VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 283clear that her heart beat only for Barky. In addition to her spontaneous ultra-left sympathies, it was
clear that Pelosi was also acting as a servant of Soros, who had one of his top operatives in Pelosi’s
office:
Let us connect the dots. In February, 2007, Nancy Pelosi hired Joseph Onek as her Chief
Counsel. Mr. Onek is also a chief policy advisor for the Open Society Institute, funded by none
other than George Soros. You may be curious about Felix Rohatyn. Mr. Rohatyn is a not only a
major financial backer of Nancy Pelosi but he is one of her top economics advisors. Mr. Obama
has called for the formation of a National Infrastructure Investment Bank (NIRB). This is a
derivative of the Rohatyn-Rudman National Investment Corporation (NIC) first proposed in- Essentially, Mr. Obama is a surrogate for a private investment model controlled by
George Soros and those that subscribe to his world monetary monopoly model. The NIRB is
nothing more than a fascist economic model.’ (noquarterusa.net, June 30, 2008)
Indeed: the NIRB, as Bruce Marshall has shown in Obama — The Postmodern Coup would
employ the methods of Hjalmar Schacht and his infamous Mefo bills to create a post-crash bubble
in the wake of the current breakdown crisis.
SMALL DONORS AS A SCREEN FOR FATCAT BUNDLERS
In June 2008, after the Democratic primaries were over, and Obama had less need of the petit
bourgeois good government activists who are so important for winning Democratic caucuses, he
announced with consummate cynicism that he would not accept the restrictions inherent in public
funding for his fall campaign. With exquisite demagogy, Obama and his followers argued that they
are fundraising model had already fulfilled the need to democratize campaign finance contributions
by mobilizing so many millions of small donors to give their modest pittances and widow’s mites
for the greater glory of the Perfect Master. We have already seen that the real secret of the Obama
campaign was bundling on an unprecedented scale under the cover of Obama’s cynical “no
lobbyists” propaganda. A more granular analysis of Obama’s fundraising revealed that the role of
the small donors as compared to the corporate bundlers had been consistently and systematically
overstated by himself and his campaign flacks. One researcher reported
...that Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising
total “from donations of $1000 or more.” Obama has “played up populist themes of [campaign
finance] reform,” trumpeting his ‘“large number of small donations” and claiming (in the
Senator’s words) to be “launch[ing]a fundraising drive that isn’t about dollars.” But his
astonishing first-quarter campaign [2007] finance haul of $25.7 million included $17.5 million
from “big donors” ($1000 and up) - a sum higher than the much more genuinely populist John
Edwards’ total take ($14 million) from all donors. According to Chicago Sun Times columnist
Lynn Sweet: “Obama talks about transforming politics and touts the donations of ‘ordinary’
people to his campaign, but a network of more than 100 elite Democratic ‘bundlers’ is raising
millions of dollars for his White House bid. The Obama campaign prefers the emphasis to be on
the army of small donors who are giving — and raising — money for Obama. In truth, though,
there are two parallel narratives — and the other is that Obama is also heavily reliant on
wealthy and well-connected Democrats. ‘Bundlers’ are people who solicit their networks for
donations and, at the elite giving levels, often get some assistance from campaign fund-raising
professionals. Each of the 138 Obama bundlers promised to raise at least $50,000, and many are
from Chicago, not surprising since Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker is the national finance
chairwoman. Among those from the city are major Democratic donors Lou Sussman, who was