Bilderberg 2007: Agenda and Participant List

www.danielestulin.com

In 1954, the most powerful men in the world met for the first time under the auspices of the Dutch royal crown and the Rockefeller family in the luxurious Hotel Bilderberg of the small Dutch town of Oosterbeck. For an entire weekend they debated the future of the world. When it was over, they decided to meet once every year to exchange ideas and analyze international affairs. They named themselves the Bilderberg Club. Since then, they have gathered yearly in a luxurious hotel somewhere in the world to decide the future of humanity.

In more than fifty years of meetings that brings together unprecedented power and money in the same time and place, never has any information been leaked as to what subjects were debated during the Bilderberg Club meetings. Bilderberg, one of the world’s most powerful secret organizations is run out of an 18m2 offices, staffed by one person, using one telephone line and a single fax number. There is no web page and no brass name plate on the door. The independent press has never been allowed in, and no statements have ever been released on the attendees’ conclusions nor has any agenda for a Bilderberg meeting been made public. How, in God’s name, can this be possible when Bilderberg´s elite membership list includes all of the most powerful individuals who run the Planet?

Leaders of the Bilderberg Club argue that this discretion is necessary to allow participants in the debates to speak freely without being on the record or reported publicly. Otherwise, Bilderbergers state, they would be forced to speak in the language of a press release. Doubtlessly, this discretion allows the Bilderberg Club to deliberate more freely, but that does not respond to the fundamental question: What do the world’s most powerful people talk about in these meetings?

Any modern democratic system protects the right to privacy, but doesn’t the public have a right to know what their political leaders are talking about when they meet the wealthiest business leaders of their respective countries?

What guarantees do citizens have that the Bilderberg Club isn’t a centre for influence trafficking and lobbying if they aren’t allowed to know what their representatives talk about at the Club’s secret gatherings? Why are the Davos World Economic Forum and G8 meetings carried in every newspaper, given front page coverage, with thousands of journalists in attendance, while no one covers Bilderberg Club meetings even though they are annually attended by Presidents of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, Federal Reserve, chairmen of 100 most powerful corporations in the world such as DaimlerChrysler, Coca Cola, British Petroleum, Chase Manhattan Bank, American Express, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Vice Presidents of the United States, Directors of the CIA and the FBI, General Secretaries of NATO, American Senators and members of Congress, European Prime Ministers and leaders of opposition parties, top editors and CEOs of the leading newspapers in the world. It is surprising that no mainstream corporate media outlets consider a gathering of such figures, whose wealth far exceeds the combined wealth of all United States citizens, to be newsworthy when a trip by any one of them on their own makes headline news on TV.

The delegates at Bilderberg 2007: Istanbul, Turkey May 31-June 3

This year’s delegation will once again include all of the most important politicians, businessmen, central bankers, European Commissioners and executives of the western corporate press. They will be joined at the table by leading representatives of the European Royalty, led by Queen Beatrix, the daughter of the Bilderberg founder, former Nazi, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Bilderberger President, Etienne Davignon, Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel from Belgium. According to Bilderberg Steering Committee list which this author had access to, the following names have now been confirmed as official Bilderberg attendees for this year’s conference (In alphabetical order):

