Criminal State

John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 5)

John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 4)

The career of John McCain offers a textbook case confirming how war is waged on the U.S. by way of deception—with the help of senior lawmakers.

Despite the constancy of his treasonous conduct, McCain seeks a fifth term in the U.S. Senate.

Reflect for a moment on our national experience since he was profiled, politically packaged and placed in the House in 1982. The “package” was then relocated to the Senate in 1986 on the retirement of Arizonan Barry Goldwater.

With McCain’s enthusiastic backing, our military was deployed to wage war abroad based on assurances from political leaders who were deceived to lead us to war. If not treason, what dare we call the conduct of those who enabled that fraud?

John McCain is consistent. Everywhere you see him, you see a system that faltered or outright failed. During the Savings & Loan fraud of the 1980s, he emerged early on as an accomplice.

His consistency should long ago have led to his indictment. Instead he is running for reelection.

Even more worrisome, he seems unaware of how he’s been used—over and over again.

The Architecture of Deceit

After McCain conceded his role in the S&L fraud, his organized crime handlers repackaged him as a champion for campaign finance reform.

Like McCain, this syndicate is also consistent: one fraud typically leads to another.

There’s no shortage of recent frauds: Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings in Prague, Iraq’s yellowcake uranium from Niger, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories.

All were false. Yet a consensus emerged around a fraudulent belief that induced us to war.

John McCain played a key role in creating the political dynamics that enabled this fraud. First he championed a change in the rules for federal elections. Then he personally marketed the lies that took us to war on false pretenses. Those two frauds are closely related.

In practical effect, “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance reform strengthened the hand of organized crime due to legislation he co-sponsored with Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

These changes increased—from $1,000 to $2,300—the amount that candidates can lawfully receive from individuals in both a primary and a general election. A couple can contribute a maximum $9,200 (4 x $2,300) to as many political candidates as they choose.

Making the Case

Here’s the problem: McCain-Feingold doubled the allowable campaign contributions that candidates can receive without regard to where those contributors reside.

That Diaspora-based funding strategy has long been deployed with success by the Israel lobby to shape U.S. policy. Under the guise of reform, McCain-Feingold doubled the lobby’s impact.

A Congressional District, say in Iowa, may have only a few pro-Israeli constituents. With McCain-Feingold, a nationwide network of Zionists can be mobilized to contribute locally, thereby inducing support for Israeli policies.

The process works like this. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) summons candidates for interviews. Those found sufficiently enthused about AIPAC’s agenda are given the name of a “bundler” who identifies donors willing to “max out” their campaign contributions for pro-Israeli candidates—regardless where the candidate is running for office.

After McCain-Feingold became effective in 2003, any experienced AIPAC-identified bundler could raise $1 million simply by contacting 10 pro-Israeli friends.

The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say, in Manhattan, Miami Beach and Beverly Hills. Each of the 10 max out (10 x $9,200) and call 10 others for a total of 111. When everyone contributes $9,200, the candidate’s total is $1,021,200.

With AIPAC’s blessing, one call can fund a $1 million campaign. It’s difficult to overstate the impact wrought by the Israel lobby’s political operations over the past six decades. John McCain guaranteed their impact would become far more threatening to our national security.

Making the Case

The lobby’s political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than 10% of House races (typically 35 to 50) are competitive in an election cycle. Long-term, that leverage is amplified by those—such as AIPAC—motivated to sustain this financial focus over multiple cycles as their candidates gain political seniority.

To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from this nationwide pro-Israeli network is paid to media outlets owned in substantial part by members of this same network.

As McCain knew, presidents, senators and congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass real political influence.

With McCain’s help, Ashkenazi organized crime gained more political power. Its operatives already wield influence disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.

By granting this Diaspora greater influence over federal elections, McCain granted Israel more power over U.S. policy-making. In practical effect, McCain’s “reform” represents a major first step toward the repeal of representative government.

John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 3)

John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 2)

John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 1)

I am a constituent of Arizona Senator John McCain, a 2008 presidential contender. I reside in the Congressional District where he ran for Congress four years before the expected 1986 retirement of Senator Barry Goldwater. McCain’s career was modeled after that well-known Republican maverick.

McCain describes himself as the leader of the party of Abraham Lincoln and maverick Ronald Reagan. Reagan first emerged on the national political scene in a theme-setting speech he gave at the 1964 Republican nominating convention where Goldwater became the party leader.

I knew Goldwater, albeit slightly. I served for seven years as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, leaving in 1987, the same year he retired. It was always a pleasure to hear him crank up his muscle car festooned with whip antennae to service his ham radio habit.

McCain now holds Goldwater’s Senate seat. Though branded a “maverick,” that’s no more accurate than the phony “hero” status in which McCain wraps himself along with the flag—which brings me back to the point of this account.

I had not met McCain until early June at a town hall meeting in Tempe, Arizona. He came to the Senate in 1987 just as I went into law practice with retiring Senators Russell Long of Louisiana, my boss, and Paul Laxalt of Nevada who chaired Reagan’s presidential campaigns.

At the town hall meeting, I sat upfront to ask “my” Senator a question. That question was informed by seven years of full-time research—by a constituent—into the impact on national policy-making of transnational organized crime, particularly in Arizona.

I will return in this series to an account of how this maverick’s political career was a product of organized crime. That background is chronicled in Guilt By Association (2008) where, as I explained to McCain, I took three chapters just to summarize his mob-related history.

In Arizona, his history is seldom mentioned except to wrap him in Old Glory. That silence is not without good reason. Don Bolles was the last person to write about the criminal syndicate that recruited McCain to replace Goldwater. Bolles was rewarded for his research with six sticks of dynamite under his car. He lost both legs and an arm.

Before his death 11 days later, he identified John Adamson who placed the charge. Adamson, in turn, identified Kemper Marley, the statewide liquor magnate and employer of Gene Hensley, John McCain’s father-in-law to be.

Bolles also named the mafia and Emprise, a New York sports franchise with which Hensley and his brother were associated through a racetrack they acquired in New Mexico.

The Outfit

By all credible accounts, this mob hit was ordered by Marley after a Bolles’ story forced his resignation from the state racing commission. New Mexico state police chronicled the connection between Marley and the racing wire service. Since the founding of the National Crime Syndicate in 1929, that service linked organized crime’s far-flung gambling operations in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Cuba.

