Leaked 1955 Bilderberg Docs Outline Plan For Single European Currency

Global elite spoke of agenda to create Euro nearly 40 years before it was first codified in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leaked documents from the 1955 Bilderberg Group conference held in Germany discuss the agenda to create a European Union and a single EU currency, decades before they were introduced, disproving once again debunkers who claim that Bilderberg has no influence over world events.

Leaked papers from the meeting which took place from September 23-25 1955 at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany, were released by the Wikileaks website yesterday.

The full document can be read here (the password is ‘dynbase’).

As we first reported in 2003, a BBC investigative team were allowed to access Bilderberg files which confirmed that the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg. They were probably reading from the same documents that were released by Wikileaks.

It was only last month that Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990′s.

However, the documents show that the agenda to create a European common market and a single currency go back decades earlier.

The summary report of the 1955 meeting talks of the “Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.”

The document also outlines the plan, “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

Just two years later, in 1957, the first incarnation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was born, which comprised of a single market between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The EEC gradually enlarged over the next few decades until it became the European Community, one of the three pillars of the European Union, which was officially created in 1993.

The 1955 Bilderberg summary outlines a consensus that, “It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities.” The EEC was duly created via the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on 25 March 1957.

The same process is still being followed to this day with the Lisbon Treaty, which hands over vast swathes of national sovereignty to the EU by means of the consent of Presidents and Prime Ministers of European countries, rather than by the arbitrary creation of new authorities, a method that would more obviously lay bare the fact that the creation of a federal EU superstate is totalitarian by its very nature.

Even so, debunkers will probably still try and claim that the idea of a common European market was floating around in the early 1950′s and that Bilderberg were merely debating contemporary political ideas.

However, the same cannot be said for the single European currency, which wasn’t even introduced in the form of notes and coins until January 2002, having been first codified in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The documents prove that Bilderberg members were pushing for its introduction nearly 40 years earlier.

“A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority,” states the summary document.

True to form, the single European currency, the Euro, was not introduced until after the creation of a central political authority – the EU itself.

The document also stresses, “The necessity to bring the German people into a common European market as quickly as possible,” adding that the future was in danger without a “United Europe”.

We also learn that, “A United States participant confirmed that the United States had not weakened in its enthusiastic support for the idea of integration, although there was considerable diffidence in America as to how this enthusiasm should be manifested. Another United States participant urged his European friends to go ahead with the unification of Europe with less emphasis on ideological considerations and, above all, to be practical and work fast.”

Despite the plethora of manifestly provable examples of where Bilderberg’s agenda has later played out in actual policies and geopolitical developments on the world stage, establishment media debunkers still scoff and sneer at independent researchers who dare claim that 150 of the world’s most influential powerbrokers meeting in secret to discuss the future of the planet might equate to something more than an informal talking shop, calling such assertions “conspiracy theories”.

Indeed, the sheer stupidity of debunkers to suggest that an event that attracts the titans of government, industry, banking, business and academia, at which the most pressing global issues of the day are vigorously discussed under the cloak of a mutually agreed media blackout, has no bearing on future world events, is the most laughable “conspiracy theory” ever uttered.

Bilderberg’s 2009 agenda has already been leaked before their May 14-17 meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece. According to investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, one of Bilderberg’s aims is to smear anti-Lisbon Treaty activists and politicians by planting derogatory stories in the media, enabling them to silence opposition to an EU federal superstate that Bilderberg has been carefully cultivating since their very first meetings in the 1950′s – a fact, not a conspiracy theory, proven by Bilderberg’s own internal documents.

Source : PrisonPlanet

Advertisements

Al-Qaeda’s Eton & Ritz bomb plot

ETON College and The Ritz hotel are on a hit-list of bomb targets drawn up by a ruthless al-Qaeda commander, The Sun can reveal.

The plot details were found on the body of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the terror group’s chief in East Africa, after he was shot dead.

Security chiefs held a top-level summit with Government ministers and anti-terror police yesterday after the discovery of the al-Qaeda plot.

US security services have also been informed, and are understood to have put out a “sector warning” to alert major hotel chains to the threat.

