Hillary will win because she is the chosen one. It doesn’t matter if most people hate her or if she is too prowar. The die has been molded and cast. Greater powers than the electorate have ordained it so.

“I’m not sure that they DO ‘rule the world’ Paracelsus, since they are very old organizations, whose influence on a variety of issues has been more or less, depending on time and space.”

If they don’t rule the world then they sure have me fooled. Wha you should understand is that is against the law for U.S. government officials to attend the Bilderberg groups. That means that H. Clinton, John Edwards, and Gov. Perry are all unindicted felons for they have attended Bilderberg meetings. Also why is it so many of the research papers of the CFR are unavailable for “public attribution”? It can’t be good to be have public officials under the influence of an organization that is impelled by David Rockefller. It is very naive to be so complacent aabout these organizations. These people mean us no good, Cyrena.

I agree. Revisionist history abounds when it comes to Reagan. Reagan was hardly the rock star we see him portrayed as today during his presidency. His domestic policies were divisive and cruel and his foreign policy helped pave the way for the establishment of both state and political terrorists around the globe (eg. Central and South America as well as Afghanistan (http://www.slate.com/id/2102243/))

The real power and success of Reagan has nothing to do with his presidency or even his status as a human being; Reagan is the the far right’s first successful “Retail Product.” Reagan wasn’t an especially popular president (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832) ,)it wasn’t until the Clinton era that the right wing PR machine polished Reagan up, packaged him in a shiny box and sold him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Now both the right and the “sorta left” talk with wonder about Reagan’s derring-do, showing either a blindness to history or a troubling sympathy for rightist extremism.

Cyrena:,

I suggest you look up Jim Tucker’s work on the Bilderberg Group. You might care to look through the archives of onlinejouurnal.com. Most of policies of free trade come from these “talk shops”. In addition look at the secrecy involved in these groups. If it is so wonderful to have connections to these elite societies then don’t the Presidential candidates brag about?

I was not “forced” to clarify anything.  As noted, it was an innocent oversight.  Besides, as I also noted, if you and Louise were as smart as you both claim to be, you would have known that advisors to sitting presidents are BARRED from advising candidates for political office.

Nice try.

Peace.

I’m not sure that they DO ‘rule the world’ Paracelsus, since they are very old organizations, whose influence on a variety of issues has been more or less, depending on time and space.

Consequently, they only have as much ‘power’ as the REAL rulers choose to give them. They only recommend policy, they don’t put it into law. You have YOUR OWN elected officials to thank for that.

Thanks for the clarification on Susan Rice Maani.

And YES, you SHOULD have included her first name.  That should be a no-brainer, which is why it seems like it just might have been intentional.

No matter though, since you’ve been forced to clarify it.

Louise,

Thanks for the P.S., in that it addresses the issue of the CFR, as well as many of these other boards and commissions, which HAVE in fact, been around for decades, and do actually serve useful purposes, and ARE, transparent. Or, at least the ones that you’ve mentioned.

I am personally more familiar with the CFR, but only because I’ve studied that one more, simply for my own academic needs. They have provided for literally hundreds of Internships over the years, and while they’ve also sprouted many ‘scholars’ with whom I disagree, as well as some bad policy, they serve as an umbrella for TONS of issues, and each have to be considered on their own merit.

ONE of their ‘products’ that I’ve actually researched, (from a highly critical stance) is Noah Feldman. I think he’s a jerk, and he’s had a negative influence on some policy. But of course he’s one in a stack of thousands of people who have done work for, or been affiliated with the CFR at some point in history.

That said, I’ve never figured out why anyone makes such an issue of the CFR in such broard and general terms. I know that a few of these posters love to consistently remind us that Michelle Obama was at some point affiliated with the CFR. I’ve never actually seen that confirmed anywhere, but even if she was….SO WHAT? That means nothing to me. A million people have been affiliated with it, at some point in time. If anything, it’s a positive. Because, as you’ve said, these BOTH serve useful purposes.

Now in the above post from Maani, he brings in all of these other organizations, that are NOT the same thing, and the Carlyle Group has NEVER fit into this category.

