VIDEO - Michael Collins Piper (American Free Press) on the Third Party Movement Scam
The Post has been a voice for the London-based Rothschild dynasty whose agents on American soil—via the Kuhn-Loeb investment house—directed the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, the control of which has generated trillions of dollars that enabled elitist families and financial interests to grab control of the mass print and broadcast media through which they have manipulated the political arena.
The call by Schoen and Caddell may appear to be “good news” in the minds of Obama’s critics. However, the campaign to delegitimize Obama is part of broader scheme to fool Americans into rallying behind an ostensibly independent movement—a “controlled opposition”—dominated by the same families and monied interests that now control the two major parties. Why would these big money forces want to launch a new “centrist” party? Good question. Here’s the answer. The apparent—and quite Machiavellian purpose—behind this scheme appears to be to break the back of the now-in-place traditional local, state and federal political machines of both major parties and their respective grassroots constituencies (small business, farmers, public employees, minorities, factory workers, etc).
The “centrist” party ushered into power would constitute an all-new political superstructure at the national level—divorced from the demands of grassroots constituencies. It would be a mechanism of power answering only to the controllers of the major media who conjured up the “centrist” party in the first place.
It would direct the future course of American affairs, in the guise of ending “partisan gridlock,” while actually ensuring that the international big-money forces maintain their stranglehold on America.
It is no coincidence that in 2008, Schoen published a book, Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System, calling for a new “centrist” party. He and Caddell have been pushing that idea continuously in a number of forums with—as AFP previously noted—the collaboration of “establishment” columnists in both the Post and New York Times. Yet until now, those elite newspapers never lent credence to third party advocates and were notably hostile to them.
As Schoen and Caddell wrote in the Post: [It] is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents. . . .We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.
While it is unlikely Obama will be cowed into abandoning his reelection bid, the efforts by Schoen and Caddell against him are nothing new. On July 28 in The Wall Street Journal—published by Rupert Murdoch,
longtime front man for the Rothschild-financial network—Schoen and Caddell called Obama “our divisive president” and declared that while Obama had promised “a new era of post-partisanship . . . [H]e’s played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines,” extraordinary allegations from two Democrats long involved in the civil rights movement. They wrote:
Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.
We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues. . . . President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.
This rhetoric, in fact, has been central to the ongoing push for the new “centrist” third party. For example, on Nov. 12 The New York Times again sounded the call for a centrist rebellion. A commentary by David Brooks, a Jewish Republican “neo-conservative”—the Times’ op-ed page “in house” conservative—said a “national greatness agenda” would be promoted by “the next big social movement.” It would reject the views of “orthodox liberals and conservatives” and end “hyper-partisanship.” Brooks said “the coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in the existing two” and preserve American “supremacy”—that is, global interventionism.
This concept of “national greatness” has been promoted in Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard by Marshall Wittmann, a Jewish Trotskyite-turned neoconservative who directed the Christian Coalition and later signed on with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) the vaunted Democrat-turned-independent hailed as a model for nonpartisan “centrist” politics.
While it is speculation at this point, it appears that the ultimate intent is to damage Obama politically, casting him as a failed president who represents the extreme “left,” while at the same time (as AFP has reported on the Washington Post-Newsweek empire’s promotion of Sarah Palin) catapulting Mrs. Palin to the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
At that time the major media could declare both candidates—Obama and Mrs. Palin—as “extremists” and “damaged goods,” and push the emergence of a centrist party to rise up and challenge the two major parties.
If he does try for re-election, Obama could face a challenge for renomination from within his own party—Hillary Clinton being a likely rival—but dethroning an incumbent president has never been a simple proposition. If Obama is renominated, in any case, he will be so as a very crippled incumbent.
By Michael Collins PiperLATEST IN AN ONGOING SERIES Yes, the Rothschild dynasty-connected billionaire families and financial groups who own the mass media in America—interlocked with the banking interests controlling privately owned Federal Reserve System that dominates the world economic system—are planning to spring a “centrist” third party on the American people.
All-new revelations now appearing in the self-styled “mainstream” press fully confirm what AMERICAN FREE PRESS—alone among the media—first asserted seven months ago in a four-page exclusive special report published in its May 31 issue.
