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.

Familiar with psychological operations (psy-ops) that involve lengthy pre-staging, Kumaat inquired of Rockefeller in Jakarta why that incident occurred at that time and place.

Kumaat also noted the curious timing of two other operations: (a) a Defense minister in India had recently been caught in a bribery scandal involving an Israeli company, and (b) that same Israeli firm attempted to bribe the Malaysian Defense Minister.

Six months prior to 911, the motivation for the Bamyan incident was difficult to discern. In hindsight, we now know that high profile event branded the Taliban globally as Evil Doers.

What about the briberies? The amounts involved were too small, Rockefeller suggested, to constitute real bribes. Rather, both were attempts to change key personnel though it was not yet clear to what end. Since 911, the reason for the timing of those Israeli operations comes more clearly into focus.

In national security parlance, the dynamiting of the Buddhas “prepared the mind” of a global public for whom the Taliban remained an obscurity until their extremism was branded by that well timed event. The briberies will be addressed in a subsequent analysis. Suffice it to say that both involved the pre-staging of “out-of-theater” operations.

By Way of Deception

For those skilled at Information Age warfare, the relevant battlefield is the public’s shared field of consciousness. In that intangible realm, the power of association is routinely deployed to create lasting impressions as a means of mental manipulation.

In preparing that ‘field’ for an emerging narrative, mainstream media depicted the incident at Bamyan as a “cultural Holocaust.” Akin to the casting of a movie, by September 11, 2001, the intolerant Taliban had already been cast as a credible enemy of liberal democracies.

When the reaction to 911 triggered a global search for a plausible Evil Doer, the narrative quickly became a morality play with the U.S. pitted against extremists who hate our values.

As a nation, we segued seamlessly from a global Cold War—against those who hate our values to a Global War on Terrorism—against those who hate our values.

The violence inflicted on the peaceful Buddhas of Bamyan also brought Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar onto the battlefield of consciousness—where he remains.

In the unfolding of this storyline, Omar became the oft-featured Epitome of Evil, akin to a Muslim Darth Vader from Star Wars films. Or Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to war in Iraq.

Best Story Wins

This brief overview of “field-based warfare” brings us to the latest incident in New York again featuring in a starring role Mullah Omar as leader of the “Pakistan Taliban.”

But first a brief review of three recent events.

Keep in mind that when waging game theory warfare, it is not the incident but the reaction that advances the narrative. The cascade of reactions to an incident is what gains traction for a storyline when manipulating minds in that “field.” See: Can the U.S. Beat Israel at Their Game?

The first incident was the December 2007 murder of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazim biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice that the return to Pakistan of the corrupt but widely popular Bhutto was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.”

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had announced that an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine was critical to end the conflicts in Iraq and neighboring Afghanistan. That comment made him a target of those for whom that occupation has long served a strategic purpose.

Bhutto’s death was blamed on the Pakistan Taliban. The reaction resulted in the replacement of Musharraf with Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s notoriously corrupt husband. By our alliance with Zardari, the U.S. could be cast as extending its corrupting influence in the region. See: What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?; Israel’s Role in Terrorism

In August 2008, Ashkenazi General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Israeli arms and training. That out-of-theater crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) pledged to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Russia was then negotiating an energy agreement with Iran.

The incident in Georgia was the second of three prepare-the-mind events. Third was “India’s 911” in November 2008 when extremists recruited from the tribal regions of western Pakistan killed 173 and wounded more than 300 in Mumbai, India’s financial center.

The attack included a hostel run by Chabad Lubavitch, an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from New York. In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced: “Our world is under attack.”

Livni then argued: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.” By its exclusion, Pakistan was indicted.

By standing “shoulder to shoulder” with India (the signature phrase of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon), Tel Aviv associated India with Israel’s victim status.

The response to that attack drew Pakistani troops to its eastern border with India. That reaction left its Western tribal regions less well guarded and thereby plausibly more susceptible to extremist infiltrators from Afghanistan joining the Pakistan Taliban.

By May 2009, Israel had delivered to India its first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning & Control Systems (AWACS). That arms sale shifted the balance of conventional air power in the region. That military alliance also confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….” See: The India/Israel Alliance

Whose Pakistan Taliban?

