HOW 9 U.S. PRESIDENTS REALLY FELT ABOUT JEWS

NOVANEWS

Taken from private comments, personal diaries, confidential letters, offhanded quips and open mics 

 

FDR rode the Jewish wave into power

 

At the Casablanca Conference in 1943, Roosevelt told Free French leaders that the number of Jews entering some professions in liberated North Africa “should definitely be limited,” lest there be a recurrence of “the understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”

And a recent book about the owners of The New York Times  quoted FDR complaining about a “dirty Jewish trick,” which he claimed the Times’ owners had used to keep their newspaper within the family.

- FDR

(Here)


 

All smiles to Weizmann’s face 

 

The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as Displaced Persons as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog.”
- Harry Truman, 1947, private diaries

 

All smiles to Ben Gurion’s face  

 

“Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I am sure you will agree that there is no more urgent business for the whole world than the control of nuclear weapons. We both recognized this when we talked together two years ago, and I emphasized it again when I met with Mrs. Meir … The dangers in the proliferation of national nuclear weapons systems are so obvious that I am sure I need not repeat them here.

“It is because of our preoccupation with this problem that my Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona. When we spoke together in May 1961 you said that we might make whatever use we wished of the information resulting from the first visit of American scientists to Dimona …..I had assumed from Mrs. Meir’s comment that there would be no problem between us on this….”

- John F Kennedy, 1963, stern private letter to Israeli Prime Minister

 

All smiles to Golda’s face

 

“The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality.”…. “They put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.”
 
- Richard Nixon, Nixon Tapes, 1972-1973

 

All smiles to Begin’s face 

 

“In this country, any sort of debate back and forth, any sort of incisive editorial comment in the major newspapers, is almost completely absent…   And any member of Congress who’s looking to be re-elected couldn’t possibly say that they would take a balanced position between Israel and the Palestinians, ….�it’s very likely that they would not be re-elected,”

- Jimmy Carter, 2006, 26 years after he’s been out of the White House!

 

All smiles to Peres’s face 

 

”It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy,”
- Ronald Reagan, 1981, unguarded reaction when asked about presumed Israeli opposition to his sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia

 

http://static1.imagecollect.com/preview/560/047dbe11383bde0
All smiles to Shamir’s face 

 

“I’m one lonely little guy up against some powerful political forces made up of a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.”
 
George HW Bush (41) off hand quip to reporters in 1991 during an AIPAC lobbying effort in support of a proposed $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel (to which Bush was opposed)

 

All smiles to Netanyahu’s face 

 

“Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?
 
- Bill Clinton, 1996, remarking privately after his first meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu

 

All smiles to Netanyahu’s face  

 

‘You’ve had enough of him (Netanyahu), but I have to deal with him every day!’
- Barack Obama, 2011, caught off mic, remarking to French President Sarkozy about Bibi Netanyahu (whom Sarkozy had just referred to as a “liar”)

 

 

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Another New York Times’ reporter’s son is in the Nazi army

NOVANEWS
Israeli army unit posted to Facebook page by Isabel Kershner's son. (Photo: Facebook)
Nazi army unit posted to Facebook page by Isabel Kershner’s son. 

Yet another reporter for the New York Times has a son in the Israeli Defense Forces. Isabel Kershner, a correspondent in the newspaper’s Jerusalem bureau, says that her son is in training in the army. This is the third time in recent years that a writer who covers the conflict for America’s leading newspaper has a son serving in an army that is regularly accused of human rights abuses. On each of those occasions, an outside publication has disclosed the army service.

We asked Kershner about her son after a tip last week sent Weiss to the 2005 memoir by Kershner’s husband Hirsh Goodman. The book states that Goodman, an immigrant to Israel from South Africa, and Kershner, an immigrant to the country from England, have two boys, who were then 7 and 10. Facebook posts by the older boy showed him in uniform and holding a gun with an army unit in June. Kershner responded directly:

In answer to your questions, yes, my 20-year-old son is currently performing his compulsory military service as a citizen of Israel and as required by law. He has been in training so far. My 17-year-old is still in high school.

Kershner, an Israeli, is said by the Times to be “a contract writer,” not a member of theTimes staff, as such, but she did considerable coverage of Gaza last summer at a time. When we asked her if her son had served in Gaza, she said, “if there were at any time a conflict of interest I would of course recuse myself from covering a particular story. That is the policy for correspondents everywhere, whether in Washington, Moscow or here.” She told us we should direct other questions to her editor Michael Slackman, the Times deputy foreign editor. Weiss wrote him and Foreign Editor Joe Kahn, and Kahn said last week that he would clarify the issue when he returned from traveling.

Update. Kahn writes:

We do take people’s personal and familial ties into consideration in assigning reporters to beats, and our staff in Israel is certainly no exception. We also hold all reporters, regardless of their affiliations, to a high standard of objectivity in their work for the Times.
During the recent Gaza conflict, none of our correspondents had a conflict of interest under our strict standards. In the event of a future conflict, we would make sure that continues to be the case.

The Times has twice come under scrutiny in recent years when it was revealed that a writer’s son was in the IDF. In 2010 Electronic Intifada reported that the son of then-Jerusalem-bureau-chief Ethan Bronner, an American Jew, had entered the Israeli army. EIdescribed Bronner’s son’s service as a conflict of interest the paper had failed to disclose per its own policy on reporters’ attachments. Times editors responded that the matter was Bronner’s son’s personal choice and did not bear on Bronner’s reporting, but then Timespublic editor Clark Hoyt took a different stance, saying it should have been disclosed, “[Executive editor Bill] Keller and Bronner responded freely to my questions, but the paper has otherwise been tight-lipped so far,” he wrote, before calling for Bronner’s reassignment:

The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side. Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out.

I have enormous respect for Bronner and his work, and he has done nothing wrong. But this is not about punishment; it is simply a difficult reality. I would find a plum assignment for him somewhere else, at least for the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F.

The Times management differed; Bronner continued to cover the conflict until early 2012.

Then last summer, David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the Times, told Katie Couric that his son had joined the Israeli army during an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival (video here at 52:00). Brooks is also an American Jew, but he spoke of himself inHaaretz‘s coverage of the matter as an Israeli parent.

Andrew Rosenthal, the paper’s editorial page editor, said the son’s service was Brooks’s business. “I do not think he ever had an obligation to say that his son made this choice, any more than if his son had joined the U.S. Air Force.” But again the NYT’s public editor, who works independently, outside the paper’s editorial structure, said the matter should have been disclosed. Margaret Sullivan wrote:

I don’t think readers usually need to know what the spouses of columnists think or what brothers do for a living, or whether a daughter has joined the U.S. Army. But this situation strikes me as a more extreme case. Mr. Brooks’s son is serving as a member of a foreign military force that has been involved in a serious international conflict – one that the columnist sometimes writes about and which has been very much in the news.

