Occupy Zionist Wall Street by David Duke - YouTube
Sunday, December 7, 2008
AIPAC's Spy in The Obongo Camp...
AIPAC's Man in the Obama Camp
by Philip Giraldi
Barack Obama's first appointment, that of Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, is quite frankly unsettling and suggests that voters who had hoped for real change in Washington will be disappointed. There should also be some concern on the part of Americans who believe that a close and continuing relationship with a foreign government might disqualify one for high office in the United States.
Emanuel, far from serving as a neutral gateway to the president, has some very strong views on foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East, views that are closer to those of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney than they are to the millions of voters who thought that Obama would put an end to "wars of choice." And Obama appears to share at least some of those views, though he might be driven primarily by unwillingness to antagonize Israel's numerous cheerleaders in the Democratic Party. During the presidential campaign Obama refused to meet with American Muslims, and on a fact-finding trip to the Middle East last summer he spent several days in Israel but only 45 minutes with Palestinian leaders.
More recently, Obama did not respond to a congratulatory letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only world leader to be snubbed in that fashion. In his first press conference on Nov. 7, Obama, who has promised to do "everything in his power" to denuclearize Iran, reiterated that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon would be unacceptable, a position adhering closely to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) line. There are also reports that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has already called Vice President-elect Joe Biden to tell him that even talking to Iran would be a sign of weakness, a signal that Israel might be willing to unleash its all-powerful lobby against the Obama administration if it is perceived as going too far.
The extremely partisan and foul-mouthed Emanuel, who has the reputation of a junkyard dog, is a retread from the Clinton White House, where he served in two senior advisory positions after demonstrating his expertise in fundraising during the 1992 presidential campaign. Though born in Chicago, he was an Israeli citizen through his father until he, according to his own account, renounced his dual citizenship when he turned 18. When the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991 the 31-year-old Emanuel rushed off to join the colors, though the colors in this case were the blue and white flag of Israel. He claims that he was a civilian volunteer in the Israeli army who was assigned the task of "rust-proofing brakes" on military vehicles, an assertion that has been questioned because his father's background suggests that he would likely have been offered something much more important.
Emanuel's father, an Israeli physician, was a member of the terrorist group Irgun in the 1940s. Irgun was responsible for blowing up the King David Hotel and ethnically cleansing much of Palestine through selective massacres of Arab civilians. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel said he was convinced that his son's appointment as White House chief of staff would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Commenting on his father's statement, Rahm Emanuel noted that Obama does not need his influence to "orientate his policy toward Israel."
Other Israelis and prominent American supporters of Israel also see Emanuel as their man in the White House. The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz hailed his appointment, describing him unambiguously as an Israeli. William Daroff of the United Jewish Communities also praised Emanuel, describing him as "a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock." Ira Forman, head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, welcomed the appointment, saying, "It's just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship … that was never true," an indication that some will actually expect Emanuel to act on behalf of Israel when the chips are down.
Emanuel left the Clinton administration in 1998 and went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and head of the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He made $18 million in a little over two years. He was deliberately placed in a position where he could exploit his White House connections, which he did, to obtain a nest egg to finance his political career. In 2000 he was named by Clinton to the board of Freddie Mac, where he earned an additional $260,000 but was later criticized for not taking his oversight responsibility seriously. In 2002, he was elected to Congress, where he was noted for his ability to attract large political contributions. Emanuel soon moved into a leadership position, eventually becoming chairman of the Democratic Caucus in January 2007, the fourth-ranking Democrat in Congress.
In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, particularly close to right-wing politicians such as Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu, sometimes even more so than President Bush. In June 2003 he signed a congressional letter criticizing Bush for being weak in his support of Israel. The letter, signed by 34 Democrats, stated, "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror." The letter supported Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders because it "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense."
Not surprisingly, Emanuel has always been in favor of the Iraq war, and he supports an aggressive policy toward Iran. In his 2006 book with the pretentious title The Plan: Big Ideas for America he advocates increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating a domestic spying organization like Britain's MI5. More recently, he has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25.
Emanuel has always expressed intense hostility toward antiwar Democrats. When, in November 2005, Congressman Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." In late 2005 and early 2006, Emanuel played a key role as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in lining up candidates to run against the Republicans for congressional seats in November 2006. Out of 22 candidates vetted and supported financially by Emanuel, 20 were pro-war, despite the fact that the Democratic Party base was not. Antiwar candidates were routinely denied funding and support from his DCCC. Only eight of Emanuel's candidates won, a percentage considerably lower than the success rate for other Democrats, possibly because voters had a hard time embracing their pro-war positions.
