Meeting of the Puppet-masters

Richard Salbato, March 28, 2011

On April 8th two hundred of the most influential leaders of the world will meet in London to change the entire world’s economic system. The leaders of this conference are the same people who established the Federal Reserve in 1913, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in 1944 and now a completely new multilateral system of money and nationalism. These are the same people who established the five major European Banks with stolen gold from the French Revolution, planned World War I to rid the world of Kingdoms, backed Hitler in World War II to control oil out of the Middle East, and financed the Moslem Brotherhood in England to drive Europe out of the oil rich Arab nations.

They continue to believe that the greatest enemy to their goal of controlling the world with money is nationalism. They have used the nationalistic system somewhat to their advantage by backing their candidates with millions of dollars of funds so they could have a puppet in office to do their bidding.

But with so many countries throughout the world that is a lot of puppets to finance and to control. To understand these multibillionaires you have to understand that there are two kinds of millionaires but only one way to create real wealth for the world.

The Good millionaires and the Bad millionaires

Federal Unions want to blame millionaires for their problems across America but the truth is they are being supported by the bad millionaires and do not want us to know there are two kinds of millionaires. To understand this you have to know how wealth for everyone is created. Money is an exchange for work and production.

When someone produces something that others buy they use money to buy the product, and the very production is what creates the money. In the free market a dollar of production creates two and a half dollars in national wealth as it moves throughout the system. Because of this, I do not believe that productive companies should be taxed at all, and in fact they cannot be taxed. A tax is part of their cost of production and they will just pass that on to the buyer. A good example of this is the much attacked Oil Companies that pay 40% taxes on their production of wealth just to the Federal Government, not to count lease payments and State Taxes. We the people pay for this in the price we pay for gas.  Eliminate all taxes on oil companies and all the million stock holder owners of them and we would be paying $2.00 a gallon for gas.

However, when the owner of this company takes money from the company for his own use, house, boat, car, etc. then he should be taxed and heavily taxed because this is not productive for the entire society. These are the good millionaires and even the 401 holders of stock that go up but they do not take out the profits.

The bad millionaires do not produce anything. They make their money by bribing government officials to get tax payer’s money for doing government contracts that they charge twice as much for or get government exemptions from tax by loopholes they created and paid for. Obama is in the pocket of GE and although GE made two and one half billion dollars last year, they paid no tax.

The other way that bad millionaires make money is by taking it from people who loose it. They manipulate the money market, the commodity market, or the stock market day by day, hour by hour and even minute by minute to make billions of dollars per day. In these markets, no one makes one penny unless someone else looses.  So no real wealth is created. Good examples of this are the large banks that borrow billions from the Federal Reserve at .25% and lend the same money back to the Federal Government to buy bonds at 6.50% making 6.25% without investing one penny. Another example is the Federal Reserve spending two trillion dollars of our money without anyone knowing where it went. Like the Government Unions, these people spend millions of dollars on elections or bribes in order to make billions from the government. They own or make nothing but make their wealth by taking it without work from others.

A One World Government

These puppet masters have so far failed in most of their plans over the past 100 years. Examples of their failure: The International Monetary Fund was established to take over the natural resources of poorer countries. Then lent money to countries that they knew they could not pay back and took for collateral the natural resources of water, gas, wood or whatever was the primary wealth of the country. But as these bankrupt nations restructured with new governments they refused to pay the debts or to give up there wealth.

In their attempt to take over America by bankrupting it, they did not expect the Tea Parties or Fox News, so now they have a plan to stop the Tea Parties (See Note: 11) and Fox News (See Note: 4)

Now they are meeting again to create world without borders (no nations) called a One World Government with them controlling all. This is being organized by Obama’s puppet Master, George Soros. His idea of a world Government is communist capitalism like China but international.

He prefers international capitalism over state capitalism and international capitalism has to be an unelected dictatorship like China. (See Note: 1)

No one is reporting this meeting but that is not surprising. Most of the liberal news media is attending this meeting. And their puppets are attacking Fox News. (See Note: 2)

He also has a plan underway for the past two years to change the US Constitution.  (See Note: 5)


Note One: Soros maps out his plan two years ago

By Dan Gainor

March 23, 2011

Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. (See Note 1 below) In two short weeks, he is going to start - and no one seems to have noticed.

On April 8, a group he's funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros's goal for such an event is to "establish new international rules" and "reform the currency system." It's all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for "a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order."

