Obama and the Bilderbergers -PROOF!

Originally posted by Grambler
First, the title of the thread merely claims to prove a link between Bilderberg and Obama, which it did. You claim that these conclusions have nothing to do with the argument at hand, well what is the argument at hand?

1. No, the thread did not prove a link between Obama and Bilderberg. The evidence that was provided simply showed that Johnson is a supporter of lobbying and has used it successfully in the past.

2. The "conclusion" that Obama is connected to Bilderberg is false, so naturally, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Look, I understand the desire to distrust government officials, politicians and powerful people. I don't trust them either. The problem is that you cannot simply draw far-reaching conclusions based on small pieces of unrelated evidence, especially when the only realistic alternative to Obama is John McCain.

reply to post by Majal


Humorously enough, I guess this has come down to a question of semantics. How do you define link? Clearly, the man that Obama hand picked to chose his VP is a member of the BG. I define link as connection;

from dictionary.com,
link- anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie:

Clearly, through the fact that one of Obamas top men is in the BG he has a connection to them. You define link as apparently meaning being a member of the BG, or at least believing in everything the stand for.

Originally posted by Sheeper

Do you say these things to convince yourself of a lie or do you really believe that.

Then you go on to say you think this is just a smear tactic to rip on Obama and make McCain look good....o.O, that pretty much tells me all I need to know about you, you were on the time to defend Obama train before you even read the topic I'm sure, your points are irrational and blind faith. In order to "question everything" you need to question their motives and see that their vested interest is a conflict of interest.

There's a difference between a conspiracy theory that is more logical than the official story and an attempt to discredit a Presidential candidate simply because you prefer the opposing candidate.

In order to question everything, you have to be willing to do your own research rather than relying on other people to do it for you. You clearly are having a difficult time understanding that concept.

I've already explained my stance on this issue.

reply to post by Majal


Humorously enough, I guess this has come down to a question of semantics. How do you define link? Clearly, the man that Obama hand picked to chose his VP is a member of the BG. I define link as connection;

from dictionary.com,
link- anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie:

Clearly, through the fact that one of Obamas top men is in the BG he has a connection to them. You define link as apparently meaning being a member of the BG, or at least believing in everything the stand for. I think that this is unraesonable and I don't find that definition in any of the dictionaries I've looked in.

You also say we have to be careful because McCain is the only other option. I agree with your sentiment. I actually voted for Obama in the primaries, and have only recently became disenfranchised with him because of his connections and deceit. However, McCain is not the only other option. Voting for the lessor of two evils only allows evil to continue. Look, if you truly believe that your vote matters, then you can understand how by voting third party or refusing to vote for these people can start to build an affect. Your other option is to get angry with your country, to tell people whats going on, and to in no way support any of these people. I will grant you that this will be difficult to achieve change in this way, but the chances are much greater than continuing to fall in the trap of voting for the perceived lesser evil.

Originally posted by Majal
If a Presidential candidate were to appoint a politician who is connected to a Klansman as an important member of their campaign staff, then yes, I would have a problem with it. I would not, however, assume that the candidate himself was serving the interests of the KKK, which is almost exactly what the original post was attempting to do.

Your logic falls apart there.
If a Presidential candidate were to appoint a politician who is connected to a Klansman, how could it not serve the interests of the KKK?

If this thread encouraged someone to vote McCain I would assume they'd completely misunderstood it.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Your logic falls apart there.
If a Presidential candidate were to appoint a politician who is connected to a Klansman, how could it not serve the interests of the KKK?

It's perfectly logical if you think of it in terms of your own life.

If you have a good friend whose father is anti-semitic and believes that the Holocaust never happened, will you choose end the friendship simply because he's "connected" to an ignorant racist? Technically, it would link you to racism and allow people to assume that you, too, are racist--but, in reality, it has absolutely nothing to do with your own beliefs or even your friend's.

i dont think its astounding that main stream media wont report it...i think its to be known(typical)

Originally posted by Majal


It's perfectly logical if you think of it in terms of your own life.

If you have a good friend whose father is anti-semitic and believes that the Holocaust never happened, will you choose end the friendship simply because he's "connected" to an ignorant racist? Technically, it would link you to racism and allow people to assume that you, too, are racist--but, in reality, it has absolutely nothing to do with your own beliefs or even your friend's.

