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.

During the 1960 Christmas season, Americans flocked to the theaters to see Exodus, a 3-1/2 hour epic featuring romance, handsome freedom fighters and the triumph of Jewish destiny over Arab evil—all set against a Yuletide backdrop of Biblical prophecy as heroic Jews returned to their promised land.

Many moviegoers failed to realize that Exodus was not fact but fiction adapted from a 1958 Leon Uris novel, the biggest bestseller since Gone with the Wind. Directed by Otto Preminger and starring a young Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint, the film featured Lee J. Cobb, Rat Pack member Peter Lawford and Italian crooner Sal Mineo, a teen heartthrob who received an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of a Jewish émigré.

Then as now, Americans are easily swayed by sympathetic portrayals of an extremist enclave granted nation-state recognition by Harry Truman. A Christian-Zionist who had famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15, Truman was a True Believer in the prophecy that the Messiah could not return until the Israelites returned to their ancestral home.

Truman White House counsel Clark Clifford routinely reminded the widely unpopular president that his 1948 campaign was woefully short of funding that the Jewish-American community—with that recognition—was eager to provide. In May 1948, General George C. Marshall, Truman’s Secretary of State, argued vigorously against recognition of this Zionist enclave as a legitimate sovereign nation. Truman heard similarly strong objections from the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose analysis of the perils proved prophetic.

Marshall, the senior U.S. military officer in WWII, was outraged that Clifford, then in charge of Truman’s campaign, would put domestic political expedience ahead of U.S. foreign policy interests. Marshall assured Truman that he would vote against him if he granted the Zionists sovereign status. He also directed State Department personnel never again to speak to Clifford.

In March 1948, a Joint Chiefs paper titled “Force Requirements for Palestine” predicted that the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” Those objectives included an expansionist agenda for Greater Israel that envisioned the taking of Arab land, ensuring armed clashes in which the U.S. was destined to become embroiled.

The Joint Chiefs listed the Zionist objectives as:

• Initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine
• Acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration
• The extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine,
• The expansion of “Eretz (Greater) Israel” into Transjordan and portions of Lebanon and Syria, and
• The establishment of Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.

Akin to the fictional portrayal in Exodus, those Zionists lobbying Truman assured him they would remain within the initial boundaries. We now know that was a lie. They also promised that the Zionist state would not become what it soon became: a theocratic and racist enclave—albeit widely marketed as the “only democracy in the Middle East.” To remove all doubt as to the extremist nature of the Zionist project, the Joint Chiefs assessment added ominously:

“All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group–the Jewish Agency.”

[See Stephen Green, Taking Sides (1984), pp. 20-21.]

Deceit from the Outset

A beguiling combination of Hollywood fiction, manipulated beliefs and outright lies remain at the core of the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.” The deceit deployed to advance the Zionist project remains obscured by a pro-Israeli bias in media and reinforced by pro-Israeli influence in popular culture.

In The Persuasion Explosion (1985), writer Art Stevens reports that Exodus was a public relations project launched by Edward Gottlieb who sought a novelist to improve Israel’s image in the U.S. That writer was Leon Uris, a surname from Yerushalmi, meaning “man of Jerusalem.” The film rights were sold in advance. Translated into dozens of languages, this public relations masterpiece became a worldwide bestseller.

The rewards are real for those who offer aid and comfort to this trans-generational duplicity. As Truman’s whistle-stop train traversed the nation, grateful Zionists refueled his campaign coffers with a reported $400,000 in cash ($3.5 million in current dollars). Those funds helped transform his widely anticipated loss into a clear victory with support from pro-Israeli editorial boards that—after recognition—boosted Truman’s sagging popularity.

Clark Clifford was rewarded with his career goal as a top-paid Washington lawyer. As a “made man,” he remained a reliable asset. During the G.H.W. Bush presidency, his prominence provided cover for a massive bank fraud involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In 2009, Hollywood released an action thriller (The International) featuring the same storyline involving the International Bank of Business and Credit.

Neither Clifford nor Altman had experience in banking when their law firm enabled what prosecutors charged was a global criminal operation. The U.S. press called the scheme the biggest bank fraud in history. This $20 billion transnational operation even included a pop culture component. Clifford’s young protégé and law partner, Robert Altman, was married to Lynda Carter, the star of Wonder Woman, a 1970s fantasy-adventure television series.

The real fantasy in this long-running fraud lies in identifying why U.S. lawmakers continue to befriend and defend a “nation” that has for so long—and so consistently—deceived and betrayed its most loyal ally. As a badly miscast Eva Marie Saint asks in her most memorable line in Exodus: “When will it ever end?”

The greatest wonder will be if, based on the well-documented history of this duplicity, those lawmakers urging continued support for these fanatics are not charged with treason. [See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy”: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=124829&d=24&m=7&y=2009

To restore its national security, the U.S. must shake off its entangled alliance with this extremist enclave. “Shaking off” is the literal translation of “intifada.” Those who comprehend the trans-generational nature of this deception are quickly reaching that conclusion. The others may be waiting for the movie, American Intifada.

