The Founding Fathers versus the Zionist Machine
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…” Hosea 4:6
[Editors Note: Veterans Today presents another great article from one of our new staff writers]
… by Jonas E. Alexis
The American War of Independence
Escape from the “Right” Matrix
I sympathize for those who have been trapped by the political mudslinging of the “Left” vs. the “Right,” the “liberals” vs. “conservatives,” and “Democrats” vs. “Republicans.”
I too was lost in that matrix for a long time until I realized that what was passing for conservative ideas were really neoconservative ideologies which are slowly but surely deconstructing what the Founding Fathers had built.
Moreover, on many occasions both “liberals” and “conservatives” are fighting against each other inside the same matrix but ending up in the same political and Zionist rabbit whole.
For example, public intellectual Dinesh D’Souza, who spent a short period of time working for the American Enterprise Institute and who wrote a decent book called What’s So Great About Christianity in 2007, declared in his book The Enemy at Home that “the cultural left” was largely responsible for 9/11.
D’Souza moves on to put this morally risible statement in the book, “The important thing is that 50 million Afghans and Iraqis are free, and for the first time in their history, they have a chance to control their own destiny.”
There you have it. Forget about torture. Forget about lies, fabrications, destructions of homes and families, and destruction of Christian communities in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria. The invasion was good.
Then D’Souza gathers all his mental powers to say that Abu Ghraib “reflected the sexual immodesty of liberal America.” As we shall see in a later article, document after document has confirmed that prisoners at Abu Ghraib were raped, sodomized, and abused, and now D’Souza buries all that beneath the avalanche of just one sentence and with no evidence.
To much of the neoconservatives’ chagrin, Abu Ghraib was completely incompatible with the American ideals and with what the Founding Fathers had envisioned.
This is not a theoretical framework based on what the Founding Fathers could have said; they actually put that principle to work. Torturing prisoners of war for them was a forbidden territory.
Historian David Hackett Fischer of Brandeis University has vigorously documented in his book Washington’s Crossing (Oxford University Press) that,
“In Congress and the army, American leaders resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect of human rights, even of the enemy. This idea grew stronger during the campaign of 1776-1777, not weaker as is commonly the case in war.”
John Adams in particular knew very well that his enemies used cruelty on prisoners, yet he wrote a letter to his wife lamenting that such behavior should never be taken place among his soldiers. He wrote,
“I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this—Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won’t prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed.”
If you doubt that Adams was wrong, more recently Morris Davis, a former Air Force colonel with more than 25 years of military experience under his belt, “said that during the first Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse because the U.S. military would not torture prisoners and would provide food and water.”
The Fayetteville Observer (North Carolina) declared that Davis “argued that torture does not elicit information that can be used in the court of law and said the practice has damaged the nation’s image.”
Contrary to what Condoleezza Rice and Bush have postulated, and contrary to what the new movie Zero Dark Thirty has portrayed, torture has not produced good evidence. We will come back to this in another article.
George Washington put Adams’ principle to work. Some even persuaded leaders in Congress to adopt the British way of treating prisoners, but Washington refused. Washington “never threatened to deny quarter to an enemy.
This difference persisted through the war, with some exceptions in the southern campaign.” When quarter was denied to American soldiers, many pressed Washington to follow the “eye for an eye” principle, but still he never gave up to pressure.
For example, Lieutenant William Kelly was wounded and captured with his men by the British. They attempted to surrender, but
“British troops refused quarter and murdered them all. They ‘dashed out their brains with their muskets and ran them through with their bayonets, made them like sieves.’ As the Americans lay dying, the British troops brutally plundered their bodies with great violence.”
Not only that, Fischer continues to say,
“After the battles in New York, thousands of American prisoners of war were treated with extreme cruelty by British captors. Some Americans were confined in the churches of New York City, which were desecrated by scenes of cruelty, suffering, and starvation. Other Americans went to prison hulks in New York harbor and died miserably in large numbers.”
In other words, Washington had all the excuses and right justification to return the favor to the British. Yet Washington treated British troops differently and “with the same human rights for which Americans were striving.” Washington’s prisoners were expected that he would treat them as the British treated the American prisoners. Yet they were astonished when Washington treated them as human beings.
