Tag Archive | "Jimmy Carter"

Findings & Forecasts 10/17/2012

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Obama and the Tri­lat­eral Commission

Since Jimmy Carter in 1976, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion has exe­cuted a hege­mony over each Admin­is­tra­tion, using their power and influ­ence to fur­ther their own narrow, self-interested goals. The first Obama admin­is­tra­tion was no dif­ferent. As I wrote in Obama: Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion Endgame,

For anyone who doubts the Commission’s con­tin­uing influ­ence on Obama, con­sider that he has already appointed no less than eleven mem­bers of the Com­mis­sion to top-level and key posi­tions in his Administration.

According to offi­cial Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship lists, there are only 87 mem­bers from the United States (the other 337 mem­bers are from other regions). Thus, in less than two weeks since his inau­gu­ra­tion, Obama’s appoint­ments encom­pass more than 12% of Commission’s entire U.S. membership.

Is this a mere coin­ci­dence or is it a con­tin­u­a­tion of dom­i­nance over the Exec­u­tive Branch since 1976? (For impor­tant back­ground, read The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion: Usurping Sov­er­eignty.)

  • Sec­re­tary of Trea­sury, Tim Gei­thner
  • Ambas­sador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
  • National Secu­rity Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones
  • Deputy National Secu­rity Advisor, Thomas Donilon
  • Chairman, Eco­nomic Recovery Com­mittee, Paul Volker
  • Director of National Intel­li­gence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair
  • Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State, Asia & Pacific,  Kurt M. Campbell
  • Deputy Sec­re­tary of State, James Stein­berg
  • State Depart­ment, Spe­cial Envoy, Richard Haass
  • State Depart­ment, Spe­cial Envoy, Dennis Ross
  • State Depart­ment, Spe­cial Envoy, Richard Hol­brooke

There are many other inci­dental links to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, for instance,

Sec­re­tary of State Hillary Clinton is mar­ried to Com­mis­sion member William Jef­ferson Clinton.

Gei­thner‘s informal group of advi­sers include E. Gerald Cor­rigan, Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan and Peter G. Peterson, among others. His first job after col­lege was with Henry Kissinger at Kissinger Associates.

Brent Scow­croft has been an unof­fi­cial adviser to Obama and was mentor to Defense Sec­re­tary Robert Gates.

Robert Zoelick is cur­rently pres­i­dent of the World Bank

Lau­rence Sum­mers, White House Eco­nomic Adviser, was men­tored by former Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration.

There are many other such links, but these are enough for you to get the idea of what’s going on here.

Ana­lyze the positions

Notice that five of the Tri­lat­eral appointees involve the State Depart­ment, where for­eign policy is cre­ated and imple­mented. Hillary Clinton is cer­tainly in line with these poli­cies because her hus­band, Bill Clinton, is also a member.

What is more impor­tant than eco­nomic recovery? Paul Volker is the answer.

What is more impor­tant than national intel­li­gence? Gen. James Jones, Thomas Donilon and Adm. Dennis Blair hold the top three positions.

What is more impor­tant than the Trea­sury and the saving of our finan­cial system? Tim­othy Gei­thner says he has the answers.

The State Depart­ment is vir­tu­ally dom­i­nated by Tri­lat­erals: Kurt Camp­bell, James Stein­berg, Richard Haass, Dennis Ross and Richard Hol­brooke.

This leaves Susan Rice, Ambas­sador to the United Nations. The U.N. is the chosen instru­ment for ulti­mate global gov­er­nance. Rice will help to sub­vert the U.S. into the U.N. umbrella of vassal states.

As the First Obama term draws to a close, it is worth noting that our for­eign policy is in total sham­bles, national intel­li­gence appears to be worse than it was prior to 9/11 and the economy is still depressed. Yet, these areas were the ones tar­geted for Tri­lat­eral hege­mony, for “experts” who osten­sibly know more than anyone else. In Europe, these people would be prop­erly labeled as “technocrats.”

In a recent video inter­view with Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC (Fed­eral Deposit Insur­ance Cor­po­ra­tion), she was point­edly asked “Why do you think he (Obama) chose (Trea­sury) Sec­re­tary Gei­thner?” Bair answered, “I assume this was a rec­om­men­da­tion of former Sec­re­tary Rubin who had been actively involved in the cam­paign. Most of his nom­i­nees were drawn from the Rubin Trea­sury department.”

Robert Rubin, a promi­nent member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, served as Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury for 8 years under the Clinton/Gore Administration.

A person can hammer all he wants on the Obama char­acter and record, but his energy would be wasted. Obama is a puppet on a string, an empty suit, a teleprompter junkie reading speeches he could not and did not write. How­ever, locating the puppet-masters is not dif­fi­cult: They have been in plain sight all along.

Repub­li­cans take note: If you think that a vote for Romney will be a vote against Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion hege­mony, you are wrong. They are already sur­rounding him just as they sur­rounded Obama. A Romney pres­i­dency will only extend the Tri­lat­eral con­tinuum for another four years, and allow them more time to create/complete their “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” that they have been pushing since 1973.

The Battle for GMO Foods: CA Prop 37

Cal­i­fornia cit­i­zens are waging a lop-sided war against genet­i­cally mod­i­fied food by asking for food labels that list GMO com­po­nents and per­cent­ages. I haven’t talked to any person who doesn’t want to know which foods con­tain GMO elements.

The global GMO industry thinks oth­er­wise, and the finan­cial war chest is swelling with money from donors such as Mon­santo ($7.1 mil­lion), Dupont ($4.9 mil­lion), BASF Plant Sci­ence ($2 mil­lion), Bayer Crop­science ($2 mil­lion), Dow Agro­sciences ($2 mil­lion), Pep­sico ($1.7 mil­lion),  Nestle USA ($1.1 mil­lion), Coca Cola ($1.1 mil­lion), Conagra Foods ($1 mil­lion) and Syn­genta Corp ($1 million).

These are the com­pa­nies who make GMO seeds (Mon­santo, Bayer, Dupont, BASF, Dow, Syn­genta) and those who use their prod­ucts (e.g., high-fructose corn syrup) by the mil­lions of tons per year (Pep­sico, Coca Cola, Nestle, etc.) High-fructose corn syrup is made from mostly GMO  corn, which rep­re­sents over 80 per­cent of the U.S. corn crop.

There are mul­tiple dan­gers and risks with GMO crops, including corn, that have led to con­sumer blow-back. Many coun­tries have out­right bans on growing GMO crops, such as France, Hun­gary and Japan.  It’s no wonder that the GMO industry is freaked out that people in Cal­i­fornia should have a choice to eat GMO or not because they would lose a ton of revenue.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 09/05/2012

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Global Economy

While all eyes in America focus on the Pres­i­den­tial elec­tion coming up in November, the global economy con­tinues to dete­ri­o­rate.  Our own economy is still in the longest recovery cycle from the great reces­sion since the Great Depres­sion, and shows many signs of deterioration.

One simply cannot look at the U.S. economy as if it oper­ates in a vacuum. Whether we like it or not, the global elite has pushed the con­cept of inter­de­pen­dence for almost 40 years, to the point that it is now a reality. The process of glob­al­iza­tion has inte­grated the economies of the world by tearing down national trade bar­riers such as tar­iffs and import quotas, through trade treaties and orga­ni­za­tions like the World Trade Organization.

Inter­de­pen­dence was orig­i­nally a false notion; now it is an ugly reality, because it means we are fully exposed to all the trou­bles expe­ri­enced by the rest of the world. What hap­pens in China, Japan and South Korea directly impacts the U.S. The eco­nomic and cur­rency crisis in Europe is a direct threat to our own economy.

I have long studied and cri­tiqued the elite Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, its poli­cies and it’s mem­bers for being the prime insti­gator of modern eco­nomic glob­al­iza­tion. Since many of those papers are pub­lished on this site, I will not restate them here. I would remind you, how­ever, that Com­mis­sion mem­bers cap­tured the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment upon the elec­tion of James Earl Carter in 1976. Carter was a member of the Com­mis­sion, being hand picked and trained by the TC founder, Zbig­niew Brzezinski. Carter appointed almost 30 per­cent of U.S. Com­mis­sion mem­bers to his Cab­inet and other high-ranking positions.

Ever since, each suc­ces­sive Admin­is­tra­tion has been packed with Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers, including the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion. As far as trade policy is con­cerned, being Repub­lican or Demo­crat has made zero dif­fer­ence: They have “owned” both par­ties and have used each suc­ces­sive Admin­is­tra­tion to fur­ther their own agenda of a “New World Order”, as Tri­lat­eral George H. W. Bush put it.

What people don’t grasp is that a New World Order means that the Old World Order is tar­geted for destruc­tion. They want to level the playing field throughout the world. Why should you get $25 per hour when a Chi­nese is willing to work for $25 per day? This is why entire man­u­fac­turing indus­tries have moved to China, India, Mexico, etc. This is why entire ser­vice indus­tries have moved to India and Malaysia.

Don’t blame Democ­rats of Repub­li­cans for our eco­nomic woes. Look higher to those pur­veyors of glob­al­iza­tion who have sys­tem­at­i­cally dis­rupted our domestic eco­nomic and polit­ical sys­tems.  These are the ones pulling the strings of both polit­ical par­ties. Fur­ther­more, they are safe and secure as long as the par­ties con­tinue to make war on each other. If there weren’t enough divi­sive­ness already, they would esca­late the battle by throwing another meaty bone to the dog pack.

It would be a won­derful day for America if Democ­rats, Repub­li­cans and Inde­pen­dents stopped fighting and focused on this rel­a­tively small group of elit­ists to drive them out of our polit­ical and eco­nomic affairs. Without these inva­sive par­a­sites, our system might have a chance to work prop­erly again.

How­ever, the battle con­tinues at a higher tem­per­a­ture  and more highly rad­i­cal­ized with every passing week. Hate is con­ta­gious and spreads like a virus that induces blind­ness to all ratio­nality. Most impor­tantly, it cloaks the per­pe­tra­tors, giving them a free pass to con­tinue their plunder.

The World Eco­nomic Forum (WEF) just released its Global Com­pet­i­tive­ness Report 2012 – 2013 that shows the U.S. drop­ping for the fourth year in a row to 7th place. Being a major driver of glob­al­iza­tion, the WEF under­scores the impor­tance of com­pet­i­tive­ness to eco­nomic recovery. Thus, they reason, the U.S.‘s lack of Free Trade Agree­ments nego­ti­ated and signed in the last four years is a major detractor to our com­pet­i­tive­ness. Hence, it’s no sur­prise that Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Mitt Romney will under­score the need to nego­tiate new FTA’s; after all, China has been signing new trade agree­ments all over the world while we languished.