George Alogoskoufis, Minister of Economy and Finance (Greece); Ali Babacan, Minister of Economic Affairs (Turkey); Edward Balls, Economic Secretary to the Treasury (UK); Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister (Portugal); José M. Durão Barroso, President, European Commission (Portugal/International); Franco Bernabé, Vice Chariman, Rothschild Europe (Italy); Nicolas Beytout, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (France); Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister (Sweden); Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium); Philippe Camus, CEO, EADS (France); Henri de Castries, Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA (France); Juan Luis Cebrian, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain); Kenneth Clark, Member of Parliament (UK); Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC (USA); Bertrand Collomb, Chairman, Lafarge (France); George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA); Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey); Anders Eldrup, President, DONG A/S (Denmark); John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A (Italy); Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA); Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA); Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA); Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland); Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA); Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings (the Netherlands); Jean-Pierre Hansen, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgium); Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer, Secretary General, NATO (the Netherlands/International); Allan B. Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Director National Economic Council (USA); Josef Joffe, Publisher-Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (USA); Anatole Kaletsky, Editor at Large, The Times (UK); John Kerr of Kinlochard, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc (the Netherlands); Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA); Mustafa V. Koç, Chariman, Koç Holding A.S. (Turkey); Fehmi Koru, Senior Writer, Yeni Safek (Turkey); Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign Affairs (France); Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA); Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA); Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (the Netherlands/International); Ed Kronenburg, Director of the Private Office, NATO Headquarters (International); William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA); Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA); Frank McKenna, Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada); Thierry de Montbrial, President, French Institute for International Relations (France); Mario Monti, President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy); Craig J. Mundie, Chief Technical Officer Advanced Strategies and Policy, Microsoft Corporation (USA); Egil Myklebust, Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway); Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); Adnrzej Olechowski, Leader Civic Platform (Poland); Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finland); George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK); Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Minister of Finance (Italy); Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); David Rockefeller (USA); Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander Bank, (Spain); Dennis B. Ross, Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (USA); Otto Schily, Former Minister of Interior Affairs; Member of Parliament; Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Germany); Jürgen E. Schrempp, Former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany); Tøger Seidenfaden, Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken (Denmark); Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland); Giulio Tremonti, Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy); Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International); John Vinocur, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA); Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden); Martin H. Wolf, Associate Editor and Economics Commentator, The Financial Times (UK); James D. Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA); Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA); Klaus Zumwinkel, Chairman of the Board of Management, Deutsche Post AG (USA); Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist.

Amongst the names appearing on the initial list of invitees which this journalist had access to in January 2007 stand out the names of the now disgraced John Browne, British Petroleum’s Chief Executive Officer and the disgraced and fired former chief of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz. It will be interesting to see if either of these men makes an appearance at Bilderberg 2007. The Bilderbergers have no trouble accepting criminals into the fold as long as their misdeeds are conducted away from public spotlight and scrutiny. Once exposed, the culprits are generally discarded. Lord Conrad Black, former chief executive of Hollinger media group is a case in point.

Two others names on the original January 2007 list should raise a few eyebrows. One of them is Bernard Kouchner, the newly appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in the right wing Nicolas Sarkozy government in France. Kouchner is a former founder of ONG Doctors without Borders. He was absent from Bilderberg 2006 in Ottawa, Canada. Could his government position been arranged prior to the French national elections? For my money, the surprise appearance of year award should go to Mahmood Sariolghalam, Associate Professor of International Relations, School of Economic and Political Sciences, National University of Iran. What is an Iranian doing at a NATO alliance controlled Bilderberg conference? We will know soon enough. Bilderberg 2007 is indeed a good time to look behind the scenes.

What will be discussed at Bilderberg 2007?

Aside from the Irak quagmire, energy problems continue to dominate Bilderberger discussions. Oil and natural gas are finite, non-renewable resources. That’s because once used up it cannot be replenished. As the world turns, and as oil and natural gas supplies dwindle while demand soars dramatically, especially with Indian and Chinese booming economies who want all the trinkets and privileges of an American way of life, we, as the Planet, have crossed the midpoint of oil production and discovery. From now on, the only sure thing is that supply will continue to diminish and prices will continue to increase. In these conditions world conflict is a physical certainty. End of oil means end of world’s financial system, something which has already been acknowledged by Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle. Goldman Sachs oil report, [another full time member of the Bilderberger elite] published on March 30, 2005 increased the oil price range for the year 2005-6 from $55-$80 per barrel to $55-$105. During 2006 meeting, Bilderbergers have confirmed that their short range price estimate for oil for the 2007-08 continues to hover around US$105-150/barrel. No wonder Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced several months ago during the unveiling of the new European energy policy that the time has come for a “post-industrial age.” To bring the world into the post industrial age, you first need to destroy the world´s economic base and create another Great Depression. When people are poor, they don´t spend money, they don´t travel, and they don´t consume.

As the economic impact sinks in, and as the after effects of Peak Oil become evident in the face of breakdown of civilization, the United States will be forced to challenge Europe, Russia and China for the hegemony of control and the ever depleting hydrocarbon, non-renewable reserves most of which are contained in the Middle East. That will be point number two on the Bilderberg 2007 agenda.

