Will it matter if Obama or McCain are elected in November? Hardly.
Both are rigidly backed by important members of the Trilateral Commission who hijacked the Executive Branch of the U.S. government starting in 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter.
In Obama’s case, Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Commission in 1973) is emerging as his principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Madelyn Albright is seen sitting next to Obama in several conferences. Shoot, even Jimmy Carter himself endorses Obama. All are top members of the Commission.
John McCain is being supported by several Trilateral Commission giants including: Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig. All of these are ex-Secretaries of State who issued a joint endorsement of McCain early-on in his campaign.
(Article continues below)
And, unless Obama shoots both of his own feet (or…?) before the general presidential election in November, he is most likely to be the next president of the United States.
You would think that Americans would want to know who the “special interests” are that are embodied by this Trilateral Commission, and what they intend to do or not do with America.
What is the Trilateral Commission?
The Trilateral Commission was founded by the persistent maneuvering of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and “endowment funds” and had long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant prognosticator of one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as “policy guidelines” for the Trilateral Commission.
Brzezinski served as the Commission’s first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
The initial Commission membership was approximately three hundred, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided between academics, politicians and corporate magnates; these included international bankers, leaders of prominent labor unions and corporate directors of media giants.
The word commission was puzzling since it is usually associated with instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place with a so-called private group unless we could determine that it really was an arm of a government – an unseen government, different from the visible government in Washington. European and Japanese involvement indicated a world government rather than a national government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosa world government was just wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral Commissioners. The facts, however, lined up quite pessimistically.
If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force” assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.
Jimmy Carter: The first Trilateral president
President James Earl Carter, the country politician who promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the Commission by Brzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first identified Carter as presidential timber, and subsequently educated him in economics, foreign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world politics. Upon Carter’s election, Brzezinski was appointed assistant to the president for national security matters. Commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the president – some said Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the U.S.
Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the Commission. (If you are trying to calculate the odds of three virtually unknown men, out of over sixty Commissioners from the U.S., capturing the three most powerful positions in the land, don’t bother. Your calculations will be meaningless.)
On January 7, 1977 Time Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley Donovan was a powerful Trilateral, named President Carter “Man of the Year.” The sixteen-page article in that issue not only failed to mention Carter’s connection with the Commission but also stated the following:
“As he searched for Cabinet appointees, Carter seemed at times hesitant and frustrated disconcertingly out of character. His lack of ties to Washington and the Party Establishment – qualities that helped raise him to the White House – carry potential dangers. He does not know the Federal Government or the pressures it creates. He does not really know the politicians whom he will need to help him run the country.”
Was this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or was it deliberately misleading? By December 25, 1976 – two weeks before the Time article appeared – Carter had already chosen his cabinet. Three of his cabinet members – Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown – were Trilateral Commissioners; and the other non-Commission members were not unsympathetic to Commission objectives and operations. In addition, Carter had appointed another fourteen Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:
C. Fred Bergsten (Under Secretary of Treasury)
James Schlesinger (Secretary of Energy)
Elliot Richardson (Delegate to Law of the Sea)
Leonard Woodcock (Chief envoy to China)
Andrew Young (Ambassador to the United Nations).
As of 25 December 1976, therefore, there were nineteen Trilaterals, including Carter and Mondale, holding tremendous political power. These presidential appointees represented almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission members from the United States. The odds of that happening “by chance” are beyond calculation!
Realities of the New World Order
In 1972, Brzezinski’s wrote that “nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
The late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) was one of a very few people who understood what Brzezinski was alluding to, when he issued a clear and precise warning in his 1979 book, With No Apologies:
“The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.”
Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2008
Every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral Commission representation through the President or Vice-President, or both! George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Dick Cheney are all members.
In turn, these have appointed their Trilateral cronies to top positions in their Administrations.
For instance, six out of seven World Bank presidents have been members of the Commission. Eight out of ten USTR’s (U.S. Trade Representative) have been members.
Secretaries of State include Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. Yep, all members of the Trilateral Commission.
Follow the money, follow the power
You decide which is scarier: Obama and Brzezinski or McCain and Henry Kissinger?
Either way, Americans will continue to lose…
Every major crisis we face today is directly attributable to policies put forth and executed by members of this Trilateral Commission: Banking/lending/mortgage crisis, energy/gas price crisis, food/shortage/price crisis.
In addition, in the last fifteen to twenty years we have lost of millions of prime manufacturing jobs to China, India and Mexico. Our prime assets are being purchased by sovereign wealth funds and foreign investors. Our currency has all but been destroyed throughout the world.
Remember Brzezinski’s vision that “international banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”?
Well, that’s been true enough. But, for all their acting and planning at the expense of our own prosperity and Sovereignty, who wants or needs more of the same under Obama or McCain? With friends like this, who needs enemies?
For several Presidential elections now, this writer has voted according to the philosophy of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Never again!
A vote for either Obama or McCain is a vote for the complete destruction of America!























































August 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
this election is once again sponsored in part by your friends at AIPAC, OPEC, Halliburton, and The New World Order of the Elite.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Pawnz? Ha! That’s an understatement.
People, come on. You deserve to know the real cause of this worldly crap.
http://www.illuminatimatrix.wordpress.com
Do you dare face it?
It’s not pretty.
.
.
.
.
.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
However, There is a difference in choices-Carter was a man of peace and there were no wars during his administration.He actually helped the peace process in the middle east which was and still is a powder keg. The media has portrayed him as a bad President but I think peace is priceless.That makes me like him. Obama is more like Carter and believes in diplomacy and peaceful resolutions unlike Bush and McCain who are war mongers.All presidential candidates are put in by the powers that be such as the Illuminati.If our votes count at all which is another issue. I would rather vote for a Candidate that will be less likely to start wars etc.Obama is definitely my choice over the 100 year war McCain.This last 8 years has been a total disaster,McCain wants too carry on Bush’s failed policys. Hopefully Obama will be an big improvement and a better choice.He has stated repeatedly that he has been against the Iraq war.It seems historically speaking the Democrats( except for Johnson) do more for the average American while the Republicans only make the super rich,richer and cause wars so the big arms dealers can sell their weapons of mass destruction.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:52 am
could i please give a view from across the atlantic from london?
thankyou.i was watching blanket coverage of the dnc on bbc news 24 this morning in the run up to obamas big speech the build up consistted of a montage of black and white photographs (for veritas?)of mr obama in various poses people touching his feet,beatlemania like teenagers,total prophet like worship,he constantly smiling,waving,and the odd concentratingly listening pose.these were faded in and out at about 3 second intervals(scary) whilst an interviewer asked people to write on a board why they were voting for barack.they asked mainly black americans and they had a few stock reply’s.hope.change.1st black president.obama is dreamy.i found this a little disturbing,voters are hoping,theres a good policy.voters want change,in what direction?none stated.1st black president,that i could understand a little if he was descended from slave stock now that would be a true triumph of humanity.but as far as i know he isnt.how is it possible to have so much hype with so little substance.and to see swathes of black americans buying into obama i have the feeling he is going to be a great disappointment.will he stop employers exploiting them?no change,will he lower their tax burden?no hope,will he give a chance of life to all the forgotten children?absolutely no.voting for someone based on the colour of their skin is small minded.hes been bought and owned by big business where the only colour that matters is the colour of money.