This logic will strip even more eco­nomic and polit­ical sov­er­eignty from our already tat­tered nation, and with it, more jobs and factories.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.


VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 08/22/2012

Tags: , , , ,


It is stag­gering that the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion is deliv­ering its fourth year in a row of $1 tril­lion deficits. While the setup for this unprece­dented expan­sion was cre­ated during the Clinton and Bush years, the curve turned ver­tical from 2008 – 2012.

There are sev­eral rea­sons to fore­cast that the bubble will pop, if it hasn’t already. The rest of the world’s indus­tri­al­ized nations have or are expe­ri­encing a con­trac­tion of debt, high interest rates and an inability to borrow money for new gov­ern­ment pro­grams. When a gov­ern­ment cannot find enough investors to roll over (re-finance) existing debt, a default occurs and debt it liquidated.

For the U.S., interest rates have bot­tomed after a clear five wave decline to recent lows. The rate trend is now up, dri­ving bond prices down. When the U.S. is forced to pay a higher interest to ser­vice its national debt, less money will be avail­able to spend on existing pro­grams, much less on expanding programs.

How­ever, defaults take dif­ferent forms. When promises (implied or spe­cific) are made to a public group and then broken, this is a default just as surely as not paying your cash debts. Our nation is bur­dened under a moun­tain of enti­tle­ments and retire­ment ben­e­fits that simply cannot be con­tinued indef­i­nitely. As these are cur­tailed, the people affected moved down the eco­nomic scale as their angst against the gov­ern­ment builds.

The Con­gres­sional Budget office just released ‘An Update to the Budget and Eco­nomic Out­look: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022.” Nobody would accuse the CBO of being rad­ical, sen­sa­tion­al­istic or reck­less in its analysis or fore­casts. They note, how­ever, that the fed­eral debt held by the public stands at 73 per­cent of GDP (the total size of the economy), which is the highest level since 1950 and “about twice the share that it mea­sured at the end of 2007.”

When the new fiscal year starts on October 1, sev­eral events will auto­mat­i­cally take place, and the cumu­la­tive effect on the economy may well drive us over the so-called “fiscal cliff:”

  • “A host of sig­nif­i­cant pro­vi­sions of the Tax Relief, Unem­ploy­ment Insur­ance Reau­tho­riza­tion, and Job Cre­ation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111 – 312) are set to expire, including pro­vi­sions that extended reduc­tions in tax rates and expan­sions of tax credits and deduc­tions orig­i­nally enacted in 2001, 2003, or 2009. (Pro­vi­sions designed to limit the reach of the alter­na­tive min­imum tax, or AMT, expired on December 31, 2011.)
  • Sharp reduc­tions in Medicare’s pay­ment rates for physi­cians’ ser­vices are sched­uled to take effect.
  • “Auto­matic enforce­ment pro­ce­dures estab­lished by the Budget Con­trol Act of 2011 (P.L. 112 – 25) to restrain dis­cre­tionary and manda­tory spending are set to go into effect.
  • Exten­sions of emer­gency unem­ploy­ment ben­e­fits and a reduc­tion of 2 per­centage points in the pay­roll tax for Social Secu­rity are sched­uled to expire.”

The CBO con­cludes that “such fiscal tight­ening will lead to eco­nomic con­di­tions in 2013 that will prob­ably be con­sid­ered a reces­sion, with real GDP declining by 0.5 per­cent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013 and the unem­ploy­ment rate rising to about 9 per­cent in the second half of cal­endar year 2013.”

This is the mild ver­sion of my fore­cast, of course. Their assump­tions are way too under­stated, for instance, that the interest rate charged to the gov­ern­ment will stay close to record lows for the next sev­eral years. Even a one per­cent average increase on the national debt levies an addi­tional $140 bil­lion of interest.

This isn’t a good time for other wild-card fac­tors to kick in, like rising gaso­line and food prices. These increases are NOT infla­tion related. Food prices are rising because of the worst drought since the dust bowl of the 1930’s. Rising gas prices are largely due to the shut­down of refinery capacity. Sill, the last time gas and food spiked was in early 2011 and it kicked GDP back to zero per­cent. The risk this time is much higher as we move through back-to-school spending and into Hal­loween and Christmas season.

While food and energy prices have risen, steel and iron ore prices have plunged. According the Finan­cial Times, most of the decline is a direct result of Europe’s cur­tail­ment of steel and ore con­sump­tion that is ordered from China. China fool­ishly met the slow­down by increasing pro­duc­tion, resulting in a glut on the world market. As a result, China’s steel­makers reported a 96 per­cent drop in profits during the first half of 2012 as com­pared to 2011. That is not just a slow­down, its a disaster!


By now, every person in America has seen this cover pic­ture, even if they haven’t bought the mag­a­zine or read the article. Every­body has an opinion and the blogger world is going nuts over the story, both left and right.

My take is simply that the global elite have dumped Obama. I have amply doc­u­mented pre­vi­ously how Obama was flown into office on the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s polit­ical influ­ence. In fact, Zbig­niew Brzezinski him­self was Obama’s chief for­eign policy adviser, much like he was to Jimmy Carter prior to 1976.

The com­par­ison between Obama and Carter (which is sub­stan­tial) would be made com­plete if he was a one-term pres­i­dent. People should remember that at the time, Carter was viewed as rad­ical and incom­pe­tent as any pres­i­dent in his­tory. But, the shock value of a Carter admin­is­tra­tion gave way to a Repub­lican dynasty that lasted 12 years. I ask you then, was more damage done to America during the Carter years or during the Reagan/Bush years?

Your answer is irrel­e­vant. I would argue that all those years were con­trolled by the same mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, and beyond. Clinton and Gore were both mem­bers as well. So was Cheney. Obama was sur­rounded by them before and after his inauguration.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Brzezinski: Shoot down Israeli planes?

Tags: , ,


By Patrick Wood, Editor

In a revealing and shocking inter­view with The Daily Beast, Zbig­niew Brzezinski gave an update on his latest for­eign policy thinking.

Brzezinski point­edly rubber-stamped Obama’s deci­sion to drop the mis­sile shield in Eastern Europe, but crit­i­cized the insen­si­tive way that the news was deliv­ered to the Poles.

But since the mis­sile shield is tied to U.S. policy toward Iran, the inter­view quickly turned to Israel’s pos­sible pre­emp­tive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Q. How aggres­sive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a mil­i­tary strike might be in AmericaÂ’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impo­tent little babies. They have to fly over our air­space in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

Q. What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and con­front them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Lib­erty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and tor­pedo boats attacked the USS Lib­erty in inter­na­tional waters, off the Sinai Penin­sula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]

When Brzezinski says, “they have the choice of turning back or not,” the “or not” clearly means shoot the planes down if they refuse to turn back.

This is a new bold­ness in anti-Israel policy, which would turn an impor­tant ally into an enemy combatant.

Brzesinski co-founded the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion with David Rock­e­feller in 1973. Jimmy Carter was chosen and groomed for the 1976 pres­i­den­tial race by Brzezinski, who was sub­se­quently appointed National Secu­rity Adviser fol­lowing Carter’s inauguration.

Both Carter and Brzezinski have held anti-Israeli views, and Carter’s book “Peace, Not Apartheid” is con­sid­ered by many to be out­right anti-Semitic. Obama’s anti-Israel bias is revealed in his recent award of the cov­eted Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, the former Pres­i­dent of Ire­land. Robinson is a also member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, and is out­spoken in her anti-Semitic views.

This story was also reported on World­Net­Daily but no men­tion was made regarding Brzezinski’s asso­ci­a­tion with the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

The Global Elders

Tags: , ,

“We are moving to a global vil­lage and yet we don’t have our global elders. The Elders can be a group who have the trust of the world, who can speak freely, be fiercely inde­pen­dent and respond fast and flex­ibly in con­flict sit­u­a­tions.” — The Global Elders

The Global Elders

“We are moving to a global vil­lage and yet we don’t have our global elders. The Elders can be a group who have the trust of the world, who can speak freely, be fiercely inde­pen­dent and respond fast and flex­ibly in con­flict sit­u­a­tions.” (http://www.theelders.org web­site)

The Elders have arrived on the world scene. Thus far, there are 12 self-appointed “apostles“of glob­alism to manage the “global vil­lage.” This group rep­re­sents the cream of the glob­alist crop.

  1. Nelson Man­dela — Former pres­i­dent of South Africa
  2. Desmond Tutu — Former gen­eral secre-tary of the South African Council of Churches
  3. Ela Bhatt — Founder of SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Asso­ci­a­tion) in India
  4. Gro Brundt­land — Former chair of the World Com­mis­sion of Envi­ron­ment and Devel­op­ment (the Brundt­land Com­mis­sion), and dri­ving force behind Sustain-able Development
  5. Jimmy Carter — Former pres­i­dent of the United States
  6. Muhammad Yunus — founder of Grameen Bank
  7. Graca Machel — Pres­i­dent of Foun­da­tion for Com­mu­nity Devel­op­ment in Mozambique
  8. Kofi Annan — Former Secretary-General of the United Nations
  9. Lakhdar Brahimi — Former Under-Secretary Gen­eral of the United Nations
  10. Fer­nando H. Car­doso — Former Pres­i­dent of Brazil
  11. Mary Robinson — Former Pres­i­dent of Ire­land; former United Nations High Com­mis­sioner for Human Rights
  12. Aung San Suu Kyi - Freedom fighter and fig­ure­head leader in Burma since 1988

Ini­tial funding was secured from global players such as Richard Branson, Peter Gabriel, Humanity United, Tick Tarlow, the United Nations Foun­da­tions, and others.

The orig­inal idea behind The Elders came from British musical icon, Peter Gabriel.

The cur­rent Exec­u­tive Director of The Elders is Dr. Robert A. Pastor (sur­prised?), who is also known as the “father of the North Amer­ican Union” because of his tire­less work to unite Mexico, Canada and the United States into a common block sim­ilar to the Euro­pean Union.

Pastor has a very long asso­ci­a­tion with Jimmy Carter dating back to the 1970’s, and with other mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. For instance, he was the exec­u­tive director of the infa­mous Linowitz Com­mis­sion that pro­duced the policy blue­print for Carter to give away the U.S.-owned Panama Canal during Carter’s presidency.

The Linowitz Com­mis­sion con­sisted of eight mem­bers, seven of which were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. The tem­po­rary ambassador/negotiator to Panama was Com­mis­sioner Sol Linowitz.