Now let’s turn to the latest incident—also attributed to the Pakistan Taliban. Keep in mind that when waging war on the battlefield of the public’s shared mind space, the power of association is routinely deployed as a form of weaponry.

The “Times Square terrorist” incident occurred at 6:30 pm on May 1^st. That same day, reports emerged from London that more than 3,000 European Jews, including prominent intellectuals, had signed a petition speaking out against Israeli settlement policies and warning that systematic support for the Israeli government is dangerous.

That statement garnered high praise from those aware of how peace in the Middle East has long been kept beyond reach by Israeli agent provocateurs. Serial provocations around the settlements issue have long been a reliable catalyst for well-timed outrage that, in turn, is cited to again defer resolution of a six-decade conflict. See: What Next for Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

Bernard-Henri Levy, a high-profile French writer, led that European effort. That development appeared quite positive when first announced. Then Levy began to appear as a commentator on television following the “Times Square Terrorism” as that incident was portrayed on the cover of Newsweek, a Washington Post magazine.

Rather than promote the petition and the urgent need to solve the settlements issue, instead Levy offered his appraisal of the Times Square incident. He described in depth how he studied what went on “inside the mind” of a Muslim Evil Doer who in 2002 slit the throat and then beheaded an American-Jewish reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

The Levy analysis injected into the “field” the most visually provocative image of the War on Terrorism featuring the epitome of both violence and extremist intolerance. Levy’s well-timed on-camera recitation refreshed in the public mindset the disturbing imagery of a Muslim Evil Doer who brutally murdered and dismembered a young professional with a pregnant wife.

Levy’s described for the television viewer the mental state of the psychopathic Muslim profiled in his book Who Killed Danny Pearl? Where did this evil doing occur? In Pakistan.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped from the Shadows?

As Levy’s account was injected into the field at the same time as the Time Square Bomber, the U.N. Security Council then had under review a 15-year old proposal for a treaty that would create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

The timing of these developments could be coincidental. Yet consider another possibility.

Assume your numbers are few but your ambitions vast. The confirmed facts point to the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy from the shadows with phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a Muslim Evil Doer that had nothing to do with that incident. Is it possible that this latest incident had a strategic purpose that is not yet clear to the public?

If, as the facts suggest, advisers to President Barack Obama are advancing a pro-Israeli agenda, could the timing of this incident be a means to exert influence from outside the White House?

Could that be because their influence inside the White House has become apparent? See: Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?

The facts suggest that Obama, as U.S. commander-in-chief, is feeling pressure from the military to change our policy on Israel. Did the timing of these “out of theatre” events help finesse that issue by refreshing a storyline that calls for the U.S. to lead a Global War on Terrorism?

Was this latest incident timed to provide a rationale with which our policy-makers can preempt Pentagon concerns about the effect of U.S.-Israeli policy on our troops in the field? Note the military concerns described in Foreign Policy: The Petraeus Briefing – Israel Endangering U.S. Troops

How long ago would pro-Israeli White House insiders have known about the pending U.N. Security Council consideration of a treaty that could force Israel to forfeit its nuclear weapons? When was the Times Square Terrorist recruited by the “Pakistan Taliban”?

Is this how a war-making narrative is sustained, using well-timed crises staged in a nonlinear fashion such that their common origin is diffused in the “field”?

Could that explain the well-timed murder of Benazir Bhutto by the “Pakistan Taliban”? Could that explain the well-timed destabilizing impact on Pakistan of the recent “911” attack on Mumbai using operatives recruited and trained in Pakistan? Was this too the “Pakistan Taliban”?

In a televised May 10^th interview, General Stanley McChrystal explained that winning the current war in the Middle East requires a “change in perception.” Is that the purpose of these well-timed crises? Are they meant to refresh our fear of the “Pakistan Taliban”?

The displacement of facts with false beliefs induced us to invade Iraq consistent with a narrative that was revitalized by this latest well-timed “incident.” Is the American public again being manipulated by those skilled at managing perceptions?

Is this incident a high profile example of field-based warfare being waged on America? Are we in the midst of another psy-ops?

Is that possible? Could there be a sufficient critical mass of like-minded operatives in positions of influence capable of inducing enough minds to freely embrace another war that is not in our interest?

