Lord Rothschild

John McCain – A Closer Look at Evil (Part 8)

You can tell a lot about a Senator by how he treats his staff. McCain is a serial abuser.

During my seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, I heard lots of scuttlebutt about how staffers are treated.

I had no direct contact with McCain until June 2010 at a Town Hall meeting in Tempe for us constituents. His office was here in 1982 when organized crime first put him in Congress.

He moved to the Senate in 1987, just as I was leaving. I know his type by the consistency of his conduct.

Though he’s clearly abusive as a person, he’s also indictable as an asset for performing as the reliably pliable pawn of a foreign nation.

Yet no grand jury has been convened. Nor is there yet any sign of a pending indictment.  That speaks volumes for the current condition of the rule of law.

A Quick Exit

Then again, he may resign. He could try to retire into obscurity rather than endure his pending notoriety. At present, resignation seems unlikely.

Then again, we’ve seen how quickly public perceptions can shift.

As praise emerged for The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s 2004 blockbuster film, Hollywood operatives began to sharpen their swords. Like Gibson, McCain could be transformed into a “controversial figure.”

He too could become mired in scandal, shredding his image and imploding his career. If it can happen to Mel, why not McCain? The parallels are striking yet strikingly different.

John McCain is a political star: a pop-culture political icon. Like Mel, people recognize him.

Gibson’s star is fading fast as he’s morphed into a “has been.” His fans don’t get a vote on that.

McCain barely escaped a “honey pot” scandal with lobbyist Vickie Iseman. Mel’s honey pot was a Russian beauty. Watch his career go kaput.

Was this Gibson’s Monica Lewinsky moment? Was this akin to Lyndon Johnson having an affair with Israeli-Irgun operative Mathilde Krimthe night the Six-Day War began?

Timing is everything.

Controversy may yet engulf John McCain. But don’t hold your breath. Those who produced and protect the McCain brand are those destroying the Gibson image.

What is it about Israel that outrages Gibson and enthralls McCain? Why is this Arizona Senator so loyal to a nation so long disloyal to the U.S.?

MoveOnMcCain.org

But for his seven homes in Arizona, a local rumor suggests that McCain could relocate to Israel.

A favored retreat for Russian oligarchs, the Zionist enclave ranks first worldwide as organized crime’s non-extradition venue of choice.

Soon after the financial pillaging of Russia in the mid-1990s, six of the top seven oligarchs qualified for Israeli citizenship. Figure the odds on that.

McCain should feel right at home.

Cyprus is the tax haven of choice for this transnational syndicate. Its banks are welcoming and its officials are happy to issue Jewish birth certificates for $5,000.

Displacing an indigenous Greek syndicate, the Russian-Jewish mafia now vacations in Cyprus, an easy 55-minute flight from Tel Aviv.

Ask John McCain about this arrangement. He met abroad with Russian-Jewish oligarch Oleg Deripaska. They even dined together in Switzerland with Lord Rothschild V.

Deripaska was banned from the U.S. At age 40, he had amassed personal wealth estimated at $40 billion defrauded from the Russian people.

Will John McCain Retire to Israel?

As with McCain’s political career, Deripaska typifies how organized crime operates across time and distance. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain is well briefed. He’s also dined with the experts. Who could know better?

So why does McCain remain in Arizona? Perhaps it’s love for his dogs.

You can tell a lot about a Senator by how he treats his dogs. Mitt Romney’s presidential quest ended when he put his dog in a luggage rack on top of his car.

Does McCain keep dogs at each of his seven homes? Are there cats at some; dogs at others?

If it’s true that McCain’s marriage is on the rocks, has he negotiated pet visitation rights?

Will his challenge to their pre-nuptial agreement prevail after almost three decades of marriage? Or will Cindy succeed in excluding him entirely from her $200 million estate?

Could that explain why he’s courting senior operatives of trans-generational organized crime?

It that why he spends so little time on national security issues of interest to the armed services? Is his retirement planning distracting him from matters of concern to the military?

John McCain needs an intervention. Those who know him must persuade him to resign.

Or a U.S. attorney can determine whether he’s criminally complicit—or just profoundly incompetent.

His conduct suggests he should not be in a federal campaign. He should be in a federal prison.

Who has an even lower opinion of McCain than his staff, his dogs and his fellow Senators? Answer: our senior military leaders. What does that tell you?

Lord Rothschild

Was Israel Ever Legitimate?

The history of Israel as a geopolitical fraud will fill entire libraries as those defrauded marvel at how so few deceived so many for so long. Those duped include many naive Jews who—even now—identify their interests with this extremist enclave.

Israeli leaders are wrong to worry about “de-legitimization.” They are right to fear that a long-deceived public is fast realizing that Israel’s founding was key to an ongoing deception.

The Invention of the Jewish People did not begin with Shlomo Sand’s 2009 bestseller by that title. There was no Exile says this Jewish scholar. Nor was there an Exodus. So how could there be a Return, the core premise of Israeli statehood?

If this patch of Palestinian land never rightly belonged to a mythical Jewish People, what then for the legitimacy of the “Jewish homeland.” And for that depiction by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in his November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild?

Were Christians likewise seduced by Sunday school teachings reliant on the phony findings of Biblical archeologist William Albright? Shlomo Sand chronicles how in the 1920s Albright interpreted every excavation in Palestine to “reaffirm the Old Testament and thereby the New.”

