President Trump & Agenda 21 - The First 100 Days

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for the .mp3 audio version)

United States President Donald Trump recently wrapped up his first 100 days in office and while many news outlets are reporting on his overall performance in the past 100 days, I want to specifically take a look at what Donald Trump has been doing to fight against the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21.  Of course, Agenda 21 is vast world plan and essentially encompasses every area of society (resources, transportation, population, etc.), pretty much everything the Federal government does can be considered as an action to promote or discourage the Agenda 21 sustainable development plan.  Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, I am only focusing on those actions involving the United Nations or climate change, which is the guise that is used to implement Agenda 21 nationwide.  I have compiled a list of some good, and some bad things that President Trump is doing affect the implementation of Agenda 21.

Let's start with the good:

• The State Department under President Trump has decided to halt funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) citing the organizations support of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China.  The UNFPA houses anti-family feminists like Dr. Nafis Sadik that propagate communist rhetoric about men being exploiters of their children and family.  The UNFPA also teams up with the Rockefeller Foundation to arrange "study tours" that bring politicians to poor countries to study population issues.  The less money going to them, the better.
• The Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump appointee Scott Pruitt has updated the EPA website, removing several pages that were propagating the global warming/climate change myth.  Responding to this action, a representative of the EPA is quoted in the Washington Post as saying "[a]s EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land, and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency."  If President Trump continues to view climate change hysteria as a hoax, as he once called it, this is a huge push back against the agenda for world government. 
• President Trump signed an executive order "promoting energy independence and economic growth" which seemingly is designed to reduce some of the Obama-era's focus on green energy, and reduce regulations to foster domestic energy production.  Whether these goals are actually going to be achieved with this executive order is a separate matter all together but in the least the rhetoric is in the right direction. 
• President Trump drew criticism because he didn't mention climate change in his Earth Day address.  Another good sign that the administration is moving the federal government's focus away from the green scam.   

The Bad:

• After running a presidential campaign that was very critical of the United Nations, even saying the organization was "not a friend to freedom", President Trump hosted a meeting of UN Security Council diplomats at the White House on April 24 where he sought to empower the UN and encourage the international organization to take action against North Korea.  President Trump stated at the meeting that he has "long felt the United Nations is an underperformer but has tremendous potential."  Stating that the UN has underperformed and should be more prominent would raise concern if it was coming from a globalist, but luckily Donald Trump describes himself as a nationalist, putting the interests of the American people before anything else, right?  Well, this leads us to our next Trump action in the 'bad' category...
• In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on April 27, President Trump responded to allegations of disputes in his cabinet between the 'globalist' faction and the 'nationalist' faction by saying "I’m a nationalist and a globalist...I’m both".   This is very different rhetoric than when he was on the campaign trail saying "we will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism".  
• In the same Wall Street Journal interview President Trump stated that he is now looking to "renegotiate" the NAFTA agreement, which he once called "the worst trade deal ever" as opposed to ending it.  NAFTA is an integral part of United Nations Agenda 21 as can be seen on the United Nations website where it describes how NAFTA came out of President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which itself was "conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21".  I suppose a renegotiation of NAFTA can be better than what we currently have, but many had hoped it would just be repealed completely. 

That is a list that I have compiled so far but I am continuously compiling information that pertain to this topic so if you feel that there is something that should be added in future analyses, post it in the comment section.  

Related Reports:

• George Soros, The Ideal Globalist - March 13, 2017 (link)
• Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut - December 11, 2016 (link)
• Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21? - November 19, 2016 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 1, 2013 (link)

Forced Recycling Is A Scam

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis)

I wanted to make this report on the problems of the bottle deposit program but I first must make this fact clear:  In Connecticut, and many other places that have this program, you do not earn five cents for returning a can, bottle, or glass, you REDEEM five cents.  This means that you, or whoever bought the drink, had to pay an extra five cents for each bottle at the register, at the time of purchase, and only when you bring back your bottle do you get that five cents back.  It seems as if this is something that shouldn't have to be explained but you would be surprised at how many people still do not understand how this works.

Moving on, earlier this year there were reports that the state of Connecticut wanted to raise the bottle deposit up from five cents to ten cents.  Also this year in relation to the bottle deposit, a bill was introduced in the state legislature that would drop the deposit of five cents and replace it with a non redeemable tax of four cents, as well as a bill that would require beverage distributors to pay a higher handling fee to bottle redemption centers.  Instead of going over the intricacies of these proposals, I think it would be much better to simply explain how the bottle deposit program is just another revenue generating scam by the state.

First it needs to be understood that empty cans, plastic, and glass bottles don't really have any value.  If it was cheaper to create new bottles out of recycled bottles than it was to create them from scratch, bottle manufacturers would be paying you for the empty bottles.  In other words, if you could actually make something of value out of your used bottles, at a profit, the state wouldn't need to force you to recycle, there would be a market for them, people would be offering you money for your empty bottles.  As an example of this, the state doesn't need to force people to recycle copper, or other forms of scrap metal because the cost of recycling these things is currently cheaper than the cost of manufacturing them from scratch.  Because of this people will come and take the metal from a garbage pile on your sidewalk for free, or go into your house uninvited to steal your copper pipes.

The time and money that it takes to collect recycled bottles, truck them to a location, sort them, clean them, and actually begin the recycling process is highly inefficient and cannot be done at a cost that would make this process profitable.  A representative from the Coca Cola Company testifying against one of the proposed bottle bills briefly describes the problem his company faces:

"Though our industry sells tens of millions of dollars in bottle bill scrap from Connecticut, the revenue does not come close to balancing the inherent expense our industry faces in fuel, energy and handling fees … nor does it compensate for the sub-optimization of our delivery routes and warehouse space, as a lot of time and space is required to handle containers for processing."

