“Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble”
By Richard Edmondson
Normally I don’t write a whole lot on presidential politics for the simple reason that it’s such a Zionist-controlled cesspool it often seems hardly worth commenting on. Moreover, it has always struck me as intellectually dishonest to single out this or that Republican—as a lot of leftwing bloggers do—for criticism, when the Democrats, including the one presently in the White House, are just as bad if not worse. Even so, here are a few items I couldn’t let pass, the first having to do with Newt Gingrich’s comment about the Palestinians being an “invented” people.
Gingrich seems like a reasonably intelligent fellow, and I’m guessing he knows enough about American history to know that white Europeans were not the original Americans. Here are what the original Americans looked like:
Here is what Gingrich looks like:
Gingrich is a white European. For white Europeans to come to America and kill off and displace the original Americans, turn around and claim to be the rightful owners of the land, all the while designating themselves as “Americans” while consigning the original Americans to squalid reservations in the process—very much required a considerable amount of “inventing.” So where does Gingrich get off accusing another people of being “invented”?
Here is what those whom Gingrich dismisses as “invented” look like. These are the original, native, indigenous Palestinians. Notice the brown skin—very similar in shade to the original Americans…
…however, these are Semites. Semites are the people indigenous to the Middle East—just like Native Americans are the people indigenous to America. In other words, the Middle East is the part of the planet Earth in which these people originated. Am I going too fast for you, Newt? Slow me down if I am.
Now as it so happens, there is one other group of people I would like to mention—Ashkenazi Jews. Here is what an Ashkenazi Jew looks like (who happens to be named Benjamin Netanyahu.):
Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites. They are white Europeans. Compare the two photos. Notice a certain familial resemblance:
Let me repeat: Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites, they are white Europeans. For white European/Ashkenazis to come to Palestine and kill off and displace the original Semites, turn around and claim to be the rightful owners of the land, all the while designating themselves as “Semites” while consigning the original Semites to squalid reservations in the process—very much required a certain amount of “inventing.”
(Yes, I know—the terrain is starting to get repetitious, but given the subject matter, it’s inevitable.)
U.S. map showing Native American reservations
Occupied Palestine map showing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
Are “Ashkenazi Jews” an invented people? Gingrich should avail himself of a book written by a man named Shlomo Sand. And before he makes any more references to the Palestinians as “invented” he should actually, well, open the book and read it. Of course, we don’t know if he’ll bother to do that. Gingrich’s comment about the Palestinians is the bombast of an ignoramus, but rather than suffer public rebuke over his utterance, Gingrich, who in 1999 resigned from Congress after being found guilty of ethics violations, was rewarded with a $5 million check from Zionist Sheldon Adelson—with an additional $5 million donation recently being announced by Adelson’s wife.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives seems to have a history of deserting the women in his life precisely at moments they find themselves battling debilitating illnesses. Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer, and then said adios to his second wife, Marianne, after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The 68-year-old is now on his third marriage. It was the second wife, Marianne, who recently offered some telling revelations about her former husband in an interview with ABC News, disclosing, among other things, that Gingrich wanted to have an “open marriage” in which he would be free to see other women while still remaining married to her—a request Marianne rejected. Moreover, it seems there was one woman in particular Newt was desirous of spending time with—the blonde congressional aide who went on to become his present wife, Callista.
Gingrich and wife Callista in photo from November of 2000—3 months after their wedding
Marianne told ABC her husband had been advised by the doctor treating her for MS that stress should be avoided, but that this evidently did not stop him from moving for a divorce just months after she had been diagnosed.
In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.
She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.
“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,'” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”
Marianne described her “shock” at Gingrich’s behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista “in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.”
He always called me at night,” she recalled, “and always ended with ‘I love you.’ Well, she was listening.”
Perhaps even more eye-brow-raising is that, according to ABC, all this was going on at the same time Gingrich was publicly denouncing Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. If you go to the ABC link and watch the video, you’ll see film footage taken from that era showing Gingrich declaring in a speech he delivered, “There’s no administration in American history with less moral authority than the Clinton-Gore administration.”
