RCMP conducted five-month national security probe into leaked F-35 story By: Murray Brewster and Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
Posted: 05/16/2012 4:16 PM | Comments: 17 (including replies) | Last Modified: 05/16/2012 4:54 PM
OTTAWA - The Harper government called in the RCMP to investigate a politically embarrassing story involving the decision to sole-source the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter, claiming it was a breach of national security, The Canadian Press has learned.
The Mounties conducted a five-month review into an alleged leak of cabinet documents under the Security of Information Act, recently used to charge a naval intelligence officer in an apparent spy case.
Records obtained under the Access to Information Act show investigators had doubts almost from the outset in July 2010 that any laws were broken in the Globe and Mail story.
The story revealed angst within government about possible alienation from Washington if a competition was held to replace the air force's CF-18s.
Still, the review pressed ahead and drew in one of the RCMP's four Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams, whose job it is to chase terrorism threats.
It was shut down in December 2010 for lack of evidence.
The case file shows the complaint was laid by Wayne Wouters, clerk of the Privy Council, the country's highest-ranking civil servant and adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, shortly after the article appeared on June 11, 2010.
The story by reporter Daniel Leblanc ran a month before the Harper government formally announced it had selected the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 in a glitzy photo-op that included a mock-up of the radar-evading jet.
The first RCMP member to review the allegation on July 8 was mystified as to what the issue might be.
"By reading the article, it is unclear how the info, interferes with the development of weapons or jeopardizes the safety of Canada," said the summary file, which rated the preliminary investigation as a medium priority.
"It is an analytical fact that Canada and the USA are allies in several aspects. International competition may hinder Can-US relationships if Canada decides to turn down US offer, and the Globe and Mail article has not shed new lights on these facts or revealed secrets."
Doubts about the substance of the complaint lingered until the file was closed, the records show.
The prime minister's communications director defended the decision to ask for an investigation.
"The RCMP was asked to look into a possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information as has been done from time to time," said Andrew MacDougall in an email.
A spokesman for the RCMP, Cpl. David Falls, said the force has a mandate to "investigate the unauthorized disclosure, mishandling or communication of classified information," but declined to comment on the specifics of the Globe and Mail investigation, referring questions to the Privy Council Office.
The case file reveals investigators recommended on Sept. 2, 2010, the review be shut down. The complaint could be "concluded as it does not constitute a breach of secret or protected documents."
Yet it was kept alive by senior officers, who insisted National Defence be consulted, especially in light of reports that summer that computers at the 1st Canadian Air Division headquarters had been hacked.
As it turned out, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service was already looking into the issue, but as part of the wider damage assessment of the massive leak of U.S. documents to the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.
Military police said they had "no way of knowing what cabinet document was released" and later concluded that the Globe and Mail story did not constitute a breach, according to records and defence sources.
The RCMP closed its file in November 2010, but was forced to "re-activate" the case and "investigate further" because it was noted no one had talked to Wouters.
The file "should not have been concluded at this time before the complainant was met and had a chance to explain why he thinks there was a leak of 'secret cabinet documents,'" said a Dec. 22, 2010, notation.
The investigator apparently tried to contact Wouters, seeking clarification and was rebuked by the National Security Criminal Operations Branch, which noted the complaint had been filed by letter through the commissioner's office.
It took Mounties in charge of the case two-and-a-half months to get their hands on an actual copy the letter, which had been "kept at the commissioner's office."
In finally shutting down the probe, the Mounties said "since the information was available on open source, it was decided that no further investigation was needed."
Wesley Wark, an expert in security and intelligence at the University of Ottawa, said he was concerned by the revelations in the file. He described the probe as a misuse of not only the RCMP, but of the security legislation, one of the most serious laws on the book.
"This has the whiff, well more than a whiff, of a politically inspired move," said Wark.
"The complaint was coming from an odd place, an admittedly senior place within the government. The fact the clerk would ask the commissioner to do this is in of itself very unusual."
He said it would not have been so unusual had the request for an investigation come from either the deputy ministers at Defence or Foreign Affairs — departments that would have had a more direct say whether the story contained classified information.
But even in those cases, Wark said, departments have their own security officers who track media leaks and those rarely amount to criminal investigations.
He said it is also unusual in that the government would have known that media leak provisions of the legislation were struck down a few years ago in the aftermath of the case where Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill's home was raided following stories she wrote about the Maher Arar affair.
"There are a number of things at work here that are troubling, quite apart from what appears to be the silliness of the exercise in the first place and the waste of resources," said Wark.
"Even if they had a strong case, prudence would suggest this is not the kind of thing you would want to pursue. The Security of Information Act doesn't exist to be used for politically inspired chill."http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rcmp-conducted-five-month-national-security-probe-into-leaked-f-35-story-151781025.html
Posted: 05/16/2012 4:16 PM | Comments: 17 (including replies) | Last Modified: 05/16/2012 4:54 PM
OTTAWA - The Harper government called in the RCMP to investigate a politically embarrassing story involving the decision to sole-source the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter, claiming it was a breach of national security, The Canadian Press has learned.
The Mounties conducted a five-month review into an alleged leak of cabinet documents under the Security of Information Act, recently used to charge a naval intelligence officer in an apparent spy case.
Records obtained under the Access to Information Act show investigators had doubts almost from the outset in July 2010 that any laws were broken in the Globe and Mail story.
The story revealed angst within government about possible alienation from Washington if a competition was held to replace the air force's CF-18s.
Still, the review pressed ahead and drew in one of the RCMP's four Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams, whose job it is to chase terrorism threats.
It was shut down in December 2010 for lack of evidence.
The case file shows the complaint was laid by Wayne Wouters, clerk of the Privy Council, the country's highest-ranking civil servant and adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, shortly after the article appeared on June 11, 2010.
The story by reporter Daniel Leblanc ran a month before the Harper government formally announced it had selected the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 in a glitzy photo-op that included a mock-up of the radar-evading jet.
The first RCMP member to review the allegation on July 8 was mystified as to what the issue might be.
"By reading the article, it is unclear how the info, interferes with the development of weapons or jeopardizes the safety of Canada," said the summary file, which rated the preliminary investigation as a medium priority.
"It is an analytical fact that Canada and the USA are allies in several aspects. International competition may hinder Can-US relationships if Canada decides to turn down US offer, and the Globe and Mail article has not shed new lights on these facts or revealed secrets."
Doubts about the substance of the complaint lingered until the file was closed, the records show.
The prime minister's communications director defended the decision to ask for an investigation.
"The RCMP was asked to look into a possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information as has been done from time to time," said Andrew MacDougall in an email.
