CK15
CHARLES IS BEING OPENLY PORTRAYED AS MEDDLING IN POLITICS
IS THIS A CYNICAL PLOY BY SPIN TO SUGGEST HE HAS NO REAL INFLUENCE ?
Leaked missives to ministers about the iniquities of the Human Rights Act and the poor treatment of farmers have revealed the Prince of Wales to be plain Mr Angry of Highgrove House. And there's plenty more where they came from, reveals Alistair Beaton
29 September 2002
Charles allies 'may have leaked letter'
Revealed! The Charles letters
To The Director-General, The BBC
St James's Palace,
5th July 2002
My Dear Greg,
It was a great pleasure to see you at Highgrove last weekend. I think you will agree that Rory Bremner's impersonation of Mummy was a complete hoot!
As to our discussion on the question of comedy, I am afraid that I continue to believe that the Human Rights Act has had a pernicious influence on our ability to laugh. Before this baleful legislation the nation laughed at The Goons, which we all agree represented British comedy at its very best. Now, thanks to a belief in rights rather than responsibilities, the British people are laughing at Coupling. Need I say more?
With kind regards,
Charles
To The President, The National Federation of Chimney Sweeps
Highgrove House,
18th July 2002
Dear Sir,
I am writing to you in the hope that you may be able to furnish me with examples of perfectly healthy and normal chimney-sweeping activities being rendered impossible by politically correct interference from above.
Have there, for example, been occasions in which reams of ridiculous health and safety legislation have prevented you from sending little boys to work up chimneys? And, in your view, is the Human Rights Act encouraging young people to be rude to their elders and betters?
Should you wish to come to Highgrove to discuss these and any other issues with me, I should be delighted to offer you a cup of Darjeeling and a plate of Duchy of Cornwall organic biscuits.
Yours sincerely,
Charles
To Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
St James's Palace,
3rd September 2002
Dear Sir John,
Have you been struck, as I have, by the degree to which London life is being impoverished by the absence of the village bobby? How much more peaceful our capital city would be if only there was a friendly constable on every corner, ready to give young people who misbehave a clip around the ear. No doubt any constable doing so nowadays would be arrested under the Human Rights Act and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment!
I further believe that the quality of our urban life would be immeasurably enhanced if we were to bring back the red telephone box. Those who would erode the moral fabric of our society know very well that once the red telephone box has been abolished completely, there will be very little left of what was once so affectionately known as 'Britain'.
Yours ever,
Charles
BY the way incase you are thinking these arent genuine
here is the address of the Independent on sunday from whence they came.
This is not a joke , Prince Charles genuinely sent them to the respective people and organisations.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=337596
To Saddam Hussein
Highgrove House,
14th September 2002
Dear Mr Hussein,
I was speaking with my friend Tony Blair the other day, and he tells me that we and the Americans are planning to bomb Baghdad back into the stone age. Here in Britain there will of course be a predictable outcry from the politically correct, who will argue that killing innocent people is wrong! I, however, see the situation as a golden opportunity for Iraq.
Imagine: your capital city razed – not a carbuncle in sight! After the war, Baghdad could be rebuilt as a model village, very much along the lines of my own radical experiments in England. I personally would be prepared to lend you my architect for the purpose.
If these ideas interest you, perhaps you would like to come to Highgrove for the weekend? My friends and I would be fascinated to hear about the advantages of living in a country where nobody need pay any attention to the Human Rights Act!
Yours sincerely,
Charles
To Will Young
St James's Palace,
18th September 2002
Dear Will,
As you know, I take a keen interest in young people and I try to keep up with the latest trends. I wonder, do you, as the winner of Pop Idle (I hope I spelled that correctly!) agree with me that our popular music is increasingly becoming ruled by a truly absurd degree of political interference? And is it also your view that, since the introduction of the Human Rights Act, pop music has gone steeply downhill?
Jonathon Porritt and a number of other young people are coming over to Highgrove next weekend. Please come and add your voice to the proceedings. If you wish to bring your guitar and sing us a pop song after supper, that would be delightful!
