Looking for Mr. Wright

bilderberg_cover_front_2009-smlThe very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.

Recently, I’ve seen the latest hubub coming from Parliament Hill over some amount of money being given to the Duff (for reasons yet unknown, but surely to come out in a flurry of ‘look over here… and don’t pay attention to that over there’..) by a Mr. Nigel Wright.

When I saw the Huffington (soon to be Duffington?) Post article about the mysterious Mr. Wright, I did a veritable face-palm.

Last year, I researched a teensy bit about Nigel since finding out that he was an attendee (on behalf of the PMO) at the notorious Bilderberg meeting and an ex-CEO of ONEX Corp. ONEX is a scary beast with ownership in Raytheon, Carlyle Group and Boeing among other more benign corporations. Canadians who are anybody’s and who are as connected to both the political and corporate world as Wright, attend each year.

Note: Justin Trudeau (if he goes this year) is likely going to be our next PM (hey don’t shoot the messenger!.. many of our recent PM’s have been ‘tapped’ at Bilderberg… see the list of Canadian participants here).

Would you like cheese with your Bilderberger???
Stephen Harper in 2003 at Bilderberg

So, in honor of exercising my rights as a constituent, I took the opportunity to write my (ultra) conservative MP – Maurice Vellacott- to complain. Here’s what transcribed:

From: Heather Martin [mailto:martinhea39@gmail.com]
Sent: June 15, 2012 10:58 AM
To: Vellacott, Maurice – M.P.
Subject: Nigel S. Wright at Bilderberg

Dear Mr. Vellacott,

As you may or may not have been aware, May 31- June 3, the Bilderberg Group met in Chantilly, Virginia. This group, if you are not already familiar with it, meets yearly to discuss matters of international importance. Their official website describes their activities as thus:

Character of meetings
“What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely.

“In short, Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced. Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-nine conferences have been held. For each meeting, the names of the participants as well as the agenda are made Public and available to the press.”

First, I take issue with the use of the word ‘forum’, as the definition of the word originated from the Roman Forum, which was a public meeting place for debate and discussion that involved the people. The Bilderberg meetings have met in secret up until the last 10 years or so, when the agenda’s of these meetings and participant lists were exposed in the mainstream media. The meetings are neither public, nor up for public debate. They in fact, require attendees to maintain an oath of secrecy and for those working there to not speak to attendees nor look them in the eye.

Secondly, I take issue with the use of the words ‘leading citizens’. These are not ordinary people… scientists, authors, philosophers, artists, playwrights, etc… These are big movers and shakers in the world. People who make policy, laws and financial markets go up or down. These are not citizens, nor do they represent the citizens when they are at Bilderberg. So, what decisions are made and how do we keep these people accountable to our best interests? The truth is we don’t because we have a media that demonizes anyone who questions the motives of Bilderberg and who refuses to show up at the meetings to expose that they are even going on.

Speaking of the media, I find it disturbing that high profile personalities (like Peter Mansbridge, David Frum, Conrad Black, Heather Reisman and others) are regular attendees and yet have disclosed nothing when questioned about Bilderberg and have even accused the questioner of being a conspiracy theorist. Yet the fact remains, that these individuals who are supposed to embody true journalistic integrity, have turned ‘from the pure faith’, and prostituted themselves to the globalist agenda.

It may interest you to note that there have been a number of Prime Ministers who attended these meetings in the year or two preceding their winning of the federal election. It this a co-incidence? More importantly, what conflict of provincial and national interest exists when Premiers (like Glen Campbell and Alison Redford) attend these meetings and do not disclose their discussions to their electorate? It it also a coincidence that Alison Redford attended the same month that the Omnibus Bill C-38 passed in the House of Commons. Is it a co-incidence that Glen Campbell is selling our national sovereignty to the European Union? It begs the question: Who is really running the show here?

Finally, I would like an answer to this one question: What has Nigel S. Wright (PMO Chief of Staff) have to say for himself in attending this meeting and will he disclose what was discussed? If not, I should ask for his resignation in light of his treason against Canada in the pursuit of global governance.

I have attached the official attendee’s list for your consideration and my own blog article on the subject:



I look forward to your reply to this matter,


Heather Martin
Langham, Saskatchewan

From: maurice.vellacott@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Nigel S. Wright at Bilderberg
Date: June 15, 2012 12:17:53 PM CDT (CA)
To: martinhea39@gmail.com



I wonder if you mean Gord Campbell. I’m not sure who Glenn Campbell is. Gord Campbell hasn’t been the B.C. Premier for quite some time.

As you yourself quote, “For each meeting, the names of the participants as well as the agenda are made public and available to the press.”

It’s a free country, and so is the U.S., so there is a constitutional protection for “freedom of association.” You can gather with your friends to discuss affairs of state or whatever you want, without broadcasting to me or others all the discussion.

I don’t object to the fact that, “At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued.”

I don’t object that Nigel Wright attended, if that’s true.

By the way in Canada, our weekly national and regional political Party caucuses meet privately, confidentially and don’t divulge the agenda, details or decisions of those meetings. Do you object to that? Keep in mind our Saskatchewan Caucus or National Caucus meetings have some pretty weighty matters on the agenda also.

Best regards,
Maurice Vellacott, MP

From: Heather Martin [martinhea39@gmail.com]
Sent: June 15, 2012 1:00 PM
To: Vellacott, Maurice – M.P.
Subject: Re: Nigel S. Wright at Bilderberg

Dear Maurice,
Yes, I did mean Gordon Campbell, my apologies for that mix up.

Freedom of association, from my understanding is a protection afforded the citizens of this country under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not to politicians making oaths to the queen, who are meeting with the worlds elite to manipulate the affairs of this country. This is unconstitutional and if the outcome of these meetings is so benign, then I expect the results of discussions from these meetings to be made public. Why not share in the good news of these ‘citizens’ meeting to discuss world affairs. Why not broadcast from the rooftops the outcomes of greater understanding between countries and minds? Because that is not the purpose of these meetings.

When the Saskatchewan Caucus meets, they are ultimately answerable to the people who elected them are they not? If this is not the case then please make this public that decisions made by the caucus are made without accountability to the Canadian people.

Yes, the participants and agenda are made public, but that was not always so. As recently as 2006, these lists were leaked to the alternative media and not openly released to the Mainstream media.

One of the most famous quotes by long-time Bilderberg member was uttered by David Rockefeller, and he said this about the complicity of the main stream media in keeping the Bilderberg meetings out of the daily newspapers –

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and their great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

In 1952, Bilderberg member James Paul Warburg testified before the United States Senate and had this to say about the coming New World Order –

“”We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

I merely call for transparency. It is after all, the kind of government Stephen Harper promised when he obtained a minority and majority government.

It has been my hope that this information would be alarming to a man of faith. The concept of a New World Order, One World Government, whatever you want to call it was forewarned by the Revelations of John.
Canada’s participation with those who are seeking to make this a reality in my lifetime makes me fear for my children’s future.

I appreciate that you took the time to reply to my e-mail. I have always respected the fact that you have been open to communication with your constituents. It is my hope and prayer that you can come to understand this issue from my perspective even if we agree to disagree. Perhaps I’ve got it wrong… and I pray that I have. I suppose time will tell.


From: maurice.vellacott@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Nigel S. Wright at Bilderberg
Date: June 15, 2012 5:55:11 PM CDT (CA)
To: martinhea39@gmail.com

As an evangelical Pastor for 14 years, and a past Christian college teacher, with an earned doctor from Trinity International University, I have a better than average understanding of eschatology.

Whether I agree or disagree with your perspective, I don’t know what you want me to do. Stop people from attending meetings where they have discreet conversations?
Think through what you’re implying. Because do you want our federal government monitoring the various church and small group Bible studies and all the other civil society groups, and for us to tell people what meetings they cannot attend?

This is not a government to government meeting. Nigel Wright is not a politician, and to my knowledge has never been elected to public office.

I will be honest to say that over the years, there has been “conspiracy theory” about the Bilderberg meeting. I’ve probably been aware of the Bilderberg periodic meeting, long before you ever heard about it. I feel no panic about it. My life is secure in the hands of a sovereign God.

Candidly, I don’t share your paranoia about it, and in any event there is nothing this government can do to stop a group from renting a facility, holding a conference, and inviting who they want.

Blessings on you,
Maurice Vellacott, MP


Boy… a little touchy, are we?!

LOL…..I should think that Mr. Vellacott might reassess his position in light of recent events and perhaps pick up his Bible again to see if there’s a passage from Ephesians 5:11-12 he has forgotten:

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. – KJVB