Criminal State » National Crime Syndicate

John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 5)

Jeff Gates — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:06:58 +0000

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 10^th 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.

Identity Politics and Israel’s Agenda

Jeff Gates — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:21:55 +0000

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court brings identity politics sharply into focus. Senate Judiciary Committee members are rightly concerned that bias and personal sympathies not take priority over the law. Those concerns provide a useful portal to assess a strategy deployed to undermine national security.

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.