December 16, 2010
In 1953 and 1954, the United States House of Representatives conducted an investigation of Tax Exempt Foundations to see why these Foundations should enjoy an exemption from paying taxes that are exacted from American citizens.
The Chairman of this House committee was Congressman Carrol Reese of Tennessee, after whose name this Congressional investigating committee is known (Reese Committee Investigations). Congressman Reese’s chief investigator was a man named Norman Dodd (a former banker) who held the title “Director of Research.”
In 1978 the Illinois Legislature established a commission to study “regionalism” (the American version of “soviet”- ism) in that State. The following is taken, for the most part, from a transcript of a public hearing conducted by The Illinois Joint Committee on Regional Government on September 26, 1978, at Edwardsville, Illinois. There Mr. Norman Dodd was interviewed and questioned about his experiences and findings as an investigator with the Reese Committee.
In 1953 Mr. Dodd was extended an invitation to meet with the then President of the Ford Foundation, a Mr. Rowan Gaither, who proceeded to tell him that these Tax-Exempt Foundations operate under orders emanating from the White House, the essence of which is that these Foundations are to use their grant making powers to contribute to altering (”CHANGING”) life in the United States so that it could some day be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union. GOT THAT?
Ford Foundation, Regional Governments
Mr. Dodd was of course shocked and dismayed at hearing this. The Ford Foundation was the largest aggregate of privately directed wealth in the United States. Its grants were responsible for the development of what is known as “regional government” which is surreptitiously replacing lawful constitutional government in the United States.
Mr. Dodd testified that he told Mr. Gaither that he thought that legally the Ford Foundation could make such grants, but did not think it is entitled to withhold that information from the People of this country to whom it is indebted for its tax exemption, and asked why the American people weren’t informed of this Foundation policy and agenda? Mr. Gaither is said to have replied:
“We would not even think of doing such a thing.”Incredible as it sounds, this Foundation agenda seems to have become our official federal “public policy.”
Is it the official “public policy” of the United States (of the federal government) to abolish the United States (our Constitutional Republic)? How else can one translate this? How can such a thing be described as anything but treason?
By granting these seditious Foundations tax free status, are we Americans being duped into financing, subsidizing, and enabling the orchestrated destruction of our own freedom by oligarchic elites? [See Bill Gates' Agenda for the 21st Century]
In response to a letter Mr. Dodd had written to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace seeking an inquiry into and the clarifying of questions the House Committee sought answers to, he received an invitation to send a member of his staff to review the minute books of the organization from its inception in 1908.
Norman Dodd had an attorney, one Kathryn Casey, assigned to his staff to ensure that all Congressional rules and procedures were complied with who was the ideal candidate for this assignment. After two weeks of diligently examining the minutes of the Carnegie Foundation, she returned with her analysis recorded on Dictaphone belts.
In the year 1908, when the Carnegie Foundation began operations, the Trustees discussed -- as recorded in their minutes -- the question of whether there is a more effective means than war to alter (”CHANGE”) the life of an entire people. The conclusion reached was that there was no known better means to that end.
The next question to be raised was how to involve the United States in a war? The answer to that question was a need to control the State Department,which was to be done by controlling the diplomatic machinery of the country.
We eventually became involved in WWI, at which time their minutes show that they had dispatched a telegram to President Wilson cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. After WWI -- as their minutes also show -- their interests shifted to preventing what they referred to as “a reversion of life in the United States back to what it was prior to 1914” when WW 1 broke out.
The conclusion arrived at here was that they must control the education system in the United States. This task was thought too big for them to handle alone so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation for assistance.
They decided that the best way to succeed in this operation was to alter the teaching of American History. They approached four of the most prominent history teachers in the country with the suggestion that they alter the manner in which they present their subject and got turned down flat. They discuss in the minutes, the necessity of having to “build our own stable of historians.”
They then approached the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, with the proposal of finding influence-able young men in the process of studying for Doctorates in the field of American History who could be induced into prostituting their academic integrity by distorting the teaching of history and grant them fellowships on their (Carnegie Foundation’s) recommendation, to which they agreed.
