Shultz, George

anti-furies?  opposite of CB gray,  want to redeem his legacy? or party has gone hard right wacko?

180 on agw? never  a neo-con? but pearle, wolfie and kissinger

see juhasz condy and shulz at chevron

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/upside-genocide/

no lnx

under the direction of Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt, Guatemala’s then-dictator, the country’s military forces engaged in crimes against humanity—including genocide—against the indigenous peoplein the Ixil region of the department of Quiché, according to the findings of a three-judge panel. (A constitutional court later vacated the sentence on technical grounds but did not challenge the findings [see Kate Doyle, “Guatemala’s Genocide on Trial,” June 10/17].) Largely ignored during the trial, as a thoughtful piece by The New York Times’s Elisabeth Malkin observed, was the role of top Reagan administration officials—including Ronald Reagan himself—in helping to empower and then cover up the Guatemalan military’s crimes.

:{

}:

When Ríos Montt executed his coup in March 1982, US Ambassador Frederic Chapin—perhaps naïvely, perhaps cynically—welcomed the event with the words “The Guatemalan government has come out of the darkness and into the light.” Even after the killings increased in intensity, this remained the official US line. Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Elliott Abrams credited Ríos Montt with having “brought considerable progress” on human rights issues and insisted that “the amount of killing of innocent civilians is being reduced step by step.” As if living in an Orwell novel, Abrams demanded that Congress provide the regime with advanced arms because its alleged “progress need[ed] to be rewarded and encouraged.”

This attitude remained consistent up the chain of command. Secretary of State George Shultz believed that the Ríos Montt regime “help[ed] prevent an extremist takeover.” Most enthusiastic of all, perhaps, was President Reagan: he judged Ríos Montt to be “totally dedicated to democracy” and “a man of great personal integrity and commitment.” Were they simply ignorant of the abuses? If they were, it may have been due to willful ignorance. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas Enders wrote to Amnesty International disputing its reporting on the killings in Guatemala and insisted that the government was making “significant progress” on human rights while the genocide was taking place.What’s more, declassified documents reveal that just ten days before Reagan sang the dictator’s praises upon meeting him, the State Department had received reports of a “well-founded allegation of a large-scale killing of Indian men, women and children in a remote area by the [Guatemalan] army.”

Genocide or no, Guatemala was considered an important ally in the Reagan administration’s anticommunist crusade in Central America, which was focused on, but not limited to, Nicaragua and El Salvador. These officials were hoping to convince Congress to lift the arms embargo against Guatemala that had been put in place under the Carter presidency.Reagan wanted to equip the new regime with advanced helicopter parts to improve its ability to strafe and kill its opponents. Congress never agreed to this, but it did grant additional economic aid, while the Guatemalan military got its advanced weaponry from Israel and Taiwan. Moreover, as Allan Nairn reported in The Progressive in 1986, though the helicopter deal did not go through, “in late 1982, [the Reagan administration] quietly approved a pair of transactions worth $40 million to supply the Guatemalan air force with two transport jets and eight T-37 trainers.”

To be fair to the genocidal dictator, as Walter LaFeber notes in his history of US policy in the region, Inevitable Revolutions, what came after his regime was hardly an improvement. Following a 1983 coup in which Ríos Montt was deposed—and which the US may have encouraged—the military continued its genocidal rampage. As LaFeber writes, “In one village, the army herded the entire population into the courthouse, raped the women, beheaded the men, and took the children outside to smash them to death against rocks.”

In 1999, a UN investigative body known as the Historical Clarification Commission reported that Guatemala’s military and paramilitary forces were responsible for 93 percent of the 42,275 cases of people who, in the words of human rights activist Aryeh Neier, were “murdered, disappeared, raped, or tortured”—and that number covered little more than 20 percent of the estimated victims. President Clinton traveled there and apologized for the US role in these crimes. But what I find interesting is how little the act of helping to engender—and then justify—the genocide has mattered to the reputations of the former US officials who helped it along.

Thomas Enders was rewarded with an ambassadorship to Spain. Elliott Abrams was raked over the coals a bit during Iran-Contra for lying to Congress, but not for his role in helping to ensure that the Guatemalan military’s mass murder continued unimpeded. Following a high-level Middle East policy job in the second Bush administration, Abrams was welcomed by the Council on Foreign Relations and frequently gives paid speeches to synagogues and Jewish groups. George Shultz, meanwhile, is as respected a former statesman as anyone alive, and Ronald Reagan, of course, has been turned into an American icon.

Franklin Roosevelt’s reputation has suffered grievously for his relative inaction during the Nazi Holocaust. Henry Kissinger is considered a “war criminal” even in some polite company for his tangential role in the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s (as well as his role in the 1973 Chilean coup). And yet, for some reason, those who encouraged and apologized for the genocidal rampages of the Guatemalan regime have gotten off scot-free. This is itself a kind of crime. How about the next time that, say, Elliott Abrams speaks at a local synagogue, worshipers inquire as to which genocidal murders he condemns and which he not only supports, but actually helps to make possible?

Frank Smyth wrote about the Ríos Montt trial earlier this year, and asked if other Guatemalan military officers would ever face justice for their role in that country's genocide.

Eric Alterman Longtime Nation media columnist Eric Alterman is a CUNY distinguished professor of English at Brooklyn College and the author of 11 books.

==

energy corp backed carbon tax

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07032019/carbon-tax-proposals-compare-baker-shultz-exxon-conocophillips-ccl-congress

Not long ago, a carbon tax was the untouchable third rail of climate politics.

"We have done extensive polling on carbon tax. It all sucks," John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, wrote to another adviser in a memorable January 2015 email from the Wikileaks stash.

But four years later, amid the political upheaval wrought by President Donald Trump, several carbon tax proposals are getting a serious look on Capitol Hill. Ironically, the president's rejection of climate science and his fossil fuel-focused agenda may have helped usher in an era when carbon taxation is politically thinkable.

One carbon fee-and-dividend plan has already been introduced in Congress and more are expected. Editorial pages and conservative pundits are talking about carbon taxes as a pragmatic way to achieve the goals of the Green New Deal. And the opinion polls look a lot different than the ones that caused Podesta to recoil.

A plurality of Americans—44 percent—say they support a policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by taxing carbon-based fuels, according to a poll conducted last November by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and the Associated Press. (Only 29 percent said they were opposed, while 25 percent were neutral.) A surveyof registered voters by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University found that 58 percent said they would favor a Republican-proposed carbon tax that would return all revenue to households in the form of monthly rebate checks.

More and more states and local governments are jumping in with carbon pricing plans of their own to fill the climate leadership void that Trump has created.Energy companies face the prospect of 50 different regulatory approaches on greenhouse gases in the United States—a powerful incentive for them to seek one uniform, predictable, national approach. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips are among the oil companies backing a campaign to get their favored version of a carbon tax introduced in the Senate this year, one that would also protect them from other climate regulations and lawsuits.

There are significant differences between the carbon tax proposal backed by Big Oil and the approaches backed by environmental activists. And while carbon pricing could help put the U.S. on track to zero emissions by mid-century, experts warn that a poorly designed plan could be too weak to get the job done.

A close look at two economy-wide carbon tax proposals—the oil industry-backed plan, developed by former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz, and legislation backed by a grassroots environmental group, Citizens' Climate Lobby—highlights some of the key questions that policymakers will face as they weigh competing carbon tax plans.

How High a Carbon Tax?

Baker-Shultz proposal:Although its plan has not been formally introduced yet, the framework laid out by the Climate Leadership Council, a coalition of industry and environmental groups that support the Baker-Shultz proposal, would start a carbon tax at about $40 per ton, escalating by 2 to 5 percent annually, and reaching as high as $65 per ton by 2030.

Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act:The bipartisan measure sponsored by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) would levy a carbon tax beginning at $15 per ton, escalating by $10 annually, and reaching $115 a ton by 2030. That averages out to a 24 percent annual increase—higher than any other recent climate proposal.

