Monthly Archives: April 2008

U.S. Members Of The Bilderberg Meeting Are Violating The Law

Jason Solley

Every year members of the world elite gather together to discuss policy on the global level. They claim that it is “just an open discussion”, yet the meetings are held in secret with heavy security provided. A secret meeting doesn’t seem much like an open discussion to me. Furthermore all of the people who have attended this meeting and are from The United States are breaking the law. The law they are breaking is The Logan Act, and the meeting they are attending is the Bilderberg meeting.

Source Cantontruth comments in blue.

The Logan Act was passed in 1799 by President John Adams. This is what the law states

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg conference is an unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of business, media and politics.
The elite group meets annually at luxury hotels or resorts throughout the world — normally in Europe — and once every four years in the United States or Canada. It has an office in Leiden, South Holland, Netherlands.[1] The 2007 conference took place from May 31 to June 3 at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Istanbul, Turkey.

You will notice that many of the members that attend a Bilderberg meeting are deeply involved with government. So why may I ask are members of our government meeting in secret with persons of influence in the fields of business, media, and other countries politians? Maybe it’s because The Bilderberg Group promotes the careers of politicians whose views are representative of the interests of multinational corporations, at the expense of democracy. Below is a list of attendees, with the years they attended, to Bilderberg meetings from The United States. You will notice that all of our politicians and businessmen were and are in direct violation of The Logan Act.

United States
Bill Clinton (1991)[4], former US President, 1993 – 2001
Hillary Clinton (1997), current US Senator, Democratic Presidential Candidate 2008, also attended the World Economic Forum, the Salzburg Global Seminar and the Renaissance Weekend. Member of the Democratic Leadership Council
Gerald R. Ford (1964, 1966), former US President
Dan Quayle (1990, 1991), former US Vice President
Walter F. Mondale, former US Vice President
Nelson A. Rockefeller, former US Vice President, former Governor of New York
Dean Acheson, former United States Secretary of State
Christian Herter (1961, 1963, 1964)[5], former Secretary of State
Dean Rusk, former United States Secretary of State
Cyrus Vance, former United States Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1977-2003, 2004[6], 2005, 2006, 2007), Secretary of State, 1973 – 1977
Richard Perle (1985, 2003), assistant Secretary of Defense, 1981 – 1987
Donald Rumsfeld (1975, 2002), Secretary of Defense, 2001 – 2006
David L. Aaron (1977), former Deputy National Security Advisor
Colin L. Powell (1997), former United States Secretary of State
William J. Perry (1996), former United States Secretary of Defense
Mary C.Blake (2007), Owner of International Trading Companies
Lloyd Bentsen (1989, 1995, 1996, 1997), former United States Secretary of the Treasury
Robert S. McNamara, former US Secretary of Defense, former President of the World Bank
McGeorge Bundy, former National Security Advisor (United States)
Walt Whitman Rostow, former National Security Advisor (United States)
James Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor
Brent Scowcroft (1985, 1994), former National Security Advisor (United States)
Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor (United States)
Nicholas F. Brady (1991), former United States Secretary of the Treasury
Robert Zoellick (1991, 2003, 2006), former Deputy Secretary of State and current President of the World Bank
Richard Holbrooke (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006), former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Lawrence Summers (1998, 2002), former United States Secretary of the Treasury
C. Douglas Dillon, former United States Secretary of the Treasury
Kenneth W. Dam, former United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
Stuart Eizenstat, former United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
Robert M. Kimmitt, current United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
Richard N. Haass (2004)[6], president, Council on Foreign Relations
John Edwards (2004), former US Senator
Bill Bradley (1985), former US Senator
Jay Rockefeller (1971), current US Senator
L. Douglas Wilder (1991), former Governor of Virginia, current Mayor of Richmond, Virginia
Bill Richardson (1999, 2000), current Governor of New Mexico
Christopher Dodd (1999, 2000, 2001), current US Senator
Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000, 2001), current US Senator
Evan Bayh (1999), current US Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison (2000, 2002), current US Senator
Dianne Feinstein (1991), current US Senator
Jon Corzine (1995, 1996, 1997[3], 1999, 2003, 2004), current Governor of New Jersey
James Florio (1994), former Governor of New Jersey
Thomas Kean, former Governor of New Jersey
Christine Todd Whitman (1998), former Governor of New Jersey
Sam Nunn (1996, 1997[3]), former US Senator
Tom Foley (1995, 2002), former Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Lee H. Hamilton (1997)[3], former US Congressman
Ross Wilson (ambassador) (2007), current United States Ambassador to Turkey
Alexander Haig, former United States Secretary of State
Winston Lord, former United States Ambassador to China
George J. Mitchell, former US Senator
Claiborne Pell, former US Senator
Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former US Senator
Daniel J. Evans, former US Senator, former Governor of Washington
Larry Pressler, former US Senator
Donald W. Riegle, Jr., former US Senator
Charles Mathias, Jr., former US Senator
Adlai Stevenson III, former US Senator
Edward Brooke, former US Senator
Fred R. Harris, former US Senator
Bennett Johnston Jr., former US Senator
Donald M. Fraser, former US Congressman
Cornelius Edward Gallagher, former US Congressman
Peter Hood Ballantine Frelinghuysen, Jr., former US Congressman
James Robert Jones, former US Congressman
John B. Anderson, former US Congressman
Dan Glickman, former US Congressman
John LaFalce, former US Congressman
John H. Sununu (1990), former Governor of New Hampshire
Terry McAuliffe, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
Ken Mehlman, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee
Marty Munsch, former media development consultant for the Republican National Committee
Robert Schwarz Strauss, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
Shirley Temple (1982), former United States Ambassador, former child actress
Donald Gregg (1985), former United States Ambassador
Ralph E. Reed, Jr., former first executive director of the Christian Coalition
Rick Perry (2007), current Governor of Texas
Philip D. Zelikow (2007), executive director of the 9/11 Commission and Counselor of the United States Department of State
Kathleen Sebelius (2007), current Governor of Kansas
Vin Weber (2007), former US Congressman
Kristen Silverberg (2007), Bureau of International Organization Affairs, part of the State Department
Marc Grossman (2007), former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
William J. Luti, Senior Director for Defense Policy and Strategy for the National Security Council
David Gergen (1995), political consultant and presidential adviser during the Republican administrations of Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, campaign staffer for George H.W. Bush and adviser to Democratic President Bill Clinton
George W. Ball (1954-1992)[7], former U.S. diplomat
Joseph E. Johnson (1954)[8], former President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
David Rockefeller, original U.S. founding member, life member, and member of the Steering Committee (1954-
Zbigniew Brzezinski (Guest, 1966, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1978, 1985), President Carter’s National Security Advisor

