Democrats in Congress have agreed to provide a $100 billion credit line to the International Monetary Fund, tagging it onto the war supplemental intended for operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
The measure would also increase the U.S. member contribution to the IMF by $8 billion and authorize the United States to back the IMF’s plan to sell 400 tons (12.97 million ounces) of gold, according to lawmakers’ aides quoted in a Reuters report.
This would fulfil Obama’s pledge to the G20 in April, to contribute toward a $500 billion boost for the IMF, which it says will go toward “helping poorer nations” during the economic downturn.
However, what the The Treasury Department is really proposing is an international version of the Wall Street bailout; a $100 billion bailout for the IMF, which amounts to a bailout for European banks facing big losses in Central and Eastern Europe.
If the bill pasess, we will see $100 billion in U.S. tax dollars simply handed over to foreign banks with no oversight.
House Republicans, including Minority Leader John Boehner, have threatened to vote no on the war funding if the IMF money is attached.
“Let’s be clear: a troop-funding bill should fund our troops, period,” said Boehner.
“Weighing down this critical legislation with nondefense spending will only drag this process out further and cost it essential Republican support needed for passage.”
“We should not be having this discussion. IMF funding has no business being included in the war supplemental” bill, said Representative Eric Cantor, a member of the Republican leadership.
The passage of the bill will be an extrememly close run contest, given that GOP votes are needed to make up for 51 anti-war Democrats who opposed it last month.
If all Republicans vote no, then the House leadership will need 18 of the Democrats to reverse their defection and vote yes.
Of course, because the IMF money is tagged onto a bill to fund U.S. troops in the field, there is increased pressure on those considering voting down the measure.
We have previously highlighted the ongoing agenda to vastly empower the IMF and transform the institution into a “bank of the world” with the power to print its own currency.
This is not a “conspiracy theory”.
As the Washington Post highlighted two months ago, the agenda is laid out in publicly available internal IMF documents, interviews and think-tank reports.
It is part of an open move to empower a group of unelected central bankers with the authority to usurp state sovereignty by overseeing benchmarks for national economic governance and setting regulations for financial institutions all over the globe.
As we have also previously highlighted, both the IMF and the United Nations have thrown their weight behind proposals to implement a de-facto global financial dictatorship.
Both bodies have expressed support for new world reserve currency system to replace the dollar as part of the acceleration towards a new economic world order.
President Jimmy Carter: "Deprived of proper sex education, American girls are five times as likely to have a baby as French girls, seven times as likely to have an abortion, and seventy times as likely to have gonorrhea as girls in the Netherlands. Also, the incidence of HIV/AIDS among American teenagers is five times that of the same age in Germany."
What President Carter cannot tell you is exactly how and why these horrible afflictions are occurring to American girls--key information on the sexual exploitation of 1 million American children through active social engineering programs is still classified. The Bohemian Grove death cult has been programming Americans through mass media for 50 years. Such deep programming of sex myths and sex taboos are directed at population control and destruction of the parental duty of sex education. But you will know these programs when they come for your children. You will also know these programs by the fear, superstition and ignorance that they promote in your community, dumbing down your children, even rape-kitting your baby. These programs completely violate standing Supreme Court decisions regarding parental rights, but continue to operate in full steam. Why? You think this is some wild conspiracy myth? Think again, it's called American Politics 101 and it's completely reshaping America.
What we would not do to children in Africa is now completely common in America due to social conditioning which is completely political. I have firsthand knowledge of these programs and know how local agencies are defrauding the same federal government that secretly enables them through political programs. But these secret "altruistic" control programs in America destroy basic parent-child bonds and actually build dehumanizing sub-cultures of fear and ignorance. These programs literally destroy sacred parent-child bonds and families by using some of the most primitive methods imaginable, long used by the CIA. They broadly succeed in utter secrecy to repress non-elite minorities and provide recruits for the Pentagon. These programs work exceedingly well and are completely illegal.
They are obvious Child Trafficking Programs designed to promote redneck myths about human sexuality and child rearing. They use shock and awe campaigns against children to pry them away from their parents and then drug them. This practice is so obvious that they document it for family courts, run it in Republican campaign ads and speak openly about it! When it comes to promoting deadly ignorance, they have no shame!
These ignorance programs are very real and come directly from the most secret political movements in America, for which I have firsthand knowledge. Many of the effective sex education programs now being banned by Republican "family values" politicians and private conspirators have been proven successful at Harvard University and through many Unicef field studies. These are among the most thoroughly researched education programs on earth and have been used extensively in Europe, Africa and Asia. They are required reading for all State Department employees with children overseas, yet they are effectively banned for children in the United States. The "non-elite" are even criminalized or subject to unconstitutional sexual inquisitions for using these methods. This double-standard in life-or-death sex education is no coincidence. Active social engineering has long been a silent agenda for the radical right for domestic population control and sustained elitist power. Politics is why these comprehensive sex education and child empowerment programs that actually work are taboo in America and are now being criminalized. The existing power system based on Republican grave robbers and drug dynasties would crumble if the truth were to come out.
By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE Last updated at 2:37 PM on 03rd June 2009
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden claimed Barack Obama 'had planted the seeds of revenge and hatred in the Muslim world' in a new recording released as the US president landed in Saudi Arabia this afternoon.
Bin Laden said Obama was continuing in the steps of his predecessor George W. Bush and told Americans to be prepared for the consequences of the White House's policies, in the recording aired by Al Jazeera TV. The president is in Saudi Arabia for talks with King Abdullah on the eve of a much-anticipated speech in Cairo the U.S. leader hopes will help repair America's damaged image in the Islamic world.
Enlarge Barack Obama with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia during the arrival ceremony at King Khalid International Airport today
King Abdullah took the US president to his farm for talks on issues ranging from the Israel-Palestinian conflict and Iran's nuclear programme
After an airport welcome in Riyadh, Mr Obama travelled to King Abdullah's farm where the two men were to hold talks expected to cover the Arab-Isareli conflict, US overtures to Iran and oil.
He was due to spend the night at the Saudi king's farm before heading on to Cairo for his speech to the Muslim world, which will fulfill a campaign promise last year to deliver an address from a Muslim capital early in his administration.
'I am confident that we're in a moment where in Islamic countries, I think there's a recognition that the path of extremism is not actually going to deliver a better life for people,' Obama told NBC News before he left Washington.
'I think there's a recognition that simply being anti-American is not going to solve their problems. The steps we're taking now to leave Iraq takes that issue and diffuses it a little bit,' he said.
More... Nancy Reagan returns to the White House and signs Bill to honour her Ronnie on 100th anniversary of his birth Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said earlier the speech was 'about resetting our relations with the Muslim world'.
Obama cautioned against expecting too much from the speech, which he said was just the first step in opening a broader dialogue with the Muslim world.
'After all, one speech is not going to transform very real policy differences and some very difficult issues surrounding the Middle East and the relationship between Islam and the west,' Obama said.
He spoke as analysts noted a shift in the presentation of the president's Islamic heritage.
Political bloggers noted that during the presidential campaign, Obama's team went to great lengths to paint him as an American and emphasise his Christian roots - distancing him from his Muslim father.
Enlarge Enlarge Both Osama bin Laden, left, and Ayman al Zawahri, right have slammed Obama over the last 24 hours
Bloggers at ABC News cited a comment the then-senator made on: May 22, 2008 as typical: 'My father was basically agnostic, as far as I can tell, and I didn't know him.'
