McCain accused of accepting improper donations from Rothschilds

Started by Rockclimber, April 30, 2008, 08:41:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Rockclimber

April 30, 2008, 08:41:43 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ap ... ctions2008

QuoteMcCain accused of accepting improper donations from Rothschilds
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Tuesday April 29 2008. It was last updated at 04:03 on April 29 2008.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain speaks in Cincinnati, Ohio. Photograph: Joshua Lott/Getty

A US campaign watchdog has accused presumptive Republican president nominee John McCain of violating election laws by accepting campaign contributions from two prominent Londoners.

At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London's Spencer House, during McCain's swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their "kind permission".

Judicial Watch, a Washington organisation instrumental in the March release of Hillary Clinton's White House schedules, has asked US election monitors to investigate whether the Rothschilds improperly sponsored the fundraiser. US political campaigns are forbidden from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.

"The question is whether or not the Rothschilds paid for the event, the venue, the catering, or any other related costs," said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

Tickets to the event cost $1,000 to $2,300, and the luncheon dress code was "lounge suits," the Washington Post reported in March.

The McCain campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Judicial Watch also complained to the US election authority, the federal election commission, about Elton John's involvement in Clinton's campaign. The group alleged the British rocker broke US campaign laws by performing at a fundraiser for the New York senator. The Clinton campaign argued US law allowed the British musician to volunteer his time and solicit Americans for contributions.

The federal election commission is unlikely to act soon on the group's McCain complaint. It is currently short-handed, a result of a political squabble between the Democratic-led senate and the Bush administration, and lacks a quorum to take action.

Ragnarok

#1
May 01, 2008, 04:19:19 AM
Well Fuck.  This is a bad sign.  The Rothchilds usually like to remain out of the spotlight.  This article indicates they're comfortable coming out of the shadows.  This story doesn't get published if they didn't want it out there.  Of course Americans don't read American newspapers, but I think this is a signal to the world that they own us openly now.  Git yer guns ready.

MikeWB

#2
May 01, 2008, 12:43:46 PM
Hilary and McCain have been bought by Rothschilds... no doubt about it. They're clearly playing both sides. Doesn't matter who wins, they win in the end. Except if Obama wins..
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

arctic.warfare

#3
May 01, 2008, 06:30:05 PM
Quote from: "MikeWB"Hilary and McCain have been bought by Rothschilds... no doubt about it. They're clearly playing both sides. Doesn't matter who wins, they win in the end. Except if Obama wins..
Are you insinuating that Obama is any better than the other two by a noticeable margin?
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." -Barry Goldwater - January 2, 1909 – May 29, 1998
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man\'s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims." -Ayn Rand - February 2 1905 – March 6, 1982

MikeWB

#4
May 01, 2008, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: "arctic.warfare"
Quote from: "MikeWB"Hilary and McCain have been bought by Rothschilds... no doubt about it. They're clearly playing both sides. Doesn't matter who wins, they win in the end. Except if Obama wins..
Are you insinuating that Obama is any better than the other two by a noticeable margin?

I think so, yes. Hasn't taken a cent from big corporations or from lobbyists. AIPAC hates him, Haaretz gave him a horrible grade (on a scale from 1-10, he got 5) on how good he'd be to Israel.

Look how much they hate him: http://jewagainstobama.wordpress.com/

Clearly, Hilary is still in the game, even though she has no way of winning, to destroy any possibility of Obama beating McCain.
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

mastermg

#5
May 03, 2008, 04:54:42 PM
Must be his Kenyan background thats keeping him from siding with the Jews. Hey arctic.warfare, would you rather have Clinton or McCain, or Obama win? Obama is the best bet for the US.

arctic.warfare

#6
May 04, 2008, 12:35:58 AM
Quote from: "mastermg"Must be his Kenyan background thats keeping him from siding with the Jews. Hey arctic.warfare, would you rather have Clinton or McCain, or Obama win? Obama is the best bet for the US.
I disagree. Of the three, I would rather have McCain, because the populace wouldn't buy his bullshit. With Obama, the populace will believe everything, he's far too charismatic. He's nearly as bad as McCain, but he looks a lot better, draped in white satin as he bathes in pools of mud.

If any of you (and I really don't mean to point fingers here, so I apologize if I seem a little hostile) honestly believe that Obama has any chance of losing, and that he'd be on our side, you've allowed his charisma to cloud your judgment. He is a criminal with the rest of them, constantly changing his positions, going round-and-round in circles, and milking the race issue all the way.
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." -Barry Goldwater - January 2, 1909 – May 29, 1998
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man\'s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims." -Ayn Rand - February 2 1905 – March 6, 1982

mastermg

#7
May 04, 2008, 02:24:16 AM
McCain is just like Bush, if not worse. He wants to continue the war on 'terror'. Just read his site on what he has to say. If the war continues, America will collapse due to the economy.

arctic.warfare

#8
May 04, 2008, 03:12:36 AM
Quote from: "mastermg"McCain is just like Bush, if not worse. He wants to continue the war on 'terror'. Just read his site on what he has to say. If the war continues, America will collapse due to the economy.
McCain is like Bush, the same way Gore and Clinton are like Bush. The same way Obama is like Bush. Obama doesn't stand for change, he stands for the continuation of the current meatgrinder that is America. At the end of the day, electing Bush in 2000 was one of the best things that ever happened to America. Imagine Bush with public support, intelligence, and charisma. That's Gore, right there. McCain is limited by his own stupidity, the fact that he has cancer, and the fact that the American public hates him. Therefore, he's definitely the lesser evil.
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." -Barry Goldwater - January 2, 1909 – May 29, 1998
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man\'s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims." -Ayn Rand - February 2 1905 – March 6, 1982

Canard

#9
May 04, 2008, 11:56:04 AM
None of the above for me.
don\'t believe that Anti-Semitic Canard.
DFTG!

arctic.warfare

#10
May 04, 2008, 04:08:09 PM
Quote from: "Canard"None of the above for me.
I entirely agree, the three that still stand (Minus, of course, Ron Paul) are some of the worst possible candidates in the country. None of them have any positive side to them.
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." -Barry Goldwater - January 2, 1909 – May 29, 1998
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man\'s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims." -Ayn Rand - February 2 1905 – March 6, 1982

Ralph Furely

#11
May 07, 2008, 11:29:27 AM
i think its a total oxy-moron, or a serious laps in judgment, not to mention you would be ignoring everything we have all found out over the past yrs,
to say anyone of these ppl would be better than anyone else.  who really gives a shit who wins here?  they are all playing for the same team.
the same shit will take place regardless of who wins this silly little charade.  nothing will be different or better with Obama, nor Hillary, or McCain.  fuck them all.
why do we care who wins?  they are all obviously evil fuckheads who will do what theyre told.  and i think the fact that Obama may not be liked by AIPAC means nothing.
how do we know that isnt a little trick?  
in any event, i think we're all well aware that anyone this close to a presidential spot is bought and paid for.  this is the same shit i used to say about RP.
you dont just all the sudden happen to find your self on a campaign trail heading for the Presidency.  its not like one of these candidates could possibly be a good guy.  if they were, they wouldnt be running for president in the 1st place.  good ppl dont get to that point.  only hand picked ;do as your told', more than likely perverted child molesters,
are in the running.  bottom line.

so fuck them all.  i dont give a shit which one of these fuckers wins.  makes no difference to me or the whole country.  the same shit sill go on.  not like presidents make major decisions.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions