Archive for the ‘America’s Future’ Category

This May Change a Lot of Concepts -California Labor Commission: Uber Driver Is Employee

by Matthew Feeneyuber-logoUber,
According to the California Labor Commission, a San Francisco-based Uber driver who filed a claim against the rideshare company is an employee and not, as Uber argued, an independent contractor. The ruling orders Uber to pay the driver about $4,000 for expenses.

The ruling, which Uber considers non-binding, could potentially have devastating implications for the rideshare company in California. If similar rulings are issued regarding other rideshare companies like Lyft or sharing economy players such as Airbnb, Instacart, and TaskRabbit, we could see the growth of these popular and innovative companies stifled as they cope with the costs associated with having providers classified as employees.

The California Labor Commission ruling states that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.” It is true that Uber provides a technology and that it carries out background checks on drivers. But Uber does not provide vehicles or set any hours or for its rideshare drivers. In fact, according to research on Uber wages conducted by Princeton economist Alan Krueger and Uber’s Jonathan Hall, only 38 percent of Uber drivers rely on Uber as their sole source of income.

Regulators and lawmakers ought to realize that Uber drivers, who are often driving for Uber part-time while using their own vehicles on their own schedule, shouldn’t be treated the same as traditional workers.

Uber might seem like something relatively new given that it relies on users hailing rides with smartphones, but fundamentally it is making a very familiar experience easier. People were offering car rides in exchange for money long before the rise of the Internet, let alone smartphones. What makes Uber and other rideshare companies like Lyft so popular is that if someone wants a ride, they no longer have to find a friend ready and willing to give a ride at a particular time or stand on a street corner waving their hands in the hope of hailing a taxi. Rather, they can simply open an app and find a driver who is ready and willing to give a ride in exchange for a fare in a matter of minutes.

Uber and the sharing economy more broadly fit awkwardly into existing regulatory frameworks, but this should be welcomed as an opportunity to revise outdated regulations and laws, not an opportunity to regulate popular new companies as if they are the older incumbents they are competing with.

As the commission itself noted, Uber would not exist without drivers like the one who filed the claim. Certainly, Uber as we know it will become a very different company if its drivers in California are classified as employees. It will begin to look more like its traditional competitors rather than an innovative technology company, which would be a great shame.

The Pale Blue Dot

Social Security: To Draw or Not to Draw? That is the Question

I have just turned 66.  All my friends, family, colloquies, and people in line at Walmart tell me I should apply for benefits since now I can draw “Full” benefits and keep working which is the boomer generations equivalent of having a Winnebago and being a Snowbird.

First a word about “Full” benefits; every once in a while, on a seemingly random basis I receive a statement from the Social Security Commissar that tells me what’s supposedly my hypothetical Social Security Account  is in Bill Clinton’s mythical lock box.  When my turn in the barrel rolls around and I am lucky enough to win a report I notice that it always tells me if I am disabled I will receive X-1, is I claim benefits at 62 I receive X, If I wait and claim benefits at 66 I receive X+1, and if I wait until I am 70 I receive X+2.  So how does 66 equate to full benefits?

Perhaps it is because at 66 I can receive my X+1 and still keep working making 10X with no penalty?  This is what leads me to my current conundrum.

I hear from all sides, “You have paid into this system your whole working life.  That is your money.”  I also hear, “You’d be crazy not to take it.”  And of course, “They owe it to you.”

The problem is I know that every cent I ever involuntarily contributed to the Social Security Ponzi Scheme was spent at least 10 years before they confiscated my contribution.  I also know that to give me my X+1 they are going to confiscate a contribution from some poor working millennial who is making X or maybe even X-1 just to keep the illusion of solvency going.  Then every time I accept the automatic deposit of my fiat money my acceptance and my silence keeps the FDR’s great Ponzi Scheme going, and I have just become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Can anyone say Cloward-Piven Strategy?

