The Bilderberg Club

Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe

21-05-2007

In 1954, the most powerful men in the world met for the first time under the auspices of the Dutch royal crown and the Rockefeller family in the luxurious Hotel Bilderberg of the small Dutch town of Oosterbeck. For an entire weekend they debated the future of the world. When it was over, they decided to meet once every year to exchange ideas and analyze international affairs. They named themselves the Bilderberg Club. Since then, they have gathered yearly in a luxurious hotel somewhere in the world to decide the future of humanity.

In more than fifty years of meetings that brings together unprecedented power and money in the same time and place, never has any information been leaked as to what subjects were debated during the Bilderberg Club meetings. Bilderberg, one of the world’s most powerful secret organizations is run out of an 18m2 offices, staffed by one person, using one telephone line and a single fax number. There is no web page and no brass name plate on the door. The independent press has never been allowed in, and no statements have ever been released on the attendees’ conclusions nor has any agenda for a Bilderberg meeting been made public. How, in God’s name, can this be possible when Bilderberg´s elite membership list includes all of the most powerful individuals who run the Planet?

Leaders of the Bilderberg Club argue that this discretion is necessary to allow participants in the debates to speak freely without being on the record or reported publicly. Otherwise, Bilderbergers state, they would be forced to speak in the language of a press release. Doubtlessly, this discretion allows the Bilderberg Club to deliberate more freely, but that does not respond to the fundamental question: What do the world’s most powerful people talk about in these meetings?

Any modern democratic system protects the right to privacy, but doesn’t the public have a right to know what their political leaders are talking about when they meet the wealthiest business leaders of their respective countries?

What guarantees do citizens have that the Bilderberg Club isn’t a centre for influence trafficking and lobbying if they aren’t allowed to know what their representatives talk about at the Club’s secret gatherings?

Why are the Davos World Economic Forum and G8 meetings carried in every newspaper, given front page coverage, with thousands of journalists in attendance, while no one covers Bilderberg Club meetings even though they are annually attended by Presidents of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, Federal Reserve, chairmen of 100 most powerful corporations in the world such as DaimlerChrysler, Coca Cola, British Petroleum, Chase Manhattan Bank, American Express, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Vice Presidents of the United States, Directors of the CIA and the FBI, General Secretaries of NATO, American Senators and members of Congress, European Prime Ministers and leaders of opposition parties, top editors and CEOs of the leading newspapers in the world. It is surprising that no mainstream corporate media outlets consider a gathering of such figures, whose wealth far exceeds the combined wealth of all United States citizens, to be newsworthy when a trip by any one of them on their own makes headline news on TV.

The delegates at Bilderberg 2007: Istanbul, Turkey May 31-June 3

This year’s delegation will once again include all of the most important politicians, businessmen, central bankers, European Commissioners and executives of the western corporate press. They will be joined at the table by leading representatives of the European Royalty, led by Queen Beatrix, the daughter of the Bilderberg founder, former Nazi, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Bilderberger President, Etienne Davignon, Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel from Belgium. According to Bilderberg Steering Committee list which this author had access to, the following names have now been confirmed as official Bilderberg attendees for this year’s conference (In alphabetical order):

George Alogoskoufis, Minister of Economy and Finance (Greece); Ali Babacan, Minister of Economic Affairs (Turkey); Edward Balls, Economic Secretary to the Treasury (UK); Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister (Portugal); José M. Durão Barroso, President, European Commission (Portugal/International); Franco Bernabé, Vice Chariman, Rothschild Europe (Italy); Nicolas Beytout, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (France); Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister (Sweden); Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium); Philippe Camus, CEO, EADS (France); Henri de Castries, Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA (France); Juan Luis Cebrian, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain); Kenneth Clark, Member of Parliament (UK); Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC (USA); Bertrand Collomb, Chairman, Lafarge (France); George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA); Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey); Anders Eldrup, President, DONG A/S (Denmark); John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A (Italy); Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA); Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA); Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA); Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland); Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA); Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings (the Netherlands); Jean-Pierre Hansen, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgium); Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer, Secretary General, NATO (the Netherlands/International); Allan B. Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Director National Economic Council (USA); Josef Joffe, Publisher-Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (USA); Anatole Kaletsky, Editor at Large, The Times (UK); John Kerr of Kinlochard, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc (the Netherlands); Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA); Mustafa V. Koç, Chariman, Koç Holding A.S. (Turkey); Fehmi Koru, Senior Writer, Yeni Safek (Turkey); Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign Affairs (France); Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA); Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA); Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (the Netherlands/International); Ed Kronenburg, Director of the Private Office, NATO Headquarters (International); William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA); Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA); Frank McKenna, Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada); Thierry de Montbrial, President, French Institute for International Relations (France); Mario Monti, President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy); Craig J. Mundie, Chief Technical Officer Advanced Strategies and Policy, Microsoft Corporation (USA); Egil Myklebust, Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway); Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); Adnrzej Olechowski, Leader Civic Platform (Poland); Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finland); George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK); Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Minister of Finance (Italy); Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); David Rockefeller (USA); Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander Bank, (Spain); Dennis B. Ross, Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (USA); Otto Schily, Former Minister of Interior Affairs; Member of Parliament; Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Germany); Jürgen E. Schrempp, Former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany); Tøger Seidenfaden, Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken (Denmark); Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland); Giulio Tremonti, Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy); Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International); John Vinocur, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA); Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden); Martin H. Wolf, Associate Editor and Economics Commentator, The Financial Times (UK); James D. Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA); Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA); Klaus Zumwinkel, Chairman of the Board of Management, Deutsche Post AG (USA); Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist.