Of course this is all done under the guise of protecting the environment but when you factor in the fossil fuel used to move these recyclables around, the energy used at these recycle facilities, the water used to clean the empty bottles, and other aspects of the process, it could leave a person questioning whether this is really helping the environment at all.  And while many environmentalists support these forced recycling projects and any project that has the stated goal to conserve resources, they seem to neglect the most important resource of all, the one that we can't make more of; time.  Every moment of the process, from you bringing your bottles to the redemption center to the recycled plastic being turned into something is time lost that could have been used to do something more productive or preferential.

Soros Influencing CT Affordable Housing Laws

(This is a video of the following analysis.)

The state of Connecticut has a statute (8-30g) that requires at least 10 percent of a town or city's housing stock to be considered "affordable".  If a town in Connecticut does not meet this standard, as most do not, a developer looking to build high density housing that gets denied by the towns zoning and planning commission, can appeal to the state and essentially override the local towns decision.  This battle has taken place and is taking place across Connecticut, including in Simsbury where the local planning commission recently denied a proposal for a high-density affordable housing subdivision.  The developer is appealing the decision with the state citing the 8-30g statute.

There are two bills proposed in the state legislature this year (HB 6880 & HB 7057) that, according to supporters of affordable housing who are opposing these bills, would weaken the 8-30g statute. Without getting into all of the details of the proposed legislation, the bills would seemingly make it harder for developers to override local planning and zoning commissions using the 8-30g statute.

By examining the testimony of the groups that oppose this legislation we can learn a lot about the motivations behind the push for "affordable housing".

One group's testimony that I found particularly interesting was that of the Open Communities Alliance, which is "a non-profit civil rights organization that focuses on ensuring that low-income families of color have access to the wealth of opportunities in our state through a balanced approach to affordable housing creation."  In the testimony of Erin Boggs, executive director of Open Communities Alliance, she says that municipal zoning has "exclusionary roots" meant to keep non-whites out of white neighborhoods.  Boggs says that "[w]e as a state and a country still struggle with the historical legacy of [that] kind of racist sentiment" therefore supports the state using 8-30g to override a town or cities decision on development:

"It is the concern of many communities that CGS Sec. 8-30g takes away local control over zoning. It does, when reasonable affordable housing development proposals are rejected by towns that do not have sufficient levels of affordable units. There is a way to address this – proactively work to generate suitable housing within your town to reach a moratorium or surpass the 10% threshold."

In other words, communities can make their own decisions as long as they do what they are told by people not in the community.

The Open Communities Alliance not only lobbies for changes in legislation but organizes coalitions, produces "research" to support their policies, engages in public outreach, and more.  One example of their work to subvert local sovereignty can be seen in a case in Westport last year where a developer, Richard K. Freedman, submitted a proposal for a 48-unit, 30 percent affordable housing project but was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).  Freedman, citing the 8-30g statute, said he will file a lawsuit against the town because it has a pattern of denying affordable housing.  In his proposal, Freedman submitted a letter from the Open Communities Alliance supporting the development using what seems to be veiled legal threats and dubious racial statistics.  One part of the letter states "Westport is a high opportunity area, meaning that it is thriving with high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods. Unfortunately, Westport does not reflect the racial, ethnic or economic demographics of its geographic region or state as a whole" and goes on to say that Westport lacks 'people of color' and single parents, proportionally speaking.  To an outsider it may seem that this lack of "diversity" could possibly be a reason why Wesport has high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods but anyone capable of making that connection would never dare as they know it would surely lead to them being derided as a racist, misogynist, or some other form of ad hominem attack.

Anyway, I decided to look a little bit further into this Open Communities Alliance, and after seeing who funds the organization, the propagation of racial conflicts and attacks on local sovereignty all made sense.  They receive money from the Ford Foundation, an organization that I previously written about in regards to their push for world government, population control, and other policies that align with United Nations Agenda 21.  They also receive money from Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by the infamous billionaire George Soros.  In a previous video I showed how Soros money was being used to fund other groups in Connecticut causing racial and political conflict.

Another organization that submitted testimony against the bills currently in the state legislature regarding statute 8-30g is the Regional Plan Association.  The Regional Plan Association is another tax-free organization funded by the Ford Foundation, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, two foundations that I have written extensively on in the past in regards to their subversion of local sovereignty, among other topics.

While I do not pretend to understand all of the intricacies involved in the proposed legislation, and rarely ever endorse bills, judging strictly by who is against these bills, I would venture to say that these are genuinely good pieces of legislation, in the sense that they would increase local decision making power.

Related Stories:

• George Soros, The Ideal Globalist - March 13, 2017 (link)
• What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut - Thursday, February 9, 2017 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)

Who Wants Toll Roads In Connecticut? Answer: The Rockefellers

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

For those out here that are unaware, the state of Connecticut is contemplating creating a system of congestion pricing, a newer version of toll roads, on some of the states roads.  If you are a Connecticut resident you might be thinking 'Who in their right mind would support an increase in taxes in a state that already taxes its residents at exorbitant rates and has a problem managing their already enormous budget?'  The short answer: The Rockefellers.

Before explaining what I mean by that, let us take a look at all of the testimony submitted for one of the proposed bills 'H.B. No. 6058 AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC TOLLS'.  There are over two hundred people that have submitted testimony for this bill, and the vast, vast majority are in opposition to it.  Randomly clicking on any of the names of the people that submitted testimony will very likely lead to a testimony submitted AGAINST the bill like CT resident Pat Belote who said "enough already, how much more can you squeeze out of the citizens of CT?" or Steve MacDonald who said in all caps "SAY NO TO TOLLS!!!!!!!"

