Saturday, 25 February 2017
Some of Trump's Picks Have Troubling Links to Globalism, CFR
Written by Alex Newman
After crushing the establishment and delivering a series of blows to globalism, President Donald Trump's winning spree against the powerful forces that opposed him appears to be slowing down. In fact, with his recent selection of Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser and Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court — both of whom have been listed as members of the establishment globalist swamp known as the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) — concerns are growing even among Trump supporters and grassroots conservative activists. There were already several CFR-linked officials before the latest additions — the very same forces that viciously libeled and attacked him in their failed bid to stop the swamp draining.
The controversial CFR group's agenda is rarely discussed openly in the media, despite the fact that much of the establishment media is actually listed as “corporate” members of the CFR. The outfit's membership is often quoted as supposedly dispassionate sources in the media, too. But evidence of the organization's agenda — global governance, open borders, Big Government, surrendering sovereignty, attacking self-government, and more — is hardly difficult to find.
Indeed, prominent patriotic Americans, including CFR members, have been sounding the alarm for generations. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, for example, who served as the Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as America First,” said Admiral Ward, whose comments on the CFR shed light on why the group would be entirely hostile to Trump's central promise as a pro-America, anti-establishment political candidate.
But it's even worse than that. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” the admiral warned, adding that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.” In other words, not everyone in the CFR is a fanatical globalist determined to sell out America's sovereignty, but most are.
That sinister agenda becomes clear from reading the CFR's own magazine, known as Foreign Affairs. In April 1974, for example, Richard Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, explained how the agenda for world government would be pursued. “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down,” he wrote. “An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault.” The magazine also regularly promotes regional government, war, and attacks on national sovereingty.
For some additional perspective, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted in a speech that the CFR gives her instructions on “what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney once bragged: “I've been a member [of the CFR] for a long time, and was actually a director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.” Countless similar statements exist acknowledging the CFR's deceptive practices, its dangerous agenda, and its hijacking of U.S. policy.
And yet, on the campaign trail, Trump blasted what he described as a “cabal” seeking “global government” and vowed to put an end to such machinations. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” Trump said, adding that “America First” would become U.S. policy across every sphere of government activity including foreign policy, economic policy, trade policy, national security, immigration, and much more.
Of course, it is true that Trump's administration and cabinet has less establishment globalists and CFR members than any White House in recent memory, of either party — Obama, Clinton, and both Bushes have each installed hundreds of CFR members in top positions within their administrations. But with some of Trump's most recent appointments, the trend toward adding more and more CFR members has raised questions and concerns even among some of his most ardent supporters.
Did the so-called Deep State find a way to get to Trump? Is Trump simply unaware of the CFR's well-documented agenda to undermine U.S. sovereignty, liberty, and prosperity? Are there globalist CFR operatives who have burrowed their way into senior positions in the administration, and are now working to bring in more swamp creatures to mislead and sabotage Trump? The months and years ahead should make that more clear.
First, Gorsuch. Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, assuming he is confirmed, will have immense influence on the future of America — far more than America's founding fathers ever intended. As soon as the announcement was made, many well-known conservative and establishment voices sprang into action to support the nomination. Some prominent voices expressed hesitation — both on pro-life issues and gun rights — but overall much of the Republican Party was pleased, ranging from constitutionalists and conservatives to the neocon and establishment wing of the GOP.
A number of concerns ended up being raised about him, though. And more than a few liberals, including some far-left pseudo-journalists, have applauded the choice. The headline at the anti-Trump hysteria factory known as the Washington Post, for example, reads: “Simply stated, Gorsuch is steadfast and surprising. The Supreme Court nominee resides on the right, listens intently to the left and often finds a homespun truth somewhere in between.” An opinion piece at The Hill, meanwhile, suggested approvingly that Gorsuch might even be a secret liberal.
However, one crucial point on his résumé has flown largely under the radar, even among many usually well-informed voices that would have promptly sounded the alarm. That is the fact that Gorsuch was listed as a term member of the CFR in the organization's 2008 Annual Report Membership Roster. He was also listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by President George W. Bush. And aside from Internet commentators in comment sections, the only major analyst who seems to have noticed is Kelleigh Nelson.
CFR operatives must have noticed, too, though, recently calling Gorsuch “well qualified” for the spot — while perhaps inadvertently sending out a major warning sign for conservatives and constitutionalists. “Trump arguably had one good day in his first two weeks, on Jan. 31, when he rolled out the nomination of the well-qualified Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court,” the CFR's warmongering neoconservative Max Boot wrote in an oped published in Foreign Policy viciously attacking Trump and his agenda. Boot and other globalist neocons, often called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), viciously smeared Trump during his campaign, too, abandoning the GOP for Hillary Clinton.
Then there is Lieutenant General McMaster, Trump's new national security adviser who took over after non-CFR member Mike Flynn resigned amid what appeared to be a well-orchestrated hit job by the so-called Deep State. By all accounts, McMaster is a superb soldier, officer, and military man. He has received a wide array of awards, medals, and recognition for his service in the U.S. Army. His insights into the failures of U.S. military leadership in Vietnam have received widespread praise, too.
However, McMaster is listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, too — and his membership is current as of February 24, according to the CFR's online roster. And while there are undoubtedly some non-globalists who have joined the CFR over the years for reasons other than believing in its anti-American, anti-freedom agenda, McMaster's record suggests he may not be among that small group.
A decade ago, he joined the globalist-minded International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London as a “Senior Research Associate.” According to the organization itself, his mandate was described as “conduct[ing] research to identify opportunities for improved multi-national cooperation and political-military integration in the areas of counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism, and state building.”
