First posted on Blogspot on Sunday, November 6, 2011

Uncommon Criminals

    I chose to call the subject of this post “Uncommon Criminals” because I believe “Common Criminals” to be a higher, more honorable class of criminals. The common variety make no pretext that what they are doing is legal nor do they hypocritically send others to jail for what may well be lesser crimes. Betraying the public trust is, in my opinion, among the highest crimes committed.
    The Department of (in)Justice is the bureaucracy charged with enforcing the laws of the federal government. It calls Americans who believe in the Constitution and our national sovereignty or who are “anti-authoritarian” domestic terrorists and criminal extremists and those who expose the Federal Reserve and our fraudulent monetary system “unique terrorists” The DO(in)J says the latter represent a “clear and present danger to our economic stability.” All of this has earned the Department dishonorable mention in other posts in this blog. Now it has been exposed as a gang of thieves.
    According to reports from Justice Department auditors and the department’s acting inspector general, Cynthia A. Schnedar, members of the Department have been paying outrageous sums for goods and services in connection with a number of “conferences.” These officials call the inexcusable spending by their colleagues, “wasteful and extravagant.” Are these terms euphemisms for corrupt and extortionate?
    Some of the items these people squandered the taxpayers’ money on are:
  • $16 muffins at the Capital Hilton in Washington
  • a $76-per-person lunch at a conference at a Hilton in San Francisco
  • $8.24 a cup coffee to go with that lunch
  • platters of Swedish Meatballs costing $5 per meatball
    Ten law enforcement conferences that ran through Bush and Obama administrations saw:
  • cookies and brownies at almost $10 each and beef Wellington hors d’oeuvres at $7.32 per serving
    Five conferences cost $600,000 for “event planning” services and a total of $121 million was spent in 2008 and 2009 on 1,832 conferences.
    The officials who criticized this outrage were careful to call it “wasteful spending.” Pardon my cynicism, but I have to believe kickbacks, favors, maybe promises of jobs when the government jobs are done, and donations to political war chests were exchanged for this “wasteful spending.” Maybe the person who signed off on the check for $4200 for 250 assorted muffins had “Muffin” as a roommate for the duration of the conference.
    Officials in one office had the audacity to say they thought they were saving money by serving muffins and other snacks instead of full meals. Very uncommon criminals indeed.
    All of this is a part of why, whenever I here that the federal government is going to investigate State and local corruption, I can’t help equating it to calling in the Mafia to investigate Church Bingo.
    If helping these uncommon criminals send common criminals to jail pains your conscience, see:


First posted in blogspot on Thursday, July 30, 2009This is the introduction I had in my Table of Contents:

I’ve always been upset by the willingness of our “leaders” to associate with some of the worst mass murderers on our planet. The visit of Richard Nixon to China and the resumption of trade with the butchers of Beijing while events in Korea were still fairly fresh in my mind inspired a nightmare. At the time we were shaking hands with the Butchers of Beijing, we were imposing sanctions against South Africa for human rights violations. Now we’re doing about the same regarding China and Iran. I pointed out the hypocrisy in “New World Order – Death of America in my lostliberty blog. Recent events regarding China, Obama and our State Department might make that dream disturb my sleep once again.


Recent news told of Obama’s visit to China and the visit of a number of U.S. businessmen. Now we read that we have signed a “memorandum” with the Chinese about global warming. There is little doubt in my mind that we will be transferring more U.S. technology to China in return for their “cooperation.” They will, of course, be laughing at us for making concessions in return for agreement to fight the non-existent man made global warming. I suspect my sleep will soon be disturbed by a recurrent dream – really a nightmare.

In the words so often used on TV, I was about to post this when I received “breaking news” from The August Review edited by Patrick Wood*. Obama has nominated Robert Hormats, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, to be an Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agriculture. Expected to be confirmed by the Senate, Hormats will be the twelfth Trilateral Commission member in the Obama administration and the sixth in the State Department where they will be best able to further the anti-American globalist plans of the Commission and its money bosses. Wood says, “It is expected that Hormats will be the lead diplomat in economic negotiations with China and India. Goldman Sachs’ commercial relationship with China and India is huge, and has been instrumental in turning both countries into world economic powers.” I would add that Goldman Sachs has also been instrumental in turning America into a third world economy. Sorry, Sir John! Treason doth prosper.



On to my dream. It’s even more appropriate in light of this new information. I first had this dream many years ago. Whenever I bought something then, I tried to avoid products made with pure slave labor such as those from Red China. That year I inadvertently bought a gift for someone that was made there. I was upset when I discovered it, but it was too late to do anything about it. That night, a strange sobbing invaded my dreams. It seemed to come from everywhere and yet from nowhere. I had to find out who was crying and why. My other dreams faded and I found myself at the bottom of a snow covered hill. The crying seemed to be coming from above, so I climbed to the top. There I saw a young boy. He couldn’t have been more than eighteen. He knelt before a ditch. His tears froze instantly on his cheeks in the bitter cold of what I somehow sensed was Korea. Suddenly, the boy’s image faded and I could see only his hands. Odd! They were tied behind his back.

As quickly as the boy had faded, his hands faded and were replaced by a single yellow hand. The hand held an ominous object. I couldn’t make it out, but I remember feeling a chill. Suddenly, an explosion almost tore me from my sleep. The boy toppled into the ditch. Several more explosions and a line of boys that I hadn’t noticed before did the same. The yellow hand appeared again, and with it, the grinning face of a young Red Chinese soldier.

The images yielded to total darkness, but the sobbing continued. At least now I knew why. The boy was feeling sorry for himself, for his life lost so senselessly, lost so young. For a moment I felt a deep pity for him, but the mood was broken as the yellow hand appeared again. It was older, but I recognized it immediately. It was reaching out for something. It was reaching out for, and grasped, a white hand. The sobbing became louder. I could see the grinning faces of a Red Chinese official – and – an American president, Richard Nixon.

Again the yellow hand, older still, but unmistakably the same hand, reached out and grasped many hands in succession. There was the same familiar grinning face greeting the many grinning faces of a U.S. trade delegation. The incessant sobbing continued to fill the background, but now it was joined by a hideous laughter. The laughter, interspersed with shouts of “hypocrites!, hypocrites!,” came from a row of swollen, bloated faces – faces I’d seen before. I woke and reached immediately for a book on my shelf. There they were. Not yet swollen and bloated, but there they were. I put my copy of “The Nuremberg Trials” back on the shelf. Now I understood. What a fool I’d been! How small I felt! That boy wasn’t crying because he felt sorry for himself and for the life he’d lost. He was crying because he felt sorry for us! For the principles we’ve lost. For what we’ve become. The sobbing started again, but this time it was in the room.

I couldn’t decide where to put this post. Certainly, it pertains to our loss of liberty, but I finally decided it belonged here. Those international financiers and multinational corporations who have financed and run America for at least a century also financed the murderers of Tibet, the butchers of Beijing as we see in Woods article. It was they who financed the Bolshevik Revolution and were, therefore, responsible for the millions murdered by them. It was they who financed both sides in WWII and were, again, responsible for tens of millions of deaths. They have proven themselves not only enemies of America, but of all Mankind.

*Patrick Wood co-authored Trilaterals Over Washington with Antony Sutton. He is offering an ebook version for anyone who signs up for a free subscription to his newsletter.

A post that might be considered a sort of follow up to this can be found at:
I posted that now to get the picture out of blogspot and thought it would be appropriate to post this also.

Southern Poverty Law Center

First posted in Blogspot on Tuesday, September  21, 2010

Southern Poverty Law Center

An internet friend sent me a copy of this letter in an email. It has prompted me to list both the racist Southern Poverty Law Center and the anti-American Department of Justice as America’s Enemies. I’m naming the SPLC as our enemy in this post and the DoJ in the next which I hope to publish within the next couple of days.

The letter:


Dear Southern Poverty Law Center and Department of Justice
Sally O’Boyle
Activist Post
August 30, 2010
Re: SPLC list of “Active Patriot Groups” and DOJ’s “Criminal Extremist List”

I am wondering if you will start a Patriot Persons list to go along with your Patriot Groups list? If so, I’d like to apply. If your criteria* is the same for People as for Groups, I might be a pretty good fit!

I am definitely against any “New World Order” or “One World Government” scheme. The U.S. must remain a sovereign nation as outlined in our Constitution. (Besides, and I don’t mean to be catty here, but the idea doesn’t seem to be working out so bloody well for the EU.) Do you know if there is an active attempt by the U.S. government to join into a world government? If so, please let me know! I’d like to sign and circulate a petition against that.[1]

I don’t engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing; all the conspiracies about which I theorize have grounds. Do you think you could make an exception? And which conspiracies are the groundless ones? A list somewhere on your site would be helpful.

