Dear Friend:
As everyone knows, Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. In late 2006, months before he became a candidate, in this Alert newsletter we drew our readers’ attention to his sudden, meteoric rise to national prominence following the publication of his book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. We pointed out that such things don’t happen accidentally. To garner such national prominence and adulation — worth tens of millions of dollars in free publicity — one had to have powerful, ambitious backers.
A month later, Canadian Jewish News (January 2007) revealed the source of much of that support: “[T]he Illinois Senator has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage of his political career.... One of his first meetings was with Robert Shayer, a top Jewish philanthropist in Chicago.... [later] when he launched his campaign for the Democratic nomination he named as his fund-raising chief Alan Solomont, a Boston Jewish philanthropist.” Obama confirmed to JTA, the Jewish news service, that early in his political career, “some of my most ardent supporters came from the Jewish community in Chicago.”
Writes Uri Avnery, a Jewish journalist and former member of the Knesset (Israeli parliament): “He (Obama) has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history, a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
“And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning. That was shocking enough. Even worse was that nobody was shocked.
“It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at its feet... [T]he presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 senators and members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any
office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.... The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors of its heyday.... The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic... Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt [two American university professors who wrote about the ubiquitous power of the Israeli lobby in Washington] were confirmed in their entirety.”
CRAWLING AT THE FEET OF AIPAC
Later in his article, Avnery declared that, “The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israeli lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates. Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles. And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how? The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israeli lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime. And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.”
In American politics, one “fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst of old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future — if and when he is elected president.”
Commenting on Obama’s declaration to AICAP that, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it will remain undivided,”the Jewish journalist and former member of the Isareli parliament declared it “breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.” He elaborated: “”No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also known as the Temple Mount), one of the holiest places in Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict. On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
“Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan ‘Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity.’ Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared — quietly, almost secretly — from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right stick to it and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements....
“Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference is very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people. If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country [Israel] is concerned: ‘No, I can’t.’”
It should be obvious that Obama’s campaign slogan “Change We Can Believe In” wasn’t exactly based on truth or reality into which one can sink their teeth and “take to the bank”with absolute assurance. Politics, unfortunately, doesn’t work that way! In his first radio ad, aired in New Hampshire September 25, 2007, Obama asked prospective voters to “Believe.” Here is the full script of that ad: “Every time I speak about my hope for America, the cynics in Washington roll their eyes. You see, they don’t believe you can actually change politics and bring an end to decades of division and deadlock.
“They don’t believe we can limit the power of lobbyists who block our progress, or that we can trust the American people with the truth.
“And that’s why we face the same problems and hear the same promises every four years. My experience tells me something very different.
“In twenty years of public service, I’ve brought Democrats and Republicans together to solve problems that touch the lives of everyday people.
“I’ve taken on the drug and insurance companies and won. I defied the politics of the moment, and opposed the war in Iraq before it began.
“This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe — not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours.”
National polls reveal that throughout the primary season Obama received more than 14 million votes from individuals who enthusiastically embraced his “Change We Can Believe In” message. This in spite of never having once heard the candidate elaborate on the unnamed “changes” he has in mind if he succeeds in his bid for the nation’s highest political office. He has continually spoken in vague generalities about the need to “change” the path being taken by America. Although it is abundantly obvious that massive changes need to be made in the management of our nation’s affairs, Obama has never outlined any specific details as to how an Obama administration would attack the monumental problems confronting the nation from every point of the compass: the fast vanishing value of the dollar, open borders, the abandonment of national sovereignty, the unfunded $70,000,000,000,000 in government pensions and innumerable “entitlement” programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Obama, like most other politicians in DC (the District of Corruption) adamantly refuses to publicly address the stern warning issued by David Walker who, until his recent resignation, ran the Government Accountability Office (GOA) which audits the government’s books, and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress: “[W]e suffer from a fiscal cancer. It’s growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country... If nothing changes, the federal government is not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won’t have money left for anything else — national defense, homeland security, education, you name it.” It’s shaping up as an actuarial nightmare (60 Minutes, July 8, 2007).
A CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
In a June 5 Washington Post article titled It’s a Mitzvah, Dana Milbank declared, “Now, here’s a change we can believe in... Obama has changed himself into an Israeli hardliner... He promised $30 billion [$30,000,000,000] in military assistance to Israel... He declared that the Revolutionary Iranian Guard has ‘rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.’ He used such terms as ‘false prophets of extremism’ and ‘corrupt’ while discussing Palestinians... I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.’
