Log in



Archive for June, 2012

Breaking Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare

June 28th, 2012 by

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/breaking-

supreme-court-upholds.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium

=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+

%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

 

Developing…

Update 1:

The Supreme Court has upheld the individual health-insurance mandate that is at the heart of President Obama health-care law, saying the mandate is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.

Update 2:

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and,Chief Justice John Roberts voted in  the majority.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Update 3:

Bottom line, medical care will become more centrally planned in the United States. It will ultimately lead to a  a decline in medical innovation, result in extensive crony medical care and a decline in life expectancy in the United States,. In other words, most will be served government medical care (think the post office), with medical care determined by those who can get closest to influence the health care dictators, dictators who will get to choose treatments and deny treatments.

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court

-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html;_ylt=AhfLlXO

EottW5NEljWj4CASs0NUE;

_ylu=X3oDMTNtZjMwY2N1BG1pdANKdW1ib

3Ryb24gRlAEcGtnAzAxNmE4YmQzLTkwYTUtM2VjYi05

 

In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld his signature health care law's individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, joining the liberal wing of the court to save the law.

[Have questions about today's Supreme Court ruling upholding the health care individual mandate? Join us for a live Facebook chat at 4 p.m. ET ]

In brief comments Thursday afternoon, Obama called the decision a win for Americans. "With today's announcement it is time for us to move forward to implement and, where necessary, to improve this law," he said. Mitt Romney told reporters shortly before noon that he would repeal the law his first day in office if elected. "ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today," he said.

The court's four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but Roberts disagreed, and wrote that the mandate is actually a tax, despite the Obama administration's reluctance to describe it that way during the bill's passage. In its argument to the court, the government left open the possibility that the mandate is a tax, but did not rely much on that argument. Under the law, people who do not have health insurance will have to pay 1 percent of their income to the IRS starting in 2014. (There are exceptions for some religious beliefs and financial hardship.)

"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."

A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." In a 65-page dissent, he and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed Roberts' arguments, writing that there is a "mountain of evidence" that the mandate is not a tax. "To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," they wrote.

Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.

Before oral arguments in March, most Supreme Court experts and scholars believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.

House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision may slow momentum for that move. "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

Seven of the nine justices agreed that the law's expansion of Medicaid to an estimated 16 million low-income people by 2019 is unconstitutional as it was written. The court decided that the federal government cannot threaten to withdraw existing Medicaid funds from states if they don't expand Medicaid. Instead, the government can only withhold future funds. It's unclear if that will mean fewer than the 16 million projected will gain coverage.

Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, payroll taxes will go up on higher-income workers, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. (The penalty increases to 2.5 percent by 2016.) Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health. In August, health care plans will have to offer preventative services–including birth control–at no extra cost to customers.

An estimated 32 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Many of the more popular provisions of the law have already gone into effect, including a regulation saying insurers have to let children stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old, which 2.5 million Americans have already taken advantage of. Insurers can also no longer turn away children with preexisting conditions, and sick uninsured people can buy coverage in high-risk pools set up by the government.

Despite this intentional front-loading of consumer friendly, popular provisions of the law, most of the American public either doesn't like or has no opinion on the law. Most people said they wanted the Supreme Court to strike down all or part of the law in a recent poll.

MORE COVERAGE FROM YAHOO! NEWS

 

Supreme Corruption

 

U S Banks Love Real Dollars and Illegal Drug Money Comes in Cash

June 26th, 2012 by

http://truth-out.org/news/item/9937-how-the-us-government-banks-prison-industrial-complex-corrupt-officials-businesses-law-enforcement-racists-and-the-cia-benefit-from-illegal-drugs

Mark Karlin

Truthout

A recent article in The Guardian UK offers evidence that “while cocaine production ravages countries in Central America, consumers in the US and Europe are helping developed economies grow rich from the profits.”

According to The Guardian UK story, the study by two Colombian professors found that “2.6% of the total street value of cocaine produced remains within the country [Columbia], while a staggering 97.4% of profits are reaped by criminal syndicates and laundered by banks, in first-world consuming countries.”

 

One of the researchers, Alejandro Gaviria said: “We know that authorities in the US and UK know far more than they act upon. The authorities realize things about certain people they think are moving money for the drug trade – but the DEA [US Drug Enforcement Administration] only acts on a fraction of what it knows.”

“It’s taboo to go after the big banks,” added Gaviria’s co-researcher Daniel Mejía. “It’s political suicide in this economic climate, because the amounts of money recycled are so high.”

Since Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo) was levied a fine in 2010 (but no criminal charges) for money laundering hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of illegal drug cartel dollars, there does not appear to be any large crackdown on the practice in the United States, although lip service is often given to coming down hard on money laundering.

Indeed, more than one analyst has speculated that the billions of dollars in drug cash are vitally important to US banks because so many of their financial assets are tied up in non-fluid assets.

According to a 2011 article in AlterNet:

Antonio Maria Costa, former executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said in 2008, “there’s evidence to suggest that proceeds from drugs and crimes were the only liquid investment capital for banks in trouble of collapsing [during the financial crisis].”

If billions of dollars in drug money rescued banks and other financial institutions from closing down then it’s reasonable to argue that the economy itself is addicted to drugs.

As professor Dale Scott noted in his book, American War Machine: Deep Politics; the CIA Global Drug Connection: “A US Senate … banking committee reportedly estimated that between $500 billion and $1 trillion dollars are laundered each year through banks worldwide, with approximately half of that amount funneled through US Banks.”

In the ’70s and ’80s, Miami became known as a city that was experiencing an economic renaissance based on the flow of illegal drug money (mostly from Colombia at the time) into the city. But the cash didn’t just get laundered through banks; it was used to buy legitimate businesses; condos; houses; investments; and more than likely a lot of corrupt law enforcement, custom and government officials.

Estimated $50 Billion in Illegal Drug Sales From Mexico Can Only Occur With US Corruption

In interviews, Truthout has been told again and again that the chain of distribution for illegal drugs is changing. Whereas before it was divided primarily among Mafia families in big cities, the Latin American cartels have now set up networks within the US.

But one thing hasn’t changed; it still takes a lot of corruption to buy off virtual domestic impunity for the kingpins overseeing the domestic sale of prohibited drugs. Searching Google, you can find everything from Transportation Security Administration agents paid off to let drugs pass through airport checks, to cops who look the other way or actually steal the drug money, to border patrol agents letting drugs pass through, to local government officials overlooking illegal activity.

However, rarely does one come across the arrest and prosecution of a kingpin in the United States, or of a high-level law enforcement official in a major city or a politician being indicted. Does this mean that powerful individuals in the government and law enforcement are all squeaky clean as $50 billion in illegal drugs go whizzing through America, day in and day out? Not likely.

The emphasis of the DEA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security is on catching the “guppies” without appearing to be working their way up to the people running the wholesale-to-retail illicit drug business in the US or their protectors. (In Latin America, however, the US is all about catching kingpins, although that doesn’t often happen.)

For instance, the El Paso Times reported last year that “two former law enforcement officers allege that they cannot get anyone to investigate allegations that the Mexican drug cartels have corrupted US law officers and politicians in the El Paso border region…. Gonzales and Dutton allege that the FBI dropped them after ‘big names’ on the US side of the border began to surface in the drug investigations.”

David Ramirez rose up the ranks of the Border Patrol to become a special agent at the Department of Homeland Security. He just wrote a book, “Beneath the Same Sky,” a candid analysis of the borderland drug war. Interviewed by the Texas Tribune, he described US customs corruption matter-of-factly:

I can only tell you my experiences and what I saw. It was the lure of the money and as I write in the book, they offer this inspector $50,000 for what I call a “wave” – a loaded vehicle to come through the port. And they guaranteed them five vehicles a week so you are talking that kind of money, which is tempting. You have to be a man or a woman who knows their moral ground to say, “No. I am not doing it….”

“It’s capitalism, I would think – supply and demand,” Ramirez said further. “The demand for the drug is here and then we say, ‘Okay Mexico or Latin America, fix your problem over there, but we still want our drugs.’”

Different Interests in the US Financially Gain From the War on Drugs 

It’s not just that some law enforcement officials are corrupt. They don’t need to be for police departments to make money from arresting minor drug offenders.

Police departments around the nation gain from laws that allow the seizing of assets that the law enforcement officers allege may be related to drug crime, without even a court case involved. The libertarian CATO institute wrote about this practice that allows the agencies to use the proceeds from the confiscated money or property to enlarge departmental budgets. The report is called “Forfeit for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture.”

Law enforcement agencies can also get extra money from federal grants if they show a high number of arrests related to drug use and selling, so it is of financial value to the department to arrest as many people for drug related offenses as possible.

Neill Franklin is executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). He calls this change to an emphasis on arrests of the drug user as a “shift to the numbers game” for police departments to receive more funding. Franklin, a 34-year law enforcement veteran of the Maryland State Police and Baltimore Police Department, said, “we worked in predominantly white areas, yet most of our cases and lock ups were minorities. There were very few cases in the outlying areas that involved whites.”

Franklin told Truthout:

“Over my career I saw a shift to a war on the users of drugs. In the ’70s when I worked narcotics it was about working your way up the chain of the sellers to the kingpins. That’s how it was. As we got further into the ’80s and ’90s, we attacked the demand side. We concentrated on locking up the usual street corner suspects and before we knew it we had quadrupled the incarceration rate and most of that increase was from us arresting users. A lot of the small time dealers sell drugs because they need to support their habit of using drugs. The day of the law enforcement concentrating on kingpins has gone. It’s all about increasing the numbers of arrests.”

To Franklin this brings up the question of why privatized prison companies are simultaneously benefiting financially from the increased incarceration, a subject that has been analyzed many times on Truthout. If the Correction Corporation of America needs a 90 percent capacity rate to make a profit on a prison, then you need to put the bodies in the beds. Franklin pointed out that the profiteering doesn’t end with the prison business. There is the drug testing industry, parole officers, prosecutors, police, lawyers, rehabilitation counselors, psychologists etc. Arresting minor drug offenders, in short, is big business.

Race, Drugs, Incarceration and the New Jim Crow

Michelle Alexander, author of the paradigm-shifting book on racism through the criminalization of being a black male, “The New Jim Crow,” recently wrote a commentary in The Guardian UK in which she persuasively argues that “the US war on drugs created a whole new generation of the dispossessed, with millions of black people denied their rights.”

Alexander wrote of the racist impact of the war on drugs in the black community, particularly among young black males:

The uncomfortable truth, however, is that crime rates do not explain the sudden and dramatic mass incarceration of African Americans during the past 30 years. Crime rates have fluctuated over the last few decades – they are currently at historical lows – but imprisonment rates have consistently soared. Quintupled, in fact. And the vast majority of that increase is due to the “war on drugs” and the “get tough movement.” Drug offenses alone accounted for about two-thirds of the increase in the federal inmate population, between 1985 to 2000, and more than half of the increase in the state prison population.

The drug war has been brutal, but those who live in white communities have little clue to the devastation wrought. This war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color, even though studies consistently show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates. In fact, some studies indicate that white youths are significantly more likely to engage in illegal drug dealing than black youths. They also have about three times the number of drug-related visits to the emergency room as their African American counterparts.

That is not what you would guess, though, when entering our nation’s prisons and jails, overflowing as they are with black and brown drug offenders. In some states, African Americans comprise 80-90% of all drug offenders sent to prison….

Again, not so. President Ronald Reagan officially declared the current drug war in 1982, when drug crime was declining, not rising. From the outset, the war had little to do with drug crime and nearly everything to do with racial politics. The drug war was part of a grand and highly successful Republican party strategy of using racially coded political appeals on issues of crime and welfare to attract poor and working-class white voters who were resentful of, and threatened by, desegregation, busing and affirmative action.