According to Richard Poe, “First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

Yes, I know I have had money confiscated by Uncle Sam since I drew my first paycheck.  Yes, I know that this is legal and I know that the rules of the system say I can now draw a monthly check.  However I also know that to pay me the government can pretend all they want that it is somehow related to the money they have confiscated from me, and I know they will pay me by making money magically appear in my account each month.  I also know that this money is backed by nothing more than borrowing from our foreign creditors or putting more IOUs in the mythical lock-box.

I don’t know if there is anyone else going through this type of anguish about whether or not to draw money from Social Security. Is it just me?

I feel like a square peg in a round hole.  A boomer who hasn’t worried, “Will Social Security be there when I am ready to retire.”  A boomer who hasn’t reached the gateway to X+1 who isn’t singing:

So long sad times, go long bad times
We are rid of you at last
Howdy gay times, cloudy gray times
You are now a thing of the past

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let’s sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again.

Instead I am conflicted and lamenting for my beloved memory of a constitutionally limited government, personal liberty, and economic opportunity as I sigh:

The party’s over
It’s time to call it a day
They’ve burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
It’s time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up the piper must be paid.

Recent headlines like, “It may be time to put some money under the mattress” over stories filled with advice from some of the world’s largest hedge fund managers it should at least give people pause for thought.  When we as a people keep charging our Visa to our MasterCard and then charging our MasterCard to our Discover and then getting a cash advance on our Visa to pay our Discover how long can we keep asking ourselves in the middle of the night, “How can this go wrong?”  When we as a nation have Alfred E. Newman for a leader asking, “What, me worry?” how long it will be before we are saying, “That which I have feared has come upon me.”

It is thoughts like these that have me swaying both ways.  On one hand I don’t want to be part of the problem.  On the other I honestly believe we have passed the tipping point so what does it matter?

If anyone else is having this inner debate I would love to hear from you.  Or am I alone in this, and are my beliefs in limited government, individual liberty, and economic freedom merely a nostalgic impediment to my enjoyment of our shabby progressive utopia.

I have never wondered, “Would the money be there for me when I reach retirement age?” Why, because I have always known the government would continue to transfer the money even if they don’t bother to print it or if they have to borrow it from China or steal it from future generations. They will never stop transferring the money because to do so will be to expose the fact that the emperor has no clothes and it has been a Ponzi scheme all along. So don’t worry, you will get the electronic transfer even if it will only buy a loaf of bread by the time you get it.

Should I sign on the dotted line and let Social Security pay back my student loans as the serpent of socialism eats its own tail?

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ © 2015 Contact Dr. Owens Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens


‘Rise Above Hatred’ – Ben Carson Speaks Out After Church Shooting


by Alex Pappas
Ben Carson on Thursday spoke out against the mass shooting in Charleston, S.C., saying he hopes America can “rise above hatred and join hands.”What do you think?

In a statement released by his presidential campaign, the former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon said:What do you think?

The tragic shootings in Charleston, South Carolina yesterday are a manifestation of the evil that has gripped our society. Many of us have allowed the purveyors of hatred and division to create conflict between the races, the genders, religious groups, age groups and income groups. The Bible says that a house divided against itself cannot stand. With external jihadist forces trying to destroy us, why would we aid them by engaging in self-destructive behaviors stimulated by hate?What do you think?

We must remember that we are a pluralistic society with many components and many beliefs. If we are to live together peacefully and with prosperity, we must learn the true meaning of tolerance, and that it goes in both directions.What do you think?

I join with millions of Americans in praying for comfort for the families who lost loved ones in that tragedy. Someone close to me lost relatives last night in that tragedy. We all lose when senseless tragedies like this remove vibrant lives from our midst. May God give us the ability to rise above hatred and join hands and recognize that our strength is in our unity and love heals all wounds.What do you think?