Amongst the names appearing on the initial list of invitees which this journalist had access to in January 2007 stand out the names of the now disgraced John Browne, British Petroleum’s Chief Executive Officer and the disgraced and fired former chief of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz. It will be interesting to see if either of these men makes an appearance at Bilderberg 2007. The Bilderbergers have no trouble accepting criminals into the fold as long as their misdeeds are conducted away from public spotlight and scrutiny. Once exposed, the culprits are generally discarded. Lord Conrad Black, former chief executive of Hollinger media group is a case in point.

Two others names on the original January 2007 list should raise a few eyebrows. One of them is Bernard Kouchner, the newly appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in the right wing Nicolas Sarkozy government in France. Kouchner is a former founder of ONG Doctors without Borders. He was absent from Bilderberg 2006 in Ottawa, Canada. Could his government position been arranged prior to the French national elections? For my money, the surprise appearance of year award should go to Mahmood Sariolghalam, Associate Professor of International Relations, School of Economic and Political Sciences, National University of Iran. What is an Iranian doing at a NATO alliance controlled Bilderberg conference? We will know soon enough. Bilderberg 2007 is indeed a good time to look behind the scenes.

What will be discussed at Bilderberg 2007?

Aside from the Irak quagmire, energy problems continue to dominate Bilderberger discussions. Oil and natural gas are finite, non-renewable resources. That’s because once used up it cannot be replenished. As the world turns, and as oil and natural gas supplies dwindle while demand soars dramatically, especially with Indian and Chinese booming economies who want all the trinkets and privileges of an American way of life, we, as the Planet, have crossed the midpoint of oil production and discovery. From now on, the only sure thing is that supply will continue to diminish and prices will continue to increase. In these conditions world conflict is a physical certainty. End of oil means end of world’s financial system, something which has already been acknowledged by Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle. Goldman Sachs oil report, [another full time member of the Bilderberger elite] published on March 30, 2005 increased the oil price range for the year 2005-6 from $55-$80 per barrel to $55-$105. During 2006 meeting, Bilderbergers have confirmed that their short range price estimate for oil for the 2007-08 continues to hover around US$105-150/barrel. No wonder Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced several months ago during the unveiling of the new European energy policy that the time has come for a “post-industrial age.” To bring the world into the post industrial age, you first need to destroy the world´s economic base and create another Great Depression. When people are poor, they don´t spend money, they don´t travel, and they don´t consume.

As the economic impact sinks in, and as the after effects of Peak Oil become evident in the face of breakdown of civilization, the United States will be forced to challenge Europe, Russia and China for the hegemony of control and the ever depleting hydrocarbon, non-renewable reserves most of which are contained in the Middle East. That will be point number two on the Bilderberg 2007 agenda.

Third item on the agenda is European relations with Russia not only in Europe but also in Central Asia. With Moscow making a deal with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan over the transport of gas to Europe, the US geo-strategic goal of driving a wedge between the Central Asian countries and Russia lies in shambles. While the US says this is "not good for Europe", the Europeans are divided. Iran, overnight has become America’s last hope in the energy war.

