If you have followed this story for a period of years, it is actually humorous to reflect on how at one time, anyone who discussed a Bilderberg group and their meetings was immediately labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" and ridiculed by those who primarily received their news from the MSM. This scenario was similar to the labeling of those who discussed government research leading to the HAARP program. Both are now disclosed in the public record as fact and obviously no longer considered as "conspiracy theory". It's funny how these things change and one has to wonder just how many current news stories which are discussed in the "alternative media" are reflexly dismissed by the MSM and their followers as conspiracy for political reasons and censorship. Sadly, as pertaining to the Bilderberg story and the HAARP program story, I don't see any apologies being issued by the thought-police of the MSM/followers.
A collection of around 150 of the most powerful and influential globalists is quietly converging on the Danish capital today for the annual Bilderberg summit this weekend to discuss your future. Despite the lack of attention from the mischaracterized “mainstream” press, the controversial meeting brings together much of the top echelon of the global establishment — bankers, royalty, military bosses, Internet titans, politicians, corporate chieftains, central bankers, academics, media bosses, intelligence officials, and more. Protesters and alternative media reporters are also descending on Copenhagen for the secretive confab.
While the shadowy gathering is off the record and rarely attracts much public scrutiny, Bilderberg attendees have in the past revealed that the self-appointed global elites make decisions there with far-reaching implications for humanity. From hatching the radical plot for a single currency in Europe to supercharging the careers of little-known politicians such as then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton willing to do their bidding, anecdotal evidence and even statements from insiders suggest that the annual meetings play a crucial role in mapping out the globalist agenda. One attendee recently told the German publication Cicero that the Bilderberg meeting was more important than the much more well-known Davos summit.
This year’s Bilderberg gathering — the 62nd so far — again brings together a virtual who’s who of establishment-minded powerbrokers or their minions, more than a few of whom have deeply controversial records. Among those attending this year: Former Secretary of State Henry “New World Order” Kissinger; NATO boss Anders Fogh Rasmussen; former Treasury Secretary and co-chair of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations Robert Rubin; Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz; Google Chairman Eric Schmidt; Neocon extraordinaire and Goldman Sachs International Advisors Board Chairman Robert Zoellick; former CIA boss David Petraeus; IMF chief Christine Lagarde; and many more.
As in past years, there will undoubtedly be other top globalists in attendance who are not listed — preferring to remain anonymous, perhaps, due to concerns about the Logan Act, which could make some Americans in attendance into felons. Still, the publicly available list includes a prominent roster of U.S. so-called “neo-conservatives;” the globalist pseudo-conservatives who plagued the world with the unconstitutional Iraq war and “pre-emptive” war doctrines. Also on the list are CEOs of some of the world’s top corporations and mega-banks such as Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, TD Bank Group, the European Central Bank (ECB), and more.
However, mixed in with all the crony capitalists and their Western government lackeys are plenty of socialists and communists, too. Even the mass-murdering Communist regime ruling over mainland China will have operatives there. Chinese Communist Party Central Committee member He Liu, who leads the ruthless party’s “financial and economic affairs group office,” will be in attendance; as will a Chinese professor and banker with myriad ties to the dictatorship in Beijing. A Socialist Party Parliamentarian from Portugal, Inês de Medeiros, is on the list as well.
The establishment media — becoming increasingly discredited in the United States, where just one in five Americans express confidence in the institution — will also be well represented at the summit. As usual, for example, the globalist magazine The Economist will have Editor-in-chief John Micklethwait there. Chief economics commentator Martin Wolf with The Financial Times will be present as well. Other “mainstream” media figures include political editor-in-chief Tove Lifvendahl for one of Sweden’s top newspapers, senior columnist Cengiz Çandar with Al Monitor and Radika, Austrian newspaper Der Standard publisher Oscar Bronner, editor-in-chief Monica Maggioni with Italy’s Rainews24 and RAI TV, French paper Le Monde executive editor Natalie Nougayrède, and more. Whether any of those supposed “media professionals” will do their duty and inform the public on the gathering remains to be seen, but few expect to see Bilderberg covered in those outlets — much less the real agenda.
In the past, the meetings have not even been publicly acknowledged, with the increasingly unpopular establishment press usually ignoring or demonizing anyone who criticizes or even questions why global policymakers meet in secret behind a virtual army of taxpayer-funded security forces. Virtually none of the pseudo-journalists in attendance have informed their readers or audiences of the summit’s existence — much less what is discussed. More recently, though, thanks largely to the efforts of the alternative media, the Bilderberg has become slightly more transparent — although not much. At least now, the organizers release a partial list of attendees as well as the supposed “key topics for discussion.”
In a press release dated May 26, Bilderberg claimed that the major subjects on the agenda would include the alleged “economic recovery” and whether it is “sustainable,” shifts in technology and jobs, Ukraine, current events, the “new architecture of the Middle East,” and more. “Who will pay for the demographics?” is also listed as a discussion topic, along with “What [sic] next for Europe?” and “How special is the relationship in intelligence sharing?” The “future of democracy” and the “middle class trap” will supposedly be discussed, too, as well as China’s “political and economic outlook.” Multiple insiders and Bilderberg attendees have in the past suggested that the murderous regime in Beijing would help lead what they refer to as the “New World Order.”
“Does privacy exist?” is another one of the key topics, according to the release. The question is ironic considering the paranoid and secrecy-obsessed nature of the Bilderberg meeting, which treats non-establishment reporters and public scrutiny as pests to be avoided. The agenda topic is even more ironic in light of the role played by key Bilderberg attendees in attempting to shred every remaining vestige of your privacy via unlawful and immoral spying on citizens. Former National Security Agency (NSA) director and ex-commander of the U.S. Cyber Command Keith Alexander, for example, is among the “intelligence” bosses listed as attending the confab.
Of course, the NSA was exposed recently by a whistleblower for unconstitutionally vacuuming up information on hundreds of millions of Americans without a warrant. Another former NSA boss, Michael Hayden, also confessed publicly last month that the Obama administration has been murdering people around the world based solely on “metadata” gathered by the controversial agency. Also in attendance at this year’s summit will be U.K. “Secret Intelligence Service” boss John Sawers. Previous Bilderberg attendees such as Bill Gates, Obama, and Louis Gerstner, Jr. have also played a critical role in imposing Common Core and the accompanying espionage apparatus aimed at shredding your children’s privacy rights.
In a brief statement, the recently established official Bilderberg website offered some bland and almost certainly misleading comments about itself and its controversial meetings. “Founded in 1954, Bilderberg is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America,” it said in the press release. “Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.”
It then elaborates slightly on what Bilderberg wants the public to think about the nature of its gatherings. “The conference is a forum for informal discussions about major issues facing the world,” the press release claims. “The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the conference, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no desired outcome, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”
In other words, if Bilderberg’s official statement is to be believed — that would be rather foolish, considering many attendees’ long and dangerous track records of deception — the gathering is little more than an opportunity to freely discuss important issues. However, even recently, a top Bilderberg operative, Etienne Davignon — a former EU commissar and current Belgian minister of state — hinted at the summit’s influence when he told the EU Observer that the summits played a major role in foisting the euro on the formerly sovereign nations of Europe. Davignon will be in attendance again this year, the public list shows.
Meanwhile, news from what used to be America:
Despite President Obama going to great lengths to assuage the American people’s concerns with the increased militarization of federal agencies, a recently disclosed military directive suggests those fears could be legitimate.
Yesterday, The Washington Times disclosed a disturbing Department of Defense directive detailing which instances may be appropriate for the government to use lethal military force on dissenting civilians.
In a December 2010 directive entitled, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” (DSCA), the DoD discusses plans “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement,” which would go into effect if authorized by the President, Secretary of Defense, civil authorities or other qualifying entities.
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” Directive #3025.18 states.
Under the directive, additional authority is also granted to military commanders. From the directive:
“Federal military commanders are provided EMERGENCY AUTHORITY under this Directive. Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law.. In these circumstances, those Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances…”
Not surprisingly, the DoD order does little to quell the fears of Americans worried over various governmental agencies arming to the teeth, as well as those concerned with increasingly hostile rhetoric geared to demonize Tea Party supporters, liberty lovers, returning military veterans and law abiding gun owners.
