Monthly Archives: October 2015

By Sarah Westwood (@sarahcwestwood) • 10/30/15 5:17 PM

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton’s private emails includes one that shows Clinton made an effort to help evacuate the acting Libyan prime minister from Benghazi amid a crumbling security situation.

It was released by the State Department just a week after congressional Republicans grilled Clinton for failing to respond to requests for more security from her own ambassador, who was killed in the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi.

The email shows Clinton received a request for supplies to help the acting prime minister leave Benghazi and transition into Tripoli, the nation’s capital. Clinton seemingly greenlighted his request, and asked her aide Huma Abedin if the U.S. government could ship the requested supplies to a Libyan port.

The message from August 2011 is likely to give fresh fodder to her critics, who point out that requests for tighter security for U.S. officials never made it to her desk.

New emails released Friday also reveal the internal pressure Clinton faced while serving as secretary of State to coax the administration into launching airstrikes against Libya.

Sidney Blumenthal and Tony Blair, two close Clinton friends, fed Clinton information about Libya as the civil war there escalated, and encouraged her to take military action.

She was ultimately successful in rallying the U.S. government to do just what her friends were asking her to do, raising questions about how seriously she regarded the “unsolicited memos” Blumenthal sent her throughout her tenure.

Clinton publicly advocated for U.S. military engagement in Libya in 2011 on the basis of an imminent human rights threat. Blair, a former British prime minister and Clinton ally, urged Clinton to fight for a no-fly zone over Libya, something she successfully secured in 2011.

Blair seemed primarily concerned that the Libyan conflict was hurting the oil market. He was then serving as special envoy to the “Middle East Quartet,” a diplomatic arrangement involving the U.S., the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

“Please work on the no-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned,” Blair wrote to Clinton in February 2011. “Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”

Three days earlier, Blumenthal also urged Clinton to consider a no-fly zone, informing his friend in February 2011 that the British foreign secretary was pushing to implement one “like the no-fly zone imposed on Saddam’s Iraq.”

“US might consider advancing tomorrow,” Blumenthal wrote to Clinton.

Clinton then forwarded the memo to Jake Sullivan, her directory of policy planning, for his input. “What do you think of this idea?” she asked.

Facing an unexpectedly robust challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton has been forced to move left on a variety of issues, including her support for the 2011 military intervention in Libya.

The former secretary of State argued strongly in favor of participating in airstrikes against the regime of Muammar Gadhafi, which ultimately helped depose the dictator but left Libya in chaos.

Pressed on her support of military action during a hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last week, Clinton downplayed her personal advocacy for the airstrikes, framing the U.S. involvement as an administration-wide policy that she supported by association.

But her emails suggest Clinton was deeply involved in formulating the military position the administration eventually took in Libya.

Clinton’s aides often forwarded her press clippings that praised the Libyan intervention and Clinton’s role in securing it. In one instance, Clinton seemed unsure of her agency’s record-keeping about her meetings with top Libyan officials.

“This is example of my continuing concern that we don’t have our records ready,” she wrote to an aide after a high-level meeting she attended was not noted in her records.

Other records showed Clinton with a seemingly casual approach to the conflict. For example, in response to a December 2011 email from Abedin about the attempted assassination of a Libyan rebel leader, Clinton replied, “Did you get info from Chelsea about the wall lamps?”

The batch of emails Friday was the largest published online to date. Many appeared to be duplicates of emails that were released previously, but the State Department claimed it was releasing roughly 7,000 pages of emails.

State Department officials had already released 19,569 pages of Clinton’s private emails, many of them heavily redacted.

Hundreds of her emails have been classified at varying levels throughout the review process. Most of them have been marked “confidential,” the lowest level of classification.

Clinton and her allies initially argued that none of the emails were classified, but shifted their phrasing to say none were classified “at the time” they were sent after the State Department began classifying portions of the emails.

The Democratic front-runner now tells inquisitors that none were “marked classified” when sent, a change that followed the inspector general’s announcement that some emails “contained classified State Department information when originated.”

The agency has repeatedly dismissed that finding, arguing the emails were only recently classified in light of circumstances that developed since the records were written.