Third item on the agenda is European relations with Russia not only in Europe but also in Central Asia. With Moscow making a deal with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan over the transport of gas to Europe, the US geo-strategic goal of driving a wedge between the Central Asian countries and Russia lies in shambles. While the US says this is "not good for Europe", the Europeans are divided. Iran, overnight has become America’s last hope in the energy war.

Iran war, after two years of huffing and puffing by the Bush government is definitely off the table. Furthermore, with France, Russia, Japan and China investing heavily in Iran, the world has drawn a line in the sand and the U.S. will be told at the conference not to cross it. There is blood in the water, and blood in the water usually leads to a good fight.

That notwithstanding, the United States needs to control the region, not only for its oil reserves but, most importantly to help it sustain world economic hegemony. Under this strategic design, regional states will be turned to weak domains of sectarian sheikhs with little or no sovereignty and, by implications, a pathetic agenda of their economic development. Regional chaos favours the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn reinforces the process of political and social disintegration supported by the Bilderbergers.

With Blair leaving, the UK will be told yet again, that they must, at all cost, do what is necessary to integrate the country into the European Community.

Finally, with Wolfowitz resigning from the World Bank, Bilderberg luminaries will try to come to a consensus on how best to overhaul not only the bank but its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), led by a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato. Wolfowitz became entangled in controversy seven weeks ago after World Bank whistleblowers leaked to the Washington-based non-governmental organization Government Accountability Project (GAP) documents that showed Wolfowitz pushing a high pay raise in a secondment deal to the US State Department for his girlfriend.

We, as a society, are at a crossroads. In almost every corner of the planet, stress points are beginning to fracture. The roads we take from here will determine the very future of humanity. It was former British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, who stated that “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

It is not up to God to bring us back from the “New Dark Age” planned for us. IT IS UP TO US. Whether we go into the next century as an electronic global police state or as free human beings depends on the action we take now. Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we don’t ask the proper questions.

Dobbs: Amnesty Plan Part Of North American Union

Youtube
The new amnesty plan proposed by Capitol Hill is part of a larger agenda to integrate the United States and Mexico.

The political leadership envision no restriction to the flow of poor workers and goods into the United States. And guess who will pay for all of it.

A shocking report on plans to eliminate the mexican border, and bankrupt the U.S. taxpayer.

Educating Rudy Press Conference

Youtube
Congressman Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer educate Rudy Giuliani on American foreign policy (May 24, 2007)

Was Bush Speech Scheduled To Pre-empt The View?

ABC show set to feature 9/11 truth heavyweights cancelled in favor of Bush's Al-Qaeda obsessed press conference
prisonplanet

Did master political strategist Karl Rove schedule and script George Bush's speech in the Rose Garden yesterday to pre-empt the possible appearance of 9/11 truth movement heavyweights on ABC's The View?

That's the suspicion many people outlined to us in e mails and calls yesterday.

Though we learned privately that guest appearances by William Rodriguez and the Loose Change crew on the show hosted by Rosie O'Donnell were cancelled at the start of the week, the ABC website still listed their names as being scheduled.

Presidential news conferences that take place in the daytime and do not relate to any kind of breaking news or national event do not cut into regular programming on major non-news channels, and yet ABC chose to air the speech in its entirety after The View was cancelled for that day.

Many 9/11 truthers now suspect that this was a Rovian ploy to distract attention or in effect completely displace the subject matter raised by Rodriguez and Loose Change that was set to be aired on The View.

In his speech, Bush re-hashed dated and questionable "intelligence" about Al-Qaeda and entered into a sophomoric rant about how the terrorists want to kill our children, invoking the phantom group no less than 19 times.

"Just about everything else that came up during the hour-long news conference was traced to bin Laden's terrorist network," writes Dana Milbank today in the Washington Post.

"They are a threat to your children, David," he advised NBC's David Gregory."

"It's a danger to your children, Jim," Bush informed the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg."
"This last warning was perplexing, because Rutenberg has no children, only a brown chow chow named Little Bear. It was unclear whether Bush was referring to a specific and credible threat to Little Bear or merely indicating there was increased "chatter in the system" about chow chows in general."

