Although he’d be the first black president, don’t expect Obama to abolish slavery

Barring a third act of electoral fraud, Americans will go to the polls in November to make Barack Obama Israel’s next U.S. governor. That’s about the best voters could have hoped for out of the display of pandering and prostitution known as “the primaries.”

Sen. John McCain has unresolved sanity issues, and Sen. Hillary Clinton is just an overeager warmongering whore for Israel. At least with Obama’s defeat of Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Americans have a real human being to vote for.

Those who support Obama have likened him to Sen. John F. Kennedy when he ran for the presidency in 1960. It’s a bit of a stretch, but his message of “creating a more perfect union” does fill people with a similar sense of hope and optimism that the eight-year nightmare of Cheney/Bush sadism and subversion will end.

Obama has all the positives and negatives working in his favour. People by the tens of thousands come to hear him speak, which logically means that only massive fraud, media manipulation and/or another self-inflicted act of “terrorism” could stop Obama from winning.

With such popular and political support, one has to wonder what possessed Obama to disgrace his country, his party and himself at the annual policy conference for the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee .

We are all used to politicians donning the kneepads and performing the requisite acts of subservience to The Lobby, especially at election time, but what Obama did was so ingratiating, so obsequious, so devoid of self-respect that he evoked images of a Negro slave grovelling before his white plantation “massah.”

Much has been made of Obama’s ethnicity and inasmuch as it would make the civil rights community happy to see a black man in the White House, the issue of race is a red herring. No man who claims affinity with the civil rights movement or has respect for honesty could have uttered the obscenities that Obama did.

There were, of course, the reflexive obsequies: “As president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security”; and
“I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.”

There was the obligatory recitation of holocaust verities, as well as belligerent propaganda against Syria and Iran, but unexpected was Obama’s gross distortion of history.

“Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

First, it is Israel, not Palestine, that has refused to define its borders–”David ben Gurion openly admitted it–”but what’s this nonsense about Jerusalem remaining the capital of Israel, and remaining undivided?!

Jerusalem has neverbeen the capital of Israel! It was never part of the–”albeit illegal and unratified–””Partition Plan.” Moreover, Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law. The last time Jerusalem was undivided was before the zionists invaded.

There was also uncritical support for Israel’s “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” style of negotiating:

“I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides [sic];” but “We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests.”

I would have expected this sort of desperate historical disinformation from the likes of McCain, Bush, or Clinton–”they have nothing to recommend them for office–”but not from Obama. He doesn’t need to lie to get votes. On the other hand he knows that his major political liability is his unpopularity among The Lobby. Obama is young, erudite, and sophisticated, all of which make him a threat to the U.S. ruling class, which prefers to throw its support behind suggestible religious sociopaths.

Yet, no matter how much Obama grovels and prostrates himself before the zionist hierarchy it never seems to be enough. As they say in organized crime: “He ain’t family.” At the AIPAC conference, however, he managed to earn 13 standing ovations as he went beyond the call of servility to tell Israel and its agents what they wanted to hear.

In the end, though, Obama had to retract his excessive claims about Jerusalem to acknowledge that its final status is to be negotiated, which is also a lie but a less serious one. At this clarification The Lobby was naturally displeased. Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America told the Jerusalem Post that Obama’s words were “troubling.”

How much of what Obama says does he really believe and how much does he say just to win votes? In one sense it doesn’t really matter to voters because, as I said at the top, Obama will effectively win by default.

One day a politician will stop being afraid, stand up to the lobby and declare that the republic is dead. In the words of New York Times reporter Chris Hedges: “It’s Time for a Declaration of Independence From Israel,” but Obama is not the one to lead Americans out of bondage.

Jerusalem choke brings back embarrassing memories for Canadians

Barack Obama’s precipitous, ingratiating gaffe about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was almost identical to the fiasco that plagued the new Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark.

On April 25, 1979, just two days after being sworn in as Canada’s youngest, and arguably most naïve, prime minister Clark delivered a speech in Toronto to the Canada-Israel Committee in which he pledged to move Canada’s embassy to Jerusalem.

Clark was trying to make good an election promise made during the 1979 campaign, for which he even intoned the zionist mantra: “next year in Jerusalem.” He stated at the time that the move would back up the recently signed peace accord struck between Egypt and Israel, though one had nothing to do with the other.

Egypt’s ambassador to Canada Hassan Fahmy told CBC Television that Canada was in fact “[spilling] gas on the existing flames, [and not helping] the peace settlement in the area. Moreover he said Canada stood to lose oil imports, international contracts and its credibility as a peacekeeper. Not surprisingly Clark backed away as fast as he could, but the damage to his image as a national leader had already been done.

(Though the CBC reported the incident accurately, it still uttered the standard zionist fiction that Jerusalem is “disputed territory” between Jews and Palestinians, when in fact Palestinian ownership of East Jerusalem has never been in dispute.)

Another way in which Obama seemed to mimic Canadian history was in his unseemly zeal to appear more zionist than even the Bush government. On Jan. 2, 2006, Canada’s current prime minister (proconsul, really) Stephen Harper held a conference call with three high-ranking members of The Lobby, and assured them Canada would not deal with Hamas if it won the election.

After Hamas fairly won the election, Harper wasted no time showing off his zionist credentials by ostracizing the government, even though the U.S. had not done so and Hamas had done nothing to deserve it.


My book The Host and the Parasite–How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America is available exclusively from until I can find an honest publisher.