But I knew that if I kept on looking I would find testimony submitted in favor of the bill coming from one or more of the many tax-free foundations that are constantly lobbying the state to lower our standard of living under the guise of fighting climate change.  I was right.

I have written multiple times in the past on the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC), which is a "non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to reducing car dependency in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut" that brags on their website about using their influence to do things like "halting highway widenings".  In the past the TSTC has lobbied for red light cameras to be installed on intersections across the state, tolls roads to be installed, as well as other tactics that would create a heavier financial burden on operators of motor vehicles.

So it was no surprise when I came across the testimony of Joseph Cutrufo, a director at the TSTC.  Cutrufo is speaking on behalf of the TSTC in his testimony in support of toll roads in the state, explaining how this policy can be used to get people out of their cars and onto public transportation.

Another tax free organization that I have written about in the past, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, also submitted testimony in favor of electronic toll roads, using the same justification as the TSTC, that tolls will lower the amount of cars on the roads, therefore reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Now let us get to how the Rockefellers fit into all of this.  Regular viewers of this channel are already aware of the nefarious influence that tax free foundations are playing in society today.  I often recommend the book "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser which discusses the 1950's congressional investigations into tax free foundations.  Before high level forces in government began to sabotage the committee's research and findings, the investigations were uncovering a subversive network of highly powerful and influential tax free foundations.  The Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund were two foundations mentioned in the book and the Rockefeller family subversive influence through foundations continues to this day.

The previously mentioned Tri-State Transporation Campaign which constantly lobbies the state to implement anti-car policies shows a list of supporting foundations that give grant money to their organization on their website.  Many of the organizations can be traced back to Rockefeller money.  For example, they receive money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a fund started by the five Rockefeller brothers.  Another foundation listed as a supporter, the Energy Foundation, also gets money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was actually formed by the Rockefeller Foundation.  The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation is also listed, and the letter "R" in Geraldine R. Dodge, stands for Rockefeller.  I can continue with the Rockefeller-TSTC connections, but you get the point.

Now looking at the other organization mentioned that gave testimony in favor of tolls, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, we see similar connections.  The Connecticut Fund for the Environment has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the One Region Fund, which has gotten it's money in part from the Rockefeller Foundation.

In their testimony in support of tolls in Connecticut, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment cites studies from organizations that are themselves connected to Rockefeller money.  When declaring that greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the state as a result of increased vehicle use, the Acadia Center is used as a source.  The Acadia Center gets grant money from the Energy Foundation, which was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, as previously mentioned.  In another instance a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council is quoted lauding the benefits of tolls.  The Natural Resources Defense Council has received money from both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation.

You can see what is happening here.  The average person is not a supporter of toll roads.  These policies are not happening from a grassroots level as we are made to think.  The well funded foundations are behind the push for these anti-car policies like toll roads.  The same foundations are all funding and citing reports from each other.    Watch my related videos to understand more about the influence of foundations, and more specifically the Rockefeller influence on global politics.

Related Stories:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)
• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 26, 2014 (link)

"Why Have I Never Heard of Agenda 21?"

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

Every once in a while when I am attempting to inform someone of the sustainable development Agenda 21 plan that is being implemented across the state, country, and world, I get the response, "why have I never heard of that before?"  It is a fair question.  How can such a vast and influential plan for the world, that affects everyone, be being implemented everywhere, and yet most people have never heard of it?  This is my somewhat brief answer to that question.

Speaking specifically on the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, it is important to understand that the specific terms used in Agenda 21 like "human settlement", and "Local Agenda 21 (LA21)", are usually not used by organizations pushing Agenda 21 in your local communities.  This change in terminology is because of the negative publicity the plan has received since its conception.  We know the promoters of Agenda 21 have had to use different terminology, from what J. Gary Lawrence has written.  J. Gary Lawrence has served as an adviser, under President Bill Clinton, on the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), as well as being a Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle.  Lawrence gave a presentation in London, England, June 29, 1998, titled, "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium", where he explained how the terminology of Agenda 21 must be changed, when attempting to influence local legislation, to prevent conspiracy theories about a UN takeover, or a one-world government, from arising:

"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."

That is why you have never heard of Agenda 21, the proponents of new world order globalism intentionally try to hide their plans and goals.  The idea that powerful elite groups of people meet and secretly make plans to increase their influence though is not exclusive to the creators of Agenda 21.  For most of recorded human history there have been tales of people meeting covertly to share information, make plans, and gain power.  In Plato's Republic written around 380 BCE it discusses how men could hide their vices and greed and "remain undiscovered" by forming "secret societies and political clubs".

More recently a world system of finance was secretly set up in the early part of the twentieth century, the culmination of which being the Bank for International Settlements.  Former Georgetown Professor, historian, and mentor to President Bill Clinton, Carrol Quigley discusses the secretive creation of this global banking system in his copious book Tragedy and Hope:

"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations." (pg. 324)

Another professor George C. Lodge, this time from Harvard Business School, also reveals in his 1995 book Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence how certain people are able to covertly organize and influence those with power without being publicized throughout the media:

"energetic and creative individuals in government, interest groups, and corporations are quietly assembling global arrangements to deal with crises and tensions.  For the most part, they work outside of legislatures and parliaments and are screened from the glare of the media in order to find common interests, shape a consensus, and persuade those with power to change."

Important to note, Professor Lodge is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment, two organizations that deserve their own critical analysis for the vital roles that they have played in the creation and propagation of the Agenda 21 program of action.

Finally, bringing it all back to UN Agenda 21, I have made multiple videos discussing the Rockefeller connection to the global program of action, and have before used this incredible quote by David Rockefeller from his book Memoirs which discusses his involvement with a secret group looking to create a one world system of governance:

"Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will.  If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it" (pg. 405)

There you have it.  That is why you haven't heard of Agenda 21.  It is purposely being hidden from you.  While I can give multiple other examples of proof that people with power devise secretive schemes to gain more power, I think the point is made.  Just keep these quotes in mind next time you hear something and think "if that was true, I surely would have heard about it".

