Another Meaningless Gesture: House Has Enough Votes to Impeach Obama…AND?

Critical thinkers and those people who don’t get the majority of their news from the mainstream media are well aware by now that Obama’s actions up to this point in America’s history have been worthy of impeachment for years now.

Yet he continues to completely ignore the US Constitution. Of course, Washington D.C. is an independent State. And he continues to do so right in Congress’ collective face — as if even the ones who will openly admit Obama’s actions are in contempt of this country are all hostages in some backwoods basement somewhere tied to chairs without the ability to do anything about it but watch in horror as each new day passes.

The most recent Congressperson to come forward is Representative Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), who recently announced on News Radio 910 WSBA that there are likely enough votes in the House to impeach Obama according to The Washington Post:

“We have a president that’s taken this to a new level. And it’s put us in a real position where he’s just absolutely ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances. You know, the problem is, you know, what do you do for those that say impeach him for breaking the laws or bypassing the laws? You know, could that pass in the House? It probably could,” Barletta said on the Gary Sutton radio show. “Is the majority of the American people in favor of impeaching the president? I’m not sure.”

Buzzfeed posted audio of the exchange online Monday. Just before Barletta’s remark, Sutton was talking about immigration.

This sort of thing has been popping up like clockwork every few months for years now as well. While headlines about Obama’s impeachment sound just swell — after all, anyone paying the attention who knows even a little bit about the Constitution could easily rattle off multiple instances that have made Obama worthy of impeachment proceedings at this point — the truth is, there will be no impeachment.

Not even when The Washington Post also tells you that if the Democrats lose the Senate, Obama will be impeached.

That’s right. No impeachment. No one is going to impeach Obama. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.

You heard me. It’s just not going to happen.

The system of checks and balances — an integral part of the Constitution of the United States of America (not the Constitution for the United States of America) that allows each of the three branches of government (The US Corporations, the Empire) to limit the powers of the others (thus keeping them “in check”) — can no longer possibly be applied in Obama’s case, and thus, it simply no longer exists in this country. Obama is not the President of the Sovereign United States of America, Obama is the President of the UNITED CORPORATION of America, big difference. 

Worse, Obama knows it. (Obviously.)

How can I so easily say that? Trust me, it isn’t easy, but it is the truth.

Communities Digital News sums up this sad day in American history very well:

President Obama will not be impeached.

Is President Obama a failed leader? Absolutely.

Is he lazy? Of course.

Is he corrupt? Brazenly.

Is he a bully who abuses his power? Most definitely.

Has he lied about everything from the effects of his signature policies to scandals more serious than those of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon combined? With zero doubt.

Should he be impeached?

Absolutely not.

For those screaming about impeachment, ask a simple question.

What prosecutor in their right mind brings a proceeding against a defendant when the chance of acquittal is 100% and the chance of conviction is zero percent?

Try convicting President Obama. It requires 67 Senate votes. Republicans hold 45 Senate seats. Even a wave 2014 election will get the GOP between 50 and 55 seats, not 67. Even if every Republican stood on principle (which they did not during the Clinton impeachment trial of 1998), try finding 12 Senate Democrats willing to put their country above their party and racial politics.)[emphasis added]

And there you have it.

Even if every Republican Senator we have stood on principle (because, as we all know, if there’s anything all of our Senators are just bursting at the seams with, it’s principles), we would still need 12 Democrats willing to do it, too.

…Yeah. Good luck with that.

Go ahead and look out your window. Do you see any pigs flying out there? Has Hell frozen over yet? Because it would take at least that much for anyone keeping score to even waste their time getting their hopes up that Obama will be ousted from the Oval Office.

In essence, President Obama can continue to sign executive orders until he gets a hand cramp, feign ignorance scandal after scandal, arm terrorists in other nations while actively campaigning to disarm American citizens at home, continue to “inform” Congress about his decisions to free Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo Bay after the fact and then “inform” Congress when he decides to send more troops to Iraq, continue to hand over more and more power to the international community (thus setting the precedent for all future presidents), all while he continues to use the Constitution as toilet paper, and in the meantime our borders can just get overrun with illegal immigrants with the ultimate goal of overwhelming the system…and our president will just faithfully continue his duties as puppet for the shareholders of The United States of America, Inc., business as usual.

Because you can be sure, no matter what President Obama does at this point, no matter what new unconstitutional horror he unleashes upon America’s tomorrow, it can not and will not possibly effect him either way.

It’s official. The system is completely broken. President Obama is above the law.

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media. Wake the flock up!

Exposing Fake Academics & Their Foreign Backers

Compromised, foreign-funded propagandists shame, undermine, and endanger real academia. 

The May 22, 2014 Thai military coup that ousted the regime of convicted criminal, fugitive, accused mass murderer billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra has "shaken the tree," dislodging and exposing many aspects of his deep network of foreign-funded subversion laid down over the years to aid in his efforts to undermine and upturn Thailand's traditional institutions and political order. 

