Sie sind auf Seite 1von 51

Articles by Subject Who is Barack Obama?

Obama Has NO Authority to Attack Syria


Just Whose War Is This?
Congress Should Veto War Against Syria
Coup d'tat by Paul Craig Roberts
The Illusion of Democracy and the Great Zionist Rip-Off
Obama Refuses to Provide Proof of Awlaki Culpability
Obama and the Illusion of Democracy
Still You Believe - Osama & The Bin Ladens
Inconsistencies of Obama's Birth Certificate
"Obama Has Joined Likud" - How Zionist Fanatics Undermine U.S. Credibility
Is the Obama-Hitler Billboard Correct?
The Axelrod Factor: Why Obama Fails to Deliver
Who Really Made the Decision on the Missile Shield?
Obama and the Jews

Obama Has NO Authority to Attack Syria

September 10, 2013

President Obama does not have the legal authority to attack Syria without the authorization of Congress, as
Rep. Paul Findley, one of the authors of the War Powers Act, explains in this short article.

by Paul Findley

Despite his own recent statements to the contrary, President Barack Obama has no legal authority to assault
the government of Syria even as a warning shot. Neither the United States Constitution, nor the War Powers
Act of 1973 gives him such authority in the absence of an emergency that allows Congress no time to react.

Obama cannot cite the present situation as such an emergency, given his public statement that members of
Congress need not act until the completion of their scheduled vacation. He has said that his proposal is not
time sensitive. If Congress fails to approve a resolution approving acts of war against Syria, he cannot order
any military assault into Syria.
On several recent occasions the President and administration officials have mentioned a sixty day period
during which he has authority to act without approval of Congress. Such authority does not exist. It is a
misreading of a provision of the War Powers Act that provides only Congress with oversight constraints on
executive actions.

Section 5(b) of the War Powers Act establishes limits of sixty or ninety days on acts of the President in such
emergencies. Section 8(d) ordains:

Nothing in this Joint Resolution (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of
the President or of the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority
to the President with respect to the introduction of United Stated Armed Forces into hostilities or
situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, which authority he
would not have had in the absence of this Joint Resolution.

It is clear from the debates of the Philadelphia Convention, the first book of Blackstone, and the 69th
Federalist, that the framers of the United States Constitution meant to prohibit the President from ordering
acts of war without approval of Congress, except to repel sudden attacks or deal with imminent threats
against American territory, armed forces, military installations, citizens, diplomats, embassies, or commerce. If
the President could commence wars of choice on his own authority, the power of Congress to declare or
authorize war would be idle words, and the framers did not intend idle words. The War Powers Act does not
expand the options of the President. And if the President defies the prerogative of Congress, he can be
impeached.

In 1848, Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a member of Congress from Illinois, upbraided President James K.
Polk for initiating a war with Mexico. Believing Polk violated constitutional provisions against war making
without authorization from Congress, Lincoln explained his opposition in a letter to his former law partner,
Billy Herndon, in Springfield, Illinois:

Allow a President to invade a neighboring country anytime he deems it necessary . . . and you allow him
to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to this power in this respect . . . This
[power] our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they
resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should have the power to bring that oppression
on us.

Timely words!

Note on the Author: Paul Findley served as a member of United States House of Representatives for twenty-
two years. He was a key author of the War Powers Act and a leader in securing enactment by overriding the
veto of President Richard Nixon. He is the author of six books, including They Dare to Speak Out.

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Just Whose War Is This?

September 6, 2013

This will go down as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. Support is dwindling
every day, and phone calls into our Hill and district offices are running about 100-to-1 against taking
military action of any kind.
- Staff of a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee to Daily Mail (UK), September 6, 2013

The Obama administration's unwavering desire to attack Syria in spite of the fact that virtually everyone is
against it says a great deal about who is really behind Obama's war agenda. It is no secret, as Patrick
Buchanan points out in his latest article, that the Israel lobby and the Zionist extremists who rule the state of
Israel are the primary forces behind the campaign to attack Syria.

Make no mistake about it, these are the same people who brought us the false-flag terrorism of 9-11, the
fraudulent "War on Terror," and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of chemical
weapons in Syria is their latest false-flag atrocity to be used to instigate a war that is not in America's best
interest. A false-flag moral outrage has been committed and the blame assigned, without evidence, on the
desired target in the exact same way that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

The world leaders have all spoken out against Obama's threat to use force in Syria. The European Union, the
Pope, the British Parliament, the Kremlin, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Indians, and a significant majority of
the American public are all opposed to the idea of using military force in Syria.

Will Obama listen to the American people and the leaders of the world and hold back on the use of force or
will he wage war on behalf of the Zionist extremists who wield so much influence on his administration?

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into
another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?
- Patrick J. Buchanan, "Just Whose War Is This?"

Just Whose War Is This?


By Patrick J. Buchanan

Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for
the Tomahawk missiles.

Has it come to this U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheiks, sultans and
emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Yesterday, too, came a stunning report in the Washington Post.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an
all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria.
Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have invoked the
Holocaust, with Hier charging the U.S. and Britain failed to rescue the Jews in 1942.

Yet, if memory serves, in 42 the Brits were battling Rommel in the desert and the Americans were still
collecting their dead at Pearl Harbor and dying on Bataan and Corregidor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, too, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose
solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend, is also backing Obamas war.

Adelson, who shelled out $70 million to bring down Barack, wants his pay-off war on Syria. And he is
getting it. Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have saluted and enlisted. Sheldon, fattest of
all fat cats, is buying himself a war.

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into
another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

Moreover, this war has debacle written all over it. Should it come, a divided nation will be led by a diffident
and dithering commander in chief who makes Adlai Stevenson look like Stonewall Jackson.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey is having trouble even defining the mission. While Obama
says it will be an in-and-out strike of hours, a shot across the bow, John McCain says the Senate resolution
authorizes robust strikes, lethal aid to the rebels and a campaign to bring down Bashar Assad.

If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration.

And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?

Is it the same jihadists who just shelled that Christian village and terrorized that convent of Christian nuns?

Is it the same rebels seen on the front page of Thursdays New York Times about to execute, Einsatzgruppen-
style, captive Syrian soldiers, forgetting only to have the victims of their war crime dig their own graves first?

Does the Republican Party really want to own a war that could end with al-Qaida in power or occupying
sanctuaries in Syria?

Does the U.S. Jewish community really want to be responsible for starting a war that ends with two million
Christian Syrians facing a fate not unlike that of Polands Jews?

About the debate on this war, there is an aspect of the absurd.

We are told we must punish Assad for killing Syrians with gas, but we do not want Assads regime to fall.
Which raises a question: How many Syrians must we kill with missiles to teach Assad he cannot kill any more
Syrians with gas? Artillery, fine. Just no gas.
How many Syrians must we kill to restore the credibility of our befuddled president who now says he did not
draw that red line on chemical weapons; the world did when it outlawed such weapons.

Yet this statement may offer Obama a way out of a crisis of his own making without his starting a war to save
face.

Iran and Russia agree chemical weapons were used. Vladimir Putin has said Russia will back military action
against those who did it. The Russians have put out a 100-page document tracing the March use of chemical
weapons to the rebels. The Turks reportedly intercepted small amounts of sarin going to the rebels. We claim
solid proof that Assads regime authorized and used chemical weapons.

Why not tell the Russians to meet us in the Security Council where we will prove our slam-dunk case.

If we can, and do, we will have far greater support for collective sanctions or action than we do now. And if we
prove our case and the U.N. does nothing, we will have learned something about the international community
worth learning.

But the idea of launching missiles based on evidence we will not reveal about Syrias use of chemical weapons,
strikes that will advance the cause of the al-Qaida terrorists who killed 3,000 of us and are anxious to kill
more, would be an act of such paralyzing stupidity one cannot believe that even this crowd would consciously
commit it.

Source: Just Whose War Is This? by Patrick J. Buchanan, September 6, 2013


http://buchanan.org/blog/just-whose-war-5852

Obama Refuses to rule out striking Syria without approval of Congress as it's revealed he faces a huge loss in
House vote, by David Martosko, Daily Mail (UK), September 6, 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414017/Obama-plans-address-Americans-Tuesday-hes-set-lose-
big-House-vote-White-House-aide-hints-wont-strike-Syria-Congress.html

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Congress Should Veto War Against Syria

Updated September 1, 2013

"If they don't have proof or evidence, then how are they going to stand up to the American public
opinion and to the world public opinion and explain why they are attacking Syria?"
- Omran Zoabi, Syrian Information Minister to CNN, August 27, 2013

Syrian Information Minister on CNN: U.S. has no proof of chemical weapons


Video URL - youtu.be/GiFSBeF8Gps

The House of Commons rejects the prime minister's use of force motion against Syria
It is very clear tonight that while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British
parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get
that and the government will act accordingly.
- British Prime Minister David Cameron after Parliament rejected his motion to use military force in Syria,
August 29, 2013

We should surely have cleared ourselves by now of that fearful habit of going into military action with
our eyes wide shut, of going into military action without thinking through the consequences.
- Lord Hurd, the former British foreign secretary, in a debate on Syria in the House of Lords

In an historic vote, the British House of Commons rejected a motion submitted by Prime Minister David
Cameron that would have authorized military action against Syria. The motion backing the use of force "if
necessary" was rejected by 285 votes to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

The vote in the House of Commons reflects the voice of common sense being heard above the clamor of the
media pundits calling for military strikes against Syria. If the United States wants to be seen as a functioning
democratic republic, the U.S. Congress should return from their five-week vacation and vote on this matter in
the same way as the British House of Commons - before any U.S. military action is taken against Syria.