Iran war, after two years of huffing and puffing by the Bush government is definitely off the table. Furthermore, with France, Russia, Japan and China investing heavily in Iran, the world has drawn a line in the sand and the U.S. will be told at the conference not to cross it. There is blood in the water, and blood in the water usually leads to a good fight.

That notwithstanding, the United States needs to control the region, not only for its oil reserves but, most importantly to help it sustain world economic hegemony. Under this strategic design, regional states will be turned to weak domains of sectarian sheikhs with little or no sovereignty and, by implications, a pathetic agenda of their economic development. Regional chaos favours the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn reinforces the process of political and social disintegration supported by the Bilderbergers.

With Blair leaving, the UK will be told yet again, that they must, at all cost, do what is necessary to integrate the country into the European Community.

Finally, with Wolfowitz resigning from the World Bank, Bilderberg luminaries will try to come to a consensus on how best to overhaul not only the bank but its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), led by a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato. Wolfowitz became entangled in controversy seven weeks ago after World Bank whistleblowers leaked to the Washington-based non-governmental organization Government Accountability Project (GAP) documents that showed Wolfowitz pushing a high pay raise in a secondment deal to the US State Department for his girlfriend.

We, as a society, are at a crossroads. In almost every corner of the planet, stress points are beginning to fracture. The roads we take from here will determine the very future of humanity. It was former British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, who stated that “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

It is not up to God to bring us back from the “New Dark Age” planned for us. IT IS UP TO US. Whether we go into the next century as an electronic global police state or as free human beings depends on the action we take now. Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we don’t ask the proper questions.

essenceofpinocchio: Is there really a Texas Solicitor General? Why does the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Ignore SCOTUS?

essenceofpinocchio: Is there really a Texas Solicitor General? Why does the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Ignore SCOTUS?

----
CONFESSING ERROR
By EDWARD LAZARUS
----

Friday, Jun. 16, 2000

Earlier this month, Vincent Saldano, one of the 468 inmates on Texas' death row, had his death sentence vacated. This development was duly reported in the press. But accounts of Saldano's good fortune uniformly failed to appreciate what makes his reprieve truly newsworthy and potentially a landmark.

Saving Saldano: Texas Confesses Error

Saldano was not freed from the prospect of execution by the actions of a court or even, as occasionally happens, by the clemency of a governor. His death sentence was erased because Texas, through its newly created office of the solicitor general, "confessed error" in his case -- that is, it admitted, despite defeating Saldano's initial appeals in court, that his death sentence was illegally obtained. Quite simply, this never happens, either in Texas or in the dozens of other states with active death penalty laws. It is thus worth pausing to consider the value and potential implications of Saldano's case as well as the notion of confessing error.

Saldano had received a death sentence in part due to profoundly troubling testimony by a state expert witness at the sentencing phase of his trial. The expert, a clinical psychologist named Walter Quijano, suggested that Saldano should be executed because, as an Hispanic, he posed a special risk of future dangerousness to society. To support this astonishing conclusion, the expert pointed out that Hispanics make up a disproportionately large amount of Texas' prison population.

It does not take a tenured professor of constitutional law to realize that linking racial identity with a propensity for violence was not only bizarre but also a violation of the equal protection clause. Indeed, that it should take a confession of error by the state to correct this problem highlights at least two problems in the current administration of the death penalty. First, in seeking the death penalty, prosecutors sometimes overlook glaring illegalities. The same flaw identified in Saldano's case infects at least seven other Texas capital cases. Second (and perhaps even more distressing), courts, especially state courts, are too often willing to overlook even obvious constitutional flaws when reviewing death penalty cases. After all, before the state's confession of error, Saldano had lost all of his appeals.

Under these circumstances, one might think that confessions of error would be, if not commonplace, at least occasional. On average, the Solicitor General of the United States confesses error in two or three criminal cases every year -- even though it is a safe bet that federal prosecutions, conducted by better trained lawyers with greater supervision, are less likely to contain obvious legal errors than their state counterparts. As the Supreme Court recognized when endorsing the practice in 1942, "the public trust reposed in the law enforcement officers of the Government requires that they be quick to confess error, when, in their opinion, a miscarriage of justice may result from their remaining silent." But as a practical matter, states never confess error in death penalty cases (even though courts overturn roughly two-thirds of all death sentences as legally infirm) -- and some states candidly admit that their policy is never to confess error.