In September 2008, candidate Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd, 'I know that the temptation is to say, 'You know what? The guy hasn't been there that long in Washington. You know, he's got a funny name. You know, we're not sure about him.'
'And that's what the Republicans when they say this isn't about issues, it's about personalities, what they're really saying is, 'We're going to try to scare people about Barack. So we're going to say that, you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections.'...Just making stuff up.'
Since taking office, however, analysts said Obama is flipping the coin - playing up his Islamic roots in an effort to reach out to the Muslim world.
Speaking to the Turkish parliament in April, he said: 'Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them.'
In an interview with France's Canal Plus on June 1 he painted America as one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, saying: 'I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.
Enlarge The president shares a quiet word with King Abdullah on the red carpet
'And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.'
The president has also begun introducing himself by his full name - Barack Hussein Obama - despite dropping the 'Hussein' during the election campaign.
Whether the Muslim world will buy the turnaround - or whether Obama will face any domestic backlash for it - remains to be seen. Tomorrow's speech in Cairo may prove the test. But Al Qaeda will not allow Obama to attempt to charm the Muslim world without a fight.
Bin Laden's intervention came after his number two slammed Mr Obama's Cairo speech, saying it will not change the 'bloody messages' the US military is sending to Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ayam al Zawahri posted the new audio message yesterday on Islamic websites.
'His bloody messages were received and are still being received by Muslims, and they will not be concealed by public relations campaigns or by farcical visits or elegant words,' al Zawahri said.
Robert Wenzel Global Research June 2, 2009 The Federal Reserve appears to be increasingly nervous about the long term bond market. This is serious. How panicked are they? After leaking a story on Friday, they are back at it on Sunday.
The Fed can of course print money to buy up every Treasury bond in existence, but the inflationary ramifications would be Zimbabwe like, and crush the dollar on international currency markets.
The Federal Reserve leaked to CNBC’s Steve Liesman on Friday that they weren’t targeting long rates. Why such a leak? Probably because the Fed did not want to appear impotent in controlling the long rate. So they put out the word through Liesman that they weren’t targetting the long rate. Can you imagine what would happen to the markets if it sensed long rates were beyond the control of the Fed?
The Fed can of course print money to buy up every Treasury bond in existence, but the inflationary ramifications would be Zimbabwe like, and crush the dollar on international currency markets. Are we near the phase where all hell breaks loose? I have never even answered, maybe, to this question before. It’s always been, “no.” Now it’s maybe.
What really has me spooked is another article out this afternoon (on a Sunday) that Drudge has even picked up. It’s a Reuters story by Alister Bull. The headline: Federal Reserve puzzled by yield curve steepening.
Translation, the Fed doesn’t know what is going on, but they are really scared. Here’s more from Bull:
The Federal Reserve is studying significant moves in the U.S. government bond market last week that could have big implications for the central bank’s strategy to combat the country’s recession.
But the Fed is not really sure what is driving the sharp rise in long-dated bond yields, and especially a widening gap between short and long term yields.
Do rising U.S. Treasury yields and a steepening yield curve suggest an economic recovery is more certain, meaning less need for safe haven government bonds and a healthy demand for credit? If so, there might be less need for the Fed to expand the money supply by buying more U.S. Treasuries.
Or does the steepening yield curve mean investors are worried about the deterioration in the U.S. fiscal outlook, or the potential for a collapse in the U.S. dollar as the Fed floods the world with newly minted currency as part of its quantitative easing program. This might be an argument to augment to step up asset purchases.
Another possibility is that China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury debt, has decided to refocus its portfolio by leaning more heavily on shorter-term maturities…
An obvious culprit for the move in bond yields is the country’s record fiscal deficit, which will generate a massive amount of new government issuance. The U.S. Treasury must sell a record net $2 trillion in new debt in 2009 to fund a $1.8 trillion projected fiscal deficit, resulting from falling tax revenues, an economic stimulus package and sundry bank bailouts.
It’s the Chinese, and any other Treasury bond buyer who follows the markets, that have pulled away, to varying degrees from buying Treasury long securities. No one wants to be the last one holding bonds, where the new debt about to be issued is in the trillions.
Bull continues with the part of the message the Fed really wanted to get out: With officials still grappling to divine the factors steepening the yield curve, a speedy decision on whether to ramp up the Treasury debt purchase program or the related plan to snap up mortgage-related debt seems unlikely.
“I’m in wait-and-see mode,” said one Fed official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We laid out the asset purchase plan and we’re following it. That is going to have some affect on various interest rates, but together with a hundred other things. So I don’t think we should be chasing a long-term interest rate,” the official said. It’s the same message as Friday. The Fed does not want to spook the world into thinking that it can’t push long term rates down, so it says it is not trying. But if rates continue to climb, a panic out of Treasury securities is a very likely scenario. And Bernanke has only one play to force long rates back down, buy every long bond in sight, which of course is highly inflationary and puts upward pressure on rates. How’s that for a dilemma?
The end of the current financial system, as we know it, may be iminent. If you would have asked me even two weeks ago if collapse was imminent, I would have said it was highly unlikely, now I am saying it is possible. Bernanke may be able to patch things up short-term, if he is lucky, but long term the U.S. financial structure is in serious trouble. There is just too much Treasury debt that needs to be raised. An international panic out of Treasury securities, even a slow controlled panic, means the Fed will be the major buyer. This will ultimately mean record inflation.
And keep this in mind, we have never seen a collapse of a currency like the dollar. Even the hyperinflation during Germany’s Wiemar Period can not serve as an example. Since the dollar is the reserve currency of most of the world, a panic out of the dollar means more dollars will return to the U.S. shores than any country has ever experienced.
Other countries have had collapsed currencies, but never in the history of world of finance has so much currency been held outside a country of issue that could come flying back, almost on a moments notice. If the panic out of the dollar starts, even if Bernanke stops printing money (unlikely), all the dollars flying back into the U.S. could cause a huge price inflation all on its own.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that the banking and financial services industry has an outsized influence in Congress.
Wells Fargo, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase each got bailouts of $25 billion in government bailouts last year. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs got $10 billion apiece. And AIG, the mammoth insurer that lost billions in bad derivatives bets, has sucked in more than $170 billion.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is reticent about bailing out an American state — California.
Collin Peterson, Democratic Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, says he knows who to blame.
“The banks run the place,” Peterson told the New York Times in Monday’s editions. “I will tell you what the problem is — they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.”
Peterson has introduced a bill to regulate derivatives trading — the pesky financial instruments that nearly brought down the US financial system. Derivatives involve writing insurance on various complex financial transactions, such as providing insurance to investors in the event of massive defaults on home mortgages. But he says that Republicans have watered down his bill. He wants derivatives trading to take place on public exchanges — much like the New York Stock Exchange — rather than through private clearinghouses, which are managed by banks.
Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, meanwhile, would prefer the transactions be monitored by the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. Bankers appear to prefer this option, given that the New York Fed has been lenient on them in the past. Geithner has been criticized for his close relationships with banking industry executives. His proposal to regular derivatives traded through private clearinghouses mirrors that of the bank’s own proposals.
How much did President Barack Obama receive in contributions from those employed in the financial sector?
$69,823,872 if you include real estate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Sen. John McCain got $60,605,254, with the total between the two exceeding $130 million).
The biggest donor to the presidential campaigns? The banks. Followed by lawyers and lobbyists, at $95 million. The banking and financial services industry have their own lobbyists, so the total donations of the industry are undercounted.
