10,000-member Lashkar raised in Kabal

10,000-member Lashkar raised in Kabal

By Essa Khankhel

a lashkar of 10,000 members was raised from different areas of Kabal tehsil in order to stop the comeback of the militants in the area.Addressing the lashkar at Kanju airport, Brig Salman Akbar claimed the militants had been defeated and the fleeing members of the banned TTP were being chased. ìTerrorists have been eliminated in Swat and noose around the elusive terrorists was being tightened. They will be arrested soon,î he said. He said the purpose behind formation of the lashkars was to restore peace to each and every village. He asked the people to join hands with the security forces to make Swat once again a paradise for its residents.

Led by Inamur Rahman, the lashkar members yelled pro-Army and anti-Taliban slogans and vowed to resist the militants. Moreover, the local leader of the PML-N and nephew of Wali of Swat, Shehryar Amirzeb, who celebrated Eid here, urged the ministers, MNAs and MPAs of the Awami National Party (ANP) to visit the valley to solve the problems of the people instead of sitting in Peshawar.

He said peace has been restored in the valley and now it was the responsibility of the elected representatives of the area to raise voice for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Swat in their respective assemblies. He said most of the schools and basic health units in the valley had been destroyed, asking the government to speed up its efforts for commencing the process of reconstruction.

Rockefeller Favorites

ActivistCash.com,

a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of their exorbitant funding.

Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agendas. We’ve analyzed over 500,000 pages of IRS records to bring you a comprehensive snapshot of where their money comes from, tracking more than $800 million to date.

We also offer valuable information about hundreds of deep-pocketed foundations, activist celebrities, and other key players in the movement to control what you eat and drink. To stay in the loop, bookmark ActivistCash.com today

Foundations

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Key Players

| A-L | M-Z |

Logo

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Finances

for tax year ending 12/31/2001
Total Assets $684,464,383.00
Grants Awarded $0.00

Officers and Other Supporters
Name Position
Catharine O Broderick Trustee
David J. Callard Trustee
Richard Chasin Trustee
Peggy Dulany Trustee
Jessica P. Einhorn Trustee
Neva R. Goodwin Trustee
Stephen B. Heintz Trustee
Hunter Lewis Trustee
James Moltz Trustee
John Morning Trustee
Robert B. Oxnam Trustee
Joseph A. Pierson Trustee
David Rockefeller Jr. Trustee
Richard Rockefeller Trustee
Steven C. Rockefeller Trustee
Edmond D. Villani Trustee
Frank Wisner Trustee
Tadataka Yamada Trustee

Selected Grants
SeaWeb
Grant $200,000.00 in 2002
Source Chronicle Of Philanthropy
Details For its Salmon Aquaculture Clearinghouse, a source of data and scientific information for the news media, conservation advocates, and policy makers
Greenpeace
Grant $150,000.00 in 2001
Source Donor’s Website
Details Toward its efforts to support the expansion of sustainable agriculture in China
Environmental Media Services
Grant $120,000.00 in 1995
Source Chronicle Of Philanthropy
Details For the Environmental Media Services project to assist its efforts to educate journalists — grant made via the Tides Foundation