Its origins trace to Chicagoan Moses “Moe” Annenberg, the father of Walter Annenberg, Ronald Reagan’s “best friend for 50 years” according to former First Lady Nancy Reagan.

The same Ashkenazi “Chicago Outfit” that produced the early career of “conservative” Ronald Reagan also produced “liberal” Barack Obama when he first gained political prominence as an activist with Chicago’s Annenberg Education Challenge. The grandfather and the great-grandfather of the top fundraiser for Obama were lawyers for The Outfit.

In truth, Bolles barely scratched the surface. The same outfit that put McCain in office also brought to Washington Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, a former governor of Arizona and prior to that, the state’s attorney general.

Christian-Zionist Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona teamed up with John McCain and Jewish-Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman to market the phony intelligence that took us to war in Iraq.

Thus my concern when I asked that McCain explain to his constituents why he met abroad with Russia-Jewish oligarch Oleg Deripaska who, by age 40, had amassed $40 billion in assets defrauded from the Russia people.

First McCain denied meeting him other than at an annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. When pressed, he conceded that he and Deripaska shared a private dinner with Lord Rothschild V. At the time, Deripaska was banned from the U.S. due to his ties to Russian organized crime.

McCain declined to explain why he met with this Ashkenazi mobster. Deripaska married into the family of Russian president Boris Yeltsin to perpetrate a national-scale fraud. Until our subprime mega-fraud, the financial pillaging of Russia was the largest heist in history.

Realizing he had said too much by revealing the Rothschild dinner, McCain quickly changed the subject.

What was my impression as a constituent?

Though stunned at the palpable weakness of his character, it was oddly comforting to hear him concede his role as an Evil Doer.

Sayanim — Israeli Operatives in the U.S

Americans know that something fundamental is amiss. They sense—rightly—that they are being misled no matter which political party does the leading.

A long misinformed public lacks the tools to grasp how they are being deceived. Without those tools, Americans will continue to be frustrated at being played for the fool.

When the “con” is clearly seen, “the mark” (that’s us) will see that all roads lead to the same duplicitous source: Israel and its operatives. The secret to Israel’s force-multiplier in the U.S. is its use of agents, assets and sayanim (Hebrew for volunteers).

When Israeli-American Jonathan Pollard was arrested for spying in 1986, Tel Aviv assured us that he was not an Israeli agent but part of a “rogue” operation. That was a lie.

Only 12 years later did Tel Aviv concede that he was an Israeli spy the entire time he was stealing U.S. military secrets. That espionage—by a purported ally—damaged our national security more than any operation in U.S. history.

In short, Israel played us for the fool.

From 1981-1985, this U.S. Navy intelligence analyst provided Israel with 360 cubic feet of classified military documents on Soviet arms shipments, Pakistani nuclear weapons, Libyan air defense systems and other intelligence sought by Tel Aviv to advance its geopolitical agenda.

Agents differ from assets and sayanim.  Agents possess the requisite mental state to be convicted of treason, a capital crime. Under U.S. law, that internal state is what distinguishes premeditated murder from a lesser crime such as involuntary manslaughter. Though there’s a death in either case, the legal liabilities are different—for a reason.

Intent is the factor that determines personal culpability. That distinction traces its roots to a widely shared belief in free will as a key component that distinguishes humans from animals.

Agents operate with premeditation and “extreme malice” or what the law describes as an “evil mind.” Though that describes the mental state of Jonathan Pollard, Israeli leaders assured us otherwise—another example of an evil mind as the U.S. was played for the fool.

Played for the Fool, Again

Pollard took from his office more than one million documents for copying by his Israeli handler. When those classified materials were transferred to the Soviets, reportedly in exchange for the emigration of Russian Jews, this spy operation shifted the entire dynamics of the Cold War.

To put a price tag on this espionage, imagine $20 trillion in U.S. Cold War defense outlays from 1948-1989 (in 2010 dollars). The bulk of that investment in national security was negated by a spy working for a nation that pretended throughout to be a U.S. ally.

Pollard was sentenced to life in prison. Israel suffered no consequences. None. Zero. Nada. Not then. Not now. Then as now, we were played for the fool.

At trial, Pollard claimed he wasn’t stealing from the U.S.; he was stealing secrets for Israel—with whom the U.S. has long had a “special relationship.” He thought we should have shared our military secrets with them. That’s chutzpah. That also confirms we were played for the fool.

Looking back, it’s easy to see how seamlessly we segued from a global Cold War to a global War on Terrorism. In retrospect, the false intelligence used to induce our invasion of Iraq was traceable to Israelis, pro-Israelis or Israeli assets such as John McCain (see below).

Even while in prison, Pollard’s iconic status among Israelis played a strategic role. Was it just coincidence that Tel Aviv announced a $1 million grant to their master spy less than two weeks before 911? Is that how Israel signaled its operatives in the U.S.?

Did that grant have any relationship to the “dancing Israelis” who were found filming and celebrating that mass murder as both jets smashed into the World Trade Center?

Absent that provocation, would we now find ourselves at war in the Middle East? Surely no one still believes that America’s interests are being advanced in a quagmire that has now become the longest war in U.S. history.

“I know what America is,” Benjamin Netanyahu told a group of Israelis in 2001, apparently not knowing his words were being recorded. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

Let’s face it: the U.S. was again played for the fool.

With oversight by Israeli case officers (katsas), Israeli operations proceed in the U.S. by using agents, assets and volunteers (sayanim). Let’s take a closer look at each.

The Sayanim System

Sayanim (singular sayan) are shielded from conventional legal culpability by being told only enough to perform their narrow role. Though their help may be essential to the success of an Israeli operation, these volunteers (sayanim also means helpers) could pass a polygraph test because their recruiters ensure they remain ignorant of the overall goals of an operation.

In other words, a sayan can operate as an accomplice but still not be legally liable due to a lack of the requisite intent regarding the broader goals—of which they are purposely kept ignorant. Does that intentional “ignorance” absolve them of liability under U.S. law? So far, yes.

Much like military reservists, sayanim are activated when needed to support an operation. By agreeing to be available to help Israel, they provide an on-call undercover corps and force-multiplier that can be deployed on short notice.