Despite humanity’s dark his­tory of cor­rup­tion and war, Elder Desmond Tutu not only dis­agrees but also believes that he is held in such high regard so as to qualify him­self for global eldership…

“Despite all the ghast­li­ness that is around, human beings are made for good­ness. The ones who ought to be held in high regard are not the ones who are mil­i­tarily pow­erful, nor even eco­nom­i­cally pros­perous. They are the ones who have a com­mit­ment to try and make the world a better place. We — The Elders — will endeavor to sup­port those people and do our best for humanity.” [Desmond Tutu, http://theelders.org website]

In case you are thinking this is a spoof, forget it. Go to their web­site and check it out for yourself!

The Elders appar­ently assume that most, if not all, of the world they serve will be under Marxist con­trol because their mem­bers are decid­edly pro-Marxist.

When a pro-Marxist group tells you that they are going to do what’s good for humanity, that’s reason enough for you to for­tify your home and build a perimeter. After all, well over 100 mil­lion people died in the last cen­tury because they didn’t go along with what their Marxist leaders con­jured up for them.

Indeed, Jimmy Carter and Robert Pastor both show their true colors by their asso­ci­a­tion with The Elders. Glob­alist ego seems to know no bounds.

Ed Note: If you study the pic­ture above, you will see Robert Pastor squat­ting at the center of the front row. Jimmy Carter is seen in the back row over Pastor’s left shoulder.

Pic­ture cour­tesy of www.TheElders.org website

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Globalization: The Final Demise of National Security

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Zbig­niew Brzezinski, co-founder of the global elitist Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973 and the prin­cipal archi­tect of modern glob­al­iza­tion, recently wrote in 2004,

“The notion of total national secu­rity is now a myth. Total secu­rity and total defense in the age of glob­al­iza­tion are not attain­able. The real issue is: with how much inse­cu­rity can America live while pro­moting its inter­ests in an increas­ingly inter­ac­tive, inter­de­pen­dent world?“1

The orig­inal Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion policy of national inse­cu­rity has now come full circle.

The U.S. Depart­ment of Com­merce white paper, Mar­itime Secu­rity and Beyond, tells us what is at stake in our mar­itime secu­rity policies:Maritime Security

“America’s coasts, rivers, bridges, tun­nels, ports, ships, mil­i­tary bases, and water­side indus­tries may be the ter­ror­ists’ next tar­gets. The overall risk asso­ci­ated with the vul­ner­a­bility of the U.S. mar­itime assets, both as a poten­tial target for ter­rorist activity and more impor­tantly as a trans­porta­tion plat­form for the intro­duc­tion of a “Trojan Horse,” in which a poten­tial weapon of mass destruc­tion (WMD), ter­rorist, con­tra­band or illegal aliens, enters the U.S. through its sea­ports, has been made very clear in the last sev­eral years. A cat­a­strophic event at a sea­port facility would not only affect the global trans­port infra­struc­ture, but could also result in global eco­nomic dev­as­ta­tion for a long period of time.” [emphasis added]2

The issue of national secu­rity is of huge impor­tance to all Amer­i­cans. There are only three ways to enter the U.S. — by land, sea or air. While glob­alist politi­cians have done little, if any­thing, to secure land bor­ders with Canada and Mexico, it is now apparent that they will do little or nothing to improve our mar­itime secu­rity as well. In fact, they seem to be intent on dis­man­tling what little secu­rity remains.

Mar­itime secu­rity in the U.S. is run by the Mar­itime Admin­is­tra­tion (MARAD), which sits directly under the Sec­re­tary of Trans­porta­tion, Norman Mineta.

The mis­sion state­ment of MARAD is

To strengthen the U.S. mar­itime trans­porta­tion system — including infra­struc­ture, industry and labor — to meet the eco­nomic and secu­rity needs of the Nation. MARAD pro­grams pro­mote the devel­op­ment and main­te­nance of an ade­quate, well-balanced United States mer­chant marine, suf­fi­cient to carry the NationÂ’s domestic water­borne com­merce and a sub­stan­tial por­tion of its water­borne for­eign com­merce, and capable of ser­vice as a naval and mil­i­tary aux­il­iary in time of war or national emer­gency. MARAD also seeks to ensure that the United States main­tains ade­quate ship­building and repair ser­vices, effi­cient ports, effec­tive inter­modal water and land trans­porta­tion sys­tems, and reserve ship­ping capacity for use in time of national emer­gency.3

Whether they know it or not, Amer­i­cans rely on MARAD to pro­tect its shores from any kind of maritime-related secu­rity risk. Yet, on Jan­uary 24, 2006, Pres­i­dent George W. Bush appointed Dave San­born to head MARAD.

Who is Dave San­born? He was most recently a senior exec­u­tive for Dubai Ports World (DP World, Director of Oper­a­tions for Europe and Latin America), the same United Arab Emi­rates com­pany that caused a firestorm in Amer­ican pol­i­tics just a few weeks later when the U.S. public found out about the Arab takeover of 6 U.S. ports.

What kind of dis­turbing pat­tern is emerging that would allow a former employee of DP World to be picked to head MARAD… at vir­tu­ally the same time that DP World seeks to take con­trol over the majority of east coast ship­ping facilities?

This issue will explore glob­al­iza­tion as it relates to national secu­rity, or the lack thereof, with a focus on mar­itime secu­rity. It will be shown that the modern degra­da­tion of national mar­itime secu­rity started with Pres­i­dent James Earl Carter (an orig­inal member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and hand-picked as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date by Zbig­niew Brzezinski) with the 1977 give­away of the Panama Canal, which was the most strategic mar­itime asset that America ever owned. Fur­ther, it will be shown that the same global elite are riding the money-go-round with sev­eral Arab states, including the United Arab Emi­rates who are mem­bers of the Gulf Coop­er­a­tion Council (GCC) that was founded by Saudi Arabia in 1981.

It was the same Zbig­niew Brzezinski who wrote in 1972 that the

nation state as a fun­da­mental unit of man’s orga­nized life has ceased to be the prin­cipal cre­ative force: Inter­na­tional banks and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions are acting and plan­ning in terms that are far in advance of the polit­ical con­cepts of the nation-state.” [emphasis added] 4

The more things change, the more they remain the same!

The Panama Canal Give­away 

Since its offi­cial opening on August 15, 1914, the Panama Canal con­nects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by tra­versing the isthmus of Panama in Cen­tral America. The Canal was built exclu­sively by the United States after acquiring the land with the Hay-Bunau Var­illa Treaty of 1903.

Each year, some 14,000Gatun Locks ships (mil­i­tary and com­mer­cial) trans­port well over 250 mil­lion tons of cargo. The dis­tance from San Fran­cisco to New York via the Canal is one-half the dis­tance using the Cape Horn route at the tip of South America. To say the least, the Panama Canal has long been rec­og­nized by every trade and mil­i­tary authority in the world as an incred­ibly impor­tant and strategic waterway.

The Panama Canal was sum­marily given away to a com­mu­nist dic­tator by Pres­i­dent James Earl Carter.

It must be remem­bered that the Carter pres­i­dency was the first to be dom­i­nated by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Not only had Carter him­self been hand-picked by Zbig­niew Brzezinski to be groomed for the pres­i­dency, but when elected, he brought almost one-third of the U.S. mem­ber­ship into high-level posi­tions in his Administration.

Begin­ning in 1974, it had become apparent to cer­tain inter­na­tional banks that well over $2 bil­lion in loans pre­vi­ously made to Panama were in jeop­ardy of defaulting. There was no eco­nomic solu­tion, so focus changed to the polit­ical arena. A plan was devised to turn over the Panama Canal to Panama, thus allowing Panama to pocket the income stream gen­er­ated from pas­sage fees, and hence to ser­vice its debt pay­ments to the inter­na­tional banks. Never mind that the Panama Canal was sov­er­eign U.S. prop­erty and the most strategic mil­i­tary and eco­nomic asset held by the U.S. in the hemi­sphere. Never mind that Omar Tor­rijos was a Marxist dic­tator who ascended to power not by demo­c­ratic elec­tion but by mil­i­tary coup.

Because sov­er­eign U.S. prop­erty cannot be ceded to any for­eign power without a 2/3 full vote of the Senate and the House, a scheme was hatched to transfer the prop­erty by treaty nego­ti­ated by the Exec­u­tive Branch. The treaty ulti­mately became known as the Carter-Torrijos Treaty. (Note: Space limits dis­cus­sion of the Carter Administration’s fla­grant dis­re­gard for the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion in this matter.)

Con­gressman Robert Dornan (R-CA) saw through this scheme and tes­ti­fied bluntly before Congress:

The Tor­rijos dic­ta­tor­ship is up to its ears in debt to banks. The debt of the Tor­rijos regime has not reached such pro­por­tions that 39 per­cent of the Panama GNP — repeat, 39 per­cent — goes to debt ser­vicing alone. This might not cause the extreme con­ster­na­tion in the banking cir­cles that it does if it were a debt owed by a stable gov­ern­ment. But the Tor­rijos regime is far from stable. Military

The dic­tator was nearly ousted a few years ago by an abortive coup and there are few wagers on his staying in power long if the treaties are rejected by the Senate. And if he is not in power, the banks do not have much chance of get­ting their money.

“Some mem­bers of Con­gress and Amer­i­cans are aware of the con­flict of inter­ests involved in some of the bank’s sup­port of the Pana­manian treaties. They are aware of the Marine Mid­land con­nec­tion through nego­tiator Sol Linowitz. But there are many other banks whose endorse­ment of the give­away of the canal may be moti­vated by mon­e­tary inter­ests. Unlike Marine Mid­land, they have been able to keep a lower pro­file. They are not gen­er­ally known to be a part of the banking group with a lucra­tive stake in the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the treaties.5

Dornan pub­lished a list of banks par­tic­i­pating in the Tor­rijos debt. This writer, along with Antony C. Sutton, exam­ined the list of banks (thirty-one for one loan and four­teen for another loan), and traced the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion links to these par­tic­i­pating banks. The results were astounding.

Given that there were only a total of three hun­dred mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion world­wide with less than 100 from North America, con­sider the following:

  1. No fewer than thirty-two Tri­lat­erals were on the boards of the thirty-one banks par­tic­i­pating in the Pana­manian $115 mil­lion 10-year Eurodollar loan issued in 1972
  2. Fif­teen Tri­lat­erals were on the boards of four­teen banks par­tic­i­pating in the $20 mil­lion floating rate promis­sory note issued in 1972.6

Carter chose a fellow Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion member, Sol Linowitz, to nego­tiate the Carter-Torrijos treaty. In order to avoid the normal Senate con­fir­ma­tion process (which would have cer­tainly failed) Linowitz was appointed as a “tem­po­rary Ambassador.”

The Linowitz con­flict of interest was astounding. Linowitz was a director of Marine Mid­land Bank that stood to lose a bundle if Panama defaulted on its loans. Marine Mid­land was also the sole agent of the Pana­manian gov­ern­ment for its own banking rela­tions with the U.S. Not sur­pris­ingly, because Linowitz was also a director of Time Mag­a­zine, edi­to­rial arti­cles appeared in favor of the giveaway.

Despite the fact that 76 per­cent of Amer­i­cans opposed the give­away of the Panama Canal, the U.S. Senate nar­rowly rat­i­fied the Carter-Torrijos Treaty on April 18, 1978, which promised com­plete turnover of the Canal on December 31, 1999.

Twenty-one years later in 1999, Pres­i­dent William Jef­ferson Clinton, also a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, oversaw the com­ple­tion of the treaty by pre­siding over the actual transfer of title to Panama. While Panama had orig­i­nally promised to pro­tect America’s secu­rity and strategic interest in the Canal, it pro­ceeded in the exact oppo­site direc­tion by signing long-term port man­age­ment con­tracts with Clinton & Zemina Chi­nese com­pany, Hutchinson Whampoa of Hong Kong. As a result, both ends of the Panama Canal are now con­trolled by a com­pany closely aligned with, and par­tially owned by, the com­mu­nist Chi­nese government.

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, a great Amer­ican patriot and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974, had strongly protested Pres­i­dent Carter’s Panama policy in 1977. In 1999, Admiral Moorer again spoke out with per­fect clarity:

In 1996, while China was ille­gally pouring mil­lions of dol­lars into ClintonÂ’s re-election effort, it was also fun­neling huge amounts of cash to Pana­manian politi­cians to ensure that one of its front com­pa­nies, Hutchinson Whampoa of Hong Kong, could move in when we vacate. In 1997, Panama secretly turned over the American-built port facility at Balboa, which con­trols ship­ping on the Pacific side, and at Cristobal, which con­trols ship­ping on the Atlantic side, to Hutchinson. Over the next sev­eral months we are sched­uled to turn over Rodman Naval Sta­tion, Howard Air Force Base, and other impor­tant mil­i­tary facil­i­ties to Panama, which has given Hutchison an option on these bases.

“This means that very soon we could see Com­mu­nist China in con­trol of one of the world’s most strategic water­ways in our own back­yard. Pres­i­dent Clinton may say that they are our friends and allies, but the Chi­nese mil­i­tary and Com­mu­nist Party lit­er­a­ture refer to the United States as “the main enemy.” And despite what Pres­i­dent Clinton, Henry Kissinger, and the media may tell you about “reform” in China, it is still run by a brutal, total­i­tarian, Com­mu­nist regime that will do us harm if and when it thinks it can get the better of us.7

[Editor’s note: One may better under­stand Clinton’s “Chi­na­gate” polit­ical con­tri­bu­tion scandal, when one under­stands that the object of that illegal lobby effort may well have been to allow Com­mu­nist China to take full con­trol of the Panama Canal.]

Despite the protests, the treaty was com­pleted as planned on December 31, 1999, and con­trol over the canal was handed over to the Panama Canal Authority, which in turn handed over oper­a­tional con­trol to Hutchison Whampoa.

The end of the matter is that a sov­er­eign asset of the United States was sub­verted for pri­vate gain; national secu­rity was of no con­cern whatsoever.

West Coast Mar­itime Secu­rity 

There are two Chi­nese ship­ping com­pa­nies oper­ating in the United States: China Ocean Ship­ping Com­pany (COSCO) and China Ship­ping Group (CSG).

China Ocean Ship­ping Com­pany (COSCO) is the largest con­tainer ship­ping com­pany in the world, oper­ating more than 540 ships and accounting for four-fifths of China’s inter­na­tional fleet. Prior to its first public offering of stock in 2005, COSCO was com­pletely owned by the Peo­ples Republic of China, where it con­tinues even now as the PRC’s mer­chant marine.

In the U.S., Seattle-based SSA Marine and COSCO have had an exclu­sive 25-year busi­ness rela­tion­ship: SSA Marine has Cosco containershan­dled every COSCO con­tainer in every port on the West Coast, totaling some 7.7 mil­lion containers.

SSA Marine (pre­vi­ously known as Steve­doring Ser­vices of America) is a sub­sidiary of Carrix Cor­po­ra­tion, with 2005 rev­enues easily in excess of $1.2 bil­lion. Carrix is a pri­vately owned multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tion whose busi­ness rev­enue is growing at a rate of about 18 per­cent per year. Carrix also owns Tide­works Tech­nology and Rail Man­age­ment Ser­vice (RMS), the world’s largest rail yard oper­ator with 45 facil­i­ties in 23 states.

SSA Marine obvi­ously has a pref­er­en­tial rela­tion­ship with China. In addi­tion to its exclu­sive rela­tion­ship with COSCO, it is cur­rently investing $350 mil­lion to double the size of its ter­minal facility at the eastern end of the Panama Canal (oper­ated by Hutchinson Whampoa), serving as a trans­ship­ment center for cargo between ships moving up the coast and those moving through the canal.

In 1996, COSCO attempted to lease a huge 130 acre ter­minal which had been con­verted from the aban­doned Long Beach Naval Sta­tion. According to the Her­itage Foundation,

Long Beach is located in the heart California’s military-industrial com­plex, and the port itself is a prime loca­tion where the Chi­nese mil­i­tary could inter­cept com­mu­ni­ca­tions, which would allow them to track mil­i­tary exer­cises and deploy­ment. COSCO, which is owned in part by the Chi­nese People’s Lib­er­a­tion Army, is a less than ideal can­di­date for the port’s lease. In March 1996, U.S. cus­toms agents seized 2,000 AK47 assault rifles, bound for U.S. street gangs, that were on board a COSCO ship. With this in mind, Con­gress passed the National Defense Autho­riza­tion Act of 1998 (P.L. 105 – 85), effec­tively ban­ning COSCO from renting any por­tion of the former Long Beach Naval Sta­tion.” 8

This did not hinder COSCO from expanding its facil­i­ties in Los Angeles and Oakland.

COSCO also oper­ates aCosco Intermodaln inter­modal net­work (see map) in North America through a sub­sidiary and with the help of Carrix Cor­po­ra­tion. The net­work facil­i­tates “door-to-door” delivery of goods arriving from China.

The second Chi­nese ship­ping com­pany men­tioned above is the China Ship­ping Group (CSG). This com­pany was formed in 1997 and is also owned by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. It cur­rently has routes span­ning the globe, ser­viced by 118 modern con­tainer ves­sels. CSG main­tains offices in Long Beach, Seattle, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Cleve­land, Sea­caucus, Savannah and Jack­sonville, which roughly par­al­lels the COSCO net­work described above.

Although COSCO and CSG make ample use of U.S. facil­i­ties to fur­ther their own goals here, it would be com­pletely unthink­able in China for the U.S. to attempt sim­ilar oper­a­tions on Chi­nese soil.

Under normal trade oper­a­tions, the global elite argue that there is no secu­rity risk to the United States in allowing Chi­nese government-owned busi­nesses to main­tain and operate ship­ping and inter­modal facil­i­ties in the U.S. Such an argu­ment is ludi­crous when one con­siders that China is still a sworn enemy of the United States, and has a long and sordid his­tory of espi­onage. In the event of an even­tual con­flict with China, it could imme­di­ately bring the U.S. to its knees by closing the Panama Canal and invoking a trade embargo with its vast net­work of ships. If that were not enough, they will have had ample time to directly deliver any amount of clan­des­tine mate­rial (weapons, explo­sives, nuclear devices) to loca­tions throughout the country.


Thanks to the 1993 North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA), the United States is being drawn into a hemi­spheric perimeter that includes Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.

NAFTA is a purely Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion inven­tion. On December 17, 1992, Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush and his U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Carla A. Hills, ini­tialed the NAFTA doc­u­ments in a cer­e­mony that included Mex­ican Pres­i­dent Salinas Cana­dian Prime Min­ister Mul­roney. Both Bush and Hills are mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

In fact, Carla Hills is widely cred­ited as being the pri­mary archi­tect and nego­tiator of NAFTA. Who is Carla Hills? Among other things, she is…

  • founder, chairman and CEO of Hills & Com­pany, an inter­na­tional con­sul­tancy spe­cial­izing in global trade
  • former U.S. Sec­re­tary of Housing and Urban Development
  • co-founder of the Forum for Inter­na­tional Policy
  • member of the boards of Time Warner and Amer­ican Inter­na­tional Group
  • vice-chair of the National Com­mittee on U.S.-China Relations
  • vice-chair of the U.S.-China Busi­ness Council
  • trustee (and member) of the Council on For­eign Relations
  • trustee of the Insti­tute of Inter­na­tional Economics
  • member of the Board of the Asia Society
  • member of the exec­u­tive com­mittee of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

Not sur­pris­ingly, in 2000 Hills was awarded the Aztec Eagle by Mexico, the highest honor given by the Mex­ican gov­ern­ment to a non-citizen.

In short, Carla A. Hills is at the white-hot core of the global elite, and one of its key oper­a­tives in glob­al­izing the world.

Having said this, one can under­stand how the North Amer­ican Super­Cor­ridor Coali­tion, Inc. (NASCO) sub­se­quently sprung up and declared itself to be “NAFTA’s trade Super­Cor­ridor” from Mexico to Canada. Note in the accom­pa­nying map from NASCO’s web site that the Super­Cor­ridor begins in Mexico and ends in Canada, with a U.S. route starting at Laredo, Texas and pro­ceeding to Kansas City, MO. According to NASCO’s web site,

“The NASCO Cor­ridor encom­passes Inter­state High­ways 35, 29 and 94, and the sig­nif­i­cant con­nec­tors to those high­ways in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The Cor­ridor directly impacts the con­ti­nental trade flow of North America. Mem­ber­ship includes public and pri­vate sector enti­ties along the Cor­ridor in Canada, the United States and Mexico.”

The cor­ridor con­cept is to offload inter­modal con­tainer freight in Man­zanillo, Mexico. Man­zanillo is one of the largest deep-water ports on the western side of North America, rivaling Long Beach and Los Angeles. Con­tainers NASCOwill then be loaded on trains and trucks, given a spe­cial elec­tronic clear­ance, and then trans­ported directly to Kansas City (an “inland port” in this scheme of things) where the freight will go through a cus­toms pro­ce­dure prior to being redis­trib­uted to other des­ti­na­tions. This freight traffic will bypass Mex­ican and U.S. cus­toms check areas at Laredo.

Ulti­mately, con­tainer traffic will bypass border check points in all direc­tions. Cana­dian con­tainers can pro­ceed from Canada directly to the Man­zanillo port for ship­ping, thus skirting U.S. or Mex­ican border requirements.

Building the super­cor­ridor has already begun in earnest, with major expan­sion of Inter­state 35 in the U.S. and major new truck and rail facil­i­ties in Kansas City and points in between. Untold bil­lions of dol­lars are being poured into building up this infra­struc­ture so that tens of thou­sands of con­tainers can freely flow from ship to shore and back again.

There are assur­ances from everyone involved, as with the DP World takeover of 21 east coast ports, that secu­rity is of prime impor­tance, and that sophis­ti­cated new tech­nology will be imple­mented to pre­vent unwanted ter­rorist activ­i­ties. What they appar­ently don’t want to under­stand is that people with evil intent don’t play by their rules.

Although NAFTA and NASCO have a North Amer­ican con­text, the real money­lust lies in trade with Asia, and in par­tic­ular, with China. It has already been noted that China (via COSCO and CSG) have attempted to gain a major foothold in con­tainer port facil­i­ties on the west coast of the U.S. Also noted is that Hutchinson Whampoa con­trols the eastern and western ports of the Panama Canal. All three of these com­pa­nies share major own­er­ship with the People’s Republic of China, a com­mu­nist dic­ta­tor­ship who is a sworn enemy of the United States.

The main obser­va­tion here is that Hutchison Whampoa, as in Panama, is also the prin­cipal port oper­ator at Man­zanillo, Mexico, and is cur­rently pouring bil­lions into its fur­ther devel­op­ment. By allowing Hutchinson Whampoa to take over the Man­zanillo port, Mexico has clearly aligned itself with the global elite, and against national secu­rity inter­ests of the United States.

The bottom line is that tens of thou­sands of ship­ping con­tainers will be expressed through Mexico into the heart­land of the United States with no more that 2 – 5% being checked to deter­mine if declared cargo is the actual cargo. Once again, trade tri­umphs over national security.

There is much more that will be said about NAFTA, NACSO, region­alism, etc., in future arti­cles. Our pur­pose here is to dis­cuss national secu­rity and to demon­strate that the dis­man­tling of U.S. national secu­rity is a deci­sive policy set in motion by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

East Coast Mar­itime Security

On Feb­ruary 11, 2006, a U.S. Trea­sury depart­ment com­mittee issued its approval for a United Arab Emi­rates (UAE) com­pany, Dubai Ports World (DP World), to take over the oper­a­tional man­age­ment of six major Amer­ican com­mer­cial ports and two U.S. mil­i­tary ports. After min­imal inves­ti­ga­tion, it was later deter­mined that the total count for takeover was 21 ports, split between eastern and gulf cost states. The ports in ques­tion were for­merly man­aged by the London-based Penin­sular and Ori­ental Steam Nav­i­ga­tion Com­pany (“P&O”), which had just been acquired by DP World. P&O Ports

Pres­i­dent George Bush and his cab­inet mem­bers vehe­mently endorsed and defended the takeover. Most Amer­i­cans and many of their respec­tive elected offi­cials won­dered if the Exec­u­tive Branch had com­pletely lost its marbles.

The com­pelling neg­a­tive aspects of this poten­tial secu­rity col­lapse being reported are that the UAE…

  • pro­vided cit­i­zen­ship to two of the hijackers in the 9 – 11 attack on America
  • has been a key transfer point for ship­ments of nuclear com­po­nents sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya
  • was one of only three nations that had rec­og­nized the Tal­iban as Afghanistan’s legit­i­mate government
  • is an Islamic state closely aligned with Saudi Arabia, the center of the rad­ical Wahabi school of Islam that has fomented ter­rorism world-wide.

When threat­ened with leg­is­la­tion to block the takeover by DP World, Pres­i­dent Bush pledged to veto any such leg­is­la­tion because the secu­rity impli­ca­tions of the deal were “rig­or­ously reviewed” (in a secret, closed-door Trea­sury Depart­ment com­mittee meeting) and that the deci­sion “was final.” According to Reuters, Bush told reporters during a Cab­inet meeting, “This wouldn’t be going for­ward if we were not cer­tain that our ports would be secure.”

How does this rec­on­cile with Bush’s post-9 – 11 “War on Terror” dec­la­ra­tion? Is this some Machi­avel­lian dialectic that pits oppo­site and mutu­ally exclu­sive con­cepts against each other?

The August Review’s credo is to “Follow the money, follow the power.” With that in mind, the mys­tery is more easily unraveled.

The pro­posed DP World man­age­ment of U.S. ports was approved by CFIUS (Com­mittee on For­eign Invest­ments in the United States), which is orga­nized under the Depart­ment of the Trea­sury. CFIUS admin­is­ters Sec­tion 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Com­pet­i­tive­ness Act of 1988 (the “Exxon-Florio” pro­vi­sion) which gives the Pres­i­dent power to block a for­eign acqui­si­tion of a U.S. cor­po­ra­tion if he finds:

  1. there is cred­ible evi­dence that the for­eign entity exer­cising con­trol might take action that threatens national secu­rity, and
  2. the pro­vi­sions of law, other than the Inter­na­tional Emer­gency Eco­nomic Powers Act do not pro­vide ade­quate and appro­priate authority to pro­tect the national secu­rity.9

The CFIUS com­mittee mem­ber­ship is hardly made up of second-rate gov­ern­ment staffers. Its twelve mem­bers include:

  • John W. Snow, Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury, Chairman
  • John Mar­burger, Director of the Office of Sci­ence and Tech­nology Policy
  • Stephen Hadley, Assis­tant to the Pres­i­dent for National Secu­rity Affairs
  • Stephen Friedman, Assis­tant to the Pres­i­dent for Eco­nomic Policy (TC)
  • Michael Chertoff, Depart­ment of Home­land Security
  • Con­doleezza Rice, Sec­re­tary of State
  • Donald Rums­feld, Sec­re­tary of Defense (CFR)
  • Carlos M. Gutierrez, Sec­re­tary of Commerce
  • Alberto Gon­zales, U.S. Attorney General
  • Joshua Bolten, Director of the Office of Man­age­ment and Budget
  • Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative
  • N. Gre­gory Mankiw, Chairman of the Council of Eco­nomic Advisers.

John W. Snow was appointed Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury by Pres­i­dent Bush on Jan­uary 13, 2003. It is not insignif­i­cant that he was pre­vi­ously CEO of CSX Cor­po­ra­tion, a global ship­ping and inter­modal company.

On December 9, 2004, DP World issued a press release stating that it acquired CSX World Ter­mi­nals (a major sub­sidiary of CSX Cor­po­ra­tion) and other related inter­ests for $1.15 bil­lion.10

David San­born, appointed to head the Mar­itime Admin­is­tra­tion, worked for John Snow while at CSX. San­born became a DP World employee as a result of its acqui­si­tion of CSX World Terminals.

Snow claimed he had no knowl­edge of the CSX sale, and that he heard about it in the news­pa­pers like every­body else. Bush claims he had no knowl­edge of the DP World takeover of P&O, even though over half of his Cab­inet sit on the com­mittee that approved it. In light of the com­pli­cated tryst between Trea­sury, DP World, CSX, and David San­born, it is not too likely that anyone was in the dark about the pending DP World takeover of 21 U.S. ports.

United Arab Emi­rates: Home of Dubai Ports World 

One place in the world where it can be said “the buck stops here” is in the UAE. Put another way, if the world was a money funnel into which the global elite pour their bil­lions of quar­terly profits, then the bottom of that funnel emp­ties out on the UAE and a few other coun­tries who are mem­bers of the pow­erful Gulf Coop­er­a­tion Council.

The GCC was founded by Saudi Arabia in 1981. Other mem­bers of the GCC include Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar.

Most Amer­i­cans cannot fathom the eco­nomic pros­perity in the GCC coun­tries in the mid-east because of the con­stant bar­rage of Dubainews on war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent years, the mas­sive infu­sion of fresh cap­ital from all over the world is funding the building of cities out of the desert sand. Huge con­struc­tion cranes are seen in every direc­tion, each one building the next latest and greatest sky­scraper. [Note: See Addi­tional Resources below for more images of the UAE and Dubai.]

The cor­po­rate inter­ests of vir­tu­ally every global elite are heavily rep­re­sented throughout the GCC. Huge deals are sealed in closed meet­ings. Secrecy is a stan­dard busi­ness prac­tice. Reg­u­la­tions of any kind are min­imal. Restraint is unnecessary.

These cities are being built with the latest tech­nology and mate­rials. They are “wired” with the latest Internet and com­puter tech­nology. It’s becoming a des­ti­na­tion of choice for regional cor­po­rate headquarters.

If you are an “any­body” in the global cor­po­rate world, you lust to have your own suite of offices and sup­porting con­do­miniums. This is a place where money meets ambi­tion, greed and avarice.

For instance, con­sider the Dubai Inter­na­tional Finan­cial Centre (DIFC): :

The DIFC is an onshore cap­ital market des­ig­nated as a finan­cial free zone designed to create a unique finan­cial ser­vices cluster economy for wealth cre­ation ini­tia­tives. It is estab­lished as part of the larger vision of His High­ness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Mak­toum, Vice-President and Prime Min­ister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the Gov­ern­ment of Dubai to create an envi­ron­ment for growth, progress and eco­nomic devel­op­ment in the UAE and the wider region. Integrity, trans­parency and effi­ciency are the guiding prin­ci­ples of the DIFC.

“There are six pri­mary sec­tors of focus within the DIFC: Banking Ser­vices (Invest­ment Banking, Cor­po­rate Banking & Pri­vate Banking); Cap­ital Mar­kets (Equity, Debt Instru­ments, Deriv­a­tives & Com­modity Trading); Asset Man­age­ment & Fund Reg­is­tra­tion (Fund Reg­is­tra­tion, Fund Admin­is­tra­tion & Fund Man­age­ment); Rein­sur­ance; Islamic Finance and Back Office Operations.