A spokesman for the RCMP, Cpl. David Falls, said the force has a mandate to "investigate the unauthorized disclosure, mishandling or communication of classified information," but declined to comment on the specifics of the Globe and Mail investigation, referring questions to the Privy Council Office.
The case file reveals investigators recommended on Sept. 2, 2010, the review be shut down. The complaint could be "concluded as it does not constitute a breach of secret or protected documents."
Yet it was kept alive by senior officers, who insisted National Defence be consulted, especially in light of reports that summer that computers at the 1st Canadian Air Division headquarters had been hacked.
As it turned out, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service was already looking into the issue, but as part of the wider damage assessment of the massive leak of U.S. documents to the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.
Military police said they had "no way of knowing what cabinet document was released" and later concluded that the Globe and Mail story did not constitute a breach, according to records and defence sources.
The RCMP closed its file in November 2010, but was forced to "re-activate" the case and "investigate further" because it was noted no one had talked to Wouters.
The file "should not have been concluded at this time before the complainant was met and had a chance to explain why he thinks there was a leak of 'secret cabinet documents,'" said a Dec. 22, 2010, notation.
The investigator apparently tried to contact Wouters, seeking clarification and was rebuked by the National Security Criminal Operations Branch, which noted the complaint had been filed by letter through the commissioner's office.
It took Mounties in charge of the case two-and-a-half months to get their hands on an actual copy the letter, which had been "kept at the commissioner's office."
In finally shutting down the probe, the Mounties said "since the information was available on open source, it was decided that no further investigation was needed."
Wesley Wark, an expert in security and intelligence at the University of Ottawa, said he was concerned by the revelations in the file. He described the probe as a misuse of not only the RCMP, but of the security legislation, one of the most serious laws on the book.
"This has the whiff, well more than a whiff, of a politically inspired move," said Wark.
"The complaint was coming from an odd place, an admittedly senior place within the government. The fact the clerk would ask the commissioner to do this is in of itself very unusual."
He said it would not have been so unusual had the request for an investigation come from either the deputy ministers at Defence or Foreign Affairs — departments that would have had a more direct say whether the story contained classified information.
But even in those cases, Wark said, departments have their own security officers who track media leaks and those rarely amount to criminal investigations.
He said it is also unusual in that the government would have known that media leak provisions of the legislation were struck down a few years ago in the aftermath of the case where Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill's home was raided following stories she wrote about the Maher Arar affair.
"There are a number of things at work here that are troubling, quite apart from what appears to be the silliness of the exercise in the first place and the waste of resources," said Wark.
"Even if they had a strong case, prudence would suggest this is not the kind of thing you would want to pursue. The Security of Information Act doesn't exist to be used for politically inspired chill."http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rcmp-conducted-five-month-national-security-probe-into-leaked-f-35-story-151781025.html
The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION Surprise! Trio of ministers shows up unexpectedly for environment hearings By: Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press
Posted: 2:32 PM | Comments: 0 (including replies)
OTTAWA - Three cabinet ministers made a surprise appearance at the subcommittee looking into the environment provisions in the government's massive budget bill — raising questions about the Conservatives' commitment to giving the bill a full hearing.
Environment Minister Peter Kent, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield popped up at the subcommittee hearing Thursday morning, without advance public notice.
They stayed for just over an hour, delivering prepared statements and taking MPs' questions.
It was the subcommittee's first hearing into the parts of the bill that will overhaul environmental assessments and change surveillance of fisheries.
Opposition members complained they were given little opportunity to grill the ministers over fundamental changes to Canada's environmental framework, and accused the Conservatives of trying to stifle debate.
The Conservatives have loaded the budget bill with dozens of major changes to the way government works, saying they are lumping them all together because they want to get the legislation passed quickly.
"Whoever took the decision to schedule our three ministers for one hour was not acting on the authority of the subcommittee," said Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan.
"I feel it was presumptuous, it was undemocratic, and I think it's farcical to have three ministers appear at the same time for a total of one hour.
"Taking away time for opening statements and friendly questions from the government, that gives about 20 minutes for the opposition parties to ask questions of three different ministers on 150 pages devoted to the environment on this omnibus bill."
Duncan tried to make the most of her time by asking short, pointed questions and requesting that detailed, written answers be tabled with the committee later.
Kent said he would be pleased to appear before the subcommittee again.
And his spokesman said there was nothing nefarious about the sudden appearance of the ministers, since Kent had signalled earlier this week that he would appear soon.
Spokesman Adam Sweet said the hearing was televised, and that New Democrat MP Peter Julian was told in advance the ministers would be there.
Meanwhile, more than 130 scientists and other professionals at Fisheries and Oceans were told Thursday their jobs were at risk, their union said. That's in addition to 200 others who were given similar notices in December.
The pending cuts mean that facilities such as the Experimental Lakes Area environmental program near Kenora, Ont., will lose their expertise to track freshwater ecosystem fluctuations, said Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.
"The government is eliminating programs that have generated world-renowned studies of freshwater ecosystems as well as impacting work to monitor Arctic contaminants, dioxins and other pollutants," he said.
Corbett added that the cuts together with the changes in the budget bill throw the sustainability of Canada's environment into question.
The trio of ministers at committee repeatedly denied that the changes would weaken environmental oversight. Rather, they said the regime would be more efficient, and new enforcement measures would give legislation more teeth.
The budget bill has prompted an outcry from opposition parties, who say the legislation is packed with so many poorly defined changes that it poses more questions than it answers — not just on the environment, but also on employment insurance and old age security.
Ministers have said changes to the Fisheries Act as well as to employment insurance will be fleshed out later through regulations, which are not subject to full parliamentary debate.
"Why won't they table their plans in this House for everyone to see," New Democrat MP Libby Davies asked in the Commons.
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae complained that the budget bill has a "complete lack of clarity" on changes to employment insurance. He said it is not reasonable to ask Parliament to approve changes they have not yet seen.
But Heritage Minister James Moore responded that the government's plan for jobs and growth has received extensive debate.http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/surprise-trio-of-ministers-shows-up-unexpectedly-for-environment-hearings-151925115.html
Posted: 2:32 PM | Comments: 0 (including replies)
OTTAWA - Three cabinet ministers made a surprise appearance at the subcommittee looking into the environment provisions in the government's massive budget bill — raising questions about the Conservatives' commitment to giving the bill a full hearing.
Environment Minister Peter Kent, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield popped up at the subcommittee hearing Thursday morning, without advance public notice.
They stayed for just over an hour, delivering prepared statements and taking MPs' questions.
It was the subcommittee's first hearing into the parts of the bill that will overhaul environmental assessments and change surveillance of fisheries.
Opposition members complained they were given little opportunity to grill the ministers over fundamental changes to Canada's environmental framework, and accused the Conservatives of trying to stifle debate.