Mutual Distrust

Why? One crucial and usually overlooked factor is the deep antagonism that has grown up over time between state death penalty prosecutors and the death penalty abolitionist lawyers who seek to foil them in every case. The abolitionists, prosecutors know all too well, never concede that their clients deserve the death penalty or that the death penalty was legally imposed -- no matter how flimsy their arguments in a given case. Rather, they use every procedural and substantive trick in the book to delay executions.

There can be no denying that such abolitionist tactics have angered and frustrated state prosecutors. And one response to these understandable emotions has been for prosecutors to mirror the fight-to-the-bitter-end approach of their opponents.

The problem with this reciprocation, however, is simply that the ethical duties of prosecutors and defense attorneys are vastly different. Defense attorneys are duty-bound to scratch and claw to win for their clients. Prosecutors, by contrast, despite striking hard blows, must never lose sight of their ultimate obligation to do justice in every case.

That may sound trite and perhaps overly idealistic, but it has a practical side as well. Prosecutorial confessions of error -- knowing when to fold them, as it is known -- establish credibility. They create trust in the system, a sense that someone is being careful and exercising sound judgment, that extends far beyond any single case. And that can make a world of difference for someone like me, who is not morally opposed to the death penalty but skeptical of how it is imposed.

Death Penalty Politics

In addition, the reluctance of state prosecutors to confess error is a clear reflection of how politics affects the death penalty. Up until now, anyway, undoing a death sentence was akin to political suicide for an elected district attorney or state attorney general, or for any state official with ambitions for re-election or higher office. And yet the willingness of Texas' new solicitor general to confess error in the Saldano case suggests a possible turning point. With the current groundswell of death penalty opposition based on the possibility of executing an innocent person, elected officials may now find some advantage in approaching capital cases (even those where innocence is not an issue) with a greater degree of care and honesty.

case will start a broad trend. But there is reason to believe that the tide is indeed turning. On June 9, Texas Attorney General John Cornyn announced the results of an investigation into other death penalty cases involving testimony by state expert Walter Quijano. Cornyn acknowledged that Dr. Quijano had provided testimony in six other death penalty cases similar to his improper testimony in the Saldano case. Cornyn's staff has advised defense lawyers for the six inmates now on death row that his office will not oppose efforts to overturn their sentences based on Quijano's testimony. In response, a pessimist might note that Texas is appealing a ruling in another capital case that the defendant received inadequate counsel -- when, indisputably, his lawyer slept through much of the trial. But doing the right thing has a contagious quality to it. Or at least so we can hope.

Edward Lazarus, a former federal prosecutor, is the legal correspondent for Talk Magazine and the author of Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court.

The next election will be the true test as it will speak a great deal about the voters if they vote to send him back.

Here are some comments from the Article: Ortiz Tidies Up After Another Gaffe?

I say GAFF

Post Your Comments

Posted by no on June 6, 2007 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ortiz is such a joke! Guess he finnally learned that it's the public he should listen to, not the puppet-master. Oh well, hopefully he's a one-term wonder....sure definitely seems to be on track to be one.

Posted by guest on June 6, 2007 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Makes you wonder if something spooked then into backing out on the bill, time will tell. Looking forward to the Caller Times in keeping us informed.

Posted by stff on June 6, 2007 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He's your boy Caller Times. You endorsed him. But like you always endorse his daddy after it's been revealed he's been involved in funny stuff, you'll continue to endorse Jr. The editorial board's interest is preserving the Democrat Party in Nueces County, not open and honest government as it likes everyone to believe.

Posted by mychbelle on June 6, 2007 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is what happens when registered voters make uneducated decisions and vote for a name rather than considering a candidate's true qualifications for the job in which he seeks. Now we're stuck with an imbecile representative who can't even pretend to know what he's doing. He rode his father's coattails all the way to the statehouse and now we're paying for it. We can only hope and pray that he'll do relatively little damage the rest of his term in office, and maybe more intelligent voters'll stand up next time.

Posted by truthincc on June 6, 2007 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The next election will be the true test as it will speak a great deal about the voters if they vote to send him back.

Posted by mondosurf77 on June 6, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At least he is backing off these pieces of legislation when the public expresses that they do not approve of them. I'd rather have an official who does that than the smartest man/woman in the world that does not listen to the people. Overall, it would be nice to have an intelligent, experienced person who listens to the people...but you are only limited to the candidates that run for office, right?