The former British foreign minister, Lord Hurd, said this during a debate in the House of Lords regarding
Syria:

I cannot for the life of me see how dropping some bombs or firing some missiles in the general
direction of Syria, with targets probably some way removed from the actual weapons weve been
criticising, I cant see how that action is going to lessen the suffering of the Syrian people I think its
likely to increase and expand the civil war in Syria, not likely to bring it to an end.

BARACK OBAMA ON CONGRESS

"Congress doesn't have a whole lot of core responsibilities."


- Barack Obama to CNN, August 23, 2013

Who made Barack Obama the Wyatt Earp of the Global Village?
Patrick Buchanan on the need for Congress to authorize any military action against Syria

Congress Should Veto Obamas War

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Congress doesnt have a whole lot of core responsibilities, said Barack Obama last week in an astonishing
remark.

For in the Constitution, Congress appears as the first branch of government. And among its enumerated
powers are the power to tax, coin money, create courts, provide for the common defense, raise and support
an army, maintain a navy and declare war.

But, then, perhaps Obamas contempt is justified.

For consider Congress broad assent to news that Obama has decided to attack Syria, a nation that has not
attacked us and against which Congress has never authorized a war.

Why is Obama making plans to launch cruise missiles on Syria?

According to a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity, President Bashar al-Assad used
chemical weapons on his own people last week in the two-year-old Syrian civil war.

But who deputized the United States to walk the streets of the world pistol-whipping bad actors. Where does
our imperial president come off drawing red lines and ordering nations not to cross them?

Neither the Security Council nor Congress nor NATO nor the Arab League has authorized war on Syria.

Who made Barack Obama the Wyatt Earp of the Global Village?

Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an
attack makes no sense.

Firing a few shells of gas at Syrian civilians was not going to advance Assads cause but, rather, was certain to
bring universal condemnation on his regime and deal cards to the War Party which wants a U.S. war on Syria as
the back door to war on Iran.

Why did the United States so swiftly dismiss Assads offer to have U.N. inspectors already in Damascus
investigating old charges he or the rebels used poison gas go to the site of the latest incident?

Do we not want to know the truth?

Are we fearful the facts may turn out, as did the facts on the ground in Iraq, to contradict our latest claims
about WMDs? Are we afraid that it was rebel elements or rogue Syrian soldiers who fired the gas shells to
stampede us into fighting this war?
With U.S. ships moving toward Syrias coast and the McCainiacs assuring us we can smash Syria from offshore
without serious injury to ourselves, why has Congress not come back to debate war?

Lest we forget, Ronald Reagan was sold the same bill of goods the War Party is selling today that we can
intervene decisively in a Mideast civil war at little or no cost to ourselves.

Reagan listened and ordered our Marines into the middle of Lebanons civil war.

And he was there when they brought home the 241 dead from the Beirut barracks and our dead diplomats
from the Beirut embassy.

The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Congress should cut short its five-
week vacation, come back, debate and decide by recorded vote whether Obama can take us into yet another
Middle East war.

The questions to which Congress needs answers:

Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people?
And if he did not, who did?

What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and
Iran?

If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the
United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started?

Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war?
If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen
as a strategic defeat for the United States?

If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down
Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls
and we do not intervene?

The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas
related, is: Cui bono?

To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assads, as
we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.

The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be
the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.

Perhaps Congress cannot defund Obamacare. But at least they can come back to Washington and tell Obama,
sinking poll numbers aside, he has no authority to drag us into another war. His Libyan adventure, which gave
us the Benghazi massacre and cover-up, was his last hurrah as war president.
Source: "Congress Should Veto Obamas War" by Patrick J. Buchanan, August 27, 2013
buchanan.org/blog/congress-veto-obamas-war-5773

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Coup d'tat by Paul Craig Roberts

July 19, 2013

The American people have suffered a coup d'tat, but they are hesitant to acknowledge it.
- Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, "Coup d'tat", July 13, 2013

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has also written for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and
Creators Syndicate. His latest must-read article hits the nail squarely on the head; "Coup detat" is an accurate
description of the current political predicament in the United States:

Coup d'tat

by Paul Craig Roberts


July 13, 2013

The American people have suffered a coup d'tat, but they are hesitant to acknowledge it. The regime ruling in
Washington today lacks constitutional and legal legitimacy. Americans are ruled by usurpers who claim that
the executive branch is above the law and that the US Constitution is a mere scrap of paper.

An unconstitutional government is an illegitimate government. The oath of allegiance requires defense of the
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As the Founding Fathers made clear, the main enemy
of the Constitution is the government itself. Power does not like to be bound and tied down and constantly
works to free itself from constraints.

The basis of the regime in Washington is nothing but usurped power. The Obama Regime, like the
Bush/Cheney Regime, has no legitimacy. Americans are oppressed by an illegitimate government ruling, not
by law and the Constitution, but by lies and naked force. Those in government see the US Constitution as a
chain that binds our hands.

The South African apartheid regime was more legitimate than the regime in Washington. The apartheid Israeli
regime in Palestine is more legitimate. The Taliban are more legitimate. Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam
Hussein were more legitimate.

The only constitutional protection that the Bush/Obama regime has left standing is the Second Amendment, a
meaningless amendment considering the disparity in arms between Washington and what is permitted to the
citizenry. No citizen standing with a rifle can protect himself and his family from one of the Department of
Homeland Securitys 2,700 tanks, or from a drone, or from a heavily armed SWAT force in body armor.

Like serfs in the dark ages, American citizens can be picked up on the authority of some unknown person in
the executive branch and thrown in a dungeon, subject to torture, without any evidence ever being presented
to a court or any information to the persons relatives of his/her whereabouts. Or they can be placed on a list
without explanation that curtails their right to travel by air. Every communication of every American, except
face-to-face conversation in non-bugged environments, is intercepted and recorded by the National Stasi
Agency from which phrases can be strung together to produce a domestic extremist.

If throwing an American citizen in a dungeon is too much trouble, the citizen can simply be blown up with a
hellfire missile launched from a drone. No explanation is necessary.
For the Obama tyrant, the exterminated human being was just a name on a list.

The president of the united states has declared that he possesses these constitutionally forbidden rights, and
his regime has used them to oppress and murder US citizens. The presidents claim that his will is higher than
law and the Constitution is public knowledge. Yet, there is no demand for the usurpers impeachment.
Congress is supine. The serfs are obedient.

The people who helped transform a democratically accountable president into a Caesar include John Yoo, who
was rewarded for his treason by being accepted as a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley,
Boalt school of law. Yoos colleague in treason, Jay Scott Bybee was rewarded by being appointed a federal
judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We now have a Berkeley law professor teaching, and a
federal circuit judge ruling, that the executive branch is above the law.

The executive branch coup against America has succeeded. The question is: will it stand? Today, the executive
branch consists of liars, criminals, and traitors. The evil on earth seems concentrated in Washington.

Washingtons response to Edward Snowdens evidence that Washington, in total contravention of law both
domestic and international, is spying on the entire world has demonstrated to every country that Washington
places the pleasure of revenge above law and human rights.

On Washingtons orders, its European puppet states refused overflight permission to the Bolivian presidential
airliner carrying President Morales and forced the airliner to land in Austria and be searched. Washington
thought that Edward Snowden might be aboard the airliner. Capturing Snowden was more important to
Washington than respect for international law and diplomatic immunity.

How long before Washington orders its UK puppet to send in a SWAT team to drag Julian Assange from the
Ecuadoran embassy in London and hand him over to the CIA for waterboarding?

On July 12 Snowden met in the Moscow airport with human rights organizations from around the world. He
stated that the illegal exercise of power by Washington prevents him from traveling to any of the three Latin
American countries who have offered him asylum. Therefore, Snowden said that he accepted Russian President
Putins conditions and requested asylum in Russia.

Insouciant americans and the young unaware of the past dont know what this means. During my professional
life it was Soviet Russia that persecuted truth tellers, while America gave them asylum and tried to protect
them. Today it is Washington that persecutes those who speak the truth, and it is Russia that protects them.

The American public has not, this time, fallen for Washingtons lie that Snowden is a traitor. The polls show
that a majority of Americans see Snowden as a whistleblower.
It is not the US that is damaged by Snowdens revelations. It is the criminal elements in the US government
that have pulled off a coup against democracy, the Constitution, and the American people who are damaged. It
is the criminals who have seized power, not the American people, who are demanding Snowdens scalp.

The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, has no legitimacy. Americans are oppressed by an
illegitimate government ruling, not by law and the Constitution, but by lies and naked force.

Under the Obama tyranny, it is not merely Snowden who is targeted for extermination, but every truth-telling
American in the country. It was Department of Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, recently rewarded for
her service to tyranny by being appointed Chancellor of the of the University of California system, who said
that Homeland Security had shifted its focus from Muslim terrorists to domestic extremists, an elastic and
undefined term that easily includes truth-tellers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden who embarrass the
government by revealing its crimes. The criminals who have seized illegitimate power in Washington cannot
survive unless truth can be suppressed or redefined as treason.

If Americans acquiesce to the coup d'tat, they will have placed themselves firmly in the grip of tyranny.

