Secret Insurance Agent Sh*tlords Get Bailout After Bailout

Let's reflect back to the September 22, 2000 story in the LA Times about the Secret Insurance Man:

They knew which factories to burn, which bridges to blow up, which cargo ships could be sunk in good conscience. They had pothole counts for roads used for invasion and head counts for city blocks marked for incineration.
They weren't just secret agents. They were secret insurance agents. These undercover underwriters gave their World War II spymasters access to a global industry that both bankrolled and, ultimately, helped bring down Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.

Newly declassified U.S. intelligence files tell the remarkable story of the ultra-secret Insurance Intelligence Unit, a component of the Office of Strategic Services, a forerunner of the CIA, and its elite counterintelligence branch X-2.

Though rarely numbering more than a half dozen agents, the unit gathered intelligence on the enemy's insurance industry, Nazi insurance titans and suspected collaborators in the insurance business. But, more significantly, the unit mined standard insurance records for blueprints of bomb plants, timetables of tide changes and thousands of other details about targets, from a brewery in Bangkok to a candy company in Bergedorf.  

"They used insurance information as a weapon of war," said Greg Bradsher, a historian and National Archives expert on the declassified records.  That insurance information was critical to Allied strategists, who were seeking to cripple the enemy's industrial base and batter morale by burning cities.   

The men behind the insurance unit were OSS head William "Wild Bill" Donovan and California-born insurance magnate Cornelius V. Starr.

Starr had started out selling insurance to Chinese in Shanghai in 1919 and, over the next 50 years, would build what is now American International Group, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. He was forced to move his operation to New York in 1939, when Japan invaded China.  Finish the story here.

The Wall Street Journal provides some additional background on Maurice "Hank" Greenberg:

Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg is a director and the chairman of the board and chief executive officer of C. V. Starr. He joined C. V. Starr as vice president in 1960 and was given the additional responsibilities of president of American Home Assurance Co. in 1962. He was elected director of C. V. Starr in 1965, president and chief executive in 1968 and chairman and chief executive in 2005. Mr. Greenberg retired as chairman and chief executive of American International Group Inc. in March 2005, after four decades of leadership that created the largest insurance conglomerate in history and generated unprecedented value for the shareholders. Mr. Greenberg is the former chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the largest Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S. Federal Reserve System, and is a former director of the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Greenberg is honorary vice chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Digging deeper into the depths of some fo the more nefarious news and we find the following:

Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, once floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995, is the CEO of AIG insurance manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world. He joined the insurance firm, Continental Casualty Co., in 1952. Continental executive J. Milburn Smith recommended Greenberg to the C.V. Starr insurance/spy organization, which made Greenberg its vice president in 1960, its president and CEO in 1967, and its chairman, succeeding Starr, in 1969. Maurice Greenberg was deeply involved in chinese trade in the 80s, where Henry Kissinger was one of his representatives. In the China trade, Greenberg became very close to Shaul Eisenberg, the leader of the Asian section of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, and agent for the sales of sophisticated military equipment to the Chinese military. From 1988 to 1995, Greenberg was a director of the New York Federal Reserve bank - this branch of the system is the main instrument through which Federal Reserve chiefs and the Bank of England traditionally execute their U.S. political-economic policy. Greenberg was deputy chairman of the New York Fed in 1992 and 1993, and New York Fed chairman in 1994 and 1995. In 1993, Maurice Greenberg's American International Group, became co-owner of the "private spy agency", Kroll Associates, as a result of rescuing Kroll from bankruptcy with a cash infusion. Kroll was notorious during the 1980s as the "CIA of Wall Street" due to the prevalence of former CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, British secret service and British Special Air Service men Kroll employed for corporate espionage in takeover bids, as well as for destabilization of foreign nations. During 1996, while Greenberg was deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (See Cfr), he chaired the CFR task force on intelligence, which published "Making Intelligence Smarter: The future of U.S. Intelligence." This report mostly served to exhibit Greenberg's access to the intelligence community; but he parlayed it into a nomination by Senator Arlen Specter and others, for Greenberg to be Director of the CIA.Greenberg has used his connections to covert intelligence, supranational institutions, private bankers and speculators, and his huge global cash inflow, to shape a unique personal empire. Since 1997, Frank G. Wisner, Jr., has been a board member of Kroll , and is currently Greenberg's Deputy Chairman for External Affairs. Wisner's father was a founder of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who killed himself over the scandal from his being duped by British-Soviet masterspy Kim Philby. Frank Wisner, Jr., is a director of the George Bush-linked energy giant Enron (a client for whom AIG negotiated payments from Peru over nationalization of Enron operations).In the early 1990s, Miami-based private investigator Lou Polumbo joined Kroll Associates. According to sources in the industry, Polumbo brought with him a personal history of involvement with the Medallin and other South American narcotics cartels; his business included helping relocate some of the capabilities of these cartels out of Colombia. The deal to bring Polumbo into Kroll was worked out by Avram Shalom, the former head of Israel's Shin Beth secret police. Shalom went to work for Kroll; he had been fired as Shin Beth boss due to a scandalous massacre of Palestinians in the Israel-occupied territories by his Shin Beth agents.

SEC whistleblower Richard Grove elaborated on his experience with Hank Greenberg in this radio interview with Jack Blood in 2011.  That interview is based on Project Constellation which can be found here.

AIG CEO Maurice “Hammerin’ Hank” Greenberg, who coincidentally was also the former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and his 2 sons: Jeff and Evan- who were coincidentally the CEOs of the major insurance entities Marsh & McLennan and ACE Insurance respectively- were creatively managing their fiscal assets- as well as the public representation of those assets.

When Spitzer’s investigation ramped up, Hank took a golden parachute of hundreds of millions (beyond the fraud) from AIG, and Jeff stepped down from his post at Marsh and McLennan… but other than that, nothing changed, it was just the right foot switching to the left, and the progress of the fraud continues, now with the support of Law Enforcement.

To offer a little contextual History, AIG was founded by OSS operative Cornelius V. Starr (2 R’s), the uncle of Clinton’s friend Kenneth Starr. AIG was created for and is currently a front which provides cover for intelligence community illicit operations. In 2001, AIG owned a Risk Management firm called Kroll Associates.

Kroll played a major role in the events of September 11th, and continues to this day to enable events like the 7-7 and 7-21 bombings in the London Tube system… they then go on TV and provide “expert” counterterrorism testimony to the goldfish at home tuned into FoxNews and the like.

While Kroll provided the necessary operational capability, in part, for what was perpetrated; AIG and Marsh were focused on participating in both short and long-term money schemes. Kroll’s Jerome Hauer (a long time personal friend of ex-FBI Counterterrorism & Osama bin Laden expert John O’Neill) hired O’Neill as head of security for the WTC.

Kroll had also managed the bunker in WTC 7 for Guiliani, and Kroll’s board of directors shared one peculiar member in common with AIG; that being Frank G. Wisner Jr., son of OSS co-Founder Frank Wisner. 

I won’t go into the history of the OSS, Reinhard Gehlen, or the Council on Foreign Relations / Dulles affiliation with its creation, but I can recommend an excellent book, wherein its relevance is comprehensively documented; the title you’re looking for is: The Old Boys: The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA by Burton Hersh (and printed in 1992).

So what we can infer is Hank Greenberg not only knew about 9/11 in advance, but that he and his sons, planned nefarious financial transactions, including insurance fraud to take advantage of the plane attacks.  Do your own research to learn more.  He should be indicted to find out what he knew and when.

Truth is a Lonely Warrior - On the Shadow Government of the USA #CFR

There are 6000 think tanks in the world working to turn public policymakers into corporate pawns.
— Anti-Think Tanks (@AntiThinkTanks) September 15, 2014

In his groundbreaking (and bestselling) 1988 book, The Shadows of Power, author and researcher James Perloff meticulously documents the origins, aims and influence of The Council on Foreign Relations and its members. Today Perloff joins us to discuss the CFR, its acknowledged goal of preparing the American public for a new world order, and how it is working to accomplish that goal through the control of America’s foreign policy apparatus.

SHOW NOTES JamesPerloff.com The Shadows of Power (information) The Shadows of Power (purchase) The Shadows of Power (presentation) Truth Is A Lonely Warrior

James Perloff, author of "The Shadows of Power", "Tornado Through A Junkyard, "The Case Against Darwin", outlines his new E-Book "Truth Is A Lonely Warrior" on America's Future Cable TV. Meldrim Thomson, Jr. Governor of New Hampshire (1973-1979) said: "If we want to avoid the disaster of one-world-government, if we wish to preserve our priceless national sovereignty and live through all time as free men, then it is imperative that the American people read The Shadows of Power."

