Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 7th, 2008 #1
alex revision
Senior Member
 
alex revision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,890
alex revision
Default Jews Subjugate Nations by Controlling Their Political Parties

Zionists Subjugate Nations

By Controlling Their

Political Parties


By Christopher Bollyn

11-22-8

http://www.rense.com/general84/zbnt.htm


Politicians in the United States and Britain are made to pass under the yoke of the Zionist masters who control our leading political parties. By forcing our political leaders to accept the Zionist yoke our nations become subjugated and the pro-Israel agenda is forced upon the entire population. Zionist control of Britain's prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is explained in this article, "How Mossad Controls our Political Parties."

As the $700 billion bail-out of Zionist fraudsters was being debated in the U.S. Congress a supporter wrote to me saying, "I think we are out of time. If only more good people knew what you know!" I would say that it's not so much what I know, but rather my perspective and the directions I pursue in my investigations that are not found in the media. Because my anti-Zionist perspective is taboo, my views are censored by the Zionist-controlled media. Hence, most people are simply unaware of my research.

Having spent several years in Israel and the Middle East and having studied the history of Zionism (i.e. Jewish nationalism), I know something about the many crimes committed by Zionists during the past century. From this perspective I approach the evidence of Israeli and Zionist involvement in the major crimes of our time, such as 9-11. My investigations have uncovered a great deal of evidence of Israeli involvement in the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11 and other crimes.

For journalists working in the controlled media pursuing such investigations would be "career suicide" as many learned after 9-11.
I have also paid a very high price for my research and writing. I learned that Jewish Zionists control even small so-called nationalist newspapers. Most journalists, lawyers, and politicians are primarily interested in advancing their own careers and learn early on to accept the yoke of their Zionist masters -- or sacrifice their careers. Ambitious people put their self interest first and agree to go along with lies and corruption rather than stand up for the truth. I've seen it many times.

I am not like that. During the past 30 years, I have witnessed first- hand the extremely brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine and seen how Zionists operate to subjugate entire nations. My years in Palestine/Israel were my political awakening. Zionist control of the mass media and "Holocaust" propaganda serve to protect and promote their criminal agenda. I have watched how the people of America and Europe are deceived and forced to bear the yoke of the ruthless Zionists who control their political systems and media. Thousands of young Americans and Europeans have been maimed or lost their lives in fraudulent wars for Israel in Middle Eastern nations they know nothing about. Americans have become mercenaries of Zionism.

As an American, I can't support either presidential candidate because both are clearly Zionist puppets who espouse positions that I am strongly opposed to. American voters aren't even given a real choice about important things * like the ongoing wars in the Middle East, for example. Both candidates eagerly support the Zionist "War on Terror" and both lobbied hard for the $700 billion "bail-out" to be passed.

I could only support a true anti-war candidate who promised a proper investigation of 9-11 and who supported investing in American infrastructure, such as providing comfortable and efficient passenger trains between our cities. Why are we bailing out investment bankers with taxpayers' money while our cities and infrastructure are crumbling?
Unfortunately, both presidential candidates are pro-war and pro- Israel. These are the only candidates we have to choose from because both parties in the United States are political machines financed and run by Zionists. Third parties, such as the erstwhile Reform Party, are likewise controlled -- and run off the tracks. Zionist control of our political parties compels candidates from both parties to support Zionism, an utterly racist and un-American ideology based on a false and dangerous notion of Jewish supremacy. What kind of patriotic American could support that nonsense?

NO PARTIAL SOCIETY

"It is therefore important, if the general will is to be properly ascertained, that there should be no partial society within the state, and that each citizen should decide according to his own opinion," Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract. "When one of the associations, is big enough to triumph over all the others, the outcome is no longer the sum total of small differences, but a single difference, then there is no longer any general will, and the opinion that prevails is only a particular opinion."

The "partial society" that triumphs over all the others in American politics today is Zionism -- no other. In the United States, the pro- Israeli position is the only "opinion that prevails" in academia, the mass media, and the political parties with absolutely no consideration for the expense, injustice, and violence it causes.
American support for Zionism has clearly been extremely detrimental for the United States of America, yet the support continues, without question. How does this happen?

MOSSAD SPIED ON HAIDER

Israel and the international Zionists control the political parties and news outlets in Europe as well, as the recent death of Austria's Jörg Haider reveals. Oddly, Haider, the leader of Austria's Freedom Party, allowed Peter Sichrovsky, a Jew, to serve as "secretary- general" of his supposedly anti-Zionist party. In 2005, the Times (UK) reported that Sichrovsky, the managing director of the party, had served as a spy for Israel's Mossad for five years. Three years later, after his party won parliamentary elections, Haider was suddenly killed in a very suspicious car accident.
"I wanted to help Israel and certainly did not do anything wrong," Sichrovsky said. "It's true, though, that I co-operated with Mossad until my withdrawal from politics in 2002."

Sichrovsky admitted that he had spied for Mossad, a foreign intelligence agency, because he "wanted to help Israel." At the same time he maintained that he did nothing wrong. This is exactly how many Jews feel about supporting Israel, even when their actions involve breaking the laws of the nations they reside in.

Facing a criminal investigation and charges of spying for a foreign power, Sichrovsky quickly fled to the United States where he began a new career as "a businessman concerned with military co-operation between Israel and China." Sichrovsky's career with Mossad evidently continued after he left Austria.

If Mossad infiltrates "third party" movements in small nations like Austria, imagine what they do to control the two political parties in the United States. How much control does Israeli intelligence have over the major political parties in Britain and the United States?
Let's look at the most obvious connections.