Related Reports:

• A Brief Examination of "Our Common Future": The Report That Gave Birth To Agenda 21 - November 19, 2014 (link)
• In Response To Michael Nicastro's Criticism of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theorists - October 15, 2014 (link)
• Go To Work and Give The Government Your Children: The Feminist UN Agenda 21 Plan To "Empower" Women - August 22, 2014 (link)
• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 26, 2014 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)
• Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign - August 22, 2013 (link)

George Soros, The Ideal Globalist

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

I have a bunch of notes on George Soros that I gathered doing research in preparation for a radio appearance on 94.9 FM with Lori-Hopkins Cavanaugh, a discussion which I recently uploaded to this channel.  In the conversation with Lori we weren't really able to discuss Soros as much as I would have like to so I figured I'd make a video highlighting some of the incredible facts involving this intriguing character.

I called this video George Soros, The Ideal Globalist because Soros seems to epitomize the image that many infer when they use the term "globalist" in a negative connotation.  A one world government pushing, population control advocating, convicted criminal billionaire investor looking to impose his vision for the world on the world.  Some would call it a "new world order", and Soros even wrote a short book called "Toward a New World Order".

Let us quickly go over some of his globalist past.

Soros was convicted of insider trading in France in 2002, as well as fined millions in his native country of Hungary for market rigging in 2009.  Also in Hungary, in 2015, Soros was accused by the prime minister and other government officials of promoting a liberal immigration policy, funding groups to protest against the governments decisions on immigration.  Hungary is not the only country where Soros promotes an increase in immigration, he funds many groups, including in the United States, that advocate a more open border immigration policy.

Continuing on, Soros was accused by the Malaysian Prime Minister of causing the collapse of Malaysia's economy, and he was branded in Thailand as an "economic war criminal" who "sucks the blood from the people."

Soros uses his money to influence politics throughout the world, and in many cases, help overthrow governments, as was the case in Yugoslavia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, or most recently in Ukraine.

The Soros formula for overthrowing governments usually involves funding groups to take to the streets in protest, with claims that the current administration is illegitimate.  The constant protests and street demonstrations begin to have a devastating political, as well as financial effect on the state.  All the while Soros is funding journalists to publish propaganda that continues to sow unrest.  Finally, when the administration collapses, there will be a Soros-funded politician(s), being marketed as a potential new leader.  These tactics of destabilization is what caused the country of Russia to issue a ban on George Soros' Open Society Institute.

Understanding this Soros regime change formula is important as there are Soros funded groups in operation in America today that are causing an increasing number of disturbances.  As I discussed in my video about the George Soros connection to the protest in New Haven where groups of people shut down a roadway, some of the groups causing violence at the anti-Milo protest in Berkeley, California were also connected to George Soros money.  The large anti-Trump women's march that took place the day after Trump's inauguration had many financial connections to George Soros.  Black Lives Matter has been taking part in street demonstrations in the wake of President Trump being elected, and they are yet another organization with George Soros financial connections.

The point is that it seems as if George Soros could be attempting his regime change formula here in the United States.  He does not appear to be too happy that Trump was elected.  We have to keep in mind that Soros spent $5 million to help get President Obama elected in 2008 and nearly $11 million trying to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2016.  Soros was apparently heavily involved with and connected to the Clinton campaign as revealed in campaign e-mails released by Wikileaks where a top Clinton aide revealed a goal "to make Soros happy".  Soros was actually mentioned nearly 60 times in the Clinton campaign e-mails released by Wikileaks, including instructions given by Soros to Clinton when she was Secretary of State in 2011, on how to handle the unrest in Albania.  Needless to say, he wasn't thrilled that Clinton lost the Presidential election.

On the presidency of Donald Trump, Soros has called him "an imposter" and a "would-be dictator" saying Trump "is going to fail".  Therefore it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Soros may be trying to cause chaos here in America in an effort to undermine or even cause the collapse of the Trump administration.

One interesting thing about George Soros that I have never heard discussed before I looked into him was his connection to the language Esperanto.  Esperanto is a language created in the late 19th century by a Polish Jew named L. L. Zamenhof with an aim of creating an international language that all translations would be made into alone.  Zamenhof had a vision that "all nations would be united in a common brotherhood".  The father of George Soros, Tivadar Soros, was a Hungarian Jewish lawyer that was fluent in Esperanto, even founding an Esperanto literary magazine.  Tivadar taught his son George the Esperanto language.  Surely an interesting lesson in globalism at an early age.  While this international language doesn't seem like it caught on, according to Wikipedia there are up to 2 million people in the world that speak Esperanto in varying degrees, it was recognized by UNESCO in 1954, which recommended in 1985 that international non-governmental organizations use Esperanto, and apparently is still used today by the Chinese government and the Vatican.

It doesn't get more globalist than a global language.

As an interesting sidenote, in his work Mein Kampf, Hitler mentioned Esperanto as an example of a language that would be used by an International Jewish Conspiracy once they achieved world domination.

Finally, regular viewers of Connecting The Agenda are aware of the global warming scam and how that is connected to the plan for world government.  As you may have guessed, Soros is a big promoter of this concept that everyday human activity is causing devastating, irreversible damage to the planet.  Soros has given millions of dollars to Al Gore to promote global warming, and believes fighting global warming will be the main driver of a new economy.

Soros also met secretly in 2009 with other global warming, new world order advocates like David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and Ted Turner, for a meeting in New York to reportedly talk about population reduction.

