Document:Guilt by Association
- 1 Introduction
- 2 References
We do not govern Egypt, we govern the governors of Egypt. — Lord Cromer (1841-1917)
America faces the greatest challenge of its 232-year history—its credibility in tatters, its security at risk, its finances awry, its future in jeopardy and its leadership adrift. A John McCain presidency is poised to make matters worse. Possibly far worse. However, that does not mean a Barack Obama presidency would be better, only less worse. Six decades ago, an enclave of Jewish elites and extremists induced Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist president, to recognize Zionism as a sovereign entity in the Middle East. Rather than operate as a loyal ally, that enclave has proven itself an enemy. The consis- tency of Israel’s behavior since its founding in 1948 confirms how organized crime expanded to global scale behind the façade of a sovereign state.
Zionism is routinely described as a national movement for the return of Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.  Christian Zionists believe that the Jews’ return to Israel will hasten the second coming of Christ. The Zionism chronicled in this account describes a transnational organized crime agenda featuring financial and political domination by elites and extremists.
Blinded by sympathy for a faith whose members were subjected to atrocities during World War II, America’s post-war leadership embraced an alliance with an elitist and fundamentalist subculture within Judaism’s broader faith tradition. Sixty years of hard experience have since confirmed the illusion of a common interest between an inclusive secular democracy and an exclusivist theocratic state. Though many Americans have long sensed that something funda- mental was amiss in this alliance, the facts have not been available to support that intuition—until now.
Though politically branded a war hero due to his prisoner of war status in Vietnam, John McCain aided the pro-Israeli agenda that took America to war in Iraq based on intelligence fixed around a prearranged goal that he promoted as a U.S. Senator. His campaign touts his skills as commander-in-chief for an unnecessary war that he helped initiate.
The known facts confirm that the war in Iraq is the product of a trans-generational syndicate skilled at displacing facts with (false) beliefs. Those masterful at manipulating thoughts and beliefs are also responsible for enabling organized crime to expand to a global scale. Those who “fixed” the intelligence to justify invading Iraq require a series of reliable and pliable allies in the White House in order to expand this conflict to include Iran.
Saddam Hussein played no role in the mass murder of 9-11 and Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction. Nor did the secular Iraqi dictator have ties to the religious fundamentalists of Al Qaeda, mobile biological laboratories or the alleged “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Yet Senator McCain insisted that the U.S. commit its blood and treasure to a war he now proposes we expand to Iran. Senator Obama has proposed that the U.S. quickly withdraw, leaving dynamics in place that this conflict was certain to create.
The Real Threat to Jews
To restore trust in government requires proof of how our trust was betrayed to induce the U.S. invasion of Iraq for Greater Israel. To face that uncomfortable fact, this account describes how—through our entangled alliance with Jewish Zionists and our embrace of extremist Christian Zionists—the U.S. discredited itself in the court of public opinion. So long as the U.S. defends the indefensible behavior of such extremists, America will be seen as guilty of Israel’s crimes.
Induced by an ally to wage wars without adequate justification and to shower upon it advantages denied to others, America continues to deceive itself at its own peril while this network of extremists endangers the broader Jewish community by associating them with this treasonous conduct. This account will be attacked as a conspiracy theory, dismissed as a diatribe, depicted as a rant and worse. The text will be nitpicked and the author scorned, discredited and described as delusional or cast as a bigot and an anti-Semite for presenting facts that show how the state of Israel induced America to fight its wars for territorial expansion.
The year 2007 saw publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Though both professors had distinguished records as academics and authors of well-received books on foreign policy, they were attacked as anti-Semites for suggesting that policies promoted by the lobby are damaging to America’s national interests, to Israel’s long-term security and to moderate Jews who do not share the lobby’s extremist views.
This entangled alliance will remain perilous to U.S. national security until those complicit in this extremism are identified, indicted and prosecuted. To the detriment of the broader Jewish community, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has shown any inclination to perform that essential task. To the detriment of U.S. national security, even the highly critical Mearsheimer-Walt book suggested that the Israel lobby is just another lobby that is simply more successful than other interest groups in Washington. That simplistic portrayal misleads Americans about the agenda pursued by foreign agents posing as a domestic lobby.
The threat to Jews is from neither Iran nor Islamo-fascists. The danger lies with the behavior of elites and extremists within the Jewish community and the impact they wield on America through the Israel lobby and the broader criminal syndicate described in this account. Their impact is magnified by those in the Christian Zionist community who pursue their narrow interests to the detriment of U.S. national security.
Since the 1967 Six-Day War, charges of “Jew hater” and “Holocaust Denier” have been deployed to discredit those who criticize Israeli policies, and to misdirect and intimidate those who seek to identify the common source of the provocations that evoke extremism. With another pro-Israeli president in the White House, not only would Tel Aviv’s agenda wield more influence over U.S. policy but also terrorism would become more prevalent as a means for manipulating lawmakers. While Barack Obama’s repeated loyalty oaths to Israel were at the core of his spring 2008 presidential primary campaign, he at least distinguishes between Israelis and their series of extremist governments. 
Chapter 1 describes the sophisticated game theory that underlies today’s unconventional warfare and clarifies who had the means, motive and opportunity to “fix” U.S. intelligence around the goal of invading Iraq. Only as this treason is made transparent and its operatives exposed can Americans, including Jewish-Americans, be confident they live in a nation governed by values consistent with a democracy.
By his unwavering support for Tel Aviv regardless of its behavior, John McCain has confirmed that his sympathies lie with those who deceived America to wage a war on behalf of fundamentalists who have long planned to expand the Land of Israel to include Greater Israel. By his repeated pledges of allegiance to Israel, Barack Obama signaled he may prove equally submissive to an agenda set by this syndicate.
McCain Family Secrets
No public record has yet documented what happened to John McCain while a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Only he and his captors know the abuses and indignities to which he was subjected. While no one dares make an issue of his psychological health, his quick temper is a well-documented fact as is the delight he takes in humiliating his staff and dismissing those colleagues who question his fitness to command.
Nor has any public record examined the geopolitical implica- tions of the organized crime network that encouraged and financed his political ambitions, as described in Chapter 2. That lineage includes Canada’s Bronfman clan, Prohibition-era bootleggers whose family fortune capitalized the World Jewish Congress. Barack Obama’s political career shares that suspect network with roots in Chicago’s organized crime.
Chapter 3 reviews the organized crime implications of John McCain’s role in the “Keating Five” network of senators and their success in delaying reforms required to halt a $153 billion fraud in the thrift industry. That nationwide fraud bears striking similarities to the 2008 credit crisis, including a role played in both episodes by Alan Greenspan who helped Arizonan Charles Keating recruit the Keating Five.
The meltdown of the U.S. mortgage market reveals at its core the same syndicate network as the financial “pump-and-dump” that typified the savings and loan fraud two decades earlier. In both cases, overlapping groups of operatives profited both on the financial upside and on the lucrative downside as families lost their homes in distressed sales while financial sophisticates profited off their misery.
The multi-decade role of Cincinnati’s Carl Lindner is also examined. McCain campaign supporter Charles Keating served as counsel to Lindner prior to leading a $3.4 billion fraud from the Phoenix office of Lincoln Savings & Loan. That fraud, financed and controlled by “junk bond king” Michael Milken,  traces its origins to the same network behind the political ascendancy of Ronald Reagan, the president to whom McCain compares himself as a “true conservative.” 
A Christian Zionist, Lindner describes himself as “the largest non-Jewish contributor to Jewish causes in the U.S.” John Hagee, the Christian Zionist leader of Christians United for Israel, endorsed McCain for president before leading hundreds of the Zionist faithful on a “solidarity trip” to Israel in March 2008 following McCain’s visit there with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist and his closest political ally.
Chapter 4 chronicles how Navy Admiral John S. McCain Jr., the Senator’s father, helped President Lyndon Johnson cover up the Israeli killing of 34 American servicemen aboard the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War. That omission from the candidate’s war-hero biography may help explain his unwavering support for policies crafted in Tel Aviv, often to the detriment of U.S. national security. Like his father, Senator McCain also aided the USS Liberty cover-up.
Making the Case
John McCain’s reform of campaign finance law was a “perfect fit” for the Diaspora-based fundraising used by the Israel lobby. “The McCain-Feingold” legislation—co-sponsored with Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin—illustrates a key means by which this criminality became politically systemic. Their reforms boosted the amount (from $1,000 to $2,300) that candidates can lawfully receive from individuals in primary and general elections. This change enables a couple to give a combined $9,200 (4 x $2,300) to political candidates.
Importantly, that reform also doubled the funds candidates can receive without regard to where their supporters reside. A candidate in Iowa, say, may have only a few pro-Israeli constituents. That candidate can now be induced to support Israeli policies as a nationwide network of pro-Zionists contribute to that campaign. That funding strategy has long been deployed with success by the Israel lobby to shape U.S. policy. Under the guise of reform, McCain-Feingold doubled its impact.
The process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth interviews by the Israel lobby—the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Those found sufficiently committed to AIPAC’s agenda are provided a list of donors who can be relied on to “max out” their campaign contributions. Below is the first of many examples to show how an extremist few can wield so much influence over so many:
“Bundlers” raise funds for candidates.  After McCain-Feingold reforms became effective in 2003, any experienced AIPAC-identified bundler should be able to raise $1 million for a candidate by contacting 10 friends in the Diaspora.
The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say, in Manhattan, Miami and Beverly Hills. Each of them max out (10 x $9,200) and call 10 others for a total of 11. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.] Assuming AIPAC endorsed the candidate, one call could fund a modest campaign in many Congressional districts. No one knows the full impact of this political operation over the past six decades.
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than 10% of House races (typically 35 to 50 Congressional districts) are competitive in any election cycle.  That makes the long-term leverage even greater for those—such as AIPAC—motivated to sustain this financial focus over multiple cycles.