Congress Should #JustSayNO to Obama's $1 Billion Europe Security Fund

All the major mainstream media released the same government propaganda piece this morning as Obama escalates the tensions with Russia, right on queue after the Bilderberg meeting last weekend.  This article from Bloomberg positions it as a European Reassurance Fund, as if they are going to sell shares in the investment.

Photographer: Elisabetta Villa/Getty Images

President Barack Obama meets Italian Premier Matteo Renzi at Villa Madama on March 27, 2014 in Rome.

U.S. President Barack Obama, arriving in Poland today, announced a $1 billion fund to help boost defensive capabilities of European allies shaken by Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula fromUkraine.

Obama will officially call on Congress to approve the fund this afternoon during a joint press conference with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski in Warsaw. The “European Reassurance Fund” will build on previously announced measures by increasing the capability, readiness, and responsiveness of North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces to address continued threats and deter further destabilizing activities, according to a White House fact sheet.”

And if you fall for this line of BS then you really are an Obamabot!  The United States is the greatest debtor nation in the history of the world.  Is there any point adding troops to the fire in Europe for the alleged purpose of promoting peace and stability in the region.  

Does anyone buy the nonsense? They US and its protected NGOs started the revolution-turn civil war in Ukraine (see previous posts about Nuland leak and Soros' Open Society involvement). Putin and Russia then respond, and now we are putting more troops in Europe to reassure our European allies that we've got their back? 

Be sure to share this article and related tweets with your Congressman so they know to #JustSayNO to Obama's warmongering request.

Will Congress say #HailHitler to Obama's Request for $1B for US Military In Europe? http://t.co/kiw3lxK69M pic.twitter.com/bwq5o95V0B
— #TwistedTimes Daily (@TwistedPolitix) June 3, 2014

Congress MUST #JustSayNO to Obama's Request for $1 Billion To Boost US Military In Europe - http://t.co/1M9UG1BViW pic.twitter.com/DBeR49tqOb
— #TwistedTimes Daily (@TwistedPolitix) June 3, 2014

The Insiders 1979 Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations

#SiliconValley #HighTech #Startups Funded by CIA's #InQTel; Connections to DARPA

First watch this "joke" from The Onion.  Then watch the following serious videos that raise more serious questions about the high tech industry and the current #policeState, funded by the CIA's #InQTel, and a complete invasion of our privacy.



 



"Pump and Dump: How to Rig the Entire IPO Market with just $20 Million | Wolf Street" ( http://twitthat.com/GsoAH )

Four out of Five Richest Tech Moguls Involved in US Intelligence" ( http://twitthat.com/WvK4m )

UNBELIEVABLE! Hillary Clinton Laughs about Plans for War Against Iran #ReadyForHillary2016

Hillary Clinton Admits that the CFR runs Foreign Policy

Is "Six-Californias" a Skull and Bones, United Nations, or Council on Foreign Relations Plan?

Let's look at the article in Time magazine about Tim Draper's proposal to break up California:

This week, the California Secretary of State’s office gave initial approval to a proposal that would split the Golden State into six new ones: Jefferson, North California, Silicon Valley, Central California, West California and South California. If proponents can gather 807,000 signatures by July 14, the question will go to voters in November.

The man behind the “Six Californias” plan is big-name venture capitalist Tim Draper, known for investment in companies like Hotmail and Skype. TIME (virtually a Council on Foreign Relations publication) spoke to Draper about where this idea came from, how he decided on six states and whether there are any political ambitions behind his novel effort. Here’s an edited transcript of the interview:

          Where did this idea come from?

We now spend the most and get the least. We spend among the most for education and we’re 46th in education. We spend among the most for prisons, and we are among the highest recidivism rates … So the status quo is failing. And there have been some very good people running California, governing California. So it must be systemic. At best, the system seems to be on a spiral down. At worst it’s a monopoly, and in a monopoly, they can charge whatever they want and provide whatever service they want. In a competitive environment, people get good service and they pay fair prices.

You mentioned all these various desires of people in different areas. Have you spoken to people in each of these six regions who support this plan? 

