By Holly Sklar, Trilateral Commission
August 15, 2008
© 2008 – NewsWithViews.com
Those were the words spoken by Bill O’Reilly on July 30, 2008. I happened to catch the segment while in my hotel room. According to Bill O’Reilly, “normal people” don’t want President Bush impeached. Perhaps one must define ‘normal’ in Bill’s world? (Didn’t we do that with the other Bill and the definition what is is?) I guess O’Reilly considers phone sex with a subordinate employee normal since it appears he got caught on tape. In a 2004 column, Jonna Spilbor, wrote on FindLaw: “Mackris’s complaint details O’Reilly’s alleged soliloquies – complete with “ums” and pauses. It seems likely, for this reason, that Mackris must have somehow recorded O’Reilly’s ramblings.” Spilbor then says Mackris (plaintiff) could have put a stop to it by just hanging up the phone. True, but, in the end, it is O’Reilly who made the phone calls full of very explicit sex talk. Had it truly been an extortion attempt, would O’Reilly pay in the $6 million dollar range out of his own pocket (plus big, fat attorney’s fees) to settle or was he terrified the tapes would be played in court if it went to trial? As O’Reilly advises: fair and balanced, you decide.
I would venture to say that most Americans don’t want a president impeached, but the Founding Fathers had good reason to make it part of the U.S. Constitution. Bush should have been impeached years ago, but the Democrats who care so much about the lives of our active military, have turned a blind eye since taking power. Not only have they allowed this liar and deceiver to stay in office, they have continued to fund his unconstitutional, immoral invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq for political leverage. The cowardly Republicans gave him free reign until they lost power in 2006. Of course, considering how many members of Congress are making big bux off this unlawful invasion, it isn’t surprising they did nothing to hold Bush accountable for his lies and the deaths of 4,140 American soldiers to date.
According to Bill O’Reilly, the millions of average Americans who want Bush impeached are abnormal. Americans who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all races, religions and professions – all abnormal because we have looked at the hard evidence and find Bush guilty. Impeachment would only be step one (political). As I wrote in a recent column, Bush, Cheney and Rice should be indicted and charged with murder (criminal). Vincent Bugliosi has laid out the case and jurisdiction in his book (see link below) and in many interviews over the past few months.
Has O’Reilly read the articles of impeachment submitted by Dennis Kucinich? I highly doubt it; even Pelosi has admitted she hasn’t read them. I am by no means a fan of Kucinich, but investigating a president for possible impeachment based on a mountain of provbable lies is the job of every member of Congress regardless of party. Has O’Reilly read The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi or watched any of his interviews? I’m betting the answer is no, O’Reilly is too busy guzzling his famous Kool-Aid. Mr. Moral High Road would rather belittle millions of Americans who would rather not see an impeachment, but who believe in what’s right and even if it’s painful, doing the right thing.
O’Reilly isn’t alone dishing out inane remarks. On August 13, 2008, during a segment on the John Edwards affair fiasco, shallow Sean Hannity opened the big hole in his face and made a fool of himself, again. The equally fact challenged, Alan Colmes, attempted to bring up Juan McCain’s adulterous affair with his current wife while still married to his former wife. Hannity came to McCain’s defense by saying “it was 30 years ago.” And, “McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a POW.” Well, that excuses his immoral behavior. And, “McCain wasn’t the same person when he came back, there were extenuating circumstances.”
Extenuating circumstances? Now, why didn’t John Edwards think of ‘extenuating circumstances’ for his confession session with Woodruff last week? See link 3 below to read a factual account of just how rotten McCain treated his former wife. Character counts. McCain didn’t have just one affair, he has admitted to many extra marital affairs. While there was a recent flap over the New York Times piece implying McCain had an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, since there was no serious journalism done, it was easy to dismiss. Knowing his lying, immoral past, I’m inclined to believe it. Perhaps the tabloid rag that printed the Edwards “lies” that turned out to be true, will get around to McCain – after they finish with Obama.
