Bilderberg.org

[marektysis]

CFR Applauds European Union’s “Real Subversion of Sovereignty”
Written by William F. Jasper ( the new american,23-4-13)
*******************************************************
U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry was in Brussels,Belgium, on April 22 to meet with European Union officials, including European Commission President Manuel Barroso, and to promote the administration’s new push for congressional approval of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). President Obama is calling upon Congress to provide him with Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as “fast-track” to push the TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact through Congress with little debate and no amendments.

The New American has been following and reporting on the efforts to conclude a TTIP and TPP for many years, throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations. One of the most important objections — though not the only one — regarding both of these efforts is that throughout the various iterations and proposal it is very apparent that the architects and proponents of the agreements are being thoroughly dishonest. They are publicly packaging and promoting the agreements as “trade agreements” when, in fact, they have been designed as evolving projects that will progressively “integrate” the economies and political systems of the signatory nations into a supranational regime modeled along the lines of the European Union.

Dennis Behreandt’s article “Transatlantic Two-Step” of May 10, 2008, during President George W. Bush’s administration, is one of the many articles we have published that details the efforts of globalist elites in organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Transatlantic Policy Network, the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and others, to use the battering ram of trade agreements to smuggle political and economic integration schemes that are aimed at destroying national sovereignty.

Recently, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) held a panel discussion at Princeton University entitled “The G20: Prospects and Challenges for Global Governance.” (See video below.) There are many interesting and revealing comments made by the panel participants, but an admission by Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer is especially noteworthy, in that it publicly confirms what critics of the European Union have been saying for decades, but which CFR globalists like Bremmer have usually denied. Bremmer admits that “there’s real subversion of sovereignty by the EU.”

The CFR panel included:
• Nicolas Berggruen, chairman of the Berggruen Institute on Governance and coauthor of Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century: A Middle Way between West and East;
• Ian Bremmer, president, Eurasia Group;
• Stewart M. Patrick, senior fellow and director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations; and
• Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University

Professor Slaughter served as the presider of the CFR panel discussion. The context of the Bremmer quote was a venting of frustration by the panelists over the “ineffectiveness” of the G20 process. Professor Slaughter and Mr. Berggruen particularly argued that the G20 needed to be given actual powers that would enable it to do more to effect global governance. Unfortunately, from the panelists’ viewpoints, national sovereignty and national interests get in the way of this objective. This is where Mr. Bremmer commented (see the video at 18:30 minutes): “The EU is much more significant. There’s real subversion of sovereignty by the EU that works.”

It would appear that the panelists all favored this type of EU-style of sovereignty-subverting “governance.”

Secretary Kerry, of course, is also a member of the CFR, as is our top trade negotiator Michael Froman, a former Citigroup exec (and bailout beneficiary) who is now assistant to the president of the United States and deputy national security advisor for International Economic Affairs.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Trans-Pacific Partnership would effect the same kind of “real subversion of sovereignty.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/15185-cfr-applauds-european-union-s-real-subversion-of-sovereignty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marek Tysis

For education purposes for limited group

[marektysis]

Jim Tucker, 'Bilderberg Hound', Dead at 78
LIKE THIS ARTICLE2 By Alex Allen
Apr 28, 2013 - 3 hours ago in Politics

Jim Tucker, a journalist and author famous for his criticism of the Bilderberg Group, has died at age 78 due to complications from a fall.
The American Free Press reported Saturday that James P. Tucker, Jr., famously known as the 'Bilderberg Hound' for being an outspoken critique of the infamous Bilderberg Group, had died at the age of 78 from complications due to a recent fall.
Tucker has reported on the secretive Bilderberg meetings, which have only just recently gained some mainstream attention, since 1975. He can be seen in this exclusive Infowars interview talking about the 2011 meeting in Switzerland.
Tucker has likely been an inspiration to people like Alex Jones and Luke Rudkowski who have spoken out against Bilderberg numerous times. This year's Bilderberg meeting will reportedly be held in the United Kingdom.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/349014#ixzz2Rn3USNBJ

[marektysis]

Dutch queen abdicates, son becomes king


Wed May 1, 2013 1:49AM GMT

Beatrix has attended most of the Bilderberg Group’s recent annual meetings, including the last five.

Dutch Queen Beatrix has abdicated in favor of her eldest son, Willem-Alexander, who becomes the Netherlands’ first king since 1890.


On Tuesday, Beatrix presented her son, 46, to the Dutch people on the balcony of the Royal Palace in Amsterdam after signing the abdication document in front of the Dutch cabinet.

"Some moments ago I abdicated from the throne. I am happy and thankful to present to you your new king," she said.

Beatrix, 75, retired after 33 years on the throne and now takes the title princess.

The former Dutch monarch is a member of the Bilderberg Group, a secretive, invitation-only organization cofounded by her father, Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld,

Its first annual conference was held in Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek in the eastern Netherlands, and the group took its name from the hotel.

Beatrix has attended most of the Bilderberg Group’s recent annual meetings, including the last five.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/01/301161/dutch-queen-abdicates-son-becomes-king/

NT/HGL

[marektysis]

emma Bonino is Italy’s new foreign minister
Date: 27th April 2013 | Author: Mark Leonard,

After months of bad news from Italy, at last we have some good news: Emma Bonino, a committed European and a dynamic force in EU politics for many years (as well as an ECFR board member!), has been appointed the country's foreign minister. With progress on a new government at last being made under Enrico Letta, it looks like Italy is reemerging as a key and credible European Union member state.

Italy will benefit from having a stateswoman with experience and energy. As a former European Commissioner, European Parliamentarian and Europe and trade minister her knowledge of the European system will be a great help to her country at a time of crisis. But more important than that, European foreign policy will get a shot in the arm from having someone with vision, principle and determination taking her place at the Foreign Affairs Council.

Emma Bonino has been a long-term champion of an integrated and outward-looking Europe that lives us to the values it claims to embody. As such she has been an advocate of engaging Turkey (she was a member of the independent commission on Turkey), supporting change in the Arab world (she has lived in Egypt and done much to work with civil society across the region), supporting post-conflict reconstruction (she set up the EU's humaintarian affairs agency), for enlargement, as well as being a consistent and brave campaigner for women's and human rights.

Anyone who has met Emma Bonino knows that she brings to her work a ferocious work ethic, a flamboyant style, and a creative and pragmatic focus on results. We wish her all the best in her important new role.

http://www.ecfr.eu/blog/entry/emma_bonino_is_italys_new_foreign_minister

[TonyGosling]

Former Spotlight & American Free Press colleague Chris Bollyn remembers Jim Tucker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2p_8KKB7e0

[TonyGosling]

PRESS TV
Bilderberg Group 2013 Update - The (open) Secret Dictators of the World!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSv9Dfpgwk

~credits video:
http://youtube.com/PressTVGlobalNews
~Unslave Humanity Tactical Media:
http://whynotnews.eu/?p=2143 -
_________________
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
Secret Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0p-e2ng0SI
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.dialectradio.co.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk

[marektysis]

Thursday, 09 May 2013 10:15
Secretly Trading Away Our Independence
Written by William F. Jasper


During the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican challenger Mitt Romney attacked President Obama on trade issues, charging that Obama “has not signed one new free-trade agreement in the past four years.” “I’ll reverse that failure,” Romney pledged.

