Obama wins in America but is soundly defeated in the Jews-only State in Palestine.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Obama wins in America but is soundly defeated in the Jews-only State in Palestine.
By: BobFinch

The Likudniks lose out thrice in America's 2008 presidential election.

Members of America's ruling jewish elite funded all the country's mainstream candidates in the 2008 presidential election. Although this hedge funding strategy meant the likudniks couldn't fail to get one of their candidates elected as president, they still lost three significant battles during the course of the election campaign.

The likudniks' favoured candidate in the contest for the Democratic party's nomination for president was Hillary Clinton. Her defeat by Obama proved to be the likudniks' first electoral setback.

In the Republican party, Jonh McCain's personal choice for vice presidential running mate was Joe Lieberman, a rock solid zionist who would have been a prominent member of the likudnik party in occupied Palestine if he'd moved back home. Thus, when Karl Rove pressured McCain into appointing Sarah Palin as the Republicans' nominee for the vice presidency, the likudniks lost a second time.

McCain's appointment of palin was intended to increase the Republican party's chances of mobilizing more christian zionists to vote in the presidential election. In the short term, the appointment proved popular and boosted the Republican party in the opinion polls. However, it also led many American Jews to desert McCain for Obama and their votes helped elect him as America's 44th president.

The lukudniks' preferred candidate in the presidential election was John McCain. The same was also true in 2000 when Bush beat McCain to the Republican nomination for the presidency. The reason the likudniks sided with McCain was not merely his devotion to the Jews-only state in Palestine, his Islamophobia, his reckless support for American military action against Iran in support of the Jews-only state, but his willingness to embark on further proxy zionist wars leading to world war three whose primary objective is the enhancement of Jewish supremacism in the greater Middle East.

In stark contrast, during his rise to power Obama had made various, albeit isolated, statements that had not been wholly favourable to the zionist state. He hinted about his sympathies for the suffering of the Palestinian people; that he wanted peace in Palestine; that he didn't need to be a likudnik to support the zionist state;.and he hinted about talking to Iran.

Many Jews in Palestine were petrified by such attitudes. Jewish leaders were fearful that talks with Iran could prove dangerous to the survival of the racist state. "Leading Israeli officials are concerned that if the United States begins talks with Iran in an effort to halt its nuclear program and development of additional nuclear programs in the Middle East, Washington will call for restrictions on Israel's nuclear capability as well. Such concerns are heightened by the support expressed by Obama and Hillary Clinton, who is expected to be appointed secretary of state, for global nuclear disarmament, a plan raised by four top American foreign policy officials: former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former defense secretary William Perry and former senator Sam Nunn." (Aluf Benn 'Israel asks Bush to explain its 'special relationship' with U.S. to Obama' http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1040967.html November 26, 2008). More fundamentally, if the Obama administration started talking to Ahmadinejad, it might discover it has far more interests in common with Iran than with the zionist state. Objectively, as far as America has been concerned over the last half century, propping up the racist state has proved to be a geopolitical nightmare, whilst an alliance with Iran would prove to be a huge geopolitical bonanza.

Likudnik traitors in America provided some of the most vicious denunciations of Obama during his campaign for the nomination of the Democratic party and his campaign for the presidency. "The whispering campaign against Obama was first started by Sen. Hillary Clinton and continued thereafter by a consortium of Republican operatives, all directly or indirectly impugning Obama was a closet Muslim, shamelessly using the term in the pejorative, and ergo, dangerous. In September, a shadowy 'nonprofit' organization called The Clarion Fund (subsequently discovered to be synonymous with the fundamentalist Israeli group Aish HaTorah or "Fire of the Torah") distributed the anti-Muslim DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" to 28 million households. It was a transparent attempt to bolster Sen. John McCain's chances in battleground states using fear-mongering tactics." (Rannie Amiri 'The Blue and White Elephant in the Oval Office: Dual Loyalties Will Doom Obama' http://www.counterpunch.com/amiri11172008.html November 17, 2008).

Whatever Obama's panderings to the Jewish lobby in America and to the Jews-only state in Palestine, he seemed suspect to many Jews and American likudniks in comparison to McCain's total absorption into likudnik causes. As a consequence, although Obama won the political and financial backing of a number of likudniks, he was not the America Jewish lobby's ideal candidate.

