This is an archived site. Phone numbers, addresses, e-mail links, etc are INVALID. DO NOT PLACE ANY ORDERS.

Frames No Frame

"Helping YOU to Connect
the Global to the Local"
The Women's International Media Group, Inc.
P. O. Box 77 Middletown, MD 21769-0077
301/432-7512 (F) 301/432-7514
Vol. 3, Issue 4 July-August, 2001


By Joan M. Veon, Executive Director


September 1 marks the 8th year in which I have been covering United Nations and UN related meetings. I began with the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in September 1994 and have just returned from my 43rd meeting in Genoa, Italy. With each, I have seen a little bit more of the total global agenda for world control. This time, I was able to understand how the Group of Seven/Group of Eight fit in with regard to a global parliamentary structure.

I have found that as the final stages of world government become apparent, a diversion is needed and necessary in order to continue to keep (primarily) Americans in their present state of slumber and complacency. What the media continues to report on is the protestors. Ever since the Seattle World Trade Organization in November 1999 where violence became the name of the game, it was only used to keep the more visible and final pieces of the global structure hidden.

For those of us who believe that the sovereignty of the United States is being handed over to a global entity called the United Nations and that they constitute the cornerstone of "world government", what I have to report with regard to the 26th meeting of the Group of Seven/Group of Eight will not surprise you. In fact, it will make a lot of sense and provide you with the final pieces. This report may even be controversial because there are dates and times which I cannot ignore any longer for they constitute an astrological pattern known as the Age of Aquarius.


Beginning in 1992 with the UN Conference on the Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, the environment, which reduces man to the equivalent of a plant or animal, became the new global philosophy by which the world and all of its rules and regulations would come into adherence. Part of this perverted philosophy is a concept known as "sustainable development" which all of the countries of the world are implementing, including the United States. In the last nine years, sustainable development has been making its way into all UN and UN related conferences and meetings. Sustainable development has become the standard by which all treaties, agreements, and global documents in the future are to be governed. In effect, the pagan environmental agenda will become part and parcel of all political and non-political activities.

In 1994, a very important building block was added, the World Trade Organization-WTO. The WTO is the final loss of economic sovereignty as trade is now being managed from an international level and not from a national level. All trade borders, with the exception of the last vestiges like farming subsidies and intellectual property rights, have been eliminated. The few remaining will be discussed at the upcoming WTO in November in Qatar.

Beginning in 1996, the Group of Seven (Russia became "Eight" in 1998) started to restructure the global economic infrastructure with very vast and broad changes which required the assistance of a number of global organizations such as the Bank for International Settlements, the IMF/World Bank, the United Nations, the International Organization of Security Commissions and the International Association of Insurance Commissioners. By harmonizing the global economic level, in the future, all national banks will have to come into compliance with a very large set of rules and regulations which will govern where and how they do business. The fact remains that the banking system of all countries will in effect be "taken over" by rules and regulations which come from the international level. This means that national banks will no longer be national but will end up under the control of the Bank for International Settlements. This restructuring shifts more power to the international level from the national.

It should also be mentioned in 1996 that the United Nations held a follow-up meeting to their 1976 meeting on "Habitat". Called "Habitat II", this meeting unveiled the concept of "public-private partnership" which basically is a for-profit business arrangement between multinational corporations and governments. Public-private partnerships are being set up all over the United States and all over the world and constitute a change in the STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT. For the United States, it represents a loss of representative government since the partnership structure shifts telephone systems, water works, utilities and waste water treatment plants, etc. into a new business arrangement which is controlled by those who have the most moneythe corporation. In Genoa, two of the large initiatives which were unveiled international are public-private partnerships, involving the UN, individual nation-states and multinational corporations. Public-private partnerships constitute the "privatization" of government or the buyout of government by business.

In 1998 the International Criminal Court was birthed. For the first time since the Roman Empire, an international power now has the ability to transcend national borders in order to arrest someone who has been charged with an international crime. I have been told by Sen. Hatch that the U.S. will not sign it.

Lastly, in September 2000, the United Nations was given very vast and deep empowerments to its existing structure as it was given the power to add its own "rapid deployment force" and a "People's Parliament" or "House of International Representatives."

However, it is at Genoa that the full Global Parliamentary structure of world government became visible to those who heard the demands of the protestors which was not reported in the mainstream newspapers and television networks. In order to get the historic flavor of this meeting, a brief history of Genoa is provided.