Yours sincerely,
Charles
To the Editor, The Independent on Sunday
Highgrove House,
28 September 2002
Dear Sir,
I have just seen the first cuckoo of spring. Since it is now late September, this is very worrying. Do your readers agree with me that the Human Rights Act is to blame for this distortion of the natural order of things? As long as we continue to encourage cuckoos to believe that they have rights, rather than responsibilities, this country will never have the birds that it deserves. And where, I have to ask myself, shall we find ourselves if we continue down the slippery slope on which we have now embarked? Cuckoos at Christmas? Turkey in April? Truly, the mind boggles.
Yours etc,
Disgusted, Highgrove
The above sounds absolutely ludicrous i think you'll agree, especially seeing as this has stormed a serious debate in britain about Prince Charles role in British public life,
"should he become involved in politics"?
is the question seriously being asked the public.
Based upon the goonesk and quite unberlievable themes and quips of these letters, it is very hard to accept anyone can seriously see this as charles interfering in british politics, and this is the only time the general public ever get a mention of the idea that Prince Charles has any voice in political affairs ,
as the crown of England has and always will be portrayed as strictly playing a constitutional ceromonial role in Britian.
Based upon the facts that this has been "LEAKED" seemingly to the press, and after reading the content i feel very strongly this as just another smokescreen set up to blind us from the real truth
When you realise what this very real and serious truth about Prince Charles' considerable power and influence is , not just in the Uk but in the United Nations, you can see why such double deceptions like this are constantly fed to the public through the media.
The above letters have been leaked for sure , yet anyone reading them can hardly take them seriously, and that is just it, they are meant to make nonsense of any suggestion that Prince Charles can seriously thought to be the man of considerable power and influence he actually is.
Infact as more is uncovered about that reality of Prince charles, and his power base in the United Nations, by such respected journalist as Joan M Veon for example, it is easy to see why such clever manipulation of the Public is needed , via this kind of disinformation. I can promise you more red herrings and double spin, will be released upon the public by the decietful media Pr campiagns ,that have plainly again been at work, to bring forth such nonsense as this which made headline news .
Headlines that then spark a public debate ,then a complication made by a uncredibility factor . This is done in order to make sure none of the ever growing and considerable power this man yeilds, ever filters through to the general publics conscience minds .
On this occasion, the Prince has purposely been made to look a fool by his own PR machine .To manipulate the publics view on Charles , and to portray him as a serious non starter where the world of politics is concerned.
And someone who is constantly seen as a figure of fun but joining in the joke.
This is a very clever disinformation service that has been set up and i personally would to applaud them for their sheer genius at this game , apart from one point -
THE TOTAL MISLEADING OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
And as with the recent Paul Burrel case , the game of added controversy is quickly devised to make the whole thing either seem harmless by respected settlers of dust or to whoop up the story as in this case .
Charles allies 'may have leaked letter'
By Andrew Clennell
29 September 2002
Charles allies 'may have leaked letter'
Revealed! The Charles letters
The Prince of Wales has written to Prime Minister Tony Blair expressing "regret" for the leaking this month of his letter to Mr Blair, which compared the plight of British farmers to that of gays and blacks.
The latest letter from Prince Charles reportedly absolves Downing Street of any blame for the leaking of the letter, which preceded the Countryside Alliance march, and it seeks to continue good relations the Prince has with the Blairs.
Senior aides for Prince Charles told The Sunday Telegraph today that the letter followed a "private acknowledgement" from the Prince that his friends may have spoken "too freely" about the Prince's correspondence.
The Queen was reportedly informed of the latest missive from the Prince, which followed a fortnight that is said to have embarrassed her, as more and more of Prince Charles's late-night letters were leaked to the media.
One royal official told the newspaper: "She [the Queen] has thought for a long time that it is unwise for members of the Royal Family to air their views on hunting because it is such a divisive issue."
Mr Blair did his bit to patch up any perceived problems with the Prince's continuing correspondence to Cabinet ministers, telling The Observer: "He is perfectly entitled to do it. I find the letters helpful, I don't have any problem with them at all."