Romney’s charge was at once both true and misleading. President Obama had not signed any “new” trade agreements; however, he did win congressional approval for, and signed, trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that had been negotiated by the Bush administration. Moreover, he has continued the efforts of the Clinton and Bush administrations to create a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

The TPP and TTIP should be of special concern to Americans, since, as we shall detail presently, the authors and promoters of these agreements admit that they deal with far more than trade and have been designed to drag the United States into “regional governance” on a host of issues. The architects of the TPP and TTIP are virtually unanimous in their head-over-heels praise of, and support for, the political and economic merger taking place in the European Union (EU). The once-sovereign nations of Europe have been tricked, bribed, and browbeaten into yielding control over almost every aspect of their lives to globalist banking and corporate elites and their bureaucratic servitors in Brussels. The national governments, legislatures, and courts in the European Union are becoming mere administrative units of the unaccountable rulers of the increasingly tyrannical EU central government.

During a visit to London in 2000, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev referred to the increasingly authoritarian European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He was not being critical, mind you, but merely offering a startlingly candid observation about the EU “project,” of which he has been — and remains — an enthusiastic booster. Gorbachev, a thoroughly committed one-worlder, famously argued for expanding the EU into a “common European home” that would include Russia and its former Soviet satellites.

Vladimir Bukovsky, the famous Russian dissident, author, neurophysiologist, and survivor of Soviet prisons, psychiatric prisons, and labor camps, has delivered a credible indictment of the absolutism and repression that are becoming the hallmark of EU governance. In a speech in Brussels in 2006 sponsored by the United Kingdom Independence Party, Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be dismantled before it becomes a full-fledged dictatorship like the Soviet system he had fought. He compared the European Parliament to the Supreme Soviet, the faux legislative body that merely served as a rubber stamp for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and compared the EU’s socialist central planning to Gosplan, the Russian acronym for the State Committee for Planning, which drew up the Soviet Union’s infamous Five-year Plans for the National Economy. Bukovsky charged:

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

Bukovsky, who has lived in Cambridge, England, since the late 1970s, continued:

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB — not yet — but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes — two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes.

Bukovsky is not alone in recognizing the increasingly despotic nature and rampant corruption of the EU system. Nigel Farage, a member of the European Parliament, regularly exposes the same in his speeches and on his website, as do many other Euroskeptic politicians, journalists, and whistleblowers.

The fact is that the EU began as an economic and trade pact that, over the course of six decades, morphed into a full-blown supranational government that is now in the process of wiping out the few remaining vestiges of national sovereignty of its member states. And what is important to note is the blatant lying and deception that has been essential to each advance of the EU project along these lines. At each crucial step, when critics objected that a new set of EU powers would lead to destruction of national sovereignty and independence, the EU prop­agandists would assure the contrary and insist that “economic integration,” “harmonization,” and “convergence” posed no threat to national sovereignty, tradition, and local rule. Those assurances have now been proven completely false.

Because the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is an agreement with an already existing transnational superstate — the EU — and because most of the key TTIP promoters have already enthusiastically embraced the EU ideas of integration, harmonization, and convergence, it is probably the more dangerous of the two agreements, although the Trans-Pacific Partnership may be coming up earlier for a vote in the U.S. Congress.

Obama Turns to “Trade”

Compared to his two immediate predecessors, who both used brutal “ground and pound” methods to force trade pacts through Congress, Obama may seem to have been somewhat negligent of trade issues. The Clinton administration negotiated more than 200 bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, including a major one with Communist China, as well as pushing the hugely controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress and winning approval for the equally contentious issue of U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization. The George W. Bush administration, most notably, won approval for a Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) but failed to win passage of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) to create an EU-style project for the Western Hemisphere. He also failed to enact the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a pact to develop an EU-type process among Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics and a top promoter of NAFTA, TTIP, TPP, and the World Trade Organization, says Obama had good reasons for delaying his trade policy agenda. “This has been one of the quietest presidencies for trade policy since in the post [World War II] period,” Hufbauer told CNN in a September 12, 2012 interview. “He had other priorities, such as dealing with the Great Recession and health care. It takes a lot of capital to get trade deals through Congress, and it’s particularly tough to do when the economy is weak.”

Yes, pushing through ObamaCare, nationalizing the auto industry, bailing out Wall Street, and various and sundry other socialist nostrums occupied a great deal of Team Obama’s attention in the first four years. However, if the Obama administration failed to move fast enough and far enough on pushing through new trade agreements during its first term to suit some of the more fanatical globalist trade advocates, there is good reason to believe the White House will now be moving trade pacts to the front burners.

In his televised State of the Union Address to Congress on February 12, 2013, President Obama declared:

To boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership. And tonight, I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union — because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.

The tag line “millions of good-paying American jobs” was the cue for applause, and the congressional attendees responded on command. The weeks and months since the president’s address have seen a continuous flurry of high-level activity — in both official and private circles — on the TPP and TTIP, though most of it has been below the general public’s radar.

On February 13, the day after his State of the Union Address, President Obama joined European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso in issuing a statement that announced:

We, the Leaders of the United States and the European Union, are pleased to announce that … the United States and the European Union will each initiate the internal procedures necessary to launch negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

With tariffs on trade between the United States and the European Union averaging just four percent, critics are asking why it is supposedly so urgent to put the TTIP on the fast track. And why, if this is only a “trade” pact, are the negotiators including climate change, sustainable development, homeland security, military actions, the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, taxes, regulatory harmonization, and a passel of other issues in the agreement? The answer is that the TTIP has been crafted specifically to bring about U.S.-EU political and economic “integration” in the same manner that the nations of Europe were integrated into the EU monster described by Bukovsky.

Not Idle Speculation

This is not idle speculation; we have it on the direct authority of the TTIP authors. One of those authors was the late Warren Christopher, who served as secretary of state to President Clinton and was a foreign policy advisor to President Obama.

In a speech entitled “Charting a Transatlantic Agenda for the 21st Century,” in Madrid, Spain, on June 2, 1995, Secretary Christopher declared: “The long term objective is the integration of the economies of North America and Europe, consistent with the principles of the WTO.” This, he averred, “will align our efforts to promote transatlantic integration with the forces of integration around the world.”

Secretary Christopher elaborated ­further:

The objective, as President Truman’s Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett said in 1948, “should continue to be the progressively closer integration, both economic and political, of presently free Europe, and eventually of as much of Europe as becomes free.”

The Robert Lovett to whom Christopher approvingly refers was also secretary of defense under Truman — and one of the six “Wise Men” of the private Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who played major roles in bringing about the ascendency of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and other globalist institutions in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s. The “progressively closer integration, both economic and political,” they envisioned would be realized only by a world government with plenary powers.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, in an address to Mikhail Gorbachev’s State of the World Forum in San Francisco in 1995, explained the importance of this progressive integration, in the context of the EU and other regional efforts. “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step,” said Brzezinski. “The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”

Professor Brzezinski, in addition to being a longtime leading member of the CFR, was also the designer hired by the then-chairman of the CFR, David Rockefeller, to create the Trilateral Commission (TC) and to tutor and coach Jimmy Carter in carrying out CFR-TC policies.