Only Genoa has retained a position of dominance out of Italy's four ancient maritime republics (Venice, Amalfi and Pisa). It has been a trading seaport since the beginning of time as it is at the crossroads between north and south, east and west. Many civilizations have met and mingled here from all the shores. Genoa is Italy's largest and most important port and is second only to Marseille in the Mediterranean.

It became a great sea-faring colonial power, creating a network of economic, cultural and social relations that covered the whole of the Mediterranean. Genoa is called "La Superba" or the Superb City which describes its beautiful gardens, palaces and artbuilt mostly with the Spanish gold which came from America. By the 11th Century, Genoa was one of the leading maritime powers in the Mediterrean.

The Kingdom of Sicily was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II from 1211 to 1250. Frederick was the grandson of Frederick Barbarossa. Frederick II opened Sicily up to free trade, built castles throughout the island and launched the Sixth Crusade in 1227. When Pope Gregory died in 1241, Frederick was hoping the new pope would be friendly. However, Innocent IV, was from Sicily's mortal enemy and determined competitor for economic dominance, Genoa. As a result of years of fighting with Innocent IV, after his death, Frederick's son-in-law was reduced to pawning the Sicilian throne to Genoese businessmen in return for gold.

The Genoese had long nursed dreams of adding Sicily to their domains and considered Frederick II and the Sicilians their arch enemies. Benefitting from the election of Pope Innocent IV, it was the Pope who claimed the Kingdom of Sicily for the Holy See. By 1250 Genoa had a prosperous textile industry, huge shipyards which produced most of the 1800 ships that sailed for St. Louis's crusade in 1248 under the command of Genoese admirals and commercial enterprises of all kinds. Far surpassing these endeavors was their sophistication in banking. The Genoese had lent large sums to both Saint Louis and Innocent IV and had been bankers to just about every important crusader. As a result of the Genoese gold standard, their economy grew in power and prestige.

In 1284, Genoa soundly defeated rival Venice. By this time, Genoa had merchant colonies stretching from the coast of North Africa to Syria, along the Black Sea and in Spain where the Genoese captains became the first to sail to the Canaries and the Azores. It's Golden Age was marred when it was divided into factionsnobles against each other, nobles against the mercantile classes, the merchants against the artisanswhile the ruling families each dominated their own quarter, forming "alberghi" or brotherhoods.

When the city sank deep into debt during its prolonged war with Venice for the eastern Mediterranean, its creditorsGenoa's oligarchsformed a syndicate, the Banco di San Giorgio, to guarantee their increasingly precarious loans. This the bank did by gradually assuming control of the city's overseas territories, castles, towns and treasury. From then on, Genoa was run as a business proposition. [Similar to the public- private partnership which is a corporate buyout of government.] Genoa remained Europe's leading economic power. (The above is directly from two sources: Peter L. Bernstein, The Power of GOLD, the History of an Obsession, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2000 and Dana Facaros and Michael Pauls, Italy, Cadogan Guides, London, 2000).


As a result of severing any relationship the U.S. dollar had to gold in 1971 and the subsequent global currency crises which occurred in 1973, President Nixon called together the presidents and prime ministers of four other countries to meet along with their treasury secretaries in the library of the White House to discuss the world economic system. Two years later, the President of France formalized the meeting of these same countries when they met in Rambouillet, France. By 1977, the number of countries had grown to seven: the United States, Canada, Germany, Japan, France and Great Britain. By 1998, Russia was admitted as a political partner making it the Group of Eight in every area but finances and economics where it remains the Group of Seven.

Over the last twenty-six years, the format and agenda of the G7/G8 has grown immensely. At the end of the meeting, a "Communique" is issued by all of the presidents and prime ministers. Sometimes it can be accompanied by the "Presidents" Report. For the first ten years, the Communique's were up to five pages long, during the next ten years, they grew to between twelve and twenty pages and from 1996 they have been about thirty to forty pages with 2000 being an exception at 110 pages!

Although their initial concern was economic, they started in 1979 to make one line statements regarding pollution, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, food supplies, population growth and relations with developing countries. By 1981, they added East-West relations and in 1984 started to discuss environmental pollution of the water, ground and air.