“How could they be confused? As a pandering performance, it was a full Monty [British colloquialism meaning “all inclusive, the whole package”] ... Obama, who has generally declined to wear an American flag lapel pin, wore a joint U.S.-Israeli pin, and even tried a few Hebrew phrases on the crowd....
“The crowd of 7,000 loved him ... He received 13 standing ovations... The AICAP faithful gushed about his performance... ‘Indeed, [Obama] almost sounded as if he were Jewish.’ ‘I had grown up without a sense of roots,’ he explained. ‘I understood the Zionist idea, that there was always a homeland at the center of our story.’ Somewhere off stage, an AIPAC hand brightened the lights over the audience when it appeared a standing ovation was growing — and Obama presented the audience with many such opportunities. He invoked the Holocaust (‘Never again!’), pledged to ‘never compromise’ Israel’s security, and scolded those who propose ‘abandoning a stalwart ally’ and threatened to ‘do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power... Everything’...”
Backed by Superman music, “the man with the Star of David on his lapel left the dais in a shower of hugs and kisses from the AIPAC officers” (Washingtonpost.com, June 5)
USED TO FURTHER ULTIMATE GOAL
With the shocking, Socialistically-inspired fiscal mess listed above firmly in mind, it would be naive to expect an Obama administration to produce true “Change We Can Believe In.” Having one of the most liberal (Socialistic) records in the Senate, Obama has, ideologically speaking — in spite of all his high-sounding rhetoric — a vested interest in sustaining the status quo. Nothing will change, except for the worse! If elected president, his hidden handlers will use him, as they have so many others in decades past, to further their ultimate goal of creating a totalitarian one world government “controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreement arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences” (Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan, 1966, p.324).
It is fair to believe that, had Obama sincerely wanted to address any of our nation’s real issues and proposed truly substantive changes (like, for example, Ron Paul did repeatedly during the presidential debates), his presidential aspirations would have zeroed out before the first vote was cast.
Perhaps Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, was on to something when he declared that, “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly — it must confine itself to a few points [such as “Change We Can Believe In”] and repeat them over and over.”
9/11 AND MICHAEL REAGAN
Since the deadly terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, untold millions of Americans have come to the conclusion that the government somehow had prior knowledge of the attacks and have been covering up that fact. Many highly qualified experts in both aviation and building demolition believe there are too many unanswered questions and too much secrecy for them to believe otherwise. Numerous DVD videos and at least two books thoroughly document the case against public acceptance of the “official” version of what occurred on that fateful day. Even two members of the 9/11Commission that issued the final government report on the subject, concede that there was a massive coverup by the government. A number of generals have been fired or been forced to take early retirement for refusing to toe the government “party line” on the background of the “war on terror.”
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been busy on the internet and elsewhere spreading their vast amount of accumulated documentation on the subject. Some of this information has made its way into the hands of troops who have participated in the “war on terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of these troops believe that both missions were based on deception. The rate of re-enlistment in the Army has dropped substantially as a result.
Many who have raised sincere questions regarding 9/11 have been condemned as “traitors.” Some have even been publicly threatened with death for pursuing a path they considered right and honorable. “Conservative” radio talk show host Michael Reagan (June 10) ranted and raved against the spread of documented truth on 9/11: “Excuse me folks, I’m going to say this, We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. Take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.” How is that for hate speech and solicitation for murder by the adopted son of the late president against those exercising their First Amendment RIGHT of free speech? Instead of such demonization of those who disagree with our views, would not the best approach be [to quote the Declaration of Independence], “Let Facts be submitted to a candid world.” That way, everything is out in the open and above board. As has been said elsewhere, “Those who deem it necessary to resort to smear betray a fundamental weakness in their character, an insecurity and lack of confidence in their ability to defend their position. Smear is a weak man’s excuse. It is a sophomoric form of emotional release, but an extremely poor substitute for rational, reasonable dialogue and debate.”
As the late Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared, “The best test of truth is in the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”
When, in any endeavor — be it social, political, economic or spiritual — one is sincerely seeking the truth, that only, that always, that to the very end, there is no other honest way to go.
In the perilous times in which we live, truth is the most valuable commodity (“thing of use or advantage to mankind,” Oxford Dictionary) we can possess. When wholeheartedly pursued, truth alone can help us keep our heads above water in a society that is sinking in an ocean of moral, economic, and spiritual depravity. This Alert newsletter, along with Midnight Messenger newspaper, is dedicated to the task of uncovering and publishing those truths that, alone, make sense and help explain the otherwise unexplainable. Please help our efforts by copying and circulating this letter, and by your much-needed and invaluable financial support.
If not you, then who? If not now, then when?
Best Wishes
Des Griffin