I strongly disagree with those who say Mr. Brooks should no longer write about Israel. But I do think that a one-time acknowledgement of this situation in print (not in an interview with another publication) is completely reasonable.

The Times has never disclosed Brooks’s son’s choice. Nor has National Public Radio, where Brooks also serves as a commentator, often talking about Israel in a supportive manner.

There is a fourth instance of a Times reporter’s son entering the IDF. It took place in about 2010. Weiss learned of this through a personal connection and has never reported it because the reporter was not assigned to foreign policy.

Kershner is author of a book, Barrier, that was critical of Israel’s separation wall, but her son’s service is sure to add to the Times’s reputation as a newspaper that is based on one side of the conflict, the Israeli side—a reputation anchored by the fact that the Times owns an apartment in West Jerusalem that was built atop a house taken from a Palestinian family who were forced to flee Jerusalem during the Nakba in 1948.  Many have called on the paper to hire a Palestinian correspondent, or someone who is based in Ramallah in the occupied territories. Palestinian graffiti artists have had their say, too– putting the Timeslogo on the concrete separation wall in East Jerusalem some years ago.

Kershner’s family life came under scrutiny earlier this year, when the Times public editor said that Hirsh Goodman’s work for an Israeli thinktank fighting Israel’s information wars should be disclosed to readers, a conflict highlighted by our own Alex Kane.

The children of Times Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, are too young to go into the army, but Rudoren has stated that she first visited the country with a Zionist youth group and that she is “knowledgeable about the Jewish American or Jewish Israeli side of this beat.” She only seemed to enhance that resume when she said on Facebook that that Palestinians seem “ho-hum” about their relatives’ deaths or when she chatted with leading Israel lobbyist Abe Foxman about when “the Arabs” bought the Essex House in New York. And her husband made a cameo in an Israeli government film urging American Jews to immigrate to Israel.

The Times has Jewish ownership, the Sulzberger family, which maintained a policy in the 1950s and 60s of only assigning non-Jewish reporters to Jerusalem lest the paper might appear to be exercising bias in favor of the Jewish state. That policy was reversed in the 1970s; and today some call that policy anti-Semitic. But the policy the Times replaced that one with seems to be fulfilling some of its early concerns.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/another-reporters-israeli#sthash.vG0wUqaJ.dpuf

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

US Used 1000 US Used 1000 Nazi Spies During Cold War During Cold War

NOVANEWS
Former FBI Director J Edgar Hoover (left) is said to have approved of the Nazi recruitment practice
A new book will be released this week revealing that former Nazi criminals worked with U.S. spy agencies against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

​The United States worked with over 1,000 former Second World War Nazis during the Cold War, a new book reviewed by The New York Times reveals.

“U.S. agencies directly or indirectly hired numerous ex-Nazi police officials and East European collaborators who were manifestly guilty of war crimes,” said Norman Goda, who worked on the investigation team that examined the declassified documents.

The new book by Eric Lichtblau, The Nazis Next Door: How America Became a Safe Haven for Hitler’s Men, will be published on October 28.

As the research shows, the United States’ government actively helped Nazi war criminals to avoid being trialed.

Nazi collaborator Aleksandras Lileikis – who killed thousands of Jews in Lithuania – and SS officer Otto von Bolschwing – a top aide to Adolf Eichmann who mastermind the “Final Solution” – were amongst the high-ranking officials that were recruited and protected by the U.S. government agencies. Many of them were awarded U.S. citizenship.

 

The first evidence of these facts appeared in the 1970s but the recently disclosed archives, featured in the book, show that the number of recruited Nazis was much higher than previously thought. It also shows that the U.S. government was trying to conceal the evidence until recently.

Records found by the researchers indicate that former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover personally approved the use of ex-Nazis as spies and dismissed the acts they had been involved in during the war as “Soviet propaganda”.

The revelations come one week after an investigation found that the U.S. government had paid dozens of Nazi war criminals millions of dollars in Social Security benefits. Some of them continue to receive the payments.

Posted in USA0 Comments

Dual Citizenship – Loyal To Whom?

NOVANEWS

Rahm Emanuel – Obama’s New Chief of Staff holds Dual Citizenship with Israel

By Victor Thorn

More sinister than Karl Rove and potentially deadlier than Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney, his name is Rahm Emanuel, and he was recently appointed chief of staff in the president-elect’s White House. This first official act should send waves of alarm through people because Barack Obama promised change, but what we’re getting is the exact same cabal that brought us 9-11 and endless war in the Middle East.

Initial media reports described Emanuel as a vulgar, Chicago-based enforcer who had an aggressive, in-your- face, pit-bull style. Others painted him as a partisan Washington insider with strong ties to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).Although these labels seem harsh, the reality is far worse.

Rahm Emanuel, nicknamed “Rahmbo,” is a pro- Israel Orthodox Jew who was educated in a Talmudic yeshiva and served as a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). He is a dual citizen of Israel, which his office  refused to deny when AFP inquired. Israel is the only nation where Americans can apply for and obtain citizenship without automatically renouncing U.S. citizenship.

 

Dual Citizenship? – Loyal To Whom?

by Dan Eden

 

Someone wrote and asked me, “Why are there Israeli- but not Mexican-American Dual Nationals?”Well, here’s my take on this. I’d also like your views and opinions.Unless we are Native American Indians, all Americans have their origins in some other country. Both of my parents were from England. They were proud to be “British” but they were most proud of achieving their American citizenship. Sure, we had pictures of the Queen and nick-nacks with the Union Jack on them. My mother even celebrated the traditional 4 o’clock tea time and was good at making Yorkshire Pudding. In the late 60′s my older brother served in the US Army and did his tour in Viet Nam. When it came down to “allegiance,” we were all patriotic Americans. Period.

The word “allegiance” means that we promise loyalty. It also carries with it the expectation that this loyalty will be exclusive and unrestrained. In the case of a declared war or real threat or conflict, for example, our allegiance to America should preclude any other interest, be it another country or political ideology:

When they took their oath to become American citizens, my parents had to pledge their “allegiance” exclusively to America and renounce their allegiance to “any and all foreign governments.” That included Great Britain, one of our strongest allies.

Before Viewzone asked me to research the meaning of “dual citizenship,” I had never heard of the term. How could someone be a citizen of two countries at the same time? But I was just ignorant. Dual nationalities and citizenships are quite common.