Was Bush's relentless propaganda pitch about Al-Qaeda scripted to coincide with the slated appearance of 9/11 truthers on The View, a show that enjoys 30 million viewers over the course of its air time? Was this a Rovian scheme to neutralize 9/11 truth?

In between his 10th and 11th mention of "Al-Qaeda", a sparrow stepped up to the plate to challenge Bush on his crap and put the cowardly Washington press corps to shame by pooping on his shoulder.

Man Treated As Terror Suspect For Taking Photo Of French Fries

fairfieldweekly.com

This was going to be a happy story about how two of my nephews love the french fries on the Bridgeport-Port Jefferson Ferry. “Ferry fries,” they call them. But that story went out the window Sunday night, when I took the photograph below and was threatened with arrest by the Ferry Fascists for doing so.

I was heading back to Connecticut after a weekend with the family when I took the photo. I’d eaten the fries on the way over, but couldn’t stomach another round, so I snapped two photos at the food counter, and as I was putting the camera away, two guys behind the counter started lobbing hostile, accusatory questions in my direction. “Why are you taking pictures of the food?” “I’m writing a review,” I responded, and walked away.

I went outside to take some notes and then headed back into the cabin. I observed that there were two crew members standing near me, and I heard one of them talking about me, and the photo I took. I had been turned in!

I’m of the mindset that when overzealous 9/11-hero wannabes start making ridiculous accusations, I am going to stand up and say something. If I hear you talking about me like I might be a terrorist for taking a picture of french fries, I am going to interrupt and put some perspective on the matter. So I approached the mate and told him I had a complaint about his crew. I didn’t appreciate their hostility. Yes, I was livid. Stone-cold sober, too.

Well, Gilligan didn’t like my tone, and I guess it’s my fault for escalating the situation by lobbing multiple eff-bombs at him, because the next thing I know, Gilligan’s back with two Big Fellows. I gave my name and phone number to Gilligan, and I showed him the picture of the french fries (which, by the way, are disgusting). In fact, I showed him all three of the photos that were on the camera. That should have ended it, but Gilligan demanded that I show him identification, because otherwise the police would get involved. I asked him under what authority he was demanding this of me. It’s the captain’s orders.

“Kiss my ass. I’m not showing you any ID.”

Gilligan goes to consult with the Skipper, comes back, and repeats the threat. Show me ID, or the police will be waiting at the dock.

Now, this is the part of the story where the little man on my shoulder who wants to go home and enjoy the evening whispers in my ear, “It’s not worth it, my boy.” So I take out my ID, and one of the Big Men grabs it. “He doesn’t even drive!” he sneers. “It’s a forgery!” he declares. “This isn’t you in the picture,” Gilligan announces.

Well, the ID is a New York State non-driver’s ID I’ve had forever, and it is, in fact, me in the picture. But Big Man declares that he knows better, since he was a cop for 20 years.

“That’s my ID. Take it or leave it,” I tell them. We pull in to the dock, and I stroll off the boat. No cops. End of story, almost.

Intern Molly Aronica went down to the ferry dock Tuesday morning to get a quote for me. She found Frederick A. Hall, vice president and general manager of the ferry company. “All photographs may be subject to challenge,” he told Molly, “due to the fact that there have been past incidents where possible acts of terrorism have been threatened.”

Fair enough, but this episode was clearly brought to you by the same dangerously moronic mindset that brought you Freedom Fries.

Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, resurfaces in Iraq

international herald iht.com

KUFA, Iraq: The powerful Iraqi cleric Moktada al-Sadr surfaced in his home base of Kufa in southern Iraq on Friday, delivering a sermon in a local mosque after what American intelligence officials called a four-month sojourn in Iran.

The cleric, addressing a large crowd amid heavy security, called for American forces to leave Iraq and for the Iraqi government to make sure that the Americans leave as soon as possible. He called for and end to fighting between his own Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces and police, asking his followers to conduct peaceful demonstrations instead.

He also requested reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis.