Source: "Coup detat" by Paul Craig Roberts, July 13, 2013


http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/13/coup-detat-paul-craig-roberts/

75 Google +3 160 2 3

The Illusion of Democracy and the Great Zionist Rip-Off

April 6, 2009

DEMOCRACY IS AN ILLUSION

During the massive and sometimes violent demonstrations that marked the G-20 summit in London last week,
I noticed a sign that aptly described the fundamental problem facing the West. "Democracy is an Illusion," the
sign said. That simple slogan underlines the real problem facing Americans and others who find themselves
living in nations that claim to be democratic, and may have once been, but which now clearly serve only the
interests of powerful special interest groups while ignoring the will of the people.

Having observed many elections and written about the fraudulence of the electronic voting systems in the
United States since 2000, I completely agree with the slogan "Democracy is an Illusion." This is, after all, the
fundamental deception at the heart of the crisis facing the United States and other western democratic
societies. If, on the other hand, we had authentic democratic elections in the United States, with paper ballots
openly counted in the polling place, we would not have to suffer such criminal regimes acting against the will
of the people.

I have written extensively about this problem since the fall of 2000 when, as a candidate to be an election
judge in Cook County, I was introduced to the electronic voting machines that steal our elections. I then wrote
an article entitled "The Death of Democracy" that explained how elections in Chicago are rigged through the
use of the electronic voting machines used in every voting station and precinct.

With Barack Obama, Americans now have a president and administration from Chicago, the city where I have
yet to see a proper election in which the voters are allowed to witness the counting of their votes. Obama was
actually elected to the U.S. Senate in one of the most corrupt and rigged elections that I have ever seen. The
Republican candidate running against Obama, Jack Ryan, was forced to pull out of the race in June 2004 after
the exposure of his involvement in a sex scandal. Ryan's withdrawal left Obama as the only candidate. Two
months later, Alan Keyes, who wasn't even from Illinois, stepped in as a visiting candidate from Maryland and
ran as a weak fill-in candidate for the former Goldman Sachs employee, Jack Ryan. It came as no surprise that
Obama won easily with 70 percent of the uncounted vote, while Keyes received some 27 percent. That is,
after all, how it was planned.

"CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"

As I listened to National Public Radio's coverage of the election results the next day, I was amazed to hear the
NPR talking heads go on about Obama as a presidential candidate. What had Obama done, apart from winning
a rigged election in which he had been virtually unopposed, that made him presidential? It was very clear from
listening to NPR's effusive praise for Obama that he had already been chosen to be a presidential candidate by
the people who control NPR, the media, and elections.

As we now know, Obama had been supported and cultivated since 1992 by Bettylu Saltzman, the daughter of
Philip Klutznick, Chicago's leading Zionist, to be the first "black" president of the United States. The fact that
Obama is no more black than white and has nothing in common with the blacks of the segregated South, was
played down during the campaign. Chicago is a segregated city but Obama is not really from Chicago at
all. He is the offspring of a mixed-race marriage, a mulatto who was raised by his white grandparents in
Hawaii after being abandoned by his Kenyan father. More than anything, however, Obama is a puppet of his
Zionist handlers, people like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. This sad state of affairs was painfully evident
when Obama, who is used to reading from a script, was asked impromptu questions during his trip to
Europe.

Obama was elected on a simple one-word platform: change. The slogan of the Obama campaign was "Change
we can believe in." After 8 dismal and disastrous years of war and terror with George W. Bush, "change" was
the most obvious choice to define the Obama campaign. After Obama's first trip to Europe, however, it is now
quite clear that there will be no significant change in U.S. policy under Obama, unless he follows through on
his comment in Strasbourg about the need to improve passenger trains in the United States and starts a
serious program with substantial funding to improve the woefully neglected rail infrastructure. Otherwise,
everything looks pretty much the same as it did under George W. Bush.

During his first European trip as president, Obama was pushing Bush's disastrous "War on Terror" telling
Europeans that they should be afraid of Al Qaida and commit more troops to support the failed mission in
Afghanistan. In Prague, Obama promised that the missile defense network, supposedly meant to protect the
West from Iran, would go ahead. And throughout the trip he often mentioned Iran, the country to which he
had sent a most unusual video broadcast before he left.

In his message to Iran, complete with Farsi subtitles and timed to coincide with the celebration of the Persian
New Year, Obama praised the "true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization" and said that the United
States wanted to engage Iran and reverse decades of animosity. Ralph R. Reiland wrote about Obama's video
appeal and the Iranian reaction in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on March 30, 2009. Reiland wrote:
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the overture the next morning. "They chant the
slogan of change but no change is seen in practice," said Khamenei, sounding not unlike some of
Obama's disillusioned supporters in the United States.

"If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it
clear for us what has changed," Khamenei said.

Bush-basher Michael Moore might well say the same words. What's changed since the days of Bush and
Cheney when it was charged that too big a piece of the pie was being grabbed by those who already
have too much?

Obama told Joe the Plumber (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) that he wanted to "spread the wealth
around." True to his word, Obama has done the spreading in record time and in unprecedented
amounts.

The only problem for guys like Moore is that the trillions have been flowing for the past two months in
exactly the opposite direction of the "change" that Obama promised in his big stadium speeches during
the campaign.

No one chanting "Yes we can" was pushing for a change that would stick America's middle-class
taxpayers with additional trillions of new debt in order to fill up the coffers of some of the biggest and
richest swindlers on Wall Street.

Where's the change, in short, between Bush's TARP-1 and Obama's TARP-2?

Khamenei, similarly, pointed to the lack of change in responding to Obama's video: "Have you released
Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making
accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional
support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged."

It was not only Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ralph R. Reiland who were speaking out about the false
promises and massive deception coming from the Obama White House. Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-
winning economist, wrote an excellent piece, entitled "Obama's Ersatz Capitalism," which was published in
the New York Times on April 2 as President Obama met with the world's leaders at the G-20 summit in
London.

The Stiglitz piece is very important because it explains the mechanics of the Obama bail-out plan in a way that
the average person can understand. Americans taxpayers have already seen more than $180 billion stolen
from the national treasury and given to Maurice Greenberg's extremely corrupt company, A.I.G., without any
understanding of why A.I.G. should receive such immense sums of public funding in the first place. Even
people like Eliot Spitzer are reluctant to mention Greenberg's name in connection with the obscene A.I.G. bail-
out. Greenberg is a man that is at the heart of the false-flag terror of 9-11, the War on Terror, and the Great
Zionist Rip-Off. Spitzer has paid for taking a stand against Greenberg.

Rather than focus on this incredibly huge transfer of wealth from the American people to private bankers,
members of Congress and the controlled media made a big issue out of the bonuses given to A.I.G. managers,
who received some $165 million. That's like complaining about giving a $1 dollar tip to the lowly waiter after
paying $1,000 to a restaurant for a make-believe meal you never ate.

BANKS WIN - TAXPAYERS LOSE

Most of the $180 billion paid to A.I.G. was actually paid out to private banks, like Goldman Sachs, and
others. This is because A.I.G. had insured the "overly complex instruments like collateralized debt
obligations," which were at the heart of the economic meltdown. Giving the money to A.I.G. was a way to give
huge amounts of taxpayer money to the bankers without making it too terribly obvious.

The people who protested against the bankers of London were those who had not been deceived by the
sleight-of-hand trickery in which $180 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money was given to failed bankers
who will simply turn around and lend it out at interest to the very people who bailed out the banks. The
urgent need for real reform and the creation of a real national bank to control money and credit could not be
any more obvious.

As Stiglitz wrote:

The Obama administrations $500 billion or more proposal to deal with Americas ailing banks has been
described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose
proposal: the banks win, investors win and taxpayers lose.

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the
privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a partnership in which one partner robs the
other. And such partnerships with the private sector in control have perverse incentives, worse
even than the ones that got us into the mess.

Sources:

Bollyn, Christopher, Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.," November 6, 2008

Stiglitz, Joseph E., "Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.," March 31, 2009

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Obama Refuses to Provide Proof of Awlaki Culpability

October 5, 2011

If al-Awlaki committed treason by giving aid and comfort to America's enemies, he should have been
arrested, charged and tried according to the U.S. Constitution. The same information that Mr. Saleh, the
dictator, helped provide for the drone attack could have been used to arrest al-Awlaki. Clearly, the aim
from the start was to kill, not capture him.
- "Killing al-Awlaki was a political stunt unworthy of a great nation"
Usha Nellore in The Baltimore Sun, 5 October 2011
Jake Tapper of ABC News asked White House spokesman Jay Carney if Obama administration will provide any
proof of its allegations that al-Awlaki was involved in terror attacks:

Tapper: Is there going to be any evidence presented?

Carney: I don't have anything for you on that.

Tapper: Do you not see at all -- does the administration not see at all how a President asserting that he
has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that hes not going to even explain
why he thinks he has that right is troublesome to some people?

Video Link - http://youtu.be/86MvHLMf25g

Source: White House transcript of press briefing, 30 September 2011


http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Obama and the Illusion of Democracy

June 2, 2011 (Originally posted April 2009)

Zionist terror chiefs Benjamin Netanyahu and Henry Kissinger in Jerusalem. Note how similar their ties are.
A protester's sign at the 2009 G-20 summit in London...

where peaceful protesters were brutally mistreated.

DEMOCRACY IS AN ILLUSION

During the massive and sometimes violent demonstrations that marked the G-20 summit in London last week,
I noticed a sign that aptly described the fundamental problem facing the West. "Democracy is an Illusion," the
sign said. That simple slogan underlines the real problem facing Americans and others who find themselves
living in nations that claim to be democratic, and may have once been, but which now clearly serve only the
interests of powerful special interest groups while ignoring the will of the people.