How are sayanim called to action? To date, there’s been no attempt by U.S. officials to clarify that key point. This may explain why Pollard was again in the news on July 13^th with a high-profile Israeli commemoration of his 9000^th day of incarceration.

To show solidarity with this Israeli-American traitor, the lights encircling Jerusalem were darkened while an appeal was projected onto the walls of the Old City urging that President Obama order Pollard’s release from federal prison.

Pollard has long been a rallying point for Jewish nationalists, Zionist extremists and ultra-orthodox ideologues. In short, just the sort of people who would be likely recruits as sayanim. The news coverage given this Day of Adoration may help explain how Israel signals its helpers that an operation is underway and in need of their help.

Are pro-Israelis once again playing Americans for the fool?

When not aiding an ongoing operation, sayanim gather and report intelligence useful to Israel. This volunteer corps is deeply imbedded in legislative bodies, particularly in the U.S.

Thus far, this Israeli operation has advanced with legal impunity as the Israel lobby—though acting as a foreign agent—continues even now to pose as a “domestic” operation.

Morris Amitay, former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, explains how this invisible cadre aids the Israel lobby in advancing its geopolitical agenda:

“There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill]…who happen to be Jewish, who are willing…to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness…These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators…You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.”

What sayanim are not told by their katsas is that an Israeli operation may endanger not only Israel but also the broader Jewish community when these operations are linked to extremism, terrorism, organized crime, espionage and treason. Though sayanim “must be 100 percent Jewish,” Ostrovsky reports in By Way of Deception (1990):

“…the Mossad does not seem to care how devastating it could be to the status of the Jewish people in the Diaspora if it was known. The answer you get if you ask is: “So what’s the worst that could happen to those Jews? They’d all come to Israel. Great!” [Mossad is the intelligence and foreign operations directorate for Israel.]

Assets, Agents and Sayanim

Assets are people profiled in sufficient depth that they can be relied upon to perform consistent with their profile. Such people typically lack the state of mind required for criminal culpability because they lack the requisite intent to commit a crime.

Nevertheless, assets are critical to the success of Israeli operations in the U.S. They help simply by pursuing their profiled personal needs—typically for recognition, influence, money, sex, drugs or the greatest drug of all: ideology.

Thus the mission-critical task fulfilled by political assets that the Israel lobby “produces” for long-term service in the Congress—while appearing to represent their U.S. constituents.

Put a profiled asset in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance—over which the Israel lobby can exert considerable influence—and Israeli psy-ops specialists can be confident that, within an acceptable range of probabilities, an asset will act consistent with his or her profile.

Democrat or Republican is irrelevant; the strategic point remains the same: to ensure that lawmakers perform consistent with Israel’s interests. With the help of McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform,” the Israel lobbyattained virtual control over the U.S. Congress.

The performance of assets in the political sphere can be anticipated with sufficient confidence that outcomes become foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. How difficult was it to predict the outcome when Bill Clinton, a classic asset, encountered White House intern Monica Lewinsky?

Senator John McCain has long been a predictable asset. His political career traces its origins to organized crime from the 1920s. It was organized crime that first drew him to Arizona to run for Congress four years before the 1986 retirement of Senator Barry Goldwater.

By marketing his “brand” as a Vietnam-era prisoner of war, he became a reliable spokesman for Tel Aviv while being portrayed as a “war hero.” No media outlet dares mention that Colonel Ted Guy, McCain’s commanding officer while a POW, sought his indictment for treason for his many broadcasts for the North Vietnamese that assured the death of many U.S. airmen.

As a typical asset, it came as no surprise to see McCain and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a self-professed Zionist, used to market the phony intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. McCain’s ongoing alliance with transnational organized crime spans three decades.

His 1980’s advocacy for S&L crook Charles Keating of “The Keating 5” finds a counterpart in his recent meetings with Russian-Israeli mobster Oleg Deripaska who at age 40 held $40 billion in wealth defrauded from his fellow Russians.

McCain conceded earlier this month in a town hall meeting in Tempe, Arizona that he met in a small dinner in Switzerland with mega-thief Deripaska and Lord Rothschild V.

For assets such as McCain to be indicted for treason, the American public must grasp the critical role that such pliable personalities play in political manipulations. McCain is a “poster boy” for how assets are deployed to shape decisions such as those that took our military to war. In the Information Age, if that’s not treason, what is?

The predictability of a politician’s conduct confirms his or her qualifications as an asset. They are routinely developed and “produced” over lengthy periods of time and then—as with John McCain—maintained in key positions to influence decision-making at key junctures.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was candid in his assessment four weeks after 911. He may have been thinking about John McCain when he made this revealing comment:

“I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.” [October 3, 2001]

Indictments for Treason

Are assets culpable? Do they have the requisite intent to indict them for treason? Does John McCain possess an evil mind? Did he betray this nation of his own free will or is he typical of those assets with personalities so weak and malleable that they can easily be manipulated?

As federal grand juries are impaneled to identify and indict participants in this trans-generational operation, how many sayanim should the Federal Bureau of Investigation expect to uncover in the U.S.? No one knows because this subtle form of treason is not yet well understood.

Victor Ostrovksy, a former Mossad katsa (case officer) wrote in 1990 that the Mossad had 7,000 sayanim in London alone. In London’s 1990 population of 6.8 million, Israel’s all-volunteer corps represented one-tenth of one percent of the residents of that capital city.

If Washington, DC is ten times more critical to Israel’s geopolitical goals (an understatement), does that mean the FBI should expect to find ten times more sayanim per capita in Washington?

What about sayanim in Manhattan, Miami, Beverly Hills, Atlanta, Boston, Charleston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa, Toledo?

No one knows. And Tel Aviv is unlikely to volunteer the information. This we know for certain: America has been played for the fool. And so has our military.

This duplicity dates back well before British Foreign Secretary Alfred Balfour wrote to an earlier Lord Rothschild in 1917 citing UK approval for a “Jewish homeland.” In practical effect, that “homeland” now ensures non-extradition for senior operatives in transnational organized crime.