Posted by cwaller on June 6, 2007 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, the boy backed off the legislation, which makes him look silly, but shows that he will change when there is public disapproval. At least the guy listens to the public and acts on it.

Posted by mike.carter on June 6, 2007 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good for Rep. Ortiz. He makes a mistake and admits it and does something about it. Wish we could say the same for the President of the United States.

Posted by df61743 on June 6, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The jerks that sent him up there are the same jerks that kept sending his useless daddy back, and they will send him back again. Apparently they aren't smart enough to read about what he's doing. The name is all they need to know!

Posted by dthompson on June 6, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The CCCT seems to only report the 'bad' things that Rep. Ortiz is doing. If and when they ever post anything good he's done, it's a small blurp on a back page. The CCCT receives the same press releases that Ortiz's constituents and supporters are able to receive. If the Caller Times were to report on all of his accomplishments within his first 6 months in office then they'd really be keeping us informed.

Posted by browardjoe on June 6, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Its a joke and he is a joke of a legislator. There are state reps that go decades without screw ups like this and he did this in his first session. Unbelievable. His father can do this stuff and never get called on it and this newspaper continues to endorse him...another joke. Anyone ever figure out that there has been a senior congressman, a county judge, a county commissioner, and now a state rep hail from Robstown since 1982 and it still looks like a third world country over there? When our citizens are going to wake up is beyond me. Hes trying to do 'under the table,' shoddy deals like his dad, but thank goodness he is too stupid to even pull them off.

Posted by usaf7191 on June 6, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Carter,

It appears to me that Representative Ortiz did not admit to making a mistake until after the public raised and eyebrow or two about his actions. Both this time and also when he accepted a bill from his uncle and submitted it without even reading it to the legislature for consideration.

Who in his right mind would introduce a bill giving (tax dollar paid)benefits to people who volunteered to be RTA Board Members.

Last time I checked Volunteer meant to perform or offer to perform a service of one's own free will without expecting to be compensated.

Posted by marybelltx on June 6, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone should look into other deals that the RTA has done?

I read that they each have a personal expense accounts for travel to conventions and other "informational" seminars. Is that "on the job training" or "vacation time" at taxpayer expense?

What is really going on at the RTA that the public is unaware of?

Let's get some true volunteers who believe in public service at the RTA.

I remember that political ad portraying Ortiz Jr. as a puppet. At the time I thought it to be very mean spirited, however now one has to wonder just how many strings really tied to Jr.? I'm very disappointed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCXYGsChu...

Posted by nick.wetegrove on June 6, 2007 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The real joke is the Caller-Times. Had the newspaper had any interest in reporting the real news they would have noted the needle exchange legislation that Rep. Ortiz got passed that will protect our police officers from contracting HIV. Also, don't worry about mentioning his work on the CHIP bill to get thousands of more Texas children insured.

Posted by marybelltx on June 6, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The bill you are referring to is only one of 13 bills that died. Only 3 bills were passed by Representative Ortiz in 5 months. The RTA bill, a county pay raise bill, and a access to records bill. My niece showed me how to find this information and she is 16.

I would think that you would take the time to check your facts. Let me assist you in your endeavor to educate yourself.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/Bi...

Posted by nick.wetegrove on June 6, 2007 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for your kind offering. As you are probably unfamiliar with the true workings of the legislative process let me assist you. The Republican opposition to any form of needle exchange bill was very intense this legislative session. Had you investigated further you would have noticed that HB 1846 was referred to the Public Health Committee which is chaired by Rep. Diane Delisi, who was a 2001 Texas Eagle Forum Freedom and Family Award winner. Additional inquiry would have led you to realize that the Eagle Forum is a group affiliated with Phyllis Schlafly, a woman that wrote a book against the Equal Rights Amendment, and encourages "conservative participation in public policy". Certainly Rep. Delisi could not go back to her constituents and tell them she voted for a bill that would give intravenous drug users access to needles. That certainly does not sound deserving of the Freedom and Family Award. But wait -- Rep. Delisi never had a chance to vote on the bill because as chair of the committee she ultimately decides which bills her committee will hear and she did not want to hear this one. Maybe your niece should have informed you of that. Furthermore, a true detective like yourself I am sure would have watched the debate on SB 10, you would have noticed that it was amended to create a pilot needle exchange program in Bexar county. Rep. Ortiz and his staff's work towards this compromise is also something else you won't read in the Caller. The other bill I assume you are cross referencing with me is HB 710. Rep. Ortiz filed this bill in conjunction with at least 15 other members. Despite opposition, this bill passed in a different form (HB 109 I believe) and as a result 127,000 more children are now insured. Next time you should probably consult someone other than your niece or your government textbook. Maybe then you would realize there are dozens of different ways for great ideas like this from Rep. Ortiz to make it into law. That is what it's all about right? Helping the people of Texas. Good job Rep. Ortiz.