Yeah. I get a ton of emails of support. People are supporting this all over … What I’ve noticed is that at first, people hear it and they go, ‘Why would you do this? This is California. This is America.’ And then I say, ‘This is exactly why I do this. Because I love California, and I love America.’ We are the government. We the people, are the government. And we need to create a system that works.

Well, that didn't answer the question at all.  Where did the idea really come from?

According to Wikipedia, Tim Draper is son of William Henry Draper III, Draper was born in White Plains, New York, the son of Katherine Louise (née Baum) and banker and diplomat William Henry Draper, Jr.^[1] He attended Yale University with George H. W. Bush, graduated in 1950, the year after George H. W. Bush and is a member of the secret society Skull and Bones.

It goes on to say that in 1959, Draper left Chicago to work as an associate at his father's newly formed firm, Draper, Gaither & Anderson, the first venture capital company on the West Coast.  In 1965, Draper founded Sutter Hill Ventures, which to this day remains one of the top venture capital firms in the country. During his twenty years as the senior partner of Sutter Hill, Draper helped to organize and finance several hundred high technology manufacturing companies. In 1986, he became the head of the world's largest source of multilateral development grant assistance, the United Nations Development Programme, and was instrumental in leadership of several global initiatives, such as the international Education for All movement (beginning formally with the 1990 Conference in Jomtien, Thailand), the 1995 Beijing Women's' Conference, and the 1995 Social Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Draper has played an international leadership role in expanding the world economy (aka a Globalist). He served from 1981 to 1986 as President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States and was appointed to this position by President Ronald Reagan. In this post, Draper assumed a leadership role in U.S. efforts to sustain world trade in the face of major liquidity problems among the developing countries.

In 1986, he became the head of the world's largest source of multilateral development grant assistance, the United Nations Development Programme (#UNAgenda21). As the second highest ranking individual in the United Nations, Draper oversaw nearly 10,000 international aid projects. During his time at the UN and the Export-Import Bank, Draper traveled to 101 developing countries and met with over 50 heads of state.^{[citation needed]}As a civic leader, Draper has been involved in many community service programs. He is currently on the boards of the Atlantic Council, The Draper Richards Foundation, Hoover Institution, Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies at Stanford University, World Affairs Council of Northern California, the United Nations Association of the United States of America and the Harvard Business School California Research Center Advisory Board. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the President’s Council on International Activities at Yale University (#SkullandBones).Draper formerly served as the Chairman of the World Affairs Council of Northern California, Chairman of the Institute of International Education, as a Trustee of Yale University and as Chairman of the Board of the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco; he was a former Board member of Population Action International, George Bush Library Foundation, the Advisory Council of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and the World Rehabilitation Fund in New York.

So you see the current state government as a monopoly?Yeah. … The strongest argument for Six Californias is that we are not well-represented. The people down south are very concerned with things like immigration law and the people way up north are frustrated by taxation without representation. And the people in coastal California are frustrated because of water rights. And the people in Silicon Valley are frustrated because the government doesn’t keep up with technology. And in Los Angeles, their issues revolve around copyright law. Each region has its own interest, and I think California is ungovernable because they can’t balance all those interests. I’m looking at Six Californias as a way of giving California a refresh and allowing those states to both cooperate and compete with each other.
...

...How would you like to see things done differently in Silicon Valley, if it had its own government?The issues of Silicon Valley are things like when Napster came out. No one knew how the law should be handled. It was a new technology. And no one quite knew whether it had some violation of copyright or not … And the people who were making those decisions were very distant, and not familiar with what Napster was. Now we have Bitcoin. We have very uncertain laws around Bitcoin. I believe if there were a government closer to Silicon Valley, it would be more in touch with those technologies and the need for making appropriate laws around them. Silicon Valley is seeing great frustration. They see how creative and efficient and exciting life can be in a place where innovation thrives, and then they see a government that is a little lost.
In the state’s legislative analysis, they pointed out that Silicon Valley would become the richest per capita state in the U.S. And another part of California would become the poorest. What about the issue of income inequality this would create among states?The issue is very interesting. For one thing, I’ve noticed that the people most adamant about creating their own state or being a part of their own state are the poorest regions, and in the current system, they are not happy, because it is not working for them. So if they had their own state, I believe all of those states would become wealthier. And I believe by managing their own state, they will become much more successful. A lot of those regions are rural, and they feel they’re being unduly influenced by the urban population.
When you say “we,” who worked on the proposal?I’ve worked with quite a few of these biggest experts in the world in constitutional law, in political thinking, in demographics, in water rights. It’s come after a lot of research and a lot of work.
Can you give an example of someone you’ve worked with?I’ll let them talk for themselves. My goal is to get this put on the ballot and then allow Californians to see what it could do for them.