Image: Pinkaew Laungaramsri openly praises Thaksin Shinawatra's "red shirts" and even participates in protests organized by Thaksin Shinawatra's political machine. Funded by USAID and Open Society, she has now contacted both sponsors in attempts to lobby for "pressure" to be put on the military after ousting Shinawatra from power and cracking down on his subversive networks of which she is a component. The "Stop Holy Gruay" gimmick in the picture above is in reference to a "red shirt" meme publicized on Shinawatra's protest stage itself. 

Among these include a massive, heavily armed terrorist wing that had positioned weapon caches across the country for a planned "civil war." Another network includes a foreign-funded network of faux-academics, hiding behind their titles, credentials, and professorships to peddle pro-Thaksin, pro-globalization propaganda aimed at undermining Thailand's indigenous institutions and replacing them with foreign, corporate-financier funded NGOs. 

Already covered in depth are Washington's collection of National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded NGOs including most predominantly Prachatai, ENLAWTHAI Foundation, The Foundation for Community Educational Media, and the Human Rights Lawyers Association - all of which have been actively opposing the coup and any attempts to dismantle Shinawatra's political machine. The Bangkok Post in its article, "Anti-coup rally on streets, social media," reported:

The Human Rights Lawyers Association, Cross Cultural Foundation, Union of Civil Liberties and the Enlawthai Foundation have also called for the return to a civilian democratic regime and for the military to go back to the barracks.

This is an almost verbatim repeat of the US State Department's official statement condemning the coup and demanding immediate elections that would once again return Shinawatra to power and illustrates the role these NGOs serve - an echo chamber that translates US State Department talking points into the local language of choice - in this case Thai.

Prachatai alone receives millions of baht in foreign funding a year, a fact made known only as recently as 2011 after calls for transparency eventually resulted in a partial disclosure. Prachatai's funding was made available only up to and including the 2011-2012 fiscal year, and only in English. Prachatai's Thai readers to this day are asked for donations without knowing the organization is funded millions of baht a year, while English readers are left in the dark regarding Prachatai's current funding. The National Endowment for Democracy's official website still lists Prachatai as a current recipient of funding.

Keeping this in mind is essential in understanding the role these fraudulent, opaque NGOs play as an interface between foreign interests and Thailand's growing faux, foreign-funded academic community.

Chiang Mai - Former Epicenter of Shinawatra's Political Power 



Beginning in northern Thailand, the alleged epicenter of Thaksin Shinawatra's political influence, home to hismurderous "Rak Chiang Mai 51" "red shirt" street mob, is Chiang Mai University (CMU). CMU, like all of Thailand's academic institutions, indeed hosts a wide variety of skilled, professional, and truly academic scholars. 

But as Shianwatra's network of subversion rotted Thailand inside and out, the university found itself the unfortunate host for those like assistant professor Pinkaew Laungaramsri. Pinkaew regularly "studies" Shinawatra's "red shirt" movement and goes on at length during "seminars" expounding the merits of their "pro-democracy" agenda. She would even stop at one point during a seminar to explain how she in particular, personally liked a "red shirt" because he at one point had been a supporter of Thailand's revered monarchy but had since switched sides.

Her inability to remain impartial, professional, or in anyway academic through her poorly disguised political agenda is not her only conflict of interest. She maintains what she calls a "bookstore" that is funded by USAID and convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society Foundation. A bookstore - being an establishment that generally makes money by selling books - that is funded by not one, but two foreign government organizations, raises suspicions that her bookstore, "Book Re:public" is in fact a front.

In the immediate aftermath of the coup, Pinkaew was clearly worried. She wrote to colleagues that:

I have written to several donors who fund activities of Book Re:public (USAID and OSF) to see if they can do anything to help out in this situation. Although it might not have much impact since the military seems to don't care to listen to anyone, we still hope that international pressure would at least help make it difficult for the military junta to continue their aggressive treatment towards people.

By "people," Pinkaew means those aiding and abetting Shinawatra. After supporting Shinawatra and his network, even participating in "red shirt" protests against the coup, Pinkaew went on to call for foreign governments to "pressure" the military - and she did so by contacting the foreign institutions that kept her activities in business. Calling on foreign governments to "pressure" your nation is by definition treason. Pinkaew's doing so in defense of the ousted regime of Thaksin Shinawatra is all the more troublesome - since she poses as an advocate of "democracy" and "human rights" when under Shinawatra neither existed.

Nitirat - A Cancer Within Thai Academia 

Thammasat is one of Thailand's premier universities. Its alumni can be seen making a positive impact in Thai society across a wide range of fields. However, a recent organization calling itself "Nitirat" or the "Enlightened Jurists" have tainted Thammasat's reputation and have turned the university into a spectacle of transparent, politically motivated lobbying dressed as "academia."

