Supreme Court, with the exception of Justices Thomas and Alito, who had helped make it all possible.

I weep for my country.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Trump has globalists in a panic: U2’s Bono says existence of UN, EU & NATO are threatened

If we go by international puppeteer Jacob Rothschild, the globalists’ dream of a one-world order would have been realized this year. (See “30 years ago, Jacob Rothschild predicted a global currency by 2018“)

But “deplorable” Americans threw a wrench into their scheme by electing Donald Trump as President in 2016, and President Trump’s standing up for America’s national interests now has globalists in a panic.

Now, a prominent globalist activist, Irish rock star and U2 lead vocalist Bono (real name Paul Hewson), is sounding the alarm that the very existence of international bodies such as the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and World Trade Organization (WTO) is in peril.

Edith Lederer reports for the Associated Press that during an event on July 2, 2018, to launch Ireland’s candidacy for a seat on the UN’s powerful Security Council, Bono delivered a “sobering” speech to several hundred U.N. diplomats and staff, warning that the United Nations and other international institutions including the European Union and NATO are under threat, and urged nations to work together to ensure their continued existence.

While Bono didn’t name any countries responsible for threatening global institutions during these “troubled times,” his words appeared clearly aimed at U.S. President Donald Trump, who has criticized the EU and NATO. Bono cited Trump’s pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, and taking aim at the World Trade Organization with new U.S. tariffs.

You should know that this is the same Bono, 58, who is widely praised and lauded and given awards as a philanthropist, but whose anti-poverty ONE foundation gave only 1.2% of its funds to charity.

The Daily Mail reports on Sept. 23, 2010, that the non-profit ONE organization, co-founded by spokesman Bono in 2004, received almost £9.6 million ($12.58 million) in donations in 2008 but handed out only 1.2% of the donations (£118,000 or $154,620) to charity causes.

Instead, ONE spent more than 51% of it donations (£5.1 million or $6.68 million) on salaries to its staff of 120. ONE also funded high-profile, celebrity-supported events “to fight poverty in Africa and AIDS worldwide”. ONE said it took no money from the public and that most of its funding came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Writing in the New York Post, Paula Froelich calls Bono a hypocrite:

Over the years, it has often been shown that what Bono says and what he does are two different things. In 2007, U2 moved part of its multi-million dollar song catalogue from Ireland to Amsterdam just as their homeland ended a tax exemption on music royalties, to take advantage of the Netherlands’ low to non-existent tax rates for musicians.

Fine — except in the ensuing years Bono (and his charity One) earned kudos for insisting countries, corporations and people pay taxes in pursuit of a fairer society. In 2011, Bono, 57, who, according to CNN has an estimated net worth of $590 million, further angered his countrymen when he espoused the values of Ireland’s 12.5 percent corporate tax breaks. He went on the record to claim that these breaks for multi-billion dollar companies had brought Ireland the “only prosperity we’ve ever known.” He had a point, but as the locals noted, Bono wasn’t even giving the country a meager 12.5 percent any longer.

In defending his tax position, Bono told Sky News that just because he had campaigned for a fairer society did not mean he had to be “stupid” in business.

Then, in 2015, Bono’s One Campaign repeatedly called for more transparency on the ownership of “shell companies” and offshore trusts, decrying the effect of lost tax revenues on developing economies. A spokesperson for One said, “Anonymous shell companies and trusts [are] often being used to siphon much-needed funds out of developed and developing countries alike,” and claimed these companies cost the Third World the staggering sum of “a trillion dollars each year.”

So, last week, when it was revealed in a trove of leaked documents that Bono himself was a partner in one of these shady companies, the hypocrisy stank.

The so-called “Paradise Papers,” which belonged to an offshore tax haven, showed that Bono had formed a company with two Irish businessmen based in the low-tax island of Malta and bought part of a shopping mall in Lithuania, thus eluding the international taxmen….

Meanwhile, Bono repeatedly falls back on the work of One and his messianic campaign to save Africa as his failsafe excuse for any perceived bad behavior…. [But a] person who worked closely with One for years and has intimate knowledge of the organization told me that the charity is “strictly an advocacy group which tries to influence or shame African governments into behaving” and that not one dollar donated to One goes to real “boots on the ground” help….

All the while, he [Bono] is rewarded by a sycophantic media honoring his every utterance with a magazine cover or an accolade.

God bless our President Donald John Trump!