Are the resources available in this network to sustain a nationwide pro-Israeli electoral strategy behind the cover of McCain-Feingold reform? According to Jewish Achievement, 42% of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish.  Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25% are Jewish.  The limitation was not donor money; donors were limited by how much money they could lawfully contribute to AIPAC-screened candidates. McCain removed a key constraint on that influence-wielding strategy.
May 2008 saw the emergence of “joint fundraising committees” that “funneled funds to the candidates’ primary campaigns (that’s the $2,300 part), to the national party (up to $28,500) and, in McCain’s case, to state parties as well ($10,000 each).”  An individual can donate up to $65,500 to parties and political action committees. Substitute that figure for $2,300 to calculate the potential impact of wealthy pro-Israelis in today’s post-reform environment.
This nontransparent influence by elites and extremists can be wielded in plain sight, with impunity and under cover of free speech, free elections, free press and even the freedom of religion. Here’s where the self-deceit component becomes critical in order for Americans to believe that this misuse of freedom is genuinely consistent with freedom.
To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from AIPAC’s nationwide network is paid to media outlets owned in substantial part by members of the same network. As McCain and Feingold knew, presidents, senators and congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass real political influence. Over Guilt by Association the span of six decades of focused funding and single-issue advocacy, the Israel lobby amassed formidable political clout.
Repeal of Representative Government
America’s federal system of governance was meant to ensure that members of the House represent the concerns of Americans who reside in Congressional districts in this country, not a nationally dispersed network (a Diaspora) concerned about a foreign country (Israel). Similarly, federal elections were meant to hold Senators accountable to concerns of constituents who reside in the states they represent—not policies sought by those living in other states or by a foreign state.
John McCain “reformed” representative government by granting a nationwide network of pro-Israeli elites and Jewish fundamentalists greater influence over election results in every state and Congressional district. With that reform, this network gained more political power—wielding influence that is disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.
AIPAC could organize donors in New York, Florida and California to elect a U.S. Senator, say, in sparsely populated Idaho. The hypothetical Congressional candidate in rural Iowa may find his or her campaign flush with funds not from concerned constituents but from members of an AIPAC bundler’s network who may never set foot in the state.  By granting this Diaspora greater sway over elec- tions in both houses of Congress, McCain-Feingold granted Tel Aviv even more power over U.S. policy-making.
McCain proposed his reforms only after the Senate Ethics Committee cited his poor judgment for assisting the Keating Five in a massive financial fraud. As we shall see, his judgment continues to deteriorate at an accelerating pace as evidenced by his marketing as “reform” this step toward the repeal of representative government.
War Waged in the Mental Environment
Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries, and most importantly, the people in between. —Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (October 10, 2007)
By positioning themselves as the people in between, an ideologically aligned few (within a broader faith community) can leverage their modest numbers to wield substantial influence—while making that broader community appear complicit by association. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, 1.7% of the U.S. population is Jewish while 80% of those worldwide who identify themselves as Jewish live either in Israel or the U.S., a nation of 300 million. Approximately 5 million Jews live in each nation.
Yet as Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn pointed out, 26 of the 50 most influential neoconservatives who induced America to wage war in Iraq are Jewish (52%). In appraising how the U.S. was deceived to wage this war, he noted: “The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.” Lasn was promptly attacked as “Anti-semitic” when he titled his article, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They’re Jewish?” 
The term “neoconservative” is identified with an aggressive foreign policy pursued with disdain for seeking consensus through multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. “Neocons” embrace a globalist free-market agenda backed by military intervention and a domestic emphasis on defense capability. The neocon community is predomi- nantly made up of people and organizations with a pro-Zionist perspective. 
Vancouver-based Adbusters is subtitled The Journal of the Mental Environment. The mental domain is where this disproportionate influence is wielded and where the real war is being waged. The national mental state is the in between battleground where the people in between displace facts with what people can be deceived to believe.
Thus the widely shared false belief that U.S. national security was threatened by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the consensus (a shared belief—regardless of the facts) that the Saddam Hussein had operative ties with Al-Qaeda.  Such fact-displacing beliefs are induced by the combined effect of politics, media, academia, think tanks and popular culture.
While enabling an extremist subculture to leverage its political influence through campaign contributions, McCain-Feingold also authorized unlimited contributions to “527” organizations. That reform bears the number of the tax code provision granting tax-exempt status to issue-advocacy groups (“527s”). Citing free speech, that reform enables the well-to-do to contribute unlimited amounts to issue campaigns so long as their funding is not coordinated with a candidate campaign—where dollar limits apply.
In effect, the wealthy no longer face any limit on funds they can donate (indirectly) to support candidates known to support a particular issue. The impact of this 2002 reform was seen in the 2004 presidential campaign when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a “527” organization, mounted a well-funded campaign to discredit John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, by challenging his military record as a Swift Boat commander in Vietnam.