Image: Thai media is increasingly covering foreign-funded networks
posing as academia. 

While the organizations claims to be impartial, apolitical, aimed at defending "democracy" and fighting what it calls "draconian Lese Majeste" laws, during one of its first meetings the auditorium was filled literally with Thaksin Shinawatra's red shirts. And in the front row, Thaksin Shinawatra's paid-corporate lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners, sat, overseeing the proceedings. Far from an actual academic seminar, it was instead an attempt to re-brand Shinawatra's "red shirt" movement, perceived even abroad as uneducated, prone to violence, and more of a cult of personality built around the Shinawatra family than a "pro-democracy" movement.

Nitirat was supposed to put a "liberal" and "progressive" spin on the movement, but failed. It was a transparent example of "academica" being used to dress up what was essentially one of Shinawatra's crass and exploitative "red shirt" rallies, only held indoors, and with a drawling law lecture in place where Shinawatra's typical program of free food and country music would normally be.

While many Thais suspected Nitirat was aligned with Shinawatra, they could never have imagined the scope of conflicting interests Nitirat was actually engaged in. Sawatree Suksri, a law lecturer from Thammasat University, and a member of "Nitirat" was recently detained by the Thai military after returning from the US after what she admits was a US Embassy "study trip" on "human rights." Her supporters, including Kan Yuenyong, founder and director of Siam Intelligence Unit, claim she was in fact on a US State Department-funded exchange program.

Sawatree also contributed to the 2013 Freedom House report - the report being leveraged yearly to undermine political order around the world the West would seek to topple and replace with client regimes. This is perhaps the most troubling conflict of interest Sawatree is involved in. Not only did she have Thaksin Shinawatra's lobbyist Robert Amsterdam sitting in the front row of her organization's meetings, but she also collaborated with Freedom House upon whose board of directors sits another of Thaksin Shinawatra's lobbyists, Kenneth Adelman. Adelman providedlobbying services for Shinawatra in 2007, shortly after the first coup aimed at toppling his political machine was executed. He did so as a lobbyist under Edelman PR (official DC lobbying registration here), and the organization he serves as a director of, Freedom House, has been regularly leveraged ever since to support Shinawatra's political machine and undermine his enemies.

Image: Thaksin Shianwatra's paid DC lobbyist Robert Amsterdam sits front
row at one of Nitirat's first meetings. He is flanked by a sea of Shinawatra's
"red shirts" with many even carrying pictures of the deposed dictator into
the auditorium. 

Sawatree would also serve as a "witness for the defense" in a criminal case targeting US-funded Prachatai director Chiranuch Premchaiporn. At every turn Sawatree finds herself the recipient of US funding and support, or mobilizing her academic facade on the behalf of others who are.

While Sawatree and her Nitirat organization attempt to portray themselves as the keepers and arbiters of democracy and human rights in Thailand, their lack of transparency and their multiplying conflicts of interest render their message moot. They are a lobbying front dressed as academia, involved deeply with literal lobbyists registered as in the service of deposed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra. That they are working in tandem with these insidious interests undermine the very principles they are hiding their agenda behind.

Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy: Neither Free Nor Democratic

Eroding further both Sawatree and Pinkaew's "academic" facades is the fact that their donors and foreign collaborators are diametrically opposed in every way imaginable to the principles both women peddle their political agendas behind.

Upon NED's board of directors we find John Bohn who traded petrochemicals, was an international banker for 13 years with Wells Fargo, and is currently serving as a principal for a global advisory and consulting firm, GlobalNet Partners, which assists foreign businesses by making their "entry into the complex China market easy." Surely Bohn's ability to manipulate China's political landscape through NED's various activities both inside of China and along its peripheries constitutes an alarming conflict of interest. However, it appears "conflict of interest" is a reoccurring theme throughout both NED and Freedom House.

Bohn is joined by Rita DiMartino who worked for Council on Foreign Relations corporate member AT&T as "Vice President of Congressional Relations" as well as a member of the CFR herself. Also representing the Fortune 500 is Kenneth Duberstein, a board member of the war profiteering Boeing Company, big oil's ConocoPhillips, and the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation. Duberstein also served as a director of Fannie Mae until 2007. He too is a CFR member as are two of the companies he chairs, Boeing and ConocoPhillips. 

Image: A visual representation of the National Endowment for Democracy's corporate-financier ties found across their Board of Directors. Far from "human rights advocates," they are instead simply leveraging such issues to disguise what is in reality corporate-financier hegemonic expansion.