The opinion pages of the two most powerful newspapers in America—The New York Times and The Washington Post—have been rife with repetitive rhetoric about the need for the American people to reject both “the left” and “the right” and stand behind “centrists,” who will “end partisan gridlock.” But there has also been—behind the scenes—an ongoing, long-standing, carefully crafted scheme to set a “centrist” party in
As AFP noted on Nov. 15, the first formal notice came in The New York Times on Oct. 3, when influential columnist Thomas L. Friedman, generally perceived as a “liberal,” noted grandly in a column entitled “Third Party Rising” that he knew of two separate efforts to launch such a “centrist” movement which he made clear was something he endorsed. Friedman tantalized readers by mentioning no specific names, but it was clear Friedman was writing from an “insider” standpoint.
On Nov. 28, writing in The Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning “conservative” writer Kathleen Parker finally and formally lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding the third party venture in a commentary entitled, “Who will lead the centrists?” Her column revealed a new group, called “No Labels,” was being launched. Asserting “dissatisfaction with Washington’s systemic failings,” Ms. Parker wrote that “when the porridge is either too hot or too cold, the moment for something in between is ripe,” adding that “centrism has a place at the table by virtue of the sheer numbers of middle Americans, the depth of their disgust and the magnitude of our problems.”
Ms. Parker concluded that “There’s little appealing about either party dominated by a base that bears little resemblance to who we are as a nation or the way most of us live our lives. . . .” She then asked the question: “What if there were an alternative?” and added pointedly:
“All that’s missing from a centrist movement that could be formidable is a leader. Anyone?”
The Post columnist noted that among the key financial backers of No Labels is James Tisch. Although grass-roots Americans who might be attracted to a “third” party alternative probably don’t recognize his name, Tisch is a member of the billionaire family which grabbed control of the CBS media conglomerate in 1986, asserting its purpose was to ensure especially favorable coverage of Israel at a time of growing uneasiness with Israel’s Middle East intrigues.
An influential figure beyond question, Tisch has been president of the Jewish Communal Fund, was founding chairman of the Jewish Leadership Forum and serves on the executive committee of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign-policy-making arm of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
To underscore the importance of the No Labels venture, The Washington Post followed up Ms. Parker’s commentary by one published on Dec. 3 under the title “A grass-roots answer to gridlock,” written by two of the high-level founders of No Labels.
The two figures in question—a “liberal” Democrat and a “conservative” Republican—demonstrate the ostensible bipartisan (and distinctly internationalist) nature of the “centrist” effort: David Frum, a former specialassistant and speechwriter to President George W. Bush and William Galston, a former domestic policy advisor to Bill Clinton.Frum—a neo-conservative pro-Israel hard-liner (and hardly a “centrist”)—is infamous for coining the term “Axis of Evil,” which he inserted into a speech he wrote for Dubya Bush, who popularized the phrase as part of the “war on terrorism.” But, more notably, Frum once published an extended attack on nationalists who reject American globalism and warmongering (which just happen to be the central components of the New World Order agenda).Likewise, the ties of Frum’s No Labels colleague, Galston, further illustrate the origins of the “centrist” scheme being unleashed. Galston is now a courtier to the publicly little-known, but globally influential Rothschild- allied billionaire Zilkha family and holds the chair in “governance studies” at the Brookings Institution, a post funded by Baghdad-born New York-based Ezra Zilkha, another key figure in the Council on Foreign Relations.The heir to Khedori Zilkha—once described by The New York Sun as “a towering figure who bestrode the financial landscape of the Middle East, Europe, America and Asia and became an important player in internationalbanking”—Ezra Zilkha was described by the Sun as “a living legend” in his own right, who assessed his own ancestry thusly: “My family were proud members of the Jewish community that Nebuchadnezzar established. When the Babylonian captivity ended and many Jews returned to Jerusalem, my ancestors stayed behind. I am always conscious of history. My sensibilities are rooted in antiquity.”In their Post commentary, Galston and Frum announced that No Labels is engaged in organizing in every state and congressional district and that there will be a major national meeting held in New York on Dec. 13. They also revealed the underlying propaganda nature of their program. Over the next two years, No Labels operatives will be taking to task any and all who do not abide by their agenda. According to Galston and Frum:They will highlight those officials who reach across the aisle to help solve the country’s problems and criticize those who do not. They will call out politicians whose rhetoric exacerbates those problems, and they will establish lines that no one should cross. Politicians, media personalities and opinion leaders who recklessly demonize their opponents should be on notice that they can no longer do so with impunity. . . .In