Obama and the Bilderbergers -PROOF!, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 132 times

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:18 AM by Frankidealist35

Wake up people. Of course the global elites would support a candidate who is gaining a lot of popularity and has potential to be the next US president.

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:21 AM by dgtempe

Alex Jones just said on c2c- Obama, Clinton and McLame WILL be at the meeting tomorrow.

He says there's' lots of intimidation- sub machine guns for good measure.

What the hell is going on?

Need i ask

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:30 AM by Odessy

Originally posted by Animal
Also when I google JJ I see him linked to Kerry and Mondale but not Carter, a fact that actually if anything does not bode well for Obama as they were both losers.

Isn't this an important factor?
If JJ makes Obama such a strong candidate for office, corrupted or otherwise, then why did Kerry and Mondale lose with JJ on their side?
Wouldnt they have had the same connections as Obama???

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:34 AM by Odessy

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by ufo reality
Funny how Obama is in VA today. Star and flagged thread.

Yes, the Bilderberg Group is meeting in VA today, right? At Chantilly or someplace? I heard it mentioned on the radio last week.

Is Obama at the meeting?

Yes, I just confirmed it. The Bilderberg meeting starts today in Chantily VA.

Source

Sorry, you havent confirmed anything... that site is entirely speculation...
From the website itself:

, original reports that Bilderberg had already met in Athens Greece turned out to be incorrect after Dutch newspapers and the Dutch Embassy let slip that Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende was set to attend Bilderberg in Chantilly after a meeting with George W. Bush.

Im NOT totally against this idea... I just need a little more proof...
so far, things dont seem to be matching up imo.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by jamie83]

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Odessy]

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:35 AM by Sheeper

reply to post by Odessy

Well it seems that they like all the candidates to be in their pocket, some more than others but in the end whoever ends up winning or whoever they decide the people will follow better they at least maintain their grip.

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:36 AM by Odessy

reply to post by Sheeper

that makes sense more than anything...
and is consistent with many ideas of the people that post on this site...
that it doesnt matter who wins, the president is just a public figure, nothing else.

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:38 AM by Fibonacci11235

and he has the antichrist working for him lol or atleast someone with the same monicker
Former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus who will be advising him in Middle East affairs.

www.barackobama.com...

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:38 AM by Sheeper

reply to post by Odessy

Their not speculation anymore, they are in Virginia. They were just commenting on another report that they believe was to throw them off.

edit-well it's not definitive proof as far as I can tell, I haven't seen pictures yet but they say it is confirmed anyway.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sheeper]

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:40 AM by Anonymous ATS

I don't think we know enough specifics to subscribe to anything being discussed here. It is all speculation without real evidence. As a skeptic, I think everyone should take this info with a grain of salt.

At the same time, I wonder of every mainstream presidential candidate, 'how they are linked to the money'? It is always a valid question. The two parties are representative of the two sides of human nature, and the coin is minted in gold. They don't allow just anyone to become president, no matter what your 3rd grade teacher told you.

If I have to vote on the golden coin flip, I'll chose the side that 'represents' benevolence and equality. I don't care if it's an attempt to placate me, there's nothing more I as a poor man can do about it.

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:40 AM by Odessy

reply to post by Sheeper

yeah, i take back what i just said...
I JUST went to my home page where headline news shows up, and this is CNN's headline right now:

Obama, Clinton meet for 'unity' talks, sources say

now look what it says:

Earlier, reporters on Obama's press plane learned that the presumed Democratic nominee for president was not aboard when it departed Virginia, where he had been campaigning. Aides said staff members "scheduled him some meetings" in Washington.

The meeting originally was believed to be at Clinton's D.C. home, but sources later said the two met elsewhere in Washington.
Source

holy crap...

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:40 AM by Ameneter

Originally posted by star in a jar
Sheesh. For a minute I thought Obama was handpicked by the voters of the United States through his record of public service, but now that I read that he has puppeteers in higher places who will own Obama if they decide he's loyal to them enough to be guaranteed the presidency.

To be selected by the "powers that be" doesn't mean that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can become President. First of all, a President must appear legitimate. He/she must prove themselves on the campaign battle ground. But to achieve and maintain the Presidency they have to deliver the goods to the puppet masters. For example, Bush may not appear very bright, but he sure knows how to deliver the goods, doesn't he? Should Obama win the Presidency, no less will be expected of him or else our worse fears will be realized.

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:43 AM by Sheeper

reply to post by Odessy

Interesting that they tried to divert attention with the plane mix up and newly scheduled meetings bit. I'd like to know where that "elsewhere" is exactly.

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:57 AM by Malynn

reply to post by Sheeper

Interesting that they tried to divert attention with the plane mix up and newly scheduled meetings bit. I'd like to know where that "elsewhere" is exactly.

I'd be willing to bet all my money that it was in Chantilly. What a surreal experience those Bilderberg shindigs must be eh? It must have been some real cloak and dagger stuff getting those three (McCain, Clinton, and Obama) to the meeting. Where was McCain when this was going down? (Sorry if that was mentioned I'm REALLY tired.)

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 12:59 AM by interestedalways

"Let me be very clear," Clinton said. "I know that Sen. Obama will be a good friend to Israel. I know that Sen. Obama shares my view that the next president must be ready to say to the world America's position is unchanging, our resolve unyielding, our stance nonnegotiable."

A good friend to Israel? What IS really going on?

"I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama," the message said. "The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise."

Just what task, miss thang?

edit for source:
www.cnn.com...

[edit on 6-6-2008 by interestedalways]

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 01:06 AM by ~Lucidity

AIPAC yesterday...Bildeberg today. Wow.

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 01:12 AM by ~Lucidity

Originally posted by interestedalways

Just what task, miss thang?

maybe this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 01:22 AM by interestedalways

reply to post by ~Lucidity

Seems like it, yes...............

How bout' this.

Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat since President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964,

www.cnn.com...

Kennedy, the daughter of President Kennedy, formally endorsed Obama late January in a New York Times op-ed piece titled, "A President Like My Father"

www.cnn.com...

Hmmmm...........

An assassinated president and a state that hasn't voted for a Dem since immediatly after the assassination.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by interestedalways]

reply posted on 6-6-2008 @ 01:26 AM by Anonymous ATS