There are a number of terms and phrases there that are cause for alarm — including standard globalist rhetoric such as “multi-national cooperation” and “political-military integration,” which sounds a lot like sovereignty-stealing schemes such as NATO and the European Union. There was also the term “state building,” which critics pointed out resembles the “nation building” that Trump specifically vowed to stop under his administration following costly and deadly failures by Obama and Bush.
The New American's Warren Mass reported on the developments this week. “One would have expected an interventionist, neoconservative CFR member such as John McCain to have appointed a man such as McMaster to his inner circle,” Mass wrote. And indeed, true to form, globalist neocon McCain, who has expressed nothing but contempt for Trump and his supporters, was very pleased with McMaster, calling him “an outstanding choice for national security advisor — man of genuine intellect, character and ability.”
McMaster and Gorsuch are only the two most recent CFR additions to the Trump Team. Others have already been documented in the pages of The New American. And a regular commentator in the comments section of this magazine's online portal, who goes by the username St_Robert_Bellarmine, has compiled a significant list of Trump's senior CFR-linked and globalist-tied appointees, some of whom have attended the globalist Bilderberg summit or have ties to globalist billionaire David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, a CFR-type body focusing on America, Europe, and Japan.
Among them are Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, who is listed as a current member of CFR, despite the globalist outfit's key role in imposing the very multilateral “free-trade” regimes that Trump has opposed for harming America and undermining U.S. sovereignty. Another is Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, a CFR member with troubling links to the Communist Chinese dictatorship. She also happens to be married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and may have been a bargaining chip in getting other nominees approved by establishment Republicans in Congress.
Then there are a number of non-members who nevertheless have troubling ties to the CFR and other globalist organizations. Exxon-Mobil, of course, is a “founder” corporate member of the CFR. And despite not being an official member himself, Rex Tillerson boasted to CFR members in a speech that he shared their views on globalism. “Like the Council’s founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagements,” Tillerson said in a 2007 event at the CFR.
Another controversial figure is Steven Mnuchin, Trump's treasury secretary and a former executive with “vampire squid” international bank Goldman Sachs. Like Exxon-Mobil, the globalist bank is also listed as a “founder” corporate member of the CFR. And Mnuchin, while not listed publicly as a member of CFR, was a member of the secret “Skull and Bones” society at Yale that has been exposed for being involved in dark and deeply disturbing rituals. George W. Bush and John Kerry were also members, though both refused to talk about it while running against each other for president.
Then there are at least two cabinet members in the Trump administration who have attended the annual Bilderberg summit, where top globalists, politicians, bankers, communists, royalty, and crony capitalists meet once a year to plot policy behind closed doors and recruit useful idiots to their globalist cause. The first is former Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican who serves as Trump's energy secretary. The other is Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a military man who attended the 2015 Bilderberg meeting in Austria as a “distinguished fellow” of the Hoover Institution.
The name Rothschild — the unfathomably wealthy banking dynasty — often pops up in connection with Bilderberg, billionaire George Soros, and other organs and individuals associated with the globalist establishment and the central banking cartel. And it just so happens that Trump's commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, was a senior managing director at Rothschild, Inc., before joining Trump's team. Soros, the extreme left-wing agitator, was also a Rothschild protege.
Of course, hoping for a cabinet entirely devoid of people with links to the establishment swamp — at least for now — might be a bit unrealistic. After all, the nominees had to get through Senate confirmation, and there are more than a few CFR operatives and globalist shills still haunting the halls of Congress. And to be fair, on the campaign trail, Trump did say he had “respect” for CFR boss Richard Haass, a leading globalist operative who has publicly grumbled about Trump and his agenda. Trump's team has also said publicly that all cabinet members agreed to go along with the president's America First agenda.
However, at this point, it is starting to seem like there are too many swamp creatures in the White House for comfort. His supporters have expressed hope the president will keep them on a short leash, and utter the famous “you're fired” phrase from his TV days if any of the appointees get out of line. And to be fair, again, Trump has taken a number of actions that clearly upset the globalist establishment and the CFR, ranging from dismantling Obama regulations to withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But being surrounded by globalists and establishment operatives gives them the chance to mislead Trump, sabotage his agenda, and more.
He does have many excellent people working for him, many of whom have been highlighted in these pages. To avoid becoming another victim of the establishment, though, Trump should probably exercise extreme caution when getting advice or information.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
Council On Foreign Relations Exposed
Trump Picks CFR Member for New National Security Advisor
Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Neil Gorsuch: An “Originalist”
Obama Picks Come From Same Old CFR Roster
Trump's First 100 Days
Is “Trumpism” Really “Bircherism”?
Trump Names ExxonMobil Chief Rex Tillerson Secretary of State
Trump Picks Elaine Chao for Transportation Secretary
Rick Perry's Islamist Connections
Trump VP Pence: Globalist Neocon or Solid Conservative?
Bilderberg: Where Big Business and Big Government Plot Globalism
Trump Picks Former Goldman Sachs Banker for Treasury Secretary
Trump Victory Proves “Mainstream” Media Is Globalist Fringe
Neocons, Warmongers, and Globalists Abandon GOP for Hillary
Mike Flynn Was Picked Off by the Shadow Government
10:00AM EST 3/2/2017 Thomas Ertl/News With Views
On Jan. 13, 1964, 53 days after the deep state's involvement in the assassination of an American president, Bob Dylan released his famous album, "The Times They Are a Changin'."