Please keep him in your prayers.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

30 years ago, Jacob Rothschild predicted a global currency by 2018

On March 6, 1991, in a speech to Congress then-President George H. W Bush famously and very prematurely declared the beginning of a “new world order” following the Gulf War — the U.S.-led expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait:

“Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order…. A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”


Three years before in 1988, in an essay in The Economist (which is partly owned by the Rothschild family), Lord Jacob Rothschild, now 82, predicted that in 2018 the world would be united under a single currency, the phoenix.
Under the global monetary union, called the “phoenix zone,” administered by a global central bank, national economic boundaries would dissolve. “Tight constraints” would be imposed on national governments, and there would be no national monetary policy. In effect, nation-states would lose their economic sovereignty, supplanted by a global government — a new world order — in fact if not in name.

Thanks to The Free Thought Project, below is an excerpt from Jacob Rothschild’s article, “Ready for the Phoenix,” The Economist, January 9, 1988, pp. 9-10.

Ready for the Phoenix
Thirty years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.
The New World Economy
The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.…
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments.In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.…
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.

Writing for The Free Thought Project, Jay Syrmopoulos points out:

[I]t must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives….
Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.

Of course, since it is 2018, we now know that Jacob Rothschild’s prediction of 30 years ago did not come true, thanks to the Revolt of the Deplorables who, in 2016, elected a man named Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, whose campaign promise is to “make America great again” by putting America’s national interests first, which got him eternal enmity from the globalists.
Trump did exactly that in the just-concluded G-7 Summit in Toronto, Canada, in which he fought for fairer trade agreements for the United States, instead of continue the massive trade imbalances and deficits of previous U.S. presidents — to howls from our supposed French, German and Canadian “allies”.

See “Trump won’t endorse G7 statement,” New York Post, June 9, 2018.

God bless President Trump, the wrench in the Rothschilds’ and other globalists’ machinations for a one-world government!

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Why is Vatican secretary of state at 2018 Bilderberg Conference?

The secretive and elitist Bilderberg group are meeting (June 7-10) as we speak at the NH Lingotto hotel in Turin, Italy.
According to RT’s Adrian Salbuchi, Bilderberg is a key group within the Global Power Network — organizations, clubs, lobbies and groups sharing common economic, financial, social and (geo)political objectives in the Globalist Agenda. The Network includes the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (long-term geopolitical planners), its London-based sister entity Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka “Chatham House”), RAND Corp., CSIS, the American Enterprise Institute (strategic affairs specialists), Tavistock Institute in London (mass psychology research), the Carnegie Endowment, and the Trilateral Commission “umbrella” entity (founded in 1973 by Rockefeller / Morgan / Rothschild interests, geared to coordinating the Americas, Europe and the East). These think-tanks in turn interact with consultancies like Kissinger Associates, The Carlyle Group (specializing in oil strategies and having the Bush, Bin Laden and Baker families as key shareholders), and Trilateralist Claus Schwab’s World Economic Forum.
The Bilderberg group is neither an organization nor a lobby: Its only activity is its annual conference, described on its official website as:

Since its inaugural meeting in 1954, Bilderberg has been an annual forum for informal discussions, designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the meeting. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields. The meeting is a forum for informal discussions about megatrends and major issues facing the world. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the meeting, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.

Note that “religion” is not among the groups represented at the annual Bilderberg meetings.
So it is most curious that the attendants at this year’s Bilderberg conference include the Secretary of State of the Vatican, Cardinal Pietro Parolin — as indicated in the meeting’s list of participants. The Vatican is the papal government of the Catholic Church.
No other religious group was invited — no Protestant or Muslim or Buddhist or . . . . Nor, to my knowledge, has an official of a religious group ever been a participant at Bilderberg meetings.

Norvos Ordo Watch points out that as the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin is Pope Francis’ right-hand man, second only to Francis in terms of importance and influence in the Vatican.
This is the first time, as far as we know, that an official of the Catholic Church has been invited to participate in a Bilderberg meeting. In a post covering this news story, Leo Zagami writes that “some say [Parolin] will deliver a secret message written by Pope Francis to his minions”.
This year’s Bilderberg Conference includes these U.S. participants:

