The �Military, Industrial Complex� is no more
by Dr. David Duke
America is the most powerful military and economic nation on earth. The powers that
control the levers of political power in America possess the greatest power the world has
Who really has power over the government today? Is it the fabled �Military, Industrial
An effective gauge of direct political power in America is �to discover who provided the
pivotal amounts of the billion-dollar recent campaigns for U.S. President. You can look
directly at campaign contributions for every candidate from the Federal Election
Commission in order to find out who holds the real power in politics.
So, who holds the real power over the American political establishment?
Let�s first look at who does not hold much power over the establishment.
1) It is not the military. There is not any organized military monetary influence or even
significant political influence of the military over the politicians. In fact, no one in
military positions of authority are allowed to openly get involved in politics. No active
sergeant, lieutenant, or General can send out a directive to the men under him to support
or oppose a particular candidate (the one exception I know to that was when the Louisiana
commanding general of the National Guard, under Jewish influence, sent a letter to all
national guardsmen telling them that it was their �patriotic duty� to vote against David
Duke and for the Liberal corrupt former Governor, Edwin Edwards. Even that caused a
scandal in military circles, as it should have.
2) It is NOT major manufacturing or even the huge oil companies. There was not one oil
company and only a couple of legitimate manufacturing or industrial concerns on Obama and
McCain�s top twenty contributor list. The list was completely dominated by Zionist
international banking firms. If one combines every defense contractor�s contributions the
money they give in politics is minuscule compared to Zionist international banks. They
don�t even come close to the power in lobbying that AIPAC and a couple of dozen more
Jewish extremist organizations have. Jewish lobbyists literally get almost unanimous
support in Congress for outrageous giveaways to Israel, a nation that has committed
terrorism against us and killed or maimed scores of Americans. I am not talking about
contracts here, I am speaking about giving away billions of dollars to a foreign nation.
So, so much for the media-popularized term, the military-industrial complex
In direct political money and lobbying then, Zionists are the undisputed masters of the
American political establishment. In addition to their control through the use of money as
an inducement or a threat, they have tens of thousands of Jewish extremists scattered
throughout the entire bureaucracy who are very conscious of supporting their brethren and
supporting the organized Jewish agenda. They also are ready to act against any Gentile who
dares to go against Israel or the Jewish agenda.
How will a Jewish federal judge rule in a huge litigation issue between Jewish and
non-Jewish parties? Why was the biggest robber in the history of the world, Bernie Madoff
who stole over 50 billion dollars and who ruined tens of thousands of families, only
charged with one criminal count, and allowed to stay in his luxury apartment to await
Is there an organized Jewish agenda? Absolutely. In fact, the leading and most powerful
Jewish groups have a supra-organization called the Council of Presidents (composed of the
most powerful 5 dozen Jewish organizations in America). They issue detailed positions not
just on Mideast policy but on many other issues that have nothing to do with Israel,
aspects of domestic policy including issues such as opening America�s borders. They even
assume positions on issues that you wouldn�t even think would have unanimity among Jews,
such as abortion rights. Their job is to make sure that Jewish power is absolutely united
on what they decide are their common agendas.
Next, we must talk about one of the most influential parts of the American political
process, the mass media. The media, such as the NY Times and the Washington Post (the
newspaper read by every member of America�s government and bureaucracy in Washington).
The Washington Post can determine even what issues Congress will discuss and it greatly
affects the publicity for or against those issues. Broadcast and cable television also
have an enormous impact, and we can include movies, books, magazines and the newspaper
chains that reach down into almost every American community. As my chapters in Jewish
Supremacism on �Jewish Media Supremacy� document, the ownership, depth and breadth of
Jewish influence in the media is simply breathtaking.
In media, whether you speak of owners, administrators, managers, editors, producers,
writers, correspondents, pundits and reporters, there is an army of Jews who are animated
by the Holocaust and the issues of the organized Jewish community. If you haven�t yet read
them, you simply must see the evidence on the Jewish supremacy in media I have compiled in
my books Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening.
The other great seat of establishment power is simply money, huge sums of money and the
willingness to use those funds on behalf of an agenda. The biggest concentrations of
wealth in the world today are in the Zionist international banks, and in financial groups
that the Jews completely control such as the Federal Reserve Corporation, the same forces
that have led us to the doorstep of a great depression. It is no accident that Alan
Greenspan and Ben Shalom Bernanke are the last two of the Federal Reserve czars.
Even in days of World War I, an immensely rich, Jewish international banker, Jacob Schiff,
voiced pride in the fact that he was instrumental in weakening Czarist Russia (the
government that Jews universally hated), and that he supported Russia�s enemies so as to
make Russia ripe for communist overthrow (Jewish groups brag of his help to Japan in the
Russo-Japanese War so as to hurt the Russian government). Schiff also gave millions of
dollars to directly finance the Jews who led and organized the Russian revolution and the
Bolshevik terror in Russia. There is no disputing of these facts. Plenty of Jewish history
books detail all of it.
So, frankly, financial power in the control of people who will use it for an agenda is
also a key ingredient of real power. Again, the financial power in the hands of modern day
Jacob Schiff�s, is an incredibly powerful weapon.
So forget about the �Military-Industrial Complex.� That is passe.
In today�s world it makes more sense to speak about the �Political, Financial and Media
Zionist complex.� That is the real core of power that bends everything whether it be local
laws, or giant corporations, to its will. Even if one of the world�s richest firms, such
as Microsoft (which is now by the way run by a Jewish extremist), would buck the
political, financial, and media Zionist complex, it would be broken by government fiat,
the Jewish-influenced courts (such as anti-trust actions), and by vicious attacks by the
Jewish-influenced media. Microsoft would either be dismembered or destroyed.
Such are the realities of the modern world.
There is no longer a �military industrial complex,� but there is a Political and media and
financial Zionist complex that rules us and aims to control the whole world.
No single part of this behemoth can be defeated, because it can use its other assets to
defend the section under attack. It can only be brought down by concentrating all our
political and ideological fire right on the core the problem, International Zionism and
its driving impetus: Jewish Supremacism.
�Dr. David Duke
The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites
The main argument for affirmative action is that institutions should reflect racial
percentages of population, if not there must be de facto racial discrimination. Here is
the breakdown of students by race at America�s premier university, Obama�s alma mater,
Harvard. Even though non-Jewish White Americans are almost 70 percent of the population
and on average score much higher on entrance exams, they are only about 22 percent of the
Harvard student body. So what race is really the victim of racial discrimination? For
those who are truly dedicated to stopping racial discrimination, what are you going to do
about this massive discrimination, or does it not matter to you because White people
happen to be the victims?
The hidden, massive racial discrimination that goes on in America against White people!
A U.S. Government study offers proof that European Americans face massive institutional
racial discrimination that affects millions of the most talented and educated of our
Introduction by Dr. David Duke � As most of you know, the term �white supremacist� has
become literally a prefix of my name when I am in the news. It is the media�s way to
condition readers not to pay attention to what I say because I am a �white supremacist.�
The truth is I am not a White supremacist, and I seek no supremacy or control over any
people, but I do demand that the rights of people of European descent to be respected as
much as any other people�s rights.