The Conservatives have loaded the budget bill with dozens of major changes to the way government works, saying they are lumping them all together because they want to get the legislation passed quickly.
"Whoever took the decision to schedule our three ministers for one hour was not acting on the authority of the subcommittee," said Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan.
"I feel it was presumptuous, it was undemocratic, and I think it's farcical to have three ministers appear at the same time for a total of one hour.
"Taking away time for opening statements and friendly questions from the government, that gives about 20 minutes for the opposition parties to ask questions of three different ministers on 150 pages devoted to the environment on this omnibus bill."
Duncan tried to make the most of her time by asking short, pointed questions and requesting that detailed, written answers be tabled with the committee later.
Kent said he would be pleased to appear before the subcommittee again.
And his spokesman said there was nothing nefarious about the sudden appearance of the ministers, since Kent had signalled earlier this week that he would appear soon.
Spokesman Adam Sweet said the hearing was televised, and that New Democrat MP Peter Julian was told in advance the ministers would be there.
Meanwhile, more than 130 scientists and other professionals at Fisheries and Oceans were told Thursday their jobs were at risk, their union said. That's in addition to 200 others who were given similar notices in December.
The pending cuts mean that facilities such as the Experimental Lakes Area environmental program near Kenora, Ont., will lose their expertise to track freshwater ecosystem fluctuations, said Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.
"The government is eliminating programs that have generated world-renowned studies of freshwater ecosystems as well as impacting work to monitor Arctic contaminants, dioxins and other pollutants," he said.
Corbett added that the cuts together with the changes in the budget bill throw the sustainability of Canada's environment into question.
The trio of ministers at committee repeatedly denied that the changes would weaken environmental oversight. Rather, they said the regime would be more efficient, and new enforcement measures would give legislation more teeth.
The budget bill has prompted an outcry from opposition parties, who say the legislation is packed with so many poorly defined changes that it poses more questions than it answers — not just on the environment, but also on employment insurance and old age security.
Ministers have said changes to the Fisheries Act as well as to employment insurance will be fleshed out later through regulations, which are not subject to full parliamentary debate.
"Why won't they table their plans in this House for everyone to see," New Democrat MP Libby Davies asked in the Commons.
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae complained that the budget bill has a "complete lack of clarity" on changes to employment insurance. He said it is not reasonable to ask Parliament to approve changes they have not yet seen.
But Heritage Minister James Moore responded that the government's plan for jobs and growth has received extensive debate.http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/surprise-trio-of-ministers-shows-up-unexpectedly-for-environment-hearings-151925115.html
The Bilderberg Club: a secret society
of the richest and most influential
people
conspiring to achieve a world
government
D. Estulin
The November-December, 2005 issue of the
Kingston Eye Opener (Box 3514, Kingston, ON, Canada, K7L 5J9) published an
interview of editor Geoff Matthews with Daniel Estulin,
Communications Training Specialist, who wrote a book on the
Bilderbergers:
Daniel,
could you please define Bilderberg for our readers.
Bilderberg is not a person, but an idea. It is an idea centred on
the perception of man as intrinsically evil. Humanity cannot gain its freedom
from synarchism unless it defeats the idealism that it represents. It is the
idea that creates the policies of state which rip up the tallest constitutions
and drag humanity into war from the highest position of power. That is why it
must be acknowledged that World War II has not been won in real terms. A single
man and his clique had been brought down in this war at a cost of a hundred
million lives lost, but the idea behind them had not been defeated. The idea
has now come to roost in America, and has infested its platform of business,
its economy, its institutions for learning, and finally, its highest position
of government.
The 2006 meeting of the Bilderbegers took place June 8-10 at the
Brookstreet Hotel, in Ottawa, Canada. Ottawa police officers were standing
guard outside a dozen metal gates that served as security checkpoints a half
kilometre from the hotel. But to approach the hotel property, even uniformed
officers had to show their credentials to the half -dozen black-suited men
working for a private security firm hired by the Bilderbergers.
Some of this year's attendees were pictured on the front page of
the Ottawa Citizen: from left to right, first row: David Rockefeller, founder
of the Trilateral Commission and former chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank;
Frank McKenna, former Premier of New Brunswick and ex-ambassador to the U.S.;
Gordon Nixon, President and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada; second row: James
Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank; Richard Perle, assistant
secretary of defence to U.S. President Reagan and advisor of present President
Bush; Queen Beatrix of the
Netherlands
Who was the most prominent individual involved with the
founding of the Bilderbergers?
Without a doubt, Joseph Retinger, a 33rd degree mason. He was the
political aide to General Sikorski, and served for the London-based Polish
government-in-exile. In addition, at the age of 58, he parachuted into
German-occupied territory outside Warsaw for some sabotage missions.
Due to his high-profile career, in the 1950s he was able to create
contacts with numerous high-ranking military officials and political leaders.
His main aim was to unite the world in peace. His peace dividend was to be
under the control of supranational, powerful organisations. He believed that
such organisations would be immune from short-term ideological conflicts
erupting between governments. To Retinger, it was insignificant what dominated
the economic ideology of a country. He believed these differences could be
brought into line by powerful multinational organisations dictating and
applying powerful economic and military policies, thereby creating a union and
a bond between the nations.
Oh really!? I thought that it was Prince Bernhard of Holland
who actually founded the secret Club.
Bernhard was a poster boy. A pretty face and a facade. In 1952,
Retinger approached Bernhard with a proposal for a secret conference to involve
the NATO leaders in an open and frank discussion on international affairs
behind closed doors. Prince Bernhard, at the time, was an important figure in
the oil industry and held a major position in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell
Oil), as well as Société Générale de Belgique — a powerful global
corporation.
In which ways (people, institutions, etc.) are the decisions of
the Club “networked” and forwarded in the level of international organizations,
the media, banks, states and governments in a way that they can be
implemented?
You know, everywhere you look — government, big business, and any
other institution seeking to exercise power — the key is secrecy. Meetings such
as those of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
the G-8, World Trade Organisation, World Economic Forum, Central Banks, the
European Union Council of Ministers and the EU Commission, EU summits,
government cabinet meetings, numerous think tanks, etc., are always conducted
behind closed doors. The only possible reason for this is that they don't want
you and me to know what they are really up to. That well worn excuse for
keeping things under wraps — “it is not in the public interest” really means
that it is not in the interest of the powers that be that the public should
know.
However there is, in addition, a network of private forums and
meetings that take place where the secrecy principle extends to the forums and
meetings themselves — by and large, we don't even know that they are taking
place, let alone what is being planned and discussed.