If you follow Alexander’s analysis to its logical conclusion, the war on drugs in the United States fulfills a racist stereotype by disproportionately sending black males (and black women) to jails, where they are branded and marginalized as felons, while white users of illegal drugs – proportionately – are treated much more leniently by law enforcement and the judicial system.

This policy misleadingly confirms stereotypes of blacks that racists love, even though they are put in prison for offenses that are nonviolent in nature and that are driven by poverty, social neglect and incentivized police department arrest numbers.

But it also serves another important purpose. When poor, stereotyped members of society can only find an entrepreneurial future in the illegal drug business, or use drugs as self-medication to allow them to escape the squalidness of vast swathes of urban America that hold little opportunity of employment, the government does not have to attend to building neighborhoods and creating jobs. Drugs become the opiate of the masses, as meth also has in many poor, rural white communities.

As with the 50,000-plus mostly poor Mexicans who have died in the failed war on drugs, certain lives are deemed of less value in the US – and if there is big money to be made out of the drug trade, it’s going to end up in banks and business ventures, not in the hood (with few exceptions). The undesirable resourceless drug users are both profitable and expendable.

US Hegemony and Military Control Over Latin America and the CIA

An established journalist, Gary Webb, wrote a series of articles for the San Jose Mercury-News in 1996 with a shocking account of how the CIA, during the Reagan administration, allowed cocaine to freely be flown into the US (particularly crack cocaine) in return for drug cartel cooperation with funding and arming the Contras against the Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan civil war. At first, the series was a bombshell, but then the CIA fought back through established Eastern newspapers and the Mercury-News retracted the series.

Webb, however, wrote an even more in-depth and credible account of the CIA condoning drugs entering the US in a 1999 book: “Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion.” However, his reputation was so slandered by CIA flacks that he eventually committed suicide in 2004.  Subsequent reports, after his death, corroborated the credibility of his investigative account.

It is not the only allegation of the US turning a blind eye or even politically using drugs entering the US as foreign policy strategic tools. Right now, the US is more or less ignoring the surge in poppy growth in Afghanistan so as not to complicate its precarious role in that nation – and the economic need of farmers there. President George Herbert Walker Bush, who headed the CIA for a time, didn’t object to Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega’s (he was a highly paid CIA asset) role in the drug trade until Noriega started to go rogue on US foreign policy, thus being perceived as becoming a threat to the Canal Zone.

In “Beyond Bogota: Diary of a Drug War Journalist,” Garry M. Leech described how the US focus on attacking the growing of cocaine in the Marxist FARC-controlled area is counterproductive, because the right-wing paramilitary area in Columbia grows more and sells it at a cheaper rate. Translated, this means that the US government is more concerned about the political threat of FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) than how much cocaine ends up in the United States.

The drug war in Latin America offers the opportunity to increase US military hegemony and thus preserve markets where the US can dominate governments and obtain cheap labor and natural resources (particularly mining and oil). It also sews death, fear and chaos that stifle populist revolts against oligarchical and military rule.

Drug Cartels Are Headed by Pirate Businessmen Marketing a Commodity in Demand and the American Corporate  Class Loves Supply Side Entrepeneurs

Minus the gruesome violence in their host countries, drug cartels are just illegal businessmen, so the business class in the US can relate to them, as can the CIA. They are aggressive, ruthless and greedy, not unlike some of their bankers on Wall Street.

The cost of a drug war to achieve geopolitical objectives then is immense in the loss of life, the breakdown of civil society in the nations affected in Latin America, and in the moral grounding, racial injustice and credibility of our governmental and business institutions.

Eric E. Sterling, who wrote many of the severe anti-drug laws while serving as former assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, indicated second thoughts in a recent Forbes commentary:

Excluding the significant markets in methamphetamine, Ecstasy, psychedelics and other drugs, this is a criminal retail market in the range of $300 billion annually. Most of the markup is at the retail level. This enormous market is evidence that our efforts to stop the drug supply create the incentives that have grown a global criminal infrastructure of countless drug prohibition enterprises….

All over the world, drug organizations depend upon corrupting border guards, customs inspectors, police, prosecutors, judges, legislators, cabinet ministers, military officers, intelligence agents, financial regulators and presidents and prime ministers. Businesses cannot count on the integrity of government officials in such environments.

And corrupted we have become, while publically taking the moral high ground and precipitating a blood bath in Latin America.

CORRUPT BANKING

The New World Order in 2012 and How We Can Defeat It

June 24th, 2012 by

 

http://www.theglobalistreport.com/new-world-order-2012/

 

By Andrew Puhanic 

In 2012 very few people understand what the New World Order is all about and how the New World Order has evolved to what it is today. This lack of understanding is derived from a systematic denial by the Globalists and Politicians that the New World Order even exists at all.

When the term New World Order first came into vogue in the wake of the Gulf War, but especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it evoked the promise of an exciting, higher plateau of international relations, including:

  • International security, particularly between East and West, no longer based on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (and other equally MAD theories of deterrence) but guaranteed by the reality of a unipolar world, led by the West.
  • Freedom to travel and migrate for people confined for decades (or entire lifetimes) behind the “Iron Curtain”.
  • Opportunity for the enslaved communist economies of Central and Eastern Europe to serve primarily indigenous needs on the basis of market principles, rather than support the economy of the USSR, as required for decades by the Council on Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA).
  • Transformation of the economies of Russia and the other former Soviet republics into market based ones.
  • The chance for Central and Eastern Europeans and former Soviet citizens to enjoy material advantages previously denied.
  • Freedom for Third World Governments from having to choose sides in the overriding bipolar political / military struggle that had dominated global relations for 45 years.
  • Optimism among Third World leaders who thought that perhaps they could now devote more energy to improving the living standards of their own citizens (the pessimists feared the opposite, now that their UN votes counted for little).
  • The assumption that inevitable regional disputes could be settled quickly on the basis of coordinated international action, possibly on the Gulf War Coalition model.
  • A new scope for collective security by the West with co-operation from much of the Arab World.

Reality of the New World Order in 2012

This view of the New World Order was a rosy one. However, It underestimated and neglected a number of vital factors. The reality of today paints a different picture.

The bipolarity of the geo-political world (one that is forced to accept blame for international tension, even while it provided the longest continuous period of peace Europe had known in the 20th Century) was succeeded not by an orderly unipolar world but by a disorderly multipolar one.

This multi-polarity has, at least, reduced the relative weight of internationalsecurity and military alliances as the currency of international relations and supplanted them with economic and commercial competition that is headed by the Globalists.

The relaxation of international tension has also permitted co-operation and diplomatic breakthrough in areas of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Southern Africa, probably not otherwise possible.

Throughout much of the world, the demise of Communism led to a greater acceptance of Western values relating to good government, free press and civil rights.

 

  • Regional and even local problems are tending to become more thoroughly and more quickly globalized, just as global institutions are increasingly paralysed in their attempts to deal with them. The tragic events of Rwanda were one example of how the world took it upon its self to take the blame for the conflict.
  • We face new and destabilizing non-traditional threats to world order, some a byproduct of augmented economic and commercial competition. e.g; environmental degradation, increased economic migration, rising international organized criminal activity, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  • In Europe and the Middle East, the most immediate and sharply felt threat is that of ethnic conflict and civil war resulting from the release of nationalist and irredentist forces thought to have been excised from the European psyche in 1945. When one contemplates for a moment the carnage in Gorazde, in Mostar and in Sarajevo, how wrong we were!
  • The suppression of ethnicity and nationalism, the centuries-old twin scourges of Europe and the Middle East which, twice in the last 80 years blighted the continents and beyond, turns out to have been only temporary, necessitated by the overriding strategic demands of the Cold War.

Is the New World Order the Old World Disorder?

As is painfully evident in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, the forces of nationalism, ethnicity, racism and religious extremism are unbound and unbounded in ways that only the most cynical among us would have predicted possible.

Add to the stark communal violence from pressures of economic restructuring which affects all but the most entrepreneurial or corrupt during the painful but necessary transition from Communism to Capitalism, and the resulting sum is a glaring picture of instability that potentially threatens the security of the entire world.

It is now clear that the end of the Cold War (and the advent of the New World Order) does not mean the end of instability or threat.

What it does is allow for open conflict in regions where formerly such conflict would have been, at best, unthinkable or, at worst, successfully held in check.

How the New World Order in 2012 is Changing?

In this new climate of uncertainty, the very definition of national security has been broadened to include not only protection of traditional political and military targets, but also concern for the illicit transfer of leading-edge technology, the safeguarding of the environment and the containment, through international multilateral means, of regional and ethnic conflict, including euphemistic “civil” wars (a subject largely ignored in the past by the international community).

This approach strongly implies two phenomena: (1) interdependence and the (2) strengthening of international coordinating organizations, specifically the Globalist United Nations.

In response to these requirements of the New World Order, it appears the world is taking the following steps:

1. The world has broadened its concept of national security to include the notion of Co-operative Security. This does not mean it has neglected the narrower concept of military security. It simply recognize that in today’s world the attainment of security includes elements other than the traditional one, e.g.

  • The encouragement of integration among regional economies.
  • The granting of economic assistance over military assistance.
  • Help in the establishment of government.

2. The Globalist Elite are attempting to shift the emphasis away from “collective defence” to “collective security”. They are doing this because the mindset of countries who collaborate to defend themselves (mob mentality) usually do so in order to leverage off other countries' military expertise.

This presents a problem to the Globalists because the collective defence mentality is not primarily driven by fear like the collective security mentality. Therefore, the Globalists are in a better position when countries collaborate (break down their borders and governance via collective security) because this mindset is a self-perpetuating fear that can never be undone (i.e. Once countries collaborate due to collective security, that cooperation is nearly impossible to undo and will eventually morph into a union / world government)

What can we do about the New World Order in 2012?

It is, to an extent, in the hands of each of us; in the intelligence and tolerance with which we approach the truly difficult injustices in contemporary international relations and in the will we bring to bear to correct such inequities.

The New World Order has arrived and needs to be presented for what it is.

The global community of individuals, free from defined roles established by the State, needs to come together tosystematically remove the Globalists within our political and social circles who are intentionally planting the seeds of world governments and the New World Order.

At the moment, the only way we can stop the New World Order is via the following:

  • A systematic campaign that encompasses all types of media to present to the global community what the New World Order is all about and who are the Globalists perpetuating the New World Order ideology.
  • An organised collective that encompasses a core group of anti-Globalists who can encourage a consistent and systematic fight against the Globalists via organised means.
  • Dismantle all government-backed Globalist institutions such as the United Nations and the Council of Foreign Relations so that advocates of the New World Order don’t have an official platform to push their agenda to the unsuspecting public.
  • Take a systematic approach to document and record other lesser-known Globalist institutions such as the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome. To the established anti-Globalist movement, these three institutions are well-known. However, to ordinary people, these institutions are still either unknown or considered conspiracy theory.
  • Stop the disinformation that is rife throughout most education systems about the banking system, economics and how political systems function. If there is a means to provide students guidance about the truth of how our banks, the political system and how our economy functions, at least they will be given an opportunity to hear the truth before being taught the lies of the Globalists and those who were seeking a New World Order.
  • Hold the corporate media accountable when it reports on the issues, stories andnews items that are specific to the Globalists and the Globalist Agenda. The fact of the matter is that 90% of ordinary people receive their news and information directly from the corporate media. The alternative media in its current capacity must continue to grow in numbers to attain a position that will influence the masses.

Final Remarks

At the moment, the Globalists have taken a significant steps backward in their objective to achieve aNew World Order and World Government. This was only achieved by the efforts of the alternative media and anti-Globalist movement.

However, due to the size and nature of the Globalists, the struggle of anti-Globalists will continue for many years to come. We need to strengthen our resolve at an order of magnitude greater than they already have done if we are to bring about a more peaceful and just world.

You can help support this information by voting on Reddit HERE.

Andrew Puhanic is the founder of the Globalist Report. The aim of the Globalist Report is to provide current, relevant and informative information about the Globalists and Globalist Agenda. You can contact Andrew directly by visiting the Globalist Report.

 

GLOBALISM

GLOBAL ELITES THROWN OUT OF ICELAND

June 20th, 2012 by

Dismantles Corrupt Govt Then Arrests All Rothschild Bankers

http://www.freedumbnation.com/?p=2369

Posted by Admin

Since the 1900′s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying “NO” to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild/Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the “1%”, who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov’t would literally change over night. Why is it so hard, for some people to understand, that by simply NOT giving your money, to large Corporations, who then send jobs, Intellectual Property, etc. offshore and promote anti-Constitutional rights… You will accomplish more, than if you used violence. In other words… RESEARCH WHERE YOU ARE SENDING EVERY SINGLE PENNY!!! Is that so hard? The truth of the matter is… No one, except the Icelanders, have to been the only culture on the planet to carry out this successfully. Not only have they been successful, at overthrowing the corrupt Gov’t, they’ve drafted a Constitution, that will stop this from happening ever again. That’s not the best part… The best part, is that they have arrested ALL Rothschild/Rockefeller banking puppets, responsible for the Country’s economic Chaos and meltdown.

Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country’s direction.

It has been a revolution without weapons in Iceland, the country that hosts the world’s oldest democracy (since 930), and whose citizens have managed to effect change by going on demonstrations and banging pots and pans. Why have the rest of the Western countries not even heard about it?

Pressure from Icelandic citizens’ has managed not only to bring down a government, but also begin the drafting of a new constitution (in process) and is seeking to put in jail those bankers responsible for the financial crisis in the country. As the saying goes, if you ask for things politely it is much easier to get them.

This quiet revolutionary process has its origins in 2008 when the Icelandic government decided to nationalise the three largest banks, Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir, whose clients were mainly British, and North and South American.

After the State took over, the official currency (krona) plummeted and the stock market suspended its activity after a 76% collapse. Iceland was becoming bankrupt and to save the situation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) injected U.S. $ 2,100 million and the Nordic countries helped with another 2,500 million.

Great little victories of ordinary people

While banks and local and foreign authorities were desperately seeking economic solutions, the Icelandic people took to the streets and their persistent daily demonstrations outside parliament in Reykjavik prompted the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde and his entire government.

Citizens demanded, in addition, to convene early elections, and they succeeded. In April a coalition government was elected, formed by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, headed by a new Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.

Throughout 2009 the Icelandic economy continued to be in a precarious situation (at the end of the year the GDP had dropped by 7%) but, despite this, the Parliament proposed to repay the debt to Britain and the Netherlands with a payment of 3,500 million Euros, a sum to be paid every month by Icelandic families for 15 years at 5.5% interest.

The move sparked anger again in the Icelanders, who returned to the streets demanding that, at least, that decision was put to a referendum. Another big small victory for the street protests: in March 2010 that vote was held and an overwhelming 93% of the population refused to repay the debt, at least with those conditions.

This forced the creditors to rethink the deal and improve it, offering 3% interest and payment over 37 years. Not even that was enough. The current president, on seeing that Parliament approved the agreement by a narrow margin, decided last month not to approve it and to call on the Icelandic people to vote in a referendum so that they would have the last word.

The bankers are fleeing in fear

Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.

Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.

In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.

To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.

Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.

The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

What a rotten shame that Americans are too uninformed and cowardly to do the same thing as Iceland. But you can bet your ass they won’t miss their ballgames, and other forms of entertainment. Why should they study when they still have money for beer and hot-dogs? Dumb ass’s to the last breath!

 

Iceland Courage

 

 

New World Order Illuminati Conspiracy The Red Pill Course

June 19th, 2012 by

For Those Beginning To Figure Out That Something Is Very Wrong

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/06/15/new-world-order-illuminati-conspiracy

the-red-pill-course-for-those-beginning-to-figure-out-that-something-is-very-wrong/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A

+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

Posted by truther

There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world’s wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world’s population by 5.5 Billion people. While the name New World Order is a term frequently used today when referring to this group, it’s more useful to identify the principal organizations, institutions, and individuals who make up this vast interlocking spiderweb of elite conspirators.

 

The Illuminati is the oldest term commonly used to refer to the 13 bloodline families (and their offshoots) that make up a major portion of this controlling elite. Most members of the Illuminati are also members in the highest ranks of numerous secretive and occult societies which in many cases extend straight back into the ancient world. The upper levels of the tightly compartmentalized (need-to-know-basis) Illuminati structural pyramid include planning committees and organizations that the public has little or no knowledge of. The upper levels of the Illuminati pyramid include secretive committees with names such as: the Council of 3, the Council of 5, the Council of 7, the Council of 9, the Council of 13, the Council of 33, the Grand Druid Council, the Committee of 300 (also called the “Olympians”) and the Committee of 500 among others.

In 1992, Dr John Coleman published  Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the Illuminati agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows:

  ”A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population

There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of  laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited.”

educate-yourself.org/nwo/

The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London.

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

 

Conspiracy

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

June 13th, 2012 by

From: Michael Gaddy [mailto:montezumaconstitution@gmail.com]

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."~George Washington

This past week the folks up in Wisconsin lost their bid to recall their governor. Listening to the news concerning this event I was struck by the following statement: "…government will go from being our protector to being a supplicant…"

Do most of the citizens of this country have a clue what "government" is and what its natural evolution, as witnessed throughout history, shows it inevitably becomes? Obviously not, considering the wide margin of beliefs between what the "Father of our Country" knew government to be and the current idea, held by many, that government is "our protector."  There is a huge difference between a "fearful master" and a "protector" in reality.

When many don the uniform of our military, which many of us have done, do we swear a sacred oath to our government or our Constitution? The same holds true for all who take that oath before beginning "government" service. When our government defines those who believe in the tenets of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be "potential domestic terrorists," who is our military protecting at that point; the object of their oaths or the government? Did the armies and bureaucracies of the Third Reich protect Hitler and his government or the people of Germany and their rights?

Government's never remain benign; their very nature is to metastasize, just like cancer, consuming freedoms and liberty until all they leave is a destroyed host. How is this accomplished? Invariably it is accomplished by passing laws and regulations which support government over the rights of the people. Robert Lefevre describes the process perfectly:

"Having granted that a government can perform a defensive function by apprehending and punishing the criminal, we must look at government on a broader scale.

It is immediately apparent that there is no government in all the world, saving only extremely small and local constabularies, which reserves for itself solely this simple and at least partially constructive function. The prevention of crime and the punishment of the criminal have become, in most instances, subsidiary departments of government. In the main, governments have gone far beyond this field of activity.

Today governments concern themselves in general not with criminals, but with law-abiding citizens. Every citizen is a victim of the aggressive tactics of government. Government begins by seizing the arbitrary and total power of deciding how much money it wants. Then it collects the money without a care or concern for the plight of the individual who must pay or be punished like a criminal.

Next, the government establishes hundreds and thousands of regulations which prescribe particular practices and proscribe others. Almost every action of every citizen has its legal "do’s" and "don't’s."

The list of prohibitions and compulsions is too lengthy for cataloguing here. But it pertains to business operations, licenses, building regulations, zoning, hours of employment, prices, trade, quotas, embargoes, subsidies, grants-in-aid, traffic, assembly, slander, libel, trespass, health, cleanliness, quality, quantity, method, education, indoctrination, propaganda, news, pictures, morals, food, drink, clothing, housing, sanitation, roads, farm products, transportation, search, seizure, mental outlook, exchange of parcels by post, and so on.

It can truthfully be said that there is almost no activity in which human beings engage which is free of legality. Think what you will, do what you will, there is a law somewhere which either compels, limits, or prohibits.

Try to think of something that people do. With the possible exception of breathing, laws bristle from the activity like quills from a porcupine. And the result of all these laws is to make any individual who does not conform in every respect, a lawbreaker.

Thus, the average person today, buttressed in by government, surrounded and overshadowed by government, finds himself a lawbreaker several times during an avenge day. And this fact turns him from being a law-abiding citizen into a lawbreaking citizen and equates him with any criminal who, in fact, breaks a law with aggressive intent.

But the government, as has been shown, cannot concern itself with anything but the universal obedience it must enforce. Thus, any violation of law becomes in essence a punishable offense. And whereas the government does maintain certain classifications — civil, criminal, and the like — the fact remains that even in civil matters government can and will punish and apprehend with vigor. This is not the fault of government. This is the nature of government.

This is the major point which must be understood eventually. Government which passes and enforces endless rules and codes is not out of character when it does so. It is in character. That is the way any government operates. And the longer a given government endures, the more numerous will be the laws it enacts. It is the business of government to pass laws and to enforce them. These laws are the productive sum of all governmental effort. Therefore, it is not to be wondered at when thousands and thousands of new laws come into existence every year. It would rather be a marvel if this did not happen.

Government is a law factory. It passes laws in the same manner that another type of factory extrudes metal molding. Government is a lawmaking tool.

But, whereas a factory which extrudes metal molding is providing a product which is useful to the citizens generally, and which certain citizens will purchase voluntarily; the government factory extrudes compulsion which is useful principally to the government, itself, but is purchased in advance by the people, who are never in a position to refuse to buy."

At some point in time, the realization that our military is not defending our freedoms, but is in fact facilitating the growth of government and the proliferation of liberty destroying laws and regulations must be acknowledged by a majority of the people if we are to recover any of the rights supposedly guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.

The National Defense Authorization Act does not protect the people but allows the government to use the military against the people if those in government feel threatened. Governments, in reality, never protect the people, but they will use deadly force to protect their existence and right to oppress and control.

In Liberty

Mike

FORCE

 

NOTICE THERE ARE NO JUDGES!

June 12th, 2012 by

 

 

Shhh…these folks do not know….that there has never been a Constitutional federal republic…it was a flim-flam…SURPRISE!!    

Reporting.
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter since 1996 

 

The extension of federal law beyond federal territory by federal territorial officers is causing an unnecessary conflict with the implementation of California’s Compassionate Use Act.   Concerned Californians are filing judicial misconduct complaints against federal district court judges in order to have them removed from their offices.  

"BY THE WAY, iF you do a FOIA on the judges in that court, you will find that all of them have a Form 61 stating that they are in fact all "Employees of the  United States ."    You can't be an employee and also an "Officer of the  United States " under Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2.   You must have an Office created by law (Congress).  Their purported Civil Commission is in the Dept. of Justice, it should be in the Secretary of State's office under the seal of the  United States , but it is under the seal of the DoJ."

NOTICE – THERE ARE NO JUDGES

STATEMENT OF FACTS

United States district court Judge A.B. Fair

This sample judicial misconduct complaint made against the  United States district court judge named above is filed, in accordance with the Ninth Circuit Rules of the Judicial Council only for the purpose of demonstrating the official Title 28 U.S.C. judicial misconduct complaint process. Actual complaints should only be made after consulting the rules governing such complaints.  This sample complaint exceeds the five page limitation on the Statement of Facts imposed by the Ninth Circuit Rules.  Each circuit has different rules.  Those rules are available from the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court with jurisdiction over the judge subject to complaint.  Rules for the Ninth Circuit can also be accessed on the Internet: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/misconduct   To access the other circuits try inserting the number of the circuit you want in place of the 9.in this link: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov  

Complainant charges that this territorial district judge, who claims to be an Article III judge, has committed an impeachable offense for failing to reside within the district to which he was appointed in violation of Section 134 Title 28 U.S.C. and for violation of Section 2384 Title 18 U.S.C. by conspiring with others “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”   The recent death of Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. revealed that he resided in the Los Feliz area of  Los Angeles , while a district judge.  The resignation of Judge Nora Margaret Manella caused the Los Angeles Times to reveal her  Studio  City residence in a news story.  The Torrance Daily Breeze identified Judge Manuel L. Real as a Rancho Palos Verdes resident.  These district judges, as well as all other federal district judges in the 50 states have violated §134 Title 28 U.S.C. by not residing within the judicial district to which he or she had been appointed. 