Though Dylan was promoting a '60s style radicalism of social and political upheaval, the album title and lyrics to the theme song run true to these epic times of American history in which we live.
I write after the politically eventful week of Feb. 12-18, and following President Trump's Friday-afternoon tweet that the media is "the enemy of the American people."
He, in classic Trump form, lays down another gauntlet to the establishment-controlled media after Wednesday's total beat-down press conference of the same media. A theologian and friend in Switzerland who viewed the entire press conference writes:
I was enthralled.
I found it amazing for its simplicity, familiarity, forthright speaking of the truth and extraordinary frankness and its non-moralizing manner. The concern for the good of the nation (and even that of the media) was manifest at every moment.
One very remarkable thing in the whole press conference is that Trump was berating his enemies in their very presence and before that immense grand jury of the whole American nation.
Of course, not forgotten at Saturday's rally in Melbourne, Florida, was the first lady of the United States leading America in praying the Lord's Prayer. Who can remember something similar by any other first lady?
The first three weeks of the Trump presidency have been daily doses of conservative political bliss. One great move after another has had the Establishment spinning. Then came the Monday of Feb. 13 and the resignation of General Flynn as national security adviser. This was a painful turn of events, considering that Flynn was a favorite of many patriots. In his resignation, Trump lost an irreplaceable adviser who was well-aware of the CIA and the Bush/Obama duplicity in the promotion of failed Middle East conflicts, not to mention the fed's aiding of Al-Qaeda and ISIS forces.
Next to Steve Bannon, General Flynn was probably Trump's most important appointment. Soon after the story broke of Flynn's resignation, triggered by a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador, the news and discussion shifted to the questions of who surveilled and taped Flynn's phone conversation, and how The Washington Post and The New York Times obtained the written phone record.
In his article for Bloomberg on Feb. 14, Eli Lake stated that General Flynn "did nothing illegal nor improper." He later used the phrase, "creepy authoritarianism" concerning intelligence operatives entrusted with national secrets who would dare disclose them to the press to undermine an elected president and his administration.
Others made similar claims of these rogue United States operatives, using the words "terrifying" and "unnerving." Even the anti-Trump press of Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal sounded the alarm over "the spooks," secretly planning to destroy the Trump presidency through illegal intelligence activity. Even the establishment media can occasionally see the evidence of a police state.
Then, as Monday passed into Tuesday, another news shift occurred. Monday's lamenting by conservatives on the loss of General Flynn, and the Trump administration being put on the defensive, turned to discussion aimed at the legitimacy and credibility of all U.S. intelligence agencies. Trump went on the attack and declared that the leak to the press was a "criminal act."
By Tuesday, from noon all the way to 6 o'clock, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity went on the attack against the U.S. intelligence agencies, even verbalizing the words forbidden in respectable conservative circles: "deep state," "shadow government" and "police state." It didn't stop there. For the rest of the week, almost every political article and commentary took their lead and started talking about these supposedly conspiratorial and extreme categories.
To my amazement, the "deep state" was the talk of the week in American politics, dominating the establishment and conservative media. Those who understood globalism have tried in vain for five decades to awaken American conservative and Christians to the great threat of the shadow government and deep state. Now, in the course of one day, these terms have become mainstream conservative talking points. Who could have seen this coming?
The New Narrative
During the 2016 campaign, Trump changed the conservative talking points from the old and tired left vs. right paradigm and the false Republican vs. Democrat polemic. He created the new political discussion points of Americanism vs. globalism. Trump's attack on globalism has served as a base of all future conservative political narratives.
Building on that base, now, is the additional narrative of the deep state, shadow government and police state. For the first time, the American public is learning about the dark side of the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies. In the process, globalism's use of these agencies as private secret police has been exposed to the world as the internal enemy of this country.
Previously, the average American naively viewed the CIA and other intelligence agencies as departments of government set up to keep America safe. Their naiveté has been shattered with last week's revelation of the intelligence community's attempt to take down an elected president who has a pro-American agenda.
The Limbaugh/Hannity Factor
The 12 to 6 p.m. radio time is the key 6 hours for the modern American middle class to develop its political worldview. Through the many years since Rush Limbaugh has ascended to the top of radio commentary, both he and Hannity have shied away from conspiratorial talk—until last week, which became a monumental week for conservative talk radio.
They finally stepped over the "first-base line" into the reality field of the deep state, the shadow government and the police state, and they did it with great energy. In fact, Hannity's preaching against the deep state last week was so intense that, at one point in his broadcast, he had to catch himself and say, "I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory." (But, of course, the deep state is a conspiracy.)
So, as the week of Feb. 13 commenced, American talk conservative radio has finally gone into the conspiratorial realm by reporting on the dark side of the shadow government. They have a ways to go, but it is an encouraging development.
Globalist elites have been in control of American intelligence agencies for decades and have used these agencies and the American military for regional destabilization and regime change—all done in stealth, unabated, with American tax dollars and hidden from public scrutiny.
The deep state can only operate in stealth, pushing their criminal agenda, with the cooperation of the mainstream media. For years, the deep state has shaped public opinion, through media, academia and Hollywood, but their influence over the middle class has been greatly eroded because of talk radio and the immense volume of documented information on the internet.
Trump has furthered the media's demise by calling them out as liars. This has never been done by a modern U.S. president. Trump's huge success against the media also facilitates the defeat of the globalists in the information war.
Patriots who, in times past, dared to address the tyranny of global shadow government were often tossed into the "conspiracy theory" briar patch. This has been going on at least since 1967, when the CIA first created the term "conspiracy theory" to mute all JFK assassination inquiries. It has been a tremendously effective psychological tool to quell investigations of the government by its citizens.