To date, America has blinded itself even to the possibility of such a trans-generational operation inside our bordersand imbedded inside our government. Instead the toxic charge of “anti-Semitism” is routinely hurled at those chronicling the “how” component of this systemic treason.

Making this treason transparent is essential to restore U.S. national security. That transparency may initially appear unfair to the many moderate and secular Jews who join others appalled at this systemic corruption of the U.S. political system.

Yet they are also concerned that somehow they may be portrayed as guilty by association due to a shared faith tradition. That would be not only unjust to them but also ineffective in identifying and indicting those complicit.

This much is certain: a Democrat as president offers no real alternative to a Republican on those issues affecting U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Today’s corruption predates the duplicity in 1948 that induced Harry Truman to extend recognition to this extremist enclave as a legitimate nation state. Our troubles date from then.

That fateful decision must be revisited in light of what can now be proven about the “how” of this ongoing duplicity—unless Americans want to continue to be played for the fool.

Does Event Honoring Israeli Spy Suggest Another Israeli Operation?

Less than two weeks prior to the mass murder of September 11, 2001, the Israeli government made a $1 million grant to Israeli super-spy Jonathan Pollard. In retrospect, the facts suggest that grant may well have served as a signal to Israeli operatives inside the U.S.

On July 13, 2010, in observance of Pollard’s 9000^th day of incarceration, the Jerusalem municipality dimmed the lights illuminating the Old City. This gesture of Israeli solidarity included a projection onto the darkened walls of a message urging that President Obama release their spy from prison.

Thus the concern among knowledgeable intelligence operatives that this Pollard commemoration may mean that another Israeli operation is underway.

On March 4, 1987, this Israeli-American was sentenced to life imprisonment for conveying to Israel more than 1 million classified U.S. military documents. Tel Aviv passed those secrets on to Moscow.

In practical effect, this Israeli espionage jettisoned not only America’s Cold War defense strategy, it also jeopardized the entirety of NATO’s defense posture.

From 1948 to 1989, U.S. taxpayers invested $20 trillion in Cold War-related defense (in 2010 dollars). In practical effect, an Israeli spy operation negated those outlays. Following Pollard’s arrest in 1986, Israel repeatedly assured U.S. leaders that he was part of a rogue spy operation.

Not until 12 years later did Tel Aviv concede the obvious: Pollard was an Israeli spy the entire time. According to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, “[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by…Pollard’s treasonous behavior.”

Twelve years later, the Pollard storyline shifted again when in June 2010 Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., revived the phony “rogue” portrayal in yet another attempt to distance Tel Aviv from the fact that Israel continues its espionage operations in the U.S.

Another “hyphenated American,” Oren relinquished the U.S. component of his citizenship to serve as Israel’s ambassador to Washington. Though he withdrew his Pollard statement, no one could explain why someone with his sophistication would issue a “rogue operation” statement.

Signaling the Network 

Tel Aviv’s first concerted attempt to gain Pollard’s release dates to 1998 when, while negotiating the Wye River Accords, Prime Minister Ehud Barak secured from President Bill Clinton an agreement for Pollard’s release. Clinton backpedaled when threatened with a mass resignation by outraged members of the U.S. intelligence community.

The entryway to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia features an agency crest imbedded in the tiled floor. An adjoining wall commemorates with stars the unnamed dead who lost their lives as U.S. intelligence operatives. Those featured typically achieved the equivalent military rank of colonel.

As a result of Pollard’s spying, 110 C.I.A. operatives lost their lives. In addition, a reported 1,600 prime American assets were lost due to this Israeli espionage. Americans have yet to be told the true extent of this loss.

In the history of U.S. national security, Pollard enjoys top billing as inflicting the most damage. In Israel, he is revered. Eligible for release in 2015, he will be welcomed home as a Zionist hero to a nation that granted him citizenship and several national awards.

His iconic status assures that news of Pollard—any news whatsoever—emboldens Israeli-Americans committed to the Zionist geopolitical agenda. Attempts to secure his release assure hyphenated Americans that their “homeland” will stand in solidarity with them at any cost. Israeli offers of large sums of money reinforce that commitment.

Americans remain largely clueless about the espionage role played by Israeli-Americans. Few recall Jonathan Pollard. Fewer still grasp the costs that Pollard’s treason imposed in blood and treasure. Nor do Americans understand the overwhelming influence of dual-citizens both in creating and communicating the false intelligence that took the U.S. to war in the Middle East.

“To wage war by way of deception” has long been the operative credo of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and operations directorate. Mossad operatives routinely target Israeli-Americans as recruits when staging operations in the U.S.

Even now, many Americans believe that Israel is an ally despite more than six decades of facts confirming the contrary. Israeli espionage remains ongoing aided by a cadre of cooperative members of both the House and Senate and their staffs.

To believe otherwise allows gullibility to displace facts confirming the gravity of the threat that this entangled alliance imposes on the U.S. and, by extension, on the international community.

This latest Israeli adoration of traitor Jonathan Pollard is clearly an affront to the U.S. as Israel’s sponsor, financier, protector and primary arms supplier. Of immediate concern, this high profile event may be a signal setting in motion another murderous incident meant to persuade Americans that they face an external threat rather than the ongoing threat of an enemy within.

The Adoration of Bibi Netanyahu

It’s impossible to know what goes on in the Oval Office. All the public sees is photo-ops and scripted comments. Was Barack Obama’s adoration of the Israeli Prime Minister meant as a subtle manipulation? Was this “keep your friends close and your enemies closer?”

If so, that would be good news for the U.S. provided he grasps that he’s been played for a fool—with the help of his top advisers. His political career is a product of the Chicago Outfit, including his presidency. Can he rise above that? I need to believe that he can.

What we witnessed this week at the White House was words of praise for the leader of a government that has strategically deceived the U.S. for more than six decades. Yet President Obama assured us that he now “trusts” a spokesman for Israel’s ultra-right Likud Party.

Was this presidential subtlety? Perhaps Obama praised “Bibi” Netanyahu a bit too much? Isn’t that what a commander-in-chief would say if he was trying to lull an Israeli leader into a false sense of security so he would misstep?

It’s not like Obama could just blurt out: “Hey Bibi, here’s the new deal. We’re going to endorse the one state solution, declare Jerusalem a cultural heritage site under U.N. protection, recover for Palestinians their occupied land and safeguard them with 30,000 troops that we’re airlifting in from Afghanistan. Oh, and we’re going to secure your nuclear arsenal—tomorrow.”