The District of California cannot be both the federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress on  January 1, 1945 and the territory that is not subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress.  The territory that comprises the District of California must be one or the other.  Any place in any one of the 50 states is, similarly, either subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress or it is not.  From the very beginning Congress viewed the creation of genuine Article III courts as a threat to its own power, so it created none.  Congress did make it possible for district court judges to act like Article III judges and did nothing when they lived outside the district to which they had been appointed.  The first district courts and today’s  United States district court for the District of California are legislative courts that Congress must pass off as an Article III judicial court to extend its territorial jurisdiction beyond federal territory.  Californiadistrict judges claim to be Article III judges despite taking an obvious territorial oath.   To complete the deception, the United States Congress, the United States Department of Justice and district judges of the District of California have conspired to remove the high misdemeanor penalty from Section 134 Title 28 U.S.C., so that the public will not be aware that failure to reside in the judicial district is still an impeachable crime for a district judge.   The purpose of this complaint is to expose the factual basis of the conspiracy to prevent, hinder or delay the application of the residency requirement to  United States district judges and United States Attorneys.

Section 84 lacks a critical factor—a date to mark it either as a Sixth Amendment district “previously ascertained by law” or to identify the federal territory subject to Article IV disposition by Congress.   The first and the most important sentence in Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. supplies that date and is an announcement that the sections that follow are to be descriptive of the federal territory that comprises the district: “Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of  January 1, 1945 .”  The 52 sections consist of 48 States, the District, the two territories of  Alaska and  Hawaii and  Puerto Rico .  The date:  January 1, 1945 does not subject the judicial district to the Sixth Amendment because the district is made up exclusively of federal territory.   

The territorial composition of the districts and divisions is determined by finding territory that can be common to States, the District, territory and the  Commonwealth of  Puerto Rico as of a certain date.  By random substitution we can determine that the only territory common to all is federal territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress. State territory, it will be seen, must be excluded as any part of a federal judicial district or division because Puerto Ricoand the two territories had no State territory on  January 1, 1945 .  The  District of Columbia was created from State territory, but  Puerto Rico and the territories can contain no such territory. 

Judge Fair was obligated to presume under the authority of Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949) that the territorial composition of §84 was territorial.  Based on that presumption his residence outside federal territory violated federal residency law once he took a territorial oath of office.  Upon entering his office, he began an active conspiracy with the other judges and magistrates of the district, the United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of California to conceal his residence outside the judicial district to which he had been appointed.  Knowing that he had not taken an oath for an Article VI “Office or public Trust under the United States,” he proceeded to act as if he was an Article III judicial officer and that he resided within the District of California.  He knew or should have known that he was a territorial officer and did not reside within federal territory in  California .   He could only carry out this deception in an active conspiracy with the  United States Attorney and other conspirators.

 The first act of the First Congress was to create an oath that conformed to the requirements of Article VI of the Constitution, 1 Stat. 23, 24.   Congress enacted a different oath containing a religious test for the Chief Justice, Associate Justices and district judges, 1 Stat. 76, that did not conform to the no religious test requirements of Article VI.  The oath and religious test enacted and imposed on the federal judiciary by Congress clearly set the Justices and judges apart from any Office or public Trust under the  United States .  The federal judicial oath precludes the holding of an Office or public Trust under Article III of the Constitution.  Federal judges must find authority in Article I or Article IV and only Article IV can provide the territory for a Chapter 5 Title 28 U.S.C. judicial district or division.  

Section 134 of Title 28 U.S.C., which is based on Section 1 of the 1940 edition of the United States Code requires all the district judges of State of the Republic to reside within the district to which they have been appointed and provides that it is a high misdemeanor for not doing so.  As the Sixth Amendment requires a district previously ascertained by law and one subject to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Judge Fair had an additional duty to determine the territorial composition of the district before he accepted the appointment of  United States district court judge.   The public is keenly aware of the loss of rights, which are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  The public lost those and more when Judge Fair conspired with others to conceal the fact that Section 84 identified a district comprised entirely of federal territory that is subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress.  

Judge Fair should not be permitted to claim that he merely assumed that the District of California was all of California .  He and the other Central District of California district judges had a duty to identify a district that conforms to law in all respects.  He, especially, had to conform the district to the requirements of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Judge Fair did none of this.  Section 2(b) of the Act of 1948, 62 Stat 985 provided that the Judiciary Act of 1948 would be a continuation of existing law in order to conform that act to statute law.  Since the Judiciary Act of 1789, the judicial districts have consistently been composed of federal territory.  

There can be no other conclusion: Judge Fair is a criminal with respect to §134 and he continues to be a criminal every moment that he fails or refuses to reside within the judicial district to which he was appointed.  He remains a member of a criminal conspiracy  “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the  United States ,” as long as he fails or refuses to disclose the true character of the California Judicial District.   

There is no easy way to correct the injustices caused by Judge Fair, however, they must not be allowed to continue.  Corrections are possible only to the judges now in office.*   Judge Fair had a duty to make his own determination of what parts of the counties comprised the district and he chose to accept assumptions of what the district is rather than determine for himself the district previously ascertained by law.  He must not be allowed to excuse his criminality by claiming that he merely relied on the assumptions made by others.          

In 1789, when the U.S. Supreme Court and district courts were first organized, the concept of “the Territory and other Property belonging to the United States was so important that that Congress was able to create a government around its disposition.  Congress was responsible for vast tracts of land not part of any state and for maritime and admiralty laws in the coastal states.  The requirement that district judges reside within the federal territory that comprised the district to which they had been appointed is found in Section 3 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and appears in Section 1 Title 28 U.S.C. of the 1940 Code.  Congress made the violation of the residency requirement a high misdemeanor, when it enacted Chapter V.An Act concerning the District and Territorial Judges of the United States on  December 18, 1812 , 2 Stat 788.   Today, the residence of a district judge in a federal enclave is practically an impossibility.  To satisfy the § 134 residency requirements, federal district judges would have to reside within national parks as some United States magistrate judges are required, pursuant to § 631 (b) (3) Title 28 U.S.C.   

It is certain that no district court judge anywhere complies with the residence requirement that district judges reside on federal territory located within his or his district.  No federal judges of the District of California can comply with the federal residency laws because there is no suitable residence available within any district or division.  Congress has not repealed the residency requirement, but the House of Representatives and the law revisers have conspired with the federal judiciary and the United States Department of Justice to remove the high misdemeanor penalty editorially.  The past success of the law revisers and other conspirators suggests an established and elaborate congressional policy to concoct legislative protections for district court judges violating federal residency requirements. Removing the penalty from the Code did not repeal the law that established the penalty; judges will still be subject to impeachment.  

The §134 Historical and Revision Note in the current Title 28 U.S.C. claims Congress did not intend that the high misdemeanor penalty apply to the residence requirement.  No support for the alleged Congressional intention is provided, but the assertion is made in the note that the penalty attached to a district judge’s residency at the time of the 1878 compilation of the Revised Statutes.  That assertion is a pure fabrication because section 551 of the Revised Statutes continues the residency requirement within the district and continues the high misdemeanor designation for the crime of failing to  reside within the district.  References to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the  December 18, 1812 act in Sec. 551 in Title XIII. should completely dispose of the reviser’s claim that the high misdemeanor penalty was only meant to attach to the unauthorized practice of law in 1878.  This totally inaccurate claim is continuing evidence of the conspiracy to “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the  United States .”  

Without exception the federal district judges of  California have refused or have otherwise failed to reside on federal territory within the counties of the State that comprise the district.  District judges who have violated and who continue to violate Section 134 cannot possibly administer the business of their court in an effective and expeditious manner.  The  United States district court judge named above has engaged in and is now engaging in conduct that has been a crime since 1812.  What can be more prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts than the totally inaccurate determination of the territorial jurisdiction of the court?  Once aware of his criminal violation of federal law, the district judge must act positively to stop violating the law.

The fact that there is no statutory evidence that any  United States district court in  California has been ordained and established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution is consistent with all that is known about the district courts and judges that predate  California ’s federal courts.  That additional fact makes it conclusive that Judge Fair is a territorial officer who is misusing his authority to extend federal law beyond the jurisdiction of the federal district court to which he was appointed. 

A district court judge’s appointment during good behavior is statutory and it requires continual good behavior.   The failure or refusal to reside within the district to which he was appointed violated the oath of his office and §134.  The business of all the federal district courts is limited to their territorial jurisdiction and the judge named above is criminally liable because he must have been aware of his court’s territorial jurisdiction and he conspired to conceal it.  Federal law makes him criminally liable for the knowledge that his court and jurisdiction is limited to the federal territory within the counties that comprise the district and its divisions.   United States Marshals are providing personal security for  United States district court judges who are in violation of federal residence laws.  Judge Fair may be liable for the costs of such security because it was not provided within the judicial district to a person authorized to receive it.

            Section 545 of Title 28 U.S.C. requires each United States Attorney to reside in the district for which he or she is appointed, except for certain exceptions in the  District of Columbia and the District of New York.  Federal grand and petit jurors must, according to Section 1865 of Title 28 U.S.C., be residents of the judicial district for one full year.  How can a federal district judge determine if a grand or petit juror has resided in the district for a year if he or she is in violation of the same residency requirement?  How can any United States district court judge in active violation of the federal residency requirement participate in the preparation of a written plan for the selection of grand and petit jurors if that judge has been effectively given immunity from prosecution for violation of those same residency requirements by a United States Attorney who is violating the same kind of law?  Such violations of federal law cannot be permitted in any United States district court judge no matter how long his tenure.              

It is a matter of historical fact that Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enacted on September 24th of that year, provided “that the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts,” when two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.  Section 1 of the Act, therefore, created a Supreme Court for theunincorporated territory in the federal territory of the eleven states that had ratified the Constitution and the two federal districts,  Maine and  Kentucky .   Section 2. created the first  United States district courts for the federal territory within the eleven states that had ratified the Constitution up to that time and for the territories of  Maine and  Kentucky .   Maine was territory until it was admitted as the 23rd State of the  Union on  March 15, 1820 .  During the time that the District Court of Maine operated as a territorial district court, Congress declared the violation of the residency requirement to be a high misdemeanor, an impeachable offense.   Kentucky didn’t become the 15th State of the  Union until  June 1, 1792 , so up to its date of admission into the  Union the District of Kentucky was a territory without State sovereignty, incapable of exercising Article III judicial power. 

It is a fact, therefore, that prior to their respective dates of admission to the  Union , the territorial composition of the two federal courts in  Maine and  Kentucky were all federal territory within the two federal States’ exterior boundaries.   The two judicial districts consisted of territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress.  It must follow, therefore, that the U.S. Supreme Court and the other district courts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 were not ordained andestablished pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, because the territory subject to the exclusive legislative power of Congress constituted the territory that comprised the judicial districts of those district courts.

Every judiciary act and judicial code

since the first has confirmed the composition of the districts and divisions to be the federal territory to be found within the state or counties that comprise the districts and divisions.  The Judiciary Act of 1911 uses the date:  July 1, 1910 to reckon the territorial composition of the districts and divisions.  The Judiciary Act of 1948 uses the date:  January 1, 1945 for the same purpose and, of course, to conform the district to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment.  That amendment requires the district to be previously ascertained by law.  The official residence of the judge, jurors,  U.S. Attorney and Marshal must be in federal territory not because of anything in the Bill of Rights, but because law enacted pursuant to the exclusive legislative power of Congress can only be applied on or in  United States territory

Judge Fair is unable to perform a constitutional Article III function because he has sworn a territorial oath and has functioned as a federal territorial judge for about twelve [?] years.  He cannot qualify to be a territorial judge because he cannot reside on any federal territory within the district.  Congress in 1804 impeached John Pickering, the first district judge to be charged and removed from office, to support the erroneous belief that district judges were Article III officers serving during good behavior.  District judges, however, were first entitled by statute to serve during good behavior by the Judiciary Act of 1948 and are subject to “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” only because of that statutory appointment during good behavior.   There is incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy to commit a high misdemeanor and to “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the  United States .”  It is obvious that the  December 18, 1812 residency requirement serves an important purpose evidenced by the still valid high misdemeanor penalty.   The penalty has remained in all the judicial codes since that time until 1946, when the law revisers conspired with the federal judiciary to remove the penalty from the written law.  The true state of congressional intent is its  failure to repeal the penalty for not residing within the district.  It is past time to apply the law that still exists. Impeachment of Judge Fair is necessary simply because there may be no other way to terminate the conspiracy to violate the federal residency laws.