Also, how do you define “extreme anti-government doctrines”, please? Can you give any examples? I am personally extremely pro-Constitutional governance, something which has been in short supply during the last few administrations, including the current one. I would only be anti-government about a government that was extremely anti-U.S. Constitution. Will this count for or against me?

I am glad to see Oath-Keepers made the list of Patriot Groups! I am a member of Oath-Keepers. They are educating military and law-enforcement personnel about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, encouraging them to keep their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank goodness! Since the Constitution is no longer adequately taught in our schools (having just educated two teenagers, I can attest to that fact), I am thrilled to see that someone has taken on this monumental task!

Could you let me know if I make the list? You can find me at Campaign for Liberty or at Liberty-Candidates.org.

I hope I’m not asking too much, but maybe you could give a plaque or something? Or how about a pin that we could wear all the time identifying us as Patriots who made your list? Then we could easily spot each other. That would be way cool. Thanks!

God bless,
Sally O’Boyle

P.S. Thanks for printing that list of Patriot Groups broken out by state. Now I can find friends no matter where I am. Kind of like an A.A. meeting list! Now, I’m thinking I should join a militia. Don’t mean to be greedy, but would I get extra points for that?

*Criteria: “Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.” (http://tinyurl.com/patriotgroups)

[1] – Sally was obviously playing dumb here. I’m certain she knows full well that “our” government is in full cooperation with the globalist gangsters who are bringing about this “One World Government” of them, by them, and for them. Anyone who doesn’t know this yet should take a look at the map and plan developed and published in 1941-42. You can find it in the post “New World Order — Death of America” in:
he map and plan are also available at the Library of Congress and the University of San Diego [The San Diego copy has since been taken down.  Another source is http://endtimepilgrim.org/nwomapbig.jpg].
The L of C  URL can be found in the blog.

Not all has been realized, some has probably changed, but what is amazing is how much has been achieved of the grandiose plan to enslave the world and how much is falling into place now.

Here’s a synopsis of the SPLC’s “Intelligence Report.” The spirit of Senator Joe McCarthy is alive and well and residing in the Southern Poverty Law Center. The only thing missing is McCarthy’s patriotism, but then, his patriotism is probably the primary reason he has been criticized so viciously by the SPLC’s ilk. One thing is certain. We don’t need the Gestapo or KGB when we have the SPLC and the DoJ.

This is the introduction to the SPLC’s “Intelligence” Report:

Intelligence Report, Spring 2010, Issue Number: 137
Active ‘Patriot’ Groups in the United States in 2009
Stand Strong against hate [What a noble sentiment. It reminds me of the movie, “Revelation.” In it the Devil has set up a world government One Nation Earth (O.N.E.) and billed himself as the Mesiah. The hero of the movie, a counter terrorist agent (from the DoJ?), is investigating a “terrorist” group that is resisting the O.N.E. The group of God fearing Christians is referred to as the “Haters” for resisting the “Messiah” and is marked for extermination. I guess movies aren’t always an escape from reality.]

The introduction continues:

The Intelligence Project identified 512 “Patriot” groups that were active in 2009. Of these groups, 127 were militias, marked with an asterisk, and the remainder includes “common-law” courts, publishers, ministries and citizens’ groups. Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports. Groups are identified by the city, county or region where they are located.

[I want to make it clear that the listing of the SPLC and the DoJ in americasenemies does not imply that all members of these organizations advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, are racist, traitors, or Devil worshippers.]

Anyone wanting to see the list will find it at the url given by Sally.

Out of curiosity I did some fooling around with the numbers to see what might be learned.

The 512 figure is a bit overly optimistic. It’s probably intended to terrify their cowering “left-wing” followers into some sort of action to chase the Pro-Americans they fear might be hiding under their beds. Many are groups with chapters or branches in a number of towns or counties within a state. They probably should be listed as one for the entire state. In some cases the SPLC does that. It will list the group as statewide, so a statewide group will only show once for the state but one with branches in six or seven counties will count on the “intelligence” report as six or seven groups. So the whole “intelligence” report is distorted and not very intelligent.

Even the “statewides” distort the figures. I found the following listed in most cases as statewide:

I counted 64 “third” parties, but 49 were the Constitution Party or affiliates in that number of States.
There were America First Party organizations in 12 states.

Realistically speaking, that 61 is only two groups.

Again, Oath-Keepers (49 States), We the People (48 States), the John Birch Society (36 States), and We Are Change (33 States) are probably, for all intent and purpose, just four groups. The SPLC counts them as 166. Seeing 166 where there are only four sounds paranoid to me.

I do think some sort of awards or recognition should be given to those States exhibiting the greatest loyalty to the principles on which this country was founded.

Using the numbers given by the SPLC, the following States have the greatest number of patriotic groups:

Texas 52
Michigan 47
California 22
Indiana 21
New York 17

These top five should receive a medal of some sort.

To be fair to some States with small populations, I think patriot awards should also be issued based on groups per million population given a minimum population of 1.5 million. Population figures I have would make these States the top five:

State Groups/M
Idaho 7.33
Michigan 4.70
Nebraska 3.89
Oregon 3.68
Utah 3.57

Michigan took second in both catagories. In the second, only Idaho, which barely qualified with 1.5M to Michigan’s 10M, was ahead. In addition, Michigan led the field with 11 militia groups including one with a presence in 20 counties. I think, all things considered, Michigan deserves the title: “The American State.”

Department of Justice


Department of Justice

The report of the Department of Justice mentioned by Sally O’Boyle in her letter (see previous post on SPLC) has certainly earned the Department a place among America’s Enemies. There is so much drivel in this publication that to try to analyze and comment on the whole thing would take a small book. I’ve just taken some excerpts to illustrate my contentions regarding the DoJ and its report. For the most part, I’ve just dealt with the domestic end of it, leaving out the Middle East groups cited. Most of my comments are totally serious, but a few I may have made with tongue partially inserted in cheek because the whole report is so absurd.

“Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism—Terms and Concepts is a publication of the Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Version 1.0 dated September 2005-2009.”

The report cites the source of funds:

“This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-NC-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

To me the most interesting thing here is not so much the source, but the number of bureaucracies within the DoJ bureaucracy. If anyone in government is serious about cutting costs, here’s a good place to start.

According to the authors, the purpose of this publication is to provide a tool to help criminal justice professionals understand the terms, organizations, and names they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of an [alleged] extremist group.

The following appears to start out as a hedge of some sort, but the example makes no sense at all. “The fact that an entry appears in this publication does not imply a connection to illegal activity. As an example, the location Waco, Texas, appears in the glossary. Investigators may hear reference to this location while working on certain antigovernment cases.” Do “investigators” have to be told that the mention of a city doesn’t mean the whole city is connected to illegal activity? What does “certain antigovernment cases” mean? Is opposition to government now a criminal offense? Don’t answer that! I think I already know.

Here are the people responsible for this comic book:

“This publication was initially prepared by Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D., in 1998, as a Guide to Common Terms Used by Antigovernment Extremists. Subsequent revisions were expanded to include many terms used by left-wing and international terrorists and special-interest/single-issue extremists. The following individuals have contributed to this Guide: Pete Haskel, Ted Burton, Ralph Brock, Ed Higgins, Suzanne James, Chris Walker, Christine Nordstrom, Walter Wallmark, Bonnie Bergey, Darren Mulloy, Gregory Rosen, Patricia Henshall, George Richards, Michael Reynolds, Brad Whitsel, Ed King, Jerry Kling, Jon Drummond, Jack Plaxe, Richard Holden, Jonathan White, Richard Marquise, David Carter, Charles Tilby, Gary Clyman, Robert Harris, and William Dyson, Jr.”

I first thought that the people above belonged individually in americasenemies, but the more I read the more I think they belong in a school for the intellectually challenged.

“Terrorism and the extremist movement are dynamic and continually changing.”

I chose this sentence to illustrate the tone of the “report.” Throughout terrorism and extremism are closely connected and usually connected to “right-wing” organizations and causes, but “left-wing” organizations are seldom listed as extremist. Left-wing terrorists and anti-Constitutional government extremists are usually called “activists.”

One of the first things “law enforcement agencies” are cautioned against is the “Affinity Group.” This publication defines “Affinity Group” in this way: “a small band of individuals who work clandestinely as a team to perpetrate direct attacks on a targeted enemy.” The small band description is critical here. I guess it permits the federal government, with its targeted attacks on our Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the American people, to avoid arrest by local law enforcement agencies.

Other organizations, movements, and ideas that investigators and prosecuters should be aware of include:

Antiabortion Movement- while pointing out that some who hold this position have assassinated abortion physicians and their employees in the United States, nowhere do the authors mention the extremists of the Abortion Movement that have slaughtered countless unborn or partially born infants while developing a cadre of physicians hardened to the taking of human life. Doctor Mengele I presume?

“Antiauthoritarian: A political position in opposition to capitalism and government control, corporation or group, and supportive of decentralization and autonomy; generally, a libertarian position that is sometimes equated with anarchy.”

I’m not sure just what law enforcement officials are suppose to get from this rather fractured definition of “antiauthoritarian” other than a conclusion that the grant to this organization must have required it to hire the mentally handicapped and the hardcore unemployed to do the writing.

For the record, my dictionary defines authoritarian as: “believing in, relating to, or characterized by unquestioning obedience to authority rather than individual freedom of judgment and action.” Clearly the authoritarian government of the United States must keep a close watch on anti-authoritarian “extremists.”

“Anti-Defamation League (ADL): A Jewish organization founded in 1913, devoted to fighting hate crimes. Its mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike.” The ADL is one of the largest (and most aggressive) groups opposing right-wing extremism.”

Typical of the slant of this DoJ publication, minority racist and bigoted groups are condoned or even praised but majorities who might hold such views are worthy of DoJ investigation. Could it be that minorities, or a pretext of “minority rights,” are being used as an excuse to suppress the majority? I can’t help but wonder what “most aggressive” means as applied to the ADL. I also wonder how the Jewish militia known as the JDL escaped mention in the “report.”

“Anti-Shyster: A magazine published in Texas by Alfred Adask, an advocate of the sovereign citizen ideology. The ire of the magazine is directed largely at the legal/judicial system.”

Anti-Shyster magazine and its publisher get mention for attacking the legal/judicial system. If this publication, under the auspices of the Department of Justice, is an example of our legal/judicial system, then Anti-Shyster is likely well justified in its attacks.

“Bilderbergers (Bilderberg Group): Along with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the three groups targeted by right-wing extremists for conspiring to dominate the world.”

Notice the use of the highly inflammatory “targeted” and, of course, the usual “right-wing extremists.” I wonder how many people on the “left” who have attacked these organizations for their major role in corporate control of America and the world are surprised to learn they are “right-wing extremists.”

“Christian Identity: A hate-filled religious sect descended from British-Israelism that has come to dominate much of the leadership of the extreme right in the United States today. The key belief of Identity adherents is that people of white European descent are actually the descendants of the ancient Israelites of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is a message written expressly for whites, who are “’God’s chosen people.’”

I found this interesting for several reasons. Firstly, I know nothing of this “Christian Identity,” but the “hate-filled” epithet reminded me again of the movie “Revelation” that I mentioned in the post on SPLC and the term “haters” as applied to all who opposed the Devil’s One Nation Earth. Just a coincidence?

Secondly, the reference to “British-Israelism” intrigued me. I used to follow the machinations of BI when Herbert Armstrong and the World Wide Church of God was its front. I was predicting the give-away of the Panama Canal when some were still holding out hope that we would keep it. According to biblical prophecy as interpreted by BI, the enemies would control the gates of Israel’s (British) cities. Metaphorically, the canal was one of those gates. It had to go. When Armstrong died, BI left the church. I saw a manifestation of it about 10 to 15 years ago in the “Center for Constitutional Studies.” It often moves from one cover to another.

The earliest reference I’ve seen to BI was in a biography of Washington written shortly after his death. In the appendix was a letter from the former governor of Massachusetts to George III assuring his “majesty” that he still reigned supreme over his kingdom, British-Israel. To fulfill their interpretation of prophecy, one “tribe” had to become a “great nation” (the U.S.) and the other a “nation of nations” (the British Empire). To me, this letter was saying, “Pay no attention to surface appearances. We’re still in charge here.”

Regardless of who might be running America, for many years I’ve believed the one hope for defeat of the globalist Inter-Nazis is their self-destruction from within. It’s a hope that, when they see their world government pie coming out of the oven, the many groups who have been promised at least a slice if not the whole pie, will come out of their counting houses and corporate bakeries to try to claim a bigger slice. It’s my hope that the infighting will finally expose them to those who, until now, have refused to understand, and they will all be brought down. This report could be the first salvo of the Zionist faction, possibly entrenched in the DoJ, against the BI faction.

“Christian Patriots: A term used, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, to describe people sympathetic to right-wing ideology.”

Wow! Three dirty words in one brief description – “Christian,” “Patriots,” and “right-wing.” Someone’s going to censor the Department of Justice.

“Christian Reconstructionism: A theology common among many in the “patriot” movement. It essentially argues that biblical law should be the basis for reconstructing earthly societies—in other words, it espouses an essentially theocratic government.”

No argument! These people must be stopped! They would substitute belief in an Almighty God. Such an extreme belief would weaken the power of God, the Almighty State. It would undermine the First Commandment, I am the Lord Thy State, Thou shalt have no other gods. Also the Second, Thou shalt obey! They would replace them with antiquated, theocratic commandments like: Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not kill. The latter alone could cripple the abortion industry and create a hardship for the doctors and nurses who would have to learn life saving skills to replace their life taking training and conditioning.

“Civil Rights Task Force (CRTF): A “patriot” group headquartered in California (with members in many states) that primarily impersonates law enforcement. CRTF sells nylon jackets (with “Civil Rights Task Force” printed on the back, (just as law enforcement agencies have jackets with their names on the back), gold badges, business cards, and other paraphernalia.”

Other extremist groups also put their names on the backs of jackets just like law enforcement agencies. Some examples: Denver Broncos, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Flyers, Boston Celtics, and many others. May we assume they’ll be included in the big DoJ roundup?

“Constitution Party: A minor, right-wing extremist political party, formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP), which is one of the primary parties that specifically try to appeal to the ‘patriot’ movement.”

This is just one of the many examples of the “left-wing.” statist bias of the writers of this pathetic joke. “Right-wing” is almost always accompanied by “extremists” and patriots is almost always enclosed in quotation marks. Contrast that with the handling of “left-wing” oriented groups who are generally called “activists” even when they resort to terrorism as do some of the environmental groups mentioned. I think they might have called them terrorists in one or two cases.

To avoid misunderstanding, I’d like to make it clear that I believe the left vs. right Itchy and Scratchy Show is applied Hegelian Dialectic.

“New World Order: A term used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism.”

Would the DoJ’s definition of “conspiracy theorists” include Congresswoman Marjorie Holt?

Hon . Marjorie S. Holt of Maryland, in the House of Representatives on Monday, Jan. 19, 1976 :

“Mr. Speaker, many of us recently received a letter from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, inviting Members of Congress to participate in a ceremonial signing of a “Declaration of Interdependence” on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. A number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this document, lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record to show my strong opposition to this declaration. It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a ‘new world order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.

I post this comment made by Congresswoman Holt regarding the proposal of a “Declaration of Independence” to show that the “New World Order” is not “theory,” it is fact. Pushers of this “New World Order” knew full well that the American people and, for that matter, all of the peoples of the developed world would never accept a government that would “redistribute” their wealth to the undevelped countries of the world (minus 20 or 30% for handling). That’s the reason for the de-industrialization of our countries and the reduction of our standards of living over a number of decades. The pushers are taking everything we have in advance so we’ll have nothing to lose if we accept the world government they propose.

“Wise Use: A term used to refer to a loose collection of antienvironment and property rights groups that oppose government regulation of natural resources and absolute property rights.”

Did you know that groups opposed to the great government land and resources grabs are “antienvironment?”

Zionist: Generally speaking, a term used to refer to the Jewish movement earlier this century to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine or to refer to pro-Israeli groups or organizations today (i.e., Zionist Organization of America). The term is used by many white supremacists to refer to all or any Jews, often in reference to “Jewish conspiracies.”

Disregarding the DoJ’s usual anti-white or anti-Christian slurs, what I find interesting is the apparent acceptance of racial separation when sought by the Jews in a “Jewish homeland.”

“New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense: Established by Khallid Adbul Muhammad around 1996 to resurrect the original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the New Panthers claim to have 80 chapters across the country, including in the areas of New York, Houston, and Washington, DC. They have shown their resolve by marching with weapons in plain sight in Jasper, Texas (following the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr., in 1998) and at the Texas State Prison in Huntsville, Texas, in 2000 to protest the impending execution of a black man. They continue to organize demonstrations that have been criticized for their racial and anti-Semitic tone.”