Having observed many elections and written about the fraudulence of the electronic voting systems in the
United States since 2000, I completely agree with the slogan "Democracy is an Illusion." This is, after all, the
fundamental deception at the heart of the crisis facing the United States and other western democratic
societies. If, on the other hand, we had authentic democratic elections in the United States, with paper ballots
openly counted in the polling place, we would not have to suffer such criminal regimes acting against the will
of the people.
I have written extensively about this problem since the fall of 2000 when, as a candidate to be an election
judge in Cook County, I was introduced to the electronic voting machines that steal our elections. I then wrote
an article entitled "The Death of Democracy" that explained how elections in Chicago are rigged through the
use of the electronic voting machines used in every voting station and precinct.
Electronic voting machines were invented for one reason - to steal elections. Elections using paper ballots
that are openly counted by hand in each polling station cannot be stolen. It's that simple.

With Barack Obama, Americans now have a president and administration from Chicago, the city where I have
yet to see a proper election in which the voters are allowed to witness the counting of their votes. Obama was
actually elected to the U.S. Senate in one of the most corrupt and rigged elections that I have ever seen. The
Republican candidate running against Obama, Jack Ryan, was forced to pull out of the race in June 2004 after
the exposure of his involvement in a sex scandal. Ryan's withdrawal left Obama as the only candidate. Two
months later, Alan Keyes, who wasn't even from Illinois, stepped in as a visiting candidate from Maryland and
ran as a weak fill-in candidate for the former Goldman Sachs employee, Jack Ryan. It came as no surprise that
Obama won easily with 70 percent of the uncounted vote, while Keyes received some 27 percent. That is,
after all, how it was planned.

"CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"

As I listened to National Public Radio's coverage of the election results the next day, I was amazed to hear the
NPR talking heads go on about Obama as a presidential candidate. What had Obama done, apart from winning
a rigged election in which he had been virtually unopposed, that made him presidential? It was very clear from
listening to NPR's effusive praise for Obama that he had already been chosen to be a presidential candidate by
the people who control NPR, the media, and elections.

As we now know, Obama had been supported and cultivated since 1992 by Bettylu Saltzman, the daughter of
Philip Klutznick, Chicago's leading Zionist, to be the first "black" president of the United States. The fact that
Obama is no more black than white and has nothing in common with the blacks of the segregated South, was
played down during the campaign. Chicago is a segregated city but Obama is not really from Chicago at
all. He is the offspring of a mixed-race marriage, a mulatto who was raised by his white grandparents in
Hawaii after being abandoned by his Kenyan father. More than anything, however, Obama is a puppet of his
Zionist handlers, people like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. This sad state of affairs was painfully evident
when Obama, who is used to reading from a script, was asked impromptu questions during his trip to Europe.
Obama has been shaped and managed by his Zionist handlers like David Axelrod since the early
1990s. Obama's political career was funded by Philip Morris Klutznick, the former head of B'nai B'rith
International - the secretive Masonic power of the Elders of Zion.

Obama was elected on a simple one-word platform: change. The slogan of the Obama campaign was "Change
we can believe in." After 8 dismal and disastrous years of war and terror with George W. Bush, "change" was
the most obvious choice to define the Obama campaign. After Obama's first trip to Europe, however, it is now
quite clear that there will be no significant change in U.S. policy under Obama, unless he follows through on
his comment in Strasbourg about the need to improve passenger trains in the United States and starts a
serious program with substantial funding to improve the woefully neglected rail infrastructure. Otherwise,
everything looks pretty much the same as it did under George W. Bush.

During his first European trip as president, Obama was pushing Bush's disastrous "War on Terror" telling
Europeans that they should be afraid of Al Qaida and commit more troops to support the failed mission in
Afghanistan. In Prague, Obama promised that the missile defense network, supposedly meant to protect the
West from Iran, would go ahead. And throughout the trip he often mentioned Iran, the country to which he
had sent a most unusual video broadcast before he left.

In his message to Iran, complete with Farsi subtitles and timed to coincide with the celebration of the Persian
New Year, Obama praised the "true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization" and said that the United
States wanted to engage Iran and reverse decades of animosity. Ralph R. Reiland wrote about Obama's video
appeal and the Iranian reaction in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on March 30, 2009. Reiland wrote:

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the overture the next morning. "They chant the
slogan of change but no change is seen in practice," said Khamenei, sounding not unlike some of
Obama's disillusioned supporters in the United States.

"If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it
clear for us what has changed," Khamenei said.

Bush-basher Michael Moore might well say the same words. What's changed since the days of Bush and
Cheney when it was charged that too big a piece of the pie was being grabbed by those who already
have too much?

Obama told Joe the Plumber (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) that he wanted to "spread the wealth
around." True to his word, Obama has done the spreading in record time and in unprecedented
amounts.

The only problem for guys like Moore is that the trillions have been flowing for the past two months in
exactly the opposite direction of the "change" that Obama promised in his big stadium speeches during
the campaign.

No one chanting "Yes we can" was pushing for a change that would stick America's middle-class
taxpayers with additional trillions of new debt in order to fill up the coffers of some of the biggest and
richest swindlers on Wall Street.

Where's the change, in short, between Bush's TARP-1 and Obama's TARP-2?

Khamenei, similarly, pointed to the lack of change in responding to Obama's video: "Have you released
Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making
accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional
support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged."

It was not only Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ralph R. Reiland who were speaking out about the false
promises and massive deception coming from the Obama White House. Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-
winning economist, wrote an excellent piece, entitled "Obama's Ersatz Capitalism," which was published in
the New York Times on April 2 as President Obama met with the world's leaders at the G-20 summit in
London.

The Stiglitz piece is very important because it explains the mechanics of the Obama bail-out plan in a way that
the average person can understand. Americans taxpayers have already seen more than $180 billion stolen
from the national treasury and given to Maurice Greenberg's extremely corrupt company, A.I.G., without any
understanding of why A.I.G. should receive such immense sums of public funding in the first place. Even
people like Eliot Spitzer are reluctant to mention Greenberg's name in connection with the obscene A.I.G. bail-
out. Greenberg is a man that is at the heart of the false-flag terror of 9-11, the War on Terror, and the Great
Zionist Rip-Off. Spitzer has paid for taking a stand against Greenberg.

Rather than focus on this incredibly huge transfer of wealth from the American people to private bankers,
members of Congress and the controlled media made a big issue out of the bonuses given to A.I.G. managers,
who received some $165 million. That's like complaining about giving a $1 dollar tip to the lowly waiter after
paying $1,000 to a restaurant for a make-believe meal you never ate.

BANKS WIN - TAXPAYERS LOSE

Most of the $180 billion paid to A.I.G. was actually paid out to private banks, like Goldman Sachs, and
others. This is because A.I.G. had insured the "overly complex instruments like collateralized debt
obligations," which were at the heart of the economic meltdown. Giving the money to A.I.G. was a way to give
huge amounts of taxpayer money to the bankers without making it too terribly obvious.
The people who protested against the bankers of London were those who had not been deceived by the
sleight-of-hand trickery in which $180 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money was given to failed bankers
who will simply turn around and lend it out at interest to the very people who bailed out the banks. The
urgent need for real reform and the creation of a real national bank to control money and credit could not be
any more obvious.

As Stiglitz wrote:

The Obama administrations $500 billion or more proposal to deal with Americas ailing banks has been
described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose
proposal: the banks win, investors win and taxpayers lose.

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the
privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a partnership in which one partner robs the
other. And such partnerships with the private sector in control have perverse incentives, worse
even than the ones that got us into the mess.

Sources:

Bollyn, Christopher, Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.," November 6, 2008

Stiglitz, Joseph E., "Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.," March 31, 2009

Originally published as "The Illusion of Democracy & The Great Zionist Rip-Off", 6 April 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/the-illusion-of-democracy-the-great-zionist-rip-off

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Still You Believe - Osama & The Bin Ladens


May 27, 2011

A short video worth watching...

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Inconsistencies of Obama's Birth Certificate

May 3, 2011

There are a number of inconsistencies with the document said to be the long form birth certificate of Barack
Obama.

There is an excellent presentation called "The Inconsistencies of Obama's Supposed Birth Certificate", which
explains the problems with the document said to be the birth certificate of Barack Obama. I recommend
viewing the short YouTube videos about the document, which appears to be a forgery.

Original URL at: http://www.usavsus.info/ObamaBirthCertifInconsistencies.html

75 Google +3 160 2 3

"Obama Has Joined Likud" - How Zionist Fanatics Undermine U.S. Credibility

February 21, 2011


The illegal Israeli settlements being built on Palestinian land are the crux of the matter at the center of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The official U.S. policy is that the right-wing Likud policy of building Israeli
settlements on occupied land is illegal and must be stopped. This is exactly what President Obama told the
world when he gave his key speech on the Middle East in Cairo in June 2009.

"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The
United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates
previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
- President Barack Obama, 4 June 2009
But, when a UN resolution condemning Israel's illegal settlements came to a vote on 18 February 2011, Susan
Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, vetoed the Security Council resolution that would have demanded
an immediate halt to all settlement building. The U.S. was the only nation to vote against the resolution.

The Obama White House is a Zionist-controlled administration, a fact I have pointed out since before he was
elected. Candidate Obama was cultivated as a politician by Zionist extremists in Chicago such as Philip Morris
Klutznick, the former head of B'nai B'rith and the World Jewish Congress. Klutznick sponsored Obama since
1992 through his daughter Bettylu Saltzman. The Jewish community in Chicago has been very open (and
seemingly proud) of the fact that President Obama is a creation of wealthy Zionists in the Windy City.