  1. Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
  2. Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense
  3. Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  4. Burwell, Sylvia M. (USA), President, American University
  5. Cohen, Jared (USA), Founder and CEO, Jigsaw at Alphabet Inc.
  6. Cook, Charles (USA), Political Analyst, The Cook Political Report
  7. Fallows, James (USA), Writer and Journalist
  8. Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA
  9. Ferguson, Niall (USA), Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
  10. Fischer, Stanley (USA), Former Vice-Chairman, Federal Reserve; Former Governor, Bank of Israel
  11. Goldstein, Rebecca (USA), Visiting Professor, New York University
  12. Hickenlooper, John (USA), Governor of Colorado
  13. Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
  14. Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn; Partner, Greylock Partners
  15. Horowitz, Michael C. (USA), Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
  16. Hwang, Tim (USA), Director, Harvard-MIT Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative
  17. Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard
  18. Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
  19. Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.
  20. Kleinfeld, Klaus (USA), CEO, NEOM
  21. Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University
  22. Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, KKR
  23. Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg
  24. Makan, Divesh (USA), CEO, ICONIQ Capital
  25. Mead, Walter Russell (USA), Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
  26. Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
  27. Moyo, Dambisa F. (USA), Global Economist and Author
  28. Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
  29. Neven, Hartmut (USA), Director of Engineering, Google Inc.
  30. Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author and Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
  31. Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute
  32. ring, Benjamin (USA), Co-Founder and Managing Director, Center for the Future of Work
  33. Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chairman Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Treasury Secretary
  34. Sadjadpour, Karim (USA), Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  35. Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy
  36. Summers, Lawrence H. (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
  37. Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
  38. Turpin, Matthew (USA), Director for China, National Security Council

H/t FOTM‘s stlonginus
See also:

Update (June 10):

This video by Truthstream Media says this year’s Bilderberg is a harbinger of war:

H/t FOTM‘s Stovepipe
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Europe commits suicide: Explosive increase in rapes and HIV from Muslim migrants

Europe is committing demographic and cultural suicide by opening their doors to the flood of Muslim “refugees” and “migrants” from the Middle East and North Africa. See:

Now, new and startling statistics reinforce the suicide observation.

Sweden

10 News reports, July 8, 2017, that rapes in Sweden have soared since the country began taking in large numbers of Muslim migrants and refugees. New data from Sweden’s national bureau for statistics, BRÅ, shows that:

  • The number of rapes increased 14% in just one year: 3,430 rapes were reported during the first six months of 2017, an increase of 14% compared to the previous half-year.
  • In all, 9,680 sexual crimes (which include rapes) were committed from January to June of 2017. The real number of sexual crimes is likely much higher because according to a 2013 BRÅ report, only 23% of sexual crimes in Sweden are reported, which means that the real number of sex crimes in the first half of 2017 more likely is 42,000.
  • Migrants and refugees commit 92% of all violent rapes and 100% of all stranger rapes (where victim and attacker had no previous contact).
  • 9 of the top 10 countries-of-origin of rapists are Islamic: Iraq (which accounts for most rapists), Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, Syria, Gambia, Iran, Palestine, Chile and Kosovo. Only one of the top ten is non-Islamic — Chile.
  • Migrants and refugees from Afghanistan are 79 times more likely to commit rape than Swedes.
  • Most alarmingly, victims of rape and other sexual crimes are not just women, but include children. According to BRÅ, 43% of rape victims are children.

Instead of curtailing Muslim immigration and deporting criminal Muslims, Sweden instead is curtailing the liberties of their women. A Swedish survey found that over the past year:

  • 34% of Swedish women, out of fear of abuse, have chosen to take an alternative route or another means of transportation.
  • 12% say they have stayed home from something they otherwise planned because they were afraid.
  • 23% find that their quality of life is affected by increased insecurity, up from 13% the year before.
  • Music festivals are now planning gender separated events, just like in Islamic countries.

In a recent tweet, independent Swedish journalist “Peter Sweden” also alerts us to an explosive increase in the rate of HIV infection.
According to the Swedish state institute for public health, the number of HIV cases increased 270% in ten years — from 1,684 cases in 2006 to 6,273 in 2016. “Migrants” account for a whopping 85% of those infected with HIV.

10 News observes that “The same pattern is seen all over Western Europe, and in many places, it has an impact on demographics in public spaces. Just like in Islamic countries, many countries with a high number of Muslim migrants have fewer women than men on the streets.”

Denmark

10 News reports, Nov. 27, 2017, that according to statistics from the Danish state bureau of statistics, Danmarks Statistik, in just two years since the summer of 2015, the number of reported rapes has increased 232%. That figure likely is much higher because, according to a government report, “many rapes are not reported”.

Germany

Fear of being sexually assaulted or raped also is curtailing German women’s liberties. According to surveys:

  • 44% of German women believe their personal security is threatened by immigration from “Islamic countries”.
  • 48% say that they are afraid of walking in certain areas in their own neighborhood.
  •  Borwin Bandelow, Professor of Psychiatry at Göttingen University, believes the women’s fears are “well-founded”.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Secret document kept truth about EU membership from Brits for 50 years

For 50 years, the British people were not told the truth of what their country’s membership in the European Community actually entails.
That’s the explicit instruction in a document known as FCO30/1048, dated April 1971, which had been locked away as “classified” under UK’s Official Secrets Act for almost 50 years, but is now declassified under the 30-year rule.
The document instructed the UK government to keep the British public in the dark about what membership in the European Economic Community (EEC) means, and predicted that by the time voters realize what was happening in about 30 years, it would be too late for the UK to leave.

