Lord Rothschild Backs John McCain

Lord Rothschild Backs John McCain

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com

Yes, the story is at Infowars but the articles original source is the Washington post. Interesting seeing the NWO hedge their bets.
Zbignew Brezinski behind Obama, Kissenger behind McCain now the Rothschilds behind McCain.

I bet they run a little bet like the rich men in the Eddie Murphy movie "Trading Places." They orchestrate a mass spectacle over a $1 dollar bet because in the end none of it matters.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

-Mayor Amschel Rothschild

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Beefcake

---

Its too bad Lord Rothschild is a Brit.

The American populace pays no attention to what anyone else says in general. McCain was low on cash so he decided to sell his soul out to the highest (lowest?) bidder.

Apparently the Rothschilds had enough cash to buy his black heart.

... And behind Rockefeller is Rothschild.

He is the Lord Of America himself, truly the man behind D.C.

Whole US "Elections" is just like FreeWrestling, a show where results are scripted many years before by these true lords of Illuminati.

McCain is a puppet, but a "loser" one. He gets his award from his efforts in many hidden ways, and there is a party for that coming up... Off course in US true main city: In London.

I read this on WP...It basically means McCain will be the next prez...He's being groomed by the Elite who run the country, and he's their war-mongering wet-dream come true. This 'system' is enough to make me want to projectile vomit. We're all FUBARed.

Wow.

So, no matter who we vote for, we're screwed?

Although I'm a Democrat (to the chagrin of my entire family), I planned on voting for Ron Paul. He actually reflected the way I'm feeling about my government. I am not so far left that I cannot cross the party line.

When I heard Rush Limbaugh had encouraged every listener in the voting area to go out and vote for Hillary C., I assumed that meant he believed she would be the easiest to defeat in a Presidential election, which would mean Barack O. was my only choice. Otherwise, why waste your primary vote?

Evidently, he is just cog in the NWO machine.

Or, could it be that the PTB merely WANT Americans to decide there is no point in participating?

reply to post by themillersdaughter

---

Yeah, pretty much.

The whole American political process has become a contrived, phony and predetermined dog and pony show, IMHO.

And the elites have grown so cocksure in the execution of their plans for us all, that they don't even care if we know.

Because truthfully, there's not much we can do about it.

reply to post by Beefcake

---

Looks like the NWO can't lose this election. I hope Ron Paul picks a running mate (Ross Perot would be nice) ,and runs as an independant. I think I will write someone in if Ron Paul can not run.

Good rebut to my man biggie and would like to add that rothschild was one of the original founders of the fed so oh yea even though he is brit he still has mad power here in the states.

Well if he is OK with the LAWD he is OK with me!


Mod Note: One Line or Short Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 16-3-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

I can't figure out why I should care.

It seems that all is legal, or am I missing something.

Fundraising is fundraising.

The last part of your post was, IMHO, the most important part. That's what our socalled elite want. "They", whoever "they" are, want us to do exactly that. Be so apathetic that we quit.

We're only "screwed" if we allow ourselves to be screwed. There are millions of us, most of whom are registered voters, or can be...that's enourmous power. Power the "elites" can't begin to match. It's time we exercised it.

If you all want to be apathetic, feel free...it is of course your right to be just that. Just don't complain when the chickens come home to roost. Citizenship has rights, but the corallary to that is, it also has duties. Making sure it works is one of them.



[edit on 3/16/2008 by seagull]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

I wouldn't go so far as to say that fund raising is just fund raising. Some are less than kosher, if you get my meaning. Not saying this one is, but some are. Remember the Al Gore-Buddhist Temple fopaux?

Have you ever ask yourself, why "elections" needs 100 million dollars to run? Is that somehow democracy? And election take time more than a NHL Season, and gets more attention than NFL in many years...

Is it only a show?

Vote rigging is not news, its obvious. Somebody have to win, somebody has to lose: Only blind denies the game... But what is on the table: There is again this WIN-WIN situation for wars, ruled by aggressions of fear.

USA is the Sword of Christianity, and you can not rule the sword with peace, its ruled by fear. And the masters of your fears are these bankers of the old world: They run the show, and they pay your 100 million dollar fear factory show.

My first thought was that McCain will be backed by the real and founding money.
Which gives him the 'in'.
On the other hand, the money controls the media and they would not have allowed the bad press on McCain and his bad attitude if it were not to possibly allow Clinton the lead role.
Yet again, perhaps if something like a 911 were to happen close to the elections, it would make the people 'want' someone with the anger of McCain.
And if the economy takes a dive for the worst, then they will vote the socialitarian Clinton.

Time will tell, the signs will be more clear as we move closer to this November.

reply to post by JanusFIN

---

That's all very enlightening, but what's it got to do with my question.

Personally, and I've held this view for many years, I think that political advertising should be banned from television and radio.

Debates and interviews would be fine for TV and radio, but leave the campaigning to print media and personal appearances.

It could be done. It would save money, but it would still cost money.

[edit on 2008/3/16 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by seagull

---

But, please note that I said that all seemed to be legal.

Let me rephrase that.

Legal fundraising is legal fundraising.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

Legal, yes, no question about that, because they make the laws. Money has no earmarks. But is it fair?

Is it fair that only richest can run the state, not the educated, or the bright minded ones.

US "elections" are most difficult to understand in the world: All these primaries, delegates, and from state to state hopping regulations... Ive understand that even getting your name to ballots can be most difficult to do, even that you are a legal candidate. Is that democracy?

One year full of TV shows and debates, advertising and fear mongering... Is that needed to run a country with wisdom? Or is that happening only to turn your mind away from the real issues, to blind you to think that you can affect to something... Whats behind the sword, who keeps it in their hands?

Russia, witch is much more bigger country than USA make their elections in one day. 70% of the voters, who represent over 50% of the population ( In USA i have understand that 1% makes the decisions for rest of the 99% ) make their choice in peace and understanding: No rigging news has exposed after, and 300 international observers give their blessing.

Thats the way to rule empire with democracy, and my all my 100 Russian friend likes the way their government rules their country. Sorry. I Can not same with you guys...

I see that USA is the most corrupted government these days. Rules and regulations are made to serve only the richest and greeds, is that legal?

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

I did. Just thought I'd mention it is all.

It may be legal, but it just doesn't seem right to raise money from overseas for a domestic election...

Russia?

Where do you live?

It doesn't hurt to be rich when running for office, but one need not be so to gain a following and run a campaign.

It takes a lot of hard work for anyone to run for office, but frankly, the people who have enough money to fund a political campaign have not usually been very successful.

I think you have a lot of misconceptions about the US political system.

[edit on 2008/3/16 by GradyPhilpott]