The cover of Chicago's Jewish News of October 2008


When Rahm Emanuel (son of a Zionist terrorist from the murderous Stern Gang of the 1940s) became Chief of
Staff for the newly elected President Obama it should have been clear to all that the new administration would
be supportive of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Benny Begin, and their regime of terror in Israel. The U.S.
veto of the U.N. resolution on February 18 provides the clearest proof of that support. Supporting
the extreme right-wing policies of the Likud is very unwise, especially in this time of "boiling lava" in the
Middle East, and Obama's support completely undermines U.S. credibility, revealing to the world
that his statements in support for peace and justice are nothing more than empty words. The Americans and
the people of the Middle East see through his deception.

Gideon Levy, a famous Israeli writer, has written an excellent article about Obama's veto of the resolution and
how dangerous it is for Israel and the United States:

"OBAMA HAS JOINED LIKUD"

The first veto cast by the United States during Obama's term, a veto he promised in vain not to use as
his predecessors did, was a veto against the chance and promise of change, a veto against hope. This is
a veto that is not friendly to Israel; it supports the settlers and the Israeli right, and them alone.
- Gideon Levy, With settlement resolution veto, Obama has joined Likud, Haaretz, 20 February 2011

With settlement resolution veto, Obama has joined Likud

An America that understands that the settlements are the obstacle should have joined in condemning them.

By Gideon Levy

This weekend, a new member enrolled in Likud - and not just in the ruling party, but in its most hawkish wing.
Located somewhere between Tzipi Hotovely and Danny Danon, U.S. President Barack Obama bypassed Dan
Meridor and Michael Eitan on the right and weakened their position.

The first veto cast by the United States during Obama's term, a veto he promised in vain not to use as his
predecessors did, was a veto against the chance and promise of change, a veto against hope. This is a veto
that is not friendly to Israel; it supports the settlers and the Israeli right, and them alone.

The excuses of the American ambassador to the UN won't help, and neither will the words of thanks from the
Prime Minister's Office: This is a step that is nothing less than hostile to Israel. America, which Israel depends
on more than ever, said yes to settlements. That is the one and only meaning of its decision, and in so doing,
it supported the enterprise most damaging to Israel.

Moreover, it did so at a time when winds of change are blowing in the Middle East. A promise of change was
heard from America, but instead, it continued with its automatic responses and its blind support of Israel's
settlement building. This is not an America that will be able to change its standing among the peoples of the
region. And Israel, an international pariah, once again found itself supported only by America.

This should have disturbed every Israeli. Is that what we are? Alone and condemned? And all for the
continuation of that worthless enterprise? Is it really worth the price? To hell with the UN and the whole world
is against us?
We can't wrap ourselves in this hollow iron dome forever. We must open our eyes and understand that if no
country, aside from weakening America, supports this caprice of ours, then something fundamental is wrong
here.

Israel, which is condemned by the entire world but continues merrily on its way, is a country that is losing its
connection to reality. It is also a country that will ultimately find itself left entirely to its fate. That is why
America's decision harmed Israel's interests: It continued to blind and stupefy Israel into thinking it can go on
this way forever.

A friendly U.S., concerned for Israel's fate, should have said no. An America that understands that the
settlements are the obstacle should have joined in condemning them. A superpower that wants to make peace,
at a time when Arab peoples are rising up against their regimes and against the U.S. and Israel, should have
understood that it must change the old, bad rules of the game of blanket support for the ally addicted to its
settlements.

A friendly America should have mobilized to wean Israel of its addiction Only it can do so, and it should have
started, belatedly, at the Security Council on Friday.

But promises of change and of real concern for Israel are one thing, and diplomatic behavior is another:
another automatic veto, as if nothing has changed. Obama or George W. Bush, there's no difference. When
Ambassador Susan Rice said that the draft resolution risked hardening the positions of both sides and could
encourage the parties to refrain from negotiations, she misled. She knows that what prevents negotiations and
hardens positions is continued building in the settlements.

And when the Israeli Foreign Ministry said it is "peculiar that the Security Council should choose to consider
one single aspect" of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations "while ignoring the wider scope of events in our region,"
it, too, misled. Do the Foreign Ministry's spokesmen really believe there is a serious party that would agree to
Israel creating irreversible facts on the ground without let or hindrance?

And to call this "one single aspect?" Perhaps it is only one, but it is certainly the most destructive. And thus it
is the one the world sought to condemn - and rightly so.

Moreover, this veto was not cast during ordinary days. These are days of boiling lava in the region. If there
were a responsible government in Israel, it would have stopped settlement building long ago - not only to
deflect fire from Israel, but to promote an agreement that has never been more vital for it.

If the U.S. had been a responsible superpower, it would have voted for the resolution on Friday to rouse Israel
from its dangerous sleep. Instead, we got a hostile veto from Washington, shouts of joy from Jerusalem and a
party that will end very badly for both.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"Obama and the Jews," by Christopher Bollyn, 21 April 2009

"Who Runs the Obama White House?" by Christopher Bollyn (Chapter 10 of Solving 9/11)
http://www.bollyn.com/11305
"With settlement resolution veto, Obama has joined Likud" by Gideon Levy, Haaretz (Israel), 20 February 2011
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/with-settlement-resolution-veto-obama-has-joined-likud-
1.344502

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Is the Obama-Hitler Billboard Correct?

June 15, 2010

"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a
revolution before morning."
- U.S. President Andrew Jackson, 1829

The Obama-Hitler-Lenin billboard of the North Iowa Tea Party was papered over one day after it was
posted. Did it get too close to the truth?

A controversial billboard comparing the "change" of U.S. President Barack Obama with Adolf Hitler and
Vladimir Lenin raised a few eyebrows before it was papered over one day after it appeared in Mason City,
Iowa. The billboard suggests that Obama is a radical socialist leader similar to Hitler and Lenin. This is, in
fact, a true comparison, which is probably why it was papered over so quickly. Obama, Hitler, and Lenin were
all initially financed by Rothschild money. If we look at the historical record, we can clearly see that all three
leaders were originally puppets of the House of Rothschild.

LENIN

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing
about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly
the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of
the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the
Jewish leaders...
- Winston Churchill, "Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish
People", Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, February 8, 1920
Leon Trotsky was given $20 million in Jacob Schiff gold to help finance the revolution, which was deposited in
a Warburg bank, then transferred to the Nya Banken (The New Bank) in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the
Knickerbocker Column in the New York Journal American on February 3, 1949: "Today it is estimated by
Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in
Russia."

In October, 1917 when the Revolution started, Lenin, who was in Switzerland, negotiated with the German
High Command with the help of Max Warburg (head of the Rothschild-affiliated Warburg bank in Frankfurt) to
allow him, his wife, and 32 other Bolsheviks to travel across Germany to Sweden, where he was to pick up the
money being held for him in the Swedish bank, then go on to Petrograd. He promised to make peace with
Germany if he was able to overthrow the new Russian government.

He was put in a sealed railway car with over $5 million in gold from the German government and upon
reaching Petrograd, was joined by Stalin and Trotsky. He told the people that he could no longer work within
the government to effect change, that they had to strike immediately in force to end the war, and end the
hunger conditions of the peasants. His war cry was: "All power to the Soviets!"

The Rothschilds, through Milner, planned the Russian Revolution, and along with Schiff (who gave $20
million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J.P. Morgan (who gave at least
$1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the New Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a
financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director
of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank),
helped finance it.

HITLER

Heny Makow has written several in-depth articles on the Rothschild connections to the socialist movements in
Russia and Germany. Makow asks, "Why would the [Rothschild] financial elite also want to destroy Russia,
which they created?"

The transcript of the 1938 NKVD interrogation of C.G. Rakowsky (a.k.a Chaim Rakeover) provides the
answer. Rakowsky was an intimate of Trotsky's and former Soviet ambassador to Paris.

Rothschild's agent Leon Trotsky was supposed to succeed Lenin but got sick at the critical moment.
Stalin was able to assume power and divert Russia from Rothschild control.

In order to control Stalin, international finance was forced to build up Hitler and the Nazi party.
Rakowsky confirms that Jewish financiers backed the Nazis although Hitler was not aware of this.

"The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his
race... he also lied regarding whose representative he was... Our aim was to provoke a war and Hitler
was war...[the Nazis] received...millions of dollars sent to it from Wall Street, and millions of Marks from
German financiers through [Hjalmar] Schacht; [providing] the upkeep of the S.A and the S.S. and also the
financing of the elections..."

Unfortunately for the bankers, Hitler also proved intractable. He started to print his own money!
"He took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money and not only physical moneys, but also
financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of
the state... Are you capable of imagining what would have come ...if it had infected a number of other
states and brought about the creation of a period of autarchy [absolute rule, replacing that of the
bankers]. If you can, then imagine its counterrevolutionary functions..."

Hitler had become a bigger threat than Stalin, who had not meddled with money. Rakovsky's present
mission was to convince Stalin to make a pact with Hitler and turn Hitler's aggression against the West.
The purpose was for Germany and the Western nations to exhaust each other before another front was
opened in the East.

The "Revolutionary Movement" was an attempt by Meyer Rothschild and his allies to protect and extend
this monopoly by establishing a totalitarian New World Order.