Again, thats not an appropriate example. Using your scenario it would look like this. You appoint this racists man to be a member of your campaign, which is solely being run on an anti racism ticket. Thats the travesty. Explain to me how I can vote for Obama when, as I said before, this either proves that a person can be connected to lobbyists and overcome it, which means there is no need for the change being offered; or that Obama is more of the same from candidates.

Let me rephrase a little, probably the biggest reason Obama beat Hillary was the idea of change. Without it, he didn't stand a chance. It was the one thing he could use to separate himself from Hillary. Because of this idea of change and reforming lobbyist control of Washington, he was able to garner enough support, including by energizing young fed up voters, to beat Hillary. Then in late May when it was obvious that he had beat Hillary, he choses the vice chairman of a multi-billion dollar hedge fund to chose his VP. Also, this person has a history of being an effective lobbyist and lining his own pockets. Again, none of this is speculation, this is all fact that has been posted to this board. How can anyone in their right mind vote for this person?

Originally posted by Grambler
Let me rephrase a little, probably the biggest reason Obama beat Hillary was the idea of change. Without it, he didn't stand a chance. It was the one thing he could use to separate himself from Hillary. Because of this idea of change and reforming lobbyist control of Washington, he was able to garner enough support, including by energizing young fed up voters, to beat Hillary. Then in late May when it was obvious that he had beat Hillary, he choses the vice chairman of a multi-billion dollar hedge fund to chose his VP. Also, this person has a history of being an effective lobbyist and lining his own pockets. Again, none of this is speculation, this is all fact that has been posted to this board. How can anyone in their right mind vote for this person?

1. It's a perfectly reasonable analogy, especially when you consider the fact that it's next to impossible to find a politician who isn't affiliated with lobbyists. If you were Obama, who would you have chosen?

2. Did you even follow the race for the Democratic nomination? Obama won partly because of his message--which was about a lot more than simply changing politicians' reliance on lobbyist funding--and partly because Hillary exposed herself as a hateful, win-at-all-costs type of politician in front of the public eye. In fact, Obama's message had a lot more to do with ending that type of campaign and "politics as usual" (his own words) than ending the lobbyist influence in Washington.

You do realize that, as of March 31st, 45% of Obama's campaign financing came from donations under $200, right? If that's not a legitimate attempt to separate himself from interest groups, then I'm not sure what is.

As of March 31, 2008, Senator Obama had raised an unprecedented $101 million in small individual contributions of $200 or less, which represents 45 percent of his $225 million in total individual contributions raised for the primaries, according to the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI).

Furthermore, according to an article in The New York Times (May 19, 2008), Obama has received contributions from more that 1.5 million individual donors.

Source

Originally posted by Majal

I suggest that you find a single example of anyone within Obama's campaign stating that you're a racist if you're white and vote against Obama

How about Obama himself? Does he count as an example of somebody within his campaign?

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -Barack Obama

This was Obama's explanation for why white, working-class folks in Pennsylvania seemed to be lining up behind Clinton. Saying white people who don't vote for him are bitter and have antipathy towards people not like themselves is calling them racists.


And David Axelrod had this to say:

David Axelrod called on Hillary Clinton's campaign to firmly rebuke Geraldine Ferraro for saying in a recent interview that: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

"They should be denounced, and she should be censured by the campaign for them," Axelrod said of Ferraro's remarks.

If Clinton's campaign does nothing, Axelrod said during a call with reporters, they are reinforcing a politics-as-usual approach.

"They ought to set a tone and do what we've done when people have said things not in keeping with what is the spirit of our campaign," he said, adding, "the bottom line is this when you wink and nod at offensive statemens you really send a signal to your supporters that anything goes."

Source

So what exactly was "offensive" about Ferraro's remarks and why should they be denounced? Obviously, Axelrod's implication is that the remarks were racist. Why else would he call for Ferraro to be "censured" by the campaign for making an observation related to Obama's race?

So far, you've provided us with nothing but fallacious arguments and unsubstantiated statements that would be laughable if they were slightly less worrisome.

No, I substantiated every statement. The arguments are based on facts. Obama is connected to the Bilderberg group. The Obama campaign implies that those opposing Obama are racists.

reply to post by Majal


In an answer to your first point, if I was Obama, I would have chose someone who wasn't a lobbyist. I would have lost. But if he truly believes his own message then he would have had to do this. If he couldn't have won without a highly powerful lobbyists, then it proves that he is incapable of enacting meaningful change.