By “marching with weapons in plain sight” the DoJ thinks these black racist thugs merely showed “their resolve.” But that’s OK. Remember, minorities are permitted a lot of leeway when being used to suppress the rights of the majority. But, that’s just my opinion. Well! Maybe not just mine!

Given all of the absurdities and non-sequiters in this publication, doesn’t it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know your tax dollars paid for it?

The complete report in PDF can be downloaded at the site below.


Department of Justice — Part 2

First posted in Blogspot on October 12, 2010

Department of Justice — Part 2

Here’s further evidence supporting my contention that the DoJ’s extremist list is biased against the white majority. According to an article in the Washington Times on Friday, September 24, 2010 a Federal prosecutor accused the Justice Dept. of reverse racism saying the Civil Rights Division is ‘hostile’ to ‘race-neutral enforcement.’ But is it really black bias or just a part of the old Tyrant’s game of divide and conquer?

Included with the posting was Video footage showing two men in front of a polling site for the 4th Division of Philadelphia’s Ward 14 on Election Day 2008. One was holding a nightstick. Eventually they were asked by police to leave.

“The Justice Department supervisor who recommended pursuing a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party testified Friday that the department’s Civil Rights Division has engaged in reverse racism, refusing to bring charges in voting cases unless the victim is a minority” reports the Times.

The Times says Coates was chief of the DoJ’s Voting Rights section when the case was brought in 2009. He is now on an 18-month detail with the U.S. Attorney’s office in South Carolina.

Naturally, DoJ officials have denied any wrong-doing when they dismissed the case after winning a default judgment, but Mr. Coates differs with Department officials. He is quoted by the Times,
“Based upon my own personal knowledge of the events surrounding the division’s actions in the Panther case and the atmosphere that existed and continues to exist in the division and in the voting section against fair enforcement of certain federal voting laws, I do not believe these representations to this commission accurately reflect what occurred in the Panther case and do not reflect the hostile atmosphere that existed within the division for a long time against race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.”

According to the Times, Mr. Coates said this hostility became clear to him while pursuing a 2005 Mississippi case in which white voters were the victims of intimidation. He said some department employees refused to work on the case, which, according to Mr. Coates, also drew criticism from civil rights groups.

Obama’s election allowed those most opposed to “race-neutral enforcement” to move into leadership positions against the Civil Rights Division according to Coates. One of those officials, then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther case.

The Times article revealed that two New Black Panther Party members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets with military insignias intimidated voters with racial slurs and a nightstick. A third-party member was accused of directing their behavior.

The Times tells us, “Since January, Mr. Coates has been working as an assistant U.S. Attorney in South Carolina. He testified Friday that he volunteered for the post when it became [obvious?] Justice officials were stripping him of his authority and he could not effectively do his job as chief of the voting rights section.”


If the Justice Department is going to use the black minority to oppress the white majority, then it appears they are in turn going to use the even smaller Jewish minority to oppress all.

An article by Max Blumenthal in Truthdig dated August 30, 2010 is titled “How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book’s Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews,”

It exposes “a rabbinical guidebook for killing non-Jews” While the book has generated considerable opposition in Israel, according to Blumenthal it has “exposed the power a bunch of genocidal theocrats wield over the government.”

The book, “Torat Ha’Melech” was described by an Israeli tabloid as “230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.” According to the book’s author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, “Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and should be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder,” Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

[Reminiscent of Holocaust I when the Jews slaughtered Canaanite men, women, and children indiscriminately.]

Blumenthal describes a gathering of “top fundamentalist rabbis” at Jerusalem’s Ramada Renaissance hotel saying the rabbis “flaunted their political power.” They said they wouldn’t submit to attempts by the government “to regulate their political activities,” especially inciting terrorist attacks against non-Jews. The meeting, says Blumenthal, “degenerated into calls for murdering not just non-Jews, but secular Jews as well.”

“The obligation to sacrifice your life is above all others when fighting those who wish to destroy the authority of the Torah,” bellowed Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, head of the yeshiva in the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan. “It is not only true against non-Jews who are trying to destroy it but against Jewish people from any side.”

I find this mind boggling! We are constantly bombarded with condemnations of Muslims who are ready to sacrifice their lives in a holy war against those who do not believe as they do, but this is the first I’d heard of their Israeli counterparts. It appears that not only the DoJ, but our entire government, in collusion with the media, is intent on keeping this their dirty little secret.

Shapira leads the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in Yitzhar controlling a small army of fanatics intent on attacking peaceful Palastinians as they tend their crops and livestock we are told. Despite what Blumenthal calls “its apparent role” training terrorists, Od Yosef Chai has received around $300,000 from the Israeli Ministries of Social Affairs and of Education. I has also received considerable support from an American tax-exempt non-profit called the Central Fund of Israel located inside the Marcus Brothers Textiles store in Manhattan.

Try as I may, I could not find Od Yosef Chai, nor the Central Fund of Israel, nor Marcus Brothers Textiles in the DoJ’s list of terrorists and extremist organizations. Must have been an oversight.

Another murderous thug mentioned in the article as a supporter of the book is Dov Lior. We are told he has his own “eliminationist attitude” toward non-Jews. He told soldiers “There is no such thing a civilians in wartime… A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail.

Despite nominal condemnation of the book and its following, the Israeli government obviously does not intend to take any action against the book, its author, or his followers. I can’t help but wonder if the book is subtitled, “The Final Solution to the Gentile Question.”

The DoJ tells us that the Protocols were a forgery by the Tsar’s Secret Police. Will future generations “learn” that Torat Ha’Melech was a forgery of the Iranian Secret Police?

Max Blumenthal is the author of Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books, 2009) has just been released. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.

I highly recommend reading the entire article. I’m not sure, but it may be necessary to sign up with Truthdig, if so, that may only be necessary to make comments.

Originally, the article was here.  Now it leads to some commentary that, if you don’t read it very carefully, gives the impression that this is the work of Glenn Beck.  One of the tags is “anti-semitism”. This is just one of the reason I’ve come to believe that the work of Truthdig is to dig holes to bury the truth.


If you look carefully, you can find a link to the article on this site:

The next in this series on the Department of (in)Justice is in Lostlibery1 at:


PART 4 – America’s Ruling Party and the Media

In the preceeding three sections, I tried to show the relationship of America’s ruling party, the Council on Foreign Relations, to the Neo-Cons of today, what I called the Mid-Roaders of not long ago, and a number of wealthy and connected men who played prominent roles in FDR’s “liberal” regime and that of Harry Truman. Here’s the reason why the majority of Americans have never heard of this group even though it has dominated almost every administration for at least 3/4 of a century. Calling the media “liberal” or conservative” is meaningless.

Here’s a list of members of the media that I found on the I-Net who are also members of the CFR and/or the spin-off Trilateral Commission. The list is getting old, it’s from the 90’s, but you’ll recognize many names from past and present. Some are dead. I’m sure many of their replacements are now CFR, but I’m not about to try to pull out present media people from more up to date lists because too few of the general public seem to understand or to care. Besides, even if the list is old, this should be ample evidence of the media control by the global elitists.

Here’s the list:

CBS: Laurence A. Tisch, CEO, Dan Rather, Richard Hottelet, James Houghton – also Trilateral Commission, Henry Schacht – also TC, Roswell Gilpatric, Frank Stanton

NBC/RCA: Jane Pfeiffer, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Irving R. Levine, Lester Crystal – also TC, R.W. Sonnenfeidt – also TC, John F. Welch, CEO, John Petty, Marvin Kalb, Herbert Schlosser, Peter G. Peterson, John Sawhill

ABC: Thomas S. Murphy, CEO, Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer John Connor, John Scall

Public Broadcast Service: Robert McNeil, Jim Lehrer, Daniel Schorr, C. Hunter-Gault, Hodding Carter III

Associated Press: Katharine Graham also TC, Stanley Swinton, Harold Anderson

Reuters: Michael Posner

Baltimore Sun: Henry Trewhitt

Washington Times: Arnaud De Borchgrave

Children’s TV Workshop (Sesame Street): Joan Ganz Cooney, Pres. [Even Cookie Monster is CFR. We’re doomed!!! I hear they’re planning a new “Talking Elmo”. It will say, “Hi! I’m Elmo. I’m here to help you learn. You will learn to obey!!]

Cable News Network: W. Thomas Johnson, Pres. — TC only, Daniel Schorr

U.S. News & World Report: David Gergen — TC

New York Times Co.: Richard Gelb, William Scranton – also TC , John F. Akers, Dir., Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Dir., George B. Munroe, Dir., Donald M. Stewart, Dir., Cyrus R. Vance, Dir., Max Frankel, Harrison Salisbury, and on and on to a total of 18 CFR that are or were with the NYT.