Consent of the Governed
Fundamental to the governing concept of the American republic is that the government must not infringe on the people's rights and that the people allow the government to operate by consent.
When the dark side of the US intelligence has to resort to deception and coercion as a means to conduct their shadow government, they lose their legitimacy and eventually lose the consent to govern entrusted to them by the people. For them, the open attack on a sitting president, withholding intelligence from him and working to destroy his presidency are all acts of treason. This will not sit well with America's citizens.
All the recent developments of these shadowy agencies have now opened them up for daily discussion in the new conservative narrative with the hope of eliminating the some of these rogue agencies combined with a major house cleaning in the others.
Globalism's Naked Run
There is an old phrase patriots have used for years about the final establishment of global government and its New World Order: "They will have to run naked the last 100 yards." This means that, nearing the final stage of setting up their one-world government, globalists will have to come clean and openly announce their plan for tyranny.
Yet, on the journey to this New World Order, Western resistance movements have become so aggressive and successful that, in order to maintain their gains, globalists are starting their naked run prematurely.
In the States, the outgoing CIA director, John Brennan, has instructed the new president: "Watch your mouth." New York Senator Schumer has, on national TV, threatened Trump saying, "the CIA has six ways to Sunday to retaliate." Bill Kristol, neo-con and former editor of the Weekly Standard, tweeted this week: "I prefer the Deep State to the Trump State."
Globalism is being exposed and outed by Trump, and its plans disrupted. Picture with me the symbolism of 5-foot-9-inch, 97-year-old Henry Kissinger, 88-year-old Zbigniew Brzezinski and Bill Kristol on a 100-yard naked dash to the finish line of their New World Order. This is the ugly future picture of globalism. I can hardly tolerate Kristol fully clothed.
Last week, there was a major meeting of the global elites in Dubai. Alex Newman of the New American magazine titled his article on the confab, "At 'World Government Summit,' Top Globalists Drop the Mask."
The U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres lamented that "people no longer trust their rulers and globalist organizations they established." Then came Elon Musk with his Huxleyite technocratic dreams of men merging with machines.
Despite the growing public revolt against globalism and statism across the West—most recently seen in Brexit and Trump's election—the globalist establishment clearly has no plans to let up or even slow down, as evidenced by the speeches offered at the World Government Summit this week by top peddlers of global governance. If liberty and self-government are to survive and thrive, then, the agenda for technocratic planetary rule must be exposed and halted as quickly as possible. But with globalists increasingly dropping the mask when it comes to their true intentions, the time to do that has never been better.
In Europe, most every member country of the European Union has a thriving exit movement. The E.U. leadership is running so scared that they have recently threatened their rebellious member nations with the E.U army. The suggested use of military force is a true sign of their loss of legitimacy—and prophetic of their eventual defeat.
Last week, the shadow government of American intelligence picked off one of our heroes, General Michael Flynn. But along with that casualty came an exposure of America's rogue dark side, federal agencies, along with a backlash against them.
If Flynn's loss was the cause of the deep state's exposure, and the launch of a new political narrative, then it was well worth it. The new narrative will serve the American people well in the ongoing battle against the Establishment and their globalist plans.
Yes, we are in a battle for who controls America: the American people or the global elite, who for 100 years have planned and schemed for global governance and the loss of American sovereignty. The times are epic and the political narratives have changed to deal with the severity of the situation and the protracted battle that lies ahead for us.
The difference in our day is that the people finally have a true American leader in Donald Trump: one of their own, a real man who has the ability and the courage to take on the leviathan. And, as is often the case, one man's courage begets courage in the many.
Dylan's lyrics to his "The Times They Are a Changin'" so fit our present national battle. Below are three of the verses:
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
#CNNLeaks: Project Veritas Releases Over 100 Hours of Audio From Inside CNN
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE: COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
December 8, 2016 by James Perloff
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama consistently promised Americans “change.” Such promises aren’t new to the voting public.
When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said: “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.” And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.” Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as National Security Adviser; the “same group of insiders” had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit.
Carter’s administration was dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was campaigning against Carter, he protested:
I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction.
Yet after his election, President Reagan picked 10 Trilateralists for his transition team, and included in his administration such Trilateralists as Vice President George Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Yet the entire North American membership of the Trilateral Commission has never numbered much over 100.
The reason that presidential candidates’ promises of “change” go largely unfulfilled once in office: they draw their top personnel from the same establishment groups — of which the Trilateral Commission is only one.
Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. As we will later see, Barack Obama is no exception to CFR influence.
Power Behind the Throne
In theory, America’s government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this concept rang true in early America, and many individuals still trust in it, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift from the people to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and powerful multinational corporations. Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, explained:
The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area.
Roosevelt added that this group’s goal is “a One World Socialist state governed by ‘experts’ like themselves.”