“Licence appli­ca­tions are being con­sid­ered from finan­cial insti­tu­tions in the above sec­tors. Each of these units will offer ben­e­fits such as zero tax rate on income and profits, 100 per cent for­eign own­er­ship, no restric­tions on for­eign exchange or capital/profit repa­tri­a­tion, oper­a­tional sup­port and busi­ness con­ti­nuity facil­i­ties. [Emphasis added]11

It’s no sur­prise that Morgan Stanley applied for and received a license from the Dubai Finan­cial Ser­vices Authority (DFSA) to operate within the DIFC. According to Dr. Georges Makhoul, Morgan StanleyÂ’s regional head for the Middle East and North Africa,

“We are oper­a­tional in the DIFC now and look for­ward to the offi­cial opening of this impor­tant regional office later next month. ‘The DFSA’s effec­tive reg­u­la­tory frame­work, com­bined with the DIFC’s robust infra­struc­ture, pro­vides us with an excel­lent envi­ron­ment in which to expand our offering to clients.”  12

The director-general of the DIFC Authority, Dr. Omar Bin Sulaiman, wel­comed Morgan Stanley by stating,

“This is a tes­ti­mony to our status as an inter­na­tional finan­cial centre of repute. Morgan Stanley is a highly reputed organ­i­sa­tion and to have them here at the DIFC is a vin­di­ca­tion of our strategy to create a world-class finan­cial hub for the region. The oppor­tu­nity avail­able within the region, along with the state-of-the-art infra­struc­ture and the inter­na­tional reg­u­la­tory frame­work of the DIFC, pro­vides the ideal plat­form for insti­tu­tions such as Morgan Stanley to grow their busi­ness.” [Emphasis added]13

Ideal plat­form, indeed. Who couldn’t grow their busi­ness with zero income tax, unlim­ited for­eign own­er­ship and no for­eign exchange regulations?

Cities like Dubai are rem­i­nis­cent of the rebuilding of Japan and Ger­many after WWII. Since their eco­nomic infra­struc­ture was destroyed, they were rebuilt from the ground up with the latest indus­trial tech­nology, leaving America behind and less com­pet­i­tive in world markets.

On the other hand, both Japan and Ger­many were a con­quered people after WWII. They gave up and “rolled over.” The Islamic res­i­dents of Dubai (and other GCC coun­tries), by con­trast, have not been con­quered and most con­tinue to view the U.S. as the “great Satan” that must be elim­i­nated from the face of the earth, along with Israel.

DP World, who will shortly take over oper­a­tion of 21 U.S. port ter­minal facil­i­ties, is wholly owned by the royal family that con­sti­tutes the gov­ern­ment of the UAE. This form of gov­ern­ment, where a family owns and runs the gov­ern­ment, is unknown in the western world. It is the pin­nacle of fas­cism and dic­ta­tor­ship combined.

Most assume that the royal family’s riches came from roy­al­ties paid on oil pro­duc­tion, and this is cer­tainly true. But even that kind of wealth cannot account for the rapid rise of DP World as a top player in ship­ping and port oper­a­tion throughout the world.

Records show, for instance, that DP World pur­chased P&O for $6.8 bil­lion. Only $300 mil­lion (5 per­cent) actu­ally came from DP World — the rest, $6.5 bil­lion, was pro­vided by Bar­clays Cap­ital and Deutsche Bank AG.

In short, it is the global banking com­mu­nity that enables the cor­po­rate expan­sion of pow­erful com­pa­nies owned by close-knit Islamic fam­i­lies in the GCC coun­tries. Without global bank sup­port, there would be no DP World to take over Amer­ican ship­ping ports.

Tri­lat­eral Sup­port for DP World Takeover

On March 1, 2006, The Finan­cial Times was first to report the story that former U.S. pres­i­dent Bill Clinton (member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion) had advised the UAE on damage con­trol when con­fronted with stiff polit­ical resis­tance over the DP World takeover of Amer­ican ports. Although it was inti­mated that Clinton acted in an informal capacity, the article also noted that his overall rela­tion­ship with the UAE and Dubai is far from casual:

“Mr. Clinton’s con­tact with Dubai on the issue under­scores the rela­tion­ship he has devel­oped with the United Arab Emi­rates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 to address a summit in Dubai.“14

Three days later on March 4, when reporting on Hillary Clinton’s claim that she knew nothing of her husband’s involve­ment with Dubai, the Finan­cial Times revealed yet more details about Clinton’s rela­tion­ship to the UAE…

Mrs. Clinton’s finan­cial dis­clo­sure forms reveal that her hus­band earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002. Offi­cials from the UAE also report­edly donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr. Clinton’s pres­i­den­tial library in Arkansas — part of an effort by the emi­rates to forge a close rela­tion­ship with the former US pres­i­dent.15

In another instance, the New York Daily News released an article sug­gesting the White House seeks to defuse resis­tance to the DP World port takeover by finding a U.S. partner to add to the deal.

“A lot of people are talking about this, a sub­sidiary or a deal like that,” a con­gres­sional source confirmed.

One snag to such a deal may be that sources say the U.S. com­pany best equipped to partner with DP World is Hal­liburton, once headed by Vice Pres­i­dent Cheney.

After under­going so much scrutiny for its no-bid Iraq con­tract and the han­dling of some of its duties there, Hal­liburton may not be able to help DP World land the deal, a source admitted.“16

Both Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, are mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

It is likely that this article is only a trial bal­loon to test public resis­tance to Hal­liburton, but even the sug­ges­tion that Cheney’s ex-employer might be involved iden­ti­fies Tri­lat­eral influence.

Robert Zoel­lick, also a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and cur­rently Deputy Sec­re­tary of State, was for­merly the U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive. On November 11, 2004, Zoel­lick announced that the Admin­is­tra­tion intended to nego­tiate Free Trade Agree­ments with the UAE and Oman. In his letter to con­gres­sional leaders, he wrote,

A free trade agree­ment with the UAE and Oman will pro­mote the President’s ini­tia­tive to advance eco­nomic reforms and open­ness in the Middle East and the Per­sian Gulf, moving us closer to the cre­ation of a Middle East Free Trade Area,” 17

Note that Zoel­lick posi­tions the FTA as the President’s ini­tia­tive, rather than an out­right Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion policy ini­tia­tive. In his next sen­tence, he credits the policy due to rec­om­men­da­tions from the 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report:

Fur­ther­more, our free trade agree­ments in the Middle East com­ple­ment The 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report rec­om­men­da­tion urging the United States to expand trade with the Middle East as a way to “encourage devel­op­ment, more open soci­eties and oppor­tu­ni­ties for people to improve the lives of their fam­i­lies.” [Emphasis added] 18

Who did Pres­i­dent Bush orig­i­nally appoint to head the 9/11 Com­mis­sion? None other than orig­inal Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion member, Henry Kissinger. Kissinger accepted the appoint­ment but resigned a month later amid accu­sa­tions of “con­flict of interest.” Bush replaced Kissinger with Thomas Kean, a member of the Council on For­eign Rela­tions and a director of the oil giant Amerada Hess, and who had busi­ness ties to Saudi Arabia and the GCC.

The U.S./UAE Free Trade Agree­ment started by Zoel­lick in 2004 is due to be com­pleted in March or April, 2006. This lucra­tive FTA is in jeop­ardy if the DP World takeover of U.S. ports does not pro­ceed as planned. This may ade­quately explain the President’s imme­diate and vehe­ment sup­port of the DP World deal — to reject the UAE could easily kill the FTA and thus cost bil­lions to global corporations.


As usual, it’s about money and not national secu­rity. There is clear and abun­dant evi­dence that since 1973, U.S. mar­itime national secu­rity has been lit­er­ally wrecked by the self-serving inter­ests of mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and other global elit­ists. In every instance men­tioned in this report, there was no public dis­clo­sure until someone else made it public. In every instance, there was fierce resis­tance from the U.S. public. If the Con­sti­tu­tion, statutes, courts, Con­gress or the public stood in their way, then other ways were found to get around them.

From this dis­cus­sion of mar­itime national secu­rity, we can sadly conclude:

  • Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion self-serving poli­cies of greed have tri­umphed over national security
  • The com­mu­nist Chi­nese are in com­plete con­trol of the immensely strategic Panama Canal
  • The com­mu­nist Chi­nese operate mas­sive door-to-door ship­ping net­works on the North Amer­ican pacific coast and throughout the U.S.  (via COSTO, CSG, NASCO, NAFTA)
  • The Islamic United Arab Emi­rates may soon con­trol 21 major U.S. East Coast ship­ping ports
  • The U.S. is wide open for eco­nomic and mil­i­tary defeat if con­flict breaks out

When Brzezinski asks, with how much inse­cu­rity can America live while pro­moting its inter­ests in an increas­ingly inter­ac­tive, inter­de­pen­dent world?”, one must remember that it was Brzezinski’s own poli­cies that brought him to the place of needing to ask the ques­tion. Per­haps he is really won­dering how much we can take before we break altogether.

[This article was updated on March 23, 2006]


  1. Brzezinski, The Choice: Global Dom­i­na­tion or Global Lead­er­ship (Basic Books, 2004) p. 17
  2. Mar­itime Secu­rity and Beyond, Car­roll Ward, Mariners Weather Log, April 2005
  3. Mis­sion State­ment, MARAD Web site
  4. Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: The Tech­netronic Era (Pen­guin Books , 1971)
  5. Banking Inter­ests in Panama, Robert K. Dornan, Con­gres­sional Record (Sept. 15, 1977)
  6. Sutton & Wood, Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington Vol. I (August, 1980) p. 64
  7. Admi­rals Sound the Alarm, The New Amer­ican inter­view, Mar. 29, 1999
  8. Seeking Reci­procity in Mar­itime Trade with China, Wortzel (Her­itage Foun­da­tion, March 19, 2001)
  9. Office of Inter­na­tional Affairs, U.S. Depart­ment of Treasury
  10. Acqui­si­tion of CSX World Ter­mi­nals, DP World web site
  11. DIFC Anniver­sary 2005 Notes of Suc­cess, DISC web site
  12. Morgan Stanley Joins DIFC, Trade Arabia, March 5, 2006
  13. ibid.
  14. Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal, Finan­cial Times, March 1, 2006
  15. Bill’s ties to Dubai ‘sur­prise’ Hillary Clinton, Finan­cial Times, March 4, 2006
  16. Dubai & Dubya in dash for lifeboat, New York Daily Times, March 4, 2006
  17. U.S. Announces Intent to Nego­tiate FTAs with UAE and Oman, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive, November 11, 2004)
  18. ibid.


Cur­rent Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion “players” in and around the Bush administration:

  • Dick Cheney, Vice Pres­i­dent of the United States
  • Lynne V. Cheney, Chairman of the National Endow­ment for the Human­i­ties, wife of Dick Cheney
  • Robert Zoel­lick, U.S. Deputy Sec­re­tary of State
  • Paul Wol­fowitz, Pres­i­dent of the World Bank
  • Paula J. Dobri­ansky, U.S. Under Sec­re­tary of State for Global Affairs
  • William J. McDo­nough, Chairman of the Public Com­pany Accounting Over­sight Board; former chairman of the New York Fed­eral Reserve
  • William H. Web­ster, vice-chairman of Home­land Secu­rity Advi­sory Council
  • Richard N. Perle, for­eign policy advisor to Pres­i­dent George Bush
  • George H.W. Bush, Pres­i­dent George Bush’s father
  • Catherine Bertini, Under-Secretary-General for Man­age­ment, United Nations, New York, NY
  • Paul Volker, Chairman of the Oil-for-Food inves­ti­ga­tion at the United Nations
  • Carla A. Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative

Addi­tional resources: 

NOTE: Carl Teichrib, Senior Fellow at World Research Library, con­tributed to this report

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

America Plundered by the Global Elite

Tags: , , , ,

By Patrick Wood, Editor


In 1978, Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington revealed the global strategy of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and it’s co-founders David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski. Brzezinski, in par­tic­ular, pro­vided the intel­lec­tual rea­soning and polit­ical strategy for the “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”.

