Elite Group members realising that increased exposure means they can no longer hide

by Steve Watson

A Bilderberg Group delegate who attended this past weekend’s secretive elite meeting has discussed the organisation on record, in a move that signifies a shift toward more transparency, enforced by alternative media and activist exposure.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, a former British ambassador to Afghanistan, now a leading executive at arms manufacturer BAE Systems, spoke on record to The Watford Observer today.

Predictably, Cowper-Coles merely repeated the establishment media hoax that Bilderberg has no influence and is merely a “talking shop”.

“I can honestly say, having been at the meeting, all the conspiracy theories are wrong,” he said, adding “It was just a private discussion of the kind that takes place at conference centres all around the world, all the time.”

“I suppose one thing that distinguishes Bilderberg is it’s pretty high level. But I am slightly at a loss to understand exactly why it should be controversial.” the ex-diplomat stated.

On Saturday afternoon, close to 2000 protesters crammed into the designated campaign area in the grounds of the Grove Hotel in Hertforshire, England. “The protest wasn’t discussed during the meeting but everyone was aware of it and some parties actually went down to see the demonstrators,” he noted.

Infowars reported last week that an unnamed Bilderberger would speak about the group on record, after a source close to the security operation surrounding the confab told our reporters that numerous Bilderberg Group members are aggrieved at the organization’s obsession with secrecy and want to see more transparency.

Sherard Cowper-Coles also defended the secrecy surrounding the meeting, noting “It is the rule of the group that all these senior people are able to exchange views in private, it is no different from many other conferences.”

“I found the experience very interesting and very valuable,” he stated. “It was two and a half very full days of discussion. We covered jobs and the global economic situation, growth, European politics, Africa, the Middle East, big data, medical research, nationalism, populism, online education, cyber warfare, America and the World, Syria.” Cowper-Coles added.

Cowper-Coles also predictably claimed that anyone who attends Bilderberg does so in a personal capacity, and not as a representative of any government, organisation or corporation.

Those claims run counter to comments made in 2011 by the office of British Chancellor George Osbourne, as aides disclosed to the London Guardian that the head of the Treasury was there in an official capacity.

Osbourne was once again present at this year’s meeting, along with his opposition counterpart, MP Ed Balls, and the Prime Minister David Cameron.

Labour MP Michael Meacher, who visited protesters at the weekend, today made good on his vow to officially quiz Osbourne on his Bilderberg attendance.

However, it was MP Kenneth Clarke, a Bilderberg Steering Committee member who answered the question in the House of Commons, dismissing any theories that the group influences public policy, and claiming that the group is not beholden to public scrutiny.

Clarke stumbled, however, when it was noted that as a trustee of the registered “charity” that funds Bilderberg Group activities, he is beholden to fully to declare his role as a leading organiser of the secretive meetings, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Clarke admitted that he may have failed to do this because he “forgot” that he was a trustee.

The London Telegraph quickly released a story on Clarke’s admission, but it was removed from their website within an hour of publication.

There are numerous examples to illustrate the fact that Bilderberg is not merely a “talking shop”, but a venue where consensus is formed for the implementation of both national and geopolitical policies.

Documents read by the BBC and later released by Wikileaks divulge how Bilderberg members were discussing the creation of the euro single currency nearly 40 years before it was officially introduced in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

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

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

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

Bilderberg routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers.

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

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence.
Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 ru

ning mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a speech at the conference in 2004.

Despite the fact that the establishment media routinely plays down the weight of the group’s influence on world affairs, in a 2010 radio interview former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes admitted that Bilderberg attendees are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the annual conference of power brokers.

Although the topics on the agenda are usually disclosed during the course of the Bilderberg meeting, we already know that the group will have an influence on picking Mitt Romney’s running mate for the U.S. presidential election, with Florida Senator Marco Rubio being the favorite, who recently called for the U.S. to attack Syria and Iran during a Brookings Institution speech.

The damn is breaking on Bilderberg secrecy. Thanks to sustained efforts by alternative media journalists and activists, the vast amount of mainstream media coverage of 2013’s meeting represents an unprecedented breakthrough. (By Infowars.com).

by Marvin Ramirez

Marvin Ramirez

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: As we read the little information that mainstream media has published in their controlled media about the recent scandals that have surfaced within the Barack Obama’s presidency, we wonder how much more there is in there, and what has been happening in the president’s administration that we never expected. I ran into this very detailed article by Shaid Buttar, Obama’s legacy, which give us a lot more light of what and how much this president has done to destruction and deterioration of the same Bill of Rights and the Constitution he swore to defend and obey. Due to the length of the article, it will be published in two parts. THIS IS PART 2.