Is it possible in the Information Age that psy-ops could operate on such a scale? Is there sufficient collateral support in key decision-making quarters to again deceive an entire nation in plain sight yet, to date, with legal impunity?

Pakistan has long been an ally of the U.S. So was Iraq. Likewise Iran was an ally in recent history. Where are we to find this purported “Axis of Evil”? Does its source reside in nation-states? Or does this evil reside in the mental state of those skilled at manipulating the minds of others to wage war on false pretenses?

War in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented

The answers to those questions may need to await an official, good faith investigation of the three-decade experience of Mel Rockefeller who has been profiling the common source of this duplicity—from the inside—since 1982. That experience remains ongoing.

In March 2001, he and Indonesian intelligence chief Arie Kumaat were not then able to detect the pre-staging of the mass murder on U.S. soil that emerged six months later.

After that provocation and before the manipulated response (the invasion of Iraq), Kumaat agreed to schedule a meeting for Rockefeller with former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid. A religious and political leader of 80 million moderate Muslim men, Wahid had recently presided over the world’s largest Muslim nation.

Rockefeller knew the Wahid meeting would lead to a meeting with Malaysian president Mahathir bin Mohamad. This Muslim leader was familiar with the common source of many of today’s troubles, including a well timed attempt to topple the Malaysian Minister of Defense.

Plus Kumaat had uncovered a multi-billion dollar Israeli bribe that would have destabilized the entire Indonesia government reportedly organized with the help of a nonprofit funded by American George Soros. See: The Truth About America and Pakistan

With all two Muslim nations appraised of the common Israeli source of this manipulation, could the invasion of Iraq have been stopped?

With that knowledge, could a “coalition of the willing” have been assembled to support that U.S.-led invasion? Would other nations have been energized to resist? We may never know.

Soon after agreeing to set that meeting with Wahid, Arie Kumaat was poisoned. He received a state funeral in January 2002, four months after the provocation that took the U.S. to war against Muslim Evil Doers.

Though the official account of his death cited a heart attack, a family autopsy reportedly detected the poison used to induce a heart attack. That account was confirmed in an interview with Kumaat’s son, Henrie. See: Zionist Dominance in the Obama Presidency

The People in Between

In an October 2007 speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates identified “the people in between” as the most problematic combatant when waging “unconventional warfare.” The facts suggest that such warfare is only “unconventional” for those targeted. For the aggressor, this form of warfare is standard operating procedure.

Those waging war from the shadows imbed their operatives in that realm “in between” a targeted populace and the facts they require for a system of governance reliant on informed consent. By displacing facts with false beliefs, mental manipulation can proceed in plain sight.

Between a deceived American public and the facts they required to assess whether to wage war in Iraq were legions of pro-Israeli operatives. Many of those operatives are imbedded in media, a key in-between domain essential for success in field-based warfare.

Thus, for example, the critical agenda-advancing role played by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. He even branded his broadcasting set “The Situation Room” to lend White House-associative credibility on a network branded as “the most trusted name in news.” See: Israel’s Fifth Column: The People in Between

Likewise New York Times “reporter” Judith Miller who featured on its front page the false intelligence provided by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the credible-sounding “Iraqi National Congress.” This Iraqi expatriate and London-based Iraqi liar served as a reliable and pliable Israeli asset developed over two decades by pro-Israeli operatives, including Richard Perle who in 2001 became chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board.

This form of Information Age treason could only succeed if hidden in plain sight. Today’s fast-paced velocity of information ensures that media impressions now shape political agendas. Thus the importance of “the people in between” in manipulating U.S. foreign policy.

Out-of-Theater Repositioning

Pro-Israelis in the Obama administration could no longer directly shape Middle East policy after General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, complained to the Joint Chiefs about the adverse impact of the U.S.-Israeli relationship on U.S. interests in the region.

Could that explain the utility of an “out of theater” incident to refresh the narrative? That may explain the timing of an incident in a high-profile venue (Times Square) featuring a power-of-association component (New York) that could plausibly be attributed to Pakistan as a source of violent Islamic extremists.

The control wielded in Washington by the Israel lobby remains little known to mainstream Americans. As our representatives in what was meant to be a representative system of governance, the U.S. Congress now epitomizes “the people in between.” See: How the Israel Lobby Controls U.S.