Time, Inc.: Alexander Heard, Sol Linowitz, Thomas Watson, Jr., Ralph Davidson, Donald M. Wilson, Henry Grunwald, Strobe Talbott

Newsweek/Washington Post: Katherine Graham, N. Deb. Katzenbach, Robert Christopher, Osborne Elliot, George Will CFR & TC and on and on to a total of 14 CFR that are or were with Newsweek/WP.

Dow Jones & Co (Wall Street Journal): Richard Wood, Robert Bartley CFR & TC, Karen House

National Review: Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. – also Skull & Bones at Yale [Yes!!! The fabled “conservative” Bill Buckley is CFR, TC and a Bilderberg member or attendee]

Readers Digest: George V. Grune, CEO, William G. Bowen, Dir.

Syndicated Columnists: Geogia Anne Geyer, Ben J. Wattenberg

Additional control of the media, even local, is wielded through CFR membership of officers and directors of some of the largest advertisers.

The truth is! The problem is getting it out there!

America’s Ruling Party in the Encyclopedia

For many years I’ve tried to show people that, while “liberal”/”conservative,” Republican/Democrat administrations come and go, one thing remains constant throughout. The CFR has dominated both parties and all administrations since at least 1932. The Council on Foreign Relations is a heavily funded “think tank” dedicated to the world government so desired by the international financier and multi-national mega-corporations. It is in their interest and the interests of their patrons to ruin the country to make world government more palatable to the American people.

Few in the general public seem to be concerned that 15 ten thousandths of one percent of the population is able to wield so much power. Few seem concerned that they have enough control over the media to keep themselves semi-secret. The fact is that before Al Gore invented the internet, they were known to very few. Maybe it’s just an innate fear of the “C” word. Certainly the evidence suggests that what is going on is planned.
But are they secret enough to be part of a (shudder) conspiracy. Certainly, the encyclopedias will make them known to all. Let’s take a look at what the encyclopedias say.

Encyclopedia Brittanica has this to say about the Council on Foreign Relations: ” ”

Encyclopedia Americana says this: ” ”

Of those on my computer, Microsoft Encarta 2002 Comments: ” ”
(Although it had no article on the Council, it did have several articles in which the CFR was mentioned including five regarding Rockefeller Foundation Funding.)

Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1999 goes whole hog: “The Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921, is an organization concerned with the international aspects of U.S. political, economic, and strategic matters. With a membership of almost 3,000 the council provides a forum for individuals with an interest in international affairs and sponsors research projects by its professional staff advised by selected leaders in education, public service, business, and the media. The council publishes the influential bimonthly Foreign Affairs and produces programs on National Public Radio. Its headquarters are in New York City.”

World Book 2003 says: “Council on Foreign Relations is a private organization that studies problems in United States foreign policy. The council aims to develop new approaches to, and an understanding of, international relations. It does not, however, support or oppose any course of action.

The council encourages the publication of books on foreign affairs. The authors of these books need not be council members. However, they receive advice from study groups made up of experts who are members. Since 1922, the council has published a quarterly magazine called Foreign Affairs.

The Council on Foreign Relations sponsors about 150 meetings yearly for members. Leading government officials and experts in foreign affairs address the meetings. The council offers fellowships to selected individuals to broaden their knowledge of foreign affairs.

The council was established in 1921 and has over 2,500 members. It selects members for their experience and interest in foreign affairs. More than 35 committees on foreign relations in cities throughout the United States are associated with the council. The Council on Foreign Relations has headquarters at 58 E. 68th Street, New York, NY 10021. ”

Critically reviewed by the Council on Foreign Relations
(Yes! World Book says all this, but only with the approval of the CFR)

A printed version of World Book tells us: “The Council on Foreign Relations is a private organization, publisher, and study center in the United States. It works to encourage understanding of global issues and to develop new approaches to U.S. foreign policy. The council promotes debates and discussions to help clarify world issues. It also encourages the publication of books on foreign affairs. Since 1922, the council has published a quarterly magazine called Foreign Affairs.

The Council on Foreign Relations sponsors a number of meetings yearly for members. Leading government officials and experts in foreign affairs address the meetings. The council offers fellowships to selected individuals to broaden their knowledge of foreign affairs.

The council was established in 1921 and has about 4000 members. It selects members for their experience and interest in foreign affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations has headquarters in New York City. It also has offices in Washington, D.C. The council operates programs throughout the United States. ”

Critically reviewed by the Council on Foreign Relations
(Once again, with permission only)

I have two other encyclopedias on my computer that have the same comments: ” ”

Finally, Wikipedia has a lengthy article that includes a link to this “independent study,” “Building a North American Community” sponsored by the Council. Of course, it is said within the article that national sovereignty will be maintained. Riiiight! What’s left of it. This is the same line we heard fighting internal regionalism. It’s to “strengthen” local government. Right! By merging it into larger units as they plan to do with the United States. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Amazing how the mainstream encyclopedias can virtually overlook so powerful an organization.


Part 3 – America’s Ruling Party and the Neo-Libs

A while back, I started reading a book called “The Wise Men” written by Rhodes Scholar Walter Isaacson and Thomas Evans. It’s subtitled “Six Friends and the World They Made.”

These were ostensibly conservative businessmen who ported over to the Roosevelt administration in much the same way the McGovern liberals ported over to the Republican party to become the “Neo-Cons.” For that reason I think “Neo-Libs” would have been an appropriate name for them at the time.

Just as the “Neo-Cons” played a major role in the Project for a New American Century, the authors credit these men with being the architects of the “American Century.” As many of the “Neo-Cons” tend to be Israel Firsters, the six were England Firsters.

The Six “Wise” Men

W. Averell Harriman – Skull & Bones, CFR
His father built the Union Pacific Railroad. A Tory England Firster, Harriman favored U.S. entry into WWI on behalf of his beloved Mutha England although he avoided actual service. A clever profiteer, he advocated a naval build up, bought the Chester Shipyard, and got a contract with the navy to build forty cargo ships. All were eventually delivered, but none before the Armistice. After the war he negotiated a private mineral rights deal with the Bolsheviks when our country refused to recognize the regime.

Dean Acheson – Scroll & Key, CFR
Scroll & Key is second only to Skull & Bones in prestige among the secret senior societies. The son of an Episcopal clergyman, Acheson attended Groton the prep school for Anglophile elite. Groton was compared to Eton. FDR also attended Groton. Groton students usually went on to Harvard, Yale, & Princeton.

Robert Lovett – Skull & Bones, CFR
His father was president of E.H. Harriman’s Union Pacific. He started the Yale Naval Reserve flying unit with a friend F. Trubie Davison whose father, a Morgan partner, gave financial backing. It was called the “millionaires unit” and its purpose was to train pilots for eventual use in defending Mutha England.

John McCloy – CFR
A Wall Street lawyer, he became president of the World Bank, chairman of Chase, and chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.

George Kennan – CFR
Educated at Princeton, Kennan, the authors say, became “the intellectual darling of the Washington elite.”

Charles Bohlen – Porcellian Club, CFR
According to the authors, Bohlen was an “amiable insider to the circles of power.” He received his prep schooling at St. Paul’s in NH, another Anglophile school for the elite. He was a member of the Porcellian Club at Harvard as was Teddy Roosevelt. Membership in the club was “deemed so important to young Brahmins that disconsolate sophomores were known to drop out of Harvard upon rejection.”

From about 350 pages of almost 750 I filled over five blank pages in the front with reference notes. I can’t begin to list every significant point, but here are a few.

Harriman was called by some “Roosevelt’s tame businessman” and yet Lovett saw Harriman more like a sovereign than a subject to the President’s he “served.” Could he have been the messenger bringing orders from Wall Street to the presidents?

Harriman formed a joint shipping company with the Soviets in 1922 showing that the capitalists remained in bed with the communists from the beginning. Broker of many deals and “loans” to the USSR.

Bones Brothers stick together to monopolize the money. The Harrimans and two partners of Harriman Brothers, Prescott Bush and Knight Wooley had been Bones Brothers. Together with Lovett. Ellery James, Laurence Tighe, and Charles Dickey, partners in Brown Brothers, and fellow Yale Bonesmen, they brought about the merger of the two major banking firms.

Acheson’s life long Anglophilia was instilled as a child say the authors. While voicing love for “democracy,” he considered us the “vulgar mass of humanity.” He didn’t hesitate to use deceit to gain his ends from that “vulgar mass.” “They favored for example, a postwar loan for the Soviets and efforts to work out a system of joint control of the atom bomb. Yet Acheson and others consciously over stated the threat they perceived in order to sell their vision of America’s role in the postwar world.”

