Trilateral Commission

[mkafrica]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this, then I realized that the Twilight Zone would be the perfect place. If not, feel free to move it, admins. :)

Awhile back, before Fred Thompson announced that he was running for President, I heard someone mention (it's bugging me, because I can't remember who it was that said this) that they wouldn't vote for him because he is part of the Trilateral Commission, just like George HW Bush and George W Bush. I kind of dismissed it as a conspiracy theorist's rant, but I googled it just for the sake of googling it. (Well, I admit, I have a really strong curiosity streak... lol) This was around the time I had first heard anything about Fred Thompson to begin with.

What I found, while not entirely flabbergasting, was a little disquieting, I have to admit. These are the links that I found: on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_commission), this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44965) on World Net Daily, and their own site (http://www.trilateral.org/).

The reason I say it was disquieting, was the wording on the main page of their site:

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Europe, Japan and North America to help think through the common challenges and leadership responsibilities of these democratic industrialized areas in the wider world.Now, I'm not the kind of person that takes what Wikipedia says at face value. More often than not, their articles are written by people with their own opinions influencing the article.

But the interesting thing is that their website seems very open, in some ways, but after reading through their entire site, I still have no concrete idea as to what they really do.

So, this leads me to the following questions:
- What is the Trilateral Commission. Comments? Opinions? Documentation?
- Is Fred Thompson a member of it? If so, is this a good or a bad thing? (I figured this would be a good place to ask for any kind of real answer on Fred Thompson, lol)

[The_Elucidator]

Neither FDT nor GHB are members but there are some names that aren't so surprising:

George Soros (nuff said)
Madeleine Albright (Former S of S BJ Billy)
William Jefferson Clinton (BJ BILLY)
Dianne Feinstein (D) Cali
Richard (Dick) Gephardt (Former D Congressman) Mo
Charles Rangel (D) NY
John D Rockefeller IV (D) WV
John Sweeney (AFL-CIO)
Strobe Talbott (Dep S of S under Clinton)


*****

On the flipside:

George HW Bush
Dick and Lynn Cheney
Thomas Foley

[mkafrica]

Do you know what the Trilateral Commission actually does though?

Anything I find on it, to be honest, seems to be the expressed opinion of people that think it's all about a conspiracy. I've rejected those as proof, because it seems to be a subjective decision on someone's part without solid information. (such as you would expect from conspiracy theories)

[Rhino]

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_295.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trilateral_Commission

http://www.scribd.com/groups/view/1359-the-trilateral-commission-reports

Some of these have the conspiracy theory stuff, but there is some good info sprinkled in there. The problem with people looking at what the TLC does, is that it doesn't really do anything. It's a 'think tank'-like policy center, except, unlike most think tanks, it is on an international scale. They just write a lot of policy papers and stuff. They have no actual power to implement any of it. The majority of their influence seems to be in international finance issues.

[mkafrica]

Thanks, Rhino!

[DesertFox]

They are indeed influential, but the influence derives from the positions they hold in real-world companies, firms and govts. They're like the Council on Foreign Relations, another one thought by the conspiracy theorists to be out to enslave us all under socialism.

[ThomasMore]

Agree with Rhino and Fox.

The Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/), the Trilateral Commission (http://www.trilateral.org/), and the Bilderberg Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group), are all foreign-policy discussion groups consisting of business, academic and political leaders. More members tend to be left-of-center than right-of-center, but there are conservative elements in each.

People often fear what they do not know. When influential people sit down to talk together, business gets discussed. But are these organizations secret cabals out to destroy us? No. Some members are no friends of liberty, but others definitely are.

[mkafrica]

This is more or less what I was thinking of the whole thing overall. Thanks for the replies, all.

[RogerFGay]

Trouble is, some of those "think-tank" groups have an enormous amount of influence. Their objectives are political rather than to just think about things, and they have connections. Recommendations get on legislative agendas.

Here are some examples of groups that I watched for a while, some of which the rest of you probably aren't aware of. Nothing about their names or websites would cause you to bat an eye. Not everything they've ever done is wrong (except for at least one group - couldn't say they've ever been involved in anything but myschief). But they have been involved in some real shit.

United States Department of State, Private International Law, Family Law
Hague Conventions on Maintenance Obligations
National Center for State Courts
United States Office of Child Support Enforcement
International Society of Family Law
ABA International Law
ABA Family Law
ABA group on Public / Private International Law
The Research Forum (on "New Federalism")
The Urban Institute's project on "New Federalism"
The Urban Institute
Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty
Center for Research on Child Well-Being - Princeton
Center for Research on Child Well-Being - Columbia

[TheIrishman]

The Bilderbergs intend to rule the world financially in a One World Order. The TLC and CFR are lesser levels of importance that help them plan what they need. The Bilderberg meeting one year decided the cannon mfgs needed business so they decided to start a war in the middle east. This was shortly before Kosovo. What ensued?? Do you suppose they held any influence in this??

[2thePoint]

Years ago I made an outline of the book En Route to Global Occupation (http://www.fether.net/2002/01/01/2002-01-01-the-new-world-order/) by Gary Kah. I think you can still find it at Amazon. But it shows the deep roots of these organizations and their unified, long-ranging plans.

As the saying goes, "None are so blind as those who refuse to see", and it's especially true when they hear the word "conspiracy". They immediately block it out and write you off as a fool or ignoramus. You can present page after page of evidence but the "court" has already decided your guilt. But we keep presenting those facts no matter what names we're called, because the time is short.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The Bilderbergs intend to rule the world financially in a One World Order. The TLC and CFR are lesser levels of importance that help them plan what they need. The Bilderberg meeting one year decided the cannon mfgs needed business so they decided to start a war in the middle east. This was shortly before Kosovo. What ensued?? Do you suppose they held any influence in this??
:hahaha::hahaha::hahaha::hahaha::hahaha::hahaha:

[Timberwolf]

The aforementioned "blind".

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me....

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men." ~~~ Plato

[2thePoint]

^^True!

But that's the thing about secret societies--- they're secret. The devil doesn't stand in front of a crowd in red spandex holding up a sign that says "I'm bad, run away!" He dresses up in white robes and has a golden halo, or he blends in and "proves" he's harmless. Yet we live in a time when the next door neighbor can build a torture chamber in his back yard and have a reputation as "a really nice guy".

To scoff at the notion that there are many evil people, who would bind themselves with terrible oaths should they ever divulge their plans, is to consign the future to them. And when it comes, like the people of Nazi Germany, they will all say, "We didn't know!"

[Rhino]

To scoff at the notion that there are many evil people, who would bind themselves with terrible oaths should they ever divulge their plans, is to consign the future to them.Good thing nobody here has done that. We speak regularly of such evil people. They're called democrats. But unlike much of what was presented here, the democrats actually exist.

[2thePoint]

Good thing nobody here has done that. We speak regularly of such evil people. They're called democrats. But unlike much of what was presented here, the democrats actually exist.
So you actually do expect the devil to stand in front of people wearing red spandex and holding up a sign that says "I'm bad, run away!"?

"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." (2 Cor. 11:14-15)

Conspiracy1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

It is nothing but naive to think people with evil plans will always do their work in the light where you can see them. Sure, they'll file all the proper forms and issue honest press releases. They'd never spread disinformation or betray anyone's trust. Nobody could possibly sneak anything past you, now could they? Heck, they don't even need to sneak! The evidence is there but they know most people have their heads buried in the sand.

I can't help people who refuse to acknowledge anything that isn't painfully obvious and announced for the public. I can't pull your head from the sand. There are "guards on the walls" for a reason; they see afar off what others refuse to believe can even be possible. And those others throw rocks at the guards on the walls and tell them to shut up. But that's our job and we're doing it, whether you throw rocks or not.

You will only see when your eyes are pried open by reality, and then you will somehow forget anyone saw it coming. You will claim you had no warning.

[Rhino]

I can't help people who refuse to acknowledge that their ramblings don't apply to the topic at hand.

[2thePoint]

I can't help people who refuse to acknowledge that their ramblings don't apply to the topic at hand.
Twilight Zone--- Trilateral Commission--- The topic has to do with conspiracies and people who refuse to admit they exist. If you want to change it to something you like, go right ahead.

[Rhino]

The topic has to do with conspiracies and people who refuse to admit they exist.And since no evidence of their existence has been posted, the location in Twilight Zone is completely appropriate. If you ever come up with some actual evidence, then a move elsewhere would certainly be considered.

And the topic was the Trilateral Commission, which is not a conspiracy, nor has anyone denied it's existence. On the contrary, the entire thread has been about defining who they are, and what they do, in addition to what they do not do.

Again, you need to read the previous threads/posts on this stuff.

[2thePoint]

And since no evidence of their existence has been posted,
By "evidence" you would require the exact words "this is a conspiracy". You wouldn't make much of a detective.

As for the topic: Post #1 contains the words "I kind of dismissed it as a conspiracy theorist's rant". You mentioned conspiracies in post #4. Three posts later the conspiracy angle was mentioned again by ThomasMoore. Then theirishman brought in more about conspiracies. Yet did you not declare any of it off-topic until I posted.

But hey, whatever your motivation, it's helping my post count. :D

[Rhino]

By "evidence" you would require the exact words "this is a conspiracy".I never said that. Try again.

You wouldn't make much of a detective.And you wouldn't make much of a debater. Strawmen do not an argument make.

As for the topic: Post #1 contains the words "I kind of dismissed it as a conspiracy theorist's rant".Which meant it wasn't the topic.

You mentioned conspiracies in post #4.Not as the topic.

Three posts later the conspiracy angle was mentioned again by ThomasMoore.Which he also discounted.

Then theirishman brought in more about conspiracies.He brought in nothing except outlandish and unsupported conjecture, which does not make them the topic.

Yet did you not declare any of it off-topic until I posted.Because you went off on a tangent about conspiracy theories, and made claims about other posters that did not appear in this thread. Had you read the other threads as I suggested, you would have seen that the topic of conspiracy theories has been debated ad nauseum. Having seen that, you could logically have come to the conclusion that we are simply tired of recovering ground that has already been trampled to death. But you are refusing to read them, refusing to use logic, or both. If you are too lazy to discover that what you claim has already been thoroughly debated, then I feel no obligation to re-enter the fray with you. But as I said, if you have something new to present, feel free to. However, first read the previous debates to insure that what you post is indeed actually something new. So far, it has been nothing of the sort.

[2thePoint]

I never said that. Try again.
Quoting you: "And since no evidence of their existence has been posted, the location in Twilight Zone is completely appropriate. If you ever come up with some actual evidence, then a move elsewhere would certainly be considered."

There you have it. But I won't ask you to "try again". The truth is that there is no evidence you'd ever accept, because it isn't obvious enough for you.

And you wouldn't make much of a debater. Strawmen do not an argument make.Too bad it wasn't a straw man.

Well, I'm sure you're having fun, and you certainly did manage to change the topic from the TLC to me, but I'll let you rant on your own now.

[Rhino]

The truth is that there is no evidence you'd ever accept, because it isn't obvious enough for you.Kind of hard to tell, since no one has submitted any evidence yet.

...but I'll let you rant on your own now.I'M ranting???

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m212/omahabob/pot_kettle.jpg

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits, with an unarmed man.