So, the Carlyle Group, with is really simply the Bush Dynasty Corp, is NOT in the same group of apples and oranges as the others are, and mixing these up does nothing more than to maintain the tactics of tyranny, which is to keep the masses confused and stupid.

Dear historically warped EJ things that might have been true in 1991 may not be true in 2008 as we get more perspective on the Reagan presidency.We now see that the changes Reagan initiated have led us to Geroge Bush.What may have seemed good in 1991 is now viewed as a trajectory to disaster.Seventeen years in historical terms is a blip to make a judgement on a historical time but it is becoming evident that the Reagan Presidency was a disaster and its legacy George Bush only reinforces that conclusion.One thing Reagan said was right “It is mourning in America”.

” Frankly I don’t understand why this frightens people, since everything that goes on in the commission is public knowledge. And everything they do, have done is available on request, with e-mail links provided.”

I am angered that these institutions should have so much power. Who asked these guys to rule the world?

Is Hillary Clinton the best candidate and most likely to win against the Republican nominee?

It doesn’t seem like it.

Edwards may be the best candidate in many ways, with a better message and a better chance of winning against the Republicans.

The Democrats are heading toward nominating a flawed candidate and possibly losing the presidential election.

See the article “Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again” on the Web site of the Populist Party of America at:

http://www.populistamerica.com/democrats_risk_self_sabotage_in_presidential_race_again

Louise:

As I noted to Cyrena in another thread, it was not my intention to suggest that CONDI Rice was advising Obama.  And although I should have made it clear that it was Susan Rice I was talking about, one would think that all the hyper-intelligent people here would know that advisors to sitting presidents are BARRED from advising other political candidates.  But then again, since I some people here think that I am such a moron, maybe I should just assume that everyone is…

As for why the TC (among others) matters, it is because the NWO is NOT a group of white men sitting around in a smoke-filled room, twirling their moustaches nefariously, and controlling the world.

The NWO is comprised (primarily) of the “Big Five” (TC, CFR, Bilderberg, RIIA, Club of Rome) plus a handful of “think tanks” (American Enterprise, Brookings, Cato, Heritage, Hoover, Manhattan et al) plus, to an ever-growing degree, The Carlyle Group.

The “Big Five” have global influence vis-a-vis who they support (e.g., Bilderberg) and who is a member (e.g., CFR, TC).  However, their more subtle and broad influence is that these groups write “position papers” on various foreign and domestic policy issues.  And since their members include high-ranking officials in the banking, financial, foreign policy, economic policy, media and other parts of individual governments, these “position papers” are provided directly to these governments as “suggestions” for policy.  Sometimes they get instituted “as is,” sometimes they are slightly modified.

The think tanks function similarly on a national level, primarily in the U.S., but also in other Western countries (U.K., France, Italy, Spain et al).  For example, U.S. think tanks write “position papers” on various aspects of policy, and these are provided to sympathetic elected officials.  Some of them undoubtedly make it directly to the White House; more of them go “up the chain” from lower-level pols.  Again, some get instituted “as is,” some are modified.

In both cases (Big Five, think tanks), the majority of the policy positions favor the wealthy and those who already hold power.  And although not ALL such position papers are ultimately “accepted,” many of them go “through the system” and come out the other end as the “ideas” of individual politicians (presidents, senators, etc.) - and, ultimately, as suggested policy for our government.

As for The Carlyle Group, their sole objective is to maintain power (and obtain more of it) and increase wealth for the elite class.  They accomplish this through the unique “access” they have to governments (including specific agencies), industry and business.

Although admittedly simplistic, this is a basic primer on how the NWO functions - how it “controls” (to the degree that word is applicable) the policies of governments and what happens in our lives.

As an aside, I have compiled what I believe to be the most comprehensive list of the “members” of the NWO ever created (i.e., members of the Big Five (though Bilderberg is notoriously difficult to get info on) and the major think tanks).  The “core” group runs to ~250-300 people, with another ~400-500 involved at various levels.  Thus, although it is admittedly speculative, ~1,000 people are largely (though not solely) responsible for the majority of policies enacted and implemented by the governments of various countries - the ones that affect the lives of approximately one-half or more of the world’s inhabitants.