The handprints of the CFR-TC “Wise Men” are all over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. One of the most important organizations pushing for passage of the TTIP is the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN). The network’s EU honorary president is Peter Sutherland, who is also honorary EU chairman of the Trilateral Commission. Sutherland is also chairman and managing director of Goldman Sachs International, as well as chairman of British Petroleum Company. Goldman Sachs, of course, has benefited handsomely from its cozy relationship with the EU, as it has from its close ties to the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve. And undoubtedly, its billionaire, corporatist-socialist execs are looking forward to even more profitable bailouts and inside deals with the opportunities offered under the TTIP. Ditto for many of the other Wall Street cheerleaders for the TTIP and TPP.

The TPN’s U.S. honorary president for many years was Robert S. Strauss (CFR), founder of the insider law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, who served as Jimmy Carter’s trade representative, and later served in diplomatic roles under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. More recently, Strauss has been replaced by U.S. Senator Robert Bennett as TPN’s U.S. honorary president.

Former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) is a veteran CFR member and internationalist and served as co-chairman of TPN in the 1990s. He also co-authored the 1998 TPN report Toward Transatlantic Partnership, which called for harnessing “the growing collective powers of Europe to the long-established powers of the United States in a broadly based XXIst century transatlantic partnership.”

Hamilton and his co-authors continued:

Central to that vision is the TPN concept of “linkage,” by which we mean linking our growing political and economic interests with our long-standing common defence and security structures through a comprehensive political framework. This will enable us to pursue our common global interests through joint action exploiting the full range of political, economic and security instruments at our collective disposal.

This “linkage” of political and economic interests through a “comprehensive political framework” is central to all of the efforts over the past several decades to craft a TTIP.

Team Stats

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has as its motto, “Standing Up for American Enterprise,” but it is clearly the large, multinational corporations it is backing, not its hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized member enterprises. The chamber itself has produced a study showing that federal regulations are already costing the U.S. economy an astronomical $1.9 trillion per year. This enormous burden is crushing many enterprises. The chamber would do well to put its members’ dues money, contributions, and political muscle to work rolling back the federal bureaucratic leviathan, rather than saddling its members with even more stifling EU regulations, which will surely follow if the TTIP is passed. But Thomas J. Donohue, the chamber’s president and CEO, is a CFR member and reliably toes the internationalist line. So he is not likely to say or do anything that will contradict the corporate one-worlders who dominate the chamber’s leadership. After all, the Gulliverian regulations actually help many of the big companies, effectively entrapping and wiping out their smaller competitors that don’t have the political connections or that can’t afford battalions of lawyers and accountants to deal with the regulations and regulators.

The man leading Team Obama’s trade offensive is Michael Froman, assistant to the president of the United States and deputy national security advisor for international economic affairs. A Wall Street insider, Froman was a managing director at Citigroup, and also served as president and chief executive officer of CitiInsurance before joining the Obama administration. No doubt his previous service in Brussels with the Forward Studies Unit of the European Commission also figured in his appointment, though to Americans in the know this entry on his résumé would be recognized as at least cause for concern, if not an outright negative.

Although virtually an unknown to the vast majority of Americans, Froman is definitely known in the higher circles of power that determine the economic and political fates of nations. Froman is not only a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the more exclusive Trilateral Commission, but also a member of that super-secret, super-elite annual gathering known as the Bilderberg Group. He is thus qualified to serve as the lead “Sherpa” guiding U.S. policy at the G7, G8, and G20 summits. And Froman’s fellow globalists in the CFR-dominated “mainstream” media could be counted on to ignore, cover up, or minimize his egregious corruption and conflicts of interest in the massive bailout of his employer (Citigroup) — which netted him $7.4 million, including a $2.25 million year-end bonus for 2008. In addition, Froman reportedly played the central role in hiring New York Fed chief Timothy Geithner (CFR, TC) as Obama’s treasury secretary, even while Geithner was engineering the massive taxpayer bailout of Citigroup. And to make matters even more incestuously corrupt, Froman hired Jamie Rubin, the son of Citigroup CEO Robert Rubin (CFR, former Clinton treasury secretary, former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs), as a headhunter for the Obama transition team. Instead of spending time in prison for fraudulent mortgaged-backed “collateralized debt obligations” that enriched Citigroup and helped bring on the economic crisis, Rubin, Geithner, Froman, and company made off like bandits. Remember this when Froman and Obama talk about “transparency” and the supposed benefits of TTIP.

On March 1, the Obama White House announced that it would be seeking “fast track” authority from Congress to complete trade pact negotiations. Formally known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the controversial fast-track authorization enables the White House to team up with trade agreement advocates in Congress to rush pacts through with little or no congressional or public debate. Under TPA rules, a trade pact must have an up-or-down vote in both House and Senate, without amendment, within 90 days of being submitted by the executive branch. It has proven to be very effective; Congress has never rejected a trade agreement that was submitted under fast-track rules.

But is TPA constitutional? That is the question that each and every member of Congress must answer, since each has taken an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” to the legislative, not the executive branch of government. Awarding TPA to the executive branch cedes an enormous grant of power to regulate foreign commerce to the president. Moreover, as we’ve already learned from our experience with NAFTA, these multilateral trade agreements set up panels, tribunals, and agencies that claim authority to override our local, state, and federal laws — and even the Constitution.

During the battle over NAFTA, The New American published many articles warning that the agreement was designed to emulate the subversive EU process and represented a clear attack on our nation’s sovereignty. After NAFTA passed Congress, some of its proponents publicly confirmed these charges. One such was New York Times writer William Orme, Jr., a NAFTA supporter who has penned articles for the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs. He is also the author of the pro-NAFTA book Continental Shift: Free Trade and the New North America. In an article for the Washington Post adapted from that book, Orme pointed out that when NAFTA was first proposed, “critics in all three countries claimed that its hidden agenda was the development of a European-style common market.” The critics were absolutely right, Orme admitted, though they were treated as lunatics by the establishment punditry and the leadership of both the Democrat and Republican parties for stating the obvious. Orme continued:

Didn’t Europe also start out with a limited free trade area? And, given the Brussels precedent, wouldn’t this mean ceding some measure of sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats? Even worse, would this lead to liberalization and collaborative policy making in many other sensitive areas, from monetary policy and immigration to labor and environmental law?

NAFTA’s defenders said no. They argued that the agreement is designed to dismantle trade barriers, not build a new regulatory bureaucracy. NAFTA, declared one congressional backer, “is a trade agreement, not an act of economic union.”

Yet the critics were essentially right. NAFTA lays the foundation for a continental common market, as many of its architects privately acknowledge. Part of this foundation, inevitably, is bureaucratic: The agreement creates a variety of continental institutions — ranging from trade dispute panels to labor and environmental commissions — that are, in aggregate, an embryonic NAFTA government.

Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute is another avid internationalist who has publicly admitted that the “trade” side of NAFTA masks the real nature of NAFTA and other trade pacts. “With economic integration will come political integration,” said Reding, in an article he wrote for the Ottawa Citizen in September 1992. Reding went further, noting:

One of the purposes of NAFTA and other international trade agreements is to set the principles by which such decisions are to be made, including the critical question of how to “harmonize” differing labor, consumer, environmental, and other standards.

By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government.

Acknowledging that this form of bureaucratic “administrative law” is anti-democratic, Reding poses a solution: an EU-style parliament. “Following the lead of the Europeans,” said Reding, “North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament.” Yes, then we too can have a Supreme Soviet masquerading as a parliament, as Bukovsky has aptly described the EU legislative charade. We can expect to hear more calls for such a continental parliament, as the “democratic deficit” of NAFTA and CAFTA become more obvious.

Malignant, Not Benign

But for now, as during the run-up for NAFTA and CAFTA, the CFR crowd prefers, in the main, to insist to the American public that the TPP and TTIP are simply about dramatically expanding our economy and creating “millions of good-paying jobs” — promises that even many of the NAFTA-CAFTA advocates now admit never materialized, though millions of good-paying jobs did leave the country as a result.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of revealing admissions that belie the stated benign objectives of the TPP/TTIP lobby. On February 12, 2013, the same day as President Obama’s State of the Union announcement on trade, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Global Governance Program hosted a panel on “The G20: Prospects and Challenges for Global Governance,” featuring some of the CFR’s leading lights, including Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group; CFR Senior Fellow
Stewart M. Patrick; and Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter of Princeton University. Among the noteworthy comments by the participants was this approving statement by Ian Bremmer: “The EU is much more significant. There’s real subversion of sovereignty by the EU that works.” The panelists all agreed, apparently, that the EU is indeed engaged in the “real subversion of sovereignty” — and, it appears, all of them believe that is a good thing.

That is not surprising. In a 2006 op-ed entitled, “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” CFR President Richard Haass declared that we must “rethink” and “redefine” sovereignty because “new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance” and “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies.” Due to globalization, said Haass, “sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but ... it needs to become weaker.” According to the CFR chief, we must choose between “an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

President Obama is calling on Congress to provide him the TPA fast track with the announced intention of passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership by December 31 of this year, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership following thereafter. An imposing lineup of corporate, banking, and union lobbyists is jumping aboard the trade bandwagon again. However, the same held true when President George W. Bush tried to ram the sovereignty-destroying Free Trade Area of the Americas, the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and the NAFTA Super Highway down America’s throat. But an awakened and energized patriot coalition shot down these massively funded operations. The same constitutionalist forces are now organizing again to shoot down Trade Promotion Authority in Congress, and along with it the Trans-Pacific and Transatlantic so-called partnerships.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/15296-secretly-trading-away-our-independence

[marektysis]

Hotel set to host 'secret summit'
Hertfordshire taxpayers will foot the bill for a major police security operation to protect a shadowy summit of world leaders taking place in Watford next month.

The Bilderberg Group of around 140 influential figures including royalty, politicians and business leaders will meet at The Grove from June 6 to June 9.

To ensure privacy, all 227 rooms at The Grove hotel are booked for the duration of the meeting.

Hertfordshire Constabulary has confirmed to the Watford Observer it will be policing the event, which is likely to attract protestors from across the globe.


Watford’s elected mayor, Dorothy Thornhill, said she had mixed feelings about whether the summit was a good thing for the town.

She said: “I have my concerns about it because it does attract people who can and do cause violence and disturbance.

“But I am confident the police will be able to minimise that and give them their right to protest.

“I am ambivalent about whether this is a good thing. It’s potentially a positive thing as long as things don’t kick off.

“I am concerned about the use of police resource but it is very good The Grove has been deemed a prestigious enough venue.”

The guest list for the “small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum” event is kept a closely guarded secret until the meeting is underway but attendees to previous events include Chancellor George Osborne, Labour peer Lord Mandelson, Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands – who abdicated last month in favour of her son.

In 1993 Tony Blair denied to parliament that he had attended the Bilderberg meeting.

It is understood police are mounting a major security operation using a local rugby club as an operational base for the duration of the meeting.

A Hertfordshire Constabulary spokesman confirmed the event was taking place but declined to comment on operational policing details or the potential financial cost.

The spokesman added the force would “facilitate people who want to undertake peaceful protest” and that police leave would be cancelled if it was deemed necessary to maintain the peace.

The group’s annual meetings have in the past attracted storms of protests from campaigners who accuse it of hijacking the democratic process Among the more outlandish critics are writer and public speaker David Icke, who claims the group’s influential steering committee is made up of 12 foot lizards known as “Reptoids”.

Hertfordshire police and crime commissioner David Lloyd refused to comment on the police operation.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10411984.Hotel_set_to_host__secret_summit_/

[vicflame]

CLUB BILDERBERG’S FOUNDER, THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY AND THE POSSESSED ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ACCUSED OF MURDERS OF CHILDREN AND TRAFFICKING IN HOLLAND AND ABROAD !




Dear friends,


The ITCCS (International Tribunal against the Crimes of Church and State) is continuing its work exposing the most heinous crimes against humanity.

This time, it tackles traffic and murders (ritual sacrifices) of children !

A 54 YEARS OLD PHYSIOTHERAPIST, TOOS NIJENHUIS, MADE REVELATIONS ON TORMENTS SHE SUFFERED AND ON TORTURE AND RITUAL SACRIFICES OF CHILDREN (= SATANIC MURDERS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN) THAT TOOK PLACE AND STILL CONTINUE CURRENTLY, IN THE NETHERLANDS AND ABROAD !

AMONG THE NAMES OF THE TORMENTORS THAT ARE LISTED ARE (WHAT A "SURPRISE") : PRINCE BERNHARD THE NETHERLANDS, WHICH IS NONE OTHER THAN THE FOUNDER OF BILDERBERG, THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY AND A CATHOLIC, SATANIC AND POSSESSED BISHOP!

Ms. Nijenhuis’s testimony should lead to new international arrest warrants within the next 12 months.

The article and videos, below...

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION ! Vic.





Source : http://itccs.org/2013/05/08/child-sacrifice-and-trafficking-in-holland-and-abroad-an-eyewitness-comes-forward-and-names-her-torturers/


CHILD SACRIFICE AND TRAFFICKING IN HOLLAND, AND ABROAD: AN EYEWITNESS COMES FORWARD AND NAMES HER TORTURERS


Posted on May 08, 2013 by itccs


An Exclusive Breaking News Report from ITCCS Central Office and its Dutch Affiliates


Zwolle, Holland:


VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PyrPEu7nk1Q


A survivor of a HIGH-LEVEL RING INVOLVING CHILD SACRIFICE, TORTURE AND TRAFFICKING went public today in an exclusive disclosure and interview with Freedom Central's Mel Ve and ITCCS Field Secretary Kevin Annett.

TOOS NIJENHUIS, A FIFTY FOUR YEAR OLD PHYSIOTHERAPIST AND MOTHER OF FIVE FROM HOLLAND, WAS TORTURED, RAPED AND USED EXPERIMENTALLY FROM THE AGE OF FOUR YEARS OLD BY WEALTHY AND POWERFUL MEN AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING TOP OFFICIALS OF CHURCHES AND GOVERNMENTS.