==

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-17/from-greenspan-to-yellen-economic-brain-trust-backs-carbon-tax

An all-star lineup of economists, from Alan Greenspan to Paul Volcker, is endorsing a plan to combat climate change by slapping a tax on greenhouse gas emissions and then distributing the revenue to American households.

All living former Federal Reserve chairs, several Nobel Prize winners and previous leaders of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers have signed on to a statement asserting that a robust, gradually rising carbon tax is “the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary.”

“A carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future,” the 45 economists say in the opinion piece, published by the Wall Street Journal late Wednesday.

The missive is a rare case of the economic establishment speaking with a single voice on a pressing social issue, albeit one that faces political challenges from conservatives, Republicans and the current White House. The signers include economists who have served every president going back to Jimmy Carter.

“This is one of the few ideas of economic policy that commands broad, bipartisan support,” former Harvard University President and U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said in an interview. “Nowadays on economic policy, we don’t see much of that.”

Other signers include former Fed Chairmen Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke as well as former White House economic advisers Austan Goolsbee and Christina Romer.

The economists’ endorsement could deliver momentum to a carbon tax-and-dividend plan devised by two former secretaries of state -- James Baker and George P. Shultz -- that has already drawn financial support from Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and Exelon Corp.

Pressure is already mounting in Congress to take aim at climate change, following dire warnings about the growing consequences from a United Nations panel and the U.S. government. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, has promised the chamber will take up climate legislation. And some Democrats, led by freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, are advancing a so-called Green New Deal that calls for phasing out fossil fuels by 2030.

That effort may not get far in the current political dynamic, with Republicans controlling the Senate and the White House. President Donald Trump said he opposed taxing greenhouse gas emissions while campaigning for the White House.And House Republicans voted in July to condemn the very idea of a carbon tax as “detrimental” to the U.S. economy, with only six Republicans breaking ranks to vote against the measure.

Advocates of the proposal say they are trying to build momentum for action two years from now.

The economists’ statement includes proclamations that could have broad appeal to Republicans. For instance, the group highlights the importance of keeping the tax “revenue neutral” by giving rebates to all Americans, a tactic the economists say will “avoid debates over the size of government.” They also tout the promise that by replacing inefficient “cumbersome regulations” with a carbon tax, the government can “promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long-term investment in clean-energy alternatives.”

“This is a turning point in Republican climate policy, where the GOP economic brain trust unites behind the Baker-Shultz carbon dividends plan,” said Republican Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader helping push the proposal.

Many economists have favored a carbon tax as the most effective strategy for discouraging greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change. But the economists now are going further by stressing that the revenue should be rebated to citizens, instead of being used to reduce the deficit, fund government or pare income taxes.

“For the first time, there’s consensus among economists on what to do with the money, and the answer is to give it back to the American people,” said Ted Halstead, head of the Climate Leadership Council backing the plan.

That approach is key to ensuring it is a progressive tax that ends up helping the poor, instead of just hiking their energy bills. The premise is that periodic dividend checks could more than make up for the hike in costs for poor- and middle-income Americans.

==

==

Some senior Republicans who have left the battlefield of electoral politics are starting to go vocal with their worries about their party’s stance on climate change—and to take action to stave off its electoral consequences. They fear, in the words of one GOP operative, “that the party is going to drive itself off a cliff with this.”

Conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior adviser on McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign who now heads the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, is working with the climate-policy advocacy group Clean Air-Cool Planet. The New Hampshire-based group has flown Holtz-Eakin to the state several times over the past few months to talk to voters in small living-room meetings about the economic threats of climate change—and the economic benefits of addressing the problem.

Another prominent Republican, John Warner, the former senator from Virginia and secretary of the Navy, is a senior adviser to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate, which focuses on the need to develop alternative energy to combat climate change and lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Warner, who cosponsored a major cap-and-trade bill when he was in the Senate, now travels the country, including stops at military bases, calling attention to the national-security concerns of climate change and fossil-fuel dependence.

