In a recent article, this reporter expressed some doubts as to the accidental nature of the BP Oil Spill, now herald as the largest environmental disaster the earth has ever seen. One could argue that The Great Flood still holds that particular title, but that would lead us two-by-two down an entirely different rabbit trail of debates. While rabbit trails do not interest us today, rabbit holes are of a different matter. That being said, let’s dive down a few, shall we?
First, let’s establish a few facts:
1.) Obama received large campaign contributions from BP.
2.) Obama received large campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs (Second only to The University of California in total campaign contributions).
3.) These companies, along with a slew of others, have been said to be holdings of the Rothschild Banking Family of England, as reported by the AmericaFreePress.net:
“Goldman Sachs is obviously an arm of their empire, whereas BP is among a host of companies in [the] Rothschild’s portfolio.”
Now that we're here, let’s explore a bit further…
Goldman Sachs owns at least 10 percent of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a huge benefactor should 'cap and trade' be passed into law. CCX was founded by the Joyce Foundation, an organization who's board members included John Ayers (brother of William Ayers) and our very own, Barak Obama when he was a Illinois Senator. Needless to say, 'cap and trade' would amount to trillions of dollars in profit for CCX and its holders, not to mention a little more campaign moola and additional financial perks for Mr. Obama.
Enter the cooling on global warming
Unfortunately, 'cap and trade' ironically hit a proverbial iceberg. The New York Times recently reported that the ‘cap and trade’ bill was virtually dead and sinking in the water with little to no support to be found on Capitol Hill, or any other hill for that matter. The bill lost steam due to opponents of the bill successfully re-christening it “cap and tax” and pointing out its blatant overhaul of private property rights. Not to mention, no one wanted to touch it as the growing doubts and evidence against the idea of global warming began to solidify like the ice on the Arctic shelf.
Despite the growing evidence against it, the theory of global warming has been the reason for large international summits in recent years, namely one that was just held in Copenhagen late last December. Proclaimed for months as the summit to finally yield the granddaddy of all environmental treaties, talks during the Copenhagen summit severely broke down and no binding treaty was reached due to the doubts surrounding GW.
During this summit, David Rothschild, "adventurer environmentalist" and an heir apparent to the Rothschild financial empire, in an interview with Bloomberg (see video below) made the admission – through a series of stuttering verbal bumbles – that the talks in Copenhagen were actually about “global governance” rather than global warming. Why is David Rothschild discussing a treaty about global warming on a financial channel? Wouldn't it be more likely that this "environmentalist adventurer" would be found on National Geographic or the Discovery Channel? Global govern…uh, er… global warming rather, must be big business. Like the old adage says, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. Maybe a new one could be coined that says, “Where there’s a Rothschild, there’s money to be made.”
The Rothschilds aren't the only one letting the global governance cat out of the bag. Others have made recent mention of one world rule. Herman Van Rompuy, the first “president of Europe”, made strong mention of it in his first press conference on November 19, 2009, going so far as to declare 2009 as the “first year of global governance”. However, without the environmental laws and treaties, this utopia ruled by the banking families of the world may continue only to be a dream in the pipeline.
Curiouser and curiouser…
This being said, is it not within the realm of possibility that the powerful family who holds BP is using it, and our government, as a “fall guy” creating an environmental crisis to fill the void left by the waning theory of global warming? What does a multi-billion dollar company matter when trillions are at stake, right? BP is merely a financial chess piece sacrificed as means to a much more lucrative end - checkmate: environmental law and treaties designed to take away individual property rights away forever and secure global governance – and trillions of dollars of global cash flow – for the richest family this world has ever seen.
And we thought Alice in Wonderland was twisted.
Comments
Wow......
At the beginning of this article I didn't know where you were going with this exactly, but by the time I got to the end it all totally makes sense...
I like the way you have put the background to this. FDR said that nothing happens in government that is not planed. I think you are on to something in this story. There is really a bigger picture behind the curtain. How deep does this rabbit hole go?
What about the reports of explosions under the rig that caused the leak. Everyone has forgotten to think about what caused the explosion. Fishing boats are regularly found under these platforms. Just sayin... sounds strange to me.
I'd be careful tossing around the term "reporter." Lot of conspiracy and not citing sources going on here. If you honestly believe President Obama (not "Mr. Obama") has orchestrated a massive environmental disaster in collusion with a shadowy worldwide organization, brother, you gotta lay off the James Bond marathon on SpikeTV.