AND, NIJENHUIS CLAIMS, THESE CRIMES ARE CONTINUING TODAY, INCLUDING THE RITUAL SACRIFICE OF CHILDREN IN RURAL HOLLAND.


Toos Nijenhuis points out child sacrifice site, near Zwolle, Holland



On May 7, Ms. Nijenhuis accompanied Kevin Annett, Mel Ve and other investigators to a forested site near TO ZWOLLE WHERE SUCH CHILD MURDERS TOOK PLACE AS RECENTLY AS NOVEMBER, 2010, according to Ms. Nijenhuis.

AMONG THE PERPETRATORS WHO ARE NAMED IN THESE CRIMES AND WHO ALLEGEDLY ASSAULTED TOOS NIJENHUIS ARE PRINCE BERNHARD OF HOLLAND, WHO WAS THE GRANDFATHER OF THE NEWLY-CROWNED DUTCH KING ALEXANDER, AND A FOUNDER OF THE BILDERBERGER GROUP; CATHOLIC CARDINAL BERNARD ALFRINK OF UTRECHT, AND MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY.

THESE ASSAULTS OCCURRED IN HOLLAND, SCOTLAND, AND A MILITARY EXPERIMENTAL BASE IN MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, WHERE TOOS WAS SUBJECTED TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE PAIN THRESHOLD AND BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION EXPERIMENTS. SHE ALSO WITNESSED THE TORTURE AND MURDER OF OTHER CHILDREN.

In response to Toos Nijenhuis' horrific revelations, a Dutch-based group was formed on May 7 in Zwolle to investigate and prosecute child traffickers and ritual child sacrifice.

In conjunction with Ms. Nijenhuis, Freedom Central (cf. http://www.freedomcentral.info/ ), the ITCCS and others (cf. http://www.kevinannettinternational.blogspot.fr/ ), THIS NEW GROUP WILL LAUNCH A COMMON LAW COURT CASE INTO THESE CRIMES DURING THE COMING YEAR. KEY ALLEGED PERPETRATORS WILL BE PUBLICLY NAMED AND ISSUED A SUMMONS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT.

Stay tuned for more information on this campaign.

[vicflame]

Source : http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-confirm-bilderberg-2013-to-take-place-in-watford-uk.html


POLICE CONFIRM BILDERBERG 2013 TO TAKE PLACE IN WATFORD, UK



Authorities will “facilitate peaceful protest”


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com


May 7, 2013

Hertfordshire Police have confirmed that the 2013 Bilderberg Group meeting will take place at the Grove luxury hotel in Watford, United Kingdom early next month as over 100 of the world’s most influential power brokers will meet clandestinely to discuss global policy behind closed doors.


Image: The Grove, Watford


Although the site of the meeting had been known amongst Bilderberg sleuths for weeks, police confirmation appears to diminish any chances that the location was a red herring designed to throw activists off the scent.

“A Hertfordshire Police spokesman confirmed the event was taking place but declined to comment on operational policing details,” reports the Watford Observer.

The spokesman added that the force would “facilitate people who want to undertake peaceful protest.”

The police’s insistence that demonstrations will be allowed (despite a “security exercise” which is expected to surround the hotel grounds and keep prying eyes away), bolsters the view that Bilderberg has learned from previous years when protesters and journalists were treated with disdain, leading to negative press attention.

According to the Observer, the dates of the conference are June 6-8, although it is expected that most of the attendees will leave on the morning of the 9th as is routine.

As we reported yesterday, Alex Jones will travel to the United Kingdom to cover the protest unless he is barred from entering the country by UK authorities who have previously prevented other media personalities such as Michael Savage from entering based on their political viewpoints.
Any attempt to deport Jones will be seen as an embarrassing PR disaster for both UK authorities and the Bilderberg Group, who previously attempted to get Jones kicked out of Canada back in 2006 only for the incident to cause a huge media spectacle.

It remains to be seen how much attention the British press will bestow on a group that habitually relies on a castrated and compliant media to either ignore its existence or play down the Bilderberg as a mere “talking shop,” despite innumerable instances of the group wielding its influence with scant regard for democratic transparency.

In 2010, former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes admitted that Bilderberg attendees are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the annual conference of power brokers.

In 2009, Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon even bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg Group.
Back in February, Italian lawyer Alfonso Luigi Marra requested that the Public Prosecutor of Rome investigate Bilderberg for criminal activity, questioning whether the elitist organization’s 2011 meeting in Switzerland led to the selection of Mario Monti as Prime Minister of Italy.

Last month, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and former Senior Investigative Judge Ferdinando Imposimato accused the Bilderberg Group of being behind terrorist attacks in Europe.

Hundreds of activists are expected to descend on Watford and Infowars invites as many people as possible to make the trip in order to force the mainstream press to give Bilderberg the attention it deserves, thereby dismantling the shadowy group’s much cherished veil of secrecy.


*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 10:59 am

[marektysis]

Niall Ferguson’s Latest Gay Bashing is the Least of His Problems

http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog2.php/2013/05/13/niall-ferguson-s-latest-gay-bashing-is-the-least-of-his-problems-1