There's the World Economic Forum at Davos in January/February, the
Bilderberg and G8 meetings in June/July, and the IMF/World Bank annual
conference in September. A kind of international consensus emerges and is
carried over from one meeting to the next. But no one's really leading it. This
consensus becomes the background for G8 economic communiqués; it becomes what
informs the IMF when it imposes an adjustment programme on Argentina; and it
becomes what the US President proposes to Congress.
With what other international centres of power/authority does
the Club cooperate and in what aspect?
Bilderberg controls the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, all the
European Central Banks. Every prominent European commissioner has at one time
or another attended a Bilderberger meeting. Every NATO general secretary is a
Bilderberger. You see what we are up against.
Are there any other centres of power/authority that are
considered opposite/rival to the Club? If yes, which are they and what do they
stand for?
Bilderberg, in fact, is a foreign policy arm of an all-powerful
and completely unknown group called “The Committee of 300” whose ancestors were
the British East Indian Tea Company, whose main line of work didn't have
anything to do with selling tea but rather with moving drugs.
In fact, the entire world drug trade is controlled by the most
powerful man and a few women in the world. All of them belong to the Committee
of 300. I have spoken on several occasions with deep cover intelligence
officers, both in Europe and the US, and all of them have given me a rough
estimate of annual drug profit margins between US $500-$700 billion. Most of
this dirty money is recycled through all the major stock markets, and then
pocketed as a legitimate profit.
Who invites the people that attend the gatherings of the
Bilderberg, and what criteria do the guests have to fulfil in order to be
invited?
Bilderberg, from its inception, has been administered by a small
nucleus of persons, appointed since 1954 by a committee of the wise men, which
is made up of a permanent chair, an American chair, European and an American
secretary and treasurer. The annual invitations are only sent out to important
and respected people who, through their special knowledge, personal contacts
and influence in national and international circles, can amplify the objectives
and resources of the Bilderberg Group.
Nobody can buy their way into a Bilderberg meeting, although many
corporations have tried. The steering committee decides who to invite — what
the Guardian newspaper of London aptly calls a “Bilderberg person”, that hasn't
changed in 50 years of secret meetings — a Fabian Socialist (Translation:
Fabianism believes in what it describes as “the democratic control of society
in all its activities.” The key word is control of the individual. This as
being best achieved through global government, a goal it shares with Communism)
and a One World Order enthusiast.
What means do they use in order to keep their activity silent
and away from the media?
Big time media is part of the world elite and with the slyness of
a slave, they don't
need to be told by the Bilderbergers to keep the meeting secret. They do
it voluntarily. The Washington Post, The New York Times, Grupo Prisa in Spain,
Le Monde, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Toronto Star, the National
Post to name just a few, fully realize the advantages of cooperating with the
Bilderbergers.
They also know what will happen if they are to “betray” the most
secret of secret societies. Newspapers live and die by the advertising they
take in. Do you know how simple it is for Rockefeller, the Prime Minister of
Canada, Etienne Davingnon, and other influential Bilderbergers to pick up the
phone and tell GE, Siemens, Mercedes, Novartis, etc., to stop advertising in
such and such media?
Actually, as all the biggest and the most powerful corporations in
the world belong to the Bilderbergers, they police themselves. For those not
entirely convinced what may happen to them, we have a case of Richard Nixon
being destroyed in the false Watergate crisis for the entire world to see, as I
explain in my new best seller on the Bilderbergers.
Or the case of Argentina being destroyed, again, for the whole
world to see by the New World Order in the Falkland's War because Argentina was
willing to sell nuclear power, the cleanest, cheapest, and best source of
energy to Mexico against the wishes of the Global Masters. So, Kissinger gave
the order to attack.
If the President of the US can be put out of business, or an
independent nation be subjugated, what chance, I ask you, does a newspaper have
against the all-powerful Bilderbergers? So, the big-time media follows every
direction and command without as much as a whimper.
What would you consider to be the more “curious coincidences”
for some of Bilderberger recruits?
The most dramatic example of a “useful recruit” was the obscure
governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who attended his first Bilderberg meeting
at Baden Baden, Germany, in 1991. There, Clinton was told what NAFFA (North
American Free Trade Agreement) is by David Rockefeller, and that he was to
support it. The next year, he was elected President. Tony Blair attended a
Bilderberg meeting in 1993, became party leader in July 1994, and became Prime
Minister in May 1997. John Edwards was invited to a Bilderberg meeting in 2004,
several weeks later to be “chosen” John Kerry's Vice Presidential candidate. The
fact that Edwards wasn't invited back this year suggests to me that his
political career is over by the way he was discarded as an old shoe by the
Bilderbergers.
What Canadians have participated in previous Bilderberg
meetings?
There have been many over the years; this is just a partial list:
Donald S. MacDonald, ex-Finance Minister; Conrad Black, Ralph Klein, Israel
Asper of the CanWestCapital Group; Lloyd Axworthy, Isabel-Bassett, Parl.
Assistant Finance Minister of Ontario; Jean Chretien, Marshall A. Cohen of
Olympia & York; Stephane Dion, A.L. Flood, Chairman, Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce; Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General, United Nations; David
Frum from the National Post; Peter C. Godsoe, Chairman and CEO, Bank of Nova
Scotia; Allan E. Gotlieb, former Ambassador to the US; Michael Harris; Donald
J. Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD; Preston Manning; Paul Martin; Stephen
Harper; etc.
What are some of the Bilderberger objectives?
Amongst some of their more ambitious plans are the creation of a
One World Government with a single globalized marketplace, policed by a world
army; a single global currency financially regulated by a world bank; a
universal church as an outlet to channel mankind's inherent religious belief in
the direction desired by the New World Order.
All other religions of the world will be destroyed; empowering
international bodies to completely destroy all national identity through
subversion from within. Only universal values will be allowed to flourish in
the future; creation of “the post-industrial zero-growth society” (Translation:
Zero growth is necessary to destroy vestiges of prosperity and be able to
divide the society into owners and slaves. When there is prosperity, there is
progress, which makes repression a lot harder to execute) which is meant to
bring an end to all industrialization and the production of nuclear generated
electric power (except for the computer and service industries.)
The remaining Canadian and American industries will be exported to
poor countries such as Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc., where slave
labor is cheap. One of the principal objectives for NAFTA will then be
realized; empowering the United Nations until it becomes a demure, as well as a
de facto, world government. Advancing this goal by creating a direct UN tax on
“world citizens,” expanding NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere as a
prelude to creating an “American Union” similar to the European Union;
establishing NATO as the UN's world army.
What are some of Bilderberger achievements?
Bilderberg proposed and decided to establish formal relations with
China before Nixon's administation made it publicly known policy. At a meeting
in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, in 1973, Bilderbergers agreed to increase the price of
oil to $12 a barrel, a 350% jump, in order to create economic chaos in the
United States and Western Europe, as part of the “softening up”
policy.