short, the purpose of No Labels will be to enforce a new “political correctness” enforced by public and media pressure, ensuring that anyone who goes beyond the approved “pale” and ventures into rhetoric and political discussion deemed unseemly will be held to account, subjected to widespread opprobrium.For example, those who question the official government version of the 9-11 terrorist tragedy, or raise concerns about U.S. bias in favor of Israel in the conduct of Middle East policy, or object to unending budget-busting foreign military ventures, will be savaged as inimical to American national interests.Frum and Galston claimed No Labels is “not a nascent third-party movement” nor a “stalking-horse for an independent candidacy” and that “it is not a front for anyone’s agenda.” However, the obvious political nature of the venture—which includes the formation of political action committee fundraising efforts—belies these protests. No Labels is clearly what it appears to be, another attempt to internationalize and bankrupt America with Israel coming out on top.A review of the No Labels website at nolabels.com lists a growing array of “advisors” who constitute a broad-ranging selection of journalists, pundits and publicists— few nationally known but all of whom have outreach in their own particular realms. And this marks a movement that could be especially influential.The clique of media voices promoting the “centrist” movement has been hyping rhetoric referencing “American national greatness” and “American exceptionalism”—which rings soundly in the hearts of patriotic Americans—but these are terms that have a deeper meaning than might appear.In fact, these terms have their origins in the writings of a host of so-called “ex-Trotskyite” agitators—now called “neo-conservatives”—who have energetically worked to suppress traditional American nationalism in the effort to remake the United States into a globe-straddling empire with the blood and treasure of the American people used to set in place a New World Order. The “conservative” internationalists and the “liberal” internationalists have bound together to work to bring this into being, and the “centrist” endeavor is at the foundation of what can only be described as a conspiracy, vastly inimical to America’s interests.
By Michael Collins Piper
“We need a movement
of the militant middle.
Both parties lack leaders
who will fight for the
values of the middle.”
An influential member of the international Rothschild banking dynasty—often called “the family that rules the world”—has lent her support to the theme that Barack Obama must be removed from the White House and that America needs a grand “centrist” coalition to save the nation.
That a key Rothschild network figure endorsed this concept—which is being relentlessly promoted in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post—underscores recent exclusive reports appearing in AMERICAN FREE PRESS detailing a high-level scheme to foist a phony new “centrist” third party on Americans.
In 2008, lifelong Democrat Lynn Forester de Rothschild endorsed GOP presidential candidate John McCain after the Democratic Party rejected de Rothschild’s first choice, Hillary Clinton.
The American-born Lady Rothschild— chief executive of E.L. Rothschild,
a key Rothschild holding company—is the wife of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. She was first introduced to her husband in Scotland in 1998 by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a meeting of Bilderberg—the global planning group dominated by the Rothschilds, assisted by their American lieutenants, the Rockefellers.
Endorsing McCain, Mrs. Rothschild proclaimed Obama too “ideological”—that is, too “liberal”—an interesting assertion coming from a stalwart Democrat. Now Mrs. Rothschild is once again aiming her guns at Obama, echoing the very rhetoric about the need to adopt “centrist” policies prevalent in all of the recent propaganda in the elite press that AFP—alone among the independent media—has been scrutinizing.
She expressed her “centrist” concerns on the Internet’s Daily Beast on Feb. 28, 2010, but few noticed it at the time. It’s no coincidence this was the forum she used to vent her attack: the Daily Beast is merging with the Rothschild-connected Washington Post Company’s Newsweek magazine, recently transferred to the control of Zionist billionaire Sidney Harman, who—like the Rothschild dynasty—is a major patron of Israel.
In her commentary, Mrs. Rothschild declared: “After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that . . . we already knew what kind of president he would become. . . . Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist.”
Mrs. Rothschild wrote: Sure, [Obama] made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. . . . They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America. . . .At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. . . . In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists. So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign . . . . Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. . . . His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives. Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle.
While it certainly confuses many people (particularly self-styled “patriots” and “conservatives”) that Mrs. Rothschild (and like-minded associates in the mass media) call the Clintons “moderates,” that has, in fact, been a continuing premise in the media, especially of recent date, as if the stage is being set for a return of “Bill and Hill” in the form of a “centrist” challenge to Obama.
However, note that Mrs. Rothschild denounced not just Obama but “both parties.” Her rhetoric precisely reflects ongoing high-level calls in the media monopoly for a “centrist” rebellion against both “the left” and “the right”:
We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi and Reid; and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong.
Here is what’s happening: Recognizing growing widespread disgust with both major parties, the elite big money forces seem to be laying the groundwork to usher in a new “centrist” party—a “controlled opposition” under their domination—to block the rise of any genuine populist third party challenging their power. The war-profiteering plutocratic elites want to be assured that—in the face of growing opposition from Americans on both the “left” and the “right”—budgetbusting internationalist policies promoting U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East and across the globe—in the name of what is now being touted as American “national greatness”—will be preserved.
In fact, the “national greatness” concept is just a patriotic-sounding cover name for what many call the New World Order.
Note, too, that although both “liberal Democrats” and “conservative Republicans” have done big money’s bidding for a century, a new “centrist” force—orchestrated by the major media (owned by the financial aristocracy)—would shatter the existing traditional local, state and federal political machines of the major parties which are closely tied to their own respective constituencies (small business, farmers, public employees, minorities, factory workers, etc). Divorced from grassroots demands, the new “centrist” mechanism would answer only to the major media controllers who conjured up the “centrist” party in the first place.
2010-02-28 I Told You So by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, The Daily Beast, "Obama’s shortcomings were eminently foreseeable, says one of McCain's most prominent Democratic backers. Lynn Forester de Rothschild on how the president's fake bipartisanship could never hide his true leftist agenda."
2008-10-13 A Democrat In Defense of Sarah Palin, The Daily Beast, 'Palin’s views on abortion and gay rights have been distorted by Democratic Party scare tactics. As a Democrat supporting John McCain, I am most often questioned about Sarah Palin. I have two simple responses..."
Lady de Rothschild is chief exeutive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company. She is a director of the Estee Lauder Cos. and The Economist Newspaper Ltd.
By Michael Collins Piper
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made a big splash on her recent first-ever visit to Israel. Now a highly paid “analyst” for Fox News—owned by pro-Israel media baron Rupert Murdoch—Mrs. Palin is a likely aspirant for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Her very public adventures in Israel—apparently orchestrated to burnish her foreign policy credentials—confirmed Mrs.Palin’s long-expressed, deeply felt, some critics say “over the top,” emotional and political commitment to Israel’s interests and its powerful American lobby.
While traveling about the Holy Land wearing around her neck what The Jerusalem Post described as a “large Star of David,” a Jewish religious symbol—rather than the cross traditionally worn by devout Christians—Mrs. Palin also ostentatiously told one of her hosts, Israeli parliament member Danny Danon, that she had Israeli flags “on my desk, in my home, all over the place.” Mrs. Palin also announced she had bought an Israeli flag in Israel and intended to carry it around in America, possibly as a prop in her speech-making and political fund-raising. Although Mrs. Palin strongly endorses cutting many domestic spending programs that help American citizens and urges trimming the U.S. foreign aid budget, she said during her trip to Israel that she vehemently opposes curtailing any of America’s give-aways to Israel that are generally reported by the media to be roughly $4 billion per year, but have been estimated by former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) to reach as high as $25 billion per year, including all grants, loans, forms of military aid and supplementary support measures.
Mrs. Palin’s pandering in Israel is no surprise to those familiar with her record. As AMERICAN FREE PRESS demonstrated in its un-refuted in-depth report, The Power Behind Sarah Palin, the outspoken Alaskan has—from the beginning of her entrée onto the national stage—relied on a host of influential pro-Israel ideologues as her intimate advisors, most notably among them “neo-conservative” William Kristol, one of the chief architects of the U.S. war in Iraq, and one of the key figures responsible for placing Mrs. Palin on the 2008 GOP ticket. #——
On Nov. 6, both Bob Herbert and Charles M. Blow —conventional “mainstream” pundits of the classic Times stripe—had side-by-side columns on the Times’s popular op-ed page, trumpeting the proposition that both the “liberal Democrats” and the “conservative Republicans” are politically, intellectually and, for all intents and purposes, morally bankrupt.
The nation is endangered, they wrote, unless there are solutions and saviors that emerge outside the conventional liberal-conservative paradigm to which Americans have become accustomed through the “two party” system that now prevails.