All told, according to the New York Times, financial sector employees gave $152 million in political donations from 2007 to 2008. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Credit Suisse gave $22.7 million and spent a combined total of $25 million on lobbying activities — in a single year. And President George W. Bush’s largest individual donor employer in 2004? MBNA, the credit card behemoth that was bought up by — Bank of America.
Remarkably, though, it’s the secretive, private trading of derivatives — where those buying insurance have no idea what others are paying, and those buying bank stocks have no idea what they’re actually buying — that nearly brought the US financial markets to their knees.
“Peterson’s bill specifically bars derivatives trading in a clearinghouse regulated by the New York Federal Reserve, which he said in an interview ‘is a tool of the big banks’ that ‘wouldn’t do much’ to regulate the contracts,” the Times wrote. “Because the banks’ lobbyists persuaded some of his Republican colleagues to resist more sweeping changes, Mr. Peterson said, he has had to modify a bill he introduced that is similar to Mr. Harkin’s in calling for wide-ranging limits on derivatives.”
The banks have had their heyday in Congress in recent years. This year, they succeeded in preventing the Senate from passing a provision that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to unilaterally reduce the principal amount on mortgages. And in 2005, the massive “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention” bill passed by Congress made it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy.
One of the first targets is 200 state parks, already causing a public outcry as summer approaches.
By Daniel B. Wood features.csmonitor.com May 30, 2009
LOS ANGELES - Before this state’s May 19 vote on five initiatives intended to solve the state’s chronic fiscal difficulties, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — in person on the stump and via TV ad blitzes up and down the state — told voters that if the measures did not pass, the resulting budget cuts would be “draconian.”
In the days after the measures went down in flames, the announcements have come rapid fire, and various constituencies are reeling — calling the cuts “beyond draconian.” Some 235,000 state workers will have to take a 5 percent pay cut. Of the state’s 279 state parks, 200 will be closed. Schwarzenegger’s plan to dismantle the Cal Grant program — considered one of the nation’s best programs to help poorer students cover full fees or tuition at public colleges — would make California the first US state to eliminate student financial aid while raising tuition.
The list goes on and on:
A massive plan to overhaul healthcare in state prisons will be scaled back. A Senate bill which would have created a state-run system to provide healthcare to every Californian has been scrapped. A CalWorks program providing medical, dental, and vision care to 90,000 children will be eliminated. Hundreds of new spending programs have been sidelined, and the local budgets of cities and counties have been raided to make ends meet.
“We recognize the fiscal situation in California, and as much as we would love to be doing new and different things in California, we simply don’t have the money,” says Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) of Sacramento. After closing a $41.5 billion budget gap in February, the state has another $24.3 billion deficit in a $92 billion general fund budget.
Besides the pay cuts to state workers, one of the most highly-visible and painful cutbacks will be the closure of state parks, not just at the beginning of the summer season in which they are needed most, but in a recession year in which many vacationers are opting to say close to home to save money.
“This is going to be devastating,” says Jerry Emory, director of communications for the California State Parks Foundation, a nonprofit organization which raises money to support parks. State parks had a record 80 million visits last year, and every indication is this year would have exceeded that, with reservations for the year filling up just hours after opening in January.
Besides laying off staff, the effect to local economies will be even worse. Studies show that for every dollar spent at a state park, $2.35 is generated for the state’s general fund through the ripple effect at nearby stores, attractions such as ferries, restaurants, souvenir stores, and other amenities. Closing the parks also creates law enforcement challenges and the further deterioration of buildings, restrooms, trails, and roads.
“Closing parks costs a lot of money. We already have $1.2 billion in deferred maintenance,” says Mr. Emory, “and that figure will balloon way beyond that while this closure is in effect.”
Emory says his foundation website is creating easy links to legislators for citizens to vent their anger and hopefully change Schwarzenegger’s directive by next Tuesday, when a budget meeting is scheduled. The governor announced the closure of 48 state parks last year, but later changed his mind after a public outcry.
Parks that will remain open are state beaches and other parks used by off-road vehicles and boats whose funding comes from taxes and fees generated by such boats and vehicles. Some beaches attract enough visitors to operate from parking, admissions, and other concessions fees. Some critics have said that the amount of savings is so minuscule from parks — only $70 million — that the governor may be using the high-visibility parks issue to provoke public pressure on legislators to solve the budget problem.
But spokesman for the governor’s Department of Finance, H.D. Palmer, says the governor’s proposals are “not a test.”
“We have been forced to put forward proposals that would have been unthinkable even a few short months ago,” Palmer says.
Staff writer Gloria Goodale contributed to this report.
A US industrial laser company says it has developed a functional puke-ray system, ideal for use by cops or military personnel wishing to take down their opponents without shooting them. The firm proposes to issue the “non lethal light fighting technology” in two form factors - light-sabre/torch and blaster-pistol. The so-called Dazer Laser™ technology comes from Laser Energetics Inc, of New Jersey, which has been supplying more conventional laser equipment since 1991. Now, however, the company is pleased to announce its new Defender™ and Guardian™ chunder-beam weapons.
According to Laser Energetics’ statement:
These non-lethal weapons have the ability to control the threat at ranges of 1 meter to 2400 meters (model dependent). The Dazer Laser™ - Light Fighting Technologies - emit a green “eye safe” laser beam, that is shaped into approximately a 1 foot to 8 foot Dazer Zone™ (model dependent) which when focused on the threats eyes, the threats vision is temporarily impaired, their balance is effected, and they become affected by nausea. This controls the threat making it difficult for them to manoeuver. The Ultimate Non – Lethal Weapon.
“This life saving non-lethal weapon will help all branches of the military, law enforcement, correctional facilities, security, border patrol, piracy control, homeland security, airport security and much more,” says Laser Energetics CEO Robert Battis.
For over 14 years, Daniel Estulin has investigated and researched the Bilderberg Group’s far-reaching influence on business and finance, global politics, war and peace, and control of the world’s resources and its money.
His book, “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” was published in 2005 and is now updated in a new 2009 edition. He states that in 1954, “the most powerful men in the world met for the first time” in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, “debated the future of the world,” and decided to meet annually in secret. They called themselves the Bilderberg Group with a membership representing a who’s who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada, and Western Europe with familiar names like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdoch, other heads of state, influential senators, congressmen and parliamentarians, Pentagon and NATO brass, members of European royalty, selected media figures, and invited others - some quietly by some accounts like Barack Obama and many of his top officials.
Always well represented are top figures from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, EU, and powerful central bankers from the Federal Reserve, the ECB’s Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England’s Mervyn King. For over half a century, no agenda or discussion topics became public nor is any press coverage allowed. The few invited fourth estate attendees and their bosses are sworn to secrecy. Nonetheless, Estulin undertook “an investigative journey” that became his life’s work. He states:
“Slowly, one by one, I have penetrated the layers of secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg Group, but I could not have done this withot help of ‘conscientious objectors’ from inside, as well as outside, the Group’s membership.” As a result, he keeps their names confidential.
Whatever its early mission, the Group is now “a shadow world government….threaten(ing) to take away our right to direct our own destinies (by creating) a disturbing reality” very much harming the public’s welfare. In short, Bilderbergers want to supplant individual nation-state sovereignty with an all-powerful global government, corporate controlled, and check-mated by militarized enforcement.
“Imagine a private club where presidents, prime ministers, international bankers and generals rub shoulders, where gracious royal chaperones ensure everyone gets along, and where the people running the wars, markets, and Europe (and America) say what they never dare say in public.”
Early in its history, Bilderbergers decided “to create an ‘Aristocracy of purpose’ between Europe and the United States (to reach consensus to rule the world on matters of) policy, economics, and (overall) strategy.” NATO was essential for their plans - to ensure “perpetual war (and) nuclear blackmail” to be used as necessary. Then proceed to loot the planet, achieve fabulous wealth and power, and crush all challengers to keep it.
Along with military dominance, controlling the world’s money is crucial for with it comes absolute control as the powerful 19th century Rothschild family understood. As the patriarch Amschel Rothschild once said: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”
Bilderbergers comprise the world’s most exclusive club. No one buys their way in. Only the Group’s Steering Committee decides whom to invite, and in all cases participants are adherents to One World Order governance run by top power elites.
According to Steering Committee rules: “the invited guests must come alone; no wives, girlfriends, husbands or boyfriends.
Personal assistants (meaning security, bodyguards, CIA or other secret service protectors) cannot attend the conference and must eat in a separate hall. (Also) The guests are explicitly forbidden from giving interviews to journalists” or divulge anything that goes on in meetings.
Host governments provide overall security to keep away outsiders. One-third of attendees are political figures. The others are from industry, finance, academia, labor and communications.
Meeting procedure is by Chatham House Rules letting attendees freely express their views in a relaxed atmosphere knowing nothing said will be quoted or revealed to the public. Meetings “are always frank, but do not always conclude with consensus.” Membership consists of annual attendees (around 80 of the world’s most powerful) and others only invited occasionally because of their knowledge or involvement in relevant topics. Those most valued are asked back, and some first-timers are chosen for their possible later usefulness.
Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended in 1991. “There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement….was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president,” and on January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect. Numerous other examples are similar, including who gets chosen for powerful government, military and other key positions.
Bilderberg Objectives
The Group’s grand design is for “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Their “wish list” includes:
– “one international identify (observing) one set of universal values;”
– centralized control of world populations by “mind control;” in other words, controlling world public opinion;
– a New World Order with no middle class, only “rulers and servants (serfs),” and, of course, no democracy;
– “a zero-growth society” without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;
– manufactured crises and perpetual wars;
– absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;
– “centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;” one size fits all globally;
– using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”
– expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;
– making NATO a world military;
– imposing a universal legal system; and
– a global “welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination.”
Secret Bilderberg Partners
In the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dominant. One of its 1921 founders, Edward Mandell House, was Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor and rumored at the time to be the nation’s real power from 1913 - 1921. On his watch, the Federal Reserve Act passed in December 1913 giving money creation power to bankers, and the 16th Amendment was ratified in February creating the federal income tax to provide a revenue stream to pay for government debt service.
From its beginnings, CFR was committed to “a one-world government based on a centralized global financing system….” Today, CFR has thousands of influential members (including important ones in the corporate media) but keeps a low public profile, especially regarding its real agenda.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a “front organization (for) the heart of the American Establishment.” It meets privately and only publishes what it wishes the public to know. Its members are only Americans.
The Trilateral Commission (discussed below) is a similar group that “brings together global power brokers.” Founded by David Rockefeller, he’s also a leading Bilderberger and CFR Chairman Emeritus, organizations he continues to finance and support.
Their past and current members reflect their power:
– nearly all presidential candidates of both parties;
– leading senators and congressmen;
– key members of the fourth estate and their bosses; and
– top officials of the FBI, CIA, NSA, defense establishment, and other leading government agencies, including state, commerce, the judiciary and treasury. For its part, “CFR has served as a virtual employment agency for the federal government under both Democrats and Republicans.” Whoever occupies the White House, “CFR’s power and agenda” have been unchanged since its 1921 founding.
It advocates a global superstate with America and other nations sacrificing their sovereignty to a central power. CFR founder Paul Warburg was a member of Roosevelt’s “brain trust.” In 1950, his son, James, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent.” Later at the 1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said:
“Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil….individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.”
CFR planned a New World Order before 1942, and the “UN began with a group of CFR members called the Informal Agenda Group.” They drafted the original UN proposal, presented it to Franklin Roosevelt who announced it publicly the next day. At its 1945 founding, CFR members comprised over 40 of the US delegates.
According to Professor G. William Domhoff, author of Who Rules America, the CFR operates in “small groups of about twenty-five, who bring together leaders from the six conspirator categories (industrialists, financiers, ideologues, military, professional specialists - lawyers, medical doctors, etc. - and organized labor) for detailed discussions of specific topics in the area of foreign affairs.” Domhoff added:
“The Council on Foreign Relations, while not financed by government, works so closely with it that it is difficult to distinguish Council action stimulated by government from autonomous actions. (Its) most important sources of income are leading corporations and major foundations.” The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations to name three, and they’re directed by key corporate officials. Dominant Media Partners
Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media’s role: “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
CBS and other media giants control everything we see, hear and read - through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, films, and large portions of the Internet. Their top officials and some journalists attend Bilderberg meetings - on condition they report nothing.
The Rockefeller family wields enormous power, even though its reigning patriarch, David, will be 94 on June 12 and surely near the end of his dominance. However, for years “the Rockefellers (led by David) gained great influence over the media. (With it) the family gained sway over public opinion. With the pulse of public opinion, they gained deep influence in politics. And with this politics of subtle corruption, they are taking control of the nation” and now aim for total world domination.
The Bilderberger-Rockefeller scheme is to make their views “so appealing (by camouflaging them) that they become public policy (and can) pressure world leaders into submitting to the ‘needs of the Masters of the Universe.’ ” The “free world press” is their instrument to disseminate “agreed-upon propaganda.”
CFR Cabinet Control
“The National Security Act of 1947 established the office of Secretary of Defense.” Since then, 14 DOD secretaries have been CFR members. Since 1940, every Secretary of State, except James Byrnes, has been a CFR member and/or Trilateral Commission (TC) one.
For the past 80 years, “Virtually every key US National Security and Foreign Policy Advisor has been a CFR member.
Nearly all top generals and admirals have been CFR members.
Many presidential candidates were/are CFR members, including Herbert Hoover, Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (also a charter TC member), George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John McCain.
Numerous CIA directors were/are CFR members, including Richard Helmes, James Schlesinger, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deutsch, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, and Leon Panetta.
Many Treasury Secretaries were/are CFR members, including Douglas Dillon, George Schultz, William Simon, James Baker, Nicholas Brady, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, and Tim Geithner.
When presidents nominate Supreme Court candidates, the CFR’s “Special Group, Secret Team” or advisors vet them for acceptability. Presidents, in fact, are told who to appoint, including designees to the High Court and most lower ones.
Programming the Public Mind
According to sociologist Hadley Cantril in his 1967 book, The Human Dimension - Experiences in Policy Research:
Government “Psycho-political operations are propaganda campaigns designed to create perpetual tension and to manipulate different groups of people to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world.” Canadian writer Ken Adachi (1929 - 1989) added:
“What most Americans believe to be ‘Public Opinion’ is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public.”
And noted Australian academic and activist Alex Carey (1922 - 1988) explained the three most important 20th century developments - “The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”
Web of Control
Numerous think tanks, foundations, the major media, and other key organizations are staffed with CFR members. Most of its life-members also belong to the TC and Bilderberg Group, operate secretly, and wield enormous power over US and world affairs.
The Rockefeller-Founded Trilateral Commission (TC)
On page 405 of his Memoirs, David Rockfeller wrote:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
In alliance with Bilderbergers, the TC also “plays a vital role in the New World Order’s scheme to use wealth, concentrated in the hands of the few, to exert world control.” TC members share common views and all relate to total unchallengeable global dominance.
