ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU NOW UNDER 2 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
As we reported last night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been close to coming under criminal investigation from police in two different cases. As expected, moments ago the Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit accepted the police’s request to investigate Netanyahu in two different criminal cases.
The Times of Israel reports that Netanyahu will be called in for questioning by the police in the coming days.
On Monday, December 26th, Israeli police announced that they had received new and important documents related to a secret inquiry of the Prime Minister’s activities that began over 9 months ago. With the new documents in possession, the police said they were “absolutely convinced” that a criminal investigation would be opened. And as they said, that time has now come.
Benjamin Netanyahu is allegedly facing criminal charges of bribery and aggravated-fraud, according to the police report.
The two cases will be related to allegations that Netanyahu accepted 1 million euros from accused French conman Arnaud Mimran in 2009 and in Netanyahu’s role in a Defense Ministry deal to purchase submarines from a German company that is partly owned by the Iranian government.
A spokesman for Netanyahu defended the Prime Minister and completely dismissing the findings by telling The Times of Israel, “This is absolutely false. There was nothing and there will be nothing.”
The criminal investigation of the Prime Minister comes at a very interesting time. John Kerry today just made his speech, outlining Washington’s support for a two-state solution that brings peace to both Israelis and Palestinians. The United States shocked the world last week when they abstained from vetoing the United Nations resolution that seeks to stop Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Perhaps the U.S. knew that these criminal investigations of Netanyahu were drawing near and are seeking to distance themselves from the controversial Israeli Prime Minister. Or perhaps the Obama administration is looking to salvage any and everything they can around the issue of peace in the middle east. Certainly, after the embarrassing defeat in Aleppo, Syria, the current administration has every motivation to end on a positive note before Trump comes into office in late January.
Additionally, Benjamin Netanyahu just told New Zealand’s Foreign Minister that New Zealand’s opposition vote to Israel’s stance is “a declaration of war.”
However, what is most interesting about this latest development is what Trump and Netanyahu’s relationship, as well as the U.S. and Israeli relationship will transform into. Trump and Netanyahu have made it clear that they are friends and support each other’s objectives. If “Bibi” is found guilty of these two crimes then, will Trump continue to support Netanyahu? Will he continue to support Israel? Will Trump be forced to abandon his friendship because of outside pressure from the public that would inevitably arise if Netanyahu is criminally charged?
It will be interesting to see how both Trump and Netanyahu respond to the two new criminal investigations. Will Trump also follow suit in distancing himself from “Bibi” or will he continue to support the Prime Minister, regardless? Times are quickly changing. At minimum, U.S. and Israeli relations are sure to continue to go under massive transformation in the weeks ahead.
The Khazarian Mafia and their marionettes want to rule the world
“It was only after September 11 that the Plan [for world domination] emerged in full.”
…by Jonas E. Alexis
If you don’ think that “American exceptionalism” is synonymous with Zionism, world domination, and with what Friedrich Nietzsche would have called “the will to power,” which is a reformulation of Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation, then think again. First, a little background.
Back in the 1980s, the Khazarian Mafia—more specifically the Neoconservatives—took over the Reagan administration and put a different cast in the political landscape. Jewish legal scholar Stephen M. Feldman begins his book Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court: Law, Power, and Democracy by saying that
“For more than twenty years, starting in 1980, the neoconservatives stood at the intellectual forefront of a conservative coalition that reigned over the national government. Neocons earned this prominent position by leading an assault on the hegemonic pluralist democratic regime that had taken hold of the nation in the 1930s.”
Feldman is not alone here. Other Jewish scholars and writers have come to the same conclusion.
Ever since the Khazarian Mafia took over the US foreign policy, America has been looking for dragons and monsters and goblins to destroy in the Middle East, which is totally contrary to what the Founding Fathers had envisioned. Irving Kristol, one of the founding fathers of the Neoconservative movement, declared back in 1996:
“With the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideological and threatening enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that can unit us in opposition.”
If a “threatening enemy” did exist, then the Neocons—who by the way were all former Trotskyites and socialists—invented them and used cloak-and-dagger strategy to destroy them. George H. W. Bush got sucked into this idea. By October of 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, he told the United Nations that he aspired to create a “New World Order.”
Bush said that this “New World Order” basically referred to a world in which peace and harmony would coalesce among nations. No wars, no conflict—only dialogue and resolving issues through diplomatic solutions.
But we all know that this was a bold lie and a sneaky way to trick the American people. This New World Order was another word for world domination. As Patrick Buchanan rightly pointed out,
“Between the day [Bush] took office and the day his son followed suit, the United States invaded Panama, intervened in Somalia, occupied Haiti, pushed NATO to the borders of Russia, created protectorates in Kuwait and Bosnia, bombed Serbia for seventy-eight days, occupied Kosovo, adopted a policy of ‘dual containment’ of Iraq and Iran, deployed thousands of troops on Saudi soil sacred to all Muslims.”
In this “New World Order,” practical reason plays virtually no role. Moreover, agents of this “New World Order” didn’t consult the American people because no one with an ounce of common sense would support it. This New World Order was forced on the American people by the Neocons in order to please the Israeli regime.
If that is far-fetched, then take it from George W. Bush himself. He once asked his father to define Neoconservatism. “‘What’s a neocon?’ ‘Do you want names, or a description?’ answered [the elder Bush]. ‘Description.’ ‘Well,’ said the former president of the United States, ‘I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.’”
Similarly, Jewish Neocon Max Boot declared in an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “What the Heck Is a Neocon?” that Israel is “a key tenet of neoconservatism,” and Commentary, a Neocon flagship, is the “Neocon bible.”
George W. was just following the Neocon or New World Order strategy when he said of Saddam Hussein: “I’m going to kick this sorry mother fucker all over the Mideast.”
Long before the US went to Iraq, Bush was already dividing the world into two categories: those who were with the United States in implementing the New World Order ideology on a global scale, and those who don’t. Those who refused to follow the New World Order were condemned as either terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. As Bush himself put it:
“Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated….Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
Bush didn’t stop there. He had more interesting things to say: “America has a message to the nation of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States…”
The simple fact is that Bush never considered the United States “a hostile regime,” even though George W. Bush himself trained violent terrorist organizations such as the MEK in Nevada. The same violent terrorist cells were also trained by the Israeli Mossad and ended up killing Iranian scientists. That was all right because those terrorists were just following the New World Order ideology.
In short, Bush, according to his own political categories, is a terrorist. And keep in mind that terrorists do not care about the truth. They do not care whether innocent people live or die. They only care about spreading a political or ideological virus. Jewish Neocon Jonah Goldberg is a classic example of this. He declared unapologetically:
“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”
Did the joker talk about how much it would cost? Did he talk about complete chaos and destruction?
By 2003, after months of propaganda in the media, Bush spread the Neocon or New World Order virus in Iraq, which turned out to be a complete disaster.
John Prados, co-director of the Iraq Documentation Project, noted that the record plainly “demonstrates that the Bush administration swiftly abandoned plans for diplomacy to curb fancied Iraqi adventurism by means of sanctions, never had a plan subsequent to that except for a military solution, and enmeshed British allies in a manipulation of public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic designed to generate support for a war.”
But how did we get to the debacle in Iraq in 2003? Was there preparation? Interestingly, yes. It must be emphasized that one of the goals of the Neocon or New World Order ideology is to swing puppets and marionettes in their favor. As Irving Kristol himself pointed out:
“The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be…to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”
Back in the 1990s, numerous puppets and lackeys were ready to fulfill Kristol’s dream. Dick Cheney was one of them. With the help of Paul Wolfowitz and others, he crafted “a plan” in 1993 entitled, “Defense Strategy for the 1990s.” David Armstrong of Harper’s Magazine said that this plan was
“for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful.”
It was almost impossible to implement that plan into the domestic and foreign policy before the 9/11 attack, but right after that catastrophic event, the Khazarian Mafia and their marionettes were all elated because the door was opened for them to move to world domination—at least in the Middle East. Keep in mind that it was Benjamin Netanyahu who said right after the 9/11 attack:
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” He continued to say that all those disastrous events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”
Armstrong declared, “It was only after September 11 that the Plan [for world domination] emerged in full.” One can say that 9/11 was the “threatening enemy” that Kristol needed. He died in 2009, and one can also say that he couldn’t be much happier when Bush announced that he would begin a kind of aggressive expansion in the Middle East.
So, the plan to have a strong military force virtually all over the world—most specifically in the Middle East—was and still is a strategy which was hatched by the Khazarian Mafia and which was being pushed by marionettes and puppets like Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and more recently Samantha Power. Armstrong wrote back in 2002:
“Before the Plan was about domination it was about money. It took shape in late 1989, when the Soviet threat was clearly on the decline, and, with it, public support for a large military establishment. Cheney seemed unable to come to terms with either new reality. He remained deeply suspicious of the Soviets and strongly resisted all efforts to reduce military spending.
“Democrats in Congress jeered his lack of strategic vision, and a few within the Bush Administration were whispering that Cheney had become an irrelevant factor in structuring a response to the revolutionary changes taking place in the world.”
Over time, the Khazarian Mafia and their puppets attracted a number of political casts in the White House, including Collin Powell. Those political clowns were more willing to go along with the idea of world domination and were much happier to articulate the New World Order ideology in the media in a deceptive and diabolical way. As Armstrong put it,
“Powell insisted that maintaining superpower status must be the first priority of the U.S. military. ‘We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, ‘Superpower Lives Here,’ no matter what the Soviets do,’ he said at the time. He also insisted that the troop levels be proposed were the bare minimum necessary to do so. This concept would come to be known as the ‘Base Force.’”
By 1990, George H. W. Bush began to preach the doctrine of world domination, using statements such as American forces needed to be placed “at any corner of the globe.” At any corner! Not even the Roman Empire could afford such an enterprise.
By 1992, Powell began to propagate the idea that the United States needed to “deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage.” He said emphatically: “I want to be the bully on the block.” He added that “there is no future in trying to challenge the armed forces of the United States.”
This was again antithetical to what the Founding Fathers had envisioned. But because Powell was possessed by the Khazarian spirit, and because he worked in an environment where world domination was the new theory on the block, he had to postulate statements that were later proved disastrous for the United States and much of the Middle East. Armstrong wrote:
“As Powell and Cheney were making this new argument in their congressional rounds, Wolfowitz was busy expanding the concept and working to have it incorporated into U.S. policy. During the early months of 1992, Wolfowitz supervised the preparation of an internal Pentagon policy statement used to guide military officials in the preparation of their forces, budgets, and strategies.
“The classified document, known as the Defense Planning Guidance, depicted a world dominated by the United States, which would maintain its superpower status through a combination of positive guidance and overwhelming military might. The image was one of a heavily armed City on a Hill.
“The DPG stated that the ‘first objective’ of U.S. defense strategy was ‘to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.’ Achieving this objective required that the United States ‘prevent any hostile power from dominating a region’ of strategic significance. America’s new mission would be to convince allies and enemies alike ‘that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.’
“Another new theme was the use of preemptive military force. The options, the DPG noted, ranged from taking preemptive military action to head off a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack to ‘punishing’ or ‘threatening punishment of’ aggressors ‘through a variety of means,’ including strikes against weapons-manufacturing facilities.”
Obviously no country would like this essentially diabolical plan. And whenever the Khazarian Mafia and their marionettes proceed to implant that plan in the Middle East, Palestinians suffer; innocent and precious children by the thousands die; mothers weep for their love ones; livelihoods are destroyed; fathers mourn inconsolably; entire neighborhoods get destroyed.