Other notable representatives of corporate-financier interests populating NED's board of directors include:

William Galston: Brookings Institution (board of trustees can be found on page 35 here).
Moises Naim: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (corporate funding here).
Robert Miller: corporate lawyer.
Larry Liebenow: US Chamber of Commerce (a chief proponent of SOPA), Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).
Anne-Marie Slaughter: US State Department, Council on Foreign Relations (corporate members here), director of Citigroup, McDonald's Corporation, and Political Strategies Advisory Group.
Richard Gephardt: US Representative, Boeing lobbyist, Goldman Sachs, Visa, Ameren Corp, and Waste Management Inc lobbyist, corporate consultant, consultant & now director of Ford Motor Company, supporter of the military invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
Marilyn Carlson Nelson: CEO of Carlson, director of Exxon Mobil.
Stephen Sestanovich: US State Department, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, CFR.
Judy Shelton: director of Hilton Hotels Corporation & Atlantic Coast Airlines.

Freedom House, whom Sawatree collaborates with, is funded by a multitude of corporate-financier interests. These include Goldman Sachs, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, AT&T, and the Ford Motor Company - not exactly the names that come to mind when one things of "liberal democracy" or "progressive" politics.  

It is safe to say that neither NED nor Freedom House garner within their ranks characters appropriate for their alleged cause of "supporting freedom around the world." It is also safe to say that the principles of "democracy," "freedom," and "human rights" they allegedly champion for, are merely being leveraged to co-opt well meaning people across the world to carry out their own self-serving agenda. Finally, for those like Pinkaew and Sawatree that willingly collaborate with disingenuous financially motivated organizations like NED, Freedom House, USAID, Open Society and others, they at best undermine entirely their own cause and credibility, and at worst, constitute acts of outright treason.  

Those that claim it is "benign" associating with or accepting funds from NED, Freedom House, USAID and others among this network of corporate-financier directed neo-imperialism, are naive at best. 

Advocates of Free Speech Seek to Silence Detractors 

Astonishingly, supporters of Pinkaew Laungaramsri and Sawatree Suksri have called in concert for those investigating the nature of their foreign funding to be sued in an attempt to silence such inquires. Pinkaew has refused to answer a series of questions posed to her in regards to her foreign funding, dismissing curiosity as "spinning hatred" toward her and her work. Sawatree's defenders, including Kan Yuenyong of the Siam Intelligence Unit warned this author to "please write [regarding Nitirat] carefully. This is my warning." Kan, like so many others, apply a double standard where they are free to demand answers, transparency, and accountability from others, but none may question them. Others still, are fond of defending the right to slander and even threaten Thailand's revered head of state, but work swiftly to silence critics who target them.

On Facebook in particular, Shinawatra supporters who hide behind the gimmick of "rights" and "democracy" regularly target opposing points of view by abusing the terms of service to have comments deleted and accounts suspended. This is an exhibited mentality and practiced method used by pro-Western propagandists and the indoctrinated not only within the context of Thailand's political crisis, but wherever Western interests are prying beyond their borders.

Thai Academia Must Cut Out This Cancer 
Not only for the sake of Thammasat or Chiang Mai University, but for Thai academia in general, politically motivated facades that are funded from abroad, clearly partial, and carried out by disingenuous, opaque collaborators abusing their academic credentials should be strictly prohibited on campus.

Should the likes of Pinkaew Laungaramsri or Sawatree Suksri wish to engage in immense, compromising conflicts of interest, jeopardizing stability within their country on behalf of foreign interests, they should do so in their private time and beyond the boundaries of the their respective universities. Lobbyists should transparently identify themselves as such, rather than hiding behind otherwise noble professions, from human rights advocates to journalists, to professors and scholars.

While university policy should prohibit lobbying on campus as a matter of policy, Thai law should demand that all academic groups, NGOs, and others receiving foreign funding and/or support clearly declare such support transparently, annually, and in all languages they conduct their activities in, particularly Thai and English.

Speaking up about issues within one's country from whatever perspective is one's right. Taking cash from overseas while manipulating public perception and peddling a political agenda is treason.

(Tony Cartalucci - ATN)

The solution to everything: slavery to the State

Let me clarify that. Slavery to the corporate State. Government and mega-corporations work hand in hand.

The incurably naïve believe the State is beneficent. The government is kind. The government knows what to do. The government will solve society’s ills if we let it.

Of course, the government, in the form of NSA, is spying on everybody all the time—but you see, that’s not really the government. It’s a rogue element.

Sure it is. And rainbows will appear at any moment and the people of Earth will experience a galactic frequency that eradicates all impulses toward conflict.

To put it another way, people see what they want to see.

“Ahem, when I say ‘government,’ I don’t mean the CIA or the Pentagon or the FDA or the President’s national security team, or fraudulent federal scientists, or the whole lot of venal people in Congress, or corrupt prosecutors and judges or invasive bureaucrats or paper-pushing money-sucking desk jockeys.”

Of course not. Government is an idea in the mind of God.

And when you think about it, the NSA watches over us to make sure we stay on the path of righteousness. It’s absurd to be suspicious of the State. The authors of the Constitution, who tried to limit central authority, were a bunch of paranoids.