See, he doesn't answer the question.  If you read any of the articles on the Bay Area Merger, you would learn about others involved in this proposal.  See "Is the Bay Area Merger part of  United Nations Agenda 21?"  Specifically, you learn of the public-private partnerships such as the Joint Venture Silicon Valley.

...Do you have any ambitions to run for elected office, if this proposal becomes a reality or otherwise?Oh, no. Oh, no. I’d let all the states run themselves.
So no plans to be part of the future Silicon Valley state’s government?No, no, no. I just want a good a place to live.

Right.  No official position.  Just operating behind the scenes to be sure he gets what he wants.

This is not a good plan for California!

Read more: Tim Draper on Splitting California Into 6 States | TIME.com 

More on others perspective on the Six-Californias plan

California Breaking Up Into 6 States? - Global Economic Reset Happening

More on the Council on Foreign Relations

Free Trade Liberals and the Globalist New World Order EXPOSED
Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined
Rule from the Shadows - The Psychology of Power
The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline | James Perloff
The Root of Many Evils is Not Money; It is the Council on Foreign Relations
How is the Council on Foreign Relations Involved in G8, G20, and Bilderberg Meetings?
Paul Craig Roberts on the New World Order and the Invisible Empire

More on Agenda 21

AGENDA 21, The United Nations Plan for Global Control
WHO FUNDS UN #AGENDA21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
How YOUR community is implementing AGENDA 21, The United Nations Plan for Global Control 
How Liberty-Minded Individuals Can Fight UN

Various

Tim Draper's Grandfather Was on the United Nations Population Commission
Atlantic Council Speech: An “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,”

Atlantic Council Speech: An “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,” #CrisisInitiation

February 9, 2014 by Jack Blood
Filed under Commentary

Leave a Comment

Writing for the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank based in Washington DC, Harlan K. Ullman warns that an “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,” which is under threat of being derailed by non-state actors like Edward Snowden.

In an article entitled War on Terror Is not the Only Threat, Ullman asserts that, “tectonic changes are reshaping the international geostrategic system,” arguing that it’s not military superpowers like China but “non-state actors” like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and anonymous hackers who pose the biggest threat to the “365 year-old Westphalian system” because they are encouraging individuals to become self-empowered, eviscerating state control.

“Very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization,” notes Ullman, lamenting that “information revolution and instantaneous global communications” are thwarting the “new world order” announced by U.S. President George H.W. Bush more than two decades ago.

“Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance,” writes Ullman, implying that only another 9/11-style cataclysm will enable the state to re-assert its dominance while “containing, reducing and eliminating the dangers posed by newly empowered non-state actors.”

Ullman concludes that the elimination of non-state actors and empowered individuals “must be done” in order to preserve the new world order. A summary of their material suggests that the Atlantic Council’s definition of a “new world order” is a global technocracy run by a fusion of big government and big business under which individuality is replaced by transhumanist singularity.

Ullman’s rhetoric sounds somewhat similar to that espoused by Trilateral Commission co-founder and regular Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in 2010 told a Council on Foreign Relations meeting that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.

Ullman’s implied call for an “extraordinary crisis” to reinvigorate support for state power and big government has eerie shades of the Project For a New American Century’s 1997 lament that “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” an expansion of U.S. militarism would have been impossible.

In 2012, Patrick Clawson, member of the influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, also suggested that the United States should launch a staged provocation to start a war with Iran.

Ullman’s concern over failing state institutions having their influence eroded by empowered individuals, primarily via the Internet, is yet another sign that the elite is panicking over the “global political awakening”

- See more at: News Watch

Who is Dr. Harlan K. Ullman? 