Founded in 1973 and headquartered in Washington, its powerful US, EU and East Asian members seek its operative founding goal - a “New International Economic Order,” now simply a “New World Order” run by global elites from these three parts of the world with lesser members admitted from other countries.
According to TC’s web site, “each regional group has a chairman and deputy chairman, who all together constitute the leadership of the Committee. The Executive Committee draws together a further 36 individuals from the wider membership,” proportionately representing the US, EU, and East Asia in its early years, now enlarged to be broadly global.
Committee members meet several times annually to discuss and coordinate their work. The Executive Committee chooses members, and at any time around 350 belong for a three-year renewable period. Everyone is a consummate insider with expertise in business, finance, politics, the military, or the media, including past presidents, secretaries of state, international bankers, think tank and foundation executives, university presidents and selected academics, and former senators and congressmen, among others.
Although its annual reports are available for purchase, its inner workings, current goals, and operations are secret - with good reason. Its objectives harm the public so mustn’t be revealed. Trilaterals over Washington author Antony Sutton wrote: “this group of private citizens is precisely organized in a manner that ensures its collective views have significant impact on public policy.” In her book, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Holly Sklar wrote:
Powerful figures in America, Europe, and East Asia let “the rich….safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world - probably by discouraging protectionism, nationalism, or any response that would pit the elites of one against the elites of another,” in their common quest for global dominance.
Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski (TC’s co-founder) wrote in his Between Two Ages - America’s Role in the Technotronic Era: “people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. (The Constitution is) inadequate….the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence….the fiction of sovereignty….is clearly no longer compatible with reality….”
TC today is now global with members from countries as diverse as Argentina, Ukraine, Israel, Jordan, Brazil, Turkey, China and Russia. In his Trilaterals Over America, Antony Sutton believes that TC’s aim is to collaborate with Bilderbergers and CFR in “establishing public policy objectives to be implemented by governments worldwide.”
He added that “Trilateralists have rejected the US Constitution and the democratic political process.” In fact, TC was established to counter a “crisis in democracy” - too much of it that had to be contained.
An official TC report was fearful about “the increased popular participation in and control over established social, political, and economic institutions and especially a reaction against the concentration of power of Congress and of state and local government.”
To address this, media control was essential to exert “restraint on what newspapers may publish (and TV and radio broadcast).” Then according to Richard Gardner in the July 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs (a CFR publication): CFR’s leadership must make “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece,” until the very notion disappears from public discourse.
Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateralist success depends on finding “a way to get us to surrender our liberties in the name of some common threat or crisis. The foundations, educational institutions, and research think tanks supported by (these organizations) oblige by financing so-called ’studies’ which are then used to justify their every excess. The excuses vary, but the target is always individual liberty. Our liberty” and much more.
Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and CFR members want “an all-encompassing monopoly” - over government, money, industry, and property that’s “self-perpetuating and eternal.” In Confessions of a Monopolist (1906), Frederick C. Howe explained its workings in practice:
“The rules of big business: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you. So long as we see all international revolutionaries and all international capitalists as implacable enemies of one another, then we miss a crucial point….a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism is for their mutual benefit.”
In the Rockefeller File, Gary Allen wrote: “By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the ‘public good’ and ‘public interest.’ “
David Rockefeller learned the same thing from his father, John D., Jr. who learned it from his father, John D. Sr. They hated competition and relentlessly strove to eliminate it - for David on a global scale through a New World Order.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Trilateralists and CFR members collaborated on the latter’s “1980 Project,” the largest ever CFR initiative to steer world events “toward a particular desirable future outcome (involving) the utter disintegration of the economy.” Why so is the question?
Because by the 1950s and 1960s, worldwide industrial growth meant more competition. It was also a model to be followed, and “had to be strangled in the cradle” or at least greatly contained. In America as well beginning in the 1980s. The result has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, shrinkage of the middle class, and plan for its eventual demise.
The North American Union (NAU)
The idea emerged during the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. David Rockefeller, George Schultz and Paul Volker told the president that Canada and America could be politically and economically merged over the next 15 years except for one problem - French-speaking Quebec. Their solution - elect a Bilderberg-friendly prime minister, separate Quebec from the other provinces, then make Canada America’s 51st state. It almost worked, but not quite when a 1995 secession referendum was defeated - 50.56% to 49.44%, but not the idea of merger.
At a March 23, 2005 Waco, Texas meeting, attended by George Bush, Mexico’s Vincente Fox, and Canada’s Paul Martin, the Security and and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched, also known as the North American Union (NAU). It was a secretive Independent Task Force of North America agreement - a group organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and CFR with the following aims:
– circumventing the legislatures of three countries and their constitutions;
– suppressing public knowledge or consideration; and
– proposing greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups formed to devise non-debatable, not voted on agreements to be binding and unchangeable. In short - a corporate coup d’etat against the sovereignty of three nations enforced by hard line militarization to suppress opposition. If enacted, it will create a borderless North America, corporate controlled, without barriers to trade or capital flows for business giants, mainly US ones and much more
- America’s access to vital resources, especially oil and Canada’s fresh water. Secretly, over 300 SPP initiatives were crafted to harmonize the continent’s policies on energy, food, drugs, security, immigration, manufacturing, the environment, and public health along with militarizing three nations for enforcement. SPP represents another step toward the Bilderberg/Trilateralist/CFR goal for World Government, taking it one step at a time. A “United Europe” was another, the result of various treaties and economic agreements:
– the December 1951 six-nation European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC);
– the March 1957 six-nation Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC); also the European Atomic Energy Commission (EAEC) by a second Treaty of Rome;
– the October 1957 European Court of Justice to settle regional trade disputes;
– the May 1960 seven-nation European Free Trade Association (EFTA);
– the July 1967 European Economic Community (EEC) merging the ECSC, EAEC and EEC together in one organization;
– the 1968 European Customs Union to abolish duties and establish uniform imports taxing among EEC nations;
– the 1978 European Currency Unit (ECU);
– the February 1986 Single European Act revision of the 1957 Treaty of Rome; it established the objective of forming a Common Market by December 31, 1992;
– the February 1992 Maastricht Treaty creating the EU on November 1, 1993; and
– the name euro was adopted in December 1995; it was introduced in January 1999 replacing the European Currency Unit (ECU); euros began circulating on January 2002; they’re now the official currency of 16 of the 27 EU states.
Over half a century, the above steps cost EU members their sovereignty “as some 70 to 80 per cent of the laws passed in Europe involve just rubber stamping of regulations already written by nameless bureaucrats in ‘working groups’ in Brussels or Luxembourg.”