While State Department officials maintain the designations are a routine part of the review process, critics have questioned how so many documents could suddenly become classified years after the fact.

The emails released so far have offered a limited glimpse into how Clinton conducted her State Department affairs.

Some records indicated Clinton’s staff still harbored tensions from the 2008 primary in which Obama bested Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Others revealed the former secretary of State’s close ties to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, a situation the White House had hoped to avoid by inking an agreement meant to prevent such activity.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-boosted-benghazi-security-for-libyan-pm-emails/article/2575364

A transcript of Ron Paul’s interview on the Alex Jones Show

Dr. Ron Paul breaks down how the government is trying to disarm the American public and eradicate free speech in this Oct. 26 interview on the Alex Jones Show.

Alex Jones: There is so much that I want to ask former Congressman and medical doctor Ron Paul about what is happening currently in our world. The race for the speakership. The Tea Party rebellion that he and others helped create. The situation in Syria. The rapidly degrading economy. But, also, political persecution and I wanted to cover this first, Ted Cruz came out and said that he is worried about internet freedom, that there is major talk about censoring the internet in the Senate. Matt Drudge was on with us giving us exclusive interview a few weeks ago, saying he talked face-to-face with the supreme court justice at dinner. That said, that they have the votes amd are coming to restrict free speech next year. Hillary has now announced if elected, she will try for a national gun buyback and repeal of the Second Amendment. That is actually a quote. So the statements are very bold right now.

We are seeing massive continued IRS persecution of conservative and libertarian groups. I wanted to, not so much ask Ron Paul his view of this. I want to do that. I also wanted to ask him what we should do. I think that it shows how effective the liberty move many is that the system wants to silence us but at the same time, I think that we have to address this and really discuss how we are supposed to respond to it. Because, Matt Drudge said that he has been told by high level government folks the persecutions about to kick into high gear. He visited me two weeks ago to deliver that message. A lot of other high level people are telling me the same thing. I know with your contact, sir, you must be getting the same intel. So can you speak to this is this I mean, in Europe, they are arresting Germans that criticize open borders. It is not just here, but totalitarianism seems to be spreading its wings.

Ron Paul: You know, when I left Congress, a couple of years ago, I listed several things that I thought were the greatest danger to us. And the top one was, freedom of expression. The First Amendment, because if we are not allowed to express ourselves, it makes it difficult to compete with the propagandas from our government and the media. So I think that it is crucial. But you know, we are so hypocritical when it comes to our government because they pretend that we should support the issue of knowing the truth and knowing what is going on with government. We even write laws to protect the whistleblowers whose are telling us the truth. Now we have numerous whistleblowers that are put in prison, you know, if they tell the truth. As a matter of fact, the real irony is, the chairman of the agency that is supposed to be in charge of protecting all of the whistleblowers, he got fired because he told the truth about the whistleblower program. It really doesn’t work.

Now, this is getting worse. There is a lot going on right now. But, you know, this recently, when we read about the death of Irwin Schiff, he was actually in prison and killed by our government because he spoke out about the unconstitutionality of the way taxes are being collected. It wasn’t so much he was a violent person, he wasn’t for anarchy or anything else. I don’t think that he ever said the statement that there should be no taxes either. But, because he said what the government was doing was unconstitutional, and the government told him you are not allowed to talk about that and he did. At age 77 they put him in jail for 14 more years and literally, I think killed him. Because it was a death sentence and a life sentence and he didn’t get his medical care. That is how ruthless the government is.

Now, in Irwin Schiff, it was a good lesson because what was he saying? He was challenging the financing of a government that is runaway. So the same way, if somebody tells us the truth about what is going on in the middle east, and how we have involved ourselves in these wars illegally and lied ourselves into these wars, our presidents have, they can’t tolerate that. They cannot tolerate the truth about the foreign policy. They cannot tolerate the truth about why they are ruthless in collecting taxes and they are not going to tolerate the truth about how the Federal Reserve is run. That is why, I always believe that the Federal Reserve, if everybody knew about it, and more people know about it now than ever before, if the people knew about it, they wouldn’t support the Federal Reserve and, fortunately, there are a lot of people waking up. But so much is done in secret. The bailouts are done in secret. Though it is secret government that is the real issue and when you talk about the ultimate secrets of government, then you become an enemy of the state. And when you have an empire, truth is treason in the empire of lies. Right now, people are considered treasonus if they start telling us the plain truth about what our government is doing to us.