Mr. Shock & Awe

Ullman, Mr. “Shock and Awe” himself, is one of the Neoconservatives who planned the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He’s a retired U.S. Naval Commander who is known as the mastermind behind the U.S. “Rapid Dominance” strategy used in the bombing of Iraq in April, 2003. Indeed, he coined the phrase, “Shock and Awe”. He is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Atlantic Council. One of his books, a product of the National Defense University, promotes the doctrine of shock and awe. It technically is known as “rapid dominance” and is a military doctrine based on the use of “overwhelming decisive force”, “dominant battlefield awareness”, “dominant maneuvers”, and “spectacular displays of power” to “paralyze an adversary’s preception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight”. 

All this reminds me of the Crisis Initiation speech from the Israeli lobbyist suggesting war with Iran.


Washington Institute for Near East policy forum luncheon Patrick Clawson, who heads the Washington Institute's Iran Security Initiative, went as far as to suggest the US may be best served by carrying out a false flag style attack so the President could take the US to war with Iran.

Clawson actually went as far as to suggest that false flag operations were "the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for US interests"

He went on to give us a concise history of past "false flag operations" - the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and ever the blowing up of the USS Maine - as giving past Presidents the excuse needed to go to war.

In the most chilling part of this speech he said, "So, if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise," the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, "it would be best if somebody else started the war." 

Washington Institute for Near East Policy -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingt...

ZOOM IN and use #NetworkLink Analysis to Compute the Crimes of the #Bilderberg http://t.co/8gaJDzWO10 pic.twitter.com/CNHDP2Nw64
— Flashback (@Flashback1984) June 1, 2014

Forget the 1%, 85 People Own Pretty Much Everything

Articel from Zerohedge.

There is something morbidly gruesome and ironic in having the world's wealthiest people, among them the presidents and central bank heads of the world's most "advanced" nations, as well as the CEOs of the biggest corporations, sitting down in Davos - a place where the press passes alone cost thousands of dollars - and discussing global inequality: the same inequality that their policies and principles are responsible for. It is even more morbid when one considers that according to a recent Oxfam report, one that will be used in Davos itself, the disparity in wealth between the haves and the have nots has reached absolutely record proportions, surpassing any previous inequality gaps seen before and during the Great Depression.

Which brings us to the topic of wealth.

By now everyone is familiar with the popular wealth pyramid, which shows that "29 million, or 0.6% of those with any actual assets under their name, own $87.4 trillion, or 39.3% of all global assets."

One can extend that rule of thumb to say that almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population, and seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

However, for the best visual of the disparity between the haves and the have nots we go to Oxfam once more, which just penned the soundbite of the day, and possibly, of the week for suddenly very bleeding-heart Davos:

That's right: "the 85 richest people own the same wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest people" ... aka half the world's population.

Naturally this should come as no surprise: after all the past 5 years of this website have been, more than anything, a testament to the systematic theft, plunder and pillage of the global middle class by a small cabal of global financial oligarchs - those who have implicit control of the printing presses, who have the legal and legislative support of a few, actually make that all, corrupt and purchased politicians, who have merely made this wealth transfer from the poor, not so poor and modestly wealthy to the wealthiest, possible.

And not only possible, but the most rapid it has ever been in history.

The chart below from OxFam summarizes the unprecedented speed of wealth transfer going to the richest 1% courtesy of Bernanke et al's theft-enabling, and Congress-approved policies.

Some of the findings by Oxfam:

Given the scale of rising wealth concentrations, opportunity capture and unequal political representation are a serious and worrying trend. For instance:

• The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
• Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
• The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
• Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
• The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
• In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

Oxfam's conclusions should be perfectly known in advance by anyone who has been following said systematic wealth plunder over the years:

Some economic inequality is essential to drive growth and progress, rewarding those with talent, hard earned skills, and the ambition to innovate and take entrepreneurial risks. However, the extreme levels of wealth concentration occurring today threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work.

Extreme economic inequality is damaging and worrying for many reasons: it is morally questionable; it can have negative impacts on economic growth and poverty reduction; and it can multiply social problems. It compounds other inequalities, such as those between women and men. In many countries, extreme economic inequality is worrying because of the pernicious impact that wealth concentrations can have on equal political representation. When wealth captures government policymaking, the rules bend to favor the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else. The consequences include the erosion of democratic governance, the pulling apart of social cohesion, and the vanishing of equal opportunities for all. Unless bold political solutions are instituted to curb the influence of wealth on politics, governments will work for the interests of the rich, while economic and political inequalities continue to rise. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’

Oxfam is concerned that, left unchecked, the effects are potentially immutable, and will lead to ‘opportunity capture’ – in which the lowest tax rates, the best education, and the best healthcare are claimed by the children of the rich. This creates dynamic and mutually reinforcing cycles of advantage that are transmitted across generations.

