There was a time when a little bit of money went a long way in
politics. A hundred dollars donated to a candidate's election or reelection
campaign could buy you both the friendship and loyalty of a future lawmaker,
and you'd have him in your corner to the end of his tenure.
That's how you could ask for the moon, and the lawmaker would do
his best to deliver it to you on a golden platter if he could, or a silver
platter if not. Of course, the sentiment motivating him would have been that
your contributions will continue to pour into the coffers of his future
campaigns, thus guarantee that he will have a good chance at getting reelected
again and again.
The Jews made use of their skill in the art of make-believe, to
benefit from that situation in America. They did so at a time when their
financial net worth had not risen beyond the petty cash levels played with by
the established Anglo-Saxon magnets. What the Jews did, however, was propagate
the false belief that they had as much wealth as the established gentry. And
the more that the political candidates believed in those lies, the harder they
worked to deliver for the Jews, while expecting less up-front from them.
The lawmakers devised all sorts of devious schemes to give the
Jews the laws that enriched them, and in return, got kickbacks in the form of
campaign contributions, junkets and other freebies ... sometimes legal and
sometimes not. This started a taxpayer funded symbiotic relationship between
the legislators of America and an assortment of Jewish organizations acting
under the guidance of AIPAC. In time, this form of legalized criminal behavior,
ballooned to encompass the tens of billions of dollars that flow out of America
each year, and go to Israel as well as the wealthy Jews around the world who
are also on the take.
When the Jews discovered that not everyone could be corrupted with
offers of money taken surreptitiously from taxpayers, they decided to employ
the stick where the carrot failed to do the job. Thus, AIPAC embarked on a new
program of gathering dirt on everyone in public life, and used it to blackmail
those who refused to toe the Jewish line. One of their early victims was
Charles Percy who wanted to see an accused war criminal, that had lied on his
immigration papers, deported anywhere in the world but the Soviet Union. But
that's where AIPAC wanted to send the accused. Because Percy defied AIPAC, they
did him in, and have been using fear as a weapon to terrorize candidates
running for office ever since.
With this backgrounder under your belt, you should read the
article that came under the title: “How the GOP is Using Israel as a Wedge
Issue For 2020,” written by Curt Mills and published on March 29, 2019 in the
National Interest. You will detect a trend you would have witnessed in Canada
had you been an observer of the Canadian political scene during the last two
decades.
In fact, when it comes to Jewish political experimentation, Canada
has long been America's test laboratory. The Jews would try something in Canada
and duplicate it in America if it worked here. But as you'll see in the Mills
article, the Jews are now trying something in America that failed in Canada.
The logical question is to ask why they are doing this. And the logical answer
is to conclude that the Jews are losing the PR game, and getting desperate.
Here is a condensed summary of what the article says:
“AIPAC's influence in both political parties remains formidable.
With rising anti-Semitism, AIPAC flirted with the overtly partisan. Pompeo told
the conference, bigotry is taking the guise of anti-Zionism. Candidate Trump
wanted to be neutral. But later, his play on Israel-Palestine has not been
neutral. After expressing an early desire to serve as a disinterested broker,
he went all the way in the opposite direction. Struggling to cleave itself from
the alt-right, the anti-Semitism theme serves the White House. As to Trump's
encore campaign, expect the Three F's: fear of socialism, a feeling of vindication
on Russia, and fear of anti-Semitism. At AIPAC, a prominent conservative
journalist condemned a prominent left-wing journalist because of his criticism
of Netanyahu”.
While fear is coming from several directions, as pointed out by
Curt Mills, the fear that nobody in America seems to be aware of, is the one
that sank a governing party in Canada.
What happened in Canada that's being duplicated in America, is
what you see expressed in the last sentence of the above summary. It says that
at the AIPAC meeting, one journalist condemned another journalist for
criticizing Netanyahu. What actually happened in Canada was that members of the
governing party condemned members of the opposition party, accusing them of not
being pro-Israel enough. The result was that, come election time, the
popularity of the governing party had plummeted, and that of the opposition
party had risen. The first lost the election; the second won it and went on to
form the government.
This happened because the members that did the criticism thought
they were pleasing their base. They may or may not have done so; nobody took a
survey. What they did not count on, however, was that they made clear to the
broader electorate, who was working for Canada, and who was working for Israel.
Canadians took note of that, voted for the party that was looking
after their interests, and threw the treasonous rascals out.