The likudniks lost out for the third, and most important, time when Obama defeated McCain for the presidency. In effect they had to settle for their fourth choice. Given this threefold defeat, the Jewish lobby clearly did not enjoy a totally successful intervention into America's recent presidential election campaign.

The likudniks would love to elect a president who was totally committed to their cause. However, their failure to do so is not critical to their continuing exercise of political power and influence in America. This can be seen plainly as regards George W Bush's presidency. In the contest for the presidential election in 2000, the likudniks favoured candidate was John McCain but their failure to get him elected did not prove to be a major political setback because they had at their disposal the zionist dominated congress and the zionist dominated American media to pressure Bush into implementing many of their policies. As far as the likudniks are concerned, getting their anointed candidate elected as president of the united states would be a major bonus but the key to maintaining their political power in America is maintaining their grip over congress and the media. With the aid of the American knesset and the zionist dominated mainstream media, the Jewish lobby can pressure the president into implementing most of their policies.

The impact of Obama's election on the Jews-only state in Palestine.
America's 2008 presidential election had a critical impact on domestic politics in the rogue state where most Jews fancied john McCain as president and were decidedly wary of, if not hostile to, Obama despite his efforts to woo them over.

Over the summer, McCain maintained a slight lead in opinion polls on the presidential race. However, in august, the credit crunch hit America. As banks collapsed and economic misery began to spread, McCain's presidential campaign faltered whilst Obama's popularity began to rise. In Palestine, Olmert continued to govern whilst Benjamin Netanhayu languished on the political sidelines. The likudniks needed to boost their political prospects. One of McCain's likudnik funders decided to feed information to the Jewish press about Olmert's acceptance of bribes and, in September 2008, the prime minister was forced to resign. After Livni failed to establish a new coalition government, Olmert announced the date for a general election thereby giving Netanhayu a chance to return to power. By sheer luck, Netanhayu's prospects for winning the Jewish elections were helped considerably by political changes taking place in America.

The more likely it seemed that Obama would win the American presidency, the more it produced a counter-reaction amongst the Jewish electorate in occupied Palestine. Jewish racists didn't like Obama and the more extreme they were, the more they hated him. Firstly, because, given the sharp racial stratification of Jewish society, they were frightened by a so-called black president. Secondly, because they didn't like his policies. They didn't want peace negotiations with Palestinians, let alone Hamas. They didn't want talks with Iran, Hezbollah, or Syria, and any American presidential candidate who even hinted he would be willing to pursue peace with their 'enemies' was deemed suspect. And, thirdly, many seemed to believe that if Obama was elected then they wanted someone with the forceful character and extreme views to block Obama's efforts towards peace. For the last couple of decades, Jews in occupied Palestine have extracted huge political, economic, and military, tribute payments from America because successive Jewish prime ministers have intimidated American presidents into helping their Jewish ally. They believed Netanhayu was the politician most likely to extract concessions from Obama. Thus, the more likely it seemed that Obama would win the American presidential election, the greater became Netanhayu's popularity.

Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Ehud Barak, watched Obama inadvertently boost Netanyahu's popularity. They knew that if Obama was elected in november then Netanhayu's popularity might accelerate at their expense. As soon as it became obvious that Obama was going to win the presidential election, Olmert acted to prevent this from happening by breaking the ceasefire with Hamas and tightening sanctions even more vindictively against Palestinians in Gaza.

The tactic didn't work. After Obama's presidential victory, opinion polls continued to predict a Netanhayu election victory. "Benjamin Netanyahu could coast to victory in Israel's election two months from now, opinion polls showed on Wednesday, and he plans to take a detour on what Palestinians had hoped would be a U.S.-paved road to statehood." (Jeffrey Heller 'Netanyahu on course for Israeli election win –polls' http://wire.antiwar.com/2008/12/10/anal ... win-polls/ December 10, 2008).

Olmert, Livni, and barak realized their last hope of defeating Netanyahu was a military onslaught on hamas and Gaza. Although many commentators in America noted that Olmert's barbaric onslaught against Palestinian civilians in Gaza was a desperate effort to win over the more extreme elements of the Jewish electorate, they failed to mention that it was also an effort to counter the Obama effect: the boost he was giving to Netanhayu. However, just as was the case with the tactic they had implemented in early november, the slaughter of Palestinian civilians did not reverse the trend in the opinion polls. Obama's election to the American presidency pushed the Jewish electorate to the extreme right and the Jewish military's massacre of unarmed Palestinians pushed it even further rightwards. The more Americans who decided to vote for Obama, the more Jewish voters turned against him. Obama won a comprehensive victory in America but was comprehensively rejected by Jewish racists in Palestine. As much credit must be given to Obama for losing the election in occupied Palestine as he must be given for winning the American presidential election.