According to Rakovsky, "The Rothschilds were not the treasurers, but the chiefs of that first secret
Communism...Marx and the highest chiefs of the First International ... were controlled by Baron Lionel
Rothschild, [1808-1878] whose revolutionary portrait was done by Disraeli the English Premier, who was
also his creature, and has been left to us [in Disraeli's novel 'Coningsby.']"

Lionel's son Nathaniel (1840-1915) needed to overthrow the Christian Romanoff Dynasty. Through his
agents Jacob Schiff and the Warburg brothers, he financed the Japanese side in the Russo Japanese War,
and an unsuccessful insurrection in Moscow in 1905. Then he instigated the First World War (Trotsky
was behind the murder of Archduke Ferdinand) and financed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Rakovsky
says he was personally involved in the transfer of funds in Stockholm.

The Jewish labour movement or "bund" was Rothschild's instrument. The Bund's "secret faction"
infiltrated all the socialist parties in Russia and provided the leadership for the Russian Revolution.
Alexander Kerensky, the Menshevik Prime Minister was a secret member.

Leon Trotsky was supposed to become the leader of the USSR. Trotsky, a Jew, married the daughter of
one of Rothschild's closest associates, banker Abram Zhivotovsky and became part of the "clan."

Unfortunately "national" Communists like Lenin (one-quarter Jewish) got in the way. Lenin overruled
Trotsky and made peace with Germany (Treaty of Brest Litovsk, 1918.) This was not the Rothschild's
plan.

World War One was supposed to end the way the Second World War did. Russia was supposed to overrun
Germany in 1918 and assist local "revolutionaries" in establishing a "peoples' republic."

Trotsky was responsible for an attempt to assassinate Lenin in 1918 but Lenin survived. When Lenin had
a stroke in 1922, Trotsky had Levin, Lenin's Jewish doctor, finish him off.

At this critical moment, the unexpected happened. Trotsky got sick and Stalin was able to take power.
At this crucial juncture, the Trotskyites pretended to support Stalin and infiltrated his regime in order to
sabotage it...
OBAMA

President Obama was cultivated and created as a candidate since the early 1990s by Jewish capital to serve
Zionist interests, something I have written a great deal about. It is remarkable that this controversial billboard
appeared in Iowa, the same state where the dark horse candidate Obama came from behind to win - after the
rigged caucus in which the caucus votes were tallied telephonically by Voxeo, a company connected to Israeli
military intelligence.

A recent Israeli interview with President Obama shows his Zionist colors well:

YONIT LEVI: Now, I must ask you this, Mr. President, there are people in Israel who are anxious about
you and who, you know, Im quoting their sentiments, feel like you dont have a special connection to
Israel. How do you respond to that?

OBAMA: Well, its interesting. This is the thing that actually surfaced even before I was elected
President, in some of the talk that was circulating within the Jewish American community. Ironically, Ive
got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a
descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what
propelled me to the U.S. Senate. And my not just knowledge but sympathy and identification with the
Jewish experience is rooted in part because of the historic connection between the African American
freedom movement here in the United States and the civil rights efforts of Jewish Americans and some
of the same impulses that led to the creation of Israel...

YONIT LEVI: So that fear, the tangible fear that some Israelis have that their best ally in the world might
abandon them is

OBAMA: Well, its pretty hard to square with the fact that not only have I in every speech that Ive ever
given talked about the unbreakable bond to Israel, not only did I describe that special relationship and
condemn those who would try to drive a rift between us in Cairo in front of a Muslim audience, but if
you look at our actions and Prime Minister Netanyahu will confirm this, and even critics I think will
have to confirm that the United States under my administration has provided more security assistance to
Israel than any administration in history. And weve got greater security cooperation between our two
countries than at any time in our history. And the single most important threat to Israel Iran, and its
potential possession of a nuclear weapon has been my number one foreign policy priority over the
course of the last 18 months.

So its hard to, I think, look at that track record and look at my public statements and in any way think
that my passions for Israels survival, its security, and its people are in any way diminished.
The fact that Obama is the product of a network of wealthy Jewish financiers is certainly no secret to the
Jews. This is the cover of the Chicago Jewish News of October 24, 2008.

Sources:

Barack Obama Interview by Israeli TV, 7 July 2010


http://www.voltairenet.org/article166263.html

Bollyn, Christopher, "ELRON - VOXEO: The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus", December 31,
2007
http://www.bollyn.com/elron-voxeo-the-israeli-defense-firm-that-tallies-the-iowa-caucus

Bollyn, Christopher, "Who Runs the Obama White House", November 2008
http://www.bollyn.com/11305

Bollyn, Christopher, "Afghanistan - Obama's War for Israel", July 2010


http://www.bollyn.com/afghanistan-the-war-for-israel

Bollyn, Christopher, "Obama's Deception - 9-11 and Afghanistan", June 5, 2009


http://www.bollyn.com/obamas-deception-9-11-and-afghanistan
Bollyn, Christopher, "Obama and the Jews", April 21, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/obama-and-the-jews-2

Makow, Henry, "Rothschilds Conduct 'Red Symphony'", November 9, 2003


http://www.savethemales.ca/000275.html

Makow, Henry, " Hitler Didn't Want World War", March 21, 2004
http://www.savethemales.ca/000369.html

Rivera, David, "Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Revolution", Final Warning: A History of the New World Order
Illuminism and the master plan for world domination, 1994
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn07-3

Yearwood, Pauline Dubkin, "Obama and the Jews," Chicago Jewish News, October 24, 2008
http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?id=252218&sid=212226

75 Google +3 160 2 3

The Axelrod Factor: Why Obama Fails to Deliver

Updated February 3, 2010

After one year in office, President Barack Obama has failed to deliver on any of his key campaign
promises. Public opinion of the Obama White House has clearly changed. Obama has only succeeded
in protecting the outrageous 9-11 deception, wasting billions of dollars in bailing out Maurice Greenberg's
criminal enterprise A.I.G. and the corrupt investment banks he insured, and increasing the killing and suffering
in the Middle East and Central Asia. To understand why Obama seems unable to deliver we need to
know much more about his Senior Advisor David Axelrod -- the man who made Obama president.

After one year, even the New African asks Obama, "Where is the hope?"
"What went wrong?" Pat Oliphant asks the "Great Obama."

"Now what?" Time magazine asks of the president who was elected on promises of change but fails to
deliver. He can't even close the outrageous gulag of Guantanamo? What's wrong?
"Who is Barack Obama?" Bob Herbert of the New York Times asks, "Americans are still looking for the answer,
and if they dont get it soon or if they dont like the answer the presidents current political problems will
look like a walk in the park."

"Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would
preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the
economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an
economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the
health insurance companies, and so on," Herbert wrote in his editorial of January 25 entitled, "A Credibility
Gap."

"Who is Barack Obama?" asks Bob Herbert of the New York Times.

"Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what hell really fight for, and
where he wants to lead this nation," Herbert concluded. "They want to know who their president really is."

THE AXELROD PRESIDENCY

It is safe to say that the U.S. government today is a far cry from what the framers of the Constitution
intended. Congress has lost its control over our currency and completely abdicated its role as the only branch
that can declare war. These powers now belong to the president, directly or indirectly. The executive branch
has gained immense power at the expense of the legislative branch, our representatives in Congress. The
result is that our presidents have much more power than envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The real
power of the U.S. government is centralized in the person of the president, who has more power than a king or
czar. To control the United States one need only control the president. The president is controlled by the
people around him, his chief of staff and senior advisors. This is why it is essential to understand who advises
the president because these are the people who shape the policies of the White House.

To understand the Obama presidency one needs to know the people who made Barack Obama
president. Chief among the people behind the Obama presidency is David Axelrod, Obama's friend, senior
advisor, and chief media and political strategist. If one were to look behind the televised images of Barack
Obama, one would find David Axelrod writing the speeches and creating the image of the candidate and the
president. While Barack Obama is the face of the current administration, the policies, words, and images are
creations of David Axelrod. So overwhelming is his influence on the White House that it would be fair to call
this the Axelrod Presidency.
David Axelrod is the man who explains the Obama administration to the world.

Axelrod is Obama's right-hand man and is always at his side.

Axelrod goes everywhere Obama goes...


Axelrod writes Obama's speeches...

and coaches him on how to present them, as he has since 1992.


Axelrod has been with Obama as his advisor and chief strategist every step of the way, creating and shaping
the candidate who became president after a short career as a politician from Chicago.

Looking at the Obama White House from outside, one might get the impression that David Axelrod is the real
president and Obama is his spokesman.

WHO IS DAVID AXELROD?

The most peculiar thing about David Axelrod is that although he is clearly one of the most powerful men in
the government of the United States, for most Americans he remains an unknown factor. The controlled
media does nothing to help us understand who Axelrod is. How can that be? How is it that Axelrod
represents the executive branch of the U.S. government on television and speaks to the media daily about the
policies of the U.S. government and nobody cares to explain who this person is and how he became senior
advisor to President Obama? Who is this senior political advisor to the president who said, quite incorrectly, in
June 2009 that Iran had nuclear weapons - on national television? Who is Axelrod to say that Iran will face
consequences for failing to submit to the extra-judicial dictates of the so-called "international community," as
he did at the end of 2009?

