by Ted Lang
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance
The DC Madam scandal has been erased from
the American public's radar screen by the Zionist-controlled "American" mass
media. The Bush White House pedophile scandal is non-existent thanks
to the Zionist MSM. And if one needs proof of the Zionist domination of our
mass mainstream Establishment media, please go here to get up to speed.
The New York Times, gatekeeper for all broadcast and cable TV news,
has yet to learn of the Downing Street Memo. And Cheney's
direct involvement in orchestrating defense system "stand-downs"
facilitate the 9/11 massacre of Americans, and his criminally
motivated exposure of Valerie Plame, are of absolutely no concern to
the MSM (Mainstream Media).
So why all the concentrated media focus on New
York Governor Elliot Spitzer's long-term rolls in the hay with paid
Even a novice news junkie that has only recently begun to understand the
fraud and propaganda agenda of the "American" MSM can immediately notice
something weird relative to the "exposure" of Governor Spitzer's addiction
to high-priced prostitutes. Any normal red-blooded American male just loves
women who can reduce down sexual pleasure to the simple exchange requiring
only money. It is indeed the "oldest profession."
Consider all the previously cited potential block-busting front page
headlines "missed" by "America's" MSM.
Why the fuss over this?
Even the exposure and resignation of former
Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey attracted less mass media frenzy
than this "news" event. It is clear that this exposť of the "evil" of Eliot
Spitzer is a deliberate media-hyped fraud to remove from power that which is
a serious threat to
The Establishment's power elite.
Let US recall the directives for all disciples of Zionism as articulated in
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."
Here is the applicable dictate from "the
Protocols" as cited in Henry Ford's
The International Jew, Chapter 8:
"As always election campaigns are staged as
entertainment, a diversion for the people; they are permitted to think
and act as if they are really making their own government, but it
is always the Jews that win. And if after having elected their man or
group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you
speedily hear of 'scandals' and 'investigations' and 'impeachments' for
the removal of the disobedient."
Is this relevant to the Spitzer
Here's more from the agenda of "The Protocols" as illuminated by Ford:
"Usually a man with a 'past' proves the most
obedient instrument, but even a good man can often be tangled up in
campaign practices that compromise him. It has been commonly known that
Jewish manipulation of American election campaigns have been skillfully
handled, that no matter which candidate was elected, there was a ready
made sufficient amount of evidence to discredit him in case his Jewish
masters needed to discredit him. To arrange this is part of the
thoroughness of Jewish control. And, of course, the American people have
been sufficiently trained to roar against the public official
immediately [when] the first Jewish hound emits its warning bay."
The Zionist objective is to recruit for American
government those politicians with skeletons in their closets so that they
can be blackmailed. The greatest example is that pompous, arrogant and
egotistical ass Woodrow Wilson, who sold US out for the Zionist
Rothschild Marxist income tax and the Warburg
Federal Reserve System now bankrupting America.
But these affronts to true individual freedom
are of absolutely no concern whatsoever to our Israel and communist New
World Order-supporting MSM. And here's why.
Virtually every power-postured, corrupt and immoral politician in America
uses the services of beautiful high-priced prostitutes. It's part of the
American political power rewards system. But the phony straw men
Frankenstein monsters of American government have conjured up phony
affronts to decency and morality.
These offer that the "mere possession of"
firearms, "controlled substances," pornographic materials, and soon,
documents and writings critical of American government, constitute crimes
that require punishment. The fact is, these are NOT crimes. Crimes are
acts of depravity committed by one human against another thereby depriving
the victim of the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
And who commits more crimes against American
citizens than American government?
Crimes that are not resultant in "damaged victims," victims that have been
deprived or forcibly reduced in economic value, or who have sustained
physical injury, pain or death, are not crimes. Government creates crimes
out of thin air. Government establishes "crimes" that in reality are no
crimes at all. They are only crimes because government says they are crimes.
When one considers the "liberal" call for a separation of church and state,
combined with the unequal and opposite marriage of synagogue and state,
"laws" are created for political expediency, and not for either equity
Prostitution is not a crime. If it really was, then the whole damn Congress
should be arrested and locked up! Nor is the "mere possession" of anything,
a crime. As long as no one is hurt or injured in any way by someone's
action, then NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED!
The corrupt, immoral state and its corrupt,
immoral, politicians are the only ones who discriminate against law-abiding,
moral citizens, to elevate their own depravity and real crimes to their own
standard of acceptability.
Yes, technically, Spitzer committed a crime; but only in the eyes of
corrupt, immoral government. And yes, he basically has no defense because he
vigorously prosecuted others for committing precisely the same type of
"offenses" that he himself committed. At worst, he's a hypocrite. But
drug possession, drug usage, alcohol possession, alcohol usage and its
over-indulgence, as well as paid-for sex, are none of the government's
Humans make mistakes, but a whole hell of a lot
less mistakes than f*****g government!
Please identify for me the worst
criminal you can call to memory that mass murdered more than one million
New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down
rapidly, disgracefully, and very, very publicly by the mass Zionist media.
Where was this media for Downing, the White House pedophiles, Plame, Edmonds
and the DC Madam?
They were nowhere to be found! So as far as this
news junkie is concerned, they can all drop dead and go straight to hell!
Spitzer was targeted by The Establishment. Sure Spitzer is Jewish,
and I've re-registered as a Republican to support Congressman Ron Paul
and my Jewish friend Dr. Murray Sabrin, who is running for the US
Senate for New Jersey. But Spitzer's track record is simply marvelous! He
was an enemy of War Street. He was an enemy of the international central
House of Rothschild
He may possibly have been contemplating
the 9/11 fraud perpetrated by the Cheney-Bush crime
machine, but this claim is so far unsubstantiated. But, he was
the international bankers and their criminal Cheney-Bush regime.
In an opinion piece Spitzer wrote and published in the Washington Post
on Valentine's Day, February 14th, the day after his admitted tryst in DC,
"Even though predatory lending was becoming
a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and
did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government
chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing
Spitzer's piece entitled, "Predatory Lenders'
Partner in Crime ≠ How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From
Stepping In to Help Consumers" (below insert), highlighted the sub-prime
lending bust which was planned and brought about by the banking "industry."
Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush
Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in
consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of
predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were
misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to
consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser"
rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with
undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks.
These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating
effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these
practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the
Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect
American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align
itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming
national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney
general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in
attempting to fill the void left by the federal government.
Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties
brought litigation or entered into settlements with many sub-prime
lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several
state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at
curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse
course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As
Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of
homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is
a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect
consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign
to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very
problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an
obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil
War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national
banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks
to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial
function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history,
the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC
invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal
opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby
rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that
prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection
laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were
so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys
general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought
the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even
slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the
banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible
discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC
filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the
banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory
lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the
states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory
and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the
legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead,
they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices
that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their
homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the sub-prime lending crisis and
recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent
homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged
favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles,
it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to
any lengths in their quest for profits.
So willing, in fact, that it used the
power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state
legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else
on the side of consumers.
(The writer is governor of New York.)
"Predatory lending was widely understood to
present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New
York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states
in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government.
Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties
brought litigation or entered into settlements with many sub-prime
lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state
legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such
Spitzer has been whoring for ten years.
Nothing new here. As previously stated, ALL politicians in America are
corrupt and all do this. Spitzer never saw it coming. And stupid
brainwashed America is of course outraged as the Protocols knew they
would be. Traitor Nancy Pelosi could have come to his aid and told
the criminal GOP to back off or she would go after the smirking disgrace in
the White House; but she too is only loyal to Israel and its
And as we consider Zionists and their origins from the "Jewish"
House of Rothschild, it was this Zionist
banker who plotted to infiltrate the highest levels of
Freemasonry in order
to gain access to America's political elite.
Most US Presidents, including George Washington,
were Masons. It was Rothschild who conceived of a Jewish State, and who
supported Theodor Herzl's Zionist activism which created "The
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."
And the Protocols make it clear how
utterly disgusting and loathsome the goyim (herd) of Christianity and
non-Jews are. It mimics the hatred for Christ and his followers
found in the "Jewish" Talmud. And it was this hatred for all non-Jewish
humanity that motivated Hitler. It is what turned him into a racist, a
racist reacting to, and opposing, the hatred and racism of "Jews."
But the bringing down of Spitzer, himself a Jew, now provides readily
discernible evidence that not all Jews are Zionists, and that those Jews who
oppose their Zionist masters will be destroyed. Think of traitor Nancy
Pelosi's terror after being booed by the Israel lobby.
It should be clear, that virtually all bankers are tied, in some way, to
the Rothschild system. And Spitzer
connected them and Bush. And he connected them to the current
economic mess in America that is directly their creation.
Now think of the loudmouth on talk radio that
impresses everyone with his high level of intelligence in opining:
"I don't believe in conspiracy theories."
Spitzer Was A Favorite Son Of A Tribe He Never Quite Embraced
by Anthony Weiss
In the last statewide public opinion poll taken
before news broke of Eliot Spitzer's involvement in a high-priced
prostitution ring, the New York governor's approval rating was below 50% for
every major demographic group, except one: his fellow Jews.
For much of his career, Spitzer was a source of great pride to Jews, with
some supporters referring to him as having the potential to become the first
Jewish president. In the blogosphere, that closeness was portrayed as simple
ethnic pride; when the scandal broke, the Web site
Gawker proclaimed it a "Shanda fur die
And yet, while Spitzer may have been of the Jews, in many ways he did not
come across as particularly Jewish. He never projected the folksy charm of
Joe Lieberman, not to mention the Connecticut senator's religious
observance. Nor did the former governor seem as comfortable among Jews as
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg - who, like Spitzer, moves in
well-heeled circles and is not religiously observant.
Even Mario Cuomo, the long-serving
Italian American governor of New York, projected an ethnic credibility that
was almost more overtly Jewish than Spitzer's persona.
"He was more WASP than he was Jew," said
Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic political consultant who worked on several
of Spitzer's campaigns. "He was much more comfortable in Princeton than
in an Orthodox synagogue."
So why, then, was he embraced as a favorite
According to some observers, the hopes invested
by Jews in Spitzer, and the corresponding heartbreak over his fall, point to
a far deeper and more complicated bond than simple ethnic solidarity.
Spitzer was caught by the push and pull of two strains of Jewish politics.
On the one hand, he seemed uncomfortable with the clannishness of retail
Jewish politicking and appears not to have felt a part of that clan at all.
But he also embodied the streak of reform-minded
liberalism that has been the backbone of Jewish politics for more than a
century. Despite his privileged background, he kept an outsider's zeal for
purging corruption from the political system. Though some Jews were
alienated by his refusal to offer them special attention, far more were
attracted by that same rectitude. Spitzer's high-mindedness held the loyalty
of Jewish voters even when the rest of his support had abandoned him.
To speak of Spitzer's "Jewishness" is to wade into murky territory. On the
one hand, Spitzer's background presents all the familiar signifiers of a
traditional Jewish family. His father, Bernard, grew up in a tenement on
Manhattan's Lower East Side; he met his wife, Anne, in the Catskills and
graduated from City College. Then Bernard went into real estate, where he
made a fortune, and Anne became a teacher.
But their children were raised in a different world. The New York Times
reported that Spitzer did not have a religiously observant upbringing, nor
did he have a bar mitzvah. He attended the Tony Horace Mann School,
and from there went on to Princeton and then to Harvard Law School. After he
married, he and his non-Jewish wife, Silda Wall, raised their family
in a Fifth Avenue apartment owned by Spitzer's parents.
On one of the few occasions that Spitzer did speak about his Jewishness, he
connected his values to his upbringing - but underscored the difference
between his parents and himself.
"I would say that my values are very much a
product of a household in which both parents who raised me were more
observant than I have been," he told the Jewish Week in 1998, shortly
after he was first elected attorney general.
Perhaps as a result of this distinction, Spitzer
sometimes seemed to approach Jewish issues almost as an outsider, fascinated
by the clannish concerns of other Jews.
William Rapfogel, executive director of
the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty and a member of Spitzer's
transition team, said that before traveling to Israel, Spitzer questioned
him about the Jewish connection to the Jewish state.
"He was interested in how the Jewish
community related so intensely. It was not a part of his upbringing,"
Rapfogel said. "There was a real, genuine curiosity."
But there was also an uneasiness.
During Spitzer's time as attorney general,
investigations by his office of prominent Jewish organizations, as the
Forward has reported, were suffused with complications. One Orthodox
organization was let off the hook without a binding settlement, despite
clear indications of problems; however, the investigation of an
international Jewish body resulted in a harshly critical final report that
forced one of its officers to be removed from power. Both incidents elicited
comment from observers, with some speculating that he was too tough on the
Jews - and others saying that he was not tough enough.
That uncertain relationship between Spitzer and his Jewishness
made it difficult for some to pin down precisely how he was Jewish at all.
"He couldn't run away from being a Jew - his
name was Eliot Spitzer," Assemblyman Dov Hikind told the Forward.
"That might've been the most Jewish thing about him."
But to his Jewish supporters, Spitzer's brand of
Jewishness lay not in a narrow identification but in the universal
values he espoused.
It was the collapse of those values that made
the final heartbreak so painful.