It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama and the Bilderbergers -PROOF!

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by I_AM_that_I_AM

"So, you have a guy on Obama's VP selection comittee who works with a guy who supports the BG. And you think that's proof of a connection to the BG itself?
All I see is you playing 6 degree's of Kevin bacon. And then claiming that it means something."

Johnson himself was invited to attend Bilderberg. Look, this is the guy in charge of who the VP will be, and he was one of only about 150 people to get an invitation to the BG. Its not as if its a group with thousands of members, and its not as if Johnson is some small contributor to Obama. Rather or not Bilderberg is as sinister as is being portrayed can be argued, but this proves a clear link to the members of Bilderberg clearly having a connection and influence towards Obama.

"Seriously, why would they?
OMG a rich guy works with someone who's part of a presidential campaigne!
How is that news worthy? "

Look at it like this. The MSM has spent the last month attacking everyone one of Obama's shady associates (i.e. Rev. Wright). You don't find it strange that a Hannity or Limbaugh wouldn't have a field day with the fact that one of his top advisors is Vice-Chairman of a multi-billion dollar hedge fund, especially in lieu of the fact that Obama's message is that of change and not taking influence from lobbyists? Alls you need to do is turn on Fox news to realize that this story would be right up their alley. So why the silence on Johnson, and not only that but the complete lack of recognition of Bilderberg even existing? Could it be because year in and year out the MSM is invited to the BG (this year included)? Its easy to see how many people on this board would find that very disturbing and odd.

"There is no missing time in his life in which we don't know where he was or what he did."

Except his secret meeting with Hillary.

"Cause a skimmed through the thread, and besides a bunch of self congradulating on finding this "Hidden" link, I saw a bunch of unbacked/unproven claims that they were somehow finacially backing him and thus responsible for his rise to power"

At the very least we know this to be fact: Obama is running a campaign centered on the idea of changing Washington, particularly its lobbying practices. While doing this, the man that he has chosen to pick his VP is the Vice-Chairman of a multi-billion dollar hedge fund who is a member of an organization of the worlds elite power brokers. You can decide for yourself how bad that is, but these claims are a FACT.

Now there is no definitive "proof" of the BG using Obama as a puppet to force their agenda on the US, but there is much evidence to suggest that may be the case (read the rest of the post and any info on the BG). Rather or not you believe this is up to you. I chose to believe it because the government and candidates have lied to everyone so often that I think they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. If you need 100% proof to believe this thats fine, but clearly you can see that Obama is at the very least being somewhat disingenuous. Don't leave your love for a candidate or political party blind you from the facts.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:26 AM
I see that many are adopting the stereotypical, "that doesn't prove anything" stance, completely refusing to draw any inference from the information provided because it would not be in keeping with their pre-supposed political optimism. That is, of course, their choice. But their aggressively defensive stance hints at an understanding of the implications nevertheless. If it doesn't 'prove' anything you have nothing from which to defend your candidate. So why the zealous fervor? Why don't you ignore it? Do you think that a website dedicated to the exploration of conspiracy theory is somehow a threat to your version of reality?

That this information presents a circumstantial and speculatory message is par for this venue. The importance given it is relative to the potential harm it could be foreshadowing.

Why not simply accept that Obama, like ostensibly every other political party member in either branch of the republocrats, is tainted by direct influence of a defacto world power who has concealed its influence, and the magnitude of the party's subservience to it for decades (if not longer). Is your failure to acknowledge the threat of a 'secret power cabal' based on knowledge, or faith?

This study, while centered around Obama's recent activities, does not expunge the rest of the political party of any similar culpability in granting legitimacy to the Bilderburg agenda (whatever that may be). But of ALL people, we would have expected the self-professed antagonist to 'financially motivated politically wielded influence' to have made a rather direct and frank remark regarding the affair. Instead secrecy and subversion ruled the day.

What do you expect of the tacit 'acceptance' of 'secret' meetings and 'unknown agendas'.