In a June 2006 congressional debate on Iraq policy, Emanuel made his own views clear, declaring, "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. … Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." In his speech, Emanuel fully embraced the questionable "War on Terror" concept and aligned himself far to the right of the Democratic Party base, which, at the time, was 60 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several congressmen who called for the cancellation of an impending speech before Congress by visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki because Maliki had called Israel's bombing of Lebanon "aggression." Emanuel was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart Sen. Charles Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?" Emanuel described the Lebanese and Palestinian governments as "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a subsequent speech on July 19 regarding a House resolution supporting Israel's bombing, which produced thousands of civilian casualties.
On March 12, 2007, the Democratic Party leadership announced that it would separate the issue of Iran from consideration of funding measures for the troop surge in neighboring Iraq. Opponents of a possible military action against Iran had sought specific language in the appropriation that would deny funding for any military operations outside Iraq without prior congressional approval. The proposal had seemed reasonable enough, given the Bush administration's track record on the use of force, but apparently it was not acceptable to Emanuel. AIPAC mobilized immediately and began an intensive lobbying campaign against the proposal, instructing its supporters to call and write Congress, adding that it is best to telephone just after lunch, when there are more staffers available to answer the phone. Emanuel organized resistance to the measure from inside the House of Representatives and promised AIPAC early in the process that the offensive language would be dropped. The Democratic Party subsequently held a number of closed-door meetings on the issue and decided that the prohibition would not be included in the funding measure because of "possible impact on Israel."
During the summer of 2008, Emanuel was a key player in the marginalization and humiliation of former president Jimmy Carter, whose book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid had outraged Israel's supporters. Carter was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention, an unprecedented snub toward a former president and a further indication, if one was needed, that in American politics it is possible to do or say nearly anything as long as one does not criticize Israel.
And now Emanuel is the president's chief of staff, one of the most powerful positions in the White House. Perhaps there is a limit to the mischief that he will be able to do; at this point one can only adopt a wait-and-see policy. One thing is certain, however. If the subject is Israel, Emanuel knows very clearly where his loyalty lies.
Rahm Emanuel is a prime example of why us Whites must fight against Jewish Supremacism in America and our homelands.
Article Here
Saturday, October 25, 2008
AIPAC Espionage Case Lingers On...
More meddling by the "tribe" in America's affairs:
In August 2005, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were indicted under the Espionage Act on the extraordinary charge that they had improperly received and transmitted classified information that was provided to them by a government official. More than three years later, their case has still not gone to trial.
But next week a federal appeals court will hold a hearing on a government motion to reverse certain lower court rulings concerning the disclosure of classified information at the still unscheduled trial, if and when it does finally occur.
Both the law and the facts of the case are in significant dispute.
From the prosecution’s perspective, the two defendants “conspired to obtain classified information from government sources and passed that information to a foreign government, journalists and others, in violation of [the Espionage Act].”
Yet in an August 20 response (pdf) that was redacted and unsealed last week, the defense not only denied guilt but also said it would prove that no crime had been committed:
“Defendants will demonstrate, among other things, that they acted with innocent states of mind, believing they were acting in the national interest, that officials were authorized to disclose the information to them, and that their conduct was lawful and necessary to save both American and Israeli lives. They will demonstrate that the information at issue was in the public domain, was not damaging to national security, and was not even classified.”
At the hearing next week on October 29, prosecutors will argue that Judge T.S. Ellis, III, who presides over the case in the lower court, “erroneously authorized the disclosure of irrelevant classified information at trial.” Furthermore, they said in a September 12 reply brief (pdf), Judge Ellis “improperly grafted on to Section 793 [of the Espionage Act] several additional intent elements that are nowhere to be found in the statute and [he] repeatedly misapplied the test by which the government’s classified information privilege is adjudged.”
The government’s harsh assessment of Judge Ellis’s handling of the case is remarkable since he is an extremely cautious and deliberate judge (and a Reagan appointee). In an additional complication for the government, Judge Ellis himself sometimes sits on the court of appeals as a designee, making it perhaps a bit less likely that his holdings will be easily overturned by his sometime colleagues.
Adding to the prosecution’s disarray, the U.S. Attorney who has been in charge of the case, Chuck Rosenberg, recently resigned. The lead prosecutor, Kevin DiGregory, quit several months ago. (From Jewish pressure, no doubt.)
Given the unusual charge, the questionable factual basis for the prosecution, and the unfavorable judicial reception so far, some observers wonder why the government continues to pursue the case.