A.J. That is right Ron Paul, libertyreport.com, one of many powerful sites, he is doing syndicated radio vignettes, daily television, reaching millions of people. That is why they are coming in and wanting to censor and control and wanting to shut down competition. Because we are peacefully taking action. Irwin Schiff that died, Peter Schiff frequent guest here, one of the top advisors to Ron Paul’s campaign previously on economics. His dad was chained down even when he couldn’t speak anymore. They basically wouldn’t give him medical care and he died after spending 13 of the 14 year prison sentence. And, I remember it was in the las vegas review journal when the judge said, in the courtroom, I remember covering it on air when he first went to prison 13 years ago, you were told, don’t sell this book anymore. You were told, don’t give speeches anymore. So I am going to send you to prison for the maximum sentence. They admittedly sent him to prison and then killed him in prison as you said Ron Paul. And you are a medical doctor speaking to this, for his speech, that is where America has gotten to, where I have now had feds contact me, multiple feds and tell me that the word is, I shut up or they are going to set me up. That is where this country has come to. And it is very, very sad.

Specifically, though, solutions, what do we do sir in the face of this? If they do try to declare some civil emergency, if there is some false flags like, OKC, blamed on patriots. We are trying to fix this peacefully and I think that we are winning with peace as things are escalating. What do we do if they start world war III with the Russians? What do we do if they federalize the state houses as the defense department has been tasked to prepare to do. What do we do when truth becomes stranger than fiction and they become nakedly tyrannical against us?

R.P. Well, when it is domestic and they are at us all of the time, I don’t advocate violence, as a matter of fact, for moral reasons, but for practical reason, they have way more guns than we have. I also know that truth can win out in the end. So it is getting the message out, whether it is your program or what I do and others. There is more now than ever before. I think the most important regulation or law that we have to, you know, protect is our right to use the internet and do our programming. And this is being systematically attacked, attacked by our own governments and sometimes corporate interests. Who knows, sometimes it is international. If we lose that, that is going to be bad. I happen to be optimistic about that. Although I’m not technically astute to how it works, I think that we will get around it. I think that the internet is too big. So education is it. To expose and counteract the propaganda. Almost always the people don’t want war, then they get talked into it, they are told that we are going to be attacked and if you don’t support us, you are unpatriotic and Un-American. So just think, on the issue of Syria right now. They change the prime minister in Canada because, Canada got too cozy with sending planes over there and fighting and participating in our foreign policy. And the same way when American people spoke out a couple of years ago, when Obama wanted to bomb Syria the people said, no. But, Obama of course went ahead and did it anyway. And, the British people spoke out which was a very historic event, and a couple years ago, against giving the authority to their prime minister to go ahead.

The people are with us. Our job is to reach these people and of course, this is where I do become a bit optimistic about what is happening because I think that the young people realize that we are in an economic crisis. I think they know that there is something very suspicious going on with our foreign policy as well as the Federal Reserve and the financing. They like personal liberty and like the internet. I think that the answers we can find in a free society, and sound money, is so great, all we have to do is get enough believers and the government will change. The government is a reflection of the people’s attitude. Right now, the attitude is still, a lot of people are getting welfare. And a lot of people are talked into supporting the military industrial complex. But we are running out of money. And this is good because, what are they going to do? They have to change their mind. As long as they think that there is a handout, whether it is the rich or the poor, they are going to keep doing that. They are going to keep milking the middle class. The middle class will keep shrinking and shrinking. We are winning this for practical reasons. But we still have a long way to go and it is education, it’s learning and getting people to have confidence that free society is not only a better society, it is more peaceful and there is more prosperity and, that is what people have to vote for. Even if there is a point of resistance, I said I’m against the use of violence to counteract the government. I’m not opposed to people going on strike and saying look I’ve had enough of this, I’m not going to participate. That is rough, too, because you have to suffer the consequence of this.

A.J. I agree.