Obama’s legacy: A tyrannical dictatorship?

by Shahid Buttar
firedoglake.com

The First Amendment: freedom of the press

President Obama also reiterated his recent call for a reporter shield law to enable the press to do its job without interference from prosecutors. This suggestion lends itself to criticism on the grounds of both hypocrisy and insufficiency.

A reporter shield law is important, but the president’s speech ignored both his own administration’s attacks on the press (which he needed no legislation to have curtailed), as well as its vindictive, predatory, and authoritarian crackdown on government whistleblowers (like Thomas Drake, or Bradley Manning, or John Kiriakou) who have resigned their careers to inform the public about government abuses.

The First Amendment: rights to dissent, assembly, and speech

President Obama also recognized that the ham-fisted security measures for which he and his predecessor are both known run the risk of “alter[ing] our country in troubling ways,” before pledging a “proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home.”

As a seeming illustration, he allowed an extended (and quite thoughtful) interruption from the audience, noting that the opportunity for a citizen to challenge her president reflects the vitality of liberty in America.

But his rhetorical respect for dissent stands in sharp contrast with the actual actions of federal agencies. Recent investigations have documented a vicious crackdown on dissent executed by the FBI, in partnership with police agencies around the country, to violently suppress the Occupy and peace movements.
At the same time, the IRS was discriminatorily auditing conservative groups, as well as transpartisan constitutionalist groups, including the organization I lead, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

Letting a heckler interrupt a speech is no substitute for respecting the public’s rights to assembly, speech, and the press. Words are welcome, but they are far from enough.

Praising American Muslims while abusing us

President Obama’s comments regarding American Muslims were also welcome, but again, ignored the harsh reality on the ground.

He reiterated that the US is not at war with Islam, praised the support of American Muslims for US counterterrorism operations, and indeed, play a key role in winning the battle for hearts & minds abroad. He even reminded listeners that terrorism in America has been instigated by anti-government Christians more often than by Muslims.

Yet during the president’s tenure, the FBI has infiltrated mosques around the country, lied to communities—and courts—about it, recorded sexual encounters to enable blackmail, and bribed unsophisticated Muslims of all races into government-initiated plots in order to inflate both its own institutional reputation and the threat of domestic terrorism (while conspicuously ignoring real plots, like the Boston marathon bombings).

Restoring First Amendment rights—for the press, dissidents, and religious minorities—will require wide-ranging changes at the FBI that few in Washington have discussed.

Real counter-terrorism

Perhaps most remarkably, the president explained that “Force alone cannot make us safe,” before noting the overwhelming and untenable costs of war, and the greater opportunity to achieve lasting security by winning not just battlefields, but also hearts & minds.

But the president—like his predecessor—has long ignored many of those opportunities.

On the one hand, he explained how building roads, schools, and hospitals can undermine terrorist recruitment, in sharp contrast to the torture and drone strikes that encourage it.

But giving weapons to dictators, protecting American textile manufactures through discriminatory tariffs, enabling terror networks to fund themselves through the black market opportunities created by the failed war on drugs, and destabilizing global food markets by encouraging domestic agricultural overproduction through corporate subsidies, all play an enormous roles in enabling terrorism. Yet none of these subjects are even discussed in these terms in Washington.

If his rhetoric matched reality, the president’s speech would have been world historical, repudiating a decade of lawlessness and restoring the best in America. And it was excellent, even if occasionally duplicitous. The question now is whether it was anything more than words, and whether the Administration will convert the president’s welcome rhetoric into long overdue action.

That, in turn, depends in part on whether Congress grows more assertive in asserting its checks & balances on executive power. Fortunately, we can each encourage that result

Compiled by the El Reporero staff

Maria Marroquin, Caryl Hughan, and Connie Spearing

Bay Area immigrant workers and their supporters will be engaging in a fast against the firings to draw attention to the unjust firing of hundreds of immigrants.

Even though the full Senate has begun deliberations on the Immigration Reform Bill S. 744, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the federal Department of Homeland Security is requiring local employers to fire hundreds of workers, saying they have no immigration papers. The administration calls its reform proposal “commonsense immigration reform,” but the fasters say there is no common sense in firing workers while Congress debates it.

These firings are often called “silent raids,” and the fasters seek to make them visible, and to express their moral outrage against the Federal government. Rev. Dr. Phil Lawson, Pastor Emeritus of Easter Hill United Methodist Church and leader of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, one of the fasters, says, “These families have done nothing wrong. They’re being punished for working, which is what people in our community are supposed to do. We will not allow these workers to be treated as though they are invisible. Being terminated because of immigration status is a violation of their human and civil rights.”

