Obama and the Bilderbergers -PROOF!

reply to post by voices1776


I appreciate your enthusiasm, (and agree with you abou Obama), but lets not pretend McCain isn't any worse. He has just as many connections to Bilderberg.

www.globalresearch.ca...

"McCain has also received endorsements from former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger, General Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and George P. Shultz.15 These are not men without influence, as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz were also present at this years meeting.16 Also interesting to note is that George P. Shultz "associated himself with the Bush presidency early on, introducing the Texas governor to Condoleezza Rice at the Hoover Institution in 1998." Could Condi be in the process of being groomed for higher office, or is she simply at the meeting for foreign policy discussions?

Also important to note, is that McCain had a fundraiser in London held for him, which was hosted "by kind permission of Lord Rothschild OM GBE [Order of Merit and the Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire] and the Hon Nathaniel Rothschild." As the Washington Post reported, "Tickets to the invitation-only event cost $1,000 to $2,300."18 The Post later reported, "Aides refused to talk about the fundraiser, or to say how much money was raised, and McCain dashed through the rain away from reporters after emerging. One guest said there were about 100 people at the luncheon. If they all gave the maximum, the event would have raised about $230,000 for the campaign."19"

You obviously agree that these ties prove Obama is a bad choice, so logically McCain would be no better. The partisan bickering is exactly what people like the BG want. They control both candidates, and as long as people support one or the other and fight tooth and nail against each other, they keep the power.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Barack O'Bildeberger

Interesting article. When Obama's campaign was asked about a meeting with the Bilderbergers .. they refused to answer yes or no.

Mr. Change, eh??

[edit on 6/11/2008 by FlyersFan]

As the old legal saying goes, "Silence is consent." or in this case an admission. I suspect they would not want to deny it on the uncertainty of whether the secret will persist, (and the damage of denying the truth is too politically costly.)

Perhaps I'm wrong. But the usual question applies, "Why the secrecy?"

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Maxmars]

This article claims that they spent the evening chatting face to face in the home of Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Maybe we should look into her connections? No matter how big a web is you can always follow it all the way around.

Apologies if this has already been addressed, I'm in a bit of a hurry and didn't get to read the replies added since I last checked the thread.

JUST IN ~ J. Johnson just stepped down from Obama's VP choosing committee ~ how does this now play into the Bilderberger/Obama scheme?

Obama said in a statement that Jim Johnson had decided to quit the unpaid position in order to avoid distracting from the process of gathering information about possible vice presidential candidates.

Reuters

Will Obama think twice before he hires another elitist insider?

reply to post by crontab


Or will they just 'say' he's not involved anymore? I mean, I hate to be a jerk, but this is the media we're talking about here...,

There's always a chance that this is on the up and up, but it wouldn't be a CT site if we didn't keep an eye on it!

Obama VP Vetter Johnson Resigns link

A leader of Democrat Barack Obama's vice presidential research team has resigned amid criticism over his personal loan deals.

I suppose this will not dismiss the 'connection' between Obama and Bilderberger?

I look forward to your replys.

Originally posted by Animal
Obama VP Vetter Johnson Resigns link

A leader of Democrat Barack Obama's vice presidential research team has resigned amid criticism over his personal loan deals.

I suppose this will not dismiss the 'connection' between Obama and Bilderberger?

I look forward to your replys.

You really need to follow the sequence of events to understand what happened:

1. Johnson was named to find the VP for Obama.
2. Hillary met with Obama privately.
3. Hillary quit race and endorsed Obama.
4. Obama names Elder and Kennedy to be on "committee" with Johnson.
5. MSM focuses on Elder's role in pardoning Mark Rich and Weathermen.
6. Suddenly story about Johnson's Countrywide loans comes out of nowhere.
7. McCain criticizes Johnson's loan deal.
8. Johnson resigns from Obama's VP committee.

Now Johnson is out of the spotlight, and there's a "legitimate" reason, the Countrywide story, for his resignation. This story will be in the news for 1 day, and will be forgotten and never mentioned again. In the MSM's version of events, Johnson comes out looking like the good guy who resigned just to keep from distracting from the Obama campaign.

And all this happened without the MSM focusing on Johnson's position at Perseus, how exactly Perseus makes money, or how Perseus is partnered with George Soros. And Obama gets to keep his "I don't associate with Washington insiders" image intact.