The fact is that in the United States of America, Canada, the UK in many areas of Europe
Whites face a powerful state-sanctioned, and often mandated, racial discrimination against
White people who are better-qualified than their non-White counterparts. It may be
surprising to some reading this, but millions of discriminated against Whites are often
poorer and who face more difficult social situations than many of their non-White
counterparts who are being given preference over them.
It also affects the most talented of our people. Many Whites are under the mistaken
impression that the White victims of racial discrimination are mostly from the low income
and low IQ sectors of the population. Nothing could be further from the truth. In
actuality, the percentages of Whites who are victims of racial discrimination are much
higher in the sectors of the White population with the highest intelligence and greatest
abilities. The facts are shocking, but true.
Most people know that most universities have programs of admittance that give
less-qualified minorities preference over better-qualified Whites. Almost all of the
Fortune 500 largest corporations have affirmative action and diversity programs that
discriminate against White people, both male and female, in hiring. They also have
programs of discrimination that favor non-Whites in promotions and advancement. This is
true in the academic area as well. You can look at almost any academic department of any
American university and you will see in place a strong racial bias for �minorities� in
preface over Whites in hiring and advancement. Whether you are talking about a university
History, English or Math department in almost any university these policies are in place
and powerful. These racial discriminatory policies are real, and they can be easily proven
to exist. But, now we thanks to a government study, there is even a more powerful way to
show their real impact on tens of millions of White Americans.
The brilliant economist and author whose pen name is Yggdrasil has compiled the data from
the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) 1979, which was a massive study conducted
by the Department of Labor to track the lives of 155,000 Americans by race, IQ, income,
education and other factors to see how remedial efforts for minorities were doing.
It was done after the installation of so called �affirmative action� programs which gave
preference to non-White groups over whites. The NLSY study is meant to follow this huge
sampling for their entire lives to see how diversity is working out for America. The data
is from this ongoing study is tangible proof of the horrendous level of racial
discrimination going on against White people. I will link you to Yggdrasil�s fine paper in
a moment, but let me first give you a couple of snippets from his work that proves the
existence of massive racial discrimination going on against our people.
Here is a chart showing the ethnic breakdown of the most prestigious university in the
United States of America: Harvard. America�s premier university is extremely expensive
(unless you receive special grants and scholarships) and a degree from it just about
guarantees its graduates the best paid and prestigious jobs America has to offer.
Affirmative action advocates have long said the companies or institutions that don�t
reflect the actual racial population percentages are de facto racist and discriminatory.
So what is the situation at Harvard, non-Jewish Whites who are about 70 pecent of the
American population are only about 22 percent of the Harvard student body.
One should first consider the fact that Whites are represented in the top two percentile
level on college admission tests on an average that is a 5 times higher rate than
non-White groups. If one then factors in the fact that Whites are also 70 percent of the
population, there should be at least 25 times more Whites who would be better qualified
than the non-White students currently at Harvard. But even though these Whites are the
best and brightest America has to offer they are limited to only 20 percent of Harvard
students! Such is nothing more than blatant, racial discrimination. Another interesting
fact one can gleam from this chart and many in the NLSY studies that Jewish
over-representation is not based simply on the fact that Jews have a high intelligence,
they often do twice as well as their intelligence bracket would indicate. Such would
suggest the intra-tribal support system for group cohesion and advancements aids their
The NLSY data also shows how incomes today in the USA correlate with race and
intelligence. Let�s take a look NLSY tracking studies of intelligent White women, these
are White women in the 90 to 97 percent IQ bracket as compared to Black women in that same
high 90 to 97 percent IQ bracket. The average Black females of that IQ level earned an
average of approximately $54,000 per year through 1996, whereas White females on the same
IQ level earned only half of that amount, about $28,000 per year through 1996.
When White women in the same intelligent bracket of Black women earn half of the average
amount that the Black women do, that�s real racial discrimination.
I am not referring here to a few White women who are at least equally qualified but
getting half the salary that Black women do, I am talking about the average White women in
America! The NLSY is a big enough sample that reflects the whole nation. In fact it is
meant to. The average White woman of high intelligence earns one-half of what Black women
do of the same intelligence!
I obviously don�t like this racial discrimination against our people. Neither does the
economist Yggdrasil. We advocate that the best person regardless of race gets whatever
college admission or job or promotion their abilities dictate. We have no fear of how well
our people will do on a fair playing field. Because we stand for true civil rights, human
rights in the matter, we are called racists, and the real capper: �white supremacists.�
There are many people in America and around the world who are ignorant of the facts of
anti-White racial discrimination. The media acts like it doesn�t exist. Even after the
election of an affirmative action African-American President, America is still painted as
an anti-Black racist country. The truth is that European Americans are facing racial
discrimination in the very institutions and nation that our forefathers created. Our
movement is truly a liberation movement like any other in the world that strives for a
people to free and live in society of our own values rather than oppressive society
imposed upon us.
We are not racists or supremacists trying to deny the rights of others.
We are human rights activists defending our people�s rights and heritage.
�Dr. David Duke
Source & Charts :
Obama�s Mideast Jewish Wet Dream Team
George Mitchell is the new American envoy now in the Mideast. Who is Mitchell and who are
the key players in Obama�s Mideast policy team?
First, let�s examine the major players on the Obama foreign policy team. Roger Cohen
writing in The New York Times on January 11, 2009 wrote some things that if he were a
Gentile would have earned him some attacks as an �anti-Semite.� He pointed out the
incredible top-heavy pro-Zionist content of the team which is supposed to broker a fair
and just peace in the Mideast. In discussing the team he identified them with these
They include Dennis Ross (the veteran Clinton administration Mideast peace envoy who may
now extend his brief to Iran) [a long-time Jewish Zionist]; James Steinberg [Jewish
Zionist] (as deputy secretary of state) ; Dan Kurtzer [Jewish Zionist] (the former U.S.
ambassador to Israel); Dan Shapiro [Jewish Zionist] (a longtime aide to Obama); and Martin
Indyk [Jewish Zionist] another former ambassador to Israel who is close to the incoming
secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.)
Now, I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males; I�ve
looked in the mirror. I know or have talked to all these guys, except Shapiro. They�re
knowledgeable, broad-minded and determined. Still, on the diversity front they fall short.
On the change-you-can-believe-in front, they also leave something to be desired.
Cohen did not even mention that the two closest advisers to Obama, the guys that filter
almost everything that Obama see and hears and makes the day to day decisions of running
the oval office. They are David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel, two long time dedicated Jewish
extremists. Emmanuel, son of an Irgun terrorist and named after another Irgun terrorist,
even fought in the Israeli Army.
Now we come to the new envoy to the Mideast, George Mitchell of Maine, the man who is
supposed to be a broadminded and just arbitrator between Israel and the Palestinians. The
Jewish-influenced has made a big point of Mitchell�s Lebanese ancestry. What the Zionist
media doesn�t tell you is that he has been completely under the control of AIPAC and
radical Zionists for years.
As Senate Majority Leader he rammed through everything Israel wanted. He even supported
the Senate resolution that gave Israel unconditional support during the Zionist massacre
of thousands of Gaza civilians. In fact, originally an appointee to the Senate, Mitchell
owes his entire Senate career on the massive support given him in 1982 and since by AIPAC
and 27 other Jewish extremist controlled political action committees that AIPAC arranged.
AIPAC�s Tom Dine summarized AIPAC�s success in Mitchell�s election by saying that
�American Jews are thus able to form our own foreign policy agenda.�
Of course, Dine spoke the complete and unvarnished truth. American and Israeli extremist
Jews do indeed control the foreign policy of the United States. Such control has long gone
on in concert with past U.S. Presidents and it goes on today with Obama. Only difference
is that today there is a greater danger because many in America and around the world
falsely believe that Obama represents change. With the incredible respect and adulation
given to Obama, he is in a much better position to support the Zionist war agenda and
ultimately do far more harm than a discredited George Bush.
Hold on to your hats, America. I predict Obama will usher in war and conflagration that
will make George Bush�s presidency seem mild in comparison. He has already announced a
doubling of American troops in Afghanistan. Can a catastrophic war with Iran be far
behind? Jewish extremists want this war and Obama is completely under their control!
� Dr. David Duke
America is a Jewish Colony
The global Jewish Empire
There are a handful of commentators in the western world who have been compiling the
evidence that America, the world�s greatest democracy and military hyper-power, has been
taken over by a Jewish elite which acts on behalf of the Jews-only state in Palestine.
America�s ruling Jewish elite�s most well known operatives are the Jewish lobby and the
Jewish neocons. These Israel-firsters have been corrupting the Bush regime into
implementing policies which promote the interests of the racist state even though they
have become increasing catastrophic, economically, militarily, politically, and morally,
for America and the American people. After Al Qaeda�s attacks on New York and the
Pentagon, zionists imported the Jews� decades-old war against terrorism into America and
ever since the Bush regime has been implementing this disastrous zionist doctrine.
Hardline warmongering zionists in the Jews-only state, America, and the rest of the
western world, (including most recently, India) have been setting the global political
agenda: an invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion of Iraq, an invasion of Lebanon, continued
ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and an attack on iran to trigger a regional, perhaps
even a global, war to boost the Jews-only state�s military dominance of the greater middle
The mainstream media in the western world is dominated by zionists who use their paper
publications, tv, and films, to issue the most blatant zionist propaganda which many
westerners welcome because of the disgusting Islamophobia in which it is wrapped. Jewish
power in America is now so blatant that Jewish extremists are commissioned to publish
articles in the country�s most prestigious newspapers advocating world war three. It has
to be asked: what normal, sane, decent person around the world wants another world war?
The only people insane enough to demand world war three are hysterical, paranoid,
The irony of the politically kosher worldview which pervades the western world is that the
Jewish propagandists who go out of their way to ridicule the idea of a global Jewish
conspiracy are themselves advocates of a global Islamic conspiracy. In this hollywood
concoction Al Qaeda, Osma bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Saddam�s Iraq, etc, etc, have
all been secretly working together to exterminate the Jews and overthrow western
civilization. Such fantastic drivel is being spewed out solely to cover up the global
Any decent, open-minded, person observing geopolitics since the foundation of the
Jews-only state in Palestine, would have been all too well aware of the way that America
has been colonized by Jewish neocons. What is so remarkable about this feat is not so much
that a tiny minority could colonize a global hyperpower but that this minority could keep
the colonization out of the public realm for so long even though the facts themselves have
been screaming out to anyone who could be bothered to listen.
In the politically kosher western world, anti-zionist propositions are usually ostracized
but mostly ridiculed or denounced in passing. However, when one of the Jewish leaders at
the centre of this global zionist conspiracy gives a clear cut example of his treatment of
the president of the United States as a whipping boy, the deniers are put in an
embarrassing position. This is especially so since Olmert�s order to Bush was in the best
interests of the Jews-only state but was in the president�s (and America�s) worst possible
interests because it provoked the rest of the world to despise him, and America, even more
for his continued warmongering. So, the question arises, how are mainstream commentators
going to confront such a shocking and indisputable revelation? Here�s a spectacular
firework display of the truth about Jewish control over America so are they now going to
pretend they can�t see the fireworks? In the recent past western politicians
wholeheartedly supported the Jewish fantasy that saddam possessed nuclear weapons. Is the
world just going to continue upholding the latest Jewish fantasy that iran is close to
getting closer to acquiring nukes whilst, at the same time, pretending that the Jews don�t
have them? This article looks at commentators� response to Olmert�s sudden revelation.
What Olmert said.
Many mainstream American publications covered the story of Olmert�s abusive and
humiliating treatment of Bush. Although they quoted from his speech the vast majority used
only a few selective quotes and often quoted from different parts of his speech. It is
only when the entire speech is heard that the intensity of Olmert�s taunting of Bush
becomes clear. The American media thus seemed to limit the quotes it used partly in order
to avoid undermining the authority of the president of the United States but also to
protect the racist state by preventing Americans from appreciating just how vicious
Olmert�s attack on Bush had been.
The three quotes following provide a fullish account of Olmert�s speech. "According
to Olmert, he called the White House upon hearing of the upcoming UN Security Council
resolution. "I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone.' They said he was
in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to
talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me," Olmert said, according
to multiple media reports. As a result of his conversation with President Bush, Olmert
claimed, the president called Rice and forced her to abstain from voting on the measure,
which she herself had helped author. "He gave an order to the secretary of state and
she did not vote in favor of it, a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized, and
maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she
arranged," Olmert said." (Daniel Luban �Olmert's Claims Revive Israel Lobby
January 14, 2009);
"According to Olmert, he told Bush that the US should not vote for the resolution,
and Bush then directed Rice to abstain. "She was left pretty embarrassed,"
Olmert said. Like Olmert's aides, an official in the Prime Minister's Office said
"the Prime Minister's comments on Monday were a correct account of what took
place."" (Herb Keinon, Allison Hoffman �'PM stands by his version in diplo
January 14, 2009); "So, here, in Olmert's words, is what happened next. "In
the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote
on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor. I said,
'Get me President Bush on the phone.' They said he was in the middle of giving a
speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now.' He
got off the podium and spoke to me." According to Olmert, Bush was clueless. "He
said: 'Listen. I don't know about it. I didn't see it. I'm not familiar
with the phrasing.� I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote
in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her
not to vote in favor."" (Patrick J. Buchanan �Is Ehud's Poodle Acting Up?�
January 17, 2009).
U.S. State Department response.
America�s state department was angry with Olmert but whether this was because it didn�t
like the president being humiliated or because they were furious he�d given the game away
is not clear. "The U.S. State Department fiercely denied claims made by Ehud Olmert
about his influence over President George W. Bush, in an incident that has stirred up old
debates about the role of the Israeli government and the so-called "Israel
lobby" in formulating Middle East policy in Washington." (Daniel Luban
�Olmert's Claims Revive Israel Lobby Controversy�
January 14, 2009).
Olmert not backing down.
"The State Department immediately contradicted Olmert�s claims, insisting that
"the government of Israel does not make US policy." Spokesman Sean McCormack
also suggested that Israel might want to "clarify or correct the record" with
respect to the comments. Rice has dismissed Olmert�s claims as "fiction." The
comments have sparked no small concern in Israel, where the fear is that Olmert�s claims
to be able to order the President of the United States around will only increase public
opposition in America to Israel�s influence on its foreign policy. Yet spokesmen for
Olmert say that the prime minister stands behind his version of events." (�Olmert
Stands Behind Rice-Shaming Claim: Rice Calls Prime Minister's Comments
Haaretz suggests Olmert closer to the truth than Rice.
"Inquiries with people uninvolved in the spat between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveal that his version of the lead-up to
America's vote on last week's Security Council resolution is closer to the truth
than hers. The whole story would have ended well had Olmert behaved like a responsible
adult and restrained his own impulses. Even his close associates admit that he would have
done better to skip the public boasting about how he persuaded Bush to overrule Rice.
Quite aside from the fact that this embarrassed the U.S. administration, Olmert's
associates understand all too well that this story merely provides fresh ammunition to
those who claim the Jews are the ones who really control America." (Akiva Eldar
�Inquiries show Olmert version of UN Gaza vote spat closer to truth than Rice's�
January 01, 2009).
How have America�s commentators reacted to Olmert confession?
In the past, American commentators have adamantly refused to discuss Jewish economic,
cultural, or political, power in America. Indeed, their silence is yet another piece of
evidence as to the existence of such power. So, will Olmert�s confession set them free to
challenge the Jews� colonization of America and its calamitous consequences for the
country (and many other countries around the world)? Or will they just go on living
comfortably in the zionist fantasy world created for them by America�s Jewish ruling
Juan Cole picks up on Olmert�s confession to propose that Jewish nazis are exercising
their power in America not merely through Bribery but Blackmail.
Cole covered the outburst in detail and speculated that zionist power in America might
derive from Mossad�s acquisition of material with which it could blackmail Bush. For a
political commentator such as Cole, a high profile member of America�s defunct wasp
establishment, to have to resort to such a wacky, fringe, idea is unusual to say the
least. But then again what alternative does he have since he won�t talk about America�s
ruling Jewish elite, the colossal economic power acquired by the Jewish elite, nor the
zionists near total domination of congress and the American media.
Steven C Clemons.
Clemons personalizes Olmert�s statement so that it is merely a kick in the face for the
president and Condoleezza Rice rather than a statement of shame about the gross
subservience of America�s much vaunted democratic system and the ignominious position of
the American people whose political leaders care more about protecting the Jews-only state
in Palestine than looking after their own citizens. "No matter what one may think of
Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic record, which I think is better than many liberal
critics gauge, the fact that Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave her a kick in the
teeth as she departs her office is obnoxious and harmful all around. Shaming a US
President and Secretary of State may not change the course in policy and may not shift
America's general approach to the region, at least for the time being, but it does
take the fizz out of the unique relationship." (Steven C Clemons �Defending Condi:
Olmert Shames Himself in Kick-in-the-Teeth Attack on Rice�
January 12, 2009).
Clemons has no interest in questioning the political significance of America�s democracy,
reputed by common opinion to be the best in the world, even though its president and
members of congress are mere vassals to a rogue state, a hive of Jewish racists, in the
"Clemons gets it right re Olmert and Condi, that it's a disgraceful attack. I
missed the humiliation in this. Israel often treats our executive like the help, because
Israelis know they have power in Washington. It's similar to Ehud Barak treating Bill
Clinton like a peer in 2000, and Yitzhak Shamir lying to George Bush about not building
more settlements, in '91. They always get away with it, because of the lobby. No
wonder the fury at J Street has been coordinated by the Israeli embassy. They have so much
to lose." (Philip Weiss �Where is Hillary on cease-fire?�
13, 2009). Here�s one Jewish writer making a determined effort to learn the truth about
Xymphora points out Kouchner�s Zionist Treachery.
"Juan Cole, who seems to be letting his freak flag fly recently, has an excellent
detailed posting on the automatic control that the Israeli government has over the
American government, exemplified by Olmert picking up the phone and ordering Bush around
to the extent that the United States changed its mind and abstained, rather than voted
for, the latest UN cease-fire resolution. This was a public slap in the face for Rice,
who actually helped draft the resolution, and Olmert is crowing about it. Note the
behind-the-scenes trickery of the Jew Kouchner, who valiantly worked for his homeland,
Israel, naturally, not France, to try to block the resolution. Cole concludes by raising
the most important issue of all, the consideration of which is necessitated by the lack of
any obvious motive for Bush to act as he did, the conspiracy theory that the mysterious
hold of Zionism over American politicians is connected to blackmail. Israeli
intelligence, with the aid of the secret cadre of dual-loyalty American Jews, gathers
dossiers of information on characters like Bush, people who have a lot of embarrassments
in their pasts, and holds it over them. Other than direct payments of cash, which
probably explains Cheney, this is by far the most plausible theory for why American
politicians consistently and blatantly act against American interests (sorry Noam). I
wonder what the Israeli dossier on Obama looks like?" (Xymphora �The mysterious hold
of Zionism over American politicians�
"The State Department has some not-terribly-convincing denials out. But one way or
another it seems both telling and unseemly that Olmert is going around bragging about
this." (Matthew Yglesias �Olmert Claims to Control US Foreign Policy�
January 13, 2009). Olmert should be applauded for telling the truth not criticized for
bragging. Now that the truth is out why doesn�t Yglesias spend his time outlining its
fundamental political implications and ramifications?
Paul Craig Roberts.
The inimitable Paul Craig Roberts is a unique and fearless commentator: a former
politician who speaks truth to power. "Israeli politicians have been bragging for
decades about the control they exercise over the US government. In his final press
conference, President Bush, deluded to the very end, said that the whole world respects
America. In fact, when the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony. What
is happening to the Palestinians herded into the Gaza Ghetto is happening because of
American money and weapons. It is just as much an attack by the United States as an attack
by Israel. The US government is complicit in the war crimes. "Our" president was
a puppet for a cabal led by Dick Cheney and a handful of Jewish neoconservatives, who took
control of the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, and
"Homeland Security." From these power positions, the neocon cabal used lies and
deception to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pointless wars that have cost Americans $3
trillion, while millions of Americans lose their jobs, their pensions, and their access to
health care." (Paul Craig Roberts �The White House Moron Stumbles to the Finish: The
Humiliation of America� http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts01142009.html
"Middle East expert Steven Spiegel described the episode as "the worst faux pas
by an Israeli prime minister in history. You really do wonder what the prime minister was
thinking, if it's true, you'd really want to keep it as quiet as possible, and if
it's not true, why would you want to make up a story that would embarrass both the
Bush administration and the Israeli government and draw criticism from those who are
antagonistic to Israel?" asked Spiegel, director of the Center for Middle East
Development at UCLA. "No matter how you play it, exaggeration, falsehood, whole
truth, the whole thing makes them all look bad," Spiegel told The Jerusalem
Post." (Herb Keinon, Allison Hoffman �'PM stands by his version in diplo
January 14, 2009).