David Rockefeller, the longtime chairman (and now chairman emeritus) of the CFR, acknowledged the role of the establishment in trying to lead America in the one-world direction in his 2002 book Memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Two major means the establishment employs for controlling government policy: (1) through its influence within the two major parties and the mass media, it can usually assure that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates will be its own hand-picked men; (2) by stacking presidential cabinets with CFR members at key positions — especially those involving defense, finance, foreign policy, and national security — it can assure that America will move in the direction it wants. Since the council’s founding in 1921, 21 secretaries of defense or war, 19 secretaries of the treasury, 17 secretaries of state, and 15 CIA directors have hailed from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Prior to the CFR’s founding, what Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. (the father of the famous aviator) called the “Money Trust” — a cabal of international bankers including the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild — conspired to create the Federal Reserve System. Their agents, such as Paul Warburg and Benjamin Strong, who had secretly planned the Fed at a nine-day meeting on Jekyll Island, were then put in charge of the system itself. This gave them control of American interest rates, and, by virtue of this, control of the stock market, as well as the capacity to have the U.S. government spend without limit by having the Fed create money from nothing. The result has been decades of inflation and skyrocketing national debt. (For full details, see the April 13, 2009 New American or Our Monetary Mayhem Began With the Fed.)
Not just an accumulation of wealth, but a consolidation of political power was involved. The Money Trust had backed Woodrow Wilson in the presidential elections, and then controlled him through their front man, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House. The trust recognized how the power of government could be used to advance their own interests.
Wilson, surrounded by the bankers, traveled to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which was settling the aftermath of World War I. His chief proposal there, of course, was the League of Nations — a first step toward world government. However, although the League was established by the Versailles Treaty, the United States did not join because the Senate refused to ratify the treaty.
In response to this rejection, the bankers’ circle, still in Paris, held a series of meetings and proposed to establish a new organization in the United States, whose purpose would be to lead America into the League. This organization was incorporated in New York City two years later as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Architects of a New World Order
The CFR’s goal was formation of an incrementally stronger world government. Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
After World War II, the League’s successor, the United Nations, was born. Contrary to what the public is commonly told, the UN was not founded by nations who had tired of war. The UN was conceived by a group of CFR members in the State Department calling themselves the Informal Agenda Group. They drafted the original proposal for the UN, and secured the approval of President Roosevelt, who then made establishing the UN his highest postwar priority. When the UN held its founding meeting in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the American delegates were CFR members.
Though the UN was not initially set up as a world government, the intent was that it would develop into one over time. John Foster Dulles (CFR), an American delegate to the UN founding meeting who later became Secretary of State under Eisenhower, acknowledged as much in his book War or Peace: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”
Two other postwar institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, were technically created at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. But the initial planning was done by the CFR’s Economic and Finance Group, part of their wartime War and Peace Studies Project. The World Bank and IMF act as a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.
Despite what Americans were told, the postwar Marshall Plan was not invented by General George Marshall, though he did announce it in a 1947 Harvard commencement speech. The Marshall Plan was dreamed up at a CFR study group with David Rockefeller as its secretary. Marshall was simply selected to announce the plan because, as a general, he would be perceived as politically neutral and help garner bipartisan congressional support for the plan. Unknown to the public, Marshall Plan funds were circuitously rerouted by John J. McCloy — appointed U.S. High Commissioner to Germany — to Jean Monnet, founder of the Common Market, which evolved into today’s European Union, a microcosm of world government. McCloy returned home to become chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1953.
The tragic Vietnam War was run almost entirely by CFR members. William P. Bundy (CFR) drafted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution before the now-discredited Tonkin Gulf Incident even took place. Bundy’s father-in-law, Dean Acheson (CFR), as leader of a senior team of advisers nicknamed “the Wise Men,” persuaded Lyndon Baines Johnson to dramatically escalate the war beginning in 1965. And Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (CFR) helped develop the “rules of engagement” (e.g., preventing the Air Force from attacking critical targets) that guaranteed the war’s disastrous prolongation. This generated a huge slide to the left among American college students. When Bundy left the State Department, David Rockefeller appointed him editor of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs. And McNamara, one of the leading architects of the Vietnam War debacle, became president of the World Bank.
Broadening the Scheme
The CFR is not a uniquely American phenomenon. It has counterpart organizations throughout the world — e.g., the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England, the French Institute of International Relations, etc.
To help coordinate policy on an international scale, CFR chairman David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. “Trilateral” refers to the coordination of three global regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The commission’s meetings allow the gathering together of heads of state, banks, multinational corporations, and media. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater called the commission “David Rockefeller’s newest cabal,” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.” The commission, like the annual secretive meetings of the Bilderbergers and the notorious Bohemian Grove, enables the international power elite to privately assemble and plan our destiny.
Jimmy Carter was a member of the commission, hand-picked to be president after meeting with Brzezinski and Rockefeller at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York, estate. Carter filled his administration with CFR members and Trilateralists. Indeed, Brzezinski noted in his memoirs that “all the key foreign policy decision makers of the Carter Administration had previously served in the Trilateral Commission.” Carter then embarked on a destructive course of foreign policy that included betraying the Shah of Iran, leading to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini and the U.S. hostage crisis; betraying President Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, resulting in a Marxist dictatorship under the Sandinistas; and betraying Taiwan in order to recognize Communist China — a move previously set up by Richard Nixon’s overtures to China, dictated by his own CFR advisers.
Under Bill Clinton (a CFR member who selected 12 CFR members for his cabinet), the United States enacted NAFTA, an economic alliance with Mexico and Canada. This arrangement was created by the establishment, not by the American people, who did not suspect the game being played on them. Not only did NAFTA swamp us with cheap, job-destroying imports, but it was designed to be the foundation for a continental economic union leading to political union. Robert Pastor (CFR), a key architect of North American integration, acknowledged in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” And Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute said: “NAFTA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit — North America. With economic integration will come political integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament.” [Emphasis added.]
A similar stratagem had been used against the peoples of Europe — by first deceptively hooking them into an “economic” alliance called the Common Market, which then, requiring common laws to regulate trade, transformed via a series of steps into the European Union, the super-national government of Europe that is swallowing up national sovereignty.