As the firings are taking place throughout the Bay Area – the fast will move each day to different symbolic locations.

From noon on Tuesday, June 11 to noon on Friday, June 14 at César Chávez Park, S. Market St., San Jose.

Wednesday, June 12, at Mi Pueblo Market, 1630 High St., Oakland.

And Thursday, June 13, at the Oakland Federal Bldg. 1301 Clay St., Oakland.

For more information call Eriberto Fernández at 650-219-5598.

Reading program at Berkeley Public Library

Studies have shown that children who continue to read over the summer maintain or improve their reading skills, avoiding the “summer slide”. Summer Reading Programs are an important and fun way to keep children reading over the summer months.

Children entering grades 1-8 earn prizes by reading of their choice books and visiting the library three times. In keeping with this year’s theme, we will be offering a variety of food related events and other deliciously fun activities. Berkeley Public Library is participating in the California State Library’s Reading is So Delicious Food Drive – everyone is invited to bring non-perishable food items to their local branch during the Summer Reading Program.

Just a sampling of our events includes: a cooking class; movies about food and other (somewhat) edible things; a Children’s Tea with Annie Barrows, author of Ivy and Bean; bilingual music from award-winning educator, author and musician Jose-Luis Orozco; Kenn Adams’ interactive Adventure Theater program and; in conjunction with the Berkeley Comic Arts Festival, a visit from the author of Babymouse!

The Berkeley Public Library’s Summer Reading Program, “Reading is So Delicious”, runs from June 14 – Aug. 17.

Please be aware that some events require pre-registration. Call 981-6223 or check http://berkeleypubliclibrary.libguides.com/summer for information and additional events.

by Marvin Ramirez

Marvin Ramirez

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: As we read the little information that mainstream media has published in their controlled media about the recent scandals that have surfaced within the Barack Obama’s presidency, we wonder how much more there is in there, and what has been happening in the president’s administration that we never expected. I ran into this very detailed article by Shaid Buttar, Obama’s legacy, which give us a lot more light of what and how much this president has done to destruction and deterioration of the same Bill of Rights and the Constitution he swore to defend and obey. Due to the length of the article, it will be published in two parts. THIS IS THE FIRST PART.

Obama’s legacy: A tyrannical dictatorship?

by Shahid Buttar
firedoglake.com

President Obama’s speech, presenting his vision of a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy, included welcome rhetoric about the importance of constitutional principles, including Due Process and rights to dissent. It may represent the high watermark for civil liberties since his inauguration five years ago.

It is disappointing, given his thoughtful words, that he ignored so many inconvenient truths. From extrajudicial assassination to free speech and freedom of the press, from the need to address root causes of terrorism to partnership with American Muslims, the president promoted important principles but papered over reality.

The reaction by Republican senators was even worse. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) foolishly suggested that “The president’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,” and suggested doubling down on many of the same failed Bush-era policies from which President Obama finally signaled long overdue independence yesterday.

Due Process: Gitmo

The president forcefully spoke about the need to close Guantánamo Bay, and also lifted his moratorium on releasing Yemeni detainees whom the government has cleared for release, despite the clamor among conservative lawmakers who prefer to indefinitely detain anyone accused of terror without trial.

Yet the president’s words reflected important principles that his own administration has routinely violated. Col. Morris D. Davis, the former chief military prosecutor at Guantánamo who resigned his position to challenge torture (and serves on the BORDC advisory board), agreed that “It’s great rhetoric. But now is the reality going to live up to the rhetoric?”

The president criticized restrictions on resettling detainees cleared for release imposed by Congress early in his administration. But he has the authority to resettle those detainees through a separate process, if he were willing to certify the release of particular individuals—which he has avoided in order to avoid the political risk.

Due Process: Drone strikes

President Obama also pledged more congressional oversight of drone strikes, responding to sustained controversy and reiterating a promise from his State of the Union address in January that he has yet to fill.

Noting the 2014 drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan, he also suggested the diminishing need for force protection. That, in turn, could lead to a reduction in “signature strikes,” untethered attacks in which the CIA essentially kills at random based on nothing more than suspicious activity and inflames anti-US sentiment. If nothing else, the president explained a preference to shift drone strikes from the unaccountable and secret CIA to the (also secret, though at least somewhat accountable) Pentagon.

Most importantly, the president acknowledged for the first time in public that civilian casualties—which he predictably downplayed—run the risk of creating new enemies.

On the one hand, he claimed that drone strikes are less lethal, and less prone to civilian casualties, than conventional warfare.