Target ... Eton College

Target … Eton College

Both British and US security chiefs ordered further investigations.

Bloodthirsty Mohammed, 38 – the mastermind behind two US embassy blasts in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 224 people 12 years ago – was shot in war-torn Somalia’s capital Mogadishu.

His list underlines the continued threat from al-Qaeda despite Osama Bin Laden’s death.

An intelligence source confirmed: “Eton and the Ritz were on a list of what are assumed to be potential UK targets.

“There was no indication that an attack was looming – but given his track record, questions have to be asked about why such a list should be in his possession. I understand that the school has been spoken to.”

Eton College is one of the world’s most prestigious schools. Old boys include PM David Cameron as well as Princes William and Harry.

The Ritz, in central London, is one of the world’s best-known hotels.

Target ... London's Ritz hotel

Target … London’s Ritz hotel

Terrorism expert Chris Dobson said: “A successful attack on Eton and the Ritz would represent a strike at the heart of the British establishment.”

The heads of MI5 and MI6 have both issued public warnings about the threat to Britain from Somali-based terrorists.

MI5 Director-General Jonathan Evans said renegade Brits were known to be receiving terrorist training in Somali camps.

He added: “Somalia shows many of the characteristics that made Afghanistan so dangerous as a seedbed for terrorism.”

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda has selected its long-time number two to succeed Osama bin Laden following last month’s US commando raid that killed the terror leader.

According to a statement put out on an al-Qaeda-linked website, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who will be 60 next week, is to replace bin Laden. He warned America in a video released earlier this month that it faces an international community of Muslims who aim to destroy the US and its allies.

A MAN of 25 was last night charged with four counts of possessing information likely to help terrorists. Asim Kauser, from Bolton, is due in court in London today.

Source : The Sun

US vows to hunt down, kill new Al-Qaeda leader

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States will seek to hunt down and kill new Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri just as it did his predecessor Osama bin Laden, the top US military officer said Thursday.

“There is not a surprise from my perspective that he’s moved into that position,” Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told journalists after the Egyptian leader was named the new Al-Qaeda chief.

“He and his organization are still threatening us, and as we did both seek to capture and kill — and succeed in killing — bin Laden, we certainly will do the same thing with Zawahiri.”

Source : Yahoo News

An al-Qaida-linked website has posted a potential hit list of targets that include names and photos of several U.S. officials and business leaders, calling for terrorists to target these Americans in their own homes, NBC New York has learned.

The FBI has sent out a new intelligence bulletin to law enforcement agencies, warning that this new web-based threat, while not a specific plot, is very detailed. The bulletin said the list includes leaders “in government, industry and media.”

The FBI has notified those individuals who are named.

NBC New York will not identify them or their companies. The list includes Wall Street firms, political leaders, leaders with think tanks and contractors who do business with the military.

The websites contain 40 specific names, 26 of them with photos attached, and they call for posting home addresses. One jihadist called for sending package bombs to any listed address as just one possibility.

An FBI spokesman declined to comment.

The FBI is calling the list of names the most detailed web-based al-Qaida-linked threat since Osama bin Laden was killed. The list has also been discussed on another al-Qaida-linked web forum.

The concern is a lone actor could try to use the specific information for a plot.

The FBI letter says the information on the overseas websites “is aspirational and it’s unknown if the threat will progress beyond these discussion forums.”

These specific postings follow calls by Adam Gadahn — al-Qaida’s American-born communication chief — for individual attacks.

Officials are concerned the list has been shared on numerous jihadist sites.

“What’s scary about this is how specific the individual information is,” said former New York State Homeland Security Director Michael Balboni. “What you don’t know is, when does aspirational become operational in cases like this, involving a possible lone actor here inspired by a website.”

The FBI memo stresses al-Qaida and its supporters have a history of making web based threats with little result.

“Part of this is a necessary precaution. You don’t want to scare people,” Balboni said. “But there is much more specific, individual targeting than we’ve seen before.”

Since bin Laden was killed, intelligence officials have been working to track terrorists and monitor possible plots. Experts say fear of a homegrown or isolated actor remains a concern.