In the past, Raimondo has been edging towards stating that the Jews-only state in
Palestine, with the aid of its political agents in America, controls America�s foreign
policies. It might have been thought he would have taken Olmert�s statement as a great
opportunity to highlight this fundamental reality of American politics. At first it seems
he would. "It (Olmert�s statement) tells us who is used to giving orders, and who is
accustomed to obedience." (Justin Raimondo �Israel versus America: Is the
'special relationship' over? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14075
January 16, 2009). But he doesn�t. "What Gaza signals is a new turn for the Israelis,
a clean break, if you will, with their status as an American puppet in the Middle East.
They are clearly going off on their own, intent on waging a war of unmitigated aggression
against all their neighbors." (Justin Raimondo �Israel versus America: Is the
'special relationship' over? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14075
January 16, 2009). When given the opportunity he ducks it. The apartheid state has always
been an American puppet but is now going off on its own. Such an argument would make sense
if America had stopped giving the racist state vast annual tribute payments and stopped
providing it with endless quantities of weapons and munitions with which to slaughter
innocent civilians. Oh well, seems like Raimondo�s back in the closet.
Patrick J. Buchanan.
Over the last couple of decades, Buchanan has been one of the few mainstream American
politicians who have criticized the Jews-only state and Jewish power in America and has
suffered the consequences. And yet he�s been quite restrained about Olmert�s confession.
"With Bush and Rice leaving office in hours, and Olmert in weeks, the story may seem
to lack significance. Yet, public gloating by an Israeli prime minister that he can order
a U.S. president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of
state may cause even Ehud's poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its
master. Taking such liberties with a superpower that, for Israel's benefit, has
shoveled out $150 billion and subordinated its own interests in the Arab and Islamic world
would seem a hubristic and stupid thing to do." (Patrick J. Buchanan �Is Ehud's
Poodle Acting Up?� http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=14091
January 17, 2009).
Cloughley enters the fray, "And the President of the United States of America jumps
to obey the Israeli prime minister." (Brian Cloughley �The Power of AIPAC: Who Runs
January 16-18, 2009).
However, the reason that America�s ruling Jewish elite is nigh on impervious is because
those on the left refuse to challenge it. Cloughley points out that members of congress
are funded by Jews but doesn�t generalize beyond this to expose America�s ruling Jewish
elite. "There is one thing certain: the US Congress is going to continue its
unconditional support for Israel, no matter what war crimes are committed by its
disgusting thugs-in-uniform. The Reps need the money, after all, which they get through
political action committees which are generously funded by American Jews. And they are
scared to political death by the threat that pro-Israel agencies will destroy them
politically if they dare say a word against Israel. There are very few Representatives of
the people of America who would dare challenge Israel, or who might possibly criticize
Israel, or who have the courage to condemn atrocities committed by Israel." (Brian
Cloughley �The Power of AIPAC: Who Runs America?�
January 16-18, 2009).
He criticizes the American media for not telling the truth. "Not many Americans know
anything about the hideous barbarity in Gaza, because US cable networks and newspapers
rarely carry pictures of disfigured blood-splashed children who have been killed, maimed
or orphaned by the Israelis. But here in Europe we have access to some TV channels and
newspapers that are very different from the pliant pro-Zion patsies of the major news
outlets across the Atlantic." (Brian Cloughley �The Power of AIPAC: Who Runs
January 16-18, 2009). But he
fails to tell the truth by not denouncing the zionist owned and controlled American media.
The media in any country is a reflection of that society�s ruling class. No ruling class
rules without the help of a cheerleading media. The reason that America�s mainstream media
supports the Jews-only state is because it is owned and staffed primarily by members of
America�s ruling Jewish elite.
As far as is known Karon has made no comment about Olmert�s confession. However, the
confession places Karon�s comments about Rice�s supervision of the Jewish war against
lebanon in 2006 in a different light. "It was clear, at the time, that the neophyte
Olmert was outsourcing his decision-making to Condi Rice. I wrote at the time of the sense
that Israel was waging a proxy war for the Bush Administration, a sense confirmed at the
time by the hawkish dean of Israeli military correspondents, Ze�ev Schiff, who wrote at
the height of the conflict: "U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure
leading the strategy of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
or Defense Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international
pressure in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain its
status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria." (Tony Karon �Olmert: His Own Shlemiel,
or Bush�s?� http://tonykaron.com/2008/01/31/olmert-his-own-shlemiel-or-bushs/
2008). If Olmert was capable of humiliating Rice over the United nations� resolution over
Gaza is it likely that, two years earlier, he�d allowed her to run the show slaughtering
George Bush, the Jews� whipping Boy.
What has not been pointed out by commentators on Olmert�s confession was that he was
referencing a statement made by Ariel Sharon a few years earlier. In september 2001,
Sharon had publicly humiliated Bush by calling him a Chamberlain. "Don't repeat
the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to
sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to placate the
Arabs at our expense ... Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight
terror." (�Israel consumed by victim culture� Guardian 5.10.2001). A few days later,
Sharon compounded the humiliation, "Every time we do something, you (Shimon Peres)
tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear.
Don�t worry about American pressure on Israel; we, the Jewish people, control America and
the Americans know it." (Zionist Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 IAP
Olmert�s Jewish audience would have picked up on this reference and understood that Olmert
was trying to cloak himself with Sharon�s mantle as one of the Jews� most belligerent
warmongers (although whether they believed Olmert deserved such a comparison is another
Olmert�s humiliation of Bush could not be a more fitting finale to Bush�s presidency. His
presidency began not so much on september 11, 2001 with Al Qaeda�s attacks on New York and
the Pentagon but with Sharon�s success in forcing him to accept the likudnik
interpretation of this event. The Bush regime did not respond to this event by
implementing policies to protect and promote American interests. On the contrary, Sharon,
and the Jewish neocons/lobby in America, pushed the Bush regime into implementing policies
that boosted the interests of the Jews-only state in Palestine even though these policies
would have a catastrophic impact on America�s interests. In other words, the president of
the United States failed to interpret this critical event, even though it happened in his
own country, because he was overwhelmed by the narrative put forward by the leader of a
shitty little country on the other side of the planet and by Jewish neocons in America
loyal to that country. Al Qaeda attacked America because of its unconditional support for
the Jews-only state. Bush and America could have realized that such unconditional support
was against America�s interests, but the rogue state and its Jewish agents in America
pressured the president into adopting even more extreme zionist policies which put America
interests at even greater risk.
Al Qaeda�s payback on America was a major turning point in American history but Americans
had nothing to do with the direction in which their own country then moved. "Common
wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what
is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure
(read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact,
it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened
on September 11, 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against
Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global
scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11." (Naomi Klein
�The Likud doctrine� The Guardian
September 10, 2004);
"But the idea of a super-power behaving in a similar way, responding to terrorist
threats or guerrilla incursions by flattening another country just to preserve its own
deterrent credibility, is odd in the extreme. It is one thing for the US unconditionally
to underwrite Israelis� behaviour (though in neither country�s interest, as some Israeli
commentators at least have remarked). But for the US to imitate Israel wholesale, to
import that tiny country�s self-destructive, intemperate response to any hostility or
opposition and to make it the leitmotif of American foreign policy: that is simply
bizarre. Bush�s Middle Eastern policy now tracks so closely to the Israeli precedent that
it is very difficult to see daylight between the two. It is this surreal turn of events
that helps explain the confusion and silence of American liberal thinking on the subject
(as well, perhaps, as Tony Blair�s syntactically sympathetic me-tooism). Historically,
liberals have been unsympathetic to �wars of choice� when undertaken or proposed by their
own government. War, in the liberal imagination (and not only the liberal one), is a last
resort, not a first option. But the United States now has an Israeli-style foreign policy
and America�s liberal intellectuals overwhelmingly support it." (Tony Judt �Bush�s
Useful Idiots� http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/judt01_.html
September 21 2006).