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.

Israelis and pro-Israelis object when they hear that charge. How, they ask, can we so few wield such influence over so many? Answer: it’s all in the math. And in the single-issue advocacy brought to bear on U.S. policy-making by dozens of ‘domestic’ organizations that now compose the Israel lobby, with AIPAC its most visible force.

The political math was enabled by Senator John McCain whose support for all things Israeli ensured him the GOP nomination to succeed Christian-Zionist G.W. Bush. McCain’s style of campaign finance reform proved a perfect fit for the Diaspora-based fundraising on which the lobby relies. Co-sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, this change in federal election law typifies how Israeli influence became systemic.

‘McCain-Feingold’ raised the amount (from $1,000 to $2,300) that candidates can receive from individuals in primary and general elections. A couple can now contribute a combined $9,200 to federal candidates: $4,600 in each of the primary and general elections. Primary elections, usually low-budget, are particularly easy to sway.

Importantly for the Diaspora, this change also doubled the funds candidates can receive without regard to where those contributors reside. A candidate in Iowa, say, may have only a few pro-Israeli constituents. When campaign support is provided by a nationwide network of pro-Israelis, that candidate can more easily be persuaded to support policies sought by Tel Aviv.

Diaspora-based fundraising has long been used by the lobby with force-multiplying success to shape U.S. foreign policy. Under the guise of reform, John McCain doubled the financial resources that the lobby can deploy to elect and retain its supporters.

Fulbright was Right

The influence-peddling process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth AIPAC interviews. Those found sufficiently committed to Israel’s agenda are provided a list of donors likely to “max out” their campaign contributions. Or the process can be made even easier when AIPAC-approved candidates are given the name of a “bundler.”

Bundlers raise funds from the Diaspora and bundle those contributions to present them to the candidate. No quid pro quo need be mentioned. After McCain-Feingold became law in 2003, AIPAC-identified bundlers could raise $1 million-plus for AIPAC-approved candidates simply by contacting ten like-minded supporters. Here’s the math:

The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say in Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills. Each of them max out (10 x $9,200) and call ten others for a total of 11. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.]

Imagine the incentive to do well in the AIPAC interview. One call from the lobby and a candidate can collect enough cash to mount a credible campaign in most Congressional districts. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than ten percent of the 435 House races are competitive in any election cycle (typically 35 to 50).

Additional force-multipliers come from: (a) sustaining this financial focus over multiple cycles, (b) using funds to gain and retain seniority for those serving on Congressional committees key to promoting Israeli goals, and (c) opposing candidates who question those goals.

Jewish Achievement reports that 42% of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish, including four of the top five. That compares to less than 2% of Americans who are Jewish. Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25% are Jewish according to Michael Steinhardt, a key funder of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was led by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman when he resigned in 2000 to run as vice president with pro-Israeli presidential candidate Al Gore.

Money was never a constraint. Pro-Israeli donors were limited only by how much they could lawfully contribute to AIPAC-screened candidates. McCain-Feingold raised a key limit. The full impact of this foreign influence has yet to be tallied. What’s known, however, is sufficient to apply the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Of the top 50 neoconservatives who advocated war in Iraq, 26 were Jewish (52%).

Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, remains one of the more notable recipients of funds. In 1948, he was trailing badly in the polls and in fundraising. His prospects brightened dramatically in May after he recognized as a legitimate state an enclave of Jewish extremists who originally planned to settle in Argentina before putting their sights on Palestine.

That recognition was opposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bulk of the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and numerous distinguished Americans, including moderate and secular Jews concerned at the troubles that were certain to follow. Not until 1984 was it revealed that a network of Jewish Zionists had funded Truman’s campaign by financially refueling his whistle-stop campaign train with $400,000 in cash ($3 million in 2009 dollars).

To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from the Israel lobby’s network is paid to media outlets largely owned or managed by members of the same network. Presidents, Senators and Congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass lasting political influence.

The U.S. system of government is meant to ensure that members of the House represent the concerns of Americans who reside in Congressional districts—not a nationally dispersed network (a Diaspora) committed to advancing the agenda of a foreign nation. Federal elections are meant to hold Senators accountable to constituents who reside in the states they represent—not out-of-state residents or a foreign government.

In practical effect, McCain-Feingold hastened a retreat from representative government by granting a nationwide network of foreign agents disproportionate influence over elections in every state and Congressional district. Campaign finance ‘reform’ enabled this network to amass even more political clout—wielding influence disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.

This force-multiplier is now wielded in plain sight, with impunity and under cover of free speech, free elections, free press and even the freedom of religion. Therein lies the perils of an entangled alliance that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq and now seeks war with Iran. By allowing foreign agents to operate as a domestic lobby, the U.S. was induced to confuse Zionist interests with its own.