Working with Warner on the Pew climate-change project isGeorge Shultz, President Reagan’s secretary of State and an adviser to George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. Last year, Shultz, who is a distinguished fellow at Stanford University, cochaired the “No on Prop. 23” campaign in California, which successfully defended the state’s pioneering cap-and-trade law against an oil industry-led effort to overturn it.

“My own opinion is that this problem is very real,” Shultz told National Journal. “I recognize there are a lot of people pooh-poohing it. Whether they like the science or not, there’s a huge problem coming at us. There’s a huge melt coming in the Arctic regions. There’s melting taking place.” Of Perry and other Republicans who deny climate science, Shultz said, “They’re entitled to their opinion, but they’re not entitled to the facts.”

Former GOP Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who lost his primary race last year in part because he acknowledged climate change, gives speeches and lectures across the country about the need for conservatives to do likewise and begin working on solutions to the problem. Otherwise, the Republican Party will be labeled antiscience, he warns. Inglis takes his message directly to conservative strongholds such as Federalist clubs and meetings of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Being branded as antiscience is not a good future for us,” Inglis told National Journal. “How can we say to young people, we’re dismissing science? That’s not a good place for our party to be, and it’s not historically where we’ve been. There are conservative voices that will hopefully show the way back to conservatism and away from a populist rejection of science.”

On November 8, William Reilly, who ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush, blasted his party’s stance on science in a widely reported speech. “For some of the most prominent leaders of the Republican Party, science has left the building,” he said. “Science doesn’t feature prominently in these debates. Republicans once were the party of science where environmental policy was concerned,” Reilly contended. Of House Republicans’ recent unanimous vote to overturn EPA’s scientific finding that climate change poses a public health threat, he said, “There was no explanation justifying a position at odds with the findings of 11 National Academies of Science, including our own.”

Another longtime GOP ally, Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, is also disturbed by the party’s shift toward science denial. Anderson, who is Tim Pawlenty’s pastor and worked with the former Minnesota governor on his state climate-change initiatives, in 2006 joined with other prominent evangelicals in sending a letter to President George W. Bush arguing that no legitimate scientific debate remained on the merits of climate science and that evangelicals had a moral obligation to solve a problem that threatens the world’s most vulnerable people.

“Most evangelicals in other countries believe that there is climate change and that we need to do something. It seems to be an American position to deny that,” Anderson told National Journal. “It’s curious to me that there are people who have taken strong positions and then changed them. Many of the candidates were expressing concern four or five years ago. Whenever there are sea changes on particular issues and many get on board, you wonder what changed the political or cultural climate.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz

George Pratt Shultz (born December 13, 1920) is an American economist, statesman, and businessman. He served as the United States Secretary of Labor from 1969 to 1970, as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 to 1974, and as the U.S. Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989. Before entering politics, he was professor of economics at MIT and the University of Chicago, serving as Dean of the :{University of Chicago:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: Graduate School of Business from 1962 to 1969. Between 1974 and 1982, Shultz was an executive at Bechtel, eventually becoming the firm's president. He is currently a distinguished fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

...

Early life, education

George Shultz was born in New York City, the son of Birl Earl Shultz and Margaret Lennox Pratt.^{[1]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-BioDictTreas-0)

In 1938, Shultz graduated from the Loomis Chaffee School in Windsor, Connecticut. He attended college at Princeton University, majoring in economics with a minor in public and international affairs. His senior thesis was an examination of the Tennessee Valley Authority's effect on local agriculture, for which he conducted on-site research. Shultz graduated with honors in 1942.^{[1]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-BioDictTreas-0)

Following his college graduation, Shultz joined the U.S. Marine Corps and served until 1945, attaining the rank of Captain. In 1949, Shultz earned a Ph.D. in industrial economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.^{[2]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-WorldBio-1)

