Page 1 of 1

Bilderberg Agenda Exposed

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 6:56 pm
by smeggypants
Bilderberg Agenda Exposed

The annual Bilderberg meeting of the most high powered world figures was held from May 14 to may 17 at Vouliagmeni, Greece, near Athens. Considering the high profile and high notability of the people attending note the complete lack of mainstream media coverage.

Amongst the Bilderberg goals are creating a global Department of Treasury and Global Department of Health.

Bilderberg Agenda Exposed
James P. Tucker Jr.
American Free Press
Friday, May 22, 2009

Article Source

Bilderberg boys are a bunch of grumpy old men but remain fiercely dedicated to usurping sovereignty in the United States and throughout the world. Patriots can celebrate their setbacks but never let up: Bilderberg still threatens the sovereignty of all nations while fighting for world government.

Major goals remain exploiting the global recession and an imaginary “swine flu pandemic” to establish global departments of treasury and health under the United Nations. But at the May 14-17 meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece, near Athens, Bilderberg took a keen interest in persuading the United States to surrender sovereignty to the International Criminal Court, or ICC.

Bilderberg is also setting up a “summit” in Israel June 8-11 so “the world’s leading regulatory experts” can “address the current economic situation in one forum,” said Zohar Goshen, chairman of a subgroup of the International Association of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Mary Shapiro, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, will represent this country.

Bilderberg found President Obama a Willing Wilkie at its June, 2008 meeting in Chantilly, Va. near Washington. They were reassured when he chose their boy, Harold Koh, a strong advocate of the U.S. accepting the ICC, as the State Department’s top lawyer.

In the Penn State Law Review, Koh wrote sneeringly of “nationalists” who oppose surrendering sovereignty to international institutions, including the ICC. He praised the “transnationalist faction” on the Supreme Court and the wisdom of the jurists for their rejection of the “nationalist faction.”

“Generally speaking, the transnationalists tend to emphasize the interdependence between the United States and the rest of the world, while the nationalists tend instead to focus more on preserving American autonomy,” Koh wrote. “The transnationalists believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law, while nationalists continue to maintain a rigid separation of domestic from foreign law.”

The “transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law, while nationalists argue instead that only the political branches can internalize international law,”

Koh wrote. “Transnationalists believe that U.S. courts could and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system, while the nationalists tend to claim that U.S. courts should limit their attention to the development of a national system.”

Five Supreme Court justices have said, to Koh’s delight, that U.S. courts should take into consideration the rulings of foreign courts in deciding domestic cases. They are: John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

In a Bilderberg warm up, the Washington-based American Society of International Law called on the U.S to embrace the ICC. These luminaries
included former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, former Rep. Mickey Edwards and a roster of educated fools.

Carl Bildt, Sweden’s minister for foreign affairs, made a pitch for two other major Bilderberg goals: creating a global Department of Treasury and Department of Health, with all nations surrendering sovereignty over these issues to the UN. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is to become the Treasury Department and the World Health Organization the World Health Department.

See The Unofficial List of High-Powered Attendees at Bilderberg 2009

Bilderberg Agenda Exposed

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:53 pm
by Stanley Tweedle

May or may not be relevant. :ninja:

The stuff about Susan Boyle makes me lol.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. By direct order of the Supreme Grand Illuminatus himself, I am disregarding the unfortunately too insightful opinion of Tris2000. Sandstein 05:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 2009 Bilderberg Meeting

2009 Bilderberg Meeting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is a pov content fork of Bilderberg Group which covers the subject in general and specifically of this meeting. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Bilderberg Meeting. A suggestion for a merge has been rejected on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is enough well-sourced material for it to stand on its own. If all meetings are brought together with the main bilderberg article, that would be too big. It also give space for expanding the especific meeting details, as a lot of information usually comes out after the meeting. Regarding the security for example, it gives further details, as the use of F-16 jets, which seems to be the first time in a bilderberg meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

* Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
* Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
* Comment: The Guardian had excellent (and somewhat scary) coverage for this event, although it's only referred to in the article, rather than detailed. Still, all this and more could easily go into the parent article. Hairhorn (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
* Delete - most of this material is non-notable. Some of these participants are already mentioned in the main article. Alternatively, names of participants could be included in the List of Bilderberg participants article. The only non-trivial claim made is that 'the resort was protected by hundreds of police, coast guard, speedboats and two F-16 fighter planes,' but as this is attributed to an unnamed source it is next to worthless. The fact that a couple of journalists were detained during a security operation is sadly also non-notable. One could be detained for less on a Sunday afternoon in London nowadays. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
* Keep and expand - I would say to keep the page and expand. Answering the justifications above:
o "That the guardian article had a great coverage but was only referenced": an initial summary was done based on the article, but with a lot of space for expantion. The removal of the page won't help for the completeness of the subject.
o "That participants had been already mentioned in the main article and to use the list of participants": in the main article of the main subjets you will find a summary about the last of even all of its sub-parts. See ... ries_three and Britain%27s_Got_Talent_%28series_3%29. About moving the names to the list of participants, that list doens't give an idea of the cronology, so you can't see easily who went in the last meeting, and finally we need to have cohesion here, why not keeping all the known and relably sourced information about this especific event all in the same page, the 2009 Bilderberg_Meeting page.

I accept that listing the 2009 participants together better indicates the chronology. This does not merit a separate article. If such detail is notable, perhaps participants could be listed together at the List of Bilderberg meetings article? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

o "Regarding the security, the only non-trivial is said to be worthless because the jornalist didn't named his source." it'ś on the right of the jornalist to not reveal directly his source, that doesn't take the credibility of the information. And after all, the excessive security was confirmed accross the whole series of the Guardianś article and others.
o "That the majority of the article is not notable and the fact of the few jornalists that covered the event have been detained and followed is not notable.". What is more notable then, Susan Boyle ending up in the hospital? Or all the results of all Britain's Got Talent have its place on wikipedia? Is this more important than a secret and highly secure catching up of the 130 more important, influent and rich people in the world under a black-out of the mainstream media?
* The arguments for removal of articles are getting more and more biased, not only of this article in particular. If the article is missing some information we can work on that, but it will help no one to have the whole page removed, except for keeping people away from the truth. Echofloripa (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Susan Boyle, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, see in there: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.""Echofloripa (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete - pov fork, conspiracy fancruft; not a likely search term; individual meetings should be presented in context within Bilderberg Group. Tom Harrison Talk 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedily keep - this article HAS to stay. The amount of monarchs and leaders who attended the meeting, enshrouded in secrecy, makes it notable in itself. I would also be EXTREMELY WARY of anyone recommending we remove this article. The Illuminati shun publicity so to remove the article from Wikipedia is therefore bowing down to their pressure. This article needs to stay here and, preferably, expanded. Tris2000 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bilderberg Agenda Exposed

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:06 pm
by smeggypants
Wikipedia does suffer from certain political agendas spending a lot of effort getting stuff removed they don't want seen.