by William K. Black, New Economic Perspectives
It is always a disaster when devotees of theoclassical economists speak their minds in front of what they think are friendly audiences. Mitt Romney’s attack on 47% of Americans as leeches that it was his job not to represent were he elected President was the final nail in his self-constructed electoral coffin. We now have Niall Ferguson, a history professor at Harvard and Hoover fellow whose theoclassical views have proven so influential with Prime Minister Cameron’s government’s adoption of austerity policies that have killed the UK recovery.
Ferguson has had a terrible last 10 years. He was a strong proponent of invading Iraq and pines for us to stay indefinitely in Afghanistan. He was a Romney supporter who wrote an anti-Obama screed in Newsweek that demonstrated his contempt for facts. He was an advisor to Senator McCain’s campaign for the presidency. Because of his record of getting every important policy issue wrong he was paid a great deal of money to speak to an “alternative investment” conference that began, with no small irony, on May Day. Ferguson was presenting his thesis that the West has become “degenerate.” He certainly proved that point about himself.
Follow up:
Krugman vs. Ferguson (2009) (TKO for Krugman In the First Round)
Ferguson has been spinning out of control in recent weeks. In 2009, he made the mistake of trying to debate a Nobel Laureate in Economics (Paul Krugman) about Krugman’s specialty. If it had been a fight the ref would have stopped it in the first round and awarded a TKO. Ferguson did his ode to austerity as a response to the Great Recession and claimed that the stimulus program was causing, and would continue to cause, interest rates to soar and prevent a recovery.
Austerity created the gratuitous über-Depression in the Eurozone’s periphery. U.S. interest rates have fallen to record lows. Ferguson admitted recently that stimulus had not produced his predicted surge in interest rates and that austerity in response to the Great Recession proved self-destructive. That was fine, but Ferguson could not leave it there. He added three points got him trouble – and those three points prompted Ferguson’s latest and greatest of own goals. First, Ferguson tried to reinvent the history of the position he took during the 2009 debates with Krugman.
Second, having agreed that Keynes had proven correct and Ferguson had again been proven incorrect in his predictions, Ferguson proceeded to continue to demonize Keynes as the cause of much of the West’s supposed degeneration. This is more than passing strange because it is Ferguson’s policies that have proved disastrous and Keynes’ policies that have proven correct.
Third, Ferguson responded furiously on March 6, 2013 to Krugman’s article pointing out Ferguson’s effort to air brush out of history Ferguson’s history of predictive failure. Ferguson’s cri de cœur is so delectable because it sends a frisson through one’s body to see such naked hypocrisy and whining in print from the self-proclaimed champion of American military adventure designed to create and expand a new American empire and a writer whose works are now redolent of innuendo.
“In my view Paul Krugman has done fundamental damage to the quality of public discourse on economics. He can be forgiven for being wrong, as he frequently is–though he never admits it. He can be forgiven for relentlessly and monotonously politicizing every issue. What is unforgivable is the total absence of civility that characterizes his writing. His inability to debate a question without insulting his opponent suggests some kind of deep insecurity perhaps the result of a childhood trauma. It is a pity that a once talented scholar should demean himself in this way.”
Ferguson, trained as a historian, uses innuendo to make up a (self) “suggest[ed]” history to smear a critic who (1) proved correct, (2) proved Ferguson incorrect, and (3) correctly called out Ferguson’s effort to change history to mislead readers about point #2. But what sends the frisson through your body when you read Ferguson’s effort to smear Krugman is Ferguson’s naked hypocrisy – and his blindness to it. As with his repeated efforts to smear Keynes, Ferguson’s attempt to smear Krugman reveals everything important and true about Ferguson and nothing important or true about Keynes or Krugman. The nice thing about Ferguson is that despite the adage that “practice makes perfect” he is getting ever cruder and more self-destructive in his efforts to smear those with whom he disagrees.
Ferguson, of course, has no proof of any childhood trauma and makes no pretense that he conducted any research before unleashing his triple innuendo (Krugman must have suffered a childhood trauma that must have caused some “deep insecurity” and that must have left him unable to “debate a question without insulting his opponent.”) Feguson simply used innuendo to make up as an ad hominem smear of someone who crushed him in a debate through superior logic and expertise. Ferguson, having failed as an arm chair economist in his debate with Krugman, now appoints himself an arm chair psychoanalyst of Krugman and proceeds without interviewing Krugman to declare him deranged. That’s the only way Ferguson could “win” a debate he lost.
May 2, 2013: Ferguson’s Epic Fail
All of this provides the essential setting for understanding Ferguson’s latest epic fail. Here is Ferguson’s explanation of what happened when a member of the audience at the investor conference asked him a question on May 2, 2013.
“In his apology Ferguson explained: ‘I had been asked to comment on Keynes’s famous observation ‘In the long run we are all dead.’ The point I had made in my presentation was that in the long run our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are alive and will have to deal with the consequences of our economic actions.’
Adding more, he said -
‘I should not have suggested – in an off-the-cuff response that was not part of my presentation – that Keynes was indifferent to the long run because he had no children, nor that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes’s wife Lydia miscarried.’ ”
So, we have Ferguson apologizing for making a claim that he knew to be the “obvious[ly]” false. Ferguson claimed that gay people who have no children did not “care about future generations.” Ferguson calls his statement “doubly stupid” because -
“I had forgotten that Keynes’s wife Lydia miscarried.”
The second aspect of that self-described “stupidity” is an allusion to the fact that Ferguson did not make a single quip bashing gays as indifferent to future generations. Ferguson went on an entire, snide riff mocking Keynes and his marriage. It is this aspect of Ferguson’s ad hominem attack on Keynes that prompted the portion of Ferguson’s apology that termed his assault “insensitive”:
“I made comments about John Maynard Keynes that were as stupid as they were insensitive.”
One reporter at the event, Tom Kostigen, reported extensively on Ferguson’s gay bashing and made clear his disapproval. He reported what Ferguson said in his extended his attacks on Keynes’ sexual orientation.
“ Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of ‘poetry’ rather than procreated. The audience went quiet at the remark. Some attendees later said they found the remarks offensive.
It gets worse.
Ferguson, who is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, and author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, says it’s only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an ‘effete’ member of society.’ ”
We have just witnessed a variant of what economists call “revealed preferences.” Economists are skeptical of what people tell pollsters they would do in terms of economic actions in response to hypothetical financial incentives. We teach that it was people actually do in response to the incentives that reveals their true preferences. Ferguson’s great problem is that he spoke what he believed – and what he believes is false and bigoted. Begin with what should have been the most obvious point that Ferguson’s apology ignores. If Ferguson’s “obvious[ly]” incorrect claim was based on the “stupid” premise that adults who do not have children do not care about future generations – why did he raise Keynes’ sexuality? It would have sufficed for Ferguson to simply make the “obvious” and “stupid” claim that because Keynes had no children he did not care about future generations. Keynes’ sexuality is irrelevant and gratuitous to Ferguson’s obvious and stupid claim about the purported reason that Keynes was childless.
Ferguson brought up multiple homophobic tropes about gay males in his recent speech. They are “effete,” even when they marry women they are so effete that they read their wives “poetry” rather than have sex, which is why they do not reproduce even if they are bisexuals, closeted gays who marry women, or men who identify as heterosexuals though they had homosexual relationships when they were younger. This last absurdity, belied by millions of children fathered by closeted gay or bisexual American males over the history of this Nation even before gay couples could produce children through surrogacy or via adoption, is what prompted Ferguson’s apology for forgetting that Keynes’s wife suffered a miscarriage.
I presume that Ferguson is aware that men who identify as gay, bisexual, and heterosexual males who had gay sexual experiences in their youth have fathered children. Indeed, Ferguson brought up his views about Keynes’ sexuality after he brought up the fact that Keynes did not have children. That makes Ferguson’s gay bashing even more gratuitous.
Ferguson loves counter-factuals, so let’s try this counter-factual. What if Ferguson had made the obvious, stupid claim that people who are childless do not carry about future generations? We know that he despises Keynes and Krugman (in the same talk he archly referred to Krugman as his “arch-enemy”) and that both are childless. Ferguson could have claimed that Keynes and Krugman were indifferent to the lives of future generations because they were childless. How would the audience have reacted to such a claim?
The perhaps 25% of the audience who were childless would have stared at him like he was an idiot who had gone out of his way to insult them. The Americans in the audience would have thought first of themselves if they were childless, then of their relatives and close friends who were childless, then of George Washington, and finally of Jesus. Any of them with friends or relatives serving in the U.S. or U.K. military in Afghanistan who are childless would have felt a special rage for Ferguson’s obvious, stupid insult. Ferguson would have lost the crowd instantly. An angry buzz – “did he really say that?” – would have spread throughout the room.
Ferguson changed that dynamic by inventing a trait (unconcern for future generations) that he falsely ascribed to Keynes by willfully misinterpreting Keynes’ words, blaming that trait on Keynes’ sexuality, mocking Keynes’ sexuality at some length, claiming that Keynes’ fictional unconcern for future generations was a trait characteristic of homosexuals, and falsely conflating gays with childlessness. It was a full-fledged smear not only of Keynes but all homosexuals that Ferguson developed not in a single quip, but in an extended, purportedly logical analysis that was stitched together from an extended series of “obvious[ly]” “stupid” statements.
Here’s the key – by gay bashing Keynes and homosexuals Ferguson was almost able to (again) get away with a smear that would have failed instantly had Ferguson not gratuitously brought up homosexuality and instead had rested his attack on Keynes on his not having children. Some members of the audience were reported to be upset by Ferguson’s gay bashing, but apparently no one said anything out loud at the conference to call Ferguson on his gay bashing. The first web account reported some of Ferguson’s words when he engaged in gay bashing Keynes – but made not a word of comment, much less a complaint or response.
It was not until Kostigen made public what Ferguson said and expressed his disgust at Ferguson’s gay bashing that things changed. (Kostigen’s column immediately drew a comment wanting to know whether he was a homosexual.) It was only at this juncture that Ferguson realized that he could no longer get away with gay bashing in public. Back in the “good old days” when he was a darling of the Thatcherites his smears of Keynes would have been won Ferguson praise for his wit and erudition. Today, bigotry is (albeit with a lag) seen as bigotry and instead of wit and erudition the Fergusons of the world are forced to admit that their smears were “obvious[ly]” “stupid.” Of course, the point is that Ferguson’s homophobic innuendo was always obviously stupid and vicious. The fact that it was treated as respectable and even brought him praise from his ultra conservative colleagues shows how intellectually dishonest and bigoted the portion of the world Ferguson inhabited in his formative years was.
As I will explain, Ferguson has a long, sad history of gay bashing Keynes using a whole series of homophobic tropes and crude insults based on innuendo that began in print at least 18 years ago. As Brad DeLong and others have pointed out, Ferguson was also mining a rich vein of homophobic attacks on Keynes by other theoclassical critics of Keynes. Ferguson’s mistake was in forgetting how much the world had changed in such a relatively short time when it comes to gay bashing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