[edit] University professor

He taught in both the MIT Department of Economics and the MIT Sloan School of Management from 1948 to 1957, with a leave of absence in 1955 to serve on President Dwight Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisers as a senior staff economist. In 1957, Shultz joined the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business as professor of industrial relations. Later, he was named dean in 1962.^{[1]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-BioDictTreas-0) While at UChicago, he was influenced by Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Stephen Stigler, who reinforced Schultz' view of the importance of a free-market economy.^{[3]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-2)

[edit] Nixon Administration

Shultz served as President Richard Nixon's secretary of labor from 1969 to 1970, during which time he forced Pennsylvania construction unions which refused to accept black members to admit a certain number of blacks by an enforced deadline.^{[4]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-.2770s_243-3) This marked the first use of racial quotas in the federal government.^{[4]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-.2770s_243-3) He then became the first director of the Office of Management and Budget.^{[1]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-BioDictTreas-0)

[edit] Secretary of the Treasury

He was United States Secretary of the Treasury from May 1972 to May 1974. During his tenure, Shultz was concerned with two major issues: the continuing domestic administration of Nixon's "New Economic Policy," begun under Secretary John B. Connally, and a renewed dollar crisis that broke out in February 1973.^{[5]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-TreasuryBio-4)

Domestically Shultz enacted the next phase of the NEP, which involved a lifting of price controls begun in 1971. This phase was a failure, resulting in high inflation, and price freezes were reestablished five months later.^{[5]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-TreasuryBio-4)

Meanwhile Shultz's attention was increasingly diverted from the domestic economy to the international arena. He participated in an international monetary conference in Paris in 1973, which grew out of the 1971 decision to abolish the gold standard, a decision that Shultz and Paul Volcker had supported (see Nixon Shock). The conference formally abolished the Bretton Woods system, thereby causing all currencies to float. During this period Shultz co-founded the "Library Group," which became the G-7. Shultz resigned shortly before Nixon to return to private life.^{[5]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-TreasuryBio-4)

[edit] Business executive

This section requires expansion.

In 1974, he left government service to become president and director of Bechtel Group, a large engineering and services company.

[edit] Secretary of State for Reagan

On July 16, 1982, he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as the sixtieth U.S. secretary of state, replacing Alexander Haig, who had resigned. Shultz would serve for six and a half years - the longest tenure since Dean Rusk.^{[6]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-shultz-takes-charge-5)

Shultz relied primarily on the Foreign Service to formulate and implement Reagan’s foreign policy. By the summer of 1985, Shultz had personally selected most of the senior officials in the Department, emphasizing professional over political credentials in the process. The Foreign Service responded in kind by giving Shultz its “complete support,” making him the most popular Secretary since Dean Acheson^{[6]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-shultz-takes-charge-5) and, along with Acheson and George Marshall, one of the most admired Secretaries in the 20th century. Shultz' success came not only from the respect he earned from the bureaucracy but also from the strong relationship he forged with Reagan, who trusted him completely.^{[7]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-6)

[edit] Relations with China

Shultz inherited negotiations with China over Taiwan from his predecessor. Under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States was obligated to assist in Taiwan's defense, which included the sale of arms. The Administration debate on Taiwan, especially over the sale of military aircraft, resulted in a crisis in relations with China, which was only alleviated in August 1982, when, after months of arduous negotiations, the United States and China issued a joint communiqué on Taiwan in which the United States agreed to limit arms sales and China agreed to seek a “peaceful solution.”^{[8]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-reagan-foreign-policy-7)

bin laden:

The family continues to have a stake, estimated by one source at about ten million dollars, in the Fremont Group, a private investment company, on whose board of directors sits another former Secretary of State, George Shultz. Much of the family's private banking is handled by Citigroup, which is chaired by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. The family has equity investments with Merrill Lynch and Goldman, Sachs. Among the family's business partners is General Electric. A spokesman for Jack Welch, the chairman of G.E., says that the family threw a party for him' in the nineteen-nineties in Saudi Arabia, and that Welch "considers them good business partners."

...