Read more:



There is an urban legend that there is a looming Bourbon Supply Crisis. (Heaven Forfend!) Meanwhile, American Pharoah, as expected, won the Kentucky Derby. Both circumstances contain a homey lesson about the Federal Reserve System’s conduct of monetary policy.
Let’s start with bourbon. According to a recent article by Jake Emen in, Is the U.S. Poised to Run Out of Bourbon? dispelling the myth of a looming bourbon shortage:
The demand for bourbon is overwhelming. In the past decade, there has been a nearly 40 percent growth in sales of bourbon and Tennessee whiskey in the United States, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS).
“We’re growing so dramatically that we’ve outgrown any reasonable expectations,” says Jim Rutledge, Master Distiller of Four Roses, one of the iconic, major Kentucky bourbon distilleries. “It’s just out of sight.”

Meanwhile, an IWSR survey commission by Vinexpo projects that global bourbon sales are predicted to increase nearly 20 percent more in the next five years. Not everyone has faith in those numbers though, and plans based upon future growth have come back to hurt distillers in the past.
“Long-range findings in this business is really long-range guessing, and I wouldn’t even call it educated guessing,” explains Rutledge. “It’s very difficult to determine consumer trends, and looking back at previous years and what’s been happening, that obviously didn’t work.”
The only thing worse than not having enough whiskey to sell to people is having vast rickhouses lined with whiskey-filled barrels that nobody wants to buy. It happened in the 1970s as many American consumers shifted away from whiskey, instead turning toward vodka and rum. This led to the demise and consolidation of brands, and it’s a hard-learned lesson which remains in the back of everyone’s mind even in today’s bullish bourbon market.
“Vast rickhouses lined with whiskey-filled barrels that nobody wants to buy….” Kentucky has more barrels of this elixir of the gods (4.7 million) than it does … citizens (4.3 million) reports The Atlantic Wire. Even this doughty bourbon drinker would have a problem making a material dent in a liquidity crisis of the magnitude described by Mr. Emen….
Now imagine how vastly more complex is the calculus for the demand for… dollars. Quantum physicist Niels Bohr once crisply observed, “It is exceedingly difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”
The Fed, while operating with astonishing impunity, is by no means exempt from Bohr’s Aphorism. Dr. Richard Rahn, in the Washington Times:
The Federal Reserve had forecast the U.S. economy to grow about 4 percent near the beginning of each year for the last five years. But during each year, the Fed was forced to reduce its forecast until it got to the actual number of approximately 2 percent. (Other government agencies have been making equally bad forecasts.) These mammoth errors clearly show that the forecast models the official agencies use are mis-specified and contain incorrect assumptions.
Even the occasional career Fed official, among others, admits — here and there — how unreliable is the modeling proves.
Is there a better way? Indeed, and the recent win by American Pharoah in the Kentucky Derby suggests it. American Pharoah was the odds-on favorite… and won. While upsets occur, and with some regularity. That’s what makes horseraces! That said, the odds, set by the bettors, consistently track pretty well with reality (or betting on horseraces simply would cease to occur).
Group intelligence consistently proves a better judge than does experts, however talented and well equipped (such as the Fed’s hundreds of PhD economists). As James Suriowiecki wrote in his bestselling The Wisdom of Crowds:
A classic demonstration of group intelligence is the jelly-beans-in-the-jar experiment, in which invariably the group’s estimate is superior to the vast majority of the individual guesses. When finance professor Jack Treynor ran the experiment in his class with a jar that held 850 beans, the group estimate was 871. Only one of the fifty-six people in the class made a better guess. …
[T]he group’s guess will not be better than that of every single person in the group each time. In many (perhaps most) cases, there will be a few people who do better than the group. … But there is no evidence in these studies that certain people consistently outperform the group. In other words, if you run ten different jelly-bean-counting experiments, it’s likely that each time one or two students will out-perform the group. But they will not be the same students each time.
Suriowiecki writing, in 2004, at “Just as Google’s PageRank encapsulates the knowledge of Web users, so does a market price embody, as the economist Friedrich Hayek suggested, all of the tacit knowledge and wisdom of investors and traders.”
One lesson from both the bourbon industry and the Kentucky Derby has to do with the folly of central planning. Central planning is a widely discredited practice to which elite monetary (and other) economists, Fed officials, and rainbow-unicorn-chasing Progressives still bitterly cling. Yet the historical data persuade me that a “Treynor Rule” would be functionally superior to the Taylor Rule, or NGDP targeting.
By allowing the markets themselves to determine their desired liquidity balances, a great deal of inefficiency is subtracted from the markets. No longer would $5.3 trillion a day be exchanged, as now, to hedge the risks of, or speculate on, currency fluctuation.
Historically, the way markets were allowed to determine their desired liquidity balances — and, in the process, set the economy’s interest rates in an organic way — was by the monetary authorities defining the nation’s money as, and making it convertible to, a fixed weight of gold … and adhering to the “rules of the game” to keep it there.
The classical gold standard was not one of carrying around gold coins in leather purses. It simply meant that when the “price” of gold rose from $35 an ounce to $35.01 an ounce, the monetary authorities would withdraw a bit of currency (until the price subsided again) or, if the price subsided to $34.99, inject a bit more currency (until the price rose again). It represented a “real time” rather than “batch” information processing system. It worked imperfectly but much less imperfectly than what we now have.
This may have been what then-World Bank Group president Robert Zoellick meant, in a widely noted FT column where he wrote, in part:
The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values. Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today.
And what Bundesbank president Dr. Jens Weidmann meant when he stated:
Concrete objects have served as money for most of human history; we may therefore speak of commodity money. A great deal of trust was placed in particular in precious and rare metals – gold first and foremost – due to their assumed intrinsic value. In its function as a medium of exchange, medium of payment and store of value, gold is thus, in a sense, a timeless classic.
Or what analysts from Deutsche Bank meant in stating:
[G]old is not really a commodity at all. While it is included in the commodities basket it is in fact a medium of exchange and one that is officially recognised (if not publicly used as such). We see gold as an officially recognised form of money for one primary reason: it is widely held by most of the world’’s larger central banks as a component of reserves. We would go further however, and argue that gold could be characterised as ‘‘good’’ money as opposed to ‘bad’ money which would be represented by many of today’s fiat currencies.
As for bourbon, per Emen, “New stills must be produced to make more bourbon, new warehouses are required to store more barrels, which themselves have been battling scarcity issues due both to demand and inclement weather, and then that bourbon must sit, and sit, and sit.” Not so money. As Dr. Weidmann stated in the same speech, “Indeed, the fact that central banks can create money out of thin air, so to speak, is something that many observers are likely to find surprising and strange, perhaps mystical and dreamlike, too – or even nightmarish.”
Forty economists (few of them monetary) unanimously condemned the gold standard in a survey taken a few years ago. Still, Boehr was, and is, right: “It is exceedingly difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” As for monetary policy, time for the Fed to reassess its operating protocols. High time to replace groupthink with group intelligence.


