Pedophile Priest w/ HIV who Raped Children is Forgiven

[siablo14]

Yes.

The power they wielded didn't just disappear once anti-trust laws came into effect. It was cleverly shifted and hidden in the tax-exempt foundations under the guise of philantropy.

Read the entire article I linked.

"Foundations automatically make friends among banks which hold their large deposits, in investment houses which multiply their monies, in law firms which act as their counsels, and with the many firms, institutions, and individuals with which they deal and whom they benefit. By careful selection of trustees from the ranks of high editorial personnel and other media executives and proprietors, they can assure themselves press support, and by engaging public relations counselors can further create good publicity. As René Wormser, chief counsel for the second congressional inquiry into foundation life (1958), put it:

All its connections and associations, plus the often sycophantic adulation of the many institutions and individuals who receive largesse from the foundation, give it an enormous aggregate of power and influence. This power extends beyond its immediate circle of associations, to those who hope to benefit from its bounty."

Funny how those dates are in the early 90s. Since you believe those links still exist in the public schools, provide links. This links dated events. Provide links that show current links.

[ShoulderRoll]

Funny how those dates are in the early 90s. Since you believe those links still exist in the public schools, provide links. This links dated events. Provide links that show current links.

"A series of articles misrepresenting ExxonMobil’s history of climate change research began to appear in September 2015 in two outlets. The first was InsideClimate News, an online publication funded by a number of anti-oil and gas organizations, most notably the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, and the Park Foundation.

Other articles appeared during the same period in the Los Angeles Times. These stories were written by students and faculty from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism who received funding from some of the same organizations as InsideClimate News, notably the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund, among others."

http://www.exxonmobil.eu/en-eu/polic...1-bb38eb9ee579

[siablo14]

"A series of articles misrepresenting ExxonMobil’s history of climate change research began to appear in September 2015 in two outlets. The first was InsideClimate News, an online publication funded by a number of anti-oil and gas organizations, most notably the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, and the Park Foundation.

Other articles appeared during the same period in the Los Angeles Times. These stories were written by students and faculty from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism who received funding from some of the same organizations as InsideClimate News, notably the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund, among others."

http://www.exxonmobil.eu/en-eu/polic...1-bb38eb9ee579

So you say those claims were misrepresenting?
Where are the correct representations?

[ShoulderRoll]

So you say those claims were misrepresenting?
Where are the correct representations?

I didn't say these claims were misrepresenting. Exxon Mobil did.

They are pissed at what they see as an orchestrated campaign against them led by Rockefeller money behind the scenes.

And you can't really blame them for thinking that given this history:

"What the Wall Street Journal and Free Beacon didn’t report, however, is that the January 2016 meeting was not exactly the first strategy session that took place in which plans to target Exxon in particular were on the agenda.

In 2012, the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which are both funded by the Rockefellers, held a workshop in La Jolla, Calif., at which one of the topics discussed was the various ways they could help hasten an investigation into ExxonMobil via RICO laws. Apparently proud of the progress they had made, the groups released a report after the meeting concluded called, “Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control.” The Rockefellers, as mentioned, hosted the Jan. 2016 meeting. And guess who provided the financial support for 2012 conference in La Jolla? (Yes, them.)"

http://www.ooga.org/blogpost/1230994...o-Target-Exxon

[siablo14]

I didn't say these claims were misrepresenting. Exxon Mobil did.

They are pissed at what they see as an orchestrated campaign against them led by Rockefeller money behind the scenes.

And you can't really blame them for thinking that given this history:

"What the Wall Street Journal and Free Beacon didn’t report, however, is that the January 2016 meeting was not exactly the first strategy session that took place in which plans to target Exxon in particular were on the agenda.

In 2012, the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which are both funded by the Rockefellers, held a workshop in La Jolla, Calif., at which one of the topics discussed was the various ways they could help hasten an investigation into ExxonMobil via RICO laws. Apparently proud of the progress they had made, the groups released a report after the meeting concluded called, “Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control.” The Rockefellers, as mentioned, hosted the Jan. 2016 meeting. And guess who provided the financial support for 2012 conference in La Jolla? (Yes, them.)"

http://www.ooga.org/blogpost/1230994...o-Target-Exxon

Right you used a link from Exxon Mobile themselves claiming that facts about them were being misrepresented. You could have atleast found a neutral source to back them up.

Also you promised that you would be using credible links. You posted from that blogspot link. We have no idea who funded them or the motive behind them. Stick to what you promised me and provided credible links.

[ShoulderRoll]

Right you used a link from Exxon Mobile themselves claiming that facts about them were being misrepresented. You could have atleast found a neutral source to back them up.

Also you promised that you would be using credible links. You posted from that blogspot link. We have no idea who funded them or the motive behind them. Stick to what you promised me and provided credible links.

Refer to this website from the U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:

https://science.house.gov/news/lette...fforts-deprive

There you can read letters that the committee wrote to the Rockefeller funds and to the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2016...they cover the exact same accusations posted on the blogspot link.

[siablo14]

Refer to this website from the U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:

https://science.house.gov/news/lette...fforts-deprive

There you can read letters that the committee wrote to the Rockefeller funds and to the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2016...they cover the exact same accusations posted on the blogspot link.

I see that investigation was opened but I also see that this is a game between the Powers That Be with both sides accusing the other of misrepresenting facts in the public.

The Rockefeller said they funded those groups because Exxon through thier own research learned the impact of fossil fuel on climate change and downplayed it. They said Exxon funded climate deniers group.

Now, in this battle of the Powers That Be, who do you believe is telling the truth.

You can read this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/s...te-change.html

[ShoulderRoll]

I see that investigation was opened but I also see that this is a game between the Powers That Be with both sides accusing the other of misrepresenting facts in the public.

The Rockefeller said they funded those groups because Exxon through thier own research learned the impact of fossil fuel on climate change and downplayed it. They said Exxon funded climate deniers group.

Now, in this battle of the Powers That Be, who do you believe is telling the truth.

You can read this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/s...te-change.html

I don't want to get too sidetracked with the whole climate change thing.

We were specifically talking about the Rockefeller influence on the education system so let's focus there.

I believe I have shown you, with credible links, that there is proof of this extending from the congressional hearings in 1913...to a second congressional committee in 1958...to the current flap with Exxon Mobil where the family's funding of Columbia University is being brought to light as a possible source of bias against the company.

Do you concede that point?

[siablo14]

I don't want to get too sidetracked with the whole climate change thing.

We were specifically talking about the Rockefeller influence on the education system so let's focus there.

I believe I have shown you, with credible links, that there is proof of this extending from the congressional hearings in 1913...to a second congressional committee in 1958...to the current flap with Exxon Mobil where the family's funding of Columbia University is being brought to light as a possible source of bias against the company.

Do you concede that point?

Yes I concede that you have shown that to an extent but you have not proved that they still wield that much power over the public education system. They supported research into climate change at Columbia School of Journalism because they want to show that Exxon was hiding crucial details they had found in their own research.

[ShoulderRoll]

They supported research into climate change at Columbia School of Journalism because they want to show that Exxon was hiding crucial details they had found in their own research.

If the Rockefeller Foundation was truly philanthropic they would just give money to education and let it be used however the recipients thought was best.

Instead they use that money to "buy" journalism faculty and staff who can then be used to push an agenda in the mainstream press.

You are a smart guy, you have to see what's going on there.