digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bilberberg attracts prominent American politicians

rawstory.com — The 56th Bilderberg Meeting, an annual conference of influential politicians and businessmen, began Thursday in Chantilly, Virgina, according to a press release from the organization.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • danielbrent, on 06/07/2008, -57/+12If Obama was invited to Bilderberg, that's the biggest endorsement he'll ever get. GOBAMA
  • QuantumBios, on 06/07/2008, -20/+123Strange that Obama won't confirm or deny that he attended. Very strange indeed.
    • christopheles, on 06/07/2008, -26/+7Well, he met with Hillary Thursday night and today he's in Chicago for an event supporting a Chicago 2016 Summer Olympics. I'd say he wasn't there.
      • calantus, on 06/07/2008, -1/+20He met with Hillary, in northern Virginia.
        • christopheles, on 06/08/2008, -3/+10Giving him time to make the traditional second day satanic orgy and bacchanal. It all makes sense!
    • HenvY, on 06/07/2008, -42/+16Even if he did go, who cares? Anybody who thinks this is some kind of secret 'global government' is an idiot. If the Obama campaign had to respond to every nutjob who contacted them they wouldn't have time to do anything else. I certainly wouldn't dignify Alex Jones with a reponse.
      • nycmac247, on 06/07/2008, -13/+14Literally everything you just said is the _exact opposite_ of the truth.
        Strange.
      • ultragush, on 06/08/2008, -1/+7you really need to stop having such a huge backlash against "conspiracies". Just offhand calling "anyonme who thinks this is some kind of secret 'global government' is an idiot" is a bit much don't you think?

        just look at the amount of front page articles now hitting digg about government corruption. really quite ridiculously bad government corruption. we're living in a time now where there's a small window of oppurtunity, just a small few years when the hypercommunication of the net allows us to get knowledge fast enough, fast enough to give us just a glimpse at the men behind the curtain.

        but just relax. get mellow. enjoy the music. at least half of what this is all about is letting someone who's scared out there know everything's gonna be cool, so what im saying is don't get hurt, thats what we're all about.
    • HanSolo69, on 06/07/2008, -12/+8There's no reason why he shouldn't have been.
      • Hiltonizer, on 06/07/2008, -4/+28other than it being in violation of the Logan Compact.
        • nocash23, on 06/08/2008, -11/+5never heard of the Logan Act (until now) but apparently no ones been tried under it in its more than 200 year existence. i dont see why they would start with obama or why he would be at any more risk for attending than anyone else since it covers "citizens".
        • nocash23, on 06/08/2008, -5/+2really? why am i getting dug down? what i said was completely true. argue it. i bet you cant. how many of you actually knew what the logan act (and it IS act and not compact) is or its history. i bet none. i call arm chair activist on most of you. im not saying the man shouldnt be found guilty of violating it just that he WON'T. these people own the bodies who govern why would they sacrifice one of their own? get an opinion before you start blindly repeating what ron paul or alex jones tells you.
      • jiggolo, on 06/08/2008, -0/+30My biggest quarrel in recent years has been that it's somehow become patriotic to not ask questions.. No matter who it is. Why isn't this meeting all over the news?? What happened to true journalism?
    • dn11, on 06/08/2008, -12/+4the alien overlords are directing him on this matter, I see nothing strange at all. go about your business
    • dafragsta, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7http://digg.com/politics/Prelude_to_Bilderberg_mee ...

      VERY strange. Link goes to CNN video of Obama press rep stonewalling.
    • oldgal, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3Amusing...doesn't matter whether he confirms or denies, went or didn't go there would be a frenzy of speculation on digg about what it all means.
  • AndyWhite, on 06/07/2008, -25/+112Sounds like Obama was getting orders from his masters.
    • blarch, on 06/08/2008, -1/+8Barack Obama Visits Elites
      http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaire ...
      they even made barack use the servants' entrance. proof that obama is a tool?
    • curtisag, on 06/08/2008, -0/+11"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war, but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in the past centuries. It is also our duty to inform the press of our convictions as to the historic future of the century."

      - David Rockefeller 1991 (Founder of the Trilateral Commission)
  • jboitnott, on 06/07/2008, -16/+143Obama, Wolfowitz, Rice, and so many others all in the same room. It makes me wonder if political parties really even matter -- if it's all just a show to keep us "occupied." I'm not saying I subscribe to this belief -- but it enters the mind.
    • armoreddillo, on 06/07/2008, -6/+50i do subscribe to the belief that the left vs right mentality is what keeps this nation from being what it could be.
      what I'm not so sure about is if they are both working for the same people, but i honestly can't imagine that they're not.
    • nbyn, on 06/07/2008, -2/+28speaking into my wristwatch:

      "We got one that can see"
      • gquaglia, on 06/07/2008, -1/+18I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass and I'm all out of bubble gum.
        • flogistan, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2Don't say that, it makes me nervous when someone who isn't a great actor tries to deliver it.
        • ultragush, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3well it certainly is one of the great lines in theatrical history
        • flogistan, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Yes, and so it must be delivered by the Sir Laurence Olivier of professional wrestling/single role actors.
    • yodaj007, on 06/08/2008, -4/+18Yes. The only *true* political divide is between those who believe the people can manage themselves and those who believe the people must be ruled. That is the only divide. History is full of the latter. It wasn't until the past few centuries (ignoring Greece history) that the former really began to take hold.
    • metric7, on 06/08/2008, -2/+14Now you can see the bogus left vs right nonsense.
    • ninjadeathcult, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6yes yes keep exploring these ideas and you will eventually see what is happening
    • LenBaird, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I also subscribe to that belief.
  • fuzzmeister, on 06/07/2008, -40/+19I fail to see what the problem is with important players on the world stage getting together to discuss issues. They cannot do it in the UN, which is for the most part limited to heads of state and delegates only. People may complain that the meeting is not open, but I can understand the need to discuss issues frankly in a manner that might cause negative publicity if released publicly (especially when the issues are highly polarizing, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Iraq). There is just no way that this is some kind of secret meeting to give everyone orders, so many people attend that it would be absolutely impossible to keep such a secret from leaking out. The people attending this conference are real people, not evil automatons, remember that.
    • mCanada, on 06/07/2008, -20/+17that's a reasonable explanation, but unfortunately Alex Jones and infowars.com are far more dramatic so they must be right.
    • armoreddillo, on 06/07/2008, -5/+22what i don't understand is why it has to be kept so secret,
      and why the media doesn't report on it, or at least mention it.
      it's not like the meeting has to be televised or anything, they don't have to release transcripts so they wouldn't have to be "pc" about those things that might "cause negative publicity".
      if our elected officials are going to meeting up and discussing world issues, i think we, as the people who elected (or didn't elect) them have the right to more information on the issue.
      Trying to keep something as secret at possible, when dealing with multimillionaires, world leaders, CEO s and the like, can't possibly be for the good of the people they are supposed to be working for, or else there would be no need to keep the meeting where such great plans are laid out to help the underprivileged, a secret?
      right?
      • vault, on 06/07/2008, -5/+9Let's say they're discussing the rise of China, their economy, and their growing military strength. Should they really tell China detailed notes on what they think of that?

        Maybe they're discussing a way to get rid of farm subsidies in the US, and the EU is receptive to that, but no one wants to piss off Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, so they don't want to make it public.

        Maybe they want to discuss oil prices and what can be done to lower them, but they don't want to let OPEC members and speculators know what the plan is ahead of time.

        Just examples...I'm not suggesting they're talking about any of those three things...there are literally thousands of possible things they could be discussing where secrecy is ok and it has nothing to do with enslaving the masses.
        • brokencrystal, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3Doesn't China have people who attend? I think they do.
        • vault, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6Looking through this list, I don't see anyone from China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_at ...

