Is Barack Obama waking up to the agenda of those who produced his political career? Was his “Inner Eisenhower” on display last week in his televised speech to the U.N. General Assembly?

Did listeners detect a distraught commander-in-chief seeking to bypass Congress and appeal directly to the international community for help in containing Israel’s expansionist goals?

In 1948, the Joint Chiefs cautioned Harry Truman about the “fanatical concepts” of a Jewish-Zionist elite that sought recognition as a legitimate state. U.S. military leaders warned Truman that this elite wanted “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

Albert Einstein and other prominent Jews were even more critical. They cautioned Americans about the Zionist political party that produced Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, calling it a “terrorist party” with “the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party.”

Eight years later, President Eisenhower experienced how they advance their agenda when, during the last days of his November 1956 presidential campaign, Israel, France and Britain sought to induce a war with Egypt over control of the Suez Canal.

Though Ike was distracted by presidential politics, London and Paris were quickly persuaded to abandon their efforts. Not Tel Aviv. Then as now, Jewish fanatics were not inclined to listen to a U.S. commander-in-chief regardless of the impact of their behavior on our national interests.

When this Republican leader sought Congressional support to counter the Zionists’ agenda, he found none. That’s when this former five-star general turned in desperation to a televised address to counter Israeli Congressional influence that has grown far stronger over the past 54 years.

In April 2010, a bipartisan 363 members of Congress committed themselves to an “unbreakable bond” with Israel—regardless of its behavior. No one dared even whisper the word treason.

That same Israel-first agenda was addressed to the commander-in-chief over the signatures of 76 Senators led by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California. GOP Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia and New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, launched a bipartisan pro-Israel assault on the commander-in-chief that sounded less like the Congress than the Knesset.

Obama’s Inner Ike

Could this be why Obama made an appeal to the international community to halt Israeli expansionism? Like Ike, did he wake-up to the fact of Israeli dominance in the Congress?

Has this young president—with no military experience—been forced to face the reality of an enemy within? If so, we may yet have an opportunity to restore representative government. If so, those who deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq for a Zionist agenda may yet be held accountable.

However, this past week also saw Congressman Barney Frank join others circulating a petition to free Israeli Master Spy Jonathan Pollard. A dual-citizen operative, Pollard did more damage to our national security than anyone in U.S. history. When he stole more than one million classified documents and Tel Aviv sold them to Moscow, our “special friend” gutted Cold War defenses on which American taxpayers spent more than $20 Trillion (in 2010 dollars) from 1948-1989.

Is Barney Frank committing treason? Or is he circulating that petition so that our national security apparatus has a list of those complicit in the treason that induced us to war in the Middle East on false pretenses? Was Obama’s speech to the U.N. a cry for help by a president whose advisory corps is dominated by pro-Israelis and Israeli-Americans?

Few Americans realize that Obama is a political product of the Chicago Outfit, commencing with Penny Pritzker, his top fundraiser according to his April 2007 filing with the Federal Elections Commission. Pritzker’s grandfather and great-grandfather were mob lawyers.

His second-ranked fundraiser was Chicago’s affluent Crown clan (né Krinsky) whose dominant ownership stake in General Dynamics ensured additional riches both from waging the “war on terror” and from Homeland Security. The third-ranked financier active in producing the Obama phenomenon was financial manipulator George Soros, recently rebranded a “progressive.”

Chicagoan Abner Mikva, White House counsel to Bill Clinton, captured the essence of the challenge Americans now face—regardless of party. A former Congressman, Mikva describes Obama as “our first Jewish president.” He should know.

Americans have been deceived for so long, we may be unable to discern the truth even when confessed by those who know it best. Did this eloquent young community organizer realize just this past week that his political success was produced by descendants of organized crime and those loyal to a foreign nation?

Chosen by The Chosen

America finds itself torn between two competing narratives. The first remains loyal to our founding principles in defense of our core freedoms. The second group now grasps that those who induced us to war with phony intelligence misused those freedoms to advance their agenda. How does our commander in chief expose those who befriended us in order to betray us?

With the all-pervasive Congressional influence wielded by Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians, what is a commander-in-chief to do? Is that why Barack Obama turned to television to make an appeal for help from the international community? Or is that just my wishful thinking?

With representative government in the U.S. now dominated by those who share beliefs contrary to our core principles, what is the head of our executive branch to do?

Americans have long been oblivious to Zionist influence. Did Barack Obama just awaken from a self-induced slumber and recall to whom his oath of office obliges him? Perhaps.