We need more government, not less.

Here are quotes from George Orwell. In case there is any doubt, he is describing aspects of the State:

“As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life.” (The Lion and the Unicorn, 1941)

“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.” (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)

“A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then, again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revaluation of prominent historical figures.” (The Prevention of Literature, 1946)

“But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.” (1984, chapter 4)

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” (1984, chapter 5)

But you see, these are all old Orwell remarks. Now we have a different kind of State. It’s…government. Yes. The State isn’t government. Aha. The State exists in places other than America. In America, we have government. Yes, that’s right. Two different animals. One is repressive, and the other is earnest. (More rainbows for the sentimentalists.)

Here are quotes about the State from Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World:

“Till at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!” (Chapter 2)

“Every one belongs to every one else.” (Chapter 3)

“Mother, monogamy, romance. High spurts the fountain; fierce and foamy the wild jet. The urge has but a single outlet. My love, my baby. No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable.” (Chapter 3)

“Everyone works for every one else.” (Chapter 5)

“Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?”

“I don’t know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”

He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We begin giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”

“I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated. (Chapter 6)

But again, Huxley’s remarks are about the aspirations and victories of the State, which doesn’t exist in America. Never has. In America, we have a fluid and flexible government, which tries to respond to the people’s needs. Of course. Just ask Elizabeth Warren or Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, or the ghost of Richard Nixon. Ask the heads of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont. Google, Facebook, Microsoft.

There are “repressive States” in Europe, Asia, and Africa, but that is a foreign phenomenon.

Rebelling against the State? Not here. Here we merge with the government and help it and encourage it. Besides, we’ve recently learned—and this is a revelation—that rebelling is very likely a terrorist act. Well, that settles that.

We’re all in this together. Even if the “we” and the “this” and the “together” seem to require some further clarification, rest assured it will be forthcoming. At the right time.

The government understands time (and also space). It arranges them. Someone has to.

The government is not the State, the government is not the State.

Bilderberg’s New World Order plot hits Iran-Russia-China wall

Every year, the world’s most powerful people meet in secret. Their agenda: total world domination. Big media observe a near-total blackout.

It sounds like dystopian science fiction, or a conspiracy theorist’s worst nightmare.

The strangest part is that it’s true. The 2011 destabilization of Syria, the 9/11/2008 Goldman-Sachs-led controlled demolition of the world economy, and probably even the 9/11 false flag events were all plotted or okayed by the Bilderbergers.

Fortunately, the world is fighting back. The rise of the internet-based alternative media has shredded the secrecy surrounding the annual Bilderberg conference, allowing the people a glimpse of what their masters have in store for them. And the nations resisting the Bilderbergers’ world takeover attempt, led by Iran, Russia and China, are gaining ground.

That is why this year’s Bilderberg conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which ended on June 1st, was an exercise in damage control.

The Bilderbergers’ first concern, according to journalist Daniel Estulin, is the rise of Iran, Russia and China. The gas deal between Russia and China – and Iran and Russia’s successful defense of Syria against NATO-led aggression – have raised grave questions about whether the Bilderberg-led West can continue its world-domination scheme.

May 2014 brought bad news for the Bilderbergers. Russia, stung by NATO skullduggery in Ukraine, announced that it is spearheading a new Eurasian Economic Union. Meanwhile, China has just called for an Asian Security Alliance that would include Russia and Iran. All of this, on top of the Russia-China gas pipeline deal, suggests that the world is spinning out of the Bilderbergers’ control.

In response to these setbacks, the Bilderbergers are contemplating a “grand bargain” with Iran. They recognize that the West’s Zionist-driven economic sanctions have failed. The sanctions have simply led to Iran trading with China and Russia rather than the West. Ending the sanctions could set off an economic boom in Iran, allowing the West to share in the profits.

A “grand bargain” could help situate Iran as an independent third party rather than a full-fledged fire-breathing member of the new Eurasian anti-West alliance. This could represent a big win for Tehran, turning it into world’s-most-courted debutante. It would signal the West’s belated acceptance of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, and put an end to the bullying, threats, and violence that have characterized the West’s policy toward Iran since 1979.

The Bilderbergers’ next concern, according to Estulin, is the rise of anti-EU sentiment in Europe. The success of nationalist parties in the recent European Parliamentary elections represents a direct challenge to the Bilderbergers’ long-term vision of a US-EU alliance ushering in the New World Order.

Estulin’s source says the Bilderbergers put this item on their agenda even before the recent EU elections. He says the New World Order elite is worried that “a nationally driven and divided Europe would be reluctant to take globalization for granted.” Indeed, the EU’s destruction of national sovereignty is supposed to be the model for what is in store for the whole world. If the EU sputters and dies, the dream of an American-European-Zionist New World Order dies with it.