The accountability of Congress to the broader population—or even to our troops in the field—is now out of the question. Meanwhile those who deceived the U.S. to war in Iraq are working to induce us to war in Iran—or Pakistan.

If the consensus storyline cannot be sustained, the consequences are clear. If the War on Terrorism loses credibility, the resulting stability will provide Americans with the breathing space required to identify the real enemy. And to begin rooting out a deeply entrenched treason.

This Can Only End Badly

Meanwhile business-as-usual continues in plain sight. The day after Israel was admitted to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu charged that Iran is provoking Israel to wage war with Syria.

When President Shimon Peres denied this week that Israel would go to war with Syria, he meant that Syria is the likely rationale for the next crisis. When on May 11^th he declared in Moscow that nuclear terror is the world’s greatest threat, rest assured that game theory war planners in Tel Aviv have in place a plausible plan for blaming such an incident on Iran-backed Hezbollah.

The same day that “proximity talks” began, the Palestinians confirmed that Israel had another settlement underway in East Jerusalem. The next day, the Israeli minister for public safety announced that Israel will demolish Arab homes in East Jerusalem.

On May 12^th (“Jerusalem Day”), the U.S.-based Conference of Presidents (of Major American Jewish Organizations) took a full-page ad in The New York Times to proclaim “Jerusalem in the Heart of the Jewish People.” Meanwhile, Netanyahu announced from Israel, “We will never divide Jerusalem.”

When this Likud Party leader calls for peace while insisting on conditions that make peace impossible, rest assured that more provocations are planned.

The latest storyline in search of traction: Syrian-provided poison-gas missiles pose a threat to Israel from Lebanon-based, Iran-backed Hezbollah. As the war on terrorism is rebranded, it is not yet clear how the Pakistan Taliban will be worked into the narrative.

All we know for certain is that Muslims will remain the Evil Doers in this storyline. And that Israelis will once again be cast as hapless victims.

Anticipating a tactical need to collapse another government, Israeli politicians are in discussions about an alliance between the Kadima Party and the Labor Party. When the latest Likud coalition falters, the resulting political instability will inject into the field the requisite “entropy” for Israel to continue on its current path without a government with whom other nations can negotiate.

See: What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

What is the endgame for those once again defrauding the nation that befriended this enclave six decades ago and has since defended their interests without question?

What happens when Americans understand the depth and duration of this duplicity? And when the U.S. military confirms the common source of this ongoing treason?

What happens when a long-deceived global public grasps what this entangled alliance has cost them in blood and treasure over the past 62 years?

What Next for The People in Between?

The most recent Sunday edition of The New York Times is filled not with hopes of a nuclear-free Middle East but with fears of the future horrors inflicted on Americans by Muslim Evil Doers.

That storyline is reinforced on television by a reminder of the horrors inflicted on Danny Pearl. Meanwhile it’s made to appear that pro-Israeli moderates are busily working to restrain extremists in the Likud Party. That too is part of the storyline.

The Big Question is this: is anyone still buying it? Meanwhile the Big Sell continues.

The Sunday New York Times featured page after page marketing fear and insecurity:

• The front page featured a large photo of U.S.-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awaki who advised a series of alleged Evil Doers whose photos were also prominently displayed:
  • Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable

• Umar Farouck Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber. See: Christmas Day Crotch Bomber tied to Israel, FBI

• Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber See: Pakistan the Evil Doer and the Times Square Fizzler

The featured article consumed two full inside pages. There was no news coverage—none—of the pending U.N. proposal to free the Middle East of nuclear weapons.

The front page of the commentary section in the national paper of record included two major articles. The first article warned that this enemy “may mutate and even grow.” The second analysis explored “when to suspend fear.”

The book review section featured “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England,” and “Heidegger—The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy.”

The only mention of the pending U.N. proposal for ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons appeared in the lead editorial titled “Fixing the Treaty.” The editors’ assessment of Israel giving up its nuclear weapons: “That is not going to happen any time soon.”

To successfully wage war in the shared field of consciousness, an enemy must hide in plain sight. Otherwise, those deceived cannot be induced to believe.

There lies the fast-emerging peril for those complicit in this ongoing treason. As the common source of this duplicity becomes transparent, its operatives are becoming apparent.

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.

