Odd Bedfellows Unite Against Obama

 

 

Conservatives, radicals, centrists, birthers, Zionists join to challenge president

 

By Michael Collins Piper

Barack Obama’s fight to win reelection just got tougher. One of his biggest critics, one of the world’s richest, most powerful women—Lady Lynn de Rothschild of New York and London—has not only endorsed Republican Mitt Romney, but she also pulled the plug on Americans Elect (AE), the proposed “centrist” third party of which she was one of the chief sponsors.

Although the establishment media loudly noted in recent reports that AE folded up shop after having spent at least $35M in Wall Street-financed organizing efforts, those reports did not mention that the primary reason AE collapsed was because Lady de Rothschild—the American-born wife of Sir Evelyn Rothschild of the international banking dynasty and a key figure in the global elite in her own right—had decided Romney was acceptable as the GOP’s nominee.

While AE postured as a “grass-roots” effort to break partisan gridlock in America, the truth is that Lady de Rothschild and a clique of elite figures from the Rothschild sphere of influence on Wall Street and in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)—of which she is a member—had set AE in motion in the first place.

The intent of such a centrist party at the time was to defeat Obama and any potential GOP nominee, who did not meet the standards of the Rothschild family and its circles

.

While Lady de Rothschild had backed former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman—a fervent internationalist—for the GOP nomination, his campaign was fading well before the first primary battle. As far back as Dec. 19—while both promoting Huntsman’s aspirations and providing pivotal support for AE’s centrist party efforts—Lady de Rothschild publicly told the popular news website the Huffington Post she would back Romney if Huntsman eventually withdrew.

Not a month later, while holding a fundraiser for Huntsman at her apartment in Manhattan, she told The Washington Post she would support Romney if he did win the GOP nomination, which, at that point, was still not assured.

Read the whole article at American Free Press!

Jewish Money Tabs Romney & Obama

By Brother Nathanael Kapner



“TOP LEVEL JEWISH FUNDRAISERS are sticking with Obama,” reports the popular Jewish Daily Forward.
The article points out that although Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, his Jewish supporters from his 2008 race show no defections for 2012.

“ROMNEY’S JEWISH BACKERS are a who’s who of the Republican Jewish establishment,” reports the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“Every major Jewish Republican fundraiser is with Mitt,” says Houston Lawyer, Fred Zeidman, a leading donor to the Romney campaign. And Jewish shopping center mogul, Mel Sembler, is also on board (along with hundreds of his RICH Jewish friends), to catapult the mannequin into the Oval Office.

 

read the article HERE 

 

Related

• Jewish Vote Not a Problem for Obama
• Obama's Jewish Team Has 2012 Plan

White Obama - An Obomination

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 11, 2012

Mitt Romney, the establishment declared GOP front-runner, is the white Obama. He earns this title because on crucial issues he mirrors Barack Obama. Consider:

Climate agenda and carbon taxes:

He has stated that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is real. In 2005, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney imposed strict state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In a memo issued by Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Hale, the Romney administration bragged that it was “the first and only state to set CO 2 emissions limits on power plants.”

In short, Romney did what Obama’s EPA wants to do now. It is revealing that Romney was advised on this drastic step by none other than Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren.

In his book, No Apology, Romney advocates carbon taxes through a “tax-swap plan” and declares that resultant “higher energy prices would encourage energy efficiency.” The plan is favored by economist and Romney adviser Greg Mankiw and many other “Republican-leaning economists.” In 2007, Mankiw wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled “One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax.” He wrote that “if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.”

Obama also wants to push a carbon tax on the American people and declared his intention to do so before he took office. “President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote on November 19, 2008.

Obama’s agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent fits right into the globalist plan to attain the ultimate civilization-killing goal of zero carbon emissions, as espoused by the Carnegie Institute.

Romneycare:

In December, Romney told Fox News that he stands by the health care at gunpoint plan implemented while he was governor of Massachusetts. “The plan is not perfect, there are things that I’d change in it, but I’ll stand by the things we’ve done,” he said, defending the plan.