Millions of “abnormal” Americans demanded Bill Clinton be impeached. The fix was in and instead of impeaching him for treason, the foolish Republicans went after him on a sex charge. We the people would rather not have to go through these difficult proceedings, but the destroyers continue to shove these immoral people down our throats with their rigged elections. No president is above the law and when a president steps outside the law, he must be held accountable. As Bugliosi writes:
“How has George Bush reacted to the hell he created in Iraq, to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the war, and to the enormous and endless suffering that the survivors of the victims — their loved ones — have had to endure? I have a very distinct impression that with the exception of a vagrant tear that may have fallen if he was swept up, in the moment, at an emotional public ceremony for American soldiers who have died in the war, George Bush hasn’t suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused by plunging this nation into the darkness of the Iraq war, probably never losing a wink of sleep over it…
“Not only because the words he has uttered could never have escaped from his lips if he were suffering, but because no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same day or the next, and is in good spirits. How would that be possible if he was suffering? For example, the November 3, 2003, morning New York Times front-page headline story was that the previous day in Fallouja, Iraq, insurgents “shot down an American helicopter just outside the city in a bold assault that killed 16 soldiers and wounded 20 others. It was the deadliest attack on American troops since the United States invaded Iraq in March.” Yet later in that same day when Bush arrived for a fund-raiser in Birmingham, Alabama, he was smiling broadly, and Mike Allen of the Washington Post wrote that “the President appeared to be in a fabulous mood.” This is merely one of hundreds of such observations made about Bush while the brutal war continued in Iraq.”
Bush can be indicted the day after he leaves office. While millions of us may be abnormal in Bill O’Reilly’s egomaniacal world, Bush’s crimes are so heinous, he must be punished to the fullest extent under the law. You would hope there is one decent American left out there in a prosecutor’s office in the 50 states who is getting a case ready against Bush, Cheney and Rice to present to a grand jury. I have no doubt Bush and his coconspirators would be indicted. If enough families of soldiers who have died in Iraq demand a grand jury in their state, it will happen. This is an election year and no District Attorney up for reelection wants pictures of families in anguish splashed on the front page of the local newspaper. America must have justice for their crimes.
1 - The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
2 - The Real John McCain: Bully, Traitor, Liar, Adulterer and Warmongering Criminal (with videos)
3 - The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind
4 - Fact-Challenged Talk Show Hosts do Enormous Harm
5 - O’Reilly’s “normal” behavior (Warning: explicit)
6 - Is Bush drunk at the Olympics? (Photos)
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer
well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical
nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
- Club of Rome
The First Global Revolution
The environmental movement has been described as the largest and most influential social phenomenon in modern history. From relative obscurity just a few decades ago it has spawned thousands of organisations and claims millions of committed activists. Reading the newspaper today it is hard to imagine a time when global warming, resource depletion, environmental catastrophes and ‘saving the planet’ were barely mentioned. They now rank among the top priorities on the social, political and economic global agenda.
Environmental awareness is considered to be the mark of any good, honest, decent citizen. Multi-national companies compete fiercely to promote their environmental credentials and ‘out-green’ each other. The threat of impending ecological disasters is uniting the world through a plethora of international treaties and conventions. But where did this phenomenon come from, how did it rise to such prominence, and more importantly, where is it going?
While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many websites claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.
However, as I have struggled to untangle the convoluted web that is the Global Green Agenda, I have been amazed that the same names keep appearing as the authors of binding international agreements, as the organisers of key summits and conferences, and as the most vocal proponents of new systems of governance. A core group of very influential leaders appear to be working in unison to implement a far-reaching global agenda.
When I searched for links between these men, who keep appearing in nearly every area of global environmental politics, I discovered that they were all members of the Club of Rome. Now extraordinary claims, like a global conspiracy, demand extraordinary proof. But this conspiracy is hidden in plain sight. They make very little attempt to hide their real agenda. On this website I try to use quotes and excerpts as much as possible and let the reader reach their own conclusions.
So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.
The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations.
Some Current Members of the Club of Rome triad:
Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner, lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference, largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.
Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.
Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.
Diego Hidalgo – CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.
Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.
Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations. .
David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.
Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.
Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.
Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist
Ted Turner – American media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
Karan Singh – Chairman of the Temple of Understanding
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the WWF
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
and many more….
The concept of ‘environmental sustainability’ was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse within the next hundred years:
“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”
“It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.”
“The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”
“The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.”
“Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society - one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”
“Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.”
So as you can see the even back in 1972 the Club considered modern industrial society to be completely unsustainable. They state that even if population was frozen at 1975 levels, and industrial activity at 1985 levels, then the earth’s ecosystems would still ultimately collapse. The CoR has not changed these views in the slightest, in fact, in the last three decades their warnings have become increasingly more urgent and alarmist. They call this imminent collapse the ‘World Problematique’ and their proposed solution the ‘World Resolutique.’
The Limits to Growth is considered to be the most successful environmental publication ever produced and propelled the Club of Rome to its current position of an environmental thought-leader and a major consultant to the United Nations. It has been translated into more than forty languages and sold more than 30 million copies. Throughout the 1970s and 80s the concept that humanity was irreparably damaging the earth gained credence and facilitated the formation of mainstream and activist environmental groups.
All meetings of the CoR are held ‘behind closed doors’ and no public records are kept. However the Club does produce many ‘discussion reports’ that can be found on its website. The United Nations contracts the Club of Rome to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which it uses in formulating its policies and programmes. A quick search for Club of Rome on the UNESCO publications site reveals 250 documents. There are many other documents there authored by CoR members. As many high ranking UN officials are actually CoR members, this is like a man asking himself for advice, and then agreeing with that advice. Not very objective!
Twenty years after the Limits to Growth the CoR published another major report that became an instant best-seller. In The First Global Revolution the Club of Rome claimed that the time to act had run out. It was now or never. Delay in beginning corrective measures will increase the damage to the world ecological system and ultimately reduce the human population that will eventually be supportable. They also stated that that democratic governments were far too short-sighted to deal with the ‘problematique’ and new forms of governance are urgently required.
In order not too violate any copyright protection I will not reproduce the text of the book on this site. However, it is permissible for me to quote a brief excerpt in the context of this wider discussion. The complete text can be found on Google Books. As you read the following quotes please remember the names of the leaders listed above. This is not some quirky little cult. This is the stated agenda of the leaders of the environmental movement:
“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.
It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and “set the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet.” In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their ‘enemy’ to achieve their objectives. But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.
Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to ‘imminent collapse‘, ‘dying planet‘, ‘our mother Gaia‘, ‘wrenching transformation‘, ‘united global society‘, ‘global consciousness‘, ‘new forms of governance‘ etc. They truly intend to bring about the world’s First Global Revolution.
The Kosmos Journal provides perhaps the best insight into their worldview. This Journal was founded by the Club of Rome in partnership with with several of its sibling organizations. As described in my article, The Green Web, the CoR has established a network of supporting organizations, each focussing on a different aspect of their agenda. The Kosmos Journal contains many articles written by CoR members. The basic premise of their worldview is:
“Modern industrial civilisation is fast outstripping the Earth’s natural regenerative and life-supporting capacity…”
“At current rates of resource depletion and environmental degradation a near complete collapse of ecological integrity will occur within the next 100 years…”
“Gaia, our Mother, who nutured humanity for countless millenia within her womb of evolution, is dying…”
“A small window of opportunity now exists to transform humanity into a sustainable global interdepedant society based on respect and reverence for Earth…”
“A radical change from the current trajectory is required, a complete reordering of global society…”
“Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy…”
“At this time a new enemy must be found, one either real or invented for the purpose…”
“Democracy has failed us, a new system of global governance, based on environmental imperatives, must be implemented quickly…”
Gaia, Global Warming, and Global Governance are intricately entwined, if one truly believes in Gaia, and that she is being fatally harmed by the current system, then a new system of global governance and control would appear to be the only answer. Global Warming provides the ideal ‘enemy’ to bring about this objective. It is easy for these global elitists to talk about sacrifice, wrenching transformation, population control and halving the use of fossil fuels but the implications are truely horrendous.
Even if you think this is all nonsense I would ask you to at least read these quotes and excerpts, and think about the implications of their agenda. Everyday I am amazed at how quickly things are changing. It is coming hard and fast. It’s almost like reading a book and then watching the television adaptation, except that this adaptation is not a movie – it’s on the evening news. As Al Gore said in the closing sentence of his statement after he won the Nobel Peace Prize … “This is just the beginning.”
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.“
- Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.”
co-founder of Earth First!
“A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor
“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!