The EU and NAU share common features:
– advocacy from a influential spokesperson;
– an economic and later political union;
– hard line security, and for Europe, ending wars on the continent between EU member states;
– establishment of a collective consciousness in place of nationalism;
– the blurring of borders and creation of a “supra-government,” a superstate;
– secretive arrangements to mask real objectives; and
– the creation of a common currency and eventual global one. Steps Toward a North American Union
– the October 4, 1988 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the US and Canada, finalized the previous year;
– at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting, David Rockefeller got governor Bill Clinton’s support for NAFTA if he became president;
– on January 1, 1994, with no debate under “fast-track” rules, Congress approved WTO legislation;
– in December 1994 at the first Summit of the Americas, 34 Hemispheric leaders committed their nations to a Free Trade of the Americas agreement (FTAA) by 2005 - so far unachieved;
– on July 4, 2000, Mexican president Vincente Fox called for a North American common market in 20 years;
– on February 2001, the White House published a joint statement from George Bush and Vincente Fox called the “Guanajuato Proposal;” it was for a US-Canada-Mexico prosperity partnership (aka North American Union);
– in September 2001, Bush and Fox agreed to a “Partnership for Prosperity Initiative;”
– the September 11, 2001 attack gave cover to including “security” as part of a future partnership;
– on October 7, 2001, a CFA meeting highlighted “The Future of North American Integration in the Wake of Terrorist Attacks; for the first time, “security” became part of a future “partnership for prosperity;” also, Canada was to be included in a “North American” agreement;
– in 2002, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) was established in Montreal “to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region;”
– in January 2003, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE - composed of 150 top CEOs) launched the “North American Security and Prosperity Initiative” calling for continental integration;
– in April 2004, Canadian prime minister Paul Martin announced the nation’s first ever national security policy called Securing an Open Society;
– on October 15, 2004, CFR established an Independent Task Force on the Future of North America - for a future continental union;
– in March 2005, a CFR report titled Creating a North American Community called for continental integration by 2010 “to enhance, prosperity, and opportunity for all North Americans;” and
– on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas, America, Canada and Mexico leaders launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) - aka North American Union (NAU). Secretive negotiations continue. Legislative debate is excluded, and public inclusion and debate are off the table. In May 2005, the CFR Independent Task Force on the Future of North America published a follow-up report titled Building a North American Community - proposing a borderless three-nation union by 2010.
In June and July 2005, the Dominican Republic - Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) passed the Senate and House establishing corporate-approved trade rules to further impoverish the region and move a step closer to continental integration.
In March 2006, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was created at the second SPP summit in Cancun, Mexico. Composed of 30 top North American CEOs, it serves as an official trilateral SPP working group. Secret business and government meetings continue so there’s no way to confirm SPP’s current status or if Barack Obama is seamlessly continuing George Bush’s agenda. In an earlier article, this writer said:
SPP efforts paused during the Bush to Obama transition, but “deep integration” plans remain. Canada’s Fraser Institute proposed renaming the initiative the North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA) to disguise its real purpose. It said the “SPP brand” is tarnished so re-branding is essential - to fool the public until it’s too late to matter.
Bilderbergers, Trilaterists, and CFR leaders back it as another step toward global integration and won’t “stop until the entire world is unified under the auspices and the political umbrella of a One World Company, a nightmarish borderless world run by the world’s most powerful clique” - comprised of key elitist members of these dominant organizations.
In April 2007, the Transatlantic Economic Council was established between America and the EU to:
– create an “official international governmental body - by executive fiat;
– harmonize economic and regulatory objectives;
– move toward a Transatlantic Common Market; and
– a step closer to One World Government run by the world’s most powerful corporate interests.
Insights into the 2009 Bilderberg Group Meeting
From May 14 - 17, Bilderbergers held their annual meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece, and according to Daniel Estulin have dire plans for global economies.
According to his pre-meeting sources, they’re divided on two alternatives:
“Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty (or) an intense but shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.” Other agenda items included:
– “the future of the US dollar and US economy;”
– continued deception about green shoots signaling an end to recession and improving economy later in the year;
– suppressing the fact that bank stress tests were a sham and were designed for deception, not an accurate assessment of major banks’ health;
– projecting headlined US unemployment to hit 14% by year end - way above current forecasts and meaning the true number will be double, at minimum, with all uncounted categories included; and
– a final push to get the Lisbon Treaty passed for pan-European (EU) adoption of neoliberal rules, including greater privatizations, fewer worker rights and social benefits, open border trade favoring developed over emerging states, and greater militarization to suppress civil liberties and human rights.
After the meeting, Estulin got a 73-page report on what was discussed. He noted that
“One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns….is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos (toward) their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.”
Estulin also noted some considerable disagreement between “hardliners” wanting a “dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression (versus others) who think that things have gone too far” so that “the fallout from the global economic cataclysm” can’t be known, may be greater than anticipated, and may harm Bilderberger interests. Also, “some European bankers (expressed great alarm over their own fate and called the current) high wire act ‘unsustainable.’ “
There was a combination of agreement and fear that the situation remains dire and the worst of the crisis lies ahead, mainly because of America’s extreme debt level that must be resolved to produce a healthy, sustainable recovery. Topics also included:
– establishing a Global Treasury Department and Global Central Bank, possibly partnered with or as part of the IMF;
– a global currency;
– destruction of the dollar through what longtime market analyst Bob Chapman calls “a stealth default on (US) debt by continuing to issue massive amounts of money and credit and in the process devaluing the dollar,” a process he calls “fraud;”
– a global legal system;
– exploiting the Swine Flu scare to create a WHO global department of health; and
– the overall goal of a global government and the end of national sovereignty. In the past, Estulin’s sources proved accurate. Earlier, he predicted the housing crash and 2007 - 2008 financial market decline, preceded by the kind of financial crisis triggered by the Lehman Brothers collapse. Watch for further updates from him as new information leaks out on what the world’s power elites have planned going forward.
What are Bilderberg Conferences all about?
The Bilderberg Secretariat proclaims the conferences to be '...private in order to encourage frank and open discussion'. Frank and open discussion is a good thing in any forum but when those doing the discussing are some of the very most powerful financiers and media tycoons in the world it begs the question: If what they discuss is for the good of ordinary people why not publicise it! Isn't it a perverted use of the word 'open' when no-one can find out what they're saying?
Is Bilderberg a secret conspiracy?
When such rich and powerful people meet up in secret, with military intelligence managing their security, with hardly a whisper escaping of what goes on inside, people are right to be suspicious. But the true power of Bilderberg comes from the fact that participants are in a bubble, sealed off from reality and the devastating implications on the ground of the black-science economic solutions on the table.
No, it's not a 'conspiracy'. The world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists don't get together at Bilderberg to draw up their 'secret plans for the future'. It's subtler than that. These meetings create an artificial 'consensus' in an attempt to spellbind visiting politicians and and other men of influence. Blair has fallen for this hook, line and sinker. It's about reinforcing - often to the very people who are on the edge of condemning Globalisation - the illusion that Globalisation is 'good', 'popular' and that it's inevitable.
Bilderberg is an extremely influential lobbying group. That's not to say though that the organisers don't have a hidden agenda, they do, namely acumulation of wealth and power into their own hands whilst explaining to the participants that globalisation is for the good of all. It is also a very good forum for 'interviewing' potential future political figures such as Clinton (1991) and Blair (1993). [see above for more on this]
The ideology put forward at the Bilderberg conferences is that what's good for banking and big business is good for the mere mortals of the world. Silently banished are the critical voices, those that might point out that debt is spiralling out of control, that wealth is being sucked away from ordinary people and into the hands of the faceless corporate institutions, that millions are dying as a direct result of the global heavyweight Rockefeller/Rothschild economic strategies.
When looking at one of the (partially reliable) participant lists it should be remembered that quite a number of participants are invited in an attempt to get them on-board the globalisation project. These are carefully selected people of influence, who have been openly critical of globalisation. Examples are Jonathan Porritt (Bilderberg 1999) and Will Hutton (Bilderberg 1997) but there are many others. Most of these kinds of participants are happy to speak about the conference afterwards, and may even be refreshingly critical.
The Bilderberg organisers are accepted by those 'in the know' as the prophets of Capitalism. Will Hutton, deputy Editor of The Observer newspaper in London and left-leaning Economist, described private clubs of the elite as masterminded by 'The High Priests of Globalisation'. The ecclesiastical allusion is not accidental. The Bilderberg high-priests are a force against good, out to wipe morality from the earth. For the organisers Bilderberg Conferences are an annual ideological assault by the world's most power-hungry people. Not content with owning unimaginable amounts of money and property they want to use that wealth to acquire even more power for themselves. Power is the most dangerous and addictive drugs known to man. Will the craving be satisfied when a handful of men own and control everything on earth?
And just like the Nazi party in the 1930's the global Capitalist Elite are rising in power by peaceful means. There are some very uncomfortanble and unexplained connections between Bilderberg and the Nazis through the Conference's founder Prince Bernhard.
These crown princes of capital use violence at the sharp end - the destruction of dissent - the repossession of homes men and women have worked a lifetime for - needless deaths from starvation and geopolitical machinations - this violence is notable by its absence from the annual meetings.
One can't help but wonder, when the Bilderberg organisers, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Kissinger and the rest have completed their project of enclosing all global goods and services into their own hands, enclosing too the media to stop people freely discussing what they are up to. What then?? What happens when the men who would be gods turn out to be the global devils?
Who is behind Bilderberg?
Bilderberg is run by a Steering Group - if you're wondering who's responsible for so much of the capital-friendly and dissent-crushing law-making, poverty and general misery in the world this may be the place to look. Up-to-date lists are available from the Bilderberg Secretariat. This is the closest approximation to a shadow world government. And this is another hidden agenda at Bilderberg.
There may be other groups pulling the strings behind even the Steering Group possibly even high degree occult groups such as The Masons or Illuminati! [eg.] - but that is 'conspiracy theory', Bilderberg is not.
There must certainly be some sociopathic minds behind Bilderberg since they go to so much trouble to promote policies that lead to exploitation, inequality and despair. These individuals seem oddly switched off from the suffering they are clearly causing. Surely only pernicious people would want to control the ideology of the world's mainstream press, and undermine natural political discourse. Public opinion and democratic institutions are a threat when you want to own the world.
The perverse objective of the Bilderberg Steering Group is to dress totalitarian corporate ideology up to appear rational and push it out, unattributable, for mass consumption under Chatham House rules. Meanwhile, outside the Bilder-bubble, 'god-is-money' globalisation is the new religon with the greedy given a pat on the back as they plunder both the earth and a large part of the human spirit.
Review
"If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group." —carolynbaker.net
"Judging from the list of frontrunners of each party, Daniel Estulin . . . may be on to something." —worldnetdaily.com
"For some 15 years, Estulin has been a thorn in the sides of the Bilderbergers, relentlessly hunting down their secret meeting places, gaining inside sources who divulge what goes on behind closed doors, even photographing attendees and publicly disclosing it all. Now he has put it all in a book that every person who values freedom and democracy should read." —Onlinejournal.com
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Description
Delving into a world once shrouded in complete mystery and impenetrable security, this investigative report provides a fascinating account of the annual meetings of the world’s most powerful people—the Bilderberg Group. Since its inception in 1954 at the Bilderberg Hotel in the small Dutch town of Oosterbeek, the Bilderberg Group has been comprised of European prime ministers, American presidents, and the wealthiest CEOs of the world, all coming together to discuss the economic and political future of humanity. The working press has never been allowed to attend, nor have statements ever been released on the attendees' conclusions or discussions, which have ramifications on the citizens of the world. Using methods that resemble the spy tactics of the Cold War—and in several instances putting his own life on the line—the author did what no one else has managed to achieve: he learned what was being said behind the closed doors of the opulent hotels and has made it available to the public. This second edition includes an entirely new chapter and updated information on topics such as an earlier attempt to break up Canada and the portents of a North American union.
Child protection is the oldest eugenics scam on record now financed by programs which come down from the Bohemian Grove death cult. This is a carnival scam where the most complex cases in medical history, childhood hysteria, are routinely upcoded to sex cult thugs who are fully programmed to advance such cases as "sex abuse." As the federal government has perfected the programming of hysteria into children, the state governments are there to entrap such bewildered children. Nowhere in the process is the actual psychology of child development ever discussed. This is because such would reveal an elitist scam on par with Hitler's Holocaust, the machinations of which are well known in Europe and deliberately repressed in the U.S..
As incredible as it may sound, the federal government is spending over 6 billion dollars annually to Tavistock subsidiaries in order to brainwash your children and "depattern" their minds away from normal sexual development. As this is basic Nazi Mind Control, this process causes hysteria in many children, such hysteria is routinely upcoded to Nazified bureaucrats at the state level who routinely traffic in these children for an underground elite sex trade leading all the way to the Pentagon and White House. As these abused children come out to testify, no one believes them, since the brainwashing of "parental" government is so thorough. "Depatterned" children are sexually abused children because they are denied real parents and such a massive fraud can be proven in a real court of law.
Statement On Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism In Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court
(In Re: Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849 (RCC) In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, MDL 1570)
WASHINGTON, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement of 9/11 Family Members: Mike Low, Father of Sara Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court:
Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration's decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.
We are deeply dismayed by this decision, filed by the solicitor general of the United States in response to the Supreme Court's February 23, 2009 invitation for the government to express its views in the 9/11 families' request to appeal a portion of the case to the Court. The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that result.
The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it, these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent, but because they are royalty.
The Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims decided under accurate legal standards.
For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right to have our day in Court.
PRNewsWeb SOURCE 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism RELATED ARTICLES
Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit
By Eric Lichtblau May 29, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is supporting efforts by the Saudi royal family to defeat a long-running lawsuit seeking to hold it liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Justice Department, in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda. The department said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis' favor in throwing out the lawsuit.
The government's position comes less than a week before President Obama is scheduled to meet in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah as part of a trip to the Middle East and Europe intended to reach out to the Muslim world.
Lawyers for the Saudi family said that they were heartened by the department's brief and that it served to strengthen their hand before the court, which has not decided whether to hear the case.
But family members of several Sept. 11 victims said they were deeply disappointed and questioned whether the decision was made to appease an important ally in the Middle East. The Saudis have aggressively lobbied both the Bush and Obama administrations to have the lawsuit dismissed, government officials say.
"I find this reprehensible," said Kristen Breitweiser, a leader of the Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center. "One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world."
Bill Doyle, another leader of the Sept. 11 families whose son was killed in the attacks, said, "All we want is our day in court."
The lawsuit, brought by a number of insurance companies for the victims and their families, accuses members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia of providing financial backing to Al Qaeda -- either directly to Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, or indirectly through donations to charitable organizations that they knew were in turn diverting money to Al Qaeda.
Continued: NYTimes (and on Page A9 of 5/30/09 print version)
On May 29, 2008 The Philadelphia Inquirer published "Special Report: Sept. 11 lawsuit: Suing the Saudis" an extremely thorough and very interesting summary (with links) of the timeline and events relating to this lawsuit. Well worth a thorough read.
The lawsuit An epic lawsuit filed by Philadelphia firm Cozen O'Connor looks to place direct blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and a host of individuals, banks and groups so that it can recover billions of dollars in damages. ... The liability case Cozen O’Connor has brought against the Saudi government and other defendants on behalf of U.S. and global insurance companies is the biggest and most complex the firm has ever filed. This time line draws on events that arise from the 9/11 attacks. View the timeline
And a new article today, about the Solicitor General's filing, (in the Business section) ...
High court is urged to block 9/11 suit against Saudis
May 30, 2009 By Chris Mondics, Inquirer Staff Writer Philadelphia Inquirer
In a setback for insurers and individual victims of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan urged the Supreme Court yesterday to reject allegations that Saudi Arabia was responsible because it indirectly financed al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Kagan, in a 22-page amicus brief filed yesterday with the Supreme Court, said U.S. law generally barred lawsuits against foreign governments for supporting terrorism unless they met narrowly tailored exceptions.
Kagan said none of those exceptions applied, and she advised the court not to hear the case.
The brief was in response to allegations contained in a lawsuit filed by Center City's Cozen O'Connor law firm on behalf of dozens of insurance companies that lost billions at ground zero. Hundreds of victims' families and survivors also have joined in the litigation alleging Saudi responsibility.
9/11 Families Angered As U.S. Backs Saudis Victims' Relatives Say Justice Dept. Bid To Shield Royal Family From Lawsuit Undermines Fight Against Terror
May 31, 2009 CBS News
(CBS/AP) Relatives of Sept. 11 victims say they're angry that the Justice Department is supporting the Saudi royal family's bid to be removed from a 9/11 lawsuit.
The families of some victims have accused the royal family of financially backing terror groups that carried out the 2001 attack.
Their complaint alleges that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC), and four Saudi Princes (acting in both official and personal capacities) made donations to charitable organizations with the knowledge that those organizations were diverting funds to al Qaeda, and that a fifth Saudi prince knowingly provided banking and financial services to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
... The brief also disputes the litigants claims that their lawsuit falls within acceptable parameters of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which grants immunity to foreign officials performing their duties but also allows exceptions for certain noncommercial claims involving injuries "occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of [the] foreign state."
Last August the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FSIA exceptions to immunity did not apply, and held it lacked jurisdiction over the Saudi princes' personal acts.
The lawsuit, Federal Insurance Co. v. Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, was initiated in 2003 by a consortium of insurance companies seeking to recover more than $300 billion for losses incurred by the 9/11 attacks.
The Saudi princes cited in the claims were:
* Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, president of SHC, who was warned in 2000 of his organization's ties to al Qaeda; * Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the designated successor to King Abdullah, who received warnings as early as 1994 that some Muslim charitable groups were fronts for al Qaeda; * Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who as Saudi Minister of the Interior monitors and controls the charities operating in Saudi Arabia; * Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who was the director of the Kingdom's Department of General Intelligence ("DGI") until August 2001; and * Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud, who unlike the other princes named is not a government official but a bank manager alleged to have knowingly provided material sponsorship to international terrorism.
Related Stories at CBSNews.com: * What Sort Of Friend Is Saudi Arabia? * A Terror Breeding Ground?
Paul Joseph Watson & Kurt Nimmo Prison Planet.com Monday, June 1, 2009
The Obama administration’s new Cybersecurity system will only make the Internet more vulnerable to attack, while creating the framework for a massively upgraded government surveillance grid that will control and regulate every aspect of our daily lives through the implementation of “smart” technology.
Obama’s announcement of the new cybersecurity grid dovetails with a recently introduced Senate bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, that would hand the president the power to shut down the entire Internet in the event of a “cybersecurity” crisis.
“The bill’s draft states that “the president may order a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic” and would give the government ongoing access to “all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access,” reports Raw Story.
The legislation would allow the government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.
This is President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program on steroids, yet the reaction from the liberal left has been muted to say the least.
Furthermore, the reasoning behind the proposal is a farce, since cybersecurity will make the Internet even more vulnerable to attack.
According to Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the program would “basically establish a path for the bad guys to skip down.”
One of the bill’s authors, Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, admitted that the bill was about more than just military or intelligence concerns. “It is a lot more than that. It suddenly gets into the realm of traffic lights and rail networks and water and electricity,” said Rockefeller.
Essentially, this is the framework within which every aspect of our lives will be managed and regulated by a gargantuan government bureaucracy designed to control and shape every aspect of our behavior through our dependence on technology.
This is what Nancy Pelosi was referring to when she visited China last week and let slip the fact that “Every aspect of our lives must be subject to inventory” in order to fight global warming.
Under the cybersecurity grid, our electricity consumption, our water consumption and every other basic utility that we rely upon will be subject to state regulation.
This is already being introduced through “smart” technology, manifesting in such things as fridges that are controlled by power companies and not the individual. If you are deemed to have bypassed government-approved levels of consumption, your fridge will be automatically turned off remotely.
“A domestic refrigerator that can be turned on and off by the electricity supplier without the homeowner being aware is to go on trial,” reported the Daily Mail in January. “Npower will distribute 300 ‘smart fridges’ free to homeowners throughout Britain within the next five weeks as part of the energy companies’ efforts to tackle climate change.”
“At times of high demand, the National Grid will activate the switches in the fridges to achieve a balance in the power supply. The development means that, for the first time, consumers will lose control over the use of electricity in their own homes,” stated the report.
All British homes are also set to have “smart” electricity and gas meters installed by law by 2020. The meters would “record energy use” according to a Reuters report. Likewise, water companies are preparing to force homeowners to install water meters so that water consumption can be accurately recorded and restricted in times of drought.
This is just the beginning of the imposition of a suffocating prison planet whereby our every action will not only be recorded by big brother but also subject to government approval and control.
The Cybersecurity grid will also be an upgrade of the pervasive snoop network that has already been operating under NSA auspices for decades.
During a speech last week on “cybersecurity,” Obama told a whopper. He said the government’s effort to protect us from cyber bad guys “will not include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans.”
Is it possible Obama has never heard of Mark Klein, the retired AT&T communications technician who said years ago that the company shunted all Internet traffic — including traffic from peering links connecting to other Internet backbone providers — to semantic traffic analyzers, installed in a secret room inside the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco? There are similar rooms in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, all sucking up internet data.
Klein explained that the multinational corporation is doing this at the behest of the NSA. It is “vacuum-cleaner surveillance” approach that grabs everything. “Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of [the Bush] administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA’s spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA’s charter or with FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act],” said Klein in 2006.
After the NSA showed up in 2002 at AT&T’s Folsom Street facility, Klein began connecting the dots. “You might recall there was a big blowup in the news about the Total Information Awareness [TIA] program, led by Adm. [John] Poindexter, which caused the big upsetness in Congress, because what Poindexter was proposing to do was draw in databases from everywhere — and this was in The New York Times — draw in Internet data, bank records, travel records, everything into one big conglomeration which could be searchable by the government so they could find out everything about what anybody’s doing at any time of day,” Klein told PBS. “And all this would be done without any warrants. This is how it was presented by Poindexter himself in The New York Times, and that caused a great upset, brouhaha, in Congress.”
80% of Americans get their "News" from a controlled media. Operation Mockingbird has been developed as the fourth branch of government. President Eisenhower tried to warn us about this "spiritual attack" in 1959. Now as a federal whistleblower, I expose Mind Control in America and how it works. I graduated with the "elite" mind programmers at Harvard. Mind Control programs developed by the CIA are now used by Child Services. Children touched by "Child Services" grow into darkness. American youth are alienated, radicalized and disillusioned for good reason. I expose some of our government's most secret and horrific crimes against children. For this, my dear family was stolen, brainwashed and lost in a web of government fraud and corruption. Keeping children ignorant about sex, drugs and usury make them highly vulnerable to Government and Corporate Mind Control. We petition the Supreme Court and Congress to prepare Articles of Treason against our real enemies. For my dear daughter and family, I am always fighting for you!
.jpg)
.jpg)