Mr Anonymous (or should I call you president, too?) Some reporters don't cite their sources for good reason and others link them to the article...or did you not realize what that little blue hyperlink is? You ever heard of a commentary? And where do you think screenwriters get their ideas....isn't truth often stranger than fiction? I think you should lay off the blind liberalism unless you're simply too scared to think that your precious president is killing America.
Mr Anonymous (or should I call you president, too?) Some reporters don't cite their sources for good reason and others link them to the article...or did you not realize what that little blue hyperlink is? You ever heard of a commentary? And where do you think screenwriters get their ideas....isn't truth often stranger than fiction? I think you should lay off the blind liberalism unless you're simply too scared to think that your precious president is killing America.
Suggesting the use of "President" rather than "Mr." is nothing more than respect for the Office. You don't have to like him, but that's the title conferred to him. It's a "Hate the sin, love the sinner" sort of logic. I would also submit that nothing in my brief, somewhat snarky comment betrays any liberal sympathies. Thirdly, I'm quite aware of a hyperlink, given this is not the first time I've ever used the Internet (It's the third). To keep it thrifty, merely attaching a link to someone else's reportage does not source citing make. It's unfortunate, that in these interesting times anyone can slap "Reporter" in front of their by-line w/out any of the requisite training, and it's doubly unfortunate that his/her defenders are a bunch of aggressive, knee-jerk insulting cretins. For the record, I'm not referring to anyone else, just you.
Anonymous, that was a knee-slapper! And I'm not even being sarcastic for once. I do hope that the fourth time you use the Internet that you see I highly respect your debate. I'm assuming you're a journalist of sorts from your correct usage of AP style? or just smart, but either way...I extend my hand. I like your point on the pre-requisites of a reporter. It is true, it seems that anyone these days can say whatever they want and call it reporting or journalism, when there are people—perhaps such as yourself—that have slaved through school and studied hard, maybe even gave up drinking games and a social life, to acquire the title and privilege. My question to you: do you think that journalists have stayed pure in their aspired calling or do you think that many have been bought out by the system and propaganda of the mainstream media? What is your opinion of the "citizen journalist"–and I do not mean some quack on the street, but an educated person who is truly interested in the stories?
Cheers. Too often comment sections underneath articles get clogged with people yelling "First!" and links to, shall we say, dubious websites. I appreciate a clever back and forth. As far as giving up drinking, no journalist worth their Press Badge would even dream of such madness. Now, then, to address the unholy terror that is, "Mainstream Media." To wit: there is no such thing. It would be simpler, wouldn't it, to believe cigar-ed men were meeting in mohaghany rooms plotting, with glowing maps and whatnot, but that's simply not the case. The people making the decisions are middle-aged former Real Estate agents who got a job in sales when their Spec House didn't sell and whose kids now need corrective dental work. I'd love it if there was a vast conspiracy, but, alas, our stupid species can't agree on anything. Citizen journalism is becoming terribly important, look to last year in Iran or Palestine for
fine examples.
Part 2 (ran outta space)
New Media journos should, if they find their more successful brothers and sisters to be lacking, not just gripe and attack, but, rather, hold themselves to a higher standard and beat them at their own game. Nothing in the world can replace On-The-Ground reportage, and having a well-educated, literate citizenry is paramount to that. Buncha ten dollar words there. Best thing to do: get a copy of the AP style book (not cheap and the new one just came out), memorize it, and swing for the fences, remembering you're a reporter first and an Op-Ed columnist second, and if that's too difficult, just write Op-Ed. However, just like Church and State, they must be kept separate, or the whole machine breaks down. And machines are good things, when used properly.
I leave for a day at the office (no social life or drinking games for me, sadly) to come back and find you've written a damn book. I like it. Well said, except that I do think the human capabilities of a possible "Illuminati-esque" scheme for world takeover could be possible...I mean, Hitler was a vegetarian painter and who saw that combo going south? I shrug as I say that. The gripe and attack method of most crap pieces of new media poses a definitive bane to the need for people to stand up and proclaim what's on their mind. I'm usually impressed when I can find someone knows how to spell, let alone put facts together when the citizen journalist lacks professional connection to the press wire. Before I end up writing an undoubtedly compelling piece of literature of my own, I raise my proverbial glass in honor of our uncanny ability to bring a comment thread to a new level. Bet they don't see this in the Times. Cheers.
Mr Thayer, how you can think this crazy. You are obvioucly brainwashed
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!