Mr Blair said some people wanted to undermine the relationship between the Government and the monarchy and he would not be part of this.
The letter leaked this month, and penned in April, suggested that the Prince agreed with a Cumbrian farmer who told him that if "we as a group were black, other ethnic minorities or other minority groups, we would not be victimised or picked upon".
It has also been claimed in press reports that Prince Charles was quoted as having told a senior politician that if Labour banned fox hunting he "might as well leave this country and spend the rest of my life skiing".
Ofcourse as is evident the whole thing a completely orchestrated to air th charles and politics = charles and how much power influence does/should he have.
Then as i have already said, made to seem irelevant because of the nature of the material charles has written, which to anybodies eyes , is completely frivolous and not wothy of a the seriousness attched to it. ofcourse that was also done on purpose.
Prince Charles says row will not stop letters to ministers
Downing Street furious over claims that the Government is behind leaking of attacks on 'compensation culture'
By Robert Verkaik Legal Affairs Correspondent
26 September 2002
Internal links
Prince Charles says row will not stop letters to ministers
The truth about political correctness - in black and white
Leading article: The Prince of Wales should keep out of politics
The Prince of Wales was at the centre of a political and constitutional row yesterday over the revelation that he had been "bombarding" ministers with letters attacking government policy.
One minister said that the Prince had become so involved in politics that he wrote a letter a week to the Government.
Chief among the Prince's concerns is the growth of the "compensation culture" and some of Labour's high-profile legislation, including the Human Rights Act. In a series of letters to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Prince Charles also takes issue with the "degree to which our lives are becoming ruled by a truly absurd degree of politically correct interference".
It is also claimed that the Prince, a friend of the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama, wrote to the Foreign Office complaining about China's occupation of Tibet.
The Prince has already come under fire over claims he had written to Tony Blair to relay countryside campaigners' views that they were being treated worse than ethnic minorities or gays. MPs lined up to criticise him for overstepping his constitutional role by attempting to influence the policies of the elected government.
The former sports minister Tony Banks said: "He's getting into very, very dangerous waters now because he seems to be getting himself embroiled in what are party political issues."
A serving minister added: "This was a dam waiting to burst. Very few people realised the extent of Charles' role in affairs of state. He writes about one letter a week to the Government. I have a trunkload of letters from him. Many of them are about small local cases."
It appears the letters were leaked to the media by Whitehall officials on ministerial orders in an effort to stem the torrent of correspondence from St James's Palace.
But Downing Street distanced itself from this theory. Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has an excellent relationship with the Prince of Wales and welcomes the fact he keeps in touch with him and other ministers." He is understood to be furious that the Government is being blamed for leaking the letters.
Yesterday, a St James's Palace spokeswoman said: "The Prince takes an active interest in British life and is highlighting problems and representing views which are in danger of not being heard."
Prince Charles has made no secret of his many strong views on such rarefied topics as organic farming and ugly architecture. But he has also been privately writing to ministers to change government policy on mainstream political issues including the "compensation culture", red tape and health and safety legislation.
In a letter to the Lord Chancellor, one of the more popular recipients, the Prince says: "I and countless others dread the very real and growing prospect of an American-style personal injury 'culture' becoming ever more prevalent in this country. Such a culture can only lead ultimately, to ... an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion, let alone the real fear of taking decisions that might lead to legal action."
To illustrate how lives are being changed by this growth in compensation culture he draws Lord Irvine's attention to the case of horse chestnut trees being felled in Norwich last year because of fears that falling conkers could injure passers-by.
But the Prince reserves some of his most vehement criticism for the Human Rights Act 1998, which Labour implemented two years ago with the boast that it was "bringing rights home" to the people of Britain. The Prince of Wales tells the Lord Chancellor that human rights legislation is "only about the rights of individuals [I am unable to find a list of social responsibilities attached to it] and this betrays a fundamental distortion in social and legal thinking."
In another letter to Lord Irvine he is particularly forceful on the law prohibiting volunteer workers in care homes from serving reheated food to the elderly after they have prepared it in their own kitchens.
"Many of these volunteers are middle-aged ladies who have cooked for their families for 40 years without poisoning anyone," Prince Charles says. "Awhole section of volunteers is in danger of being alienated. These sort of people will not volunteer if they are patronised or regulation makes it impractical." He adds: "This, I would contend, is the underlying danger of an increasingly over-regulated society."
But some recipients are flattered by his interest. Last night, a spokesman for Lord Irvine said: "The Prince of Wales does occasionally write to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has not complained in any way and, on the contrary, welcomes the correspondence."
The Prince's right to consult ministers in confidence was also backed by constitutional experts. Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University, said: "He's got a right to do so, some would say a duty. He will become the Sovereign. The more he understands about the country, the better for the country."
Another constitutional expert, the Conservative peer Professor Lord Norton of Louth, said: "The Prince of Wales has not started doing this under Labour; he was writing letters under the Conservatives too. It is up to ministers whether they listen to him."
The letters
The Prince of Wales is said to have "bombarded" the Lord Chancellor with letters on subjects ranging from human rights law and red tape to political correctness. Here are some of the reported extracts:
On legislation banning care home volunteers from cooking, supposedly to prevent food poisoning: "These sort of people will not volunteer if they are patronised or if regulation makes it impractical. This, I would contend, is the underlying danger of an increasingly over-regulated society."
On compensation culture: "The effect is multiplied by other issues relating to the passing of ever more proscriptive laws for example, health and safety at work legislation, the blame culture they can in practise encourage and the bureaucratic red tape which accompanies new rules."
On the Human Rights Act: "I am unable to find a list of social responsibilities attached to it, and this betrays a fundamental distortion in social and legal thinking."
On the Army: "Training boundaries are at risk of being set more and more within the comfort zone that already questions, for example, the use of barbed wire on fences."
And, in a reported letter to the Prime Minister leaked before the Liberty and Livelihood march at the weekend, Charles apparently backed the view of a farmer from Cumbria who had told him: "If we, as a group, were black or gay, we would not be victimised or picked on."
And predictably more ensues as part of a apparant importance placed upon these niave views on what for the most part are carefully selected homeland issues,
when in actual fact charles is leading the united nations in one of the most fundamental and far reaching policies it has undertaken in its history.
by Joan M. Veon
Introduction
However, our look cannot only deal with the man, but must deal with his politics, an empowered United Nations and empowered multinational corporations. The politics of the Prince, specifically the environmental philosophy, are enshrouded in "sustainable development" which is a merger between communism and capitalism. This merger then necessitates a new form of governance through public- private partnerships. The picture is complete when one considers both the empowered United Nations (which the Royal family directs) and empowered multinational corporations (which Charles influences through the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum. When all of these are placed into operation through public-private partnerships, all of society, as we know it, will change. We must understand each of these in order to know the "day and hour."
Chapter 1 - The Rhodes Legacy
Of particular interest with regard to the Milner (Kindergarten) Group was how the world would be ruled once under the British Empire. According to Quigley, "They feared the British Empire might fall into the same difficulty and destroy British idealism and British liberties by the tyranny necessary to hold on to a reluctant Empire. And any effort to hold an empire by tyranny they regarded as doomed to failure .... the Group feared that all culture and civilization would go down to destruction because of our inability to construct some kind of political unit larger than the national state, just as Greek culture and civilization in the fourth century B.C. went down to destruction because of the Greeks' inability to construct some kind of political unit larger than the city-state. This was the fear that had animated Rhodes, and it was the same fear that was driving the Milner Group to transform the British Empire into a Commonwealth of Nations and then place that system within a League of Nations" The United Nations became the successor to the League of Nations in 1945. While there are a number of major differences between the two organizations, the biggest difference was an empowered United Nations. The decisions of the League [of Nations] Council were essentially recommendations, whereas "the decisions of the [United Nations] Security Council are legally binding upon the Members of the United Nations."
