Why Americans Need to Reclaim Their First Amendment Rights Part 2 of 2

[Y_Participant 4591]

Why Americans Need to Reclaim Their First Amendment Rights Part 2 of 2

[Y : Forward

Right at the start I must clarify and emphasise that this post is about the people of the United States of America and their Constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

This post is a continuation of [1] given in the citations list and concludes the topic with the original article that got the author terminated as described in Part 1.

I strongly encourage reading Part 1 before the current post.

Again – thanks for reading

Y]

America’s Jews Are Driving U.S. Wars [2]
Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
Philip Giraldi
Information Clearing House
September 19, 2017

Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency and a columnist and television commentator who is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. This article was originally published in the InformationClearingHouse

UPDATE: September 25, 2017 –
On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative [3], where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” [2] was unacceptable. The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” [4] which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi.

I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room?

Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”

It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity.

Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.

They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.

Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. [5] To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself.

But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States.

They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in the New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran [6] strangely suggests that the current generation “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq.

The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens.

Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of the New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” [7] which identifies the four above cited hawks by name before describing them as “…a Who’s Who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking.

If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last twenty years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”

And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations;

Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute.

And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives.

And I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military – David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.

So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews. Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress re Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our Solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task.

The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish.

One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan Administration and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby.

Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course. Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.

Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. Ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.

There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties.

First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust.

This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.

Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest.

Any American should be free to exercise first amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation.

But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage.

For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening.

Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it

Philip Giraldi
Information Clearing House

Citations
[1] /forums/topic/why-americans-need-to-reclaim-their-first-amendment-rights-part-1-of-2/
[2] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47843.htm
[3] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/about-us/
[4] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/
[5] http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/iran-again/
[6] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-iraq-war-hawks-can-help-stop-trump-from-going-to-war-with-iran
[7] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/yes-iran-hawks-want-conflict-with-iran/

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

Well, Giraldi has some good points.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22525]

The first protects the second. The second enforces the first.

[MarketWatcherParticipant]

Faust For Science wrote:

The first protects the second. The second enforces the first.

Well said.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22525]

MarketWatcher wrote:

Faust For Science wrote:

The first protects the second. The second enforces the first.

Well said.

Thank you.

What worries me about Israel is the current leadership is becoming more and more desperate as they watch their power diminish. These same Israel government officials are tied to the anti-western groups across the would, including such anti-American groups operating inside the U.S. at the highest levels of industry, academia, entertainment, media, and parts of government.

A recent poll stated a third of U.S. students do not know what the “holocaust” is (the anti-americans have only themselves to blame on this one by destroying U.S. schools). Those that do know of the “holocaust” of the young generations either feel that event has no bearing in their lives, or they are unjustly blamed for the “holocaust” considering the U.S. were the ones that FOUGHT the Germans. Yet, every pro-Israel media company constantly falsely accuses those Americans that disagree with them of being “nazi”, “fascists”, “white supremacists”.

By all accounts, the Israel population is sick of the current pro-war/police state approach of the current Israel government and they wish to throw out these people in the next election and subsequent elections.

Almost no one talks about the massive protests by the Israel population against the Israeli leadership which have been happening for years.

Because of this, the current Israel leadership is looking more and more like a death cult with nuclear weapons, whom would rather destroy Israel and the rest of the world with their “Samson option” than give up power.

[Y_Participant 4591]

Faust For Science wrote:

Market~~~cher wrote:

Faust For Science wrote:

The first protects the second. The second enforces the first.

Well said.

Thank you.

What worries me about Israel is the current leadership is becoming more and more desperate as they watch their power diminish. These same Israel government officials are tied to the anti-western groups across the would, including the U.S.
…………..

Kudos again. If top notch analysts like Giraldi and others like him are thrown to the wolves we my be approaching a period when it may be made a crime to even speak up.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22525]

Y_ wrote:

Faust For Science wrote:

Market~~~cher wrote:

Faust For Science wrote:

The first protects the second. The second enforces the first.

Well said.

Thank you.

What worries me about Israel is the current leadership is becoming more and more desperate as they watch their power diminish. These same Israel government officials are tied to the anti-western groups across the would, including the U.S.
…………..

Kudos again. If top notch analysts like Giraldi and others like him are thrown to the wolves we my be approaching a period when it may be made a crime to even speak up.

Thank you.

This is also the reason why “christianity” is on the decline in the U.S. Those whom run these religious organizations are more considered with the needs those outside their groups than within their group, whom are the ones given the donations to keep the lights on.

Those behind the censorship falsely believe that if people are silenced they will agree with the censors. That does not work. Instead, people will talk in hushed tones in secret and plot vengeance against those whom had harmed them.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Three thoughts:

1. I get it the usual jew/Israel bashing, and in some cases deserved but what does that have to do with First Amendment jurisprudence?

2. “Faking the Iranian Threat”? WTF? Lets Look at some facts:
a) Iran has openly declared for decades as a matter of national policy the desire to destroy both
Israel and the US. Should we dismiss this as they are just kidding around; or do we take their
threats seriously? What is the evidence they are “just kidding around”?
b) Iran acknowledged the existence of their nuclear enrichment program—which they had previously
denied. Claiming they would “re-start” the program if the US broke the agreement made with Obama.
So evidently they had the program going and denied its existence. (we simpletons call that a lie.)

c) Iranian naval units have attacked US naval assets in the Persian Gulf. Does that constitute a
threat? Sounds like it to me.