An American president who calls for a Palestinian state (the first to do so) but fails to
deliver it, despite the successive, nonstop, diplomatic efforts of Colin Powell and
Condoleezza Rice, America�s massive funding of the apartheid state, and the widespread
international support for such a goal, is clearly subservient to zionist power and
influence. Brent Scowcroft was one of the few to confront such fundamental realities of
American political life when he stated that Ariel Sharon had Bush wrapped around his
little finger. It is a remarkable testimony to Americans� capability for living in their
highly leveraged zionist fantasy world that they ignored Scowcroft�s insider remark and
continued their patriotic bleats about how America is the most powerful country in the
world with the world�s sole military hyper-power.
For a number of other blatant examples of how Sharon continually beat up Bush and got him
to support extreme zionist policies which have had the most devastating economic,
political, and military, consequences for America please see �America is a Jewish Colony:
Bush is Sharon�s Muppet�
It is hardly surprising then that the Bush presidency should end so ignominiously when
another hysterical, paranoid, warmonger from the Jewish nazi state boasted to the whole
world that, in effect, Bush was nothing but his whipping boy. Why should Olmert fear
retribution for his gross humiliation of Bush and the American people when they can�t harm
Jewish power in America?
America is a Jewish Colony: Update on Olmerts bragging about his humiliation of Bush and
By Bob Finch
How have America�s commentators reacted to Olmert�s confession?
Abraham Foxman defends Olmert
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Jewish fascist organization the Anti-Defamation
League, defended Olmert by likening the incident to a private squabble between two
friends. "I have no problem with what Olmert did," said Abraham Foxman, national
director of the Anti-Defamation League. "I
think the mistake was to talk about it in public. This is what friendships are about. He
was not interfering in political issues. You have a relationship, and if you don�t like
what is being done, then you go to the boss and tell him." (Nathan Guttman Olmerts
Shaming Rice Provokes Diplomatic Furor [http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/
This is just blatant spin. A person does not publicly boast about revealing his friend�s
stupidity (i.e. Bush didn�t know the content of the resolution); he doesn�t enjoy boasting
about humiliating a friend (Bush); nor relish shaming another friend (Rice).
Foxman is trying to diminish the seriousness of Olmert�s major political gaffe. He wants
to prevent the incident from becoming a full scale political controversy which might
enable more Americans to learn about the Jews� death grip over the Bush regime and
American political system. He doesn�t
want the American public questioning the power that the Jews-only state has over America,
a military hyperpower. Such a controversy might end up destroying the taboos the Jewish
lobby has so carefully nurtured in America over the last six decades. It could harm the
zionist state�s chances of
dominating future American administrations. Foxman wants the American public to continue
to believe in the zionist-nurtured fantasy that America is the greatest nation on Earth
rather than a pathetic puppet which makes massive annual tribute payments, and supplies
endless quantities of weapons, to
its masters on the other side of the planet.
Douglas Bloomfield defends Olmert
"Douglas Bloomfield, a former chief lobbyist for the Washington-based pro-Israel
lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, dismissed the episode as "a
spitting match between two lame ducks." "This reinforces the perception that the
Israeli prime minister and Israeli leaders have easy
access to the leaders of the U.S.," Bloomfield said. "It is a fact that the
Israeli prime minister can get the president on the phone. Not every prime minister in the
world can do that. It is no secret that Israel tried to influence the U.S. regarding U.N.
votes. It reinforces what the rivals of
Israel say about the enormous clout Israel has in Washington, and I see nothing wrong with
that." But Bloomfield added, "It is a mistake to talk about it.""
(Nathan Guttman Olmerts Boast of Shaming Rice Provokes Diplomatic Furor
]). Bloomfield defends Olmert but believes he was
wrong to make such an incident public. The problem is not that Olmert treats the American
president as his whipping boy but that he tells everyone about it.
"Olmert told an Israeli audience that, last Friday, upon hearing of Rice�s position,
he immediately telephoned George W. Bush. Told that Bush was delivering an address in
Philadelphia, Olmert replied, "I�m not interested," demanding to speak to Bush.
Bush then left his Philadelphia podium and,
according to Olmert, the Israeli prime minister instructed the American president that
"the U.S. cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution." Bush then
telephoned Rice and ordered her to abstain from the vote. That�s Olmert�s story, or
Israeli megalomania, presented to the Israelis with
pride, but unlikely to be received by Americans with pleasure." (William Pfaff Whos
in Charge, Obama, the Pentagon or Israel?
January 15, 2009). Pfaff couldn�t be more coy. The
president of Israel publicly brags about humiliating the president of the world�s military
hyper-power but, according to Pfaff, the only negative outcome is that it is
"unlikely to be received by Americans with pleasure." Where�s Pfaff�s raging
denunciation of Olmert�s insult to his president? Or
does he really know who controls America and doesn�t want to be the one to spill the
"American politicians exhibit an identification with Israel that is now in excess of
the measurable effects of the Israel lobby. The blindness of the identification has led
the US to respond with keen sensitivity to Israeli requests for assistance and moral
support, and to underestimate the
suffering caused by the Gaza blockade and by the settlements and checkpoints and the wall
on the West Bank. Yet grant the potency of the lobby and the identification � even so, the
arrogance with which Israel dictates policy is hard to comprehend on the usual index of
motives. Ehud Olmert boasted
to a crowd in Ashkelon on 12 January that with one phone call to Bush, he forced
Condoleezza Rice to abstain from voting for the UN ceasefire resolution she herself had
prepared. The depth, the efficacy and the immediacy of the influence are treated by Olmert
as an open secret." (David Bromwich
LRB contributors react to events in Gaza
15, 2009). In other words,
Jewish extremists haven�t colonized America, Americans just identify themselves with
whatever the Jewish nazis decide to do. Quite why Americans would want to
give away billions of dollars in non-refundable loans, weapons and munitions, and then be
reviled by the rest of the world when the Jews use these loans and weapons to carry out
gross acts of barbarism, is nonsensical. But then advocating such nonsense is much easier
than highlighting how the Jews
have turned America into a huge warehouse from which they take whatever they need to boost
the Jews� regional supremacism in the middle east.
The American public�s response to Olmert�s statement
It might have been expected that there would be a huge public uproar that the president
had been so mercilessly humiliated by what, to Americans, must seem like the pip-squeak
leader of a pip-squeak country. But where were American patriots� mass displays of raging
anger towards Olmert and the
zionist state? Janet Jackson�s superbowl nipple display elicited a far greater scale of
public indignation than Olmert�s humiliation of Bush.