To show the expansion of their purview, the 1999 G8 Communique discussed globalization, employment, life-long learning, social safeguards, debt-reduction for highly indebted poor countries, sustainable development, climate change, non- proliferation, arms control and disarmament, AIDS, nuclear safety, the Year 2000 computer problem, Kosovo, the Middle East Peace Process, global financial stability, improving crisis prevention and management and involving the private sector, the Financial Stability Forum, the restructuring of the IMF/World Bank system, capital flows, human rights, terrorism, human security, rule of law and good governance. They also signed and agreed on a major "Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe" which states in part, "We will strive to achieve the objective of lasting peace, prosperity and stability for South Eastern Europe. We will reach this objective through a comprehensive and coherent approach to the region involving the EU, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the UN, NATO, the OECD, the WEU, the IFIs [the World Bank and IMF], and the regional initiatives" (emphasis added). You can see the interconnectedness of agencies, countries and international organizations.


Before we take a look at the unfolding power structure of the G7/G8, I would like to share with you two of the interviews that I conducted in Genoa. As a result of my research, I had concluded that the G8 was in effect an "International Executive Branch" of government while the UN constitutes an "International Congress." The first is with Sir Nicholas Bayne now retired who served as Britain's Ambassador to Zaire, the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. He was Sous-Sherpa at the first Group of Five meeting and has been a career member of the British Diplomatic Service. In that capacity he also served as the UK Permanent Representative to the OECD. He is a member of the Royal Institute for International Affairs and in 1992 was made Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George which is the Order of diplomacy given to those who serve as ambassadors overseas or in the foreign, Commonwealth or Colonial services.

Veon: In Birmingham, Tony Blair changed the G8 structure to make it two-tier. Do we have two different systems here that are operating even though they use the same global governance institutions: the BIS, IOSCO, the IMF/World bank? What are we seeing?

Sir N: I think the same sort of trends are emerging in the G8 as you see in the UN. You said they are acting like a cabinet. It's a bit like that way in the UK. The Prime Ministers tries to ensure some compatibility about what his other ministers are doing. It's what we call 'joined up government.'

Veon: There are two structures then. The UN which has a governmental type of structure with the Secretary General, the General Assembly, the Security Council and we have the G8 structure with a G8 cabinet which appears to be forming. Where are these two structures going?

Sir N: The G8 is trying to be more open and accessible to other people. In Japan last year, they brought in NGOs. The meetings of finance and foreign and other ministers are bringing in other people to take part. The Finance Ministers had the heads of the World Bank and the regional development banks come in and take part in their meeting, so that's the way they are bringing other people in.

I interviewed Sir Nicholas first in 1998 in Birmingham and since then at every G8 meeting. At that time I asked him what the role of the multinational corporations was. He replied,

"What the multinational corporations can do is that they can bring investment capital, new technology and management skills to developing countries that need it. It took developing countries quite a long time to understand that they should be going out and attracting private investment rather than worrying about foreign firms buying up their countries. Now all the more successful developing countries realize that multi-national companies bring them in very precious resources, both in terms of cash, technology and in the ways of doing business." This is very important in light of the rise in public-private partnerships and the role of the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum which has been examined in my book, Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince.

The next interview I conducted was with Dr. John Kirton who heads up the unofficial G7/G8 secretariat at the University of Toronto. He is one of the leading experts on the G7/G8 system along with Sir Nicholas who now participates very actively in their activities and reporting at the G8 meetings. I have interviewed John ever since 1996 with the exception of 2000 when I did not cover the G8.

Veon: Based on your capacity and observations, what kind of structural changes are we seeing and have seen in the G8?

Kirton: A major one I think, is a move to engage civil society reaching downwards and other non- G8 countries and international organizations reaching outwards in a full set of things which the summit process does, not only in having greater inputs into the policy making process leading into the decisions later made, but in also the actual delivery of some of the innovative new actions that are being taken (emphasis added). We began to see this process last year in Okinawa. There and in the lead-up to the summit, a much broader range of civil society groups were brought together by the Japanese to gather ideas for what the summit should focus on.

Veon: When did civil society get involved in the G8?

Kirton: Civil society engagement really goes back to the early 1980s in the Summit. In a sense, from the beginning of time you have the long established organized groups. The federation of employers or the federations of labor unions or the federation of agricultural producers come together before the summit and have a meeting, send a letter with demands to their governments who would consult with them. In 1984, it was the beginning of the creation of the other economic summits and a broader ranges of voices which came together and put on [parallel] conferences in the margins of the summit.

