Romney and Obama Share Same Bankster Campaign Contributors

Romney and Obama Share Same Bankster Campaign Contributors Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com January 17, 2012 Like Obama, Mitt Romney is a wind-up doll for Wall Street and the bankers. There is virtually no difference between them despite all the fetid air from the GOP propaganda machine.

Romney’s Bain Capital owns the “conservative” propaganda machine, Clear Channel.

This is revealed by a quick look at Romney’s top contributors. An Open Secrets page on top Romney contributors reads like a Who’s Who of Wall Street and the financial cartel. The top contributor is Goldman Sachs, followed by Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Barclays – major players in the Wall Street and City of London bankster constellation.

Bain Capital is also on the list. It is a “financial services” and investment firm co-founded by Romney. Bain owns the establishment media propaganda conglomerate Clear Channel, which explains why “conservative” talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin are supporting Romney, especially with the strong showing of Ron Paul in the primaries. Both Savage (real name Weiner) and Levin have gone so far as to call Paul a threat to the country.

In December, Mitt refused to release the identity of his “bundlers,” or people who gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community and give the cash to the campaign.

In other words, the above list is only the tip of the iceberg.

Romney’s lack of transparency about his bundlers indicates he is getting money from sources that want their identity concealed.

In November, it was reported that Jimmy Lee, a veteran Wall Street investment banker, and three other top executives at JPMorgan Chase & Co hosted a $2,500-per-person reception for Romney.

“I am committed to doing all that I can to help his campaign because I also believe he is the strongest challenger to President Obama,” Lee told Reuters.

Lee said he has known Romney for almost all of his Wall Street career and that he made one of the first loans to Romney at Bain Capital.

It is not clear why Mr. Lee opposes Obama – his campaign contributors are 1. almost a carbon copy of Mitt’s. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan (where Lee worked), Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, USB and many of the same players donated heavily to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

It should be obvious by now that the dog and pony show known as the “election cycle” in the United States is a musical chairs affair with the same gaggle of bankers and transnational corporations calling the shots.

Next time you hear Michael Savage, Mark Levin or some other bankster media whore rant and rave about the “communist” Obama and then declare their support for the “capitalist” Romney, you should realize they are selling the same poison designed to kill our republic.

There is virtually no difference between any of the establishment candidates – they are all onboard with the globalist agenda for war and the economic destruction of America as their masters and puppeteers move to consolidate their stranglehold over humanity and impose a dystopian one-world government and a high-tech control grid over the entire world.

WHO ARE THE IDIOTS VOTING FOR MITT ROMNEY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kdkBIdUV-w We the People vs. Mitt Romney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vv-tskCDvU

Mitt Romney Would Sign NDAA Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com January 17, 2012 During the latest “debate” in South Carolina, Mitt Romney said that if he were president he would sign the the National Defense Authorization Act. Mitt Romney - Yes I would Sign NDAA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQhmdhPeaIw

Prior to his recent assertion that it is perfectly normal to dispense with the Fourth Amendment and suspend habeas corpus, Romney said he 1. wasn’t up to speed on the law and promised to post an analysis on his website, which he never did.

Romney said you don’t have the “right to join a group that has challenged America” and then mentioned al-Qaeda, the terror group that the FBI admits poses little threat to the nation.

The NDAA, however, is not about indefinitely detaining Muslim cave dwellers. It’s about disappearing American citizens who oppose the bankster cartel now in control of the government.

The law is a “violent and sudden usurpation” of the Constitution of the sort James Madison warned about. The founders considered habeas corpus the most fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could not hold people without cause. It was so important the founders included it in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

Truman tried to veto the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but he was overturned by Congress.Truman said it was “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly” since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 and represented a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and was a “long step toward totalitarianism.”

In the years after Truman’s warning, the government slowly chipped away at the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus as it passed the McCartney-Walter Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the

Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (following the Oklahoma false flag), the Patriot Act (following the 9/11 false flag), and has finally repealed the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights with the passage of the NDAA. As Sherwood Ross notes, with the passage of the NDAA, we have returned “to the disgraceful Korematsu Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.�

World War II, however, had an end, whereas the bogus war on terrorism is designed to last forever, as our leaders have stated on a number of occasions.

Romney has no opinion on the Constitution, Magna Carta, and centuries of common law.

He is an empty vessel filled up with nonsense produced by the global elite who run the disgusting dog and pony shows that now pass as elections in the United States.

The ruling elite behind the curtain have worked slowly and methodically to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It stands in the way of their plan to implement world government and a global banking and economic system. Habeas corpus is a thorn in the side that prevents them from sending out the military to disappear those of us opposed to their plan for a global totalitarian future now under construction. They now have that power.

Journalist Sues Obama Over Indefinite Detention Law Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Tuesday, January 17, 2012 NDAA provision could be a one way ticket to Gitmo for reporters, claims class action lawsuit Journalist Chris Hedges has filed a class action lawsuit against President Barack Obama over his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, claiming that the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the bill could see him sent to Guantanamo Bay simply for doing his job.

The controversial legislation, signed into law by Obama on New Years Eve, allows American citizens to be abducted and held in a detention camp anywhere in the world without trial under section 1031.

“Plaintiff Christopher Hedges is a journalist whose profession requires, in part: 1) that he have communication with and personal and direct intercourse with persons who are likely to be deemed engaged in hostilities with the United States under the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force, Public Law 107-40] and the Homeland Battlefield Bill; 2) that he travel to see and meet with such persons; 3) that he report on the activities and beliefs of such persons; and 4) through his journalistic endeavors to convey their philosophy and belief systems to the public at large,” states the complaint.

Hedges points to an article he wrote which seeks to understand why Muslims are turning to radical Islamists such as the Palestinian Hamas and the Shiite Hezbollah as an example of how he could be accused of supporting parties who are engaged in hostilities against the United States, characterized as a terrorist sympathizer, and carted off to a detention camp.

Hedges is demanding the law be declared null and void because it directly violates the 1st and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution, and constitutional rights on access to civilian courts.

Hedges’ case will be heard by Obama appointee

U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest and he is being represented by Princeton, N.J.based attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran.

Although President Obama indicated in a signing statement attached to the bill that he would not use it to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial, it was the Obama administration itself which requested that the provision be worded so it would apply to US citizens.

As the bill’s co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin 1. said during a speech on the floor last month, it was the Obama administration that demanded the removal of language that would have precluded Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges wrote in an article published yesterday. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags.

I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”

The subject of the National Defense Authorization Act cropped up during last night’s Republican debate in South Carolina. Despite admitting he was not up to speed on the law, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney said he would have signed the bill.

What 70 Downed Drones Tell Us About the New American Way of War Nick Turse 1. Tom Dispatch Janaury 17, 2012 American fighter jets screamed over the Iraqi countryside heading for the MQ-1 Predator drone, while its crew in California stood by helplessly.

What had begun as an ordinary reconnaissance mission was now taking a ruinous turn. In an instant, the jets attacked and then it was all over.

The Predator, one of the Air Force’s workhorse hunter/killer robots, had been obliterated.

An account of the spectacular end of that nearly $4 million drone in November 2007 is contained in a collection of Air Force accident investigation documents recently examined by TomDispatch.

They catalog more than 70 catastrophic Air Force drone mishaps since 2000, each resulting in the loss of an aircraft or property damage of $2 million or more.

These official reports, some obtained by TomDispatch through the Freedom of Information Act, offer new insights into a largely covert, yet highly touted war-fighting, assassination, and spy program involving armed robots that are significantly less reliable than previously acknowledged. These planes, the latest wonder weapons in the U.S. military arsenal, are tested, launched, and piloted from a shadowy network of more than 60 bases spread around the globe, often in support of elite teams of special operations forces. Collectively, the Air Force documents offer a remarkable portrait of modern drone warfare, one rarely found in a decade of generally triumphalist or awestruck press accounts that seldom mention the limitations of drones, much less their mission failures.

The aerial disasters described draw attention not only to the technical limitations of drone warfare, but to

larger conceptual flaws inherent in such operations.

Launched and landed by aircrews close to battlefields in places like Afghanistan, the drones are controlled during missions by pilots and sensor operators — often multiple teams over many hours — from bases in places like Nevada and North Dakota. They are sometimes also monitored by “screeners” from private security contractors at stateside bases like Hurlburt Field in Florida. (A recent McClatchy report revealed that it takes nearly 170 people to keep a single Predator in the air for 24 hours.)

In other words, drone missions, like the robots themselves, have many moving parts and much, it turns out, can and does go wrong. In that November 2007 Predator incident in Iraq, for instance, an electronic failure caused the robotic aircraft to engage its self-destruct mechanism and crash, after which U.S. jets destroyed the wreckage to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. In other cases, drones — officially known as remotely piloted aircraft, or RPAs — broke down, escaped human control and oversight, or self-destructed for reasons ranging from pilot error and bad weather to mechanical failure in Afghanistan, Djibouti, the Gulf of Aden, Iraq, Kuwait, and various other unspecified or classified foreign locations, as well as in the United States.

