Obama: I don't carry a Council on Foreign Relations card or know any 'special handshake'

reply to post by battlestargalactica


TT. Sneaky. Good post.

So true, so true.

reply to post by thought


Not sure. Do we know his paster always spoke in that manner? I just knew of that one instance, were the past reports of him hating America and whites?

Hillary, McCain, and Obama; all different faces of the same continuing Agenda. Again, Americans are presented with no real choice for "President". The only candidate that would try to rebuild Constitutional America has no chance (Paul), so IMO it absolutely does not make any difference which of the Elite Puppets will be (S"ELECTED"). We will continue our march toward the Global Plantation step by step. We all will just wake-up one day and realize the country we were born and raised in no longer exists!

reply to post by Sublime620


I do recall that one of the disgusting speeches was from 1996...I think if Obama didn't know about his pastor's philosophy, he's just too dumb to be our next President.

Originally posted by AceWombat04


When did it cease being the norm for rational people in a forum of discussion and debate to disagree politely, with civility, and with (*gasp* dare I even utter the word?) mutual magnanimity? Please dispense with statements such as "Welcome to the internet," and, "Since the dawn of time." We should be capable of rising above this. *sigh*

Meanwhile, on topic...

Being a skeptic, I have to say that while I see no proof of knowledge of a conspiracy on the part of any one candidate, there is nonetheless evidence in support of such an assertion. (Evidence isn't proof, but it cannot be dismissed either if I am to be objective.)

That said, I also maintain that it is possible that our candidates are themselves victims of institutionalized group think and mainstream educations lacking in the gravitas that we afford fringe or alternative subject matter and that, as such, they may genuinely be ignorant of what exactly their participation in such bodies might represent to those like us who dwell in that fringe more than others.

I would tend to agree, but I am concerned that leaders we have been 'sold' so to speak, should be at least amenable to the idea of objectively researching the matter. Our leaders (and potential leaders) seem programmed to ridicule the notion that any ulterior motives exist.

A good example is the phrase "What's wrong with tighter global integration?" The question is quite valid, and frankly it appears a logical trend, but it belies the question, "Can such globalization be used as a vehicle to usurp power, hoard wealth, and otherwise negatively affect or dominate the population?" The answer here is a resounding 'yes.' This means that one cannot simply 'dive in' without first ensuring that the effect will not be corrupted. Now what exactly is the CFR doing to protect the subject of globalization from that abuse? Did I hear you say 'nothing', 'who cares?', 'why should they?' - No it was not you who discredited the notion, it was the founding members of the CFR itself. The WILL protect someone - their members. Just like President Bush who is quite literally dedicated to protecting the citizens of the United States, of course, he means the newly established and strongly represented corporate citizens. The citizens that were NOT part of the body of the nation until lobbyist secured a change to grant them the power of citizenship (and in my paranoid mind - the intent was to protect corporations from 'us' the casual victims of corporate machinations).

reply to post by Maxmars


Yes, I will totally agree with you there. Global integration is inevitable, but that does not mean that it should be hijacked by the unscrupulous. This era that we enter will require a lot of vigilance.

reply to post by thought


A candidate being dumb has never stopped us from electing him in the past.

I don't know, I guess I need more proof to show Obama agrees with him before I'm going to start ranting and raving about it. It is a concern though, I'll give you that.

I was looking for this one finally found it:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the 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 subject to the bright 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"

(Member CFR) David Rockefeller in an address to a Bilderburg meeting in June of 1991

[edit on 2-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

reply to post by battlestargalactica


First, I thought we weren't talking about the NWO anymore. Second, how do you know he wasn't being sarcastic? That quote was just too perfect, especially for an individual who knew his every word was being recorded.

reply to post by thought


He wasn't being sarcastic. It's completely irrelevant to the topic, though.

I thought the topic was Obama being a CFR member or not? CFR and the trilateral group are related, as is my quote that I've offered up. It relates to exactly the point of this thread, discussing the groups that Obama and other presidential candidates may or may not be a part of. One of those groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In any case I don't think the question is IF Obama is a member of the CFR, its what this membership actually means in Obamas case, and as well, in other cases. Does membership mean the same things to all people?

As my video stated (the Aaron Russo video), Mr. Russo states that no-not all CFR members are engaged in conspiracy, most think its just some good networking links, prestige to be a member etc.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

reply to post by Sublime620


Well, I think the fact that the speech was given at some kind of press club dinner is informative, speakers generally try to be humorous at such events, I do still believe this is sarcastic humor.

reply to post by thought


Wow



Press club? What on Earth are you talking about?

reply to post by battlestargalactica


Oh, no, better than that, it's a DISPUTED quote!

Which in these circles means false.

en.wikiquote.org...

reply to post by thought


Oh make up your mind, thought it was a sarcastic quote, then it was a press club quote, now you're latching onto the king of research sources *gasp* wikipedia to say its disputed. BTW disputed does not mean false, if it was false, don't you think it would say that as such?

Just latch onto one line of reasoning please.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

reply to post by battlestargalactica


Do you have any source other than known crook Jordan Maxwell that DR ever uttered these words?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by thought


While I am glad that you are actually providing links and 'some' degree of research and thought into your posts, please, do NOT start your research with wikipedia. Well ok if you must, you may 'start' there, but quickly move on.

First off, by looking at your so called disputed quote reference in wikiquotes, I notice right away lots of errors in that so called 'research':

Here's the snippet from wiki:

Disputed

* We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other 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 subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much 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.

o Purportedly at a meeting of the Trilateral Commission (June 1991); as quoted in Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge (2000) by Jordan Maxwell

en.wikiquote.org...

There are numerous errors in that wiki so called fact, so I wouldn't rely on that rag for your information.

FACT #1 in error:
It wasn't at a Trilateral Meeting, it was a Bilderberg Meeting.
Just blatantly WRONG, two completely different groups, the trilateral group for one thing, publishes some of its meeting minutes whereas the Bilderberg Group is strictly secretive, although leaks have possibly occurred as recent as 2006.

FACT #2 in error:
Yes it was quoted by Jordan Maxwell in Matrix of Power...but when you cite a source, you always cite the origination of the information in question, which in this case is wrong, the quote originated with: Lectures Francaises (July-August 1991). They obtained a transcript or audio recording of the secret meeting and reported the quote.

Your wiki resource is off by around nine (9) years on that quote citation!

So therefore your source (wiki) is in dispute as well. Someone should fix the errors in that *cough* source.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

reply to post by battlestargalactica


Well, hey, thanks for keeping me on my toes, I will do my best to return the favor. My knowledge of the French language is woefully limited, however, I did machine translate a French wikipedia article about "French Lectures". Wikipedia claims this is a right-wing publication that favors conspiracy theories and is nostalgic about Vichy (Nazi collaborating) France. I think any claim they have about obtaining what really was said inside the super-secure Bilderberg conference (which, to my knowledge, no one else has ever claimed to have done) is suspect.

fr.wikipedia.org...çaises


[edit on 2-4-2008 by thought]

I agree, Wikipedia has been known to have errors in their articles. Plus the FBI and CIA have been know to edit articles, but that's just off-topic.

reply to post by douglas2k4


Wikipedia's not terrible as long as you can track down the sources that are the basis of the article. Unfortunately, many articles these days have no sources.