The Bilderbergers are also worried about the blowback from Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying. They are worried that American and especially European citizens will demand privacy protections that will impede the NSA’s “total information awareness.” (The NSA is the all-seeing-eye at the top of the New World Order pyramid depicted on the US dollar bill.) The Bilderbergers discussed strategies for defeating the privacy-rights advocates and continuing their progress towards a world in which everyone and everything is under total, permanent surveillance. They recently gained a small victory by limiting a German investigation into NSA surveillance and blackmail of that nation’s leaders.

The most disconcerting and ominous item on this year’s Bilderberg agenda was a forum on criticisms of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Daniel Estulin quotes the Bilderbergers:

“Critics of the US president blame him for betraying America’s leadership overseas, citing failures to defend American interests in Syria and lately in Ukraine. Obama’s newly announced doctrine calls on scaling down reliance on military force and using diplomacy and collective action instead. Bilderberg members will discuss whether this policy is doomed.”

Translation: The neoconservative architects of 9/11 and the 9/11 wars are disappointed that Obama refused to bomb Syria, attack Iran, and go to war with Russia over Crimea. They also believe that the US may have to attack China to prevent that nation’s rise to world’s-leading-superpower status.  These fanatics are willing to risk World War III in a desperate attempt to prevent the world from going multi-polar. Some are Hobbesians who believe the world needs a “sovereign” (a sole superpower, namely US-NATO) to prevent global anarchy; others are Zionist freemasons determined to establish a one world government with its capital in Occupied Jerusalem.

If these people get their way, the future of the world will be nasty, brutish, and short.

So now, thanks to people like Daniel Estulin and his sources, we know what topics the Bilderbergers discussed this year. But we do not know what decisions were taken.

Will the Bilderbergers opt for a gradual, peaceful transition to a multi-polar world by making peace with Iran and refraining from excessive aggression towards Russia and China? Or will they give the nod to the neocons, who will then set off a huge 9/11-style false flag attack to launch the next round of bloody imperial conquest?

The neocons easily fooled the world on September 11th, 2001. At that time, the expression “false flag attack” had not yet entered the world’s vocabulary.

Today, false flag awareness is at an all-time high. Whenever a spectacular “terrorist” event happens, whether it is the Boston Marathon bombing, the Sandy Hook shooting, or the chemical weapons attack at al-Ghoutha, Syria, the first question on many people’s minds is: Could this be another false flag?

Non-corporate media outlets such as Press TV, Veterans Today, Russia Today, Global Research, Infowars, WhatReallyHappened, CitizensForLegitimateGovernment, TruthJihadRadio and others have helped popularize the term “false flag.” Thanks to the independent media, millions of people have heard of Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio, the Lavon Affair, Operation Cyanide, and the 46 drills of 9/11.

So if the Bilderbergers opt for another huge false flag, they will have to take down the internet. The obvious way to do that would be through a “cyber-9/11.”

Did the secret Central Committee of the Bilderberg Group just authorize a massive cyber-9/11? Or have they opted for kinder, gentler tactics this year?

To find out, stay tuned to the alternative media…while you can.

Source:
http://tranceworldnews.com/home/?p=795

Leaked Secret Agenda From Bilderberg 2014 Revealed

This is why it's critical to follow the most powerful group in the world

Bilderberg, the annual gathering of the world’s most powerful politicians and business magnates, is clearly shaping global policies by positioning its favored politicians as world leaders, determining the timetables of military conflicts and influencing the economic policies of nearly every nation on the planet, impacting the lives of billions around the globe.

Daniel Estulin, an author and expert on the Bilderberg Group, has learned from his internal sources several items on Bilderberg’s agenda for this year’s conference in Copenhagen, Denmark which began yesterday:

1) Nuclear diplomacy – how Russia, China and even Iran could work together to erode western hegemony.

2) The recent gas agreement between Russia and China – how this and other long-term projects between the two countries will likely reduce dependency on the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency.

3) The rise of nationalism within Europe that is challenging the power structure of the European Union – the recent victories of the populist United Kingdom Independence Party, which opposes the European Union, is particularly concerning to the Bilderberg Group because the EU, and its Euro currency, were formulated by the group at its second annual meeting in 1955.

4) The European Union’s Internet privacy regulations – what they mean for the United States.

5) The rise of cyber warfare – the government could deceptively use the threat of cyber attacks to strengthen censorship and other Internet regulations.

6) From Ukraine to Syria – Is Obama’s foreign policy doomed?

7) The “climate change” agenda – the deindustrialization of targeted nations as a result of “climate change” treaties and legislation.

And there’s likely more that will be discussed during this year’s three-day conference.

But to truly absorb the importance of these agenda items and the influence of the Bilderberg Group, it’s critical to look back at several of the world’s most significant events in the past several decades, which were not as random as they appear but were rather planned by design inside the eloquently-furnished meeting rooms of past Bilderberg conferences.

