American Dissident Voices Broadcast of June 21, 2008
Musings on Recent Politics
By Erich Gliebe

Welcome back to another edition of American Dissident Voices, the
Internet radio program of the National Alliance. I'm your host
and the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

It's been another interesting week in politics, so let's review
some of that action from a White racialist point of view.

For one thing, President Bush is on his high horse again about
Iran and its plans to continue enriching uranium, which Bush and
many European leaders don't want Iran to do. About a week ago,
Bush made the statement that "all options were on the table" with
regard to Iran, which necessarily implies that the option of
using military force to invade the Islamic republic is one that
Bush would consider. To this point, the rest of Europe has gone
along with the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran, but all
have steered well away from support of Bush's veiled threat of
invading Iran.

All of them, that is, except the part-Jewish French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, who appeared in a joint news conference with
Bush last weekend. Sarkozy and Bush stood together, presenting a
unified front, as Bush intoned: "Our allies understand that a
nuclear-armed Iran is incredibly destabilizing, and they
understand that it would be a major blow to world peace." This
from a man who himself dealt a major blow to world peace by his
choices to invade Iraq and to continue occupying the country five
years after he announced an end to the hostilities and, in the
process, did more to "incredibly" destabilize the Middle East
since at least the early 1970s.

As I recall, the Middle East, while it has always been unstable,
especially since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, was
humming along at a fairly low level of chaos and violence before
2003, when Bush ordered the invasion of the sovereign nation of
Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Granted, there was tension between
Iraq and Israel, but there wasn't nearly as much violence in the
region back then, and there definitely wasn't nearly as much
uncertainty. But Bush sent in the troops, who swooped down on the
helpless Iraqis like the U.S. cavalry swooping down on a herd of
helpless sheep, bravely slaughtering them with virtually no
effort at all. And once we hunted Saddam out of his hiding place,
Bush and many other Americans figured that it was time to start
making plans to welcome the troops home.

Well, so much for that. And now, in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
the U.S. is learning the same lesson that the Soviets learned in
Afghanistan during the 1980s: trying to control a country filled
with courageous and innovative guerillas is a royal pain in the
ass. Actually, most Americans -- except for Bush -- seem to have
learned the lesson several years ago at least, but the stubborn
former heavy drinker and suspected drug user will have none of
it.

Now, of course, the problem is with Iran, which has picked up the
Islamic and anti-Israeli standard that was wrenched from the
hands of Saddam Hussein. All along, the contention of the men and
women of the National Alliance is that Bush is doing what he is
in the Middle East in order to curry the favor of his favorite
power-distributors, the Jewish Establishment. Back in 2003,
certainly there was no doubt that Israel would benefit from the
taking down of Saddam Hussein, who was a vocal opponent of the
Zionist state and a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause.
Few of us thought it likely that Iran would come to the fore in
the Islamic world with such vigor and such speed. But it
happened, and now it seems apparent to White racialists worldwide
that, just as the Jews managed to pull the right strings at the
right time to get us to obliterate all semblance of order and
stability in Iraq so that Israel could breathe easier, they are
working through many of the same channels and starting to get the
wheels turning for a U.S. invasion of Iran…for the same purpose:
the safety of Israel.

There are still a lot of White Americans and Europeans who
contest the view that the U.S. went into Iraq -- PRIMARILY -- to
take out, at the time, Israel's Enemy Number One. There are still
a lot of White Americans and Europeans who contest the view that
the U.S. troops are still in Iraq -- PRIMARILY -- to keep a lid
on the simmering pot of Arab-world anger so that it doesn't boil
over and scald Israel. There are still a lot of White Americans
and Europeans who contest the view that George Bush is being
pushed into a pre-emptive strike against Iran -- PRIMARILY --
because Iran is Israel's new Enemy Number One.

You know, IF the Jews didn't have all of the immense power that
they have up and down the American media -- in New York,
Washington, and Hollywood -- I could understand the doubters. But
the power and influence of the Jewish Establishment is so great
that it is hardly conceivable. For the facts on the magnitude of
the Jewish influence in the media, in business, and in politics,
read "Who Rules America?," which can be found on our Web site at
www.natall.com.

After reading "Who Rules America?," there can be no doubt: The
Jews have colossal power in the United States and they use it in
whatever way they feel best promotes their interests…such as
using U.S. troops to "clean house" in the Middle East to pave the
way for Israel. George Bush is just their current point-man on
their "Make Way for Greater Israel" project.

But while Bush is the Jews' point-man, their Jewish kinsman
Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, is vying to be Bush's
wingman on the project. Actually, seeing Sarkozy standing behind
the podium at the news conference last Saturday was almost funny,
if it hadn't been so pathetic. An arm's length away, Bush was
threatening to open up a can of whup-ass on an unapologetic Iran,
and the stone-faced Jewish president of France was standing by,
prepared to throw the military "might" of France into the
potential fight alongside the Americans.

Now, with regard to French military "might," given its history
for the past 70 or 80 years at least, the French military…
"might" last a month or six weeks before needing either foreign
help to shore up the collapsing front or translation help to iron
out the terms of the French surrender. With the Jewish President
of France backing Bush's aggressive words to Iran, it's no wonder
that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no fear of an
invasion by the West.