One would be hard-pressed to point to a more glaring example of hypocrisy. What are we to make of the fact that such an unscrupulous hypocrite has been embraced by a prominent and wealthy Zionist contributor? Does this not tell us something about, a) presidential politics in America, and, b) the state of Israel itself?
Adelson’s support is widely acknowledged as having been a key factor in Gingrich’s victory in the South Carolina primary. According to Wikipedia, the casino magnate, with a net worth of $21.5 billion, is the 8th wealthiest American and 16th wealthiest person in the world. Speaking of Gingrich, Adelson has said , “There is not a better advocate for Israel”—and now thanks to this spigot of wealth, the Georgia Republican has notched up his first presidential primary win. Could there possibly be a plainer, more illustrative example of how Zionism, and Zionist money, have corrupted American politics?
And here’s another rhetorical question: Why does Israel seem to draw so much of its support from some of the most corrupt people on the planet? What is it about the Zionist state that they find so likeable and praiseworthy? I’m not simply talking about the 535 members of the U.S. Congress. No. From France to Germany, from Britain to America, from Belgium to the Netherlands to Denmark, from Spain to Italy to Greece, and from the IMF to the World Bank to the UN Security Council—virtually throughout the entire Western world—the most seriously corrupt, repressive, and dishonest specimens of humanity walking upright on the earth all seem to share one thing in common: they all love Israel.
All of which brings me to a second point—one which I very much wanted to make about the American political system (although it probably applies to the political systems in all the other countries mentioned as well): namely that it’s a rigged game. It is rigged to ensure that one outcome and one outcome only will occur. Moreover it’s an outcome that will occur repetitively, over and over, time and time again, regardless of the changing faces, the evolving issues, or the advancing body of human thought and knowledge. What I’m speaking of is this: that the system is geared to ensure that the only candidates who stand more than a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected are the absolute dregs of American society. The most unprincipled. The most corrupt. The most deceitful, profligate, hypocritical, and immoral. The absolute dregs. This is the way the process has been engineered.
In her interview with ABC, Marianne expressed the opinion that Gingrich “lacks the moral character to be president,” but with all due respect to this good lady who endured 18 years of marriage to a hypocrite, she seems a bit confused as to what exactly the job qualifications are for serving as chief executive in this country. Certainly—as we all know—there are bright and talented Americans, Americans who, if given the chance, could, and definitely would, bring the country out of the morass in which it presently finds itself, people of courage, honor, and rectitude, people who remain true to their principles, who would react with indignation were someone to offer them money to invade another country and kill millions of its people, and who would probably even have the person offering such a bribe arrested. Yes. There are lots of Americans like that. They are all over the place. Quite literally. But the thing to keep in mind is that these are the very last people the top 1 percent would ever, ever want to see running the country. Far preferable to them are the moral degenerates. Moral degenerates and miscreants are invariably the ones who get the most money and most media attention, and don’t for a moment believe that’s by accident. As I say the system is rigged. There is no longer anything even resembling a democracy.
Another presidential issue I wanted to comment on, and which kind of ties in with everything I said about Gingrich,
is Mitt Romney’s recent impromptu encounter with an Occupy Wall Street protester. Here it is. Check it out. Now let me see if I understand him correctly. Romney is saying that the rich should continue getting richer and the poor poorer (the trend of the last 30 years or so), and anyone who objects to this state of affairs is being—“divisive”? It isn’t merely that his logic fails the infallibility test. The twin arguments he’s advancing—that wealth should be concentrated and that America should remain united—are diametrically, contradictorily opposed to one another. Wealth disparity, by definition, is a divide. It is a divide between rich and poor. America is very much a divided nation at this moment. It is a country in which CEOs make 325 times the average worker’s pay (up from 263 times as recently as 2009). By trying to reduce economic inequality, the OWS movement is essentially trying to restore unity to the country. If Romney really wanted a united America—rather than an America with a vast gulf between rich and poor—he would actually champion the OWS protesters rather than attack them, but we won’t hear anything like that from Romney because the richest 1 percent are funding his campaign. Romney, who by the way also insists that corporations are people , vows that if elected president, his first foreign policy trip will be to Israel. No surprise there. But perhaps we could expect him to make a stop at the Cayman Islands on his way home. According to his tax returns, Romney holds a stake in an enterprise called BCIP Trust Associates III, but regulatory filings show that the partnership, valued at $5 million to $25 million, is registered in the Cayman Islands. This presumably would render it sheltered from U.S. taxation. However, with the predictability of a military press office flack denying civilian casualties in the latest drone attack, Romney’s campaign spokesperson, Andrea Saul, has insisted everything is strictly legal and on the up and up.