Confrontations between American presidents and Jewish leaders.
The victory of the extreme right in the Jewish elections may lead to Netanhayu's election as prime minister. A confrontation with Obama will be unavoidable. In the past, Jewish leaders have almost invariably been victorious in their confrontations with American presidents. The Jewish terrorist, menachem begin fobbed off jimmy carter's efforts to bring about peace in Palestine. The Jewish terrorist yitzhak shamir led Bush the elder on a merry dance and ruined his chances of being re-elected. The Jewish nazi benyamin Netanhayu relentlessly evaded Clinton's peace efforts in Palestine. The Jewish terrorist ariel sharon twisted Bush the younger "around his little finger".

Obama may have the intellectual credentials to challenge Netanhayu's extremism but whether he has the political support to combat the likudniks' vast network of political agents in America is an entirely different matter. "If Likud's "Bibi" Netanyahu wins the Israeli election, he will push hard for U.S. air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, and push back against any Obama deal with Tehran. With the Israeli lobby and a Jewish community that gave Barack 80 percent of its votes, plus the neocons and Evangelical right calling for strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, would the Obama-Clinton team stand united, against war? Would Hillary, a former senator from New York who relied even more heavily than Barack on Jewish contributions and votes, stand by Barack if the two disagree on whether the survival of Israel is at stake? On second thought, the antiwar left is right to be nervous." (Patrick J. Buchanan 'Can This Marriage Last?' http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13861 December 5, 2008). It's more than likely that Obama will be bullied in the same way as his presidential predecessors and that he'll end up playing the same servile role to his Jewish master as previous American presidents.

Why should Obama pander to a Jewish society which detests him?
Whilst commentators in America emphasized Olmert's electoral motive for the Jewish military's obscene attack on Gaza, none of them sought to highlight Obama's negative impact on Jewish voters in occupied Palestine. America's zionist dominated media ignored this clear cut political correlation because they don't want it to become widely known that whilst a majority of Americans (including American Jews) were happy to vote for Obama, Jews in the racist state were so opposed to him they voted for extreme, right wing, Jewish nazis. It has been stated, "Obama's political vision has engendered hope not only in the United States, but around the world." (Neve Gordon 'It's Up to Obama and the World Now: Few Peacemakers in the New Israeli Knesset' http://www.counterpunch.com/gordon02112009.html February 11, 2009). This is true except in one place: Jewish occupied Palestine. There are two main reasons why zionists in America have no interest in mentioning this state of affairs.

Firstly, it might make many Americans query why they should go on pandering to Jewish racists especially when such support is inevitably at their moral, political, and economic, expense. Americans might conclude that they (and their American Jewish counterparts) are so different from Jews in occupied Palestine that they have no responsibility for looking after them let alone continuing to lavish vast subsidies upon them.

Secondly, it might also make Obama question his support for the Jews-only state. Why should he continue making huge tribute payments to this rogue state, especially during an economic recession in America, when Jews detest him so much? Why should he continue supplying it with such vast quantities of munitions when such largesse is used to implement obscene slaughters of innocent people that result in him having to endure global opprobrium? Why should he go on protecting Jewish racists in united nations' fora when this leads people around the world to conclude he is no different from them? It does not make political sense for Obama to keep supporting a Jewish society which despises him, makes a mockery of America's democratic system, and corrupts its national interests. These are critical questions given that, sooner or later, the next Jewish leader will invariably try to humiliate him in the same way previous Jewish leaders have humiliated their American counterparts. Even an Animal abuser wouldn't give his Dog a kicking in public like Sharon/Olmert gave George Bush.
__
The Likudnik campaign to push America into a war against Iran.__
Although the Jewish lobby financed all of the main candidates in America's presidential election this should not be taken to mean it is a tightly knit, monolithic group in which everyone pursues the same strategy and tactics. Some likudniks are more extreme/militant than others. Although they share common goals, they don't always adopt the same tactics. In the 1990s, some likudniks wanted America's foreign policy priority to be an attack on Iran. Some wanted the priority to be an invasion of iraq; some demanded it should be syria; whilst others believed the biggest threat to the Jews-only state came from pakistan. The latter feared that pakistan's islamic bomb posed a genocidal threat to the zionist state and that America should make efforts to undermine the pakistani state and break up the country into a number of ethnic based statelets.