Past military literature also outlines several groups the DoD expects to confront in said “unexpected civil disturbances.”
A DoD training manual disseminated last year, for instance, listed people who embrace “individual liberties,” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” likely to be members of “hate groups.”
“Nowadays,” the manual explained, “instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
The manual’s contents dovetails with previous government studies targeting similar groups, such as a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security which characterized Americans “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Then there are the more tangible threats, such as local police departments acquiring armored vehicles designed for warfare, and outrageous bullet solicitations by federal agencies tasked with providing public services, like the US Postal Service, the Dept. of Education, the Social Security Administration and others.
Labeling the DHS purchases a “glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens,” Capt. Hestilow declared the DHS’s acquisitions “can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America.”
The fact the military has constructed a $96 million training facility in Virginia designed to resemble an American city could also constitute a tangible menace.
While the DoD directive provides some solace for citizens, in the form of prohibiting “armed” drones from being used for domestic DSCA purposes, the concession is overshadowed by the fact that mere years ago the government completely denied the existence of a drone program.
Of course, now it’s just common knowledge that surveillance drones are being used to monitor the borderand are in use by the EPA to monitor farmers and ranchers, in addition to the fact that they were considered for use in the Bundy Ranch standoff last month.
At best, the language contained within the latest DoD directive provides an end run around posse comitatus; at worst, it can be construed as an admission by the feds that they anticipate a future quarrel with at least some portion of the American people, wherein military commanders may be required to make the call to aid local authorities in “controlling the situation.”
“Henry. A SWAT team from Homeland Security just raided our factory!”
“What? This must be a joke.”
“No this is really serious. We got guys with guns, they put all our people out in the parking lot and won’t let us go into the plant.”
“Whoa.”
“What is happening?” asks Gibson Guitar CEO Henry Juszkiewicz when he arrives at his Nashville factory to question the officers. “We can’t tell you.” “What are you talking about, you can’t tell me, you can’t just come in and …” “We have a warrant!” Well, lemme see the warrant.” “We can’t show that to you because it’s sealed.”
While 30 men in SWAT attire dispatched from Homeland Security and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cart away about half a million dollars of wood and guitars, seven armed agents interrogate an employee without benefit of a lawyer. The next day Juszkiewicz receives a letter warning that he cannot touch any guitar left in the plant, under threat of being charged with a separate federal offense for each “violation,” punishable by a jail term.
Up until that point Gibson had not received so much as a postcard telling the company it might be doing something wrong. Thus began a five-year saga, extensively covered by the press, with reputation-destroying leaks and shady allegations that Gibson was illegally importing wood from endangered tree species. In the end, formal charges were never filed, but the disruption to Gibson’s business and the mounting legal fees and threat of imprisonment induced Juszkiewicz to settle for $250,000—with an additional $50,000 “donation” piled on to pay off an environmental activist group.
With no clear legal standards, a sealed warrant the company has not been allowed to see too this day, no formal charges filed, and the threat of a prison term hanging over any executive who does not take “due care” to abide by this absurdly vague law, Gibson settled. “You’re fighting a very well organized political machine in the unions,” Juszkiewicz concluded. “And the conservation guys have sort of gone along.” Hey, what’s not to like about $50,000?
And this isn’t an isolated incident. Just ask Harvey Silverglate, Boston lawyer, activist, civil liberties advocate, and author of Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. As he explains, the Feds routinely take advantage of the vagueness of many of our laws by starting from the target and working backwards, selectively prosecuting people they want to go after by charging them with crimes they often don’t even know exist.
“We are in terrible trouble as a nation under law,” he says. “When you have a system predicated on jurisdictional interests rather than on specific, identifiable, understandable, definable violations of law, there is a great opportunity for tyranny.” As a result, just about any businessperson, especially in highly regulated industries, can be construed by a prosecutor to have committed three or four arguable felonies a day. “If for some reason the authorities are eyeing you and they look closely enough at your daily activities, they can find something. That makes us all very vulnerable.”
Worse, 95 percent of federal cases never go to trial, because “Justice Department prosecutors have engineered the system to make it too risky to go to trial,” often railroading people who are innocent. “They have built a conviction machine, not a system of justice.”
No comments:
Post a Comment