Peace.

Sometimes members of the Trilateral Commission have been or do become or are also members of the Council On Foreign Relations. Which may or may not mean anything, depending on your point of view.

Brzezinski’s relation to the Commission and former presidents is explained in the faqs link:
http://www.trilateral.org/moreinfo/faqs.htm

Frankly I don’t understand why this frightens people, since everything that goes on in the commission is public knowledge. And everything they do, have done is available on request, with e-mail links provided.

Same goes for the Council On Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/

Although CFR identifies itself as a think tank and seems to lean more to addressing the ongoing “wars in the world” than the Trilateral Commission which seems to lean more to addressing the economy and developing [third world] economies of the world. In many ways, they’re very similar. All those issues overlap!

CFR is older and U.S. based. The Trilateral Commission is more broad-based. But they BOTH serve a valuable purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

From Wikipedia:

The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation between America, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973, at the initiative of David Rockefeller; who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time and the Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations.[1] He pushed the idea of including Japan at the Bilderberg meetings he was attending but was rebuffed. Along with Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other people, including individuals from the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation, he convened initial meetings out of which grew the Trilateral organization.

Other founding members included Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, both eventually heads of the Federal Reserve system.

...
The organization has come under much scrutiny and criticism by political activists and academics working in the social and political sciences. The Commission has found its way into a number of conspiracy theories, especially when it became known that President Jimmy Carter appointed 26 former Commission members to senior positions in his Administration. Later it was revealed that Carter himself was a former Trilateral member. In the 1980 election, it was revealed that Carter and his two primary opponents, John B. Anderson and George H. W. Bush, were also members, and the Commission became a campaign issue. Ronald Reagan supporters noted that he was not a Trilateral member, but after he was chosen as Republican nominee he chose Bush as his running mate; as president, he appointed a few Trilateral members to Cabinet positions and held a reception for the Commission in the White House in 1984. The John Birch Society, which takes a conspiracy-oriented view, believes that the Trilateral Commission is dedicated to a one-world government.[4] In 1980, Holly Sklar released a book titled Trilateralism: the Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management.

Since many of the members were businesspeople or bankers, actions that they took or encouraged that helped the banking industry have been noted. Jeremiah Novak, writing in the July 1977 issue of Atlantic, said that after international oil prices rose when Nixon set price controls on American domestic oil, many developing countries were required to borrow from banks to buy oil: “The Trilaterists’ emphasis on international economics is not entirely disinterested, for the oil crisis forced many developing nations, with doubtful repayment abilities, to borrow excessively. All told, private multinational banks, particularly Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan, have loaned nearly $52 billion to developing countries. An overhauled IMF would provide another source of credit for these nations, and would take the big private banks off the hook.This proposal is the cornerstone of the Trilateral plan.”[5]

Susan E. Rice, President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

cyrena:

Susan E. Rice, was President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and is now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser. Other than the color of her skin, there appears to be no relationship to Condoleezza Rice.

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/r/rices.aspx

Are Brzezinski and Rice both on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission? Yes. To which I can only respond ... uh, so?

Executive Committee
http://www.trilateral.org/memb.htm

Not to be confused with that evil mini-might “Plankton” and his all powerful tin buckets.

Right now might be a good time to visit their official website, and learn all about these “boogymen/women.”
Who near as I can see don’t rule the world, and don’t want to.

http://www.trilateral.org/
http://www.trilateral.org/moreinfo/faqs.htm

Interesting, when scanning the Washington Post list, Clinton has ten former Clinton administration people advising her.

Obama has fifteen former Clinton administration people advising him.

If this list is to be believed, Edwards has no-one from the Clinton administration advising him.

Important to remember members of a presidents administration, while acting in concert with the president and the rest of the administration, may not necessarily always completely reflect the presidents position. One reason having a lot of good heads around is better than having a lot of yes men around. Particularly if the president is in the habit of dozing off in cabinet meetings, or simply not paying attention.