Writing in the Times, Herbert—in his “Tone-Deaf in DC” column—stated flatly:
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are offering voters the kind of change that they seem so desperately to want. . . .What voters want is leadership that will help them through an economic nightmare and fix a country that has been pitched into a state of sharp decline. They long for leaders with a clear and compelling vision of a better America and a road map for getting there. That leadership has long been AWOL. The hope in the tumultuous elections of 2008 was that it would come from Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but that hope, after just two years, is on life support. . . .The Democrats are in disarray because it’s a party that lacks a spine. The Republicans, conversely, fight like wild people whether they’re in the majority or not. What neither party is doing is offering a bold, coherent plan to get the nation’s economy in good shape and create jobs, to bring our young men and women home from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to rebuild the education system in a way that will prepare the next generation for the great challenges of the 21st century . . . .
Blow’s column, “The Great American Cleaving,” echoed Herbert’s thinking:
We now stand in the twilight of American moderation. We have retreated to our respective political corners and armed ourselves in an ideological standoff over the very meaning of America, having diametrically opposed interpretations of its past and visions for its future. Talking across the table has been reduced to yelling across the chasm. Welcome to the Great American Cleaving. . . . Instead of moving toward the middle, we are drifting toward the extremes. . . . That ripping sound you hear is the fabric of a nation.
It is true that both “major” parties are bankrupt and that the two-party system is corrupt. AMERICAN FREE PRESS and all honest independent voices have said that for years. However, from the fact that The New York Times is airing this idea on a regular basis, in commentaries coming from its key columnists, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the powerful network of billionaire families and closely interconnected financial interests that control the major print and broadcasting conglomerates (and likewise are interlocked with the private Federal Reserve money monopoly) has now decided to give Americans an ostensible alternative to the two major parties.
Predictably, the Times has been joined by its down-coast neighbor, The Washington Post, which has likewise been clamoring for some sort of “centrist” solution to Democratic-Republican gridlock. But it would be an alternative under the control of the very elements that now control the Democratic and Republican parties.
However, one of The New York Times’ most influential in-house columnists—Thomas L. Friedman—revealed Oct. 3 that there is an ongoing effort to set up a new “centrist” third party in time for the 2012 election.
The new party will shun both the “liberal left” and the “conservative right” and stand for “centrist, bipartisan” policies. Or, should that be tri-partisan?
Friedman’s column is part of an increasingly open campaign by monopolistic media controllers to conjure up a “centrist” rebellion in America, even to the point of launching a third party to vanquish both liberal Barack Obama—presuming he is re-nominated by the Democratic Party—and a “conservative” Republican challenger.
AFP warned this “centrist” movement would be a classic “controlled opposition,” dominated by the very big money forces—here and abroad —in the Rothschild banking dynasty’s sphere of influence that have controlled both major parties through their stranglehold over major media outlets shaping public opinion.
Friedman’s column was titled bluntly: “Third party rising.” He wrote: “There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center.”
Friedman described “two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast,” working to build third party movements that the columnist said would “challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady decline.”
Friedman added that Obama had not been a failure but that Obama “probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point.” In Friedman’s overrated estimation, “The best our current two parties can produce today— in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century—is sub-optimal, even when one party had a huge majority.”
He added: “Sub-optimal is OK for ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times” (his emphasis). Instead, he wrote: “We need to stop waiting for Superman and start building a super-consensus to do the super-hard stuff we must do now.”
To elaborate, the columnist quoted Larry Diamond, a Stanford University political scientist, who said: “We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country.” Friedman concluded, basing his opinion on Diamond’s views: “We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party. . . .We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: ‘These two parties are lying to you. . . .’ ”
Now, adding further to AFP’s informed speculation about high-level maneuvering by the media-political elite toward a “centrist” third party, the day after the 2010 elections, The New York Times featured a commentary by retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) calling for his own party to “grab the center,” no matter that “extremes of both parties will be disappointed.”
Bayh proclaimed, “The vast center yearning for progress will applaud.” The significance? In AFP’s original report, AFP pinpointed a variety of evidence that Bayh—a known participant in the Bilderberg group—was being touted as a likely key player in the new centrist party venture.
To underscore the point that there is a growing “moderate consensus” that could emerge in the 2012 elections, The New York Times featured an amazing story on its front page on Oct. 8 entitled “Some in GOP find soft spot for Bill Clinton.”
Times correspondent Jennifer Steinhauer reported—with full, ironic seriousness:
Many Republicans with a deep animus for President Obama find their hearts aflutter with the memory of a former leader. He was a compassionate conservative, a guy who cared about free trade, a man who reached across the aisle. He is the husband of the secretary of state.”
The Times article added that such august “conservative” Republican leaders as Mormon icon Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) were among those praising Clinton. Although former Sen.Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was expelled as Senate majority leader for having made friendly remarks about ex-segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), Lott was quoted as saying: “You know with Clinton the chemistry was right. He was a good old boy from Arkansas. I was a good old boy from Mississippi.”
Even so-called conservative firebrand Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), considered an up-and-coming figure in GOP ranks, was quoted as saying of Clinton: “The first two years of his term were one thing, but the rest of his presidency was tempered with moderation, and the nation benefited.”
Ryan’s remarks, it would seem, should shock the average grass-roots Republican who probably would remember that “the rest” of the Clinton presidency included a vast array of scandals—not the least of which was the Lewinsky affair that resulted in an enthusiastic effort by Republicans to impeach the president.
Now, however, that the national-level elite opinion makers are working to sway public sentiment in favor of a “bipartisan consensus” (as part of an effort to stir up a “centrist” third party movement in the upcoming presidential election), key GOP leaders are being turned into Clinton cheerleaders.
It’s as if they are encouraging Bill and Hillary Clinton to break with the Democratic Party, go “centrist” and pull the rug out from under Obama. To add further fuel to that possibility, note that The Washington Post recently headlined an Associated Press (AP) story, which was also circulated in other newspapers across America: “Democrats divided on Obama in 2012. Poll finds about half saying he should face nomination challenge.”
The story told of an AP poll claiming that 47 percent of Democrats actually believe the once popular incumbent president should be challenged. And evidently, Mrs. Clinton is the favorite among most of those Democrats fed up with Obama.
So while many “right wing” folks view the Clintons as anything but “centrist” and “very liberal” indeed, don’t forget that, for years, prior to his winning the presidency, the Clintons were major figures in the Democratic Leadership Council—a preeminent “centrist” force within Democratic ranks.
The terms “liberal,” “conservative” and “centrist” can mean just about anything when the elite media are defining them for the American public, especially in the course of attempting to manipulate a political action.
On Oct. 25, writing in the Post, much-touted “economist” Robert Samuelson joined the clamor for a “centrist” uprising. In a commentary entitled “Politics has lost its center of balance,” Samuelson wrote of the “mass discontent” in America, arising from the left-right divide. Liberals and conservatives are “too radical or unrealistic” and Samuelson emphasized the point that what he called “the center” is frustrated by such sharp-edged conflicts which, according to Samuelson, are dominated by ideologues who make “no room for compromise.”
Both the Democratic and Republican parties are too much in tune with “the base” (that is, the “liberals” hold sway in the Democratic Party and “conservatives” in the Republican Party) and not open to bipartisan centrist concerns—or so he says.
In Samuelson’s assessment, the 2010 congressional elections will not resolve what he calls the “stalemate” in American political affairs.
Although grassroots Americans fed up with politics as usual would love to see a genuine third party or independent uprising in America, it is vital that they are not fooled by this false entity being conjured up in the laboratories
of the “Dr. Frankensteins” of the mass media and its big-money controllers.
(Issue # 46, November 15, 2010)
James Tisch, who has held several key positions in the Jewish world, has been elected as chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel's board of governors.
Exclusive Intelligence Examiner Report
The President Finally Stands Up to the World’s Tormentors—Will All Hell Now Break Loose?
The Battle Lines Are Drawn
Taking on the Chicago "Dons"
Just Saying No to Homosexual Perverts and Illegal Aliens
Keeping Campaign Promises—Tax Breaks for Middle Class
Taking on the Jewish-Owned Healthcare Insurers
The Jews Retaliate
Obama Tired of Being Their “Nigger”
Jewish Lie: “Obama is a Moslem”
Pastor Wright and Farrakhan Spill the Beans About the Jews
Blacks Disappointed in Obama
Obama Joins Other Courageous Presidents
What Will Happen to Obama?
