Michael Steinhardt
John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 5)
July 30, 2010 by Jeff Gates · 1 Comment
Over the span of six decades of focused funding and single-issue advocacy, the Israel lobby amassed enough political clout that it can now dominate U.S. policy-making.
Allied with organized crime, the lobby’s pro-Zionist influence took us to war in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the broader syndicate took the U.S economy into a debt-induced tailspin while vastly increasing its members’ personal wealth.
Emboldened and enabled by John McCain’s campaign finance “reform,” transnational organized crime now wields outsized influence in both our legislative and executive branch.
With Elena Kagan’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rule of law will be entrusted to a nine-member bench that includes six Zionists. Three of them are Jewish Zionists—one-third on the highest court of a nation with a 1.7% Jewish population.
With McCain’s help, pro-Israeli campaign cash now plays a decisive role in the ongoing displacement of representative government. According to Jewish Achievement, 42% of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish.
Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25% are Jewish according to Michael Steinhardt. Others insist the figure is closer 35% though that higher number refers only to the membership of the Forbes 400 and not their portion of the overall wealth—which may be far higher.
Organized Crime & Zionism
Steinhardt was an early funder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council founded after Walter Mondale fared so poorly opposing Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential race. Bill Clinton resigned as DLC chairman to run in 1992 with Al Gore his vice-president. Zionist Joe Lieberman was head of the DLC in 2000 before joining Gore on the presidential ticket.
Everywhere one looks in modern-day American politics, the hand of both organized crime and Zionism can be found—regardless of party.
Steinhardt’s father was a jewel fence for Manhattan mobster Arnold Rothstein. Meyer Lansky, infamous “chairman” of the National Crime Syndicate, modeled his career after Rothstein. Steinhardt boasts of how his father sent him envelopes with $10,000 in cash while the son was studying for his Harvard MBA.
The influence of money in politics is as old as politics itself. The limit on the political influence of organized crime was never money. Money was always plentiful. The problem was the limit on how much money could lawfully be contributed to political candidates.
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform removed a key constraint on influence peddling by Zionists and organized crime. When you see one, you find the other hovering nearby.
With John McCain’s help, this illicit influence can now be wielded in plain sight, with legal impunity and under the cover of free speech, free elections, free press and even the freedom of religion. Those touting their freedom systematically undermined ours.
Repeal of Representative Government
With campaign finance reform, the Israel lobby further tightened its grip on U.S. policy-making. Though envisioned as a system of governance attuned to place—Congressional districts and states, funds for political campaigns are now routinely sourced nationwide.
America’s federalist system was meant to ensure that members of the House represent the concerns of Americans who reside in a Congressional district. No one sought governance by a nationally dispersed network (a Diaspora) committed to the interests of a foreign country (Israel).
Similarly, federal elections are meant to hold Senators accountable to constituents who share the same in-state residency. The Senate was not meant to be a forum for the pursuit of policies sought by those living in other states—or by a foreign state.
As a practical matter, McCain-Feingold “reform” granted criminal syndicates and Zionist ideologues greater influence over election results in every state and Congressional district.
These electorally active networks wield political power wildly disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.
The Israel lobby routinely organizes campaign contributors in New York, Florida and California to elect candidates in other states. By granting this Diaspora greater sway over federal elections, John McCain granted Tel Aviv greater influence over U.S. policy-making.
He championed reform only after the Senate Ethics Committee cited his poor judgment for championing the Keating Five Senators who aided a $150 billion savings and loan fraud. McCain-Feingold was meant to restore his tattered reputation.
John McCain’s judgment continues to deteriorate at an accelerating pace as evidenced by him marketing as “reform” this perilous step toward the repeal of representative government while also marketing the phony intelligence that took us to war in Iraq.
In May 1999, McCain and Feingold shared the 10th annual John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. In time, historians will grasp the bitter irony that a U.S. Senator was granted an honor named after a U.S. President who was murdered soon after he sought to stop the Zionist state from building a nuclear arsenal.
Michael Steinhardt
How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy
July 14, 2009 by Jeff Gates · 13 Comments
In the early 1960s, Senator William J. Fulbright fought to force the American Zionist Council to register as agents of a foreign government. The Council eluded registration by reorganizing as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has since become what Fulbright most feared: a foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby.
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.