Pivoting off the publication of Unfit for Command by John O’Neill, a Swift Boat commander, and Jerome Corsi, an Israeli asset, that effort invested more than $22 million in an issue campaign not directly coordinated with the Bush presidential campaign. The political result helped elect to the presidency a Born Again Christian with personal beliefs strongly sympathetic to Zionism. Cincinnati-based American Financial Group, Carl Lindner’s firm (and family members), contributed $1,223,000 to the Swift Boat Vets campaign— 532 times more than Lindner could have contributed in the general election to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.
The success of that campaign is evidenced by the fact that “Swift Boating” entered the political vocabulary to describe a campaign designed to discredit a political candidate while avoiding limits on campaign contributions. In 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney opened baseball season by throwing the first pitch at a Lindner-owned Cincinnati Reds baseball game. A pitch by President Bush opened the 2007 season in Cincinnati’s Great American Ball Park (Lindner’s insurance firm operates as the Great American Insurance Company).
Failed Foreign Policy
The McCain campaign touts his foreign policy credentials as his top qualification for office. Yet he remained silent while political and financial power concentrated in the same hands abroad, creating oligarchies worldwide with staggering concentrations of wealth. Though proclaimed a “true conservative” by President Bush, the silence of McCain and Obama on that global trend suggests a failure by both candidates to grasp how the fast-globalizing merger of political with financial power threatens democracies and markets.
Oligarchy — a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes; a nation governed by an organization controlled by an oligarchy; government or control by a small group of people.
Globally, Forbes identified 1,125 billionaires in 2008 with a net worth of $4.4 trillion.  That’s up from 946 billionaires with personal wealth of $3.5 trillion in 2007, an increase from 476 billionaires worth $1.4 trillion in 2003. By 2007, India’s 40 billionaires possessed a combined wealth of $351 billion, up from $170 billion in just one year. In 2006, China had 15 billionaires. By 2007 the ranks of its billionaires had swollen to more than 100 according to the widely watched Hurun Report. By January 2008 China Daily reported 146 billionaires residing in that “communist” nation.
Chapter 6 describes how these trends were set in motion, why these oligarchies were 100% predictable, and how these developments threaten freedom worldwide. These trends trace their origins to a common source: the embrace of a shared mindset (a consensus belief ) that we were induced to freely choose by the people in between.
Neither McCain nor Obama voiced concern that the “oligarchization” of Russia under President Boris Yeltsin led President Vladimir Putin to restore a strong central government and revive state ownership. Nor did either candidate question how Russia chose that course after escaping seven decades of state ownership under oppressive Soviet rule. Instead John McCain urged that Russia be expelled from the G-8 meetings of industrial nations. Rather than promote dialogue with Russian leaders, he championed mega-thief Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a notorious operative in Moscow’s criminal elite. Chapter 5 describes how this greatest fraud in history was orchestrated by the same transnational syndicate that induced the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East.
Much as Russia’s vast natural resources were systematically looted by a predominantly Ashkenazi elite, the U.S. economy is being systematically hollowed out by financial forces that trace their intel- lectual origins to the same transnational network, a history to which we will return in the next book in the Criminal State series.
Ashkenazim are descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland who migrated eastward to areas that became Poland, Hungary, Russia and Eastern Europe. Ashkenazi Jews make up approximately 80% of Jews worldwide and 85% of American Jews. Often applicable as a broad ethnicity, Ashkenazim became moneylenders in the 12th and 13th centuries for secular rulers. By the 1700s and 1800s, Poland was the center of Ashkenazi Jewry though many Polish Jews fled to Amsterdam and Germany. By the end of the 19th entury, Jews immigrated to other areas of Europe, Australia, South Africa and the United States. After World War II, the U.S. became the primary home for Ashkenazi Jews.
West versus East
If America continues on this “consensus” course, it will quickly become a two-class society and a second-rate nation owned largely by a financial elite and foreign interests. The current version of free trade was certain to fund an emboldened China with purchasing power we freely sent abroad based on our shared belief in a “consensus” economic model. Yet even as Beijing reinvests our money in modernizing its military and buying commodities in this hemisphere, Senator McCain has only praise for unfettered free trade.
America’s viability and credibility continue to slip due to our unwavering support for Israel regardless of its conduct or the prevalence of its operatives inside the U.S. government. Yet, like Obama, McCain continues to insist: “When it comes to the defense of Israel, we simply cannot compromise.” Rather than promote dialogue with Iran, an ally until 1979, John McCain threatens an attack—not to protect national security but to show America’s backing for Israel. While in Tel Aviv, Barack Obama even promised to coordinate U.S. policy on Iran with Israel.
If Iran is attacked, soaring oil prices will damage not only the U.S. but also China whose needs for imported energy ensure upward pressure on energy prices. China’s competitiveness will decline as Beijing, to offset rising fuel costs, is forced to raise wages or reduce energy subsidies. Its investment in commodities will grow to offset erosion in the value of its dollar reserves. Its demand for commodities will fuel inflation in the U.S. As the dollar falls and the interest paid on U.S. securities rises, Americans will experience self-reinforcing recessionary pressures of stagnation and inflation. As China shifts its reserve currency out of dollars, downward pressure on the dollar will grow.