At the same time, Israeli regime and officials diabolically laugh at their defenseless victims; US officials side with Israel; Western nations stay silent; politicians support their masters; and the Khazarian Mafia and their puppets continue to defend their diabolical plan as “self-defense.”
What’s more, whenever the cost is too much, the Khazarian Mafia and their puppets send the bill to America and let the average taxpayer deal with it. For the Khazarian Mafia, a six-trillion dollar war in Iraq is not enough at all. And instead of admitting that they committed a cardinal error in the region, they call the debacle “a worthy mistake.”
Long before the war, they spent countless hours vomiting lies and fabrications in the media. After the masses realized that they were duped by a small group of people who hate the entire human race, the Khazarian Mafia returned to the political platform by saying that America needed to move to places like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. In other words, the Khazarian Mafia and their lackeys want the whole Middle East for themselves. Everything they touch, they seem to imply, is gold.
Because the Khazarian Mafia rejected Logos in all its manifestation, they are never satisfied with one destruction. They have to destroy one country after another. They plan to dominate and to rule, but in order to do that, they have to destroy any force that stands in their way.
“The DPG also envisioned maintaining a substantial U.S. nuclear arsenal while discouraging the development of nuclear programs in other countries…. The story, in short, was dominance by way of unilateral action and military superiority.”
The Khazarian Mafia’s plan to dominate the world through “unilateralism” was leaked to the New York Times in March of 1992, and both the left and the right reacted with horror. Bill Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, George Stephanopoulos, said that the Pentagon was trying to “find an excuse for big defense budgets instead of downsizing.” Even President Bill Clinton was petrified by the plan.
“Wolfowitz found Clinton’s Iraq policy especially infuriating. During the Gulf War, Wolfowitz harshly criticized the decision – endorsed by Powell and Cheney – to end the war once the U.N. mandate of driving Saddam’s forces from Kuwait had been fulfilled, leaving the Iraqi dictator in office.
“He called on the Clinton Administration to finish the job by arming Iraqi opposition forces and sending U.S. ground troops to defense a base of operation for them in the southern region of the country. In a 1996 editorial, Wolfowitz raised the prospect of launching a preemptive attack against Iraq…
“Wolfowitz’s objections to Clinton’s military tactics were not limited to Iraq. Wolfowitz had endorsed President Bush’s decision in late 1992 to intervene in Somalia on a limited humanitarian basis. Clinton later expanded the mission into a broader peacekeeping effort, a move that ended in disaster.”
It got more interesting. Wolfowitz personally “advocated arming the Bosnian Muslims in their fight against the Serbs. Powell, on the other hand, publicly cautioned against intervention” in 1994.
So, the plot thickens here again. Wolfowitz wanted the Bosnian Muslims and the Serbs to fight until they kill each other. This is the same plan that Daniel Pipes, another Jewish Neocon, advocated in Syria. “In 1999, as Clinton rounded up support for joint U.S.-NATO action in Kosovo, Wolfowitz hectored the president for failing to act quickly enough.”
When George W. Bush came to power, Wolfowitz, along with other Jewish Neocons and puppets, again moved in to manipulate him. Bush was a complete puppet and was ready to do whatever they told him. Jewish Neocon “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle himself admitted:
“[Bush] did not make decisions, in part because the machinery of government that he nominally ran was actually running him. The National Security Council was not serving [Bush] properly.”
As Buchanan put it, Bush was “a tabula rasa, a blank slate on foreign policy” before 2000. He “had no experience in foreign policy and had exhibited zero interest. In the 2000 campaign, he confused Slovenia with Slovakia, referred to Greeks as ‘Grecians,’ and flunked a pop quiz when an interviewer asked him to name the leaders of four major nations.”
The Neocons, of course, quickly jumped on that fresh meat. “The first time I met Bush,” said “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle, “I knew he was different. Two things became clear. One, he didn’t know very much. The other was he had confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn’t know very much.”
