Trump is Israel’s puppet – Netanyahu is the puppet master
[Editor’s note: As we
have been saying for months now, Trump is a puppet of Israel, or rather
of the Judeo-Zionist crime cabal that runs Israel via Netanyahu and the
Likud party. Here is solid proof that what we have been saying is
correct, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Ian]
Herzog made the comments on Monday at a meeting of the opposition Zionist Union faction.
“I call on Netanyahu to instruct those close to him to make sure no damage is done,” Herzog said without naming anyone he suspects. “His silence about the actions of those allies is dangerous and destructive.”
Prior to Herzog’s comments, also Monday, Netanyahu said during a Likud party faction meeting that the Israel-U.S. relationship will remain strong no matter who wins Tuesday’s election, echoing statements he made Sunday to his Cabinet.
“Whatever the result, the relationship between Israel and the U.S. will remain strong and steadfast,” Netanyahu said.
“These relations are based first of all on shared values of liberty, democracy and progress. When looking at the region around us, we understand how unique these values are.
“I’ll repeat what I said in Congress last year: Israel has no better friend than the U.S. and the U.S. has no better friend than Israel,” Netanyahu concluded.
Israel’s Channel 10 reported Sunday evening that Netanyahu has ordered his Cabinet members not to comment publicly on Tuesday’s election.
Netanyahu met with both candidates when he was in New York in September for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Another one from the you can’t make this up file. On Saturday night Jared Kushner and his wife Ivanka went to the Montefiore Cemetery in Cambria Heights, Queens, New York City and prayed at the graves of Menachem Mendel Schneerson and his father-in-law Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn. Some Jews believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Jewish ‘moshiach’ or ‘messiah’. Women and men visitors are required to wear a head covering, wear modest dress, avoid wearing leather shoes, and when leaving the grave sites they are also required to walk backwards. Visitors to the ohel (grave) write kvitlach on a piece of paper, rip it up, and throw it on the grave. A kvitlach is a petitionary prayer given to a rabbi in the hopes he will bless the prayer and make it come true. Kvitlach are also placed on graves so that the dead rabbis may intercede on the petitioner’s request. This peculiar custom, which is similar to the rabbinic scam of placing your prayer in the Western Wall for money, is a practice developed by the Hasidic rabbis. One Jewish media outlet laughably credited Ivanka’s visit to the ohel for the reason Donald Trump’s life being spared when the Secret Service rushed him off stage in Reno, Nevada at a campaign stop due to a possible perceived threat. The majority of the Jewish media said she was there to write a kvitlach for her father winning the presidency of the United States in the upcoming week.
more on Menachem ‘moshiach’ Schneerson & his influence:
__________
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Netanyahu interfering in US election, Israel’s opposition leader says
Netanyahu interfering in US election, Israel’s opposition leader says
Israel’s opposition leader Isaac
Herzog accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his associates of
interfering in the U.S. election.
“In the past, we saw serious information stating that Israeli leaders
tried to intervene and influence the results of the elections [in the
United States], and the citizens of Israel paid the high price,” Herzog
said. “Recently, we saw again information on Israeli leaders’
intervention in elections through people close to them across the sea.”Herzog made the comments on Monday at a meeting of the opposition Zionist Union faction.
“I call on Netanyahu to instruct those close to him to make sure no damage is done,” Herzog said without naming anyone he suspects. “His silence about the actions of those allies is dangerous and destructive.”
Prior to Herzog’s comments, also Monday, Netanyahu said during a Likud party faction meeting that the Israel-U.S. relationship will remain strong no matter who wins Tuesday’s election, echoing statements he made Sunday to his Cabinet.
“Whatever the result, the relationship between Israel and the U.S. will remain strong and steadfast,” Netanyahu said.
“These relations are based first of all on shared values of liberty, democracy and progress. When looking at the region around us, we understand how unique these values are.
“I’ll repeat what I said in Congress last year: Israel has no better friend than the U.S. and the U.S. has no better friend than Israel,” Netanyahu concluded.
Israel’s Channel 10 reported Sunday evening that Netanyahu has ordered his Cabinet members not to comment publicly on Tuesday’s election.
Netanyahu met with both candidates when he was in New York in September for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Related Posts:
Make America Great Again by supporting Netanyahu’s “War on Terrorism”
Trump in bed with the devil.