In 1983, Bilderbergers got a secret promise out of the then
“ultraconservative” President Ronald Reagan to transfer $50 billion of American
taxpayers' money to the Third World and communist countries through its
favourite conduits, the IMF and the World Bank, in order to pay the interest
the Bilderbergers owed on their loans to the Western banks. That pledge was
more than kept and became known as the Brady Plan.
The Bilderberg-orchestrated decision of getting rid of Margaret
Thatcher as British Prime Minister, because she opposed the wilful hand-over of
British sovereignty to the European Super State designed by the Bilderbergers.
And incredulously, we all watched as her own party sold her out in favour of
the Bilderberg poodle — John Major.
In 1985, Bilderbergers were ordered to give full support to the
Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars), long before it became the official
policy of a US government, grounding it on the premise that it would grant
unlimited riches to the Masters of the Universe.
At their 1990 meeting at Glen Cove, Long Island, in New York, they
decided that taxes had to be raised to pay more towards the debt owed to the
International Bankers. Bilderberg ordered President [George] Bush Sr. to
increase taxes in 1990, and watched him sign off of the tax-hiking “budget
agreement” that lost him the election.
The multimillion dollar sale of Ontario Hydro, whose owner at the
time was the Canadian Government, was discussed for the first time at the
Bilderberg meeting in King City, Toronto, Canada, in 1996. Shortly after,
Ontario Hydro was broken up into five independent companies and
privatised.
Leaked reports from the 2002 meeting stated that the war in Iraq
had been delayed until March 2003 at a time when every newspaper im the world
was expecting the attack to be launched in the summer of 2002.
Splintering of Canada
Splintering of Canada. This theme was originally scheduled for
discussion in 1997, but unexpected Bilderberg media coverage in the Toronto
Star, Canada's leading daily during the 1996 meeting in King City, forced the
globalists to postpone their plan to 2007.
Really!!! I think our readers would love to hear the details of
the plan to destroy Canada!
The long and short of it is that the Bilderbergers planned the
destruction of Canada through the Quebec referendum which they themselves
organised, which also ties into a billion dollar scheme they concocted to steal
Canada's water supply through the Grand Canal project. Of course, to destroy
Canada, these vile people needed NAFTA and GATT as a precursor to US-Canadian
continental union by 2007. That's the intended result. However, as you well
know, not every plan, no matter how brilliantly set up, can be executed to
perfection.
Do you remember Quebec's supposedly “authentic” independence drive
in 1995? It was all a hoax. Through my intelligence sources, I discovered that
Quebec was to separate from Canada abruptly via a Unilateral Declaration of
Independence, orchestrated by the Rockefeller-controlled Canadian politicians.
Most of the key political figures on both sides, though apparently in
“opposition” to each other, are connected to David Rockefeller such as Brian
Mulroney, ex Prime Minister; Lucien Bouchard, separatist PQ leader brought into
politics by Brian Mulroney; Preston Manning also controlled by the
Rockefeller-Bilderberg combines; Jean Chretien, ex-Prime Minister, liberal
party, controlled by David Rockefeller.)
Let me give you an example:
John Rae was a leading strategist for former Prime Minister Chretien's
election campaign. He was also an Executive Vice-President of Power Corp. and
Paul Desmarais' right-hand man.
His brother is Bob Rae, ex-NDP Premier of
Ontario (who is now running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada),
who appointed Maurice
Strong to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro, which he proceeded to
dramatically cut in both skilled human resources amd generating capacity (to
provide a future need for power from James Bay/Grand Canal.)
Paul Martin, former Canada's Prime Minister, rose through the ranks at Power
Corp., mentored by Paul Desmarais. He also attended the 1996 meeting of
the-Bilderberg Group where the dismantlement of Ontario Hydro is hotly debated.
Jean Chretien's daughter, France, is married to Andre Desmarais, son of Paul
Desmarais, chairman of Power Corporation. Chretien's “advisor, counsellor and
strategist” for the past 30 years has been Mitchell Sharp, who brought
Chretien into politics when he was Finance Minister. Sharp has been, since
1981, Vice-Chairman for North America of David Rockefeller's Trilateral
Commission. Chretien, like so many lackeys, attended the 1996 meeting of the
Bilderberg Group in King City, Toronto.
However, there is much more.
Daniel Johnson, former leader of the Quebec Liberal party and Quebec Premier in
1994, also rose through the ranks of Power Corp.
Brian Mulroney needs no introduction. He is one of the most hated Prime
Ministers in Canada's history. He was also a lawyer and a lobbyist for Power
Corporation and a member of the board of Archer-Daniels-Midland, a
Rockefeller-owned conglomerate, which was headed by Dwayne Andreas who, like
Rockefeller himself, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group.
Finally, you have Mike Harris, former Premier
of Ontario, close friend of George Bush and Paul Martin. Harris, like his
colleague Ralph Klein of Alberta, is also a
Bilderberger.
So, the former federal Conservative Party (via Mulroney), the
Liberal Party (via Chretien) and the NDP (via Rae) are all tightly connected
to... Paul Desmarais and Power Corp. And we have the Prime Minister, the
Finance Minister, and the Prime Minister's key aide all tightly connected to...
Paul Desmarais and Power Corp.
Power Corp. co-chief executives Andre Desmarais, left, and Paul
Desmarais Jr., right, leave with their father, Paul Desmarais Sr., after the
company's annual meeting in Montreal Thursday, May 11, 2006. Paul Desmarais Sr.
was obviously one of the attendees at this year's Bilderberger
meeting.
If you have ever wondered why the same experts and politicians,
though apparently representing opposing ideologies, always seem to appear on
news, political debates, and current event programs, all pushing the same line,
now you have the answer.
Who would benefit from Quebec's separation?
The answer is the Bilderberg Group. The ultimate outcome was a
planned Continental Union of the U.S. and Canada by the early 21st century, in
which both would be regionalized. This would necessitate a new Constitution for
the resulting United States of North America. A fundamental piece of this
jigsaw puzzle was a little known “Grand Canal” water-transfer project, a scheme
estimated to cost between $80 billion and $130 billion.
Never heard of the continent-wide “Grand Canal” project? GRAND
being an acronym for Great Recycling and Northern Development — envisages a
dike across James Bay and the creation of a new fresh-water lake through the
impoundment of rivers that now empty into the bay. This fresh water would then
be pumped back to the Great Lakes basin and beyond. (See the article “The planned destruction of Canada” in the
March-April, 2002 issue of Michael.)
Not surprising — the Bilderbergers, the Canadian Government, and
the media whores such as Conrad Black and Robert S. Prichard, president of
Torstar Media Group (Toronto Star) and a 2005 Bilderberg attendee, aren't too
keen to publicize it!
