What’s happening in the Middle East?

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 24, 2011

If the crisis in the Middle East and North Africa blocks oil production in Libya and Algeria, oil prices could explode and reach $ 220 per barrel. According to a new report from Nomura-Tokyo, the simultaneous interruption will reduce the capacity of OPEC to produce 2.1 million barrels a day. During the Gulf War in 1990-1991, oil prices jumped 70% in seven months, when the capacity was reduced to only 1.8 million barrels a day.

Former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

Porter Stansberry, founder of Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, reached the same conclusion. The agreement is the fact that by the end of 2012, the price of oil, which will cross the $ 200 a barrel, will make the dollar collapse as a reserve currency. In addition, there will be no supply of oil from the Middle East. What this means is that everything valued in dollars will be profoundly affected, including personal, business and government debt. Analysts conclude that even Saudi Arabia, which aims to supply the market with more oil, cannot calm the crisis caused by the globalists who control the Middle East, Europe, Asia and America.

Several media reports indicate that Muammar Qaddafi, Libya’s current dictator, intends to sabotage its oil production, which would accelerate the crisis. According to Lindsey Williams, a confidant of two oil producing company directors like Ken Fromm of Atlantic Richfield, the globalists who control the oil supply will violate an agreement made with OPEC in 1977, signed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, where the U.S. and other Western nations pledged not to use its vast reserves and instead buy oil produced in the Arab world. In return, the Arabs would use some of the money received to buy debt issued by the United States. This money has been used to finance the debt-based economic system that America has used for decades. In late 2012, “the agreement will be broken by the globalists,” which will end OPEC’s supply to the Western world. This will force companies to exploit massive reserves in the United States.

Williams provided a detailed account four months ago, that the Middle East would explode in chaos, which is true today in Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Pakistan, and others. The success of his comments are a result of information from first-hand sources, with whom he shared time for many years and who gave him the information. It is precisely these sources who also planned the execution of many of the marches and protests in the Middle East to destabilize the Arab world and unleash their plan that includes the violation of the agreement signed in the seventies. Once the globalists violate the agreement made with the Arabs, they will not have the dollars to purchase U.S. debt, which will further weaken the current reserve currency. Furthermore, any debt bought by Arabs and others like China, will be devalued and lost.

In 1971, Ken Fromm told Lindsey Williams that the producers would not open American reserves until the price of oil reached $ 200 per barrel. This price will be achieved according to various sources in 2012. The lack of oil will bring serious consequences, for the U.S. and the entire planet. Meanwhile, Russia, the largest oil producer of oil today, and China, have signed a deal to give the chinese all the oil and natural gas to develop its economy and become the world’s number one, above the United States.

According to Williams, the globalists will begin exploiting the huge reserves in U.S. territory, which have remained closed as a condition of the agreement signed between Kissinger and OPEC in 1977. Currently, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) says, there is a massive oil well right below the states of North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana, with oil reserves of about 503 billion barrels. This oil well runs through the northern border to Canada. The existence of this and other oil wells with oil of the “light sweet” type, has been there forever and the globalists have known it for decades. What is relevant about this detail is that “light sweet” oil requires little or no industrial processing, which means that would be available for use almost immediately.

This oil could be produced at a cost of just $ 16 dollars per barrel, a price that certainly the globalists will not offer to distribution centers. Instead, they will keep the price at $ 200 or more, so that consumers have to pay 7 or 8 dollars at their favorite gas stations. According to Williams, there is enough oil in this well to meet U.S. demand until 2041. To that we must add the other oil reserves in North America hidden beneath the Rocky Mountains, which is considered the largest of all wells available in the world that has not been exploited. According to studies, the available reserves in the Rocky Mountains reach 2 trillion barrels. James Bartis, one of the researchers who participated in the study, said the United States has more oil than any other country in the world, even more than several producers put together. Another massive well is found in Gull Island Alaska.

What will be the results of this massive shift in oil supply? For one, none, because the globalists that cause economic crises, wars and social unrest would still be in power and perhaps more powerful than ever. Analysts believe that a new world will emerge from the disaster that the globalists are causing in the East. In fact, one of the biggest changes will be the imposition of a new reserve currency, given the fact the dollar will not occupy that position anymore. Lindsey Williams says that the people responsible for the actual destruction of America and Western Europe will eventually rebuild these two regions of the planet, but will also have even more power over them.

Intelligence analyst Wayne Madsen, who worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) and is now an investigative reporter in Washington, DC, also agrees with Williams and Tarpley. According to Madsen, the same globalists who caused the conflict in North Africa are also responsible for the protests in Bahrain, Greece, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. He also agrees with the fact that all these presidents and dictators have been carefully selected and placed around the world to carry out the plans of the globalists, who as payment, now get themselves overthrown. Madsen believes that Mummar Qaddafi will probably end up running out of Libya to any of the dictatorships that he has protected in the region in a matter of days, such as Zimbabwe, Gambia, or even South Africa. In Yemen, Madsen said, the independent movements will regain power from the dictators who have oppressed them for so long.