MOSSAD CONTROLS BRITAIN

The evidence indicates that Israeli intelligence has near complete control of the leading political parties in Britain and the United States. While the Zionist political controllers in London and Washington are well known to the owners of the mass media, discussion of the subject of Zionist or Israeli control of the parties is censored in the media outlets they control. This censorship illustrates how Zionist control of the media serves to deceive the people and cause extreme harm to the nations.

Specific examples of the current pro-Israel bias in the mass media would include the media's unquestioning support of the 9-11 cover-up, the costly and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the trillion dollar "bail-out." The complete lack of transparency in U.S. elections and discussion of the secretive private companies that run our elections are also censored subjects.

The utterly fraudulent Zionist construct called the "War on Terror" and the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have all been designed and forced onto the American and British nations by Zionists who control the political systems of London, New York, and Washington.

In Britain, the two political leaders who have promoted and supported the Zionist agenda and wars of aggression are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Their Zionist paymasters and handlers are not hard to discern, although they are never discussed in the media in such terms.

"LORD CASHPOINT"

Michael Abraham Levy, or "Lord Levy," was known as "Lord Cashpoint" (Can it be any more obvious?) when he was the leading fundraiser for the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. Described as "a long-standing friend of Tony Blair," Levy served as Blair's special envoy to the Middle East from 1998 until 2007, when he was replaced by Gordon Brown's appointee, Michael Williams.

Levy's son, Daniel, is an Israeli citizen (immigrated 1991) who has held high-level positions in Israeli governments since 1995. While his father was bankrolling and managing Tony Blair, the younger Levy was a member of the Israeli negotiating team to the "Oslo 2" agreement during the summer of 1995 under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He was also a member of the Israeli delegation to the Palestinian summit at Taba in January 2001.

The younger Levy also served as senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin, from March 2000 to March 2001. Under Ehud Barak, Levy served as the prime minister's special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit. The Levy link was obviously the connection that gave Israeli intelligence control over the head of the British government - Tony Blair.

"WE HAVE TO DO IRAQ"

Before the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq turned sour, Blair was fond of recalling what he, the first foreign leader to meet George W. Bush, told the newly installed president when they met in early 2001. "We have to do Iraq," is the first thing Blair told Bush, according to his own statements.

Only by understanding that Blair and his New Labour party were financed and controlled by Israeli interests can one understand how Blair was manipulated to support such a reckless and criminal scheme. Similar Zionist forces were at work on Bush.

When Tony Blair and his Zionist handler "Lord Cashpoint" fell from power in June 2007, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assumed the office of prime minister, upon the approval of Queen Elizabeth II -- but of course. Prior to becoming prime minister, Brown had served 10 years as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the minister responsible for economic and financial matters in Britain.

Prime Minister Brown, in turn, is bankrolled and controlled by Lord Ronald Cohen, who has replaced the beleaguered and disgraced Lord Levy. The Egyptian-born Cohen is described as "Sir Ronald Cohen, the daddy of England's private equity industry and a bosom buddy of Prime Minister Gordon Brown."

In the British press Cohen is portrayed as a wealthy Jewish supporter of Brown and New Labour. Cohen's third wife, the Los Angeles-born Sharon Harel-Cohen, is usually described as a film producer whose father, Yossi Harel, commanded the Jewish refugee ship that became known as Exodus in 1947. Her Israeli nationality is seldom discussed.

What the controlled media doesn't tell us about Sharon Harel-Cohen is that she is an Israeli-American whose father was one of the founding chiefs of the Mossad and Israeli military intelligence until his death in April 2008. This means the daughter of one of the founders of Israeli intelligence is part of the team controlling the British prime minister. This is how Mossad has controlled the political leadership of Britain since the 1990s and taken the United States and Britain into two costly and disastrous wars in the Middle East.

Sharon Ruth Harel was born in Los Angeles on March 6, 1952. Her mother, a "Julie Berez" married Mossad officer Joseph Hamburger (a.k.a. Yossi Harel) in 1950 while he was stationed in Los Angeles.
Harel was, most likely, engaged in the illegal procurement of weapons, ships, planes, and military technology for the Israeli military. The reports that Harel, one of the highest Mossad agents, was studying at UCLA or M.I.T. are neither substantiated nor credible; this was only his cover. Harel also had two sons, whose names are not known to the author.

(Whether Boaz and Ezra Harel, the two Israeli brothers who ran ICTS, the Mossad-run Israeli airport "security" company involved in the 9-11 attacks, are related to Yossi Harel is an open question I am investigating.)

The Mossad ("agency") actually came into existence in the 1940s as the clandestine agency known as Ha'Mossad Le'Aliya Bet, the secret Zionist agency engaged in bringing Jewish refugees to British- occupied Palestine to swell the Jewish population prior to creating the "Jewish state." In 1946, Joseph Hamburger was sent on a secret mission to provide Mossad agents in Greece with gold to bribe European governments to facilitate the transit of Jews to Palestine, which was then illegal. Some Mossad tactics have not changed at all during the past 60 years -- they still buy politicians with gold.

Joe Hamburger (a.k.a. Yossi Harel) commanded four refugee ships and sailed to Israel with an estimated 25,000 immigrants during the period of the British Mandate. U.S. immigration records indicate that Mr. Hamburger used both his real name, Hamburger, and his Israeli name, Harel, during the 1950s, which is typical of Mossad agents.

His 2008 obituaries say that "Yosef" Hamburger was born, with a twin brother, in Jerusalem, British-occupied Palestine, in 1918. At 15, he joined Haganah, the Zionist militia/terrorist group. Five years later he joined the Special Night Squad, an anti-Palestinian terrorist unit. In 1941, Harel joined the Palmach, the "strike force" of the Haganah before transferring to the Palyam, its naval unit.

