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