Whenever some British soldiers were captured, Washington would send letters to the specific town saying that the prisoners “were innocent people in this war, and were not volunteers, but forced into this war.” In another letter, Washington asked that the British prisoners be treated,
“with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren…Provide everything necessary for them on the road.”
Not only that, he asked that the prisoners should be treated as friends. One prisoner, Johannes Reuber, wrote later that “conditions improved for us. Old, young, rich and poor, and all treated us in a friendly manner.” As a result, many of the former British soldiers—some 3,194 of them—chose to stay in America.
This has characterized one of the central issues in American history, and it is this ideal that America was built upon. Legal scholar Robert F. Kennedy of Pace University declared that it was the Founding Fathers’ “disciplined adherence to those values that helped them win a hopeless struggle against the best soldiers in Europe.”
The point here is that the neoconservative movement has unleashed perpetual wars upon us and in the process had to adopt torture as a legitimate way to get so-called information. As the old saying goes, every action produces a reaction. The reaction to perpetual wars and torture is universal hatred of the United States.
Former 20-year CIA agent Michael Scheuer has recently documented in his book Osama bin Laden, published by Oxford University Press last year, that even bin Laden’s hatred for the U.S. stemmed from the neoconservative movement which, as we saw in a previous article, is a Jewish political and intellectual movement.
Politicians in Washington, says Scheuer, never quoted bin Laden contextually precisely because if his statements are seen through the eyes of bin Laden himself, all the political claptrap would be seen for what it really is: falsehood. Scheuer also served as the Chief of the bin Laden unit.
Quoting bin Ladin himself, Scheuer declares that America needs to stay away “from the fear and intellectual terrorism being practiced against you by the neoconservatives.”
Bin Laden also saw that both the Democrat and Republican parties are under the wings of the neoconservatives, and “the bitter truth is that the neoconservatives are still a heavy burden to you.”
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard declare almost the same thing in their book The Israel Lobby. They write that when Washington captured one of the terrorists who was supposedly behind the 9/11 attack, he declared that Muslims in general do not hate America, but they hate the American foreign policy, which has its feet firmly planted in double standard and neoconservative manipulation.
Why hasn’t the citation from bin Laden been made available to the news media and popular books? Scheuer goes on to point out that there is a wide range of so-called bin Laden experts out there who are writing books on bin Laden but never care to quote the man contextually and even care to quote him at all. Instead, they quote bin Laden’s enemies to prove their point.
“it is as if a historian were to set out to write a biography of George Washington and decided both to ignore the collected works of Washington and to rely exclusively on the testimony of those most opposed to him—political rivals, American Tories, King George III, British army officers, and today’s presentist caste of history professors who see Washington purely as a slave-owning dead white male. The resulting assessment might win a Pulitzer but would shed little light on Washington’s life and career. So it has been with works on bin Laden.”
The simple fact is that many people cannot actually get out of the “Left” and “Right” matrix because the political categories do not allow that possibility, or that the same people are amassing mammon from one political party or another. So the question then becomes, who really likes the way the matrix is going? To answer that question, we should look at the last election.
Newt Gingrich’s campaign for example was funded by none other than Jewish mogul and casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. It has been reported that Adelson’s money in the campaign for Gingrich amounted to somewhere between $17 million and $20 million.
When Gingrich got out of the race, it was reported that Adelson had donated more than $30 million. If Adelson knew for certain that Gingrich would have won the presidential election, he said he would have donated up to $100 million. In January 2012, Adelson’s wife, Mirriam, added another $5 million to the Gingrich campaign.
In return, Gingrich was planning to ask for clemency for Jonathan Pollard, the American Jew who was convicted of spying for Israel.
Right before the November election, Adelson shifted gears and was willing to donate $100 million to the Romney campaign, despite the fact that it was Adelson’s money that campaigned against Romney when Adelson was supporting Gingrich.
Adelson is a close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu and owns the widely read Israeli newspaper Israel haYom, a newspaper which cost him almost $200 million to establish and which helped shape the toppling of Olmert as Israel’s Prime Minister.
Olmert seemed to have been a good man who wanted to do things right, but he suggested that he was politically handcuffed by a number of Jewish groups in America.
The same newspaper is also in favor of Netanyahu’s Likud party. Moreover, Adelson is a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition and is a flaming Zionist. Adelson, to use his own words, “unfortunately” did military service for the United States, but he implicitly declared that he should have done it for Israel instead.
As he put it, the only thing he and his Israeli wife “care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart.” Right after Romney lost the presidential election, it was reported that Adelson spent $60 million supporting super PACs.
Even during the Bush administration, when different parties were trying to bring in peace talks in the Israel/Palestine conflict, Adelson objected to the idea and proposed that a more hawkish decision was needed. Adelson, who is pro-choice, later found out that there was no way for Gingrich to become president of the United States. He did not support Santorum because Santorum was a social conservative, and said “I don’t want him running” the United States.
As soon as Gingrich got out of the presidential race, he gave a speech in which he praised the Adelsons for donating $25 million to his campaign. In return, Gingrich during his campaign postulated that the Palestinians are an “invented people.” Gingrich also endorsed Mitt Romney.
Michelle Bachmann did the same thing, going further to say that Romney was “a man who will preserve the American dream of prosperity and liberty.” Former president George W. Bush broke his silence and supported his warmonger buddy Romney. Rick Santorum did the same thing.
Finally, Billy Graham indirectly endorsed Romney by October 2012 during the presidential debate when Romney came to see him at Graham’s estate—obviously for political reasons, for Romney had never met the elder Graham until then. Graham told Romney, “I’ll do all I can to help you. And you can quote me on that.”
Sure enough, Graham did what he could. Mormonism used to be a cult on Graham’s website, but after meeting with Romney, the word “cult” was removed. Ken Barun, chief of staff of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, offered this ridiculous statement as an explanation, “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.”
The only way that Bachmann and Graham could do something like that was because they are locked in a political matrix. We will discover what that matrix actually is in subsequent articles.
Graham wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal saying that people should cast their ballots “for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.” Biblical principles or Zionist principles? Here Graham is against the Founding Fathers and against the New Testament.
Romney with his Cuban mistress – visiting Cuba on the QT. Her father was Russian.
Romney is a Mormon. Mormon doctrines with regard to sin, salvation, and most importantly Jesus, are completely contrary to the doctrines as articulated in the New Testament—too much to detail here. For just one example, Mormon believes that Jesus and Lucifer are half-brothers!
Moreover, any person can attain godhood, the anti-thesis of what Graham believes. (For a historical account on Mormonism, I would highly recommend Richard Abanes’ exhaustive study One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church.)
In contrast, Ron Paul is also a professing Christian and a strong follower of the Founding Fathers with respect to foreign policy. Paul made it clear that “special relationship” with any foreign country is against what the Founding Fathers have envisioned.
Yet the vast majority of Republicans and indeed evangelical Christians wanted to stay away from him. The neoconservative machines such as The Weekly Standard not only smeared him but did not even invite him to their ranks.
Adelson was a friend of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for years, but when Olmert began to embrace the idea of a two-state solution, Adelson worked tirelessly to remove him from his position and substitute Benjamin Netanyahu in his place. When some Jews mistrusted Gingrich, it was Adelson who told them, “There is not a better advocate for Israel.”
More recently, in an article entitled “Secret Donors Finance Fight Against Hagel,” the New York Times has revealed that Adelson was one of the main donors behind the fight against Hagel. Adelson, the New York Times declared,
“is so invested in the fight over Mr. Hagel that he has reached out directly to Republican Senators to urge them to hold the line against his confirmation, which would be almost impossible to stop against six Republican ‘yes’ votes and a unified Democratic caucus.”
It has been reported by “Lobe Log Foreign Policy” that the advertisement against Hagel has been over $1 million! Hagel seemed to have been scared to death and had to completely turn around and say that the “window [of opportunity] is closing” on Iran.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz declares “Hagel said Iran should face ‘severe and growing consequences’ if it continues to flout the international community.” During Hagel’s hearing last Thursday before the Senate, Israel was mentioned 135 times. This again seems to suggest that a person ought to give allegiance to Israel first before he can get elected.
As Stephen M. Walt of Harvard recently wrote in his article “Ten Questions for Chuck Hagel,” the Israel Lobby is so pervasive in Washington that Hagel did not get to answer some of the important questions facing America today. Moreover, as we have declared in a previous article, Iran has been reaching out to the West for almost ten years, and no one wanted a rational deal because the Zionist machine tells the West (particularly America) what ought to be done.
Adelson has also “financed the distribution of anti-Muslim films” in the United States. When Condoleezza Rice was trying to focus on peace talks on the conflict, it was Adelson who stood up and said to Bush that Rice was trying to ruin Bush’s administration. Bush put one arm around Adelson’s shoulder and another arm around Adelson’s wife and declared,
“You tell your Prime Minister that I need to know what’s right for your people—because at the end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not Condi’s.”
Soon, Adelson began to tell Bush what to do, and Bush could no longer take it. Bush was reported to have said, “I had this crazy Jewish billionaire, yelling at me.” Adelson finally joined forces with the Romney crowd to defeat Obama in the 2012 election and promised to give $10 million.
It was even reported that Adelson would give somewhere to $100 million to pro-Romney organizations. And who were the other contributors behind Romney? They were people like Wilbur Ross (who worked with the Rothschilds for three years), Harold Hamm, and Leslie Wexner, among others.
It was reported with some evidence that Adelson also had close ties with the Communist Chinese government, and that he was denounced by Pastor Randy Brinson for having been involved in such an enterprise. Brinson wrote: “Where Sheldon Adelson has placed his treasure makes it quite very clear where his heart is: in gambling and backing the regime in China that persecutes Christians.”
Both the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Forbes reported that Adelson was under investigation because he bribed Chinese officials and cooperated with Chinese organized crime groups called triads, “who allegedly organized high stakes gambling and sex junkets.” Adelson’s company, Sands, is “the world’s leading gambling operation.”
Ko-lin Chin, a professor of criminal justice at Rutgers University, declares that “the triads are making a ton of money off the gambling industry. They are still there, they are still very active.” Steven C. Jacobs, a former manager at Adelson’s company, declared that Adelson told him to keep silent about his illegal activity. Officials raided the casino and found more than 100 prostitutes there.
Finally, Adelson put his Zionist zeal to work by contributing $100 million to Birthright Israel, an organization that seeks to finance Jewish youth trips to Israel.
Escape from the “Left” Matrix
The democrats too are being molded into a political mode. For example, to roust Bush out of the presidential election, Jewish billionaire George Soros was up for the task. Soros considered that job “the central focus of my life.” In the process, Soros spent $15.5 million on the project, and has donated another $5 million to liberal organizations such as Moveon.org.
Soros had also donated more than $23 million to other organizations in order to defeat Bush. So we have Adelson pouring millions of dollars in the Republican party, and Soros was doing the same thing in the Democratic party.
Then comes Jewish billionaire Haim Saban, who provided a sort of Hegelian synthesis by supporting both the Democratic and Republican parties, and even made donations to neoconservative and foreign policy think tanks such as the Brookings Institution.
It is reported that he had contributed $13 million to start projects at the Brooking Institution. Saban’s wife, Cheryl, was nominated as U.S. representative of the United Nations General Assembly by Obama.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was very pleased to see that Saban was doing underground work for Israel. Sharon declared,
“To me he will always be a dear personal friend. Haim Saban is a great American citizen and a man who always stood by Israel and the Jewish people in times of need. His contribution to strengthening ties between Israel and American political leaders from all parties has been quite remarkable and outstanding.”
Saban ended up contributing between $5 million and $10 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation.
It was reported that Saban contributed more to the 2001-2002 election more than any other Democratic billionaire. “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel,” said Saban.
Therefore, when it comes to the issue of Israel, Saban is right in line with Bush as well.
In 2002, Saban donated $7 million to the Democratic party, and he spent hours in conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
In 1997, Saban bought the Family Channel from Pat Robertson for $1.9 billion and later sold it to Michael D. Eisner, Disney chief executive, for $5.3 billion.
The Reagan Plan
In a nutshell, both the Democratic and Republican parties are largely under the umbrella of Jewish billionaires, who pursue Jewish and/or Zionist interests. As E. Michael Jones once pointed out, you only have two political categories in the U.S., and you either support perpetual wars in the Middle East, or abortion in the U.S. In the end, you get massive death and massive debt.