From my internet research, I learned that in 1997, a French Canadian with a U.S. passport ran for mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. He argued that the incumbent spoke French too poorly to be running a city so close to Quebec. He lost. Also in 1997, a retired top American official for the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ran for president of Lithuania. He was inaugurated in February to a burst of fireworks!

In 1996, Dominicans from New York not only could vote in the Dominican Republic’s presidential elections for the first time, they could vote for a fellow New Yorker. Multiple nationalities have become so commonplace that some analysts fear the trend is undermining the notion of nationhood, particularly in the place with the most diverse citizenry on Earth: the United States.

Debate over the issue intensified in the late 1990s, when Mexico joined the growing list of poor nations that say it’s OK for their nationals to be citizens of the countries to which they have migrated. Under the law that took effect in 1998 Mexicans abroad — most of them in the United States — will be able to retain Mexican citizenship even if they seek U.S. citizenship. And naturalized Americans of Mexican descent will be able to reclaim their original citizenship. The Mexican government stopped short, for now, of giving expatriates the right to vote.

Security Issues

Since citizenship carries with it a responsibility to be exclusively loyal to one country, the whole concept of dual citizenship and nationality raises questions about which of the dual citizenships have priority. This is extremely important when the two countries have opposing interests. It can be a deadly problem when a dual citizen is in a high position within our American government.

Can one imagine a Japanese citizen serving in the Pentagon during WWII? Or how about a citizen of the Soviet Union holding a cabinet position in the White House during the Cold War?

Today’s conflicts are centered in the Middle East. America needs to balance foreign policies towards oil producing Arab nations with our goal being peace and stability in the region. This places a burdon on our government to be even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world and Israel. While the Iraq War was waged on lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and revenge for 911, the real reason has emerged as a well designed global plan to improve the power and leverage of Israel. Added to this policy is yet another potential blow to American interests and security — the impending War with Iran. This war will be waged for the security of Israel and will be paid for by the blood of American soldiers and the hard-earned money of American citizens whose quality of life is inversely tied to the cost of petrolium.

Recently, in their much lauded paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, and University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, focused attention on the strong Israeli lobby which has a powerful influence over American foreign policies (see BBC article). They detail the influence that this lobby has exerted, forming a series of international policies which can be viewed as in direct opposition to the interests and security of the American people. These acts and policies are more often than not carried out by US government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens. Since the policies they support are often exclusively beneficial to Israel, often to the detriment of America, it has been argued that their loyalties are misdirected.

A few classic examples can be cited here.

Jonathan Jay Pollard was an American-Israeli citizen who worked for the US government. He is well known because he stole more secrets from the U.S. than has any other spy in American history. During his interrogation Pollard said he felt compelled to put the “interests of my state” ahead of his own. Although as a U.S. Navy counter-intelligence specialist he had a top-secret security clearance, by “my state” he meant the state of Israel.

Literally tens of thousands of Americans holding U.S. passports admit they feel a primary allegiance to the state of Israel. In many instances, these Americans vote in Israeli elections, wear Israeli uniforms and fight in Israeli wars. Many are actively engaged both in the confiscation of Palestinian lands and in the Israeli political system. Three examples come to mind:

One is Rabbi Meir Kahane, who founded the militant Jewish Defense League in the U.S. in the 1960s, then emigrated to Israel where, eventually, he was elected to the Knesset. Until he was shot and killed at one of his U.S. fund-raising rallies in 1990, the Brooklyn-born rabbi shuttled between Tel Aviv and New York, where he recruited militant American Jews for his activities in Israel against Palestinians. He claimed to be a “dual citizen” of America and Israel.

Another Jewish American, James Mahon from Alexandria, Virginia, reportedly was on a secret mission to kill PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was shot in 1980 by an unknown assailant. When he was shot, Mahon held an American M-16 in his hand and a U.S. passport in his pocket.

Then there was Alan Harry Goodman, an American Jew who left his home in Baltimore, Maryland, flew to Israel and served in the Israeli army. Then, on April 11, 1982, armed with an Uzi submachine gun, he walked, alone, to Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem’s most holy Islamic shrine, where he opened fire, killing two Palestinians and wounding others. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments played down the incident, as did the media.

Most recently, US Navy Petty Officer, Ariel J. Weinmann, while serving at or near Bahrain, Mexico, and Austria, “with intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation (Israel), [attempted] to communicate, deliver or transmit classified CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET information relating to the national defense, to a representative, officer, agent or employee of a foreign government.” Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 after being listed as “a deserter by his command,” according to the US Navy. The information he gathered was supplied to Israel.

BREAKING NEWS – April 22, 2008, Ben-Ami Kadish, a Connecticut-born U.S. dual citizen who worked in New Jersey was arrested and charged with giving top secret nuclear information and details about the US Patriot Missile to an Israeli agent — the same agent involved with the Jay Pollard case. The espionage charges reportedly stem from acts committed in the 1980s. These activities, like the ones with convicted spy Pollard, were immediately denied by Israel (Pollard pleaded guilty in 1986). It is further reported that Israeli officials instructed Kadish to lie to US investigators. Kadish is scheduled to be arraigned on Tuesday afternoon [April 22, 2008] at U.S. District Court in Manhattan, authorities said. More details coming soon.

The examples of Kahane, Mahonm, Goodman and Weinmann raise the question of when a U.S. citizen ceases to be, or should cease to be, a U.S. citizen. U.S. Law at one time clearly stated that an American citizen owed first allegiance to the United States. A U.S. citizen should not fight in a foreign army or hold high office in a foreign country without risking expatriation. What the heck happened?

The 1940 Nationality Act

Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, “shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by…voting in a political election in a foreign state.”

This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.

But then something very odd happened.

In 1967 an American Jew, Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship — right? Wrong.

After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act — the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.

Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court. Here, with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson’s former attorney and one of the most powerful Jewish Americans, casting the swing vote, the court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to “rob” Afroyim of his American citizenship!

The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown “intent” to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections. Huh?

While Washington claims it has a “good neighbor” policy with Mexico, the U.S. does not permit Mexicans to hold dual nationality. The US makes them become either U.S. or Mexican — you can’t be both. But the U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well! No other country holds this special exception to our laws of citizenship.

So, you might ask, are there any other dual Israel-American citizens who hold US government positions that could compromise American security? Yes. Consider the following list that I obtained on the web:

 

         


Michael Mukasey
Recently appointed as US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.

Michael Chertoff
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.