          Then again, I wasn't invited to the conference. It was just one out of thousands of possible things they could be talking about. I assume any criticism of China will be done when China is not present.
        • DogBotherer, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1It's more likely they'd be discussing maintaining their influence by securing representation from China and other new economies which are rapidly outstripping the old, and seeing what they can learn from China's experience of implementing a system of autocratic corporatism - where they can maintain their wealth and power without the inconvenience of rotating elites.
      • Minarchian, on 06/08/2008, -3/+8According to a History Channel documentary that talks about the Bilderberg meetings, the US taxpayers are, at least helping, to foot the bill. If taxpayer money is being used, even to pay the salaries for these people, then the People have a Right to know what the hell is happening in the meetings and why they should be held in secrecy.
        • jcm267, on 06/08/2008, -3/+4Isn't that the same "NWO shill network" that ran the "hit piece" against the "Truthers"? And isn't that mainstream media? Bilderberg was mentioned in the Mainstream Media and Minarchian saw it with his own eyes!
      • newsound6, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4Our tax dollars apparently paid for like 150 engraved "bilderberg" ipods. Nice use of money there
        • ultragush, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2well 90 percent of your tax money goes towards paying interest on the us debt, many of the men at bilderberg probably bankers holding that debt. so i suppose their shiny new iPod is really just the tip of the iceberg of how much you've financed them. redistribution of wealth ftw
  • kaoru777, on 06/07/2008, -35/+18Another internet conspiracy theory transforms a dull conference into a buzz-worthy event....Lame.

    Also, there is a typo in the title it should be BilDerberg not BilBerberg.

    • armoreddillo, on 06/07/2008, -4/+10it's been going since before the internet was around,
      and it's been controversial since before the internet was around.
      What do you actually know about the group?
      What does anybody actually know about the group?
      not to much, its a secret...
      • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -7/+5exactly. there is no evidence to support the theory that it is a "shadowy global government."
        • GliTCH82, on 06/08/2008, -2/+6Well, politicians from around the world attend with the presence of MSM editors, corporate executives, and so on. I'd have to say that unless they're meeting to talk about how to improve their golf game, anything that deals with world politics means that we're already subject to a form of world government. They confide in each other and they're from different parts of the world, and they're our leaders, so there's your ***** world government.
    • stonebear, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
    • brokencrystal, on 06/07/2008, -7/+3"Also, there is a typo in the title it should be BilDerberg not BilBerberg."

      Hey, you forgot to put in the commas. It is also a run on sentence...

      What is the sudden obsession with typos on Digg? Isn't this the internet? It is full of typos, misspellings, and acronyms.

      "In your face! You misspelled a word... I win! YEAH!"
    • goforbroke, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2He must not have graduated Milner's Kindergarten.
  • invasi0n, on 06/07/2008, -11/+72Zbigniew Brzezinski ("A new brain for Barack Obama" - www.economist.com) is also an old member of Bilderberg. So they are everywhere, trying to control everything.
    • countmischief, on 06/08/2008, -3/+12He actually hasn't attended a Bilderberg meeting sense 1985, though he actually founded the Trilateral Commission, which when combined with the Bilderberg group and The Commitee for Foreign Relations makes up the dark underbelly of the American political system.
      • rorster, on 06/08/2008, -4/+3Yawn. And?
        • DogBotherer, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5The Democrats wanted a "change" candidate but were conned into accepting the same old boss?
  • vault, on 06/07/2008, -24/+50"The organization has sometimes drawn speculation that it forms a "shadowy global government," the BBC reported."

    Yet no actual proof, imagine that.
    • zephc, on 06/07/2008, -12/+38And yet, they meet in private - no press allowed inside, no records (that we know of) - to discuss their notions of world policy.
      • vault, on 06/07/2008, -15/+23This Turkish reporter seems to have covered the conference in Istanbul last year http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?ene ...

        Key point: " There were neither secret plans made, nor secret sentences uttered, nor secret decisions taken. It was no different than hundreds of other high-end international conferences I had attended."

        I'm not denying they MAY be corrupt and just hide it from the public, but that doesn't mean it's right to go around saying they're trying to form a "shadowy global government" with zero proof.
        • zephc, on 06/07/2008, -7/+14I agree, secrecy doesn't necessitate conspiracy, but the whole thing stinks to the neocon idea that a ruling elite should make all the policy decisions for the masses, which I am vehemently opposed to.
        • vault, on 06/07/2008, -7/+9I don't really think it 'stinks to the neocon idea that a ruling elite should make all the policy decisions for the masses.' I don't really think it stinks to anything actually without sufficient proof.

          For example...the DNC may be plotting a violent military coup if Obama loses in November, but since I have no proof of that, I'm not going to accuse them of it...and if they choose to meet in secret, I can't automatically assume that's what they're talking about. Just because the DNC doesn't tell the public EVERY single thing they talk about private, does not mean they're up to no good, let alone a military coup.
        • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -6/+6Secrecy doesn't necessitate conspiracy, but conspiracy does indeed require secrecy.
    • brokencrystal, on 06/08/2008, -6/+13If these meetings are held in secret because "it is in our best interest" then why can't the release the details and video of the meetings later? The government does things all the time that are classified, but later they declassify the documents and we find out what is going on. This is not the case with the Bilderberg group. Why? Is it because the things they are doing will never be acceptable to the public... ever?
      • vault, on 06/08/2008, -7/+8Do you not think there is ever an acceptable reason for a conversation between politicians to remain private? What if they're discussing a political strategy? What if they're discussing military strategy? What if they're discussing sanctions, the threat of force, etc? There are valid reasons for SOME conversations between leaders to remain secret.

        Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?

        I mean with this logic, the list of people who have purchased Alex Jones movies should be public information for everyone to see. If you have nothing to hide, why not? See, I wouldn't even support the list becoming public because I believe even retards are entitled to their privacy.
        • brokencrystal, on 06/08/2008, -6/+2We (the tax payers) are paying for the Bilderberg meetings. They are discussing our future. They work for us. The deserve no privacy!
        • vault, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6The taxpayers foot the bill for the CIA as well. Are you telling me the CIA should never keep anything a secret, that all intelligence we have on foreign governments should be freely available to them?

          Think about this for a few seconds and see the error in your ways.
      • roamzero, on 06/08/2008, -4/+3Politicians are much more accountable, and whose choices and decisions carry much more weight than that of a private citizen, and yet they can be just as fallible as anyone else. I do not believe politicians deserve the same privacy unless explicitly outlined (the reasons you just mentioned are perfectly sound, as well as situations that involve the privacy of normal citizens). Given the precedent of government corruption and the damage it can cause throughout history, I'd be willing to make the special case of assuming that politicians are guilty until they prove otherwise, and policies regarding government should be made given that consideration (the Constitution is a good example, with its checks and balances).
    • ninjadeathcult, on 06/08/2008, -3/+5well the fact that no mainstream media will barely touch a story about the worlds elite meeting off the record in secret doesnt strike you as a bit suspicious? its gotta make you think at the least
      • vault, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2There's a huge difference between "suspicious" and saying "they are planning a shadowy global government."

        This whole submission actually makes the conspiracy theorists look worse because it shows how little proof they need before jumping to conclusions.
        • ninjadeathcult, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Yes you are right there is a difference, But when you hear what they have discussed in these meetings previouslly and then observe how the decsions they make at these meetings come into being you for example the Iraq invasion , you would have to be pretty dim not to be concerned.
    • Conspiracy20, on 06/08/2008, -4/+1There's supposedly no "proof" that Israel has nukes either but then there's the pictures Mr. Vanunu took :)
      • vault, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Naturally we can't have a conspiracy thread without Israel getting mentioned.
  • libertyfriend, on 06/07/2008, -13/+112The people calling this an internet conspiracy "theory" and just "getting together to discuss issues" are forgetting of course that the Logan Act makes it illegal for US officials to meet with secretly with international leaders discussing and setting policy affecting the US. Where's the "theory" in the conspiracy? The fact that they are meeting secretly and unlawfully is the exact definition of a conspiracy. By the way, when the Bilderberg group meets in Europe the event is widely reported on by European media. Why the media silence in the U.S.? Are we just more gullible here?

