The �Military, Industrial Complex� is no more 1/28/2009 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 ever seen.

Who really has power over the government today? Is it the fabled �Military, Industrial Complex�?

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 trial?

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

Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/forget-the-military-industrial-complex-toda...

----

The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites 1/29/2009

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 people

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 success rate.

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 : http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-real-racial-discrimination-that-goes-on...

-----

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 words:

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

Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/who-is-on-obamas-dream-team-for-mideast-pea...

-------------------------------------

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 east.

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, warmongering, Jews.

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 Jewish conspiracy.

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. Statement. 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 Controversy� http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14061 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 spat'� http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866576464&pagename=JPost%... 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?� http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=14091 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� http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14061 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 "Fiction"� http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/14/olmert-stands-behind-rice-shaming-claim/ January 14, 2009).

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� http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055966.html 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 elite?

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� http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/01/defending_condi/ 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 middle east.

Philip Weiss. "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?� http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/where-is-hillary-on-ceasefire-... January 13, 2009). Here�s one Jewish writer making a determined effort to learn the truth about American politics.

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� http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2009/01/mysterious-hold-of-zionism-over.html January 13, 2009).

Matthew Yglesias. "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� http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/olmert_claims_to_control_... 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 January 14, 2009).

Steven Spiegel. "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 spat'� http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866576464&pagename=JPost%... January 14, 2009).

Justin Raimondo. 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).

Brian Cloughley. 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 America?� http://www.counterpunch.com/cloughley01162009.html 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?� http://www.counterpunch.com/cloughley01162009.html 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 America?� http://www.counterpunch.com/cloughley01162009.html 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.

Tony Karon. 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/ January 31, 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 Lebanese civilians?

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 News).

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 matter).

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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html 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� http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2009/01/america-is-jewish-colony-bush-is.ht...

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?

URL: http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2009/01/america-is-jewish-colony-olmert-rev...

---

America is a Jewish Colony: Update on Olmerts bragging about his humiliation of Bush and America [http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/america-is-jewish-colony-update-on.htm...] 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 Boast of Shaming Rice Provokes Diplomatic Furor [http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/] January 15, 2009).

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 [http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/]). 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.

William Pfaff

"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? [http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090115_whos_in_charge_obama_the_pentag...] 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 beans?

David Bromwich

"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 [http://www.lrb.co.uk/web/15/01/2009/mult04_.html%5DJanuary 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 gain.

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? [http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/where-is-hillary-on-ceasefire-...] 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 civilians.

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 Jewish masters.

[http://www.counterpunch.com/nader01202009.html]

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 [http://www.counterpunch.com/nader01202009.html] 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 [http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery01192009.html] 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 president.

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 [http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=14110] 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 [http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=14124] 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.

Source [http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2009/01/america-is-jewish-colony-update-on....]

-----

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 [http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,...].

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 [http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/congress/appendix.pdf].

And, as expected, some Jewish members of Congress are more financially beholden to Israel than others. Click HERE [http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2008/pdfs/nov08pac-charts.pdf] to find out about pro-Israel PAC contributions to members of Congress through 2007-08. Then compare to the names listed below.

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 Congressional website.

(1). U.S. Senators

� Barbara Boxer [http://boxer.senate.gov/] (D-CA) � Dianne Feinstein [http://feinstein.senate.gov/] (D-CA) � Joseph Lieberman [http://lieberman.senate.gov/] (I-CT) � Benjamin L. Cardin [http://www.cardin.senate.gov/] (D-MD) � Carl Levin [http://levin.senate.gov/] (D-MI) � *Norm Coleman [http://coleman.senate.gov/public/] (R)/Al Franken (D) (MN) � Frank Lautenberg [http://lautenberg.senate.gov/] (D-NJ) � Charles Schumer [http://schumer.senate.gov/] (D-NY) � Ron Wyden [http://wyden.senate.gov/] (D-OR) � Arlen Specter [http://specter.senate.gov/] (D-PA) � Bernard Sanders [http://sanders.senate.gov/] (I-VT) � Russ Feingold [http://feingold.senate.gov/] (D-WI) � Herb Kohl [http://kohl.senate.gov/] (D-WI)

* Minnesota Senate race not yet settled as of this post.

(2). U.S. Representatives

� Gabrielle Giffords [http://giffords.house.gov/] (D-AZ) � Howard Berman [http://www.house.gov/berman] (D-CA) � Susan Davis [http://www.house.gov/susandavis] (D-CA) � Bob Filner [http://www.house.gov/filner] (D-CA) � Jane Harman [http://www.house.gov/harman] (D-CA) � Adam B. Schiff [http://schiff.house.gov/] (D-CA) � Brad Sherman [http://www.house.gov/sherman] (D-CA) � Henry Waxman [http://www.house.gov/waxman] (D-CA) � (Q) Jared Polis [http://polis.house.gov/] (D-CO) � Alan Grayson [http://grayson.house.gov/] (D-FL) � Ron Klein [http://klein.house.gov/] (D-FL) � Debbie Wasserman-Schultz [http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/] (D-FL) � Robert Wexler [http://wexler.house.gov/] (D-FL) � *Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) � Jan Schakowsky [http://www.house.gov/schakowsky] (D-IL) � John Yarmuth [http://yarmuth.house.gov/] (D-KY) � (Q) Barney Frank [http://www.house.gov/frank] (D-MA) � Sander M. Levin [http://www.house.gov/levin] (D-MI) � Shelley Berkley [http://berkley.house.gov/] (D-NV) � Paul W. Hodes [http://hodes.house.gov/] (D-NH) � John Adler [http://adler.house.gov/] (D-NJ) � Steven R. Rothman [http://rothman.house.gov/] (D-NJ) � Gary Ackerman [http://www.house.gov/ackerman] (D-NY) � Eliot L. Engel [http://engel.house.gov/] (D-NY) � Steve Israel [http://israel.house.gov/] (D-NY) � Nita M. Lowey [http://lowey.house.gov/] (D-NY) � Jerrold Nadler [http://www.house.gov/nadler] (D-NY) � Anthony Weiner [http://weiner.house.gov/] (D-NY) � Allyson Y. Schwartz [http://schwartz.house.gov/] (D-PA) � Steve Cohen [http://cohen.house.gov/] (D-TN) � Eric Cantor [http://cantor.house.gov/] (R-VA) � Steve Kagen [http://kagen.house.gov/] (D-WI)

*Rahm Emanuel to leave Congress effective January 20th. Successor to be determined in the March 3rd special primary election [http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/01/race-officially.html].

Q = Openly gay. Documentation of Jared Polis� homosexuality HERE [http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7739308].

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 [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html] of Jews voted for Obama in 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.

Source: http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-next-session-of-congress-will-include-4...

-------------------------------------

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

Thanks,

Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster@att.net

-------------------------------------