Chapter 3 - Philosophical Components of the Agenda
(1) Public-Private Partnerships
What is "public-private partnership?" Public-private partnership is just what it says it is. First, it is a business arrangement, sealed by an agreement or in some cases, a handshake. The terms of the partnership will vary, according to partners and objectives. Second, the parties in the partnership are public and private entities. Public entities refer to government -- -local, country, state, federal or global agencies. Private refers to non governmental groups such as foundations, nonprofit groups, corporations, and individuals. For example, foundations could include the Ford, the Rockefeller, or the local "good-works" foundation; nonprofits could refer to non governmental organizations like The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, The Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc.; and corporations could be any corporation from a small one to a multinational like Exxon, Johnson Wax, 3M, Black and Decker, or Giant Foods. Lastly, individuals could be any person -- such as a businessman, rancher, or dentist.
A public-private partnership will always have as its goal a business-making venture that requires some form of "governance." The question is, since the players will vary in experience and wealth, who has the most power? We know from life itself that whoever has the most money has the power. For example, when a public-private partnership is comprised of governments, such as the County Department of Environmental Initiatives, the State Department of Environmental Resources; a number of private entities, like a Land Trust (foundation) and The Nature Conservancy (nonprofit); along with a corporation such as Black and Decker, the players with the most money control the partnership. In this case, it would be The Nature Conservancy, with assets of over $1B, and Black and Decker Corporation, with a capitalization of $1.6B. Representative government loses.
Pubic-private partnerships were "unveiled" in June 1996 at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II, held in Istanbul. In an interview I conducted with Dr. Wally N'Dow, Secretary- General of the Habitat II conference, he said, "We have got to a point where we cannot not partner with the private sector, as governments, as the civil society, as NGO's, but also as people active in international development such as the UN. That is what Istanbul tried to convey." In a follow-up interview with Dr. Noel Brown, former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and currently Special Advisor to the Group of 77, he said of public-private partnerships, "I believe that the future of the UN will rest on effective partnering with the private sector -- with business and industry. But I also believe that the environment and the environmental community must also rethink its mission and redefine its role as we enter the phase of globalization and as we are on the threshold of the twenty-first century."
While this concept may appear to be new, public-private partnerships have been used for the last twenty years in America as a method of providing financing to low-income families. HUD and its Office of Community Planning and Development has used public-private partnerships to create affordable housing since 1990. In addition, Maryland, Oregon, and Minnesota have implemented state-level public-private partnerships. It should be noted that as public-private partnerships continue to rise in the United States, our Constitution is being eroded as a result of the shift in power.
It should be noted that as public-private partnerships continue to rise in the United States, our Constitution is being eroded as a result of the shift in power. The key to governance in the twenty-first century is the partnership between business, the private sector, and government.
(2) Gaia - The Philosophical Shift
As mentioned, the first United Nations environmental conference was held in 1972 with the second one, the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), held twenty years later. UNCED, also called the "Earth Summit," was an unveiling of the philosophical shift from the Judeo-Christian world view to Gaia. The Programme of Action, called Agenda 21, is 297 pages long, and a second related document, Global Biodiversity Assessment, is over 1,100 pages long. Together these documents contain an agenda that can only be called evil, as the implementation of the action items will turn freedom into bondage and life into misery as all of what we know today will be replaced with a planned electronic society in which our only value will be to produce. This is the agenda Prince Charles is facilitating. In feudalistic times only the king and nobility owned land and had freedom. So, too, under United Nations rule, feudalistic times will return and the lights of freedom will go out. Charles has nothing to lose and the world to gain.
Chapter 4 - Sustainable Development
Let me provide for you my own paraphrased definition of sustainable development, which I think is simpler to understand and embraces all of their points: The world has too many people and if we do not reduce the number of people on planet Earth, they will use up all of the earth's resources so that future generations will be left without any resources. The United Nations is the best global body to monitor and manage and preserve the resources of the planet.