Lovett and McCloy, according to the book, would spend hours going over the roster of the CFR to find people they thought would be good in government. Research will show a lot more CFR in the Roosevelt administration than these six. (Note: Lovett and McCloy are the only ones listed as CFR by Isaacson and Thomas, but internet sites show that no later than the Truman administration all six were members.)

The authors showed considerable admiration for these “six friends,” and why not? Rhodes Scholars hold the same love for England, American intervention in world affairs, and globalism. Nevertheless, an astute reader can find more than enough evidence to indict this whole gang for treason. Unfortunately, there’s just too much to list here. It wouldn’t do any good anyway. The one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history.

If anyone is interested, the book is published by Simon and Schuster and copyrighted in 1986.

This concludes my three part series showing the dominance of the CFR, Americas ruling party through administrations from FDR to George W. Bush and philosophies from the “left” through the center, and to the “right.” Most people, conditioned to believe the lib vs. con, Rep vs. Dem. charade will not accept it. The next section shows how they were conditioned, or maybe I should say, the tools used..


Part 2 – America’s ruling party and the Neo-MidRoaders

I have a book titled, “American Agenda: Report to the Forty-First President of the United States of America.” The book is a compendium of articles giving advice to the President- Elect on various aspects of government policy. You might be tempted to call it, “The Four Year Plan for George H. W. Bush.” I did a membership analysis of the 400 “volunteers” that were part of the project, as well as the project leaders similar to that I did with the PNAC. Again, I can’t guarantee 100% correlation between names in the group and the names appearing in the CFR membership list from 1996, but I still believe there is no less than an 85% correlation.

Most interesting are the two chairmen, President Gerald R. Ford, member of the BilderBergers (or at least one of those so involved in globalist schemes as to be invited to their meetings) and the CFR, and President Jimmy Carter, member of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR. One on the Republican “side” and one on the Democrat “side”.

Also interesting is the affiliation of the 16 members of the American Agenda’s Executive Committee. Thirteen are members of the CFR and many are also members of one or more of the elite and ultra-elite groups, those being the BilderBergers, Tri-lateral Commission, Club of Rome, and two other groups whose code I’m not sure of in my source. I think one is the Rhodes Scholars. There is also one one member with possible family connections.

The two Executive Directors are members of the CFR. Four of five “Senior Policy Coordinators are members. Those five are included in the 400 I analyzed as well.

I’m willing to bet that, in the case of these top people, the correlation runs close to 100%. This would mean that 21 of 25 running the group, or 84%, have at least CFR membership.

Of the 400, there are 97 who have probable CFR membership and many have membership in one or more of the other elitist organizations. That’s just under 25%. At least another 105 have possible family connections. Taking probables and possibles together make up about 50% of the people who composed the main body that contributed to the report.

These are the people who run America, not us. There is only one party, the Council on Foreign Relations with its two divisions–Republican and Democrat. Major candidates and/or their key appointed personnel are taken from this pool. Elections are a dog and pony show for the masses. In-fighting may be real among some of the candidates in the two “parties” chosen to display our “choices”, but the rivalry is similar to that of players on an NFL team. Players may battle each other to earn a starting job, but they all pull together to defeat the other teams in the league. Likewise, the members of these elite groups may, in the mock elections, fight real battles to earn the right to carry the ball, but afterward, they all pull together to defeat our Constitution, our National Sovereignty, and our Liberty.

A brain-child of globalist Edward Mandell House, the CFR is comprised of only about 4000 members, that’s about 15 ten thousandths of one percent of the population, yet it has provided an incredibly disproportionate number of members of every administration for at least 3/4 of a century. They also hold key positions throughout the media making it very easy for the organization to keep a low profile and to scoff at those who attempt to expose them.

These people, not Saddam, not Iraq, not Iran, not Al Quaida, and not the Taliban are the real threat to our liberty.


America’s Ruling Party–The Council on Foreign Relations
[ I first posted this in blogspot on 8/2/08 as one long post.  To be merciful to readers, I’ve broken it into several parts.  Anyone wanting more up to date info on those who are making the decisions that rob us of our liberty, steal our wealth, make enemies of the world, and kill our sons and daughters and the sons and daughters of people who have never harmed us can do a search on the  Council.  Maybe, if I live long enough, I’ll bring it up to date.  I refer to probable members in many cases because I don’t have concrete proof that a name appearing in the CFR roster is the person involved in the PNAC, but the old “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is seen in the company of ducks applies.  Given the historic incestuous nature of those called the elite* of society familial links are likely.  (*dregs might be more appropriate).]
Part – 1  America’s Ruling Party and the Neo-Cons
When a link to the “Project for a New American Century,” was posted in a political discussion group several years ago, I was impressed by the list of participants so I ran a check of their names against a 1996 list of Council on Foreign Relations members. I didn’t have anything to confirm that the names on the CFR list are the same people as on this list, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that there’s at least an 85% correlation. There are also several whose names appear on the list of contributors to Foreign Affairs, a publication of the CFR. Again, dollars to donuts, 85%. Family connections appear to exist in a couple of cases, and there are a couple others that may be linked that way, but I couldn’t make a connection. Given the nepotism and incest that has characterized ruling elites of the past, there’s probably a good chance that connections exist.
Here’s a summary: 8 probable CFR members–of those, two are also members of the Bilderbergers* and one of those two also Trilateral Commission; 5 others are probable contributors to Foreign Affairs; 2 are probable family connections–one likely the father and one the brother of the same probable member; 4 that I did not put in any of the above, have possible family connections. There are several who have overlapping probable and possible connections. I only counted them once. In other words, 15 of 27 have probable CFR connections–55.6%. Add to that another 4 possibles.
*Since originally writing this, I’ve learned that many who appear as Bilderberg members on various lists may have been people whose globalist leanings are strong enough to warrant an invitation to a Bilderberg meeting. They may not be members.
Roger Barnett not cfr but a Roger and Michael N. are contributors to Foreign Affairs andMichael N. & Robert Warren are members
U.S. Naval War College
Alvin Bernstein not cfr but an Alvin is a contributor to Foreign Affairs and David S., Edward M., Peter W., Robert L., Tom A. are members.
National Defense University
Stephen Cambone
National Defense University
Eliot Cohen  Eliot A. Cohen cfr and 15 other Cohens–didn’t try to link family
Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Devon Gaffney Cross Devon Cross cfr, bb
Donors’ Forum for International Affairs
Thomas Donnelly not cfr but a Thomas Donnelly is a contributor to Foreign Affairs
Project for the New American Century
David Epstein not cfr but Jason, Jeffrey E., Joshua M. are members.
Office of Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment
David Fautua
Lt. Col., U.S. Army
Dan Goure
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan cfr (2001 list) father of a Robert Kagan
Yale University
Fred Kagan another son of Donald Kagan
U. S. Military Academy at West Point
Robert Kagan Robert W. Kagan cfr confirmed
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Killebrew
Col., USA (Ret.)
William Kristol not cfr but an Irving Kristol is and an Irving Kristol is father to a William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
Mark Lagon Mark P. Lagon cfr
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Lasswell not a member but a Harold D. is.
GAMA Corporation
I. Lewis Libby I. Lewis Libby cfr
Dechert Price & Rhoads
Robert Martinage
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment
Phil Meilinger
U.S. Naval War College
Mackubin Owens
U.S. Naval War College
Steve Rosen Steven P. Rosen cfr
Harvard University
Gary Schmitt not cfr but listed as a co-author with Shulsky a Foreign Affairs contributor also a Bernadotte Everly Schmitt is cfr
Project for the New American Century
Abram Shulsky not cfr but an Abram N. Shulsky is a contributor to Foreign Affairs
The RAND Corporation
Michael Vickers
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment
Barry Watts not cfr but a Barry D. Watts is a contributor to Foreign Affairs and Glenn E., John H., and William are members.
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Paul Wolfowitz Paul Wolfowitz Bilderbergers, CFR, Trilateral Commision
Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Dov Zakheim Dov S. Zakheim cfr
System Planning Corporation
Later I went through the exercise with listed directors and project staff and found these:
Bruce P. Jackson – Bruce P. Jackson cfr membership confirmed in the Project’s biographies – there are 7 other Jacksons, interestingly, one is a Jesse L. Jackson.
Lewis E. Lehrman – cfr and a Hal is also a member.
Mark Gerson – not cfr but an Allen and a Ralph are members.
Randy Scheunemann – no, poor Randy seems to have been left out. Of course the cfr list is from 1996
Ellen Bork – cfr confirmed
Reuel Marc Gerecht – not cfr but Project biography says a contributor to Foreign Affairs.
I didn’t check the others for Foreign Affairs contributions.