Brzezinski was also an astute polit­ical oper­ator. He is cred­ited as the first person to take interest in Jimmy Carter, to mentor him in glob­alism starting in 1973 when Carter was chosen to be part of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Upon Carter’s elec­tion vic­tory in 1976, Brzezinski was appointed National Secu­rity Advisor. By the end of 1976, Carter had appointed no less than 19 mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion to high-ranking gov­ern­ment posi­tions. These 19 mem­bers rep­re­sented just under 20% of the entire U.S. del­e­ga­tion of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

The stage was now set for their power to become per­ma­nently embedded. Each suc­ces­sive Admin­is­tra­tion has been dis­pro­por­tion­ally dom­i­nated by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion: George H.W. Bush, William Jef­ferson Clinton, Richard B. Cheney. Each admin­is­tra­tion filled top posts from the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Think-tanks con­nected to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion cranked out vol­umes of studies that droned on and on about the New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order and the need for polit­ical change.

Looking back­ward to Brzezinski, how­ever, is nec­es­sary because he most clearly and lucidly embodied the heart and soul of the rush to glob­alism. He cre­ated the water­shed that ini­ti­ated the plun­dering of America and the buildup of the global cor­po­rate elite. This issue intends to quan­tify the extent of this plundering.

Brzezinski was inter­viewed in 1974 by the Brazilian news­paper Vega: “How would you define this new world order?” Brzezinski declared “…the reality of our times is that a modern society such as the U.S. needs a cen­tral coor­di­nating and ren­o­vating organ which cannot be made up of six hun­dred people.” In his 1969 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era, he wrote that the “nation-state as a fun­da­mental unit of man’s orga­nized life has ceased to be the prin­cipal cre­ative force: Inter­na­tional banks and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions are acting and plan­ning in terms that are far in advance of the polit­ical con­cepts of the nation-state.”

Indeed, mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion chosen from north America, Europe and Asia (mostly Japan), are all in agree­ment on this point — the nation-state only gets in the way of so-called “free trade” and there­fore must be closely manip­u­lated for their own common good. Col­lec­tively, they have taken a self-induced quantum leap above national law, into an ele­vated posi­tion of making their own rules as they go. We see some direct evi­dence of such an atti­tude, for instance, when Pres­i­dent Bill Clinton had no par­tic­ular legal qualms (or con­se­quences) of giving (free or for money) top-secret mis­sile tech­nology to Com­mu­nist China.

The gath­ering of cor­po­rate elites in the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion started with names such as Coca Cola, Ford Motor, Deere & Co., Hewlett-Packard, Cargill, Chase Man­hattan Bank, Cum­mins Engine, Texas Instru­ments, Hon­ey­well, Bechtel Cor­po­ra­tion, Wey­er­hauser, Gen­eral Motors, Boeing, and many others. Today, we see the same kind of makeup: Archer Daniels Mid­land (ADM), J.P. Morgan, Chase, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Pitney Bowes, GE, Cit­i­group, Amer­ican Inter­na­tional Group (AIF), Bank of America, Xerox and Hal­liburton, just to name a few.

To sum­ma­rize then, the real plun­dering of America started with the founding of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973 and the con­sol­i­da­tion of power in 1976 with the dom­i­nance of the Carter Admin­is­tra­tion. When one begins to see the pat­tern emerging, many unan­swered ques­tions start to clear up. Why does Pres­i­dent George Bush so point­edly want to elim­i­nate the U.S./Mexican border? Why the stam­pede to out­source Amer­ican jobs, even to the hurt of our own cit­i­zens? Why do people around the world intu­itively hate the World Trade Orga­ni­za­tion, NAFTA and CAFTA? (The last ques­tion sug­gests that the U.S. is not the only nation-state being plun­dered these days.) Nations are finan­cially dis­in­te­grating while global cor­po­ra­tions grow fan­tas­ti­cally richer.

One might protest that the scope of this oper­a­tion is just too fan­tastic and huge to be real. This writer would remind the skeptic that U.S. his­tory is lit­tered with monop­o­listic tycoons who tried to get a lever on the soci­eties they lived in. Monop­o­lies are blind to pol­i­tics, except when pol­i­tics can be manip­u­lated to estab­lish or extend the monopoly. The vast majority of Amer­i­cans are left com­pletely in the dark because Amer­ican main­stream media, col­lec­tively slanted toward glob­alism, has been dom­i­nated by the very same glob­al­ists who founded the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in the first place: New York Times, Time-Warner, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, For­eign Policy Mag­a­zine, Com­cast, CBS, Atlantic Media, The Rand Cor­po­ra­tion, Wash­ington Post, Dow Jones & Com­pany, U.S. News and World Report all have direct rep­re­sen­ta­tion on the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

The reader is encour­aged to read Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington, Vol­umes I and II, to get a deeper sense of back­ground on these issues. Both of these books are avail­able in full-text ver­sions on The August Review website.

The State of the Nation

This issue attempts to give the reader a back­ground and per­spec­tive on the state of affairs of Amer­ican business.

There are three fac­tors to con­sider. First, there is the gov­ern­ment itself. Second, there is pri­vate industry. Although they are very dif­ferent types of enti­ties, they both can ade­quately be described in terms of flows of income. Third, we will look at the transfer of own­er­ship of U.S. based cor­po­ra­tions to for­eign ownership.

In the case of the gov­ern­ment, there has been vir­tu­ally no restraint on keeping its spending within its income. When­ever it spent out­side of income-in-hand, bor­rowing what­ever extra was needed was all too easy.

altYou can quickly see what the last 37 years look like from the chart to the left. Prior to 1975, budget deficits were very small. The upward trend started in earnest in 1975. A brief sur­plus was recorded between 1998 and 2001.

Pre­siding pres­i­dents are pur­pose­fully not men­tioned because they are irrel­e­vant to the big picture.

It should also stand out that there are three troughs: the first “peaked” in 1986, the second in 1992 and the third in 2005. The extremity cycle is approx­i­mately 6 years long.

altThe cumu­la­tive effect of these deficits on the U.S. national debt is quite dra­matic. In 1970, the debt was well under the $1 tril­lion level. Today, it stands over $8 tril­lion, a 10-fold increase.

To put this in per­sonal terms, every man, woman and child in America owes $28,500 each. A family of 4 col­lec­tively owes $114,000. You might say, “But, that’s the gov­ern­ment debt, not mine!” The fact is though, we are the gov­ern­ment. Except that tax­payers pay taxes, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment would have no source of income whatever.

altSo, let’s take a look at the busi­ness economy now.

A trade deficit occurs when we import more than we export. A sur­plus occurs when the reverse is true. Whether pos­i­tive or neg­a­tive, the figure is called the “cur­rent account”.

Since 1981, America has been in the red every single year. The curve is sim­ilar in nature to the National Debt curve: very low deficits in the 70’s and early 80’s, then rising dra­mat­i­cally during the 90’s into the cur­rent decade.

In the chart to the right, you can see that the gap between imports (orange line) and exports (purple line) is widening at an increasing rate every year. The bottom curve shows the neg­a­tive bal­ance on the cur­rent account as it accu­mu­lates more and more red ink. Cur­rently, the annu­al­ized rate of the cur­rent trade deficit is easily $600 billion.

By con­trast, there were only two years in the decade of the 1970’s that had small trade deficits.

In March, the Busi­ness Tele­graph in London reported that the March (2005) deficit of $55 bil­lion was well below the $60 bil­lion that was expected by the markets.

“It’s a relief,” said James Glassman, senior econ­o­mist at JP Morgan Chase in New York. “It does dampen the fears that there was some­thing bad going on in the US economy.”

The psy­chology at play here is amazing. The fact that the trade deficit for a single month is $55 bil­lion instead of $60 bil­lion is a cause for reas­sur­ance that nothing bad is hap­pening to the U.S. economy? On the other hand, note that Glassman is senior econ­o­mist at JP Morgan Chase bank which has been at the very core of the New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order from the beginning.

The third area to look at is transfer of own­er­ship. Cor­po­rate mergers are every­where. It’s so con­fusing that most people don’t have a clue who owns what anymore.

Out­lays for New Invest­ment in the United States by For­eign Direct Investors, 1980 – 2003

(Source: U.S. Bureau of Eco­nomic Analysis)


During the 1960’s, Amer­ican busi­ness increased its own­er­ship in the U.S. every year except one. During the 1970’s, there were only 5 years that we increased our posi­tion. Since 1982, there has not been one single year where for­eign invest­ment did not out­strip our own… and dra­mat­i­cally so, to the tune of $3.8 tril­lion. You ask, “How can this happen?” Simple.


Con­sider a few mergers from recent his­tory — do you rec­og­nize any of these “Amer­ican” names?

Amer­ican Company
For­eign Company
Pur­chase Amount
Amoco Corp
British Petro­leum Co PLC
United Kingdom
$48.17 Bil­lion
BP Amoco PLC
United Kingdom
$27.22 Bil­lion
Texaco-US Refining & Marketing
Shell Oil-Western US Business
$3.964 Bil­lion
Air­Touch Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Inc
Voda­fone Group PLC
United Kingdom
$60.29 Bil­lion
Voic­eS­tream Wire­less Corp
Deutsche Telekom AG
$29.40 Billion
Chrysler Corp
Daimler-Benz AG
$40.47 Bil­lion
Har­court Gen­eral Inc
Reed Else­vier Group PLC
United Kingdom
$5.60 Bil­lion
Simon & Schuster-Educ, Prof
Pearson PLC
United Kingdom
$4.60 Bil­lion
Magma Copper Co
$2.432 Bil­lion
John Han­cock Finl Svcs Inc
Man­ulife Finan­cial Corp
$11.06 Bil­lion
TransAmerica Corp
Aegon NV
$9.691 Bil­lion
SmithK­line Beckman Corp
Beecham Group PLC
United Kingdom
$7.922 Bil­lion

These few exam­ples are listed only to give you a flavor of the depth of pen­e­tra­tion of for­eign pur­chases into the core of Amer­ican industry. In order to get to an aggre­gate of $3.8 tril­lion, you can hardly imagine how many bil­lion dollar deals there have been over 20 years. In short, America is lit­er­ally being sold out from under us.