The next global conflict may be between China and the U.S., leaving Russia a self-sufficient spectator able to draw on its vast resources of energy, commodities and labor, including oil and gas exports that generate foreign reserves. America is poised to emerge far weaker as globalization—at our insistence—follows the “Washington” consensus. China will remain a mass-production center while Russia emerges unscathed under the influence of a predominantly Ashkenazi oligarchy.
Lastly, to grasp the systemic nature of this phenomenon requires a brief review of fast-emerging financial trends and an overview of how treason can operate hidden in plain view. But first a few words about the financial component, an area where those identified have long excelled.
In a 2008 poll, 81% of Americans agreed that the U.S. is on the wrong track, up from 35% in early 2002. Just 4% agree the country is better off than it was five years ago. Economic trends are systematically reducing many Americans to a state of virtual servitude, including those returning from military service in the Middle East. Yet our freedom was sure to be endangered when, by consensus, we embraced a worldview that equates free will with the freedom allowed financial markets to work their will worldwide, as shown in Chapter 6.
As market freedom displaced personal freedom as a national priority, incomes stagnated and the super-rich emerged. In 1982, $91 million was required for inclusion on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans. Average wealth was then $200 million on a list that featured 13 billionaires. By 2007, $1.3 billion was required just for inclusion in that elite group as their combined wealth grew by $290 billion in 2006 alone.
Yet John McCain has pledged his support for “supply-side” policies certain to accelerate this divide. Meanwhile U.S. government debt is on track to top $10,000 billion in 2009 (up from $900 billion in 1980) while federal obligations surged to more than $53,000 billion. David Walker, comptroller general of the U.S., put our fiscal health in perspective by urging in August 2007 that we “learn from the fall of Rome.” By July 2008, the nation was in a fiscal freefall as the White House conceded a record $482 billon deficit for the 2009 fiscal year.
With the 2008 war-spending bill, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan exceed $860 billion. With overall costs running an estimated $12 billion per month, this war already surpasses the $670 billion (in 2007 dollars) for the 12-year war in Vietnam. Just as the U.S. could not then, without inflation, fund both “guns and butter” (military and social programs), a future bout of inflation is certain. Stagflation (slow growth plus inflation) will sow unemployment while eroding the perilous retirement prospects for 78 million Baby Boomers.
Yet pro-Israeli war-planner Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, assured a trusting public that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with flowers and sweets and the anticipated $50 billion cost for the war would be paid from oil proceeds by a grateful and peaceful Iraq. Instead, we are covering the cost by borrowing, largely abroad, while ignoring the advice of George Washington who warned against “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
Long-term economic and social costs may push the overall war expense closer to $3 trillion by 2017, 60 times what Wolfowitz predicted. For the first time in American history, every cent of a war’s cost has been borrowed. Yet even that figure omits reconstruc- tion costs for Iraqi infrastructure destroyed or badly damaged by a war waged on the basis of fixed intelligence and biased analyses provided by pro-Israeli neocons and their collaborators inside government and the media.
How could we have gotten it so completely wrong? Who— precisely who'—would have the motivation to ensure that America mis-stepped so badly in this volatile, oil-rich region?
Here are a few of the uncomfortable questions that readers must answer for themselves:
- Who has the stable nation-state intelligence required to sustain such an operation inside the U.S. government?
- Who has the means, motive and opportunity at the local, state and federal level?
The facts point to the same ideologically aligned network that fixed U.S. intelligence around the invasion of Iraq as a goal sought long before the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Treason Hidden in Plain Sight
To grasp the non-transparent nature of this syndicate’s operation requires a grasp of how it can function in plain sight yet without detection. That requires a few clarifying words about the terminology of deception.
The 2008 presidential candidates are not agents but “assets” of extremist pro-Israelis, also known as Colonial Zionists. The founders of Israel considered themselves from the outset entitled to operate above the law in order to expand the Land of Israel to its God-given borders, an extensive realm known as Greater Israel that includes much of the oil-rich Middle East. Few in numbers but skilled at leveraging their influence for geopolitical gain, these elites and extremists excel at waging unconventional warfare.
In waging such warfare, Defense Secretary Robert Gates aptly points to the people in between as the challenge. Those in between routinely emerge as the most ardent supporters of presidential candidates—of both parties—who, in turn, earn their commitment by their loyal support for Israel no matter how extreme its policies. And regardless how much damage those policies inflict on U.S. national security.
In waging what Director of Central Intelligence Michael Hayden calls today’s “intelligence wars,” the accessibility and reliability of intelligence are key factors that separate the victor from the vanquished. There too lie the perils of an entangling alliance with a nation of religious fundamentalists skilled at manipulating intelligence and preying on people’s beliefs.
To prevail at modern-day warfare, these enemies of moderation and informed consent deploy agents, assets and sayanim (volunteers),as explained below. This modern-day mix of non-transparency, sophisticated psychological operations (psy-ops) and lengthy pre-staging makes this form of warfare particularly perilous to an open society where freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion provide these operatives a dependable cover. For those complicit, freedom becomes a means to undermine freedom.