Eventually they recruited some twenty individuals and took them to London where they were briefed on what was to be expected of them, as a condition of keeping the Doctorates they would be assisted in acquiring.
This group of twenty historians ultimately became the nucleus of the American Historical Association. It received a grant of $400,000 from the Carnegie Endowment in the late 1920’s which provided funding for revisionist research that produced a 7 volume study of our history, presented in a manner consistent with the way the Endowment wished it to be taught here in the future.
This policy diverted away from support of the “out dated” and “no longer practical” principles and “self evident truths” embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and insinuated instead one of “collectivism” (communism), the so called wave of the future, and how this country should be, as they wished to have it be.
Norman Dodd’s testimony stated that the impact of the shock of learning the content of the Carnegie Endowment’s foundational minutes was too much for attorney Kathryn Casey. She was never able to return to her law practice, and eventually suffered an emotional breakdown as a result of it.
In a later subsequent interview, Mr. Dodd was asked why these Foundations (of capitalist interests) so generously support communist causes in the United States. His answer was: to them, communism represents a means of developing an organized monopoly of large scale industries into a manageable, administrable unit. Communism has been best described as the consolidation and control of the world’s resource wealth into the hands of a select elite few. This is what the “redistribution of wealth” scam is really all about -- a forced transfer from the money “makers” to the money “getters.”
The Reese Committee Investigation has painted us a clear picture of what our federal government’s “public policy” is, and what its goals are. It also shows who dictates the terms and agenda of this policy to those whom we have naively entrusted the administration of our government. Though political party dominance trades positions occasionally, no significant meaningful reform ever seems to happen.
Future series of articles will examine and expose the nature and make up of the “beast” itself. The proof is in the pudding and the pieces eventually will all come together and fall into place.
This thing we call communism, also known as socialism, or liberalism, is of course Marxism. The next article in this series will begin by examining the Marxist manifesto, and go on to expose, piece by piece, the Liberal’s mantra and agenda, a literal blueprint for the overthrowing of the free societies of the world, in particular, the United States of America.
Once one has learned what to look for, it is thereafter impossible not to see the pattern and understand what is going on in government.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation"A key question for Melinda and me is, Where are foundations uniquely suited to causing positive change? Foundations provide something unique when they work on behalf of the poor, who have no market power, or when they work in areas like health or education, where the market doesn’t naturally work toward the right goals and where the innovation requires long-term investments. Foundations are unusual because they don’t have to worry about being voted out at the next election or board meeting. Another way that running a foundation is not like running a business is that you don’t have customers who beat you up when you get things wrong or competitors who work to take those customers away from you. You don’t have a stock price that goes up and down to tell you how you’re doing. This lack of a natural feedback loop means that we as a foundation have to be even more careful in picking our goals and being honest with ourselves when we are not achieving them." - 2009 Annual Letter from Bill Gates
"If we project what the world will be like 10 years from now without innovation in health, education, energy, or food, the picture is quite bleak. We will have to increase the price of energy to reduce consumption, and the poor will suffer from both this higher cost and the effects of climate change. In food we will have big shortages because we won’t have enough land to feed the world’s growing population and support its richer diet. However, I am optimistic that innovations will allow us to avoid these bleak outcomes. In the United States, advances in online learning and new ways to help teachers improve will make a great education more accessible than ever. With vaccines, drugs, and other improvements, health in poor countries will continue to get better, and people will choose to have smaller families. With better seeds, training, and access to markets, farmers in poor countries will be able to grow more food. The world will find clean ways to produce electricity at a lower cost, and more people will lift themselves out of poverty. Melinda and I see our foundation’s key role as investing in innovations that would not otherwise be funded. This draws not only on our backgrounds in technology but also on the foundation’s size and ability to take a long-term view and take large risks on new approaches." - 2010 Annual Letter from Bill Gates
Although Bill Gates might try to say that his Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really "donating" anything. Instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their "donations" finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. - Three Sides of the Same Figure: Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates, Pravda October 14, 2010
"If we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent." - Bill Gates
See: The World's Richest Give Billions to Remake the World in Their Image