While I do not plan to follow the everyday activities of George Soros and his various foundations, I do plan on pointing out when I come across the Soros connection in my research as his globalist agenda is obviously quite similar to the Rockefeller - UN agenda that I usually write about.

Related Story:

• What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut - February 9, 2017 (link)

What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

On February 4, 2017 dozens of people blocked a roadway in New Haven, CT, allegedly delaying an ambulance that was on the road and forcing workers to perform an emergency medical procedure on a patient.  These protesters were apparently demonstrating against President Donald Trump's immigration policies.  I say apparently because that is how the local news channel describe the protest, but when I look at the footage from the event it is clear that immigration reform was not the only idea being propagated.  Some of the signs used were anti-capitalist, pro-socialist propaganda, like one that read "Trump is the symptom, Capitalism is the disease, Revolution is the cure."  The so-called "leader" of the roadway protest was Norman Clement, who on his Facebook page can be seen promoting Gloria La Riva, a socialist candidate for President in 2016.

I am always suspicious of these mass protests because I know how difficult it is to organize even ten people to show up to a demonstration.  The average person has a lot of things to do during the day with work, family matters, and other personal issues.  Therefore, when I see over one hundred people show up in New Haven to protest, red flags go up for me.  One of the sure signs that an event is more than just grassroots is the uniformity of the posters and signs.  While this event definitely had home made signs, the expensive, professionally made signs were also present.  Zooming in on some of these signs you can see the website AnswerCoalition.org at the bottom.  It is difficult to find who exactly is funding the Answer Coalition but there are many clear ties to Socialist and Marxist organizations.

And then comes the George Soros connections.  For those that do not know George Soros, he is a man of immense wealth who uses his money to support opposition movements and the overthrow of governments throughout the world, and just so happen to financially support Hillary Clinton for President in the 2016 race.  It appears that Soros may be using his regime-changing tactics in the United States, funding groups to protest, riot, and possibly create mass civil unrest.  One sign that was present at the New Haven protest read "No! This Fascist Regime Must Be Stopped Before It Starts", and while the news station did not show the bottom of the sign, performing a google search of this poster slogan will bring you to the website "Refuse Fascism", which appear to be the creators of this meme.  Refuse Fascism reportedly received $50,000 from a George Soros funded organization.  Refuse Fascism has been accused of being one of the groups behind the violent protests that happened in Berkley last week.  Antifa was another group accused of being behind the violence at Berkley, and they also had a presence at the New Haven protest.

News Channel 8 said that the New Haven protest was organized by an organization named "Unidad Latina en Accion".  Unidad Latina is a member of a group called The Immigration Strategic Funders Collaborative for Connecticut, or simply "The Collaborative."  The Collaborative received a $100,000 grant from George Soros' Open Society Foundations in 2015.

I would go into more depth, or create a separate analysis just on George Soros, and his tactics of influencing politics throughout the world, but there is already so much written on it that any interested reader could do a simple Google search and have unlimited number of pages of information.

That is all that I have found so far in regards to this New Haven situation, but these "grassroots" protests are something that we really need to keep our eye on, more specifically who is funding them.  Things don't just happen, everything takes money.  Trying to figure out where the money is coming from is usually more important than whatever story is being pushed.

Name Change! - Connecting The Agenda

Up until this point I was posting all of my articles and videos  under "The Goodman Chronicle" website and banner but for several reasons I will be switching over to the name "Connecting the Agenda".  My past work will not be lost as now going to the webpage www.ConnectingTheAgenda.com will link back to all of my older articles, as well as the latest material I put out.  Thank you to everyone who has been watching and following along, and hopefully you will continue to do so as I have some very interesting reports that I am currently working on and plan to release in the near future.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 7: Smart Meters/Smart Grid

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) 

The ultimate goal of the policy makers that propagate the sustainable development philosophy is to have every human action, including humans themselves, tracked in real time, in order to manipulate society towards the direction of the controllers pleasing.  Even behind the walls of their homes, human action needs to be tracked in order to ensure "sustainability".  The amount of water or electricity you are using, at what times, and for what purposes, need to be known, to ensure you are engaging in sustainable practices.  This is where smart meters come in.

A smart meter is an electronic device that records electricity or water consumption in intervals of an hour or less and sends that information back to the utility company.  Smart meters allow for two way communication between the meter and the central system.  This allows the utility company to see how much you are using, what you are using, and at what times.  These smart meters are part of a smart grid system, which refers to an array of technologies that allow for two-way communications and computerized automation of the electrical grid system.

In 2012, the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research put out a very interesting report which discusses smart meters and smart grid technology, including the various surveillance aspects and potential issues of smart technology.  From the report:

"Historically, electric utilities only had access to total consumption data for their individual customers. In contrast, with smart meters, utilities can: 

1. estimate how many people live in a house by watching the number of cycles of the hot water heater, 

2. know when the residents are home by the energy cycle of the TV, and

3. know when the residents wake up by the energy signature of the coffee maker or toaster."

As you can see, this technology has the potential to be very intrusive.  The report admits that this data can be used by those with malicious intentions:  "...criminals could use the data communicated by smart meters to (1) identify the best times for a burglary; (2) determine if residents are present; (3) identify assets that might be present; or (4) commit fraud, identity theft, or corporate espionage."

Many people have also expressed the potential health concerns about the increased level of radio frequencies being emitted from smart meters but the report claims "there has been extensive research on this subject, with most studies finding little if any risk."

While I find these potential dangers of smart meters to be valid, I see a much larger danger with the full implementation of these smart monitoring systems.  We know through the Connecticut climate change papers, as well as through related documents, that policy makers pushing the sustainable development program continuously mention their desire to reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy consumption.  They believe increased energy use would be a threat to our environment therefore look to do anything possible to reduce use.  A likely problem arises when you combine their insatiable desires to control our lives with this smart technology.  Let us examine some of the possible actions to be taken to reduce your energy use.