The Philosophy of Sustainable Development
Where does this concept come from? Before I went to the June 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul, I was trying to figure out just where sustainable development came from. The number of people serving on the World Commission on Environment and Development who were Communist, Marxist or Socialist provided my first clue. In thinking about that, it occurred to me that this philosophy is not in our Constitution. I then looked in a constitution opposite of ours, the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1977). I found my answer in Chapter 2, Article 18, which states,
In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are
taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and
its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve
the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve
the human environment."
In the executive summary of the book Business as Partners in Development Creating Wealth for Countries, Companies and Communities, the authors write, "In most cases, the debate is no longer about extreme alternatives -- about communism versus capitalism, the free market versus state control, democracy versus dictatorship -- but about finding common good."
The Result of Sustainable Development
This same interconnectedness can be seen in the merging of environment, economics and social issues into one. This is another aspect of the public-private partnership concept. As the environmental ideology permeates all aspects of life, it takes on a spiritual dimension that mirrors the Gaia philosophy, which is paganism. When the three become one through partnership, they form a philosophical approach that will change representative government in America. As the precepts of the Constitution are eliminated through new (UN policy guided) legislation, the power of the Constitution is eroded and in its place are public-private partnerships, which run parallel to representative government and form the new governance for the twenty-first century. This is a new twist to the concept of world government that most people visualize, and is the key to understanding how important is the Prince of Wales and the corporations to which he is providing leadership.
Chapter 5 - Public-Private Partnerships and Governance are ONE
It is on the global level that a number of key concepts and philosophies come together. Charles has adopted a very radical environmental agenda that calls for a planned society, using the environment and sustainable development as the reason for the change in governance (government) and freedoms. Public-private partnerships are the modus operandi to effect this change. The definition of governance by the UNDP (Chapter 4) is that public-private partnerships and governance (government) are one. In other words, sustainable development equals governance equals public-private partnerships equals ONE (government). We will be controlled on the local from the global through public-private partnerships.
Quote from James Gustave Speth:
Just as important, we look forward to a growing role in supporting the involvement and
participation of NGOs and civil society organizations, including private business, in forging partnerships of many types -- partnerships [public-private] that are an integral part of the web of global governance and the glue that holds our troubled world together. (emphasis added)
Chapter 6 - The Empowerment of the United Nations
In order to understand the power which Charles has, we must look at the increased strength of both the United Nations and transnational corporations. It is not enough to state "Charles is powerful," one must explain how he is powerful in order to understand the magnitude of the day and the hour. Not only is the Rhodes legacy complete through the United Nations, but the apex of the global governmental structure is being revealed through his actions and activities.
The Global (UN) to the Local Connection
Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, a Rhodes Scholar, was on the presidential delegation along with two other mayors from the United States. I asked him what his presence meant. He replied in part, "Well, what I have tried to do here is to let other members of the delegation and those from around the world know how important this conference is to mayors in the United States. We just wanted people to know how important this conference is. It is the beginning of a new era with local government officials being listened to in the development of UN documents and we see this as kind of the wave of the future." Just as local chamber of commerce chapters receive direction from the International Chamber of Commerce, so too, are mayors receiving direction from the global UN level.
Chapter 6 - Multinational Corporations
The following is a message from Dr. David C. Korten, president of the PDC Forum. The following are excerpts from his Internet message:
On June 24, 1997, the CEOs of 10 TNCs [transnational corporations] met over lunch at the United Nations with the UN leadership and a number of senior government officials to chart a formalization of corporate involvement in the affairs of the United Nations. I attended the lunch. I found it a shattering experience for it revealed a seamless alliance between the public and private sectors aligned behind the consolidation of corporate rule over the global economy ....
Chapter 7 - Fascism and the Empowerment of Corporations
Many multinational and transnational corporations have assets and sales in excess of the value of most small and midsize countries. As if this power were not enough, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris is lobbying to pass the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI), which would give corporations unlimited rights in any country that signs the agreement. In the words of Tony Clarke, Director of the Polaris Institute in Canada, "The MAI is designed to establish a whole new set of global rules for investments that will grant transnational corporations the unrestricted 'right' and 'freedom' to buy, sell and move their operations whenever and wherever they want around the world, unfettered by government intervention or regulation. In short the MAI seeks to empower transnational corporations .... by restrict[ing] .... what national governments can and cannot do."