During the 1948 Zionist war to conquer Palestine, Harel served as the liaison officer to the army's chief of staff, Yaakov Dori, and played an important role in co-ordinating the Zionist campaign. He was also the personal body guard for Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann.

In 1954, Moshe Dayan, chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, called Harel back to Israel to head Unit 131, a secret group that had agents in Arab countries. Harel's immediate task was to cover up the Lavon Affair, the Israeli false-flag terrorism plot designed to turn Britain and the United States against Egypt. David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister, assigned Harel to rebuild military intelligence from the ground up. Ben-Gurion, Dayan, and Shimon Peres were actually part of the group that supported the use of false-flag terrorism, such as the Lavon bombings, to achieve their goals. Given this context, Harel must have seen eye-to-eye with Ben-Gurion about deploying Israeli agents in foreign nations. Shiploads of Israelis were sent on missions to America and Europe in the 1950s, often disguised as students.

Harel went on to pursue a successful business career, the Telegraph reported, "which served as a cover for his work for Israeli intelligence."

Like the Democrat "turncoat" Lewis M. Eisenberg, the current head of finance for the Republican National Committee, Cohen changed political parties in order to bankroll the Labour Party of Tony Blair. Cohen was a candidate in the Liberal party in the 1970s and only converted to Blair's New Labour in 1996. Since then he has reportedly given Labour an estimated $5 million and bankrolled Gordon Brown's career.

At their home in London the Cohens "give lavish parties for the likes of the Rothschilds, the Rausing billionaires and Cohen's old mentor Sir Clive Sinclair." At their home in New York they entertain "their friends the Clintons." And then there is their villa at Mougins, near Cannes.

"Cohen moved into Brown's orbit in 2000, when the chancellor appointed him chairman of a Treasury fund set up to encourage investment in deprived areas of the country. The next year he was rewarded with a knighthood," according to the Times 2005 profile entitled, "Sir Ronald Cohen: Midas with a mission - to make Gordon king."
Cohen began to replace Levy as Britain's liaison in the Middle East. In 2004, along with Blair and Brown, Cohen met Ehud Olmert, deputy to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.

As Brown replaced Blair, Cohen, the multimillionaire venture capitalist, replaced Levy as chief fundraiser for the ruling Labour party. About his connections to Israel, Cohen told the Times: "If you look at my history: born in Egypt, a refugee, married to the daughter of the commander of the Exodus who's an Israeli, there's an obvious connection between me and the region."

Obvious, perhaps, but definitely not discussed in the media.

Cohen, who is called the prime minister's 'private banker', "clearly has influence over Gordon Brown," the Jewish Chronicle wrote in their 2007 interview: "So what exactly is his relationship with Brown?
There is a seven-second pause. 'I would classify myself as a friend of the Prime Minister, just as I was a friend of Tony Blair,' he says carefully."
In 2006, Cohen "started to take over the role of government emissary from Lord Levy by meeting Israeli leaders, including the prime minister, Ehud Olmert," the Guardian reported.

Sources:

Ashkenazi, Eli, "Commander of legendary Jewish immigrant ship Exodus dies at 90," Ha'aretz and Associated Press

Boyes, Roger, "Mossad spied on far-right Austrian," The Times (U.K.), June 2, 2005

Leppard, David and Robert Winnett, "Brown picks tycoon to back power bid," The Sunday Times, January 16, 2005

Martin, Douglas, "Yossi Harel," The New York Times, May 1, 2008

Martinson, Jane, "Sir Ronald Cohen: Financier who is hoping for a peace dividend," The Guardian, July 7, 2006

"Mossad spied on Austria's Haidar," United Press International, June 2, 2005

"Profile: Sir Ronald Cohen: Midas with a mission - to make Gordon king," The Sunday Times, January 23, 2005

Rowan, David, "Interview: Sir Ronald Cohen," Jewish Chronicle, September 22, 2007

Yossi Harel, The Times, April 30, 2008

Finis
 
Old May 28th, 2009 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Anyone who stands up to the jews, even queers who are normally with them, gets "the treatment" - the jews go first after their financial support. Without money, fighting the jews is next to impossible.]

Pro-Israel lobbyists threaten funding for Toronto's gay pride

In Tuesday's edition of the Jewish Tribune, the political newspaper of B'nai Brith, pro-Israel lobbyists declared their intention to threaten government and corporate sponsorship of the annual Toronto Pride Festival unless the organisation banned pro-Palestinian marchers from the parade.

According to the article, an individual named Martin Gladstone has written and met with the Pride Committee several times to express his opposition to the presence of a contingent of "queers against Israeli apartheid" over the last few years. He claimed the environment they created with their presence "has very eerie parallels to Nazi Germany."

B'nai Brith issued a similar warning last year after a pro-Palestinian contingent marched in the annual Pride parade. This time, however, advocates are openly threatening to go after funding from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, the City of Toronto, Heritage Canada, and corporate sponsorships.

And with the federal government's recent decision to cut funding for language classes offered by the Canadian Arab Federation as a result of the organisation's advocacy for Palestine, the funding from Heritage Canada may be particularly threatened.

According to Gladstone, the City of Toronto and TD Canada Trust, a major sponsor of the event, have both contacted Pride Toronto to express their opposition to the inclusion of the anti-apartheid contingent.

This comes on the heels of a press release issued by B'nai Brith condemning a queer community forum called "Coming Out Against Apartheid", including prominent gay activists Tim McCaskell and El-Farouk Khaki.