Note: The European Economic Community (EEC), aka European Common Market, was the precursor to and renamed the European Union (EU) in 2009.

Lara Deauville reports for The Express, Nov. 24, 2017, that document FCO30/1048, authored by an unnamed senior civil servant, was prepared for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath‘s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
Shockingly, almost all of FCO30/1048‘s predictions have come true — from the loss of British sovereignty, to economic-monetary-fiscal union with a common foreign and defense policy, and the over-arching powers of European courts.
FCO30/1048‘s author predicted that “Community law” would take precedence over British courts; that ever more power would pass away from the British Parliament to the European administrative center in Brussels, Belgium; and that the increased role of Brussels in the lives of the British people would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from Government”.
In effect, EEC/EU membership was the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty since the Norman conquest of England in 1066.
FCO30/1048 instructed UK politicians “not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures… to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community,” and to preserve the impression that London was still calling the shots rather than an unelected body of foreign politicians. The document also correctly predicted the ruse would last “for this century at least” – by which time Britain would be so completely chained to Brussels it would be impossible to leave.
Christopher Booker, a writer and journalist who is a founder of the satirical magazine Private Eye, said about the author of the insidious document FCO30/1048:

“Here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials. One way to create an illusion that this system was still democratic, this anonymous mandarin suggested, would be to give people the chance to vote for new representatives at European, regional and local levels. A few years later, we saw the creation of an elected European Parliament – as we see today a craze for introducing elected mayors, as meaningless local figureheads.”

Annabelle Sanderson, a Brexit expert and former advisor to Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) from  2006 to 2009 and again from 2010 to 2016, said:

“Despite all the claims from politicians of many parties that the EU was not about becoming a central state this 1971 document shows that is exactly what the plan was. Arch Remoaners from Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories need to check this out and ask themselves why they are MPs if they don’t actually want Westminster to be in charge of this country. We voted for Brexit what needs to happen is a proper clean break from Brussels so we can once again become a sovereign nation with money being spent in this country on services we need and have Parliament and courts making and ruling on the laws.”

Born into a lower middle-class family, life-long bachelor Edward Heath was leader of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1975, and became Sir Edward Heath in 1992.

In 2015, ten years after his death at age 89 in 2005, Heath was named in several police investigations into historical child sex abuse and satanic ritual abuse. Detectives said if he were alive, Heath would have been interviewed “under caution” in relation to seven out of 42 allegations, including the alleged rape of an 11-year-old, but that nothing should be inferred about his guilt or innocence.

Document FCO30/1048 in PDF format can be downloaded here.
See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Neo-con Bill Kristol's mask comes off; admits he's socialist & liberal


There is a fumigation — a disinfection of America — going on.
Can you feel it?:

  • Every day, creeps like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Charlie Rose are being outed and banished from Hollywood and the MSM.
  • Human traffickers and pedophiles are being arrested at a number that dwarfs the years of Obama.
  • Enraged by the election of Donald John Trump to the presidency, the Left are apoplectic and are abandoning all pretenses. Many have stripped off their masks, revealing their true faces, like “comedienne” Kathy Griffin when she held a mock-up of President Trump’s decapitated head.


It’s like our opponents have taken the truth serum: they just can’t help outing themselves.
The latest to out himself is the neo, i.e., faux conservative Bill Kristol, founder and editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard — the never Trumper who:

Yesterday, Kristol finally stripped off his mask, admitting that he’s a socialist and a liberal. He tweeted:

Kristol’s fellow liberals certainly recognize one of their own and greeted his tweet with elation. Some examples:

Bongmaster: “Embrace it Bill. Embrace humanity.”
NYC118: “Come into the light!”
Michael Rowland: “I didn’t agree with you about basically anything until 2016. Now I follow your stuff constantly.”
The Man in Black: “Welcome to the world of all Democrats that have started following you on Twitter since Orange Caligula became the GOP nominee.”

But the choicest reactions to Kristol’s self-unmasking are from the Deplorables:

Pol0tix: “You are becoming the jackass we always suspected you really were!”
Tj Kansler: “You’ve lost your mind and your moral compass.”
American Real News: “Kristol is a prototypical RINO. They believe in nothing so they fall for everything.”
Mamie Love: “The entire right has rejected you, an inauthentic neocon, so you now have to play to the left to keep your taxpayer-funded country club lifestyle intact.”
Noni: “What’s happening is that Trump’s election is exposing all your Globalist freaks who were pretending to be Conservatives; this election has brought out the inner Loon of you & your NeverTrumper buddies.”
Tim Parton: “You’ve never been for the people, traitor.”

My favorite:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0