This astounding non-reaction may have been brought about by two factors. Firstly,
America�s Zionist dominated media refused to make a political issue out of the incident.
The serious publications/broadcasters didn�t want to discuss it and the tabloids refused
to hype it up. Secondly no patriotic
American politician wanted to treat the issue seriously let alone hype it for political
A good example of the non-Zionist Jewish reaction is Phillip Weiss. His first reaction to
the incident was that he didn�t notice the humiliation! "Clemons gets it right re
Olmert and Condi, that it's a disgraceful attack. I missed the humiliation in this.
Israel often treats our executive like the
help, because Israelis know they have power in Washington. It's similar to Ehud Barak
treating Bill Clinton like a peer in 2000, and Yitzhak Shamir lying to George Bush about
not building more settlements, in '91. They always get away with it, because of the
lobby. No wonder the fury at J Street
has been coordinated by the Israeli embassy. They have so much to lose." (Philip
Weiss Where is Hillary on cease-fire?
January 13, 2009). Weiss knows that Jewish leaders bully American presidents so
to him it was nothing unusual and thus nothing to get unduly worked up about. It was just
like the head of the household ticking off the domestic! But as an American it might have
been thought he should have felt some animosity toward Olmert and the racist state for
humiliating what is supposedly
his president and his country.
Then there are the Israel-firsters. They whip up American patriotism solely for the
benefit of the Jews-only state. (For example the Ziocons fostered American patriotism for
the war in Iraq which was beneficial to the Jews-only state but not America). This type of
person would have felt proud that
his tribe�s political leader had the chutzpah to humiliate an American president. Instead
of condemning Olmert they defended him. Instead of being outraged they feigned
indifference. Instead of turning the incident into a political controversy they sought to
marginalize it. The last thing they
wanted was to expose Jewish power over American politicians, and thus the dominance of the
squatter state over the world�s military hyper-power. It might undermine American
patriots� grandiose fantasies about the importance of their country and cast doubts in
their minds about its relationship to
the Zionist state.
Thus the American public�s non-reaction to the Olmert incident can be explained in terms
of the dominance of the Israel-firsters who want to maintain Jewish dominance over
America. There were no patriotic American political leaders and no patriotic American
commentators to politicize this
revealing political story because most of them are Ziocons i.e. traitors to America.
American patriots are proud of America�s military might, technological progress, and
economic success. Some even go so far as talking about America�s destiny to make the world
a better place. And yet the vast mass of them were indifferent to the political
humiliation of their president. They
seemed oblivious that Olmert had not merely humiliated their president but exposed the
servility of the American political system which gives billions of dollars a year in
tribute payments to the rogue state. They seemed oblivious of America losing its global
political reputation by giving the
Jews-only state unconditional political and diplomatic support even when it ruthlessly
pursues racist policies and carries out the most barbaric onslaughts against unarmed
American patriotism seems to be expressed only when America�s ruling Jewish elite conjures
it up because it suits their interests or those of the Jews-only state. American patriots
are just mindless cheerleaders in a choreography written for them by their invisible
Another important revelation arising out of Olmert�s bragging about his control over Bush
was that he had no fear of retribution from the Bush regime. A few days before Olmert�s
confession, the American congress had passed a resolution which wholly supported the Jews�
slaughter of Palestinian
civilians in Gaza even though the rest of the world opposed such a slaughter and despised
America for giving the Jews blanket support. "The latest illustration of this
Washington puppet show, backed by the most modern weapons and billions of taxpayer dollars
annually sent to Israel, was the
grotesquely one-sided Resolutions whisked through the Senate and the House of
Representatives. While a massive bombing and invasion of Gaza was underway, the resolution
blaming Hamas for all the civilian casualties and devastation, 99% of it inflicted on
Palestinians, zoomed through the Senate by
voice vote and through the House by a vote of 390 to 5 with 22 legislators voting present.
There is more dissent against this destruction of Gaza among the Israeli people, the
Knesset, the Israeli media, and Jewish-Americans than among the dittoheads on Capitol
Hill." (Ralph Nader Punishing
the Palestinians: State Terrorism Against Gaza
] January 20, 2009).
Olmert knew not merely that Bush was at the end of his presidency but that congress
wouldn�t allow the Bush regime to retaliate against him for what he�d said. He clearly
knew that congress is more devoted to Jewish presidents than to its own presidents. The
American congress should be called the
American knesset because Jewish leaders have frequently got away with humiliating American
presidents. Uri avnery sought, indirectly, to counter any political damage that could
ensue from the incident by reiterating the politically conventional viewpoint that Israel
is just an American colonial
outpost. "The Israeli Barak understands that if the American Barack gets angry, that
would mean disaster. Conclusion: the horrors of Gaza must stop before the inauguration.
This week that determined all political and military decisions. Not "the number of
rockets", not "victory", not "breaking
Hamas"." (Uri Avnery Livni's Smile: The Boss Has Gone Mad
] January 19, 2009). But avnery�s
statement is just spin because he knows that if obama ever criticized the Jews-only state,
let alone threatened to reduce America�s massive
tribute payments, or supplies of munitions, to the rogue state, he would immediately come
under serious political flak from congress. It is the president of the United States who
is terrified of Jewish political leaders not the other way around. Avnery�s seemingly
commonsensical statement is just
Jewish hasbara to cover up the current global balance of power in which the Jews-only
state, the Jewish lobby in America, the zionist dominated American media, and the American
knesset, have dominant political influence over the American president.
The American congress should be the most patriotic institution in America but it has been
transformed into a legislature whose rightful home would be somewhere on the west bank.
Members of congress are loyal to their Jewish financial paymasters and are thus not only
traitorous to the American
electorate but to the American president. They would criticize, perhaps even impeach,
their own president but they would never dare to make the slightest criticism of a Jewish
leader or the Jewish state. Whenever the crunch comes, the American knesset backs Jewish
leaders against their own
Where�s Olmert�s gratitude to Bush?
There are many reasons why the Jews could militarily pulverise Gaza reducing large parts
of it to rubble and slaughtering thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians.
Firstly, the Bush regime, like its predecessors, provided massive tribute payments to the
Jews-only state in Palestine which meant the war would not put a financial strain on the
Jewish government�s budget or on the Jewish economy.
Secondly, the Bush regime supplied the Jews-only state with whatever munitions it wanted.
"The supply of American weapons used in the massacres was authorized previously by
such a margin. These included the Hellfire missile which sucks the air out of lungs,
ruptures livers and amputates arms and
legs without the necessity of shrapnel: a "major advance," according to the
specialist literature. As a senator, then president-elect, Obama raised no objection to
these state-of-the-art [sic] weapons being rushed to Israel, worth $22 billion in 2008, in
time for the long-planned assault on Gaza's
fenced and helpless population." (John Pilger Come On Down for Your Freedom Medals
] January 22, 2009); "Frida Berrigan,
a senior research associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy
Institute, points out that the
bulk of Israel's current arsenal is composed of military equipment supplied under U.S.
assistance programs. Israel, she said, has been supplied with 226 F-16 fighter planes and
attack jets, more than 700 M60 battle tanks, 6,000 armored personnel carriers and scores
of transport planes, attack
helicopters and utility and training aircraft, bombs and tactical missiles of all
kinds." (Thalif Deen Hamas Fights on Uneven Battlefield
] January 23, 2009). This open-ended
supply of weapons and munitions had a critical impact on
the Jews� military strategy. The Jews-only state adopted a military policy of grossly
disproportionate retaliation against its adversaries because it could call upon an
unlimited supply of munitions from its American warehouse. If the Zionists had to rely
solely on their own financial resources
they would never have pursued such a psychotic military policy.