Two days ago, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas echoed the same cautionary words as Albert Einstein and the Joint Chiefs when describing Israel’s “mentality of expansion and domination.”

Little has changed over six decades except the faces on this perilous fascism. Obama may yet become part of the solution. Or, unlike Ike, he may succumb to the pressures of mid-term elections and again support the induced fanaticism now playing out as The Clash of Civilizations.

Forget your opinion of Barack Obama. Love him or loathe him, the reality remains unchanged: we have but one president at a time. And but one commander-in-chief.

U.S. national security is endangered—perhaps now more than at any time in history. Both the president and our military leaders are bound by an oath to defend this nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Recent events suggest that, in cooperation with senior military officers, President Obama is battling a cunning and committed adversary. To prevail, he needs public support.

Be clear on this point: we were deceived to wage war in Iraq on fabricated intelligence. Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to succeed with such an operation inside the U.S.

That same state now seeks to induce our invasion of Iran. Or Pakistan. In 1948, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Harry Truman about the “fanatical concepts” of this extremist enclave, especially its plans for “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

President Eisenhower saw this fledgling state in action when, during his 1956 presidential campaign, Britain, France and Israel sought to start a war with Egypt over control of the Suez Canal. London and Paris were quickly persuaded to abandon that effort. Not Tel Aviv.

When this Republican leader sought Congressional support, he found none. The former general turned instead to a televised address to counter an influence that has only grown stronger over the past 52 years. This month, a bipartisan 363 members of Congress committed themselves to an “unbreakable bond” with Israel—regardless of its behavior.

A similar commitment was addressed to the commander-in-chief over the signatures of 76 Senators led by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California. Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia and New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, unleashed a pro-Israel attack on Obama that sounded less like the Congress than the Knesset.

Forced to face the reality of an enemy within, our military leadership signaled Obama that they are prepared to cover his back. The oath of office mandates a defense against all enemies. Yet it also places our defense under civilian control.

Senior military officers now understand the need to mount a vigorous defense against an enemy adept at waging war “by way of deception.” That’s the operative credo of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate.

In January, CENTCOM Commander David Petraeus dispatched a team to brief Admiral Mike Mullen on the adverse impact of Israeli behavior on U.S. security interests. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mullen was reportedly stunned.

General Petraeus also argued that CENTCOM should have oversight of Israel/Palestine. It’s long been known how to resolve those hostilities: declare Jerusalem an international city under U.N. protection and dispatch international troops to secure the area.

The Israeli government fired right back. On the early March arrival of Vice-President Joe Biden in Tel Aviv, the Netanyahu government announced the construction of 1,600 homes in the most contentious area in dispute.

When Netanyahu arrived two weeks later for a White House meeting, Obama’s cool reception set off a flurry of pro-Israeli ads in papers nationwide while Nobel peace laureate Elie Wiesel proclaimed, “Jerusalem is above politics.”

Meanwhile Israeli saber rattling moved into high gear as the “existential threat” of Iran again became the drumbeat of the nation’s pro-Israeli mainstream media. The Pentagon fired right backed with an announcement from the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy that U.S. military force against Iran is “off the table in the near term.”

Another adventure in the Middle East would be ruinous for the U.S. not only militarily but also financially and geo-strategically. That may well be what the Israel lobby has in mind as it seeks with its dominance in politics and media to induce another war that would further damage U.S. interests worldwide.

To defend against the manipulation of thought and emotion that typifies modern warfare, the Pentagon is mounting a vigorous counteroffensive. Though non-transparent to the public, its latest initiative was a shot across the bow of this enemy within.

On April 22, the Pentagon rescinded evangelist Franklin Graham’s invitation to a National Prayer Day event. News reports confirmed that his anti-Islam comments were contrary to a newly revised Pentagon policy meant to minimize such provocative rhetoric.

Though that analysis is correct, the underlying dynamics are more complex and far more troublesome for Israel. Those dynamics include its continued status as a legitimate state.

Tel Aviv well recalls a tape-recorded discussion in 1972 between Republican President Richard Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham, Franklin’s father, in which Graham agreed with a commander-in-chief that Jews control the media, calling it a “stranglehold.”

Franklin’s attacks on Islam overcompensated for his father’s agreement on that key strategic point. With this action, the Pentagon signaled confidence in the intelligence identifying a key source of the deception that has long plagued U.S. national security.

By urging that the Congress express its “unbreakable bond” with Israel, the lobby inadvertently conceded good news for America: this perilous bond is already broken.

Please defend the U.S.: support our Commander-in-Chief.

Below is the second installment in a 5-part series regarding Pakistan.