The extension of federal law beyond federal territory by federal territorial officers is causing an unnecessary conflict with the implementation of California’s Compassionate Use Act.   Concerned Californians are filing judicial misconduct complaints against federal district court judges in order to have them removed from their offices.  While the federal judicial misconduct complaint process is being pursued, I ask that you, as an elected official, ask the California State Attorney General for his opinion of the impact of the federal law set out in this sample complaint.

 

  • How about removing the Chemarin's five (5) MILLION dollar retirement fund, the Slush Fund?

 

BY THE WAY, iF you do a FOIA on the judges in that court, you will find that all of them have a Form 61 stating that they are in fact all "Employees of the  United States ."    You can't be an employee and also an "Officer of the  United States " under Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2.   You must have an Office created by law (Congress).  Their purported Civil Commission is in the Dept. of Justice, it should be in the Secretary of State's office under the seal of the  United States , but it is under the seal of the DoJ.

 

 

Richard Nixon, if he were alive today, might take bittersweet satisfaction to know that he was not the last smart president to prolong unjustifiably a senseless, unwinnable war, at great cost in human life. … He would probably also feel vindicated (and envious) that ALL the crimes he committed against me–which forced his resignation facing impeachment–are now legal," – Daniel Ellsberg.

 "The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.''

CAHA v.  U.S. , 152  U.S.  211 (1894)

See the whole decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=152&invol=211

 

When Injustice becomes law, Rebellion becomes duty

Just Click on this link to join or listen to the show, including the archives!!

!!!!The American Reconstruction Project!!!!

Hosted by: Jack Bauer

Saturday's: 6pm to 8pm Pacific, 9pm to 11pm Eastern.

How can you participate????

Call in:
(724) 444-7444
Call ID: 74235#

On your phone keypad:
*6 to mute on *6 again to mute off, Press *8 to raise your hand to ask a question.

NO JUDGES

 

24 Percent of Americans Believe States Have a Right to Secede

June 7th, 2012 by

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/poll-24-percent-americans-believe-states-have-right-secede

By Elizabeth Harrington

Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts

(CNSNews.com) – Nearly one-quarter of Americans believe that states have the right to secede, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports — up 10 percentage points in two years.

The latest poll is just one of many that shows that Americans have “serious and growing concern about the federal government,” according to Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.

According to the phone survey released Sunday, 24 percent of Americans believe that states should be able to withdraw from the United States to form their own country, if they want. Nearly 60 percent (59) of Americans say they don’t believe states have the right to secede, while 16 percent are undecided.

“We do see that people are concerned about the federal government in a variety of ways,” Rasmussen told CNSNews.com. “51 percent believe that it’s a threat to individual liberties.

“It may just be part of a growing frustration with other aspects of the federal government,” he said.

“But I think it’s important to keep it in perspective, growing to 24 percent still means that only one out of four Americans think that states have the right to secede, it’s not that they’re advocating for it,” Rasmussen said.

Though a minority, the number has been growing.  In 2010, when Rasmussen first conducted the poll, only 14 percent of Americans said states had the right to secede.  A year later, the number was up to 21 percent.

The poll, which surveyed 1,000 adults between May 29 and 30, asked, among other questions: “Do individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country?”

Only 10 percent of poll respondents said it was likely a state would attempt to secede in the next 25 years — “a pretty generous time frame,” Rasmussen said.  “So it’s not seen as a very realistic possibility,” he added.

The survey also asked whether the federal government is a protector or a threat to individual rights, to which a majority — 51 percent — said the government presents a danger to liberty.

“[O]nly 34 percent of adults in this country regard the federal government more as a protector of individual rights,” according to the poll.

“More Americans than ever are expressing strong concern that the federal government will run out of money,” according to Rasmussen Reports, whoalso found that 64 percent of Americans are at least somewhat worried that the U.S. government will run out of money.  43 percent are “very worried” that the U.S. government will run out of money, while 31 percent of adults are not worried and 10 percent are “not at all worried.”

The total federal debt currently stands at $15.8 trillion.

Rasmussen told CNSNews.com that recent polling shows that Americans have a “growing frustration” with the federal government.

“What we’re seeing in a whole range of surveys is serious and growing concern about the federal government, about the role of government in American life,” he said.  “Only about one out of five Americans believe the government today has the consent of the governed.  People believe that America’s best days — about half the nation believes — America’s best days have come and gone.”

“Only 16 percent believe that today’s children will be better off than their parents,” he said, “that’s a horrifically low number for America.”

“And then you’ve got individual proposals, [New York City] Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg’s proposal of banning large sugary drinks is supported by 24 percent of Americans, 2 out of 3 oppose it,” Rasmussen added.  “So there’s this frustration that’s been building.”

Top of Form

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS. 

CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fasteasy and secure.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

After all these years of brain washing by Federal involvement in public education, there are few people left in America who really understand the reasons for secession prior to the civil war, or the fact that the same reasons are being repeated today. Googling (Secession) will bring up 782,189 hits, but depending on your prior knowledge of the truth, you may or may not be willing to learn it. Most solid attempts have given up due to the ignorance of the majority, and their unwillingness to fight for their freedom, but some of us remain, and will never accept the slavery imposed on us by the federal government. Most American born citizens are addicted to the federal hand-outs, and desire their ignorance as protection for their so-called benefits.

Americans with the courage to remain free from tyrannical government, are loyal to the original intent of the Constitution, and support free States with their own sovereignty, which is the only way to avoid the accumulation of power over government by the international Bankers who are responsible for all of Americas woes, except for the lack of back-bone in the citizens. Mayer Amschel Rothschild said many years ago, “ Let me issue and control a Nation’s currency, and I care not who make’s it’s laws”, and by God he was right!

 

SECESSION

 

America In Decline The New Paradigm of Lowered Expectations

June 6th, 2012 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/america-in-decline-new-paradigm-of.html

 

Michael Snyder, Contributor
Activist Post

All over America tonight there are people that believe that their lives are over. When you do everything that you know how to do to get a job and you still can't get one it can be absolutely soul crushing. If you have ever been unemployed for an extended period of time you know exactly what I am talking about. When you have been unemployed for month after month it can be very tempting to totally cut yourself off from society. Those that are kind will look at you with pity and those that are cruel will treat you as though you are a total loser.

It doesn't matter that America is in decline and that our economy is not producing nearly enough jobs for everyone anymore. In our society, one of the primary things that defines our lives is what we do for a living. Just think about it. When you are out in a social situation, what is one of the very first things that people ask? They want to know what you "do". Well, if you don't "do" anything, then you are not part of the club. But the worst part of being unemployed for many Americans is the relentless pressure from family and friends. Often they have no idea how hard it is to find a job in this economy – especially if they still have jobs. Sometimes the pressure becomes too great.

Sadly, we are seeing unemployment break up a lot of marriages in America today. Things are really hard out there right now. A very large number of highly educated Americans have taken very low-paying service jobs in recent years just so that they can have some money coming in even as they "look for something else". Unfortunately, in many cases that "something else" never materializes. In the past, America was "the land of opportunity" where anything was possible. But today America has become "the land of lowered expectations" and the worst is yet to come.

We live during a time when "the American Dream" is literally being redefined. In the old days, just about anyone could get a good job that would pay enough to make it possible to buy a house, buy a nice car and raise a family.

Unfortunately, those days are long gone. The following is from a recent NPR article….

The town of Lorain, Ohio, used to embody this dream. It was a place where you could get a good job, raise a family and comfortably retire. 

'Now you can see what it is. Nothing,' says John Beribak. 'The shipyards are gone, the Ford plant is gone, the steel plant is gone.' His voice cracks as he describes the town he's lived in his whole life. 

'I mean, I grew up across the street from the steel plant when there was 15,000 people working there,' he says. 'My dad worked there. I worked there when I got out of the Air Force. It's just sad.'

We live in an economy that is in serious decline. In this environment no job is safe. In fact, even Goldman Sachs is laying off workers these days.

Millions of Americans are suffering from deep depression because they can't find jobs. Many of them are sitting at home right now blankly starting at their television screens as they wonder why nobody wants to hire them. Some have been unemployed for years and have sent out thousands upon thousands of resumes. The following is from a recent article by J.P. Hicks….

I have a brilliant cousin with a $180K Syracuse education working part-time at a department store. She has literally sent out 38,000 resumes in the span of a year to no avail. I have another very bright friend with the kindest heart who is so desperate he has applied for dishwashing jobs and didn’t get them, sending him deeper into depression. I’m sure we all know people like this, or perhaps have even been there ourselves. 

Society has trained us to believe that we are worthless without a job. Indeed, we feel worthless when we are unemployed with few prospects of making money. Family, friends, and peers constantly remind us in subtle and not-so-subtle ways that we 'need' a job.

Have you ever been unemployed?

How did it make you feel?

How were you treated by your family and friends?

In the old days, a college education was almost a guaranteed ticket to the middle class.

But these days, a college education guarantees you absolutely nothing.

As a recent article by Jed Graham detailed, most young unemployed workers in America today have at least some college education….

For the first time in history, the number of jobless workers age 25 and up who have attended some college now exceeds the ranks of those who settled for a high school diploma or less. 

Out of 9 million unemployed in April, 4.7 million had gone to college or graduated and 4.3 million had not, seasonally adjusted Labor Department data show.

Overall, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor's degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed last year.

It is tough to tell young college graduates with their whole lives ahead of them that they need to lower their expectations because America is in decline.

So where did all the jobs go?

Well, one place they went is overseas. Over the past couple of decades, millions upon millions of good jobs have left the United States and have gone over to the other side of the world.

That is why you see gleaming new factories going up all over China even while our once great manufacturing cities are turning intocrime-infested warzones.

But as a recent WND article reported, the WTO has a solution. They plan to replace "Made in China" labels with "Made in the World" labels so that we don't feel so bad about losing our jobs and our economic infrastructure…

The World Trade Organization is moving closer to eliminating country-of-origin labels and replacing them with 'Made in the World' initiative labels because they say we need to 'reduce public opposition to free trade' and 're-engineer global governance.'

As the number of middle-class jobs has steadily declined in recent years, the number of low paying service jobs has increased.

In a previous article, I discussed how approximately one out of every four U.S. workers now makes $10 an hour or less.

Could your family survive on 10 dollars an hour?

Today, you can find hordes of very smart, very talented Americans flipping burgers, waiting tables and welcoming people to Wal-Mart.

Sadly, the United States now has a higher percentage of workers doing low wage work than any other major industrialized nation does.

Perhaps we should applaud our leaders for doing such a great job of destroying the American Dream.

Because so many Americans are working crappy jobs, a very large percentage of them have absolutely no savings to speak of.

According to one survey, 42 percent of all American workers live paycheck to paycheck.

I am constantly encouraging people to save up an "emergency fund" that will enable them to pay their bills for at least 6 months if they suddenly become unemployed.

Unfortunately, for many Americans that is simply not possible. Way too many families are just barely scraping by from month to month.

Another area of the economy where Americans are facing lowered expectations is in housing.

In the old days, most Americans dreamed of owning their own homes.

But today we are being told that things have changed. For example, a recent USA Today article was entitled "Home rentals — the new American Dream?"….

