Kissinger up to his old tricks...Will he get his way? (Lets hope not!)

 "... creating a “world treasury department” under the UN. This long-pending goal of the elite would give the International Monetary Fund power to dictate economic policy to every country on the globe."

Globalists Attend Bevy of Policy Meetings

April 22, 2011 by Infowars Ireland

By James P. Tucker Jr.
American Free Press
Issue No.18, May 2, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Trilateral Commission (TC) luminaries were bouncing like yo-yos during their meeting in Washington April 8-10, when they met at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs.
Next, they hopped up the street to an Aspen Institute session on “Values and Diplomacy” at the National Cathedral, then some darted north to the historic Bretton Woods II conference in New Hampshire. Several Aspen Institute leaders also attend Trilateral and Bilderberg meetings.
Since these sessions happened around the same time, the international elite had to agree on instructions to give the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which met in Washington over the weekend of April 16 to April 17.
Henry Kissinger was the biggest yo-yo, giving the same speech at all of these meetings. David Rockefeller, 94, had less bounce. As Rockefeller’s valet, Kissinger kept his wheelchair moving briskly.
Kissinger, visibly depressed, gave a rationale for the war on Libya that the TC and its brother group, Bilderberg, want to keep rolling, according to an inside source who has proved reliable for years. Both groups want the war extended through 2012 to generate turmoil throughout the Middle East and pressure the United States into attacking Iran on behalf of Israel.Which would also produce huge war profits.
That it would be the greatest disaster for American policy in history is not important to these meddlers. In informal comments to bystanders before climbing to the podium, Kissinger continued groaning about a [expletive deleted] weekly journal that disclosed the Arab terrorists’ role in the Libyan rebellion.
But Kissinger’s only concern was that these facts “being forced into the national press makes it more difficult” to sell the invasion of Libya. After AFP exposed this, the major media picked it up but, for the most part, folded it deep into their Libya stories.
In all three speeches, Kissinger played the reluctant damsel who was firmly convinced that the United States must put boots on the ground in Libya—among all the wars that the U.S. is already involved in. America “should always support democracy and human rights politically, economically and diplomatically, just as we championed freedom for the Captive Nations during the ColdWar,” Kissinger said. “But as a general principle, our country should do so militarily only when a national interest is also at stake.”
He called this position “pragmatic realism.” So what is America’s national interest that is “at stake”? Libya is “an exception to the rule,” he explained.
While the United States has “no vital interest at stake in Libya,” Kissinger said, “a limited military intervention solely on humanitarian grounds could be justified.”
Muammar Qadaffi’s forces had already caused heavy casualties among civilians, he claimed. But no one will know for sure whether that is even true until the dust settles and independent journalists and researchers can get into Libya to study the situation. Again posturing as a reluctant warrior, Kissinger (a cook during World War II) said:
Our idealistic goals cannot be the sole motivation for the use of force. We cannot be the world’s policeman. We cannot use military force to meet every humanitarian challenge that might arise. Where would we stop? Syria, Yemen, Algeria or Iran? What about countries that have been strong allies but do not share all our values: Bahrain, Morocco and Saudi Arabia? What about humanitarian violations in other countries, such as Ivory Coast?
In defiance of facts to justify the U.S. attack, Kissinger reached for the nuclear button:
Conduct by Libya “may tempt the Iranian regime to speed its development of a nuclear weapon. Rogue states have to remain convinced of our determination to resist nuclear proliferation.”
So, according to Kissinger, invading Libya prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons that would threaten Israel. Kissinger was not merely mistaken, he was lying as defined by eight centuries of Anglo-Saxon common law.
It is a lie when one deliberately tells an untruth to enrich himself, injure another or both.
Here’s what Kissinger knows:
Iran is developing nuclear energy for electrical power. Iran is a member of the international group of nations opposing nuclear proliferation and allows its facilities to be inspected. Israel has unofficially had nuclear weapons since the 1960s and refuses to be inspected. This was first revealed by the late George Ball, undersecretary of state in the JFK administration and a Bilderberg luminary.
World Bank President Robert Zoellick, a leader of the Trilateralists and Bilderberg group, jumped on a food kick, also yo-yoing about the three meetings. He cited a 36-percent increase in food prices over the past year and called inflation the “biggest threat to the poor around the world.”
Start with high inflation, Zoellick said, “mix in price gyrations, and then stir in higher fuel costs, and you get a toxic brew of real pain contributing to social unrest.”
His remarks were intended to help pressure Congress into throwing more tax dollars at poor countries. The United States has long been the most generous nation on Earth, yet is routinely taken to the cleaners.
Also yo-yoing from the meetings in Washington and Bretton Woods were Trilateral-Bilderberg luminaries Larry Summers and Paul Volcker. Summers was a key White House economic adviser, and Volcker is a former Fed chairman who recently advised Barack Obama on a special economic panel until his replacement by General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt.
Both pushed hard for creating a “world treasury department” under the UN. This long-pending goal of the elite would give the International Monetary Fund power to dictate economic policy to every country on the globe.