Ivanka Trump Visiting Ohel Of Lubavitcher Rebbe
In the USA, the only acceptable type of conservatism is rabbinical.
Another one from the you can’t make this up file. On Saturday night Jared Kushner and his wife Ivanka went to the Montefiore Cemetery in Cambria Heights, Queens, New York City and prayed at the graves of Menachem Mendel Schneerson and his father-in-law Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn. Some Jews believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Jewish ‘moshiach’ or ‘messiah’. Women and men visitors are required to wear a head covering, wear modest dress, avoid wearing leather shoes, and when leaving the grave sites they are also required to walk backwards. Visitors to the ohel (grave) write kvitlach on a piece of paper, rip it up, and throw it on the grave. A kvitlach is a petitionary prayer given to a rabbi in the hopes he will bless the prayer and make it come true. Kvitlach are also placed on graves so that the dead rabbis may intercede on the petitioner’s request. This peculiar custom, which is similar to the rabbinic scam of placing your prayer in the Western Wall for money, is a practice developed by the Hasidic rabbis. One Jewish media outlet laughably credited Ivanka’s visit to the ohel for the reason Donald Trump’s life being spared when the Secret Service rushed him off stage in Reno, Nevada at a campaign stop due to a possible perceived threat. The majority of the Jewish media said she was there to write a kvitlach for her father winning the presidency of the United States in the upcoming week.
Rules for visiting the Ohel
Two quotes from Menachem Mendel Schneerson which give the reader an idea of the caliber of the rebbe’s mind:
more on Menachem ‘moshiach’ Schneerson & his influence:
Should I Vote Repocrat Or Demublican?
Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,
The US is approaching a major election and voters are trying to figure out who will best lead them. As in most countries in the developed world, there are only two real contenders, each the representative of one of the two leading political parties.
One party states as its platform that it seeks to expand social freedoms (gay rights, abortion rights, etc.), and seeks to legislate to limit economic freedom (increased banking legislation, increased taxation for the rich and powerful, etc.). The other party states the opposite as its platform.
And, of course, the two candidates are verbally adamant in their every speech, that they intend to present legislation to assure that their respective platforms become a reality for the American people.
As in any country where there is a “two-party system,” the voters tend to be determinedly in one camp or the other. Rarely do their beliefs cross over. For example, when a libertarian candidate arises who espouses both social freedom and economic freedom, he is deemed interesting, but voters from the two primary camps do not rush to support him. Each group is dedicated to its choice of freedom and its choice of suppression.
And the two parties do their level best to convince voters that they must be unanimous in their support of one party or the other. Like football fans, voters should take an “us versus them” approach. In the US, as in many other countries, this results in such hatred amongst one team’s voters against the other team’s voters that they frequently refuse to even socialize with one another and, on occasion, the discord can result in violence.
But of course, as voters will say, they’re passionate about their parties and are so dedicated to party principles that they could never support a candidate that deviates in any way from them.
So, what happens when candidates veer dramatically from this nicely-packaged programme? For example, recently a billionaire Wall Street CEO put forward a new retirement tax bill to be passed after the coming election. The bill would create a 3% payroll tax that would immediately be funneled to Wall Street firms. Liberals are already angry that the greedy Wall Streeters are ripping them off. Surely, this bill could only have been put forward by the heartlessly greedy conservative party. Yet it is a Democratic bill and is supported by the Democratic presidential candidate.
The candidate has, in fact, been known to have received enormous amounts of money from Wall Street and is clearly in their pocket. And yet, somehow, Democratic voters gloss over this fact, along with all the other facts about their candidate that suggest that she is not at all representative of her party’s principles.
Over in the Republican camp, we see the same. The candidate is so far from representing the party for which he is running that many old-line incumbents are seething at the prospect that he could actually win. Some have vowed to vote Democrat to avoid the possibility of his presidency.
So, what’s going on here? Well, generally, political parties begin in one of two ways. The first begins with a charismatic individual who puts forward a set of principles that ends up attracting a large number of followers. The second begins with an individual or group that seeks power and needs to espouse a position on some issue or issues in order to gain general support. Either way, in virtually every case, the longer a party has existed, the more likely it is to have devolved into cronyism, backroom deals, opportunism and abuse of both the public purse and public rights.