Following the initial step enacted under Clinton, President George W. Bush, whose father was a CFR director, moved toward politicizing the NAFTA alliance. On March 23, 2005, he met Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to launch the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the rudiments of a North American Union. CNN’s Lou Dobbs said of it: “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it.”
Furthermore, regional alliances such as the European Union and proposed North American Union are not ends, but only steppingstones to world government. As CFR/Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”
In furtherance of this, on April 30, 2007, President Bush stood at the White House beside Angela Merkel, president of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and announced the signing of a new agreement to “strengthen transatlantic economic integration.” It called for “joint work in the areas of regulatory cooperation, financial markets, trade and transport security, innovation and technological development, intellectual property rights, energy, investment, competition, services, and government procurement,” and various other steps toward economic integration. But as usual, “economic integration” is the predecessor of political integration. CFR members have dreamed of a political union between the United States and Europe since the 1950s, when the CFR-dominated Atlantic Union Committee promoted a merger they called “Atlantica.”
Candidate Barack Obama revealed he would proceed with the Bush initiatives. In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008, he stated:
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down…. Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together…. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
Obama had only been president for a little over two months when he traveled to Europe for a series of meetings with European leaders. He attended the G20 Summit, which ended with a tentative agreement to launch a new global financial system, using as the rationale for this major step toward global government the recent Fed- and government-spawned financial meltdown.
Henry Kissinger — foreign policy mouthpiece of the establishment for four decades — wrote an article for the January 12, 2009 issue of the International Herald Tribune entitled “The Chance for a New World Order.” He stated:
As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy….
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being….
The alternative to a new international order is chaos.
Kissinger also stated on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street”: “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously…. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”
Past statements reveal that the establishment wants a single currency for the world, just as the EU has consolidated its currencies into the “euro.” As far back as the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, John Maynard Keynes proposed a world currency he dubbed bancor. Richard L. Gardner (CFR) wrote in the Fall 1984 Foreign Affairs: “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of common currency for all the industrial democracies and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that Monetary Policy.”
In March of this year, Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with reporters at the White House. Brown announced that “there is the possibility in the next few months of a global new deal that will involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system.” Obama added that
Globalization can be an enormous force for good…. But what is also true is … we still have a 1930s regulatory system in place in most countries designed from the last great crisis, that we’ve got to update our institutions, our regulatory frameworks, so that the power of globalization is channeled for the benefit of ordinary men and women.
If trends continue, however, the changes can be expected to benefit a tiny handful of the global elite, not “ordinary men and women.” Further evidence that Obama’s administration will simply continue the globalist agenda is indicated by his appointments.
CFR Domination Continues
During his campaign, Obama selected the ubiquitous Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), promoter of the “regional” approach to world government, as one of his top foreign policy advisors. Obama called Brzezinski “one of our more outstanding thinkers” and “somebody I have learned an immense amount from.” Presumably Brzezinski’s teachings included the world government he advocates.
For Treasury Secretary, Obama chose Timothy Geithner: Senior Fellow in International Economics at the CFR, Bilderberger, former head of the New York Federal Reserve, and former employee of both the IMF and Kissinger Associates. One doesn’t get more establishment than that! It is Geithner who is managing the bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer dollars. Assisting Geithner at Treasury in overseeing the auto industry bailout is fellow CFR member Stephen Rattner.
For Director of the National Economic Council — a U.S. government agency created by a Bill Clinton executive order — Obama selected Lawrence Summers (CFR, Bilderberger). Former Chief Economist at the World Bank, his last position was at the investment firm of D. E. Shaw & Co, where he earned $5.2 million in one year while working one day per week. Henry Kissinger had said Summers should “be given a White House post in which he was charged with shooting down or fixing bad ideas.”
For Defense Secretary, Obama elected to continue with Bush pick Robert Gates (CFR, Bilderberger). During the Carter administration, Gates served as a special assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski. In 2004, he co-chaired a CFR Task Force on Iran with Brzezinski, who lauded Gates in Time in 2008. Joining Gates in the Defense Department are fellow CFR members Michele Flournoy (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Jeh C. Johnson (Defense Department General Counsel), and Kathleen Hicks (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces).
For Secretary of State, Obama chose Hillary Clinton, who has attended the top-secret Bilderberger meetings. Hillary is not a CFR member, but husband Bill is, and her State Department is laden with CFR members, including James B. Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), William J. Burns (Under Secretary for Political Affairs), Susan Rice (U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Jacob J. Lew (Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources), Todd Stern (Special Envoy for Climate Change), and many others.
The Department of Homeland Security, which many Americans fear may turn our country into an Orwellian surveillance society, was conceived before 9/11 by a task force called the U.S. Commission on National Security, nine of whose 12 members belonged to the CFR. The administration of the department under Obama is particularly heavy with CFR members, including Janet Napolitano (Secretary), Jane Holl Lute (Deputy Secretary), Juliette Kayyem (Assistant Secretary, Office of Intergovernmental Programs), and Alan Bersin (Assistant Secretary, Office of International Affairs).
Thus the CFR continues to dominate our government’s key areas: finance, defense, foreign policy, and security. To this may be added various other Obama CFR appointees, such as Mona Sutphen (White House Deputy Chief of Staff), Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board), Peter Cowhey, (Senior Counsel, Office of U.S. Trade Representative), and Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
The idea that Barack Obama became president from a “grass-roots” movement is illusory. American government policy continues to be largely dictated by the rich and the few. This is generally unknown to the public — not because it is a bizarre conspiracy theory, but because the same power elite who run our government, mega-banks, and multinational corporations also run the major media, as an inspection of the CFR membership roster would reveal.
