The list of those that attended this weekend's Bilderberg 2009 meeting has been released today from the website Infowars. Please read this over, there are names on this list that violate what is called the Logan Act which is defined here:
"The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act." per Wikpedia.
The reason for this act is a follows: "Passed under the administration of President John Adams, during tension between the U.S. and France, it was informally named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator (and later US Senator) and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War."
Bilderberg 2009 Attendee List
InfowarsMay 18, 2009
Dutch Queen Beatrix,
Queen Sofia of Spain
Prince Constantijn Belgian Prince
Philip Ntavinion Etienne, Belgium
Joseph Akerman, Germany
Friends Alexander, United States (NSA)
Roger Altman, United States
Arapoglou, Greece (National Bank of Greece governor)
Ali Bampatzan, Turkey (Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economy)
Francisco Balsemao bidet, Portugal
Nicholas Bavarez, France
Franco Bernampe, Italy (Telecom Italia)
Xavie Bertran, France
Carl Bildt, Sweden (Secretary)
January Bgiorklount, Norway
Christoph Blocher, Switzerland
Alexander Bompar, France,
Boten Anna, Spain
Henri de Kastios, France
Juan-Luis Themprian, Spain
Clark Edmunds, Canada
Kenneth Clarke, Great Britain (TD Bank Financial Group)
Luc Cohen, Belgium
George David, Greece
Richard Ntiarlav, Great Britain
Mario Dragan, Italy (Italia VANCA d)
Elntroup Anders, Denmark
John Elkan, Italy (Fiat SRA)
Thomas Enders, Germany (Airbus SAS)
Jose Entrekanales, Spain
Isintro phenomena casket, Spain
Naial Fergkiouson, United States (Harvard University)
Timothy Gaitner, United States (Minister of Finance)
Ntermot convergence, Ireland (AIV Group)
Donald Graham, United States (Washington Post Company)
Victor Chalmperstant, Netherlands (Leiden University)
Ernst hirsh Ballin, Netherlands
Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. (Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan)
Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Netherlands (CC NATO)
James Jones, the U.S. (National Security Advisor to the White House)
Vernon Jordan, United States
Robert Keigkan, United States
Girki Katainen, Finland
John profit Britain (Royal Dutch Shell)
Mustafa Kots, Turkey (Group Kots)
Roland GT, Germany
Sami Cohen, Turkey (Journalist)
Henry Kissinger, United States
Marie Zose Ktavis, United States (Iudson Institute)
Neli Kroes, the Netherlands (European Commissioner for Competition)
Odysseas Kyriakopoulos, Greece (Group S & B)
Manuela Fereira mode, Portugal (PSD)
Bernarntino Leon, Spain
Jessica Matthews, United States
Philip Meis Tant (EIB)
Frank MakKena, Canada (TD Bank Financial Group)
John Mikelthgoueit, Great Britain (journalists, The Economist)
Tieri Montmprian de France (Franse Instituut)
Mario Monti, Italy (University Louitzi Bokoni)
Angela Miguel Moratinos, Spain (Minister of Foreign Affairs)
Craig dirty, U.S. (Microsoft)
Egkil Miklempast, Norway
Mathias A, Germany
Olive Denis, France (Le Nouvel Observateur)
Frederick Ountea, France (Societe Generale)
Avg Ozntemir, Germany (Green Party)
Tomazo Pantoa-Siopa, Italy
Papalexopoulos Dimitris, Greece (Titan)
Richard Pearl, United States (Αmerican Enterprise Institute)
David Petreous, United States (head of the Central Administration of the U.S. Armed Forces)
Pint Manuel, Minister of Finance of Portugal
Robert Pritsarnt, Canada (Totstar Corporation)
Romano Prodi, Italy (former Italian Prime Minister)
Heather Raisman, Canada (Indigo Vooks & Music Inc.).
Eivint Reitan, Norway
Michael Rintzier, Czech Republic
David Rockefeller, U.S.
Dennis Ross, United States
Ruby Barnet, United States
Alberto Rouith-Gkalarthon, Spain
Susan Sampantzi Ntintzer, Turkey
Ιntira Samarasekera, Canada
Rountol Solten, Austria
Jürgen Stemp, Germany
Pedro Solbes Mira, Spain (Ministry of Finance)
Sampatzi Saraz, Turkey (banker)
Sanata Seketa, Canada (University of Canada)
Samer Lawrence, United States
Peter Sutherland, Ireland
Martin Taylor, UK
Peter Thiel, USA
Agan Ourgkout, Turkey
Eye Vanchanen, Finland, (Prime Minister)
Daniel Vazela, Switzerland,
Jeroen van der Veer, Netherlands
Guy Verhofstadt, Belgium (ex-Prime Minister)
Paul Volker, the U.S.