Top Grants Made
Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $2,879,900.00 1993 – 2005
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy $2,320,000.00 1995 – 2005
National Environmental Trust $1,950,000.00 1997 – 2002
Natural Resources Defense Council $1,522,510.00 1991 – 2002
Friends of the Earth $1,427,500.00 1994 – 2001
David Suzuki Foundation $1,085,000.00 1998 – 2001
Greenpeace $1,080,000.00 1997 – 2005
Environmental Defense $994,363.00 1993 – 2001
Ocean Conservancy $970,000.00 1997 – 2001
Winrock Int’l Institute for Agricultural Developmt $895,000.00 1995 – 2001
American Oceans Campaign $865,000.00 1996 – 2001
Sierra Club $710,000.00 1995 – 2001
Environmental Media Services $672,000.00 1995 – 2001
Rainforest Action Network $600,000.00 2000 – 2003
World Resources Institute $580,000.00 1993 – 2001
Consumer’s Choice Council $570,000.00 1998 – 2001
Earth Island Institute $562,400.00 1995 – 2001
Environmental Working Group $560,000.00 1990 – 2000
Oceana $550,000.00 2002 – 2006
Wilderness Society $520,000.00 1997 – 2000
U.S. Public Interest Research Group $485,000.00 1998 – 2000
National Wildlife Federation $445,000.00 1993 – 2000
Pesticide Action Network North America $415,000.00 1995 – 2001
Consultative Group on Biological Diversity $411,000.00 1993 – 2002
SeaWeb $410,000.00 1998 – 2002
International Forum on Globalization $390,000.00 1999 – 2003
Redefining Progress $360,000.00 1995 – 2000
Environmental Advocates $325,000.00 1995 – 2001
Public Citizen $305,000.00 1998 – 2002
Conservation International $300,000.00 2000 – 2000
Worldwatch Institute $300,000.00 1996 – 1998
Earth Day Network $250,000.00 1999 – 2000
Physicians for Social Responsibility $200,000.00 2000 – 2000
Union of Concerned Scientists $200,000.00 1995 – 1997
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Dev $150,000.00 2001 – 2001
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation $145,000.00 1993 – 1999
National Audubon Society $130,025.00 1993 – 2000
World Wildlife Fund $120,015.00 1996 – 2000
Marine Stewardship Council $120,000.00 2001 – 2002
Forest Ethics $120,000.00 2003 – 2003
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement $90,000.00 2000 – 2000
Biodiversity Action Network $80,000.00 1997 – 1997
Consumers Union of the United States $74,000.00 1993 – 1993
Center for Health, Environment and Justice $70,000.00 2000 – 2000
Public Media Center $66,000.00 2002 – 2002
Institute for Food & Development Policy $60,000.00 1999 – 2001
Environmental Media Association $50,000.00 2001 – 2001
Environmental Research Foundation $50,000.00 1998 – 1998
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance $50,000.00 2001 – 2001
League of Conservation Voters $50,000.00 2000 – 2000
Community Alliance with Family Farmers $40,000.00 2000 – 2000
Izaak Walton League of America $40,000.00 2000 – 2000
Oxfam America $40,000.00 2001 – 2001
Waterkeeper Alliance $35,000.00 2000 – 2001
Foundation on Economic Trends $30,000.00 2000 – 2000
Consumers Association of Penang $30,000.00 2001 – 2001
Resource Renewal Institute $30,000.00 2000 – 2000
Environmental Grantmakers Association $29,475.00 1998 – 2001
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides $25,000.00 1998 – 1998
New America Foundation $25,000.00 1999 – 1999
Center for Science in the Public Interest $25,000.00 2000 – 2000
Green Seal $25,000.00 1999 – 1999
Center for a New American Dream $25,000.00 2000 – 2000
Rural Advancement Foundation International $20,000.00 1993 – 1993
Friends of the Constitution $15,000.00 2000 – 2000
ACORN $10,000.00 2002 – 2002

Foundations listed on ActivistCash.com may provide funding to a wider variety of nonprofit groups than those profiled here. This website focuses on activist groups that concentrate on food- and beverage-related issues.

Rockefeller Family Fund

Finances

for tax year ending 12/31/2002
Total Assets $56,275,707.00
Grants Awarded $0.00

Officers and Other Supporters
Name Position
Anne Bartley President
Clare P. Buden Executive Committee Trustee
Peter Case Trustee
Dana Chasin Vice President
Paul Growald Trustee
David W. Kaiser Trustee
Alida R. Messinger Trustee
Hilda M. Ochoa Finance Committee
Peter M. O’Neill Vice President
Julia S. Robbins Trustee
Richard G. Rockefeller Vice President
Stuart A. Rockefeller Trustee
Wendy Gordon Rockefeller Vice President
Lorn D. Ross Finance Committee
Theodore Spencer Vice President
Geoffrey Strawbridge Trustee
Lucy A. Rockefeller Waletzky Dr. Major Donor
Lulu C. Wang Finance Committee
Lee H. Wasserman Director

Selected Grants
Northern Plains Resource Council
Grant $20,000.00 in 2002
Source IRS Form 990 or 990-PF
Details To defray legal expenses associated with pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court [ed. Note: this refers to the case attacking the constitutionality of the Beef Checkoff program]
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Grant $25,000.00 in 2000
Source Foundation Annual Report
Details Support for a public information and policy reform campaign to restrict the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture and medicine.
Foundation on Economic Trends
Grant $40,000.00 in 1998
Source Foundation Annual Report
Details Funding for the Save Organic Standards (SOS) Campaign, which opposes the inclusion of irradiated and genetically engineered foods under the USDA’s organic designation


Top Grants Made
Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame
Environmental Media Services $1,325,000.00 1997 – 2002
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $1,225,000.00 1991 – 2004
Environmental Support Center $723,000.00 1994 – 2002
National Environmental Trust $540,000.00 1996 – 2002
League of Conservation Voters $540,000.00 1999 – 2002
Environmental Working Group $505,000.00 2000 – 2003
U.S. Public Interest Research Group $502,000.00 1996 – 2002
Oceana $450,000.00 2004 – 2004
Friends of the Earth $400,000.00 1997 – 2002
Center for Science in the Public Interest $355,000.00 1999 – 2001
World Wildlife Fund $300,000.00 1999 – 2000
Conservation International $300,000.00 2000 – 2000
Foundation on Economic Trends $265,000.00 1998 – 2001
Center for Health, Environment and Justice $260,000.00 1996 – 2001
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities $205,000.00 1996 – 2001
Physicians for Social Responsibility $200,000.00 2000 – 2000
Green Guide Institute $195,000.00 1997 – 1999
Waterkeeper Alliance $160,000.00 1998 – 2002
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement $160,000.00 2000 – 2002
Sustain $150,000.00 1997 – 2001
Public Citizen $140,000.00 1988 – 2000
Redefining Progress $125,000.00 1998 – 2000
Greenpeace $115,000.00 2002 – 2005
Natural Resources Defense Council $110,000.00 1989 – 1999
Northern Plains Resource Council $110,000.00 2001 – 2003
Sierra Club $105,000.00 1996 – 2002
National Wildlife Federation $100,000.00 2000 – 2000
Environmental Research Foundation $95,000.00 1997 – 1999
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides $90,000.00 1997 – 1999
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy $82,500.00 1991 – 2003
Dakota Resource Council $60,000.00 2001 – 2002
Western Colorado Congress $60,000.00 2001 – 2002
Dakota Rural Action $60,000.00 2001 – 2002
Powder River Basin Resource Council $60,000.00 2001 – 2002
Environmental Grantmakers Association $59,835.00 1997 – 2002
Center for a New American Dream $55,000.00 2001 – 2002
Idaho Rural Council $55,000.00 2001 – 2002
Wilderness Society $50,000.00 2000 – 2000
Economic Policy Institute $45,000.00 1998 – 1998
Environmental Advocates $45,000.00 1997 – 2000
Essential Information $45,000.00 1998 – 1998
Earth Day Network $35,000.00 1999 – 1999
Colorado Environmental Coalition $30,000.00 2001 – 2001
National Audubon Society $30,000.00 2000 – 2000
Institute for Environment and Agriculture $25,000.00 1998 – 1998
Oregon Natural Resources Council $25,000.00 1998 – 1998
Southern Environmental Law Center $25,000.00 1997 – 1997
Consumers Union of the United States $25,000.00 1997 – 1997
Children’s Environmental Health Network $25,000.00 1998 – 1998
ACORN $25,000.00 1998 – 1998
American Oceans Campaign $25,000.00 2000 – 2000
Western Organization of Resource Councils $25,000.00 2001 – 2001
Center for Public Interest Research $20,000.00 2002 – 2002
Rocky Mountain Institute $20,000.00 2002 – 2002
Friends of the Constitution $15,000.00 2001 – 2001

Foundations listed on ActivistCash.com may provide funding to a wider variety of nonprofit groups than those profiled here. This website focuses on activist groups that concentrate on food- and beverage-related issues.

Profile:
Rockefeller Family Fund

The True Evil Doers

[In order for an American resistance movement, or any resistance, to actually challenge the “True Evil Doers,” connected with Rockefeller and Rothschild, they must first overcome the political divisions which have been created, that is the hallmark of The Beast network.  Republicans and Democrats, capitalists and communists, right and left, Heritage Foundation and MoveOn…these are not natural divisions, they are bi-products of manipulation, created to keep us from uniting against them. Always operating on the principle of the Hegelian dialectic, they promote opposites, always intending to achieve a “compromise” or “synthesis” between them.   The monsters sow division among the unwary normal folk.

The left/progressives fight the evil of the right/conservatives, never stopping to realize that it was the conservative press that first sounded the alarm about the Rock/Roth conspiracy.  (SEE: Antony Sutton)  We the People have been deceived into hating our neighbors, instead of hating the inhuman authors of our hatred.  Both left and right fight against the many ongoing wrongs of the current administration as a patriotic expression of dissent.  We fight the “other” because we feel that they are destroying our Nation.  This is what “they” want.   To defeat “them,” we must come together.

WE MUST COME TOGETHER.]

The True Evil Doers

By this method, the trillionaire masters of the universe remain hidden whilst Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion. However something of an insider’s knowledge of the hidden wealth of the elite is contained in the article, “Will the Dollar and America Fall Down on August 19?..” on page 1 of the 12th July 2001 issue of Russian newspaper Pravda. The newspaper interviewed Tatyana Koryagina, a senior research fellow in the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development (Minekonom) on the subject of a recent conference concerning the fate of the U.S. economy:


posted to WPA June 28, 2009

“Money is power or shall we say, the monopoly to create credit money and charge interest is absolute power” : Alex James

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”: Amschel Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838

Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing their banking method into America: “The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

Nathan Rothschild said to the Commons Secret Committee on the question early in 1819: “In what line of business are you? – Mostly in the foreign banking line. “Have the goodness to state to the Committee in detail, what you conceive would be the consequence of an obligation imposed upon the Bank [of England, which he owned] to resume cash payments at the expiration of a year from the present time? – I do not think it can be done without very great distress to this country; it would do a great deal of mischief; we may not actually know ourselves what mischief it might cause. “Have the goodness to explain the nature of the mischief, and in what way it would be produced? – Money will be so very scarce, every article in this country will fall to such an enormous extent, that many persons will be ruined.”

The director of the Prussian Treasury wrote on a visit to London that Nathan Rothschild had as early as 1817: “.., incredible influence upon all financial affairs here in London. It is widely stated.., that he entirely regulates the rate of exchange in the City. His power as a banker is enormous”.

Austrian Prince Mettemich’s secretary wrote of the Rothschilds, as early as 1818, that: “… they are the richest people in Europe.”

Referring to James Rothschild, the poet Heinrich Heine said: “Money is the god of our times, and Rothschild is his prophet.”

James Rothschild built his fabulous mansion, called Ferrilres, 19 miles north-east of Paris. Wilhelm I, on first seeing it, exclaimed: “Kings couldn’t afford this. It could only belong to a Rothschild!”

Author Frederic Morton wrote that the Rothschilds had: “conquered the World more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before…”

As Napoleon pointed out: “Terrorism, War & Bankruptcy are caused by the privatization of money, issued as a debt and compounded by interest “- he cancelled debt and interest in France – hence the Battle of Waterloo.

Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild “warned that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the bank’s charter were not renewed.” (do you see the similarities here? If you don’t play the game an economic disaster will fall on you and you will be destroyed.)

“There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild.” 19th century French commentator.

Lord Rothschild (Rockefellers and Rothschilds’ relatives) in his book The Shadow of a Great Man quotes a letter sent from Davidson on June 24, 1814 to Nathan Rothschild, “As long as a house is like yours, and as long as you work together with your brothers, not a house in the world will be able to compete with you, to cause you harm or to take advantage of you, for together you can undertake and perform more than any house in the world.” The closeness of the Rothschild brothers is seen in a letter from Soloman (Salmon) Rothschild to his brother Nathan on Feb. 28, 1815, “We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.” (2) This closeness is further seen in that of the 18 marriages made by Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s grandchildren – 16 were contracted between first cousins.

“Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Communist Manifesto. In the case of the Bolshevik revolution, Rothschilds/ Rockefellers’ Chase Bank owned the state. In the US, the FED owners “own” the state.

Rothschilds’ favorite saying who along with the Rockefellers are the major Illuminati Banking Dynasties: “Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!”

Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836): “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.”

Rockefeller is reported to have said: “Competition is a sin”. “Own nothing. Control everything”. Because he wants to centralize control of everything and enslave us all, i.e. the modern Nimrod or Pharaoh.

The Rothschild were behind the colonization and occupations of India and the Rothschild owned British Petroleum was granted unlimited rights to all offshore Indian oil, which is still valid till this day.

“Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws.” The famous boastful statement of Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild, speaking to a group of international bankers, 1912: “The few who could understand the system (cheque, money, credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The boastful statement by Rothschild Bros. of London.

These people are the top masterminds and conspired for the creation of illegal FEDERAL RESERVE BANK in 1913: Theodore Roosevelt, Paul Warburg – Representative Of Rothschild, Woodrow Wilson – U.S. President Signed FED Into Act, Nelson W. Aldrich – Representative Of Rockefeller, Benjamin Strong – Representative Of Rockefeller, Frank A. Vanderlip – Representative Of Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller – Rockefeller Himself, Henry Davison – Representative Of J. P. Morgan, Charles Norton – Representative Of J. P. Morgan.

In the last century, members of the British Fabian Society dynastic banking families in the City of London financed the Communist takeover of Russia. Trotsky in his biography refers to some of the loans from these British financiers going back as far as 1907. By 1917 the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution were co-ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner. [no doubt using money from Cecil Rhodes’ South African gold and diamond legacy – Ed] The Communist system in Russia was a “British experiment” designed ultimately to become the Fabian Socialist model for the British takeover of the World through the UN and EU. The British plan to takeover the World and bring in a “New World Order” began with the teachings of John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University. Rhodes in one of his wills in 1877 left his vast fortune to Lord Nathan Rothschild as trustee to set up the Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford to indoctrinate promising young graduates for the purpose, and also establish a secret society [Royal Institute of International Affairs RIIA, which branched into the Round Table, the Bilderbergers, the CFR, the Trilateral, etc — Ed] for leading business and banking leaders around the World who would work for the City to bring in their Socialist World government.