When I found out about Rockefeller financing every Canadian
politician, I went back and re-read everything I could get my hands on
regarding NAFTA. There is a lot of talk in NAFTA about “free flowing water
being free.” It is obvious, isn't it! Then, why is it in the document? Because
when you put up dikes, you can suddenly charge for the water.
Think of money. If you had your choice, if you could pull a genie
out of a bottle, and the genie could grant three wishes, what would your three
wishes be? Remember your goal is to make the most money possible? Number one,
give me control over the sun. Number two, give me control over the air. Number
three, give me control over water. Now, leaving our little genie aside, we know
we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air, but we can control water. On
the scale of things that are required for human life, it is the most important
element that can be controlled.
The Bilderbergers thought they could get away with another media
blackout. Not to be. When Canadian media got wind of it, it quickly spread like
wildfire. A trickle turned into a torrential downpour, and Canadians were on to
them. It is one thing not to report the news, quite another to be an accomplice
in the willful destruction of your own country. On record, that was their worst
defeat ever.
Daniel Estulin
This article was published
in the June-July-August, 2006 issue of
“Michael”.
http://michaeljournal.org/bilder.htm
Back to list of articles
Back
to the Michael's
homepage
of the richest and most influential
people
conspiring to achieve a world
government
D. Estulin
The November-December, 2005 issue of the
Kingston Eye Opener (Box 3514, Kingston, ON, Canada, K7L 5J9) published an
interview of editor Geoff Matthews with Daniel Estulin,
Communications Training Specialist, who wrote a book on the
Bilderbergers:
Daniel,
could you please define Bilderberg for our readers.
Bilderberg is not a person, but an idea. It is an idea centred on
the perception of man as intrinsically evil. Humanity cannot gain its freedom
from synarchism unless it defeats the idealism that it represents. It is the
idea that creates the policies of state which rip up the tallest constitutions
and drag humanity into war from the highest position of power. That is why it
must be acknowledged that World War II has not been won in real terms. A single
man and his clique had been brought down in this war at a cost of a hundred
million lives lost, but the idea behind them had not been defeated. The idea
has now come to roost in America, and has infested its platform of business,
its economy, its institutions for learning, and finally, its highest position
of government.
The 2006 meeting of the Bilderbegers took place June 8-10 at the
Brookstreet Hotel, in Ottawa, Canada. Ottawa police officers were standing
guard outside a dozen metal gates that served as security checkpoints a half
kilometre from the hotel. But to approach the hotel property, even uniformed
officers had to show their credentials to the half -dozen black-suited men
working for a private security firm hired by the Bilderbergers.
Some of this year's attendees were pictured on the front page of
the Ottawa Citizen: from left to right, first row: David Rockefeller, founder
of the Trilateral Commission and former chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank;
Frank McKenna, former Premier of New Brunswick and ex-ambassador to the U.S.;
Gordon Nixon, President and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada; second row: James
Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank; Richard Perle, assistant
secretary of defence to U.S. President Reagan and advisor of present President
Bush; Queen Beatrix of the
Netherlands
Who was the most prominent individual involved with the
founding of the Bilderbergers?
Without a doubt, Joseph Retinger, a 33rd degree mason. He was the
political aide to General Sikorski, and served for the London-based Polish
government-in-exile. In addition, at the age of 58, he parachuted into
German-occupied territory outside Warsaw for some sabotage missions.
Due to his high-profile career, in the 1950s he was able to create
contacts with numerous high-ranking military officials and political leaders.
His main aim was to unite the world in peace. His peace dividend was to be
under the control of supranational, powerful organisations. He believed that
such organisations would be immune from short-term ideological conflicts
erupting between governments. To Retinger, it was insignificant what dominated
the economic ideology of a country. He believed these differences could be
brought into line by powerful multinational organisations dictating and
applying powerful economic and military policies, thereby creating a union and
a bond between the nations.
Oh really!? I thought that it was Prince Bernhard of Holland
who actually founded the secret Club.
Bernhard was a poster boy. A pretty face and a facade. In 1952,
Retinger approached Bernhard with a proposal for a secret conference to involve
the NATO leaders in an open and frank discussion on international affairs
behind closed doors. Prince Bernhard, at the time, was an important figure in
the oil industry and held a major position in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell
Oil), as well as Société Générale de Belgique — a powerful global
corporation.
In which ways (people, institutions, etc.) are the decisions of
the Club “networked” and forwarded in the level of international organizations,
the media, banks, states and governments in a way that they can be
implemented?
You know, everywhere you look — government, big business, and any
other institution seeking to exercise power — the key is secrecy. Meetings such
as those of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
the G-8, World Trade Organisation, World Economic Forum, Central Banks, the
European Union Council of Ministers and the EU Commission, EU summits,
government cabinet meetings, numerous think tanks, etc., are always conducted
behind closed doors. The only possible reason for this is that they don't want
you and me to know what they are really up to. That well worn excuse for
keeping things under wraps — “it is not in the public interest” really means
that it is not in the interest of the powers that be that the public should
know.
However there is, in addition, a network of private forums and
meetings that take place where the secrecy principle extends to the forums and
meetings themselves — by and large, we don't even know that they are taking
place, let alone what is being planned and discussed.
There's the World Economic Forum at Davos in January/February, the
Bilderberg and G8 meetings in June/July, and the IMF/World Bank annual
conference in September. A kind of international consensus emerges and is
carried over from one meeting to the next. But no one's really leading it. This
consensus becomes the background for G8 economic communiqués; it becomes what
informs the IMF when it imposes an adjustment programme on Argentina; and it
becomes what the US President proposes to Congress.
With what other international centres of power/authority does
the Club cooperate and in what aspect?
Bilderberg controls the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, all the
European Central Banks. Every prominent European commissioner has at one time
or another attended a Bilderberger meeting. Every NATO general secretary is a
Bilderberger. You see what we are up against.
Are there any other centres of power/authority that are
considered opposite/rival to the Club? If yes, which are they and what do they
stand for?
Bilderberg, in fact, is a foreign policy arm of an all-powerful
and completely unknown group called “The Committee of 300” whose ancestors were
the British East Indian Tea Company, whose main line of work didn't have
anything to do with selling tea but rather with moving drugs.
In fact, the entire world drug trade is controlled by the most
powerful man and a few women in the world. All of them belong to the Committee
of 300. I have spoken on several occasions with deep cover intelligence
officers, both in Europe and the US, and all of them have given me a rough
estimate of annual drug profit margins between US $500-$700 billion. Most of
this dirty money is recycled through all the major stock markets, and then
pocketed as a legitimate profit.