Jacob Valenmpergk, Sweden
Marcus Valenmpergk, Sweden
Nout Wellink, the Netherlands
Viser Hans, Netherlands
Martin Wolf, Great Britain (Financial Times Journalist)
James Goulfenson, United States (the former World Bank President)
Paul Goulfovits, United States
Farint Zakaria, United States (Analyst Journalist, Newsweek)
Robert Zoellick, United States (President World Bank)
Dora Bakoyannis, Greece (Minister of Foreign Affairs)
Anna Diamantopoulou, Greece (PASOK MP)
Papathanasiou, Greece (Minister of Finance)
Alogoskoufis, Greece (former Minister)
David, Greece (businessman, president of Coca-Cola 3E)
As you can see that there were several names from our current president's administration that were at this meeting. This means that these men that attended this meeting are in violation of US law and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Then an investigation needs to be done to fully find out what their part is in this meeting to fully expose the New World Order!!
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, May 18, 2009
There is a Constitution, Right?
We are going to start here, with the definition of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed! Now we will define the word infringed: "to violate or break."
So the founding fathers set it up so the people had a right to keep and bear arms and this was not to be violated or broken. Now why is this? I am not a historian but I have done some studying about this time period to be able to point this out. We do have to remember that our country started out as colonies and each one of these colonies came together, fought the English Crown and won it's independence. But to do this they need to have an army which took some time to put together. This was done by combining each of the states militia which basically was citizens, with guns, that protected their land. From what I remember, one of the things that pushed the colonies over the edge was the Crown trying to ban guns in which left the people with no personal protection which would increase the level of crime whether it was the British soldiers going after the people of the colonies or simple crime amongst the people.
There was a bill, H.R. 17 that was introduced regarding personal possession of guns. Here is the explanation of the bill, "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right. "
The bill is there to "protect" the right of obtain firearms? Why? Per the constitution we have the right already to own guns, why would we need to have a bill that protects what we already have?
What I think is going on here since 911 is that what used to be inalienable rights have some how been turned around into privileges. We are so used to being told that we are in danger that this country's government some how switched over to a State of Emergency state of mind. Somehow there is this agreement that we are under constant danger and that the natural rights that we are suppose to have turned in to privileges that someone is allowing us to have.
Lets remember this very important point here, the States run the country per the Bill of Rights.
9th Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment states, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Our States have the right to push the Federal Government to the side and to reinstate their own constitutions and press the reboot button on the Federal Government. What we need to do is to push our States to look at these points of the Bill of Rights and put this country back to its original status. Sphere: Related Content
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed! Now we will define the word infringed: "to violate or break."
So the founding fathers set it up so the people had a right to keep and bear arms and this was not to be violated or broken. Now why is this? I am not a historian but I have done some studying about this time period to be able to point this out. We do have to remember that our country started out as colonies and each one of these colonies came together, fought the English Crown and won it's independence. But to do this they need to have an army which took some time to put together. This was done by combining each of the states militia which basically was citizens, with guns, that protected their land. From what I remember, one of the things that pushed the colonies over the edge was the Crown trying to ban guns in which left the people with no personal protection which would increase the level of crime whether it was the British soldiers going after the people of the colonies or simple crime amongst the people.
There was a bill, H.R. 17 that was introduced regarding personal possession of guns. Here is the explanation of the bill, "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right. "
The bill is there to "protect" the right of obtain firearms? Why? Per the constitution we have the right already to own guns, why would we need to have a bill that protects what we already have?
What I think is going on here since 911 is that what used to be inalienable rights have some how been turned around into privileges. We are so used to being told that we are in danger that this country's government some how switched over to a State of Emergency state of mind. Somehow there is this agreement that we are under constant danger and that the natural rights that we are suppose to have turned in to privileges that someone is allowing us to have.
Lets remember this very important point here, the States run the country per the Bill of Rights.
9th Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment states, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Our States have the right to push the Federal Government to the side and to reinstate their own constitutions and press the reboot button on the Federal Government. What we need to do is to push our States to look at these points of the Bill of Rights and put this country back to its original status. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
