July 07, 2011

2012 Fundraising War Begins to Heat Up




American presidential elections are an expensive business. Television advertising, extensive travel, and salaries for huge staffs to fill offices in every major "battleground" state all add up very quickly. As a result, the funds necessary just to keep the campaign going until election day can quickly become astronomical. To win a presidential election in the United States you need two kinds of friends: rich people who can pay for some of this without violating campaign contribution laws and influential people who are highly skilled at gathering money from tens of millions of average Americans.

One of the key figures in the 2008 election was Lynn Forester de Rothschild. As evidenced by a surprising article in the Boston Globe a few days ago, 2012 will be no different. Apparently, Mitt Romney's team was supposed to hold a fundraiser at the Rothschild house in London, reaching out to a wealthy expatriate American class made up of industrialists, bankers, and global financiers. They backed out, because this time around Lady de Rothschild is supporting Jon Huntsman, Jr. This is doubly odd when we consider that Lady de Rothschild is a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party. In 2008, she supported Hillary Clinton and is widely credited as being the main reason Hillary very nearly defeated Barack Obama. Switching her allegiance to John McCain apparently did not help very much. Perhaps after investing so much time and effort into Hillary's campaign she didn't have much heart left.

Another name to watch is Louis B. Susman, who is currently serving as Ambassador to the U.K. At a recent celebration dedicated to the memory of Ronald Reagan, Ambassador Susman declined to make an appearance and Lady de Rothschild was quite incensed over his failure to appear. In a very real sense, the Clinton-Obama race of 2008 was a direct confrontation between Susman and the Lady de Rothschild; a confrontation which the Lady lost. Susman's absence at the banquet dedicated to Reagan's memory was a very pointed reminder from him to her about 2008 and perhaps even a warning about 2012.

The real irony of all this is that when Alex Jones puts out a video like this one:



he's not entirely off the mark. There is indeed a wealthy "superclass" with a vested interest in how American presidential elections turn out. Some of those people do stand to profit greatly from a complete global economic collapse, a world war, and the establishment of a single, unified world government. And, yes, some of them would very much like to set themselves up as the undisputed kings, queens, and nobles of a world dictatorship. Their insanity lies in the assumption that their individual benevolence (they aren't bad people, after all, just rich and arrogant) can be translated easily into a free, benevolent rule over the lesser human beings of planet Earth (that means you and I).

So when Lady de Rothschild participates in a banquet in London to celebrate a former American president and the American ambassador declines to attend, that, my friends, is a major slap in the face to whoever the Lady is supporting for the 2012 presidential election. In a very real sense, Ambassador Susman has thrown down his gauntlet and Lady de Rothschild has picked it up and agreed to meet him on the field of battle. Like any good nobles, they won't risk their own health and welfare in this contest. Instead, they will fight through their chosen proxies, President Barack Obama (for Ambassador Susman) and former Ambassador Jon Huntsman (for Lady de Rothschild).

There are maybe a dozen other names to watch over the coming weeks. Sooner or later, George Soros, Laksmi Mittal, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, David Rockefeller, Jr., and several dozen other wealthy, influential people will pick their candidate and toss their hat into the ring. It is very important to pay attention to who these people throw their weight behind. Some of them, like Louis B. Susman and David Rockefeller, Jr., are powerful contenders with a reputation for backing the winners. Others, like George Soros and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, will definitely have direct access to whoever wins and will not hesitate to pick up their phone and dial the president elect directly if they disagree with some detail of policy or if they don't feel he (or she) is involved enough in some foreign squabble.

Notice what happened in Libya? Even though we have zero vested interest in Libya, the United Nations (backed in large part by British Petroleum) told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they expected American ships, planes, fuel, and intel to support their "no-fly zone". Hillary got Secretary of Defense Gates on the phone and made it happen, then she called Pres. Obama and informed him he was going to make a speech taking credit for it. Did you notice it took two full weeks for Pres. Barack Obama to come out with even a simple press statement? That's how far out of the loop he was! By the time anyone bothered to involve him U.S. Navy ships were already streaming into the Mediterranean and taking up their stations off the shore of Tripoli.

So Alex Jones is right about one thing: if these folks decide that the Middle East has become too hot and needs to be put down like a rabid dog, then they will get it done regardless of who happens to be sitting in the Whitehouse at the time. This is exactly why we need to break the back of the federal government and break it now. Only by reversing the centralization of power in Washington D.C. can we the people of the United States stop people like European bankers and nobles from having life and death control over the lives of our family members serving in the United States military. Our only hope at restoring the will of the people to preeminence over foreign elitists is by watching what they do in the background and then moving en masse to oppose them.

Like it or not. You and I must watch these arrogant narcissists like hawks, and I don't mean following their titillations in supermarket tabloids. We need to be aware of which presidential candidates they are supporting, which congressional race they are contributing to, and what they hope to gain through their contributions. For the moment, this is still our country and they have no greater legal authority to tell our representatives how to vote and which policies to pursue than you or I do. But if you and I are not constantly reminding our elected representatives who they work for while also demanding they institute laws limiting their power over us, then things could very easily swing the other way. Already the DOJ, the DOL, the EPA, the FDA, the IRS, the NEA, and hundreds of other agencies have the power to enact the will of the elites and force the rest of us into indirect servitude. If we do not reverse the trend of past century, and reverse it quickly, then that indirect servitude will slip into complete peasantry and it will probably do so within the next few years.

Why do you think immigration has been such a hot button issue for the past decade? These rich elites are seeking virtual slaves who will wash their cars, mow their lawns, supervise their children, and clean their houses for pennies per day, or better yet, for room and board alone. Since you and I refuse to do so, they are seeking to import impoverished Mexicans and South Americans who are used to living in huts with mud floors and drinking from polluted rivers because the elites know beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people will sacrifice anything for the privilege of living in a ten by ten room over their garage and sending their children to American schools. And yes, if I were living in a mountain village in Ecuador picking coffee beans by hand for less than a dollar a day, I'd feel the same way, too. (So instead of rewarding criminals who crossed the border in the floorboards of a rented van by granting them amnesty, maybe we should make it easier for that Ecuadoran plantation worker to come here legally? I certainly think so!)

There is no conspiracy. I want to be crystal clear on that point. It is not some shadowy Illuminati Order that we need to worry about, nor some coffee club like the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations. Our enemy is the assumption that birth, education, wealth, or social status grants a given individual the wisdom to command the daily lives of everyone else. Even so, we aren't fighting a social class, an economic class, or even a political ideology. We are fighting against a set of shared assumptions, a culture of superiority which sees anyone who disagrees with it as something less than human.

While it is true that some of these people are in fact in the top economic one percent of our world, they are not the real danger. The real danger is anyone who prefers to let some expert tell them how to think and who to vote for, because they are the ones who will accidentally bring to power the next Hitler.







Post a Comment