Who invites the people that attend the gatherings of the
Bilderberg, and what criteria do the guests have to fulfil in order to be
invited?
Bilderberg, from its inception, has been administered by a small
nucleus of persons, appointed since 1954 by a committee of the wise men, which
is made up of a permanent chair, an American chair, European and an American
secretary and treasurer. The annual invitations are only sent out to important
and respected people who, through their special knowledge, personal contacts
and influence in national and international circles, can amplify the objectives
and resources of the Bilderberg Group.
Nobody can buy their way into a Bilderberg meeting, although many
corporations have tried. The steering committee decides who to invite — what
the Guardian newspaper of London aptly calls a “Bilderberg person”, that hasn't
changed in 50 years of secret meetings — a Fabian Socialist (Translation:
Fabianism believes in what it describes as “the democratic control of society
in all its activities.” The key word is control of the individual. This as
being best achieved through global government, a goal it shares with Communism)
and a One World Order enthusiast.
What means do they use in order to keep their activity silent
and away from the media?
Big time media is part of the world elite and with the slyness of
a slave, they don't
need to be told by the Bilderbergers to keep the meeting secret. They do
it voluntarily. The Washington Post, The New York Times, Grupo Prisa in Spain,
Le Monde, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Toronto Star, the National
Post to name just a few, fully realize the advantages of cooperating with the
Bilderbergers.
They also know what will happen if they are to “betray” the most
secret of secret societies. Newspapers live and die by the advertising they
take in. Do you know how simple it is for Rockefeller, the Prime Minister of
Canada, Etienne Davingnon, and other influential Bilderbergers to pick up the
phone and tell GE, Siemens, Mercedes, Novartis, etc., to stop advertising in
such and such media?
Actually, as all the biggest and the most powerful corporations in
the world belong to the Bilderbergers, they police themselves. For those not
entirely convinced what may happen to them, we have a case of Richard Nixon
being destroyed in the false Watergate crisis for the entire world to see, as I
explain in my new best seller on the Bilderbergers.
Or the case of Argentina being destroyed, again, for the whole
world to see by the New World Order in the Falkland's War because Argentina was
willing to sell nuclear power, the cleanest, cheapest, and best source of
energy to Mexico against the wishes of the Global Masters. So, Kissinger gave
the order to attack.
If the President of the US can be put out of business, or an
independent nation be subjugated, what chance, I ask you, does a newspaper have
against the all-powerful Bilderbergers? So, the big-time media follows every
direction and command without as much as a whimper.
What would you consider to be the more “curious coincidences”
for some of Bilderberger recruits?
The most dramatic example of a “useful recruit” was the obscure
governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who attended his first Bilderberg meeting
at Baden Baden, Germany, in 1991. There, Clinton was told what NAFFA (North
American Free Trade Agreement) is by David Rockefeller, and that he was to
support it. The next year, he was elected President. Tony Blair attended a
Bilderberg meeting in 1993, became party leader in July 1994, and became Prime
Minister in May 1997. John Edwards was invited to a Bilderberg meeting in 2004,
several weeks later to be “chosen” John Kerry's Vice Presidential candidate. The
fact that Edwards wasn't invited back this year suggests to me that his
political career is over by the way he was discarded as an old shoe by the
Bilderbergers.
What Canadians have participated in previous Bilderberg
meetings?
There have been many over the years; this is just a partial list:
Donald S. MacDonald, ex-Finance Minister; Conrad Black, Ralph Klein, Israel
Asper of the CanWestCapital Group; Lloyd Axworthy, Isabel-Bassett, Parl.
Assistant Finance Minister of Ontario; Jean Chretien, Marshall A. Cohen of
Olympia & York; Stephane Dion, A.L. Flood, Chairman, Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce; Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General, United Nations; David
Frum from the National Post; Peter C. Godsoe, Chairman and CEO, Bank of Nova
Scotia; Allan E. Gotlieb, former Ambassador to the US; Michael Harris; Donald
J. Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD; Preston Manning; Paul Martin; Stephen
Harper; etc.
What are some of the Bilderberger objectives?
Amongst some of their more ambitious plans are the creation of a
One World Government with a single globalized marketplace, policed by a world
army; a single global currency financially regulated by a world bank; a
universal church as an outlet to channel mankind's inherent religious belief in
the direction desired by the New World Order.
All other religions of the world will be destroyed; empowering
international bodies to completely destroy all national identity through
subversion from within. Only universal values will be allowed to flourish in
the future; creation of “the post-industrial zero-growth society” (Translation:
Zero growth is necessary to destroy vestiges of prosperity and be able to
divide the society into owners and slaves. When there is prosperity, there is
progress, which makes repression a lot harder to execute) which is meant to
bring an end to all industrialization and the production of nuclear generated
electric power (except for the computer and service industries.)
The remaining Canadian and American industries will be exported to
poor countries such as Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc., where slave
labor is cheap. One of the principal objectives for NAFTA will then be
realized; empowering the United Nations until it becomes a demure, as well as a
de facto, world government. Advancing this goal by creating a direct UN tax on
“world citizens,” expanding NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere as a
prelude to creating an “American Union” similar to the European Union;
establishing NATO as the UN's world army.
What are some of Bilderberger achievements?
Bilderberg proposed and decided to establish formal relations with
China before Nixon's administation made it publicly known policy. At a meeting
in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, in 1973, Bilderbergers agreed to increase the price of
oil to $12 a barrel, a 350% jump, in order to create economic chaos in the
United States and Western Europe, as part of the “softening up”
policy.
In 1983, Bilderbergers got a secret promise out of the then
“ultraconservative” President Ronald Reagan to transfer $50 billion of American
taxpayers' money to the Third World and communist countries through its
favourite conduits, the IMF and the World Bank, in order to pay the interest
the Bilderbergers owed on their loans to the Western banks. That pledge was
more than kept and became known as the Brady Plan.
The Bilderberg-orchestrated decision of getting rid of Margaret
Thatcher as British Prime Minister, because she opposed the wilful hand-over of
British sovereignty to the European Super State designed by the Bilderbergers.
And incredulously, we all watched as her own party sold her out in favour of
the Bilderberg poodle — John Major.
In 1985, Bilderbergers were ordered to give full support to the
Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars), long before it became the official
policy of a US government, grounding it on the premise that it would grant
unlimited riches to the Masters of the Universe.
At their 1990 meeting at Glen Cove, Long Island, in New York, they
decided that taxes had to be raised to pay more towards the debt owed to the
International Bankers. Bilderberg ordered President [George] Bush Sr. to
increase taxes in 1990, and watched him sign off of the tax-hiking “budget
agreement” that lost him the election.