Membership in the CFR, of course, is not an automatic condemnation. A few people are added as “window dressing” to give the group distinction and a veneer of diversity. An example is movie star Angelina Jolie. No one suspects Jolie knows much about foreign affairs or is a conspirator for world government. But within the CFR are hardcore globalists who, linked with their foreign counterparts through the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission, head the drive for one-world government.
Though numerically small (less than 1,000 members during the Kennedy years, less than 4,500 today), this organization has dominated every administration for over seven decades.
As long as the CFR controls our government, we can anticipate more of the same: diminishing national sovereignty; free flow of immigration (which confuses national identity and weakens national loyalties); increasing jobs losses through multinational trade agreements; further internationalization of law (Law of the Sea Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, World Court, global taxation, etc.); increasing loss of freedoms in a “surveillance society”; progressive organization of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union; and ultimately, broader merger into a world government where all power will be concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Eternal vigilance continues to be the price of freedom.
Source: The New American
Excerpts from the book, “Dedication & Leadership – Learning From the Communists”
The author, Douglas Hyde, renounced Communism after serving in the party for many years. He points out that the reason Secular Humanists, Socialists and Communists are winning the cultural war, is due to the lack of dedication and commitment of many conservatives and Christians. Communists are more dedicated, courageous, and energetic than Conservatives - that although Communism is evil there is much to be learned from its methods, members, and psychological motivation. The tragedy is that people give such energy, zeal and dedication to socialism, and other forms of Secular Humanism, while those who have the best cause on earth often give so little to it.
Hyde starts out by saying, “Often, ex-communists meeting together talk of the old days when we were in the Party rather like old soldiers discussing nostalgically the campaigns they shared in the past. We talked of old comrades who now saw themselves as our enemies. Do you remember what life was really like in the Party? You got up in the morning, and as you shaved you were thinking of the jobs you would do for communism that day. You went down to breakfast and read the Daily Worker to get the Party line - to get the shot and shell for a fight in which you were already involved. You read every item in the paper wondering how you might be able to use it for the cause. I had never been interested in sports, but I read the sports pages in order to be able to discuss sport with others and to be able to say to them, “Have you read this in the Daily Worker?” I would follow this through by giving them the paper in the hope that they might turn from the sports pages and read the political ones too. On the bus or train, on my way to work, I read the Daily Worker as ostentatiously as I could, holding it up so that others might read the headlines and perhaps be influenced by them. I took two copies of the paper with me; the second one I left on the seat in the hope that someone would pick it up and read it. When I got to work, I kept the Daily Worker circulating. One worker after another would take it outside, read it for a few minutes and bring it back to me again. At lunchtime I would try to start conversations with those with whom I was eating. I made a practice of sitting with different groups in order to spread my influence as widely as I could. I did not thrust Communism down their throats, but steered our conversations in such a way that they could be brought around to politics or, if possible, to the campaigns which the Party was conducting at the time. Before I left my place of work at night, there was a quick meeting of the factory group or cell. There we discussed the successes and failures of the day. We also discussed what we hoped to be able to do on the following day. I dashed home, had a quick meal and then went out, maybe to attend classes, maybe to be a tutor, maybe to join some communist campaign, going from door to door canvassing or standing at the side of the road selling communist papers - doing something for communism. At night I thought about the jobs I was going to do for communism the next day.”
If we lose the cultural war for the soul of America – tyranny will be the result. The consequences of losing this war are major - more horrendous than I care to contemplate. If we continue to lose this war we will no longer be able to enjoy our Constitutional freedoms, practice our religion, or raise our children as we see fit. It is important that every American - should understand that we are at war. The enemy realizes it, whether or not we do! The things I’m suggesting pale in comparison to some of the antics of many sports fans who are nearly hysterical in their enthusiasm. Some paint their house and their car in their team’s colors. Some even riot as a result of their teams winning or losing. It makes me wonder; who or what is their god?
If 10% of Americans had the same level of commitment progressives and Muslims have, we could preserve and pass freedom to our children.
“The World is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” Albert Einstein
Significant Dates in the Creation of the New World OrderPerhaps the best way to relate a brief history of the New World Order, would be to use the words of those who have been striving to make it real throughout the ages. You will be amazed at how far back this grand plan has extended, and how many similarities there are in early Century 21 compared to the 1990's, with two Presidents from the Bush family in power....(Read More...)
New World Order Definition
The following article is extracted from an excellent analysis of the New World Order by author Ken Adachi which can be found at educate-yourself.org.
The term New World Order (NWO) has been used by numerous politicians through the ages, and is a generic term used to refer to a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Listen to the Zionist* banker, Paul Warburg:
"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one. For further research sources, please see the side bar on the left.
In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the New World Order agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows:
"A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.
There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simply be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."
Why the Conspiracy is UnknownThe sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides", Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" often solicits a slide response with many people.
What most people believe to be "Public Opinion" is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral responsefrom the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public's acceptance of the New World Order's planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells them that the programming is "taking", while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or "tweak" the programming until the desired response is achieved.
The NWO Modus OperandiThe NWO global conspirators manifest their agenda through the skilful manipulation of human emotions, especially fear. In the past centuries, they have repeatedly utilized a contrivance that NWO researcher and author David Icke has characterized in his latest book, The Biggest Secret, as Problem, Reaction, and Solution.