On the other hand, according to an independent study, only 5% of deaths from drone strikes were actually senior terror leaders, suggesting that what the press conveniently calls “targeted killings” are in fact essentially random.

Signature strikes, in particular, reveal the rose tint in the president glasses: these are the antithesis of targeted killings, but rather knee-jerk assassinations based on mere suspicion.

The CIA often doesn’t even know who it kills, let alone whether they are actually involved in terrorism.

Perhaps most revealing were the president’s comments about assassinating US citizens without trial. This particular subject sparked widespread controversy earlier this year, when Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) mounted a filibuster specifically to force the administration to resign the authority to kill Americans at home using drones.

Now, as then, the response is rhetorically welcome but substantively empty. Just as Attorney General Eric Holder’s letter to Sen. Paul made promises that ultimately appear implausible in light of the actual facts, President Obama’s assurances that drone strikes are closely targeted belies the competing fact that four US citizens have died in drone strikes, while only one was reportedly targeted. If the CIA has killed four times the number of US citizens than it has intended, how can we maintain the pretense that drone strikes avoid collateral casualties?

At root is a surprising willingness to redefine Due Process to exclude a right to judicial review. A canard— that the executive branch can provide Due Process without judicial review— pervades the drone program.

But that view makes a mockery of over 800 years of legal precedent establishing the need for judges to check and balance executive detention orders. For a constitutional law professor to advance so revolutionary claim should disturb any observer, regardless of political perspective.

by J. D. Heyes

There is a time when national security literally depends on secrecy. Regardless of the prevailing mindset among many in the press and in the general public, the American people do not have an inherent “right” to know everything about everything the government is doing when it is legitimately operating on behalf of securing the nation and protecting the homeland, because such functions necessarily require secrecy. Imagine, for example, if someone “in the know” had leaked plans and details of the D-Day invasion to a newspaper; what would the implications of that have been?

But by far, most of the time news organizations have a legitimate role to play in bringing details of government operations to the public at large, for the media’s primary purpose in our country, as envisioned by our founding fathers, is to serve as a watchdog on government. And that’s what makes the Department of Justice’s decision to tap 20 phones belonging to Associated Press reporters so chilling: the audacity of government heavy-handedness and the ruthlessness with which this administration deals with its enemies, real or perceived.

As bad as it is to know DoJ targeted the AP, the administration’s pattern of constitutionally questionable behavior regarding the press is much worse than thought, because it apparently involves more than just that one news outlet. Per The Washington Post:

The case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the government adviser, and James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, bears striking similarities to a sweeping leaks investigation disclosed last week in which federal investigators obtained records over two months of more than 20 telephone lines assigned to the Associated Press.

According to details surrounding the Justice Department’s probe of Kim and Rosen, the former – a higher-ranking State Department official at the time – stands accused of passing to the later classified information regarding North Korea.

More from the Post: Court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist – and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010. The case also raises new concerns among critics of government secrecy about the possible stifling effect of these investigations on a critical element of press freedom: the exchange of information between reporters and their sources.

While there is a difference between reporters reporting government waste, fraud, abuse and corruption, there is clearly a difference between cultivating classified sources and then reporting information they provide. If you have to hide, that generally means you’re divulging information you shouldn’t be. An exception here would be if you are a whistleblower and you are exposing government abuse.

That doesn’t appear to be the case with the reporter from Fox News – at least on the surface – but it’s hard to tell at this point given the Obama administration’s unprecedented pursuit of cases it believes involved the leak of classified information (more than any other administration combined) – even if it wasn’t classified (just uncomfortable for the president). That fact alone makes it appear as though Obama – Mr. Constitutional Professor who pledged openness and transparency – likes to use the power of government to silence critics or punish those he believes have gone against him.

Either way, what his administration is doing is damaging the Bill of Rights.

“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public. That’s a very dangerous road to go down,” says First Amendment attorney Charles Tobin, in an interview with the Post.

Adds attorney Abbe Lowell, who is defending Kim: “The latest events show an expansion of this law enforcement technique. Individual reporters or small time periods have turned into 20 [telephone] lines and months of records with no obvious attempt to be targeted or narrow.”

The feds obviously see it a different way, but is it the correct way?

“FBI agent Reginald Reyes wrote in an affidavit that Rosen had broken the law ‘at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.’ But that statement may well conflict with First Amendment rights,” reported Breitbart News.

Says AP CEO Gary Pruitt of the targeting of his reporters by DoJ: “I really don’t know what their motive was, I know what the message they are sending was – if you talk to the press we are going to go after you.”

Sources: http://www.breitbart.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com, http://www.politico.com.