Historians such as G. Webster Tarpley has agreed with this description in several media appearances in the U.S. and Europe. Tarpley exemplifies actions such as Barack Obama’s speech Wednesday night where he said that his national security team was in the process of negotiating with allies in the world plans to intervene in Libya with the intention to appease any actions considered extreme by the U.S. and its allies. In his speech Obama used demagogic comments to support his points, saying the United States supported the people in the Middle East who are being abused by dictators. Obama however, does not do what he preaches in his own backyard. “The rights to free speech and assembly are inviolable,” said Obama, who allows oppression of American citizens when they express their discontent with the economy or the way Obama himself directs the destiny of the country.

While Obama clearly understands that the conflict in the Middle East is a direct consequence of the actions of his country and the Anglo-Saxon Empire that controls it, he has spared no effort to insist that no Western power was responsible for that conflict. He takes advantage of the fact that many people do not understand the context, history or source of the misery for thousands of Arabs who have been oppressed for many years. What the vast majority of these people do not realize is that they are being subject of a new deception, because those who claim to be helping them, are really giving them more of the same. It remains to be seen if the people allow this to happen or take onto the streets to demand accountability, but for real, without being duped, once again, by those who have kept them inside the current neo-feudal system for decades.


¿Qué está pasando en el Medio Oriente?

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Febrero 24, 2011

Si la crisis que afecta el Oriente Medio y África del Norte bloquea la producción de petróleo en Libia y Argelia, el precio del petróleo puede estallar y llegar a $220 por barril. Según un nuevo informe de Nomura-Tokio, la paralización simultánea reducirá la capacidad de OPEC de producir 2,1 millones de barriles al día. Durante la Guerra del Golfo, en 1990-1991, los precios del crudo saltaron 70% en siete meses, cuando la capacidad se redujo a sólo 1,8 millones de barriles diarios.

Antiguo Secretário de Estado estadounidense, Henry Kissinger

Porter Stansberry, fundador de Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, ha llegado a la misma conclusión. El coincide en que para finales de 2012, el precio del crudo, que surcará los $200 por barril, hará que el dólar colapse como moneda reserva. Además, no habrá oferta de crudo del Medio Oriente. Lo que esto significa es que todo aquello que este valorado en dólares se vera profundamente afectado, inclusive deuda personal, comercial y gubernamental. Analistas concluyen que ni siquiera Arabia Saudita, que pretende suplir el mercado con más de su petróleo podrá apaciguar la crisis causada por los globalistas quienes controlan el Medio Oriente, Europa, Asia y América.

Medios de comunicación indican que Muammar Qaddafi, actual dictador de Libia pretende sabotear su producción de crudo, lo cual aceleraría la crisis. Según Lindsey Williams, un confidente de dos empresas productoras de petróleo, cuyos directores como Ken Fromm de Atlantic Richfield, los globalistas que controlan la oferta de crudo violarán un acuerdo firmado con OPEC en 1977, firmado por el antiguo Secretário de Estado, Henry Kissinger, donde Estados Unidos y otras naciones occidentales se comprometieron a no usar sus extensas reservas y en lugar comprar sólo crudo del Oriente. A cambio, los árabes usarían parte del dinero recibido para comprar deuda emitida por Estados Unidos. Este dinero ha sido usado para financiar el sistema económico basado en deuda que Estados Unidos ha usado por décadas. A finales de 2012, el acuerdo será quebrantado por los globalistas, y OPEC cerrará su suministro. Esto obligará a las empresas a explotar las masivas reservas en Estados Unidos.

Williams informó detalladamente hace cuatro meses como el Medio Oriente explotaría en caos, lo cual es realidad hoy en Egipto, Libia, Jordania, Pakistán, y otros. El acertó en sus comentarios porque fueron fuentes de primera mano, con quienes ha convivido por muchos años quienes le dieron la información. Son precisamente estas fuentes globalistas quienes además planearon la ejecución de numerosas marchas y protestas en el Oriente para desestabilizar el mundo árabe y desencadenar su plan que incluye la violación al acuerdo firmado en los años setentas. Una vez que los globalistas violen el acuerdo hecho con los árabes, ellos no tendrán los dólares para continuar comprando deuda norteamericana, lo cual debilitará aún más la actual moneda reserva. Así mismo, toda la deuda comprada por los árabes y otros como China, será desvalorizada y sus inversiones perdidas.