Later life

George Shultz left office on January 20, 1989, but continues to be a strategist for the Republican Party.^{[citation needed]} He was an advisor for George W. Bush's presidential campaign during the 2000 election, and senior member of the so-called "The Vulcans", a group of policy mentors for Bush which also included among its members Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice. One of his most senior advisors and confidants is former ambassador Charles Hill, who holds dual positions at the Hoover Institution and Yale University. Shultz has been called the father of the "Bush Doctrine", because of his advocacy of preventive war.^{[15]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-FatherOfBushDoctrine-14) He generally defends the Bush administration's foreign policy.^{[15]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-FatherOfBushDoctrine-14)

After leaving public office in 1989, Shultz became the first prominent Republican to call for the legalization of recreational drugs. He went on to add his signature to an advertisement, published in *The New York Times* on June 8, 1998, entitled "We believe the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself."

He also has spoken against the Cuban embargo, going as far as calling the US policy towards Cuba "insane".^{[16]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-15) He has argued that free trade would help bring down Fidel Castro's regime and that the embargo only helps justify the continued repression in the island.

In August 2003, Shultz was named co-chair (along with Warren Buffett) of California's Economic Recovery Council, an advisory group to the campaign of California gubernatorial candidate Arnold :{Schwarzenegger:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:.

On January 5, 2006, he participated in a meeting at the White House of former Secretaries of Defense and State, to discuss United States foreign policy with Bush administration officials.

On January 15, 2008, Shultz co-authored an opinion paper published in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Toward a Nuclear-Free World". His co-authors were William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn.^{[17]^}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz#cite_note-16)

Shultz is the chairman of the JP Morgan Chase bank's International Advisory Council and an honorary director of the Institute for International Economics. He is a member of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Board of Advisors, the New Atlantic Initiative, the prestigious Mandalay Camp at the Bohemian Grove, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and the Committee on the Present Danger. He is honorary chairman of The Israel Democracy Institute (www.idi.org.il). Shultz formerly served on the board of directors for the Bechtel Corporation, Charles Schwab Corporation, and was a member of the board of directors of Gilead Sciences from January 1996 to December 2005. He is currently a co-chairman of the North American Forum and also serves on the board for Accretive Health.

boho  mandalay

Born December 13, 1920, in New York City, the son or Birl E. and Margaret Pratt Shultz. Charles Pratt (1830-1891), Margaret's grandfather, became a partner of John D. Rockefeller after merging his oil company with Standard Oil in 1874. His son, Shultz's grandfather, Charles Millard Pratt (1858-1933), was treasurer of Standard Oil and his widow bequeathed their New York mansion, the Charles Pratt House, to the Council on Foreign Relations in 1945, which serves as its headquarters ever since. Birl Earl Shultz (1883-1955), George's father, was a personnel director with the American International Corporation and founded the New York Stock Exchange Institute (November 10, 1955, NY Times, obituary). B.A. degree in economics from Princeton University in 1942. Attended Cap & Gown events, according to Kay Griggs, just as Allen Dulles, Donald Rumsfeld, William Colby, Frank Carlucci, James Baker, and George Griggs (August 3, 2005, Rense). U.S. Marine Corps 1942-1945, attaining the rank of Captain. Faculty member at MIT 1946-1947. At MIT, according to several accounts, Shultz teamed up with the German social engineer Kurt Lewin, who was setting up a psychological research institute there (died in 1947). Lewin emigrated from Germany to the US in 1932 and is said to have been a leading member of the Tavistock Institute (at the very least he served as a source of inspiration to many of their psychiatrists). Taught in both the MIT Department of Economics and the MIT Sloan School of Management 1948-1957. Earned a Ph.D. from MIT in industrial economics in 1949. Chairman of MIT's Industrial Relations Division 1954-1957

. Leave of absence in 1955 to serve on President Dwight Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisers as a senior staff economist. Joined the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business as professor of industrial relations in 1957 and served as dean of the school from 1962 to 1968. Involved in Nixon's election campaign of 1968. Nixon's Secretary of Labor 1969-1970. One of the main organizers of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council in 1972. Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury 1972-1974. It was during this period that Schultz, along with Paul Volcker and Arthur Burns, supported the decision of the Nixon

administration to end the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system. Shultz also regularly played golf with Stephen Bechtel Jr. at Burning Tree. President and director of the Bechtel Group 1974-1982, a privately-held huge construction company strongly linked to the intelligence agencies.