Birmingham marked an important step forward because a large number of the major development-oriented NGO's produced a broad coalition of stakeholders, the church groups, the community groups, from average individuals around a central campaign and cause: debt relief for the poorest countries in the world (emphasis added). They pioneered some innovative techniques, moving toward the security perimeters necessary for every summit, joining arms, linking with one another and surrounding the summit peacefully. And it worked. (JV Note: I have been a recipient of these new innovative techniques in Seattle and in Washington, D.C. When not used peacefully they can be very disruptive!)

Veon: In light of the violence now, the fact that civil society is being heard, their demands are getting broader and broader as they push the envelope, what does this really say about the structure of the G8 and the structure of the global governance system?

Kirton: It correctly recognizes that in our intensely interconnected world, many of the problems are also connected. That's why you can't rely on separate, segmented ministerial forums, around [which] the UN family is constructed to address these problems (emphasis added).

Veon: At the Millennium Summit, the UN was given great empowerments. (I showed him a chart I was working on, see next page) What do we have? Is there some overlap? Is this two tier? How should it look?

Kirton: I think the best way to look at it is to say that globalization has brought an increasing need for global governance in which countries come together to see how the world global community can be managed (emphasis added). There are two international institutional systems to provide that global governance. One is the UN family which was designed in 1945, a time well before our current problems existed or where known. Then there is the G7/G8 created in 1975. It's a more modern instrument, but it's a far more flexible interest because it is not imprisoned by a particular charter and by a massive bureaucracy of international civil servants who have grown rich doing things the old ways.

In some cases, the UN has a lot to contribute and the G7 quite properly tries to give direction to the UN system, even to reform the UN system to say, 'get on with the job' (emphasis added). And the G7 in its own work depends importantly on the broader support and legitimization that the UN can provide. In many areas when the UN was designed with this array of functional agencies in 1945, [today's] problems weren't known. There is no adequate machinery to solve the problems.

Veon: What does that make the UN? They will be adding a People's Parliament, they have a rapid deployment force coming onboard, the position of Secretary General and the Security Council has been strengthened.

Kirton: Almost never does the UN meet at the level of leaders. Basically it's delivered by international civil servants, by tax-free diplomats. It is also the prisoner of its own bureaucracy. Again, richly rewarded people who

don't pay taxes in its many big buildings littered around the world (emphasis added). Also because it is universal, has all the countries of the world essentially within it, it is dominated by dictators. So basic democratic principleswe believe in human rights, we think genocide is wrongthey don't flourish because in institutions basically dominated by dictators you can't get consensus on that or implement them (emphasis added). Of course at the heart of the system is the Security Council. So it is not a club that's going to produce movement on the kind of shared values that a world which has massively embraced democracy since the end of the Cold War is very comfortable in relying on to move us ahead.

Veon: Is this what we see? Is this the two tier system?

Kirton: I think that's right in the sense that the G8 is the effective center of global governance defacto, the cabinet (emphasis added). It's where the real decisions are taking place, where the real political impetus comes from.

Veon: What does this make Kofi Annan?

Kirton: He would be the Secretary to the cabinet in parliamentary tradition. Perhaps at best, the chief of staff in the White House would be the equivalent (emphasis added).

Veon: Give me a parallel to parliamentary government with what we are seeing here.

Kirton: In parliamentary systems such as Canada's or Britain's, even though you have a deputy minister who is the Chief Civil Servant in each individual department, you also have a Chief Civil Servant for the government as a whole. Secretary to the Cabinet is the term. The Chief Civil Servant amongst all the civil servants. Someone responsible for making sure that the decisions taken by the democratically elected leaders are actually executed by the hired help. It's the Chief Civil Servant that has to make sure that responsibilities get shared, that one department can't blame inaction on another, that they actually work together to get the job done (emphasis added). Kofi Annan is in a good position to do some of that job as the head Civil Servant of the UN system, which has an impressive array of specialized agencies [ranging] from food to agriculture to nuclear energy to civil aviation. But Kofi Annan has uncertain authority over many of the elements of the UN system at large.