    If its such a benevolent meeting, why the need for secrecy? I'm not buying their fear of negative publicity—if they're acting in our best interest then they simply need to explain it to us, and reasonable people will understand. Lets not forget that there are power-hungry, evil people in the world.
    • KMye, on 06/07/2008, -10/+22 § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

      Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

      This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

      1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

      From answers.com:

      "Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which authorized the arrest and deportation of aliens and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

      In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailed to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan's return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the Adams administration quickly introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act."

      How exactly is does this apply here?
      • libertyfriend, on 06/07/2008, -4/+21Well, you have U.S. citizens meeting with world leaders discussing and probably setting policy affecting us and other nations.
        • KMye, on 06/08/2008, -10/+4What leads you to believe they're setting actually policy there? The fact that the chair of the group, and other former attendees who talk about it say the exact opposite?
        • libertyfriend, on 06/08/2008, -0/+11So you're saying we should just take them at their word and let them have their secret meetings? What do think they're going to say, "We're meeting here to secretly and illegally set policy for the rest of the world's governments, we hope you don't mind."

          The clues come from what is revealed about their meetings and then from what actually happens in the world. Its true, its only the words of investigative reporters like Jim Tucker, Estulin, and others around the world who have been following and reporting on the meetings for years. Thats why the meetings need to be made public or discontinued. We have a right to know whats going when international leaders of great influence have huge meetings on American soil.
        • KMye, on 06/08/2008, -8/+4No, I'm saying it's absolutely inconceivable that an annually-changing group of over a hundred people from many different nations and sectors with diverse and often competing interests could meet together for three days and come to agreement and lay out actual detailed plans of evil world domination that then the parliamentary governments of every nation represented in one way or another obeyed, and even more ludicrous to believe that not one of the attendees from the last fifty years ever defected and told or confessed on his deathbed to "what really goes on there," and just as dimwitted to think that if everyone were really in on some lockstep master plan that holding said conference would make any ***** sense in the first place.
        • libertyfriend, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7I realize its hard for some to believe there's people in the world that are actually evil, but its reality. If there's good, then there has to be evil and vice versa. You don't even have to speculate about what they're doing behind closed doors, just look at some of the evils governments do out in the open, then its not so hard to believe. There are people that have told what really goes on at meetings like this, there's plenty of books, even Rockefeller himself wrote a book where he confessed his goal was basically world domination.

          But its not as simple as one group saying do this and then everyone follows, much more subtle and crafty than that—and its not like everyone in every government is involved. These meetings are simply guiding the power-hungry elite slowly but surely toward their purposes. This is afterall the 56th annual meeting I'm sure they realize they won't accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish overnight.

          You are right about them not being totally in lockstep. This, along with their unbounded lust for power (which seems to be the case) will ultimately be their undoing. But how much tyranny will we have to endure until then?
      • DavidThaGnome, on 06/08/2008, -6/+0I see, so the Logan act was created by those in charge to save us Americans from our own inability to see the greater good, beyond international prejudices or grudges we may have developed after listening to those in charge. LOL... but i will concede that this can be a valuable diplomatic tool for averting crisis while saving face. Sounds kind of like the tactics used to avert the Cuban missile crisis and I can't say that wasn't masterfully done in the interest of peace. However it also sounds like a great system for the elite to puppet the F&*K out of the American masses. I suppose it's a double edged sword kind of and one has to have faith in the wielder...blind faith....I'm sorry, but only a moron would have that kind of faith, seeing as how I'm pretty sure many of these elitist a-holes are directly involved with the horrid practice of international racketeering also known as aggressive war.
    • GliTCH82, on 06/08/2008, -0/+12I just don't like the fact that David Rockefeller sometimes makes those meetings. If I was privy enough to be able to attend one, I would decline solely based on the fact that David Rockefeller attends sometimes and I have nothing nice to say about Rockefeller or his principles, or some of his quotes on China alone.

      Basically, anyone associating with David Rockefeller in my opinion is a malevolent, corrupt *****.
    • jfsimard79, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5It was also well reported here when it came to Ottawa in 2006. Front page news on most news papers.
  • dukeeeey, on 06/07/2008, -16/+103Under the Logan act its illegal for politicians to meet with leaders from foreign government's in secret.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

    Obama and Clinton need to go to jail asap.


    • KMye, on 06/07/2008, -10/+13How can you actually link to that and then misconstrue it so completely?
      • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -2/+8He didn't misconstrue it, you are.

        KMye, just what political philosophy is it that you have that makes you think that its a good thing our leaders are meeting in secret? Do you have such a philosophy, or are you just being argumentative for its own sake?

        • KMye, on 06/07/2008, -4/+6Let's see, the group of people he said the act applies to is incorrect, and what he said the act prohibits is also incorrect? So...what are you talking about?

          Whether I believe that influential people from America and Europe meeting to identify and discuss matters of mutual concern is a good thing or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not American's attendance of the meeting is illegal under the Logan Act.
        • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -2/+9American citizens, check
          Meeting in secret, check.
          With foreign heads of state, check
          To influence US policy, check.

          Maybe I just don't understand your objection.
        • consonance, on 06/08/2008, -3/+8The Logan Act makes it illegal for unauthorized citizens to NEGOTIATE with foreign governments, not MEET with them. Jesus, the link is right there, and the word "negotiate" is in the Wikipedia article. Are you _trying_ to be disingenuous?
        • KMye, on 06/08/2008, -5/+4dukkeeeey said politicians, not Americans citizens. I realize one's a subset of the other, but he's obviously misintepreting. And then he says it's illegal for them to meet in private with leaders of foreign government, which, whether one is talking about politicians or American citizens, and aside from the fact there is head of state of another nation in attendance, is ***** stupid.

          As for your slightly more fleshed out interpretation, the privacy or publicity of meetings have nothing to do with the Logan Act, and it's difficult to see how a a diverse group of people with diverse sets of interests coming together for 3 days a year to identify and discuss problems and issues of the world, some undoubtedly with the intent to influence others, as happens every day across the world, would fall under the Logan act.

          From duke's own link:

          US State Dept:
          "The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments."

          Just because the world is corrupt, and finance and international relations still operate by generally ruthless realpolitik doesn't mean that all or any of Jones' disingenuous fantasies about what goes on at Bilderberg actually happen, or that it would even conceivably be reasonable place for them to.
    • OffPiste, on 06/07/2008, -10/+14Impeach Obama, NOW!!!!!!
    • zebco, on 06/07/2008, -5/+1I don't agree that they should go to jail, but people should be alerted to the fact that it happens or has happened if there is indeed actual evidence.
    • sjmorton, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4Umm, if they issue a press release and make the attendee list available, then ... I guess it's not a secret, is it?
      • johnchaney3, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3There needs to be some explaining by Obama and Clinton...Then we'll have evidence...
        Obama is not a dumb black politician but a red herring being played like a puppet to quiet the lazy Americans ....us.
      • sollycardy, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1what are you talking about? everything that is discussed in this meeting is secret. How is that not secret? A press release and attendee list doesn't tell us anything about what is being discussed!
    • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1It's not illegal for politicians to meet with foreign gov'ts in secret. Just illegal to do so and set policy. If you have proof that factually show these meetings actually set policy then that is a different story. No policies are set at these meetings.. I'm sure some groundwork might start from it.. but any policy being set is public when it is in the process of being set.
      • dafragsta, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3The Bilderberg group is dubious because of the guest list AND their origins. I'd say the fact that this gets NO ***** PRESS whatsoever is cause for much concern and oversight. Prison ***** planet.
  • sollycardy, on 06/07/2008, -13/+66thank you raw story. Your one of the few with the guts to cover this.
    Even digg is repressing Bilderberg news.
    • bumblefoot, on 06/07/2008, -24/+10because digg was supposed to be a tech site, if you want bilderberg news goto somewhere like abovetopsecret.com
      • BrapAllgood, on 06/07/2008, -6/+10'Supposed to be'? Read the categories and STFU. kthxbai

        (P.S. ATS pretty much sucks neocon balls, from my experience.)
        • bumblefoot, on 06/08/2008, -3/+4read the past tense and take your own advice
      • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -4/+5What made you click on a political thread then? Was it your aspergers?
      • brokencrystal, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6"because digg was supposed to be a tech site, if you want bilderberg news goto somewhere like abovetopsecret.com"

        NO. Digg started off as a tech news site. That is not the case anymore. Just look at the topics. Digg the candidates is a good example. If you don't like it, then leave and hang out at slashdot. (news for nerds, stuff that matters) They are still a tech only site I think. Digg has not been a tech news only site for a long time.
    • rorster, on 06/08/2008, -15/+2Digg is 'repressing' this story because conspiracy theories are boring as hell. Only nutjobs have time to comment on these threads.
      • armoreddillo, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7aren't you commenting as well?
      • brokencrystal, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5"Only nutjobs have time to comment on these threads."

