I don’t approach this topic from a religious perspective, but I want to start off by saying that my Christian fundamentalist grandmother has been talking about a coming one-world government  since I was a child in the 1970s.

She claimed the Bible and Hal Lindsey’s book, The Late Great Planet Earth as her sources.

While I am skeptical that what she told me was divinely inspired, the time has come for people to get serious on this topic.

One of the most respected newspapers in the world, the Financial Times of London, ran an opinion piece in their Dec. 8, 2008 issue with the title, And now for a world government.

The columnist, Gideon Rachman, wrote that, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

He stated that a world government is now possible because of the transport and communications revolutions that have shrunk the world.

He cited problems like global warming, a global financial crisis and a global war on terror as motivating factors for global governance.

Ominously, Rachman also wrote that, “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

Tyranny is necessary for a world government to function effectively?  Is he trying to say that tyranny is good?

I hope no one’s laughing at this point.

Rachman claimed that there has been a change in the political atmosphere related to the financial crisis and climate change, which is pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the U.S. that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

He built a case that Mr. Obama is friendlier to the U.N. and global governance than Bush, partially by noting that John Podesta, the man heading Obama’s transition team is a member of the Managing Global Insecurity (MGI) project.

A report by the MGI project argues for the creation of a U.N. high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the U.N. and the creation of a 50,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force.  Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the U.N. would have first call upon them.

The MGI report also advises globalists on language to use in order to keep Americans from reaching for their rifles.

The report recommends using the term responsible sovereignty instead of the European term, shared sovereignty and the term global governance instead of  world government.

Rachman quotes Jacques Attali, an advisor to French President Sarkozy, as saying that the core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.  It comes as no surprise then that Attali sees global government as a solution.

My opinion is that global government is coming in terms of years rather than decades, and that if the financial crisis doesn’t get severe enough to bring it about (but I think it will), then we’ll have another world war and/or catastrophic terrorist attack to help usher it in.

To sum up, we are entering a period of time which, like the 1930s and 40s, will be dominated by financial crisis and war.  I expect this possibility more than I fear it; my real fear is that the situation will be worse than last time.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!

I’m afraid this will be our last relatively easy holiday season for a very long time.

For more information: As you might expect, Rachman received some very passionate input from readers regarding his world government article.  His thoughts about this and reader comments can be found at his blog, entitled, “Final thoughts on the world government row.”

Quote of the week:

“Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic.  Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

~From the book, The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul

Buried News of the Week

Oklahoma passed House Joint Resolution 1089 in an effort to force the Federal government to abide by the U.S. Constitution.  The state legislature effectively blasted the Federal government for sticking its nose into business that the Constitution says IS the purview of the states.

This story broke over the summer, but only recently came to my attention; that’s why I felt it qualified as the “Buried News of the Week,” even though it’s technically old news.  (Did anyone hear about it?)

If state discontent with the federal government interests you, please take a look at the secessionist movement in Vermont.

Expect to see movements like this gaining strength as conditions deteriorate and we lose more of our constitutional rights.  Although our transition to tyranny and socialism is accelerating, when people and states get hit hard enough in their wallets and with disappearing freedoms, people will stand up very powerfully for what they believe.

The Sunday, Feb. 23, 1997 issue of the Washington Post is generally credited with bringing talk of the President’s Working Group on the Markets-also known as the Plunge Protection Team-out in the open. The article was titled simply, Plunge Protection Team.

However, Executive Order 12631–Working Group on Financial Markets, is part of the public record and can be found at the National Archives.  This executive order established the Plunge Protection Team as well as procedures for its operation and funding.

Please watch the CNBC clip below.  Incredibly, even though the existence of the PPT is documented in the public record, the CNBC talking heads try to make the existence of the PPT a “conspiracy theory.” This attitude of crushing anyone who thinks logically outside the box of accepted mainstream media reality is very disturbing to me.  (Listen closely for the disingenuous cackling in the background, meant to ridicule and discredit their very astute guest Scott Nations, President of Fortress Trading in Chicago .)

To his credit, the host Joe Kernan does a pretty good job of standing up to his co-workers. (I wouldn’t be surprised if his on-air editor, Charlie Gasparino, had a word with him later.)

I can understand controversial assertions being questioned, especially when there is plausible deniability; but the dismissive attitude that these talking heads take toward the PPT doesn’t even fit with reality.  (The CNBC crew doth protest too much, methinks.)

I have a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, so the reality I see-along with Executive Order 12631-is that if a person, group or organization has the means, motive and opportunity to commit an act (or crime), they become the prime suspect(s) for such activity. I believe that this is a very reasonable, prudent and pragmatic paradigm that has helped solve crimes for far longer than I’ve been around.

One of the concepts I learned from my studies in psychology and a master’s degree in counseling is that past behavior tends to be the best predictor of future behavior.  One talking head in this clip seems to admit to the existence of the PPT in the past (”Well, the Clinton White House” at 2:29) but then nearly everyone scoffs at any possibility that the PPT still exists without citing any evidence of it being discontinued. How does that make sense?

Watch the contempt and ridicule they wield to silence and distance themselves from the “nuts” that utilize what should be considered logical thinking.

Particularly telling is the comment at 5:46 by Art Cashin of UBS Financial Services: “If this was true, don’t you think something might’ve leaked out by now?  Uh, you know, this, this is the tooth fairy all over again.”

The “TOOTH FAIRY?!”

Let’s see what former senior adviser to President Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, had to say during the Sept. 17, 2001 broadcast of Good Morning America.  Stephanopoulos was discussing different plans on how to support the markets that day.  (As you may recall, this was the first day of trading after the Sept. 11 attacks.)

Stephanopoulos stated that “…there will be some trading curbs in effect today. If the market drops by about 1,100 points, they will probably suspend trading for a while. And perhaps most important, there’s been the Fed in 1989 created what is called a plunge protection team, which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and the other exchanges, and there they have been meeting informally so far, and they have kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem.”

Does Mr. Cashin expect us to believe that what Stephanopoulos said doesn’t qualify as something “leaking out?”

Does he expect us to believe that Stephanopoulos is part of the “black helicopter crowd” (at 5:23)?

Has Cashin NEVER heard of Executive Order 12631?

Does he expect us to believe that Stephanopoulos was lying?

No, I believe that what is more likely is a clear-cut case of corporate owned mainstream media and “big money” spouting their propaganda.  They KNOW they can count on most of the media and public not bothering to fact-check their BS…and so it will continue.

For more information: If you would like an in-depth study regarding the Plunge Protection Team, please check out this report from Sprott Asset Management.

For me, writing this blog has brought about a great deal of clarity about media bias-or at least the perception of clarity.

So far I’ve noticed that the types of stories that won’t receive much if any media coverage fall into two categories: 1. Government violations of the Constitution 2. Government actions that could be viewed as under-handed, evil and/or conspiratorial…any behavior that’s “over-the-top.”

As I’ve tried to demonstrate, information is suppressed and controlled when the media doesn’t cover certain stories.  When someone supplies surprising or even shocking information that doesn’t line up with the official story-even when good sources are cited-a self-reinforcing argument often emerges.  Many people think, “Well, that can’t be true.”  Why not?   “Well, if this was true, the media would cover it!”

Another way information is suppressed and controlled is by using the “conspiracy theory” label.  Powerful people use it as a bludgeon to discredit and silence anyone who doesn’t buy the official story, whatever that might be.  The public is following their lead and picking up on this method.

People who have power and money want more of it and they want to maintain the system which is providing them with their status (or come up with a new system that is even more advantageous-like the “No Banker Left Behind” bailout).  It’s not “conspiracy theory” when there is evidence that people are working to improve their status; it’s how the world works!

One example would be the notion that FDR backed Japan into a corner, knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming but deliberately sacrificed 3,000 troops, angering the American people enough to support another European war. (Enough time has gone by that many historians actually consider this idea without laughing.)

Perhaps someday most people will be horrified instead of laughing at the notion that certain elements of our government may have had foreknowledge of the 09-11 attacks but chose to do nothing (or worse), sacrificing 3,000 of our own citizens in order to reach our objectives in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Well, enough of that for now.

I’m thinking about starting a new feature to this blog.  I will attempt to come up with at least one under-covered story per blog to highlight. These stories may or may not be directly related to investing, money or financial issues.

Here we go!

Buried News of the Week

1. Did you know Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State?

Check out this press release, Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State.

Have you heard this story in the mainstream media?

What are the implications of living in an ostensibly free society where important information is actually controlled and suppressed, either voluntarily or under some sort of duress?!  (Noam Chomsky has done some work in this area, but I haven’t read anything by him that specifically addresses the mainstream media’s aversion to the U.S. Constitution.)

Readers, please comment, as this concept completely fascinates me and I’d love to get a good dialogue going.