Sunday, October 18, 2009

Fear the "Muslim Mafia"

This is what happens when the American Muslim community a.k.a. CAIR a.k.a the "Muslim Mafia" dares to chime in on matters of U.S. policy by proposing (privately and internally) that it could, hopefully, maybe, lobby Congress like AIPAC does so as to take its rightful place alongside the all-powerful Israel Lobby, which of course owns and occupies the U.S. Congress.

GOP Lawmakers Accuse Muslim Advocacy Group CAIR of Planting Spies on Capitol Hill

Four House Republicans on Wednesday accused the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group of trying to "infiltrate" Capitol Hill by placing interns in the offices of lawmakers who handle national security issues.

The four lawmakers, members of the anti-terror caucus, asked for an investigation into the Council on American Islamic Relations after discovering an internal memo noting the group's strategy. They also highlighted a new book by Paul Sperry titled "Muslim Mafia," scheduled for release on Thursday, which claims the group has been actively infiltrating Congress.

Reps. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, Trent Franks of Arizona, Paul Broun of Georgia and John Shadegg of Arizona asked the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether CAIR deserves its nonprofit status. They also are asking their colleagues to review a summary of findings that led the Justice Department to name CAIR as a co-conspirator in a terrorism case.

The internal memo, provided to, stated that CAIR would "focus on influencing congressmen responsible for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community."

The memo cited three House committees -- Homeland Security, Intelligence and the Judiciary -- as panels on which lawmakers preside over policy affecting American Muslims.

"We will develop national initiatives such as a lobby day and placing Muslim interns in Congressional offices," the memo read.

Earlier this year the FBI severed its once-close ties with CAIR as evidence mounted of the group's links to a support network for Hamas, which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.

"It's frightening to think that an organization with clear-cut ties to terrorism could have a hand in influencing policy -- especially national security policy -- within our government," Myrick said. "The investigations that we're asking for are simple, and I'm hopeful that they will bring to light any and all information regarding the goals of CAIR."

Franks called on CAIR to renounce its ties to terrorist groups and state publicly that it does not support Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood.

"I take the charges levied against CAIR and laid out in this book very seriously because they affect our national security," Franks said in a statement. "This Congress must be deliberate in taking a strong stance against those groups and organizations that align themselves with terrorists."

"We live in a post-9/11 world where the coincidence of nuclear proliferation and Islamic terrorism pose a very dangerous combination and real threat to America's national security," he said. "That is why it is critical, in light of the well supported documents and information, that the U.S. Congress take this issue seriously."

CAIR decried the call as a "racist" and "insidious" attack on Muslims and mocked the allegations.

"If it wasn't so insidious, it would be laughable," CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told "What are their charges? CAIR seeks political participation of Muslims. I'm shocked."

Hooper said the evidence proves only that the group is trying, like every other minority group, to engage Muslims in the political process.

"Why is it evil when Muslims seek political participation?" he asked.

In the book "Muslim Mafia," a six-month sting appears to link CAIR to an organized crime network made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that make up the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The book claims the group is bent on destroying Western civilization.

Hooper said Sperry's efforts only proved the group's good intentions.

"The guy spied on us for months, stole documents -- and the most they came up with is CAIR seeks to work with policymakers on Capitol Hill?" Hooper said.

"I see it as a stamp of approval."

The uppity Muslims have forgotten that no pissing is allowed on Israeli-occupied territory. So just as a reminder, these paranoid, Islamophobic Republican lawmakers are claiming that CAIR is trying to "infiltrate" the U.S. government as 'spies' for the "Muslim Mafia". The last time I checked it wasn't Muslims that have a habit of spying and passing on classified information to foreign interests, it was the Jewish Mafia - the Rosenbergs and Bill Weisband in the '50s, Richard Smyth, Jonathan Pollard and Ben-Ami Kadish in the '80s, and more recently Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC and the Jane Harman / Haim Saban affair.

It doesn't stop there though, of course: There's Larry Franklin, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, William Luti, Harold Rhode, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, the ADL, and of course the 200 or so Israelis that were arrested and subsequently released for spying on the United States before and after the 9/11 attacks, not to mention the other five Israelis of the Mossad's World Trade Center dancing team. Not one individual listed in this paragraph was ever punished for compromising U.S. national security for Israel, but that is par for the course.