You say he one only partly because of his message. Fine, I'll grant you that. Yet that was still part of the reason, and he won only by the slimmest of margins. If he even won one state because of this, then this is the reason he is the nominee.

As far as changing the system being the message, and that somehow being different than lobbyists, prove it. I would like to see some quotes backing that up, I searched, heres what I found:



“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

Lastly, I've already adressed the, "well most of his money didn't come from lobbyists" claim.

"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." from a previous post

Originally posted by jamie83

Neither one of the quotes you just listed have anything to do with Obama or members of his campaign saying that white people are racist if they don't vote for him.

Here's the full Obama quote you attempted to take out of context and completely distort:

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

Source

As far as the Axelrod quote goes: You clearly don't understand the far-reaching implications of what Ferraro said. By claiming that Obama's race was the only thing keeping him in the race, she was completely ignoring the drawbacks of his heritage and simultaneously undercutting her own candidate by making the race more about race and sex than the issues themselves.

Axelrod absolutely had the right to call for Clinton to remove Ferraro from her campaign. It had NOTHING to do with calling white voters who don't vote for Obama racist, and everything to do with calling a spade a spade.

Originally posted by Majal
You do realize that, as of March 31st, 45% of Obama's campaign financing came from donations under $200, right? If that's not a legitimate attempt to separate himself from interest groups, then I'm not sure what is.

You are SO missing the point.

James Johnson, Frank Pearl, Richard Holbrooke, George Soros, and Goldman Sachs ARE a special interest group. It's just that they're not registered lobbyists. And they are not affiliated with a specific industry because they can shift their investments between industries within a few weeks.

They can hide behind their hedge funds, which are NOT required to publish their holdings or their partners, and BE big oil if they want. In fact, their profits investing in oil on the futures markets would dwarf what oil company execs would make combined.

They can short currencies and make hundreds of millions personally if the dollar drops in value. They can play long/short spreads between currencies of two countries and make hundreds of millions if one currency goes up in relation to another. If they buy or sell options in a company they can make ten times more than the stock holders can ever dream of making. If they short the stock in a company they can make hundreds of millions of government regulations force a company out of business.

So it doesn't matter at all that Obama has distanced himself from traditional lobbyists or oil companies if he's in bed with guys like Johnson who can investment billions in any industry they choose.

Can't you see what Perseus is? Perseus LLC is no different than the Carlyle Group. Can't you see how these guys have figured a way around the regulations relating to lobbyists? They BUY INTO any industry, or any currency whenever they want. They put their guys in office to make sure their investments move in the right direction.

Originally posted by Grambler

In an answer to your first point, if I was Obama, I would have chose someone who wasn't a lobbyist. I would have lost. But if he truly believes his own message then he would have had to do this. If he couldn't have won without a highly powerful lobbyists, then it proves that he is incapable of enacting meaningful change.

You say he one only partly because of his message. Fine, I'll grant you that. Yet that was still part of the reason, and he won only by the slimmest of margins. If he even won one state because of this, then this is the reason he is the nominee.

As far as changing the system being the message, and that somehow being different than lobbyists, prove it. I would like to see some quotes backing that up, I searched, heres what I found:

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

Lastly, I've already adressed the, "well most of his money didn't come from lobbyists" claim.

"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." from a previous post

1. The fact that you didn't list a politician who ISN'T in favor of lobbyists as a potential choice for the position just drives my point home. How many of them are there? Obama may well be one himself, but how would we know for sure if there's no one else out there who feels the same way and is qualified to run a search for a Vice President?

2. Here are a few quotes that support the idea that Obama is interested in changing the system rather than simply removing the lobbyist influence:

"America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past."

Source

"Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security. The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now, not six months from now."

Source

"All of us should be in the solutions business, but too often it becomes business as usual. ... What we need is a president in the business of solving problems and will solve them by bringing the country together."

"I did not get into this race to tear anybody down. I got into this race to build America up."

"I intend to lead the party of tomorrow, not the party of yesterday."

"We don't need somebody who can play the game better. We need somebody who can put an end to the game plan."

If elected: "You'll have a president who respects the constitution, believes in the constitution and will obey the constitution of the United States of America."

"We want to change the mindset that got us in to war."

Source

3. The reason why politicians feel that they have to work to please the lobbyists once they're in the White House is BECAUSE they accept their campaign donations. There is no other proven reason why this would happen.

Anyway, I'm going to head off now. I've already made the point that I wanted to make.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Majal]

Originally posted by Majal

By claiming that Obama's race was the only thing keeping him in the race,
she was completely ignoring the drawbacks of his heritage and simultaneously undercutting her own candidate by making the race more about race and sex than the issues themselves.

And your point is? Who cares if she was ignoring the "drawbacks" of his heritage? Is it now a sin to ignore the other candidates drawbacks in a political race?


And back on point, none of your claims have ANYTHING to do with the topic of this thread. They're just more attempts to distract from the issue. The issue is why is Obama and the news media hiding James Johnson's position as Vice Chairman of Perseus LLC and their partnership with George Soros?

How much money will James Johnson and George Soros make if Obama is elected President and implements policies favorable to Johnson's and Soros' investments?

If you don't know the answer to this question, which of course you don't, then there is no way to tell if Obama is planning on doing their bidding or not.

The problem lies in the fact that this information is being kept from the public. Why not disclose it?

If Obama has nothing to hide, why not disclose that the man he picked to vet his VP candidates runs a multi-billion dollar hedge fund and is partnered with George Soros?

Barack Obama is of the wrong breeding to be included in the Bilderburg Group, I think Obama is evil and a puppet mind you, but he is not Bilderburg material; remember these are same evil people that thought up Rex84.

One last thing, since it directly relates to your argument:

blogs.tnr.com...

James A. Johnson is NOT leading Obama's VP selection committee. He's simply one of three members.

Originally posted by jamie83

The issue is why is Obama and the news media hiding James Johnson's position as Vice Chairman of Perseus LLC and their partnership with George Soros?

Because it is irrelevant. Is Perseus on Obama's donor list? (I actually don;t know, but I doubt it.)

In fact, Obama is actually paying Johnson, and I have a suspicion it is because of his political science background. The fact that he is on the board of a hedge fund really has little to do with picking a VP.

How much money will James Johnson and George Soros make if Obama is elected President and implements policies favorable to Johnson's and Soros' investments?

You have yet to provide any solid data on how this would occur.

If you don't know the answer to this question, which of course you don't, then there is no way to tell if Obama is planning on doing their bidding or not.

So we are to assume that Obama is guilty, based on the fact that Perseus didn't make their trading public, when Perseus has ZERO to do with Obama? Wow. In that case most of us are pandering to lobbyists.

The problem lies in the fact that this information is being kept from the public. Why not disclose it?

Because they shouldn't have to. Perseus has not given a dime to Obama, have they?

If Obama has nothing to hide, why not disclose that the man he picked to vet his VP candidates runs a multi-billion dollar hedge fund and is partnered with George Soros?

See where I am going with this? Jamie, you have put together a really solid argument here.

I actually agree with what you are saying. And anyone who doesn't think that Obama will ultimately answer to these puppet masters needs to do some homework.

My point is that, as long as those of us on this site (ATS) continue to make these giant leaps of logic without PROVING their validity or ssolidly connecting the dots, our friends and family will continue to think that we are all nuts for thinking what we think.

What you, and many others insinuate on this site is that there are huge powers at play that control the destiny of our politics and policy.

Now prove it!

For a brief moment this thread took on an academic air, I appreciated that intensely, bu then it once again was overcome by partisan sniping. So sad.

I had wanted to participate yesterday more fully, but an internet outage put an end to that. I say this because my meager participation represents more of a 'baby-step' in the debate, where many here seem eager send the debate with a single emotional dismissal into the abyss.

The 'strong point' if you will offered by the detractors pivots around what they proclaim is an inappropriate supposition of malfeasance, or nefarious intent. And the strength the argument holds is, of itself, based on no less of a supposition of presumed benevolence, or innocuousness. Without that presumed benevolence, the arguers case weakens considerably. The connection between the candidate and these 'financial power brokers' is accepted.

The 'strong point' for the OP supporting group is not fully addressed by the detractors, not because of any flaw in the arguments on either side (sorry to disagree with the 'logicians') but because is only approaches the disagreement from the weaker aspect of the issue.