Best wishes during your endeavor to educate yourself on the realities of politics and government.

Posted by raquel.premier on June 6, 2007 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Rep.Ortiz, is doing a fantasic job....There will be tons of issues that we the public will not agree on, we don't realize that he has given alot of his time and energy for the citizens here and has given up more than he will probably ever gain... He has accomplished alot and I am an glad he represents CC...Once again we are talking about people in corpus that dont get involved and are the first to have a negative comment...

Keep up the good work Rep.Ortiz!!!

Posted by marybelltx on June 6, 2007 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was a round about way of saying that he had a bill which became and amendment of which he doesn't even have his name on but it supposably was passed in to law BY HIM? 18 amendments and I didn't see Ortiz listed.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLooku...

The statement was that "needle exchange legislation that Rep. Ortiz got passed " where does it say he passed it?

I never read that he was an author or co-author in the house.

And where did protection of law enforcement come into play? Was that just your interpretation?

I applaud anyone who is a public servant including teachers but don't make a statement that something was accomplished or passed when it simply is not the case. 3 bills were passed by Ortiz the RTA, the County, the notification bill

If you can provide the link where it shows where he provided that amendment we would certainly like to read that. And will gladly admit that I made a mistake. I'm only a teacher but research is not that difficult.

Posted by el_longhorn on June 6, 2007 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey marybelltx, Ortiz is a CO-AUTHOR of HB 109, the CHIP bill that restores health insurance to thousands of kids in Texas and that you like so much. In addition to his 3 bills, Ortiz also passed 3 amendments and sponsored one senate bill...pretty good for a freshman who is in the minority party and voted against Speaker Craddick! Look it all up. Compare his accomplishments to any freshman Democrat. He did very well.

On needle exchange, why don't you ask the ACLU or the Coastal Bend AIDS Foundation what they think about Ortiz's efforts on legalizing needle exchange programs? By the way, law enforcement supports needle exchange because they don't want to get stuck with a dirty needle when patting someone down.

Posted by miguelmba1 on June 7, 2007 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another example of the corrupt politics of Nueces County. We need to cut the Puppet's strings!

Posted by marybelltx on June 7, 2007 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My issue is not with Ortiz but with the RTA.

If I was Ortiz my concern is who is hurting him and/or who is helping him. The people who put him in this position must have another motive. No idiot would not think of what the fallout would be. RIGHT?

TO me Ortiz Jr. is the victim of people may have intentionally manipulated him in order to put him in that position to be at the minimum vulnerable to defeat in the upcoming election.

Since you are primarily concerned with Ortiz and cannot see beyond that. Answer a question for me

OF THE 16 BILLS THAT HE AUTHORED HOW MANY WERE PASSED?

OF THE BILLS THAT WERE PASSED HOW MANY WERE SPECIAL INTEREST BILLS AND/OR FILED RELATED TO A FAMILY MEMBER?

Question
Why wouldn't he pass a county bill to another member of the delegation to avoid the perception of impropriety.

I guess he would rather do it "in" the taxpayers "face" than try and hide it.

To my little people aka "the minority"

When did it become about the one and not the many?

Politics is about building bridges and helping the people who deserve helped and truly deserve help.

It was said earlier that Rep. Oriz made a mistake and he corrected it. And for that I understand. I feel that the Caller deserves the same respect in that it endorsed the Congressman's son and in MY opionion the CALLER should be extended the same courtesy and rescind it's endorsement of Ortiz, Jr. for... well doing absolutely nothing.

WE VOTED YOU IN AND I VOTED FOR YOU. WHAT DID YOU DO? FOR CORPUS? TELL US PLEASE.

RTA
Why cant the Caller tell us what these RTA people really do and what the qualifications are?

I would like to have a travel expense account, a title, be able to vote on millions of dollars of taxpayer money and NOT HAVE TO BE ELECTED. Wait it's "our" tax money they are spending.

NOW HOW DO I BECOME ONE OF THESE CHIEFTAINS?