For educational purposes for a limited group

[TonyGosling]

I'm not sure if the Hertfordshire police are really entering into the party spirit. BRILLIANT video with Sam Williams who, it appears, is mistaken for a one man terrorist reconnaissance unit because he's got a camera. Boy they really don't like cameras... but why? Anything dodgy going on the camera has the evidence stupid. Quite clear though that the psychopath mentality is already hovering around The Groves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNjJe7D090E
_________________
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
Secret Rulers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0p-e2ng0SI
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.dialectradio.co.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk

[marektysis]

Anti-Bilderberg protest building up

7:00pm Thursday 16th May 2013 in News By Mike Wright and Ben Endley

A county council candidate from Watford is helping to organise an anti-Bilderberg festival to protest against the controversial group’s forthcoming meeting in the town.

Su Murray applied this week to Watford Borough Council for a temporary event licence for a “family event” on West Field, a patch of land between Hempstead Road and the A41.

When contacted by the Watford Observer Ms Murray, who stood as a Green Party candidate for the Central Oxhey division in the recent Hertfordshire County Council elections, said she had “concerns” about the Bilderberg coming to town but was adamant the event would be peaceful and law-abiding.


She said: “It [the application] is for a Green event taking into account the Bilderberg meeting.
“It is all a bit up in the air at the moment.

“My thoughts were I wanted something, a green event, to work with the people coming along because of Bilderberg.

“I am pretty certain I am going to amalgamate my idea in with the main festival, I am not sure whether it will be on the site I am applying for or not.

“I want it to remain a green event but the organisers of the main festival also want a very green event. This way will be better for a lot of residents and better for the police because it will all be on one site.”

The event – scheduled to last from June 8 to 12 – is described on the application as a “family event with entertainment including folk music, children’s entertainers, face painting, craft workshops and stalls”.

An application has also been made for late-night refreshment and alcohol sales.

Politicians on the council’s licensing sub-committee are due to make a decision on whether to grant a licence next week.

Opponents of the shadowy meeting of influential figures from politics, business and academia are organising a fringe festival to coincide with the gathering at The Grove hotel next month.

Organisers have said the festival will be a creative art outlet of protest and they are working with police to minimise disruption to residents.

Hannah Borno, a spokesman for the Bilderberg Fringe Festival, said: “What Watford can expect is proper comedians and music acts. No one is making any money by what it is going to be great entertainment. We are working with the police to enable it to happen and cause minimum disturbance to residents.”

A Facebook page has also been set up to organise an Occupy Bilderberg event while the group meets.

More than 600 people have said they are attending the event, which has listed its location as simply “The Grove Hotel” between June 6 and 9.

Last week, Hertfordshire Constabulary confirmed to the Watford Observer that it was launching a security operation for the Bilderberg meeting.

The Bilderberg Group meets annually in different locations and says it provides its attendees a chance to “off-the-record” discussions about current events.

Previous attendees have included the leaders from industries such as banking, technology as well as elected politicians from around the globe and include George Osborne, Google CEO Eric Schmidt and former chairman of Barclays, Marcus Agius.

The secret nature of the events, from which no minutes or records are published, has provoked a growing protest movement.

Around 800 people protested the last meeting in Virginia, USA.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10425714.Anti_Bilderberg_protest_building_up/

[marektysis]

T HERE’S a shadowy group who meet in private and, some believe, exert a hidden power on governments around the globe.

If you’re not familiar with the Bilderberg Group then let me inform you.

The group takes its name from the hotel in Holland where they held their first meeting in 1954 in a Europe still crippled by the physical, financial and mental strain of World Ward II.

The aim of the event was to promote Atlanticism – a greater understanding and improved working relationship between the USA and Europe, which at that time was riven by the USSR’s Iron Curtain.

Sixty-one guests, including 11 Americans, met and agreed it to be a jolly good thing and said they would do it again and again.

Over the years the group has swelled and evolved and now features chief executives of multi-national businesses, high ranking politicians (and some on the rise) plus those loveable bankers.

Former British PM Margaret Thatcher, star spangled cigar fan and former US President Bill Clinton, Conservative cabinet minister Ken Clarke and current EU President Herman van Rompuy are all said to have allegedly had their careers mysteriously accelerated by attending the meetings.

It appears their basic remit is to engage in a little long-range thinking about the problems we’ll face in the future and what these huge organisations can do about it.

That’s the theory.

In practice the Bilderberg Group attracts a lot of flak as a global cabal of the very rich and powerful who create policy that suits the rich and powerful away from the bright light of democracy.

There’s all manner of conspiracy theorists who will tell you that evil deeds are afoot as a result of the ‘shadowy’ conferences.

Goalkeeper turned shellsuit-wearing Son of God-turned information pioneer David Icke is particularly keen on ‘exposing’ them.

The group have a very simple way of dealing with the people who believe they’re aliens or tycoons intent on enslaving folk like you and me. They ignore them.

The group write on their website: “Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.

“Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued.

“Since 1954, 59 conferences have been held. For each meeting, the names of the participants as well as the agenda are made public and available to the press.”

It’s up to you which one you believe.

But I know which side I come down on – and that’s influenced by the group’s conference this year which is held at the start of June.