Since the Pollard case, U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement sources have revealed to the Prospect that at least six sealed indictments have been issued against individuals for espionage on Israel's behalf. It's a testament to the unique relationship between the United States and Israel that those cases were never prosecuted; according to the same sources, both governments ultimately addressed them through diplomatic and intelligence channels rather than air the dirty laundry. A number of career Justice Department and intelligence officials who have worked on Israeli counterespionage told the Prospect of long-standing frustration among investigators and prosecutors who feel that cases that could have been made successfully against Israeli spies were never brought to trial, or that the investigations were shut down prematurely. [source]

If any Muslim Arabs have been busted for spying on the U.S. for an Islamic government or on behalf of the intelligence services of an Arab state I've yet to learn about them. Have a look for yourself. The ATC - the Turkish Lobby - is powerful in Washington, but Turkey has long been tamed by the Zionists and the ATC is allied with AIPAC, so any intelligence gathered by the Turks is probably kosher and shared with Israel. Have there been charges laid or even allegations of Saudi spying in the U.S.? Doesn't look like it. Iranian, Syrian? Nope. And groups like Hezbollah and HAMAS don't have embassies or consulates in the U.S. because they are "terrorists", so they don't even have a foot in the door.

"It's frightening to think that an organization with clear-cut ties to terrorism [harmless, non-profit CAIR] could have a hand in influencing policy", says Rep. Sue Myrick, but the Jewish Mafia not only "influences" U.S. policy, it dictates it and even writes its own legislation for Congress. The ignorance and/or chutzpah of these Zionist stooges is mind-blowing. Is it ignorance or chutzpah? I don't even know. What is for sure is that as members of Congress they work closely with AIPAC, are familiar with its tactics, are hassled by regular letters and petitions and support requests from AIPAC, attend lavish AIPAC conventions and gala dinners, and in most cases accept their free hasbara holidays to Israel.

Fear the Muslim Mafia, lest you wake up one morning to find yourself living under Sharia law imposed on you by a Muslim Occupied Government (MOG). They already control the media. Oy Vey!!!!!

More on the Muslim Mafia:

Members of Congress Blast Claims That Muslim Interns Are 'Spies'

Muslim Ex-Bush Official: 'Intern Spy' Hunt Threatens Careers Of Good Americans

Hysterical Zionist propaganda from Daniel Pipes at JPost

Sanity from Glenn Greenwald at Salon

WND on CAIR's alleged "shocking al Qaeda ties" with bonus 'Don't wait! Get the hot new best-seller "Muslim Mafia" today' ad

Friday, May 22, 2009

Jewish Think Tank Advocates Deliberate Targeting of Journalists

"Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media... The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win."

Retired Colonel Ralph Peters, writing for JINSA in the Journal of International Security Affairs

Over the years, Jewish academics and theologians have advocated the deliberate targeting of women and children in war zones, the extermination of all Palestinian males, the annihilation of the entire Arab population in general, the destruction of all European capitals with nuclear weapons, the "collective deportation" of the Palestinian people to ensure the exclusively Jewish nature of the apartheid state (the Jerusalem Summit is another academic institution that promotes this solution and Tzipi Livni has similar ideas), and even outright proclaimed that "there's no place for morals" when it comes to Israel's security. Now the Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs (JINSA) has published a report openly calling for the deliberate targeting of journalists on the battlefield.

The idea is nothing new though: Israel already does this, and routinely targets ambulances, hospitals, clinics, medics and even children and civilians waving white flags.

U.S. Colonel Advocates U.S. 'Military Attacks' on 'Partisan Media' in Essay for Neocon, Pro-Israel Group JINSA

By Jeremy Scahill

In the era of embedded media, independent journalists have become the eyes and ears of the world. Without those un-embedded journalists willing to risk their lives to place themselves on the other side of the barrel of the tank or the gun or under the airstrikes, history would be written almost entirely from the vantage point of powerful militaries, or—at the very least—it would be told from the perspective of the troops doing the shooting, rather than the civilians who always pay the highest price.

In the case of the Iraq invasion and occupation, the journalists who have placed themselves in danger most often are local Iraqi journalists. Some 116 Iraqi journalists and media workers have been killed in the line of duty since March 2003. In all, 189 journalists have been killed in Iraq. At least 16 of these journalists were killed by the US military, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The network that has most often found itself under US attack is Al Jazeera. As I wrote a few years ago in The Nation:
The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.

A new report for a leading neoconservative group which pushes a belligerent “Israel first” agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the US should make censorship of media official policy and advocates “military attacks on the partisan media.” (H/T MuzzleWatch) The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired US Army Colonel Ralph Peters. It appears in JINSA’s “flagship publication,” The Journal of International Security Affairs. “Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight,” Peters writes, calling the media, “The killers without guns:”
Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza.
Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.
The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.

It is, of course, very appropriate that such a despicable battle cry for murdering media workers appears in a JINSA publication. The organization has long boasted an all-star cast of criminal “advisors.” Among them: Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Douglas Feith and others. JINSA, along with the Project for a New American Century, was one of the premiere groups in shaping US policy during the Bush years and remains a formidable force with Obama in the White House.
Reading Colonel Peters’s sick and twisted essay reminded me of the report that emerged in late 2005 about an alleged Bush administration plot to bomb Al Jazeera’s international headquarters in Qatar, which I covered for The Nation:
Britain’s Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera’s international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked “Top Secret” minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don’t yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush’s meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.

The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted US attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving US denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger.

Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, “Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice…but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay.” On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day “American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire.”

On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, “The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies.” On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera’s reporting “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable…. It’s disgraceful what that station is doing.” It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. “He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere,” a source told the Mirror. “There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do—and no doubt Blair didn’t want him to do it.”

Lest people think that the views of people like Col. Ralph Peters and the JINSA/PNAC neocons are relics of the past, remember that the Obama administration includes heavy hitters from this world among its ranks, as well as fierce neocon supporters. While they may no longer be literally calling the shots, as they did under Bush/Cheney, their disproportionate influence on US policy endures.


More on JINSA:

JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal

The Men From JINSA and CSP

JINSA Promotes "Ex-Terrorist" Walib Shoebat at 'Homeland Security' Conference (Shoebat is a fraud)

JINSA Calls on Congress to Fund Missile Defense Sites in Poland and the Czech Republic

September 13, 2001: JINSA Calls for Regime Change in Iraq

'Bomb Them All': JINSA's September 13 2001 press release

JINSA Blames Iran For HAMAS Rocket Attacks

Pro-Israel Mouthpiece Says Freedom of Speech Dangerous

JINSA Applauds Obama's Decision to Boycott Durban II

Monday, May 18, 2009

AIPAC Caught Meddling in U.S. Foreign Policy - Yet Again

"You can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here."

Former U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings

See this article at The Raw Story:

Congressional leaders inadvertently expose Israeli lobbyists behind letter to Obama

GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) circulated a letter to colleagues this week urging President Obama to support Israel when moving forward with any Israeli peace process.

Trouble is, they forgot to delete the name of the lobbying group involved in the letter from the document.

Attached to the email message they circulated when seeking signatures from other members of Congress was the document, titled, "AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf."

The excuse from an aide of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was, "The letter was discussed with AIPAC, [so] a staffer named it that."

Bullshit. AIPAC drafted it, and Stoyer, Cantor et al just obediently signed it. It wouldn't be the first time AIPAC has written letters and even legislation for Congress. Remember H.R. 362, which called for a naval blockade of Iran? Written by AIPAC, in line with Ehud Olmert's proposal to blockade Iran at a meeting with 12 members of Congress just three days before the resolution was introduced in the House. One of those 12 members of Congress just happened to be the same Steny Hoyer who circulated the aforementioned AIPAC letter to his colleagues.

Same with Senate Resolution 534 of 2006, a "resolution condemning Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense" during the Lebanon war -- written by AIPAC:

On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.

AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."

Same with H.R. 34, "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel" during the recent Gaza massacre -- written by AIPAC.

Today AIPAC's website is bragging about the $555 million in aid that it conned Congress into pledging to Israel, which is only a fraction of the massive $2.775 billion that Israel is expected to receive in a military aid package proposed for 2010.

Despite expectations that the Obama administration will pressure Israel to accept a two-state solution and implement practical measures, the U.S. administration has sent signals that aid to Israel will, in fact, be raised. At the same time, the budget also imposes harsh conditions on the Palestinian Authority in order to receive aid.

According to the Israeli daily, Haaretz, the budget proposed to Congress for 2010 includes $2.775 billion in aid to Israel, compared to $2.5 billon budgeted for 2009. This is more than a 10% increase in total U.S. aid to Israel.

The Congress might as well just stop pretending, hoist the Israeli flag and outsource its bill-writing to Israel. Do away with the red-white-and-blue, and just fly the blue and white.

AIPAC 2009: The Movie

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Deja Vu: The Lobby Takes Aim at Another University Professor

It's another Israel Lobby hit-job, just like the one that resulted in Norman Finkelstein being denied tenure at De Paul University, Chicago. This time it's William I. Robinson of the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), who like Finkelstein is a Jewish academic, and who, also like Finkelstein, has the overwhelming support of his students against the debate-stifling, free speech-suppressing tactics of the Zionist Lobby.

Leading the campaign against Robinson is the notorious ADL of B'nai B'rith and the Simon Weisenthal Center, who were alerted of Robinson's alleged "anti-Semitism" by two Jewish students attending one of his classes.

Two Jewish students dropped the class, saying they felt intimidated by the professor's message. They contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which advised them to file formal complaints with the university.

In their letters, senior Rebecca Joseph and junior Tova Hausman accused Robinson of violating the campus' faculty code of conduct by disseminating personal, political material unrelated to his course.

"I was shocked," said Joseph, 22. "He overstepped his boundaries as a professor. He has his own freedom of speech, but he doesn't have the freedom to send his students his own opinion that is so strong."

Does that even make sense? Presumably, free speech is ok by Joseph as long as your opinions aren't too 'strong'. The message that poor little Rebecca is referring to is an email that Professor Robinson forwarded to his sociology students containing information, images and commentary regarding the recent Gaza massacre. What the Terror State did to Gaza is definitely "shocking", but check out the content of the original email and see how "intimidated" you feel. Even the slavishly pro-Israel Zionists at The New Republic are sick of all the fuss, exclaiming "Enough With the Campus Inquisitions!"

An Interview with William Robinson
Zionist Lobby Targets Another Tenured Professor


Doug Henwood: We're now joined by William Robinson, who is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California in Santa Barbara, someone I met about six or seven years ago at a conference and, although I've disagreed with him on some issues, I thought he's a serious and thoughtful guy. I was very distressed to learn, reading Insider Higher Ed, the website, today that he's being persecuted by the Zionist lobby for an e-mail that he sent around to some of his students. Welcome William Robinson, tell us the story of what you sent and what's been happening.

William Robinson: Yes, good afternoon to everyone. I included some material which was highly critical of the Israeli invasion of Gaza as part of the reading material for a course on globalization and global affairs, and this was in January. And I am now facing charges, here at the university, of anti-semitism and violating the faculty code of conduct because two students in the course - there were eighty students - these two submitted a formal letter of complaint that they found offensive the material condemning the invasion of Gaza. The students immediately withdrew from the course, I don't even know them personally. And what is particularly egregious about this case is not that the students submitted a complaint - any student is allowed to do that - but rather that the university took the complaint seriously and is actually prosecuting me...

DH: You have tenure right?

WR: Yes, I am tenured, I am a full time professor...

DH: So in theory you're protected against persecution for your beliefs.

WR: No, in theory, I have total, I and even if I don't have tenure, have academic freedom, and this is in total violation of my academic freedom and of all of the principles of academic freedom, and of the university's own charter on academic freedom, and the American Association of University Professors principles and procedures on academic freedom, so there is absolutely no basis for any of this. What's going on, and I want to explain, behind the scenes we have been able to find out - students on campus and faculty have formed a Committee to Defend Academic Freedom which is taking up this issue, and by the way, there is a blog that they put up with all of this information, which at some point I would like to give your listeners - but we have found out that the Anti-Defamation League, which, as you know, and your listeners probably know, is an organization which, at one time, did very good and very important work in denouncing anti-Semitism, but since then has become a, basically, a mouthpiece for the Israeli government, a defender of the policies and practices of the Israeli state, and goes after and attacks anyone that criticizes those policies. So these students did not even accuse me of doing anything which we would consider anti-Semitism - discrimination against Jews, against the Jewish religion and so forth - they said openly and outright that the professor introduces material which criticized the state of Israel and that equals anti-semitism.

DH: Now, I think some people found offensive that you had likened Israeli behavior to the Nazis. Is that an issue?

WR: Well I didn't do that. What I did was I forwarded several items from the world media, from the internet media. One item was an article written by a Jewish journalist in a Jewish newspaper here in the United States, and it was criticizing the invasion of Gaza...

DH: So you didn't endorse this position?

WR: I didn't endorse it but I did include, I said, in presenting this material, I said that Gaza is Israel's Warsaw and I explained the context. That's because in Warsaw the Nazi's surrounded Warsaw, concentrated Jews in Warsaw, wouldn't let anyone in, wouldn't let anyone out, wouldn't let supplies in, wouldn't let supplies out; as a result there was famine and disease and so forth...

DH: Which is exactly what's...

WR: ...exactly and precisely what the Israeli's are doing in Gaza. And that's been denounced by the Red Cross, the United Nations, the international human rights organizations, and moreover, academic freedom totally allows me to present such controversial material and that's part of what the university is all about. We academically debate these controversial issues. I want to explain though what happened. We got some inside information in the last week. The president of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham Fox-...

DH: Foxman

WR: Foxman, he arrived here in Santa Barbara and he called a meeting with a select group of faculty, and he called the meeting for no other reason than to say that we want Professor Robinson prosecuted, and this is explosive. We have just learned about this; we're going to go public with it. And so there is this outside Israel lobby which has come on to campus, and which is accusing me of anti-Semitism and of doing all of these terrible things in order to create an atmosphere of complete intimidation. You know that anyone who criticizes the policies of the state of Israel is silenced, and is given that label of anti-semitism; that's a way of creating this atmosphere of intimidation, that no one can speak out about what's going on in Israel-Palestine, and so forth. That's the larger context.

DH: Ok, I'm sorry to make this so rushed, but this is a last minute addition and the rest of the show is full, just let me conclude...What can people do?

WR: [Go to] That's the blog that the Committee to Defend Academic Freedom has set up, and a lot of this information is on there, a lot of the documents are on there.

DH: All right, well thank you William Robinson and best of luck in your fight and we'll be back to look at this in the future.

WR: Thank-you, thank-you very much.

DH: I've been speaking with William Robinson, who is a professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, under persecution by the intellectual police at the Zionist lobby, the Anti-Defamation League.

More from Professor Robinson here, and Robinson is interviewed by Hesham Tillawi here on Youtube. Also see another Professor (Donald Douglas) whine about Robinson being 'anti-American', losing the ensuing debate big-time in the comment thread below.

Monday, April 27, 2009

The American Bankocracy

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power– political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future."

Senator Barry Goldwater, 1979

Obama is considered by many to be the Wall Street President, almost as if it's a first in U.S. politics, but nothing could be further from the truth. With the advent of the Global Financial Crisis (or GFC - might as well give it its own acronym since we'll be hearing about it ad nauseam for a long time yet), now is a good time to review the history of the Wall Street Establishment's incestuous relationship with the U.S. government and the extent to which America is ruled not so much by its politicians, but by the banking interests that fund, select and control them.

Murray N. Rothbard's article Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy, written in 1984 and first published by a small financial journal called the World Market Perspective, is an epic historical account of the control and manipulation of the U.S. government by the big banks and their agents, from the Lincoln era all the way up to the end of the Reagan Administration. His article details the massive influence of Morgan and Rockefeller banking interests on the U.S. government and its foreign affairs throughout the 20th century - from within and without - which by 1973 had come together in the form of the Trilateral Commission. This shady organisation has hand-picked, vetted and groomed for office every presidential candidate since Nixon, including Obama.

Rothbard, until his death in 1995, was a Jewish-American economist, author and intellectual, and a fierce opponent of fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve [.pdf] (also see Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking [.pdf]). He was also a staunch anti-Zionist [.pdf] who wrote about the hypocrisy of the ADL and the "menace" of what he called "Organised Anti-Anti-Semitism".

The major fount of OAAS [Organised Anti-Anti-Semitism] is the venerable Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL), the head of what the grand Old Rightist John T. Flynn referred to during World War II as the "Smear Bund." (Flynn was forced to publish himself his expose of the orchestrated smear of isolationists in his pamphlet, The Smear Terror.) Since the end of World War II, the key strategy of the ADL has been to broaden its definition of anti-Semitism to include any robust criticisms of the State of Israel. Indeed, the ADL and the rest of the OAAS has formed itself into a mighty praetorian guard focusing on Israeli interests and Israeli security.

Rothbard's article Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy is not what I would call entertainment - it's rich in detail and scrutinises the minutiae of each politician's banking and/or commercial connections - but it's a must-read for anyone interested in the history of the financial elite's stranglehold on the government of the United States. And it's probably more important and salient now than it was when it was written in '84.

Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy

Sunday, March 15, 2009

CIA: Israel Will Vanish From the Pages of Time

Despite the American establishment's outrage at some of the statements made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (and even at some that he didn't make), the CIA seems to agree wholeheartedly with him on the fate of the Zionist State.


"It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive. Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime."

The CIA:

"[There will be] an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region."

These are the conclusions of a recently released CIA report, which is being passed along to a few U.S. lawmakers but so far not available to the public. More on this upbeat and optimistic report from the PressTV website:

[International lawyer Franklin Lamb] said CIA, in its report, alludes to the unexpectedly quick fall of the apartheid government in South Africa and recalls the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, suggesting the end to the dream of an 'Israeli land' would happen 'way sooner' than later.

(The CIA predicts Israel has about 20 more years before it wipes itself off the map).

The study further predicts the return of over one and a half million Israelis to Russia and other parts of Europe, and denotes a decline in Israeli births whereas a rise in the Palestinian population.

Lamb said given the Israeli conduct toward the Palestinians and the Gaza strip in particular, the American public -- which has been voicing its protest against Tel Aviv's measures in the last 25 years -- may 'not take it anymore'.

Well, let's hope they don't 'take it anymore'. America would definitely be much better off without Israel.

Also see Franklin Lamb's Fearing a One-State Solution, Israel’s President Serves Pabulum to Washington, and The Case Against Israel's Right to Exist.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Obama to Force Israel to Allow Inspections of Dimona Nuclear Facility

That is, as soon as he gives up on life altogether and begins considering his options, which might include a dignified euthanasia, a hunting trip with Dick Cheney, announcing the abolition of the Federal Reserve, or as Haaretz has suggested, pressuring Israel to open the doors of Dimona to weapons inspectors.

Last Sunday, Jim Hoagland, who writes a column on foreign affairs in The Washington Post, wrote that Obama should learn from president John F. Kennedy and call for worldwide nuclear disarmament. Hoagland's columns generally express the consensus of the U.S. foreign affairs establishment. Kennedy was the last American president to have tried to stop the Israeli nuclear project. He threatened that there would be serious ramifications vis-a-vis U.S. support for Israel if the reactor in Dimona was not opened to frequent visits by inspectors. The pressure that Kennedy applied on the matter of Dimona was apparently one of the factors in David Ben-Gurion's resignation in 1963. Kennedy's assassination several months later led to a relaxation of that pressure and Israel was able to complete construction of the reactor in the Negev.

What an incredibly handy, uncannily timed (but of course totally-fortuitous-because-to-hint-at-anything-otherwise-would-be-antisemitic) stroke of luck that was for the terror state! With Kennedy out of the way, the Zionists were able to put the finishing touches on their arsenal of death, and become even more belligerent and dangerous than they were before they stole Palestine and proceeded to wage a series of wars of aggression against their Arab neighbors and surrounding Middle Eastern nations. About a dozen wars so far - not including countless other less epic conflicts - in which Israel was the aggressor in every instance but one.

Israel's nuclear arsenal was the ultimate achievement for the international Zionist elite, the realisation of a long-awaited dream of the founding fathers of modern Ziostan. Suddenly 'Israel', the illegitimate child of scheming international bankers who already controlled the greatest nations on Earth through their central banks, was not to be fucked with. Israel had its 'Samson Option', evinced here by Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

'We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

Obama will keep his mouth shut on the Dimona issue, of course. Obama is Israel's bitch.

(Update: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret, Washington Times, Oct 2009)

Israel's Nuclear Weapons Arsenal

JFK's Letter to Israeli P.M. Levi Eshkol

The Mossad Role in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Mossad and the JFK Assassination

Israel Killed JFK, Says Vanunu

Final Judgement: The Mossad Assassinated JFK

More Evidence Mossad Killed JFK Over Israeli Nukes

Kennedy Bros. Pushed For American Zionist Council to Register as Foreign Agents - JFK Assassinated a Month Later

Tillawi: Israel Killed Kennedy For Trying to Stop the Israel Lobby in America (YouTube)

Israel Threatening World Security

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

E.U. Poll: Israel Biggest Threat to World Peace

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being “Guarded” by Israel

ElBaradei: Ignoring Israeli Nukes a Double Standard