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!

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).

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]

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]

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.