It is this threat of a global revolution that suddenly has the panties of all the Davos participants in a bunch: because regardless of the amounts of cholesterol consumed over the past 5 years of epic wealth transfer, we are confident all of these individuals recall well what happened in France in 1789.

This also means that these unbelievably wealthy men and women will suddenly sit down and fight to undo all the legalized theft they have engaged in since the Lehman collapse, and instead fight for the common man.... The same common man, who would be shot on sight if seen walking through one of Davos' marble halls without credentials, by the specially trained army of guards protecting the world's if not best, then certainly wealthiest.

And just who are these kind-hearted Robin Hoods, who will gladly take from themselves and give to the poor? Here, courtesy of RanSquawk, is a very partial list of the people the world's poor should pray to tonight (and every other night):

President and Prime Ministers from the G20 countries who will address the Meeting include:

• Tony Abbot, PM of Australia and 2014 Chair of the G20
• Shinzo Abe, PM of Japan
• David Cameron, PM of the UK
• Enrico Letta, PM of Italy

Some of the leading public figures who will be participating in the 2014 Annual Meeting are:

• Mark J. Carney, Governor of the Bank of England
• Mario Draghi, President, European Central Bank
• Haruhiko Kuroda, Bank of Japan
• Thomas J.  Jordan, Swiss National Bank
• Angel Gurría, Secretary-General, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
• Jim Yong Kim, President, The World Bank, Washington DC
• Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
• Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations, New York
• Jacob J. Lew, US Secretary of the Treasury
• Olli Rehn, Vice-President, Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Commission
• Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Shimon Peres, President of Israel

Some of the leading business figures who will be participating in the 2014 Annual Meeting are:

• Lloyd Blankfein  - Goldman Sachs
• Douglas Flint – HSBC Holdings
• Antony Jenkins – Barclays
• Laurence Fink – BlackRock
• Christophe de Margerie – Total
• Bob Dudley – BP
• Klaus Kleinfeld – Alcoa
• Doug McMillon – Wal - Mart
• Marissa Mayer - Yahoo
• Joe Kaeser - Siemens
• Lakshmi Mittal – ArcelorMittal
• Sir Martin Sorrel – WPP
• Paul Bulxke - Nestle

Our advice to the disenfranchised and the poor around the globe hoping that any of the people listed above will do much if anything to help their plight: it will get worse... before it gets much worse.

Join the Class Action Lawsuit Against the NSA

Dear Andrew,

A few days ago, I announced filing a class-action lawsuit against Barack Obama's National Security Agency and its unconstitutional spying on Americans.

Now I’m looking for ten million Americans to stand with me by joining this lawsuit to TAKE BACK our rights.

Can I count on your help?

Without it, I truly fear where our fragile Republic could be headed . . .

Recent news reports revealed that Barack Obama’s NSA is looking through billions of our emails and phone records every day!

But my friend, today I’m counting on your support as well.

As you’ll see, I’ve made up a Joining Statement for you to join my class-action lawsuit and I’m counting on you to sign it IMMEDIATELY.



You see, I believe this is an absolutely critical and defining moment . . .

My hope is it will be remembered for decades as the moment the American people stood up to their government and demanded our liberties be respected.

But I fear, without your help, it could instead be the moment the American people quietly shrink from a fight and instead hand their last bit of approval over for government-run lives.

I know there are those who argue that Americans must give up every last one of their liberties to win our country’s ongoing fight against terrorism.

"Trust us," they say.

I also know their promises of safety can be tantalizing.

But today we know President Obama’s IRS routinely targeted his political opponents and grassroots conservatives.

The Justice Department targeted reporters and their families for wiretapping and harassment for daring to criticize the administration.

We see the Obama administration covering up Benghazi, then tapping Susan Rice -- who helped mislead the American people in the wake of that outrage -- for a promotion.

"Trust us" is out the window.

And even if our rulers were angels -- and you and I had nothing to fear from an overbearing and intrusive government -- it still doesn’t work.

