Craig Ferguson Investigates

At 84, it seemed odd that Queen Elizabeth II made a special trip to New York to pay respect to the 9/11 victims, and in addressing the  U.N. assembly claimed, “the waging of peace is the hardest form of leadership of all.” We don’t usually hear the term, “waging of” followed by anything other than “war”. So, in this case, it was indeed an odd twist.

But, the comment is actually in keeping with the intent of the globalist leaders that, according to Queen Elizabeth II, must wage peace  to address the issues of “terrorism” and “climate change”. The Bilderberg Group must have been comforted to get the support of the Queen of England. And, it would seem, the Bilderberg influence has shaped U.S. military efforts over the past while as well. The “waging of peace” has support by those responsible to sell the concept to the American people and the world.

We could look at the “waging of peace” as the military strategy for Iraq. The trickle in strategy of U.S. troops would suggest a war of occupation not with intent of “victory”.

The Bilderbergers, looking for world domination,  would have no reason to win and leave the Middle East – not if they were intending on controlling the world. They would need to spin the occupation as a war of peace; the selling feature would have to be to sell the need to  build the democratic infrastructure of government, and eventually do the same for Afghanistan.  In 2007 and beyond, The Bilderberg Group would need a marketing plan to sell the occupation war. They would require a team of marketers with credibility, stature and title.

They had their team – Retired General John (Jack) Keane and Jessica T. Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Both long-term Bilderberg attendees – especially at critical times leading in to 2007. Both attending the 2006 Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa, and the 2007 meeting in Turkey. And yes, of course they were attendees in Spain this year.

In January 2007, John Keane and Fred Kagan (no relation to Elena Kagan) wrote “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq” which supported the implementation of 30,000 more troops into Iraq, because , “Kagan emphasized that it was critical to reduce the levels of violence before attempting any political solution”. The trickle in strategy was underway, and the strategy to occupy was being sold to the U.S. citizens.

2008 was the election year in the U.S., and with November fast approaching, Obama was poised to suggest a troop withdrawal as a selling feature of his candidacy. As we all know, whether a Democrat or Republican, the voters of America were getting a Bilderberg rep, whose job it would be to continue the agenda of world domination, occupation and control.

In June 2008, an article came out by the Independent in the UK entitled, “Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under U.S. control”. Secret or not, it would affect Obama’s promise to the people who promised the troops could start to withdraw. Bilderberg had their way again.

In the video below, Jessica Mathews, in the Iraq Debate in 2007, sells the war to suggest it necessary as a means of peace – a ” political ” battle.

According to Mathews, there was only a “political solution”, suggesting there was no sense to  pull out or to push to “win” the war by deploying the number of troops that later would be  proven the argument as well for Afghanistan.

Recently, General McChrystal sought  the means to “win” by a surgence of troops (80,000).  Obama, the puppet of the Bilderbergers had to counter-argue and replaced McChrystal with Petraeus, citing, among other things that they had to make ” …. sure we’re doing a good job in building capacity on the civilian side.”

McChrystal, frustrated with the lack of military force  in Afghanistan, was critical of  Richard C. Holbrooke, a Bilderberger on the inside, holding title of Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Did he realize the Bilderberg Group never intended on leaving the region or winning?  And, wasn’t it fitting that John Keane’s good friend taking over the Afghan mission, Gen. Petraeus, said he is in it to win it. Good luck general!

In the Iraq War debate in Senate, Republican  John Warner,” one of the Republican Party’s most respected voices on military affairs” could not hold his disgust, as can be seen in this video:

David Frost, looking much older than in his historic interviews with President Nixon during the Watergate Scandal, allowed John Keane to summarize for us the sales points of the wars that were sold as political structure building in countries far removed from the United States. Ironic, isn’t it, that the Bilderberg Group is currently destroying the free world, and Keane explains how America is “freeing” the Middle East?

Are we to believe that the enemies were CIA groomed operatives by the names of Bin Laden and Hussein? Or would the Bilderberg Group have used the “boogie men” to create the reason to occupy the Middle East, to surround Iran, and effect their plan for world government and world domination? And as importantly, were Bilderberg members Jessica Mathews and  John Keane the sales agents to sell the continuation of the wars in the region?

If you are a businessman and need to hire a potential employee, what is standard procedure when “checking out” your prospective employee?

Well, one prudent thing to do would be to contact the previous employer.

Can you imagine FOX News, as it called CNN to get a character reference for Glenn Beck? What do you suppose CNN would report?

Well, they would likely tell FOX that Glenn was good at following orders, toeing the “station line” and reporting what he was asked to do. For CNN, that would be the “liberal line”. Did he do a good job? Would CNN tell FOX he was great for CNN? Or, would they say, well Glenn became too “Republican” for our liking, and so we realized he had to go. Kind of like Lou Dobbs?

Well, Dobbs would have been a bit of a different issue we might all agree. Dobbs was looking at the North American Union and was disgusted by what he saw. He could not contain his disgust, and his position made his staying at CNN impossible. His position made going to FOX impossible too.

How about MSNBC? No good either, sorry Lou!

Dobbs had nowhere to go because exposing the dark side about the North American Union was faux pas broadcasting. It didn’t matter if it were on FOX (conservative) or CNN (liberal), the issue of exposing the NAU was off-limits. Any news anchor that voiced his own opinion on the subject was undesirable. And, why is that? Most of us know the answer, but there remains many of us that need to learn.

As mentioned over and over, it is significant that Beck, for CNN interviewed Ron Paul on the Presidential campaign trail in 2008. It is significant that Beck mentioned his own understanding that the NAU would lead to a World Government, and he asked Paul if he agreed. Of course Ron Paul did. Was it Beck’s personal opinion and concern as it was for Lou Dobbs?

While Dobbs put his career on the line to stand up for principle, the comparison to Beck is important. To my knowledge, like water off the backside of a duck, Beck shelved the thought and discussion because it no longer served the purpose his employer required. It looked more like a “call out” of Paul to make him look radical than a pure seeking of truth and concern for the ravages of what the North American Union would do to the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Dobbs knew what it meant, and he stood up to it. Beck? He was likely doing what he was told to fulfill the political agenda his employer needed him to carry out.

So, when FOX checked Beck’s employment history, did CNN tell FOX he does what he is asked to do? Does Beck toe the station line?

The nature of the show and FOX itself would have us believe they are the counter to all crappy news sources. Nobody tells you the “truth” like FOX!

Now, onto the point.

Who owns Fox News? Rupert Murdoch.

Not long ago, when Beck was explaining his wonderful ability to bring the truth, he mentioned Rupert Murdoch as the man that allowed him to tell us all what is going on.

It’s interesting that Beck bashes communism so freely. Interesting because his boss has long strived to get his news into China:

Mr. Murdoch has flattered Communist Party leaders and done business with their children. His Fox News network helped China’s leading state broadcaster develop a news Web site. He joined hands with the Communist Youth League, a power base in the ruling party, in a risky television venture, his China managers and advisers say.

Okay, forget Murdoch’s ties to communist China, how about Bilderberg.

Not long ago, you might recall Beck defended the Bilderberg Group. You don’t need the Bilderberg Group to explain anything Beck told us. Why would he deflect concern or investigation from the Bilderbergers? Could it be because (and I know this is not a shock to most of us) Rupert Murdoch is a Bilderberger too?

Glenn Beck is the mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch and it is not likely he is doing anything any different from what he did for CNN – he is following the station’s agenda, and Murdoch’s will.

So, if Murdoch is a Bilderberger, is it a surprise Beck would deflect concern about Bilderberg?

And, check out Murdoch himself admit that the news is used to “further the agenda”, and “disclosing certain things can shape the agenda in a limited way”. What agenda? The Bilderberg agenda no doubt. And, Beck is his means to “disclose” only certain information in a “limited way”. Sure fits the Glenn Beck persona and show. Here is Murdoch admitting manipulation of the news:

And, this brings us to the final point.

We do not need to address the issues of Bilderberg. They are the big picture Beck refuses to address.

Bilderberg would lead to 9/11 truth, which is also taboo. Attacking the Democratic President is not taboo, as it fits the agenda of false left-right politics.

But there is a way to watch Beck that will help you understand the pattern.

It is not what Beck exposes that is most significant under these “manipulations”. It is who he discredits, and what he tells you to ignore or brush off as crazy.

Recently, he has attacked Russia Today (RT).

We all know that RT has some very insightful programs and interviews, including Max Keiser (Keiser Report), and interviews with Tarpley and Alex Jones on a regular basis. We know they pose a significant threat to bringing out the truth, and exposing Bilderberg.

And expose Bilderberg they do:

Deflect and discredit Glenn, hurry!

Murdoch wouldn’t like that.

Is it a coincidence Beck is attacking RT?

As you watch Beck, and you still think he holds merit of the truth, keep in mind who butters his bread, and who his new master is. Know that he works for Murdoch, a Bilderberger, who admittedly tampers with the news to fulfill an agenda.

In this case, it is the Bilderberg agenda. It is the globalist agenda.

Beck will continue to do his part to further it, whether it is to create division among races, social groups, unions vs. non-unions, and attack anyone that fulfills the mission of his new master. At this stage in the “game”, the Bilderbergers need to create a social divide, create violence and civil unrest, and deflect away the truth. That is the new agenda. Just watch it come to life on the Glenn Beck show.