Rhodes and His Scholars

Below are a couple of writings on Cecil Rhodes and his Rhodes Scholarships followed by a series of articles on Rhodes Scholars printed in the Chicago Tribune in 1951. Originally, Rhodes and the write ups on his “scholars” were together in one blog on Blogspot (http://phreedomphan-americasenemies.blogspot.com/2008/08/americas-enemies.html )

When I first posted this, I was new to blogging and didn’t realize blog posts should not be too long. I’m separating them into several posts in WordPress. Read these and you might understand why I believe Rhodes Scholars should be registered as agents of a foreign government and not permitted to hold high office in this land.  A search can turn up many more articles on Rhodes and his “Scholars.”  Surprisingly, there are many sites exposing the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, and other globalist gangs, but little showing Cecil’s termites undermining our sovereignty nor the interlocking network of the Rhodies in those organizations.

Rhodes and the Rhodes Scholarships

“The idea gleaming and dancing before ones eyes like a will-of-the-wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race one Empire. What a dream, but yet it is probable, it is possible.” — Cecil Rhodes, June 2, 1877

“The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press, for the press rules the mind of the people.” — Cecil Rhodes, 1877

“For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development, I leave all my worldly goods in trust … to try to form such a Society with such an object.” — Cecil Rhodes, June 2, 1877

“In Washington, more Rhodes Scholars have been attracted to the State Department than to any other branch of the government, but there is good representation in the departments of War, Navy, Justice…”. From “The American Rhodes Scholarship; A review of the first forty years”, by Frank Aydelotte, (1946) Page 99.

“The Rhodes Trustees will not be satisfied until a Rhodes Scholar is President of the United States” — from Forty Years of Rhodes Scholarships, by Carleton Kemp Allen (1944), page 18.

“Next week an Oxford man will become President of the United States. Three members of Bill Clinton’s cabinet, two Supreme Court Judges and a host of congressmen are also Oxonians. In Japan, Oxford University now boasts not only the future emperor, Crown Prince Naruhito, but also his future wife, Masako Owada (a Balliol woman), among its alumni. With the worlds two most powerful economies sewn up, Oxford can afford to be smug. For its tentacles in the new world, Oxford owes much to the system of Rhodes Scholarships, which since 1903, have attracted some of the brightest of America’s political climbers. Britain no longer rules the world. But, thanks to an old university with an excellent brand-name, it at least helps fashion the worlds rulers.” — London ‘Economist’, January 16, 1993.

Fortunately for the world, Rhodes did not wield enough political power during his lifetime to bring all the nations of the world under the rule of an international government. However, he left his fortune, acquired from diamond mining in Africa, to establish a scholarship program to indoctrinate promising young men and send them throughout the world to work toward the goal of world government.

Rhodes scholars helped to bring the United States of America into two World Wars, set up the United Nations, and gave to the nations of the world over one trillion dollars in the Marshall Plan and foreign aid funds. They have promoted free trade policies that are destroying American industry and causing innumerable social and economic problems.

Cecil Rhodes 

Cecil Rhodes was a financier and statesman whose personal ambitions were a close second to those he had for British imperialism. It was still possible, in his lifetime, to implement colonialism while acquiring considerable power and accruing personal fortunes. It was the age of the dream of extending as far as possible the territories marked in red (that is, British colonies and dominions) on the world atlas. Born in July 1853, Cecil Rhodes was one of six sons of a vicar. Due to ill health, he was not sent to Eton or Winchester like two of his brothers, neither did he end up in the army. His poor constitution meant he had to revise his ambitions to become a barrister or a clergyman and study at the local grammar school instead. He had a great love of the country and of agriculture, which came to the fore later in his life when reforestation and rural development became one of his passions in South Africa.

He was sent to Natal to join his brother on a cotton farm in 1870. Their failure to grow the crop successfully and the incurable bite of diamond fever led them to move to Kimberley (in Africa) a year later, where Cecil Rhodes persisted with his dream of wealth in spite of terribly harsh conditions and bad luck, until he turned his fortune and succeeded to make a life of mining.

His young life was spent between Oxford and Kimberley, feeling in the main an odd man out in both places. His academic pursuits, though desultory, were viewed strangely in the mining provinces, and his unusual laugh, oratorial voice and behaviour singled him out in England. But he had an almost mystical inclination to perpetuate imperialism, and would speak at length on the subject, gathering small crowds of admirers. His ill health was an obstacle he stubbornly refused to be distracted by, but he felt its portent, for he made as many as seven wills. In each, his ambitions for furthering the power of the British Empire figured significantly.

Although he never regarded accumulating wealth as a means to itself, Rhodes became quite successful in that regard while attempting to fulfil his dreams which were, apart from `painting the map red’, to build a railway from the Cape to Cairo, to reconcile the Boers and the British under one flag (the Union Jack, of course) and claim the American colonies for the Empire. They led him on a successful political career, with a number of achievements, not least of which being Prime Minister of Cape Colony.

Cecil Rhodes, who always insisted on being called simply `Mr Rhodes’, was never married. His sympathies and leanings are described differently by different biographers, but it was a known fact it was not unusual for him to be surrounded, as in his younger Oxford days, by a crowd of young admiring bachelors. There was an annoying entanglement with a cunning self-styled adventuress, Princess Radziwitt, whose manipulative schemes were more financially than romantically inclined. Her passion for intrigue, power and gain caused the statesman more annoyance than political – or any other – advantage. She forged signatures, counterfeited documents and committed fraudulence using his name. He was even summoned to her trial and had to travel from Europe to Cape Town to give evidence.

Incurable heart disease brought Rhodes to his end in 1902. He had emerged into the new century hoping for an end to the Boer War, but it outlived him. He was buried in the Matopo Hills early in April of that year, after a funeral cortege by railway which was a memorable procession. The reading of his will later that month increased his reputation as an imaginative farsighted man, due to the creation of a new education grant trust for the now famous Rhodes Scholarships, his main legacy.

By William F. Jasper

“In America, where idealism is the yardstick used to judge a generation’s collective virtue, Rhodes scholars are its masters,” says Rhodes scholar Peter Beinart. “They are chosen as much for their public-spiritedness as for their academic prowess. Not all want to run for elective office, but the bulk think their talents can be most fully realized through public service. Like Clinton, my peers believe earnestly in government. Above all, they believe in themselves in government.” Writing in the “My Turn” section of Newsweek’s January 16th issue, Beinart, a 23-year-old student now in his second year at Oxford University, offers a perceptive critique of the “Rhodie” tendency to giddily embrace idealism as “summum bonum”. Beinart notes that “such idealism should be refreshing. Yet after a year at Oxford, it makes me uneasy. The committment to government my colleagues express so passionately is rarely linked to a clear vision of what government should do….I’m afraid that the idealism for which Rhodes scholars receive praise is less an antidote to the problems of American politics than a symptom of them.”

“Lacking a vision of political service in pursuit of specific ends,”observes Beinart, “the rhetoric of idealism allows Rhodes scholars to justify and celebrate political service per se. Idealism masks an ideological vacuum.”


On the pernicious potential of misdirected idealism Bienart scores some important points. However, it is not idealism per se, but a particular kind of idealism, of which Rhodies are typically imbued, that is the problem under consideration here. And it is certainly not an idealism proceeding from an “ideological vacuum.” If that were the case, we would expect to see idealism manifested and expressed in a diversity of shapes and forms, as for instance: Christian idealism versus humanist/pagan/atheist idealism, individualist versus collectivist idealism, libertarian versus totalitarian idealism, nationalist versus globalist idealism, etc.

The Oxonian idealism, however, seems to run almost invariably along the humanist/pagan/atheist, collectivist, totalitarian, globalist, elitist lines. Perhaps Beinart’s peers do not explicitly subscribe to such a nasty idealism, but, apparently, it is implicit – at least in the formative stages – in their collective world view, and it is this which makes him “uneasy.”As he says, they have a passionate “commitment to government,” but, “above all, they believe “in themselves” in government.” Which is exactly the kind of “idealism” British empire builder Cecil John Rhodes intended to foster when he established the Rhodes scholarships at the turn of the century.