Thirdly, the Zionists knew they could act as barbarically as they wanted against
Palestinian civilians because the Bush regime would give them all the political and
diplomatic protection they needed from the anger of the rest of the world. There would be
no chance of the United Nations or the
Security Council agreeing on sanctions against the Jewish state because the Bush regime
would just veto the proposal.
Finally, over the last eight years the Bush regime has provided the Jews-only state with a
huge range of services. It has launched proxy Zionist wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush more or less handed the West Bank to the squatter state. He continually protected the
Jewish state in the united
nations. And, in 2006, he deflected global condemnations of the Jews� slaughter of
Lebanese civilians onto himself and America.
It might have been expected then that Olmert would have been hugely grateful to Bush for
his enormous financial, political, and military, generosity towards the Jews-only state.
And yet despite Bush�s assiduous dedication to the cause of Jewish racism, Olmert still
treated him with contempt. This
wasn�t chutzpah so much as the ingratitude that a master bestows upon his slave. If Olmert
was really the leader of an American outpost in the Middle East he�d have been overjoyed
by the vast help that the Bush regime had provided. The fact that he treated Bush so
contemptuously rather than
lavished praise upon him shows that the Jewish state is dominant over America and,
correspondingly, that the global Jewish empire treats America as its colony.
Olmert�s outburst showed his willingness to humiliate Bush, congress, and the American
people. It showed that Jewish dominance of the American knesset is so overwhelming that
members of congress would not condemn an attack on their own president. It showed that the
American knesset would protect
Olmert from any retribution by the Bush regime. It showed that Olmert, with the support of
the American knesset and the Zionist dominated American media, felt powerful enough to
humiliate the American president without suffering any American patriotic outrage that
would hurt the interests of the
racist state. And it showed the sheer ingratitude that Jewish leaders have towards their
American minions no matter what these muppets do for their Jewish masters. Americans have
sacrificed their wealth, their dignity, their political principles, and their decency, for
the sake of supporting the
barbaric Jews-only state and yet Zionist leaders still prefer to humiliate American
presidents and the American people rather than showing any gratitude. The Jews have not
merely colonized America they have colonized the minds of the American people. Americans
have become laughably docile in
comparison to the hugely resilient, courageous, and unconquerable, Palestinians.
The next session of Congress will include 44 Jewish lawmakers, a new record
It is well known that American Jews are disproportionately represented in the mass media,
the entertainment business, and the financial industry. As recently as December 19th,
2008, Joel Stein, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times, starkly reaffirmed and
orgiastically celebrated their
dominance of the entertainment industry in his column
However, a recently-released report [http://pewforum.org/
] by the Pew Forum for Religion
and Public Life, which included a breakdown of the faiths and denominations of the members
of the incoming 111th Congress, shows that Jews are also disproportionate in Congress as
well, constituting 8.4
percent of its membership, as opposed to just 1.7 percent of the overall population. The
Pew report is available HERE [http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=379
]; the 15-page appendix
listing all individual members of Congress is HERE
And, as expected, some Jewish members of Congress are more financially beholden to Israel
than others. Click HERE
] to find out about
pro-Israel PAC contributions to members of Congress through 2007-08. Then compare to the
The list is alphabetized by state, then further alphabetized by member�s last name within
each state. Click on the highlighted name to go directly to the member�s official
(1). U.S. Senators
� Barbara Boxer [http://boxer.senate.gov/
� Dianne Feinstein [http://feinstein.senate.gov/
� Joseph Lieberman [http://lieberman.senate.gov/
� Benjamin L. Cardin [http://www.cardin.senate.gov/
� Carl Levin [http://levin.senate.gov/
� *Norm Coleman [http://coleman.senate.gov/public/
] (R)/Al Franken (D) (MN)
� Frank Lautenberg [http://lautenberg.senate.gov/
� Charles Schumer [http://schumer.senate.gov/
� Ron Wyden [http://wyden.senate.gov/
� Arlen Specter [http://specter.senate.gov/
� Bernard Sanders [http://sanders.senate.gov/
� Russ Feingold [http://feingold.senate.gov/
� Herb Kohl [http://kohl.senate.gov/
* Minnesota Senate race not yet settled as of this post.
(2). U.S. Representatives
� Gabrielle Giffords [http://giffords.house.gov/
� Howard Berman [http://www.house.gov/berman
� Susan Davis [http://www.house.gov/susandavis
� Bob Filner [http://www.house.gov/filner
� Jane Harman [http://www.house.gov/harman
� Adam B. Schiff [http://schiff.house.gov/
� Brad Sherman [http://www.house.gov/sherman
� Henry Waxman [http://www.house.gov/waxman
� (Q) Jared Polis [http://polis.house.gov/
� Alan Grayson [http://grayson.house.gov/
� Ron Klein [http://klein.house.gov/
� Debbie Wasserman-Schultz [http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/
� Robert Wexler [http://wexler.house.gov/
� *Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
� Jan Schakowsky [http://www.house.gov/schakowsky
� John Yarmuth [http://yarmuth.house.gov/
� (Q) Barney Frank [http://www.house.gov/frank
� Sander M. Levin [http://www.house.gov/levin
� Shelley Berkley [http://berkley.house.gov/
� Paul W. Hodes [http://hodes.house.gov/
� John Adler [http://adler.house.gov/
� Steven R. Rothman [http://rothman.house.gov/
� Gary Ackerman [http://www.house.gov/ackerman
� Eliot L. Engel [http://engel.house.gov/
� Steve Israel [http://israel.house.gov/
� Nita M. Lowey [http://lowey.house.gov/
� Jerrold Nadler [http://www.house.gov/nadler
� Anthony Weiner [http://weiner.house.gov/
� Allyson Y. Schwartz [http://schwartz.house.gov/
� Steve Cohen [http://cohen.house.gov/
� Eric Cantor [http://cantor.house.gov/
� Steve Kagen [http://kagen.house.gov/
*Rahm Emanuel to leave Congress effective January 20th. Successor to be determined in the
March 3rd special primary election
Q = Openly gay. Documentation of Jared Polis� homosexuality HERE
You�ll note that of all the Jews in Congress, only two are Republican. This reflects the
larger national pattern of Jews voting Democratic. The preponderance is persistent and
overwhelming; 78 percent
] of Jews voted for
2008. As a matter of fact, since the Jewish Presidential vote was first tracked in 1916,
only once has a majority of Jews voted for a Republican, Warren Harding in 1920.
You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster
Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling
"to 1 212 865 1284
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY 10025