I mean, if you were a secret ruler of the world who controlled the levers of government and finance without the need for public scrutiny, would you really want to spend three days in Watford?



Read more: Examiner http://www.examiner.co.uk/views-and-blogs/columnists/2013/05/18/andrew-jackson-why-i-can-t-believe-the-bilderberg-group-are-that-bright-86081-33347175/#ixzz2TfkazPcb

[marektysis]

Its four-day meeting occurs annually. It’s a rite of spring. British political economist Will Hutton calls the group the “high priests of globalization.”

Powerful movers and shakers have their own agenda.They discuss key issues.

They do it year round. Once annually they meet face-to-face. They plot strategy to exploit the world’s riches. They want them for themselves.

They try to keep meeting dates, locations, and issues to be discussed secret. Word gets out. It’s official. Britain’s five-star Grove Hotel is this year’s venue. It’s a Hertfordshire, England hotel resort. It calls itself “London’s cosmopolitan country estate.”

It’s 18 miles from London. It’s 30 minutes from Heathrow Airport. It’s ideal for secluded meetings. Great pains are taken to keep journalists, activists, and other uninvited guests away.

On May 13, Infowars reporters Paul Joseph Watson and Jon Scobie visited the Grove Hotel. They claim to have “groundbraking” information.

Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt is a regular Bilderberg attendee. Watson and Scobie said his company is “merging” with Bilderberg.

“Google’s annual Zeitgeist conference, which has been based at the Grove since 2007, immediately precedes the Bilderberg Group conference by a matter of days.”

“Backed up by prior research, we were able to confirm in conversations with hotel managers and others that the Grove is now a central base for Google’s agenda to control the global political and technological landscape.”

Bilderberg’s “being recast as ‘Google-Berg’ – partly because of efforts on behalf of activists to tear away the veil of Bilderberg’s much cherished secrecy, and partly as a means of re-branding authoritarian, undemocratic secret gatherings of elites as trendy, liberal, feel-good philanthropic-style forums like Google Zeitgeist and TED.”

In May 2012, London’s Telegraph headlined “Google invites the best and brightest into its Big Tent.”

It’s Google’s annual Zeitgeist conference. The Telegraph compared it to annual Davos World Economic Forum meetings. Major global figures participate in both.

Eric Schmidt thinks “privacy is a relic of the past,” said Infowars. He “plans to turn Google into the ultimate Big Brother.”

He and Bilderberg members share a common agenda. In part, it reflects a “collectivist, permanently networked world (without) individuality and privacy.”

Bilderberg’s grand design is one-world government comprised of rulers and serfs. It wants total unchallenged global control.

Infowars said its “inside source” listed the following June issues for discussion:

destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities within three years;
prolonging war on Syria by arming anti-Assad elements;
the threat of a global pandemic;
controlling 3D printing;
Internet control through “cyber resilience;”
establishing a ministry of truth; Orwell explained its mission and more, saying:
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”

“These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”

Other Bilderberg topics include:

smart cities for mass surveillance;
diffusing austerity induced social protests;
preventing Britain from leaving the EU;
propping up the euro to keep the Eurozone intact;
minimal 2013 economic growth;
increasing central bank power;
transferring more wealth from ordinary people to corporations and super-rich elites; and
preventing a growing credit bubble from popping.
In 2007, Privacy International’s “Race to the Bottom” report addressed privacy rankings of Internet service companies. A previous article discussed its comments on Google, saying:

“….throughout our research we have found numerous deficiencies and hostilities in Google’s approach to privacy that go well beyond those of other organizations.”

It’s “an endemic threat to privacy. This is in part due to the diversity and specificity of Google’s product range and the ability of the company to share extracted data between these tools, and in part due to Google’s market dominance and the sheer size of its user base.”

“Its aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies and techniques” is unmatched.

It’s able to “deep drill into the minutiae of a user’s life and lifestyle choices.” It has no qualms about doing it irresponsibly.

It retains volumes user information. No limitations are placed on its subsequent use or disclosure. Users aren’t able to delete or withdraw it.

It retains all “search strings and associated IP-addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months, and does not provide users with an expungement option.”

It has other personal information on hobbies, employment, addresses, phone numbers, and more. It retains it after users delete their profiles.

It “collects all search results entered through Google Toolbar, and identifies all Google Toolbar users with a unique cookie that allows Google to track the user’s web movements.”

Information is retained indefinitely. It provides a permanent record. Doing so spurns OECD Privacy Guidelines and EU data protection law provisions.

Users can’t edit or delete records and information. They can’t access log information generated through various Google services, such as Google Maps, Video, Talk, Reader, or Blogger.

In 2004, Google also acquired the CIA-linked company Keyhole, Inc. It maintains a worldwide 3-D spy-in-the-sky images database.

Its software provides a virtual fly-over and zoom-in capability. It does so within a one-foot resolution.

It’s supported by In-Q-Tel. It’s a venture capital CIA-funded firm. It “identif(ies) and invest(s) in companies developing cutting-edge information technologies that serve United States national security interests.”

In 2003, its CEO, John Hanke, said:

“Keyhole’s strategic relationship with In-Q-Tel means that the Intelligence Community can now benefit from the massive scalability and high performance of the Keyhole enterprise solution.”

In 2006, former CIA clandestine services case officer, Robert Steele, said:

“I am quite positive that Google is taking money and direction from my old colleague Dr. Rick Steinheiser in the Office of Research and Development at CIA, and that Google has done at least one major prototype effort focused on foreign terrorists which produced largely worthless data.”

“I think (Google is) stupid to be playing with CIA, which cannot keep a secret and is more likely to waste time and money than actually produce anything useful.”

On April 29, 2009, Willem Buiter’s Financial Times article headlined “Gagging on Google,” saying:

“Google is to privacy and respect for intellectual property rights what the Taliban are to women’s rights and civil liberties: a daunting threat that must be fought relentlessly by all those who value privacy and the right to exercise, within the limits of the law, control over the uses made by others of their intellectual property.”

It should be strictly regulated, “and if necessary, broken up or put out of business.” It “lays the foundations for corporate or even official Big Brotherism.”

Google Street View’s addition to Google Maps, “provides panoram(ic) images visible from street level in cities around the world.”

“The cameras record details of residents’ lives.” They do so without permission. Personal privacy is violated.

It’s also done through tracking cookies or “third-party persistent cookies.” They assist interest-based advertising. It’s known as behavioral targeting.

In the wrong hands, information can be used “to put a commercial squeeze on people, but also to extort and blackmail them.”

In government hands, it enhances “a pretty effective and very nasty police state.”

Can Google be trusted to use this information responsibly? “Of course not.” It’s a business run by “amoral capitalists.” It seeks profits by any means.

Google and other Internet search engines “should not be trusted because they cannot be trusted.” Because of its size and dominance, Google’s “the new evil empire of the internet.” It’s a menacing “Leviathan.”

If true, partnering (merging) with Bilderberg enhances the threat. Institutionalized spying endangers everyone. Today’s technology exceeds the worst of what Orwell imagined.

Big Brother isn’t fiction. It’s watching everyone all the time for any reason. It does so with sweeping technological effectiveness. It makes Bilderberg’s ideal world more possible.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour