The career of John McCain offers a textbook case confirming how war is waged on the U.S. by way of deception—with the help of senior lawmakers.
Despite the constancy of his treasonous conduct, McCain seeks a fifth term in the U.S. Senate.
Reflect for a moment on our national experience since he was profiled, politically packaged and placed in the House in 1982. The “package” was then relocated to the Senate in 1986 on the retirement of Arizonan Barry Goldwater.
With McCain’s enthusiastic backing, our military was deployed to wage war abroad based on assurances from political leaders who were deceived to lead us to war. If not treason, what dare we call the conduct of those who enabled that fraud?
John McCain is consistent. Everywhere you see him, you see a system that faltered or outright failed. During the Savings & Loan fraud of the 1980s, he emerged early on as an accomplice.
His consistency should long ago have led to his indictment. Instead he is running for reelection.
Even more worrisome, he seems unaware of how he’s been used—over and over again.
The Architecture of Deceit
After McCain conceded his role in the S&L fraud, his organized crime handlers repackaged him as a champion for campaign finance reform.
Like McCain, this syndicate is also consistent: one fraud typically leads to another.
There’s no shortage of recent frauds: Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings in Prague, Iraq’s yellowcake uranium from Niger, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories.
All were false. Yet a consensus emerged around a fraudulent belief that induced us to war.
John McCain played a key role in creating the political dynamics that enabled this fraud. First he championed a change in the rules for federal elections. Then he personally marketed the lies that took us to war on false pretenses. Those two frauds are closely related.
In practical effect, “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance reform strengthened the hand of organized crime due to legislation he co-sponsored with Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
These changes increased—from $1,000 to $2,300—the amount that candidates can lawfully receive from individuals in both a primary and a general election. A couple can contribute a maximum $9,200 (4 x $2,300) to as many political candidates as they choose.
Making the Case
Here’s the problem: McCain-Feingold doubled the allowable campaign contributions that candidates can receive without regard to where those contributors reside.
That Diaspora-based funding strategy has long been deployed with success by the Israel lobby to shape U.S. policy. Under the guise of reform, McCain-Feingold doubled the lobby’s impact.
A Congressional District, say in Iowa, may have only a few pro-Israeli constituents. With McCain-Feingold, a nationwide network of Zionists can be mobilized to contribute locally, thereby inducing support for Israeli policies.
The process works like this. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) summons candidates for interviews. Those found sufficiently enthused about AIPAC’s agenda are given the name of a “bundler” who identifies donors willing to “max out” their campaign contributions for pro-Israeli candidates—regardless where the candidate is running for office.
After McCain-Feingold became effective in 2003, any experienced AIPAC-identified bundler could raise $1 million simply by contacting 10 pro-Israeli friends.
The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say, in Manhattan, Miami Beach and Beverly Hills. Each of the 10 max out (10 x $9,200) and call 10 others for a total of 111. When everyone contributes $9,200, the candidate’s total is $1,021,200.
With AIPAC’s blessing, one call can fund a $1 million campaign. It’s difficult to overstate the impact wrought by the Israel lobby’s political operations over the past six decades. John McCain guaranteed their impact would become far more threatening to our national security.
Making the Case
The lobby’s political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than 10% of House races (typically 35 to 50) are competitive in an election cycle. Long-term, that leverage is amplified by those—such as AIPAC—motivated to sustain this financial focus over multiple cycles as their candidates gain political seniority.
To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from this nationwide pro-Israeli network is paid to media outlets owned in substantial part by members of this same network.
As McCain knew, presidents, senators and congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass real political influence.
With McCain’s help, Ashkenazi organized crime gained more political power. Its operatives already wield influence disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.
By granting this Diaspora greater influence over federal elections, McCain granted Israel more power over U.S. policy-making. In practical effect, McCain’s “reform” represents a major first step toward the repeal of representative government.