All this speculation arises out of a lack of disclosure, nothing more. Mr. Obama is a politician, nothing more.

Like his colleagues he had to 'buy in' to become viable, and so he did. Whether you accept his pledges or not is your own affair. What you wish to believe is, as always, not subject to anyone else's speculation, only your own.

If you are willing to accept the 'secrecy' and 'dead-of-the-night' gatherings as 'fine by you.' Good luck.

I prefer to explore this until such time as I can understand why I, an American citizen, am seemingly to be kept 'out of the loop' in such matters, as if I were of little or no consequence to the deliberations (whatever they were) which were concealed and remain unreported.

I recognize that I may never know the 'secret'. I agree with JFK's assessment that secret organizations and agendas are abhorrent to my desires for this nation. But I think that the man wanting to be President should grant me the respect of explaining, and again, Again, I ask the same tiresome question: 'Why is the secrecy necessary?"

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:44 AM
The secrecy is necessary to ensure full cooperation of all parties involved from the CFR, the Trilateral commission masons, the list goes on and on. It has been the same agenda since 1776 with the completion of plan by Adam Weishaupt. They had five main objectives that expanded given the complexity of politics, economic growth, technology, the generations continued to this plan of world government. Its a fact that its been carried from family generation to generation picking up other family ties along the way.

It is now almost ready to fulfill their dream of a one world government led by a satanic backing..........this is the cold hard fact and bottom line.

ALL our presidents have been players or cajoled into cooperating. They blackmail, bribe, murder, threaten, anyone that offers a reasonable obstacle. FDR was one of the worse traitors in our countries history as he was a willing participant. Even a decendent of his in 1841 provided the thesis Kark Marx Rewrote to take the credit of his Communist Manifesto in 1848....I actually found a documentary book and a copy of the document reprinted that Clinton Roosevelt wrote in 1841. Our history is so off track the books from cover to cover are useless.

Obama is just another pawn in this game with its final phase. Assuming we have the elections, Obama is pushed by the Bilderbergers. This is the same a Clinton. If Obama lives past August and not assassinated, at the Denver Democratic convention [reference glass house tape, sept 1973], he will more than likely be president. If he is assassinated, and race riots will follow as planned, Bush will declare martial law without 1-2 weeks and take over as dictator as the Constitution is effectively cancelled in accordance with the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act and Martial law act.......Either way, an attack on Iran is also in the mix as well as the dollar crash that is planned leading the way to the AMERO and the North American Union. They have very ambitious plans that is being kept from Americans..........

reply to post by Maxmars

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by tgambill

Thank you for your response. While I appreciate it, I am certain this would NOT be the response presidential hopeful Obama would deliver.

I am aware of the numerous ramifications of the plan you and others have cited. I have yet to fully embrace it as reality because the case is constructed on circumstantial relationships and an agreement that the plan has remained operationally intact over the centuries.

I believe that the "Rhodesian" principle of imperial ambitions may have been rooted in some misguided sense of 'destiny' prevalent in the culture and environment, and certainly the Bavarian elements were part and parcel of the motive force behind the effort. But I feel that their plan may have been usurped by lesser men with a simple lust for wealth and power.

I happen to think that conspiracies such as the NWO and Illuminati are suspect in the regard that all players can't possibly trust each other. The paradigm of secrecy and collusion carries within it, the seeds of its own destruction. It seems more realistic to me to proceed that this kind of 'elitist movement' is a self-realized facade, in the end it will devolve into a chaos of greedy in-fighting, subterfuge, and betrayal.

The only remedy or prevention of that would be to have all players submit to a single 'will', and I as of yet, have not seen that leadership manifest itself. If it exists, perhaps we never will, and they will succeed in launching their plan - although I believe the result will be far from what they envision.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 09:49 AM

Originally posted by jimmyx
what's next on the Obama smear campaign...

This is far from a "smear" campaign. These are facts.

1. The entire foundation of Obama's campaign is that he is free from the influence of lobbyists and Washington insiders.

2. Obama's inner circle, in fact the person he's placed in charge of finding a V.P., Jim Johnson, has been the Vice Chairman of Perseus LLC, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. Perseus also runs an investment partnership with George Soros.

3. Johnson, along with other Perseus partners, attended the Bilderberg conference.

4. Perseus LLC has about $3 billion invested somehow. Since Perseus is a private partnership we have no way of knowing what Perseus is investing in. Perseus could be invested, long or short, in stocks, commodities, and/or currencies. For example, Perseus could be heavily short the dollar.

5. All media reports about Jim Johnson only reference that he was the former head of Fannie Mae, and fail to mention his current position at Perseus, which he has held since 2001.

6. Obama has failed to mention that Johnson, a key player in his campaign, is a partner at Perseus LLC and a board member of Goldman Sachs.

Jim Johnson, as a partner in Perseus, and as a member of Obama's campaign team, has two interests: his investments at Perseus, and Obama winning the election. It's safe to say that he wouldn't be working to get Obama elected if that outcome didn't also serve to benefit Perseus' investments.

Obama has failed to disclose these facts, and in fact, has based his entire campaign on the exact opposite -that he has not put himself in the position to be influenced by corporate interests. Contrary to Obama's claims, his campaign is being run by people who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars if Obama wins, and certain policies are implemented.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:13 AM
OK I spent ALOT of time looking into the Buildaberg group. And let me just say that yes this is highly suspicious but if you look at who else Omaba has had Samantha Power a political activist who wrote a book on Genocide, and looks like she will serve in his cabinet was also working for him to. My point is,
Keep you enemies closer.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by jamie83

From Wikipedia or any "intro to logic" textbook...

An ASSOCIATION FALLACY is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

General Form

Premise A particular thing A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore B is C

Or in this context it is even a step further removed .....

James Johnson (a) is Vice-Chairman of this investment fund (b), ....Chairman? ...Try Frank Pearl (c)

Frank Pearl's (c) active member of the Americans for Bilderberg group. (d)

James A. Johnson (a) is the person selected by Obama (e) to head his Vice-Presidential Search Committee.

Therefore Obama (e) = Bilderberg Group (d)

Or put another way

a equals b (johnson=Investment fund board)
c equals b (Pearl=Investment fund board)
c also equals d (Pearl also = Bilderberg)
Therfore a must equal d .... (Johnson must = Bilderberg)
Faulted logic/Fallacy plus appeal to emotion (fear)

then same equation repeated based of the first fallacy
a equals d (Johnson must = Bilderberg)
a also equals e (Johnson = Obama)
therfore d must equal e
(Bilderberg must = Obama) A logical fallacy built upon a logical fallacy.

* Nothing wrong with conspiracy theorey as long as it is an entry point for searching for verifiable factual proof to validate the theorey, but convoluted logical fallacies shouldn't be presented in a headline as "PROOF" as if they can stand on their own. They are just the opposite.

Historically when this fallacy of logic (guilt by association) is misrepresented as a truth and mixed with political fervor and fear it can and has resulted in witch hunts, McCarthyism, and the inquisition just to name a few. It works best when there is fear of persecution mixed in. She's a witch! Why? Because she defends the witch we are burning. Ignorance has real world dire consequences. This line of convoluted BS doesn't have as much real world consequences as those historical attrocities, but still isn't our goal to DENY IGNORANCE? "PROOF" ???

The other fallacy of logic that I see often in these Obama bashing threads is when people respond questioning the logic there is an immediate generalization/stereotyping of anyone questioning the logic of these threads as an "obamatron". She's a witch!!

Historically anybody questioning the logic of the inquisition was assumed to be a heretic. Ditto McCarthyism and communists. Anyone is welcome to slam Obama, but it would be refreshing to see logical arguments and facts to debate.

So have at it those of you who are desperate to attack Obama. Examine the logic and respond with facts and clear logic....or just call me an "Obamatron!", I think I already know what to expect given the level of intellect and mean spiritness I have seen from most (not all) Obama critics on this thread.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by maybereal11]

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:58 AM
Alright, for the sake of argument - let me play devil's advocate.

If you note my postings in this thread, I am really enamored of the quality and diligence of the OP but I do have some questions.

1. James (Jim) Johnson -

Mr. Johnson holds a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota and a Masters in Public Policy from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. In 1999, Mr. Johnson received an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters Degree from Howard University, and in 2002, he received an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from Skidmore College. Mr. Johnson also received an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters Degree from Augsburg College in May 2006 and an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from the University of Minnesota in May 2006.

So we have a guy with a political science degree helping Obama with the search for VP. I simplify this because there is little to no public evidence or documentation that Johnson is helping Obama in any other way that helping him strategically plan his hunt for VP.

2. Proof of Lobbying -

While it certainly would seem convenient that the same guy who is leading Obama's VP run is on the board at Perseus and Goldman Sach's, there is no evidence of collusion. In other words, there is nothing to indicate that Perseus has anything to gain by Obama's election.

The OP has made it clear that Perseus in not a lobbyist group, and that indeed, they do not need to be. But even in order to function as a significant level of influence to the Obama Presidency, there would need to be some proof as to how Perseus, Sachs or others could mutually benefit.

The bottom line is that this Jim Johnson sounds like a pretty smart guy and is someone you would want helping you become president. Should Obama not have the best of the best helping him, or should he seek out the manager at Dairy Queen to advise him?

Most importantly, rich, white men have put every president into power since Washington. How is this new and where is the solid evidence that supports that the Bilderbergers are up to nefarious things?

Prison Planet posets a list of the attendees, but where did they get the list from?

It all seems a bit suspect, no?

Again - just playing devil's advocate to help sharpen this argument.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:42 PM
Apparently two schools of thought are being represented here; on the one hand, that the involvement of certain financial and industrial powers in a campaign indicates a relationship which is not in keeping with the candidates public declarations of 'independence'; on the other, that such a relationship is actually a normal and desirable.

I tried to couch that statement in a manner that neither side would completely embrace. Impartiality is a problem here because it's existence will be disputed.

I don't want to assume anything. Would it be correct in stating that said 'relationship' does exist? Or is one side still denying that point?

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Maxmars]

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by jamie83

From Wikipedia or any "intro to logic" textbook...


Mica Brezenski's aptitude for reporting.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:02 PM
I think it is very safe to say that the "relationship" exists. Its all over the news. Do a google search of Obama and Jim Johnson and you will see that.

My point is that does this mean that Obama is taking bribes? Being influenced by Perseus? No. I don't think so.

Jim Johnson did the same thing for Mondale LONG before being involved with Perseus.

The only interesting connection I see is that Jim Johnson and Caroline Kennedy (another person appointed to pick Obama's VP) were both higher ups at Fannie Mae. Anyone know any good stuff about Fannie Mae?

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:57 PM
I'll probably get in trouble for this BUT here goes. This thread reminds me of a joke someone sent me this weekend:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle - the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our president!

The old rancher said "well you know, Obama is a "post turtle," not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a "post turtle” was.
The old rancher said, "when you're driving down a country road and come across a post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a “post turtle."

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there. He doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just have to wonder what kind of person put him up there in the first place!!"

C'mon you know it's true! His career didn't really get off the ground until last year.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Hey Maxmars...thanks for the civil post.

"Involvement of certain financial and industrial powers"

Of course the questions are to what degree and in what regard?
But yes if clearly demonstrated it would be considered not in keeping with public declarations of independance...but McCain and every candidate running or that has run professes independance and none are likely completely free of influence (in my opinion). So you are left with the question of who is the least likely to be influenced by such powers. Who knows, Obama might be free of influence, but I doubt it. But I believe him to be more removed from influence than recent Presidents and Presedential candidates and am awaiting "Proof", not BS, to the contrary.

"that such a relationship is actually a normal and desirable."

Influence by financial and industrial powers in politics is not desirable by any measure, but unfortunately a condition that has existed to some extenet in every political structure as long as nations have. Here's hoping it changes sometime soon. Even if Obama fails to live up to his rhetoric and speeches..he will have elevated the expectations of what the american people expect from their politicians. even if he gets elected and fails to meet his own declared standards, the next presedential election will have a different tone and expectations...again in my opinion.

"I don't want to assume anything. Would it be correct in stating that said 'relationship' does exist? Or is one side still denying that point?"

Yes a realtionship exists, the extent of it has yet to be demonstrated or proven. I know someone whose father knows ex-president Clinton. I have never met Clinton though and have zero influence. Six degrees. A relationship? yes, but the rest of the argument is wide open unsubstantiated...a fallacy of logic. Pick any candidate past or present and we can play the association game. Show a meaningful money trail and actions or policy positions in direct keeping with that money trail and you can start scratching you head and looking deeper.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by maybereal11]

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by maybereal11

The problem with your diagram is that Frank Pearl doesn't matter. Johnson himself attended Bilderberg. So it should look more like this:

James A. Johnson is the person selected by Obama to head his Vice-Presidential Search Committee. He attended a members only Bilderberg meeting.

Therefore Obama has ties to the Bilderberg Group

Its funny how you and everyone else defending Obama attack the guilt by association mentality. That is basically the platform Obama has been running on. The idea that his campaign was better than McCain's or Hillary's because he doesn't take money from lobbyist is just another way of saying the latter two are guilty by association. He has no proof that they would allow these contributions to affect policy, he only claims that his lack of association with these people make him preferred.

Thats the real problem. You set this up as if our argument was the classic,"you hang out with racists, therefore you're racist", but thats not the case. The real argument is more like this, "you say you would be the best person for the job because you don't associate with racists, yet you do associate with them, therefore you would not be the best person for the job". Now I'm not saying I would prefer McCain, but clearly this lowers my view of Obama.

Want more proof? Check this out.

Not only has Obama criticized Hillary for dealing with lobbyist, but he has now chose a man to find his VP that is in bed with one of the very same organizations that he criticized Hillary for dealing with.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:08 PM
I will remind everyone here that 95% of the money Obama has raised has been small donations of $200 or less.

I am questioning this argument because there is so much assumption to it. Prison Planet lists the names. Ok, where did PP get the list? I haven't seen it anywhere else.

THEN - we assume that because Obama hires someone WHO IS ALSO A POLITICAL ADVISOR asise from being on the board of Perseus, a firm that we can't even show any wrong doing of, is somehow a bad person and thus Obama is a liar.

That's what I don't buy.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by TruthWithin

As far as were the list comes from, all I know is that Jim Tucker, a journalist that has been covering the group since the 70's, has for many years been able to get the list from inside sources. These lists have largely been confirmed by photographs in past years and this one of people who were on the list being in attendance.

As to the claim 95% of his funds came from small contributers. This seems to be how a lot of people are looking at this situation. The thinking seems to be, "If he didn't take money from them, then there is no wrong doing" I think that this is just not true. What difference does it make if he took money from Johnson or Perseus if he voluntarily is letting them influence decisions about his campaign. He just cut out the first part of how lobbyists work. Most politicians accept money from a group, then allow that group to influence them. Obama just skipped right to the influence.

But maybe Johnson is just a smart person, and he isn't interested in lobbying to congress? Well, this Washington Post article seems to indicate that when he was running the show for Fannie Mae, lobbying congress and influencing there decisions was a huge part of his plan.

But then perhaps Johnson is lobbying, but he is a good person and will use this lobbying for good? Nope. He made millions using shady practices at Fannie Mae. He was able to accomplish this because his lobbying efforts were so successful that not only did congress look the other way, they gave his company special privleges. As an added bonus, this money he recieved came from taxpayers.

Again, this is not a pro McCain piece. He obviously is in bed with tons of lobbyists. The point is that Obama is not all that he claims to be. As to the claim, "well no one can be outside the influence of these people, but Obama is the best option", I think this is a dangerous way to think. If you believe right now that these lobbyist and groups like Bilderberg are so powerful that it is absolutely impossible to get elected without there influence, then you shouldn't settle for voting for someone who does it slightly less. This type of thinking brings complacency, and is exactly what the worlds wealthy want. Only someone completely outside the system can change it.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by Grambler

I think working with and taking money from private orginizations such as Perseus and Goldman Sachs who's money trails and investments arn't public domain is far more nefarious then taking money from a public source such as lobbyists. And the whole reason he is using this gimmic of not using Lobbyists is to show the public that corporate interests won't be able to influence him when it just isn't true, he is being influenced by corporate interests. Not to mention, he has recieved funding from Lobbyists and only recently started using this tactic to manipulate you.

“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.” Stephen Weissman- of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

edit-Errr my post was not meant to be a reply to you Grambler, just the topic in general, clicking reply on your post was a mistake.....

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Sheeper]

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:38 PM
Honestly, I'm shocked that people would believe any of this without a shred of evidence to support the conclusion. This is one of the most ridiculous fallacies I have ever seen.

X is linked to Y, and Y is linked to Z, so X must also be linked to Z

Because X is linked to Z (a false conclusion), X must also be linked to Z's plan A (an unproven plan)

The fact that some people buy into this stuff is extremely worrisome.

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by maybereal11
So have at it those of you who are desperate to attack Obama. Examine the logic and respond with facts and clear logic....

I am not desperate to attack Obama. Although quite detailed and "official" looking, your entire logical analysis couldn't be more irrelevant. This isn't a logic problem on your final exams at Liberal Arts University. This is the real world.

You don't need a class in Logic 101 to see through Obama's charade. Contrary to what Obama says in his stump speech, his campaign is being run by Washington D.C. special interest groups. Perseus LLC has billions invested that will be affected by who takes over as the next President.

Obama is being outright deceitful when he implies that it's only the other candidates who are beholden to special interests when in fact his own campaign is being run by hedge fund managers with billions of dollars worth of bets placed on which policies will be implemented by the next POTUS.

Or, to put this in your terms:

a) George Soros and Perseus execs invest billions of dollars in industry X, or in currency Y,

b) George Soros and Perseus execs help Obama get elected,

c) Obama implements policy z that makes investments in X and Y skyrocket.

d) Soros and Perseus execs make hundreds of millions while American interests are sold out.

Is this logic simple enough for you to follow?

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by TruthWithin

I am questioning this argument because there is so much assumption to it. Prison Planet lists the names. Ok, where did PP get the list? I haven't seen it anywhere else.

THEN - we assume that because Obama hires someone WHO IS ALSO A POLITICAL ADVISOR asise from being on the board of Perseus, a firm that we can't even show any wrong doing of, is somehow a bad person and thus Obama is a liar.

That's what I don't buy.

Frank Pearl, the Chairmen of Perseus, lists in his biography on the Perseus web site that he is a member of the Bilderberg Group. This we know for sure.

Nobody said Jim Johnson ever did anything wrong. However, Perseus is not just some company that pays it's board a salary. Perseus is a hedge fund whose partners get paid a percentage of the profits from investments. Typically this percentage is about 20-25%. Johnson and Perseus stand to make hundreds of millions if their $3 billion in bets do well under the next POTUS.

And yes, Obama may be a liar when he claims that he is the only candidate not beholden to special interests. His implication is that if another candidate takes money from a lobbyist, that automatically puts them in the pocket of special interests. Yet somehow Obama can take money from Goldman Sachs and have a partner from Perseus help run his campaign, and yet he owes them no favors.

At best it's an incredibly disingenuous claim for Obama to make. At worst, it's an ongoing pattern of deceit that reminds me of the whole Rezko real estate deal.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in