Steve and Jodi Jacobson bought their Phoenix-area 'dream home' in 2005. They built flagstone steps to the front door. They tiled the kitchen and bathroom. They entertained often, enjoying their mountain views. 

'We put our soul into that house,' says Steve Jacobson, 37. 

Then, home prices tanked more than 50%. Steve, a software quality assurance engineer, suffered pay cuts. In 2010, foreclosure claimed the home and their $100,000 down payment. 

The Jacobsons didn't lose their desire to live in a single-family home, however. They now rent one, like many other former homeowners displaced by foreclosure.

Is that what we are supposed to tell future generations of Americans?

"Listen Johnny and Suzie, if you work really, really hard at your minimum wage jobs perhaps someday you will be able to rent a home that has been foreclosed by a big, greedy bank".

It is so sad to watch what is happening to this country.

These days many Americans are scratching and clawing and doing everything that they can to make it, but they still find themselves short on money at the end of the month.

Many are turning to debt in an attempt to bridge the gap. According to CNN, 40 percent of "low- and middle-income households" are using credit cards to pay for basic living expenses.

Overall, U.S. consumers have more than 11 trillion dollars in debt right now.

That is an incredible number.

As the economy has declined, a lot of families have completely given up trying to make it on their own and have turned to the U.S. government for financial help. Today, an astounding 49.1 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives government benefits.

Just think about that number for a while. It is one of the clearest signs that America is in deep, deep decline.

Unfortunately, things are about to get even worse. The next wave of the financial crisis is unfolding in Europe and we will all be talking about another "major global recession" very soon.

That means that unemployment in the United States is going to get a lot worse.

For the millions upon millions of Americans that are already suffering through the horror of unemployment, that is really bad news.

 

ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

 

NWO SYSTEM FAILURE BILDERBERG !

June 5th, 2012 by

Interesting – this guy (listed below as a Bilderberg member) was on O’Reilly tonight: USA Goolsbee, Austan D. Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business

“Power is a curious thing… It’s a trick. A shadow on the wall"

This year the meetings in Chantilly runs through June 4.
Most of the group’s meetings are in Europe.

Wouldn't it be satisfying if the energy being put in to help sort out our misdirected world could turn things around?
It would be comforting to think so but realistically the banks, corporate media and other transnational corporations, the merger maniacal 'dark side', are extending their monopolistic control.

The modern transnational corporation is an immortal, soulless collusion of greed that reduces everything it touches to a dollar value. In law a corporation is a person, able to own property and resources just as a person can only, it
seems, not responsible for the deaths it causes. The present 'War on Terror' is a fraudulent attempt to create a new Moslem enemy, much like the attack on the Jew's in the 1930's. Nato and many Western Military masters are following the same tactics as Hitler's Nazis.

Said David Rockefeller, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for many years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Council on Foreign Relations
published and released today 6/2/12
Clinton's Remarks with Danish Foreign Minister Sovndal, May 2012
Clinton's Remarks at the Global Health Summit, June 2012
Why Iran Talks Will Continue
The State of the World’s Refugees: From Indifference to Solidarity (Video)
The State of the World’s Refugees: From Indifference to Solidarity (Audio)
Advancing Human Rights in the UN System
Clinton's Remarks at the Green Partnership for Growth Launch, May 2012
Ambassador Rice's Remarks on Syria, May 2012
http://www.cfr.org/

THE WEST’S SECRET POWER GROUP
In this world exclusive (by Robert Eringer), VERDICT reveals for the first time the activities of this
secret group and the names of the powerful men behind it. “The world is governed by very different
personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Those words were written
by Benjamin Disraeli, empire-building Prime Minister of Great Britain, over a hundred years ago.
http://recolumns.blogspot.com/2010/10/wests-secret-power-group.html

Bilderberg: The Secret Society that Rules Us
Bilderberg, named after the Dutch hotel where members first met in 1954, brings together some of the most influential figures on Earth. More than 120 top-level officials in government, banking, media, finance, business, think-tanks, armed forces, and even European royalty attend the confab every year. According to James P. Tucker, Jr., of American Free Press, Bilderberg is the most exclusive and secretive club in the world. To be admitted, you have to own a multinational bank, a multinational corporation or a country. The Bilderbergers have often been called “the shadow government”, the scene behind the scene. The “inner circle”, or the Advisory Group, includes Giovanni Agnelli of Italy, Eric Roll of Ipsden from Great Britain, David Rockefeller of the USA and Otto Wolff von Amerongen of Germany.
http://subversify.com/2011/06/17/bilderberg-the-secret-society-that-rules-us/

Must see biblically based site
Tony Gosling website editor
http://www.bilderberg.org/tonyhom.htm
http://www.bilderberg.org/bilder.htm

Freemasons: The silent destroyers
– deist religious cult based on the Knights Templar …
http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm

Must read page
The New World Order (NWO) An Overview
In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the Illuminati agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows: "A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population. […]
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that
look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 9:28 KJV

Bilderberg Live Stream !
http://www.ustream.tv/embed/6106473

Also here …
http://12160.info/group/occup-bilderberg-2012?xg_source=msg_mes_network

http://OccupyBilderberg.org/

Must read post …
See who's busting Bilderberg wide open
Over 1,000 protesters, pair of news hounds show up to expose truth

CHANTILLY, Va. – An intense and amplified police presence outside the Westfields Marriott Convention Center greeted the more than 1,000 protestors of the Bilderberg Conference on Day 3 of the secret conclave that gathers global leaders of finance and government. On a related note, Wired.com reported that the Pentagon pulled out of working on “The Avengers” film, because they couldn’t ascertain who the fictional, multinational peace-keeping organization answered to. “We couldn’t reconcile the unreality of this international organization and our place in it,” Phil Strub, the Defense Department’s Hollywood liaison, told Wired.com. “To whom did S.H.I.E.L.D. answer?
Did we work for S.H.I.E.L.D.? We hit that roadblock and decided we couldn’t do anything [with the film].”

“That is the ultimate goal of Bilderberg, the end of American sovereignty and the implementation of a globalist elite that controls every aspect of your life,” said Jones, who despite being drenched in sweat, seemed to be gaining
energy as the protests went on.

7 minute WND interview of Alex Jones …
WNDTV catches up with Alex Jones of Infowars on Day 3 of the Bilderberger Conference protests.
Bilderberg 2012 — Alex Jones interview with WND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZLbdv1uQ0w

Daniel Estulin, author of “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” contends the idea behind each and every Bilderberg meeting “is to create what they themselves call the aristocracy of purpose between European and
North American elites on the best way to manage the planet.” “In other words,” Estulin told WND in an email exchange in which he answered questions, “the creation of a global network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity.”

Four years ago there were rumors that Barack Obama had been picked as the Democratic presidential nominee. Two days after the event, Hillary Clinton bowed out. […]
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/see-whos-busting-bilderberg-wide-open/

The Intel Hub will be providing LIVE updates and streaming video footage on our U-Stream channel, as well as uploading content fresh to YouTube and providing real-time updates on theintelhub.com’s main page and the Bilderberg 2012 page.

Here are some of The Intel Hub’s official links:

Our Official Website: http://www.theintelhub.com

Our Official Bilderberg 2012 Page: http://theintelhub.com/bilderberg-2012/

Our Official U-Stream Channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/11088505

Our Official YouTube Channel:http://www.youtube.com/user/NotForSale2NWO

Our Official Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/IntelHub

Shepard’s Official Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/notforsale2nwo

Bilderberg 2012: Itinerary and Radio Appearances (Updated)
http://theintelhub.com/2012/05/26/bilderberg-2012-itinerary-and-radio-appearances/

Exclusive Photos: Bilderberg Attendees Revealed
http://theintelhub.com/2012/06/01/exclusive-photos-bilderberg-attendees-revealed/

Bilderberg 2012 Official Participant List
http://theintelhub.com/2012/05/31/bilderberg-2012-official-participant-list/

Note: If you are a broadcaster or radio host and would like an appearance or live updates by one of our crew on your show please contact us.

* This has all been made possible by reader donations and our sponsors. PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS!

As you may already know we will be covering the Bilderberg meeting and protests in Chantilly Virginia (Westfields Marriott) Between Thursday, May 31st and Sunday June 2nd.

The Intel Hub will be providing LIVE updates and streaming video footage on our U-Stream channel, as well as uploading
content fresh to YouTube and providing real-time updates on theintelhub.com’s main page and the Bilderberg 2012 page.

We have our own battle plan for providing you the best coverage throughout the entire meeting, protests, and events.
Shepard Ambellas (the Founder & director of The Intel Hub and former Host of The Official Intel Hub Radio Show) & Jason (The Infowarrior) Bermas will be conducting live TV and radio interviews on location as well as appearing on nationally syndicated and internet radio shows including but not limited to appearances on (listed in order by times scheduled);

Dangerous Conversation (With Scotty “Ledge” Ledger – May 30th (8 pm)
The Power Hour (Hosted by Joyce Riley) – May 31 (7:30 am EST), June 4
The Jack Blood Show – (Hosted by Jack Blood) – May 31, June 1 (10 am EST)
The Truther Girls – (Hosted by Sonia & Natasha) – May 31 (2 pm EST)
X-Squared Radio – (Hosted by Brooks Agnew) – May 31
The Bob Tuskin Radio Show – May 31 (8 pm EST), June 1 (8:30 pm EST)
Ground Zero Radio – (Hosted by Clyde Lewis) – May 31, June 1
Rense Radio – (Hosted by Jeff Rense) – May 31
Blacklisted Radio – (Hosted By Doug Owen) – June 1 (7 pm EST)
Collision Course – (Hosted by Francis Walsh) – June 1 (8 pm EST)
Truth Frequency Radio – (Hosted by Chris Geo & Shree) – June 1 (9 pm EST)
Down the Rabbit Hole – (Hosted by Popeye) – June 1 (10 pm EST)

*More shows and times will be announced soon

Bob Tuskin and Alex Thomas will also be doing LIVE radio and UStream appearances through the duration of the event.

***Live UStream Feed Showtimes & Dates***

We will be providing live streaming coverage on our Official Ustream Channel
also found at the Bilderberg 2012 tab at the top of the main page on theintelhub.com

Wednesday May 30:
1 – 3 pm EST
7 – 8 pm EST

Thursday May 31:
1 – 3 pm EST
7 – 8 pm EST

Friday June 1:
1 – 3 pm EST
7 – 8 pm EST

Saturday June 2:
10 – 11 am EST

Alex Jones and the Infowars Crew have done a tremendous job of promoting the protests that will take place in Chantilly at this years meeting. A special thanks goes out to the Infowars Crew for working so hard to expose the globalist criminals and eventually bring this issue into the mainstream.

The following itinerary was released by infowars.com;

Bilderberg 2012 is set to be the scene of the biggest ever protest against the secretive organization.
Listed below are the details and meet-up times for what promises to be a momentous occasion.

Thursday May 31st (1 pm): Everybody to mass near the main entrance to the hotel. This is the key arrival time for Bilderberg members.

Friday June 1st (1pm): The first major bullhorning and protest of Bilderberg will take place at this time.

Saturday June 2nd (10am) and (6pm to dark): Saturday will see two main rallies, one in the morning and one in the evening until nightfall. Since this is the rally likely to be accessible to most people, please attend this one if you cannot make it to any of the others.

Sunday June 3rd (8am – 1pm): We expect most Bilderberg members to leave on Sunday morning. Please be in place nice and early to give them a good send off!

Bilderberg 2012 is going to be historic in terms of a record number of people who have ever protested against Bilderberg. We will force the media to cover the significance of the secretive cabal like never before.

This is about protesting the real power elites, not their puppets. Please obey all laws but be vocal and bring your own banners. Also be sure to bring provisions such as food and water.

Bilderberg 2012 is shaping up to be something the global elite will never forget. This protest really could demolish the secrecy that Bilderberg so desperately craves and crush the group’s to operate behind closed doors without any significant media spotlight.