David Axelrod is a Chicago-based media consultant, advertising man, and corporate lobbyist who makes his
living by changing public opinion to support his clients, who are primarily political candidates and major
corporations. Axelrod is really a paid lobbyist who uses television advertising to change public opinion on
behalf of his clients. Because he has two kinds of clients political candidates and large corporations -
Axelrod started two media companies: AKP&D Message and Media for politicians, and ASK Public Strategies for
corporations. While all partners at AKP&D (A is for Axelrod, with John Kupper, David Plouffe, and John Del
Cecato) held senior positions on the Obama campaign, it wasn't the only campaign AKP&D worked on. AKP&D
also provided services to the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Creating a positive image to affect public opinion through television ads is one of the basic services Axelrod
provides. To do this he writes most of their speeches. Because he has so many politicians as clients,
sometimes he re-uses the same speech. When Obama the candidate used the same speech that Deval Patrick
or John Edwards had used earlier, it wasn't plagerism it was simply Obama reading a recycled Axelrod
speech.

David Axelrod is described on the White House website as the former "Senior Partner" at AKP&D, who
"managed media strategy and communications for more than 150 local, state, and national campaigns, with a
focus on progressive candidates and causes."

SourceWatch has information about David Axelrod and his media companies. As a former resident of Cook
County who was born and raised in the Chicago area, I can say that the people who Axelrod has helped put
into office in Illinois and Chicago are anything but "progressive." Having monitored elections in Cook County,
I can say with a high degree of certainty that the Chicago-based political figures that Axelrod has worked with
are actually part of a large criminal enterprise.

Why would David Axelrod be involved in promoting candidates who are so easily corrupted? Why is a son of
Romanian Jewish immigrants working to promote black candidates in cities and states across the
country? Who tells Axelrod who to support and what policies to promote?

ATTACK DOGS OF ZIONIST TERRORISTS


David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel run the Obama White House.

David Axelrod works very closely with Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff. Axelrod and Emanuel
are the highest level Zionist agents/controllers of the Obama administration. Rahm Emanuel is named after an
Israeli terrorist from the Stern Gang and is the son of Benjamin (Auerbach) Emanuel, a former member of the
Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization headed by Menachem Begin. The Irgun was behind the bombing of
the King David Hotel in 1946, the worst terrorist bombing in Palestinian history.

Rahm Emanuel with his brothers and his father, Benjamin, who admitted to the author that he had been a
member of the Irgun, a terrorist gang headed by Menachem Begin.
Menachem Begin was a well-known terrorist who went on to become prime minister of Israel.

Begin had been a criminal in the Soviet Union (1940) before bringing his terror methods to Palestine.

While still in their twenties, Axelrod and Emanuel began working together to defeat Senator Charles H. Percy
(R-Ill.) in 1984. Percy was a popular senator who had served three terms and risen to become the Chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Percy had become a powerful adversary of Menachem Begin,
the former terrorist leader who had become prime minister of Israel. Begin saw Percy as an enemy in the U.S.
Congress because Percy was openly critical of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories
and advised Israel to compromise with the Palestinians. Percy had also criticized Israel's brutal siege of West
Beirut during the summer of 1982, saying, "It could turn out to be, if it continues this way, Israel's Vietnam."
Sen. Charles H. Percy

When Begin read a report Percy had called for economic measures to be taken to stop Israel's murderous
invasion of Lebanon, Begin fired back. "I would like to tell Senator Percy that nobody, nobody is going to bring
Israel to her knees. You must have forgotten that Jews do not kneel but to God," an angry Begin told Jewish
fund-raisers in Jerusalem. Philip M. Klutznick of Chicago, the former president of B'nai B'rith International and
the World Jewish Congress, who had corresponded with both Percy and Prime Minister Begin, was a key Jewish
fund-raiser who conspired with Begin and took action to remove Senator Percy from office.

Begin wanted Percy removed from his position of power in the U.S. Congress and Klutznick made it
happen. When Axelrod and Emanuel went to work for the Paul Simon senate campaign (1984) they were
taking orders from Klutznick and working as the political attack dogs for Menachem Begin, one of the most
notorious terrorists of history. Axelrod was later commissioned in 1992 by Klutznick to make Barack Obama
"our first black president," as his daughter Betty Lu Saltzman said.

David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are clearly not working for America's best interest in the Obama White
House. They are the highest-level point men in the White House for an international network of Zionist
criminals. The candidates that Axelrod promotes are not progressive. They are controlled. The Zionist
strategy in promoting candidates who can be controlled is what I call "Control through Corruption."

THE 9-11 CONNECTION

One of Axelrod's clients was Michael R. White, who was mayor of Cleveland from 1990 to 2002. Mayor White
played a key role in the actions that took place at the Cleveland airport on 9-11, when it was reported that
Flight 93 and another plane had made emergency landings and that the passengers had been taken into the
NASA facility at the airport where they had been interviewed by FBI agents.
Mayor Michael White of Cleveland lowered Sam Miller's property tax by $56 million and played a key role in the
deception of 9-11.

Mayor White headed what is described as the most corrupt administration in Cleveland history. Nate Gray,
who is currently in prison, was White's "bagman," and collected bribes for contracts. During a court hearing in
September 2008, U.S District Judge James Gwin said Gray still refused to testify "to protect some compatriot."

Michael White's "bagman" Nate Gray went to jail for 15 years.

As I wrote in "The Hollywood Fantasy of Flight 93" in 2006:

On August 17, 2005, White's business associate and close friend, Nate Gray, was convicted of 36
criminal counts relating to bribery of public officials in four cities. Two days after the Gray conviction,
Brent Larkin, in an editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, wrote: "Now we know that, at the very least,
White presided over a government that will forever be remembered as one of the most corrupt in the
city's history."
The central figure in the corruption of the White administration appears to be Samuel H. Miller, co-
chairman of the board of directors and treasurer of Forest City Enterprises, Inc., a family-run company
with extensive real estate holdings which it owns or manages. The Ratner family, which Miller married
into, controls Forest City Enterprises. Ricardo Teamor, one of the co-defendants in the racketeering and
extortion scheme with Nate Gray, told the FBI that Mayor White, Gray, and Miller had regular business
dinners at the Ritz Carlton hotel for years. According to Teamor, Gray said that Miller controlled White
and told the mayor what to do.

Miller was White's biggest financial backer when, as a little-known state senator, White ran for mayor in
1989. Miller is also a national leader in Zionist and Jewish causes. He is, for example, the national
chairman of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a past chairman of the Cleveland Jewish Welfare Fund and
Israel Bonds, and a member of the board of trustees of the Jewish National Fund. Miller is also the
father of Aaron David Miller, who served for two decades at the Department of State as senior adviser to
six Secretaries of State, where he was involved in formulating U.S. policy on the Middle East and the
Arab-Israel peace process.

The Zionist Jew Sam Miller ran the city of Cleveland...


...while his son Aaron (center) crafted U.S. policy in the Middle East for two decades. Here Aaron Miller talks
with the war criminal and genocidaire Ariel Sharon.

When David Axelrod worked his television magic to get Michael White elected mayor, he was really working for
Sam Miller. Miller then used White to serve his purposes. Under Mayor White, Sam Miller's taxes for the
property he owned (with the Ratner family of Forest City) in Cleveland fell every year to the point where he
was paying very little tax. When White took office in 1990, he cut Miller's property tax by 21 percent. In
1991, Miller's taxes fell another 20 percent. In 1992 his taxes fell another 17.3 percent and in 1994 by 12.4
percent - for a tax cut of 71 percent in four years. During the first four years of White's administration,
Miller's assessed property value was lowered by $160 million, saving him and Forest City $56 million. This
savings for Miller and Forest City lowered revenues for Cleveland schools and libraries. Axelrod also worked
on something called the Gateway Committee (Cleveland Downtown Redevelopment Program), which was a
project that the Miller family was very much involved in.

David Axelrod is a highest-level Zionist agent controlling the president of the United States. Here he
discusses candidate Obama's visit to Israel as he speaks from the King David Hotel. This was the hotel that
was bombed by Rahm Emanuel's father and his gang in 1946 killing more than 90 people.
Menachem Begin was the terrorist head of the Irgun when it bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing
nearly 100 people. Rahm Emanuel's father was an active member of this terrorist gang at the time and
probably was involved in this atrocity given the fact that he lived in Jerusalem at the time.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, "The Hollywood Fantasy of Flight 93", May 12, 2006
http://www.bollyn.com/the-hollywood-fantasy-of-flight-93

"Obamas Credibility Gap" by Bob Herbert, New York Times, January 25, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html

Bartimole, Roldo, "How Hypocritical Can Sam Miller Get Before We Laugh Him Out of Town", Cleveland Leader,
June 26, 2009
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10468

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Who Really Made the Decision on the Missile Shield?

September 19, 2009


U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama II announces the end of the proposed anti-Iranian missile defense
system on September 17, 2009. Obama's decision to abort the missile shield was evidently made in Israel
and offered as a quid pro quo by Israeli leaders during their impromptu summits in Russia in the wake of the
mysterious hijacking of the Arctic Sea. The U.S. government is also controlled by a gang of Zionist pirates and
their agent in the White House - Rahm Emanuel - the son of an Irgun terrorist.

The sudden decision by the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama II, to abandon the proposed
U.S. "missile shield" to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, was actually made by Israeli military and
political leaders - primarily President Shimon Peres and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. The decision to abort
the proposed anti-Iranian missile defense system is the most obvious quid pro quo given by Israeli leaders to
their Russian counterparts during impromptu summits in Russia in the aftermath of the Arctic Sea intrigue. In
exchange for Moscow's support to keep Iran from obtaining an anti-aircraft missile system and assistance to
prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear nation, the Israeli leaders promised to use their influence in Washington
to abort the proposed U.S. missile shield which was seen as a threat to Russia, although such a system is not
ready to be deployed and was probably just a bluff meant to antagonize the Kremlin.

THE ARCTIC SEA INTRIGUE

The hijacking of the Arctic Sea in July and August apparently played a key role in the Obama administration's
"decision" to abort the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Sources in Tel Aviv and Moscow told
the Sunday Times that the Arctic Sea had been loaded with S-300 missiles, Russias most advanced anti-
aircraft weapon, while supposedly undergoing repairs in the Russian port of Kaliningrad. The missiles had
reportedly been sold to Iran by former military officers linked to the underworld, according to the Times.

The Arctic Sea was then hijacked in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Sweden. The alleged hijackers, four
Estonians, two Russians, and two Latvians, reportedly boarded the ship claiming their inflatable craft was in
trouble and then took over the ship at gunpoint. The ship was officially carrying a cargo of timber and
disappeared en route to Algeria on July 24. It was finally recovered off west Africa on August 17 when eight
alleged hijackers were arrested. This was a very bizarre case of a vessel being hijacked in the Baltic
Sea. The Arctic Sea incident is reminiscent of the Israeli hijacking of the Scheersberg A in 1968, a ship that
left Antwerp with 200 tons of uranium but never arrived at its destination, and the Estonia catastrophe of
1994. Shimon Peres, the head of Israel's illegal nuclear weapons program, was involved in these incidents as
well. The uranium was taken to Israel for its illegal nuclear weapons program. Estonia, a passenger ferry, is
known to have been carrying contraband Soviet military technology bound for Israel - with the connivance of
Swedish authorities - via Arlanda Airport in Stockholm.

Sources in Moscow told the Sunday Times that Mossad played a part in the alleged hijacking of the Arctic
Sea by setting up a criminal gang, who did not know anything about the secret cargo. The best way for the
Israelis to block the cargo from reaching Iran would have been to create a lot of noise around the ship, said a
former army officer.

The Russian-born Shimon Peres, 86, visited Russia the day after the ship was recovered and held talks with his
counterpart Dmitry Medvedev on August 18. Peres then announced that he had secured a promise from
Medvedev that Russia would review its decision to sell the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.

Clearly the Israelis played a role in the whole Arctic Sea saga, a Russian military source told the Sunday
Times. Peres used the incident as a bargaining chip over the issue of arms sales to Arab states, while Israel
allowed the Kremlin a way out with its claims to have successfully foiled a piracy incident.

But what did Peres really offer in return for Russian cooperation on Iran? There must have been something
much more substantial to warrant secret Israeli summits in Russia. It certainly looks like the proposed U.S.
"missile shield" in Poland and the Czech Republic was the key element of the Israeli deal although the missile
system was far from being realized and appears to have been more of a bluff.

Russia reportedly agreed to sell Iran the anti-aircraft missiles several years ago, but Israel fiercely opposed the
deal that would greatly enhance Tehran's ability to protect itself against an Israeli air strike. In the event of an
Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations the S-300 missiles would increase Israeli casualties by 50
percent, an Israeli air force source told the Times.

Eight suspects from an Estonia-based gang of criminals have been accused of hijacking the Arctic Sea and are
now awaiting trial in Moscow on piracy and kidnapping charges.

OBAMA'S "DECISION"

Steven Hurst of the Associated Press analyzed the decision to abandon the missile shield in the context of the
Zionist effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear energy:

In what could shape a major geopolitical realignment, the White House is scrapping a key irritant in the
soured U.S.-Russian relationship the Bush-era plan for a missile defense shield in Poland and the
Czech Republic.

So far, only the U.S. has showed its hand, but the timing of the announcement, just days before Obama
is to meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly,
points to the prospect of deep bargaining to entice Moscow's help on Iran.

But who did the "deep bargaining" with Russia that resulted in Obama's announcement? Henry Kissinger
hasn't been to Russia lately, nor has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The most recent summits were between
the Israeli leaders, close friends of Rahm Emanuel's family, and the Russian leadership. Following the
impromptu Israeli-Russian summits, senior Russian officials announced that they do not support a nuclear-
armed Iran. This was followed by the sudden decision to abort the missile defense system announced by
President Barack Hussein Obama II. Seeing that Obama is controlled by the Zionist agent Rahm Emanuel, the
Israeli connection could hardly be more obvious.

It certainly appears that the orders were given by Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu to Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff at the Obama White House, to instruct Obama to announce that
the Bush-era "missile defense" plan had been scrapped. Whether Americans realize it or not, this is clearly the
way decisions are being made in the Oval Office in 2009. Welcome to the new America. Nothing has really
changed at all. The Zionists have near total control.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that the real decisions in the Obama White House are made by Rahm Emanuel, the foul-
mouthed Israeli-American chief of staff from Chicago who lost his finger in a meat slicer. Rahm was named after a Zionist
terrorist by his father Benjamin, himself an Israeli terrorist who allegedly participated in the murder of the Swedish Count Folke
Bernadotte.
Count Folke Bernadotte (18951948)
U.N. mediator in the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, Bernadotte and Colonel Andre P. Serot of the French air force were
assassinated in Jerusalem by members of the Stern gang on 17 September 1948. Rahm Emanuel's father belonged to this terror
group and is alleged to have been involved in Bernadotte's murder.

Bernadotte was serving as the UN envoy to Palestine following the disastrous partition plan of 1947 which cut the Holy Land into
pieces for the Jewish immigrants and the native Palestinian population. This was the devilish UN scheme that gave Russian
Zionists a foothold in Palestine. The Palestinians, who under the British Mandate had been forced to accept large numbers of
atheist communist Jews to settle in the Holy Land, then lost everything during the Zionist ethnic cleaning in 1948 in which some
400 Palestinian villages and towns were erased from the map. As the Yiddish (Eastern European) saying goes: Give a pig a finger
- it'll take your whole hand.

Finis

Recommended Reading and Sources:

Bollyn, Christopher, "The Illusion of Democracy & The Great Zionist Rip-Off," April 6, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/news-comments

Bollyn, "Obama and the Jews," April 21, 2009


http://www.bollyn.com/obama-and-the-jews

Bollyn, "Obama's Deception: Afghanistan, 9-11 & Dresden," June 5, 2009


http://www.bollyn.com/obama-and-the-deception-of-9-11

Bollyn, "Who Runs the Obama White House?", Chapter 10 of Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, August 20,
2009
http://www.bollyn.com/11305
Bollyn, "Is Henry Kissinger Setting Obama's Foreign Policy?", March 27, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/is-henry-kissinger-setting-obamas-foreign-policy

"HIGH SEAS: Uranium: The Israeli Connection", Time, May 30, 1977
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,914952,00.html

Hurst, Steven R., "Analysis: Shelving missile shield entices Moscow," Associated Press, September 17, 2009
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/09/ap_missiledefense_analysis_091709w/

"Missing channel pirate ship carried Russian arms for Iran," The Sunday Times (London), September 6, 2009
by Mark Franchetti (Moscow) and Uzi Mahnaimi (Tel Aviv)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6823300.ece

Ravid, Barak, "PM's secret Moscow visit was part of campaign against missile sales to Iran," Ha'aretz, September 11, 2009
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113570.html

75 Google +3 160 2 3

Obama and the Jews

April 21, 2009

To understand Obama's devotion to Jewish and Zionist causes it is essential to understand what the Zionist
elite of Chicago and the United States have known for 17 years: "Jews made him."
"Jews made him. Wherever you look, there is a Jewish presence," a Jewish political observer said in the article,
"Obama and the Jews" published in Chicago Jewish News in October 2008.

Although I have written extensively on Obama's Zionist handlers, it needs to be understood that this is not
anti-Semitic rhetoric. It is well known that Obama is beholden to the Zionist powers that have a great deal of
control over the U.S. economy, mass media, and government. The following are comments from Chicago Jews,
extracts taken from the article "Obama and the Jews" written by Pauline Dubkin Yearwood and published
in Chicago Jewish News on October 24, 2008.

"I think when this is all over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president."
- Abner Mikva, former congressman from Chicago and counsel to President Clinton

Obama is "embedded in the Jewish world."


- Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, Obama's neighbor and longtime supporter

"He's right on all the issues when it comes to Israel. He's in exactly the same place (Hillary) Clinton is,
maybe even stronger."
- Bettylu (Klutznick) Saltzman, daughter of Philip Klutznick, a Chicago developer and leading Zionist who
served a leading role in the development of the State of Israel. Klutznick was president of B'nai B'rith,
the international secret organization of Jewish Freemasons, which I consider to be the real-life Elders of
Zion, and the World Jewish Congress. Klutznick's daughter has been Obama's most crucial Zionist
supporter and financier since 1992.
The article also discusses Obama's Jewish relatives: "Obama even has a Jew in his mishpocheh [family],
albeit on his wife's side. Rabbi Capers Funnye, the spiritual leader of Beth Shalom B'nai Zaken-Agudath
Achim Congregation on Chicago's South Side is Michelle Obama's cousin - her grandfather and the
rabbi's mother were sister and brother."

The Rabbi in the Obama Family - Capers Funnye

Sources: "OBAMA AND THE JEWS: A look at why some Jews love him and some don't trust him; and at the key
role Chicago Jews played in getting him to where he is" by Pauline Dubkin Yearwood, Chicago Jewish News,
October 24, 2008
http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?sid=212226&id=252218

Chavets, Zev, "Obama's Rabbi," New York Times, April 2, 2009


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05rabbi-t.html

75 Google +3 160 2 3
http://www.bollyn.com/who-is-barack-obama/