After their successes in pushing the Bush regime into the invasions and occupations of afghanistan and iraq, most likudniks believe their main political priority is an American attack on Iran. As soon as Obama was elected president, the Jewish lobby and the racist state launched a joint campaign to pressure him into supporting a proxy zionist war against Iran.

An American (or Jewish, or American/Jewish) attack on Iran would undermine America's national interests. America needs a rapprochement with Iran firstly, to exploit its fabulous fossil fuel resources and, secondly, to play a major geostrategic role in countering russian power in europe/central asia and chinese power around the world. American patriots should find the idea of an attack on Iran wholly against their interests. The only people who support such a war are Jewish likudniks in America who are solely concerned about the interests of the Jews-only state in Palestine. An attack on Iran could even unleash a third world war which would be even more detrimental to American interests. It would mean that Jewish extremists had been solely responsible for provoking world war three. That an attack on Iran has been at the top of America's political agenda for the last five years testifies to the existence of the country's ruling Jewish elite.

Obama treads a different path.
It was Obama who initiated the idea of a military surge in afghanistan. He insisted his own foreign policy priority was not Iran but afghanistan and thus, by implication, pakistan. Within a matter of days of becoming president he was giving the go-ahead for air strikes on alleged militants in pakistan. "On 22 January, the day he described Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism," 22 Afghan civilians died beneath Obama's bombs in a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds and which, by all accounts, had not laid eyes on the Taliban. Women and children were among the dead, which is normal." (John Pilger 'Obama and the Politics of Bullocks' http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=14199 February 6, 2009). He gave this order even though he must have known precisely, from all the previous attacks, what the political consequences would be.

Firstly, the deaths of innocent pakistani civilians. Secondly, public outrage in pakistan resulting in more recruits for mujahdeen freedom fighters. Thirdly, the erosion of the authority and legitimacy of pakistan's civilian government which, after every American slaughter, has to ritually deny it has any secret agreement with America to permit such slaughters. Fourthly, further divisions within the pakistani military between those who deplored America's infringement of pakistani sovereignty and those who looked forward to further American funding for the country's armed forces.

America's war on afghanistan seems senseless causing vast social and economic devastation to the afghan people and involving a huge military expenditure for America when it is suffering economically at home. America has no unique geostrategic interests in afghanistan i.e. none that are not also shared by neighbouring countries. Extending the war to pakistan makes even less sense. What is the point of the American military continuing to slaughter increasing numbers of pakistani civilians, provoking the hatred of some 130 million pakistanis, radicalizing more and more young people into fighting against those committing such a barbaric slaughter, whilst pushing the world inexorably towards world war three.

Raimondo is rightly bewildered that Obama initiated the policy but has failed to provide a rationalization for it. Paul craig roberts believes Obama must have been tricked into adopting the strategy. An increasing number of American commentators have criticized Obama's south asian policy because they suspect it could be his vietnam.

During his Democratic, and presidential, election campaigns Obama portrayed himself as something of an anti-war candidate who wanted talks with Iran and sought peace between Palestinians and Jews. But he was also supported and funded by hysterical, paranoid, likudnik warmongers. If Obama persists with the current policy in afghanistan and pakistan, and perhaps even escalates it over time as a result of his surge in afghanistan, it will eventually result in the collapse of the pakistani state. The only plausible rationale for this policy is that it will cause the breakup of pakistan and thus the demise of the 'islamic bomb' so feared by the likudniks because none of the statelets that would emerge in its place could afford to maintain such weapons. Whether he understands it or not, Obama is pursuing a radical likudnik strategy, at the expense of America's military, economic, and political, interests, to dismantle pakistan in order to enhance the Jews' military supremacism in the greater middle east.



Full article can be found at

http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... undly.html

[MikeWB]

Very interesting article. Thank you for posting it. I totally agree with majority of it.

PS: That FInch guy has a good blog too.. checked some other stuff by him: http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... veals.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

No problem MikeWB,
Bob Finch has uncanny insight into the criminality of the Israeli state.