Let’s sum­ma­rize this now. In the past 35 years, the U.S. gov­ern­ment has racked up over $8 tril­lion in debt. The cur­rent trade deficit for 2005 alone will likely exceed $600 bil­lion (importing more than we export). The $3.8 tril­lion of show­case Amer­ican com­pa­nies have been sold to foreigners.

Is some­thing wrong with this picture?

When this writer began to do research for Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington in the late 1970’s, we focused on the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion because it was very apparent that it was laying the ground­work for — in their own words — a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” The con­cept of the nation-state was out­dated and we were moving into an era of “interdependence.”

David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski founded the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973. It has been com­posed of slightly over 300 mem­bers chosen from North America, Europe and Asia (pri­marily Japan). The mem­bers are lit­er­ally the Who’s Who of global elit­ists: top politi­cians, think-tank philoso­phers, indus­tri­al­ists and bankers.

We clearly doc­u­mented in Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington (avail­able in full text form to The August Review sub­scribers on this site) that the move toward global eco­nomic con­sol­i­da­tion was well on its way. Twenty-five years later, we are standing under an avalanche of eco­nomic deterioration.

During these 25 years, America has lit­er­ally “lost its shirt”. We are tech­ni­cally quite bankrupt.

Cor­po­rate profits during this same time, how­ever, have seen huge and con­sis­tent profits. Those global-minded com­pa­nies in par­tic­ular (e.g., cor­po­rate board mem­bers who belong to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion) have prof­ited even more.

According to the BEA, aggre­gate cor­po­rate profits totaled $874 bil­lion in 2002, $1.02 tril­lion in 2003 and $1.2 tril­lion in 2004. Exxon increased its annual earn­ings from $21.5 bil­lion in 2003 to $25.33 bil­lion in 2004. This was not uncommon.

Is it pos­sible that the U.S. can be stripped to the bone while multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions get rich? Was it planned this way from the begin­ning (circa 1973)? Yes, and yes.

There is another aspect of national bank­ruptcy that needs to be men­tioned, namely, the land­slide loss of tech­no­log­ical genius that made America great in the first place. Putting aside the legal and illegal trans­fers of tech­nology to China during the Clinton admin­is­tra­tion, con­sider the case of IBM:

Lenovo, China’s largest PC com­pany, has com­pleted a $1.25 bil­lion acqui­si­tion of IBM’s Per­sonal Com­puting Divi­sion (PCD). Lenovo, which already has a third of the Chi­nese PC market and shares in enter­prise PC mar­kets around the world, says this deal makes it a new inter­na­tional IT com­petitor and the world’s third-largest per­sonal com­puting com­pany. The PCD acqui­si­tion, first announced in December, means, according to newly named Lenovo CEO Stephen Ward, that the com­pany will have com­bined annual PC rev­enue of about $13 bil­lion and volume of about 14 mil­lion units. Ward says Lenovo expects imme­diate syn­er­gies through com­ple­men­tary cus­tomer bases, product offer­ings and geo­graphic cov­erage, among other things. (SA Com­puter Mag­a­zine, 5-3-2005)

That is, the very com­pany that invented the PC and lit­er­ally rev­o­lu­tion­ized the world has now sold 100% of their Per­sonal Com­puting Divi­sion to a Com­mu­nist nation who have sworn many times that they will bury us. Chi­nese engi­neers will soon be moving into IBM’s Armonk, NY head­quar­ters to take over.

Another example is that Steven Chen, a Taiwanese-born Amer­ican cit­izen and one of America’s most bril­liant and top super­com­puter designers, quit his post with Sil­icon Graphics and is moving to main­land China. He is choosing to build his next gen­er­a­tion super­com­puter in China

According to IDC, the pre­mier intel­li­gence resource and fore­caster in the com­puter world,

Attracting a leading super­com­puter designer like Chen is good news for the growing Chi­nese com­puter industry. China has recently been pri­marily focusing its high-performance tech­nical com­puter designs on com­modity com­po­nent clus­ters. In gen­eral, clus­ters pro­vide very attrac­tive price-performance but lack some of the high-end capa­bil­i­ties pro­vided by tra­di­tional super­com­puters. Chen plans to bridge the gap by building high-performance blade-based clus­ters in China and offering them for sale around the world.

If America’s tech­nology prowess is a national trea­sure, then people like Steven Chen are national trea­sures also. How is it that we cannot offer enough entice­ment to keep such a talent in the United States? In an age where sports fig­ures can com­mand mil­lion of dol­lars per season for pure enter­tain­ment, this seems rather odd. It’s not just that Chen isn’t helping the U.S. but that he is helping a Com­mu­nist gov­ern­ment develop tech­nology that can be used against us — com­mer­cially and militarily.

Example of a “Blind Eye”

The New York Times car­ried an article on May 17, 2005, “Bush’s Choice: Anger China or Con­gress Over Cur­rency.” China bought more than $200 bil­lion in Trea­suries last year, bringing their total own­er­ship of U.S. debt to a whop­ping $650 bil­lion. These pur­chases essen­tially finance a com­pa­rable trade deficit with China. Because China’s cur­rency, the yuan, is pegged to the U.S. dollar, China is in a posi­tion to manip­u­late the system (under­valuing its cur­rency) and gain a whop­ping trade advan­tage over America.

U.S. Busi­nesses have filed vol­umes of com­plaints with the U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive, Rob Portman, about issues ranging from China’s dumping of prod­ucts at prices below cost of man­u­fac­turing, to wide­spread copy­right and patent vio­la­tions. Con­gress is some­what sen­si­tive to this issue and, bucking the pres­i­dent, is pushing for tar­iffs and quotas against China to punish them for milking the system.

Bush must now be crit­ical of China (and infu­riate China) or give China a clean bill of health and say that every­thing is fine (and infu­riate Con­gress and the Amer­ican people).

So, what do you do when you’ve invited an 800 pound gorilla into your living room? You pray he doesn’t get mad when you ask him to leave.

Trea­sury Sec­re­tary John Snow is on the spot. In the past, he has refused to crit­i­cize China openly, but rather seeks to rely on “finan­cial diplo­macy” instead. He believes that China can be per­suaded that flex­ible exchange rates ought to be in its own interest.

Mr. Snow, in an inter­view on Monday with CNBC, reit­er­ated his opti­mism that China would change policy on its own. “I’m con­vinced they will move,” Mr. Snow said. “Now is the time. We’re anx­ious to see them move. It’s time.”

What evi­dence does Snow have that China will vol­un­tarily pull back from an oppor­tu­nity to plunder the U.S.? His wishful thinking that they might com­pli­antly respond to our being “anx­ious” to see them move?

It is easier to under­stand the con­flict of interest if you look back a few years at John Snow’s career. From 1994 – 1996, Snow was chairman of the Busi­ness Round­table, an asso­ci­a­tion of 250 chief exec­u­tive offi­cers of the largest cor­po­ra­tions, rep­re­senting over $3.7 tril­lion in com­bined rev­enues. During that time, he was a key player in sup­porting the pas­sage of the North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA).

He recently received the Marco Polo Award (2001), awarded by the U.S.-China Foun­da­tion for Inter­na­tional Exchanges as the highest honor that can be given to a for­eign busi­ness leader. He is a director of CarMax, U.S. Steel, Johnson & Johnson, Ver­izon Com­mu­ni­ca­tions, sits on the boards of Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity, is chairman of the Kennedy Center Cor­po­rate Fund Board, and is a member of the Busi­ness Council and Busi­ness Roundtable.

In short, Snow has been at the cor­po­rate center of pro­moting glob­alism and in par­tic­ular, building China’s trade for many years. As Trea­sury Sec­re­tary, he is in an influ­en­tial posi­tion of trust to pro­tect the Amer­ican people from eco­nomic harm. But, will he?

To under­stand more com­pletely, ask your­self this ques­tion. Who invested money in, and built up, this 800 pound gorilla?

Take Bechtel for instance, one of the largest con­struc­tion and engi­neering com­pa­nies in the world. In 1994, Bechtel was the first U.S. com­pany to receive a con­struc­tion license in China. It has com­pleted 80 major projects in China and has per­ma­nent offices located in Bei­jing, Shanghai, Taipei and Hong Kong. Its latest project is a $4.3 bil­lion petro­chem­ical com­plex in Daya Bay that will pro­duce 2.3 mil­lion tons of prod­ucts annu­ally. It’s being touted as one of the largest Sino-foreign invest­ments to date, and is 50% owned by a sub­sidiary of Royal Dutch/Shell.

If we say, “China is really prof­iting from the U.S.”, to whom are we really refer­ring? It’s true that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment is get­ting an advan­tage from the increase in eco­nomic activity, but who are the front-line col­lec­tors of rev­enue and aggre­ga­tors of profit in China? That’s right, it’s the same multi­na­tional corporations.

So, as noted above, when John Snow reit­er­ates his opti­mism that China will change policy on its own, you can see just how selec­tive his vision is. As long as China’s policy remains as it is, America gets plun­dered and the global cor­po­ra­tions in China rack up record profits.

This issue con­tends that America is For Sale. The sale is “under the table” in that the Amer­ican people don’t have a clue that it’s being slowly sold out from under their feet, one piece at a time. The sale is decep­tive because as the red ink grows larger and larger, we are told by these same glob­al­ists that trade and budget deficits don’t really matter that much. The sale is dis­honest because it was planned from the begin­ning by elitist groups like the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, to twist and manip­u­late the system to their own benefit.

The fact that America’s down­ward finan­cial spiral started in earnest shortly after the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was founded by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, is not inci­dental. The very poli­cies that brought us the “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” (their own phrase) have wrecked our country. This is not an anec­dotal obser­va­tion, as will be demon­strated over and over in future issues of The August Review.

America is in a very grievous and trepid sit­u­a­tion. Any number of iso­lated inci­dents could touch off a finan­cial firestorm that burns our house to the ground. When a com­pany goes bank­rupt, it is seldom adver­tised in advance. Its cus­tomers, share­holders and debtors are invari­ably in a state of shock when the bank­ruptcy occurs, even though hind site shows that there were ample evi­dences of impending bank­ruptcy. So it is with America: There is evi­dence every­where of what is hap­pening to us, but there are few eyes to see it nor ears to hear it.

In 30 – 40 short years, America has gone from the strongest and most stable nation in the world, to one of the weakest and unstable. Poor Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall and had a great fall, but few people will see the real truth that Humpty was actu­ally pushed!

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Premium Subscriber Access


Forgot Password

People want to know…


What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)