Richard Perle
One of Bush’s foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970′s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.

Paul Wolfowitz
Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle’s Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.

 

        


Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith’s deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, “to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat” and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Franklin will “remain free while the government continues with the wider case” and his “prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting” former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, [who] are scheduled to go on trial in April [2006]. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials.” (source: sourcewatch.com).

Douglas Feith
Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don’t agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm’s own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith “represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer.” Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

Feith was investigated by the FBI under suspicion of leaking classified information to Israel, being that he was Larry Franklin’s boss when Franklin leaked those documents to Rosen and Weissman of AIPAC. For that he was forced to leave the National Security Council. Feith was also investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee for sexing up ‘intelligence’ that was used to justify invading Iraq.

Edward Luttwak
Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.

Henry Kissinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger’s evil past, read Seymour Hersch’s book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor’s mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia’s Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic’s Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It’s like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.

Dov Zakheim
Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew’s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York’s Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11′s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch. We can only guess where that cash went.

Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense.

Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

 

         


Kenneth Adelman

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs “anti-Semitic” on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
Vice President Dick Cheney’s ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband’s revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.

Robert Satloff
U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby’s “experts” come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

Elliott Abrams
National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based “Think Tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration’s State Department.

Marc Grossman
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

Richard Haass
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

Robert Zoellick
U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.

Ari Fleischer
Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

James Schlesinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

David Frum
White House speechwriter behind the “Axis of Evil” label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.

Joshua Bolten
White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.

John Bolton
Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).

David Wurmser
Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.

Eliot Cohen
Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.

Mel Sembler
President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.

Steve Goldsmith
Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

Adam Goldman
White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

Joseph Gildenhorn
Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.

Christopher Gersten
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.

Mark Weinberger
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.

Samuel Bodman
Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

Bonnie Cohen
Under Secretary of State for Management.

Ruth Davis
Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

Daniel Kurtzer
Ambassador to Israel.

Cliff Sobel
Ambassador to the Netherlands.

Stuart Bernstein
Ambassador to Denmark.

Nancy Brinker
Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin
Ambassador to Singapore.

Ron Weiser
Ambassador to Slovakia.

Mel Sembler
Ambassador to Italy.

Martin Silverstein
Ambassador to Uruguay.

Lincoln Bloomfield
Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

Jay Lefkowitz
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Ken Melman
White House Political Director.

Brad Blakeman
White House Director of Scheduling.

I don’t know about you, but dual citizenship is fine with me for an ordinary citizen. But if you hold an official position that demands that you put American interests above all else — if you should look transparent and fair to the rest of the world regarding your formation of Middle East foreign policies, then this is a dangerous trend. Even if there were no pro-Israeli agenda, the fact that decision makers have a bias or an allegiance to one of the parties involved in the current conflict should have raised red flags long before now.

 

 

 

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Why is Cornel West the only black face recognizable to US TV audiences with the integrity to speak against Zio-Nazi apartheid ”VIDEO”

NOVANEWS

Why is Cornel West the only black face recognizable to US TV audiences with the integrity to speak against Israeli apartheid & our role in sustaining it?

While the Congressional Black Caucus was co-signing Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, Dr. Cornel West spoke against Israeli apartheid. But where is our prosperous & powerful black political class? Where is the black church?

 

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Reporter Admits Most Media Work for CIA, MI6, Mossad

NOVANEWS
44_Global_War_Psyop
• War correspondent reveals dirty secrets of mainstream media: journalists are bribed to pry, lie and spy.

By Ronald L. Ray —

AMERICAN FREE PRESS frequently exposes the noxious collaborators with tyranny who operate the mainstream media. Now a courageous German former journalist, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, has written a powerful new bestselling book that exposes the rampant cooperation of the “Fourth Estate” with the world’s largest intelligence agencies, trans-Atlantic organizations, banks, corporations and billionaires, making it into a political “fifth column.”

The book, Gekaufte Journalisten (literally, “Bought Journalists”), is not yet in English, but this writer interviewed Ulfkotte on October 17 to bring this newspaper’s readers his stunning revelations. Admitting first his own guilt of participating in the destructive underworld of journalism, Ulfkotte fearlessly names other collaborators in his latest work and calls for a return to a free and morally-upright press. The book has garnered worldwide interest, but the German journalistic establishment is giving it the “silent treatment”—and worse.

Ulfkotte, 54, was raised in a devout Christian family and even educated at a religious school. During early adulthood, like many young people, he began investigating other beliefs. At the university in Freiburg in Breisgau he took an interest in law and Islamic studies. He became fluent in Arabic—important for his future, albeit unintended, career.

During college in the 1980s, Ulfkotte also was recruited into the world of espionage. Prior to a particular semester break, when he hoped to visit Italy and meet young women, a professor asked if he would like to attend a two-week seminar in Bonn on the East-West conflict. This was during the Cold War in a divided Germany. Ulfkotte was not at all interested, but university professors in Germany were (and are) highly respected. It was difficult to refuse.

He was promised that his travel would be paid for, as well as lodging and meals, and he would receive spending money into the bargain. For a young man from poor economic circumstances, this was too much. Relates Ulfkotte, “I suddenly felt this deep feeling inside me that I had ‘always’ wanted to go” to such a seminar. Such “innocent” beginnings were the first bribes, which would draw him ever deeper into a widespread network of corruption and spying, where no one considered such behavior immoral, but rather “accepted practice.”

No one said, “I’m from the CIA,” or from the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)—the German intelligence service. But the seminar leaders sorted out “who was communist and who was pro-Western” among the young attendees. After further similar events, someone asked Ulfkotte if he would work for the BND—the last thing on his mind. But again, a professor—his doctoral advisor—pressured him to “think about it.” And once more, a poor boy found a free automobile and a good salary very attractive.

Upon receiving his doctorate, Ulfkotte—who never studied journalism—was provided a job as a reporter for the leading conservative German newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), hired over hundreds of other applicants. He became a war correspondent in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran and much of the Middle East, and later an FAZ editor. Eventually, he did indeed meet agents of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), BND, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6 (Military Intelligence, Section 6), and Israel’s Mossad, who valued his ability to travel freely in countries largely closed to the West. His editors were knowing accomplices.

Former Journalist Udo Ulfkotte in His Own Words

“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I’ve been educated to lie, to betray—and not to tell the truth to the public. . . . The German and American media [is trying] to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, but all over Europe. . . . I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don’t [want to see] this situation again. There are always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too. We have betrayed our readers. . . . I’m fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic [Germany], and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom.”  — Udo Ulfkotte

What is insidious, as Ulfkotte confesses, is that typically, intelligence agencies use “unofficial covers”—people working for the agency but not actually on its payroll as agents. It is a broad, loose network of “friends,” doing one another favors. Many are lead journalists from numerous countries. This informality provides plausible deniability for both sides, but it means an “unofficial cover,” as Ulfkotte became, is on his own if captured.

The American reporter James Foley, allegedly executed by ISIS, found that out. Ulfkotte confirmed to this author that Foley did indeed work for various intelligence organizations, as this newspaper reported on last month. He also stated that if a journalist is accused of spying, such reports are almost always credible.

We asked the former spy about the extent of recruitment of journalists into espionage. He replied, “Well, they don’t wear stickers on their foreheads,” but he told the following anecdote as an illustration.

Once, he accompanied Helmut Kohl, then chancellor of Germany, on a visit to the king of Jordan. The president of Israel was also there. Ulfkotte went around the room, blithely greeting a number of journalists and officials with whom he was friends—and who, he knew as well, were working for the CIA, the BND and the Mossad. He was ordered sharply back to his place. Otherwise, “everyone would know” who the other intelligence assets were. It must have been an appreciable percentage, because Ulfkotte then realized they were “all in the same boat.”

He also recalls giving a series of lectures on counterespionage at the University of Lueneburg, where Richard Tomlinson of MI6 and other intelligence assets were seeking recruits.

Ulfkotte reveals that there are many quid pro quo exchanges between news correspondents and intelligence agencies. Large sums of money, gifts, public recognition and significant career advancement go to those journalists who provide useful information on people they meet or know, or on places to which they travel. Many times, the reporter, like Ulfkotte, need only put his name on an article written for him by some spy agency or financial institution. Money and gifts change hands; doors open to elitist groups, like the Trilateral CommissionAtlantik-Brücke, the Aspen Institute and the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Those who do not cooperate are fired.

Always, some “friend” asked for simple things, like a soil sample from Ulfkotte’s travels, or reports on the behaviors of his Iranian political friends. Because Iran has no U.S. embassy, he would enter the Turkish embassy and follow a then-secret, underground escape tunnel into the German embassy, where he would turn over his reports for the CIA or BND. In a recent RT interview, Ulfkotte noted that the BND was created by the CIA. To him, it is a symbol of Germany’s status as a “banana republic,” a “colony of the U.S.”

Ulfkotte was severely injured several times during his reportorial years—one of the few to survive a poison gas attack by Iraq on Iran in 1988, which used German-manufactured mustard gas. In Spring 2003, he suffered serious nerve damage in one leg and realized he could not continue in the Middle East. He thereafter resigned from FAZ.

In Spring 2004, a German politician asked Ulfkotte to spy on a political rival, offering a large sum of money for the criminal activity. Refusing, Ulfkotte at last realized: “How deep am I sinking?”—and vowed “never again.” Almost immediately thereafter, the government searched his home and office a total of six times, alleging he had revealed “official secrets.” Clearly a reprisal, but they could never show any proof in court.

Why the book Gekaufte Journalisten? Ulfkotte knows the mass media have become merely the willing slaves of warmongering governments and self-interested billionaires like George Soros. He fears the outbreak of nuclear war with Russia, based on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization propaganda peddled by his old comrades as “news.”

By speaking out in this way now, Ulfkotte hopes most of all to convince other journalists to give up the lucrative but corrupt world of espionage and false reporting. He was young, like many others, when he “fell into the trap.” He wants a “new generation of journalists,” who won’t be bribed. “I just hope that I could stop this.”

The rats will not leave the ship without a fight, though. Reporters have been threatened with a lawsuit by FAZ for publicizing efforts to get the paper’s official reaction to Ulfkotte’s book. So much for “press freedom.”

On the day of our interview, the FAZ released an otherwise bland statement, seeming to imply falsely that Ulfkotte was fired from his position. But, as in his well-documented book, this former member of elitist international organizations holds the trump card: a written work reference, in which the newspaper praises him, especially for his “secret service activity.”

Ulfkotte has suffered three heart attacks and other health problems from his work. AFP’s interview request was one of the few he accepted. He has no children to worry about and so cannot be blackmailed. That is a good thing, because Gekaufte Journalisten seems to have unleashed the wrath of the New World Order, which now stands more clearly exposed before an outraged world public.

- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=20355#sthash.4MplutMj.dpuf

Posted in UK, USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Powerful Lobbies v. Public Interest

NOVANEWS

Some American lobbies are so powerful that U.S. politicians cringe in fear, knowing that standing up for the broader national interest would be career-threatening, a reality most notable on issues of Israel and guns, as Lawrence Davidson explains.

By Lawrence Davidson

The problem of special interests or lobbies was one of the foremost concerns of the Founding Fathers of the United States. In their day these pressure groups were called factions.

James Madison, who is considered the architect of the U.S. Constitution, devoted the entire tenth Federalist Paper (1787) to the problem. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority … actuated by some common … interest, adverse to … the aggregate interests of the community,” and believed that within the context of liberal republicanism, they could never be eliminated.

Secretary of State John Kerry speaking to the AIPAC conference on March 3, 2014.

Secretary of State John Kerry speaking to the AIPAC conference on March 3, 2014.

However, Madison did feel they could be controlled. To this end he sought to create representative bodies with high numbers of delegates and a wide diversity of interests in the hope that they would counterbalance each other.

When George Washington delivered his famous Farewell Address in 1796, he too noted the problem. Washington warned of “combinations and associations” which attempt to “direct, control, counteract and awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities” and thereby substitute their own desires for the “delegated will of the nation.”

As Washington’s continued concern implied, James Madison’s approach to controlling special interests or factions never proved adequate.

Lobbification

Today, the problem is still with us and is worse than ever. That is why in April 2011 I coined the word “lobbification” to describe the corruptive process that bends politicians to the will of special interests – that is, to the will of lobbies. The vehicle that makes this process possible is, of course, money, usually in the form of campaign contributions to a politician.

If the politician defies the lobby making the offer (a rare event but not unheard of), that special interest will throw its support to the defiant politician’s electoral opponent. The result is that most politicians are in lockstep with the demands of multiple powerful special interests.

James Madison believed that this corruptive process is a consequence of human nature – self-interest in action. Perhaps that is so, but the results are no less debilitating. So Pavlovian are the responses created by lobbification that, today, politicians in this state of mind cannot tell the difference between the parochial interests of those powerful factions to which they are indebted and the actual national or local interests of their country or community.

Two Examples

Here are two recent examples of the power of lobbification. On July 18, acting in response to the urgings of the Zionist lobby, the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to support Israel’s ongoing attack on the Gaza Strip. This from a Congress known for its inability to agree on just about any legislation important to its own country!

The senators voted their support even though the Israeli action was of the same character as the German attacks on London during the Blitz and the Allied destruction of the German city of Dresden toward the end of World War II. In other words, the Israelis were engaged in a large-scale operation targeting a civilian population. That is a war crime and cannot be justified as an act of self-defense. Yet the U.S. Senate, to a person, publicly supported this criminal behavior.

It might be noted here that there were serious divisions of opinion about Israeli behavior among the American public – that is, the Senate’s constituency. But the senators seemed immune from the popular debate and responded as if they represented the Zionist lobby, not the American public.

On the domestic front, meaningful regulatory gun legislation, be it national or local, appears to be politically impossible because of the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA). This is so despite a proliferation of gun-related deaths and injuries in our homes, on our streets, and in our schools.

The arguments of NRA supporters usually imply that regulation of firearms would be the death knell of hunting, of target shooting, and of gun collecting, and even the ability to act in self-defense. Yet rational and reasonable gun regulation is not the same as prohibition, and to act as if they are the same is, in my opinion, a paranoid point of view.

Then there is the Second Amendment argument that allows many supporters of the NRA to fantasize that they are enrolled in a “well regulated militia” without which the U.S. cannot remain a free society. Free from what? From the authoritarian potential of the state with its immensely better armed police and military branches? This is just naive. If the government wants to act in a dictatorial fashion, armed members of the NRA will not be able to stop it.

In truth, rational control of firearms does not threaten our freedom. It makes us freer by enhancing our safety from the growing plague of gun violence that NRA lobbying presently forces most of our politicians to ignore or deny.

Here it is important to note that the National Rifle Association leadership often fails to accurately represent its own membership, much less that of the general public. A 2013 Pew survey found that 74 percent of NRA members supported universal background checks for private gun sales (as did 94 percent of the general American public). Nonetheless, at the urging of the NRA the Senate voted against this requirement in the same year.

As with the Zionist lobby and public concern over its particularistic foreign policy, many senators are immune from the popular debate on gun control and respond as if they represent the NRA lobby and not the American public.

Need for Regulation

Madison was right in one regard: regulation of the power of factions/special interests/lobbies to influence politicians and policies is an absolute necessity. However, here we run up against a real Catch-22 dilemma. That regulatory legislation, and other related efforts such as campaign finance reform, must come from the same politicians who are financially bound to special interests.

Like those with a strong addiction, these politicians seem unable to free themselves from the monkey on their back.

If there is a way out of this dilemma it must come from the general public. The long-standing dissatisfaction with politicians, especially on the national level, must be channeled into a popular campaign to free the legislators and policy makers from the influence of narrow interests.

Think of this as an effort to clear away an historical obstacle to good governance. If this does not happen, the foreign policies that have promoted so much anti-American hostility worldwide, and the domestic policy that has allowed the indiscriminate murder of so many innocent citizens, will continue and indeed grow worse.

Posted in USA0 Comments

Canada: Decoding Harper’s Terror Game. Beneath the Masks and Diversions

NOVANEWS

Global Research

Stephen Harper is the most deeply reviled Prime Minister in Canada’s history. On the world stage, he is the servant of Big Oil boiling oil out of tar-sands to destroy major river systems and pollute the planet with dirty oil, while his attack dog John Baird leads the warmongering and bullying of nations like Iran and Syria targeted by the US-Israeli axis.

He is the most despotic and toxic first minister in the life of our country. His administration defunds every social program and life protective system it can. It strips the country of its public information infrastructures at every level – including now the gagging of non-profit NGO’s by eliminating their charitable status if they question any policy of his regime.

Just as his friend George Bush Jr., Harper holds government by big-money backing, continual lies, attack ads, and life-blind policies to enrich the already rich. Canada’s neo-con political class may have its head on backwards, but Harper is very cunning in skirting, subverting and perverting the law to abuse power at every level. He is the poster boy of the global corporate agenda of wrecking society and its common life support systems.

Harper also owes his political life to the RCMP. After a after non-confidence vote triggered the 2006 election, RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli instructed his staff to include former Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale’s name in a news release announcing a criminal investigation. This reversed the stench of the Harper regime’s continuous scandals and corruption onto the Liberals by a false RCMP smear. As a former top insider of the Tory party advised me, “the RCMP won the election for Harper”. The re-elected Harper regime then surrounded the RCMP with blocks to silence all facts – the signature operation – so the truly deepest scandal of the era proceeded with impunity to the present day. So it is not surprising that CSIS, the RCMP and Harper are collaborating to get more secret powers for the police and spooks in return for serving Harper’s underlying agenda.

How “Acts of Terrorism” Fit the Known M.O.

Harper certainly needs an accepted domestic enemy to save him from the rising revulsion of the thinking public against his rule. His regime’s record of destroying the life substance of Canada piece by piece cannot be denied. One already knew what was coming when Harper immediately called the crazed run-over of soldiers in Quebec on October 20 “a terrorist act” about which he was “deeply worried”. In fact, it was the act of a criminally insane loner run amok in a small Quebec town without any evident objective as required under the law’s definition of terrorism. But with the foreknowledge of his addled Islam by the RCMP and CSIS, he seems to have been an ideal patsy for Harper’s home “terrorism” claim. He had already been arrested and his passport cancelled in June. We can imagine how an effective undercover agent might have whipped him into a Jihad frenzy knowing he would soon be full of holes and unable to report what happened.

One can more clearly see such a scenario in the case of the clinically insane, drug-addicted petty criminal living in a homeless shelter in Ottawa who had warned a judge in front of the police back in 2011:”‘If you can’t keep me in, I’m going to do something”. Who could have been a better tool for the events to come? On October 22 after the first “As a “radicalized terrorist” attack, a double-barrelled shotgun impossible to hide that no-one saw before ended up in the hands of Micheal Zebaf-Bibeau. The rest is history. He went on a killing spree with no known blood testing afterwards for the drugs he was evidently driven by in the video record of his frenzied and super-charged behaviour, just as there was no known test of the body of crazed drive-over killer, Martin Couture-Rouleau. How extraordinary. How unspoken in the lavish profusion of other details and official false connection to ISIS.

“Terrorist” stops the mind, and “jihadist” locks it in. Harper’s first invocation of the mind-stopper was, as always, strategic. Although blood tests for a substance-abuse driving offense are automatic, none was reported although the videos show every sign of chemical possession. Bibeau too went crazy and was dead with countless bullets through him before any questions could be asked. All such strange coincidences are part of the now familiar covert-state MO.

