History stuff: Bananas...

Lessons From the United Fruit Company

Americans puzzling over the role of today’s powerful corporations may profit from considering the example of the United Fruit Company.

Ira Stoll

Americans puzzling over the role of today’s powerful corporations—Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, Google—may profit from considering the example of the United Fruit Company.

It seems almost quaint to think that a company specializing in bananas might have once been considered a capitalist giant on the level of today’s firms, but so it was—at its height in the first half of the last century, United Fruit owned one of the largest private navies in the world. It owned 50 percent of the private land in Honduras and 70 percent of all private land and every mile of railroad in Guatemala.

A new account of United Fruit and one of its leading figures, Samuel Zemurray, is to be published June 5 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. The book, by Rich Cohen, is called The Fish That Ate The Whale: The Life And Times Of America’s Banana King. It usefully reminds us of some of the wonderful things about capitalism, and some of the dangers, too.

There is the opportunity it offers for upward mobility. Samuel Zemurray came to America from Bessarabia, in Western Russia, in 1892 at age 14 or 15, with nothing but his brain and ambition. He eventually took over United Fruit and made a fortune estimated at $30 million back in the days when that was a genuinely vast fortune. He lived in a New Orleans house with a third-floor ballroom complete with a pipe organ and a crystal chandelier; the building now serves as the residence of the president of Tulane University.

There is the efficiency. Zemurray got started in the banana business by figuring out how to distribute “ripes,” the freckled bananas that were thrown away as useless discards before Zemurray figured out the logistics of fast-moving rail distribution.

There is the bias-free marketing creativity. Mr. Cohen reports that United Fruit “stationed an agent at South Ferry terminal in New York, where the Ellis Island Ferry landed. Handing a banana to each immigrant who came off the boats, the agent said, ‘Welcome to America!’ This was to associate the banana with the nation.”

There is the egalitarianism. The banana companies figured out they could make more money by lowering prices and making bananas a fruit for mass consumption rather than a scarce and expensive luxury.

There is the technological innovation. Anyone laboring under the misapprehension that improvements in agricultural productivity are entirely the result of the federal Agriculture Department’s cooperative extension service can learn from Mr. Cohen’s account of Samuel Zemurray’s banana-farming innovations: selective pruning, silting, the use of spillways and canals for drainage, staking, overhead irrigation.

There is the decentralization. When Zemurray took over United Fruit and turned it around, he told Fortune magazine, “I realized that the greatest mistake the United Fruit management had made was to assume it could run its activities in many tropical countries from an office on the 10th floor of a Boston office building.” Hayek would be proud.

And there are the philanthropic fruits of capitalism—Zemurray used his money and power to fund both Tulane university and the effort to help World War II-era Jewish refugees get to what became Israel.

And the United Fruit story also reminds us of some of the hazards when capitalism becomes cronyism. The book recounts all the Washington insiders hired by Zemurray as lobbyists, including Tommy “the Cork” Corcoran. A business that lives by Washington is finally at its mercy, as United Fruit learned when the antitrust cops came after it.

It’s all something to remember the next time you peel a banana.

Link:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/28/bain-and-the-united-fruit-company

If one scam doesn't work, there's always another to steal your money...

Bilderberg Puts Finishing Touches To Carbon Tax Agenda

World Bank planned to be collection agency for CO2 tax

Paul Joseph Watson

The Bilderberg Group plans to put the finishing touches to a global carbon tax agenda that is already in full swing, according to our inside sources, with the threat of endangered species set to replace man-made global warming as the main vehicle through which the elite’s post-industrial revolution is accomplished.

Alex Jones’ source inside Bilderberg has told him that the secretive cabal still plans to use the World Bank as the collection agency for a global CO2 tax. World Bank head Robert Zoellick is in attendance at this year’s confab in Chantilly, Virginia according to the official attendee list.

Numerous representatives of the environmental movement are attending Bilderberg this year to help push this agenda through, including Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, a group that generates revenue in the name of fighting climate change and yet is tied at the hip with some of the biggest corporations on the planet, including McDonald’s and FedEx.

Echoing UN reports which call for a similar shift, the widely discredited man-made climate mantra will largely be dispensed in favor of centralizing power through other means, particularly by using the pretext of endangered species and overpopulation.

The onset of a global carbon tax is already underway in numerous countries. In Australia, businesses are being threatened with fines of up to $1.1 million dollars if they even dare to criticize the carbon tax set to be implemented on July 1st.

Meanwhile, a carbon tax in Europe imposed since the start of the year charges airlines emissions fees for all flights that cross the continent, costs that are inevitably set to be passed on to consumers.

As we reported earlier this week, Agenda 21 is set to be a centerpiece of Bilderberg discussion, with the attendance of Alberta Premier and global warming alarmist Alison Redford at this year’s confab to discuss “ecological issues.”

The United Nations’ Agenda 21 project demands that member nations adopt “sustainable development” policies that are little more than a disguise for the reintroduction of neo-feudalism and only serve to reduce living standards and quality of life.

As part of this takeover, our source informs us that Bilderberg are keen on fully enforcing the United Nations’ Law of the Sea treaty, which would hand the global body control over all U.S. oceans and force ships to pay a tariff directly to the UN.

The true motivation behind the post-industrial society being pushed by Bilderberg was recently unveiled at the‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, during which climate change alarmists presented their blueprint for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature.

This process is already well underway in California where laws passed to mitigate car use and carbon dioxide emissions have led to policies that mandate up to 30 homes be built on a single acre of land.

It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet, with cars for personal use banned and only accessible to members of the elite.

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg-puts-finishing-touches-to-carbon-tax-agenda.html

Glenn Greenwald "Obama´s Secret Kill List The Most Radical Power a Government Can Seize" ...

Obama promotes expansion of NATO war machine. I thought the Soviet Union surrendered 20 years ago???

President Obama Quietly Promotes a More Powerful NATO

Written by Joe Wolverton, II

For most of the stories covering the recently concluded NATO summit in Chicago, the lead was that the war in Afghanistan will wrap up in 2014. After 11 years spending blood and money to run the Taliban out of office only to then invite them back to the bargaining table, America and NATO will pull out and leave the future in the hands of Afghans — mostly.

While the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan is certainly newsworthy, there was something in the dictum of the record of the summit that seems to have slipped past most media outlets, but in the long run probably merits more attention.

Although President Obama has indicated that he intends to “shift the focus” of American military alliances to Asia in an effort to keep China from running roughshod over its less-martially inclined neighbors, statements made by the hometown boy while in Chicago indicate he considers the strengthening of the European coalition to be high on the list of priorities.

What threat exists in Europe that would prompt the President to bolster NATO? The Asian gambit makes sense in that China is a legitimate threat to Asian military and economic stability, but there is no such obvious foe in Europe. Russia once played that pivotal role, but it has all but left the stage and there is no apparent understudy.

Perhaps, as some posit, it is the largely innumerable cache of nuclear weapons still sitting in the Russian arsenal that worries the President. He is concerned, it could be argued, that should those weapons fall under the control of the wrong strongman, America’s NATO partners could be targeted for nuclear destruction.

There is, as has been touted, the anti-nuclear shield protecting NATO, but even without that impediment to a Russian rogue, the United Kingdom and France both have the bomb and surely stand as deterrents.

Basically, it seems that in the post-Cold War world, NATO has been forced to find a reason to justify its continuing existence. As a high school student, this author once stood at a border patrol station watching a Russian soldier through binoculars as he watched me. My fellow students and I were taught about the Fulda Gap and how it was the most likely location for the imminent Soviet invasion of Europe.

Those days are gone and it is unlikely that American and European high school students are taught to fear the rising Red tide that was to have washed through the Fulda Gap. What, then, is the continuing mission for NATO?

NATO has adopted an “expand or die” mission statement. And, as any constitutionalist can testify, when one says NATO he actually means the United States, as reports indicate that the United States contributes between 20 and 25% of NATO’s operating budget. In fact, last February NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that over the past two years, "defense spending by NATO's European member nations has shrunk by some 45 billion dollars" — the equivalent of Germany's entire annual defense budget.

As has been reported, much of this treasure has been earmarked by American foreign policy for the defense of newly-initiated members of the Alliance, most of whom are from Eastern Europe; as well for the prosecution of armed conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, with similar interventions in Syria being promoted by key members of Congress.

In examining this expansion of NATO and President Obama’s sponsorship of it, a key consideration is the fact that the NATO charter provides no authority for military engagements outside of the alliance. Article 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949, prohibits signees from entering into “any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.” Articles 2 and 3 of the agreement restrict the use of armed force to the defense of the territorial integrity and “self-help and mutual aid” of the group. No provision is made for nation building or for serving the now ubiquitous “peace-keeping” missions that have become de rigueur for NATO.

While it isn’t specifically mentioned in the text of the North Atlantic Treaty that created NATO, the ostensible purpose of the coalition was to impede the march of the Red Army through Europe. Then again, perhaps this was the publicly promoted purpose while the true aim was the development of a regional bloc of governments whose function would facilitate the aggregation of all once sovereign nations into a global government under the flag of the United Nations.

Lest anyone doubt the spirit of the United Nations and globalism that animated the formation of NATO, read the following excerpts from the Treaty referencing the pre-existing responsibilities of members to the United Nations, including the subordination of NATO to the UN:

From the Preamble: The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations….

Article 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations….

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 7: This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 12: After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. [Emphases added.]

As the foregoing samples prove, NATO was intended to be neither more nor less than the embryonic armed force of one of the departments of the shadow world government created by the Charter of the United Nations.

With one after the other European economy collapsing under the weight of taxes and welfare, there is little hope that the burden of financially supporting NATO will be lightened in the near future. In fact, as President Obama pushes for increased NATO involvement in combat missions outside of the Treaty’s territory, the United States is poised to follow its NATO colleagues off the fiscal precipice and to see generations of U.S. servicemen sacrificed on the crimson-stained altar of globalism.

Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/11571-president-obama-quietly-promotes-a-more-powerful-nato

Song of the day: Dawes - Peace In The Valley...

Sneering MSNBC Anchor: “I’m Way Too Lazy” To Research Bilderberg...

Sneering MSNBC Anchor: “I’m Way Too Lazy” To Research Bilderberg

Is it any wonder global elite confab avoids media scrutiny?

Steve Watson

MSNBC Teleprompter reader Lawrence O’Donnell has admitted he is “way too lazy” to look into the activities of the elite Bilderberg Group meeting in secret this weekend in Chantilly, Virginia.

O’Donnell was asked about Bilderberg by We Are Change reporter Luke Rudkowski, who attempted to break through what can only be described as a wall of ignorance and cognitive dissonance to enlighten The Last Word host.

The as always mild mannered and polite Rudkowski attempted to explain to O’Donnell that Bilderberg is an annual meeting of most influential people on the planet.

“No its not” O’Donnell shot back, before adding “I have no idea what it is – so its not.”

When Rudkowski attempted to explain that last year’s meeting was held in Switzerland, O’Donnell said “That’s a lie. People are lying to you.”

When Rudkowski said he actually went to the location of the meeting to report on it, O’Donnell said “No you didn’t. You didn’t see a single media person go…”

When Rudkowski attempted to explain that Bilderberg meet to form policy and consolidate power, as admitted recently by Former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes, O’Donnell repeatedly said “no it’s not, no it’s not, no it’s not.”

O’Donnell, who would barely even look Rudkowski in the face during the short encounter, is presumably so high on his peanut gallery that it is beneath him to even talk to the alternative media.

“I believe the world is simpler than you think.” he concluded, saying that every bad thing in the world can be “explained by stupidity”.

“You are misunderstanding the universe.” O’Donnell patronizingly told Rudkowski, after suggesting that the reporter “talk to someone who knows something about this”.

When this is the level of sneering ignorance displayed by those within the mainstream media, is it any wonder that Bilderberg is able to meet without scrutiny and create global policy without oversight?

In addition, is it any wonder that the ratings of the likes of MSNBC are dropping faster than a bad facelift?

Watch the video:



Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/sneering-msnbc-anchor-im-way-too-lazy-to-research-bilderberg.html

Bilderberg 2012 Official List of Attendees...

They are just getting together to have coffee and to play cards...

Bilderberg 2012 Official List of Attendees

FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group
DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
GBR Agius, Marcus Chairman, Barclays plc
USA Ajami, Fouad Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
USA Alexander, Keith B. Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency
INT Almunia, Joaquín Vice-President – Commissioner for Competition, European Commission
USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners
PRT Amado, Luís Chairman, Banco Internacional do Funchal (BANIF)
NOR Andresen, Johan H. Owner and CEO, FERD
FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
TUR Babacan, Ali Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto President and CEO, Impresa; Former Prime Minister
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
FRA Béchu, Christophe Senator, and Chairman, General Council of Maine-et-Loire
BEL Belgium, H.R.H. Prince Philippe of
TUR Berberoğlu, Enis Editor-in-Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper
ITA Bernabè, Franco Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia
GBR Boles, Nick Member of Parliament
SWE Bonnier, Jonas President and CEO, Bonnier AB
NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt
SWE Carlsson, Gunilla Minister for International Development Cooperation
CAN Carney, Mark J. Governor, Bank of Canada
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA; Chairman, El País
AUT Cernko, Willibald CEO, UniCredit Bank Austria AG
FRA Chalendar, Pierre André de Chairman and CEO, Saint-Gobain
DNK Christiansen, Jeppe CEO, Maj Invest
RUS Chubais, Anatoly B. CEO, OJSC RUSNANO
CAN Clark, W. Edmund Group President and CEO, TD Bank Group
GBR Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Justice
USA Collins, Timothy C. CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
ITA Conti, Fulvio CEO and General Manager, Enel S.p.A.
USA Daniels, Jr., Mitchell E. Governor of Indiana
USA DeMuth, Christopher Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
USA Donilon, Thomas E. National Security Advisor, The White House
GBR Dudley, Robert Group Chief Executive, BP plc
ITA Elkann, John Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus
USA Evans, J. Michael Vice Chairman, Global Head of Growth Markets, Goldman Sachs & Co.
AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S
USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University
GBR Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
CHN Fu, Ying Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
IRL Gallagher, Paul Former Attorney General; Senior Counsel
USA Gephardt, Richard A. President and CEO, Gephardt Group
GRC Giannitsis, Anastasios Former Minister of Interior; Professor of Development and International Economics, University of Athens
USA Goolsbee, Austan D. Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
ITA Gruber, Lilli Journalist – Anchorwoman, La 7 TV
INT Gucht, Karel de Commissioner for Trade, European Commission
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
USA Harris, Britt CIO, Teacher Retirement System of Texas
USA Hoffman, Reid Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn
CHN Huang, Yiping Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University
USA Huntsman, Jr., Jon M. Chairman, Huntsman Cancer Foundation
DEU Ischinger, Wolfgang Chairman, Munich Security Conference; Global Head Government Relations, Allianz SE
RUS Ivanov, Igor S. Associate member, Russian Academy of Science; President, Russian International Affairs Council
FRA Izraelewicz, Erik CEO, Le Monde
USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard
USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard
USA Karp, Alexander CEO, Palantir Technologies
USA Karsner, Alexander Executive Chairman, Manifest Energy, Inc
FRA Karvar, Anousheh Inspector, Inter-ministerial Audit and Evaluation Office for Social, Health, Employment and Labor Policies
RUS Kasparov, Garry Chairman, United Civil Front (of Russia)
GBR Kerr, John Independent Member, House of Lords
USA Kerry, John Senator for Massachusetts
TUR Keyman, E. Fuat Director, Istanbul Policy Center and Professor of International Relations, Sabanci University
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa Chairman, Koç Holding A.Ş.
DEU Koch, Roland CEO, Bilfinger Berger SE
INT Kodmani, Bassma Member of the Executive Bureau and Head of Foreign Affairs, Syrian National Council
USA Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
INT Kroes, Neelie Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
USA Krupp, Fred President, Environmental Defense Fund
INT Lamy, Pascal Director-General, World Trade Organization
ITA Letta, Enrico Deputy Leader, Democratic Party (PD)
ISR Levite, Ariel E. Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
USA Li, Cheng Director of Research and Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
USA Lipsky, John Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University
USA Liveris, Andrew N. President, Chairman and CEO, The Dow Chemical Company
DEU Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG
USA Lynn, William J. Chairman and CEO, DRS Technologies, Inc.
GBR Mandelson, Peter Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
DEN Mchangama, Jacob Director of Legal Affairs, Center for Political Studies (CEPOS)
CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Group
USA Mehlman, Kenneth B. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
PRT Moreira da Silva, Jorge First Vice-President, Partido Social Democrata (PSD)
USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
DEU Nass, Matthias Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit
NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the
ESP Nin Génova, Juan María Deputy Chairman and CEO, Caixabank
IRL Noonan, Michael Minister for Finance
USA Noonan, Peggy Author, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc
USA Orszag, Peter R. Vice Chairman, Citigroup
GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitri Managing Director, Titan Cement Co.
NLD Pechtold, Alexander Parliamentary Leader, Democrats ’66 (D66)
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
NLD Polman, Paul CEO, Unilever PLC
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP
ISR Rabinovich, Itamar Global Distinguished Professor, New York University
GBR Rachman, Gideon Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Rattner, Steven Chairman, Willett Advisors LLC
CAN Redford, Alison M. Premier of Alberta
CAN Reisman, Heather M. CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
DEU Reitzle, Wolfgang CEO & President, Linde AG
USA Rogoff, Kenneth S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University
USA Rose, Charlie Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
USA Ross, Dennis B. Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
POL Rostowski, Jacek Minister of Finance
USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
NLD Rutte, Mark Prime Minister
ESP Sáenz de Santamaría Antón, Soraya Vice President and Minister for the Presidency
NLD Scheffer, Paul Professor of European Studies, Tilburg University
USA Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
FRA Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group
USA Shambaugh, David Director, China Policy Program, George Washington University
INT Sheeran, Josette Vice Chairman, World Economic Forum
FIN Siilasmaa, Risto Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nokia Corporation
USA Speyer, Jerry I. Chairman and Co-CEO, Tishman Speyer
CHE Supino, Pietro Chairman and Publisher, Tamedia AG
IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital / Thiel Capital
TUR Timuray, Serpil CEO, Vodafone Turkey
DEU Trittin, Jürgen Parliamentary Leader, Alliance 90/The Greens
GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy
FIN Urpilainen, Jutta Minister of Finance
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman, Novartis AG
INT Vimont, Pierre Executive Secretary General, European External Action Service
GBR Voser, Peter CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Warsh, Kevin Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
GBR Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company
CAN Wright, Nigel S. Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
USA Yergin, Daniel Chairman, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group

Rapporteurs
GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist
GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

Link:
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/bilderberg-2012-official-list-of-attendees/15678

If You're an American you should see THIS! 2009...

It is till valid today...

A third party run for Ron Paul?

The Possibility of a Ron Paul Third-Party Run for President

by Scott Lazarowitz

We are certainly at a crossroads in America, with Election 2012. The political ruling class has usurped many of our rights away, and stolen much of the private wealth and capital that had provided jobs and opportunities and had raised the standard of living more than in any other society.

But the farce that these elections continue to be merely reinforces my point that such elections are mere rearranging of deck chairs.

The Ron Paul people have been following the rules at the state conventions and winning delegates to go to the national convention, while, apparently, the Romney people have been allegedly engaging in cheating and dirty tricks, the latest of which has been in my dreaded state, the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

But why Ron Paul is trying to get the nomination of a party that has been a socialist-neocon-central planning party for 150 years, I’ll never know.

The convention will be a Romney-coronation police state nightmare, especially for those who are there on behalf of Paul.

As Lew Rockwell advised, it may even be a good idea that the Ron Paul delegates not even attend the convention, for their own safety.

My prediction is that Ron Paul’s delegates will not be treated well there, and there will most certainly be agents provocateurs trying to provoke some kind of disruption that would then be blamed on Ron Paul.

And if the nominating process actually does go to a second ballot in which Ron Paul delegates then give Romney a real challenge, the Ron Paul people will be accused of cheating, as though they didn’t legitimately win their delegate status.

But is all this worth it, especially given how within the national Republican Party many people are still hostile to Ron Paul’s message of freedom, personal responsibility, and peace?

That is why I still believe that Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate.

Unfortunately, those delusional anti-Obama conservatives – the ones who keep saying how important it is that we oust Obama, and that we all must get behind Romney – do not understand that they want to get behind a socialist, mealy-mouthed politician who is really no different from Obama, except for the rhetoric, which means nothing in the real world.

And then there are those people who think that a Ron Paul third-party run would harm Rand Paul’s chances in 2016, if he were to run for President at that time. "Yech," is what I have to say to that. And the reason for that is that electing any one of the current statists who support the status quo now will just be a further kicking the can down the road which will definitely lead to the economic collapse, civil unrest, martial law and chaos that trend forecasters such as Gerald Celente have been predicting for a while.

What really got me was this interview that was going viral, in which Rand Paul defended Romney’s record at Bain Capital, but was erroneously being labeled as an "endorsement" of Romney. Most of the comments on that post show that many people in the liberty movement are still supportive of Ron Paul, would never vote for Willard Romney under any circumstances, and believe that a Rand Paul endorsement of Willard (or worse, a Rand Paul VP nomination with Willard) would be a total sell-out.

The truth is, the real Romney is not a "capitalist." He is a socialist. And it is that Romney-Obama socialism and central planning that have been destroying America for a century.

But in their irrational cognitive dissonance and fear and panic of an Obama reelection, the "conservatives" say we must in solidarity all get behind the socialist Romney in November. But who is it exactly that the hysterical ones are supporting?

Delusional Republicans and conservatives nationwide who are all getting behind Romney in November means this: They would be getting behind

a "global warming" true believer who will consider carbon taxes and whose energy and environmental advisors are also true believers and energy-corporatists,
someone who supported the socialist Wall Street bailout and is in fact bought and paid for by Wall Street banksters,
a governor who raised taxes on businesses,
someone who supports the Federal Reserve and who would reappoint clueless Ben Bernanke as Chairman,
someone who believes that government should mandate health insurance,
a nanny-state drug warrior, including the war on medical marijuana,
someone who said he would have signed the NDAA bill that Obama signed just months ago that should make Tea Partiers even more fearful of the tyrannical central planners in D.C.,
and someone who supports strong governmental controls on civilian gun ownership (Given Romney’s support of NDAA and his being a strong chickenhawk militarist, I’m sure that a President Romney would make good use of the 450 million rounds of ammunition that DHS has ordered.)

Now, is Rand Paul really sure that he wants to get behind that kind of candidate in the 2012 presidential election?

Ron Paul is none of those things.

But, most of all – and this is where Rand Paul is wrong in that aforementioned interview – Willard Romney is no "capitalist." No real capitalist would impose insurance mandates on people by the force of law.

No real capitalist would implement a health insurance bureaucracy called the "Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority." Or even consider "carbon taxes," and so on and so on.

Dr. Paul is the true capitalist in his support of truly free markets, private property, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts under the rule of law.

Remember now, the zombie Republican Convention Romney fanatics – part of the real "Tinfoil Hat" crowd – the ones who will be attempting to shut out the Ron Paul delegates, will be supporting one of the most socialist Republican candidates in a long time.

One big difference between Obama-Romney and Ron Paul: When the economy does collapse and there is civil unrest, both Obama and Romney will impose a treasonous, civil liberties-crushing, due process-free federal martial law, but Ron Paul will not do that.

Instead of the Obama-Romney unconstitutional, un-American martial law, Ron Paul would (at least I think he would) restore to the people their God-given right to protect themselves form aggressors, from burglars, looters, rioters, muggers, thieves, rapists and other violent criminals.

Imposing martial law against the American people would pose even more of a threat against our security than rioters and thieves themselves, by unleashing an already out-of-control government-security complex and military onto innocent civilians.

The military has long been the Presidents’ personal army, just as the American Founders feared.

In a society of true common sense and the preservation of freedom, the civilians would be armed, and the employees of government would not. Threats from foreigners would be met with immediate resistance from an armed, vigilant public.

Statist Presidents such as the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama and their minions have been making that go the other way to the point of the current tyranny we have today, with their disarming of the American people, and their starting of wars of aggression and provoking of foreigners to make us less safe, their spreading the military across the globe and weakening our actual security.

Romney would continue that path toward greater weakness by way of the neocons’ delusional hegemonic fantasies.

Now, if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination for President at the convention, then, as Justin Raimondo has suggested, Paul really ought to run as a third party candidate, either as an Independent, or perhaps Gary Johnson could step aside and let Dr. Paul run as the Libertarian Party candidate.

However, as prominent voluntaryist Carl Watner has stated, attempting to restore freedom via the political electoral process is futile, as the use of the State’s own apparatus of institutionalized aggression ends up serving the State’s own ends. You cannot force people to be free.

Which is not to say that we can’t elect Ron Paul who would at least dismantle immediately some of the federal government’s most egregious grasps on our persons and property.

You see, unlike the current and past socialists and statists who have ruined America, and who promise further ruination, Ron Paul doesn’t want to use the political system to implement some political agenda or program. Unlike those other politicians who want these political offices because they crave power and control over others, Ron Paul just wants us to have our freedom.

No, Dr. Paul wants to be elected to the presidency to dismantle the unconstitutional extensions of the President’s executive power that Obama and previous Presidents have given themselves without the approval of the people’s representatives in Congress, Paul would fire all the czars, and repeal many of the federal government’s intrusions and encroachments into our lives and liberty.

Now, some people are worried that a Ron Paul third-party run would harm Rand Paul’s political future, Rand’s potential for a 2016 presidential run. First, America can’t wait that long for a restoration of our freedom. And also, honest people ought not be concerned with political career-planning.

Ultimately, what Americans need to do is engage in mass non-violent resistance. They need to withdraw their consent of all the economy-destroying, liberty-crushing socialist policies that these bureaucrat imbeciles have imposed on us.

As Carl Watner pointed out,

The goal of voluntaryist resistance is to abolish the political power structure and its success or failure in obtaining that objective rests squarely on the degree to which its strategy succeeds in delegitimizing the State and in inducing people to withdraw their support from the government. Its major strategies rest on education (which heightens public awareness of the evils of the State) and in persuading large numbers of persons to refuse to cooperate with the government … Voluntaryists must structure the conflict situation with the government in such a manner that the government becomes responsible for the resulting actions. Mass non-cooperation and widespread civil disobedience present a "resist or abdicate" dilemma to the government. In resisting voluntaryist demands, the government becomes responsible for its own repressive acts. In abdicating, the government not only loses face but political power.

Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz47.1.html

History stuff: Sand Creek...

What To Remember on Memorial Day

by William Norman Grigg

"What you are proposing is murder," Lt. Joseph Cramer told his commanding officer, Colonel John Chivington of the Third Colorado Cavalry, shortly before daybreak on the morning of the planned assault. Cramer and several other members of Chivington’s command staff had severe misgivings about the prospect of a sneak attack against a band of defenseless of Cheyenne Indians who had been promised protection.

Chief Black Kettle had distinguished himself through repeated efforts to secure the peace – on one occasion riding weaponless between opposing skirmish lines to prevent a battle from breaking out. In witness of his non-belligerency he had been provided with a United States flag by military officers who promised to protect the Cheyennes and Arapahos who lived in his encampment.

The "Battle" of Sand Creek could be considered the last engagement in which the U.S. flag flew over Americans who mounted a desperate defense of their homes and families against a barbarous aggressor.

During the months leading up to the November 1864 attack on the Sand Creek Reservation, Black Kettle had cooperated in efforts to identify and apprehend Indians who had stolen horses and attacked white settlers. He had also repeatedly petitioned both civilian and military officials on behalf of Indians who had suffered similar abuses.

"The Indians talk very bitterly about the whites – say they have stolen their ponies and abused their women, taken their hunting grounds, and they expected that they would have to fight for their rights," wrote Lt. George Hawkins in an official report filed during the bitter winter of 1863. The concept that Indians had rights they were entitled to defend was foreign to Colorado Governor John Evans and General Samuel Curtis.

During a September 1864 conference in Denver, Evans disingenuously insisted that owing to a "state of war" the military had plenary authority over Indian affairs, and that he was powerless to negotiate a peace treaty. Curtis wasn’t interested in a modus vivendi with the Indians: "I want no peace until the Indians suffer more," he wrote in a directive to Colonel Chivington. "Pursue everywhere and chastise the Cheyennes and the Arapahos…. No presents must be made and no peace concluded without my consent."

Chivington was indecently eager to carry out that barbarous directive. Considered a war hero of sorts following a Civil War engagement with Confederate forces in New Mexico, Chivington chafed under the restraints placed on his volunteers. He also resented the fact that the Third Colorado Cavalry, which had yet to see action, had been saddled with the sardonic sobriquet "The Bloodless Third."

Chivington’s zeal for combat was highly selective, however. In staging his punitive expedition he was careful to avoid contact with any group of Indians who were actually capable of fighting back.

With Black Kettle’s people still mired in slumber, and dawn’s tentative fingers peeling away the blanket of darkness, Chivington dismissed the complaints of his underlings as an offense to his exquisitely refined sense of honor: "I believe it right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians who kill and torture women and children. Damn any man who is in sympathy with them."

Chivington gave the order, and 750 troops opened fire on the undefended village. The pitiless rifle onslaught was intermittently punctuated by the throaty report of four twelve-pound howitzers.

Emboldened by the sight of an unarmed and helpless opponent, Chivington’s troops swarmed the camp and surrendered themselves unconditionally to their most depraved impulses.

"There are gruesome eyewitness accounts about braining live children, cutting off fingers to get rings, cutting off ears to get silver earrings, and multi-scalping the same corpse," recalled historian J. Jay Myers in his book Red Chiefs and White Challengers. A volunteer named Robert Grant later testified that he saw one dead Indian mother "cut open with an unborn child lying by her side. I saw the body of [a Cheyenne named] White Antelope with the privates cut off."

More than 150 Cheyennes – most of them women and children – were slaughtered at Sand Creek. Black Kettle, his gravely wounded wife Medicine Woman, and the other Cheyennes and Arapahos who survived were forced to sign another useless treaty and relocate to an even more desolate reservation on the shores of the Washita River in Oklahoma.

Nearly four years to the day after Chivington’s murderous raid, Black Kettle’s band endured another unprovoked massacre, this one carried out by George Armstrong Custer's Seventh Cavalry at Washita. Black Kettle and his wife were gunned down while carrying a flag of truce.

In his book Blood and Thunder: An Epic of the American West, Hampton Sides points out that the Sand Creek Massacre, which became the U.S. military’s template for murderous "pacification" operations against the Indians, "is now widely regarded as the worst atrocity committed in all the Indian wars." At the time, it was celebrated as a brave and noble deed.

"Chivington returned to Denver in triumph," writes Sides. "At a theater his men paraded their war trophies before the cheering crowds: Scalps, fingers, tobacco pouches made from scrotums, purses of stretched pudenda hacked from Cheyenne women. The Denver newspapers praised the Colorado Volunteers for their glorious victory."

"Posterity will speak of me as the great Indian fighter," boasted Chivington. "I have eclipsed Kit Carson."

Of course, Kit Carson – unlike Chivington – didn’t specialize in sneak attacks on unarmed Indians to whom official protection had been promised.

A few days before Chivington's "victory" over defenseless Cheyenne women and children, Carson had fought a real battle against a huge force of Comanches and Kiowa on the plains of Texas. Out-numbered ten-to-one and facing other strategic disadvantages, Carson managed to eke out a nominal "victory" in the Battle of Adobe Walls.

"Just to think of that dog Chivington and his dirty hounds, up at Sand Creek," Carson commented contemptuously to Army Inspector Col. James Rusling after returning from battle. "His men shot down squaws, and blew the brains out of little innocent children. You call such soldiers Christians...? And Indians savages? What do you suppose our Heavenly Father, who made both them and us, thinks of these things? I tell you what, I don't like a hostile Redskin any more than you do. And when they are hostile, I've fought 'em, hard as any man. But I never yet drew bead on a squaw or a papoose, and I despise the man who would. I've seen as much of 'em as any man livin', and I can't help but pity 'em, right or wrong. They once owned this country.... But now they own next door to nothing, and will soon be gone."

Carson spent a brief term as commissioner of the Bosque Redondo Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, a project he understandably came to view with unalloyed disgust. The reservation’s creator, General James Henry Carleton, regarded that reservation to be a model experiment in the forcible assimilation of Indian populations.

Uprooted by the army from their homeland -- "severity will be the most humane course," Carleton insisted – the Navajo were forced to endure what they call the "Long Walk" to Bosque Redondo.

As the defeated Navajos were enduring their murderous trek to the Bosque Redondo gulag, Carleton wrote what he thought was a gallant and generous epitaph for that people:

"The exodus of this whole people from the land of their fathers is a touching sight. They have fought us gallantly for years on years; they have defended their mountains and their stupendous canyons with heroism, but at length, they found it was their destiny, too, to give way to the insatiable progress of our race."

The land in the new Navajo "home" was desolate, its water supply brackish and unfit for either consumption or cultivation. Promised supplies and farm implements arrived sporadically, if at all. Many of the Navajo, provided with bags of white flour for which they had no practical use, died of malnutrition from eating uncooked handfuls of the unfamiliar dust contained therein.

Washington’s interest in the Navajo ended once they were cattle-penned at Bosque Redondo. Rather than seeing to the welfare of their new wards, the Feds focused on Carleton’s fanciful claim that the stolen Navajo lands abounded in gold.

Carleton had told Washington that the "only peace" that could be made with the Navajo "must rest on the basis that they move onto the lands at Bosque Redondo.... Either subjugation or destruction ... are the alternatives." He frequently wrote of the need to "chastise" and "overawe" the Navajo, to let them "feel the power and the sting of the government." He nearly chastised them into oblivion.

Hundreds of Navajo were felled by starvation after a cutworm infestation struck their cornfields. The entire Navajo population would likely have died at Bosque Redondo if they hadn’t been given grudging permission to leave in 1868 after signing yet another treaty surrendering ninety percent of their original lands.

The quaint notion expressed by a few throwbacks like Kit Carson that Indians should be dealt with as human beings created in God's image was widely regarded as a relic of a less "progressive" era. Indeed, by the late 19th Century, the term "progressive" was used to describe Indians willing to undergo federally mandated reconstruction; "conservatives" were those who stubbornly clung to their rights.

Following Washington’s conquest of the independent South, the Regime turned its eyes westward. General William Sherman, whose infernal columns had carved a bloody highway to the sea, was given the task of clearing the path for the corporatist railroad combine – which meant either subjugating, expelling, or liquidating the Plains Indians.

A little more than two years after Chivington’s slaughter at Sand Creek, a vainglorious boob named Lt. Col. W.J. Fetterman, commanding a detachment of eighty men tasked to guard a supply train, abandoned his assignment to stage a punitive expedition of his own. He led his men straight into a fatal ambush laid by Red Cloud and American Horse.

When U.S. troops butchered Indian women and children, the event was called a "battle"; when they were killed by Indians defending their own territory, the incident was described as a "massacre." (Contemporary defeats of that variety are referred to as "terrorist attacks.") Rather than treating Fetterman’s death and the annihilation of his command in Wyoming as the product of insubordination and lethal ineptitude, Sherman turned Fetterman into a martyr.

"This massacre should be treated as an act of war and should be punished with vindictive eagerness, until at least ten Indians are killed for each white life lost," Sherman instructed those under his command. This didn’t mean waging war against the battle-hardened Indian warriors who had defeated Fetterman in a fair fight, of course. Notes historian Heather Cox Richardson in her recent book Wounded Knee, "Sherman told the commander of the Department of the Platte to consider all Sioux in the Power River region hostile." The object was to "punish them to the extent of utter extermination if possible."

Sherman had often heard the grim but irresistible summons to slaughter. In a letter to his wife Ellen written during the War Between the States, Sherman noted the "the problem of war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory." He expressed nearly identical sentiments toward the Plains Indians in a letter to his brother John, a Republican Senator from Ohio, declaring that the Sioux and Cheyenne "must be exterminated, for they cannot and will not settle down, and our people will force us to it."

Sherman’s most notable Indian opponents didn’t share his Total War ethic. After Custer’s Seventh Army was defeated in Battle of Greasy Grass – known by the losers as the Battle of Little Bighorn – Sitting Bull issued orders not to pursue and kill off the survivors: "Let them live. They came against us, and we have killed a few. If we kill them all, they will send a bigger army against us."

That army came anyway. Sitting Bull and his band fled to Canada, where they were initially given refuge. The vengeful Regime in Washington used its influence to intimidate the Canadians into denying the refugees a suitable tract of land. Confronting the prospect of mass starvation, Sitting Bull and his followers returned to the United States in July 1881.

After being illegally imprisoned at Fort Randall, Sitting Bull was forced to endure a totalitarian homily preached by Republican Senator John Logan of Illinois.

"You are not a great chief of this country," Logan lectured. "You have no following, no power, no control, and no right to any control. You are on an Indian reservation merely at the sufferance of the government. You are fed by the government, clothed by the government, your children are educated by the government, and all that you have and are today is because of the government…. The government feeds and clothes and educates your children now, and desires to teach you to become farmers, and to civilize you, and make you as white men."

In practice, the policy described by Logan was designed to kill, through attrition, any Indians who refused to be assimilated. As Charles Eastman described the process, the government – through corrupt appointees – "robbed the Indians, then bullied them, and finally in a panic called for troops to suppress them" if the haggard and starving captive Indians exhibited the slightest capacity for resistance.

Sitting Bull was murdered by police at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation on the morning of December 15, 1890. The unarmed chief was shot in the chest after refusing to submit to an unlawful arrest. This was an overture to the climactic slaughter on the frozen shores of Wounded Knee Creek two weeks later.

To this day, the U.S. Army proudly displays the "battle streamer" of what is called the Wounded Knee "campaign." Dozens of participants in that atrocity – which can properly be called America’s Babi Yar – were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The monument to the "heroes of Wounded Knee Creek" still exists at Ft. Riley, Kansas

"By the turn of the [20th] century, Wounded Knee had become a symbol of the strength of the American government and its democratic idea," writes Heather Richardson in Wounded Knee. "The military tactics used at Wounded Knee not only won Medals of Honor for the soldiers, they also became the face of the modern American Army. Lieutenant Henry L. Hawthorne, who had directed the artillery unit until he had been shot in the groin, took his Medal of Honor with him to MIT, where in 1891 he became a professor of military tactics."

A decade later, the U.S. Army would apply the lessons it learned at Wounded Knee in its effort to pacify the Filipinos whom they had "liberated" from Spanish rule. By some estimates the military relieved roughly two million Filipinos of their corporeal burdens during its errand of enlightenment in the archipelago.

In 1883, with the Plains Indians effectively broken, a retirement-bound William Sherman boasted that his campaign of extermination against the Indians "did more good for our country and for the human race than I did in the Civil War." Since he died and went to hell on Valentine’s Day 1891, roughly a month and a half after the Wounded Knee Massacre, Sherman didn’t survive to see the uses to which his example would be put by his 20th Century imitators.

"They were not subjects of fascism who clubbed to death infants in the arms of Indian mothers," writes historian John Upton Terrell in his study Land Grab. "They were not Nazis who shot running Indian children to demonstrate their prowess as marksmen. It was not a dictatorship which condoned the illegal appropriation of territory awarded to Indians by solemn treaty for `as long as the waters run and the sun rises.' It was not ... a fuhrer or a duce who herded [Indians] into prison camps and let them die of malnutrition, cold and disease.... The bugle calls of American history proclaim not only noble victories and morally justified accomplishments. They proclaim, as well, base deeds and infamous triumphs."

This year, Memorial Day – during which Americans are barraged with admonitions that we sing hymns of chastened gratitude to the memory of those who killed and died on behalf of the State that rules us – coincided with the 182nd anniversary of Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act. Only by remembering the latter can we put the former in proper perspective.

Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w260.html

" Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents."

The Secret Kill List

by Andrew P. Napolitano

The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.

This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world – and some of his killers have killed Americans.

We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own – and not the military after congressional authorization – to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn't want to talk about this, but he doesn't deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod – the president's campaign manager – has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?

Can the president legally do this? In a word: No.

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked, or when an attack is so imminent and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days.

The U.S. has not declared war since World War II. If the president knows that an attack on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that a guy in a truck in a desert 10,000 miles from here – no matter his intentions – poses a threat to the U.S. so imminent and certain that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no circumstances may he use civilian agents for non-judicial killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force to protect themselves, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel, wherever they go on the planet.

Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers' arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.

Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.

Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano56.1.html

" The arrogant Bilderbergers thought they could manipulate history, trick mankind, suppress the truth, and plot evil in the darkness endlessly, all without being noticed, but things have turned out differently than they imagined."

The Meaning of Occupy Bilderberg: The Elevation of The Shadow Into Public Consciousness

Saman Mohammadi

“What a difference a year makes. Occupy Bilderberg? I love it. The Occupy movement seems finally to have realised that the problem isn’t the 1%, it’s the 0.001%. It’s the guys and gals and whatever David Rockefeller is who are meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, at the end of the week. Many hundreds of protestors have pledged to show up. And who knows, they may just manage to drag the mainstream news media with them.” – Charlie Skelton: Bilderberg 2012: the technocrats are rising at this year’s annual conference; May 30, 2012.

“Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all.” – Sophocles.

The occupy movement is growing up and taking on the big boys at the 2012 Bilderberg conference, held in Chantilly, Virginia.

Bilderberg is the shadow G8 and G20. Its much more powerful and influential in global affairs than those public bodies. It is the invisible layer of skin under the thick public skin of national governments, global media, global banks, global charities, and global corporations.

When you peel away the public skin, you find a virus spreading underneath, and that virus is the Bilderberg plutocrats who want tokeep nations impoverished and under-developed for their own gain. Of course, their view of the world situation is the exact opposite. They see the 99% as a virus on the planet, and they are the cure. They seek to, “micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth,” writes Paul Joseph Watson.

Instituting anti-growth policies on a global basis in the name of “protecting the environment” is a matter of pride to them. Launching illegal wars to reduce the size of the human population and increase the size of their bank accounts gives them joy and a great sense of accomplishment.

According to criminal Bilderbergers and their collaborators in the media, the Earth needs “healing” and the quickest ways of removing the human virus is by starting another massive world war, and creating poverty and starvation worldwide. Their highly secret global depopulation agenda came to life as a result of the false flag 9/11 events, which had the propaganda effect of pitting the Western world and Israel against the Islamic world.

Over the last several years, Bilderberg has come under increasing scrutiny from the global alternative press. Its plots and schemes, whether it concerns U.S. domestic politics, the global economic crisis, or the wars in the Middle East, have been discovered and exposed by a new generation of media activists and reporters.

In the field of Bilderberg coverage American journalist Jim Tucker still casts a long shadow, having consistently reported on Bilderberg conferences for over three and a half decades. His persistence and determination has inspired thousands on the ground, and infuriated thousands in the sky.

The Bilderberg sky gods are especially filled with rage this year because of all the buzz that dedicated protesters and activists have created. Their minions in the state security services have erected a fortress around the Westfields Marriott Washington Dulles hotel, where Bilderbergers are set to meet to discuss sensitive global issues, and make world policy decisions that will have repercussions for the entire world.

“Given the fact that a record number of demonstrators are expected to attend,” writes Paul Joseph Watson, “Bilderberg has been more stringent than ever before in its efforts to get people out of the way.” They’ve engaged in threats, spread false rumours to demonize protesters, and intensified security measures to intimidate journalists into vacating the premises.

All the security and secrecy is meant to cover up the fact that they’re deciding the political fate of the world without consulting the people of the world.

The Bilderberg oligarchy’s biggest long-term political project is the European Union, which is facing a severe legitimacy crisis in the wake of the global economic meltdown. The EU is a grandiose experiment but it is destined to fail and collapse under the current immoral, incompetent, and corrupt leadership.

Europeans don’t want to be enslaved and robbed by a parasitic and transnational financial class anymore. Iceland has provided the best example thus far of an economic recovery without the banksters.

The lesson from Iceland is simple: nations prosper without the international private banking cartel, and die with it. America has been controlled by this heartless and satanic cartel for a century, and its currency and reputation has been destroyed as a result.

One of the biggest global political goals of the Bilderbergers is the destruction of America and all nation states, and the creation of a global security state. The NATO summit in Chicago gave us a glimpse into the dark heart of the emerging global security state. But the real heart of this invisible and secretive state is the Bilderberg conference.

Without popular legitimacy and political accountability at the highest levels, however, a universal security state will crash and burn.

Washington is the military enforcer of the Bilderberg’s global political and economic policies. The tragic irony is that America is one of the biggest losers of the policy of corporate globalism. The undermining of American sovereignty by numerous White House administrations at the behest of the internationalist Bilderberg oligarchy has created a weaker and poorer America.

President Obama is the latest American presidential puppet to follow the secret policy of destroying America from within. Mitt Romney will continue on this treasonous course if he wins the election in November.

The political power that will guide the destiny of America in January 2013 will not be Mr. Obamney, but the Bilderberg oligarchy, as it has done for decades now. That is why elevating the secretive Bilderberg conference into public consciousness is so important.

In Barack Obama’s shadow stands the Bilderberg oligarchy, and the same is for Romney’s shadow. The president of the United States has no power today other than the power to lie and persuade. The President’s function is to be a ghost, a liar, an image, an actor, a salesman, a comforter. It doesn’t matter which liar and flip flopper wins in November. Obamney is just a smiley face on a sick and sinister machinery of power. Every word they speak is hollow.

Occupy Bilderberg is bringing the real yet ever mysterious shadow masters into the light of public consciousness. The symbolic power of the American president is disintegrating in front of our eyes. The people are waking up and confronting the criminal plutocratic manipulators who hide their power in the shadows, where they are plotting against the global public good and the general welfare of humanity.

Now that the Bilderberg has been pushed out of the shadows, it can’t go back in the safe confines of the shade and play the secrecy game. The age of the shadow is over. And there’s nothing that the Bilderberg scum can do about it.

History can be manipulated, but history can’t be stopped. The people can be misled and tricked for a long time, but not forever. The truth can be suppressed, but not erased. Those who perform evil deeds in the shadow can’t keep their guilt hidden from the world.

The arrogant Bilderbergers thought they could manipulate history, trick mankind, suppress the truth, and plot evil in the darkness endlessly, all without being noticed, but things have turned out differently than they imagined.

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-meaning-of-occupy-bilderberg-the-elevation-of-the-shadow-into-public-consciousness.html

All but one mainstream media outlets ignore Bilderberg. Nothing to see here, move along...

Washington Times Breaks U.S. Media Blackout On Bilderberg

Washington Post fails to mention the fact that dozens of hugely influential power brokers are meeting in their own back yard

Paul Joseph Watson

The U.S. media blackout on Bilderberg has been broken, with the Washington Times being the first mainstream U.S. news outlet to cover the gathering of over 100 power brokers in Chantilly, Virginia which kicks off today – but the Washington Post remains mute.

The Times reports that a half-mile security perimeter has been set up around the Westfields Marriott hotel and that a photographer for the newspaper was told by police, “any attempt to get close to the building would result in arrest.”

It’s all part of the unprecedented security crackdown now in force to protect global financiers, banking heads, media and technology moguls as well as elected officials from the very public whose lives are affected by their decisions.

“This year, it’s the biggest ever. The security is leveraged up big time. It’s unprecedented,” Alex Jones told the newspaper.

Despite the fact that dozens of the most powerful and influential people on the planet are meeting today in their own back yard, the Washington Post, which itself is routinely represented at Bilderberg via its publisher Donald Graham, has failed to even mention the event thus far.

Expect the Post to only report on the conference once it’s wrapped up. Bilderberg relies on big media to ignore their meetings so as not to draw more press attention while the summit is in progress.

In a separate story, numerous prominent Canadian newspapers, including the Calgary Herald, are reporting on criticism leveled against Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s following her announcement that she will attend the meeting at a cost of $19,000 to taxpayers.

As we reported yesterday, Redford, a prominent global warming alarmist, will scheme with Bilderbergers on the best way to implement Agenda 21 using the threat of ecological crises.

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith, who was previously characterized as a national embarrassment by Redford for daring to question the official mantra behind climate change, savaged Redford for not paying for the trip herself.

“That’s $19,000 on the taxpayer dime for a committee that meets in secret, has no policies, no resolutions, nobody is allowed — it’s invite only,” Smith said. “What is Alberta getting out of this?

“I think in fact she’s actually thinking more about her career after politics and she’s using it as a networking event. Well, fair enough, then she can pay for it herself. We don’t think Albertans should be on the hook for this tab.”

Redford has promised to report back on what she discussed at Bilderberg, but don’t expect her to go into much detail because attendees are sworn to secrecy – another example of Bilderberg’s contempt for the democratic process.

Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper also carries a story today which largely regurgitates Infowars’ original piece about the stifling security measures now being put in place.

Digital Journal also has a piece looking at the likely topics of discussion at this year’s confab.

Stay tuned to Infowars.com today for all the breaking news on Bilderberg as attendees begin to arrive.

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/washington-times-breaks-u-s-media-blackout-on-bilderberg.html

"...the stage is already set for another massive round of bailouts when the next great financial crisis strikes. Once again our taxes will pay for the mistakes of the ultra-wealthy."

How The Super Rich Avoid Taxes Even As They Demand That The Rest Of Us Pay More

Michael Snyder

The way that we tax people in the United States is fundamentally broken and should be completely discarded. The U.S. tax code is absolutely riddled with loopholes that allow the super rich to legally avoid taxes while many of the rest of us are being taxed into oblivion. In our system of taxation, middle class families that work hard and try to play by the rules are deeply penalized while those that are willing to abuse the system make out like bandits. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that enables wealthy politicians such as Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to pay a smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes than millions of middle class families. Mitt Romney hasmillions of dollars parked down in the Cayman Islands and in other tax havens. He does this to avoid taxes. Unfortunately, most Americans do not have the resources to funnel money through offshore tax havens. Most Americans just automatically have their paychecks shredded by taxes and then try to live on whatever is left over. Most Americans are just trying to survive financially from one month to the next. But the super rich have options. Thanks to technology, they can live almost anywhere they want and they can run their companies and manage their investments from anywhere in the world. The truth is that the wealthier you are the easier it is to avoid taxes. But even as the ultra-wealthy do their best to avoid taxes, many of them still feel free to demand that the rest of us be taxed more.

So what are some of the ways that the super rich avoid taxes?

Well, let’s start with those that are just “somewhat wealthy”. Many millionaires still want or need to be U.S. citizens, so they are subject to the U.S. tax code. Fortunately for them, their tax lawyers know of thousands of loopholes that have been designed to help the rich avoid taxes.

The following is from a recent article by Jen Talley….

Some of the richest people in the country pay the least, relatively speaking, in taxes. How is this possible? Answer: Through the clever manipulation of the U.S. tax code’s loopholes. And it works: as income rises, effective tax rates rise as well, but only up to a point. IRS data shows that the effective income tax rate flattens out at just over 24 percent for those making over a million dollars. As income exceeds $1.5 million, the rate begins to decline; those with incomes above $10 million pay an average income tax rate of around 19 percent. So, how do they do it?

You could write an entire series of books on the technical details of how this gets done. Trust me, I studied tax law when I was in law school.

If you are interested in digging into some of the technical details of tax avoidance, a recent Businessweek article detailed 10 ways that the wealthy use our current tax code to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes. It is an article worth reading if you have the time.

Sadly, tax avoidance by the wealthy is not just something that happens in the United States. The truth is that the exact same kind of thing happens in the UK as well.

There is not an easy fix to this problem. Our politicians have had decades to try to come up with a fair tax system and they have completely failed. The wealthy are always several steps ahead of them.

But federal taxes are not the only taxes that can be avoided. The vast difference in state tax rates creates another opportunity.

One advantage that wealthy Americans have is that they are far more mobile than most other Americans are. So if they don’t like the tax system in one state they can simply pick up and move to another state.

According to the Tax Foundation, 3.4 million Americans left New York state between 2000 and 2010.

So where did they go?

The following is from a recent CNS News article….

Where are they escaping to? The Tax Foundation found that more than 600,000 New York residents moved to Florida over the decade – opting perhaps for the Sunshine State’s more lenient tax system – taking nearly $20 billion in adjusted growth income with them.

There is no state income tax in Florida. So moving from New York to Florida can end up saving you a bundle.

The same kind of migration is happening out west as well. According to that same CNS article, hundreds of thousands of people have been moving from California (a high tax state) to Texas (no state income tax)….

Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income. Texas has no state income tax or estate tax.

A total of 48,877 people moved to Texas from California between 2009 and 2010 alone, totaling $1.2 billion in income. Another 28,088 from California relocated to Nevada and 30,663 to Arizona, a loss of $699.1 million and $707.8 million in income respectively.

Not that anyone really needs much of an excuse to move away from California. It is rapidly decaying right in front of our eyes.

But a lot of families do not have the same options that wealthy people do. Unfortunately, most average Americans are tied to their jobs and it would be much more difficult for them to pick up and move across the country. In this economy it can be economic suicide to give up a good job.

The reality is that most of us simply do not have the resources to play the same kinds of games that the wealthy play.

Sadly, even our most prominent politicians avoid taxes.

Just look at Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. He has avoided approximately $500,000 in taxes by docking his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in Massachusetts.

Yet Kerry sure does love to call for more taxes on the rest of us, doesn’t he?

Now let’s talk about the “super rich” and the “ultra-wealthy”. For many people that are worth billions of dollars, tax avoidance has become an art from.

Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin made national headlines recently when he gave up his U.S. citizenship, but the truth is that his case is small potatoes compared to the global elite and the shadow banking system that supports them.

According to the IMF, the global elite are holding a total of 18 trillion dollars in offshore banks.

That amount is more than the GDP of the entire planet for an entire year.

So what do I mean by “offshore banks”? I defined the term in a previous article….

Well, the term originally developed because the banks on the Channel Islands were “offshore” from the United Kingdom. Most “offshore banks” are still located on islands today. The Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the Isle of Man are examples of this. Other “offshore banking centers” such as Monaco are actually not “offshore” at all, but the term applies to them anyway.

Traditionally, these offshore banking centers have been very attractive to both criminals and to the global elite because they would not tell anyone (including governments) about the money that anyone had parked there.

It has been reported that 80 percent of all international banking transactions involve offshore banks. A whopping 1.4 trillion dollars is being held in offshore banks in the Cayman Islands alone.

An article that appeared in the Guardian estimated that a third of all the wealth on the entire planet is being kept in offshore banks. One of the primary reasons for this is tax avoidance.

A lot of wealthy individuals never even visit these tax havens and yet reap the benefits anyway. The truth is that tax avoidance has become way too easy. The following example is from a recent Politico article….

A plausible scenario plays out like this: I hire an accountant. Doing her job, my accountant tells me that if I sign a few legal documents and route my money through a small Caribbean island, I could keep more of my paycheck and pay a lower tax rate. I may have earned my money in the United States, but legally I can claim that it was, in fact, earned in a tax haven.

Are you disgusted yet?

You should be.

But even though they avoid taxes like the plague, many of these elitists have the gall to call for higher taxes on all the rest of us.

For example, let’s review what the managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, said in a recent interview….

“Do you know what? As far as Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are trying to escape tax all the time. All these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax.”

Even more than she thinks about all those now struggling to survive without jobs or public services? “I think of them equally. And I think they should also help themselves collectively.” How? “By all paying their tax. Yeah.”

It sounds as if she’s essentially saying to the Greeks and others in Europe, you’ve had a nice time and now it’s payback time.

“That’s right.” She nods calmly. “Yeah.”

And what about their children, who can’t conceivably be held responsible? “Well, hey, parents are responsible, right? So parents have to pay their tax.”

Well, it turns out that she doesn’t pay any income taxes at all on her own income….

The IMF chief Christine Lagarde was accused of hypocrisy yesterday after it emerged that she pays no income tax – just days after blaming the Greeks for causing their financial peril by dodging their own bills.

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund is paid a salary of $467,940 (£298,675), automatically increased every year according to inflation. On top of that she receives an allowance of $83,760 – payable without “justification” – and additional expenses for entertainment, making her total package worth more than the amount received by US President Barack Obama according to reports last night.

Her “diplomatic status” allows her to escape all income taxes.

So perhaps she should pay her “fair share” before pointing the finger at anyone else.

But she is not the only one being hypocritical.

The super rich claim that they should pay lower taxes on investment income for the good of our “capitalist system”, but when their banks are about to go under they are more than happy to have those losses be socialized.

As I wrote about yesterday, the stage is already set for another massive round of bailouts when the next great financial crisis strikes. Once again our taxes will pay for the mistakes of the ultra-wealthy.

The truth is that our system is fundamentally broken.

We need to abolish the income tax and shut down the IRS.

Those two steps alone would do wonders for our economic system.

We also need to shut down the Federal Reserve and break up the too big to fail banks.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of our politicians are not even willing to consider any of those solutions.

So our fundamentally broken system will continue to chug along.

It really is sad.

Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-the-super-rich-avoid-taxes-even-as-they-demand-that-the-rest-of-us-pay-more

"The mainstream media may be ignoring Bilderberg, but based on the level of security around the hotel you would be tempted to think that it was the most important event in the United States this year."

Why Does The Mainstream Media Ignore The Bilderberg Group?

Michael Snyder

Over the next several days, more than a hundred of the most powerful people on the planet will attend a secret conference at a hotel in Chantilly, Virgina. Some of the biggest names in politics and business will be there. The hotel is going to be completely locked down and will be swarmed by hordes of security guards carrying machine guns. This conference is so important that even the U.S. Secret Service is rumored to be involved in providing security. These meetings have been held yearly since 1954, but no record of what goes on at them has ever been officially released to the public and all the attendees are sworn to secrecy. Decisions made at this conference will affect the lives of every man, woman and child on the planet. But the vast majority of Americans will have no idea that the Bilderberg Group is meeting about 20 miles from Washington D.C. this year because the mainstream media in the United States ignores the Bilderberg Group almost entirely year after year. Based on the coverage it gets from the U.S. media, you would think that the Bilderberg Group was a non-event. But if some of the most powerful people on the planet are getting together to discuss our future, don’t you think the mainstream media should be covering it?

The Bilderberg Group is much more than just a social club. It has played a major role in shaping the direction of the world since it was created in 1954. The Bilderberg Group helped create the European Union and it helped create the euro. This year efforts to save the euro are rumored to be high on the agenda.

And considering the big names that show up at this conference on a yearly basis you would think that the U.S. media would be extremely interested in it. The following is just a sampling of the big names that have attended Bilderberg in recent years….

Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Prince Charles, David Cameron, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Angela Merkel, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Rick Perry, David Rockefeller, Herman van Rompuy, Jean-Claude Trichet, Jeff Bezos, Chris R. Hughes, Eric Schmidt, Craig J. Mundie, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Richard Perle, Paul Volcker, Lawrence Summers, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Isn’t that enough star power to get the attention of the mainstream media?

A complete list of the “official attendees” of the Bilderberg Group from last year can be found right here.

You would think that this would be big news.

But apparently there is so much else going on in the world that there isn’t any room to cover the Bilderberg Group.

For example, right now on USA Today you can find the following headlines on the front page….

-Trilogies spring up on reading lists

-Spelling still matters in era of texting, spell check

-Many chain stores now add a toy aisle for adults

Perhaps other news sources are discussing more important news.

Then again, perhaps not.

On the front page of CNN, you can currently find the following headlines….

-Airline seat squeeze: It’s not just you

-Group: Prove Romney’s not a unicorn

-Scientists confirm ‘old person smell’

No wonder CNN is experiencing record low television ratings.

The mainstream media may be ignoring Bilderberg, but based on the level of security around the hotel you would be tempted to think that it was the most important event in the United States this year.

A recent article by Paul Joseph Watson discussed some of the extraordinary security measures that are being implemented to protect this conference….

Undercover Fairfax police, secret service, hotel security, as well as diplomatic service personnel are all now rushing to finalize preparations for the arrival of Bilderberg members tomorrow morning.

According to London Guardian journalist Charlie Skelton, conference organizers were also using iPhones to film guests who had arrived for brunch. Regular guests as well as journalists are also having background checks run against their names.

Alex Jones also heard discussions between members of Bilderberg security about how sophisticated surveillance equipment using satellites was being used to tap phones of prominent activists and media personalities set to cover the event.

So why doesn’t the mainstream media want to cover this?

In the past, a number of top politicians (including future U.S. presidents) have attended Bilderberg prior to getting elected to very important positions. A recent WorldNetDaily article detailed a few examples of this phenomenon….

George H.W. Bush attended in 1985. He became president in 1988. Bill Clinton attended in 1991. He became president a year later. Tony Blair attended in 1993. He became prime minister of England in 1997. Romano Prodi attended in 1999. Later that year he became president of the European Union Commission. In 2004, Sen. John Edwards spoke to the group. He was later anointed the Democratic vice presidential nominee by presidential candidate John Kerry.

It is even rumored that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton held a secret meeting at Bilderberg back in 2008.

Amazingly, there are indications that Barack Obama may have held a little “pre-Bilderberg meeting” again this year. According to the Economic Policy Journal, Obama snuck away from reporters on Saturday for some mysterious reason….

Of note, President Obama disappeared this weekend.. Reporters were miffed. Was it a pre-Bilderberg meeting for the Prez?

On Saturday, West Wing Report had these odd tweets:

President arrived 1:10 ET at Andrews golf course. Playing today with regulars Marvin Nicholson; Walt Nicholson & Pete Selfridge
—
President back at White House. In a breach of longtanding policy, his motorcade departed without hooking up with the waiting press vans.
—
Pool does not know first hand when the president left Andrews, what route he took, or when he arrived at White House
—
Press pool always accompanies the president wherever he goes. Decades-long tradition violated again.

Remember, if the President meets someone outside the White House, it isn’t logged in on WH records amd there is no record if the press aren’t there to record it.

So where did Obama go during that missing time and why did he ditch the press?

They will probably never tell us.

The truth is that the mainstream media is the biggest “gatekeeper” of all.

They decide what is important and what is not important.

They decide what is going to be in “the news” and what the American people are going to be talking about.

They choose to totally ignore the Bilderberg Group and so most Americans will not even hear about it this year.

And that is really sad. The truth is that those that attend Bilderberg have big plans for all of us.

David Rockefeller, a regular attendee at Bilderberg meetings, wrote the following in a 2003 book entitled “Memoirs”….

“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 of 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.”

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the fact that a bunch of elitists are holding secret conferences where they discuss how to build a “more integrated global political and economic structure”.

The future of America should be in the hands of the American people – not in the hands of secretive global elitists that desire to shape the world in their own image.

Please share this information and other articles you can find about the Bilderberg Group with as many people as you can. The mainstream media is not doing their job, so it is up to all of us to get the truth out.

Link:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/why-does-the-mainstream-media-ignore-the-bilderberg-group