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.
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.