Voter Registration has Started

Voter Registration

To defeat globalism, we must change how we think

by Brandon Smith

I was born just before the very onset of the digital era. I count myself lucky, in part, to be so deeply involved in the burgeoning of the information generation. I also count myself lucky to have seen the world without the free flow of media, because I know what to appreciate and what to be suspicious of. Many people 10 years younger than I really have no clue of the bottleneck that used to exist within our news system. Imagine if there were only three or four news websites you were able to visit daily, and all of these sites supported the same agenda. That is what life was like before the Web, and it was truly awful in many ways.

That said, the digital age has also brought with it an era of unwarranted expectations and unrealistic entitlements. As Americans, many of us grow accustomed to unlimited media stimulus, numerous social and financial safety nets, and an overall sense that our system will always be there to service our needs under any situation. Though we have vast pools of knowledge at our fingertips, we have become more complacent, less productive and less proactive. This is the opposite of what should be happening.

It may be conditioned laziness or fear of commitment to uncertain undertakings. Or maybe many people have just forgotten how to do things for themselves, much like humanity has forgotten how to make proper stone tools; the ability has simply died out with time. It’s hard to say, but there is something vital missing from the American dynamic today, a void that is slowly killing us.

With the advent of forced globalization and the philosophy of interdependency, it would seem that there has been a correlating attitude that entrepreneurship, self-reliance and innovation are mostly impractical. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Today, we learn to take the fish we are given, rather than learn how to fish ourselves. And this behavior is encouraged. Why? It’s because a man who can fish is independent, and an independent man is harder to control. Thus, an independent man is dangerous.

I don’t meet many folks lately who necessarily embrace the idea of interdependency and globalism, but they have learned to ignore it or to begrudgingly live with it. They may even know well that it affects them negatively, yet they do nothing because they have been told over and over again that globalism is inevitable (mostly by globalists). The solution to the problem is complex, but it begins with a simple decision: the decision to build for ourselves and think for ourselves, or the decision to do nothing.

The idea that a mass event of people chanting mantras and marching around is the be-all and end-all of social and political change has poisoned our sense of reality. These kinds of actions do not worry the establishment. What worries the establishment is self-determination and private action, people providing for themselves and removing the system as a crutch. This kind of solution does not require you to wait around for everyone else to “get it.” All it requires is that you take personal initiative and perhaps lead by example.

In order to defeat globalism, we ultimately have to construct a better alternative. Given the utter failure and disarray that seem to follow globalization everywhere, this should not be hard to do. When we enact methods of independence — or what I call “localism” — successfully, we force the power brokers to do one of two things:

Admit that we have accomplished a better way of living and fade away as irrelevant.
Try to use physical force to stop us from being independent.
In either case, we win. If the latter occurs, then we have forced the elites to reveal their true natures — not as benevolent caretakers, but as monsters with aspirations as slave owners. If the latter occurs, then we fight back; but we do so from a solid place on the moral high ground.

You can make this strategy tangible in your daily life. Become a producer. Provide necessities for yourself, your family and your community. Learn useful skill sets, as many as possible. Invent and create better ways and means of survival and sustained existence. Stop waiting for others to lead the way. You lead the way in your own areas of influence.

For many people, this might sound like a fantasy, given the rampant subservience we see in the public around us. “They are too far gone,” some people will say. “They are hopeless.” I’m not so sure. The average man often longs for a return to self-reliance. It is a part of our genetic code or our very spirit. He just has to be reminded how it is done. It is our job as aware people to re-teach others how to make their own way again. Perhaps I am a foolish optimist, but I believe there is still something within us and in American culture in general — something special that has not been quite extinguished.

I am not fighting for what our society is today; our society has psychologically derailed. But I am fighting for what I know our society can be: a self-generating and bold land of individuals, where voluntary action is the norm and is respected; where men measure themselves by their concrete accomplishments and mastery of their skills, rather than the status they attain through subservience to the collective; and where people achieve again, rather than laugh at those who make the attempt because doing nothing is easier and seemingly more profitable. I may not witness this in my lifetime. But with my efforts in this era, along with your efforts, future generation can look back at us feeling thankful rather than betrayed.

–Brandon Smith

BLACK PASTOR: Gets In Sharpton’s Face, Calls Him What He Is

This Pastor isn’t taking Al Sharpton’s BS and we love it.

In his latest racially motivated march, Al Sharpton took to the streets of Hartford, Conn., after that city saw a recent uptick in violent crime. Flanked by local church leaders, Sharpton concluded his appearance with a speech at Shiloh Baptist Church.
It soon became clear, however, that the divisive figure did not have unanimous support among Hartford’s black pastors. One critic, Pastor Marcus Mosiah Jarvis, interrupted Sharpton’s address with a fiery tirade.


by Joe kovaks

Kathleen Willey, the former White House aide who claims President Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1993 during his first term, now suspects the former president suffers from dementia, and calls Hillary Clinton a “money-hungry” hypocrite who looks “awfully haggard” and is the “worst role model for a wife and a mother and a politician.”

Willey, author of the book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” made her scathing comments in an interview Sunday night on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 and Philadelphia 990 AM, as well as online.

She is now seriously questioning the mental health of both of the Clintons.

“[Hillary] is really looking awfully haggard these days,” Willey said.

“After watching [Bill’s] performance with [NBC News’ Cynthia] McFadden, when he said that I’ve gotta pay my bills, I think he’s showing early signs of dementia or something. He’s not the old Bill Clinton that we all remember. I mean, he was all over the place. Now you’re seeing clips of [Hillary] talking to herself all the time. I think that I want somebody in there who knows what they’re doing, and money isn’t the No. 1 issue for them. They have enough money. They made $30 million … in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?”

What do YOU think? Is Kathleen Willey right that Bill Clinton has ‘dementia?’ Sound off in the WND Poll!

Speaking of Hillary Clinton’s behavior during those White House years, Klein said, “There’s no way Hillary did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband. You took it further on my show. You said Hillary was the war on women.”


“She’s absolutely unqualified to run this country,” stated Willey. “Just look at something as simple as her judgment. … I question her judgment on a number of issues when it comes to being the president. She enabled his behavior. It’s as simple as that. She looked the other way. She might throw a tantrum, but she enabled it to happen again and again and again and again. Then she chooses to go after the women that he hooked up with to ruin them again and again and again and again. That’s how it works. I don’t see how anybody can respect a woman like that, especially another woman. She is the worst role model for a wife and a mother and a politician, anything. … She is a hypocrite.”

Read the book that indicts Hillary in her own words: “Hillary Unhinged”

Regarding finances, Willey said Hillary’s desire for wealth overrides her judgment:

“She is money-hungry, absolutely … She says they were dead broke? … They’ve got money hand over fist. They just can’t seem to make enough. And she doesn’t see any reason whatsoever that there’s anything wrong with this. That’s what bothers me. Where’s the woman’s judgment? She has no sense of good judgment whatsoever. I don’t want that woman to be my president.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from, America’s independent news network.

Given a choice between Democrat candidates, Willey came down firmly in the camp of former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

“If I were a Democrat – which I’m not anymore for obvious reasons – if it came down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and O’Malley, I would vote for him in a New York minute. … He’s a good family man, he loves his wife. … I don’t agree with all his policies, but he just seems to me to be a regular, normal kind of guy. I think he was well-liked in Maryland. … He seems to be at least a moderate.”

Willey has high praise for Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

“When it comes down to my choice, the more I hear Carly Fiorina talk, the more I like her. I mean, there’s a role model for you,” she said.

“I would love to work on her campaign. She doesn’t hedge when she’s asked questions, she gives you straight answers, she’s direct, she’s not afraid of anybody. … I mean, she’s just got more cajones than everyone in Washington combined. … I think she’s great, I think she’s wonderful. …

“She didn’t get where she got on the coattails of other men like Hillary did. She worked her way up. … She did it on her own. I have got a lot of admiration for that woman. … Women in this country who want a woman for president ought to be paying a whole lot more attention to Carly Fiorina than to Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton has nothing to offer. She won’t talk, she won’t answer questions, she hides behind the Secret Service, I haven’t heard one innovative idea come out of her mouth since all of this started. What does she have to offer this country except for the fact that she thinks that she’s entitled to this? What has she accomplished? I can’t think of a thing.


Obamatrade a 100th-birthday gift for David Rockefeller?

By Jerome R. Corsi

David Rockefeller
NEW YORK – As the U.S. House prepares to vote on President Obama’s controversial Obamatrade legislation – regarded by opponents as a surrender of U.S. sovereignty to a new international authority and a “nascent European Union” – two historically significant promoters of globalism are celebrating birthdays Friday, with David Rockefeller turning 100 and former President George H. W. Bush reaching 91.

Obama is facing criticism from key lawmakers who contend his secretive trade deals – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement with 11 other countries that allows for expanding membership under an international “commission” – look more like treaties than trade agreements. On Friday, the House is considering Trade Promotion Authority, which would fast-track TPP and at least two other trade agreements, permitting no amendments and only a yes-or-no vote.


Standard Oil co-founder John Davison Rockefeller, the grandfather of David Rockefeller
The legislation, forming a package known as Obamatrade, would be a fitting tribute to Rockefeller, the retired chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, as he reaches the rare century mark.

The oldest living member of the iconic Rockefeller family, David is the only surviving child of financier John D. Rockefeller Jr. and the only surviving grandchild of Standard Oil co-founder John D. Rockefeller.

Influenced by the globalist views of his father, Rockefeller was a major figure in some of the most prominent organizations characterized by critics as threats to U.S. sovereignty, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.

George H.W. Bush’s claim to globalist fame was made in 1990 when, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, he declared the emergence of a “new world order.”

‘Better than fighting’

Reached by WND, the Rockefeller family’s chief spokesman, publicist Fraser Seitel, said that as he turns 100, David Rockefeller’s “primary interest in life is being with his family, the friends he’s made over the years, and continuing to enjoy life and be productive.”

Seitel said Rockefeller continues to be engaged in philanthropy and the arts. reported he donated a total of $79 million last year.


David Rockefeller in Life magazine
David Rockefeller in Life magazine
“He wants to still be as active as he possibly can be,” Seitel said.

Last month, Rockefeller, using a walker, made a rare public appearance, announcing the donation of 1,000 acres of land in Maine bordering Acadia National Park.

Asked about his reputation as a globalist, Seitel told WND that Rockefeller “has always believed that working in concert with people – no matter who they are – is better than fighting them.”

“So, his career was built on trying to get along with all sorts of people, and that went as well to dealing commercially with people in other countries, who may believe in different things than we do,” Seitel said.

In his 2002 autobiography “Memoirs,” Rockefeller addressed his reputation, proclaiming himself to be a “proud internationalist.”

He wrote that “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.”

“Some even believe we 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.”

He then declared: “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Seitel commented on the passage in Rockefeller’s book, which he said has been widely “quoted and misquoted.”

He said Rockefeller essentially was expressing his belief that “sitting down with your opponents was far superior than choosing to fight them.”

“David Rockefeller was first and foremost an ardent capitalist who believes completely in the capitalist system,” Seitel said. “That’s what he tried to promote around the world. Some people who have a different point of view may say we fight with these people and we disagree with those people. But David Rockefeller always believed that communication was the way to go.”

In his book, Rockefeller said “populists” believe in conspiracies and that he had earned the distinction of being “conspirator in chief.”

He affirmed that designation is deserved as well.

“Populists and isolationists ignore the tangible benefits that have resulted from our active internationalist role during the past half-century,” Rockefeller wrote.

‘Consolidating the four centers of power’

Rockefeller’s lifelong association with the Council on Foreign Relations began in 1949 when he joined as a director. He later became head of the nominating committee for future membership and then chairman of the council’s foreign policy think-tank.


Hotel de Bilderberg in the Netherlands was the site of the first Bilderberg conference.
He served as the only member of the Advisory Board for the secretive Bilderberg Group, which annually brings together more than 100 leaders and experts in politics, industry, finance, academia and media to collaborate behind closed doors on the world’s big issues. Austria is hosting the 63rd Bilderberg conference this weekend.

Rockefeller became unhappy, however, with Bilderberg’s refusal to include Japan in the annual meetings and helped found the Trilateral Commission in July 1973.

The Trilateral Commission’s first U.S. director was Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser under President Carter. Its stated aim is to foster closer cooperation among North America, Western Europe and Japan.

The late Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, however, once called the Trilateral Commission “a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical” in “the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.”


David Rockefeller takes the podium as President Lyndon Johnson looks on in the White House Rose Garden on June 15, 1964, to announce the launch of the International Executive Service Corps.
David Rockefeller takes the podium as President Lyndon Johnson looks on in the White House Rose Garden on June 15, 1964, to announce the launch of the International Executive Service Corps.
Rockefeller also helped form the Council of the Americas in 1965, which sponsored a forum in 1992 in which he proposed a “Western Hemisphere free trade area.” The proposal turned into the Free Trade Area of the Americas in a Miami summit in 1994.

‘Free flow’

In his autobiography, Rockefeller characterized populists and isolationists as ideologues wanting “to wall off the United States by rejecting participation in such constructive international activities as the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, eviscerating the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and assaulting the United States.”

Rockefeller argued the “free flow of investment capital, goods, and people across borders will remain the fundamental factor in world economic growth and strengthening of democratic institutions everywhere.”

He insisted the United States cannot escape from global responsibilities.

“In the twenty-first century there can be no place for isolationists; we must all be internationalists,” he wrote.


David Rockefeller, left, with Eleanor Roosevelt, Trygve Lie and Thomas J. Watson in 1953
Rockefeller regarded himself as part of the moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” that arose from his late brother Nelson Rockefeller’s political ambitions. Nelson Rockefeller was governor of New York and vice president under Gerald Ford.

As a youth, David Rockefeller attended the experimental Lincoln School in Harlem that was based on the educational philosophy of progressive educator John Dewey. New Left icon Noam Chomsky also attended the school, which was funded in its early years by the Rockefellers’ General Education Board, which later became part of the Rockefeller Foundation.

Rockefeller joined the staff of Chase National Bank in 1946, which became Chase Manhattan Bank in 1955 and now is called JPMorgan Chase.

Beginning as the bank’s assistant manager in the foreign department, he financed international commodities, which put him in relationships with more than 1,000 correspondent banks throughout the world. He became president in 1960 and was chairman and chief executive of Chase Manhattan from 1969 to 1980 and chairman until 1981.

In 1973, Chase established the first branch of an American bank in the Soviet Union. Later that year, Rockefeller traveled to China, which resulted in Chase becoming the National Bank of China’s first correspondent bank in the U.S.

Working with Henry Kissinger, who shared his globalist views, the two helped persuade President Carter to admit the Shah of Iran into the U.S. for cancer treatment, which led to the hostage crisis and was a major development in the Islamic revolution in which Ayatollah Khomeini’s came to power.


David Rockefeller meeting with Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1973

‘A joy to work with’

Asked what Rockefeller counted as among his major achievements, Seitel said “he was the one who took the bank international.”

“He brought modern management methods into Chase – human resources, strategic planning, corporate communications,” Seitel said.


rockefeller-autobiographyPreviously, the bank was run strictly as a “lending operation,” and Rockefeller “recruited modern managers and modernized the bank.”

“He would also take pride in his leadership in corporate responsibility, something that people like Milton Friedman objected to,” Seitel said. “But, what David Rockefeller would say is that it was the responsibility of multi-billion dollar companies like Chase and other companies to give back to society.”

Seitel said Chase “organized a full-blown corporate responsibilities program that included all the top executives of the institution.”

“They met with people who were less privileged than they were and they donated time and money,” he said.

WND asked Seitel what it was like to work with Rockefeller as a person.

“His interaction with Washington, with media, with customers, international chiefs of states – he was the best,” Seitel said.

“He always felt he had the responsibility his name brought with him. And he understood the responsibilities of the CEO, but he was different than other CEOs who didn’t carry his name and his diplomatic portfolio.

“So, he was a terrific and inspirational leader,” Seitel said. “He basically liked people, and this allowed him to meet even with people who criticized him, and not to be upset or harbor any grudge or animus.

“So he’s been a joy to work with for the past 40 years.”

‘New world order’

The classic declaration of a “new world order” after the fall of the communist Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc was made by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.

Bush was the initial proponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA, which David Rockefeller supported.

On Sept. 11, 1990, Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, proclaiming the emergence of a “new world” that is “struggling to be born”:

We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era – freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor.

Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.

See George H.W. Bush’s “new world order” speech to Congress Sept. 11, 1990:

Bush made clear in his speech the use of U.S. military power to protect American business interests was especially justified when backed by an international coalition.

Read more at more at