In 1998, I interview Dr. Kirton and asked him about the new format which Tony Blair had set in place. His reply was,

"The G8 is emerging as the center of global governance in the new era. What we are seeing are so many subjects that were dealt with domestically like crime, employment, now at the center internationally with the G8 being the club that looks at them in a way that the UN can't or won't. Not only looking at them, but making decision that will count in the lives of individual citizens that will make it easier for all our peoples to get better jobs and to go to bed feeling more safe at night knowing that 7 or 8 powerful governments are actively cooperating to stem the flow of drugs into the US, to make sure that it is harder to get illegally smuggled firearms, the make sure for law abiding Americans that action is being taken to prevent the illegal smuggling of people from Asia and elsewhere into the U.S. We are at a world wherein most of the members of the President Clinton's cabinet are actively engaged in the work of the G7right across the agendainfectious disease, climate change, nuclear safety and trade (emphasis added). You see the G7 acting in ways that will determine the lives of average Americans over the next year and beyond." Note: It was in Birmingham that Tony Blair announced that all of the G7-G8 countries had so many similar domestic problems that they needed to work together!

Summary of the Interviews

1. We are seeing "joined up government" in the inter-relationship between the G8 and the United Nations. The present parliamentary structure really started to come into being when Tony Blair changed the meeting times of the foreign and finance ministers so that they would meet separate from the Summit heads. Note how this small change becomes terribly significant! Kirton said, "the G7 properly tries to give direction to the UN system, even to reform it and to say, 'get the job done'."

2. The rise of a border-less world has moved us into "globalization" which has, in the words of Dr. Kirton, "Brought an increasing need for global governance in which countries come together to see how the world global community can be managed. [T]he G8 is the effective center of global governance defacto."

3. Civil society has become very visible at the G7/G8 meetings when they staged their first non-violent protest in 1998 in Birmingham. According to Kirton, "A move to engage civil society reaching downwards and the other non-G8 countries and international organizations, reaching outwards in a full set of things which the summit process does, not only in having greater inputs into the policy making process leading into the decisions later made."

4. Kofi Annan's position is that he is a "Chief Civil Servant amongst all the civil servants." According to Kirton, "Someone who is responsible for making sure that the decisions taken by the democratically elected leaders are actually executed." In more real terms, he is a quarter-back, ensuring that all the plays get played. This function became very clear when Kofi Annan scolded the presidents and prime ministers for only being able to contribute $1.8B to a new global AIDS Trust Fund when the UN needs $10B a year. This action constitutes the very first. The Secretary-General is not a regular attendee at G8 meetings and furthermore, he was only there for one night and did not give any press conference.


A new phenomenon occurred in November 1999 at the Seattle World Trade Organization meeting. Violent protests were allowed to break out. I was on the ground in Seattle for about seven hours that day. I personally watched the protestors devolve into violence. Throughout the day I kept asking the police, who were positioned throughout the city area, when they were going to do something and they told me they had no orders. Basically my Constitutional rights were transferred to the protestors as I had no rights and no police protection as the police even refused to escort me into the Media Building. Several days later I asked someone who appeared to know high level matters where the order to restrain the police came from. He told me the Mayor's Office.

So what did they protest? Globalization, endangered whales, worker rights in Mexico and debt relief. Since then, the protestors or the "professionally paid protestors" have traveled from one international conference to the next. They have protested at the IMF/World Bank meeting in the spring, 2000, the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2000, the Summit of the Americas in April 2001, and in other countries. Now Genoa.

You heard all about the protestors but their demands went unreported. They demanded a global tax in order to pay for the AIDS Trust, the HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) debt relief, as well as a multitude of other welfare programs in the United Nations Millennium Summit document. These include: cutting the number of people living in poverty, who are hungry and who lack access to safe drinking water; achieving universal primary education for all; a reduction of 75% in maternal mortality; to halt and reverse the spread of AIDS and to provide special assistance to AIDS orphans and to improve the lives of 100 million slum dwellers.

To provide you with the kind of money this will require, the cost to reduce by half the people living in extreme poverty is estimated at $10 billion a year, the cost of universal primary education is $9 billion a year and the cost to upgrade the lives of slum dwellers is $500 per person or $50 billion. These are tall orders. Obviously in order to substantiate a global tax, you need problems and expenses just as big!