We have written previously about the baleful effects of Rhodes’ bequest(“A ‘Rhodie’ in the White House,” New American, 1/25/93). However, since the accession of Bill Clinton to the Oval Office, the Oxford influence in the Executive branch of the federal government has attained unprecedented heights. As Rhodes scholar Robert Rotberg noted in the Christian Science Monitor for December 7, 1992, the Clinton Presidency “fulfills Rhodes’ deepest aspiration.” Rotberg, author of The Founder: Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power, wrote in his Monitor piece that “Rhodes believed that he had discovered an idea that could lead ‘to the cessation of all wars and one language throughout the world.’ Rhodes also specified fairly clearly the kinds of men who should receive the opportunity to go to Oxford. He had Clinton in mind” – an admission which, by itself, should severely diminish the prestige of the esteemed academic honors. Rhodes’ men, said Rotberg,were a special breed: “They were to ‘esteem the performance of public duties’ as their highest aim. Rhodes wanted the best men for ‘the World’s fight’…In the 90 years of scholarships, only Clinton has taken Rhodes’dream to the top.”


The secret society of which Rhodes spoke was launched, notes Blumenfeld,on February 5, 1891. Forming the executive committee of this society were Rhodes, Stead, Lord Esher, and Alfred Milner. Below them was a “Circle of Initiates” comprised of Lord Balfour, Sir Harry Johnson, Lord Rothschild, Lord Grey, and other scions of Britain’s financial and aristocratic elite.According to Professor Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, “The scholarships were merely a facade to conceal the secret society, or more accurately, they were to be one of the instuments by which the members of the secret society could carry out his purpose.” “The Rhodes Scholarships,” Blumenfeld writes, “as outlined in Rhodes’ will, became the main instrument whereby the most promising young people throughout the English-speaking world could be recruited to serve an idea that Rhodes thought would take 200 years to fulfill.” And, says Blumenfeld: “Obviously, the way the secret society would recruit its future leaders from among the Rhodes scholars was to dangle before them the prospects of future advancement in whatever field they chose to pursue, be it education, politics, government, foundation work, finance, journalism, etc. Thus, if you understood the implicit message being given to you by your sponsors you might one day become president of Harvard, President of the United States, a Supreme Court Judge, a US senator, or president of the Carnegie Foundation. The road to fame and fortune was open as long as you played the game and obeyed the rules. The Association of American Rhodes Scholars has an alumni membership of about 1,600. They have become leading figures in the new ruling elite in America.”


For gaining as appreciation of just how influential the “leading figures”in this ruling elite have been, and are today, Dr. Cuddy’s 50-page booklet, Secret Records Revealed, is of immense value. Utlilizing the chronological format he has used in some of his previous studies, Cuddy begins with the year 1890 and traces the perfidious Rhodes influence to the present, outlining not only the “contributions” of Rhodes scholars, but those as well of prominent members in Rhodes’ other fronts such as the Council on Foreign Relations.

The impact of this elect (but in most cases unelected) coterie has been nothing less than incredible. A roll call of the famous Rhodies who have advanced the founder’s scheme reads like a Who’s Who of American finance,business, academe, journalism, and politics: Whitney Shepardson, John K.Fairbank, Lester Thurow, Erwin D. Canham, Stringfellow Barr, Nicholas Katzenbach, Howard K. Smith, Harlan Cleveland, Carl Albert, J. William Fulbright, Dean Rusk, Hedley Donovan, Walt Rostow, Robert Roosa, Stansfield Turner, Richard Lugar, David Boren, Michael Kinsley, Daniel Boorstin, and many more. Among the more than 20 Rhodies in Clinton’s retinue are Strobe Talbott, Robert Reich, James Woolsey, Ira Magaziner, George Stephanopoulos, Stephen Oxman, Sarah Sewall, Walter Slocombe, Joseph Nye, and Richard N.Gardner.

And what are the characteristics that the Rhodes scholarship selection committees were to look for in candidates and nurture in their scholars? According to Rhodes’ own criteria, notes Cuddy, the traits most desired were (and are) “smugness, brutality, unctuous rectitude, and tact.” Obviously, as Mr. Rotberg beamed above, Rhodes “had Clinton in mind.” After all, his proteges were to be the “best men,” the “best people,” pursuing his vision of world government run by a socialist aristocratic elite. According to Rhodes’ co-conspirator Stead, it was expected that by 1920 there would be”between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each of whom, moreover, would have been specially – mathematically – selected toward the Founder’s purposes.”


Dr. Cuddy examines the writings, speeches, policies, and deeds of Rhodes scholars and other members of the Rhodes network over the past century, to reveal what is clearly the sinister nature of “the Founder’s purposes.” He shares the alarm expressed by Professor Quigley in his posthumously published expose, The Anglo-American Establishment: “The picture is terrifying because such power, whatever the goals at which it is being directed, is too much to be entrusted to any group….No country that values its safety should allow what [Rhodes-Milner] group accomplished – that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such a power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.”

Reprinted from THE NEW AMERICAN MAGAZINE February 20, 1995 at http://www.knology.net/bilrum/rhodes.htm

Cecil Rhodes- The Rhodes Scholarships
A Giant Step For White World Domination

Dedication. Courage. Vision. Ahh- the things we aspire to for ourselves and look for in our heroes and leaders. A study of Cecil Rhodes is an exercise in many things. One of them might be the way really good things can be perverted to the extreme.

He was a young man with a mission. The theft of an entire planet is no easy task. Fresh from the influences of imperialist Europe, Rhodes brought the fever of conquest to Afrika in a way equal in barbarity to anything ever seen on the planet. 440,656 square miles and over a thousand dead Afrikans later, in 1890, he stuck a flag into the heart of South Afrika and called the land Rhodesia, after himself.

His ultimate scheme was simple. TO COLONIZE THE ENTIRE WORLD. Rhodes wrote his “Confession of Faith” in 1877, very early in his life. In it, he stated his position in England and the rest of the globe. “I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the bietter it is for the human race.” He looked at Afrika as a piece of real estate that was destined to be ruled by Britain. Rhodes was determined to bring the vast resources of the Motherland home and place them at the feet of the crown. A cornerstone of this mad plan was to control Afrika ” from Cape to Cairo”; the Cape of Good Hope to Cairo, Egypt. A glance at the map will confirm this literally includes the whole continent. He was a huge player in the game of WHITE WORLD DOMINATION. It was Rhodes was at the beginnings of the Apartheid Era of South Afrika.

Cecil John Rhodes was born on July 5, 1853, at Bishop Straford in Hertfordshire, England. He lived there until leaving for Afrika in 1870 at age 17. His brothers, who’d preceded him there, welcomed him to the Black Continent. As an immigrant, he was entitled to a land grant of fifty acres and given five years to pay for it. The crop he chose was cotton. He reinvested the profits in the railroad, which was growing strong transporting the newly exploited diamonds and gold from raped Afrikan soil. Wealth fueled to his imagination and imperialistic nature. He began his lifetime quest for power and land because, “We know the size of the world and we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us and it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.”[punctuation his]

In her classic account of this wickedly remarkable mans life, Sarah Gertrude Millin states, “In the end all that Rhodes can do towards extending British rule throughout the world and restoring Anglo-Saxon unity and founding a guardian power for the whole of humanity is to arrange for a number of young men from the United States, the British colonies, and Germany to go to Oxford.

“W.T. Stead, a confidant of Rhodes relates, “between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom would have had impressed upon his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder.

“There were specific guidelines set. Areas of ability were carefully evaluated when selecting a recipient of the scholarship. There was a balance to the men Rhodes thought capable of implementing his plan and attaining his dream. Thirty percent for “literary and scholastic attainments.” Twenty percent for “fondness of and success in manly outdoor sports such as cricket, football and the like.” Thirty percent for “quality of manhood, truth, couracge, devotion to duty sympath for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness, and fellowship.” Twenty percent for “exhibition during schooldays of moral force of character and of instincts to lead and to take an interest in his schoolmates.” Just as Adolf Hitler would have failed his own test for the perfect Aryan due to his severe lack of blond hair and blue eyes, so would Rhodes have failed his; he was not scholarship material.

His was the dream of fathering, after death, a vast undercover machine to fulfill his lifelong ambition. In his Confession of Faith, As Rhodes talks about Anglo-Saxon control of the planet he writes, “Toward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such a object.

“At one point Lyndon Johnson was heard to say that he was the only member of Kennedy’s administration with a degree from Southwest Texas State Teacher’s College. A large majority of the rest were Rhodes scholars and thus Oxford graduates. They can be found in many levels of international government and business. One connection between President Bill Clinton and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke is that they are both disciples of Rhodes.

Europeans, under the guise of educational advancement, have hidden a world-wide army of men with the ideology of Cecil Rhodes imbedded in their hearts and minds. Just like he planned. It is important to realize who is shaping the planet toward “progress without oppression.”

Previous Older Entries