In my opinion, the OP is noteworthy in that it addresses two aspects. One, that the candidate has apparently succumbed to 'secrecy' demands of a third party - a party who remains effectively hidden from world view while exercising national-level influence - circumventing the publics self-recognized right to oversight through stealth and uniquely 'corporate' legal means.

The second, weaker aspect is the pieced-together profile of those who are now seated in the organizations suspected of purposes contrary to the interests of the people of the United States of America (at least). This profile is the result of circumstantial evidence, mostly reinforced by a veil of secrecy maintained by the subject. Whether this secrecy serves a purpose other than to arouse fear and permit flexibility is unknown, but it most certainly does not engender trust. Nevertheless one must be 'willing' to believe the evil attributed to the group, and many are evidently willing.

Apologists point out that there is no evidence of wrongdoing, but I perceive this is a falsely applied qualification. Corporations, like nations, should not be afforded the right of presumed innocence, as if they were being accused in a court of law, that right is reserved for a citizen of the state. The corporation as a legal entity is potentially far more powerful than an individual and their actions and impact on the state are not equivalent. The creation of such a body within our society was never intended to elevate it to citizen status, for reasons which seem obvious.

If one accepts that such people, as those represented by those loosely referred to as "Bilderbergers' are in fact a 'world power' due to the economic influence they wield, then we must assume that the execution of their plans do have impact on the United States, as well as the world. 'Their' plans and agendas can logically be assumed to benefit 'their' constituency, or membership, which may or may not put them in a position to be considered adversarial to our own.

Whether a representative of the people should confer with and accept 'advice' from such individuals is open to interpretation, certainly any logical person would not 'refuse' to hear the voice of anyone, lest they lack information. However a public official's (indeed THE 'public' official of the land) participation in such dialogs cannot be assumed to carry a 'hands-off' caveat to those he is sworn to represent.

How the connection is being 'denied' is, I am afraid to say, somewhat superficial and laced with an air of antiseptic revision. As we all know, the mega-corporatist does not simply 'accept' national sovereignty and political boundaries as a legitimate obstacle to their enterprise. This can be witnessed in nearly all of their undertakings; from the low-level trend of contracting 'governmental services' in local affairs to the multinational 'prosperity' type initiatives we all know and debate frequently like NAFTA, the EU, and others.

That the object of the debate here is partisan is the illusion. This thread, while referencing a single example of politician, is an indictment against the political party structure in its entirety. No one player can be free from influence because the model upon which the political parties operate is flawed and genuinely owned by those corporatists referenced earlier. For eaxmple, you CANNOT be poor and be President of the United States. That says something about the 'influence' of purchasing power. It does not bode well for the common citizen, regardless of political affiliation.

As the media makes it more costly to run, only those who can pay, or are substantially subsidized, can reach the community they offer to represent. Yet these same 'corporatists' own the MSM nearly lock-stock-and-barrel.

It is a closed loop. And the fact that we can't get any direct answers is a valid cause for concern.

Many wish this to be a partisan thing. It would be easier to contend with it that way. The actual 'fault' of applying this to Mr. Obama was his own campaign rhetoric, which assumed that the people would simply accept, or at least not challenge, the political party paradigm which justifies, endorses and even promotes the 'big-money' influence in the actual engineering of the party.

As usual the key to avoid these 'issues' is disclosure and transparency, which seems to be anathema to any political process as they are now engaged. This seems to be about the classist separation of citizens from corporations, a failing entirely within our own ability to address - if it weren't for the fact that the corporations hold the keys to the kingdom, and their friends in politics are provided many incentives to keep it that way.

Well, I said enough to feel like I rate whatever flaming is to follow. Please accept this is as much about Barak Obama as it is about ANY of our candidates.

Our politicians have come to love being stars, more than being public servants. This is the price. The parties are a joke. They represent no one without tribute.

Barack Obama sets up internet 'war room' to fight slurs

www.timesonline.co.uk...

So what is it they intend to do?Infiltrate forums?and Blogs?

What about emails?

Isn't that personal?

Talk about big brother, isn't that what this forum is all about exposing this sorta thing?

So should we be afraid now on any issue pertaining to Obama that he doesn't want exposed??

I knew this was coming.

[edit on 103030p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]