En 1971, Ken Fromm dijo a Lindsey Williams que las empresas productoras no abirirían las reservas estadounidenses hasta que el precio del petróleo llegasen a $200 dólares por barril. Este precio será alcanzado según diversas fuentes, en 2012. En Estados Unidos, la falta de crudo traerá graves consecuencias, así como para casi todo el planeta. Mientras tanto, Rusia, el mayor productor de petróleo hoy, y China, quienes han firmado un acuerdo para dar a China todo el crudo y gas natural para desarrollar su economía y tornarla la número uno del mundo, por encima de Estados Unidos.

Según Williams, los globalistas comenzarán a explotar las gigantescas reservas existentes en territorio estadounidense, las cuales se han mantenido cerradas como condición del acuerdo firmado entre Kissinger y OPEC en 1977. Actualmente, según el Servicio Geológico de Estados Unidos (USGS), solo debajo de los estados de Dakota del Norte, Dakota del Sur y Montana, el país tiene reservas de crudo 503 mil millones de barriles. Esta caldera de petróleo se extiende a través de la frontera norte hasta Canadá. La existencia de este y otros pozos petroleros con el llamado crudo “light sweet”, ha sido de conocimiento de los globalistas por décadas y de gran relevancia pues este tipo de petroleo necesita poco o ningún procesamiento industrial, lo que significa que estaría disponible para uso casi inmediato.

Este petróleo podría ser producido a un costo de apenas $16 dolares por barril, un precio que desde luego los globalistas no ofrecieran cuando este llegue a los centros de distribución. En lugar, los controladores mantendrán el precio en $200 o más, para que los consumidores tengan que pagar unos 7 u 8 dolares al comprarlo en puestos de gasolina. Según Williams, existe suficiente crudo en el pozo al norte del país para satisfacer la demanda estadounidense hasta 2041. A esto se deben sumar las otras reservas petroleras en América del Norte escondidas bajo las Rocky Mountains, el cual es considerado como el mayor de todos los pozos disponibles del mundo y que tampoco ha sido explotado. Según estudios realizados, las reservas disponibles en las Rocky Mountains llegan a 2 trillones de barriles. James Bartis, uno de los investigadores que participó en el estudio, dijo que Estados Unidos tiene mas petroleo que cualquier otro país en el mundo; inclusive mas de lo que producirían varios de los que se consideran hoy los mayores productores. Otros pozos se encuentran en Gull Island en Alaska y Texas.

¿Cuáles serán los resultados de este cambio? Por un lado, ninguno, pues los globalistas que originan las crisis económicas, bélicas y sociales aún estarían en el poder y quizás más poderosos que nunca. Analistas creen que un nuevo mundo surgirá del desastre que los globalistas llevan a cabo en el Oriente. De hecho, uno de los grandes cambios será la imposición de una nueva moneda reserva, ante la caída del dólar. Lindsey Williams dice que los controladores que son responsables por la actual destrucción de Estados Unidos y Europa occidental eventualmente reconstruirán estas dos regiones del planeta, pero las tendrán aún más dominadas que antes.

El analista de inteligencia Wayne Madsen, quien trabajo para la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA), y es ahora un periodista investigativo en Washington, DC, también coincide con Williams y Tarpley.  Según Madsen, los mismos globalistas que causaron el conflicto en África del Norte también son responsables por las protestas en Bahrein, Grecia, Turquía, Irán y Pakistán. El también concuerda con el hecho que todos estos presidentes y dictadores han sido cuidadosamente seleccionados y colocados alrededor del mundo para llevar a cabo los planes de los globalistas, quienes como paga, ahora les quieren derrocados. Madsen adicionalmente cree que Qaddafi probablemente terminará huyendo de Libia hacia alguna de las otras dictaduras que él mismo ha protegido, tales como Zimbabwe, Gambia, o inclusive África del Sur. En Yemen, Madsen dice, los movimientos independientes recobrarán poder de los dictadores quienes les han oprimido por mucho tiempo.

Historiadores como Webster G. Tarpley ha concordado con esta descripción en varias apariciones en medios de comunicación estadounidenses y europeos. Tarpley cita acciones como el discurso de Barack Obama durante la noche del miércoles, diciéndo que su equipo de seguridad nacional estaban en el proceso de negociar planes con aliados del mundo para intervenir en Libia con la intención de apaciguar cualquier acción considerada extrema por Estados Unidos y sus aliados. Obama continuó con comentarios demagógicos diciendo que Estados Unidos apoyaba a la gente de los países del Oriente quienes estaban siendo abusados por dictadores. Obama sin embargo, no hace lo que predica en su propio patio. “Los derechos a la libre expresión y de asamblea son inviolables,” dijo Obama, quien permite la opresión de sus propios ciudadanos cuando estos expresan su descontento con la economía o la forma en que el propio Obama dirige los destinos estadounidenses.

Aunque Obama claramente entiende que el origen del conflicto en el Oriente es una directa consecuencia de las acciones de su país y del imperio Anglo-Sajón que lo controla, no escatimó ningún esfuerzo para insistir en que ningún poder occidental era responsable por tal conflicto. Desde luego para entender el porque los controladores decidieron causar estos disturbios hay que conocer el contexto, la historia, el origen del malestar de miles de árabes quienes han sido oprimidos por muchos años. Lo que la gran mayoría de estas poblaciones ignoran es que están siendo sujeto de un nuevo engaño, porque quienes pretenden estar ayudándoles, realmente les están dando mas de lo mismo. Resta ver si las poblaciones permitirán que esto suceda o se volcarán a las calles a pedir cuentas, pero de verdad, sin ser engañados -una vez más- por quienes les han mantenido en el actual sistema neo-feudal por décadas.

Is Obama a Marxist or Socialist? None, he works for the Bankers

When it comes to who the president serves, Obama is no different from Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter or Reagan

Kurt Nimmo

Glenn Beck, the Fox News talking heads, and no shortage of Tea Party activists like to characterize Barry Obama as a Marxist. In an article gaining a lot of traction across the blogosphere, Wayne Allyn Root, who considers himself a Libertarian Republican, says Obama is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure in order to turn the U.S. into a socialist/Marxist state.

Obamacare, cap-and-trade, legalizing 12 million illegal aliens, increased taxation, and endless bailouts and stimulus boondoggles, Root argues, are schemes designed to overwhelm the system and pave the way for a Marxist takeover of America.

It cannot be denied these schemes will destroy America. It also cannot be denied they are intentional. However, it has nothing to do with Marxism.

Marx advocated a proletarian revolution. He said that in order to overcome the restraint of private property the working class must seize political power through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Marx said the ultimate goal is a a classless and stateless form of communism beneficial to the interests of the proletariat or the working class.

Is it possible the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs operatives in the Obama administration truly desire a communist revolution as Glenn Beck and Wayne Allyn Root insist?

During the 2008 election cycle, Goldman Sachs donated nearly a million bucks to Obama. Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase donated nearly $1.5 million to the Obama campaign while Morgan Stanley pitched in over a half million dollars. “When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain,” the New York Times wrote on July 1, 2008.

Is it possible all these folks are clueless about the supposed Marxist philosophy of Obama? Is it possible transnational corporations and international banks savvy enough to game the system for trillions of dollars support a communist system that would ultimately strip them of that wealth?

Goldman along with the Federal Reserve rule the Obama administration. William C. Dudley was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a partner and managing director at Goldman. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, spent 18 years at Goldman. Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Tim Geithner, is a former Goldman lobbyist. Philip Murphy, nominated for ambassador to Germany, is a former Goldman executive. Diana Farrell, deputy director of the National Economic Council, is a former Goldman employee. Emil Michael, White House fellow, used to be an investment banker at Goldman.

Obama functionaries are connected to the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, two organizations established to implement world government. Tim Geithner, Susan Rice, Pete Peterson, Gen. James Jones, Thomas Donilion, Paul Volker, Dennis Blair, Richard Haass, Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke and others have connections to the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and Bilderbergers.

“We can be quite sure that somewhere between 400 to 500 high-level members of the Obama administration will be members of the CFR. How can we say that? Because that’s about how many CFR members occupy the current Bush administration (beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, an in-again, out-again member of the CFR board of directors). And about the same number occupied posts in the Clinton administration,” John F. McManus wrote in November of 2008 after Obama was selected to be the front man for the banksters.

Obama’s mischaracterized socialism is a control mechanism created by the bankers. It has nothing to do with liberating downtrodden workers. The Soviet system was financed by Wall Street, as Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920-30s, explained: “The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers… The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board… acting through the Chase Bank.”

The late Antony Sutton’s exhaustive research demonstrates how Wall Street bankers supported and financed the Russian revolution, supported the Soviet Union financially, technologically and military both before and after the Second World War, and also supported Hitler and Nazi Germany financially and military both before and during the Second World War.

The monopoly men who exported jobs from America to slave labor gulags in China and are now in the process of looting the financial system are not dedicated Marxists. The late Gary Allen wrote:

If you wanted to control the nation’s manufacturing, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all-powerful socialist government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all your competitors. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want… a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what the game is all about. “Communism” is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world…. first by establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then consolidating them all through a “Great Merger,” into an all-powerful world, socialist super-state.

The Obama banker-CFR-Trilat-Bilderberg administration is the process of forging this “Great Merger” and is moving inexorably toward an all-powerful world, socialist super-state. Obama’s socialism will not emancipate the workers of America. It will further impoverish and enslave them.

As we approach the mid-term elections, the deceptive claim that Obama is a Marxist will pick up steam and will be exploited by the Tea Party movement as it attempts to get Republicans masquerading as patriots and constitutionalists elected to office.

Glenn Beck and Wayne Allyn Root need to reexamine and stop chanting the ludicrous Obama is a Marxist mantra and point out what Obama really is — a sock puppet reading a teleprompter for his employer: the control freaks at the international banks and multinational corporations.

Former NATO Secretary General: Bilderberg Club sets Global Policy

Prisonplanet.com

Despite debunkers attempting to claim otherwise, Bilderberg illegally sets the consensus on policies that are subsequently enacted worldwide.

Former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes has confounded claims by debunkers that the secret

Former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes

organization which met in Sitges Spain over the last few days does not set policy, admitting during a Belgian radio interview that Bilderberg attendees are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the annual conference of power brokers.

In a radio interview reported on by the Belgian news website www.zonnewind.be, Claes told host Koen Fillet that Bilderberg does indeed decide policy for the coming year. Claes would certainly be in a position to know, being a two-time Bilderberg attendee as well as the eighth Secretary General of NATO from 1994 until 1995.

Claes said that Bilderberg guests are normally given around 10 minutes of talk time, after which a report is compiled of their presentation.

“The participants are then obviously considered to use this report in setting their policies in the environments in which they affect,” stated Claes, according to the translated text.

The host asked Claes to repeat this astounding admission, before Claes went on to explain that no two guest are allowed to sit next to each other more than once at Bilderberg, to enable the maximum exchange of views on important subjects.

A Dutch-speaking reader sent us the article and confirms that the translation is accurate. This represents a solid confirmation of what we already knew through witnessing Bilderberg’s leaked agenda later play out in the real world time after time – that the elitist organization does verbally set global policy in a completely undemocratic and illegal manner.

However, despite Claes, who personally attended the 1994 Bilderberg meeting in Helsinki when he was Belgium’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, confirming the obvious that Bilderberg does manufacture a consensus amongst its participants, which is then implemented as policy in the real world, during the past few days numerous debunkers have claimed that Bilderberg is just a talking shop that has no impact on the global stage.

Iain Hollingshead of the London Telegraph wrote a sophomoric piece in which he dismissed Bilderberg as “a group of willy-waggling old men comparing their security details and dreaming of past glories,” which is a complete misnomer seeing as Bilderberg is routinely attended by active Presidents and Prime Ministers very much in power and very much in a position to have an impact on current events, such as Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who attended this year’s conference with his country on the verge of becoming the next Greece.

Hollingshead claims that because the group is becoming more well known, its allure is on the wane, but fails to mention that this is because of the fine work of activists and real journalists who have spent decades trying to get the castrated corporate media to report on the event while people like Hollingshead either made childish jokes about the whole issue or even denied the very existence of Bilderberg.

One such “skeptic” is Chip Berlet, who works for a group called the Political Research Associates, which is funded in part by the Ford Foundation, founded by Edsel Ford, the son of the notorious Henry Ford, who received awards from Hitler for funding the Nazi war machine with slave labor, which somewhat taints the PRA’s stated objectives, which are apparently to track conspiracy theories and the the right-wing while “advancing an open, democratic, and pluralistic society”.

The Ford Foundation is little more than an attack dog which transnational elitists use, through its offshoots like PRA, to demonize any criticism of their agenda as extremist and anti-semitic, which is quite rich considering the history of the corporation.

Berlet himself has made a career out of characterizing the idea that powerful people might get together and discuss ways of expanding their power as a belief of the lunatic fringe.

Little surprise therefore that towards the end of Berlet’s appearance on Russia Today, in which he stumbles through a broken record of excuses claiming Bilderberg has no power, he invokes the tired old cliche that anyone who expresses concern about 200 powerful men gathering in secret with no democratic oversight whatsoever behind a wall of security is probably a closet racist.

Berlet claims the American Free Press was founded by “one of the biggest anti-semitic, neo-fascist conspiracy theorists in the world,” which coincidentally is also a pretty apt description of the man who founded the company that now pays Berlet via the Ford Foundation funding PRA receives to spew his propaganda – Henry Ford – one of Hitler’s biggest supporters.

Berlet demonizes the notion that the Bilderberg Group has any influence over world affairs or is working towards a new world order as “a lot of malarkey,” and “a hoax carried out by people who believe in an elaborate fairy tale about how power is exercised in the world”.

He then completely contradicts himself by admitting “they talk over policy” but then claims “the organization itself has no power” before stating, “The policies that are formulated don’t hold any power within the nation that people who go to the meeting….they go back to their country and say hey I heard this at the Bilderberger meeting what do you think? And the national assembly or the powerful people say I think that’s a lot of malarkey take it back and shove it someplace, so this idea that this is a plot that is carried out to 30 or 40 countries and implemented is baloney.”

Really? So according to Berlet, the Prime Minister of Spain, his Secretary General, and the Queen of Spain, all of whom attended the Bilderberg meeting this past weekend, go back home and are then told to “shove” whatever they discussed at Bilderberg by “the powerful people”. These are the powerful people! These are the people who run the country. Presumably, Berlet believes there are powerful people above the Prime Minister and the Queen of Spain who tell them what to do, which sounds like an even bigger conspiracy theory than the one he is attempting to debunk.

Of course in reality, Berlet knows that the most powerful people in the world attend Bilderberg and he is either completely ignorant or deliberately lying by claiming that Bilderberg has no impact on policy.

Merely on the face of it the claim that Bilderberg does not have an influence on policy is patently ridiculous. This would be akin to claiming that a four-day gathering of 200 MLB officials would have no impact on the future of baseball. Despite the fact that many politicians shunned Bilderberg this year because of the group’s increasing notoriety as a furtive and insidious front for anti-democratic elitists, just take a look at the list of powerful individuals who did attend.

Top CEO’s like Bill Gates of Microsoft and Eric Schmidt of Google, top bankers like Marcus Agius of Barclays and Peter Sutherland of Goldman Sachs, don’t meet with national Presidents, Prime Ministers, big newspaper owners, members of the European Parliament and officials in the U.S. government to talk about tiddlywinks. They don’t get together for four days and surround themselves with a security ring of steel to discuss the weather or American Idol – they’re at Bilderberg to come to a consensus and then to implement it in their respective spheres of influence, just as Claes confirms in the radio interview.

Using bluff and slimy semantics, apologists like Berlet imply that just because no treaties or laws are signed at Bilderberg, that the group has no power. In reality, Bilderberg sets the global consensus for the agenda that is subsequently implemented in the host countries of the Bilderberg members, a process that holds even more power than signing an individual treaty. Bilderberg sets the consensus for a whole gamut of policy areas, from oil, to the environment, to wars, to the economy.

This is confirmed not only by former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes in the radio interview we covered earlier, but it is manifestly evident in the policies that have later come to pass after being formulated at Bilderberg.

Indeed, Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon last year bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg Group.

“A meeting in June in Europe of the Bilderberg Group- an informal club of leading politicians, businessmen and thinkers chaired by Mr. Davignon- could also ‘improve understanding’ on future action, in the same way it helped create the Euro in the 1990s, he said,” reported the EU Observer in March 2009.

The foundations for the EU and ultimately the Euro single currency were laid by the secretive Bilderberg Group in the mid-1950’s. Bilderberg’s own leaked documents prove that the agenda to create a European common market and a single currency was formulated by Bilderberg in 1955.

As we first reported in 2003, a BBC investigative team were allowed to access Bilderberg files which confirmed that the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg

The summary report of the 1955 Bilderberg meeting which took place from September 23-25 1955 at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany, talks of the “Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.”

The document also outlines the plan, “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

Just two years later, in 1957, the first incarnation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was born, which comprised of a single market between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The EEC gradually enlarged over the next few decades until it became the European Community, one of the three pillars of the European Union, which was officially created in 1993.

The 1955 Bilderberg summary outlines a consensus that, “It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities.” The EEC was duly created via the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on 25 March 1957.

Debunkers like Berlet will probably still try and claim that the idea of a common European market was floating around in the early 1950’s and that Bilderberg were merely debating contemporary political ideas.

However, the same cannot be said for the single European currency, which wasn’t even introduced in the form of notes and coins until January 2002, having been first codified in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The documents prove that Bilderberg members were pushing for its introduction nearly 40 years earlier.

“A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority,” states the summary document.

True to form, the single European currency, the Euro, was not introduced until after the creation of a central political authority – the EU itself.

The document also stresses, “The necessity to bring the German people into a common European market as quickly as possible,” adding that the future was in danger without a “United Europe”.

These proven examples of Bilderberg formulating some of the biggest policies of the 20th century do not even come from leaks obtained by journalists from within the meetings, they come directly from the mouth of Bilderberg’s chairman and Bilderberg’s own internal documents.

However, leaks from inside the meetings uncovered by independent journalists have also proven routinely accurate in confirming that Bilderberg has a massive impact on policy decisions.

In spring 2002, when war hawks in the Bush administration were pushing for a summer invasion of Iraq, Bilderbergers expressed their desire for a delay and the attack was not launched until March the following year.

In 2006, journalists who got leaked information from inside Bilderberg predicted that the U.S. housing market would be allowed to soar before the bubble was cruelly popped, which is exactly what transpired.

In June 2008, we learned that Bilderberg were creating the conditions for a financial calamity, which is exactly what began a few months later with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Bilderberg has habitually flexed its muscles in establishing its role as kingmaker. The organization routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers.

Despite widespread expectation that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be announced as the first European Union President, the former Prime Minister of Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy, was picked for the role just days after he attended a Bilderberg Group dinner meeting.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence.

Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 running mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a glowing speech at the conference in 2004. Bilderberg attendees even broke house rules to applaud Edwards at the end of a speech he gave to the elitists about American politics. The choice of Edwards was shocking to media pundits who had fully expected Dick Gephardt to secure the position. The New York Post even reported that Gephardt had been chosen and “Kerry-Gephardt” stickers were being placed on campaign vehicles before being removed when Edwards was announced as Kerry’s number two.

A 2008 Portuguese newspaper report highlighted the fact that Pedro Santana Lopes and Jose Socrates attended the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy before both going on to become Prime Minster of Portugal.

Several key geopolitical decisions were made at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting in Washington DC, again emphasizing the fact that the confab is far more than an informal get-together.

As we reported at the time, Bilderberg were concerned that the price of oil was accelerating too fast after it hit $150 a barrel and wanted to ensure that “oil prices would probably begin to decline”. This is exactly what happened in the latter half of 2008 as oil again sunk below $50 a barrel. We were initially able to predict the rapid rise in oil prices in 2005 when oil was at $40, because Bilderberg had called for prices to rise during that year’s meeting in Munich. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

Also at the 2008 meeting, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formalized plans to sign a treaty on installing a U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

Rice was joined at the meeting by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who reportedly encouraged EU globalists to get behind an attack on Iran. Low and behold, days later the EU threatened Iran with sanctions if it did not suspend its nuclear enrichment program. For the first time, the majority of Bilderberg members expressed their support for an attack on Iran during this year’s meeting in Sitges.

There was also widespread speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s “secret meeting,” which was accomplished with the aid of cloak and dagger tactics like locking journalists on an airplane to keep them from tracking the two down, took place at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting in DC.

So as we can see, there are a plethora of examples of Bilderberg setting a consensus on a particular policy area which later comes to pass at both the national and international levels. To claim otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the manifestly provable fact that Bilderberg has immense power in setting agreements on policy and exercises that power on a regular basis.

In light of this, Berlet and Hollingshead are either shoddy journalists who have done no research whatsoever and are merely phoning it in, or they are being paid to deliberately spew biased and completely inaccurate information by the establishment they work for in a futile attempt to convince people that Bilderberg has no power, presumably in an effort to halt growing numbers of protesters who descend on Bilderberg each year, whom Bilderberg members now class as a “threat” to their agenda and secrecy.

The Psychopathic Criminal Enterprise Called America

The Government uses the Law to Harm People and Shield the Establishment
By Prof. John Kozy
District of Criminals, for criminals and by criminals

District of Criminals, for criminals and by criminals.

Most Americans know that politicians make promises they never fulfill; few know that politicians make promises they lack the means to fulfill, as President Obama’s political posturing on the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico makes perfectly clear.

Obama has made the following statements:

He told his “independent commission” investigating the Gulf oil spill to “thoroughly examine the disaster and its causes to ensure that the nation never faces such a catastrophe again.” Aside from the fact that presidential commissions have a history of providing dubious reports and ineffective recommendations, does anyone really believe that a way can be found to prevent industrial accidents from happening ever again? Even if the commissions findings and recommendations succeed in reducing the likelihood of such accidents, doesn’t this disaster prove that it only takes one? And unlikely events happen every day.

The president has said, “if laws are insufficient, they’ll be changed.” But no president has this ability, only Congress has, and the president must surely know how difficult getting the Congress to effectively change anything is. He also said that “if government oversight wasn’t tough enough, that will change, too.” Will it? Even if he replaces every person in an oversight position, he can’t guarantee it. The people who receive regulatory positions always have ties to the industries they oversee and can look forward to lucrative jobs in those industries when they leave governmental service. As long as corporate money is allowed to influence governmental action, neither the Congress nor regulators can be expected to change the laws or regulatory practices in ways that make them effective, and there is nothing any president can do about it. Even the Congress’ attempt to raise the corporate liability limit for oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion has already hit a snag.