R.P. That is peaceful resistance. I’m not even sure where I would come down on that, under certain circumstances. That is ultimately the way that laws get changed, is a resistance movement, supported by the people. And our congress, on occasion will respond when they know that there is enough americans who said, enough is enough. Of course, that is what the battle is right now, in Washington, there is outcry from the people about Washington still, they don’t know how to handle it. They won’t change their tune, and it is written by Republican and Democratic leaders, yet, there is a core of people in Washington that said enough is enough.

A.J. I totally agree with you we are reaching that historic crossroads where the social engineers admit they are losing the hearts and minds and are trying to accelerate their program, and looking for that line in the sand to push us so hard we start getting violent. I agree violence is not the answer offensively. Obviously, defensively, we have a right to protect ourselves but the good news is, I talked to a lot of government people and others, they are awake to what is happening.what do you think that the establishment is going to do to try to use the crisis they have helped exacerbate to even bring in more tyranny. Because you always talked about this key time, coming, when big government implodes, their answer will be more government. What do we do with this key juncture to make sure that people understand the truth?

R.P. Well, it is still back to education and the various methods of doing that. But if push comes to shove and there’s violence in the street, they are going to look for a strong man. They are going to look for somebody who is authoritarian and say, well, the violence in the cities won’t last. Then, people will say, yeah, that is right we can’t have anarchy, and they will capitulate. They will come you know, the gun control issue is alive and well. And I’m for gun control. I’m for taking the guns away from the bureaucrats. The government. And taking the guns, restricting the gun use and the president starting wars. They will come and that will be, if, if there is a confiscation or more registration, people are going to have to make up their minds whether or not they are going to participate in that.

Same way with gold. Guns protect us physically and gold is real money. So when they destroy money, gold has always been the haven. And it’s not something that I have invented or you invented. It’s been around for 6,000 years, where real money is gold and even though Bernanke told me, gold, sorry Ron, gold is no longer money. Gold is still money. What are you going to do? Are you going to say, are we going to be complacent like the American people were in the 1930s. Roosevelt comes in and say, well all right, turn in all your gold at $20 an ounce, and look at what that did it took a lot of years to get the right to own gold again. They may not come and try to collect the gold, but I think that what they will try to do is tax the gold. Just remember the first attack on trying to regulate drugs was to put a huge tax on marijuana, and that morphed into this horrendous drug war that is going on, which is such an excuse for the violation of our liberties, along with the excuse, we have to collect taxes because you are Un-American if you don’t pay your fair share. That is why the tax authorities get out of hand. Of course, we probably don’t have much time left. Lois Lerner is a typical example of how they use a tax law and to punish those of us who are speaking out, that is a typical example of curtailing free speech at least she was caught and out of it but that attitude still remains.

A.J. It certainly does. In the few minutes we have left, looking at the selection, looking at Rand Paul, looking at how he is really the only candidate that isn’t for expanding the war in Syria. What is your view on the Russian entry into Syria?

R.P. I look at it in a practical way. I look first at what our policies should be, we shouldn’t have been there and we should leave and that leaves it up to the neighborhood to take care of it. We are in 152 countries, if we are saying we have to watch out, we have to be terrified and do anything we can to stop the Russians from exerting their program which is next to their border, whether it is, Ukraine or whether it is Syria. They have a treaty with one country with one base and I think that they have one aircraft carrier. They want to keep that base I would say that is more their business and I sort of get a charge, out of the fact that Kerry said, those Russians are not too smart, they are going to get bogged down in Syria. Well, maybe so, if they do, maybe it will be like Afghanistan, but why should we bog ourselves down? How can it be worse what we are doing to ourselves? I would let Russia, and the Turks, and you know the Kurds, and these other people be involved and take care of it. Maybe if we withdrew some of our financial and military support over there, maybe Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be so aggressive. Maybe they would have to deal with Yemen all by themselves. That whole area would become more peaceful and, work on things much more peacefully. I don’t think that, if we compare Russia exerting themselves to protect one naval base outside of their country, compared to us being in 152 countries, and assuming the role of total policeman of the world, no comparison.