Along the way, party “principles” become a mere remnant to be trotted out at election time, but are rarely followed except when they can be used as an opportunity to create greater power for the party. The party invariably comes to represent the very worst traits of mankind and is made up of the most reprehensible citizens.
In the US, the rot set in early – two years before George Washington became president.
The US Constitution makes no mention of political parties, yet parties cropped up as early as 1787 under the Federalists, who wished to have a strong, all-powerful central government that the states would then answer to.
As a reaction, those who opposed the Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, came to call themselves the Democratic-Republican Party. They, in turn, eventually fought amongst themselves, splitting the party in two in 1824 and, as any American will know, the two resulting parties are still going after each other in every way possible nearly 200 years later.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano has been known to say (quite accurately), the two primary American parties are merely “two wings of the same bird of prey.” The reason for presenting them as being morally or philosophically different only extends itself as far as is useful into coercing votes out of the electorate.
So, is there any reason to vote? Actually (sadly), no. Today, the average voter is saying (unconsciously), “I know both parties are thoroughly corrupt, but at least our candidate is less offensive to my sensibilities than the other party’s.” He’s aware that the apple is rotten, but still takes some pleasure in believing that his choice of which bad seed goes forth as the figurehead of the uni-government will make some sort of difference.
And, of course, that’s about all it boils down to. The trouble is, both parties are equally “owned” by those who provide the greatest payoffs, which is to say that the same banks, military goods suppliers, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc. make the largest donations to both parties. Therefore, their needs will be followed no matter who is elected. The two parties are therefore interchangeable.
In every case in which a voter makes a choice for “change,” he has wasted his time in showing up at the polling station, as the various directions his government takes will not only be unaffected by his vote, it will be unaffected by all votes.
So, what’s left for the voter to do? Well, if he can ever bring himself to recognize openly that, whilst the Repocrats and the Demublicans may differ a bit as individuals, they all work for the same organization and that is where their real loyalty lies. (As a comparison, if you were slated for execution, it would matter little whether your executioner was a Baptist or a Methodist. The outcome would be the same.)
It‘s important to note that the Americans did not invent party politics. The idea has been around since long before the US came into being and the concept generates the same results no matter where the “democratic process” exists.
There is, however, a benefit to be gained through self-honesty as regards the charade of political parties. Once it becomes clear that the system is what it is and that the political leaders have zero concern for their constituents, except as indentured servants (or as Doug Casey so aptly puts it – “milk cows”) – once the voter recognizes that the next election holds no vain hope for redemption – the voter may begin to see his true position more objectively. Rather than devote his time to any election campaign, waste his time observing the endless rhetoric in the media, seek to ingratiate himself to authorities or (God forbid) send his children off to the latest senseless war, he may refocus on what his government actually does for him in return for his obeisance and tax dollar. Once he recognizes that he is in fact an indentured servant, he may well reassess whether he wishes to continue the relationship.
At this point, he may, without a loss of misapplied patriotism, decide whether another country may be a better place in which to invest, consider citizenship, store wealth or even reside – part-time or full-time.
The US is approaching a major election and voters are trying to figure out who will best lead them. As in most countries in the developed world, there are only two real contenders, each the representative of one of the two leading political parties.
One party states as its platform that it seeks to expand social freedoms (gay rights, abortion rights, etc.), and seeks to legislate to limit economic freedom (increased banking legislation, increased taxation for the rich and powerful, etc.). The other party states the opposite as its platform.
And, of course, the two candidates are verbally adamant in their every speech, that they intend to present legislation to assure that their respective platforms become a reality for the American people.
As in any country where there is a “two-party system,” the voters tend to be determinedly in one camp or the other. Rarely do their beliefs cross over. For example, when a libertarian candidate arises who espouses both social freedom and economic freedom, he is deemed interesting, but voters from the two primary camps do not rush to support him. Each group is dedicated to its choice of freedom and its choice of suppression.
And the two parties do their level best to convince voters that they must be unanimous in their support of one party or the other. Like football fans, voters should take an “us versus them” approach. In the US, as in many other countries, this results in such hatred amongst one team’s voters against the other team’s voters that they frequently refuse to even socialize with one another and, on occasion, the discord can result in violence.
But of course, as voters will say, they’re passionate about their parties and are so dedicated to party principles that they could never support a candidate that deviates in any way from them.
So, what happens when candidates veer dramatically from this nicely-packaged programme? For example, recently a billionaire Wall Street CEO put forward a new retirement tax bill to be passed after the coming election. The bill would create a 3% payroll tax that would immediately be funneled to Wall Street firms. Liberals are already angry that the greedy Wall Streeters are ripping them off. Surely, this bill could only have been put forward by the heartlessly greedy conservative party. Yet it is a Democratic bill and is supported by the Democratic presidential candidate.
The candidate has, in fact, been known to have received enormous amounts of money from Wall Street and is clearly in their pocket. And yet, somehow, Democratic voters gloss over this fact, along with all the other facts about their candidate that suggest that she is not at all representative of her party’s principles.
Over in the Republican camp, we see the same. The candidate is so far from representing the party for which he is running that many old-line incumbents are seething at the prospect that he could actually win. Some have vowed to vote Democrat to avoid the possibility of his presidency.
So, what’s going on here? Well, generally, political parties begin in one of two ways. The first begins with a charismatic individual who puts forward a set of principles that ends up attracting a large number of followers. The second begins with an individual or group that seeks power and needs to espouse a position on some issue or issues in order to gain general support. Either way, in virtually every case, the longer a party has existed, the more likely it is to have devolved into cronyism, backroom deals, opportunism and abuse of both the public purse and public rights.
Along the way, party “principles” become a mere remnant to be trotted out at election time, but are rarely followed except when they can be used as an opportunity to create greater power for the party. The party invariably comes to represent the very worst traits of mankind and is made up of the most reprehensible citizens.
In the US, the rot set in early – two years before George Washington became president.
The US Constitution makes no mention of political parties, yet parties cropped up as early as 1787 under the Federalists, who wished to have a strong, all-powerful central government that the states would then answer to.
As a reaction, those who opposed the Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, came to call themselves the Democratic-Republican Party. They, in turn, eventually fought amongst themselves, splitting the party in two in 1824 and, as any American will know, the two resulting parties are still going after each other in every way possible nearly 200 years later.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano has been known to say (quite accurately), the two primary American parties are merely “two wings of the same bird of prey.” The reason for presenting them as being morally or philosophically different only extends itself as far as is useful into coercing votes out of the electorate.
So, is there any reason to vote? Actually (sadly), no. Today, the average voter is saying (unconsciously), “I know both parties are thoroughly corrupt, but at least our candidate is less offensive to my sensibilities than the other party’s.” He’s aware that the apple is rotten, but still takes some pleasure in believing that his choice of which bad seed goes forth as the figurehead of the uni-government will make some sort of difference.
And, of course, that’s about all it boils down to. The trouble is, both parties are equally “owned” by those who provide the greatest payoffs, which is to say that the same banks, military goods suppliers, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc. make the largest donations to both parties. Therefore, their needs will be followed no matter who is elected. The two parties are therefore interchangeable.
In every case in which a voter makes a choice for “change,” he has wasted his time in showing up at the polling station, as the various directions his government takes will not only be unaffected by his vote, it will be unaffected by all votes.
So, what’s left for the voter to do? Well, if he can ever bring himself to recognize openly that, whilst the Repocrats and the Demublicans may differ a bit as individuals, they all work for the same organization and that is where their real loyalty lies. (As a comparison, if you were slated for execution, it would matter little whether your executioner was a Baptist or a Methodist. The outcome would be the same.)
It‘s important to note that the Americans did not invent party politics. The idea has been around since long before the US came into being and the concept generates the same results no matter where the “democratic process” exists.
There is, however, a benefit to be gained through self-honesty as regards the charade of political parties. Once it becomes clear that the system is what it is and that the political leaders have zero concern for their constituents, except as indentured servants (or as Doug Casey so aptly puts it – “milk cows”) – once the voter recognizes that the next election holds no vain hope for redemption – the voter may begin to see his true position more objectively. Rather than devote his time to any election campaign, waste his time observing the endless rhetoric in the media, seek to ingratiate himself to authorities or (God forbid) send his children off to the latest senseless war, he may refocus on what his government actually does for him in return for his obeisance and tax dollar. Once he recognizes that he is in fact an indentured servant, he may well reassess whether he wishes to continue the relationship.
At this point, he may, without a loss of misapplied patriotism, decide whether another country may be a better place in which to invest, consider citizenship, store wealth or even reside – part-time or full-time.
