Council on Foreign Relations
According to my research,(see first edition of True Democracy (La
verdad sobre la democracia)) the Council on Foreign Relations "assisted
in the formation of the Trilateral Commission." Additionally, the secretary
at the Rainbow Coalition stated to me that Jesse Jackson is a member of this
organization. I suspect that she didn't realize that I had done research
on the Trilateral Commission so was familiar with this organization or she
wouldn't have ever informed me that Reverend Jackson is a member.
The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense subsection 783.
The Council on Foreign Relations is a branch of an international group of co-conspirators called the Round Table Group. Other branches include; Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the South African Institute of International Affairs, the Indian Institute of International Affairs, the Netherlands Institute of International Affairs, the Japanese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations, and the Russian Institute of Pacific Relations. The Secretary of the Treasury is the public official responsible for keeping an eye on domestic and international monetary and financial policy. The following Secretaries of the Treasury are members of the Council on Foreign Relations; Robert B. Anderson(Eisenhower), Douglas C. Dillion (Kennedy/Johnson), Henry Hamill Fowler (Johnson), David M. Kennedy (Nixon), William Edward Simon (Nixon/Ford), W. Michael Blumenthal (Carter), G. William Miller (Carter) James A. Baker 3rd (Reagan), Nicholas F. Brady (Reagan/Bush).
The National Security Council provides intelligence support to the Secretary of the Treasury. The nature of the support, is classified. The support insures the Department of the Treasury acts in accord with recommended national security policy and makes its full contribution to the attainment of national security objectives and to the particular climate of opinion the United States is seeking to achieve in the world.
This opinion is formulated by Council on Foreign Relations members working in an ad hoc committee called the "Special Group" and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the "Secret Team". The "Special Group" and "Secret Team" insure that a well coordinated economic warfare campaign weakens non-Round Table Member controlled companies and benefits Round Table Member controlled companies in the United States and in other nations.
Even the most knowledgeable Treasury officials don't understand the role of the National Security Council in international monetary and financial policy. The "Special Group" and the "Secret Team" hide so-called national security objectives behind a veil of secrecy. This is because these objectives are in the best interest of the Round Table Group members, not in the best interest of the American public.
In 1969 Paul Volcker became Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs in the Nixon administration. Volcker's boss was Secretary of the Treasury David Kennedy. In his book Changing Fortunes, Volcker writes;
"On inauguration day I sat down in my new office in the Treasury...A memorandum arrived from the White House with, as I recall it, the title of "National Security Study Memorandum Number Two." I clearly had not been on the list for Number One but, after all, Number Two was not bad. I didn't really know what a National Security Study Memorandum was in those days, but since it was signed by Henry Kissinger on behalf of the president, it was obviously something to be taken seriously.
The memorandum described administrative and other arrangements for the conduct of international monetary affairs by the new administration. It designated the Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs - the position to which I would be nominated - to chair an inter-agency committee on the subject. The previous administration had such a group, so that was no striking new initiative, but it was nice for me to have my bureaucratic position confirmed. The memo also said that in that capacity I should report to Henry Kissinger at the National Security Council. That was unusual news to me, being in the Treasury Department. I went running to Secretary Kennedy's office and said, "You'd better take care of this quick, because it seems to cut you out of the loop." He was not very close to Mr. Nixon at the time, and I sensed his hesitation about what to do. I always suspected he just ignored that part of the directive, because that's certainly what I did. Henry Kissinger had other things to worry about during those days. Besides, one of his stable of assistants, Fred Bergsten, was a member of the inter-agency group, and I knew he was fully capable of keeping Henry informed.
I never heard another word about it, and I suspect papers on the intricacies of international monetary affairs ended up at the bottom of Kissinger's in-tray, assuming they ever got that far. But it was to me an interesting lesson in bureaucratic one-upmanship. Kissinger had been designated to his position many weeks earlier, had a staff in place, access to the president, and an instinct to make good use of his head start...."
David M. Kennedy, Paul A. Volcker, Henry A. Kissinger, and Fred C. Bergsten are all Council on Foreign Relations members.
On 21 of September 1964, a congressional Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, Committee on Banking and Currency, Chaired by Wright Patman, issued a report entitled Money Facts - 169 Questions and Answers on Money - A Supplement to A primer on Money. One fact is "Congress has never given authority for determining money policy to the Federal Reserve System - and certainly not to a committee within the system containing members who owe their selection to private bank interest." Yet, this is exactly what has happened. The Federal Reserve System, the banks that own it, and the governmental agencies involved with the monetary policy have something in common -- many of their executives are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, G. William Miller, and William McChesney Martin have all chaired the Federal Reserve board. All are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. As of September 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that handling losses in failed savings and loan institutions would cost $120 billion from 1990 through 1998 (this figure does not include $60 billion spent before 1989). The Congressional Budget Offices underestimated. To date (1996) losses in failed savings and loan institutions have cost American citizens $500 billion dollars. Very few of the individuals responsible for the "losses" have been punished including sons of Council on Foreign Relations members George Bush and Lloyd Bentson.
In 1987 leaders of America's major banks went to Tokyo. They met with our finance minister and governor of the central bank. They urged more positive cooperation by Japanese banks. The big American banks were caught in the dilemma of their Latin American Debt. On the one hand, they had to suffer the losses caused in part by their own overlending, which meant they could not continue being exposed to new loans to Latin America. On the other hand, they were unable to jettison Latin America, which for them was an important market. The leaders of the banks attending the meeting were John Reed of Citibank, Willard Butcher of Chase, Lewis Preston of Morgan, and Tom Clausen of the Bank of America. Reed, Butcher and Preston are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The United States Code contains the general and permanent laws of the United States. The United States Code is prepared and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives. The laws have been classified into fifty categories. A category is called a Title. For example, laws pertaining to the President are found in Title 3 The President. Title 12 is called Banks and Banking. A reading of laws contained in Title 12 back up the statement that Congress has not given authority for determining money policy to the Federal Reserve System.
Title 50 War and National Defense clearly spells out such a role for the Federal Reserve. Title 50 Section 101 is the National Security Emergency Preparedness Policy. In this policy in Part 15 - Department of the Treasury in Section 1501 Lead Responsibilities we find that "the Secretary of the Treasury shall: (1) Develop plans to maintain stable economic conditions and a market economy during national security emergencies; emphasize measures to minimize inflation and disruptions; and minimize reliance on direct controls of the monetary, credit, and financial systems. These plans will include provisions for:
(a) Increasing capabilities to minimize economic dislocations by carrying out appropriate fiscal, monetary, and regulatory polices and reducing susceptibility to manipulated economic pressures; (b) Providing the Federal Government with efficient and equitable financing sources and payment mechanisms."
Has the Federal Reserve been acting as if we have been in a perpetual National Security Emergency? Has the federal reserve been fine tuning the economy of the United States and advertising that it had the legal powers to do so when it really does not? If the Federal Reserve bank had these responsibilities spelled out in Title 12 Banks and Banking wouldn't Title 50 merely reference those sections that state these responsibilities? Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, Clinton's Economic Advisor Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Clinton's International Security Advisor Lynn Etheridge Davis (who is also a Vice President of Chase Bank), and President Bill Clinton, are all Council on Foreign Relations members.
Is the destiny of the American people being controlled by a group who have and hold the power to direct the credit policy of our nation? A group that has circumvented the check and balance safe-guards built into the system to prevent any one group from having this kind of power over the American citizen. A group whose self-proclaimed drive is for personal profit and who lack the honesty and integrity to make decisions based on public good.
Are Council on Foreign Relations members furthering a plan for a world order based on an economy of unrest? Are Council on Foreign Relations members subtle fascists intently interested in private ownership of property, under their control? Did the Council on Foreign Relations instigate and perpetuate the cold war? Did they do this to accumulate and protect Council holdings? Was this done by establishing and maintaining the most powerful U.S. military establishment in peacetime history? Is the next stage in the plan to co-opt and divide eastern Europe and the rest of the world? Is the next stage in the plan for powerful World-Wide military establishment of "volunteer" military forces under UN command in the role of Peacekeepers? Was detonation of the first nuclear bomb, in Alamogordo New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, in a field test code-named Trinity, the Council's subtle way of sounding the deathbell for Jefferson's Trinity of inalienable rights?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have defined psychological operations (PSYOPS) as those that: "include psychological warfare and, in addition, encompass those political, military, economic and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behavior to support achievement of national objectives." Another proposal "develops the concept of 'strategic psychological operations' as aimed at influencing and shaping decision-makers' power to govern or control their followers." Wake up America, we the American people, are among the groups being targeted and controlled.
Council on Foreign Relations members in the State Department, The National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, and in the Department of Defense continue to control the lives of the American people through well planed psycho-political operations. These psychological operations rob American citizens of the present, by creating false reality worlds. These false reality worlds are created to trick the American public into acting not in their own best interest but in the best interest of a group of subtle fascists intent on creating one world order under their control.
Title-50 War and National Defense subsection 783 states - "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of, any foreign government."
The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of Title-50 War and National Defense subsection 783. The Council on Foreign Relations has unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and members of Round Table branch organizations in various nations throughout the world.
In the 1960's a youngster named Joan Baez objected to her tax money being spent on War. She protested. She was arrested and forced to pay her taxes for a cause she felt was unjust. Ms. Baez did a very brave thing. Ms. Baez's demonstration offers a way to shift governmental control back to the people -- "trickle up taxes." There would be only one tax, a flat income tax. There would be no hidden taxes such as business taxes, sales taxes or value added taxes. Each taxpayer would know exactly how much taxes they had to pay. Rather than corporations withholding taxes from workers, the worker would receive all their salary. At the end of the year the worker would receive a tax package. It would contain (1) a detailed account of the budget and how the "tax payers dollar" was spent during the the current financial year; and (2) a proposed budget and spending plan for the next financial year. The budget and spending plans would be broken down into broad areas indicating the percentage of a tax payer dollar being spent on programs in each area ( 1. federal 2. state 3. county and 4. local ).
Each area would be broken down into broad categories showing how the tax money was distributed. For example the Federal budget and spending plan for 1995 was 1.4 Trillion dollars distributed in the following way: 1. Defense(20%,$270 billion), 2. Welfare Employment and Retirement (17%, $220 billion), 3. Social Security (24%, $328 billion), and 4. Interest on the Debt (16%, $214 billion) 5. Science and Space (1%, $17 billion), 6. Environment (1.5%, 21 billion), 7. Agriculture (1%, 12 billion), 8. Transportation (3%,39 billion), 9. Education (4%, 15 billion), 10. Law Enforcement (1%, 17 billion), 11. Veterans (2.5%, 36.6 billion), and 12. Health (w/o Medicare) (9%, 122 billion). The percents are the portion of one "tax payer" Federal Dollar spent on each Federal program. The dollar amounts are the total number of taxpayer dollars spent on all programs in each category. Similar breakdowns would supplied for state programs, county programs, and local programs. Detailed breakdowns on a per program basis would be provided.
The taxpayer would receive a proposed budget and spending plan for the next financial year in a form of a worksheet. Each tax payer would have one "tax dollar" to distribute in each area. If the taxpayer's "tax dollar" could not cover all the budgeted expenses (at the local, county, state, and federal levels) the tax payer would decide which programs budgets to cut. A tax-payer could also redistribute portions of their tax payer dollars from one area to another (i.e. a tax-payer could redistribute Federal tax dollars to State programs that were underfunded). If the tax payer had a new program they could fund it with a percentage of their "tax dollar" redistributing percentages of their "tax dollar" from local, state, county and federal programs as needed.
For example, suppose the proposed Federal budget was the same as the 1995 Budget outlined above. If a taxpayer felt it was important to pay off the debt they might submit the following federal budget 1. Defense(0%), 1. Payment of Debt (20%, $270 billion) 2. Welfare Employment and Retirement (17%, $220 billion), 3. Social Security (24%, $328 billion), and 4. Interest on the Debt (16% $214 billion) 5. Science and Space (1%, $17 billion), 6. Environment (1.5%, 21 billion), 7. Agriculture (1%, 12 billion), 8. Transportation (3%,39 billion), 9. Education (4%, 15 billion), 10. Law Enforcement (1%, 17 billion), 11. Veterans (2.5%, 36.6 billion), and 12. Health (w/o Medicare) (9%, 122 billion).
This tax-payer re-distributed the percentage of their "tax dollar" from Defense to a new category -- Payment of the debt. The tax-payer could also offer an explanation of their proposed budget change. This tax-payer might say that since the cold war was over a large defense budget was not only unnecessary but weakening the country economically and making it vulnerable to potential enemies. If the suggested proposal was adopted the debt would eventually be retired (about $4.5 Trillion in 1995) and both the new category Paying off the Debt (24%, $270 billion) and the category Interest on the debt (16%,$214 billion) would no longer be needed in the budget. The taxpayer could then decide how to re-distribute that portion of the tax money, or even lower the tax burden by $484 billion per year.
Today we have about 115 million Americans employed (76% of all men over 16 years old and 58% of all women over 16 years old). Each American fills out a tax form that is sent to the government. The tax form has no influence on how their tax dollar is spent. This system of taxation would be abolished. Trickle up taxes would be instituted and carried out as an educational exercise in all local schools (public, private, and parochial). School children at all grade levels would participate. The taxpayers would receive three envelopes. They would send a check for taxes owed in one envelope. This would be a flat percentage of the tax payer's income. The amount would include local, county, state, and Federal tax dollars. They would put the proposed budget and spending plan worksheet in the second envelope. The budget and spending plan worksheet would not have the tax payers name on it - it would be a colorless, raceless, religionless, sexless and ageless "tax distribution idea form." The tax payer would put the two envelopes into a third envelope and mail it to their local school. The envelopes would be sorted. The results from the "tax distribution idea forms" would be compiled, summarized and distributed to the taxpayers. The taxpayer would learn which programs received adequate funding, and which programs did not. The taxpayer would receive a list of new programs proposed by taxpayers. Those programs receiving adequate taxpayer support would be started. Money from those programs that did not receive adequate funding would be held in escrow until the taxpayers decided what to do.
The experience would be rewarding, educational, and enlightening for everyone. The entire community would share in a educative experience that would effect their social environment in a most democratic way. If a person didn't wish to participate their "tax dollar" would be trickled up according to the percentages decided upon by their neighbors. Everyone would have exactly four "tax dollars" to distribute, and therefore, be equal with everyone else. If one person had a unique idea that appealed to a majority of American citizens the majority of Americans could be swayed to accept the idea of this minority of one, change their current way of thinking, adopt the new idea, and trickle it up. This would happen at the local, county, state, and Federal levels. Legislation such as a balanced budget, questionable Energy choices such as Nuclear, and maintaining huge defense budgets in time of peace, would be trickled up through the people, rather than trickled down to them, in a manner whose legality, source, and intent is questionable.
This procedure would be followed each year. Each year the taxpayer could review new programs proposed the previous year which might include more efficient ways of spending the tax dollar. The taxpayer would decide what percentage of their tax dollar was spent at the local, county, state, and federal levels giving the tax payer control over how and where their money is spent. The experience would allow the 300 million American citizens to trickle up a budget and plan for their public servants to follow. Public servants wouldn't have the pressure of solving all of America's problems, and couldn't be influenced by any small group, or tempted by a wealthy lobbyist. Problems would be solved by the American citizen. This would be a true form of absolute democracy, wherein each American would have the opportunity to participate. This would be in line with the Jeffersonian concept of a popular government and would provide protection of the rights of the individual against arbitrary action of public officials.
If you visit Dumbarton Oaks you will see a Latin parable at the head of the dedicatory inscription and carved elsewhere in the gardens. The parable is -- "Quod Severis Metes" -- "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." It would be wise for Council on Foreign Relations and other Round Table Group members to heed that parable. In 1776 Jefferson told Americans what to do when their inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness are jeopardized, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.."
To unsubscribe, write to Activist_Listemail@example.com
[Editor's note: The above tax plan was submited by someone on the Activist Listserv. Outside of the fact that Thomas Jefferson and the other framers did not want a democracy instead instituting a Republic, this plan that was submitted seems to be a worthwhile endeavor. There is no doubt that the public schools must be funded completely from the federal government just as the schools are in Canada, a country which has excellent public schools.]