The motto of Israel’s foreign intelligence service (the Mossad) has long been "by way of deception shalt thou wage war.” Known for their global reach, Mossad operatives provide a skilled cadre of specialists in psy-ops, assassinations and undercover operations. To leverage the impact of their modest numbers, Israeli strategists rely on three key categories of operatives when waging unconventional warfare:
Agents possess the conscious mental state that connects their mind to a crime. Intent distinguishes premeditated murder from lesser crimes that involve death, such as involuntary manslaughter. Intent determines the extent of culpability based on the actor’s state of mind. Agents operate with premeditation and what the law calls “extreme malice” or an “evil mind.”
From 1981-1985, U.S. Navy intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard stole 360 cubic feet of classified U.S. intelligence documents (more than one million pages) on Soviet arms shipments, Pakistani nuclear weapons, Libyan air defense systems and other data sought by Tel Aviv. Convicted as an Israeli agent, Pollard is serving a life sentence in a federal prison in North Carolina. Even while imprisoned, the Pollard case may have continued to play a role in aiding how Tel Aviv communicates with its operatives. For example, 10 days before the mass murder of 9/11, Israel announced a $1 million grant to this Israeli super-spy. With oversight by a few case officers (katsas) and well-trained agents, sophisticated operations can be accomplished with pre-staged assets and a network of cooperative sayanim.
Assets are people profiled such that, within an acceptable range of probabilities, they can be relied upon to behave consistent with their personality profile. Assets lack the state of mind required for criminal culpability because they lack the conscious intent to commit a crime. Nevertheless, they can contribute to a criminal operation simply by pursuing their subconscious personal needs, typically for recognition, influence, money, sex, drugs or ideology.
Put a profiled asset in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance (such as a presidency) and psy-ops specialists can be confident that—within an acceptable range of probabilities—an asset will behave consistent with their profile, much as Bill Clinton behaved with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Just as Christian Zionist presidents from Harry Truman to GW Bush were reliable and pliable advocates for pro-Israeli policies, the consistency of a candidate’s conduct confirms his or her qualifications as a pro-Israeli asset.Sayanim (singular sayan) play an essential support role. Hebrew for volunteers or helpers, sayanim are shielded from culpability by being told only enough to perform their narrow role. Though they may play an essential task in the commission of a far broader crime, these volunteers could pass a polygraph test because Mossad recruiters ensure they are kept ignorant of the intended result.
Akin to military reservists, sayanim are activated when their skills are required to support Israeli operations. They agree to remain “on call” for missions they believe are in the best interest of Israel. In effect, sayanim operate as a cost-effective undercover corps. When not engaged in an operation, they gather and report intelligence useful to Israel. The assistance of sayanim may be logistics, medical care or intelligence gathering. Sayanim also operate as the people in betweenin legislative bodies worldwide. Morris Amitay, a former executive director of the Israel lobby (AIPAC), explains:
There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill]...who happen to be Jewish, who are willing...to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness...These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators...You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.
As federal grand juries are impanelled to identify and indict the people in between who are involved in this trans-generational operation, how many sayanim should the Federal Bureau of Investigation expect to identify? No one knows. Former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky wrote in 1990 that the Mossad had 7,000 sayanim on which it could rely in London alone. If that volunteer population is divided by London’s 1990 population of 6.8 million, sayanim then represented one-tenth of one percent of the population of that capital city.
If the capital of the United States is, say, four times more important to Israel’s geopolitical goals than the capital of the United Kingdom, does that mean the FBI should expect four times more sayanim per capita in Washington, D.C.? What about sayanim in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Denver, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, St. Louis, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa? No one knows. And Tel Aviv is unlikely to volunteer the information.
Chapter 7 describes how, by our own self-deceit, America blinded itself to the possibility of trans-generational treason as the toxic charge of Anti-semitism was hurled at anyone seeking to identify the common source of this criminality. Chapter 8 examines the Obama candidacy and shows why a Democratic presidency may offer no real alternative to the Republican McCain, particularly on key issues affecting national security.
Chapter 9 suggests how to identify these on-call pro-Israeli operatives while America is waging war in the Middle East for Greater Israel. What sayanim are not told by their katsas (case officers) is that a Mossad operation may endanger not only Israel but also the broader Jewish community when operations are linked to extremism, terrorism, organized crime, espionage and treason. Though sayanim “must be 100 percent Jewish,” Ostrovsky reports in By Way of Deception (1990):
...the Mossad does not seem to care how devastating it could be to the status of the Jewish people in the Diaspora if it was known. The answer you get if you ask is: “So what’s the worst that could happen to those Jews? They’d all come to Israel. Great!"
In combination, agents, assets and sayanim offer a powerful force multiplier for waging unconventional warfare as Israeli operations proceed in plain view yet non-transparently and with legal impunity. It is just such people in between who make such warfare so perilous to U.S. national security—so long as Israel is considered an ally.