That may be too rational for such an emotional issue. After all, Americans have yet to sort facts from fiction when it involves “the promised land,” the Exodus mythology and the heroic saga of the long-suffering “Israelites” in search of a “homeland.”

Fools and Crooks

Should you get discouraged, try putting this duplicity in historical perspective. After all, Zionists were deceiving U.S. presidents long before this latest president was born. They duped Harry Truman into recognizing their extremist enclave as a legitimate state back in 1948. Much like Truman, Obama’s political pedigree traces its Chicago roots to organized crime.

The Missouri version of the Chicago Outfit was Kansas City’s Pendergast political machine. Its operatives profiled, picked and produced Truman, grooming him first as a county judge in the 1920s before placing him in the U.S. Senate in 1934.

He never won an election. Not really. Even his reelection as president in 1948 is traceable to the same trans-generational syndicate that brought Obama to political prominence six decades later. The only difference is the sophistication of their electoral operation.

In 1929, the Pendergast machine was represented by Johnny Lazio at the first-ever meeting of the National Crime Syndicate when it convened in Atlantic City. In 1931, 24 exclusive territories were allocated at a Jews-only conclave at the Franconia Hotel in Manhattan. Then as now, Chicago and New York were major nodes in this transnational network.

Zion in the White House

Like Republican G.W. Bush a half-century later, Democrat Harry Truman was an avid Christian Zionist who famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15. Ministers in Missouri consulted the Bible-obsessed youngster on scripture.

In 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright named the State Department after Truman. That incident remains an inside joke in Israel because Truman is best known abroad as the U.S. president who rejected the advice of his Secretary of State George C. Marshall when the WWII general opposed U.S. recognition of the Zionist enclave as a legitimate state.

Marshall knew this entangled alliance would prove the undoing of U.S. national security. The Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Truman about the “fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders” and their plans for “Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

Thus the need—then as now—for Israeli leaders to deploy strategic duplicity.

In 1997, Albright announced an “epiphany” that she was Jewish. That personal revelation came only after she was named Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State. Dr. Glenn Olds, who had known her family since she was a teenager in Colorado, offered his candid assessment of her epiphany: “That is simply not believable.”

What can we believe? Who can we believe? Barack Obama?

What do Americans dare believe about this meeting between an Israeli Prime Minister and a White House occupant with a “Chicago” political lineage?

This much can be said with confidence: so long as Barack Obama adores their leaders, the Israelis will not assassinate him. Could that explain his Israel-first behavior? See: Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?

Duplicity as a Way of Life

Netanyahu spoke at length of his concern about a worldwide movement to de-legitimize Israel. As a lawyer, Obama knows that this concern conveniently ignores the fraud by which that “legitimacy” was recognized—by a political product of organized crime.

Russian oligarchs share a similar concern—and may meet a similar fate. They are waiting for an incredulous world to recognize as “private property” the fruits of their massive fraud. Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev estimates that $1 trillion in wealth was stripped from their economy. The impact fell hardest on pensioners and children.

Stolen property does not become “legit” simply because you hold onto it. Likewise for land taken under cover of what Americans were induced to believe was a 1967 “war.” In truth, that conflict was a long-planned Six-Day Land Grab.

To portray that armed taking as the rightful spoils of war is no more legitimate than the oligarchs defrauding Russia of untold riches under the guise of “privatization.” Six of the top seven richest oligarchs qualify for Israeli citizenship—in a nation whose population is less than two percent Ashkenazim.

As part of Tel Aviv’s typical psy-ops preceding a high-profile White House meeting, Americans were subjected to a public relations blitz. The day before, the Israeli military announced that a soldier was indicted for killing a Palestinian who was attempting to surrender while carrying a white flag. Here’s the catch: the indictment was not for murder but manslaughter.

Tel Aviv also announced proceedings against an officer who ordered the shelling of the entrance to a mosque, killing at least 15. But read the fine print: the charge was not murder but a simple rebuke.

Not wanting to appear overly generous after these magnanimous gestures, Netanyahu declined to extend a “partial 10-month building freeze.” Thumbing his nose at U.S. leaders, he refused to mention even the possibility of a two-state solution.

Then came the Obama Adoration—on nationwide television. What was he thinking?

Tough Guy Obama

Lest someone charge that Barack Obama failed to drive a hard bargain, he promised that, after 43 years of Israeli occupation, proximity talks with the Palestinians may yet mature into direct negotiations!!! Of course that means Israel must first agree to cease the building of settlements on Palestinian land.

That’s a non-starter for the “Israelites” who consider themselves Chosen—by a god of their own choosing. That self-proclaimed status entitles them to take land that their G-D gave them thousands of years ago. No one could make this up; they truly do believe this. Truly.

Obama then declared a renewed commitment to the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship,” proclaimed again an “unshakable bond” with the Zionist enclave, and assured Tel Aviv there was no shift in U.S. policy on Israel’s nuclear arsenal, a stance profoundly out of synch with our professed support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Tehran take note.

Are you too looking for the silver lining in these otherwise dark developments?

Do you find yourself wondering for whom Barack Obama is working?

Are you confused about just whose interests he represents as our president?

You are not alone. No one is more concerned than U.S. military commanders.

The Obama Adoration meant even more bad news for senior Pentagon personnel. Obama’s behavior was particularly galling for those aware of the common pro-Israeli source of the phony intelligence that induced us to war on false pretenses.

How much longer will U.S. commanders be willing to order that Americans die for Jewish extremists? Knowing the depth of corruption and complicity within our civilian leadership, to whom do military commanders owe their allegiance?

When our command and control system is this corrupted at the top, what then for those who took an oath to defend this nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?

Has our entangled alliance with religious extremists eroded U.S. democracy from the inside out? Are our military leaders obliged by their Constitutional oath to challenge the remnants of democracy in order to restore it?

Untangling the Alliance

The Pentagon is not pleased that America’s inevitable showdown with Israel was delayed—yet again. Perhaps this is Obama’s version of the calm before the storm. Maybe—just maybe—No Drama Obama will emerge as the agent of change that he promised his supporters. Absent a dramatic shift in U.S.-Israeli relations, infamy could be his legacy.