As previously mentioned, the 1955 Bilderberg meeting in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany focused on the creation of the European Union and a single European currency, both of which occurred in the early 1990s after decades of gradual implementation.

In 1991, the then governor of Arkansas, who was relatively unknown at the time, was invited to attend the Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany. Just over one year later the governor, William Jefferson Clinton, became the President of the United States.

The former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, likewise came to power as the UK’s Leader of the Opposition one year after attending a Bilderberg meeting in 1993.

Now we see that the current Democratic mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, was invited for this year’s Bilderberg conference in Copenhagen.

“He’s seen as one of the few legitimate Democratic candidates for higher office in Georgia,” a Republican strategist told Roll Call in 2012, adding that he will be a formidable adversary to the GOP.

It would appear that Bilderberg is grooming him for just that.

Besides modern-day king making, the Bilderberg Group also has tremendous influence in economics and geopolitical events.

In the early 2000s, late investigative journalist Jim Tucker correctly predicted that Operation Iraqi Freedom would commence in March 2003 and not in late 2002 as so many defense analysts were suggesting at the time.

But how did Tucker know? Because he wasn’t just guessing; sources inside Bilderberg told him.

Estulin also correctly predicted the 2007 collapse of the housing bubble a year before it happened after receiving information from his own sources inside the Bilderberg Group.

Bilderberg agenda revealed: Elite desperate to recue unipolar world

Anti-EU revolution, Ukraine crisis threaten to derail global government

The 2014 Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark is taking place amidst a climate of panic for many of the 120 globalists set to attend the secretive confab, with Russia’s intransigence on the crisis in Ukraine and the anti-EU revolution sweeping Europe posing a serious threat to the unipolar world order Bilderberg spent over 60 years helping to build.

Inside sources confirm to Infowars that the elite conference, which will take place from Thursday onwards at the five star Marriott Hotel, will center around how to derail a global political awakening that threatens to hinder Bilderberg’s long standing agenda to centralize power into a one world political federation, a goal set to be advanced with the passage of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which will undoubtedly be a central topic of discussion at this year’s meeting.

The TTIP represents an integral component of Bilderberg’s attempt to rescue the unipolar world by creating a “world company,” initially a free trade area, which would connect the United States with Europe. Just as the European Union started as a mere free trade area and was eventually transformed into a political federation which controls upwards of 50 per cent of its member states’ laws and regulations with total contempt for national sovereignty and democracy, TTIP is designed to accomplish the same goal, only on a bigger scale.

The deal is being spearheaded by Obama’s U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, a Wall Street insider and a CFR member, Bilderberg’s sister organization. Froman is simultaneously helping to build another block of this global government, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a similar project involving Asian countries.

Given that Bilderberg schemed to create the Euro single currency as far back as 1955 (Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg in 2009 interview), the results of the European elections are sure to have stirred outright alarm amongst Bilderberg globalists who are aghast that their planned EU superstate is being eroded as a result of a populist resistance mainly centered around animosity towards uncontrolled immigration policies.

In Denmark itself, the buzz is centered around Morten Messerschmidt and the Danish People’s party, which won 27% of the vote in the Euro elections and doubled its number of MEPs. Although some are wary of Messerschmidt’s far right inclinations, his success reflects a general resentment not only in Denmark but across Europe towards immigration and the welfare state, concerns that the EU has only exasperated.

Meanwhile in France, Marine Le Pen is carving out a role as the face of a conservative movement that threatens “to break up one united Europe,” with her European election win being described as an “earthquake” that has rattled the political heart of Europe.

Voters in the United Kingdom also delivered a thumping rejection of the EU and in turn Bilderberg with the success of Nigel Farage and UKIP, a Euroskeptic triumph some are labeling the “most extraordinary” election result for 100 years.

As well as TTIP and the fallout from the European election disaster, Bilderberg will be tackling a number of other key issues, most of which will revolve around the continued effort to centralize economic power under several different guises, including a carbon tax paid directly to the United Nations, with the financial hit being taken by individuals as big companies are granted special “waivers” that will allow them to continue to pollute.

The rumbling crisis in Ukraine and the relationship between Russia and NATO will also be a focal point of Bilderberg 2014. Globalists now consider Vladimir Putin to have ostracized Russia from the new world order because he dared to “challenge the international system,” as John Kerry put it.

Bilderberg will discuss fears that Putin is intent on constructing an alternative world order based around the BRICS countries, a “multi-polar” system that would devastate the dollar as the world reserve currency and also heavily dilute the current US-EU-NATO power axis.

Infowars reporters will be on the ground all this week to cover the 2014 Bilderberg Group conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The Holy Roman Empire Corporate controlled US Prepares to Overthrow Malaysian Government

Key to encircling & containing China, Empire US CORPORATIONS sets proxies in motion for color revolution in Malaysian streets. 