In fact, “defendants in the classified-information case involving two former pro-Israel lobbyists are hoping a change in administrations next year will bring a fresh review of their prosecution, according to sources on the defense team,” writes Nathan Guttman in the Forward.
Story Here
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Why No Anti-Zionist DVDs in Newspapers?
Have you wondered where the all of these DVDs in recent copies of newspapers are coming from? Socrates says: "Zionism is Jewish imperialism. It’s hostile, aggressive and racist. It causes wars. It’s plain bad news. Why do so few Americans oppose it?"
By Harmony Grant and Rev. Ted Pike
You might have gotten more than grocery ads in your Sunday paper. About 70 newspapers—including 58 major Sunday papers—accepted the insert for the film Obsession. The glossy ad accompanying the free DVD explains,
Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western Civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an ‘insider’s view’ of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. The film also traces the parallels between the Nazi movement of World War II, the Radicals of today, and the Western world’s response to both threats.
Only a few newspapers refused to run this ad.
Its funders are tied to an international Jewish charity. What if it were called Obsession: Radical Judaism’s War Against the West? The copy could read,
Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Judaism to Western Civilization. Using unique research from Jewish activists and websites, it reveals an ‘insider’s view’ of the hatred of Christians and Gentiles that the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of anti-Christian laws, and their goal of world domination. The film also traces the parallels between Jewish involvement in the Russian revolution, the Radicals of today, and the Western world’s response to both threats.
Would more than fifty major papers stand on their “freedom of speech” explanation and run the ad? Not on your life.
It’s not just media elites who refuse to examine Judaism (while Islam is critiqued in the most inflammatory terms). Most average people—especially honest sincere people who watch the news and attend church—are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a “Jewish conspiracy.” Conservative and Christian leaders resist even glancing at the evidence that Jews with an anti-Christian agenda dominate American media and other institutions of power. (See, Jews Confirm Big Media is Jewish)
The knee-jerk, emotionally charged refusal to look at Judaism can’t be chalked up just to human decency. Decades of Holocaust mis-education, films, and novels have persuaded most that Jews have suffered for millennia out of an irrational and mysterious hatred from Christians and Gentiles. We are convinced this hatred has nothing to do with Jewish actions or beliefs; and if we speak even a word against Jewish leaders or Jewish literature like the Talmud, then we’re betraying our own sick anti-Semitic prejudice.
The truth is very different. Both Sharia law (the Quran) and Talmudic law (the Babylonian Talmud and Kabbalah) powerfully assert that Islam and Judaism, respectively, are destined to prevail over "idolaters" and rule the world. Of course, the New Testament says the same – someday Christ will return and benevolently "rule with a rod of iron."
There’s a big difference, however, between Christianity's dream of enlightened world government and that of Islam and Judaism.
Christianity says the believer is to share the good news of salvation and never return evil for evil. Christ will do the rest, bringing world dominion from heaven in His time.
Islam, from its beginnings, had a very different plan. It proposed to convert "infidels" – all those who deny the unitary sovereignty of Allah -- not just by persuasion but by force if necessary. Today, most Muslims believe "jihad" or "holy war" is not meant literally but symbolizes the struggle between good and evil in the Muslim's heart. Nevertheless, all Muslims believe in the eventual triumph of Islam.
Jewish supremacists, led by the Anti-Defamation League and B'nai B'rith International, believe through control of media, finance, education, government (and modern hate crime laws) Talmudic Judaism's vision of global governance from Jerusalem may be realized. Like moderate Muslims, many Jews disagree with such aggressive tactics. Yet virtually all religious Jews believe in the ultimate triumph of Judaism's conception that "God is one" over the earth.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism each teach it will prevail in the end. At issue is the legitimacy of methods. Authentic Christianity, taught by Jesus, says the "kingdom of heaven" will be realized by turning the other cheek -- raining "coals of fire" on the consciences, not bodies, of those who persecute us.
In contrast, both Quranic Islam and Talmudic Judaism are preoccupied with an adversarial mentality that "infidels" or "goyim" are out to get them and believers must strike first. (This helps explain the unending Mideast strife between Jews and Muslims.) (Watch the NPN film Why The Mid-East Bleeds)
Yet of these three religions—which each produce nominal believers, true activists, and even martyrs—we are only permitted to publicly criticize two.
It’s very significant that every religious agenda except Judaism can be publicly examined.
Judaism’s safety from criticism may have something to do with the fact that some of America’s largest papers, which influence and supply copy to all others and include The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Daily News as well as the Samuel Newhouse newspaper empire of 26 dailies, are owned by Jews.
