Obama and the Bilderbergers -PROOF!

Originally posted by maybereal11
First off could somebody direct me to "PROOF" that the Bilderberg conference/organization is genuinely some sinister new world order group?

It depends on how you define sinister.

They have $3 billion invested in companies that will be affected by U.S. policies. The question is whether or not their hand-picked candidate will lead the U.S. in a way that's in the U.S. and the world's best interest, or whether the policies will be put in place so that these people can turn their $3 billion into $30 billion.

Go back and look at Bush in 2000, who backed him, what they invested in and already owned, what policies were put in place, what companies skyrocketed in value, and who made billions since 2000.

There are things besides wars which are sinister.

And one more thing. Obama's claim that he is not taking money from lobbyists while being backed 100% by these people is at best intellectually dishonest. These people don't need lobbyists. They are working to put in place their candidate for the POTUS, who will make the policy decisions that will make them billions.

Now I REALLY have to go!

Originally posted by maybereal11
First off could somebody direct me to "PROOF" that the Bilderberg conference/organization is genuinely some sinister new world order group?

It depends on how you define sinister.

They have $3 billion invested in companies that will be affected by U.S. policies. The question is whether or not their hand-picked candidate will lead the U.S. in a way that's in the U.S. and the world's best interest, or whether the policies will be put in place so that these people can turn their $3 billion into $30 billion.

Go back and look at Bush in 2000, who backed him, what they invested in and already owned, what policies were put in place, what companies skyrocketed in value, and who made billions since 2000.

There are things besides wars which are sinister.

And one more thing. Obama's claim that he is not taking money from lobbyists while being backed 100% by these people is at best intellectually dishonest. These people don't need lobbyists. They are working to put in place their candidate for the POTUS, who will make the policy decisions that will make them billions.

Now I REALLY have to go!

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Hmmm...the dow is down over 300 points and oil is at $138 a barrel.

Do you suppose this "coincidence" could be used to influence those who do not wish to attack Iran? Makes one convincing argument.

And that oil jump came after a Morgan Stanley prediction of oil jumping by $10
www.breitbart.com...

Oil prices have shot up more than $10 to a new record above $138 a barrel after a Morgan Stanley analyst predicted prices could hit $150 by the Fourth of July.

Gee more speculation from an Obama ($275K)contributor. I think the elites are paving the path for an Obama presidency.

My guess would be that the choice for VP along with Obama being President would be Governor Sebelius Queen of Kansas. If you google Queen of Kansas you'll find more.

reply to post by jamie83


"They have $3 billion invested in companies that will be affected by U.S. policies. The question is whether or not their hand-picked candidate will lead the U.S. in a way.."

The Democratic National Comitte has recieved 3 million in contributions from lobbyists leading up to this nomination so far. The RNC has recieved 30 million in contributions from Lobbyists since McCain became the front runner. It would be hard to make the case that big business is placing it's bet on Obama. Obama has opted not to take contributions from lobbyists and has just asked the DNC to do the same. No big loss considering the disparity compared to how much they are putting into the RNC. "hand picked"?


"Go back and look at Bush in 2000, who backed him"
Agreed. He was bought and sold.

"things more sinister than war"
Agreed and most of them lead to wars where big business's can profit.

"And one more thing. Obama's claim that he is not taking money from lobbyists while being backed 100% by these people is at best intellectually dishonest. "
100% backed? This is wholey factually inaccurate. I am waiting for proof that any lobbyists have contributed since he agreed to not take money from them. What is the correct percentage or amount of funds that have been given by big business etc. to Obama? Please show me evidence and a money trail.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by TheBandit795


There are so many posts on this thread to potentially reply to, and this one is about as good as any. First I want to say that I am not pro-Bilderberger group by any means, and I think it is horrible that they meet in secret and thwart media coverage. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves who does the group consist of? It's made up of about 150 or so of the world's most influential in terms of "power and control" (politics), and this of course includes people from finance, politics, and those with a lot of influence. They meet to discuss issues and work towards solutions of mutual benefit...maybe the solutions are in the public's best interest, but perhaps not...how do we actually know what goes in the meetings because there has been so much secrecy surrounding them, and maybe part of that reason is for security reasons???

Yet it's quite a stretch to assume that Obama is a member. We have people who are his best advisors, two of whom on here we see some connections to the group, yet if I were a candidate and not a member of bilderberger, I do think I would want my foreign advisors and other big level advisors (cabinet if I'm in office) to be in direct contact with the movers and shakers of the world, as apposed to keeping my head in the sand and being an isolationist. This sounds more like "guilty by association" to me. Are you guys actually saying you wouldn't want him in contact with the world's most powerful?