Rothschild appointed Lord Alfred Milner to implement the plan.

Benjamin Freedman (Friedman) said this in 1961, Washington (he was a millionaire insider in international Zionist organizations, friend to 4 US presidents, and was also part of the 117-man strong Zionist delegation at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 where Germany was forced into bankruptcy to the Zionist BankLords and social chaos): “Two years into WW1, Germany, which was then winning the war, offered Britain and France a negotiated peace deal, but German Zionist groups seeing the opportunity made a deal with Britain to get the United States into the war if Britain promised to give the Zionists Palestine.”

In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.” They made that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers and mass communications media here were controlled by the Zionist bankers who owned the major commercial banks and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks (the original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller’ s, JP Morgan, Rothschild’s, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs, all with roots in Germany’s Zionists like the British Royal family, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, Bush, Rumsfeld, Clintons, the Nazis that were brought into the CIA, etc. http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml ) and they were pro-German because they wanted to use Germany to destroy the Czar of Russia and let the Communists whom they funded take over. The German Zionist bankers — Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” They poured money into Germany, fighting with Germany against Russia, to lick the Czarist regime. The newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, then after making the deal with the British for Palestine, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good. The Zionists in London sent cables to the US, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the US into the war.” And that did happen. Shortly after President Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany.

The power of the Rothschild family was evidenced on 24 Sept 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, – touted as the second richest man in the World but really a lower ranking player- and Arnold Schwarzenegger (the gropinator), at that time a candidate for the Governorship of California. Also in attendance at this two day meeting of the World’s most powerful businessmen and financiers hosted by Jacob Rothschild were James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, chairman of De Beers. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later. That he was initiated into the ruling class in the Rothschilds’ English country manor suggests that the centre of gravity of the three hundred trillion dollar cartel is in the U.K. and Europe not the U.S.

A recent article in the London Financial Times indicates why it is impossible to gain an accurate estimate of the wealth of the trillionaire bankers. Discussing the sale of Evelyn Rothschild’s stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, it states: …[this] requires agreement on the valuation of privately held assets whose value has never been tested in a public market. Most of these assets are held in a complex network of tax-efficient structures around the World.

Queen Elizabeth II’s shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. The Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002 … “the reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments. This is because her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike the members of the Commons and now the Lords, the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests…” In fact, the Queen even has an extra mechanism to ensure that her investments remain secret – a nominee company called the Bank of England Nominees. It has been available for decades to the entire World’s current heads of state to allow them anonymity when buying shares. Therefore, when a company publishes a share register and the Bank of England Nominees is listed, it is not possible to gauge whether the Queen, President Bush or even Saddam Hussein is the true shareholder.

By this method, the trillionaire masters of the universe remain hidden whilst Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who’s Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion. However something of an insider’s knowledge of the hidden wealth of the elite is contained in the article, “Will the Dollar and America Fall Down on August 19?..” on page 1 of the 12th July 2001 issue of Russian newspaper Pravda. The newspaper interviewed Tatyana Koryagina, a senior research fellow in the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches subordinated to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development (Minekonom) on the subject of a recent conference concerning the fate of the U.S. economy:

Koryagina: The known history of civilization is merely the visible part of the iceberg. There is a shadow economy, shadow politics and also a shadow history, known to conspirologists. There are [unseen] forces acting in the World, unstoppable for [most powerful] countries and even continents.

Ashley Mote (EU): “Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild. This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services.” “I have previously asked about the alleged involvement of the European Union’s own intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts, and I still await a reply. To that question I now add another: what are the European Union’s connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions? “Recently, Ashley Mote of the European Union (EU) asked this volatile question in a public EU meeting, a question never answered, as Mr. Mote, merely by asking this question, was immediately scratched from the White House Christmas card list and placed on its top ten hit list. The Illuminati’s cash cow, grazing freely on the World wide pasture of greenbacks, isn’t called “Elsie” but instead is called the Global Security Fund, a name actually meaning in the secret cult’s language Global Terrorist Fund. In simple terms, it’s a gigantic illegal trust fund, estimated by undercover overseas financial investigators at 65 trillion dollars, set-up for “Illuminati rainy days” and established when it is desperately needed in a pinch for bribery, assassinations and sponsoring World wide terrorist activities to divert attention from their banking mafia. Although the fund is cloaked in secrecy and made possible by the Western civilization’ s Federal Reserve banking system, investigators trying to pry into the Illuminati’s secret treasure trove have uncovered some interesting facts.

http://www.rense.com/general79/tril.htm

Ousted Honduran President Claims Attack by Radiation Weapon

Ousted Honduran President: Israelis Sent to Kill Me

Readers Number : 98

25/09/2009 Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who returned to his country this week after three months in exile, is accusing his government of hiring Israeli mercenaries to torture him with high-frequency radiation in his safe haven in the Brazilian Embassy.

In a conversation with the Miami Herald, Zelaya said that he has begun to suffer from throat pains resulting from poisonous gases being leaked into the embassy in Tegucigalpa. He also said that he fears mercenaries will enter the building and murder him. “They are threatening to kill us,” he said.

Witnesses said that soldiers were noticed installing some kind of satellite in front of the embassy on Friday that emitted loud noises.

Israeli sources in Miami whom the newspaper contacted said that they cannot confirm the presence of Israeli mercenaries in Honduras.

Zelaya, who was deposed in a military coup in June, also said, “I prefer to walk on my own two feet than to live on my knees under a dictatorship.” He turned to the American administration with a request to take action in his favor. “I said to President Obama, to Secretary of State Clinton, to the US ambassador, and to anyone willing to listen: they know what to do, but have been very cautious until now.”

The de facto Honduran government announced Wednesday that it will initiate talks with Zelaya if he recognizes the election results that were held in the country in November.

“I am ready to meet with anyone, anywhere, including former President Manuel Zelaya,” said the interim President Roberto Micheletti. This statement represents a significant change in the president’s position, as he previously declared he did not intend to be drawn into conflict with Brazil and that Zelaya “can stay in the embassy five to 10 years if he wants.”

Jihad in Pakistan’s South Punjab

[Look’s like a biker rally]

Jihad in Pakistan’s South Punjab

By Bill RoggioSeptember 24, 2009 1:07 PM

taliban-in-pakistan.jpg

Newsline has a must-read article on the critical role the southern half of Pakistan’s Punjab province plays in the jihadi network. Read the whole thing; I’ve excerpted some interesting portions below:

Four major militant outfits, the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), are all comfortably ensconced in South Punjab (see article “Brothers in Arms”). Sources claim that there are about 5,000 to 9,000 youth from South Punjab fighting in Afghanistan and Waziristan. A renowned Pakistani researcher, Hassan Abbas cites a figure of 2,000 youth engaged in Waziristan. The area has become critical to planning, recruitment and logistical support for terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact, in his study on the Punjabi Taliban, Abbas has quoted Tariq Pervez, the chief of a new government outfit named the National Counter-Terrorism Authority (NCTA), as saying that the jihad veterans in South Punjab are instrumental in providing the foot soldiers and implementing terror plans conceived and funded mainly by Al-Qaeda operatives. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering that the force that conquered Khost in 1988-89 comprised numerous South Punjabi commanders who fought for the armies of various Afghan warlords such as Gulbuddin Hikmatyar and Burhanuddin Rabbani. Even now, all the four major organisations are involved in Afghanistan.

The article explains the important function the Punjabi madrassas, or religious seminaries, serve in fueling the jihad; and the article also throws light on state support for jihadi organizations. The author claims, for example, that truckloads of weapons have been delivered to the headquarters of the radical, al Qaeda-allied Jaish-e-Mohammed:

The number of seminaries had increased during and after the 1980s. According to a 1996 report, there were 883 madrassas in Bahawalpur, 361 in Dera Ghazi Khan, 325 in Multan and 149 in Sargodha district. The madrassas in Bahawalpur outnumbered all other cities, including Lahore. These numbers relate to Deobandi madrassas only and do not include the Ahl-e-Hadith, Barelvi and other sects. Newer estimates from the intelligence bureau for 2008 show approximately 1,383 madrassas in the Bahawalpur division that house 84,000 students. Although the highest number of madrassas is in Rahim Yar Khan district (559) followed by Bahawalpur (481) and Bahawalnagar (310), it is Bahawalpur in which the highest number of students (36,000) is enlisted. The total number of madrassa students in Pakistan has reached about one million.Everyone has been so focused on FATA and the NWFP that they failed to notice the huge increase in religious seminaries in these districts of South Punjab. According to a study conducted by historian Tahir Kamran, the total number of madrassas in the Punjab rose from 1,320 in 1988 to 3,153 in 2000, an increase of almost 140%. These madrassas were meant to provide a rapid supply of jihadis to the Afghan war of the 1980s. At the time of 9/11, the Bahawalpur division alone could boast of approximately 15,000-20,000 trained militants, some of whom had resettled in their areas during the period that Musharraf claimed to have clamped down on the jihad industry. Many went into the education sector, opened private schools and even joined the media.

These madrassas play three essential roles. First, they convert people to Salafism and neutralise resistance to a more rabid interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah in society. Consequently, the majority of the Barelvis cannot present a logical resistance to the opposing ideology. In many instances, the Barelvis themselves get converted to the idea of jihad. Secondly, these madrassas are used to train youth, who are then inducted into jihad. Most of the foot soldiers come from the religious seminaries. One of the principles taught to the students pertains to the concept of jihad as being a sacred duty that has to continue until the end of a Muslim’s life or the end of the world. Lastly, madrassas are an essential transit point for the youth, who are recruited from government schools. They are usually put through the conversion process after they have attended a 21-day initial training programme in the Frontier province or Kashmir (see box “A Different Breed”).

State support, which follows two distinct tracks, is also instrumental in the growth of jihadism in this region. On the one hand, there has generally been a link or understanding between political parties and militant groups. Since political parties are unable to eliminate militants or most politicians are sympathetic towards the militants, they tend to curb their activities through political deal-making. The understanding between the SSP and Benazir Bhutto after the 1993 elections, or the alleged deal between the PML-N and the SSP during the 2008 elections, denote the relationship between major political parties and the jihadis. Currently, the SSP in South Punjab is more supportive of the PML-N.

The second track involves operational links between the outfits and the state’s intelligence apparatus. As mentioned earlier, some of the outfits claim to have received training from the country’s intelligence agencies. Even now, local people talk of truckloads of weapons arriving at the doorstep of the JeM headquarters and other sites in the middle of the night. While official sources continue to claim that the outfit was banned and does not exist, or that Masood Azhar is on the run from his hometown of Bahawalpur, the facts prove otherwise. For instance, the outfit continues to acquire real estate in the area, such as a new site near Chowk Azam in Bahawalpur, which many believe is being used as a training site. Although the new police chief has put restraints on the JeM and disallowed it from constructing on the site, the outfit continues to appropriate more land around the area. Junior police officials even claim seeing tunnels being dug inside the premises. The new facility is on the bank of the Lahore-Karachi national highway, which means that in the event of a crisis, the JeM could block the road as has happened in Kohat and elsewhere. Furthermore, the outfit’s main headquarters in the city is guarded by AK-47-armed men who harass any journalist trying to take a photograph of the building. In one instance, even a police official was shooed away and later intimidated by spooks of an intelligence agency for spying on the outfit. Despite the claim that the SSP, the LeJ and the JeM have broken ties with intelligence agencies and are now fighting the army in Waziristan, the fact remains that their presence in the towns of South Punjab continues unhindered.

Obama’s AfPak metrics miss the mark on Pakistan

Obama’s AfPak metrics miss the mark on Pakistan

Obama’s AfPak metrics miss the mark on Pakistan
By Hassan Abbas, AfPak Channel at FP, September 21, 2009

The draft metrics devised by the Obama administration to evaluate progress in the AfPak theater, while providing a useful list of issues to follow, analyze and gauge the developing situation in Afghanistan, leaves much to be desired in its treatment of the Pakistan side of things. The informed and constructive analysis of said metrics by Steve Coll and Katherine Tiedemann in this forum are must reads to understand the context of this discussion. I almost entirely agree with their assessments but believe that a few additional lacunas in the document must be addressed. Of course, not having access to the ‘classified annex’ (regarding Objective 1: disruption and degradation of terrorist networks and their capability in Afghanistan and Pakistan) limits one’s ability to grade the overall effort (if you may)!

It is quite striking that framers of the metrics have avoided the merest mention of Pakistan-India relations as a factor in understanding which way the wind is blowing in Pakistan’s security environment. While the Obama administration has every right to wish that Pakistan delink its rivalry with India in the Kashmir region from its policy towards Afghanistan (and consequently in Federally Administered Tribal Areas), one cannot ignore the prevailing ground realities. Rather than continuing to evade the relevance of the India factor to AfPak theater, the Obama administration must energetically facilitate and monitor the India-Pakistan peace process (which is lately showing some signs of life courtesy resumption of back channel diplomacy).

The second omission (less glaring than the above) relates to the reform and capacity building of Pakistan’s law enforcement and police. This issue is mentioned in the metrics in general, I must admit, but it is lumped together with the ‘effectiveness’ of intelligence and military counterinsurgency operations, which amounts to minimizing the critical nature of the issue. The Bush-era policy of overwhelming emphasis on ‘military action’ reduced the importance of devising ‘law enforcement’ strategies. Indeed, for Pakistan, the success of this spring’s military campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in the FATA and the Swat Valley should not be underestimated, but the country’s investment in police reform and the overhaul of the criminal justice system are more crucial for nabbing and prosecuting extremists in South Punjab, for instance. Whether or not Pakistan moves in this direction by taking significant reform-oriented steps should be followed closely.

While pursuing “an enduring, strategic partnership” with Pakistan is a laudable goal, it can be achieved only when Pakistani public perceptions about the U.S. improve. As recent polls indicate, an increasing number of Pakistanis view the United States as the greatest threat to their country. Hence, gauging American image in Pakistan can be a useful barometer, and effective targeting of the forthcoming U.S. development aid (which is mentioned in the metrics) can potentially start turning the tide in favor of the U.S..

Finally, the list mentions performance and stability of Pakistan’s civilian government and aptly links the stability factor with ‘military involvement’ in governmental affairs. However, this is something that is also dependent on how the Obama administration approaches its relationship with Pakistan. While it is expedient for the U.S. to engage all power centers in Pakistan, it must be recognized that civilian authority in Pakistan will be strengthened when the U.S. government also directs all its communications and links with the country through what in Pakistan is called the ‘proper channel,’ which in this case implies talking to the highest political office first and routing all communication, even about defense issues, through the foreign office and civilian leadership. Moreover, transition from military to civilian rule is a process that takes years and given the influence, resources and past role of the army, it will likely continue to play a crucial role in defining Pakistan’s policy towards regional security issues.

Hassan Abbas is a Bernard Schwartz fellow at the Asia Society and senior advisor at the Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School. He is also the author of Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism.

Americans Tilt Against Sending More Troops to Afghanistan

Americans Tilt Against Sending More Troops to Afghanistan

Most who oppose also advocate that the U.S. begin to withdraw troops

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ — Americans are more likely to say they would oppose (50%) rather than favor (41%) a possible decision by President Barack Obama to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Views on a Possible Decision by President Obama to Send More Troops to Afghanistan

The possibility that Obama will need to make a decision on U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan has increased in recent weeks, amid reports that the senior American military commander in Afghanistan — Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal — is preparing to deliver a formal request for additional troops in Afghanistan, perhaps by the end of this week.

“The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case.”

This follows the recent news leak of McChrystal’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, including his conclusion that more troops are needed in order to avoid failure in the war. Queried about the possibility of increasing U.S. forces in Afghanistan, President Obama said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he will “have to ask some very hard questions anytime I send our troops in.”

Questions on Afghanistan were included in Gallup’s Sept. 22-23 Daily tracking, and were focused on the public’s reaction if Obama does make a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan at some point in the near future.

The 50% of Americans who oppose a troop increase were asked whether they favored keeping troops at the current level, or whether they favored beginning a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. By an overwhelming 82% to 14% margin, those opposed to a troop increase say they favor withdrawal over keeping the status quo.

This leaves the overall disposition of Americans on the issue of troops in Afghanistan that is seen in the accompanying graph. Notably, as many Americans overall favor withdrawing troops from the country (41%) as favor increasing troop levels (41%).

Support for/Opposition to Sending More Troops to Afghanistan, and Support for Troop Withdrawal

The Afghanistan situation creates an unusual set of political cross-currents. A Republican president (George W. Bush) initiated the movement of U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2001, and Republicans in general have been more supportive than Democrats of the Afghanistan war. If Obama does make a decision to send more troops, Republicans would be faced with the prospect of supporting a Democratic president’s decision to initiate a policy they favor, while Democrats who oppose further escalation in Afghanistan would be faced with going against a president representing their own party.

The data indicate that Republicans do seem willing to support Obama should he make a decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Democrats seem willing to oppose Obama in this case. Independents are also on the opposition side of the ledger.

Views on Sending More U.S. Troops to Afghanistan, by Party ID

Bottom Line

President Obama will by all accounts face a difficult choice regarding Afghanistan in the weeks ahead.

Gen. McChrystal — whom Obama’s administration appointed to Afghanistan earlier this year — has already indicated that he is likely to request more troops for that country. Should Obama turn down such a request, he risks the ire of Republicans and others who will most likely argue that he is ignoring the wishes of his commanders on the ground, and making a mistake that could result in an increased risk of terrorism, among other things. Should he agree to order more troops, he will go against the wishes of the broad U.S. population — and, in particular, the rank-and-file of his own party, which at the moment is more opposed to than in favor of such an action.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,053 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Sept. 22-23, 2009, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.