One of my colleagues, defending this massive program, stated the Boston bombing proved why we need programs like this.

Actually, it proves quite the opposite.

Instead of acting on real intelligence warnings from at least one other nation about the dangers the bombers posed, government agents were too busy secretly sifting through the phone and email records of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Instead of unreasonably targeting every American for spying, they should be focusing on only the truly dangerous.

This is an astounding assault on the Constitution and what’s truly dangerous is if you and I allow this to go on.

That’s why in addition to my class-action lawsuit I’ve introduced the Fourth Amendment Protection Act in the U.S. Senate.

This bill will prevent the government from sifting through the emails of American citizens and require them to obtain a warrant before searching data of specific terrorist suspects.

How long until these spying capabilities suffer some "mission creep" and they start using the GPS feature in your phone to track whether or not you go to gun shows?

What if you go to the "wrong" church? Or read emails from or attend the rallies of the "wrong" candidate?

That’s why your action today is so critical.

As I mentioned, I’ve made up a Joining Statement so you can join the lawsuit, and I’m counting on you to sign and return it to me IMMEDIATELY.



Go ahead and forward it to the uncle or cousin you always get in arguments with at Thanksgiving as well.

This isn’t a partisan issue.  It’s an American one.

And if you and I care at all about the future of our Republic, we need as many folks as possible to stand up and fight back.

I believe each new name joining in this lawsuit increases the likelihood of ultimate victory.

By joining my class-action lawsuit, you can help stop the government’s outrageous spying program on the American people. 

And your support will send a powerful message to my colleagues in Congress, many of whom want to just sweep this scandal under the rug and carry-on business as usual.

I believe we can win this.

I believe we must win this.

As I made clear in my recent FOX news appearance, I’m prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

If we can get tens of millions of Americans behind this effort, I believe we can win.

But I can’t do this without your help.

So please sign your Joining Statement to join my lawsuit IMMEDIATELY.




With your support, I’ll immediately begin mobilizing Americans from all over the country to this fight.

But to do that, I’ll have to pull out all the stops -- and not just with email, Internet ads and social networking.

I’ll have to use mail, phones and perhaps even radio and TV to get my message out as well.

This kind of program won’t be cheap. It’s an absolutely critical one for the survival of our Republic.

So please sign your Joining Statement IMMEDIATELY.

Thanks so much for your support.

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S. Just a few days ago I announced filing a class-action lawsuit to end the madness of Barack Obama's NSA spying on Americans. 

It seems every day we find out how more information is being sucked up, and how you or I could one day be targeted. 

Meanwhile, real threats to our security, like the Boston bombers, slip by unnoticed.

The Root of Many Evils is Not Money; It is the Council on Foreign Relations

Pretty much every single major event in the 20th and 21st century American history can be tied back to the mysterious, invitation only club called the Council on Foreign Relations.  The image below shows you just a glimpse of some of the people, institutions, and events that are directly related to the CFR.

For a brief video about the Council on Foreign Relations, the collectivist think thank that is intertwined with the Federal Reserve, watch this video.

The Who, What, Why of the War in Syria?

Watch these videos and read the text below from Zerohedge.com.  It is time you learn that the US government is lying through its teeth about Syria.  Once you are done with this, look elsewhere on this site to learn more about previous lies, including 9/11, Boston Marathon Bombing, the War in Iraq and many many more.  Then ask yourself, why?

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British.  Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take "unilateral action" against Syria. 

But what good would "a shot across Syria's bow" actually do?  A "limited strike" is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria.  Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad. 

Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages.  Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters?  There is no good outcome in Syria.  The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse.  Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn't as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country.  At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam.  It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria.  On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals.  And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the "rebels" in Syria.

But there was a problem.  The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels.  So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the "moral justification" that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels.  In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today.  The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this...

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.

-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.

-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it.  In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on "intelligence", but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious.  WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn't we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive.  As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was.  It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch.  They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless.  They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States.  I don't think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now.  The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see...

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked.  And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution."

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack."

6. The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no 'smoking gun' that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation."

7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."

8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."

9. Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation."

10. Robert Fisk: "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida."

11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?"

12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."

13. A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people."

14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding."

15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel."

16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war."

17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences"

18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."

19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force."

20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."

21. The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday."

22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"

23. Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."

24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something."

25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?"