Why does democracy need alternative media? An earlier blog on the Criminal State website (“The New Heretics”) chronicles the role that mainstream media routinely plays in waging war by way of deception.

Ambassador Charles Freeman withdrew his nomination last week as the newly appointed chair of the National Intelligence Council. The withering attack unleashed on him by the Israel lobby may awaken a long-deceived public to the perils posed by six decades of accommodating America’s entangled alliance with the Zionist state.

Guilt by Association, the first release in the Criminal State series, condenses the how of Zionism to its duplicitous essence by making the analysis generic and not dependent on any particular time, place or circumstance. At the core of its duplicity lies an oft-deployed modus operandi: the displacement of facts with what people can be deceived to believe.

That “m.o.” operates the same regardless whether it’s an induced belief in Iraqi WMD, a consensus faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets, or a shared opinion that Israel is an ally. When waging war in the shared mindset (where else could a “consensus” reside?), the power of association is deployed as a weapon to deceive “the mark”—us.

Thus the stature of Colin Powell was used to lend credence (believability) to the phony intelligence used to deceive the UN Security Council that Iraq had mobile biological weapons laboratories. Powell’s testimony made America look just like the Zionist state—a duplicitous government willing to deceive other governments to wage war on Israel’s behalf. Yet despite the consistency of this duplicity, we continue on with this entanglement, assured that this alliance is in America’s interest.

The Ancient Art of Deception

When deploying the power of association—whether to accredit or discredit—facts are irrelevant. In this case, the credibility of an honorable man was deployed to make a dishonorable case to invade Iraq for Greater Israel policy. For those who consider themselves above the law, the means justify the end. General Powell concedes he was used and has since rarely appeared in public. The result cost America untold amounts in blood, treasure and hard-earned credibility—the most essential capital of any legitimate nation state.

Those profiled in the Criminal State series wage war at the level of the mental state. All else flows downstream from what academics call the paradigm—the shared mindset. To target the public’s mental state is to wage war on informed consent, the foundation on which democracies depend. In today’s media-dependent politics, that’s where modern-day treason operates.

To address this systemic criminality requires tools of perception that enable the public to see this duplicity for themselves. The Israel lobby has so thoroughly intimidated the Congress and the Executive Branch that the battle to restore informed consent must now be fought from the bottom-up. In the media-dominated decision-making of the Information Age, this is what modern warfare looks like. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

This fact-displacing modus operandi depends on mainstream media to shape the shared mental state of the mark (us). Likewise when deceivers deploy the power of association. Both rely on a complicit media to manipulate opinions, impressions and emotions so that, in combination, fiction replaces facts as the basis for policy-making.

How long has U.S. policy been shaped by the criminal syndicate chronicled in Guilt By Association? Barack Obama is the tenth president covered by veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas. When, in his first press conference, she asked which nations in the Middle East have nuclear weapons, our commander-in-chief avoided an answer. That’s understandable.

According to his April 2007 filing with the Federal Elections Commission, Obama’s political career is traceable to the Chicago Outfit. Hotelier Penny Pritzker, Chicago’s Crown clan (defense contractors), and hedge fund billionaire George Soros were his top three contributors. The organized crime lineage of the Pritzker family dates from the Jewish syndicate of the 1920s. Soros represents a more modern vintage. Abner Mikva, former Clinton White House counsel, calls Obama “our first Jewish president” based on his roots in West Side Chicago politics.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and campaign manager David Axelrod were political activists in Chicago when the Israel lobby targeted Illinois Senator Chuck Percy for removal in 1984, two years after successfully targeting Illinois Congressman Paul Findley. Findley’s AIPAC-recruited replacement was Dick Durbin, now second in the Senate leadership. He shares a house in Washington with New York Senator Chuck Schumer who is third. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, from mobbed-up Nevada, is Mormon (aka the Lost Tribe of Israel).

Though comprising just 1.7% of the U.S. population, 15% of the Senate membership is Jewish. Add Mormons and Christian-Zionists (Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, et.al.) and where does the national security of America rank when compared to Israel—whose security Obama described as “sacrosanct”? As Freeman pointed out, the danger we now face is not only to the U.S. but also to the continued existence of Israel—particularly when the mark awakens to the common source of this deceit.

March 16, 2009