“The Romney’s investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if those funds were established in the United States. These are not tax havens and it is false to say so.”
Romney and his wife Ann made $27 million in 2010, and up until that same year held millions in a Swiss bank account. Despite this, their 2010 federal tax rate worked out to 13.9 percent, “a rate typical of households earning about $80,000 a year,” reported the New York Times.
As I said, it’s a bit intellectually dishonest to criticize Republicans while omitting the sins of the Democrats, so let’s talk for a moment about Obama. In his state of the union address last week (full text here ), the chief executive spouted a lot of faux populism, painting himself as a man of action who intends to impose new regulations on Wall Street and close loopholes favoring the rich (apparently hoping people will forget that Wall Street bankers have consistently been among his biggest backers), while championing average Americans. In fact this seems to be his strategy for defeating the Republicans this year: let them flap their jaws about the wonders of the “free market” system while in turn casting himself as a populist—when in fact he is every bit as pro-rich as the Republicans are. In this respect, Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And of course, significantly missing from his speech was any mention of his recent signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the military the authority to arrest U.S. citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial, essentially shredding the last remnants of our constitutional safeguards. It is an ominous, ill-boding development (one of many these days, it seems) that places all of us in jeopardy.
But bad as the NDAA is—and it is indeed bad—that is not the only issue pertaining to the current president that merits attention. A recent campaign video has been the focus of considerable discussion of late, a video so bad, so exaggerated in terms of its worshipful tones, its deference to the Israeli lobby, that it seems to have left some people almost literally cringing. We see images of Obama wearing a yarmulke, visiting the Western Wall, etc.—as well as footage from various speeches in which he extols the virtues of the Zionist state, not his own country mind you, but Israel. Take a look:
The tone is quite reverential, would you not agree? Particularly striking I think is this image:
Obama is in essence worshipping at the altar of the Holocaust. Ali Abunimah, at the Electronic Intifada, says the video “takes Israel pandering to dangerous levels,” but actually even more than that is going on. The video is in essence presenting the Zionist state as an object of religious adoration. This is the kind of thing you’d expect to see at a Christians United for Israel conference—not from the Obama campaign. “When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries in which the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.” What we have here basically is adulation to a deity. Israel is being deified. And of course interjected through it all are Israeli officials bestowing their kosher seal of approval upon the U.S. head of state.
A question has arisen as to whether this is actually an “official” Obama campaign video—or possibly something put together simply to make the commander-in-chief of the United States look like a beggarly, brownnosing fawner. In point of fact, though, if you examine closely you will see that it appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by BarackObamadotcom. So yes, it does look as if it’s a genuine campaign video. But of course, what would you expect? Populist rhetoric is all well and good—it plays well to the masses—but it takes fawning to get Zionist money, and it takes Zionist money to get elected.
And so it goes in the rigged system of U.S. politics. And of course if all else fails, our 1 percent may always fall back upon the electronic voting machinesto ensure this year’s election results are the ones they desire…
“For a charm of power trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble…”
Thought I would throw this into the mix (or the cauldron, if you prefer) as well. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a human being smirk quite this often in a 23-minute time segment as does one of the guests on this program. Are facial expressions an indicator of what resides in the heart? Speaking purely subjectively here—and based upon my own limited contact with habitual smirkers—the thing we see forming and dissipating…forming and dissipating…at periodic intervals throughout much of the show, seems to suggest something abnormal, an almost psychopathological disgust for any and all things decent.
One statement made on the show is in fact correct, however. The American people are not sheep. They are in fact much worse off than sheep. Sheep follow a herd instinct, a trait that is in their DNA. The herd instinct is a product of nature, one that functions to help ensure the survival of the entire herd, not simply single individuals, and it is a behavior observable in many species of animals. What the American people have succumbed to is not an innate, naturally-occurring herd instinct, but something far more sinister.