Bilderberg.org

[vicflame]

NOVEMBER 2008: THE AMERICAN NON-ELECTIONS! OBAMA, CLINTON, HUCKABEE OR MC CAIN? NO MATTER WHO WILL BE ELECTED, THE NEW WORLD ORDER WILL RULE: ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE SPONSORED BY THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS!!!



Dear friends,

I want to post you some articles that will enlighten you about the candidates to the American non-election that will take place in November 2008. It will be the same nazi spawn of the New World Order that will be elected! WHY? BECAUSE ALL THE CANDIDATES (EXCEPT MAYBE RON PAUL) ARE SPONSORED BY THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (CFR, ONE OF THE HIGH INSTITUTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER)!!!

The following link will give you some proofs about it (watch the videos):

http://www.supplementbuzz.com/tag_cfr.html

Let’s take a closer look at the candidates:

John Mc Cain himself is not only a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), but he is also a warmonger (he preaches war against Iran) and, as a “bonus”, he is related with the mafia (see the article below, which confirms his link with the mafia)!

Two persons are presented by the mass media prostitutes as the « main » candidates: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They BOTH are sponsored by members of the CFR! For instance, behind Hillary Clinton, we find « counselor » Madeleine Albright (CFR)! Behind Barack Obama, there’s Zbigniew Brzezinski (director of the CFR from 1972 to 1977 and founder and first president of the Trilateral Commission, another New World Order institution!)!

Huckabee too is linked to the CFR, and his nazi and warmongering speech about foreign policy has been posted on the CFR’s website (cf. the article that I posted several weeks ago on the French speaking forum on the topic “forum discussion libre n°4”)!

Only Ron Paulseems to be against war and seems to be willing to bring back liberties and, APPARENTLY, he’s not part of the nazi and global elite. He was asked whether he was a member of the CFR or not, and he answered: « I’ve been waiting for my invitation, but I didn’t received it yet » (please note that he would be ready and willing to be part of it! ). You can watch a video about this on http://www.supplementbuzz.com/video_NV_AML16tC8.html .

So, one way or another, with one candidate or another, the U.S. citizens are LURED and screwed once again! The USA seem to be condemned to the evil regime of the repugnant and malevolent institutions of the New World Order...

Currently, U.S. politics (and also politics in our European countries) are just a pile of garbage that serves the awful purposes of the global elites!

And so, there is ONLY ONE SOLUTION LEFT TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS IF THEY WANT TO BRING BACK THEIR LIBERTIES: REVOLUTION!!! But will they only understand this in time? The situation is already so bad, and tyranny is already so advanced in the USA that I’m almost about to say that it’s too late for them.

Please read the articles below…

HAVE A NICE REVOLUTION, OR A NICE SLAVERY!!! Vic.



Source : http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/3514/Behind_Obama_and_Clinton

BEHIND OBAMA AND CLINTON

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:34:24 -0600

By Stephen Zunes

Who's whispering in their ears says a lot

Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.

As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.

The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they’ll be likely to face as president?


Contrasting Teams

Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor – and her likely choice for Secretary of State – is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power – author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq – and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


Contrasting Issues

While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.

While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that “the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.


Iraq as Key Indicator

Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.

Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.


Pre-War Positions

During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.”

Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.

Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”

By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”

Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.

And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.


National Security

Not every one of Clinton’s foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.

Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”

And new approaches are definitely needed.


Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco and an analyst at Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article was republished from with permission.



Source : http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57354

ELECTION 2008

MCCAIN FORTUNE TRACED TO ORGANIZED CRIME

Mob figures later implicated in Arizona savings and loan scandal

Posted: February 26, 2008
9:29 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
2008 WorldNetDaily

John McCain's personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona, through his father-in-law, according to a report published by a multi-news agency team called Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc.
IRE reporters Amy Silverman and John Doherty, writing in the Phoenix New Times, note that the father of McCain's wife, James Hensley, was convicted by a federal jury in U.S. District Court of Arizona in March 1948 on seven counts of filing false liquor records. Hensley also was charged with conspiracy to hide from federal authorities the names of persons involved in a liquor industry racket with two companies he managed, United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson.
The umbrella company, United Liquor, at that time held a monopoly in Arizona, organized and managed by Kemper Marley, who was accused of mob ties by a reporter who was murdered in 1977.

Silverman and Doherty report that by 1955, Hensley had launched a Budweiser distributorship in Phoenix, "a franchise reportedly bestowed upon him by Marley, who was never indicted in the 1948 liquor-law-violation case – or a subsequent one – despite his controlling role in the liquor distribution businesses."

According to Marley's longtime public relations man, Al Lizanetz, the Marley liquor empire was founded by the Bronfman family dynasty of Canada which operated Allied Finance Company, Northern Export Company and Distillers Corporation – the Seagrams, Ltd. empire.
As chronicled by the "Rumrunners and Prohibition" video shown popularly on the History Channel, during the 1920s, the Bronfman family made millions in bootlegging, accounting for half the illegal liquor crossing the border, working in a profitable distribution deal with the infamous mobster Meyer Lansky, who later moved on to establish the crime syndicates in the casinos of Havana, Cuba, in the 1940s and 50s.

Arizona in the 1970s drew a "who's who" of organized crime figures seeking to retire in the sun, including Rochester, N.Y., mob boss Joe Bonanno, who spent his last days along the Lake Havasu shores and in a quiet home in Tucson.

In 1977, after Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles was killed when his car was blown up by the mob in a parking lot, a team of 36 journalists from 27 news organizations, known as IRE, published an 80,000 word 23-part series on organized crime in Arizona.

Dan Nowicki and Bill Muller, reporting in the Arizona Republic March 1, 2007, documented that in 1953, Hensley was again charged with falsifying records at Marley's liquor firms.

Hensley was found not guilty after being defended by William Rehnquist, the future chief justice of the Supreme Court, Nowicki and Muller wrote.
In 2000, Hensley, then 80 years old, still controlled the Budweiser distributorship valued as a $200 million-a-year business, with annual sales of more than 20 million cases of beer.

On Feb. 17, 2000, Pat Flannery reported in the Arizona Republic that Hensley's beer-distribution empire was the fifth largest in the nation, "a Budweiser franchise whose bigwigs hold the No. 2 spot on Sen. John McCain's all-time career list of corporate donors."

Since 1982, according to the Center for Public Integrity, Hensley & Co. officials have pumped $80,000 into the campaigns of McCain, Flannery wrote. More than a quarter of that has been donated since 1997.
Flannery further reported that in 2000, Cindy Hensley McCain, the senator's wife, held a 37.18 percent financial interest in her father's Budweiser distributorship, although she was not involved in day-to-day operations.

The McCain's four children held a combined 23.55 percent interest, though their interests were at that time held in trust.

Arizona crime connections again surfaced in the 1980s when McCain was implicated as one of the five U.S. senators named in the "Keating Five" scandal.

Charles Keating Jr. and his associates paid McCain some $112,000 in political campaign contributions between 1982 and 1987, while Keating was organizing a massive real estate fraud in the then FDIC federally insured Lincoln Savings and Loan Association.

In April 1986, McCain's wife and father-in-law also invested $359,000 in a Keating shopping center, before the savings and loan scandal broke.
Keating was sent to prison under civil racketeering and fraud charges for the $1.1 billion loss the investment scheme cost the public, although McCain and the other U.S. senators involved managed to avoid charges in the Senate, with McCain receiving only an Ethics Committee rebuke for exercising "poor judgment."

Even today, McCain's 2008 presidential campaign staff includes several prominent lobbyists, despite the senator's claim to be a campaign reform crusader whose goal is to take money out of politics.

WND previously reported McCain's 2000 and 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis took a six-figure salary as president of the Soros-funded Reform Institute in the intervening years and managed his own lobby firm of Davis, Manafort & Freeman in Alexandria, Va., operating at the same building in a suite down the hall from the Reform Institute.

In 2003 and 2004, Davis apparently solicited CSC Holdings, a subsidiary of the Cablevision Systems Corporation, headed by Charles F. Dolan, to make two separate $100,000 contributions to the Reform Institute.
In between the two separate $100,000 contributions Cablevision made to the Reform Institute, McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission supporting Cablevision's desire to continue packaging customer TV programming in a manner more profitable to Cablevision.

In this period of time, McCain worked with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist representing telecommunications companies, including Cablevision.
WND also reported Davis arranged a 2006 meeting with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in Davos, Switzerland, a close supporter of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

McCain repeatedly has voiced opposition to Putin, even calling on President Bush to suspend Russia's membership in the Group of Eight.
In 2007, the U.S. State Department cancelled Deripaska's visa over continuing concerns he remained connected with the Russian mafia.

[samuel]

I found a list of the countender for the vice-presidency if McCain wins..
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/811f83b8-ea55-11dc-b3c9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


Reading your article makes me think that obama is the right choice..while McCain may make violent crisis if he doesn't get what he wants.
_________________
What is possible if you take into account the amount of cynism by the majority who vote?

[vicflame]

Dear Samuel,


I really don't see how you came to the conclusion that "Obama is the right choice".

You probably did'nt read what I wrote properly...

Obama is rotten to the core, just like the other candidates !

The lesser evil is Ron Paul. And that doesn't mean that he's not evil...

Obama's wife is CFR (she's in a Chicago branch of the CFR);, and Obama is supported by Brzezinski (CFR AND TRILATERAL COMMISSION = NEW WORLD ORDER ALL THE WAY ! ) !

SO please don't be dumb, thinking that Obama is "the right candidate" !

Vic.

[samuel]

I feel myself as pragmatic, a sickness that everyone has all the time but a rare time where there is capacity to understand everything.

So please don't treat me as an imbecile, you may find yourself drown by the amount of people who are short termist.

“Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”

Sorry but the only difference we have between each others is the assumption that people in a majority and a majority of the time are able or not to grasp everything so not to be scared to be courageous.
_________________
What is possible if you take into account the amount of cynism by the majority who vote?

[vicflame]

My point was :

ALL of the main candidates presented by the mass medias (Mc Cain, Huckabee, Clinton and Obama) are SOLD TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND ARE SPONSORED BY NEW WORLD ORDER ORGANIZATIONS AND THINK TANKS (CFR, TRILATERAL COMMISSION).

Voting for ANY of these persons is A COLOSSAL MISTAKE, and won't change a thing.

I hope I was clear enough.

Vic.

[CJ]

Spot on!

[samuel]

http://www.larouchepac.com/packages/2008/01/09/another-british-tool-bloomberg-mussolini-project.html

Do you believe this?
_________________
What is possible if you take into account the amount of cynism by the majority who vote?

[lauchenauermartin]

Behind Obama is Brzezinski... And he is real evil!!!!

Hillary is a real witch - remember when she had a message in front of an US flag where all stars looked downwards...
(Sign of Satnism)

With McCain you could get immediately WW III...

So what to do?

Pray! and tell your friends in the US about!!!

For German reading people I give you this link from Professor Schüler

[url]http://politikglobal.blogspot.com/search/label/Teufelsanbeter[/url

The title is = Adorer of the Devil
(For English speaking people - have a look at the pictures - very telling and some links).

Martin
_________________

http://www.whatabeginning.com

http://www.otherbiblecode.com

[vicflame]

Dear Samuel,


Schwarzie backing a BILLIONAIRE (= global elite) ? Political power backing the corporatist scum ? Abolutely. It's not only possible, but in our sad era, it has become common.

An "undercover candidate" ? Well, this seems less likely, but who knows ?

ANYTHING is now possible in this very beautiful, but alas crazy and nazi country that the USA has become :

1) George W. "Caligula" Bush declares martial law and holds power indefinitely, becoming a full dictator. Don't say it's "impossible" : all the laws are there and ready for that scenario. All it would take is a little "terrorist" attack, an epidemic or a natural disaster.

2) One of the 4 "New World Order sponsored candidates" (Obama, Clinton, Mc Cain, Huckabee - all backed by the CFR ) becomes president.

3) A "surprise" candidate (Bloomberg, billionaire and member of the global elite) appears and becomes president. Less likely in my opinion, but still, the New World Order wins.


IN ANY CASE AND ANY SCENARIO, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GETS SCREWED !!!

The ONLY real solution for the U.S. right now is a REVOLUTION that will reestablish the Bill of Rights, suppress the antiterrorist laws of exception (Patriot Act), stop the shameful war and bring back liberties !

Other than a revolution of the American people, don't expect a miracle. The U.S. political system is rotten to the core.

To tell you the truth, I don't really believe the American sheeple (oops, sorry... I meant the American people !) will revolt and rebel. They are way too WEAK and MANIPULATED for that. We have the same case in Europe, where suppression of liberties are going on. The mass medias prostitutes play their role so perfectly and manipulate the public so totally that I believe the U.S. citizens will elect ANYONE the medias show and present as the "best potential president". This is not only valid for the USA, but also for France : during the 2007 presidential campaign, from the start, the medias had forecasted a "Royal-Sarkozy" duel. The result : people voted for the persons that the medias had presented as the 2 main candidates, and we had indeed a duel "Ségolène Royal-Nicolas Sarkozy" !

Vic.