Bush did not want to accept Wolfowitz’s maneuvering, particularly when it came to linking the 9/11 attack to Saddam and al-Qaeda. But he eventually cave in to the lies and fabrications. Why? Because there was “a cabal that called itself ‘the Vulcans’” around Bush, and the Vulcans couldn’t allow him to think straight.
So, what do we now have after years of New World Order ideology in the Middle East and elsewhere? Peace and harmony? Love and reconciliation among nations? Or are we still killing monsters which are more powerful than before?
Was sodomy at Abu Ghraib a good thing? How about a six-trillion dollar war, which will drag the young generation into an economic sinkhole? How about opening the floodgate in places like Germany, Sweden, England, etc.? Sure, Angela Merkel is a puppet.
But if people in places like Germany are angry about what’s happening to their country, they need to start attacking the real snake. And this has been one of my biggest problems with people like Alex Jones. They never tell us who has been pushing perpetual wars in the Middle East, despite the fact that they know all the facts.
Moreover, if president-elect Donald Trump wants to implement “America First,” then he needs to cut the head of the snake, which we all know is the Israeli regime. This snake has been crawling around politicians in the West for years, and it is high time that we stop this unconditional alliance with that snake.
Trump can talk about “America First” all day, but until we deal with the root of the problem, we’re going back to perpetual wars because “America First” and an unconditional support for Israel are antithetical. Not only that, they are at war with each other. Over the next four years, one will prevail over the other, and let us hope that it is not the snake that prevails.
 See Patrick J. Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004).
 Stephen M. Feldman, Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court: Law, Power, and Democracy (New York and London: New York University Press, 2013), 1.
 Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (New York: Anchor Books, 2009).
 Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong, 37.
 Ibid., 14.
 Ibid., 15.
 Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy (New York: Scribner, 2007), 219.
 Buchanan, Where the right Went Wrong, 38.
 Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006 and 2007), 3.
 Ibid., 17.
 Ibid., 18.
 Seymour M. Hersh, “Our Men in Iran?,” New Yorker, April 5, 2012; “US trained Iranian ‘terrorist’ group – report,” Russia Today, April 11, 2012; Max Fisher, “Blowback: In Aiding Iranian Terrorists, the U.S. Repeats a Dangerous Mistake,” Atlantic, April 6, 2012; Michael B Kelley, “US Special Forces Trained Foreign Terrorists In Nevada To Fight Iran,” Business Insider, April 9, 2012; Paul R. Pillar, “More Posturing on Iran,” National Interest, September 23, 2012.
 “Mossad training terrorists to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, US officials claim…but is Israel’s real target Obama?,” Daily Mail, February 10, 2012; “Report: U.S., Israel Helped Trained Iranian Dissidents,” Haaretz, April, 7, 2012.
 Quoted in Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong, 50.
 Dan Froomkin, “The Two Most Essential, Abhorrent, Intolerable Lies of George W. Bush’s Memoir,” Huffington Post, November 22, 2010.
 Quoted in Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong, 39.
 David Armstrong, “Dick Cheney’s Song of America,” Harper’s Magazine, Oct 2002, Vol. 305, Issue 1829.
 “Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 attacks good for Israel,” Haaretz, April 16, 2008.
 Armstrong, “Dick Cheney’s Song of America,” Harper’s Magazine, Oct 2002, Vol. 305, Issue 1829.
 David Armstrong, “Dick Cheney’s Song of America,” Harper’s Magazine, October 2002, Vol. 305, Issue 1829.
 Quoted in Ibid.
 Quoted in Ibid.
 Jonah Goldberg, “Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake,” LA Times, October 19, 2006.
 Armstrong, “Dick Cheney’s Song of America,” Harper’s Magazine, Oct 2002, Vol. 305, Issue 1829.
 David Rose, “Neo Culpa,” Vanity Fair, November 3, 2006.
 Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong, 41.
 Ibid., 42.