By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli
Hillary Rodham Clinton: The Candidate Of Choice Of The Secretive, Powerful, Incredibly Wealthy Internationalist Rothschild Family.
Part One of Two Parts
New York, NY -(Ammoland.com)- “Rory knew all about this Invisible Government which decided the destinies of nations, their survival or their obliteration, for his father had told him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘They are all bastards,’ Joseph had told his son. ‘They are without doubt, the wickedest men on earth, though I am sure they would be astonished to hear they were wicked. They might even be outraged. . . . The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes!’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .They were a criminal conspiracy, but they did not consider themselves either criminal or conspirators. They were businessmen, realists. What gave them power was, in their eyes, virtuous and righteous and reasonable, for who was more worthy than themselves to control and manipulate the world of men. Someone had to rule, and who better than men of intellect, money, strength, and unemotional judgment.” Part 2, Chapter 3, pages 475 through 479, passim, Captains and the Kings, by Taylor Caldwell
There are ignoble, dishonorable influences and forces at work in the world today. These forces and influences have been at work in the world for some time. They are not benign. They are not kind. They are not benevolent, compassionate, or forgiving. They are terrible, immoral, dispassionate, corrupting, and evil. They act deliberately, calculatingly, and coldly. They are well-organized and ruthlessly efficient. They have introduced and continue to promote chaos into Western Civilization, generally, and into our own Nation, particularly, as they work toward their singular goal: the breakup of the ‘Independent, Sovereign Nation State’ and, further, rendering the very concept, incoherent.
Sovereign Nation State
And, what is a ‘Sovereign Nation State’? It is one operating under its own supreme Constitution, beholding to no other Nation and subordinate to no other Nation, organization, person or persons, or entity of any kind.
- A Sovereign Nation State is one whose first interests and concerns are those that pertain to and adhere to the well-being of the Nation and to the well-being of the Nation’s citizenry, and not to that of any other Nation, or people, or to the world at large.
- A Sovereign Nation State is one whose policies, foreign and domestic, are framed to benefit the Nation and its citizenry first.
- A Sovereign Nation State is one that embraces a unique heritage, identity, culture, common currency, and common language.
- A Sovereign Nation State is one whose laws are never subordinated to or abrogated to those of any other Nation or group of Nations or to a political or economic entity or interest of any kind.
- A Sovereign Nation State is one that could not even conceptually allow for a treaty or pact with another Nation or group of Nations or geopolitical or corporate interest group to subvert or subordinate the Sovereign Nation’s system of laws and jurisprudence to the dictates of any treaty or pact that the Nation’s Government might enter into.
Today, though, the idea of adherence to the importance of the notion of, ‘Sovereign Nation State,’ is considered antiquated, xenophobic, even obsolete. So it is, the dismemberment of our Sovereign Nation marches forward, to end, possibly, finally, in a whimper, not a bang—nary a word of protest; not a shot fired in her defense—the results of a quiet, insidious, invidious coup d’etat—the end result being not a change of government for this Nation but the very destruction of the Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation.
The end of our Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation is the goal of those who propose a New Order for the Western Nations of this World. There exist supremely powerful, well-organized, extraordinarily wealthy interests who wish for this—indeed, who have been and who are presently actively working for it. But they do so always in the shadows, forever in the shadows. These shameful, depraved influences and forces seek to create a new political and economic and legal paradigm for Western Nation States. This new paradigm would consist of a federation of global financial and mega-corporate interests that operate in every sphere of life, dictating domestic and foreign policy for all Western Countries under their control. They would rewrite laws and draft new codes of conduct. Such rights and liberties that exist would be those they deign to bestow or withhold, at their pleasure, on individuals—subjects, essentially indentured servants in this new polity.
The EU is a manifestation of the early stages of a dramatic shift in the political contours of Countries—of what it means for a Country to exist as a Country.
You don’t hear of these sinister influences and forces very often or directly. They quietly machinate and conspire and contrive behind the scenes. You hear of them, at best, infrequently and, then, only obliquely—through a casual comment here or there in the newspapers or on the airwaves. Yet these sinister influences and forces control the destiny of nations.