The multimillion dollar sale of Ontario Hydro, whose owner at the
time was the Canadian Government, was discussed for the first time at the
Bilderberg meeting in King City, Toronto, Canada, in 1996. Shortly after,
Ontario Hydro was broken up into five independent companies and
privatised.
Leaked reports from the 2002 meeting stated that the war in Iraq
had been delayed until March 2003 at a time when every newspaper im the world
was expecting the attack to be launched in the summer of 2002.
Splintering of Canada
Splintering of Canada. This theme was originally scheduled for
discussion in 1997, but unexpected Bilderberg media coverage in the Toronto
Star, Canada's leading daily during the 1996 meeting in King City, forced the
globalists to postpone their plan to 2007.
Really!!! I think our readers would love to hear the details of
the plan to destroy Canada!
The long and short of it is that the Bilderbergers planned the
destruction of Canada through the Quebec referendum which they themselves
organised, which also ties into a billion dollar scheme they concocted to steal
Canada's water supply through the Grand Canal project. Of course, to destroy
Canada, these vile people needed NAFTA and GATT as a precursor to US-Canadian
continental union by 2007. That's the intended result. However, as you well
know, not every plan, no matter how brilliantly set up, can be executed to
perfection.
Do you remember Quebec's supposedly “authentic” independence drive
in 1995? It was all a hoax. Through my intelligence sources, I discovered that
Quebec was to separate from Canada abruptly via a Unilateral Declaration of
Independence, orchestrated by the Rockefeller-controlled Canadian politicians.
Most of the key political figures on both sides, though apparently in
“opposition” to each other, are connected to David Rockefeller such as Brian
Mulroney, ex Prime Minister; Lucien Bouchard, separatist PQ leader brought into
politics by Brian Mulroney; Preston Manning also controlled by the
Rockefeller-Bilderberg combines; Jean Chretien, ex-Prime Minister, liberal
party, controlled by David Rockefeller.)
Let me give you an example:
John Rae was a leading strategist for former Prime Minister Chretien's
election campaign. He was also an Executive Vice-President of Power Corp. and
Paul Desmarais' right-hand man.
His brother is Bob Rae, ex-NDP Premier of
Ontario (who is now running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada),
who appointed Maurice
Strong to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro, which he proceeded to
dramatically cut in both skilled human resources amd generating capacity (to
provide a future need for power from James Bay/Grand Canal.)
Paul Martin, former Canada's Prime Minister, rose through the ranks at Power
Corp., mentored by Paul Desmarais. He also attended the 1996 meeting of
the-Bilderberg Group where the dismantlement of Ontario Hydro is hotly debated.
Jean Chretien's daughter, France, is married to Andre Desmarais, son of Paul
Desmarais, chairman of Power Corporation. Chretien's “advisor, counsellor and
strategist” for the past 30 years has been Mitchell Sharp, who brought
Chretien into politics when he was Finance Minister. Sharp has been, since
1981, Vice-Chairman for North America of David Rockefeller's Trilateral
Commission. Chretien, like so many lackeys, attended the 1996 meeting of the
Bilderberg Group in King City, Toronto.
However, there is much more.
Daniel Johnson, former leader of the Quebec Liberal party and Quebec Premier in
1994, also rose through the ranks of Power Corp.
Brian Mulroney needs no introduction. He is one of the most hated Prime
Ministers in Canada's history. He was also a lawyer and a lobbyist for Power
Corporation and a member of the board of Archer-Daniels-Midland, a
Rockefeller-owned conglomerate, which was headed by Dwayne Andreas who, like
Rockefeller himself, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group.
Finally, you have Mike Harris, former Premier
of Ontario, close friend of George Bush and Paul Martin. Harris, like his
colleague Ralph Klein of Alberta, is also a
Bilderberger.
So, the former federal Conservative Party (via Mulroney), the
Liberal Party (via Chretien) and the NDP (via Rae) are all tightly connected
to... Paul Desmarais and Power Corp. And we have the Prime Minister, the
Finance Minister, and the Prime Minister's key aide all tightly connected to...
Paul Desmarais and Power Corp.
Power Corp. co-chief executives Andre Desmarais, left, and Paul
Desmarais Jr., right, leave with their father, Paul Desmarais Sr., after the
company's annual meeting in Montreal Thursday, May 11, 2006. Paul Desmarais Sr.
was obviously one of the attendees at this year's Bilderberger
meeting.
If you have ever wondered why the same experts and politicians,
though apparently representing opposing ideologies, always seem to appear on
news, political debates, and current event programs, all pushing the same line,
now you have the answer.
Who would benefit from Quebec's separation?
The answer is the Bilderberg Group. The ultimate outcome was a
planned Continental Union of the U.S. and Canada by the early 21st century, in
which both would be regionalized. This would necessitate a new Constitution for
the resulting United States of North America. A fundamental piece of this
jigsaw puzzle was a little known “Grand Canal” water-transfer project, a scheme
estimated to cost between $80 billion and $130 billion.
Never heard of the continent-wide “Grand Canal” project? GRAND
being an acronym for Great Recycling and Northern Development — envisages a
dike across James Bay and the creation of a new fresh-water lake through the
impoundment of rivers that now empty into the bay. This fresh water would then
be pumped back to the Great Lakes basin and beyond. (See the article “The planned destruction of Canada” in the
March-April, 2002 issue of Michael.)
Not surprising — the Bilderbergers, the Canadian Government, and
the media whores such as Conrad Black and Robert S. Prichard, president of
Torstar Media Group (Toronto Star) and a 2005 Bilderberg attendee, aren't too
keen to publicize it!
When I found out about Rockefeller financing every Canadian
politician, I went back and re-read everything I could get my hands on
regarding NAFTA. There is a lot of talk in NAFTA about “free flowing water
being free.” It is obvious, isn't it! Then, why is it in the document? Because
when you put up dikes, you can suddenly charge for the water.
Think of money. If you had your choice, if you could pull a genie
out of a bottle, and the genie could grant three wishes, what would your three
wishes be? Remember your goal is to make the most money possible? Number one,
give me control over the sun. Number two, give me control over the air. Number
three, give me control over water. Now, leaving our little genie aside, we know
we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air, but we can control water. On
the scale of things that are required for human life, it is the most important
element that can be controlled.
The Bilderbergers thought they could get away with another media
blackout. Not to be. When Canadian media got wind of it, it quickly spread like
wildfire. A trickle turned into a torrential downpour, and Canadians were on to
them. It is one thing not to report the news, quite another to be an accomplice
in the willful destruction of your own country. On record, that was their worst
defeat ever.
Daniel Estulin
This article was published
in the June-July-August, 2006 issue of
“Michael”.
http://michaeljournal.org/bilder.htm
Back to list of articles
Back
to the Michael's
homepage