On April 22, 2008, federal authorities arrested Ben-Ami Kadish who, like Jonathan Pollard, took classified documents home for Israeli agents to photograph in his basement. The contact for Kadish was Josef Yagur, the same Israeli embassy “scientific attaché” that handled Pollard. Though the documents were stolen between 1979 and 1985, contacts between Kadish and Yagur were still ongoing in 2008. Kadish says he acted out of his belief that he was helping Israel.
The Pollard affair revealed an Israel Defense Ministry unit that fulfilled intelligence and equipment-gathering missions for Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona. That operation also served as a “theft contractor” for the Israeli security industry. Kadish reportedly confessed to giving Israel 50-100 documents about nuclear weapons, fighter jets and air defense missiles from the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey (“Home of American Firepower”). He was first employed there in October 1963.
Kadish’s handler at the Israeli embassy was in touch by phone and email as recently as April 20, 2008 when he reportedly instructed Kadish to lie to U.S. investigators. Kadish claims he never took anything in payment except small gifts and an occasional meal—suggesting he was a typical sayan. The Pollard-Kadish espionage case covers 45 years of treason (1963-2008). This case illustrates the challenge facing national security when confronted with how to identify and indict those complicit in a multi-decade operation involving agents, assets and sayanim as well as those operating under cover of diplomatic immunity granted an ally.
An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman explained that the government had “guidelines” that “prohibit this type of activity in the U.S.” The spokesman added, “The relations between Israel and the United States have always been based on true friendship and similarity of values and interests.” Commentators wondered if reopening the Pollard spy case would renew 2003 concerns about Israeli defense ties with China. It took Tel Aviv until 1998 to admit that Pollard had been an agent acting on its behalf and awarded him Israeli citizenship.
Americans were led to believe that Israel is a trustworthy ally. They have also been led to believe that either party’s presidential nominee would be a trustworthy leader. Those marketing such portrayals are the same people in between who led Americans to believe that Iraq posed a present danger to national security. Should another pro-Israeli asset become president, those skilled at waging unconventional warfare will enjoy as commander-in-chief a powerful ally willing to wage perpetual global war on the pretense of defending America from “Islamo” fascism.
To make the case against John McCain, Guilt by Association documents the perils a McCain presidency would pose to the prospects for peace and prosperity both here and abroad. Though Barack Obama has a less extensive record, the candidate’s enthusiastic embrace of pro-Zionist policies suggests an Obama administration would likewise pay little attention to the nation’s most pressing problem: ridding America of the systemic criminality and treason chronicled in this account.
- “A definition of Zionism,” Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.Jewishvirtuallibrary.org/source/Zionism/zionism.html.
- “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel...that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.” Remarks of Barack Obama to Jewish leaders in a February 25, 2008 meeting in Cleveland.
- “The third reason to fear Keating was that not a penny of his purchase of Lincoln Savings came from his pocket. Michael Milken and the junk bond operations he controlled at Drexel Burnham Lambert provided all the cash for the deal. Milken had a standard operating procedure in such cases. Drexel greatly overfunded the buyer. Keating needed $51 million to purchase Lincoln Savings, but Drexel issued over $125 million in junk bonds out of American Continental Corp. (ACC), the holding company that Keating used to acquire Lincoln Savings. ACC was a failing real estate development company even before it had this crushing debt dumped on it... Milken wanted companies like ACC to be in desperate circumstances; that maximized his leverage over Keating.” William Black, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005), p. 65. Preliminary research suggests that ACC emerged from restructuring an American Financial Corporation subsidiary, American Continental Homes.
- The organized crime origins of Ronald Reagan’s political ascendancy will be chronicled in the Criminal State series.
- See John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2007).
- Bundling operations may involve a corporate executive directing his/her executive corps (and their spouses) to maximize (“max out”) the permissible campaign contributions to a candidate, with each executive’s compensation adjusted to reflect the contribution (though without any direct quid pro quo).
- “According to political analyst Rhodes Cook, the number of competitive races for House seats has dwindled in recent years from a high of 111 competitive races in 1992 to a low of 32 in 2004.” The number of competitive races was 37 in 1988 and 57 in 1990. Andrew Kohut, “Midterm Match-Up: Partisan Tide vs. Safe Seats,” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, February 13, 2006. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2/midterm- match-up-partisan-tide-vs-safe-seats.
- See “The Measure of Their Achievement,” http:www.jewishachievement.com/about/about.html.
- Comment by Michael Steinhardt during an interview on The Charlie Rose Show , March 9, 2005.
- Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “For Campaign Contributions by the Wheelbarrow, the Back Door is Open,” The Washington Post, May 30, 2008, p. A11.
- Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, is the second-ranking career recipient of pro-Israel political action committee funds, with a total of $541,950. Janet McMahon, “Pro-Israel PACs: Disguises and Permutations,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2008, p. 26.
- In May 1999, Senators McCain and Feingold shared the 10th annual John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, associating their reform with the Kennedy legacy. See http://www.jfklibrary.org.