In a 2013 state document titled "Comprehensive Energy Strategy" it is discussed how the state should "support behavioral change that helps to shave the peak load through advanced technologies like smart meters and appliances."  One possible way to change our behavior, as discussed in the document, is to charge more money for using electricity during periods of "peak demand", this is called dynamic pricing.  Smart meters make this possible as your electricity usage is tracked in real time.

Another possible solution to consumers using too much electricity during peak demand is to have the electric company turn down your power from a central location.   The document states "[a]n array of new technologies makes it possible to manage power demand from end uses such as residential air conditioners and water heaters by automatically reducing these electric "draws" for brief periods of time. "  Along the same lines, is a suggested strategy called "Conservation Voltage Reduction" which "lowers the voltage at which electrical power is delivered."  I am no expert in this area therefore cannot speak with any expertise on the details of these programs, but it would seem to me that this technology allows for your electricity to be manipulated from an outside operator.

It is important to note this is not the work of greedy capitalists operating in a free market.  The spread of smart meters is dependent on government grants and regulations.  The two electricity providers that operate in the state, Eversource and United Illuminating, are highly regulated monopolies.  The level of government involvement into the electricity market is incredible.  For example, quoting from that same state document:

"Legislation enacted in 1998 mandated sweeping changes to the structure of the electricity sector. CL&P and UI were ordered to sell off their generation assets and begin operating solely as electric distribution companies. "

The state did this under the guise of lowering electricity rates, but as with much government intervention, it did not achieve it's stated goal:

"While proponents of restructuring anticipated that the switch to competitive supply would lead to lower electricity rates, electricity rates climbed precipitously after deregulation, reaching an all-time high in 2009."

Of course they call their regulation failure "deregulation" as a way to make the people think that not having enough government involvement was the problem.

Some would even question if this increase in electricity rates was a result of the incompetence of our officials or secretly the policy makers goal was to increase the cost of electricity.  In the previous section in this analysis titled "They Want Us Poor" I discuss how some policy makers in the state have such a desire to reduce our carbon emissions that they praise high energy prices as a way to get us to consume less.  On top of that, these climate change policies already have a direct effect in increasing the cost of electricity in the state as seen by the creation of the Connecticut Green Bank which is funded by a surcharge on our electrical bills.

Connecting this idea to the topic at hand, smart meters are marketed as a way for people to save money on their electrical bills but there have been many reports throughout the country of increased rates after smart meter installation.

It is always good to show the Rockefeller connection to all of this as it seems there is always one there.  Quoting from the document "In 2009, approximately 3,000 Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) customers (1,500 commercial and industrial customers and 1,500 residential customers) from Hartford and Stamford participated in the pilot Plan-it Wise Energy Program, which included smart meters and pricing plans with different rates for peak and non-peak periods (dynamic pricing)."  This Plan-it Wise Energy Program was a collaboration between Connecticut Light and Power and a company named Accenture.  Accenture has received multiple $100,000 and up grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.  For more information on this curious Rockefeller connection, read my other analyses on the subject.

After evaluating the full cost and plan, the state of Connecticut "decided not to approve a comprehensive deployment of smart meters", instead recommending "that CL&P (now known as Eversource Energy) begin installing smart meters at a more moderate pace."

The other electricity provider in the state, United Illuminating, has become part of Avangrid, a “green” international utility company. Its website states that it plans to install two million natural gas and electric Smart Meters across its service territories, including Connecticut, between 2014 and 2023.

It seems like the spread of smart meters is going to happen one way or the other.

Lastly, I would like to leave the reader with an example of how revealing this smart technology is and how it can be used against you.  In the process of investigating a murder in Arkansas, investigators used the suspect's water and electric smart meter to determine what the suspect was doing at specific times to build a case against him.  While in this case the smart meters may have been used to solve a murder, putting this technology in the hands of the control-freak technocrats that are designing this sustainable development system and are hell-bent on reducing our energy consumption can lead to a nightmare scenario with every move you make, even in your own house, being monitored and documented.

Related Reports:

• The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor - December 29, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor

After reading as many state climate change documents as I have there's one conclusion that can definitely be drawn:  these people want us poor.  I realize that this sounds dramatic but you kind of understand their position.  I don't agree with it, but it makes sense, if you think like them.  If you truly believe that pretty much all of human technological progress (cars, airplanes, air conditioners, farming equipment, etc.) is causing irreversible damage to the planet, then it would make sense that policies should be pursued and enforced that ensure humans are using less of these innovations.  Policies that discourage the use of technological innovations, though, have a direct effect in lowering our standard of living.

The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement."  This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.

One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less.  In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption".  They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices.  See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus.  Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda.  As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.

Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system.  A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer."  Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output.  The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.

The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden.  In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state.  The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs."   In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".

Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation.  In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health"  it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ".  It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years."  Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.

Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.

If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea.  Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur.  As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut

 

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for .mp3 download of this analysis.)

President-Elect Donald Trump has apparently picked Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.  In a previous video I discussed how Trump had Myron Ebell, a well known "climate change skeptic", lead the EPA transition team, and speculated how this might reverse some of the disastrous climate change policies that have been propagated by the federal government.  Trump's pick of Pruitt is another good sign that there might actually be some change in the EPA's overreaching policies.  Pruitt hasn't fallen for the global warming scam saying that the climate debate is "far from settled", and even joined a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the EPA over their restrictive policies.    

Another good sign of this Pruitt pick is the group of people in Connecticut that this upsets.  All of the people and groups that for one reason or the other have been pushing this concept of smart growth, sustainable development, the anti-car agenda, etc., are all outraged over the new head of the EPA.