McCaskell spoke of his involvement in the Simon Nkoli Anti-Apartheid Committee, a Toronto-based queer group that fought against South African apartheid. Khaki, who is also grand marshal of this year's Pride parade, spoke of how the language of queer rights is being used by the Israeli government to justify its occupation of Palestine and racial apartheid.

B'nai Brith accused the organisers of the forum of "hijacking" the gay agenda. McCaskell, well known in the queer community as a co-founder of AIDS Action Now and co-organiser of the 1981 protests against the bathhouse raids, responded with disappointment: "The B'nai Brith press release saddens me. One cannot be a credible voice for human rights while acting as an apologist for ethnic cleansing in Palestine."

B'nai Brith's sudden interest in the gay agenda has surprised some, including Andy Lehrer of Independent Jewish Voices. He spoke at the community forum from the audience, saying, "B'nai Brith discovered gay rights this week."

He spoke about their refusal to take a public position during the same sex marriage debate, and accused them of actively deciding not to support hate speech protections for the LGBT community for fear of alienating their evangelical Christian supporters.

Pride Toronto was expected to make a decision on Tuesday whether to allow a pro-Palestinian contingent in the parade. That decision has not yet been made public.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/andr...ntos-gay-pride

The Jews parade their faggots around, but some of them are getting out of line. Don't they understand that they're only supposed to destroy white society?
 
Old June 4th, 2011 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[mearsheimer, others comment on obscene groveling of US pols at AIPAC 2011 meeting]

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=128124
 
Old July 5th, 2011 #4
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

This line jumped out at me while reading an article about the US ambassador to London, not showing up to an event honoring Ronald Reagan.

Quote:
Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and was one of Hillary Clinton's key fundraisers in 2008 as well as a supporter of several Republican presidential candidates.
http://politics.standard.co.uk/2011/...ld-reagan.html

Do jews support all sides so that no matter which one wins they are still in the pocket of said jew? Yup.
 
Old August 8th, 2011 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[2011]

A fifth of all congressmen taking paid-for holidays to Israel this summer

A fifth of members of the House of Representatives will be taking their summer holidays in Israel this year with almost all the trips being paid for by one of America's most powerful lobby groups.

The American Israel Education Foundation is shelling out to take around eighty congressmen to Israel during the summer recess period.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=131242
 
Old January 26th, 2012 #6
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,860
Serbian
Default

Adelson, Gingrich, and the Selling of America

Foreign policy and campaign finance reform


by Justin Raimondo, January 25, 2012

If you want to know what’s wrong with our campaign finance laws – and our political system in a more general sense – look at the way Sheldon Adelson is buying the Republican nomination for his sock puppet, Newt Gingrich.

Right now, the anonymous donors to a political action committee, or PAC, can buy ads on behalf of – or against – a candidate, and spend unlimited amounts as long as there is no official connection between the PAC and any candidate. This degree of separation, however, is pure fiction: in reality, “former” aides to the candidate can and do operate these “Super PACs,” which are funded by one Daddy Warbucks or another: no overt coordination is necessary. What’s important here is disclosure, or the lack of it: the PACs don’t have to say who is funding these ads, only that the “Committee for Good Government” or some such semi-fictional entity is paying for it. In this way, Adelson – a casino billionaire, one of the richest people in the country – can drop a cool $10 million into the race (with more in the pipeline) and in effect buy the election, without the average voter knowing who is paying the bills. In short, Adelson can operate in the dark, as far as Joe Voter is concerned – and darkness is what the Adelsonian agenda requires above all.

So what is Adelson’s agenda?

He and his allies have been campaigning for war with Iran for years, not only here but in the Middle East. Adelson is a major financial backer of Israel’s ultra-nationalist Likud party, which calls in its platform for a “Greater Israel,” and he has backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the hilt. The 16th richest man in the world, with his casino empire stretching from Macao to Las Vegas, he thought nothing of giving $60 million to Israel’s anniversary celebration. He is also a major backer of AIPAC, the most important pro-Israel lobbying organization – but downsized his contribution when the group signed on to the two-state solution advanced by both Republican and Democratic presidents – on the grounds that the plan means Israel is “committing suicide.” He supports the extremist – and increasingly violent – “settler” movement, and is the money-bags behind the “Clarion Fund,” which is responsible for flooding the US with anti-Arab propaganda. As a major contributor to the “Birthright” program, which sponsors trips to Israel by students from around the world, he addressed a recent Birthright gathering in Israel, where he declared:

“Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians, and you will hear why [Newt] Gingrich said recently that the Palestinians are an invented people. There are a number of Palestinians who will recognize the truth of this statement.”

In spite of being a highly-paid and sought after “historian” of note, you’ll be surprised, I’m sure, to learn Gingrich takes his lessons from Adelson, whose academic credentials are far less impressive. Because Newt didn’t always believe the Palestinians are a figment of their own imaginations: this idea coincided with Adelson’s generous donations to Gingrich, Inc.

In a 2005 article for the Middle East Quarterly, Professor Newt opined that the Palestinians are “a relatively wealthy, educated, and cosmopolitan people,” who are “in some ways among the most international and most advanced people in the Arab world.” So advanced that they “invented” themselves? He also called for the US government to “establish a program of economic aid for the Palestinians to match the aid the U.S. government provides Israel.”

While Newt’s 2005 piece disparages the role of diplomacy, and attacks the present Palestinian leadership (including the Palestinian Authority/PLO) as nothing but a bunch of “terrorists,” he writes:

The U.S. government should become the protector of the Palestinian people’s right to have a decent amount of land. The desire of some Israelis to use security as an excuse to grab more Palestinian land should be blocked by Washington even if that requires employing financial or other leverage to compel the Israeli government to behave reasonably on the issue of settlements. It is vital to our credibility in the entire Middle East that we insist on an end to Israeli expansionism. It is vital to our humanitarian duty to the Palestinian people that we protect the weaker party from the stronger power. It is vital that the world sees that our total support for Israeli security is not matched by a one-sided support for more extreme Israeli territorial demands.”