The dire effects of the powers they wield and exert are manifested through the puppets in Government they own and control.
In the United States, they have been operating through the U.S. President, Barack Obama. They have, these past several months, been priming and grooming his replacement, Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom they have promised as Obama’s heir apparent.
The most notorious of the puppet masters is the Rothschild clan. The Rothschild family has spread its tentacles throughout the world, not least of all in this Country. The artifice of privatized central banking is the basic mechanism through which they hold entire Nations hostage.
Is there a connection or link between the Rothschild family and Hillary Clinton?
Consider: the New York Times—in a September 3, 2016 article titled, “Where has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich”— reports that “Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a backer of Democrats and a friend of the Clintons’, made sure attendees did not grill Mrs. Clinton at the $100,000-per-couple lamb dinner Mrs. Forester de Rothschild hosted under a tent on the lawn of her oceanfront Martha’s Vineyard mansion. “
‘I [Mrs. Forester de Rothschild] said, Let’s make it a nice night for her [Hillary Clinton] and show her our love,’ Mrs. Forester de Rothschild said.”
Is it not singularly odd that the NY Times, a fervent supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, would wish to explicitly report a link between Clinton and the so-called “elites” in society and is it not especially odd that the NY Times would bother to report the saccharine sweet sentiment of Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild at the dinner Rothschild hosted for Clinton?
Does not that NY Times article undercut the notion her campaign incessantly trumpets that Hillary Clinton cares about the welfare of the masses? Does not that NY Times article simply, candidly, and, in fact, glaringly illustrate that Clinton cares for no one but those whom she may personally profit from; those from whom she has received and continues to receive an overabundance of personal wealth; those for whom she owes all the fawning praise she has ever received and the trappings of power she could ever hope to obtain; those whom, alone, are capable of fulfilling every lustful ambition her insatiable soul craves?
Didn’t the also-ran candidate, Bernie Sanders allude to these very points, during the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential debates, berating Clinton for the inconstancy of her message, the inconsistency of her remarks, the hypocrisy of her words in relation to her actions? Did Sanders not make the point that a person who rakes in tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars from donors can’t reasonably, rationally serve the interests of both the extraordinarily wealthy—those who dwell in the most rarified aethers, who have promoted her, paid her way, bought her the station in life she holds—and everyone else, who toils and drudges in the muck below? Would Clinton dare betray her benefactors? Of course not. But it isn’t the monies of the wealthiest few among us who will be assisting the laziest and least deserving among us, including the illegal aliens who shouldn’t be here at all. Whom do you think that task will, ultimately, fall upon?
Hasn’t Donald Trump perceptively pointed out that, when one person gives another person money—especially, considerable sums of money, or some other thing of great monetary value—the giver expects the taker to give something in return? Is that not the foundation of all dealings, whether in business or government—the quid pro quo—“I give you something; you give me something in return?” If so, how can one realistically believe that Clinton would—or reasonably could, even if she wanted to, and she most certainly doesn’t—give everyone “a fair shake?” That is incongruous, mind-boggling.
But, then, it is mind-boggling to consider that any average, rational American citizen would actually wish to raise a person to the status of President of the United States on the drivel Hillary Clinton spouts. Even more mind-boggling is the thought that some Americans would seriously consider positing a person, such as Hillary Clinton, in the White House, when clear, substantial and substantive evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton has violated federal law—multiple federal laws, and multiple counts of law-breaking under each of those laws—and all of them extremely serious breaches of conduct. The Arbalest Quarrel discusses this matter at length in a series of recent articles posted on our site: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
But, why would a major newspaper, such as the New York Times support a candidate for the U.S. Presidency whose respect for our Constitution and our laws is non-existent; who breaks our laws cavalierly; and who dismisses, out-of-hand, any suggestion that her actions require close scrutiny? And, why would a major newspaper such as the New York Times draw the public’s attention to Clinton’s obvious connection with the notorious, international Rothschild family of bankers, in the first place?
We discuss this in Part 2 of this Article.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.