But all jokes about the French military aside, at least the
French armed forces haven't been the bully boys for Jewish
interests like the U.S. armed forces have. Who did the dirty work
of saving the monster of Soviet communism by defeating National
Socialism, which was set to grind it under its heel? The U.S.
military, under the guise of "the Allies." Who bombed the
daylights out of Kosovo, when Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs
wanted to run their country without the pesky interference of
international meddlers? Mainly the U.S. military, under the guise
of NATO. Who destroyed all stability in Iraq, a nation that had
committed not a single indiscretion against the United States,
other than a little name-calling and the accusation that we were
the playthings of the Jews? The U.S. military. So before we have
too many laughs at the expense of the French military, we need to
realize that we ought to be hanging our heads in shame for
allowing our armed forces to do all of the Jews' dirty work.

Anyway, let's turn away from the Middle East for a moment and
take a look at the presidential campaign. As expected, New York
Senator Hillary Clinton has bowed out of the race for the
Democratic nomination, leaving the way open for Illinois Senator
Barack Obama to lead his party's ticket. Obama's candidacy will
be confirmed at the Democratic National Convention in Denver,
Colorado in August.

Obama, of course, will be the first Black man to run for
President, and already some feathers are being ruffled. Black
conservatives are in a quandary as to whom to vote for;
traditionally, they vote Republican, but the "call of the blood"
is pulling on them to vote for Obama. Black conservatives such as
retired general Colin Powell, former Oklahoma congressman J.C.
Watts, and talk show host Armstrong Williams are thinking about
jumping party lines and voting for Obama. As quoted in an AP
article this past Sunday, June 15, Williams said about Obama:
"Among black conservatives, they tell me privately, it would be
very hard to vote against him in November."

Besides Obama getting the votes of the dozen or so Black
conservatives in the United States, he also made a bid this week
to steal a portion of the traditionally Republican White vote. In
a speech at Chicago's Apostolic Church of God last Sunday on
Father's Day, Obama had some stern words for absentee Black
fathers, admonishing them to become responsible adults and take
care of the children they've fathered. "They have abandoned their
responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men," Obama stated,
in an obvious attempt to catch the ear of White conservatives.
"And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it…
Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father. It's
the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."

Obama added more fuel to the fire when he spoke about Blacks
needing to quit blaming slavery and discrimination for all of
their problems: "Those injustices are real. There's a reason our
families are in disrepair, and some of it has to do with a tragic
history, but we can't keep using that as an excuse."

Black men taking responsibility for their actions and Blacks as a
whole "getting over" the so-called injustices of the past are two
issues that sit very well with millions of White Republicans,
many of them Christians. At the end of his speech, Obama threw
out one last hook to catch White Christians who at the very least
would hear sound bites on the evening news: "Pray for me." It
will be interesting to watch how things pan out as the campaign
continues, especially to see if Obama makes any inroads into the
White conservative bloc in the American South.

But Black Republicans and some White Republicans might not be the
only ones jumping ship in November. Connecticut's Democratic
Jewish Senator Joseph Lieberman is almost certainly going to jump
the other way. Lieberman is good buddies with the presumed
Republican Presidential nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, and
has already been on the campaign trail promoting McCain, who sees
eye to eye with Lieberman on the "three I's:" Israel, Iraq, and
Iran.

And not only has Lieberman thrown his support to the Israel-first
Republican McCain, but he has REALLY ticked off the Democratic
honchos by attacking his own party's presumed nominee, Barack
Obama. And can you guess the issues that have brought Lieberman's
venom against a fellow party member to the surface? That's right,
the "three I's": Israel, Iraq, and Iran. And with powerful Jews
these days, the "I's" have it.

Upset that Obama blames current U.S. foreign policy for much of
the trouble in the Middle East, Lieberman let everyone know which
country's welfare is the recipient of most of his own effort and
concern: "If Israel is in danger today, it's not because of
American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of
Israel in every way. It is not because of what we have done in
Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical, terrorist, expansionist
state." Exactly, Joe: it is that strongly supportive American
foreign policy towards Israel (some would call it totally
one-sided and unfair) that the Islamic Middle East is disgusted
with the U.S. about.

In November, if McCain is elected, it seems that he is likely to
continue in the footsteps of Bush in the Middle East: namely,
continue wasting money and lives in Iraq, and at least writing up
a rough draft of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, just in case the
Israelis let their string-pulling kinsmen in this country know
that they can't live with the specter of a strong Iran hanging
over their heads any longer… in which case, the American bully
boy will pull out the club on behalf of the Jews yet again.

But if Obama is elected, who knows what will happen? I mentioned
a few months ago that it seemed to me that the Jewish
Establishment doesn't know what to do about Obama, and I think
that's still the case. I think they'd rather have McCain in the
White House, but I don't know if their media will be able to
drive enough votes out of the Obama camp and give them to a
ho-hum Israel chum like McCain.

I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SUBSCRIBE to NATIONAL VANGUARD, our unique, thought-provoking 
magazine -- $22 US, $30 Canada, and $40 Foreign.
This is for six high-quality, glossy color issues:

SEND $3 for our 88-page CATALOG of books and other items:

     National Vanguard Books
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Donations are needed to keep this program on the air. Give $20
today!
http://www.natvanbooks.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid=599
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. 
This 
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to
be 
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup
posting.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The National Alliance: www.natvan.com & www.natall.com
National Vanguard Books: www.natvanbooks.com

(c) 2008 National Vanguard Books