The Jews Will Kill Him...Or Depose Him
Does He Have the Guts to Continue the Battle?
|“And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations.” (Revelation 2:26)|
POSTNOTE: Rahm Emanuel is already gone, having resigned October 1st. As unbelievable as it is, his White House associates gave Rahm Emanuel a dead fish as a going away gift. This is, of course, a death sign of the Chicago mafia (Click here to read article). David Axelrod has publicly announced that he, too, is leaving the White House. Larry Summers, also, is departing. Peter Orszag resigned as Budget Director. The other Jews on my Swindler's List are afraid that they are next. The war heats up.
Obama prêt à abandonner Israël !
Israël et les Etats-Unis sont prêts à une confrontation si le Président Barack Obama maintient son refus d’utiliser son droit de véto contre la résolution arabo-palestinienne soumise au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU condamnant Israël pour sa politique d’implantation en Cisjordanie et Jérusalem-Est, comme l’indiquent des sources proches de Washington.
U.S. President Barack Obama is targeted because of standing up to the Jews who control American politics as well as its economy, the Chicago Sun Times quoted the leader of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan as saying on Monday.
Farrakhan, speaking to a crowd of 20,000 followers at Chicago's United Center on Sunday, said that Obama's political problems began when he, according to the Chicago Sun Times report, stood up to the Jewish lobby during a White House meeting.
When they left the White House, his problems began," Farrakhan said, adding that "the Zionists are in control of the Congress."
Minister Farrakhan also referred to the U.S. president's chief economical advisors, Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulson and Larry Summers, asking "Who does he have around him? The people from Goldman Sachs."
The leader of the Nation of Islam added that "bloodsuckers of the poor" were rewarded with a bailout.
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in response to Farrakhan's speech that "anybody who thought the old Farrakhan was gone: He never was."
"It's the same Farrakhan: ugly and anti-Semitic. With age, he doesn't get milder, he gets uglier."
Further on in his address, Farrakhan also reiterated his claims that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was "an inside thing."
Last year, the Anti-Defamation League lashed out at Farrakhan for remarks he made in which he accused "the Israeli lobby" of controlling the government.
"When the people of Gaza were being slaughtered, the pro-Israeli lobby sent messages to the House and the Senate of words that they wanted them to use, gave them the language, and now you have bipartisan support," Farrakhan told supporters in Rosemont, Illinois in a speech.
"You cannot deny the pro-Israeli lobby and get re-elected," Farrakhan said. "Ask Cynthia McKinney. Ask David Hilliard. Ask our mayor in Oakland, California. Ask [former Illinois Senator Charles] Percy. Ask Jimmy Carter. You can't criticize, you can't say nothing because if you do, you're branded as an anti-Semite."
"Why, U.S. Congress, will you not speak? It is because you fear a lobby that has money and influence that will turn you out of your seat? So you're terrorized. That's why you don't act for the American people that sent you to Congress. You are not their representative. You are the representative of the money and interests that have bought your soul."
At one point during his address, Farrakhan implied that the validity of Holocaust records should be open to debate.
"[You] can't even engage in constructive argument over the veracity of the figures of the Holocaust. We know something happened, sure, but you can't talk about [it]. In certain cities in Europe they arrest you and put you in prison for denying such."
"There's not a vote that the pro-Israeli lobby wants that doesn't get bipartisan support," Farrakhan said. "Why? Because the Israeli lobby controls the government of the United States of America."
The remarks were again met with strong condemnation by Abe Foxman.
"Louis Farrakhan is at it again," said Foxman. "After his near-silence on Jews over the last several years, we thought Minister Farrakhan had put his long history of anti-Semitism and racism behind him, or at least had held his views in check. Apparently, that was wishful thinking. Once again he is clearly comfortable with putting his bigotry on display, unfettered and unhidden for his supporters and the world to see."
CANTOR THE POWERFUL: House Majority Leader tops GQ’s “50 most powerful people in Washington list.”
(VOIR: Rep. Eric Cantor, dangereux juif orthodoxe intégriste, tient à protéger les allocations étatsuniennes à Israël)
Sur ce blog:
Un "troisième" parti soutenu par Rothschild en voie d'émergence aux États-Unis
La terrible réalité derrière le "Tea Party" et les plans en vue d'un troisième parti aux États-Unis
Le dernier des trois juifs les plus influents de l'administration Obama vient de quitter son poste
Les pires sionistes se sont ligués contre Obama