Upon receiving a record amount of $13 million from Adelson – the latest installment was a check for $5 million from Miriam Adelson, his Israeli-born wife – Newt the Historian woke up one morning to discover that there are no Palestinians – only a horde of drooling Orcs trespassing on Israeli land.

While expressing concern in his 2005 article that the Iranians could develop nuclear weapons, he gave it “another generation of violence and hatred” until it would result in “a devastating attack on Israel.” These days, however, he is taking Adelson’s view, which is that war with Iran is inevitable and necessarily imminent. As Connie Bruck reported in her definitive 2008 New Yorkerprofile:

Adelson is also funding, with a $4.5-million grant, a think tank, the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, at the right-leaning Shalem Center, in Jerusalem. Netanyahu allies are on its staff. Natan Sharansky, the chairman of One Jerusalem, also chairs the Adelson Institute. Sharansky helped organize a “Democracy and Security” conference last June, in Prague, which was attended by President Bush. Iran was a major topic of discussion. A month after the Prague conference, Adelson attended a fund-raising event at the C.A.A. talent agency, in Los Angeles, for Steven Emerson, an investigative journalist specializing in Islamic extremism and terrorism, who was showing a ten-minute trailer for a film he wanted to make. Emerson introduced Sheldon and Miriam to the overflow crowd in C.A.A.’s two-hundred-seat theatre, saying that they were his generous supporters. After Emerson’s presentation, Pooya Dayanim, a Jewish-Iranian democracy activist based in Los Angeles, chatted with Adelson. Recalling their conversation, Dayanim observed that Adelson was dismissive of Reza Pahlevi, the son of the former Shah, who had participated in the Prague conference, because, Adelson said, ‘he doesn’t want to attack Iran.’ According to Dayanim, Adelson referred to another Iranian dissident at the conference, Amir Abbas Fakhravar, whom he said he would like to support, saying, ‘I like Fakhravar because he says that, if we attack, the Iranian people will be ecstatic.’ Dayanim said that when he disputed that assumption Adelson responded, ‘I really don’t care what happens to Iran. I am for Israel.’”


Gingrich called for the assassination of Iranian scientists even before the bombs started to go off inside Iran, and vies with Rick Santorum to see who can rattle the saber in Tehran’s direction the loudest.

War with Iran is the culmination of the “Clean Break” Strategy presented to Netanyahu in 1996 by a group of American neoconservatives who recommended a new strategy of aggression that would break the Jewish state out of what they perceived to be a cul de sac that would fatally subvert the Zionist project. Instead of playing defense, Israel must go on the offensive, and take out Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, his brother Ba’athists in Syria, and ultimately effect a change of regime in Iran. With Saddam gone, Bashar al-Assad on the way out, and Iran in America’s cross hairs, the “Clean Break” has so far been a resounding success: all that remains is for a US President to give the order to attack Iran. If Adelson has his way, that day will come soon: that is what he thinks he is buying when he pours his millions into the Gingrich campaign.

The idea is to make support for Israel a “wedge issue” to benefit the Republican party, like abortion or gay marriage: by funding Gingrich, Adelson hopes to complete the Likud-ization of the GOP. Such a party will junk the two-state solution upheld by every Republican president, go along with the “Clean Break” strategy – and willingly destroy the American economy by starting a war that would instantly drive the price of energy through the roof.

The “wedge” strategy is looked on with distrust and real fear by the mainstream Jewish leadership in this country, which has always valued the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus as the basis of the “special relationship.” The Likudnik Clean Breakers, however, are taking a radical new tack, one that could easily set off a political backlash, and lead to an increase in anti-Israel – and anti-Semitic – sentiment in the Democratic base. In Israel, too, there is resentment of Adelson, the American, telling Israelis what’s best for them and meddling in their politics. He says “I am for Israel,” but Israelis know he isn’t of Israel, and can afford to play war games from a safe distance.

That someone pursuing the agenda of a foreign country can hide behind some benign-sounding PAC and pour unlimited amounts of anonymous cash into our elections represents a real threat to our national security – and ought to make one think twice about our current campaign finance laws. Furthermore, it is a national disgrace that Miriam Adelson – who has not renounced her Israeli citizenship – can write a $5 million check and hand it to a candidate who is beating the war drums day and night on Israel’s behalf. Political contributions from foreign sources are illegal, and that’s the way it ought to be: but what about dual citizens? Should they be allowed to influence the American political process in favor of their other allegiance – and, while we’re on the subject, why do we allow dual citizenship, anyway?


http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...ng-of-america/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old November 14th, 2014 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

How kosher is Jewish money?

Israelis have the most to lose from the destructive potential of donations from the likes of Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. We should thank them for bringing this debate out into the open.

By Anshel Pfeffer | Nov. 14, 2014

It was like a scene out of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Two immensely wealthy Jews, key financiers of the main political parties of the world’s superpower, discussing how to wage war on the enemies of the Jews, and control the media and presidents. Only, instead of taking place at the dead of night in a Jewish cemetery in Prague, they were sitting on stage in a Washington, D.C. hotel conference room, in full view and making no attempt to hide their intentions.

If the Czarist secret police officers who published the original edition of “Protocols” at the start of the 20th century had been at the Hilton, or just reading the reported dialogue between Power Rangers impresario Haim Saban and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, they would have had little need for the embellishment, plagiarism and forgery they used to concoct their best seller.