A.J. Ron Paul, libertyreport.com. one final question on the election. Obviously, I’m supporting Rand Paul because I know that he has followed the constitution. He won’t flip flop like the other candidates. Obviously, I like a lot of what Donald Trump has to say. It is populist, it is very constitutional in some cases, but, he said things about loving Hillary in the past and being for assault weapon bans. I don’t really trust him in the final equation. What is your view of Donald Trump overall? Do you think that he is healthy for the campaign, healthy for the debate, or do you think that he is unhealthy?

R.P. Well, if it was an absolute guarantee that the American people wouldn’t be sucked in and make him president, it would be just entertainment and we would look, like you point out, some good things some bad things. You can look at the good things and say, you know, he can do things and get away which many of us, never could do. but, he is a powerful personality and, he makes fun of the political process and Republican and Democratic party. At the same time, he doesn’t get pushed around with the media. I think, trouble is coming and he would have to live up to his word. I will take charge. I will get things done. I know what is good. I’m not looking for that. to me, that is the exactly the opposite of a libertarian society. I don’t want to tell people what to do. I don’t want to run the economy. I don’t want to tell the world what to do. I want to deliver the liberty back to the individual let the individual and local people take care of these problems.

A.J. Sure.

R.P. I don’t think that Donald Trump would respond to that as the conditions break down. I think that he would use the, not only the bully pulpit, but I think that he would become a tough bully to take over just the whole situation.

A.J. He does look ready to get on a big white horse and that is exactly what this country doesn’t need. I think the people’s support for him shows the backlash against teleprompter politics. I think that is the real issue there. Former Congressman, Ron Paul, thank you for the time and just please continue your great work.

R.P. Thank you very much Alex.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:05

Well, now you have an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT to prove your assertions to the naysayers.

Not that anyone will take your message any more serious…but at least you can vindicate your belief to those who are closest to you with the documented proof and admission from the Government itself.

http://commodity-carnage.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/10/conspiracy-theorists-are-vindicated-u-s-senate-reports-chemtrails-are-real-and-are-killing-us-3234688.html

Source: Zero Hedge

This whole thing has been going on for a couple of centuries but here are the last few decades showing some of the players.

There exists an overlapping and highly integrated network of institutions, committees and secret meetings of ad-hoc groups that collectively run the global economy. This network consists of finance ministries, central banks, international organizations and the various conferences and confabs that bring them together. This network is responsible for facilitating global financial diplomacy and managing the architecture of global financial governance. In short: it is the most powerful and informal political structure in the world.

With the United States at the center of the system, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Bank are the two most important American institutions in global financial governance – and the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairperson are the world’s two most powerful financial diplomats. Both institutions are headquartered in Washington, D.C., just down the street from the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group, two global financial bodies created in 1944 to manage the world economy on behalf of the rich Western nations that founded them.

Twice a year, the IMF and the World Bank host large international conferences. The Spring Membership Meeting, typically held in April, and the Annual membership meeting draw a crowd consisting of most of the finance ministers and central bank governors from the IMF’s 188 member nations, representing the Fund’s Governing Board. They descend on D.C. where the meetings are typically held (though occasionally they are hosted in other countries as well), and draw scores of journalists, academics and thousands of bankers and financiers who are eager to meet, greet, wine, dine and make deals with the political decision-makers of the global economy.

The top five shareholders of the IMF (United States, Japan, Germany, France and U.K.) reflect the membership of an ad-hoc group of finance ministers that began meeting in 1973, thereafter known as the Group of Five (G-5). At the time, U.S. Treasury Secretary George Shultz described the group as “a channel for informal and very frank communication on monetary and other issues, both of a long-term and more immediate character.” But the G-5 was hardly the first of such groups.

In 1962, the Group of Ten (G-10) was formed as a meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors from the rich industrial nations, including the U.S., West Germany, Japan, France, U.K., Italy, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands (and eventually Switzerland, although the name remained the same). The G-10 would meet alongside the leaders of the IMF, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

Following the U.S. unilateral decision to end the Bretton Woods monetary system in 1971, a series of committees and groups were established to provide forums for major economies of the world to negotiate forming a new monetary system, and to integrate developing economies into the institutional apparatus of global financial governance. The Group of Ten was utilized as one such forum.