Poll: 65% Of Americans Want Troops Brought Home From Iraq As Dick Cheney Arrogantly Says "So"

Rasmussen Reports
April 8, 2008

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 65% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That’s the highest total recorded in the tracking poll which has been conducted regularly since August of last year. The 65% total is up six points from two weeks ago, but just a single point higher than the total from a month ago.

Twenty-six percent (26%) want the troops brought home immediately, up three points from the last survey.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, 31% want troops to remain in Iraq until the mission is complete. That figure has ranged from 31% to 39% since tracking began.

The survey also found that 32% believe the troop “surge” has worked while 43% disagree and say it has not. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans say the surge has worked. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats say it has not along with 51% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The desire to bring home the troops has risen among both men and women. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of men want the troops home within a year, up four points from two weeks ago. Among women, that total is 69%, up from 62% two weeks ago.

On the other side, 37% of men would like the troops to stay in Iraq until the mission is complete along with 26% of women.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans want to see the troops stay in Iraq until the mission is complete. Among Democrats, 86% would like to see the troops brought home within a year.

In late March, almost half (47%) of Likely Voters believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Twenty percent (20%) disagree and say the terrorists are winning.

The survey was conducted in partnership with Fox Television Stations, Inc.

NAFTA Superhighway: Progress On The Trans Texas Corridor Continues

Barbara L. Minton
Natural News
April 9, 2008

An article carried by Reuters, March 10, 2008, datelined Madrid reports that the Spanish company Cintra said it had closed financing to build segments 5 and 6 of its SH-130 toll road between San Antonio and Austin, Texas in the U.S. It plans to invest $1.36 billion in this leg of the project.

In a statement to Spain’s stock market, Cintra said $197 million of the investment came from consortium partners and the rest from a bank loan and debt from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The newly financed segment is part of the Trans Texas Corridor, a 4,000 mile plan of super toll ways. The Corridor plan calls for a superhighway with 12 passenger vehicle lanes, 4 truck lanes, 2 passenger train tracks, 2 commuter train tracks, 2 freight train tracks, underground lines for water, natural gas, petroleum, telecommunication fiber optics, and overhead high-voltage electric transmission lines and towers.

Plans also include gas stations, garages, restaurants, hotels, stores, billboards, warehouses, freight interchanges, inter-modal transfer areas, bus stations, passenger train stations, parking facilities, dispatch control centers, maintenance facilities, pipeline pumping stations, and toll booths.

The Trans Texas Corridor is the largest engineering project ever undertaken in Texas, costing over $180 billion dollars.

A consortium led by the Cintra Concesiones Infraestruturas SA, known as Cintra, announced the contract to build the Trans Texas Corridor in December, 2004, and said it expected to develop 6 billion U.S. dollars of motorway projects during the following five years as part of the project.

In order to complete this project, the state of Texas will take ½ million acres, including some of the richest farm land in the state called “Blacklands”. The typical section of the highway will require 146 acres of right of way per mile. The total anticipated right of way for the 4,000 miles of corridor is 584,000 acres.

The Trans Texas Corridor project authorizes a Commission to take private land from its current owners to lease for commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes. This is a massive transfer of ownership from private to state owned, and puts the state in the position of being in direct competition with private business.

It also takes business away from hundreds of Texas communities by limiting traveler access and providing State contract concessions. It also takes land off county and school district tax rolls, requiring local taxpayers to absorb the difference.

Critics of the Corridor claim that it will change the face of Texas, and compare it to a terrifying nightmare. According to Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, “Texas should not be sold out to foreign interests. Texas farms and ranches should be for Texas farmers and ranchers. We should not let a European consortium take our Texas birthright. Our leaders should not be asking us to give them our land and then insist we should have to pay to drive across it.”

The Trans Texas Corridor is seen as the first leg of the NAFTA superhighway, first purposed in 2002. When completed, the NAFTA superhighway will allow cargo from the Far East to enter the U.S. through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas and proceed straight to the new Smart Port complex in Kansas City. From there it will be dispersed into the U.S. or continue northward into Canada, crossing both borders with only electronic checkpoints.

The NAFTA superhighway is one feature of the North American Union, which will effectively create a North American trading block by erasing the borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada resulting in free, unimpeded movement of people and goods across those borders. It is also a political union that would integrate the governments of the three countries, as well as an economic union with the intention of equalizing the wages and standard of living of all but the ruling elitists.

Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies: Ron Paul On The Emerging Surveillance State

Ron Paul
Free Market Man
April 7, 2008

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.

Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.

The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.

We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

Taser International Gets Away With Murder Again As 2+2=6 In Minnesota

Mark Backlund

By JIM ADAMS, Star Tribune
April 4, 2008

Drugs killed man who was Tasered:

Autopsy report lists police restraint as a contributing factor in the Fridley man’s death.

An unarmed Fridley man Tasered after a freeway crash died of acute cocaine and other drug abuse, according to an autopsy report released Friday that said crash injuries, heart conditions, physical exertion and police restraint were contributing factors.

In a separate report, the State Patrol said Mark Backlund, 29, was stunned on Jan. 15 because he verbally and physically resisted troopers’ requests and tried to drive away even though bystanders were in front of his car.

Backlund was en route to pick his parents up at the airport when he crashed into a central median barrier on Interstate 694 during the evening rush hour in New Brighton. He was unconscious after being Tasered and died that night at a Fridley hospital.

“My son didn’t have a weapon and he is Tasered? It doesn’t make sense,” his father, Gordon Backlund, said Friday. “Why Taser an accident victim sitting in a car?”

