In yet another staggering display of Jewish chutzpah,
the Jewish Supremacist-owned New Yorker magazine has published a
detailed and lengthy exposition on how exactly the Jewish Lobby controls the US
Congress and Senate, even giving actual—and sometimes shocking—examples of this
power at work.
The New Yorker magazine—owned
by Jewish Supremacist Samuel Irving Newhouse—who, along with his brother
Donald, owns Advance Publications, whose holdings include the worldwide Condé
Nast publications—has carried the article in its September 2014 issue,
supposedly written to answer the question “The lobbying group AIPAC has
consistently fought the Obama Administration on policy. Is it now losing
influence?”
The lengthy
article does not ultimately answer its own question, most likely because the
evidence that it then amasses, shows incontrovertibly that the American Israel
Public Action Committee (AIPAC) completely controls Congress through its
ability to fund the campaigns of all would-be Congressmen and Senators—from both
parties.
The article
starts off by boasting with the astonishing revelation that the most recent
additional $225 Million “in emergency aid to Israel” for the “Iron Dome” system was
passed almost in secret by just five (5) US Senators!
The article
explains:
On July 22nd,
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had sent a letter to Harry Reid, the Senate
Majority Leader, seeking an immediate payment of $225 million. . . The Senate,
preparing for its August recess, hastened to vote on the Iron Dome funding. . .
At first, the appropriation was bundled into an emergency bill that also
included money to address the underage refugees flooding across the Mexican
border.
But, with only
a few days left before the break began, that bill got mired in a partisan
fight. . . The next morning, with the halls of the Senate all but empty, an
unusual session was convened so that McConnell and Reid could try again to pass
the bill; Tim Kaine was also there, along with the Republicans John McCain and
Lindsey Graham.
“There were
five senators present and literally no one else!” the staffer said. “They
reintroduced it and passed it. This was one of the more amazing feats, for
AIPAC.”
Thus even the
allocation of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars of US taxpayers’ money is
made almost behind closed doors—at AIPAC’s demand.
The New Yorker then boasts
article then that an AIPAC reception during its annual policy conference draws
most congressmen and senators than any other government meeting except a joint
session of Congress or a State of Union address:
AIPAC is
prideful about its influence. Its promotional literature points out that
a reception during its annual policy conference, in Washington, “will be
attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a
joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.”
The article
then reveals exactly how the Jewish Lobby accomplishes such control, by making
sure that anybody seeking office has to get AIPAC approval before they even
start.
Thomas Dine.
Quoting Jewish
Supremacist Thomas Dine, a former executive director of AIPAC, the New
Yorker reveals that AIPAC is always careful to stay in the background while
arranging funding for its candidates:
“We
made the decision to be one step removed,” Dine said. “Orrin Hatch once said,
‘Dine, your genius is to play an invisible bass drum, and the Jews hear it when
you play it.’ ”
Because
of their regional funding system—where the money collected to fund pro-Israeli
candidates is dispersed through a number of Political Action Committees, the
New Yorker says that it is “difficult to track the amount of money they channel
to political candidates.
This issue
aside, the New Yorker continues:
But everybody
in Congress recognizes its [AIPAC’s] influence in elections, and the effect is
evident. . . AIPAC’s hold on Congress has become institutionalized.
“If you have a
dream about running for office, AIPAC calls you,” one House member said.
Certainly, it’s a rarity when someone undertakes a campaign for the House or
the Senate today without hearing from AIPAC.
In 1996, Brian
Baird, a psychologist from Seattle, decided to run for Congress. Local
Democrats asked if he had thought about what he was going to say to AIPAC.
“The difficult
reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not
independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty
quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that. They come to you and
say, ‘We’d be happy to host ten-thousand-dollar fund-raisers for you, and let
us help write your annual letter, and please come to this multi-thousand-person
dinner.’ ”
Baird
continued, “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly
with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and
significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.”
For Baird,
AIPAC-connected money amounted to about two hundred thousand dollars in each of
his races—“and that’s two hundred thousand going your way, versus the other
way: a four-hundred-thousand-dollar swing.”
Baird, who is
now retired from Congress, continued:
The
contributions, as with many interest groups, come with a great deal of tactical
input.
“The AIPAC
people do a very good job of ‘informing’ you about the issues. It literally
gets down to ‘No, we don’t say it that way, we say it this way.’ Always phrased
as a friendly suggestion—but it’s pretty clear you don’t want to say ‘occupied
territories’! There’s a whole complex semantic code you learn. . . . After a
while, you find yourself saying and repeating it as if it were fact.”
Baird also said
that soon after taking office, he went on a
“[V]irtually
obligatory” trip to Israel: a freshman ritual in which
everything—business-class flights, accommodations at the King David or the
Citadel—all paid for by AIPAC.
The effect of
such strict control upon Congress was detailed by Baird on how Congressmen vote
when resolutions relating to Israel come up. Baird said that he had seen first
hand the “devastating destruction of hospitals, schools, homes, industries, and
infrastructure” in Gaza during Israel’s 2009 “Operation Cast Lead.”
When an
AIPAC-sponsored resolution to condemn a UN report on the atrocity was
introduced in the House, and three hundred and forty-four members voted in
favor of the Jewish Lobby’s demands. Baird told the New Yorker:
When we had the
vote, I said, ‘We have member after member coming to the floor to vote on a
resolution they’ve never read, about a report they’ve never seen, in a place
they’ve never been.’
When key votes
are cast, the question on the House floor, troublingly, is often not ‘What is
the right thing to do for the United States of America?’ but ‘How is AIPAC
going to score this?’
There’s such a
conundrum here, of believing that you’re supporting Israel, when you’re
actually backing policies that are antithetical to its highest values and,
ultimately, destructive for the country.
In addition to
controlling Congressmen while in office, the New Yorker reveals, the
power of the Jewish Lobby extends to their post political career as well.
Staff members
fret about whether AIPAC will prevent them from getting a good consulting job
when they leave government.
“You just hear
the name!” a Senate aide said. “You hear that they are involved and everyone’s
ears perk up and their mood changes, and they start to fall in line in a
certain way.”
Just like the
Jewish Supremacist boasts about how they control the media, or Hollywood, this frank admission about how the Jewish Lobby controls the government
of the United States will not be condemned by the ADL, SPLC or other Jewish
organizations as “antisemitic” –because it is Jews making the claims.
If however, any
non-Jew were to write such an article, these Jewish pressure groups would be
screaming for blood—because no-one except Jews can write about Jewish power.
It is the old
rule: one set of standards for Jews, another set for non-Jews.
No comments:
Post a Comment