If you haven’t yet read the musings of these two gentlemen on the best way to confront Iran (bombing “the daylight out of these sons of bitches” is an option), the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s presidency, the need (or lack of) for Israel to be a democracy, the best way to take over The New York Times, and how to ensure a sufficient supply of latkes at the White House Hanukkah party, then you really should. It would be no exaggeration to call it a historic event.

The joint appearance of the two billionaires at the Israeli American Council’s inaugural conference last weekend was the moment that Jewish benefactors, who have always preferred to use financial influence on behalf of their brethren as far behind-the-scenes as possible, chose to do so out in the open.

Not that they had anything to be ashamed of. Jewish financiers using their fortunes to protect and promote a small scattered nation, persecuted for much of its history by vastly superior forces, is an honorable tradition. Only, it was always a tradition considered to be much more effective when carried out discreetly. Why give the haters more ammunition to incite with?

In most countries where Jews live, discretion is still the norm. On the same day Adelson and Saban took to the stage in Washington, across the pond a British daily blazed the headline “Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Ed Miliband” across its front page. The Independent on Sunday was referring to a shortfall in fund-raising for Britain’s main opposition party, due to concerns of Jewish donors that its embattled leader, Miliband (himself Jewish, of course), will, if elected prime minister next year, toughen his government’s policy toward Israel.

There are a number of troubling flaws to this story. Labour’s campaign machine relies, to a large degree, on funding from trade unions and is hardly beholden to private Jewish donors. Miliband is indeed in deep crisis, but that is due to his inability to project a credible image of being prime-minister-in-waiting and the constant sniping by his own senior party members, who fear he is leading them to five more years in the political wilderness.

The misgivings of the party’s Jewish donors over his foreign policy is really the least of his worries, and it is odd (or perhaps not) that The Independent on Sunday chose to make this relatively minor concern the main headline of its Remembrance Sunday issue. Especially as even the reporter admitted that it is not yet a problem – merely one that could emerge in the months leading to the election – and is dwarfed by the general reluctance of donors, not just Jewish ones, to contribute to Miliband’s campaign.

But by far the biggest flaw in the report, especially one that had been given such prominence, was that it did not include even one named source. None of Labour’s Jewish donors or fund-raisers had agreed to identify themselves by name, though some seem to have agreed to be quoted anonymously.

Difference between U.S. and British Jews

The interviewees’ reticence is not surprising. Whether or not they are satisfied with their party’s candidate, Jewish philanthropists do not voluntarily discuss in public their political donations.

This is probably all you need to know about the difference between American and British Jews. Both communities are phenomenally successful, and for the past few decades have enjoyed a disproportionate prominence in just about every walk of life – unparalleled since the Golden Age of the Jews in Middle-Ages Spain, perhaps even surpassing that. But while Jews in the United States routinely celebrate their extraordinary position of near-dominance in finance, the creative arts, media, and now also political influence, among British Jews there is still a prevailing anxiety, and even sense of shame, whenever the words “Jewish” and “money” are used in the same sentence. Whenever a politician or media commentator combines the two, there is an outcry of “anti-Semitism.”

There is ample historic justification for this defensiveness. “The Protocols” were not the first or last time the insidiousness of Jewish moneymen was a central plank of Judeophobia. And it’s still around. Even today, when you start typing “Jewish bankers” into the world’s most powerful search engine (founded by two Jews, of course), it automatically suggests “control the world.” But then, the Web is full of the most vile conspiracy theorists, and we can’t let them dominate our lives.

The influence and power of big money in capitalist democracies are a fact of life. You can try and legislate to close loopholes and create a more level playing field, but you can’t eliminate it. Unless, that is, you want to live in a country like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where troublesome oligarchs are packed off to a penal colony in Siberia or forced to flee and live in permanent exile.

The best we can do is try and take the Internet – that wonderful tool our capitalist economies have created – away from the conspiracy theorists and use it to truthfully increase transparency, so we at least know who is using money to acquire influence.

And that is already happening. Every community, business sector, and lobby is using its financial clout to try and change policy, and safeguard its interests. Jews have no reason to be ashamed of having learned – out of bitter necessity – to play the game well, and they certainly have every right to lobby on behalf of the country where half of their people live. Accusing them of dual loyalties (and we all have multiple loyalties) is not only anti-Semitic, it is also a denial of their democratic rights to decide who and what they choose to support.

For all the vulgarity of the Saban-Adelson dialogue, we should commend them for holding it in the open. Especially since now we have heard Adelson publicly state that as far as he is concerned, “so what” if Israel is no longer a democracy, we know the ugly truth about the man who is our prime minister’s number one patron.

It doesn’t matter whether or not we supply the Israel-haters and Judeophobes with fodder. They will warp facts and invent lies, anyway. We will have to continue facing their poisonous propaganda, and we have never been in a better position to do so.

But we need to know whatever we can about how “pro-Israel” tycoons use their money and what they believe in, because they are now in a far more powerful position than any hostile newspaper or biased blogger to cause Israel untold harm.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/jerus...emium-1.626359
 
Old March 25th, 2015 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Israelis recruit campus conservatives, Neocons, and Young Republicans at top universities in the US to infiltrate Middle Eastern Studies departments (and others) and report on anti-Israeli sentiment, support for terrorism, and the activities of Arab and Arab-American student radicals. The rewards for these students are trips to Israel and guaranteed acceptance at top Ivy League graduate school programs. This has been going on since at least the 1980s. I can't write more about it here. The GOP and American conservative movement are riddled with people who've done 'undercover' work for Israel.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/03/s...l#comment-form
 
Old March 26th, 2015 #9
EricPowers
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 704
Default

The problem with Democracy is it can easily be undermined by those who control the Money supply and that is what Jews have done.
 