Now my point isn’t to argue for war with Iran, I would oppose that. I’m simply pointing out that the statement “Faking Iran threat” obviously ignores the factual realities that I describe above. When any article skews facts and papers over evidence contrary to their point I believe credibility is sacrificed.

Finally, The point of the thread I assumed was a discussion of the First Amendment and frankly I’m a little disappointed that despite the title of the thread we don’t get to the issue of the First Amendment until the very end of the article as though this were merely an after-thought.

Whenever you guys want to discuss US Jurisprudence regarding the first Amendment including the case law, history and political implications please let me know…I’ll be up for that.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22525]

PistolPete wrote:

Three thoughts:

1. I get it the usual jew/Israel bashing, and in some cases deserved but what does that have to do with First Amendment jurisprudence?

2. “Faking the Iranian Threat”? WTF? Lets Look at some facts:
a) Iran has openly declared for decades as a matter of national policy the desire to destroy both
Israel and the US. Should we dismiss this as they are just kidding around; or do we take their
threats seriously? What is the evidence they are “just kidding around”?
b) Iran acknowledged the existence of their nuclear enrichment program—which they had previously
denied. Claiming they would “re-start” the program if the US broke the agreement made with Obama.
So evidently they had the program going and denied its existence. (we simpletons call that a lie.)

c) Iranian naval units have attacked US naval assets in the Persian Gulf. Does that constitute a
threat? Sounds like it to me.

3. Now my point isn’t to argue for war with Iran, I would oppose that. I’m simply pointing out that the statement “Faking Iran threat” obviously ignores the factual realities that I describe above. When any article skews facts and papers over evidence contrary to their point I believe credibility is sacrificed.

4. Finally, The point of the thread I assumed was a discussion of the First Amendment and frankly I’m a little disappointed that despite the title of the thread we don’t get to the issue of the First Amendment until the very end of the article as though this were merely an after-thought.

5. Whenever you guys want to discuss US Jurisprudence regarding the first Amendment including the case law, history and political implications please let me know…I’ll be up for that.

1. When talking about such matters, we need to separate the Israeli people’s actions from the Israeli government’s actions. Along with separating other people’s actions from the actions of said nation’s governments whom govern said people.

2. Both nations have been provoking the other.

A. For every threat Iran makes against Israel, Israel makes a threat against Iran, and visa versa.

Listen to the propaganda of Israel expecting “retaliatory” strikes from Iran. “Retaliatory” means reaction, meaning they did not start the fight.

It Israel is going to stir the pot, start a fight, and strike first, that nation cannot call fowl when they get hit in response.

B. Do not forget that Israel is a nuclear power that is threatening Iran, so Iran wants to be a nuclear power to counter Israel. This has been done across the globe for over half a century.

C. Well, to be honest this s~~~show has a lot of blame on a lot sides.

3. But, one cannot ignore obvious false flag attacks.

4. A monopoly of an industry is a threat no matter what form it takes. It is a fact that only a few people control the media and online social media in the U.S. and that is a danger the freedoms of the U.S. population.

5. There is the letter of the law. The spirit of the intent of the law. And the application of the law. And these three concepts are rarely in line with each other. One can actually measure the corruption of society by have far these three concepts of the law differ from each other when comes to any given law.

[Y_Participant 4591]

PistolPete wrote:

. I get it the usual jew/Israel bashing, and in some cases deserved but what does that have to do with First Amendment jurisprudence?

I am not an American so I have no vested interest either way. Just my thoughts and apologies if this steps on anyone’s toes

This piece is not about Israel, although the country comes up as it is intimately involved in US foreign policy. It is about the way the vast majority of Americans cannot debate their current foreign policy without being called anti-Semetic. This is very dangerous to not be able to speak or discuss such matters. The country’s future depends on this.

American foreign policy seems to be being controlled by a small group of people who have committed to certain actions in the Middle East – and Americans plus citizens in other countries are dying for it. This is no small matter.

Regardless of what other countries get up to – Americans should be able to choose their own path. I see young American men die in Afghanistan or other such places in wars that most Americans see no sense in being part of.

The cost of those wars and the fallout are destroying the United States financially and morally. In my view the decision of common Americans is important in deciding which way their country is to respond and for what reason.

I believe that is not happening.

One word on Iran’s position on Israel which needs to be clarified. I attach an article by the Grand Mufti Hassan Nasrallah of Iran about their stand on Israel.

Quote follows
Today, on the tenth day [of the Islamic month of Muharram, commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein], I want to send a clear message to Israelis and Jews in Occupied Palestine and (anywhere) in the world. I tell them this:

From the beginning, we in the Resistance, have declared that our struggle was against the occupying Zionist aggressors on the land of Palestine and our Arab land, not against Jews as followers of a heavenly religion (recognized by Islam) or as a people of the Book [Torah].

I believe Iran has issues with the government of Israel and the occupation of Palestine, not with Jews in general. You can read the full speech here.

http://thesaker.is/hassan-nasrallah-calls-on-jews-to-flee-israel-zionism-is-our-common-enemy/

However, that is neither here nor there. The intent of the post was American political thought, not the Middle East.

[Author]

Posts