The event is bringing together "more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders' to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Soros wants a new 'multilateral system," or an economic system where America isn't so dominant.

More than two-thirds of the slated speakers have direct ties to Soros. The billionaire who thinks "the main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat" is taking no chances.

Thus far, this global gathering has generated less publicity than a spelling bee. And that's with at least four journalists on the speakers list, including a managing editor for the Financial Times and editors for both Reuters and The Times. Given Soros's warnings of what might happen without an agreement, this should be a big deal. But it's not.

What is a big deal is that Soros is doing exactly what he wanted to do. His 2009 commentary pushed for "a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII international financial architecture." And he had already set the wheels in motion.

Just a week before that op-ed was published, Soros had founded the New York City-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), the group hosting the conference set at the Mount Washington Resort, the very same hotel that hosted the first gathering. The most recent INET conference was held at Central European University, in Budapest. CEU received $206 million from Soros in 2005 and has $880 million in its endowment now, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

This, too, is a gathering of Soros supporters. INET is bringing together prominent people like former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Soros, to produce "a lot of high-quality, breakthrough thinking."

While INET claims more than 200 will attend, only 79 speakers are listed on its site - and it already looks like a Soros convention. Twenty-two are on Soros-funded INET's board and three more are INET grantees. Nineteen are listed as contributors for another Soros operation - Project Syndicate, which calls itself "the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries" reaching "456 leading newspapers in 150 countries." It's financed by Soros's Open Society Institute. That's just the beginning.

 Note Two: Soros’ other puppets

GetUp, Avaaz, Greenpeace and MoveOn are all "Octopus arms" of the “Puppetmasters" George Soros, the New World Order and Illuminati.

"The two co-founders of GetUp, Harvard graduates Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, both worked for the George Soros-funded in the U.S. to launch the Global Web "movement”,

David Madden was previously a consultant to the World Bank and Jeremy Heimans previously consulted for the UN, OECD and ILO"

The process is Fed Res and IMF which are all linked and controlled by the same NWO forces: lend money to bail out countries, then through organizations such as above they destabilize the economies / governments and then repossess or possess the resources of that country and manipulate the governments of those countries to conform to the agenda of the NWO Illuminati.

Note Three: Soros Plan for NWO

By GEORGE SOROS - Nov. 8, 2009  No alternative to a new world architecture

NEW YORK — Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, the world faces another stark choice between two fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and state capitalism.

The former, represented by the United States, has broken down, and the latter, represented by China, is on the rise. Following the path of least resistance will lead to the gradual disintegration of the international financial system. A new multilateral system based on sounder principles must be invented.

While international cooperation on regulatory reform is difficult to achieve on a piecemeal basis, it may be attainable in a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.

A new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the international financial architecture after World War II, is needed to establish new international rules, including treatment of financial institutions considered too big to fail and the role of capital controls. It would also have to reconstitute the International Monetary Fund to reflect better the prevailing pecking order among states and to revise its methods of operation.

In addition, a new Bretton Woods would have to reform the currency system. The postwar order, which made the U.S. more equal than others, produced dangerous imbalances. The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.

The U.S. ought not to shy away from wider use of IMF Special Drawing Rights. Because SDRs are denominated in several national currencies, no single currency would enjoy an unfair advantage.

The range of currencies included in the SDRs would have to be widened even if some of the newly added currencies, including the renminbi, are not fully convertible. This would let the international community press China to abandon its exchange-rate peg to the dollar and be the best way to reduce international imbalances. The dollar could still remain the preferred reserve currency, provided it is prudently managed.

One great advantage of SDRs is that they permit the international creation of money, which is particularly useful at times as now. The money could be directed to where it is most needed. A mechanism that allows rich countries that don't need additional reserves to transfer their allocations to those that do is readily available, using the IMF's gold reserves.

Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially Security Council membership. That process needs to be initiated by the U.S., but China and other developing countries ought to participate as equals. They are reluctant members of Bretton Woods institutions, dominated by countries no longer dominant economically. The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.

The system cannot survive in its present form, and the U.S. has more to lose by not being in the forefront of reforming it. The U.S. is still in a position to lead the world, but without farsighted leadership, its relative position is likely to continue to erode. It can no longer impose its will on others, as George W. Bush's administration sought to do, but it could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the developing world, thereby re-establishing American leadership in an acceptable form.

The alternative is frightening, because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix.