Personally, I find it quite interesting that the poor in Africa have been kept poor as a result of a continuous stream of brutal dictators like Idi Amin and others. I think of the aid raised for Ethiopia by popular singers and rock stars which rotted at the port because the government refused to transport it to those starving. Then there are all of the wars which are being fought in South Africa over gold, diamonds, water and dams. Africa is extremely rich in minerals, yet they are starving. The United Nations has needed to perpetuate poverty so that they could effect a major TRANSFER OF WEALTH program. Think about it, the countries which endorse socialism, Marxism and Communism have TRANSFER OF WEALTH at the center. America is the only country in the world in which TRANSFER OF WEALTH was not part of our political philosophy. Who has the most to lose? AMERICA.


I have been following a global tax since 1994 when I discovered while researching the United Nations that it was the "unofficial" agenda for the Social Summit which was held six months after the population reduction conference in Egypt. The UN chose to use that meeting to introduce on an unofficial basis the whole idea of a global tax to the Summit's reporters.

Six months before the Summit, the United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report called for a "New World Social Charter where the world would redistribute wealth as it cannot survive 1/4 rich and 3/4's poor and where the UN must become the principal custodian of global human security and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization and family planning" and a global tax to find sources of money for the UN so that it can fulfill its mandates, among other things.

In Copenhagen, I asked Dr. Inge Kaul, who wrote the 1994 Human Development Report, why the countries of the world should provide the UN with a global tax which would give them an income of $150B more than their 1993 budget. This absolutely cunning woman stuttered through seven minutes of reply which included, "I would hope that it would come to the UN, the money has somehow slipped away from us. I think it would be only logical that the money comes back to the UN."

The Tobin Tax

Dr. James Tobin of Princeton suggested back in the 1970's, a tax on international currency transactions as a way to protect the dollar from unwanted advances and changes in value as a result of Nixon severing gold from the dollar. In 1994, it was absolutely brilliant of Dr. Kaul to adopt the idea of the Tobin Tax for an international global tax as a way to fund UN projects. In 1994 she recommended a minuscule tax of .005 of 1% on the $1.5T dollars which moved around the world on a daily basis looking for the highest return. This would have provided the UN with $150B a year. Today more than $1.9T moves around the world and the protestors are demanding a full 1% (I sure this gives room to maneuver down to maybe « of 1%!).

Although the Tobin Tax made it to the G7 Finance Ministers Report, after all these years, they basically said they were against it. In the meantime, Canada, France, Belgium and Italy declared their support for it. The fact that it is in the G7 Report automatically gives it great attention. Lastly, in this regard, the UN is hosting a "Financing for Development" Conference in 2002 in which a number of global taxes are part of the agenda shows that a global tax is the final piece necessary for world government.

Financing for Development

In December 2000, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Dr. Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico to head a panel that will advise him on ways to fulfill the financing needs of the world's developing countries. Those serving on the panel include former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. In June 28 of this year, the Panel released their recommendations. A conference is scheduled for March 18-22, 2002 in Monterrey Mexico.

In order to meet the needs outlined above which are from the Millennium Declaration, their initial recommendations include:

1. A Global Council to be established at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance.

2. With regard to issues of labor and environmental standards, they should be consolidated into a single entity, the Global Environmental Organization which should have the equivalent standing of the World Trade Organization or the IMF and World Bank.

3. New sources of finance should be considered: a tax on currency (the Tobin Tax) which still needs "rigorous technical study and feasibility." A carbon tax is a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels.

4. The establishment of an International Tax Organization (the panel will study the benefits).

Please note that while the Tobin would not be directly felt by you and I. The carbon tax would most certainly increase our cost of living dramatically!


I met President Bush in Genoa by being in a place where I was not supposed to be. I ended up in the building where the Bush-Putin press briefing was being held only to be escorted out of the building since I did not have a White House press pass. I decided to wait since the President's limousine was parked outside of the building. When Bush came out I was able to call out to him. I said, "Mr. President is the world at peace?" He came over to me and said, "My fellow American." I said, "Yes sir! Is the world at peace?" He did not answer and started to move away. I said, "Mr. President you didn't answer my question." He said, "I did too." (He did not know I was not White House press.) I asked again and he replied, "We are at peace." I then said to him for he was now in the same position as when I first called out to him, "Is this the New World Order your father spoke about?" No answer.