Image: US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim leads a Bersih rally in Malaysia. While Bersih has attempted to claim it is "independent" and simply pursusing "fair and clean elections," it is clearly a vehicle for returning Anwar Ibrahim back into power. Additionally, Bersih shares the same ties to the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as its crypto-leader Anwar Ibrahim - representing a dangerous and seditious conflict of interest.

....

May 15, 2013 (AltThaiNews) - US-funded opposition fronts have vowed to overthrow the Malaysian government via disruptive and potentially violent street protests in the wake of general elections that saw their leader Anwar Ibrahim soundly defeated despite massive support from Western media, NGOs, and direct government intervention. Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported in their article, "‘BN will be toppled this year’," that:

Pro-Pakatan Rakyat groups have vowed to overthrow the Barisan Nasional government this year through a massive street rally.

Speakers at a forum held yesterday unanimously agreed that waiting for five years until the next
general election was too long, and vowed to overthrow BN this year through “force”.

 FMT also added that:

Electoral watchdog group Bersih 2.0 steering committee member  Hishamuddin Rais pointed out that it was useless to take their unhappiness to the courts as he claimed the justice system was being controlled by the government.

“That is why we must take to the streets. We have to come out. What Najib likes is wrong, and what he doesn’t like is what we have to do,” he said.

“We will mobilise a big group and rally on the streets. This is not a threat, this is a promise,” he stressed.

Bersih, of course, is a US State Department-funded opposition front aimed to bolster US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim, formerly of the IMF and World Bank, and a frequent visitor to the insidious National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington D.C. It is in fact, NED that funds Bersih through its subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan:

"...admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march." 

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization - before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI's rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.






Photo: NDI's website before taking down any mention to Malaysia's Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)

....

In addition to Bersih, other faux-electoral monitors are also directly funded by the US government. While the Western media attempts to portray such organizations as "independent," the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, for example, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED.

Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony - the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called "independent" election monitor Merdeka - paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.

 Photo: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy's 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a "panelist." It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)

....

Without a doubt, this premeditated sedition aimed at Malaysia's ruling government has been designed, funded, and directed from Washington on behalf of Wall Street and London, not by the Malaysian people on behalf of Malaysia's best interests.

The street protests conducted by Bersih have all the hallmarks of US-backed "color revolutions," and this recent attempt to overturn election results that do not favor an overt US-proxy, foreshadows the same destructive, divisive, violent, and regressive unrest that has plagued Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria after US-engineered uprisings have left each in turn destabilized, failed states overrun by extremists, dictators, and traitors many times worse than the governments activists sought to overthrow.

And with Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria in hindsight, will Malaysians fall into this same familiar trap? Whatever discontent Malaysians may have with the current government, it is all but assured Bersih and US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim will compound perceived injustices while compromising Malaysia's political, social, and economic stability, and begin channeling Malaysia's resources and energy toward foreign interests and designs, particularly those involving the encirclement and containment of China.

An Alternative to the Tired Ploy of "Street Protests" 

For the average Malaysian seeking progress, a better bet than joining US-funded sedition would be to turn their attention toward organizing locally and focusing on pragmatic, rather than political, goals. Education, local economic development, health, and local infrastructure are all areas Malaysians, regardless of political affiliations, can work together on and improve regardless of who holds public office.

And while special interests, both foreign and domestic, can indeed hinder such progress, they do not make such progress impossible. What is certain, is that corruption amongst Malaysia's ruling party pales in comparison to that of Wall Street and London - and Malaysians will place themselves in the path of guaranteed destruction by inviting in the very people who dominated them before achieving a hard-won independence.

Democracy, in reality, is supposed to be a bottom-up exercise drawn from the grassroots. Bersih is clearly a vehicle for Anwar Ibrahim and his political machine - one whose message is funded, crafted, and declared from Anwar's political advisers and foreign backers, and disseminated across the movement - however cleverly "democratized" Bersih may attempt to appear.

Malaysians do not need a political party to improve education, to grow their own food, to develop business locally by leveraging technology, or to improve local infrastructure and strengthen local communities. The time being wasted to assist Anwar Ibrahim's worming back into political power at the cost of peace, stability, and prosperity could be better spent developing truly grassroots pragmatic power.

Real revolutions do not happen out on the streets - they are manifested in our schools, across industry, and within our communities. They are marked by pragmatism and true, enduring technological and socioeconomic progress - none of which are even promised by Bersih and Anwar Ibrahim's "People's Alliance."  If the people of Malaysia truly want "change," they are going to have to do it themselves by building local institutions that technologically and pragmatically solve real problems rather than simply craft slogans and campaign promises that merely pander to the concerns of the people. Following the flags of Bersih into the streets will  undoubtedly begin instability and division across Malaysian society that will jeopardize, not spur, real and very necessary pragmatic progress.