Governor Malloy put out a press release calling the Pruit pick "deeply unsettling", saying the pick raises many questions about whether the EPA will continue to support the climate change policies that Malloy has been instrumental in implementing in the state.

Even the Rockefeller-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that push the anti-car agenda in the state like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) are worried, putting Pruitt in the "losers" section of their blog saying that he is "someone who has spent his career fighting environmental regulations for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry".

Another Rockefeller connected NGO pushing similar policies, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called for the Senate to firmly reject Pruitt's nomination saying "[t]his isn’t just letting the fox into the henhouse, it’s handing the fox the architectural blueprints and a stick of dynamite."

The founder of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment is Fred Krupp.  Krupp is a very interesting character that deserves his own analysis, as he was actually on President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which was conceived in order to formulate recommendations for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 in the United States.  Krupp is still very much active in the environmental movement as the President of the highly influential Environmental Defense Fund, and called Trump's pick of Pruitt to head the EPA "deeply troubling".

As I said in the previous video on this topic, while all of this seems promising, we have to wait and see.  The Trump presidency could just be getting rid of the whole climate change , green energy scam, and replacing it with a new scam.  I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open, and documenting as much as I can.  Thanks for watching, subscribe to the channel, and watch the related videos for more information.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

(download .mp3 here)

An important point that needs to be made when discussing Connecticut climate change policy is that it was not some grass roots movement that began pushing for climate change legislation in Connecticut but instead the push comes from the international level at the United Nations.  This fact can be easily documented by reading through the various Connecticut climate change papers and viewing the numerous citations to the United Nations and related organizations.

One early example of th e United Nations direction into Connecticut climate change policy can be seen in the agreement made in 2001 between the Governors of New England and the Premiers of Eastern Canada known as the "2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan".  In the action plan it is stated that "The ultimate goal [of greenhouse gas emission] mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  The UNFCCC would then go on to be cited multiple times in the Connecticut climate change papers .

Signatories of the 1992 UNFCCC have agreed to adopt policies that help fight "climate change", encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere", and "promote sustainable development." (To get a better understanding of the UNFCCC read A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).) 

It should also be noted that at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio where the UNFCCC was presented , another important UN document, Agenda 21, was also presented and accepted by President George Bush on behalf of the United States.  Even though, to my knowledge, Agenda 21 is not directly referenced in Connecticut Climate change documents, it is important to note because being a much larger and more detailed plan than the UNFCCC, it lays out a more specific agenda on how "sustainab le development" is to be carried out.  It is highly recommended to any interested reader on this subject to read A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

 The 2001 New England Governors agreement would go on to form the foundation of Connecticut climate change policy, and as just explained, its goal mirrored that of the United Nations.

The following year, 2002, the Connecticut Governor's Steering Committee met to further discuss the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to in the 2001 New England Governors meeting.  Important to note about this 2002 meeting is that it was held at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.  The Rockefellers have multiple connections to the United Nations, including donating the money for the land on which the U.N. stands today.  (For a more comprehensive analysis of the United Nations - Rockefeller connection check out the 4th part in this series titled The Rockefeller Connection, as well as the presentation titled The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection.)

In the paper which derived from that 2002 meeting, and several times after that, the organization ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Enviornmental Initiatives, is cited as a group working in Connecticut to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, several cities across the state have become members of ICLEI at one time or another.  ICLEI, today known as Local Governments for Sustainability, is a major non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been highly influential in spreading the concept of "sustainable development", and other United Nations programs, across the world.  ICLEI was founded at the United Nations and is cited in the United Nations program of action, Agenda 21, as one of three non-governmental organizations active in the field of propagating sustainable development policy.

Finally, we get to the "scientific" body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  State officials rely heavily on information put out by the IPCC to justify their "climate change" programs, citing their reports throughout the Connecticut Climate Change papers.  And of course, the IPCC was established by the United Nations.

Further connections could be presented, but the point is made.  Connecticut Climate Change policy is being influenced and ultimately directed by international organizations, specifically the United Nations.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21?

(This is a video version of the following analysis.)

Under the guise of fighting man made climate change and reducing carbon emissions, the United Nations Agenda 21 program of sustainable development seeks to lower the standard of living of Americans.  These sustainable development policies have been, and are being, slowly enacted across the United States, including in the state of Connecticut, as documented by previous reports.  While the continuous march of this Agenda 21 program seemed to have no slow down in sight, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States may prove to be the ultimate hurdle for the success of Agenda 21.

Trump has been a big critic of the idea of man-made climate change saying he is not a "big believer", even calling it a "hoax" on multiple occasions.  This is huge as the whole Agenda 21 program revolves around the idea that the planet's climate is being severely affected by everyday human activity like driving cars or eating meat.

To further show that Trump is serious about putting a stop to the climate change hysteria, he reportedly appointed Myron Ebell to run the EPA transition team.  Ebell is a well known skeptic of the theory of man made climate change.  He has spoke in favor of Congress prohibiting any funding for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and once labeled the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an "organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response."

Even better than that, Trump has shown signs of shunning the UN altogether.  At a campaign speech at an AIPAC conference in 2016, Trump criticized the UN for its "weakness", "incompetenece", even saying that the UN is "not a friend of freedom".

While all of this seems promising, we can't start counting our chickens just yet.  Trump has a history of flip-flopping.  On the global warming issue, Trump and three of his children put their name to an advertisement in the New York Times in 2009 urging President Obama and Congress to take action on climate change.  Furthermore, contrary to his recent remarks about the United Nations, Trump testified in front of Congress in 2005 and said that he is a "big fan of the United Nations and what it stands for", though he then goes on to rebuke the United Nations for its incompetence.

Some would brush off Trump's past public positions as nothing more than a business man saying and doing what he has to in order to play the game.  While others would say that Trump is an opportunist with no real principles.  We are going to have to wait and see.