Read full article here

Fox News Caught Completely Excluding Ron Paul From Post Steve Watson 1. Prisonplanet.com January 17, 2012 After huge volume of complaints, Fox reporter was forced to do-over post debate breakdown revealing that Ron Paul blitzed the debate in every category The dirty tricks campaign against GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul reached new heights during the South Carolina debate last night, with virtual exclusion from the first 40 minutes of the program, poisonous questions in the second half, and a cringe inducing situation during the post debate analysis where Fox pundits were forced to admit that Paul had completely wiped the

floor with the other candidates.

During the post debate commentary, Fox reporter John Roberts blatantly excluded Paul from the charts and graphs he presented representing feedback from viewers.

The results of Twitter surveys on which candidate had most accurately answered questions and who had performed the best were displayed with Ron Paul’s name nowhere to be seen.

Almost one hour later, Roberts was called upon to go over the results one more time, after floods of complaints from viewers asking why Paul had been left out.

“John, you caused a fury in my world.” Fox anchor Harris Faulkner began. “I have a bone to pick with you. You left off Ron Paul.” she added, before Roberts attempted to slime out of the fact hat he had totally excluded Paul from his results tally by saying that because Ron Paul won by huge margins in every category, it was unnecessary to report on it!

Roberts then went through each debate topic again with Paul added to the graphic. As he explained the result Roberts downplayed and skipped over Ron Paul’s figures in every category, causing Harris Faulkner to interject.

“John, can I stop you right there because I’m getting real time feedback.” Faulkner said. “Ron Paul did not just do well, he did the best from that chart. I just want to be fair because people are watching for this.” she added.

Roberts then laughed out loud and flippantly said “his bars are bigger than everyone else’s, we report you decide.” before once again mocking Paul’s performance as he continued the presentation.

Watch the unbelievable footage below: Ron Paul is the winner in South Carolina debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjkLOvD40E

The fact that Ron Paul was the outright winner of the debate was remarkable, given the fact that the moderators had done their utmost to exclude, smear and misrepresent the Congressman earlier in the night.

The opening portion of the debate was exclusively reserved for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to attack frontrunner Mitt Romney in an atmosphere that more resembled The Jerry Springer show than a coherent political debate.

Refraining from joining in with such pantomime ridiculousness, Ron Paul patiently waited to be addressed by the moderators… and waited… and waited.

Indeed, during the first 40 minutes Ron Paul was only asked one question, and that was about “scathing attacks” on the other candidates in campaign ads. Refusing to be drawn into what was rapidly becoming something resembling an opening segment of WWE Smackdown, Paul succinctly noted that he believed pointing out legitimate flaws in the other candidates voting records was fair game.

As the exclusion of Paul continued, it even triggered a commercial break discussion between the Fox political panel about how Paul was being sidelined. Analyst Ed Rollins commented, “I thought Paul placed second in New Hampshire and was effectively second in Iowa – but they’ve got him standing way over on the side.”

When Paul was finally asked further questions, they were so leading and laced with underlying venom it defied belief.

With almost every question the Congressman had to begin his answer by correcting the moderators for grossly distorting his position on multiple issues.

Firstly, Paul had to once again explain that there is a significant difference between “defense spending” and Pentagon waste, and that he is not about to decimate military funding, as the moderators suggested.

“You don’t understand there’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend — spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad bigger than the Vatican — you consider that defense spending. I consider that waste.” Paul said to thunderous applause.

“I want to cut military money. I don’t want to cut defense money,” Paul said. “I want to bring the troops home. I’d probably have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That’s how we got into trouble. So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that’s what we should do,” he contended.

Following that, Fox Moderator Bret Baier then essentially called Paul a terrorist-sympathizer by suggesting

that he was opposed to the capture of Osama Bin Laden and that international law should have prevented US forces from tracking Bin Laden down.

“Obviously no, and I did not say that.” Paul retorted, explaining that he voted for provisions to go after Bin Laden following 9/11, and even introduced legislation to keep focused on the target, rather than become embroiled in nation building.

Paul then explained that “there are proper procedures, rather than digging bigger holes for ourselves”, noting that a ten year campaign of bombing Pakistan and repeatedly violating their sovereignty was not something he supported.

Watch all of Ron Paul’s debate answers below: All Ron Paul South Carolina FOX Debate Highlights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyrqOzCf1eI

RON PAUL 2012 http://www.ronpaul2012.com/