In 1972, the G-10 laid the groundwork for the establishment of a special Committee of 20 to be formed within the IMF, whose membership reflected the composition of the IMF Executive Board, but at the ministerial level – giving it a much higher level of political authority than the board, which is composed of mid-level officials from their respective national finance ministries. The committee would include most G-10 members alongside several developing country representatives, and was formally institutionalized in late 1974 as the “Interim Committee” of the IMF.

(Although the Group of Five was formed in 1973, it wasn’t until 1975 that it held the first meeting at the head of state level, with the addition of Italy to the group. The following year, Canada was invited to participate, and thereafter it was known as the Group of Seven (G-7), effectively functioning as the steering committee for the global economy.)

Fast forward to the mid-1990s, when the G-7 nations instructed the Group of Ten to consult with emerging market economies on ways to reform the global financial architecture in cooperation with major international organizations like the IMF, World Bank, OECD, and BIS, which were increasingly opening their membership and ownership positions to large emerging market economies.

The idea was thus: If developed countries give developing countries a stake in the existing system, they won’t use their new-found wealth and power to oppose that system. And all the while, the West was to remain at the center. Through crisis and collapse and “rescue” efforts led by the IMF, BIS and World Bank, developing and emerging market economies were encouraged to accept Western economic “advice” on how to manage their economies. If they wanted bailouts in the form of loans from international institutions, those countries had to follow conditions that demanded a total restructuring of their economies and societies along G-7 lines – designed to transform them into modern “market economies” capable of integrating into the larger global economy.

The groundwork was laid out over the following years, and in the course of 1999, the IMF’s Interim Committee was reformed into the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC). The G-10 organized several seminars involving major emerging market economies and, together with the G-7, formed a new group known as the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), a meeting group of central bankers, finance ministers and regulators who were handed responsibility for maintaining financial stability in the world. Finally, 1999 also saw the organizing efforts of the G-7 result in the formation of yet another forum, the Group of Twenty (G-20).

The G-20 was born in December of 1999 at a meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors from the G-7 nations, along with Russia, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Australia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, Argentina and the European Union. The event was attended by top officials from the IMF, World Bank and the European Central Bank. But despite all the international noise, the G20 was largely the initiative of two men: Canadian Finance Minister Paul Martin and U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

The G-7, or G-8 once Russia was invited in, remained the main forum for global economic leadership. But in the midst of the global financial crisis in 2008, the G-20 was the group convened by U.S. President George W. Bush, who brought together heads of state for the first meeting that took place in Washington on November 15. That meeting produced an agreement among G-20 nations to pump trillions of dollars into their economies in order to bail out their banking systems.

In 2010, then-President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, explained at a meeting of the Institute of International Finance (IIF) that the G-20 had emerged “as the prime group for global economic governance.”

Speaking to a crowd of hundreds of the world’s most powerful bankers and financiers, Trichet explained, “Global economic governance embraces supranational institutions – such as the IMF – as well as informal groupings – such as the G-7 and the G-20. Both are necessary, and both are complementary.” Trichet praised the evolving system as “moving decisively towards a much more inclusive system of global governance, encompassing key emerging economies as well as the industrialized countries.”

To this day, the hierarchy of global economic governance follows a familiar pattern. Take the IMF’s meetings, where 188 of the world’s finance ministers and central bankers meet. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) holds a meeting, functioning as the steering committee to the Fund. And prior to IMFC meetings, the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors hold a series of meetings, including a joint meeting with the IMFC, as they already have a significant crossover of membership.

But before the G-20 meets, the ministers and governors of the G-7 nations typically meet privately for an hour or so, attempting to form a common position or strategy in dealing with the wider groupings of the G-20 and IMFC, in which all G-7 nations are represented at the ministerial level. The chiefs of the world’s major international organizations (IMF, World Bank, OECD, WTO, BIS) participate in almost all of these meetings, acting as advisers to and receiving high-level political direction from these groups.

The hierarchy of global economic governance emanates out of the United States, in close cooperation with Germany, Japan and the other members of the Group of Seven. From there, it networks through the Group of Twenty and the IMFC, which in turn collectively function as the steering committee for the world’s major international organizations, and act as the board of directors of the global economy.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Meet_the_Secretive_Committees_that_Run_the_Global_Economy/46579/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Be sure to click it to the beginning if necessary, first few words are important.