It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Google Video Link |
Webster Tarpley voices his opinion about Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man pulling the strings of the puppet behind the scenes.
www.gcnlive.com... www.actindependent.org...
[...] June 06, 2008 - Same Date as Globalist Elite's Meeting!
The plane was stationed at Dulles International, which is less than a 20 minute drive from the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, where Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, among other globalists, were gathered for the annual Bilderberg Group conference.
The Bilderberg Group made a press release available explaining the agenda for the meeting: "The conference will deal mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, U.S.-European Union relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran. Approximately 140 participants will attend, of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America," the release stated. "About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion."
James A. Johnson was going to be the one who selected Democratic candidate Barack Obama's running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America's future President before stepping down after he was outed as an elitest. He was also the "Veep Vetter" for John Kerry's running mate, which Kerry was obviously a set up candidate too.
Johnson is a member of "American Friends of Bilderberg," which is an offshoot Bilderberg front group that has accepted donations from the Ford Foundation to fund Bilderberg meetings where lavish hotels are entirely booked up for three days, by no means an inexpensive feat. The organization is basically a steering committee for the Bilderberg Group - a secretarial outpost through which Bilderberg conferences are organized.
Johnson has also directly attended Bilderberg meetings therefore can be classed as a Bilderberg member. He attended last year's meeting in Istanbul, Turkey and was also on the leaked list of attendies at this years meeting.
As AFP (American Free Press) has reported for years, Bilderberg has been trying since 1992 to "establish a UN tax" which would be used to finance their globalist-oriented programs. Of course, the brunt of this tax would fall on American workers, and it appears this is being spearheaded by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
On Feb. 14, 2008, an Obama-sponsored bill called the "Global Poverty Act" (S 2433) was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after passing the House. What this bill would do, in effect, is levy a global tax on the United States where an additional 0.7% of the gross national product would be earmarked to foreign aid (on top of what we already give).
If passed this year, by 2021 the U.S. would be committed to an extra $845 billion in foreign aid. Not only would the United States be under the UN's thumb in regard to taxation, but this bill (part of the globalists' Millennium Development Goal) would also seek to ban certain weapons, establish an international criminal court, push global warming legislation, and promote "biological diversity."
Anyone familiar with Bilderberg sees that all of the above "buzzwords" have been part of their agenda for decades. Assisting Obama in his endeavors are two longtime Council on Foreign Relations members: Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who has been called Obama's mentor, and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.). Both have attended secret Bilderberg meetings and have been influential in trying to ratify the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty
(LOST).
One political commentator has stated that this bill "would effectively turn control of seven-tenths of the Earth's surface over to the UN," not to mention surrendering the sovereignty of our seas to them.
Obama's popularity can be attributed to one concept: he stands for "change." But is this the type of change that American citizens really want-to become enslaved by a UN global tax on top of the local, state and federal taxes they already pay? Obama is another political tool whose loyalties lie with those shadowy figures who sit atop the world's control pyramid.
New evidence has surfaced that Gordon Brown is feeling the strains of office, with claims that the Prime Minister recently slung a laser printer to the floor in a fit of pique.
Originally posted by Grimstad
Objective opinions are few and far between around here.
Originally posted by Grimstad
LOL.
I'm not surprised at the results at all.
Objective opinions are few and far between around here.
Makes me wonder why ATS members mainly see things differently.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Grimstad
Objective opinions are few and far between around here.
"Objective opinion" is a contradiction in terms, but I guess I don't know anything anyway since I agree, 'new boss, same as the old boss.'
Originally posted by Grimstad
While the dictionary definition of objective does in fact mean the lack of opinion, an opinion arrived at through objective analysis of evidence would be an objective opinion. Do we really want to argue over semantics?
The big surprise, given the amount of "Obama cheerleading" happing on ATS during the election run-up, is the dismal number (3%) who feel he and his administration are doing a great job. Wow.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Grimstad
While the dictionary definition of objective does in fact mean the lack of opinion, an opinion arrived at through objective analysis of evidence would be an objective opinion. Do we really want to argue over semantics?
I don't really think it's semantics when you are confusing two completely opposite things, as you even just admitted yourself. If you have "objective evidence" for an opinion, you don't really have an "opinion." It's that simple to me, and honestly I would worry a little bit if I caught myself chalking up completely opposite things to "semantics."
Basically I don't appreciate the arrogance of your opinion being "objective" but not so for everyone else, when it's a freaking opinion poll. I might ask for the evidence supporting your opinion if I weren't already so dissuaded by what atrocious use of logic I've already seen. I've said my piece though. You obviously make a point of being sure of yourself.
[edit on 24-4-2009 by bsbray11]