For as long as President Bush has been in office, prominent voices have dissected and decried the Christian “evangelical agenda.” The film Obsession is just the latest and loudest critique of “radical Muslim” ambition.
The world is full of believers, and every true believer wants converts. This is true whether you ardently believe Jesus is the world’s Savior, that homosexuality is healthy, or even that a low-fat diet is the only cure for heart disease. Agendas exist wherever believers exist.
The more power believers possess, the more they should be watched.
How do you tell which believers have the most power? Especially in a time of mass media, the most powerful activists are those who can silence criticism of their ambitions. Consider the fact that Jews—not Muslims or Christians— are the one group whose social agenda, sacred literature, and political clout are taboo to examine.
This is the group about whom an Obsession film would never make it into Sunday papers! For that reason, this is the one group whose motives and agenda we should be most concerned to investigate.
Story Here
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Lieberman And AIPAC: Israeli War Hawks
Lieberman: `Time for Israel to Act` Against Iran
In all the coverage of Joe Lieberman’s address to the Christians United for Israel ( John Hagge's flock) gala last month, only Justin Vogt, writing for The National, seems to have noticed that Lieberman tacitly called for Israel to attack Iran.Considering that this man may be John McCain’s running mate in a few days or weeks, I can’t understand why this story hasn’t gotten more play:
Though careful to say he hoped war with Iran could be avoided, the senator ended his address with a Biblically-coded call for military action against the Islamic Republic. According to the Book of Exodus, when faced with Pharaoh’s army behind them and the Red Sea in front of them, the Israelites panicked…
“But God…said to Moses, ‘Why do you cry out to me? Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to go forward.’ In other words, God was saying to Moses and the Israelites, ‘The time for prayer is over. It’s time for Israel to act.’”
…A tribal leader called Nachshon took the initiative and leapt into the Red Sea. “Nachshon understood that there comes a moment when faith and prayer must be followed by action right here on Earth,” Lieberman concluded. Coming on the heels of his dark warnings about Iran, there was no mistaking the kind of Israeli action Lieberman had in mind.
I think this speech justifies the question: does Lieberman see Israel as a U.S. surrogate? That is, a nation which has none of the strictures preventing it from taking actions Lieberman and the U.S. wish they could take. This raises another legitimate question whether, if McCain wins the presidency, Israel will receive a green light to attack Iran.
This is an issue the American people should know about in considering which candidate they vote for in November. If McCain wins, you can expect a nudge-nudge, wink-wink arrangement between his Administration and Israeli generals who’re fully prepared to teach Iran a lesson–at least in their minds. Whether they can pull it off is something about which even Israeli specialists and military analysts have raised serious doubt.
An important theme of Vogt’s story is the competition that has developed between AIPAC and the new Jewish kid on the block, J Street. The reporter manages to elicit a lot of over-reaching and chest-thumping by AIPAC operatives and boosters. This is characteristic of the genre:
“AIPAC represents the organised Jewish community,” argued Robert Asher, a former AIPAC president and a member of the “Gang of Four”. “And we are the only organisation that is recognised that way.”
There you have it in a nutshell. All the hubris. All the hegemonic pretensions. And this from a group supported, according to a recent J Street poll, by only 38% of American Jews. AIPAC aims to suck all the air out of the Jewish room. Thank God, J Street won’t let ‘em.Vogt managed also to tease out a lot of the unintentionally comic aspects of the CUFI conference. In case you didn’t know this, Israel has oil and the Bible tell us so:
…A jumbo-sized cinema screen bombarded the audience with an infomercial touting the work of the evening’s proud corporate sponsor, Zion Oil & Gas, a company founded by a Hagee supporter who believes that the Bible contains clues that point the way to plentiful deposits of oil in Israel. (“The geology has confirmed the theology,” explained one executive.)And this is the outfit about which Lieberman said:
“The bond I feel with Pastor Hagee and each and every one of you,” he told the audience, referring to the campaign to pressure him, “is much stronger than that [any opposition raised by J Street], and so I am proud to stand with you tonight!”
Do you want a potential vice-president who communicates to Israel that it would be acceptable to attack Iran, and does so at a convention of religion whack jobs and wingnuts? And lest anyone argue that Lieberman hasn’t been picked for this post yet, I’d reply that Lieberman clearly has McCain’s ear and even if he isn’t vice-president, he will be a very close advisor over the next four or, God help us, eight years should the Republican candidate win.
Story Here
Another Interesting Veiwpoint Here
In the following story below this Bill Kristol is pushing the idea of a McCain-Lieberman Republican ticket. More meddling by the Jews in our government.