The technique is as follows: NWO strategists create the Problem - by funding , assembling, and training an "opposition" group to stimulate turmoil in an established political power (sovereign country, region, continent, etc.) that they wish to impinge upon and thus create opposing factions in a conflict that the NWO themselves maneuvered into existence. In recent decades, so called opposition groups are usually identified in the media as 'freedom fighters' or 'liberators'.
At the same time, the leader of the established political power where the conflict is being orchestrated is demonized and, on cue, referred to as 'another Hitler' (take your pick: Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Kadaffi, etc.). The 'freedom fighters' are not infrequently assembled from a local criminal element (i.e. KLA, drug traffickers). In the spirit of true Machiavellian deceit, the same NWO strategists are equally involved in covertly arming and advising the leader of the established power as well (the NWO always profits from any armed conflict by loaning money, arming, and supplying all parties involved in a war).
The conflict is drawn to the world stage by the controlled media outlets with a barrage of photos and video tape reports of horrific and bloody atrocities suffered by innocent civilians. The cry goes up "Something has to be done!" And that is the desired Reaction.
The NWO puppeteers then provide the Solution by sending in UN 'Peace Keepers' (Bosnia) or a UN 'Coalition Force' (Gulf War) or NATO Bombers and then ground troops (Kosovo), or the military to 'search for Weapons of Mass Destruction', which of course are never found. Once installed, the 'peace keepers' never leave. The idea is to have NWO controlled ground troops in all major countries or strategic areas where significant resistance to the New World Order takeover is likely to be encountered.
Who is the NWO?The corporate portion of the NWO is dominated by international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty - the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family - changed the name to Windsor in 1914), are high level players in the oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the NWO. The decision making nerve centers of this effort are in London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).
The United Nations, along with all the agencies working under the UN umbrella, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), are full time players in this scheme. Similarly, NATO is a military tool of the NWO.
The leaders of all major industrial countries like the United States, England, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (members of the "G7/G8" ) are active and fully cooperative participants in this conspiracy. In this century, the degree of control exerted by the NWO has advanced to the point that only certain hand-picked individuals, who are groomed and selected are even eligible to become the prime minister or president of countries like England, Germany, or The United States. It didn't matter whether Bill Clinton or Bob Dole won the Presidency in 1996, the results would have been the same. Both men are playing on the same team for the same ball club. Anyone who isn't a team player is taken out: i.e. President Kennedy, Ali Bhutto (Pakistan) and Aldo Moro (Italy). More recently, Admiral Borda and William Colby were also killed because they were either unwilling to go along with the conspiracy to destroy America, weren't cooperating in some capacity, or were attempting to expose/ thwart the takeover agenda.
The NWO's Role in Shaping HistoryMost of the major wars, political upheavals, and economic depression/recessions of the past 100 years (and earlier) were carefully planned and instigated by the machinations of these elites. They include The Spanish-American War (1898), World War I and World War II; The Great Depression; the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917; the Rise of Nazi Germany; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; the 1989-91 "fall" of Soviet Communism; the 1991 Gulf War; the War in Kosovo; and the two Iraq wars. Even the French Revolution was orchestrated into existence by elements of the NWO.
The instigation of a trumped-up war as a cover for amassing fortunes which can be dated back to at least the 12th Century when only a core group of nine members of the Knights Templar, kicked off the The Crusades that lasted for over a century and a half.
The core group mentioned above have been reported as being the military arm of a secret society known as the Priory of Sion, but this has been proven to be a hoax,
In 1307, the king of France, Philippe the Fair, coveted the wealth and was jealous of the Templars' power. The French king set out to arrest all the Templars in France on October 13. While many Templars were seized and tortured, including their Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, many other Templars (who had been tipped off) escaped. They eventually resurfaced in Portugal, in Malta (as the Knights of Malta) and later in Scotland as The Scottish Rites of Freemasonry, with Albert Pike playing a key role in defining a plan for establishing a world government.
The acquisition and consolidation of ever greater wealth, natural resources, total political power, and control over others are the motivating forces which drive the decisions of the NWO leaders. The toll in human suffering and the loss of innocent lives are non issues for these individuals.
Next: The New World Order Timeline.
Previous: World War 1 and World War 2 compared.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE
APRIL 23, 2015
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
Continue reading the main story
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.CreditJoaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.
American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of Mrs. Clinton’s agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation’s top diplomat.
Continue reading the main storyGRAPHIC Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.
Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.
When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.
“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”
A Seat at the Table
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.CreditGalit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.
Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)
Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.
As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.
“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”
But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.
Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010. CreditMikhail Metzel/Associated Press Arrest and Progress
By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.
Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.
But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.
At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.
It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.
“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.
The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.
Continue reading the main storyAmong the Donors to the Clinton Foundation Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.
What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.
Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.
The Power to Say No
When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.
Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.
The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.
Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”
“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”
President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007.CreditDmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.
Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”
Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company
American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.
“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.
Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.
Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.
Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTSNancy Miller 1 hour ago"Oh, what a tangled web we weaveWhen first we practice to deceive."
Ana Espinosa 1 hour agoPerhaps this is the perfect moment to consider our choice in the next presidential election.Do we want the Koch brothers picking our next...
nobrainer 1 hour agoThe colloquial shell game. It makes for interesting reading. You really are not supposed to fallow the pea. in this case money, or the...
To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.
But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.
Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.
Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.
The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.
John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One.CreditMatthew Staver for The New York Times Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”
Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.
If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.
“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.
It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.
Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.
Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom.CreditDaniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.
“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”
And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.
The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.
“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”
That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.
“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.
Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.
The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.
Correction: April 23, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer.