Catherine Austin Fitts on Financial Survival Radio (1.16.2011) on why her money is NOT in a 401(k) and how the federal government is salivating over yours. I have written extensively about the government seizing your 401(k), (and the leftist think tank behind it), and using the last $8 trillion in American’s wealth to keep the ponzi scheme going. Check the related links at the bottom of the post.
October 13, 2010 Download a PDF version of this article
Over the past few years, various proposals for annuitization of 401(k) and IRA accounts upon retirement and automatic enrollment in 401(k) programs have been made. On September 14-15, 2010, the Departments of Labor and the Treasury held a joint hearing on Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in Retirement Plans. The hearings focused specifically on annuitization of retirement funds and the feasibility for introducing these annuities into 401(k) and IRA plans.
Switch to Annuities/Lifetime Income
The possibility of 401(k) annuitization appears to have caught the public eye primarily in response to the November 04, 2008 testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci before House Democrats and a November 20, 2007 paper she wrote entitled “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward Retirement Income Security,” published by the Economic Policy Institute’s Agenda for Shared Prosperity. A report in the Carolina Journal Online characterized her testimony and the hearings as “proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts—including 401(k)s and IRAs— and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.” While somewhat polemic in its language, and perhaps not entirely accurate, the Carolina Journal did cover the most salient points of this proposal. Ghilarducci advocates creation of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs), which would be mandatory, and which would be funded through payroll deductions in the same way Social Security currently is. These funds would be matched and placed into a pooled account which the Federal Government would invest and manage, guaranteeing a 3% rate of return. Upon retirement, these funds would be annuitized, and that portion of the funds contributed by the individual, minus any benefits received, could be passed on to heirs. Ghilarducci further advocates shifting current employer tax incentives from 401(k)s to these GRAs, and to the extent that tax privileges are, indeed, shifted, there would almost certainly be a shift of funds held in 401(k)s to the GRAs, though there would technically be no “confiscation” of 401(k) assets.
As interesting as Ghilarducci’s proposal is, it pales in comparison to the influence and reach of the writings and proposals of individuals associated with the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton and Retirement Security Projects.
In April of 2006, the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project published “Improving Opportunities and Incentives for Saving by Middle- and Low-Income Households“, in which it advocated mandatory and automatic enrollment in retirement plans for employees of all businesses (“with possible exceptions for the smallest”), universal matching by the Federal Government for all contributions, and “other changes to the retirement system to promote lifetime annuities.” In particular, the paper “recommend[s] that the government set as a default that the matching contributions in each person’s account be annuitized,” which “would set the precedent … that annuities are a sensible use of retirement resources.” These annuities would ideally be provided by the Federal government and processed by the Social Security Administration.
In June of 2008, Iwry co-authored, and the Hamilton Project published, “Increasing Annuitization of 401(k) Plans with Automatic Trial Income“, in which Iwry and his colleagues advocated that “a substantial portion of assets in 401(k) … plans be automatically directed (defaulted) into a two-year trial income product[, i.e., an annuity,] … unless [retirees] affirmatively choose not to participate.” The reasoning for these automatic trial annuities is not clear, and seems simply to be that retirees might run out of money if they manage their own savings themselves.
In July of 2009, the Retirement Security Project of the Brookings Institute published “Automatic Annuitization: New Behavioral Strategies for Expanding Lifetime Income“, in which Iwry and his colleagues continued their proposal for automatic, mandatory trial annuities, and added a proposal for automatic enrollment, mid-career, in a separate annuity fund within existing 401(k) accounts, to which the employer’s matching contribution would be directed.
The push for automatic annuities appears mainly to be rationalized through the demise of the historic private pension plan system in which companies provided fixed income benefits to their employees upon retirement. As 401(k) programs were introduced, businesses opted for these less-burdensome and tax-incentivized plans, abandoning the traditional pension plans. The need for fixed-income payments is also briefly rationalized in an articulated concern over the future of Social Security benefits, something which does not really lend support to yet another Federal government-sponsored annuity plan. Finally, the arguments for automatic annuitization are generally based on the uncertain financial landscape and a general need for guaranteed income on the part of retirees. As important as these factors are to consider, however, the necessary logical conclusion that all retirement accounts must be turned into annuities simply does not follow.
The actual testimony at the Joint Hearings on September 14-15 was varied on the subject of mandatory annuitization. The Vanguard Center for Retirement Research indicated that annuities are not a popular investment choice for retirees, especially given the annuity-like Social Security and Medicare programs already provided, and most individuals want to have the flexibility and liquidity of a lump-sum payment managed under their own direction, rather than a fixed-income annuity. However, several large entities, including TIAA-CREF came out in favor of at least partial retirement annuities, and in support of proposed Federal regulation requiring annuity information on retirement documents.
Making 401(k)s Mandatory
A second aspect of current 401(k) and IRA proposals at issue is the possibility that all business entities will be required to provide 401(k) plans and that all employees will be required to enroll in these plans.
Did you really think this series was going to end at Part 3? Y’all know what happens when the Monster starts digging, and from the type of visitors I have been seeing lately, I must be hitting a very large nerve….go here for the first 3 parts, (and a very special welcome to Lehman Bros.)
At the end of Part 3, I stated:
In the next article in the series, (if you can stand it), we will explore James P. Warburg, the Council On Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institute, Institute For Policy Studies, The United Nations, and whatever else rears it’s ugly head while I am researching.
Please pay attention to those names and the new ones that come up in this article; the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation just to name a few.
(Author’s note: sections highlighted in blue bold type are my emphasis. Also remember that I did say we would start out easy with just the videos. Take your time getting through this material because you need to understand the web)
Paul Warburg was instrumental and is the cornerstone of what we see happening today in the American and World economies. I would like to refresh your memories before we go on. This info is from Wikipedia and I am only using it because it is actually accurate and concise. (I checked)
Warburg was born in Hamburg, Germany, to a successful Jewish banking family. His parents were Moritz and Charlotte (Esther) Warburg. After graduating from the Realgymnasium in Hamburg in 1886 he entered the employ of Simon Hauer, a Hamburg importer and exporter, to learn the fundamentals of business practice. He similarly worked for Samuel Montague & Company, bankers, in London in 1889-90, the Banque Russe pour le Commerce Etranger in Paris in 1890-91.
In 1891 Warburg entered the office of the family banking firm of M.M. Warburg & Company, which had been founded in 1798 by his great-grandfather. He interrupted work there to undertake a world tour during the winter of 1891-92. Warburg was admitted to a partnership in the family firm in 1895.
On October 1, 1895, Warburg was married in New York City to Nina J. Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb, founder of the New York investment firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. The Warbugs were the parents of a son, James Paul Warburg, and a daughter, Dr. Bettina Warburg.
Although a major factor in German finance, after frequent business trips to New York Warburg settled there in 1902 as a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company where the influential Jacob Schiff, his wife’s brother-in-law, was senior partner. Warburg remained a partner in the family firm in Hamburg, but he became a naturalized American citizen in 1911.
A german banker marrying into the New York banking community, and in 1910 he was instrumental in the Jekyll Island meeting to craft the Federal Reserve Act, being a huge proponent of central banks. Do you remember our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, being completely against that particular idea?
In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act is passed creating the Federal Reserve System of banks all over the country, but with all the power still remaining at the “national level” located in New York City. BTW, is not Timothy Geithner, the current Chairman of the NY Fed going to become the Secretary of the Treasury after Hank Paulson who was the CEO of Goldman Sachs (another NY Bank) leaves office? How much do you know about our friend Hank or his Chicago connections? Thought so….
He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm’s Chicago office under James P. Gorter. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998; eventually succeeding Jon Corzine (now Governor of New Jersey) as its chief executive. His compensation package, according to reports, was US $37 million in 2005, and US $16.4 million projected for 2006.His net worth has been estimated at over US $700 million. Paulson has personally built close relations with China during his career. In July 2008 it was reported by The Daily Telegraph that: “Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has intimate relations with the Chinese elite, dating from his days at Goldman Sachs when he visited the country more than 70 times.”
In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses, including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed unanimously to release the major investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure.The complaint that was put forth by the investment banks was of increasingly onerous regulatory requirements — in this case, not U.S. regulator oversight, but European Unionregulation of the foreign operations of US investment groups. In the immediate lead-up to the decision, EU regulators also acceded to US pressure, and agreed not to scrutinize foreign firms’ reserve holdings if the SEC agreed to do so instead. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, put the parent holding company of each of the big American brokerages beyond SEC oversight. In order for the agreement to go ahead, the investment banks lobbied for a decision that would allow “voluntary” inspection of their parent and subsidiary holdings by the SEC.
During this repeal of the net capital rule, SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson agreed to the establishment of a risk management office that would monitor signs of future problems. This office was eventually dismantled by Chairman Christopher Cox, after discussions with Paulson. According to the New York Times, “While other financial regulatory agencies criticized a blueprint by Mr. Paulson, the Treasury secretary, that proposed to reduce their stature — and that of the S.E.C. — Mr. Cox did not challenge the plan, leaving it to three former Democratic and Republican commission chairmen to complain that the blueprint would neuter the agency.” In late September 2008, Chairman Cox and the other Commissioners agreed to end the 2004 program of voluntary regulation.
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Paulson was nominated by U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush to succeed John Snow as the Treasury Secretary on May 30, 2006. On June 28, 2006, he was confirmed by the United States Senate to serve in the position. Paulson was officially sworn in at a ceremony held at the Treasury Department on the morning of July 10, 2006.
Paulson identified the wide gap between the richest and poorest Americans as an issue on his list of the country’s four major long-term economic issues to be addressed, highlighting the issue in one of his first public appearances as Secretary of Treasury.
Paulson conceded that chances were slim for agreeing on a method to reform Social Security financing, but said he would keep trying to find bipartisan support for it.
After completing his studies, Geithner worked for Kissinger and Associates in Washington, D.C., for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as an attache at the US Embassy in Tokyo. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).
I am sure if I went digging even deeper, I would find Hank Paulson’s name on the list of members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Paul Warburg started the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.
In 1919 he founded and became first chairman of the American Acceptance Council. He organized and became the first chairman of the International Acceptance Bank of New York in 1921. International Acceptance was acquired by the Bank of the Manhattan Company in 1929, with Warburg becoming chairman of the combined organization.
He became a director of the Council on Foreign Relations at its founding in 1921, remaining on the board until his death. From 1921 to 1926 Warburg was a member of the advisory council of Federal Reserve Board, serving as president of the advisory council in 1924-26. He was also a trustee of the Institute of Economics, founded in 1922; when it was merged into the Brookings Institution in 1927, he became a trustee of the latter, serving until his death.
The Council’s mission is promoting understanding of foreign policy and the United States’ role in the world. Meetings are convened at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members debate major foreign-policy issues. It has a think tank that employs prominent scholars in international affairs and it commissions subsequent books and reports. A central aim of the Council, it states, is to “find and nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders.” It established “Independent Task Forces” in 1995, which encourage policy debate. Comprising experts with diverse backgrounds and expertise, these task forces seek consensus in making policy recommendations on critical issues; to date, the Council has convened more than fifty times.
The internal think tank is The David Rockefeller Studies Program, which grants fellowships and whose programs are described as being integral to the goal of contributing to the ongoing debate on foreign policy; fellows in this program research and write on the most important challenges facing the United States and the world.
At the outset of the organization, founding member Elihu Root said the group’s mission, epitomized in its journal Foreign Affairs, should be to “guide” American public opinion. In the early 1970s, the CFR changed the mission, saying that it wished instead to “inform” public opinion.
Wilson himself, when campaigning for re-election in 1916, had unequivocally supported our traditional foreign policy: his one major promise to the American people was that he would keep them out of the European war.
Yet, even while making this promise, Wilson was yielding to a pressure he was never able to withstand: the influence of Colonel Edward M. House, Wilson’s all-powerful adviser. According to House’s own papers and the historical studies of Wilson’s ardent admirers (see, for example, the “Intimate Papers of Colonel House”, edited by Charles Seymour, published in 1926 by Houghton Mifflin; and, “The Crisis of the Old Order” by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., published 1957 by Houghton Mifflin), House created Wilson’s domestic and foreign policies, selected most of Wilson’s cabinet and other major appointees, and ran Wilson’s State Department.
House had powerful connections with international bankers in New York. He was influential, for example, with great financial institutions represented by such people as Paul and Felix Warburg, Otto H. Kahn, Louis Marburg, Henry Morgenthau, Jacob and Mortimer Schiff, Herbert Lehman. House had equally powerful connections with bankers and politicians of Europe.
Bringing all of these forces to bear, House persuaded Wilson that America had an evangelistic mission to save the world for “democracy.” The first major twentieth century tragedy for the United States resulted: Wilson’s war message to Congress and the declaration of war against Germany on April 6, 1917.
House also persuaded Wilson that the way to avoid all future wars was to create a world federation of nations. On May 27, 1916, in a speech to the League to Enforce Peace, Wilson first publicly endorsed Colonel House’s world-government idea (without, however, identifying it as originating with House).
In September, 1916, Wilson, at the urging of House, appointed a committee of intellectuals (the first President’s Brain Trust) to formulate peace terms and draw up a charter for world government. This committee, with House in charge, consisted of about 150 college professors, graduate students, lawyers, economists, writers, and others. Among them were men still familiar to Americans in the 1960’s:
These eager young intellectuals around Wilson, under the clear eyes of crafty Colonel House, drew up their charter for world government ( League of Nations Covenant) and prepared for the brave new socialist one-world to follow World War I. But things went sour at the Paris Peace Conference. They soured even more when constitutionalists in the United States Senate found out what was being planned and made it quite plain that the Senate would not authorize United States membership in such a world federation.
Bitter with disappointment but not willing to give up, Colonel House called together in Paris, France, a group of his most dedicated young intellectuals — among them, John Foster and Allen Dulles, Christian A. Herter, and Tasker H. Bliss — and arranged a dinner meeting with a group of like-minded Englishmen at the Majestic Hotel, Paris, on May 19, 1919. The group formally agreed to form an organization “for the study of international affairs.”
The purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations was to create (and condition the American people to accept) what House called a “positive” foreign policy for America — to replace the traditional “negative” foreign policy which had kept America out of the endless turmoil of old-world politics and had permitted the American people to develop their great nation in freedom and independence from the rest of the world.
Shortly after the start of World War II, in September, 1939, Hamilton Fish Armstrong and Walter H. Mallory, of the Council on Foreign Relations, visited the State Department to offer the services of the Council. It was agreed that the Council would do research and make recommendations for the State Department, without formal assignment or responsibility. The Council formed groups to work in four general fields: Security and Armaments Problems, Economic and Financial Problems, Political Problems, and Territorial Problems.
In February, 1941, the Council on Foreign Relations‘ relationship with the State Department changed. The State Department created the Division of Special Research, which was divided into Economic, Security, Political, Territorial sections. Leo Pasvolsky, of the Council, was appointed Director of this Division. Within a very short time, members of the Council on Foreign Relations dominated this new Division in the State Department.
Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles (Vice-Chairman)
Dr. Leo Pasvolsky (Executive Officer)
Hamilton Fish Armstrong
Benjamin V. Cohen
Norman H. Davis
James T. Shotwell
Founding of the United Nations (1945)
The crowning moment of achievement for the Council came at San Francisco in 1945, when over 40 members of the United States Delegation to the organizational meeting of the United Nations (where the United Nations Charter was written) were members of the Council. Among them:
Other Council on Foreign Relations members — Owen Lattimore, for example — with powerful influence in the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, were subsequently identified, not as actual communists or Soviet espionage agents, but as “conscious, articulate instruments of the Soviet international conspiracy.”
I do not intend to imply by these citations that the Council on Foreign Relations is, or ever was, a communist organization. Boasting among its members Presidents of the United States (Hoover, Eisenhower, and Kennedy), Secretaries of State, and many other high officials, both civilian and military, the Council can be termed, by those who agree with its objectives, a “patriotic” organization.
The fact, however, that communists, Soviet espionage agents, and pro-communists could work inconspicuously for many years as influential members of the Council indicates something very significant about the Council’s objectives. The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations (however well-intentioned its prominent and powerful members may be) is the same as the ultimate aim of international communism: to create a one-world socialist system and make the United States an official part of it.
I have to stop there. The Invisible Government goes on and on and on. What is important is who actually started it and who/what/where it leads to.
The Americans who subsequently returned from the conference became drawn to a discreet club of New York financiers and international lawyers who had organized previously in June 1918 and was headed by Elihu Root, J. P. Morgan‘s lawyer; this select group called itself the Council on Foreign Relations. They joined this group and the Council was formally established in New York on July 29, 1921, with 108 founding members, including Elihu Root as a leading member, geographer Isaiah Bowman as a founding Director, and John W. Davis, the chief counsel for J. P. Morgan & Co. and former Solicitor General for President Wilson, as its founding president. Davis was to become Democratic presidential candidate in 1924.
The Council initially had strong connections to the Morgan interests, such as the lawyer, Paul Cravath, whose pre-eminent New York law firm (later named Cravath, Swaine & Moore) represented Morgan businesses; a Morgan partner, Russell Cornell Leffingwell, later became its first chairman. The head of the group’s finance committee was Alexander Hemphill, chairman of Morgan’s Guaranty Trust Company. Economist Edwin F. Gay, editor of the New York Evening Post, owned by Morgan partner Thomas W. Lamont, served as Secretary-Treasurer of the organization. Other members related to Morgan included Frank L. Polk, former Under-Secretary of State and attorney for J.P. Morgan & Co. Former Wilson Under-Secretary of State Norman H. Davis was a banking associate of the Morgans. Over time, however, the locus of power shifted inexorably to the Rockefeller family. Paul Cravath’s law firm also represented the Rockefeller family. Edwin Gay suggested the creation of a quarterly journal, Foreign Affairs. He recommended Archibald Cary Coolidge be installed as the first editor, along with his New York Evening Post reporter, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, as assistant editor and executive director of the Council.
Even from its inception, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was a regular benefactor, making annual contributions, as well as a large gift of money towards its first headquarters on East 65th Street, along with corporate donors . In 1944, the widow of Standard Oil executive Harold I. Pratt donated the family’s four-story mansion on the corner of 68th Street and Park Avenue for council use and this became the CFR’s new headquarters, known as The Harold Pratt House, where it remains today.
Several of Rockefeller’s sons joined the council when they came of age; David Rockefeller joined the council as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman. The major philanthropic organization he founded with his brothers in 1940, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, has also provided funding to the Council, from 1953 to at least 1980.
Another major support base from the outset was the corporate sector; around 26 corporations provided financial assistance in the 1920s, seizing the opportunity to inject their business concerns into the weighty deliberations of the academics and scholars in the Council’s ruling elite. In addition, the Carnegie Corporation contributed funds in 1937 to expand the Council’s reach by replicating its structure in a diminished form in eight American cities.
John J. McCloy became an influential figure in the organization after the Second World War, and he held connections to both the Morgans and Rockefellers. As assistant to Secretary of War (and J. P. Morgan attorney) Henry Stimson during World War II, he had presided over important American war policies; his brother-in-law John Zinsser was on the board of directors of JP Morgan & Co. during that time, and after the war McCloy joined New York law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy as a partner. The company had long served as legal counsel to the Rockefeller family and the Chase Manhattan bank. McCloy became Chairman of the Board of Chase Manhattan, a director of the Rockefeller Foundation and Chairman of the Board of the CFR from 1953 to 1970. President Harry S. Truman appointed him President of the World Bank Group and U.S. High Commissioner to Germany. He served as a special adviser on disarmament to President John F. Kennedy and chaired a special committee on the Cuban crisis. He was said to have had the largest influence on American foreign policy of anyone after World War II. McCloy’s brother-in-law, Lewis W. Douglas, also served on the board of the CFR and as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation; Truman appointed him as American ambassador to Great Britain.
I want to give just one example of the intricacy of the web:
From 1961 to 1966 he taught at Harvard University‘s Center for International Affairs. During this period, he advocated U.S. nuclear disarmament even if the Soviet Union did not likewise disarm. In any mutual arms reduction treaty with the Soviets, wrote Halperin in his 1961 treatise A Proposal for a Ban on the Use of Nuclear Weapons, “inspection was not absolutely necessary. … The United States might, in fact, want to invite the Soviets to design the inspection procedures if they seem interested in them.”
After he left government in 1970, Halperin became a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was feted and embraced by many leftist organizations that promoted similar views, such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Council on Foreign Relations.
In 1998 Halperin became Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department. During his tenure there, 15 State Department laptop computers containing highly classified intelligence information disappeared; one of them was checked out to Halperin’s office. A number of people were punished for this serious security breach, but Halperin was not.
In February 2002 Halperin became Director of the Open Society Policy Center and has worked closely ever since with its creator, George Soros.
According to a March 1, 2004 report by Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation, Halperin and Soros together hand-picked the President of the Center for American Progress (CAP), former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. Halperin today is Senior Vice President at CAP, where his son David is a Special Adviser on Campus Outreach.
Another of Morton Halperin’s sons, Mark Halperin, is the Political Director of ABC News.
The Brookings Institution defines itself as “a private nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions.” Professing to be without a political agenda, it aims to “provide the highest quality research, policy recommendations, and analysis on the full range of public policy issues … for decision-makers in the U.S. and abroad on the full range of challenges facing an increasingly interdependent world.”
The Brookings Institution is an outgrowth of the Institute for Government Research (IGR), which was founded in 1916 to analyze public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR’s supporters, St. Louis businessman and philanthropist Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school (as part of Washington University) bearing his name. In 1927, the three entities merged to form the Brookings Institution. Its first Board included Mr. Brookings; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter; Charles W. Eliot, former President of Harvard; Fredric Delano, uncle of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Herbert Hoover; and Frank Goodnow, who would become the first Chairman of the IGR’s Board of Trustees and President of Johns Hopkins University.
Mr. Brookings officially opposed FDR’s expansion of the welfare state during the Great Depression, and then-Brookings Institution President Harold Moulton concluded that the National Recovery Administration had actually impeded recovery. The Institution assisted in the planning of World War II, providing the government with manpower estimates and price control data; it also offered suggestions on the most efficient way to carry out the rebuilding of Europe after the War.
The Brookings Institution’s capacity to shape government policy increased dramatically in the 1950s, when it received substantial grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. President Robert Calkins reorganized the Institution into Economic Studies, Government Studies, and Foreign Policy Studies programs, and by the mid-1960s Brookings was conducting nearly 100 research projects per year for the government as well as for private industry, making it the preeminent source of research in the world.
How are you feeling about that one? Are you seeing the same names over and over again?
I am going to end here for the moment with lists of people on the Council on Foreign Relations for your perusal and background processing. Are the conspiracy theorists right? Was the plan always to have a “New World Order” starting with taking control of our money, then our elected offices, foreign policy and now leading to a market collapse caused by the Community Reinvestment Act? Do we have the new French Aristocracy telling us to “eat cake”? Is America’s version of Bastille Day coming? Notice the corporate members; UBS, the Swiss bank closing American offshore accounts is on the list.
The Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations is composed in total of thirty-six officers. Peter G. Peterson and David Rockefeller are Directors Emeriti (Chairman Emeritus and Honorary Chairman, respectively). It also has an International Advisory Board consisting of thirty-five distinguished individuals from across the world.