Backlund said that the family’s car was totaled and that he didn’t know whether it could be driven after the crash. He said he has many questions and would like to see the full autopsy and investigation report before commenting further.

“It is hard enough as a father to deal with death,” Backlund said. “It is a very difficult time for us.”

After the incident, authorities said the driver’s side of Backlund’s car was wedged against the median. Five troopers and other motorists who had stopped were at the crash scene.

Responding to a Star Tribune open records request, the State Patrol provided part of a Use of Force report filed about the incident. The patrol declined to comment on the report or provide details about what happened.

In March, Tim O’Malley, head of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), which is investigating the case, said the Taser was used after Backlund refused customary, safety-related requests made by a trooper “responding to a single-car crash on a very busy interstate highway during rush hour. Those requests related to the well-being and safety of the driver and other people and motorists on the highway.”

The BCA has forwarded its report along with the autopsy findings to the Ramsey County Attorney’s office. It will take a few weeks to review it for possible charges against the troopers, said Phil Carruthers, director of the office’s prosecution division. He said it is routine for county attorneys to review officer-involved shootings. But office attorneys could recall only one other Taser-related death a few years ago in St. Paul. In that case, police stunned a man on drugs who later died from cocaine delirium, Carruthers said.

Underlying health conditions

In the United States, more than 290 people have died since June 2001 after being struck by police Tasers, according to the human rights group Amnesty International. A 2004 study from the group shows many of those who died had underlying health problems such as heart conditions or mental illness or were under the influence of drugs. Many also were subjected to repeated or prolonged shocks.

Backlund’s death certificate, filed Friday by the Anoka County Medical Examiner, cited the cause of death as mixed drug use, including acute cocaine abuse. Tests also detected marijuana, a painkiller and other drugs. Contributing factors included police restraint and heart conditions, including severe hardening of the arteries.

County Medical Examiner Janis Amatuzio said through an assistant that she would not elaborate on what police restraint was used.

The Use of Force report said troopers tried to control Backlund by using a “soft empty hand,” then a “hard empty hand” before firing the Taser.

A soft hand usually means using grasping techniques, maybe a wrist lock or twisting an arm behind the back to control someone, said Paul Monteen, standards coordinator for the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training. A hard hand could be a blow with a fist, and an empty hand means without a baton or weapon.

Family Wants Answers After Death Involving TASER Device

Henry Bryant

Jeremy Brilliant/Eyewitness News

Indianapolis – The family of a man who died after being stunned with a TASER by police is considering taking legal action. They believe the TASER played a role in his death and plan to sue either the manufacturer or Indianapolis Metro Police. It was after a scuffle with police inside the O’Charley’s restaurant on 38th Street Friday night when Henry Orlando Bryant stopped breathing and died. “It’s sad. It breaks my heart that he left like this. It really does,” said Rita Abram, mother. Police were called to the restaurant after Scott Broadnax reportedly waved a handgun in the air. Broadnax, who has a conceal carry permit, cooperated with officers and gave them the weapon. But police say his friend Henry Bryant would not obey officers’ orders. “He was not combative. He did not bad mouth the police department,” said Broadnax. “There was nothing that he did that would cause him to be tased or for him to lose his life that night.” According to police, it took several officers to subdue the 35-year-old. Three officers were slightly hurt during the fight. They used chemical spray and a Taser to get Bryant to comply. “He ended up dying for what reason, I don’t know,” said Broadnax. In 2004, after a test period, Indianapolis decided to arm nearly half of the police force with Tasers. As part of their training, every officer that carries one is shot with the device. “For us to use this on our own people for training we’re pretty confident it’s a safe weapon. This is just a very unusual circumstance,” said Sgt. Paul Thompson, IMPD. In the past four years, officers have fired TASERs at suspects hundreds of times. It’s a practice IMPD defends, but raises serious questions for at least one family. “If they continue to use these like they are, there’s going to be more deaths. Innocent people like my son getting killed when it’s not necessary,” said Abram. Bryant’s preliminary cause of death has not been determined. It could take up to three months for a definitive cause. Two people have died after being tased by Indianapolis Police. In both cases, the coroner determined the men died as the result of a drug overdose, not the Taser.

« Older Entries