I think the best definition of fascism, which basically points to everything the Prince of Wales believes and is doing, is: "Fascism adheres to the 'philosopher-king' belief that only one class -- which is by birth, education or social standing -- is capable of understanding what is best for the whole community and of putting it into practice."
Chapter 8 - The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum
The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum is an educational charity with close to 50 multinational corporations from the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan, and several other countries on its executive directorate. The U.S. corporations who work very closely with the prince include: 3M, American Express, TRW, Coca-Cola, SmithKline Beecham, ARCO, CIGNA, DHL Worldwide Express, Levi Strauss & Company, The Perot Group, and U.S. WEST International. Additional partners are the American Chamber of Commerce, American Hotel & Motel Association, The Atlanta Project, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The City of Charleston, the Ford Foundation, the Kellog Foundation, Eli Lilly, the New York City Housing Partnership, the Office of Ronald Reagan, the Soros Foundation, Texaco, Tufts University, Turner Broadcasting, USAID, and Warnaco, to name a few.
The Forum is accountable to a board and council made up of the international CEOs and directors from the above listed principal supporters and funded by its members with programmes funded by other sponsors, international development agencies, and foundations. It works with the World Bank Group, United Nations agencies, the European Commission, Overseas Development Agencies, and a number of bilateral agencies from the UK, Japan, and North America.
He has a club with the greatest polluters in world history on his board yet is seen as saviour of the world by the green movement!
"The mission of the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum (PWBLF) is to promote continuous improvement in the practice of good corporate citizenship and sustainable development internationally, as a natural part of successful business operations. It aims to work with members and partners to:
Demonstrate that business has an essential and creative role to play in the prosperity of local communities as partners in development, particularly in economies in transition;
Raise awareness of the value of corporate responsibility in international business practice;
Encourage partnership action between business and communities as an effective means of promoting sustainable economic development."
The PWBLF operates in 26 countries and concentrates on post-Communist countries and developing economies. It has held 26 high-level international meetings in 18 countries involving 5,000 corporate, government, and non governmental leaders.
Chapter 9 Charles -- The Hidden Prince
In an interview that Prince Charles gave on BBC's "Newsnight" program in 1994, "he expressed his devotion to his work for Britain and the Commonwealth. He said, 'so much I try to do is behind the scenes. So it is difficult for people to understand how all the things fit together.' He also asserted that there is a common theme to all his projects and insisted they will turn out to be for the long term good."
Charles -- The Defender of Faith
As a result of my personal study and in light of the above, I have come to believe that when the United States ratified the United Nations Charter, we and the other countries of the world who were not part of Britain's Commonwealth reverted back under British rule through the United Nations organizational structure. Therefore, the fulfillment of the Rhodes Trust is complete.
King Charles III
There has been much speculation with regard to when Charles will become king. I surmise that he does not need a throne, for he already has one. The environmental agenda via sustainable development, and public-private partnerships with the world's largest and strongest multinational corporations, many of which have cash flows and assets exceeding that of most countries, provide Charles his throne. It appears that he rules behind the scenes, encouraging, expanding, pushing, and strengthening the agenda of the United Nations, partnering with the World Bank and other global agencies, all of which are advancing world government, a philosophy with which he is not uncomfortable. After all, there have been many kings, popes, and world leaders who have tried to attain it.
Joan.M.Veon is both a respected Journalist and businesswoman , and has interviewed many top politicans including members of the E.E.C and President Bush.
She is no hack and has considerable knowledge of how the united nations works.
This is why the spin P.R agents are working at full spin in order keep the world believing that both the British Monarchy in general and in particular the The monarch and the Prince of Wales
either hold no real Power or never use it.
Women's Independent Media Group
P.O. Box 77
Middletown, MD 21769
301-432-7512