Be not deceived by Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name or by the fact that he spent several childhood years in Indonesia. His political career is a product of a Westside Chicago Ashkenazi network with roots that trace directly back to organized crime of the 1920s.

Top fundraiser Penny Pritzker traces her family lineage to grandfather Abe and great-grandfather Nicholas who served as lawyers for organized crime. She declined a nomination as Secretary of Commerce in the Obama Cabinet, a post typically offered top fundraisers. Her confirmation hearings could have proved a political embarrassment by reminding us of the suspect origins of “our” latest president.

Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva aptly described this high-profile product of the Chicago Outfit as “the first Jewish president.” Plus his Vice President, only a heartbeat from the reins of power, is the reliably obsequious Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden.

For his Secretary of State, Obama appointed a presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, whose political career traces to the same source. After serving as First Lady in the presidency of Arkansas native Bill Clinton, she fled to New York to run for the U.S. Senate knowing she could not win an election—any election—in Arkansas where she is widely reviled.

By staking out extreme pro-Israeli positions, she joined New York Senator Charles Schumer as, in practical effect, the second Jewish Senator from a key electoral state long dominated by this trans-generational criminal syndicate.

The chiefs of staff for Barack and Michele Obama are both Ashkenazim from Chicago, long a center of foreign espionage. That fact was recently reconfirmed by Federal Bureau of Investigation translator Sibel Edmonds when, from FBI wiretaps, she documented the close working relationship between the Israel Lobby and U.S. officials with power over policy making in the Middle East, including Richard Perle, Wolfowitz understudy Douglas Feith and key members of Congress.

Earlier this month, a Chicago man whose father was a Pakistani diplomat was charged with involvement in planning “India’s 911.” In practical effect, the murder of 166 people in Mumbai, India’s financial center, accelerated the destabilization of Pakistan by drawing troops out of the western provinces for redeployment along the eastern border with India. See:

• What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?

Why Outside Help Is Required

The same syndicate working to destabilize Pakistan is also destabilizing the U.S.—from the inside. That’s why ordinary Americans need the assistance of Pakistanis and others outside the U.S. to restore some semblance of representative government.

The confidence with which this game theory aggression progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11 while in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, a presidential retreat outside Washington, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.

On that same day, San Diego FBI Special Agent Stephen Butler interrogated Iraqi Munther Ghazal at his home near San Diego to determine if he was funding Mel Rockefeller with whom Ghazal traveled to Baghdad in early 1997. After meeting for several days with Nidhal al-Hamdani, a top nuclear physicist with oversight of Iraq’s mothballed nuclear weapons program, Rockefeller returned to the U.S. with a practical proposal for removing Saddam Hussein without this war and without triggering a violent and destabilizing insurgency.

[Insert 1997 photo of Nidhal al-Hamdani in her office on phone with Saddam Hussein.]

When regional specialists at the U.S. Department of State declined to meet with him, he traveled to Ottawa in April 1997 where he met with Middle East specialists in the Canadian government to ensure a written record would confirm there was an alternative to war in Iraq—six years before the invasion. Instead of debriefing him, FBI agents sought to discredit him.

[Insert fax of April 1997 from Canadian officials to James M. Rockefeller.]

Though FBI agents interviewed Munther Ghazal numerous times, they have yet to meet with Mel Rockefeller. Four packages sent to the Phoenix divisional office of the FBI documenting ongoing treason and criminal stalking were returned, marked “refused.”

FBI Special Agent Butler cashed checks and paid rent for the two San Diego-based hijackers who piloted planes into the World Trade Center towers. The same Iman who counseled Major Nidal Hasan (with FBI knowledge) before he was transferred to Fort Hood—where he went on a shooting spree—also counseled the San Diego-based hijackers—likewise with FBI knowledge.

As of December 18, 2009, no one from either federal law enforcement or national security had debriefed Mel Rockefeller—eight years after 9-11. Had he been engaged in good faith in early 1997 after his return from Baghdad or in early 2001 after his return from Jakarta, the facts suggest that 9-11 might well have been prevented. Good faith engagement after 9-11 could have prevented the invasion of Iraq. Instead, extraordinary steps were taken to discredit him.

When President George H.W. Bush declined to invade Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz imposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By the time that the invasion of March 2003 began, the Israeli Mossad had more than 100 agents deployed for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were also traced to Mosul—reports that proved false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz.

In the lead-up to the invasion, Wolfowitz assured policy-makers of a swift and welcome regime-change whose $50 billion cost would be recovered from the proceeds of Iraqi oil. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has since projected the total cost will exceed $3,000 billion, all of it borrowed. That total, 60 times the original estimate, includes $700 billion in interest paid on war-related debt.

See:

A Closer Look at Israel’s Role in Terrorism

Ft. Hood: “Death By Political Correctness”?

Fort Hood Tragedy: The Real Story of the Terrorist “Mad Doctor Hasan”

The use of identity to shape judicial decisions creates precedents unintended by lawmakers. In practical effect, those sympathies become law. Once precedents appear in court opinions, they can be expanded—again without support from legislators. Judicial activism relies on the steady expansion of precedent to broaden its impact. In similar fashion, the steady deepening of U.S.-Israeli relations reflects the impact of identity politics based on bias and personal sympathies.

But for the Holocaust, Harry Truman would likely not have recognized an enclave of Jewish extremists as a nation state. Opposition arose on all fronts, including strong objections from his Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall. Yet Truman’s bias as a Christian Zionist and his sympathies from a fundamentalist upbringing in rural Missouri led him to identify with the Jews’ return to Palestine as a means to hasten the Second Coming of the Christian Messiah.

While Truman conceded that the Zionists proclaimed a Jewish state, that is not what he recognized on May 14, 1948. Instead, he crossed out “Jewish state” and wrote the “State of Israel.” In the lead-up to that date, Truman was repeatedly assured by Zionist leaders that Israel was not intended to become a theocratic state. Yet sympathetic White House aides prepared for his signature a proclamation that would have established that precedent.

How do sympathy and empathy—whether of presidents, judges or members of Congress—alter what lawmakers intend? Is this a natural process? Or can identity politics also be deployed to manipulate? In the case of Israel, history points to historic and ongoing emotional exploitation.

Dangers of Identity Politics

Truman was a product of Kansas City’s Pendergast political machine. After the National Crime Syndicate was formed at a 1929 meeting in Atlantic City, that machine evolved into a key node in the node-and-network system of organized crime. In 1931, the syndicate’s nationwide operations were formalized in a Jews-only conclave at the Franconia Hotel in Manhattan where 24 exclusive territories were sanctioned, including five in and around New York City.

Truman was profiled, picked and “produced” to be placed in office—where he then behaved consistent with his profile. Known as “assets,” such pliable operatives do not have the state of mind that consciously connects them to what the “producers” seek to achieve. That leaves assets innocent of the intent required for criminal wrongdoing—yet complicit in the underlying objective.

Assets need only possess the requisite personality for the position. Those qualifications for office include the sympathies required to support the goals of Jewish organized crime. Thus the key role played by a Christian Zionist president in granting nation state status to a Zionist enclave. Thus, more recently, the key role of another Christian Zionist president in enabling the provocation of 911 to lead the U.S. to war in Iraq—in pursuit of Zionism’s Greater Israel policy.

But for their personal sympathies and that perceived identity of interest, would these two assets have embraced policies helpful to Jewish extremists and harmful to the national interest? Therein lies the danger when the U.S. was induced to embrace—with its post-WWII sympathy—an entangled alliance with what Barack Obama in mid-June described as a “Jewish state.”

How did an Illinois state senator with two years experience in the U.S. Senate become president at this key juncture? Two of his top-three campaign funders from Westside Chicago—Pritzker and Crown (né Krinsky)—trace their family histories to Jewish syndicates of the 1920s. The third, Hungarian-Ashkenazi George Soros, made his billions from hedge funds.

What role does identity politics play in the decision-making of the nation’s first African-American president? Did his minority status provide Tel Aviv a sympathetic ear that induced his refusal to take a firm stance on settlements in the West Bank? Did his empathy for protests in Tehran change his mind about talks with Iran, a diplomatic initiative opposed by Israel?

Was Barack Obama profiled, picked and produced to assume this position? Are his personality—and his personal history—being exploited to advance an agenda of which he is not consciously aware? As organized crime in the U.S. grew in scope and scale, its operations became more sophisticated. As this Jewish syndicate gained more power, its influence became subtler.

Those closest to this latest president are using identity politics to shape an agenda consistent not with U.S. interests but with the goals of the theocratic state that Truman feared Israel would become. One of Barack Obama’s top two aides (both are Jewish) served with the Israeli Defense Forces during the Gulf War.

The sensitivities—and sympathies—surrounding identity politics have thus far kept such analyses beyond the scope of inquiry. Yet national security requires that the use of such sophisticated psy-ops now be assessed based on the consistency of this strategy from Truman to today.

Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer, third-ranking in the Senate leadership, quizzed Judge Sotomayor to show that bias, sympathy and empathy played no role in her decisions. Yet not once did Schumer, a key advocate of U.S. identity with Israel, mention the role played by pro-Israeli bias and sympathies in reshaping U.S. law and jeopardizing national security

Identity politics help explain how Jewish organized crime can operate in plain sight and, to date, with impunity. As “Chosen,” those complicit view sympathy and empathy as emotions to be manipulated, not reciprocated. Only in this broader strategic context can a jurist’s support for identity politics be properly assessed.

By Jeff Gates

Those familiar with the pro-Zionist politics of John McCain breathed a sigh of relief at his defeat. With Barack Obama there’s a possibility of change where change is most needed: in U.S.-Israeli relations. The prospects, however, are not bright for several reasons.

First, he faces major hurdles in Congress where pro-Israelis chair key committees and subcommittees. Obama hails from Chicago, a major node in the node-and network system of organized crime. His senior in the Illinois delegation is Richard Durbin, a lawyer recruited by the Israeli lobby in 1982 to oppose 11-term Rep. Paul Findley who challenged the Israelification of U.S. foreign policy. First elected to the Senate in 1996, Durbin serves as assistant majority leader.

Durbin shares a house in Washington with Charles Schumer, a pro-Israeli senator from New York and third ranking in the Senate leadership. Both men are junior to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of mobbed-up Nevada.

Reid is a Zionist-inclined Mormon (aka the Lost Tribe of Israel). His assessment of the Israel lobby: “I can’t think of a policy organization in the country as well organized and respected.”

Obama proved on the campaign trail how readily he could yield to pressure from pro-Israelis. Malcolm Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, cited Obama’s promise of change as “an opening for all kind of mischief.”

To please and appease, Obama delivered a series of pro-Israel speeches. Though it was U.S. national security that was put at risk in pursuit of Israel’s agenda in the Middle East, Obama spent much of his spring campaign pledging his allegiance to Israel and portraying its security as “sacrosanct.”

Obama takes office in the midst of a perfect storm raging in a nation targeted by those skilled at waging war “by way of deception,” the Israeli Mossad’s operating motto. Those complicit are skilled at displacing facts with what people can be deceived to believe—whether a false belief in Iraqi WMD and mobile biological weapons laboratories, or a misplaced faith in the infallible wisdom of unfettered financial markets.

Though Americans know they were deceived, they do not yet know how, by whom or to what purpose. Those anticipating change need only watch who staffs an Obama administration.

When he convened his foreign advisory team, he placed pro-Israeli Madeleine Albright at the head of the table. She was secretary of state for President Bill Clinton.

When he convened his economic policy team, Lawrence Summers took
the lead. Recently forced out as president of Harvard University, former Treasury Secretary Summers handpicked the pro-Israeli advisory team that oversaw the oligarchization of Russia. The largest fraud in history, Mikhail Gorbachev estimated that the financial pillage exceeded $1 trillion. Eight of the top nine oligarchs qualify for Israeli citizenship.

Obama will be sworn in on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The NAACP was established six months after the Springfield race riot of 1908 that resulted in seven deaths in Abraham Lincoln’s hometown. From its outset, the NAACP leadership was dominated not by African-Americans but by Jewish-Americans. Not until 1975 did it have a black president.

By allying with those genuinely oppressed, the Jewish-American community enjoyed extraordinary economic and social progress, particularly when compared to blacks. Advancement in the financial arena was especially pronounced where 25 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are now Jewish, compared to 1.7% of the U.S. population. Blacks, on the other hand, continue their disproportionate representation in the lower tiers of both wealth and income.

The subprime mortgage meltdown is the third financial “pump and dump” over just the past two decades. The savings and loan fraud of the late 1980s cost taxpayers $124 billion. The far more expensive “dotcom” bust of 2000 will be dwarfed by this latest financial fraud. Those who skimmed the financial cream as markets rose have routinely been well placed to buy assets at reduced prices as markets fell.

With foreign policy and economic policy the key challenges, watch who Obama picks for those areas. In this handoff from one party to another, the same pro-Israeli bias appears likely to remain intact. Unable to manipulate him with sex (as with Clinton) or beliefs (as with Bush), race may well come into play.

As the U.S. enters the most challenging period in its 232-year history, this president could determine whether freedom survives or oppression triumphs. If President Obama grasps the all-pervasive influence of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, he could become a transformational leader—by transforming that relationship. Should he continue on the course set by previous leaders of both parties, it would be wrong to charge “the fix is in” when the facts confirm that the fix never left.