Old April 16th, 2015 #10
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,048
littlefieldjohn
Default How the GOP Became the Israel Party

Quote:
When the unexpectedly detailed P5+1 framework agreement with Iran was announced last Thursday, Illinois Republican Mark Kirk made a bizarre comment. “We all know” said the senator, that this is going to end with “a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran”—a result of Israel having to go to war to “clean up the mess” made by American and European negotiators. A few days earlier John McCain had expressed the wish that Israel “go rogue” and attack Iran in order to upend the Iran negotiations.

It would have been one thing if such comments had come from backbench congressmen. But McCain is a former GOP presidential nominee, one of his party’s most prominent foreign policy spokesmen. Kirk is the co-sponsor of what was, until recently, the major Senate legislation intended to scuttle the Iran negotiations—a leader in GOP “pro-Israel” circles. Yet neither remark sparked a repudiation, or even any reaction at all. They were what one expects from the GOP these days, recklessness about war and peace fused with a passion for Israel. It was if all the diffuse sentiments which once fueled American nationalism and militarism were concentrated into a tight stream and displaced onto Israel, turning the country into the fantasy surrogate of American hawks. The conservative belief in American exceptionalism is like Zionism, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol boasted. Kirk and McCain may know that Americans have little enthusiasm for another Mideast war; the U.S. Army understands perfectly well that no occupation of Iran could be sustained, and America would have zero international support if it tried. But no matter, they have Israel.

Even 20 years ago some Republican senator would have signaled some collegial disagreement with Kirk and McCain. A Bob Dole or Dick Lugar or a Mark Hatfield would have let on that this sentiment wasn’t the only opinion in the party. Now if there are any who dissent, they dare not speak. Benjamin Netanyahu has become the symbolic leader of the GOP, and even he is probably not as aggressive as most in the party would like him to be.

How did this transformation occur? How did the party of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan come to this? The New York Times published two recent pieces exploring this subject. The first, by Peter Baker, takes off from observing Jeb Bush very quickly disassociating himself from former Secretary of State James Baker’s moderate speech at J Street; the second, by Eric Lipton, explored the rapid growth in ties between hawkish pro-Israel donors and the Republican Party.

Baker’s piece fills out the basics: the top realist foreign policy voices of the 1980s and ‘90s GOP, Baker, and Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft have no influence anymore. Jeb Bush threw James Baker under the bus at the first squawk from Sheldon Adelson; support for the Israeli right has become a Republican litmus test. To explain this, Baker mentions the new donors, the rise of right-wing evangelicals within the party, the vague sense emerging from 9/11 that Israel and the United States faced the same enemy in Islamic terrorism, and the pro-Israeli leadership of George W. Bush, who repudiated the foreign policy realism of his father.

Lipton focuses on the new money stream. He shows that Adelson, Paul Singer, and other right-wing, pro-Israel donors, their spending unleashed by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, have pushed the GOP past the Democrats as recipients of “pro-Israel” PAC money. He uncovers some fairly shocking facts, such as the rapid infusion of “pro-Israel” funds into Arkansas freshman senator Tom Cotton’s campaigns. This detailed reporting about Israel-related money in a widely read centrist publication is an important and welcome development: until recently, it was subject hidden in whisper and awkward euphemism, as when two election cycles ago, retired general and possible presidential candidate Wesley Clark referred to “New York money people” pushing for war with Iran. Clark had to be walked through an apology with the assistance of Abe Foxman.

But important as the finance angle is, the subject has other important dimensions. If Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer had tried to purchase the Mideast policy of the Republican Party 20 or 30 years ago, they would have failed, even under the new campaign finance rules. I am not persuaded by the evangelical argument: my rough sense is that Christan Zionism may have peaked 15 years ago within the evangelical movement; increasingly there are prominent evangelical voices calling for justice in Israel and Palestine. In any case, evangelicals hardly make up a decisive segment of the Republican electorate.

But the ground for Singer and Adelson and their cohorts has been prepared over 20 years. Several events from the 1990s were critical in the process. During the Reaganite 1980s, Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak were probably America’s most popular media conservatives. Neither was a big Israel backer (though Buchanan had been earlier in his career). Both saw Mideast conflicts through the lens of those in the American foreign policy establishment who knew the region: Israel had done deep wrongs to the Palestinians, which could and should be practically addressed; American had profound strategic needs to get along with the Arab world.

But in a sustained and fairly well documented strike, the neoconservative media establishment began a campaign against Buchanan, who had been far more polemical about Israel than Novak. Buchanan survived the attacks, but they damaged his standing as a Republican. Younger activists got the message that if you were ambitious about advancing in the conservative movement, better just leave the Israel subject alone—or better still, become a passionate Zionist. The attacks took someone who used to be at the core of the conservative polemic industry and essentially neutralized him. Buchanan eventually left the GOP, but the party was not better for it.

Another step in setting the stage for Adelson and Singer was Rupert Murdoch’s starting and funding of The Weekly Standard, perhaps the most successful political magazine in history. Before the Standard, National Review was the most important conservative magazine, pro-Israel but hardly obsessively so, and open to an array of perspectives. James Burnham, the magazine’s principal strategic thinker through the 1970s, was highly skeptical of the Israel-U.S. alliance. But by the 1990s, Burnham was dead and NR had a wealthy competitor, one which could count on a reported $3 million annual subsidy from Murdoch (while Buckley had labored for years to keep NR afloat with four- and five-figure donations). Leading neoconservatives, including editors of the Standard, played the anti-Semite card against key National Review figures: aggressively in the case of Joseph Sobran, with more subtlety in the case of John O’Sullivan and Richard Neuhaus. By the late 1990s, National Review had capitulated, becoming indistinguishable from Commentary or The Weekly Standard on the Mideast and most other issues.