In 1948, President Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, was advised by Secretary of State George Marshall not to recognize this enclave as a state. This WWII general assured Truman that he would vote against him—and did.

That military tradition resurfaced in January 2010 when General David Petraeus dispatched a team to brief Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the perils that Israel still poses to U.S. national security. Mullen was reportedly shocked. See: The Petraeus Briefing.

He should not have been surprised. Such insights are hardly new. More than six decades ago 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.”

In December 1948, Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews urged us “not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.” They warned that a “Leader State” was the goal of the “terrorist party” that has governed Israel over all but a handful of the past 62 years.

The Joint Chiefs foresaw 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.”

Soon after Truman recognized Israel, his presidential campaign train was “refueled” by Zionist Jews with $400,000 in contributions ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). Soon thereafter, Israel betrayed the U.S. by allying with the British and the French to invade Egypt.

Though London and Paris soon abandoned the operation, months more were required to dissuade Tel Aviv from pursuing their expansionist agenda then—as now—for Greater Israel.

Outraged by Israeli duplicity, Eisenhower sought help to rein them in.  He soon found that even then (as now) the Israel lobby dominated Congress. Thus the former Supreme Allied Commander appeared on television with an appeal directly to the American people. Then—unlike now—a U.S. Commander in Chief threatened to reduce assistance to Israel.

To revamp Israel’s tattered image, New York public relations expert Edward Gottlieb retained novelist Leon Uris to write Exodus. Jewish Zionists have routinely proven themselves skilled storytellers and masterful mythmakers.

This 1958 bestseller was translated into dozens of languages and quickly made into a movie for the 1960 Christmas season starring Paul Newman and featuring Peter Lawford, brother-in-law of the just-elected President John F. Kennedy. See: Time for an American Intifada?

The Myth of a Loyal Ally

Phil Tourney survived the June 8, 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. The region-wide dynamics accompanying that provocative Six-Day land grab guaranteed the conflicts that remain so perilous to U.S. national security.

It was during this Israeli operation that Tourney gave a one-fingered salute to armed Israeli troops as they hovered in helicopters over the USS Liberty while preparing to rappel to the deck and, he surmises, kill the survivors and sink the ship.

Just then the captain aboard a nearby U.S. carrier scrambled jets to assist a vessel under attack by an “ally.” When Israeli intelligence intercepted the transmission, the helicopters fled only to have President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recall our fighters.

Soon thereafter, Israeli torpedo boats pulled alongside the USS Liberty to inquire if those aboard needed assistance. Those same boats had just blown a hole in the hull, killing 25 Americans. Israeli machine-gunners had then strafed stretcher-bearers, firemen, life rafts and even the fire hoses—all clear war crimes. Only then did this ally display the chutzpah to ask if our servicemen required assistance.

Had that notorious land grab failed to advance the narrative of Israel as the victim, what might be the condition of U.S. national security today? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently conceded the duplicity that continues to typify this “special relationship.”

As he confessed: “Our policy on Jerusalem is the same policy followed by all Israeli governments for 42 years, and it has not changed. As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is the same as building in Tel Aviv.”

In other words, the 1967 war was neither defensive nor preemptive but an outright taking of land that, one year later, Tel Aviv acknowledged as precisely what concerned the Pentagon 62 years ago.

In effect, Netanyahu confirmed that this relationship reflects multi-decade premeditation. The U.S. has since discredited itself by protecting this “ally” from the rule of law for its taking and brutal occupation of land that rightly belongs to others.

Even now, few know that Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative, was “servicing” our Commander-in-Chief in the White House the night the 1967 war began. Her husband, Arthur, then chaired the finance committee for the Democratic National Committee.

Even now, few Americans know the role in that cover-up played by Admiral John McCain, Jr. Or the role still played in this sordid history by his son, Republican Senator John McCain III. See: McCain Family Secret.

Are those who champion this “state” the same belief-makers responsible for the myth of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi meetings in Prague? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? High-level Iraqi contacts with Al Qaeda? Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger?

Was any of that intelligence legitimate? Whose interests were served by deceiving the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East? By the Suez Crisis? By the Six-Day War? By covering up the attack on the USS Liberty?

Adhering to an Enemy?

How are U.S. interests served by treating Israel as a legitimate state? When was Israeli behavior anything other than duplicitous? At what point do we concede the common source of the storylines foisted on an imperiled global public?

Who created the narrative that saw us segue seamlessly from a global Cold War to a global War on Terrorism? Remember the promise of a post-Cold War “peace dividend”? Who induced the U.S. to wage a war whose costs could total $3 trillion, including $700 billion in interest?

Why is debt always the prize? At the end of WWII, the U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. Were we induced to hollow out our economy by the same consensus-shapers that induced us to wage war in the Middle East?

Do these devastating dynamics trace to a common source?

Who benefits from the “Islamo” fascist narrative? Whose storyline—really—is The Clash of Civilizations? Who has long spied on the U.S. and routinely transferred to other nations our most sensitive defense technologies?

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence required to perpetrate such a debilitating fraud from inside the U.S. government? And from inside other governments that joined the “coalition of the willing”?

If not Israel and its supporters—who? In effect, are those now advocating an “unbreakable bond” with Israel giving aid and comfort to an enemy within?

Israel is right to worry. It was never legitimate. As both an enabler and a target of this fraud, the U.S. has an obligation to concede its source—and to secure the weapons of mass destruction now under the control of this enclave.