Finally, this is how politics works. Deals are constantly brokered. It may be that one of their goals it be sure that since they didn't get their girl (Clinton, and even that is quite the allegation to assume that she is a member based on evidence that she went to a few meetings...) that they would want to meet with Obama and try to secure her on the ticket. In return Obama can work towards having some of his goals met in return for a possible concession.

In terms of the O.P. and his being linked up to big hedge funds...this is how people in politics raise the money for their campaigns. It isn't going to change until we have real campaign finance reform. Again, just because a person on his campaign works at a big financial investment firm, and is colleagues with someone who is pro-Bilderburger, does not automatically make Obama "one of them". While I am saying what you posted is quite a stretch, I do think it's a good thread you started, and of course we should keep our eyes open and watch these people like a hawk.

The biggest problem I have with this, and judging by all the posts I have read, I think it's safe to say we can all agree that the secretiveness of the Bildergurger group is what is the most alarming. It's insane that we turn on the news and nobody is talking about this or investigating and putting forward what the goals and purpose of these meetings are all about. Instead we get Alex Jones and that's it. Unless there has been more coverage that I'm unaware of? I know at the Toronto one in the past, there were a lot of Canadian reporting going on, but again, nothing in the USA on it, and that alone is disturbing.

Anyway, bottom line, is that I think we need to be careful with our speculation and not wildly run off a cliff with exaggerations and such. I like ATS, and yes we can get closer to understanding what is really going on, but we run the risk of getting a reputation of extreme bias just like Fox news if we all take something like some associations and then state without any definitive proof that this person or that person is in fact a member of the Bilderbergers. Also, these are the big movers and shakers in a global (business and travel) society, and I would move that we would want our leaders in communications with these people, so just because we have some connections here, does not make Obama a bad person. I would say he's incredibly competent and you want him traveling in such circles. It's the secrecy we can all do without.

To close, I want to leave everyone with a strong warning not to fall for dis or mis information and deliberate propaganda aimed at changing a perception amongst people about a person the oposition wants defined. If you recall, when Hillary was in the lead everyone was speculating about her involvement...this same thing happens every single election, and a meme is inserted that says "they are all [politicians] the same" and in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Keep asking questions, but be careful not to throw the baby out with the water!

reply to post by skyshow


I suspect your post and the persons above is a sad attempt to redeem Obama's image, what you are suggesting is to ignore the implications and associations. Guilty by association? You damn well better believe it, this is just showing who is in control and who really has the influence, if you want to say he may be ignorant of the situation, fine but the point is he is no more a free candidate than Hillary or McCain, their talons have them all. It also suggest you have been duped by propaganda, "change" and "yes we can" are nothing more than words meant to entrance sheep such as yourselfs.

reply to post by skyshow


I read your post and somehow am resistant to it. It's not that I can't agree we must be circumspect regarding what we hear, and yes, alarmism is a bad thing. However, given the historical information regarding the framers of the Bilderberg group, given the entirely 'hands off' treatment by the media, and given the nature of the business interests represented by those 'bag men' for the politicos, I am not inclined to wax 'benefit of the doubt' on anything to do with them.

There is far too much at stake to stand by hoping this is 'business as usual' and the secrecy invoked and protected (by those whose job it is to 'investigate') clearly sends the opposite signal. Can you imagine a journalist of the 60's and 70's sitting on an airplane for hours wondering where the candidate went? Can you envision no one thinking there is any interest in this matter in the American community?

JFK spoke volumes when he delivered the speech describing 'secret societies' as 'abhorrent to American values,' perhaps it is unwelcome, but it remains true.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by skyshow
Are you guys actually saying you wouldn't want him in contact with the world's most powerful?

Actually that is exactly what people are suggesting, considering what we believe these people to be doing and so forth. A straight up independent candidate that is unwilling to cooperate with these people would be a something we havn't had for nearly 100 years, I'd say it's about time these corporate heads and affiliates stay the hell out of politics.

I found this interesting. To me it goes beyond confidence and screams "I know something you all don't know."

""In 2016, I'll be wrapping up my second term as president," Obama said."
news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by Sheeper


You "suspect". Let's just leave it at that. You reread my post, in it I did not say anything about him being "ignorant" of what is going on, in fact quite the contrary.

I was trying to be somewhat objective with my post, I would urge you to do the same.

reply to post by Sheeper


and my point is, how could you not cooperate with them? It's a much different world than it was 100 years ago. With modern technology, air travel, and a global economy, borders today are not what they were yesterday. I'm not backing up the system we see in place today, I'm saying it's here, and one can't simply ignore it.

reply to post by sos37


omg! They all say that, every single election. Every candidate says "when I'm president"...or "after I am elected governor...". It's optimism and used to keep momentum at peak level. To suggest some deeper meaning is entertaining mania.

reply to post by skyshow


Fair enough but that doesn't mean we should give up our REAL

"Hope"

for

"Change"

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Sheeper]

I think hillary will become VP and that the elite power will have a patsy kill obama making her president and thats when a rapid change in gun and civil libertys will arise. Create a problem followed by your real agenda. History is showing us the truth everyday. Tell everyone you know to wake up. The internet is our great medium for sharing our thoughts with everyone on another plane of existence instantly, it is our salvation in the time of change. Let your voice be heard across the world.

I love you all my brothers and sisters

Here's something else very interesting I found off Barack Obama's website in his own "Blueprint for Change" document.

Seems like these things go against his ties to the Bildebergers. His ties to Bilderberg could be the proof that he doesn't intend on keeping ANY of these promises:

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."

"American Jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military." (Possibly a conflict with the Council on Foreign Relations???)

"Reform Corporate Bankruptcy Laws to Protect Workers and Retirees: Current bankruptcy laws protect banks before workers."

"Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry."

www.barackobama.com...

Obama gave his press people the slip last night to go and meet with Hillary and possibly go to the Marriott in Chantilly, Viriginia to meet with the Bilderberg group. The press was irritated at getting on presumably the Obama campaign plane back to Chicago with no candidate on board. I believe they took off from Dulles which is within walking distance to the Marriott.
It was interesting watching his aide try to wiggle his way out of it with a half-hearted excuse that the candidates needed some private time without the press. That's just lame. Those two have been in the spotlight for 17 months and we've watch them eat and drink and be merry, etc.
This little story just confirms what we already know - that there are secret groups and secret gov't people that we, the peons, are not privy to knowing and, trust me, they know us and have plans just for us and they do need to meet with the candidates. Isn't Democracy wonderful?
I'm in the Denver area and not looking forward to August with the convention. The city officials put a happy face on the convention, but I do wonder if some of those folks don't have buyer's remorse by having been chosen. They keep saying that we won't have problems with 50,000 people descending on the city, but I think it's going to be confusing at best. Right now the city is tens of millions of dollars short of reaching their funding goal, but hope that now that Obama's been chosen, the money will start flowing in. I genuinely pray that there is no violence and no one gets hurt and everyone has a good time. It's a pretty city and on a clear day, the mountains are beautiful.

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by sos37

 

omg! They all say that, every single election. Every candidate says "when I'm president"...or "after I am elected governor...". It's optimism and used to keep momentum at peak level. To suggest some deeper meaning is entertaining mania.

He didn't say "when I'm elected president", he alluded to eight years in the future wrapping up his second term of office. I don't remember any other candidate saying anything like that before. I suppose it could just be an act of optimism, but I found it beyond arrogant.

reply to post by skyshow


The fact is you are backing up the system we see in place today when you suggest a presidential candidate has no option but to cooperate with these elites. A president's constitutional duty is to protect the interests of the electorate against any conflicting interest of the Corporation. Anything less is fascism. That means negotiation and resistance - not cooperation.

The exact nature of his relationship with the secretive Bildergberg group has to be a matter of speculation, but by selecting Zbigniew Brzezinski as foreign policy advisor Obama leaves little room for hope.

Now Obama is planning to pay off Hillary Clinton's $11 million personal campaign debts - using money people donated to his campaign against her to pay off the debts she accumulated while trying to beat him - they're no longer pretending it's anything but a pantomime.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by Barbs46


"Obama gave his press people the slip last night to go and meet with Hillary and possibly go to the Marriott in Chantilly, Viriginia to meet with the Bilderberg group."

Really? That is where he went? Wow! This thread is going from questionablly interesting to just complete BS. Obama is not the second comming, but jeez folks where does common sense go. Where does this hatred come from where people are turning second hand associations into "PROOF" and now he attended a meeting last night with the Bilderberg group?

Who needs "PROOF" when you can just point to associations and completely fabricate meetings and call it fact.