Sadr left for Iran after the Bush administration announced its new security push in January, and his militia immediately went underground, in an apparent effort to out-wait the Americans and avoid a head-on clash. Members of his political party, however, say he never left.

Now, his return has the potential to profoundly influence politics and the security situation in Iraq, though American officials acknowledge that the political motivations for Sadr's return and even the duration of his stay in Iraq remain unclear.

Sadr's appearance came as the American military announced on Friday that six more soldiers had died in Iraq, five on Thursday and one on Tuesday, according to Reuters. April was the worst month this year for the American military since the invasion, with 104 soldiers killed. About 90 have been killed in May so far.

The prevailing view among American officials familiar with intelligence reports about Sadr's return is that the cleric's aim at a minimum is to raise his political profile in Iraq and possibly strengthen his position in anticipation that provincial elections may be held next year. There have also been reports that his militia has been splintering during his absence, and he may also be trying to reinforce his influence over his supporters.

Some Americans also suggest that he may be trying to take advantage of the absence of one of his main Shiite rivals, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who has come to the United States for medical treatment. Hakim's organization, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, has been vying for influence among Shiites with Sadr's organization.

The broader question is whether Sadr plans to step up his oratory against the American-led coalition and try to mobilize pressure for an American withdrawal or seek a new political accommodation.

"He has a great deal of administrative and management work to do," said Toby Dodge, a Middle East expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "He has to reassert control over an increasingly wayward military organization." Dodge, who recently spent a month in Iraq, added, "Clearly, he needs to make his mind up whether his military organization is a tool of rampant sectarianism or a tool of national reconciliation."

According to American officials familiar with intelligence reports, Sadr slipped into Iraq almost a week ago and was recently at Kufa, his home base near Najaf. Sadr, 33, has had an antagonistic relationship with the United States. Much of his popularity stems from his vehemently anti-American speeches immediately after the invasion in 2003; his militia waged two major uprisings against American troops in 2004.

In April, six ministers from Sadr's movement left the Maliki government, protesting the Iraqi government's refusal to set a schedule for the withdrawal of American forces. But a substantial bloc of Sadr supporters remain in the Iraqi Parliament. Last month, Sadr issued a statement, read by a cousin in Parliament, that praised Iraqis who were resisting the American occupation as "honorable Iraqis" and denounced President Bush as "the greatest evil." Despite his efforts to present himself as an Iraqi nationalist, there have been reports that Sadr's militia has begun to fracture while he has been away and that he was losing influence with some of his more militant followers.

"There clearly are divisions in the Sadrist movement, probably accentuated by Sadr's continuing absence from Iraq," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in March.

Recently, Sadr has been taking a different tack. His supporters have met with Sunni Arab tribal leaders from Anbar Province who have been feuding with the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The meetings were billed as an effort to forge a nationalist movement to overcome sectarian tensions, and the message appeared calculated to appeal to war-weary Iraqis. Some political analysts saw it as an attempt to expand his political bloc, and his return may also be an effort to advance this agenda.

American officials presume that Sadr, in returning to Iraq, has been assured by the Maliki government that he will not be detained. The United States appears to be taking a wait-and-see attitude, hoping that he will be more flexible in practice than his fiery speeches would suggest. While some American officials expect him to rally support for an American departure from Iraq, others say they hope he may seek some sort of accommodation.

Still, not even American officials privy to classified intelligence on Sadr's return pretend to be certain what he has in mind. "There is a range of speculation on what it might mean," one Defense Department official said. "Some say he will reassert himself. Some are not so sure of that. I don't believe the intelligence community has come to a firm assessment on the meaning of his return to Iraq."

One matter of speculation concerns how long Sadr intends to remain in Iraq. One theory is that he may make an appearance to impress his supporters, condemn the American occupation in a Friday sermon and then head back to Iran.

But another view is that Sadr will be watching the Americans as closely as they are monitoring him. This theory holds that he will continue to stay in southern Iraq and nurture his movement as long as he concludes that there is little chance that the American forces will move against him.

Michael Gordon reported from Washington and Jon Elsen from New York. Iraqi employees of The New York Times reported from Kufa and Najaf.