        Somehow nutjobs get more time in a day? You commented in this thread... You nutjob!
    • earthwormzim, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5Down with the Bergerbergers!
  • GlobalistShill, on 06/07/2008, -12/+49Bilderberg boys will decide who’s Obama’s “chosen” Veep:

    http://digg.com/politics/Bilderberg_boys_will_deci ...
  • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -18/+6I'd like to congratulate Alex Jones on finally getting back to investigative journalism that isn't complete *****.
    • willskillz, on 06/07/2008, -2/+7not sure which thumb to give you. please explain what AJ has said that's "complete *****"..... if you can.
      • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -10/+1Jews did 9/11, etc
        the last real reporting he did was Bohemian Grove
        ps who owns the Genesis Communications Network that carries Jones' show?
        • willskillz, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5That's total BS. He never claimed "Jews did 9/11" HAHAHAHHAHA please. He has said on his radio show (which I listen to almost daily for 3 yrs) that he never said that, I've never heard him say that. He talks about how the msm uses that crappy disinfo to discredit him when he in fact never said that. You must have him confused w/ someone else. ps... I don't know who owns GCN, I couldn't find it on wiki.
        • swrostmore, on 06/08/2008, -4/+29/11 conspiracies always end up as "Jews did 9/11" if you follow them to their logical conclusion. Didn't you hear about the Mossad agents dancing in NYC? Aren't all Neocons Jews? Watch Zeitgeist sometime, its a movie about (Jewish) bankers controlling the NWO.
          Not surprising considering 9/11 conspiracy started in Tehran after Bush put them on the "Axis of Evil" list.

          In fact, I think GCN is owned by some Sheikh, maybe a Saudi.
        • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -2/+3Jews are a race and a religion. Israel is a nation-state.

          Yes, the state of Israel probably played a big part in 9/11. That doesn't mean "the Jews" did it. I'm confident that Jerry Seinfeld was just as surprised as everyone else in New York that morning.
      • swrostmore, on 06/08/2008, -4/+2I'd like to add a couple less controversial lies I've noticed on Infowars.com

        1. claims that the Italian PM said "the CIA knows 9/11 was an inside job," whereas the Italian PM actually said "democratic citizens in the US and EU know etc"

        2. Claims he filmed the Pentagon "heat-ray" anti-riot weapon at the 2004 DNC in the movie "rise of the police state." Actually, he didn't.
  • trackerbishop, on 06/07/2008, -9/+41any websites, newspaper, or news media outlet that doesnt mention bilderburg is not to be trusted, ever.
  • arkboysooner, on 06/07/2008, -19/+9Anyone with an iota of rational thought should digg this dumb ass story down. The conspiracy nutters around here should take advice from their own kind and WAKE UP to reality. Bilderberg is not the illuminati fools.
    • KMye, on 06/07/2008, -4/+4I don't know if the article itself should be buried. Aside from linking Infowars as a credible source for information, it's pretty reasonable. As for the 70% of the comments here from the "infowarriors"...
  • zebco, on 06/07/2008, -23/+18OK, here's the deal. I've followed Bilderberg stories; I've watched Jones' films about the organization. But for those who also have, I present this little tidbit:
    In Alex Jones' last film, he stated in no uncertain terms that since Hillary was present at the last event, SHE would be the next president of the United States. He went on to present evidence that all presidents attend BEFORE they are elected in the next general election, pointing out his facts as he saw them. And therefore, since Hillary attended, she would be the next president.
    OK, folks.
    Here we are. Hillary didn't get it as proposed. Even though she attended, she wasn't 'handed' the nomination and subsequent election as it was proposed in the film. So there are some misleading facts apparently.
    I have no doubt that they could possibly be up to no good but standing out front with a bull horn is going to change things?
    *****.
    If Jones was really trying to bring them down as he suggests, wouldn't it be better to secretly break into the group to find out exactly what's being discussed? It just makes it all seem shadier than it probably is.
    • DavidtheDuke, on 06/07/2008, -4/+7He also said Kerry would win in '04, and was completely wrong. He based it all on that presidents with royalty connections or whatever always won.
    • ironhide, on 06/07/2008, -13/+12Gee, Alex Jones is nuts. Film at 11.
    • willskillz, on 06/07/2008, -3/+12Hillary only "suspended" her campaign. It's not technically over (according to msm). She could be the veep and Obama could be JFK'd or ruined through some scandal. It's still way too early to be saying what you just said. Anyway, I know I sound crazy, but I'm just trying to point out that YOU are the one prematurely jumping to conclusions and ruling out other alternatives. Not the other way around.
    • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -3/+13Yes, AJ is wrong a lot. He's just some dude from Texas without any access to top secret information, so that makes sense. Even so, I'd say his model of how the government works is about 3/4 right. This is as opposed to the mainstream media which is complete fantasy.
    • calantus, on 06/07/2008, -1/+8Well Jim Tucker says he has moles inside, not sure how credible it is. That's how he knew where they were meeting, and where he gets the list of attendees.
      • willskillz, on 06/08/2008, -1/+8He definitely has moles since he's know the location every year for some 3 decades now. There's got to be some credibility to it. Don't you think?
      • HogLeg, on 06/08/2008, -9/+1Anyone that listens to Jim Tucker and Alex Jones is nutz.
    • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -0/+17One doesn't simply walk into the Bilderberg Group.
      • zebco, on 06/08/2008, -1/+0DER....der, der, der...that's why it's called a MOLE or a SECRET AGENT.
        So standing out in front of the meeting with a bullhorn is going to do what, exactly? Show Bilderberg that they need to be more cautious?
        It's ridiculous.
        If you want to get into a group and do it undercover, it can be done. With ANY group. Just ask the Chinese in regards to the Pentagon
        and other branches of the government. They seem to do it pretty easily.
        • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3It's called "raising awareness." That and get arrested was the most he could do at the time.
    • aboutlogin, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5i would propose the question: if you were the all powerful elite that controlled the reality of the overwhelming majority of americans (fact: think of what this means about their power and influence), how hard would it then be for you to control the so called little "underground" media sources that are supposed to be some kind of "opposition" to your activities?

      ladies and gentleman - we are completely surrounded.
    • roamzero, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Hillary came pretty damn close anyway. I think most conspiracy theorists vastly overestimate the control that the elite wield. Yes, they carry a lot of influence but America as of yet is not under some kind of totalitarian dictatorship. The best the elite can do is pull the strings from the top, and engineer their influence to take advantage of American complacency. The system works pretty well for them, I very much doubt that they'd want a French Revolution on their hands. Thank god for the second amendment however, in case they push things too far.
    • ATLien74, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Alex Jones? Ya know, I was feeling what he was saying about how we are becoming a police state, and the North American Union and all that... then I saw his expose on Bohemian Grove. That was lame. He kept trying to insinuate that they were probably sacrificing real humans, when it was painfully obvious that it was an effigy and they were acting out a "play" type ritual. I think he tends to try and mix too much of his own personal ***** in, saying he's a Christian and doesn't want our leaders worshipping the devil out in the woods. I mean come the ***** on dude, report on it for what it is; a bunch of rich old fags prancing around in the woods.

      Anyways, the Bilderberg meetings ARE illegal according to the Logan Act.
  • mjrmjr65, on 06/07/2008, -3/+13I don't think the article mentions exactly where they're meeting, but I believe it's at a hotel(Chantilly Marriot or Westfields Marriot I think it's called) 2 miles from my house. Almost tempting to go wander around there and see what's up.
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -4/+8Step 1. Go there
      Step 2. ???
      Step 3. Upload pics to Digg; Profit.
  • mrzack, on 06/07/2008, -9/+30these ***** at the Bilderberg are behind the destruction of the United States sovereignty. Their version of fascist globalization is destroying USA. it's a race to the bottom for wages. Time to start learning Chinese.
    • rorster, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2Are you kidding? It is the Bilderbergs that run the Democratic party? I had no idea.
      • logicet, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6And the Trotskyite Neo-cons that came from that party as well.
  • nblsavage, on 06/07/2008, -22/+15Yawn, can one single person point me to PROOF and I mean real proof, not Alex Jones patented brand of *****. That Bilderberg is malevolent. The last one of you nutters that I tried to pin down about it basically said they were guilty because they were secretive which is a complete load. Buried as complete, unsubstantiated bullcrap, and yes I fully expect to be dugg down by the tinfoil hat crowd who get pissy when you ask for proof that didn't come from their own circle of fools.
    • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -3/+8The group has an "in" with multiple POTUSA, as well as foreign leaders. Its impossible to know what kind of influence they have, because their proceedings are closed to the public. There's no evidence that they are "evil," but it is clear that whatever they are doing is antithetical to democracy.
      • nblsavage, on 06/07/2008, -5/+7but there is *NO* proof correct? as in zero, zip, nada. Until then this is nothing more than idle internet *****. I thought you were more level headed than this swrostmore.
        • swrostmore, on 06/07/2008, -3/+7Proof of what? I'm saying that the fact that influential government officials are taking part in a policy group who's agenda is closed to the public is undemocratic. What kind of proof do you need to support that?
        • nblsavage, on 06/08/2008, -6/+5swrostmore, I just have one question for you. Do you realize that politicians meet with business leaders in non-public settings every single day? Are you privy to every closed door meeting that the President has? If this was some shadowy meeting don't you think it would be easier to do so without the publicity? If there is some shadowy group of people they aren't going to announce their existence.
        • swrostmore, on 06/08/2008, -1/+7My answer is I believe in open government. I think you do to, you are just too distracted by the conspiracy nonsense flying around to realize the argument you are actually making.

          Secondly, WHAT publicity? This meeting has gotten exactly ZERO press.
        • armoreddillo, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1when people ask for proof that these meetings are evil,
          i ask for proof that they aren't evil.
          for thousands of years governments and people with money have been taking advantage of the underprivileged, and all i have to ask my self is; do you think that our government and the over privileged are above suspicion? should we just give these policy makers ( whether or not they actually make policy decisions at the meeting or not) the benefit of the doubt??
          if there is no solid tangible proof one way other the other, I'll have to err on the side of caution and say these meetings shouldn't be allowed.
        • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1@swrostmore:

          You can only have so much of an Open Gov't until it starts to hinder your national security? How about all these defense plans to defend our country if a country attacks us? Don't you think they should be kept secret?

          But in terms of Bilberberg.. it's tough to really say factually what goes on and if it's hinders anything. You can take a guess.. only a guess to what's really going on. It's all assumptions until substantial proof appears.
    • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2Malevolent?
      I'd be satisfied if most people knew they existed and were influential. We can make value judgments about the quality of their influence later.
      Since most Americans were raised with the fantasy that they, the people, are the ones in control of their government, I don't think they'll care much if they're malevolent or not.

      I'm curious what you think proof of malevolence would look like. A seat for Mephistopheles at the head of the table? You NWO guys crack me up.
    • bales, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2I'm not saying they are what Jones makes them out to be, but do YOU have proof that they're not?
      • nblsavage, on 06/08/2008, -2/+5The burden of proof is on the accuser.
        • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2The burden of proving what? Who accused them of being malevolent?

          That's a nice strawman though.
        • nblsavage, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Hangly, show me where I accused them of being malevolent. Go ahead.
    • beebelo, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2nblsavage said: "I fully expect to be dugg down by the tinfoil hat crowd who get pissy when you ask for proof that didn't come from their own circle of fools."

      So where's your 'acceptable proof' going to come from, when these people won't even admit that they're going to the top secret meeting -- much less tell us what they're doing there. Did you read the Logan Act, which was referenced above? What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

      You are the tin foil people--not us. You're living in a total fantasy land.
      • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3Perhaps You need to read the Logan Act yourself. It does not say they cannot talk to foreign govt and discuss things.. IT SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH FOREIGN GOVT..
        Discussing things != Negotiating things
        In order to be in violation of the Logan Act.. There needs to be evidence that there is intent to influence foreign govt.
  • doctechnical, on 06/07/2008, -20/+11Shiny side out folks, wear your tinfoil hat shiny side out.
  • DestroyFascism, on 06/07/2008, -5/+12And there is no democracy? Are these people talking about football? I doubt it!
  • dizilbdog, on 06/07/2008, -6/+19This might be more important than Anne Nicole Smith just saying.
    • nblsavage, on 06/07/2008, -4/+5Um considering she's long dead, I haven't seen much news about her lately.
  • crapmatic, on 06/07/2008, -11/+13It's at the Westfields Marriott, for crying out loud. If any budding journalist with half a brain wanted to know what was going on there, it would be peanuts to bug the place or hide in a wall cavity or air conditioning duct. The hotel has a whole staff of people, too, which doesn't exactly lend itself to private dealings. Until the day that sessions are being held in someone's multi-million dollar mountain retreat or a journalist actually goes the extra mile to get a real scoop, I'm ignoring Bilderberger news.
    • nblsavage, on 06/07/2008, -9/+9Shhhh...you'll spoil their paranoid frenzy. Remember, being able to blame a shadowy group of people for all the world's ills is easier than dealing with reality.
      • vault, on 06/08/2008, -4/+5Well put.
      • beebelo, on 06/08/2008, -3/+3nblsavage you're a total ignoramous. Obviously you havn't bothered to watch the documentary. But boy you're sure good at shooting your mouth off.
        • nblsavage, on 06/08/2008, -2/+3says the schmuck who can't provide proof of anything.
      • tehbishop, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1I'll bet you'd be freaked out to know that 'open' conferences such as the Homeland Security ones are setup just like this and talk about things that aren't for the general public. Putting it out in public view != nothing going on.
    • newsound6, on 06/08/2008, -2/+6Do you honestly think a building that was housing a meeting for the worlds elite wouldn't have the ss, dhs, fbi all running electronic interference? When bush was in my hometown a month ago about 15 minutes before he showed up everyone's cell phone service died, and picked back up a few minutes after his caravan left. Anything that goes "beep" in there has been bugged and counter bugged I'm sure. You know the FBI isn't going to pass up a great chance to use all their fun electronic warfare gear. I know I'd be using it all just, at least for ***** and giggles.
  • Kristijan12, on 06/07/2008, -7/+16For all the people who believe there is no "Shadow Government".

    If you think that the existence of the mentioned group is foolish just because it is not officially acclaimed and confirmed by our leaders, if you think that there is no possibility of conspiracy than you are a foolish!
    Like trying to say there is no such thing as conspiracy at all.
    like trying to say our leaders are not hide the truth from us, like saying: world is that simple, there are no influential very reach and powerful people who would like to run the world.
    Noo, who would like that, who likes to be in charge?
    Well I will tell you something...
    I WOULD! And YOU WOULD, and joe and peter, and ALMOST everybody else who has the oportunity, they would do it!

    I am not saying US goverment has staged 9/11 and stuff like that, there are a lot of rubish, but to a certain degree conspiracies are true.
    • Kristijan12, on 06/07/2008, -3/+4Just look at all the world dictators throughout the history. They where roughtless.
      Because majority of people who have absolute power become convinced they can do whatever they like, and then their real face than shows!
      And thats the one face we all have but we hide it pretty well.
    • BrokenVisage, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1They need to do way instain mother>
    • rorster, on 06/08/2008, -6/+1You are a direct and complete idiot. Don't you know that incompetence overrules and displaces complex conspiracies in EVERY INSTANCE? Liars lie because they are incompetent and embarrassed, not because they are smart and ruling the world secretly.
      • Kristijan12, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2English is not my native language, so would you be kind to explain to an "idiot" what exactly do you mean?
        Elaborate a little bit!

        Whose incompetence? Of those who make up theories?
    • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1(quote) if you think that there is no possibility of conspiracy than you are a foolish! (/quote)

      And you are also foolish if you believe there *is* a conspiracy going on.. Yes I believe there is a possibility, but not necessarily believe there is one going on.
      • Kristijan12, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1There is more than meets the eye! Dont you know that?
        You think we as people are told of everything that is going on?
        "A person is smart but the masses are stupid." That wrote one political figure from 20th century, and that citation is very corect. And it is the point of why the masses need to be lied and kept in "dark" to a certain degree.
        • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Being left in the dark does not necessarily mean there's a bad conspiracy going on... I'm not saying there is, nor am i saying there isn't
  • georgemason01, on 06/07/2008, -5/+20It's known as The Bilderberg Group. Could their objective be world domination?
    • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -3/+1I think you are thinking of Pinky and the Brain.
    • japanskeptic, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3For thousands of years, their dark order grew. Now as they hail the birth of the New World Order, their great dream of exterminating 80% of humanity is at hand... [ranting Adolph, spooky violin music]
  • calantus, on 06/07/2008, -5/+14Obama pretty much 'Ditched' the reporters (there was a vid on cnn), when he was in virginia (same area this meeting took place). When he was meeting with Hillary, or so they said.
    • unfairunbalance, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Actually he had the Press Corps kidnapped and locked in the airline cabin as he fled to attend secret Bilderberg meeting.
  • apophenic, on 06/07/2008, -14/+7Buried for insane paranoia!
  • 2600dblzero, on 06/07/2008, -6/+18I love it when people clamor to hang Bush and company on war crimes but never question why elected officials meet with other heads of states without the proxy of the government. The people who attend these meetings are some of the most key people in their respective sectors that range from politics, religion, finance and science. Interesting to note that the group broke from their traditional cycle so they would be in the US this year just in time for the election.All the conspiracy aside the fact that elected US officials attend this meeting that is held in secret with absolutely no press coverage has to beg of the question "what is going on?" I don't know if their is proof that Bilderberg is malevolent but their is plenty of proof(video,Bilderbergs attendance documents) that elected US officials are meeting with this group and in direct violation of the Logan Act. So while the doubting thomas' need proof of evil-doing the proof of violating US law is right in their face. Anyway look what happened with Bilderberg here: Clinton stopped her campaign which many thought she would take to the convention and endorsed Obama and oil went to over $130 a barrel. I suspect that an Iran attack before Bush leaves office.
    • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Read the Logan Act.. Try to understand it.. They are not in violation of the act until there is evidence that there is intent to influence the way a foreign gov't acts. Everyone is thinking the Logan Act is something that it is not. Read the act for yourself..Everyone ignores the parts between the ***.

      § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

      Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, ***with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States***, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

      This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

      1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

  • stonewaljacksn, on 06/08/2008, -5/+37Damn. I cant believe it took until NOW for people to start questioning whether Barack Obama is really "all about the people". One look at his list of donors would've clued people in a LONG time ago, but nooooo, because inspiring words are fun! Isn't it funny how he was most likely hanging out with HILLARY in what all you blind obama-loving diggers would consider Hillary's EVIL LAIR? I personally think it's hilarious. Actually it's real sad, but it's funny because all of you made Barack out to be Jesus and Hillary out to be Satan all along...
    first, i was ignorant, then I became an "anti-evilcorrupt republican" democrat and considered myself enlightened because of it, then I realized I was still ignorant for even thinking there was a difference in the first place so I ended up lost. The only thing we the people should support is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5And once they take away the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there will be a revolt.

      To quote a movie..
      "You don't have to believe in your government to be a good American. You just have to believe in your country. "
    • dafragsta, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5Back off, this is the first indication of dubious connections, but it IS dubious. I'm seriously disenfranchised right now that Obama was at this ***** meeting. He's been pulling some sneaky ***** the past three days. His press rep was stonewalling the press corps on their plane.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Back off? HELL NO.
      after being torn up on this site about how I must be a neocon because I QUESTION A LEADER like Obama, I am enjoying the hell out of this right now.
      blind left sheep scrubs should be doing their research instead of blindly supporting someone and calling dissenters sheep themselves.
      at the same time, this isn't meant to be completely directed at you. this is meant for all the blind diggers who were so caught up in supporting the hip and trendy obama that they refused to question him, and instead tore up poeple like me who did.
  • JohnnyHotballs, on 06/07/2008, -7/+45ron paul is the only true outsider and you flushed him down the toilet for a slick con man with smooth, meaningless words and corrupt, clandestine backers and funders.

    G O O D J O B !
    • eavonius, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3Uh, we didn't flush him down the toilet, the media did by excluding him from debates and burying his numbers in primaries. Sorry but most Americans are too lazy to do any real reading so if its not on TV, they dont know about it.
  • nblsavage, on 06/08/2008, -9/+4This was an earlier response to swrostmore but I think everyone should see it:

    Do you realize that politicians meet with business leaders in non-public settings every single day? Are you privy to every closed door meeting that the President has? If this was some shadowy meeting don't you think it would be easier to do so without the publicity? If there is some shadowy group of people they aren't going to announce their existence.
    • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -3/+7Do you realize that the government belongs to us and we have a right to know how it's governed? You you realize that this Bilderberg group is not part of our government or constitution and are accountable to no-one?
      • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1And you do know that the Bilderberg group != our government. and just because some of our politicians meet there does not make it so.. Should we abolish the Republican Party and Democratic Party? well actually I think we should, but it means nothing but just people talking..

        But if they start passing bills you don't like.. then talk about that.
        • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2They're passing bills I don't like. Pretty much all of them.
    • swrostmore, on 06/08/2008, -2/+8"Are you privy to every closed door meeting that the President has?"

      No. For example the Cheney Energy Task Force, which convened in 2001, in which Cheney set the Administration's energy policy for the next 8 years with the help of some oil execs.

      The participants in the meeting, what was discussed, all closed to the public. However a FOIA lawsuit revealed that part of the agenda included maps of Iraq with the oil fields circled in red marker.

      Are you really siding with Cheney's argument that the public doesn't have the right to know what goes on in such meetings?
  • sweetkillah, on 06/08/2008, -8/+5I hope they vote Tila Tequila off the island.
  • Abomonog, on 06/08/2008, -1/+10*****! That explains all of the cops everywhere through out the state today.
    • mjrmjr65, on 06/08/2008, -1/+0Were there? I didn't notice. Incidentally, the hotel that this is held at is almost literally next door to a Fairfax County, VA police station.
      • 3ugene, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1"almost literally" == around 85 miles
        in case you were wondering
  • percypersimmon, on 06/08/2008, -9/+4well, i for one don't see how they couldn't be reptilian humanoids.
  • jiggolo, on 06/08/2008, -3/+11I'm actually very shocked to find this story on digg... But I'm not gonna hold my breath expecting to find it on FOX or CNN. This is fishy indeed.. A conspiracy of silence if nothing else.
  • jinsundo, on 06/08/2008, -4/+1I'm sure glad ole Alex Jones is there with his bada** bullhorn takin' on all those bad guys in the super secret government for me. In this way I can kick back and watch the show while munching on some fritos (sp?), popcorn, and a few liters of diet Pepsi. .
  • JohnReb, on 06/08/2008, -10/+7If the Bildersberg Group is such an ultrasecret, world dominating, all-powerful organization, how come so many people know who are its members, where its meeting, when its meeting, and what guests it has had at previous meetings?

    Seems they are pretty sucky at this whole secret society thing.
    • vault, on 06/08/2008, -7/+7Trying to derail the hysteria with your logic and reason? tsk tsk...
    • dafragsta, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5Hidden out in the open so that there is SOME plausible deniablity. You have a guest list but anyone who calls the nature of the meetings into question based entirely on the centralized collection of power in the room gets you labeled a conspiracy theorist. This world is going to *****.
    • unfairunbalance, on 06/09/2008, -1/+0If it was not so secret why has the main stream media not report this?
      Why do we not know what they discussed in this meeting? These are global agendas that affect everyone.
  • blacktriangle, on 06/08/2008, -1/+35Official 2008 Bilderberg Participant List

    BILDERBERG MEETING
    "Chantilly, Virginia, USA"
    5-8 June 2008
    CURRENT LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

    Countries Represented

    AUT Austria
    HUN Hungary
    BEL Belgium
    INT International
    CHE Switzerland
    IRL Ireland
    CAN Canada
    ITA Italy
    CZE Czech Republic
    NOR Norway
    DEU Germany
    NLD Netherlands
    DNK Denmark
    PRT Portugal
    ESP Spain
    POL Poland
    FRA France
    RUS Russia
    FIN Finland
    SWE Sweden
    GBR Great Britain
    TUR Turkey
    GRC Greece
    USA United States of America

    Honorary Chairman
    BEL "Davignon, Etienne" "Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel"

    DEU "Ackermann, Josef" "Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG"
    CAN "Adams, John" Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence and Chief of the Communications Security Establishment Canada
    USA "Ajami, Fouad" "Director, Middle East Studies Program, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University"
    USA "Alexander, Keith B." "Director, National Security Agency"
    INT "Almunia, Joaquín " "Commissioner, European Commission"
    GRC "Alogoskoufis, George" Minister of Economy and Finance
    USA "Altman, Roger C." "Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc."
    TUR "Babacan, Ali " Minister of Foreign Affairs
    NLD "Balkenende, Jan Peter" Prime Minister
    PRT "Balsemão, Francisco Pinto" "Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister"
    FRA "Baverez, Nicolas" "Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP"
    ITA "Bernabè, Franco" "CEO, Telecom Italia Spa"
    USA "Bernanke, Ben S." "Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System"
    SWE "Bildt, Carl" Minister of Foreign Affairs
    FIN "Blåfield, Antti " "Senior Editorial Writer, Helsingin Sanomat"
    DNK "Bosse, Stine" "CEO, TrygVesta"
    CAN "Brodie, Ian " "Chief of Staff, Prime Minister's Office"
    AUT "Bronner, Oscar" "Publisher and Editor, Der Standard"
    FRA "Castries, Henri de " "Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA"
    ESP "Cebrián, Juan Luis" "CEO, PRISA"
    CAN "Clark, Edmund" "President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group"
    GBR "Clarke, Kenneth" Member of Parliament
    NOR "Clemet, Kristin" "Managing Director, Civita"
    USA "Collins, Timothy C." "Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC"
    FRA "Collomb, Bertrand" "Honorary Chairman, Lafarge"
    PRT "Costa, António" Mayor of Lisbon
    USA "Crocker, Chester A." James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies
    USA "Daschle, Thomas A." Former US Senator and Senate Majority Leader
    CAN "Desmarais, Jr., Paul " "Chairman and co-CEO, Power Corporation of Canada"
    GRC "Diamantopoulou, Anna" Member of Parliament
    USA "Donilon, Thomas E." "Partner, O'Melveny & Myers"
    ITA "Draghi, Mario" "Governor, Banca d'Italia"
    AUT "Ederer, Brigitte" "CEO, Siemens AG Österreich"
    CAN "Edwards, N. Murray " "Vice Chairman, Candian Natural Resources Limited"
    DNK "Eldrup, Anders " "President, DONG A/S"
    ITA "Elkann, John" "Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A."
    USA "Farah, Martha J." "Director, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience; Walter H. Annenberg Professor in the Natural Sciences, University of Pennsylvania"
    USA "Feldstein, Martin S." "President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research"
    DEU "Fischer, Joschka" Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
    USA "Ford, Jr., Harold E." "Vice Chairman, Merill Lynch & Co., Inc."
    CHE "Forstmoser, Peter" "Professor for Civil, Corporation and Capital Markets Law, University of Zürich"
    IRL "Gallagher, Paul " Attorney General
    USA "Geithner, Timothy F. " "President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York"
    USA "Gigot, Paul " "Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal"
    IRL "Gleeson, Dermot " "Chairman, AIB Group"
    NLD "Goddijn, Harold" "CEO, TomTom"
    TUR "Gögüs, Zeynep " "Journalist; Founder, EurActiv.com.tr"
    USA "Graham, Donald E." "Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company"
    NLD "Halberstadt, Victor" "Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings"
    USA "Holbrooke, Richard C. " "Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC"
    FIN "Honkapohja, Seppo" "Member of the Board, Bank of Finland"
    INT "Hoop Scheffer, Jaap G. de" "Secretary General, NATO"
    USA "Hubbard, Allan B." "Chairman, E & A Industries, Inc."
    BEL "Huyghebaert, Jan" "Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group"
    DEU "Ischinger, Wolfgang" Former Ambassador to the UK and US
    USA "Jacobs, Kenneth" "Deputy Chairman, Head of Lazard U.S., Lazard Frères & Co. LLC"
    USA "Johnson, James A." "Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC" (Obama's man tasked with selecting his running mate)
    SWE "Johnstone, Tom " "President and CEO, AB SKF"
    USA "Jordan, Jr., Vernon E." "Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC"
    FRA "Jouyet, Jean-Pierre " Minister of European Affairs
    GBR "Kerr, John " "Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc."
    USA "Kissinger, Henry A." "Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc."
    DEU "Klaeden, Eckart von" "Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU"
    USA "Kleinfeld, Klaus" "President and COO, Alcoa"
    TUR "Koç, Mustafa " "Chairman, Koç Holding A.S."
    FRA "Kodmani, Bassma" "Director, Arab Reform Initiative"
    USA "Kravis, Henry R." "Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co."
    USA "Kravis, Marie-Josée" "Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc."
    INT "Kroes, Neelie " "Commissioner, European Commission"
    POL "Kwasniewski, Aleksander " Former President
    AUT "Leitner, Wolfgang" "CEO, Andritz AG"
    ESP "León Gross, Bernardino" "Secretary General, Office of the Prime Minister"
    INT "Mandelson, Peter" "Commissioner, European Commission"
    FRA "Margerie, Christophe de" "CEO, Total"
    CAN "Martin, Roger" "Dean, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto"
    HUN "Martonyi, János" "Professor of International Trade Law; Partner, Baker & McKenzie; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs"
    USA "Mathews, Jessica T. " "President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"


    INT "McCreevy, Charlie " "Commissioner, European Commission"
    USA "McDonough, William J." "Vice Chairman and Special Advisor to the Chairman, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc."
    CAN "McKenna, Frank" "Deputy Chair, TD Bank Financial Group"
    GBR "McKillop, Tom " "Chairman, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group"
    FRA "Montbrial, Thierry de" "President, French Institute for International Relations"
    ITA "Monti, Mario" "President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi"
    USA "Mundie, Craig J. " "Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation"
    NOR "Myklebust, Egil" "Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA"
    DEU "Nass, Matthias" "Deputy Editor, Die Zeit"
    NLD "Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the"
    FRA "Ockrent, Christine" "CEO, French television and radio world service"
    FIN "Ollila, Jorma" "Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc"
    SWE "Olofsson, Maud " Minister of Enterprise and Energy; Deputy Prime Minister
    NLD "Orange, H.R.H. the Prince of"
    GBR "Osborne, George" Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
    TUR "Öztrak, Faik" Member of Parliament
    ITA "Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso " Former Minister of Finance; President of Notre Europe
    GRC "Papahelas, Alexis" "Journalist, Kathimerini"
    GRC "Papalexopoulos, Dimitris" "CEO, Titan Cement Co. S.A."
    USA "Paulson, Jr., Henry M." Secretary of the Treasury
    USA "Pearl, Frank H." "Chairman and CEO, Perseus, LLC"
    USA "Perle, Richard N." "Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research"
    FRA "Pérol, François" Deputy General Secretary in charge of Economic Affairs
    DEU "Perthes, Volker" "Director, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik"
    BEL "Philippe, H.R.H. Prince"
    CAN "Prichard, J. Robert S." "President and CEO, Torstar Corporation"
    CAN "Reisman, Heather M." "Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc."
    USA "Rice, Condoleezza" Secretary of State
    PRT "Rio, Rui " Mayor of Porto
    USA "Rockefeller, David " "Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank"
    ESP "Rodriguez Inciarte, Matias" "Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander"
    USA "Rose, Charlie" "Producer, Rose Communications"
    DNK "Rose, Flemming" "Editor, Jyllands Posten"
    USA "Ross, Dennis B." "Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy"
    USA "Rubin, Barnett R." "Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for International Cooperation, New York University"
    TUR "Sahenk, Ferit " "Chairman, Dogus Holding A.S."
    USA "Sanford, Mark" Governor of South Carolina
    USA "Schmidt, Eric" "Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO, Google"
    AUT "Scholten, Rudolf " "Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG"
    DNK "Schur, Fritz H. " Fritz Schur Gruppen
    CZE "Schwarzenberg, Karel " Minister of Foreign Affairs
    USA "Sebelius, Kathleen" Governor of Kansas
    USA "Shultz, George P." "Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University"


    ESP "Spain, H.M. the Queen of"
    CHE "Spillmann, Markus" "Editor-in-Chief and Head Managing Board, Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG"
    USA "Summers, Lawrence H." "Charles W. Eliot Professor, Harvard University"
    GBR "Taylor, J. Martin" "Chairman, Syngenta International AG"
    USA "Thiel, Peter A." "President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC"
    NLD "Timmermans, Frans " Minister of European Affairs
    RUS "Trenin, Dmitri V." "Deputy Director and Senior Associate, Carnegie Moscow Center"
    INT "Trichet, Jean-Claude" "President, European Central Bank"
    USA "Vakil, Sanam" "Assistant Professor of Middle East Studies, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University"
    FRA "Valls, Manuel " Member of Parliament
    GRC "Varvitsiotis, Thomas" "Co-Founder and President, V + O Communication"
    CHE "Vasella, Daniel L." "Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG"
    FIN "Väyrynen, Raimo" "Director, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs"
    FRA "Védrine, Hubert" Hubert Védrine Conseil
    NOR "Vollebaek, Knut" "High Commissioner on National Minorities, OSCE"
    SWE "Wallenberg, Jacob" "Chairman, Investor AB"
    USA "Weber, J. Vin" "CEO, Clark & Weinstock"
    USA "Wolfensohn, James D. " "Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC"
    USA "Wolfowitz, Paul " "Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research"
    INT "Zoellick, Robert B. " "President, The World Bank Group"

    Rapporteurs
    GBR "Bredow, Vendeline von" "Business Correspondent, The Economist"
    GBR "Wooldridge, Adrian D." "Foreign Correspondent, The Economist"




    >
    >
    • brad3378, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2source?
    • Rotzooi, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1The CEO of TomTom? Really?
    • unfairunbalance, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Not a complete list. It does mention most of the World Mafia Members that attended this meeting.
  • startzpe, on 06/08/2008, -1/+32The fact that major new organizations in the US will not cover the event, should be reason enough to question Bilderberg.







    • yacks, on 06/08/2008, -6/+1Perhaps you should question our media instead.. or maybe it's not newsworthy because it's not much to do about anything?
  • ThrstForKnwldge, on 06/08/2008, -1/+27"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

    He went on to explain:

    "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    -- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany
    • beebelo, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5Thank you Thirst, for posting this. Good choice. Of course Mr. NblSavage, and all the other AJ bashers won't be able to absorb the words... probably because THEIR tin foil hats are blocking reality, allowing them to continue living in their fantasy land.
      • beebelo, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7Except -- a correction: That comment by Rockefeller is attributed to a Trilateral Commission meeting, not Bilderberg.
  • whatthehell9, on 06/08/2008, -2/+8where is V when you need him?
    • 4d669, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6He's supposed to be an idea, technically, you're supposed to be him and everyone else. Unfortunately everyone is too busy calling it a theory or fapping to new iPhones.
  • SaladCactusKing, on 06/08/2008, -4/+3Wouldn't it be funny if the Bilderberg conference was just a weekend for politicians to do drunken karaoke and wife swap?
    • Lynxpro, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1...but politics is celebrity for the ugly, according to a well known political comedian on HBO...
    • ATLien74, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Really, that's more like Bohemian Grove... only they just ***** each other up the butt because no women are allowed.
  • iancgi, on 06/08/2008, -1/+14The worlds elite (most of which are corrupt) are meeting in secret behind closed doors, illegally. It is a right of everyone to know what is being discussed. These people directly influence the governments and corporations that influence and shape our lives. Hell the head of Google was among one of the attendees.

    Good does not need to be hidden from the public, but evil does.
    We deserve to know what kind policy is being set and we need to demand it. It is our right!
  • TheManiac, on 06/08/2008, -5/+1I can't believe no one has even tried to prove how Obama and Clinton weren't there when it was documented in the news that Obama was secretly meeting Clinton at Diane Feinstein's House in Washington on Thursday night. This article was published on Friday (so Thursday would be the last night they are talking about). There was a reason Obama's press team didn't tell anyone where Obama was because they would have tried to follow him instead of letting him meet privately. There is a clear explanation for why his HQ wouldn't confirm or deny that he was at the meeting.

    You guys are just looking for a conspiracy theory and unfortunately for you guys this one doesn't pan out.
  • poopsmcgee, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5Dugg because people should know.

    lol at "Bilberberg" too. It's a shadow govrnment created entirely from carpet.
  • aptanalogy, on 06/08/2008, -14/+1Cue crazy comments from kooky *****...
  • kemojr, on 06/08/2008, -2/+7One world government = 666.
  • earthwormzim, on 06/08/2008, -6/+1Damn Bergerbergers! They're taking over the world!
  • warlokaz2004, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6I was wondering why Obama AND Hillary were in D.C but NEITHER of them could be bothered to, you know, go do senate business (being as they ARE U.S. Senators)
  • mentalmerc, on 06/08/2008, -3/+2Glad we'll be seeing less of that demon Clinton. Those eyes really get to me, man. Obama has amazingly aggressive policies and a voting record to go with it that would make Bush blush with pleasure. Voting for $300 billion of Afghan and Iraq war appropriations bills, voting to reauthorize Patriot Act, wanting to go into Pakistan without the country's approval, and supporting Robert C Byrd, a former KKK member who voted in his early days in the Senate to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And his worshippers don't even know which is so sad. Check it out here. It's the section after Hillary Clinton's.

    http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/buy ...
    • dafragsta, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry, do you not know what this is about? Obama secures the nomination to the cheers of everyone on Digg, then WHOA! Stonewalled on the runway by the press rep for Obama when asked where he was going to be. If he was there, I'll stay home in November. This is *****. Third party candidate anyone?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.