Joining the Dots

Since Harper publicly claimed an “act of terrorism” two days before the sensational Ottawa murder and crashing of Parliament and as soon as the Quebec killing occurred, questions arise. The normally zipper-lip Harper did so long before any forensic facts were in, and before the idea even occurred to anyone else. Why? Revealingly the federal security state had been running war games exercises depicting just such attacks weeks before the crazed murders (Canadian Authorities Ran War Game Drills Depicting ISIS Attack Scenarios Brandon Martinez, Global Research, October 24, 2014). Lone-wolf nut cases, killings out of nowhere, unknown motivators and arming, and the state leader most profiting from mutation of the demented murders into “terrorist acts” before anyone else – – who joins the dots? It is taboo to think through such situations, and this too is known beforehand. Sure enough within the day, the RCMP and CSIS get the new extraordinary powers they sought, and for the first time in office the robotic Harper is behaving with a warmth not even extended to his young son with whom he shakes hands in farewell. He is hugging opposition leaders in Parliament to show a new human side to complete the image makeover in motion.

Harper is happy because he thinks his next election is saved. But the first forensic question in acts of murderous crimes is again never asked. The hypnotic trance of “terrorism” in sedate Ottawa holds the narrative unchallenged. Cui bono? Who benefits from these unbelievable closed-case murders in two days which have the media headlining “terrorism” and “anti-terrorist legislation” everywhere Canadians look, and Harper now as the strong hand in charge. The top banner headline of the weekend Globescreamed “How far should we go?”

Home-Grown Terror for Harper’s Re-Election

The first function of the terrorist claim is the standard one – diversion from the ailing economy and the majority’s growing revulsion of the leader and his party. Harper has made enemies of every thinking Canadian in the country by his stripping of the country’s public life and knowledge bases, and reversing the country’s global reputation as an agent of peace, social conscience and reverence for nature. Diversion to a constructed Enemy is the oldest strategy in the book of despised heads of state, and Harper is in unprecedented need for distraction to another target to uplift him at the same time. Bush Jr. ran on this formula for eight years.

If the stratagem is not seen through, the second big boost to Harper will be to justify the despotic rule and quasi-police state he has built with ever more prisons amidst declining crime, ever more ant-terrorist rhetoric and legislation, ever more cuts to life support systems and protections (the very ones which would have prevented these murderous rampages), and ever more war-mongering and war-criminal behaviours abroad. The evil regime of despotic control and life oppression he has instituted surpasses any ill rule in the nation’s history. As the US prototype of the life-blind right wing has taught him, the greatest justification of one’s rule is knee-jerk hatred of a safe Enemy. But in Canada, that does not work over time. So the domestic “acts of terrorism” in Quebec and Ottawa itself provide the needed Enemy withinCanada to justify anything with ever new pomp, mandatory agreement of others, and ruling power at centre stage.

Diagnosing the Drive to Total Control

The rest follows. The “New Terrorist Laws” in execution were already the feature news headline on Oct 25, allowing for any new surveillance and control of citizens. Keep in mind our already-installed totalitarian airport regime that deprives people of water and hygiene products, dehumanizes all, and undresses millions with no questions allowed any step of the way. It is a synecdoche of the larger total rule advancing with the Harper gang in charge further than ever before. “Nothing can be the same again” cheer the corporate media in choral support.

More favours to the Harper regime from the RCMP and CSIS may be in store – for example, false allegations and naming of even the most honest opponents like Ralph Goodale who spent “the worst year of my life” recovering from the RCMP smear that kept Harper in power. It is a bit like the War Measures Act – new capacity to lock down any city at any time with armed-force control pervading the streets and police-army powers in the glory of mass-controlling armed command and kill license. It has already happened in Ottawa with a lone crazy, and the lock-down was infinitely more heavy-handed than in 1970 Montreal which I observed first hand. Keep in mind the trumped-up cause for it – one likely-drugged and managed murderous homeless mental case dead before any questions could be asked.

Observe too how the language changes to fit the agenda of total control. The keys are “terrorists” for lone individuals driven crazy with no more social supports for them, and “radicalization” with no modifier as the ultimate problem of thought behind the terror. What deprived group or oppositional rethinking cannot be so labelled? These psych-ops are already in full motion now. They have been minted into ruling group-mind by the mocked-up “terrorists attacks” at home, and Harper rule can only go further by such trances of normalized stupefaction now reinforced with Canadian blood.

Behind all the public psych-ops is the operation of reverse projection long perfected by the US war-machine. Blame the opposition for what you are doing as the reason for attacking them. At the Canada level, the reverse projections define the Harper regime. He is punitively and vindictively despotic, rigidly and vengefully doctrinaire, intolerant of deviation, shames and slanders at will, and overrides every democratic constraint to his insatiable drive to total control. Narrow and life-blind absolutism, indifference to others’ suffering, and certitude of virtue while destroying people and common life support systems complete the unseen rule of terror at work. A coterie of mediocre and corrupt subordinates surround and serve him to allow no shard of light in on the ruling mission of society destruction.

With most people not yet suspecting it, Harper rule is an Americanada mirror image of the jihad-fascism he uses to multiply his and his corporate allies’ rights and powers. Behind him lies the transnational money-sequence cancer he embodies in every policy line.

Posted in Canada0 Comments

Rich getting richer, everyone else getting poorer

NOVANEWS
Rich getting richer, everyone else getting poorer

A new paper by two economics professors shows once again how inequality has grown in the United States. According to their study, the bottom 90 percent of U.S. households are poorer today than they were in 1987. Moreover, the bottom 99 percent have seen their wealth share fall substantially since 1980, as indicated in the chart above.

wealthperfamily

The data on real average wealth per family are indexed to 100 in 1945, so that the current numbers represent the gains in average wealth since that time, as calculated by Saez and Zucman.

On the other hand, the top 0.01 percent’s piece of the wealth pie has increased by 8.6 percentage points in the same period, while the next 0.09 percent’s share has risen by 5.4 percentage points. The authors calculate that as a result of these trends the top 1 percent now own over 41 percent of all the wealth in the country, the most since 1939.

Professor Emmanuel Saez, University of Calif., Berkeley, and Assistant Professor Gabriel Zucman, London School of Economics, base their study mainly on income tax returns combined with government “Flow of Funds” data. This enables them to account for assets that do not generate taxable income as well as adjust for the inevitable “tax avoidance” schemes, both legal and illegal, used by the rich to minimize their tax liabilities.