- See Kalle Lasn, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They’re Jewish?,” Adbusters, March/April 2004.
- Key intellectuals in the neoconservative movement include Leo Strauss (1988-1973), Max Schachtman and author Ben Watten- berg whose 1970 bestseller, The Real Majority, popularized the neocon perspective.
- In June 2008, the Senate Intelligence Committee “Phase 2” report was especially critical of statements by the president and the vice president linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and raising the possibility that Saddam Hussein might supply the terrorist group with weapons of mass destruction. Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV wrote: “Representing to the American people that the two had an oper- ational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.” The first phase of the inquiry, begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in July 2004, identified grave faults in the CIA’s analysis of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Mark Mazzetti and Schott Shane, “Bush Overstated Evidence on Iraq, Senators Report,” The New York Times , June 6, 2008, p. A11.
- See The Center for Public Integrity, Progress for America Voter Fund. http://wwww.progressforamerica.com/pfa.
- In 1995, Great American Insurance paid for Corsi, John Doe and others to travel to Poland to found a mutual fund similar to B’nai B’rith mutual funds that Corsi established in Israel.
- Luisa Kroll, “World’s Billionaires,” Forbes, March 5, 2008.
- David Barboza, “Little-Known Entrepreneurs Putting China Near Top of Billionaires’ List,” The New York Times , November 7, 2007.
- “China has 146 billionaires,” China Daily , January 1, 2008. Forbes reported 66 billionaires in China.
- Nathan Ausubel, Pictorial History of the Jewish People (New York: Crown Publishers, 1953).
- See Landon Thomas Jr., “A Growing Trophy Case,” The New York Times, July 10, 2008, p. C1.
- Barak Ravid, “Obama pledges to coordinate Iran policy with Israel,” Haaretz, July 24, 2008.
- David Leonhardt and Majorie Connelly, “81% in Poll Say Nation Is Headed On Wrong Track,” The New York Times, April 4, 2008, p. 1
- Quoted in Jeremy Grant, “Learn From the Fall of Rome, US Warned,” Financial Times, August 14, 2007.
- The announced deficit does not reflect the full cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential $50 billion cost of an economic stimulus package, or the possibility of lower tax revenues if personal income or corporate profits decline. Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn, “White House Predicts Bush Will Leave $482 Billion Deficit,” The New York Times, July 29, 2008, p. C1.
- Ruth Marcus, “Billing the Grandkids,” The Washington Post, June 11, 2008, p. A19. By September 30, 2008, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have cost the U.S. an estimated $845 billion. That cost estimate includes not only military operations but also embassy costs, post-war reconstruction and other war-related expenses. See Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008).
- See Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London: Pluto Press, 1994).
- “The State of Israel decided this week to compensate Jonathan Pollard, now serving the seventeenth year of imprisonment out of a life sentence in a United States federal penitentiary, with a one-time grant of $1 million to ‘correct an injustice that has been done to him for many years.’ The grant does not apparently signal any progress in the diplomatic realm to achieve Pollard’s release from prison.” Ellis Shuman, “Pollards reject $1M Israeli compensation offer,” Haaretz , August 31, 2001.
- Quoted in Mitchell Bard, “Israeli Lobby Power,” Midstream 33, no. 1 (January 1987), p. 8. Cited in John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2007), p. 153.
- “In London alone, there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on the list.” Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception (New York, St. Martin’s, 1990), p. 86. Inde- pendent verification of Ostrovsky’s claims has not been possible.
- Ostrovsky’s comment about “100% Jewish” suggests a racial qualification. Independent verification of this claim has not been possible. Israel Shahak cautions against “the totalitarian Jewish community and its power, and by attempts to reimpose it, of which Zionism is the most important.” Yet he also cautions against “the myth of the ‘Jewish race’" comparing it to the myth of the Aryan race. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London: Pluto Books, 1994), pp. 51, 66-71.
- Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception (New York, St. Martin’s, 1990), pp. 86-89.
- Andy Newman, “Ex-Engineer for Army Charged With Leaks to Israel in ’80s,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008, p. A21.
- Yossi Melman, Shahar Ilan and Barak Ravid, “Ezra: New spy case won’t harm U.S.-Israel ties,” Haaretz. April 23, 2008.
- Larry Neumeister, “Army engineer charged with passing secrets to Israel in ’80s,” Foxnews.com, April 22, 2008.
- Yossi Melman, Shahar Ilan and Barak Ravid, “Ezra: New spy case won’t harm U.S.-Israel ties,” Haaretz. April 23, 2008.
- As U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Joseph E. di Genova oversaw the spy scandal that ensnared Pollard. He reports that the Israelis undermined his investigation when at least four individuals were flown out of the country despite Israeli assurances they would remain in the U.S. during the investigation. “The Israelis, of course, lied to us. They said there were no other spies and they had destroyed all the documents they got at the time,” he said. “It was obvious they had other people supply the information so they could target the finds.” Associated Press, “Ex-prosecutor: Israel lied about extent of anti-U.S. spying in the 80s,” Haaretz , April 24, 2008