I think most of us remember a very popular song which was popular in the 1980's, called "The Age of Aquarius." Interestingly, there is more truth in the timing of songs and movies than we probably will ever know. I have been personally interested, since covering UN and UN-related meetings with regard to whether or not there is a full moon. I remember looking out my hotel window during the activities of the UN 50th Anniversary in San Francisco in June 1995 and seeing a full moon. Throughout the years, I have been fascinated by the number of full moons while covering these global meetings. In the occult, the New Moon/Full Moon are satanic feast days. In the 26 years, 19 of the past G7/G8 meetings have been new (6) or full (13) moon. In speaking with two different experts in the occult and witchcraft, I find that "there is more than meets the eye." Let's take a look at UN timing.

The "Age of Aquarius" began with the dawn of the third millennium on 12/31/99. What is significant about the Age of Aquarius is that it is 1000 years long and it marks the BEGINNING of the third 1000 year period on the earth. The move from one 1000 year period to another comprises a major stellar shift. The world is coming out of the Age of Pisces. The Age of Aquarius comes into full force on March 21, 2002, at its apex. The inner circle of the zodiac deal with 12 signs which are 30 days long.

If you will recall there was great hype about "Y2K". Y2K or the Internet was the wiring of the world for world government. Nine months later the UN Millennium Summit was held. This meeting is extremely significant. The presidents, prime ministers, kings and princes of this world voted to expand and empower the United Nations by adding a rapid deployment force and a "People's Parliament." You could say, "The baby was birthed." In July 2001, the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons" was held. During the time of the conference Friday the 13th occurred. In July 2001, the G8 Summit was held in which Bush declared the world is as peace. I am told by experts that the time between July 2001 to November 2001 constitutes an "occult power bridge" which is a cross-over point. It symbolizes the time for fast movement. In November 2001, the World Food Summit will take place during the time of the first full moon of that month. More significantly, March 21 2002, is the MIDPOINT of the AGE OF AQUARIUS as the zodiac now moves to the sign of Aries. Interestingly enough, the Financing for Development Conference will be held March 18-22, during the midpoint of the Age of Aquarius. Is this baloney or is it the real thing? Is it a coincidence or was it planned? Does it have meaning or is it bunk?

(Note: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore, take on the full armor of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day." Eph. 6:12, 13)


In summary, let me end with my question to Tony Blair. My question was, "We are meeting in historic GenoaChristopher Columbus and the new world. Are we indeed in a New World?"

Blair: Are we seeing a new world? I think there is this sense that out of the G8 Summit this year that the real threat that faces countries such as our own, the real threat is the threat of instability, chaos, disorder, fundamentalism, terrorism and if you like, the man made challenges like climate change. The interesting thing is of course that even though there will be divergent opinions around the table, some countries will want to go further on some issues and others may disagree on other issuesthe general sense is that there is a community of interest in providing stability and order both in terms of the economy and in terms of world security within which those differences can be resolved (emphasis added).

Bottom Line

We are in a global parliamentary form of government. We now have the presidents and prime ministers acting as one within a frame of reference which allows "consensus" which allows divergent opinions but the same agenda. What you and I will see as we go forward is the completion of this global parliamentary structure--the addition of the last key components which include: one or two forms of global taxation, an International Taxation Authority, an International Environmental Authority and a Global Commission on Global Governance.

I don't believe that where these meetings are held is a mistake. Genoa, in my opinion, was chosen because it was the birthplace of Christopher Columbus, and because the Genoese banks ended up taking government over. When you consider the Bush-Putin press briefing in which Bush declared, "We're basically saying the Cold War is forever over and the vestiges of the Cold War that locked us both into a hostile situation is over. We are exploring the opportunity to redefine that strategic framework for keeping [not] the peace that existed in the past, but a strategic framework as we go out in the 21st Century" (emphasis added). Couple this with the global tax demands of the protestors which is the last piece of world government and my answer to my own question to Bush is that, "Yes, we are in the NEW WORLD ORDER WHICH APPEARS TO BE THE AGE OF AQUARIUS."

What this report is all about is the control of you and I and the resources of the earth. It is inconceivable in the minds of most people that this could happen, however, I have be an eye-witness over the last seven years to its power and structure. We have not felt its power but as the final pieces come into being, life will change dramatically.

I am reminded that the Christian church was birthed during world government. The early Christians understood Roman rule. They worked around it but did not participate. In the future, great discernment will be needed in order to live. If anything, this newsletter is a forewarning.