Originally posted by jamie83
You really need to follow the sequence of events to understand what happened:

1. Johnson was named to find the VP for Obama.
2. Hillary met with Obama privately.
3. Hillary quit race and endorsed Obama.
4. Obama names Elder and Kennedy to be on "committee" with Johnson.
5. MSM focuses on Elder's role in pardoning Mark Rich and Weathermen.
6. Suddenly story about Johnson's Countrywide loans comes out of nowhere.
7. McCain criticizes Johnson's loan deal.
8. Johnson resigns from Obama's VP committee.

Now Johnson is out of the spotlight, and there's a "legitimate" reason, the Countrywide story, for his resignation. This story will be in the news for 1 day, and will be forgotten and never mentioned again. In the MSM's version of events, Johnson comes out looking like the good guy who resigned just to keep from distracting from the Obama campaign.

And all this happened without the MSM focusing on Johnson's position at Perseus, how exactly Perseus makes money, or how Perseus is partnered with George Soros. And Obama gets to keep his "I don't associate with Washington insiders" image intact.

Or maybe it could be that Obama never had anything to do with Perseus or the "Bilderbergers" to begin with? Most rational people will realize that Obama's campaign simply made a bad choice and quickly realized that it had been a bad choice. If you want to continue to believe the least likely scenario over the most likely one, though, feel free to do just that.

By the way: You may want to read up on George Soros, because he's far from this "evil genius" that you want to make him out to be. In fact, he's even joked in the past that he'd use his entire fortune to take down George W. Bush if someone could guarantee that it'd happen.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Majal]

reply to post by Majal


Again, this comes back to Obama's message of change. If he is truly concerned with Lobbyists running Washington, wouldn't he take at least 15 seconds to do a google search on someone before appointing them to such an important task? This reeks of corruption. McCain and the MSM refuse to mention Johnsons connection to Bilderberg or Pereus. Now the average Joe says "oh, the guy took a loan buts hes gone, no big deal.' Either Obama is being dishonest, or he is so incompetent that he can't bring change.

Its as if there is rules of how far you are aloud to call someone out. Explain why the MSM will cover any story about how one candidates looks bad, but refuses to publish any connections to each other. They don't want people realizing they don't have a choice, that both candidates are connected. Why else would they not even mention one word about both candidates having connection to Bilderberg, or even acknowledge they exist?

Originally posted by Majal
Or maybe it could be that Obama never had anything to do with Perseus or the "Bilderbergers" to begin with? Most rational people will realize that Obama's campaign simply made a bad choice and quickly realized that it had been a bad choice. If you want to continue to believe the least likely scenario over the most likely one, though, feel free to do just that.

I know for a fact that the Obama camp fully understood Mr. Johnson's current positions and his history. Obama's statement today that he can't be expected to "vet" the vetters is absurd on its face.

By the way: You may want to read up on George Soros, because he's far from this "evil genius" that you want to make him out to be. In fact, he's even joked in the past that he'd use his entire fortune to take down George W. Bush if someone could guarantee that it'd happen.

I am very familiar with Mr. Soros. What Mr. Soros says publicly and what he invests money in are often two different things. In fact, it is to his benefit to take a public position which is contrary to the investment positions he holds.

And I will guarantee you that he would not spend his fortune to remove any politician. Please follow the money. Mr. Soros has made an incredible sum in the last several years.

Originally posted by Grambler
Again, this comes back to Obama's message of change. If he is truly concerned with Lobbyists running Washington, wouldn't he take at least 15 seconds to do a google search on someone before appointing them to such an important task? This reeks of corruption.

Great point!

It would take about 30 seconds looking up Johnson's background on Wikipedia to see that he was involved in a scheme at Fannie Mae to not book $200 million in current expenses in 1998 so he could collect an incentive based bonus of $1.9 million.

And you're right, it's very simply. Either Obama is too incompetent to be trusted as POTUS, or he doesn't care if he surrounds himself with shady characters. Of course, this is a false dichotomy. It's probably a combination of both.

The media has now informed us that Mr. Johnson has resigned from Running the VP show.

I don't understand. It's quite upsetting that this came about(as I first was struck by reading the news today) but now I read this crap.

I think everyone on this board should personally vote for someone whom the media doesn't cover - like Ron Paul. People always ask me who I'm voting for, I always tell them Obama and they ask why. As racist as it may seem, my reply is -- "because he's black." That was my only reason for my vote -- I'm not black lol.

But now after all this came about that only made me think... it was really whomever the media focused on that was paving my decision. Now I realize I think we all should vote for someone who isn't in the media and if that someone ends up being focused by media, vote for someone whose not.

Like someone posted several times: someone should make this more public, provided more documentation and not just showing links. This has already changed my vote so think of a great deal how it'll affect people on youtube.

reply to post by jamie83


It is hard to know what happened. We could just as easily guess that Obama picked Jim Johnson to appease Hillary's backers, and then threw him out about she conceded.

I don't think Obama is stupid. Regardless of what he intends to do as president, his running mate is his life insurance policy. He would stupid to pick anyone who is too cozy with the elites. He should pick an anti-elitist, who will be hard to smear.

Darn it Animal!

I heard this news about Johnson this morning. I wonder if it means Uncle George(Soros) is going to pull his $400 + million dollars away from Perseus for outing him.

Now all we have to do is show how Eric Holder was part of the Clinton pardon of Mr. Rich. As second in command at Justice under Reno, he had intimate knowledge of the Mark Rich pardon, which blew up in Bubbas face. Another great Clinton legacy. I love American politics!

Obviously no connection to the Bilderbergers here, just move along, there is nothing to see here folks!

Might I also add that to narrow the focus of this on individual candidates creates the very partisan garbage that will render it indigestible to those who still practice the religion of partisanship.

The significant connection is not (I suspect) between Obama and BG, or McCaine and BG, - the connection is between the PARTY and the BG. The republocrats are beholden to the money that makes their game possible. The owners orchestrate costs making it so high that the politicians MUST engage them in order to campaign.

Be advised I use BG in the above post, but you could just as well replace it with Big Money, NWO, International Bankers, MSM owners, or whatever.

Geez.
Why/how does Obama attract so much controversy?
He's not even Prez yet and he's already made enough bad mistakes to practically last an entire administration.

Another one bites the dust.

If they aren't quitting on him, he's throwing them under the bus.

...bump, bump, bump...

It's quite a bumpy road the "The White House"

Originally posted by Alxandro
Geez.
Why/how does Obama attract so much controversy?
He's not even Prez yet and he's already made enough bad mistakes to practically last an entire administration.

Another one bites the dust.

If they aren't quitting on him, he's throwing them under the bus.

...bump, bump, bump...

It's quite a bumpy road the "The White House"

Interesting pattern is emerging.

Everybody BUT Barry O. is taking the heat for every controversy. But yet it's Barry O. who decides to put himself with these people. Rezko. Wright. Ayers. Johnson. Michelle.

Who will be next?

reply to post by Grambler

Again, this comes back to Obama's message of change.

How so? You're focusing on the business of politics, while the 50 million give or take a million or so of us are hoping to get some health care like the rest of the free world enjoys rather than this broken down worthless system that benefits the establishment health care industry and big insurance. We would also like the restoring of our rights by getting rid of the patriot act...we want this awful farce of a war based on lies to be over and bring our troupes home...we want change so that hungry children can have nutritious food before going to school so as to be on a level playing field with the rest of the kids...we want improved infrastructures, and an administration that negotiates and opens channels of communications with other nations rather than having their heads up their you know what’s...we want a more open administration...we want domestic policies that benefit the middle class...we want alternatives to the lack of present energy policy...we want competent individuals staffing the cabinet...we want someone in power who isn't a "yes" man...we want someone in office who doesn't "talk to god"...we want...***I am realizing I could go on and on and on and on....

This is what change is sir. Go to Obama's web site and learn what he really stands for. As you can clearly see you used the term "change" way out of context. Of course though, this is standard protocol for the fox news GOP robots who all say the same thing about his message of change...having no clue nor caring what it really means.

By the way, I've noticed folks are not using the stars as much as they used to. If you agree with something make sure and star it. Especially when it comes to the few posts who actually stand up for this obvious assault on Democrats and especially Obama, that we see here on ATS.