Photos taken at the Westfield Marriott in Chantilly Virginia
attendees arriving at the Bilderberg (Palm Tree) Conference
Photos © theintelhub.com

Bilderberg Meeting
Chantilly, Virginia, US
May 31 – June 3, 2012

Final List of Participants

Chairman
FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group
DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
GBR Agius, Marcus Chairman, Barclays plc
USA Ajami, Fouad Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
USA Alexander, Keith B. Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency
INT Almunia, Joaquín Vice-President – Commissioner for Competition, European Commission
USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners
PRT Amado, Luís Chairman, Banco Internacional do Funchal (BANIF)
NOR Andresen, Johan H. Owner and CEO, FERD
FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
TUR Babacan, Ali Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto President and CEO, Impresa; Former Prime Minister
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
FRA Béchu, Christophe Senator, and Chairman, General Council of Maine-et-Loire
BEL Belgium, H.R.H. Prince Philippe of
TUR Berberoðlu, Enis Editor-in-Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper
ITA Bernabè, Franco Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia
GBR Boles, Nick Member of Parliament
SWE Bonnier, Jonas President and CEO, Bonnier AB
NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt
SWE Carlsson, Gunilla Minister for International Development Cooperation
CAN Carney, Mark J. Governor, Bank of Canada
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA; Chairman, El País
AUT Cernko, Willibald CEO, UniCredit Bank Austria AG
FRA Chalendar, Pierre André de Chairman and CEO, Saint-Gobain
DNK Christiansen, Jeppe CEO, Maj Invest
RUS Chubais, Anatoly B. CEO, OJSC RUSNANO
CAN Clark, W. Edmund Group President and CEO, TD Bank Group
GBR Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Justice
USA Collins, Timothy C. CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
ITA Conti, Fulvio CEO and General Manager, Enel S.p.A.
USA Daniels, Jr., Mitchell E. Governor of Indiana
USA DeMuth, Christopher Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
USA Donilon, Thomas E. National Security Advisor, The White House

GBR Dudley, Robert Group Chief Executive, BP plc
ITA Elkann, John Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus
USA Evans, J. Michael Vice Chairman, Global Head of Growth Markets, Goldman Sachs & Co.
AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S
USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University
GBR Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
CHN Fu, Ying Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
IRL Gallagher, Paul Former Attorney General; Senior Counsel
USA Gephardt, Richard A. President and CEO, Gephardt Group
GRC Giannitsis, Anastasios Former Minister of Interior; Professor of Development and International Economics, University of Athens
USA Goolsbee, Austan D. Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
ITA Gruber, Lilli Journalist – Anchorwoman, La 7 TV
INT Gucht, Karel de Commissioner for Trade, European Commission
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
USA Harris, Britt CIO, Teacher Retirement System of Texas
USA Hoffman, Reid Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn

CHN Huang, Yiping Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University
USA Huntsman, Jr., Jon M. Chairman, Huntsman Cancer Foundation
DEU Ischinger, Wolfgang Chairman, Munich Security Conference; Global Head Government Relations, Allianz SE
RUS Ivanov, Igor S. Associate member, Russian Academy of Science; President, Russian International Affairs Council
FRA Izraelewicz, Erik CEO, Le Monde
USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard
USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard
USA Karp, Alexander CEO, Palantir Technologies
USA Karsner, Alexander Executive Chairman, Manifest Energy, Inc

FRA Karvar, Anousheh Inspector, Inter-ministerial Audit and Evaluation Office for Social, Health, Employment and Labor Policies
RUS Kasparov, Garry Chairman, United Civil Front (of Russia)
GBR Kerr, John Independent Member, House of Lords
USA Kerry, John Senator for Massachusetts
TUR Keyman, E. Fuat Director, Istanbul Policy Center and Professor of International Relations, Sabanci University
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa Chairman, Koç Holding A.Þ.
DEU Koch, Roland CEO, Bilfinger Berger SE
INT Kodmani, Bassma Member of the Executive Bureau and Head of Foreign Affairs, Syrian National Council
USA Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
INT Kroes, Neelie Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
USA Krupp, Fred President, Environmental Defense Fund
INT Lamy, Pascal Director-General, World Trade Organization
ITA Letta, Enrico Deputy Leader, Democratic Party (PD)
ISR Levite, Ariel E. Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
USA Li, Cheng Director of Research and Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
USA Lipsky, John Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University
USA Liveris, Andrew N. President, Chairman and CEO, The Dow Chemical
Company
DEU Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG
USA Lynn, William J. Chairman and CEO, DRS Technologies, Inc.
GBR Mandelson, Peter Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
DEN Mchangama, Jacob Director of Legal Affairs, Center for Political Studies (CEPOS)
CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Group
USA Mehlman, Kenneth B. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
PRT Moreira da Silva, Jorge First Vice-President, Partido Social Democrata (PSD)
USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
DEU Nass, Matthias Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit
NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the
ESP Nin Génova, Juan María Deputy Chairman and CEO, Caixabank
IRL Noonan, Michael Minister for Finance
USA Noonan, Peggy Author, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc
USA Orszag, Peter R. Vice Chairman, Citigroup
GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitri Managing Director, Titan Cement Co.
NLD Pechtold, Alexander Parliamentary Leader, Democrats ’66 (D66)
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
NLD Polman, Paul CEO, Unilever PLC
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP
ISR Rabinovich, Itamar Global Distinguished Professor, New York University
GBR Rachman, Gideon Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Rattner, Steven Chairman, Willett Advisors LLC
CAN Redford, Alison M. Premier of Alberta
CAN Reisman, Heather M. CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
DEU Reitzle, Wolfgang CEO & President, Linde AG
USA Rogoff, Kenneth S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University
USA Rose, Charlie Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
USA Ross, Dennis B. Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

POL Rostowski, Jacek Minister of Finance
USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
NLD Rutte, Mark Prime Minister
ESP Sáenz de Santamaría Antón, Soraya Vice President and Minister for the Presidency
NLD Scheffer, Paul Professor of European Studies, Tilburg University
USA Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
FRA Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group
USA Shambaugh, David Director, China Policy Program, George Washington University
INT Sheeran, Josette Vice Chairman, World Economic Forum
FIN Siilasmaa, Risto Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nokia Corporation
USA Speyer, Jerry I. Chairman and Co-CEO, Tishman Speyer
CHE Supino, Pietro Chairman and Publisher, Tamedia AG
IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital / Thiel Capital
TUR Timuray, Serpil CEO, Vodafone Turkey
DEU Trittin, Jürgen Parliamentary Leader, Alliance 90/The Greens
GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy
FIN Urpilainen, Jutta Minister of Finance
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman, Novartis AG
INT Vimont, Pierre Executive Secretary General, European External Action Service
GBR Voser, Peter CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Warsh, Kevin Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
GBR Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company
CAN Wright, Nigel S. Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
USA Yergin, Daniel Chairman, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group

Rapporteurs
GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist
GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. Foreign Correspondent, The EconomistInteresting – this guy (listed below as a Bilderberg member) was on O’Reilly tonight: USA Goolsbee, Austan D. Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business

“Power is a curious thing… It’s a trick. A shadow on the wall"

This year the meetings in Chantilly runs through June 4.
Most of the group’s meetings are in Europe.

Wouldn't it be satisfying if the energy being put in to help sort out our misdirected world could turn things around?
It would be comforting to think so but realistically the banks, corporate media and other transnational corporations, the merger maniacal 'dark side', are extending their monopolistic control.

The modern transnational corporation is an immortal, soulless collusion of greed that reduces everything it touches to a dollar value. In law a corporation is a person, able to own property and resources just as a person can only, it
seems, not responsible for the deaths it causes. The present 'War on Terror' is a fraudulent attempt to create a new Moslem enemy, much like the attack on the Jew's in the 1930's. Nato and many Western Military masters are following the same tactics as Hitler's Nazis.

Said David Rockefeller, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for many years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Council on Foreign Relations
published and released today 6/2/12
Clinton's Remarks with Danish Foreign Minister Sovndal, May 2012
Clinton's Remarks at the Global Health Summit, June 2012
Why Iran Talks Will Continue
The State of the World’s Refugees: From Indifference to Solidarity (Video)
The State of the World’s Refugees: From Indifference to Solidarity (Audio)
Advancing Human Rights in the UN System
Clinton's Remarks at the Green Partnership for Growth Launch, May 2012
Ambassador Rice's Remarks on Syria, May 2012
http://www.cfr.org/

THE WEST’S SECRET POWER GROUP
In this world exclusive (by Robert Eringer), VERDICT reveals for the first time the activities of this
secret group and the names of the powerful men behind it. “The world is governed by very different
personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Those words were written
by Benjamin Disraeli, empire-building Prime Minister of Great Britain, over a hundred years ago.
http://recolumns.blogspot.com/2010/10/wests-secret-power-group.html

Bilderberg: The Secret Society that Rules Us
Bilderberg, named after the Dutch hotel where members first met in 1954, brings together some of the most influential figures on Earth. More than 120 top-level officials in government, banking, media, finance, business, think-tanks, armed forces, and even European royalty attend the confab every year. According to James P. Tucker, Jr., of American Free Press, Bilderberg is the most exclusive and secretive club in the world. To be admitted, you have to own a multinational bank, a multinational corporation or a country. The Bilderbergers have often been called “the shadow government”, the scene behind the scene. The “inner circle”, or the Advisory Group, includes Giovanni Agnelli of Italy, Eric Roll of Ipsden from Great Britain, David Rockefeller of the USA and Otto Wolff von Amerongen of Germany.
http://subversify.com/2011/06/17/bilderberg-the-secret-society-that-rules-us/

Must see biblically based site
Tony Gosling website editor
http://www.bilderberg.org/tonyhom.htm
http://www.bilderberg.org/bilder.htm

Freemasons: The silent destroyers
– deist religious cult based on the Knights Templar …
http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm

Must read page
The New World Order (NWO) An Overview
In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the Illuminati agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows: "A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population. […]
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that
look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 9:28 KJV

Bilderberg Live Stream !
http://www.ustream.tv/embed/6106473

Also here …
http://12160.info/group/occup-bilderberg-2012?xg_source=msg_mes_network

http://OccupyBilderberg.org/

Must read post …
See who's busting Bilderberg wide open
Over 1,000 protesters, pair of news hounds show up to expose truth

CHANTILLY, Va. – An intense and amplified police presence outside the Westfields Marriott Convention Center greeted the more than 1,000 protestors of the Bilderberg Conference on Day 3 of the secret conclave that gathers global leaders of finance and government. On a related note, Wired.com reported that the Pentagon pulled out of working on “The Avengers” film, because they couldn’t ascertain who the fictional, multinational peace-keeping organization answered to. “We couldn’t reconcile the unreality of this international organization and our place in it,” Phil Strub, the Defense Department’s Hollywood liaison, told Wired.com. “To whom did S.H.I.E.L.D. answer?
Did we work for S.H.I.E.L.D.? We hit that roadblock and decided we couldn’t do anything [with the film].”

“That is the ultimate goal of Bilderberg, the end of American sovereignty and the implementation of a globalist elite that controls every aspect of your life,” said Jones, who despite being drenched in sweat, seemed to be gaining
energy as the protests went on.

7 minute WND interview of Alex Jones …
WNDTV catches up with Alex Jones of Infowars on Day 3 of the Bilderberger Conference protests.
Bilderberg 2012 — Alex Jones interview with WND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZLbdv1uQ0w

Daniel Estulin, author of “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” contends the idea behind each and every Bilderberg meeting “is to create what they themselves call the aristocracy of purpose between European and
North American elites on the best way to manage the planet.” “In other words,” Estulin told WND in an email exchange in which he answered questions, “the creation of a global network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity.”

Four years ago there were rumors that Barack Obama had been picked as the Democratic presidential nominee. Two days after the event, Hillary Clinton bowed out. […]
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/see-whos-busting-bilderberg-wide-open/

The Intel Hub will be providing LIVE updates and streaming video footage on our U-Stream channel, as well as uploading content fresh to YouTube and providing real-time updates on theintelhub.com’s main page and the Bilderberg 2012 page.

Here are some of The Intel Hub’s official links:

Our Official Website: http://www.theintelhub.com

Our Official Bilderberg 2012 Page: http://theintelhub.com/bilderberg-2012/

Our Official U-Stream Channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/11088505

Our Official YouTube Channel:http://www.youtube.com/user/NotForSale2NWO

Our Official Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/IntelHub

Shepard’s Official Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/notforsale2nwo

Bilderberg 2012: Itinerary and Radio Appearances (Updated)
http://theintelhub.com/2012/05/26/bilderberg-2012-itinerary-and-radio-appearances/

Exclusive Photos: Bilderberg Attendees Revealed
http://theintelhub.com/2012/06/01/exclusive-photos-bilderberg-attendees-revealed/

Bilderberg 2012 Official Participant List
http://theintelhub.com/2012/05/31/bilderberg-2012-official-participant-list/

Note: If you are a broadcaster or radio host and would like an appearance or live updates by one of our crew on your show please contact us.

* This has all been made possible by reader donations and our sponsors. PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS!

As you may already know we will be covering the Bilderberg meeting and protests in Chantilly Virginia (Westfields Marriott) Between Thursday, May 31st and Sunday June 2nd.

The Intel Hub will be providing LIVE updates and streaming video footage on our U-Stream channel, as well as uploading
content fresh to YouTube and providing real-time updates on theintelhub.com’s main page and the Bilderberg 2012 page.

We have our own battle plan for providing you the best coverage throughout the entire meeting, protests, and events.
Shepard Ambellas (the Founder & director of The Intel Hub and former Host of The Official Intel Hub Radio Show) & Jason (The Infowarrior) Bermas will be conducting live TV and radio interviews on location as well as appearing on nationally syndicated and internet radio shows including but not limited to appearances on (listed in order by times scheduled);

Dangerous Conversation (With Scotty “Ledge” Ledger – May 30th (8 pm)
The Power Hour (Hosted by Joyce Riley) – May 31 (7:30 am EST), June 4
The Jack Blood Show – (Hosted by Jack Blood) – May 31, June 1 (10 am EST)
The Truther Girls – (Hosted by Sonia & Natasha) – May 31 (2 pm EST)
X-Squared Radio – (Hosted by Brooks Agnew) – May 31
The Bob Tuskin Radio Show – May 31 (8 pm EST), June 1 (8:30 pm EST)
Ground Zero Radio – (Hosted by Clyde Lewis) – May 31, June 1
Rense Radio – (Hosted by Jeff Rense) – May 31
Blacklisted Radio – (Hosted By Doug Owen) – June 1 (7 pm EST)
Collision Course – (Hosted by Francis Walsh) – June 1 (8 pm EST)
Truth Frequency Radio – (Hosted by Chris Geo & Shree) – June 1 (9 pm EST)
Down the Rabbit Hole – (Hosted by Popeye) – June 1 (10 pm EST)

*More shows and times will be announced soon

Bob Tuskin and Alex Thomas will also be doing LIVE radio and UStream appearances through the duration of the event.

***Live UStream Feed Showtimes & Dates***

We will be providing live streaming coverage on our Official Ustream Channel
also found at the Bilderberg 2012 tab at the top of the main page on theintelhub.com

Wednesday May 30:
1 – 3 pm EST
7 – 8 pm EST

Thursday May 31:
1 – 3 pm EST
7 – 8 pm EST

Friday June 1:
1 – 3 pm EST
7 – 8 pm EST

Saturday June 2:
10 – 11 am EST

Alex Jones and the Infowars Crew have done a tremendous job of promoting the protests that will take place in Chantilly at this years meeting. A special thanks goes out to the Infowars Crew for working so hard to expose the globalist criminals and eventually bring this issue into the mainstream.

The following itinerary was released by infowars.com;

Bilderberg 2012 is set to be the scene of the biggest ever protest against the secretive organization.
Listed below are the details and meet-up times for what promises to be a momentous occasion.

Thursday May 31st (1 pm): Everybody to mass near the main entrance to the hotel. This is the key arrival time for Bilderberg members.

Friday June 1st (1pm): The first major bullhorning and protest of Bilderberg will take place at this time.

Saturday June 2nd (10am) and (6pm to dark): Saturday will see two main rallies, one in the morning and one in the evening until nightfall. Since this is the rally likely to be accessible to most people, please attend this one if you cannot make it to any of the others.

Sunday June 3rd (8am – 1pm): We expect most Bilderberg members to leave on Sunday morning. Please be in place nice and early to give them a good send off!

Bilderberg 2012 is going to be historic in terms of a record number of people who have ever protested against Bilderberg. We will force the media to cover the significance of the secretive cabal like never before.

This is about protesting the real power elites, not their puppets. Please obey all laws but be vocal and bring your own banners. Also be sure to bring provisions such as food and water.

Bilderberg 2012 is shaping up to be something the global elite will never forget. This protest really could demolish the secrecy that Bilderberg so desperately craves and crush the group’s to operate behind closed doors without any significant media spotlight.

Photos taken at the Westfield Marriott in Chantilly Virginia
attendees arriving at the Bilderberg (Palm Tree) Conference
Photos © theintelhub.com

Bilderberg Meeting
Chantilly, Virginia, US
May 31 – June 3, 2012

Final List of Participants

Chairman
FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group
DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
GBR Agius, Marcus Chairman, Barclays plc
USA Ajami, Fouad Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
USA Alexander, Keith B. Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency
INT Almunia, Joaquín Vice-President – Commissioner for Competition, European Commission
USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners
PRT Amado, Luís Chairman, Banco Internacional do Funchal (BANIF)
NOR Andresen, Johan H. Owner and CEO, FERD
FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
TUR Babacan, Ali Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto President and CEO, Impresa; Former Prime Minister
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
FRA Béchu, Christophe Senator, and Chairman, General Council of Maine-et-Loire
BEL Belgium, H.R.H. Prince Philippe of
TUR Berberoðlu, Enis Editor-in-Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper
ITA Bernabè, Franco Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia
GBR Boles, Nick Member of Parliament
SWE Bonnier, Jonas President and CEO, Bonnier AB
NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt
SWE Carlsson, Gunilla Minister for International Development Cooperation
CAN Carney, Mark J. Governor, Bank of Canada
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA; Chairman, El País
AUT Cernko, Willibald CEO, UniCredit Bank Austria AG
FRA Chalendar, Pierre André de Chairman and CEO, Saint-Gobain
DNK Christiansen, Jeppe CEO, Maj Invest
RUS Chubais, Anatoly B. CEO, OJSC RUSNANO
CAN Clark, W. Edmund Group President and CEO, TD Bank Group
GBR Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Justice
USA Collins, Timothy C. CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
ITA Conti, Fulvio CEO and General Manager, Enel S.p.A.
USA Daniels, Jr., Mitchell E. Governor of Indiana
USA DeMuth, Christopher Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
USA Donilon, Thomas E. National Security Advisor, The White House

GBR Dudley, Robert Group Chief Executive, BP plc
ITA Elkann, John Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus
USA Evans, J. Michael Vice Chairman, Global Head of Growth Markets, Goldman Sachs & Co.
AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S
USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University
GBR Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
CHN Fu, Ying Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
IRL Gallagher, Paul Former Attorney General; Senior Counsel
USA Gephardt, Richard A. President and CEO, Gephardt Group
GRC Giannitsis, Anastasios Former Minister of Interior; Professor of Development and International Economics, University of Athens
USA Goolsbee, Austan D. Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
ITA Gruber, Lilli Journalist – Anchorwoman, La 7 TV
INT Gucht, Karel de Commissioner for Trade, European Commission
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
USA Harris, Britt CIO, Teacher Retirement System of Texas
USA Hoffman, Reid Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn

CHN Huang, Yiping Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University
USA Huntsman, Jr., Jon M. Chairman, Huntsman Cancer Foundation
DEU Ischinger, Wolfgang Chairman, Munich Security Conference; Global Head Government Relations, Allianz SE
RUS Ivanov, Igor S. Associate member, Russian Academy of Science; President, Russian International Affairs Council
FRA Izraelewicz, Erik CEO, Le Monde
USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard
USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard
USA Karp, Alexander CEO, Palantir Technologies
USA Karsner, Alexander Executive Chairman, Manifest Energy, Inc

FRA Karvar, Anousheh Inspector, Inter-ministerial Audit and Evaluation Office for Social, Health, Employment and Labor Policies
RUS Kasparov, Garry Chairman, United Civil Front (of Russia)
GBR Kerr, John Independent Member, House of Lords
USA Kerry, John Senator for Massachusetts
TUR Keyman, E. Fuat Director, Istanbul Policy Center and Professor of International Relations, Sabanci University
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa Chairman, Koç Holding A.Þ.
DEU Koch, Roland CEO, Bilfinger Berger SE
INT Kodmani, Bassma Member of the Executive Bureau and Head of Foreign Affairs, Syrian National Council
USA Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
INT Kroes, Neelie Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
USA Krupp, Fred President, Environmental Defense Fund
INT Lamy, Pascal Director-General, World Trade Organization
ITA Letta, Enrico Deputy Leader, Democratic Party (PD)
ISR Levite, Ariel E. Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
USA Li, Cheng Director of Research and Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
USA Lipsky, John Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University
USA Liveris, Andrew N. President, Chairman and CEO, The Dow Chemical
Company
DEU Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG
USA Lynn, William J. Chairman and CEO, DRS Technologies, Inc.
GBR Mandelson, Peter Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
DEN Mchangama, Jacob Director of Legal Affairs, Center for Political Studies (CEPOS)
CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Group
USA Mehlman, Kenneth B. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
PRT Moreira da Silva, Jorge First Vice-President, Partido Social Democrata (PSD)
USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
DEU Nass, Matthias Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit
NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the
ESP Nin Génova, Juan María Deputy Chairman and CEO, Caixabank
IRL Noonan, Michael Minister for Finance
USA Noonan, Peggy Author, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc
USA Orszag, Peter R. Vice Chairman, Citigroup
GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitri Managing Director, Titan Cement Co.
NLD Pechtold, Alexander Parliamentary Leader, Democrats ’66 (D66)
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
NLD Polman, Paul CEO, Unilever PLC
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP
ISR Rabinovich, Itamar Global Distinguished Professor, New York University
GBR Rachman, Gideon Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Rattner, Steven Chairman, Willett Advisors LLC
CAN Redford, Alison M. Premier of Alberta
CAN Reisman, Heather M. CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
DEU Reitzle, Wolfgang CEO & President, Linde AG
USA Rogoff, Kenneth S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University
USA Rose, Charlie Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
USA Ross, Dennis B. Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

POL Rostowski, Jacek Minister of Finance
USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
NLD Rutte, Mark Prime Minister
ESP Sáenz de Santamaría Antón, Soraya Vice President and Minister for the Presidency
NLD Scheffer, Paul Professor of European Studies, Tilburg University
USA Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
FRA Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group
USA Shambaugh, David Director, China Policy Program, George Washington University
INT Sheeran, Josette Vice Chairman, World Economic Forum
FIN Siilasmaa, Risto Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nokia Corporation
USA Speyer, Jerry I. Chairman and Co-CEO, Tishman Speyer
CHE Supino, Pietro Chairman and Publisher, Tamedia AG
IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital / Thiel Capital
TUR Timuray, Serpil CEO, Vodafone Turkey
DEU Trittin, Jürgen Parliamentary Leader, Alliance 90/The Greens
GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy
FIN Urpilainen, Jutta Minister of Finance
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman, Novartis AG
INT Vimont, Pierre Executive Secretary General, European External Action Service
GBR Voser, Peter CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Warsh, Kevin Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
GBR Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company
CAN Wright, Nigel S. Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
USA Yergin, Daniel Chairman, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group

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

Totalitarianism


SEO Powered By SEOPressor