Obama and the Democrats were so enthralled with Romney’s statist health care boondoggle, they based their plan on it.

“Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act,” NBC reported last October.

Abortion:

Like a good Demopublican, Romney supported a woman’s “right” to kill her fetus – that is before, as a “conservative,” he changed his mind – or as it is usually called, he flip-flopped on the issue.

He was so adamant about abortion, he attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 2004, but now supports the Pence amendment sponsored by Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence aimed at eliminating all Title X grants for Planned Parenthood. He even instituted tax-funded abortion on demand two years after his orchestrated “pro-life” conversion.

Obama, of course, is “pro-choice” and has appointed a number of outspoken pro-abortion advocates to his administration. If elected, no doubt Romney will do the same.

Illegal immigration:

Mitt claims to oppose illegal immigration, but does not advocate sending illegals back – or, apparently, even arresting them for breaking the law.

“Those people that are here illegally today should have the opportunity to register and to have their status identified,” he said in November.

He said nothing about illegal immigrants paying back taxes, learning English, not having criminal records, or being deported and going through legal channels for immigration.

Romney sounds a lot like Obama, who said: “I think most Americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. People shouldn’t just be coming here and cutting in front of the line essentially and staying without having gone through the proper channels.”

Mitt Romney is basically indistinguishable from Obama and supports the same globalist agenda, albeit with “conservative” flourishes. His flip-flopping on key issues is designed to make his pre-arranged agenda more palatable to so-called conservatives, who will naturally be hoodwinked as they are every election cycle.

If elected, Romney will become the white Obama. The only job requirement will be an ability to convincingly read a teleprompter and follow orders handed down form his globalist masters the same as his predecessor.

courtesy INFOWARS.COM

2012 National Defense Act Is 'Terrifying'

There has been considerable confusion over the past few hours as to whether the Senate -- which passed the National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012) -- included a last-minute "waiver" to protect American citizens from some of the bill's more outrageous and fascist elements, including the right of the US government to detain citizens -- even those on American soil, and not charged with a crime -- indefinitely in military prison. This means that peaceful protesters could be rounded up, dishonestly labeled as potential terrorists or "suspicious," and imprisoned for life without a trial or attorney. This means that federal military personnel would be patrolling our streets, literally signaling the end of our free republic.

The offending section of the NDAA has been compared to the internment camps the US government ran during World War II, except this time around it will be Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party members, and young Occupy Wall Street organizers in the detainment camps.

It doesn't matter if a last-minute waiver is in the bill; the offending portions are currently worded so vaguely, that any US citizen can be considered a "terrorist" or an aid to terroristic activity. Any US citizen who is inconvenient to the US government can be detained and silenced.

Also, the intent was extremely bad here -- Sens. John McCain, Carl Levin, and Lindsey Graham INTENDED for this bill to redefine the US homeland as a "battlefield" (Graham's words, not mine), allowing the revocation of even our most basic civil rights and access to due process.

When the intent is bad, an intentionally vague section of the NDAA can be interpreted by authorities in the worst possible way. The whole bill must be thrown out, except for key parts to continue military operations and crucial funding of our armed forces.

 Let me remind you that this is not a drill. This is not an inflammatory blogger's post. This actually happened, and with the Senate's passage of this bill, it is very close to becoming law. The US mainstream media is not covering this AT ALL, as I pointed out in a recent column. The only source for even remotely accurate information right now is on the social networks, especially Twitter -- this reminds me of something you'd experience in Iran or Syria, not in America.

The best CNN has done, for example, is to mention there's been some "controversy" about new "detainee rights" outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act.

The network neglects to tell its readers and viewers that "detainee" now means American citizen. This is chilling. Americans now have the same rights as random enemy combatants in Afghanistan. Your government is now treating you as it'd treat a member of the Taliban. Congress has committed treason against the American people.

Up until now, no matter how much (or how little) wealth you had... no matter how much or little education and influence you had... every American was at least guaranteed a freedom from fear: your government could not come in the middle of the night with military non-police forces, without charge, and take you away.
If the National Defense Authorization Act clears the House and is not vetoed by President Obama, that will no longer be true. None of us will be safe. And you won't be given access to a trial or a lawyer.

The media is not telling the public about this bill, which means you have to, before your right to speak out disappears. Tell everyone. This cannot be allowed to stand. This is still the United States of America. And any senator who voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act in its current form should be forced to resign from public office immediately. They've crafted a bill that turns America's military against its own people and suspends habeas corpus.

I don't write articles every day, but when I do, they are on subjects you should know about. You can follow me on Google+ to see my newest posts and keep in touch.
Video from the author summarizing why the National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012) in its current form is so harmful, and must be stopped:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-and-the-tea-party-cant-save-you-2012-national-defense-act-is-terrifying-2011-12#ixzz1fUUzRE00

Why Did Obama "Kill" Obama?

U.S. INSIDER: "We've Had Enough. Time for 2nd Revolution"

Courtesy: INFOWARS.COM

Giraldi: The Road to National Suicide

by Philip Giraldi, January 27, 2011

It is not often that one sees an entire nation marching in lockstep to go over a cliff into an abyss, but that is essentially what the United States is doing at the moment.

Not only have there been strong hints from the Obama Administration that the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will go on into the dim future, but there is also no sign of any necessary course correction in other areas.  Israel, backed by Washington, continues its reckless policies and may be cranking up for a new war against Lebanon and Syria with the ultimate objective of involving its American patron in fighting against Iran.  Clearly President Obama is unwilling to take any risks by challenging existing policies.  He is edging towards what he perceives as the political center and is preparing to ride the status quo to electoral victory in 2012.

Consider the central dynamic of what the United States is engaged in.  Washington is committed to a series of asymmetrical wars that are literally taking place all over the world.  This is what the Obamaites now refer to as "overseas contingency operations."  One might well ask contingent on what, but the words themselves quite likely are not considered to be really meaningful and are rather designed to constitute a reassuring euphemism.  One of these wars, in Afghanistan, is costing the US taxpayer $10 billion a month and is tying up more than 100,000 American soldiers.  Casualties are rising, most of Afghanistan has become insecure in spite of the effort, corruption and drug cultivation are rampant, and there is no end in sight.  To put the cost of the war in some kind of perspective, Afghanistan’s gross domestic product for 2009 was $22 billion, meaning that it is costing nearly six times more to "defend" each year than its total economic activity.  Asymmetrical indeed. Colonial empires of the past would have at least figured out how to turn a buck from their imperial endeavors, highlighting the cluelessness of Washington.  If there has ever been an example of a war that makes no sense, Afghanistan is it.

The stated purpose of fighting in Afghanistan is to keep the country from becoming a base for terrorism but the premise is deeply flawed.  Terrorists can literally go anywhere and do not necessarily need a geographic base.  If they choose, they can even disappear for a time, sitting quietly and waiting for the situation to change in their favor.  Also, fighting them in a foreign country is a fool’s errand, and not only because American soldiers and their leaders rarely grasp what is going on in any alien environment and nearly always make things worse rather than better.  No, the salient issue is that the militants will always have the upper hand in such an engagement because they benefit from three realities that give them a major advantage.  First, they are not bound to strategies coming out of a training manual and can actually learn and develop as they go along.  This has been described as "open source warfare."  If you need a better and simpler improvised explosive device (IED), instructions for making one will soon appear on the internet as militant groups refine their tactics and share information.  When the advanced IED appears, the US government and its military industrial contractors will panic and overreact to the threat by building a newer and heavier vehicle to resist it.  The new vehicle will cost three times as much as the old vehicle, will take two years to design, and will get 300 yards per gallon of gas, which has to be trucked over the Hindu Kush mountains, where it is subject to attack by the insurgents.  As is frequently the case, that means that the conventional army is always finding itself at a disadvantage fighting the last war with the last war’s weapons waiting for the new weapons that will be obsolete when they arrive.
The foreign army will also invariably adhere to standard doctrine, which is to defend itself as a first priority.  That means it will always overreact when it is attacked.  Given the nature of guerrilla warfare, it will unleash its power against areas in which militants have inserted themselves among civilians, leading to avoidable deaths that will be used to win the propaganda war.  This serves as a recruiting poster for the insurgency.  So in the long run, with the invader beggaring himself fighting the wrong war and killing civilians, who is going to win the exchange?

Second, militants do not have to waste manpower and materiel by defending anything that could be attacked by the overwhelming force possessed by the conventional army.  They can concentrate on conserving resources by taking the offensive to hit soft targets, secure in the knowledge that even 100,000 highly trained and well equipped foreign soldiers cannot be everywhere.  When some contractor hired by USAID builds bridges or schools at great cost, it is a lot easier to blow them up a week or a month later than it was to build them.  The ability to do that type of damage produces a disproportionate result, sending a message that the government and its foreign allies are ineffective and cannot provide security.  It also tells the local population who is going to win in the long run and it won’t be the boys from Washington.  They understand that eventually the Great Power will lose its will to fight, will go broke, and will go home.

Third is the issue of overall strategy.  Modern conventional armies are designed to inflict devastating damage on a concentrated opponent with the intention of causing mass casualties and ending the enemy’s ability to continue to resist.  When the enemy army is soundly defeated it surrenders, generally followed by the surrender of the national government that it represents.  But none of that applies in war against an insurgency or a group of militants, with the result that an aircraft carrier or a strategic bomber or a ballistic missile becomes worthless.  Such groups normally have only limited internal organization, operate essentially as "leader-less," and a militant who is killed is quickly replaced at the local level.  If an operating base is destroyed or overrun, it is a simple matter to pick up one’s weapons and move to another.  If the war spreads to another region or country, it is also relatively easy to replicate the insurgency and its structure in the new area.  That is why there is no worldwide al-Qaeda movement, only national and regional groups that share the philosophy and methods of the parent organization.  The local franchises are driven by their own national and religious agendas, are self funding, and generally locally recruited.  They fade away when the local government or the US comes after them and then resurface when the pressure eases.  That is why they cannot be defeated, even if the United States spends the next twenty years trying to do so.

So what is the solution to the tactical and strategic challenges posed by terrorists and other militants?  Well, we could leave Iraq and Afghanistan and eschew any interest in intervening in Somalia and Yemen.  Instead of telling half the world how to run their governments, we could wish them all luck and announce our intention to disengage from foreign entanglements as quickly as possible.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any terrorist group would then follow us back home to wreak havoc.  On the contrary, it is most likely that we would be left alone.  And we could be saving all that money we are spending accomplishing absolutely nothing overseas and begin to put our own economy back together by cutting defense spending by a half or even more.  Minus an international threat, we could also disband the Department of Homeland Security, starting with the odious Transportation Security Administration.  Yes, that would do it.  An America at peace with itself and putting its own house in order.  I rather suspect that the entire world would applaud such a change.  Of course, if we don’t do it, we can continue to be the lemmings charging over the cliff.

 Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest. 

courtesy Antiwar.com

EXPOSED: Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Political Syndicate

Who is Rahm Emanuel? How did he get into politics? The Emanuel family; just how powerful are they? What influence do they have on lobbying, and power politics? His workings with the Chicago Democratic Machine, how did he get started, is there a shady past he is trying to hide? Is Rahm being blackmailed because of his past with Obama on Chicago's North Side? The Blago trial; why was he and others never questioned about Obama, Valerie Jarret, and Jesse Jackson Jr. What role did he play in the attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago? What is the connection to key players in Chicago and Washington DC winding up dead? Are there secret video tapes waiting to surface? If he is Mayor, what will the city of Chicago look like? Could he become another Rudy Giuliani? In this exclusive Special Investigation the Reality Report goes deep and digs up the dirt that no Chicago media outlet would dare to report. This is a must see expose for anyone who has questions about Rahm Emanuel but just didn't know who to ask.

Investigators: Julio Rausseo and Wayne Madsen
Producer: Gary Franchi 

http://RTR.org | http://RealityReport.TV