Definition of wealth

Wealth is defined by Saez and Zucman as the estimated market value of financial and other major assets (stocks, bonds, real estate and so forth) but excluding consumer durables (cars, TVs and so forth) and unfunded pension plans and Social Security benefits. While this is not the way Marxists define wealth—as collections of use values—the authors’ approach does provide a rough estimate of the huge and increasing disparities in wealth that have arisen as monopoly capitalism, and finance capital in particular, has become ever more dominant.

The domination of giant corporations and banks, over both the economy and politics, has accelerated since the competition in providing social welfare to working people ended with the fall of the Soviet Union and socialist camp in 1989-1991. Since that time, the ruling class through both their main political parties have succeeded in rolling back substantial gains of U.S. workers previously won, which accounts for a part of the rise in wealth disparities.

houseprices

House prices, 1970-2014, inflation-adjusted (red) and nominal (blue)

Disparities of wealth accelerated even more as a result of the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and its aftermath. The stock and bond markets have since recovered to new record highs, disproportionately boosting the wealth of the 1 percent, but housing prices remain on average depressed, disproportionately affecting the 99 percent. As a result of foreclosures and evictions, homeownership dropped from more than 69 percent in 2005 to just over 65 percent in 2013.

In addition, most new jobs in the sluggish post-recession recovery offer reduced pay (compared to the jobs lost) and are often part time with few if any benefits. The numbers of long-term unemployed remains elevated, and many have given up looking for work. The large “surplus population” of the permanently unemployed is thereby augmented.

These trends, along with the rising student loan debt, explain why the bottom 90 percent have actually continued to lose net worth the past few years.

Nervousness on Wall Street

Judging from recent gyrations of the stock market, investors are increasingly nervous about the durability and strength of the current upturn and capitalism’s prospects in general, as well they should. Academics like Saez and Zucman are in effect warning the ruling class that inequality has grown to a dangerous level and that measures should be taken to reverse the trend. Whether their warnings are heeded or not, this profit-driven system is doomed in the long run, and we need to build a working-class movement to replace it.

Posted in USA, World0 Comments

Obama’s Hypocritical Crusade Against Extremism: Will the Feds Soon be Targeting People With a “Bad Attitude”?

NOVANEWS


by JAMES BOVARD

In his speech last month to the United Nations, President Obama summoned foreign leaders to join his “campaign against extremism.” Obama has repeatedly invoked the “extremist” threat to justify attacking abroad and seizing more power at home since taking office in 2009. But the president’s own record makes it tricky for him to pirouette as the World Savior of Moderation.

Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was vilified in 1964 for declaring that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Obama’s presidency illustrates how extremism in favor of government power is not a vice – at least according to the mainstream media.

As part of his ever-broadening campaign against potential extremists, Obama now claims a right to kill Americans and foreigners without a trial, without notice, and without any chance for targets to legally object. Obama has authorized drone attacks that have killed thousands of people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere; the casualties include large numbers of women and children who posed no threat to the United States. But as long as some of the victims were linked to purported extremists, Americans are supposed to cheer Obama’s pioneering prerogatives for secret assassinations.

Obama justified pummeling Libya in 2011 so that that nation would not become “a new safe haven for extremists” – but there are far more violent terrorists there now than before the U.S. intervened. Obama has written himself a blank check to expand bombing in Iraq and Syria because of extremist perils – even though the U.S. government previously covertly armed some of the same extremists it is now trying to destroy.   The notion that the U.S. government is entitled to bomb foreign lands based solely on the president’s decree – regardless of congressional opposition – would have been considered extremist idiocy by earlier generations of Americans.

Obama’s campaign against extremism apparently also entitles him to waive the rules of logic. Saudi Arabia King Abdullah recently denounced religious extremism as a perversion. The Saudis are charter members in Obama’s latest crusade, and the fact that the Saudis have beheaded vastly more people than ISIS seems to have vanished from the Washington storyline (or maybe pundits believe that people convicted of “sorcery” got what they deserved). Having the Saudis join a war against extremism is like enrolling the Mafia in a high-profile campaign against abusive loan collection practices.

While Obama acts as if extremism is a self-evident offense, his administration continually broadens the definition of potential enemies – or at least troublemakers. The Department of Homeland Security has attached the “extremist” tag to gun rights activists, anti-immigration zealots, and individuals and groups “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” – even though many of the Founding Fathers shared the same creed. A 2012 Homeland Security report went even further, stating that being “reverent of individual liberty” is one of the traits of potential right wing terrorists.

Similarly, the FBI and the Homeland Security Department justified massive surveillance of the Occupy Wall Street movement due to threat of “extremist” intervention in its ranks. A Transportation Security Administration memo called for “vigilance” of a planned Occupy New Orleans march because “the potential always exists for extremists to exploit or redirect events such as this or use the event to escalate or trigger their own agendas,” as a Center for Media and Democracy report noted.

Obama is following in the footsteps of the Bush administration. President George W. Bush praised praised Croatian troops sent to Iraq for having “performed bravely in recent active theaters during this war against extremism.” During his 2004 reelection campaign, Bush proclaimed, “This struggle between political extremism and civilized values is unfolding in many places.” And any methods the Bush administration used were “civilized” by definition because the opponents were extremists.

There is no reason to trust politicians not to exploit “extremism” to crush political dissent. In 2007, the House of Representatives passed the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act by a vote of 405 to 6. The bill defined “violent radicalization” as opinions which promote an “extremist belief system.” Extremist was not defined: but opposition to U.S. government foreign policies has long been tacitly considered as “un-American” in Washington. The legislation would have left it up to the political appointees at the Justice Department to determine which ideas and beliefs are signposts on the road to damnation. The bill would have entitled the feds to stomp out extremism before it started. It also would have authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a grant program to prevent radicalization and to bankroll a university Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. The bill stalled in the Senate and never became law.

“Extremism” is even more vaporous than “terrorism.” With terrorism, at least the individual or group is purportedly committing (or planning to commit) some violent act. An extremist, on the other hand, is someone with a bad attitude who might do something unpleasant in the future. Crackdowns on potential extremists can provide the perfect tool to demonize political opposition at home and abroad. Should we assume that the feds are justified in targeting destroying anyone who is less moderate than Obama?

In his first speech to Congress in early 2009, Obama declared, “To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America.” Unfortunately, Obama seems to have long since forgotten his early admonition. Instead, he has taught the world how easy it is to seize new powers based on the shakiest pretexts.   How long will it take Americans to repeal Obama’s anti-extremism excesses?

Posted in USA0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field