Meanwhile Tel Aviv will resort to its two preferred strategies: outrage and entropy. We can expect another round of settlements. Or some killings. No one dares call them murders. Any provocation will do so long as the reaction enables the Israelites to be portrayed as victims.

The likelihood of an entropy strategy always lurks in the background. Obama was repeatedly reminded of the fragility of Netanyahu’s governing coalition. Its collapse would leave the U.S. with no government to negotiate. Though it’s difficult to imagine anything could be worse than Netanyahu, that outcome might well be. Tel Aviv knows this.

For Israeli war-planners, the force-multiplier effect is palpable. In practical game theory terms, the most right-wing parties in the Netanyahu coalition now shape U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. For the U.S. to maintain a stable Netanyahu government, our policies must please right-wing Likud stalwarts, including Israel’s ultra-orthodox extremists.

In short, George Marshall was correct. So was George Washington when he cautioned us against entangled alliances, particularly where, as here, there is a “passionate attachment.”

It gets worse.

After a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Likud Party leader announced that the U.S. pullout from Iraq could leave Israel vulnerable. Therefore, U.S. troops must provide security along the Jordan Valley as part of any final status agreement with the Palestinians.

What he failed to mention is that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assured Obama’s predecessor that if the U.S. invaded Iraq, Israel would make peace with the Palestinians. That agreement is no longer mentioned.

Adding insult to six decades of grievous injury, the Israeli news service Haaretz published a next-day headline that read, “Israel won’t attack Iran without coordinating with the U.S.” That caption implies that Obama gave the blessing of the U.S. for an Israeli attack, ensuring that Americans can once again be portrayed as…guilty by association.

Anyone who believes that Israel wants peace fails to grasp how Israel wages war. Peace would preclude Zionism’s pursuit of its hegemonic agenda for the region. The Joint Chiefs cautioned Harry Truman against this alliance 62 long years ago.

Americans—and the U.S. military—have been played for the fool. For more than six decades, transnational organized crime has been setting our agenda in the region at a steadily rising cost in blood and treasure.

The adoration must end for U.S. national security to begin. The next few weeks will determine whether we have a fool or a leader as commander-in-chief.

Bibi Back at the White House — The Consistency of Israeli Duplicity Comes Ever More Clearly into Focus

With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visiting the White House July 6^th, it’s time to recall how Tel Aviv deceived Washington throughout the entirety of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

U.S. military leaders will be watching this meeting very closely, as will the veterans community.

For me, confirmation of Israel’s strategic duplicity came in a meeting with Harry McPherson who served as counsel and speechwriter for Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ entered the Senate in 1948 with Louisiana Senator Russell Long for whom I served as counsel and speechwriter.

At his law offices in Washington, Harry described his arrival in Tel Aviv the night that the 1967 War began. That war typifies the consistency of this ongoing deceit.

He flew in the night before from Vietnam through Hong Kong. He knew on arrival that something was amiss because the airport lights were off. He checked into his hotel and was awakened early on June 5th by Wally Barbour, the U.S. ambassador to Israel.

A pear-shaped diplomat with a penchant for yellowing Palm Beach suits, Barbour called to tell Harry that the war had just broken out—to which he replied, “But I just come from the war.”

Barbour picked him up at the hotel and they hurried to the foreign ministry for a brief meeting before conferring with the Israeli chief of military intelligence. In response to their repeated question, “Did the Egyptians attack?” McPherson and Barbour received only evasive answers. As air raid sirens wailed, McPherson recalls in A Political Education:

Barbour suggested that we might continue the discussion in the underground bunker. The general studied his watch. “No, that won’t be necessary. We can stay here.” Barbour and I looked at each other. If it wasn’t necessary, the Egyptian air force had been destroyed. That could only have happened so quickly if it had been surprised on the ground. We did not need to ask for confirmation, but left at once to cable the news to Washington.

Israel was neither under attack nor under threat of attack as its leadership has since conceded. Air raid sirens were just props in the stagecraft of waging war by way of deception.

The Israel-as-victim storyline was stage-managed by Zionist extremists to make both Israeli citizens and foreign observers believe that the Jewish state was endangered. As with the phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq in March 2003, the facts in June 1967 differed dramatically from the geopolitical narrative.

Under cover of that false attack, Tel Aviv occupied land belonging to its neighbors. The bulk of that property is still held by force 43 years later with the support of the U.S. as its oft-duped ally.

Servicing the Commander-in-Chief

In the lead-up to Israel’s Six-Day Land Grab, Johnson was lobbied by U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg. LBJ had moved Goldberg from the Supreme Court to the U.N. so he could be replaced with Abe Fortas, Johnson’s personal lawyer. Fortas was a senior operative in a network of Zionists who helped produce the Johnson presidency and shaped its policies.

When Goldberg used heart-rending rhetoric to weave for Johnson a storyline about Israeli vulnerability and the pending victimization of hapless Jews at the hostile hands of an Arab “ring of steel,” LBJ waved a Central Intelligence Agency report predicting that Israel could win any war in the region in two weeks.

When Goldberg persisted, Johnson ordered the CIA to revisit their analysis. The agency returned with a revised report concluding that Israel could win any war in the region in one week.

On June 4^th, at a Fortas-hosted dinner for Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and New York investment banker John Loeb, Fortas cautioned Johnson that war might soon erupt in the Middle East.

When the president turned to McNamara for his opinion, the Pentagon chief agreed with Johnson that there would be no war. Johnson then confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with McNamara’s assessment. Johnson left for the White House at 10:58 p.m.

Less than six hours later, at 4:30 a.m. on June 5^th, National Security Adviser Walt Rostow called LBJ to announce that Israel had attacked Egypt. Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative, was Johnson’s guest at the White House that night. Before informing anyone else, LBJ stopped by the blonde beauty’s bedroom to tell her, “The war has started.”

Not until 7:45 a.m. did Johnson speak with Soviet Premier Aleksi Kosygin who expressed his hope and expectation that the U.S., as Israel’s closest ally, would restrain Tel Aviv.