Connecting the Rockefellers to the United Nations

(The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection - This is a video presentation of the following analysis)

In this analysis, the direct connection between the Rockefellers and the creation of the United Nations organization will be made.

First, it should be noted that the organization that preceded the United Nations, the League of Nations, received a significant amount of support from Rockefeller related organizations.  In 1927, John D. Rockefeller Jr. provided the League of Nations with $2 million to "enhance its international relations library and promote peace through knowledge and understanding".  This Library of the League of Nations later became known as the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) when the league transferred its assets to the United Nations.  According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a statement praising the Rockefeller family's past and present support of international organizations, the interest from that original $2 million loan still provides approximately $150,000 every biennium to the United Nations.

The Rockefeller Foundation was also heavily involved with transition from the League of Nations to the United Nations as documented in the article "The Rockefeller Foundation and the Transition from the League of Nations to the UN" by Ludovic Tournes of the University of Geneva. Further connections could be drawn between the Rockefellers and the League of Nations but for the sake of brevity, we will move on to the United Nations.

It is no secret that the land that the United Nations is built upon today was purchased with money donated by the Rockefellers.  The official Rockefeller Archive Center has this to say on the matter:

"John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s deep interest in international relations was reflected by his many contributions directed to international causes. Perhaps most outstanding in this field was his gift of $8,515,000 in December, 1946, for the purchase of the land for the permanent home of the United Nations in New York."

This land where the United Nations Headquarters now sits in New York was originally owned by a prominent real estate developer named William "Bill" Zeckendorf.  As the story goes, Nelson Rockefeller, on behalf of the United Nations, went to Zeckendorf with an offer to buy the property, Zeckendorf agreed, and Nelson's father, John D Rockefeller, Jr., donated the money to the United Nations in order to finance the purchase of the land.  While this story is usually presented as just another selfless act of charity by the Rockefellers, there is some evidence to suggest that there were ulterior benefits associated with this donation.

Because the United Nations was set to transform the area, which was mostly old buildings and abandoned slaughterhouses, if someone were to own property in the area they would see a massive increase in value.  As luck would have it, David Rockefeller was one of those ownership interests that would benefit financially.  In his own autobiography titled "Memoirs", David Rockefeller describes how after becoming a board member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace the Endowment bought the land across from where the U.N. building would be erected, and how they profited greatly.

"I turned to Bill Zeckendorf, and he offered us one of the building sites he had acquired on the west side of First Avenue, across from where the new U.N. building would be erected.  Although the area was still filled with abandoned slaughterhouses and decaying commercial buildings, Bill felt the U.N. and other related projects would permanently transform the area.  He recommended that we buy the parcel before land values skyrocketed and then put up our own building.

Several of the more conservative board members thought the plan far too risky and criticized spending the endowment's limited funds on a construction project in an unproven location.  The endowment's longtime treasurer opposed the project and resigned from the board, predicting it would bankrupt us.  However, a strong majority of the board backed the proposal, especially after I was able to persuade Winthrop Aldrich to open a Chase branch on the ground floor.  Once the building was completed, we rented much of the building to not-for-profits and easily handled the mortgage payments. As Bill Zeckendorf predicted, the area around the U.N. quickly became one of New York's prime neighborhoods and continues to be so to this day." (pg 150)

David Rockefeller conveniently leaves out of this passage that it was the same Bill Zeckendorf who sold the land to the United Nations, through the funding of David's father John D. Rockefeller Jr, that was selling the endowment the land near the United Nations off of his "prediction" that the land values would skyrocket.  I am not sure of the extent that insider information was involved in this deal, but, in the least, this proves that a Rockefeller did seemingly benefit financially from the creation of the United Nations in that location.

(Sidenote: Wikipedia also twice refers to the Rockefeller's owning land in another area around the United Nations known as Tudor City.  The sources for the information in those two entries seem to be of questionable origin so I cannot yet present that information as fact.)

Another family connection to the founding of the United Nations is David's brother Nelson Rockefeller being a member of the U.S. delegation at the gathering that marked the founding of the United Nations, the 1945 Conference on International Organization.  Nelson would also go on to fund The United Nations World magazine in an effort to promote the UN.

It should be noted, the designers of the United Nations Headquarters were working out of an office in Rockefeller Center.  The chief architect of the project was Wallace K. Harrison, a man with interesting Rockefeller connections himself.   Charlene Mires, author of the book "Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations", describes Harrison as "one of the designers of Rockefeller Center, a Rockefeller relation by marriage, a confidant of Nelson Rockefeller, and a member of the booster committee that had been working to bring the UN to New York."

This Rockefeller support of the United Nations continued after the creation of the UN and continues to this day.  It would be too much to list all of the ways that Rockefeller-related organizations contribute to the United Nations today but their influence can be seen through examples like the Rockefeller Foundation providing grants to the United Nations, or the Rockefellers Brothers Fund funding the United Nations Foundation.

More important, though, than the motive to make some money off of a land deal was the Rockefeller vision of a one-world government as revealed on pg. 405 of David Rockefeller's autobiography Memoirs.  It is in this passage that David reveals his family's ultimate goal:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. b

The United Nations fits well into the Rockefeller family goal "to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world".  Through United Nations programs such as Agenda 21, local decision making power is being eroded and being replaced by regional governments that continue to become more centralized.  In the analysis titled "The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection", the connections between Agenda 21, the Rockefellers, and current events taking place in Connecticut are detailed.  Through these connections a pattern emerges of a system being created that is designed to reduce the decision making power of individual towns, cities, and states, transferring that power over to large, centralized, non-elected bureaucracies.


Related Analyses:

• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 24, 2014 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)
• Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign - August 22, 2013 (link)