One should also mention the proliferation of hawkish pro-Israel conservative think tanks. There is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Hudson Institute, AEI, and dozens of others: if you are conservative, interested in foreign policy, and want a think tank job in D.C., being hawkishly pro-Israel is the way to go. Pro-Israel hawks have done more in 20 years than create a fundraising apparatus designed to impose pro-Israel litmus tests upon Republican politicians; they have forged an entire ideological party inside the Beltway, comprised of think tank staffers and ideological journalists, all of whom can be reliably counted on to advocate for some version of a right-wing Israeli perspective whenever circumstances require it. These forces weren’t in place when George H.W. Bush faced off with Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir over Israeli settlements in 1991, but they rule in Republican circles now.

I am pessimistic about the Republican party’s short term prospects to overcome and reverse this takeover, but not about the issue overall. All my senses tell me that President Obama, and what remains of a centrist and liberal foreign policy establishment, will succeed in persuading the country that the deal with Iran is a large net-plus for American interests; it helps enormously that what was agreed upon in Lausanne seems to have surpassed expectations, which has been remarked upon by quite a few observers who expected far less. Republican politicians will move on to other subjects if they sense the public is not with them in opposing the Iran deal, Sheldon Adelson notwithstanding. In the medium term, the defeat of Mark Kirk next year—altogether possible—would signal that blind obeisance to a foreign country can be a loser politically.

Finally, there are underlying dynamics in the Middle East which all of Sheldon Adelson’s money cannot overcome. Most important is that Iran has clearly become one of the more stable, modern, and democratic countries in the region. Another is that Israel is becoming a harder sell to Americans. As David Shulman put it in the New York Review of Books, “What really counts is that the Israeli electorate is still dominated by hypernationalist, in some cases protofascist, figures. It is in no way inclined to make peace.” Information flows quite freely in the age of the Internet, and these Mideast realities are slowly seeping into the American consciousness. The same factors which now make divestment from companies doing business with Israel an important issue on many American college campuses cannot forever be ignored by a large political party competing for power in a free society. The process, however, is going to take a while.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-israel-party/
 
Old June 14th, 2015 #11
JohnEngelman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 210
JohnEngelman
Default

Those who complain about the wealth and power of the Jews acknowledge the biological superiority of the Jews. Jews are less than one percent of the world's population.

As our civilization and technology become more complex it becomes more important to have a high IQ. Consequently, the Jews are likely to become richer and more powerful as time goes on.
 
Old June 14th, 2015 #12
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,048
littlefieldjohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnEngelman View Post

As our civilization and technology become more complex ,will become more important for our civilization to eradicate the international jew crime cabal.
Fixed.

Eliminate the jew and 90% of the world’s problems will disappear.
 
Old August 23rd, 2015 #13
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,048
littlefieldjohn
Default US acts as client state of Israel

Quote:
The United States is politically subordinate to Israel and captive to the influential Zionist lobbying groups advocating pro-Israel policies to Congress and the White House, an American activist in Maryland says.

“The US acts more like a client state rather than a superpower; the hold that Israel has over our members of Congress is inappropriate and dangerous,” Myles Hoenig told Press TV on Saturday.

“It is no secret that President Obama has shown his disgust over this but has not taken the leadership necessary to put a halt to it,” Hoenig said.

The American activist said Congress has proven “subservient to Israel” by allowing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before US lawmakers to oppose US foreign policy.

He added that Obama has not effectively countered this “treasonous” act.

“Although we see the American people, and Jewish Americans in particular, moving away from unquestioning support for Israel, Congress and the president are captive to its lobby in the US,” Hoenig further noted.

“Israel demands dominance, not equanimity amongst its neighbors,” he said. “It is a nuclear power and yet refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).”

The nuclear agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries holds the possibility of long term stability in the Middle East, Hoenig argued.

Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, almost unanimously oppose the agreement because they say it gives too many concessions to Iran and threatens the security of Israel.

Obama has pledged to veto a resolution of disapproval in Congress, and opponents need a two-thirds vote to override his veto.

The Israel lobbying groups in the US, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), are engaged in a massive effort to sink the Iran nuclear agreement in Congress.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/08...client-state-#
 
Old December 20th, 2015 #14
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,860
Serbian
Default

__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old December 22nd, 2015 #15
EricPowers
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 704
Default

Jews love Trump too. Trump made a conscious decision to sell his own Soul to Jews for Money and Power. His Son and Daughter both married Jews. Yet some would have you believe he wears a Swastika Armband under his perfectly tailored suits!

Perhaps Trump will stop illegal immigration. But by no means will Trump make America White again as that goes directly against Jewish interests. And Trump is nothing but a Front man for Jewish interests who cunningly takes advantage of the desperate White masses looking for a Savior. Trump only cares about Trump and his goal is to secure his own Power.

The day when Trump openly condemns Jews for their role in making White Americans a minority in their own country is the day I will believe Trump is actually pro-White but don't expect that day to ever happen. America will never become an exclusively White Country again unless you have White Americans willing to support a candidate who openly condemns Jews and exposes their role in making White a minority and Slaves in a country their ancestors founded. But alas, that day may never come. Just imagine America as a 3rd World Latin American Country. I could easily imagine it after 8 years of Hillary Clinton in many ways America is already a 3rd World Country!

Last edited by EricPowers; December 22nd, 2015 at 05:24 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.
Page generated in 0.22521 seconds.