But when it comes to both parties, it boils down to the essential question that neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz posited back in the early 1970s, “Is it good for the Jews?” This point has become so obvious now, since Romney’s top contributor was Goldman Sachs, one of the top Jewish companies that supported Obama in 2008. Even in the spring of 2012, 62% of U.S. Jewish voters preferred to have Obama reelected.
What has the United States gained from this false alliance? Historian Andrew J. Bacevich pointed out that for the past twenty-five years, the United States has been largely hated because of this. Stephen M. Walt of Harvard and John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago argue something similar in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
And when the U.S. does not want to pursue more hawkish decisions in the Middle East, and when even countries like Germany kept saying that an attack on Iran would be “unwise,” Netanyahu not only gets angry, but gets to say the most disgusting things about the United States administration.
In other words, even when the U.S. is giving at least $3 billion a year to Israel, the moment the U.S. does not follow “King Bibi,” to use the words of Time magazine, the U.S. will be chastised.
Republican president Ronald Reagan would not support “King Bibi” today.
In his 1982 presidential address entitled “The Reagan Plan: U.S. Policy for Peace in the Middle East,” which is now made available by the Council on Foreign Relations, he made it clear that he is not going to stand by and let the Israelis have their cake and eat it too. His assessment is worth quoting in part:
“The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks.” Reagan would certainly shock many today by asking for a complete “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied…”
This was not all. Regan continued,
“We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through the negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace. This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its parts in the Camp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains wholly valid as the foundation-stone of America’s Middle East peace effort. It is the United States’ position that—in return for peace—the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza.”
Keep in mind that Reagan was a supporter of Israel. After his address, the president ended with the phrase, “Thank you, and God bless you.” I wonder what the neoconservative hawks would say to Reason today. Drawing from what they have done to Hagel and Ron Paul, Reagan would unquestionably be labeled a “vicious anti-Semite.”
Justin Raimondo recently made the point that Bill Kristol in particular has never spent a minute in the military but he has the political power over us to say that perpetual war is good. Raimondo declares that Kristol “vowed to ‘crush Serb skulls’ during the run up to our illegal and unnecessary war in the Balkans, and vowed to leave the GOP if the Republicans in Congress blocked Clinton’s war moves.”
Hagel has finally bowed down to pressure. Recently the Jerusalem Post has declared in an article entitled “Hagel Reassures Jewish Leaders on Iran Position” that Hagel “conferred with top Jewish Democrats and apologized for a 2006 comment in which he described the ‘Jewish lobby’ as ‘intimidating’ and reassured them that despite his past skepticism of some sanctions on Iran and wariness of a military strike to keep it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, he was now on board with President Obama’s postures on those issues.”
That’s how officials get elected these days. You have to be in the matrix, or it is hasta la vista, baby…
At the same time, Shai Franklin of the Jewish Journal confirmed what Hagel had previously been saying by titling one of his recent articles “Yes, There is a Jewish Lobby.” Franklin declared, “Jews don’t like hearing non-Jews use the term in public, and perhaps they shouldn’t.
But as an interest group, Jews as such are ably represented (most of the time) by a close-knit network of advocacy organizations.” Franklin could say that because he is Jewish.
For example, Hollywood Jewish historian Neal Gabler wrote a book entitled An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood in 1988 and even meticulously documented that most of those Jewish producers intended to spread communist ideologies in most of their films.
Six years later, in 1994, British journalist William Cash adopted Gabler’s premise, arguing that Jews largely invented Hollywood in an article for the highly-read British journal Spectator.
Here is the fun part. Gabler, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Cash was simply reiterating the sentiments of An Empire of their Own, called Cash’s article “an anti-Semitic bleat from a reactionary crackpot.”
E. Michael Jones concluded, “Gabler attacked Cash for saying what Gabler had said in his own book!” This attitude is appalling, but unfortunately it is becoming the rule rather than the exception among many Jewish writers and ideologues.
In other words, anti-Semitism has become a weapon, for no one wants to be an anti-Semite. How did the word itself become politicized?
Moreover, where does the issue actually lie? In the next article, we will try to give answers to those questions.
Editing: Jim W. Dean