 

Source : NBC

Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya

A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

The White House is expected on Wednesday to deliver to Congress a much-anticipated report detailing military activity in Libya.

According to Kucinich, the suit will challenge the Obama administration’s “circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney said at his daily press briefing that he is aware of the lawsuit and said the forthcoming report to Congress would resolve questions in it.

“We feel very confident that we will be able to answer the questions that Congress has,” he said.

A senior Obama administration official, speaking on background, dismissed the Kucinich lawsuit, but declined to address it directly.

“I don’t think we should comment specifically about lawsuit,” the official said.

But former Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.), the co-chairman of the Constitution Project’s War Powers Committee, called the Kucinich suit “right on the merits” but certain to be dismissed on procedural grounds because courts have determined members of Congress do not have standing to file such suits.

The suit comes a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent Obama a letter claiming that military action in Libya will violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution if it does not end by Friday, 90 days after it began.

The Kucinich-Jones group also includes Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republicans Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Ron Paul of Texas, Tim Johnson of Illinois and Dan Burton of Indiana.
Source : http://www.politico.com/

Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants in Bin Laden Raid

WASHINGTON — Pakistan’s top military spy agency has arrested some of the Pakistani informants who fed information to the Central Intelligence Agency in the months leading up to the raid that led tothe death of Osama bin Laden, according to American officials.

Pakistan’s detention of five C.I.A. informants, including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the weeks before the raid, is the latest evidence of the fractured relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It comes at a time when the Obama administration is seeking Pakistan’s support in brokering an endgame in the war in neighboring Afghanistan.

At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.

“Three,” Mr. Morell replied, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers.

Some in Washington see the arrests as illustrative of the disconnect between Pakistani and American priorities at a time when they are supposed to be allies in the fight against Al Qaeda — instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man.

The Bin Laden raid and more recent attacks by militants in Pakistan have been blows to the country’s military, a revered institution in the country. Some officials and outside experts said the military is mired in its worst crisis of confidence in decades.

American officials cautioned that Mr. Morell’s comments about Pakistani support was a snapshot of the current relationship, and did not represent the administration’s overall assessment.

“We have a strong relationship with our Pakistani counterparts and work through issues when they arise,” said Marie E. Harf, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. “Director Panetta had productive meetings last week in Islamabad. It’s a crucial partnership, and we will continue to work together in the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who threaten our country and theirs.”

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, said in a brief telephone interview that the C.I.A. and the Pakistani spy agency “are working out mutually agreeable terms for their cooperation in fighting the menace of terrorism. It is not appropriate for us to get into the details at this stage.”

Over the past several weeks the Pakistani military has been distancing itself from American intelligence and counterterrorism operations against militant groups in Pakistan. This has angered many in Washington who believe that Bin Laden’s death has shaken Al Qaeda and that there is now an opportunity to further weaken the terrorist organization with more raids and armed drone strikes.

But in recent months, dating approximately to when a C.I.A. contractor killed two Pakistanis on a street in the eastern city of Lahore in January, American officials said that Pakistani spies from the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, have been generally unwilling to carry out surveillance operations for the C.I.A. The Pakistanis have also resisted granting visas allowing American intelligence officers to operate in Pakistan, and have threatened to put greater restrictions on the drone flights.

It is the future of the drone program that is a particular worry for the C.I.A. American officials said that during his meetings in Pakistan last week, Mr. Panetta was particularly forceful about trying to get Pakistani officials to allow armed drones to fly over even wider areas in the northwest tribal regions. But the C.I.A. is already preparing for the worst: relocating some of the drones from Pakistan to a base in Afghanistan, where they can take off and fly east across the mountains and into the tribal areas, where terrorist groups find safe haven.

Another casualty of the recent tension is an ambitious Pentagon program to train Pakistani paramilitary troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in those same tribal areas. That program has ended, both American and Pakistani officials acknowledge, and the last of about 120 American military advisers have left the country.

American officials are now scrambling to find temporary jobs for about 50 Special Forces support personnel who had been helping the trainers with logistics and communications. Their visas were difficult to obtain and officials fear if these troops are sent home, Pakistan will not allow them to return.

In a sign of the growing anger on Capitol Hill, Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that he believed elements of the ISI and the military had helped protect Bin Laden.

Mr. Rogers, who met with senior security officials in Pakistan last week, said he had no evidence that senior Pakistani military or civilian leaders were complicit in sheltering Bin Laden. And he did not offer any proof to support his assertion, saying only his accusation was based on “information that I’ve seen.”

He warned that both lawmakers and the Obama administration could end up putting more restrictions on the $2 billion in American military aid received annually by Pakistan. He also called for “benchmarks” in the relationship, including more sharing of information about militant activities in Karachi, Lahore and elsewhere and more American access to militants detained in Pakistan.

American military commanders in Afghanistan appear cautiously optimistic that they are making progress in pushing the Taliban from its strongholds in that country’s south, but many say a significant American military withdrawal can occur only if the warring sides in Afghanistan broker some kind of peace deal.

But the United States is reliant on Pakistan to apply pressure on Taliban leaders, over whom they have historically had great influence.

For now, at least, America’s relationship with Pakistan keeps getting tripped up. When he visited Pakistan, Mr. Panetta offered evidence of collusion between Pakistani security officials and the militants staging attacks in Afghanistan.

American officials said Mr. Panetta presented satellite photographs of two bomb-making factories that American spies several weeks ago had asked the ISI to raid. When Pakistani troops showed up days later, the militants were gone, causing American officials to question whether the militants had been warned by someone on the Pakistani side.

Shortly after the failed raids, the Defense Department put a hold on a $300 million payment reimbursing Pakistan for the cost of deploying more than 100,000 troops along the border with Afghanistan, two officials said.  The Pentagon declined to comment on the payment, except to say it was “continuing to process several claims.”

Source : http://www.nytimes.com/

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress thatPresident Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned dronesoperated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Council resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.

On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, sent Mr. Obama a letter pointing out that even under a flexible interpretation of War Powers Resolution that would allow hostilities to last 90 days without Congressional authorization, Mr. Obama was out of time. Mr. Boehner demanded a legal explanation by Friday.

“Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Boehner wrote. “The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”

It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will accept the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or whether the White House’s response will instead fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.

“There is no clear legal answer,” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”

Ten members of Congress — led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit on Weednesday asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to stop the air war. The suit asserts that the operation is illegal because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.

The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention in Libya on his own authority as commander-in-chief because it was not a “war” in the constitutional sense. It also released a memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel agreeing that he could do so unilaterally because he anticipated that its nature, scope, and duration would be limited.

Since then, the conflict in Libya has dragged on longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, from power. But Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya may be a diplomatic goal, the military mission is separate, and remains limited to protecting civilians.

The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities. But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.

While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Nixon’s veto — no administration has said that the section imposing the 60-day clock was unconstitutional. In 1980,the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress’s constitutional power to enact such a limit on unauthorized hostilities.

Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said the 1980 memorandum remains in force, but that their legal argument does not invoke any constitutional challenge to the act.

It was not clear whether the Office of Legal Counsel has endorsed the White House’s interpretation of what “hostilities” means. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether the office had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss inter-agency deliberations.

Mr. Koh argued that the administration’s interpretation of the word was not unprecedented, noting that there have been previous disputes about whether the 60-day-clock portion of the War Powers Resolution applied to deployments where — unlike the Libya operation — there were troops on the ground and Americans suffered casualties.

Still, such previous cases typically involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited to take part, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence, like those in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. Libya, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardment of a government’s forces.

The closest precedent was the NATO-led air war over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, the Clinton administration’s legal team characterized the campaign, which involved many piloted American warplanes, as “hostilities” even though there was little exchange of fire from Serb forces after their air defenses were destroyed and there were no United States casualties.

In Kosovo, however, Congress appropriated specific funds for the mission before 60 days had passed. The Clinton administration decided that by providing the money, Congress had satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

 

Source : http://www.nytimes.com/