We used to be reassured by the generalization that democratic countries seek peace. After the Bush presidency, that rule no longer holds, if it ever did. In fact, democracy is in deep trouble in America. The financial crisis has inflicted hardship on a population that does not like to face harsh reality.

President Barack Obama has deployed the "confidence multiplier" and claims to have contained the recession. But if there is a "double dip" recession, Americans will become susceptible to all kinds of fear-mongering and populist demagogy. If Obama fails, the next administration will be sorely tempted to create some diversion from troubles at home.

Obama has the right vision. He believes in international cooperation, rather than the might-is-right philosophy of the Bush-Cheney era.

The emergence of the Group of 20 as the primary forum of international cooperation and the peer-review process agreed in Pittsburgh are steps in the right direction. What is lacking is a general recognition that the system is broken and needs to be reinvented.

The financial system did not collapse altogether. The Obama administration made a conscious decision to revive banks with hidden subsidies rather than to recapitalize them on a compulsory basis. Those institutions that survived will hold a stronger market position than ever, and they will resist a systematic overhaul. Occupied with many pressing problems, Obama is unlikely to give reinvention of the international financial system his full attention.

China's leadership needs to be even more farsighted than Obama's. China is replacing the American consumer as the motor of the world economy. Since it is a smaller motor, the world economy will grow slower, but China's influence will rise very fast.

For the time being, the Chinese public is willing to subordinate its individual freedom to political stability and economic advancement. But that may not continue indefinitely — and the rest of the world will never subordinate its freedom to the prosperity of the Chinese state.

As China becomes a world leader, it must transform itself into a more open society that the rest of the world is willing to accept as a world leader. Military power relations being what they are, China has no alternative to peaceful, harmonious development. Indeed, the future of the world depends on it.

George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute. His most recent book is "The Crash of 2008." © 2009 Project Syndicate (

Note Four:  Stop Fox News and the Tea Party

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement. The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90, who are arrayed in neat rows in a giant war room above Massachusetts Avenue.

 “The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

Brock said Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox’s parent company, News Corp., an effort which most likely will involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company’s interests there. The group hired an executive from to work on developing campaigns among News Corp. shareholders and also is looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network.

Note Five: George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution

By Aaron Klein
At least three White House advisers and officials, including President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, "progressive" U.S. Constitution.

WND first reported last week that Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, has been a champion of a Soros-funded doctrine, entitled "responsibility to protect," which was used by Obama to justify engaging in an international military alliance to bomb Libya. As the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, Power reportedly influenced Obama in his decision.

Now it has emerged that Sunstein has maintained extensive ties to Soros' funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020.

Also, Attorney General Eric Holder sat on the board of a Soros-funded group pushing the same "progressive" constitution.

Autographed! Get the book that finally exposes Obama and his team of anti-American radicals: Aaron Klein's "The Manchurian President" at WND's Superstore

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled, "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

That event was sponsored by Soros' Open Society Institute as well as by the Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team. Podesta's Center is said to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the American Constitution Society, or ACS, which has been described as a group meant to counter the work of the Federalist Society, which has been at the forefront of the push for a more conservative judiciary since its launch in 1982.

The ACS is the main organization behind the movement to ensure a more "progressive" constitution, having received more that $2,201,500 from Soros' Open Society since 2002.

Attorney General Holder served on the ACS board of directors.

(Story continues below)

Sunstein has spoken at numerous ACS events. For example, he was a speaker at a November 3, 2003 symposium by the American Constitution Society of the University of Chicago School of Law, where Sunstein was a professor.

But it was the 2005 Yale event led in part by Sunstein that has been described as jumpstarting the movement for a "progressive" constitution.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote at the New York Times Magazine in a 2009 piece about so-called liberal justice: "If this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called 'The Constitution in 2020.'

New 'Bill of Rights'

The Constitution 2020 movement has plotted a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the Yale conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

Sunstein has also been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.

According to Sunstein's new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return while the government is granted power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.

All this and more is contained in Sunstein's 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever."

In the work, Sunstein advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of rights.

In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:

His mandates include the following:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home:

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."

With research by Brenda J. Elliott


Note Six: Signs of Deliberate American Bankruptcy

Note Seven: The Incompetent Puppet President

Note Eight: The Age of People Power

Note Nine: The Coming Sunni-Shiite War  

Note Ten: After America's Bankruptcy

Note Eleven; New plan to Stop Tea Party

Note Twelve: The World is Bankrupt Now

Note Thirteen: Is Obama Having a Mental Breakdown