I remember once Wesley Clark said he liked working with Clinton, because he paid attention, asked questions, listened to the answers and became fully engaged in the problem/issue before any decisions were ever made. Unlike “some” presidents who slept, or simply nodded and said, “yeh that sounds about right.”

I think it’s important to remember, sometimes there is a bit of a distance between the Pentagon [Often civilians with no military experience. Usually stronger ties to Industry and political ideology] and the broader group of people who have decided they want to make service in the military their life career. We need those folks. Just like we need the Coast Guard, or the Fire Department. And consider the frustration of always being caught between a rock and a hard spot, depending on which way that stupid political wind is blowing!

When scanning the list, Clinton has nine retired military people advising her.

Obama has three retired military people advising him.

If this list is to be believed, Edwards has seven retired military people advising him.

Two defense lobbyists, one CEO of a military industry corp, One RAND researcher, which may or may not mean anything depending on your point of view.

Perhaps this list indicates Clinton and Edwards are more focused on continuing war. Obama on diplomacy and foreign relations. Or perhaps it indicates nothing!

In any case, Rice is not the “Rice” implied.

Margaret Curey:

I agree with you. Bill should bow out. He’s damaging his legacy, and he’s damaging Hillary’s image. In fact, since I believe Hillary is smart enough to see this, I wonder if maybe he’s been asked, and he just wont!

Louise,

I think he hangs around with Daddy Bush too much.

AND…don’t forget, Hillary has promised to sic the both of them, (Daddy Bill and Daddy Bush) on the whole rest of the world, if she clobbers the competition with her extra big broomstick, and bag of dirty tricks, and steals the election from the feeble-minded among us.

Oh…BTW, your input is ALWAYS worth several dollars. Sometimes I can even spend them. Thanks for the generosity.

It does NOT go unnoticed…

Maani,

I know I’m treading on dangerous ground here, by asking you a question. But, it is ONLY that, and only because I honestly would like to know.

On this….

“...Hillary has Albright and Holbrooke (both CFR) and Obama has Brzezinski and Rice…”

Can you tell me how Obama ‘has’ -Rice- and are we talking about the same Condi the Rice that I think you’re referencing here?

Now I didn’t read the article, (since I rarely bother with the Washington Post anymore, and that’s been since the whole bunch of MSM lost their minds).

AND, my question doesn’t even refer to the CFR, which has changed personalities multiple times over the course of the decades.

So really, just to narrow it down, I’m only curious about how Obama ‘has’ Rice. I do understand the Brzezinski connection, (to Obama that is) which is why I’m unable to connect ‘Rice’ in the same sentence.

So, can you help with that?

Yup, among others, Hillary has Albright and Holbrooke (both CFR) and Obama has Brzezinski and Rice (both are on the Executive C’te of the Trilateral Commission).

Here is a fairly comprehensive list of foreign policy and national security advisors for the candidates.  It is instructive to note that their affiliations with CFR, Trilateral, etc. are NOT given!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html

Peace.

McCain stinks with his CFR connections. I keep telling Truthdiggers that any politician that is a front runner in the races is a made member of elite criminal organizations.

http://www.dumpmccain.com/

Interestingly enough, by George W. Bush’s definition, Bill Clinton (in his attempt to pick up a little conservative support) is a terrorist.  Bush says supporters of terrorists are terrorists themselves.  Ronald Reagan was a terrorist.  That is why the International Court at The Hague awarded Nicaragua damages, which the U.S. never paid, for his terrorism.

As for the Soviets, how did Reagan’s gifts to his campaign contributors among the military contractors force the Soviets to spend more money on defense?  Was the U.S. going to attack?  The Soviets had a nuclear deterrent to U.S. aggression.

We shouldn’t confuse politicians’—Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or anyone else—political maneuvers with substance.

Excellent comments!
And for what it’s worth, [probably not even a dollar ] heres my two cents.

***

“The worst thing about all this is what both Clintons are doing to their own legacy as pioneers of an approach that rejected, as Bill Clinton said in a 1991 speech, “the stale orthodoxies of left and right.” The great asset shared by both Clintons is [was] their willingness to bring fresh thinking to old problems.”

***

That I think could be called the inevitable consequence of being trapped in the echo chamber!

Or, maybe Bill hangs around with daddy Bush too much.

You can be the nicest guy in the world [or not] but if you walk around in the mud you’re still gonna get your feet dirty.

If Hillary (let’s be honest, Billary) is elected, it will be the first time I ever cast my vote for the republikan candidate….doesn’t matter who it is.

The mean and demeaned Mr. Clinton shouldn’t be allowed into the White House again, even as a guest.

A Hill/Bill nomination throws the presidential race to McCain. His party will get behind him, and as he is a very independent operator, he will get the independent vote, which is unavailable to party hacks like the Clintons. Or is that now the KKKlintons?

Excellent piece, but then I always love to see the hypocrisy rubbed into to chubby red cheeks. And, it never ceases to amaze me how arrogance makes people think that everybody else is stupid, and not likely to remember what their own words, ON THE RECORD have been. Just seems to me like a politician would always have that carefully in mind, since lying is such an integral part of their jobs. (or at least most of them, even when they don’t even KNOW their lying).

But, I honestly do ‘question’ this part…

•  “Let’s grant the Clintons their claims: The press is tougher on Hillary Clinton than it is on Barack Obama; the old, irrational Clinton hatred is alive and well in certain parts of the media; Hillary Clinton gets hit harder when she criticizes Obama than Obama does when he goes after her.”

Now, everybody wants to grant the Clintons these claims, and I don’t understand why. But, that’s all any of Hillbillary’s supporters can holler…”Obama is getting a ‘free ride’”!! I disagree. I will grant the earlier part of the unfair accusations hurled at Hillary, specifically the part about the ‘old, irrational hatred still alive in certain parts of the media, not to mention the ignorance of misogynists, and insecure morons who have hated her for no reason, from the very beginning. (probably because they hated or were envious of her husband). It was irrational hatred then, because she hadn’t DONE anything yet…good or bad.

But, let’s just fast forward a couple of decades, and look at these specific claims, about everybody coming down harder on THEM, when THEY slam Obama and this allegedly giving Obama some sort of a break, NOT when he ‘slams’ or ‘attacks’ them, but when he RESPONDS to THEIR attacks! There IS a difference. I mean COME ON!!

If somebody swipes at me a few times, and I have enough sense to know that it isn’t worth swiping back right away, then I won’t. Especially when it makes far more sense to keep my cool, and they didn’t really do any damage anyway. But when they keep it up, and the punches keep getting harder, I’d ALSO be a zip damn fool if I didn’t eventually whack them right back!!

This is so typical of people who feel ‘entitled’ like the Clinton’s obviously do, to another presidency of the US. They start out seemingly above the fray, until they start to recognize that their ‘entitlement’ might not be as recognized as they assumed it should be, and some ‘upstart’ comes along, that people are actually paying attention to, and then they get down to snake level in less time than it takes for Slick Willey to cop a blow-job. (which nobody cared about, until they started to play dirty.) Then they get their feelings all hurt and start whining, when somebody hits ‘em back. WHAT THE HELL DID THEY EXPECT?

This is why Giuliani and Hillary are the first choices for the Israelis. (Yeah, they have polls to decide who THEY want to be OUR president) They all have this entitlement thinking. They steal somebody’s stuff, and do all kinds of nasty shit to them, and then have the nerve to play ‘victim’ when their OWN ‘victims’ hit them back.

I’m sick of Hillbillary whining about shit they start themselves, and I’m quite pleased that we have some of Bill’s earlier ‘wisdom’ to thrown right back into those suitcases under his eyes. When HE said it, it was “BRILLIANT”. Now the upstart comes along, and he’s the devil in a blue suit. (without a tie or a flag lapel pin). He was supposed to just say yes sir, and yes mam, and stay in his place. What’s all this about returning fire? He wasn’t supposed to do that. And since he did, that means he’s pickin’ on them, and the media isn’t punishing him as much, and it’s just not fair.

(Clinton double-stamp their feet) Whine, Whine.

The Clinton ankle biters….