Mathilde Krim was the wife of Arthur Krim, chairman of the Finance Committee for the Democratic Party and president of United Artists. While Johnson was in the Senate, Krim bought land near the LBJ Ranch in Texas where he built “Mathilde’s House.” When Arthur was away on business, Johnson routinely took Marine One, the presidential helicopter, to visit Mathilde.

An Inside Job

In the war’s first few hours, the “victimized” Israelis destroyed the Egyptian Air Force while its aircraft were still on the ground. Walt Rostow sent Johnson a memo describing the success of Tel Aviv’s “vulnerable” military as “the first day’s turkey shoot.” By evening, the Jordanian air force was also largely destroyed.

Johnson also received a memo from Arthur Krim that read, “Many arms shipments are packed and ready to go to Israel, but are being held up. It would be helpful if these could be released.” Johnson ordered them released.

By evening of the second day, two-thirds of the Syrian air force had been destroyed. The glee in the State Department Operations Room was palpable, leading Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow to caution, “Gentlemen, gentlemen, do not forget that we are neutral in word, thought and deed.”

At the State Department’s mid-day press briefing, spokesman Robert McCloskey repeated Rostow’s official “neutrality” lie. Zionist advisers surrounded Johnson in the decision-making that lent U.S. support to the 1967 war. “Everyone around me, without exception was pro-Israel,” recalls Johnson speechwriter Grace Halsell. She identified more than a dozen close advisers to Johnson, including Walt Rostow, his brother Eugene and Arthur Goldberg.

White House counsels Leo White and Jake Jacobsen were likewise pro-Israel as were two key speechwriters: Richard Goodwin, husband of biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Ben Wattenberg whose parents moved to the U.S. from Palestine. Likewise domestic affairs adviser Larry Levinson and John Roche, an avid Zionist and Johnson’s intellectual-in-residence.

The Non-Separation of Powers

In the lead-up to this Israeli aggression, Fortas served as an enabling back channel between the Israeli embassy and the White House. Fortas had known Israeli Ambassador Avraham Harman since the ambassador’s arrival in Washington in 1959. During the March 1960 visit to Washngton of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Fortas sponsored a breakfast at his home attended by Harman and Johnson who was then Senate Majority Leader.

Fortas’ biographer conceded: “For several weeks before the crisis erupted into war, the Israeli ambassador was ‘in very frequent contact’ with Fortas and regularly visited the justice at his chambers or his house.” An outspoken Zionist, Fortas also attended a critical White House strategy meeting on the Middle East on May 26^th, ten days before the land grab began.

When it came to Israel, Fortas was never neutral. “When they get back from Egypt,” a law clerk in his Supreme Court chambers overheard Justice Fortas say, “I’m going to decorate my office with Arab foreskins.”

Throughout the six days of carnage that Israel inflicted on its neighbors, Near East experts met daily with Johnson in the Cabinet Room. Fortas attended each meeting. Reflecting on comments by Fortas to Johnson at their June 4^th dinner party, John Loeb wrote to Fortas on June 6^th: “You were prophetic about the Middle East. Thank the Lord the President has you as a friend and counselor.”

In 1968, Johnson failed in his attempt to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Fortas resigned in May 1969 in the wake of a series of scandals. In the summer of 1970, The New York Times reported his registration as a lobbyist for Kuhn, Loeb & Company.

Fortas cemented his relationship with Johnson in 1948 when, in LBJ’s first Senate race in Texas, the Washington lawyer finessed the extensive vote fraud apparent in the Democratic primary in which Johnson claimed an 87-vote victory, including 200 votes tallied in alphabetical order.

A Fortas-devised legal strategy led to Johnson’s name appearing on the November ballot as the Democratic Party nominee. In a strongly Democratic state, that primary victory assured the ambitious Texan a victory in the general election and a seat in the U.S. Senate. Decades later, those familiar with this political history continued to refer to him as “Landslide Lyndon.”

A Strategic Provocation

The Six-Day Slaughter of 1967 pre-staged the geopolitical dynamics for all that has followed—not only in the Middle East but also in the U.S. as Israel’s violent taking of land outraged everyone in the region and set American foreign policy on today’s ruinous course.

The periodic carnage visited on Palestinians ensures that this strategic provocation remains fresh in the minds of Muslims worldwide. Reactions to these serial provocations, in turn, fuel the plausibility of the latest storyline, The Clash of Civilizations and its corrosive counterpart: the Global War on Terrorism with “Islamo fascism” the essential Evil Doer branding.

Israel has performed with reliable consistency every act required to provoke and sustain extremism in the Muslim world. Only by duplicity has the Zionist state sustained a U.S. alliance whose main effect has been to make America appear guilty by association.

On August 9, 2000 in a White House ceremony, President Bill Clinton presented Johnson paramour Mathilde Krim with the Medal of Freedom. By then this former Irgun terrorist had been rebranded as a high-profile medical researcher and AIDS activist adored and promoted to political prominence by her pro-Israeli supporters in Hollywood.

It’s not expected that Israeli-American Rahm Israel Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, will urge that Monica Lewinsky receive the nation’s highest civilian honor. It’s not yet known what role Emanuel and White House political strategist David Axelrod have played in sustaining our costly “special relationship” with the Jewish state.

As yet another Israeli Prime Minister arrives in Washington with yet another rationalization for continuing this entangled alliance, a nomination is pending for the appointment to our highest court of a third Jewish Zionist for a court with just nine jurists. In time, historians will identify the role played by the Israel lobby (and Emanuel/Axelrod) in the nomination of Elena Kagan.

Based on the consistency of “Bibi” Netanyahu’s duplicitous conduct over decades, Barack Obama needs to know when an Israeli Prime Minister is once again deceiving a U.S. president. History suggests a reliable test: are his lips moving?

The End of History

Though the U.S. has been deceived with stunning consistency for more than six decades, a mid-course correction remains possible. If this latest president can concede to himself that his political career is a product of those complicit at this deceit, he may yet emerge as the transformative leader that his supporters once hoped he could be.

If Barack Obama can be honest with himself, he will speak candidly to the American people and explain why this long-running deceit must be brought to a speedy close. If on July 6^th he announces support for a one state solution, that will start to unwind this perilous alliance.

Senior military leaders have confirmed the common source undermining U.S. national security. Should the current commander-in-chief fail to act consistent with the known facts, this latest political product of the Chicago Outfit may risk their continued allegiance.

To advance peace, he needs only declare U.S. support for the designation of Jerusalem as an international cultural site under the protection of U.N. troops. To end the multi-decade cycle of provocation/reaction, he needs only reassign 30,000 U.S. troops to Palestine to rebuild a destroyed society, resettle its ousted people on occupied land and secure Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

The Zionist experiment was a failure before it began. An overdue end to this apartheid regime can begin July 6^th. Or this perilous alliance can continue—at untold cost in blood and treasure.

July 6^th could be a defining moment for a president in need of such a moment. That date could also mark the restoration of American values to U.S. foreign policy and grant solace to those moderate and secular Jews long appalled at the conduct of Zionists who in 1948 deceived a U.S. president to recognize as a legitimate state their extremist enclave in the Middle East.

Veterans Oppose Supreme Count Nominee Elena Kagan

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is untrustworthy, weak on defense and supports the Bill of Rights only with conditions. With our military imbedded in foreign conflicts on false premises, her wartime appointment must be rejected.

This former University of Chicago law professor poses a danger to the right of free speech and the right to bear arms—the first two tenets of our Bill or Rights. Only 50 years old, Ms. Kagan could leave in her judicial wake a badly battered Constitution and a nation unable to defend itself, particularly when forced to confront an enemy within.

As dean of Harvard law school, she banned on-campus military recruiters. Yet in her Senate hearing she claimed to “revere” the military. Is this an example of what one U.S. Senator diplomatically described as Ms. Kagan’s inability to be “rigorously accurate.”

The U.S. was induced to wage war relying on what British nuclear arms inspector David Kelly described as “sexed-up” intelligence. Despite Kelly’s death, the common source of that phony intelligence has since come sharply into focus.

Senior military commanders have confirmed a professed ally as the source. To date, domestic politics have precluded the candor required for a mid-course correction.

U.S. military leaders know how they were deceived—and by whom. What now for the fate of the deceivers? If you are someone sympathetic to that ally, what would you do?

What should be the fate of those who provided aid and comfort or adhered to this enemy? Those carefully chosen phrases were inserted in the Constitution to describe for future generations of Americans the perilous nature of treason as a capital crime.

The Chicago Outfit

If, as the facts confirm, mainstream media helped induce the American public to rely on false intelligence, how would this same misinformed public discover its source? What means could our military leaders use to inform us that they—and we—were deceived?

What news outlets can our military trust? Fox News? CNN? The New York Times? For a nation dependent on informed consent, where can we as veterans turn for the real facts?

Our prospects are poised to worsen. Joe Lieberman, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, proposes an Internet “kill switch” activated by declaring a cyber emergency. If enacted, that law will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.

As those who “fixed” the intelligence become transparent and their adherents apparent, how will Americans respond? If the Internet is the most robust means to communicate, will domestic politics persuade our commander-in-chief to hit the “kill switch?”

What opinion would the Supreme Court offer on this limitation of free speech? If this deception traces to a common source, would the Court agree to a limit on the right to bear arms in order to protect those who “adhere” to this enemy within?

Enter Elena Kagan. Though many of her colleagues viewed her publishing as far too scant, she was granted tenure as a Harvard law professor. What little she published focused on hate speech and the role of the government’s motive when limiting free speech.

If, as the facts confirm, our military was taken to war by an enemy within, large numbers of Americans are certain to be upset—particularly veterans. Vets also possess the skills to deploy deadly force should they become well informed.

They may even hate those who did this to a nation they took an oath to defend from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Many vets take that oath far more seriously than those who set their course by the shifting winds of domestic politics.

If free speech were limited (say with the Internet “kill switch”), would Justice Kagan uphold that limitation? Would the government’s motive affect her decision?

Would she seek to preclude an armed public from hating those who deceived us at such a high cost in blood and treasure?

What if the facts confirm that those who defrauded us to wage war also defrauded us of our retirement savings and plunged the economy into a recession? What then?

If the government’s motive is to keep Americans from bearing arms against those giving aid and comfort to an enemy within, is that reason enough to hit the “kill switch.”

Why do 60 Million Americans Oppose Elena Kagan?

Combine 27 million veterans and their families and the opposition to Kagan may well exceed 60 million informed Americans. Of course that assumes vets are informed of the perils of placing her on the nation’s highest court. How could they know?

Will Rupert Murdoch’s “fair and balanced” Fox News inform them? Will they get “news you can trust” from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer who worked 17 years for The Jerusalem Post and published a sympathetic account of Israeli-American super spy Jonathan Pollard?

Do Americans know that Ms. Kagen was a member of the Research Advisory Council of Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute? Do veterans know that she is the first Supreme Court nomine since 1972 with no judicial experience? Why was she the nominee? And, importantly, why now?

The Christian Science Monitor posed a question that mainstream media will not ask: “Why is an Israeli judge Elena Kagan’s ‘judicial hero?’” Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak showed how activist judges can shape the law to create what they consider the desired outcome—in a country with no constitution.

Kagan was nominated by a political product of the Chicago Outfit. The family lineage of Penny Pritzker, Barack Obama’s top fundraiser, dates back to organized crime of the 1900s. Both her grandfather and her great-grandfather were lawyers for the mob. Kagan served as a law clerk for Chicago Court of Appeals Judge Abner Mikva. Mikva also tried to recruit Obama who he describes as “the first Jewish president.”

If approved, Ms. Kagan will be the nation’s eighth Jewish Supreme Court Justice and the third on the current bench. In a nation that is less than two percent Jewish, our highest court will be one-third Jewish.

Those appointments began with Woodrow Wilson’s selection in 1916 of Louis Brandeis, president of the Zionist Organization of America. In the 1960s, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Senator William Fulbright sought to force that organization to register as what it was and remains: a foreign agent.

Instead, Zionists morphed their lobby into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the hardcore center of a potent lobby that has long dominated U.S. foreign policy.

The sexed-up intelligence that induced us to war in Iraq traces to a common Zionist source. Though Ms. Kagan is clearly a charming Jewish-American lawyer, her Israel-first perspective is inappropriate for our Supreme Court. At this perilous moment in this nation’s history, U.S. national security interests require that she be rejected.

Next Page »