The President has said that “if laws were broken, those responsible will be brought to justice” and that BP would be held accountable for the “horrific disaster.” He said BP will be paying the bill, and BP has said it takes responsibility for the clean-up and will pay compensation for “legitimate and objectively verifiable” claims for property damage, personal injury, and commercial losses. But “justice” is rendered in American courts, not by the executive branch. Any attempts to hold BP responsible will be adjudicated in the courts at the same snail’s pace that the responsibility for the Exxon-Mobile Alaska oil spill was adjudicated and likely will have the same results.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. In Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages, but after nineteen years of appellate jurisprudence, the Supreme Court on June 25, 2008 issued a ruling reducing the punitive damages to $507.5 million, roughly a tenth of the original jury’s award. Furthermore, even that amount was reduced further by nineteen years of inflation. By that time, many of the people who would have been compensated by these funds had died.

The establishment calls this justice. Do you? Do those of you who reside in the coastal states that will ultimately be affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster really believe that the President can make good on this promise of holding BP responsible? By the time all the lawsuits filed in response to this disaster wend their ways through the legal system, Mr. Obama will be grayed, wizened, and ensconced in a plush chair in an Obama Presidential Library, completely out of the picture and devoid of all responsibility.

Politicians who engage in this duplicitous posturing know that they can’t fulfill their promises. They know they are lying; yet they do it pathologically. Aesop writes, “A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.” Perhaps that’s why politicians never do.

Government in America consists of law. Legislators write it, executives apply it, and courts adjudicate it. But the law is a lie. We are told to respect the law and that it protects us. But it doesn’t. Think about it people! The law and law enforcement only come into play secundum vitium (after the crime). The police don’t show up before you’re assaulted, robbed, or murdered; they come after. So how does that protect you? Yes, if a relationship of trust is violated, you can sue if you can afford it, and even that’s not a sure thing. (Remember the victims of the Exxon-Valdez disaster!) Even if the person who violated the relationship gets sanctioned, will you be “made whole”? Most likely not! Relying on the law is a fool’s errand. It’s enacted, enforced, and adjudicated by liars.

The law is a great crime, far greater than the activities it outlaws, and there’s no way you can protect yourself from it. The establishment protects itself. The law does not protect people. It is merely an instrument of retribution. It can only be used, often ineffectively, to get back at the malefactor. It never un-dos the crime. Executing the murderer doesn’t bring back the dead. Putting Ponzi schemers in jail doesn’t get your money back. And holding BP responsible won’t restore the Louisiana marshes, won’t bring back the dead marine and other wildlife, and won’t compensate the victims for their losses. Carefully watch what happens over the next twenty years as the government uses the law to shield BP, Transocean, and Halliburton while the claims of those affected by the spill disappear into the quicksand of the American legal system.

Jim Kouri, citing FBI studies, writes that “some of the character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena.;” they share the traits of psychopaths who are not sensitive to altruistic appeals, such as sympathy for their victims or remorse or guilt over their crimes. They possess the personality traits of lying, narcissism, selfishness, and vanity. These are the people to whom we have entrusted our fate. Is it any wonder that America is failing at home and world-wide?

Some may say that this is an extreme, audacious claim. I, too, was surprised when I read Kouri’s piece. But anecdotal evidence to support it is easily cited. John McCain said “bomb, bomb, bomb” during the last presidential campaign in response to a question about Iran. No one in government has expressed the slightest qualms about the killing of tens of thousands of people in both Iraq and Afghanistan who had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on nine/eleven or the deliberate targeting of women and children by unmanned drones in Pakistan. What if anything distinguishes serial killers from these governmental officials? Only that they don’t do the killing themselves but have others do it for them. But that’s exactly what most of the godfathers of the cosa nostra did.

So, there are questions that need to be posed: Has the government of the United States of America become a criminal enterprise? Is the nation ruled by psychopaths? Well, how can the impoverishment of the people, the promotion of the military-industrial complex and endless wars and their genocidal killing, the degradation of the environment, the neglect of the collapsing infrastructure, and the support of corrupt and authoritarian governments (often called democracies) abroad be explained? Worse, why are corporations allowed to profiteer during wars while the people are called upon to sacrifice? Why hasn’t the government ever tried to prohibit such profiteering? It’s not that it can’t be done.

In the vernacular, harming people is considered a crime. It is just as much a crime when done by governments, legal systems, or corporations. The government uses the law to harm people or shield the establishment from the consequences of harming people all the time. Watch as no one from the Massey Energy Co. is ever prosecuted for the disaster at the Upper Big Branch coal mine. When corporations are accused of wrongdoing, they often reply that what they did was legal, but legal is not a synonym for right. When criminals gain control, they legalize criminality.

Unless the government of the United States changes its behavior, this nation is doomed. No one in government seems to realize that dissimulation breeds distrust, distrust breeds suspicion, and suspicion eventually arouses censure. Isn’t that failure of recognition by the establishment a sign of criminal psychopathology?
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who blogs on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links