Also acted as president of the Bechtel Foundation. Ran Ronald Reagan's election campaign in 1980, together with Bechtel vice-president Caspar Weinburger. Chairman of the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981-1982. Reagan's Secretary of State 1982-1989. Hosted his good friend Helmut Schmidt at the Bohemian Grove in 1982 and has stayed at Camp Mandalay. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Atlantic Council of the United States. On Oct. 25, 1984, speaking at the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Shultz delivered remarks calling for the U.S. to adopt a preemptive first-strike policy, such was implemented 20 years later by the Bush-Cheney administration. According to John Perkins, former chief economist and "economic hitman", Shultz functioned as the heir to Robert Strange McNamara (1001 Club) as one of the top figures in the new imperial pyramid of power, which employed the structure of economic hitmen to bleed and crush nations. 

Examples are the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, and such as the various attacks on Panama, culminating in the 1989 invasion. Then-Secretary of State Shultz had spoken one day earlier, Sept. 30, threatening the nations present that they had better stay in line, and pay their debts to the IMF. As Secretary of State, he automatically became a honorary member of the Pilgrims Society and gave at least one speech to this club in 1985. In August 1988, while travelling from the airport to La Paz, Bolivia, Shultz's motorcade was bombed, supposedly by drug dealers. There was only material damage. In 1989 he rejoined Bechtel as a director and senior counselor (he still is anno 2005). Director at Gilead Sciences since 1996. Director Fremont Group, Inc. (owned by the Bechtel corporation) and the Charles Schwab Corporation. Chairman of Accenture's Energy Advisory Board. Former member of the Advisory Council of Forstmann Little & Co. (Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld have been other members).

Has visited the Trilateral Commission in the 1990s. Teamed up with George Soros in 1998 to promote a series of referenda to legalize narcotics. According to author James Mann, who wrote the Rise of the Vulcans book about Bush's inner Cabinet, Shultz initiated a discussion with George W. in the Spring of 1998, whereby the future President sat down in Shultz's living room on the Stanford University campus, in order to see if he would be the right man for the presidency. At that meeting were Martin Anderson, the former advisor to both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan; Abraham Sofaer, a former Shultz aide; John Cogan and John Taylor, two economics professors; and Stanford's provost, and Shultz protege, Condoleezza Rice. After the scholars associated with the Hoover Institution indicated that they thought Bush would make a good Presidential choice, Bush invited Shultz, Rice, and Anderson down to Austin, Texas for a follow-up meeting in the Summer. Out of that meeting, which was joined by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, came the public decision for Bush to run for President. Soon Richard Perle and Dov Zakheim were holding Monday morning conference calls with Bush. Bush W. became president in 2000, selecting the above individuals as his primary staff members. Initial member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, a year before that country was invaded. Co-chairman of the economic taskforce for California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003.

Co-chairman of the Commonwealth Club Centennial meeting in 2003, sponsored by Goldman Sachs and Carnegie Corporation. Anno 2005, Shultz is chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase's International Advisory Council, co-chairman of the Committee on Present Danger (together with James Woolsey), and an advisor to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (together with Alexander Haig, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and, until recently, Paul Wolfowitz). Honorary director of the Institute for International Economics (headed by Peter G. Peterson. Other directors are Paul Volcker, Maurice R. Greenberg, and David Rockefellers). Member of the Hoover Institution and the American Enterprise Institute New Atlantic Initiative. Shultz's most senior advisor and confidant is Charles Hill, a former diplomat to Israel, the Far East, and the secretary-general of the UN, who now holds positions at Yale and Stanford. Shultz has been a long time associate of Henry Kissinger.