Senator Marco Rubio Homo Married Hooker Generational Cubans living in the United States of America illegally with ties to Illuminati Zionist Israel Mafia who have ruined America.
How I love the truth and hope you seek it as well thanks to Wayne Madsen and his report below I think most of the article explains it all but a few things I am adding here.
Where Meyer Lansky is mentioned the former head of the American Jewish Mafia and Marco Rubio’s parents worked for Meyer Lansky let’s move forward in time.
Lenard Millman of Denver my ex-witch Kerre Millman’s father and Lucky Luciano took over for Meyer Lansky upon Lansky’s death. Millman took over everything upon Luciano’s death as the Head of the American Jewish Mafia until his death in February 2004.
Larry Mizel of Denver was appointed as Millman’s replacement and who took control of the estimated $100 Trillion Dollar Jewish MOB jackpot that Leonard Millman Controlled upon Millman death for the Illuminati Zionist Devil Worshiping Satanists also known as the Council of 13.
George HW Bush is a known member and a partner of Millman and Mizel.
Put their names in the search box on my website http://www.stewwebb.com
Larry Mizel is an AIPAC Director who controls MDC Holding, Inc. MDC-NYSE, controls Great West Life Assurance Company of Englewood, Colorado the parent company of HSBC Bank the narcotics money laundering and ISIS ISIL Terrorist money laundering Bank.
Larry Mizel is know by the Jewish newspaper in Israel as the American Jew you have to go though if you want to be US President.
Larry Mizel and his attorney AIPAC Director Norman Phillip Brownstein who has offices in Denver, Washington, D.C. , and Mexico City, Mexico, were the two primary players in the illegal Bank Bailout in 2008 as a direct result of their illegal duplicate Mortgage Backed Securities Fraud which has never been prosecuted and former attorney general Eric Holder’s law firm he now works for is on retainer by HSBC for 150 million a year. Further Mizel and Brownstein sold those fake securities as derivatives world wide that cause massive economic plunder. Brownstein was one of George HW Bush’s six CIA council when Bush was CIA Director in the mid 1970’s.
Norman Braman a former Israeli Mossad Broffman Seagrams employee and moved up the ranks in the American Jewish Mafia with ties to Larry Mizel, Braman is now a Billionaire finances and controls his little AC-DC Homosexual Senator Marco Rubio.
I would like to ask Rubio and Ted Cruz did either of you attend Jack Abramoff’s AIPAC Child Whore Houses in Washington, D.C.?
Think back during and watch the future debates when Israel is mentioned Marco Rubio goes off like he is a mind controlled chipped Israel stooge… Israel, Israel, Israel.
During last week’s GOP Debate he said Israel when I’m President I will Bomb the Palestinians who are terrorists for Israel.
We need Donald Trump as the next U.S. President not another Jewish controlled stooge like Marco Rubio or the Canadian born Cuban Ted Cruz who is not even eligible to be the U.S. President, and not the 5th Degree Witch Hillary Clinton a Jew and well connected Organized Crime Syndicate member.
Republican insiders have reported to WMR that Florida Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio was, as a high school and college student, known to be a very extroverted homosexual in both South Beach in Miami, a popular gay area, and at college in Gainesville, Florida.
In 1989, a year before Rubio was arrested with his friend Angel Barrios and another unidentified male friend in Alice Wainwright Park in south Miami, ostensibly for drinking beer in a car after closing time in a park known as a pickup locale for gays, Rubio sang and danced in a South Miami High School troupe. The song and dance troupe was based on the Chippendales but with a very gay theme: half Chippendales and half Village People. Rubio omitted his participation in the dance troupe in his biography, “American Son.”
It is also significant that Rubio did not have the best parent models in growing up in Florida and Las Vegas. His Cuban parents, according to GOP insiders, did not emigrate from Cuba to escape Fidel Castro and Communism — they left Cuba for America in 1956 — but were Havana casino workers employed by Jewish mob boss Meyer Lansky and brought to Florida. From Miami, they eventually left for Las Vegas to work in mob-owned casino hotels. Rubio’s father, Mario Rubio Reina, worked as a bartender in Las Vegas casinos while his mother, Oriales Rubio, was a hotel maid. Rubio has falsely claimed that his parents fled Castro and Communism. In 1956, the U.S.-supported fascist dictator, Fulgencio Batista, was fully in control of Cuba.
After flunking out of Tarkeo College in Missouri, Rubio returned to Miami where he hung around with his old high school friend Barrios. Barrios started an on-line gay porn business called Flava Works, which is still in business today live streaming sexual acts between black and Latino men.
In order to prepare for the University of Florida, Rubio attended Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville. Republican sources have told WMR that Rubio, Barrios, and two other students shared a townhouse in Gainesville that was known locally as a “coke house,” where cocaine was readily available, as were almost non-stop parties in what amounted to an off-campus gay frat house. In 1987, Rubio’s brother-in-law, Orlando Cicilia, was busted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for his role as a key figure in a cocaine smuggling ring in south Florida.
After graduating from the University of Florida, Rubio attended the University of Miami Law School. In 1995, Rubio claims he met his wife, Miami Dolphins cheerleader Jeanette Dousdebes at a “foam party” in South Beach. There is one thing wrong with Rubio’s story: foam parties in South Beach were almost exclusively gay events held at gay clubs like “Warsaw Ballroom” and “Amnesia,” the latter name befitting some of Rubio’s memories of his time in Miami. The following is a description of foam parties in a Miami New Times article by reporter Steven Almond, titled “Foam Sex,” published in the June 8, 1995 issue:
“The scene generally features several hundred scantily clad bodies packed onto a dance floor and writhing to bone-rattling music under strobes and colored lights. Nothing new, right? Until suds come gushing out of a machine suspended over the dance floor. As if on cue, various forms of passionate embrace begin. Kissing. Petting. Rubbing. Because the foam froths up waist high, it acts both as a lubricant and camouflage. Mutual masturbation is an occasional component, generally beneath the cover of foam. As the evening wears on, a few men pair off and sit together in the foam that builds up outside the partitioned-off area.”
Although he is obscured by the man in front of him, Marco Rubio
[arrow pointing to him] is believed to be in this 1995 photo of a
gay South Beach foam party held at the Warsaw Ballroom.
Rubio claims he met his wife at one such foam party in 1995.
At “Amnesia,” emcee “Kitty Meow, a drag queen, would officiate over the foam parties, directing participants what to do. Some foam party participants only wore jock straps. It is entirely possible that Rubio did meet his future wife at a foam party, but the women who attended these functions were largely what are known as “fag hags” out to have a good time while at the same time avoid being hit on by the gay men.
Rubio, who has four children and claims to be a devout Christian, alternately attending Catholic and Baptist churches in south Florida, appears to have a not-so-secret past. There is a Spanish word that aptly describes the presidential hopeful: Cristiano afeminado or Christian homosexual.
PART 2 Wayne Madsen Report
January 27-28, 2016 — SPECIAL REPORT. “Porndormgate” — Rubio panders to evangelicals in Iowa while gay prostitution scandal from his past blows wide open
While GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio was pandering for votes among Iowa’s evangelicals, The Washington Post ran a peculiar story about Rubio’s arrest in a Miami park in 1990. The Rubio campaign responded to the Post piece with a tongue-in-cheek explanation of Rubio’s “crime spree,” casting the arrest off as a case of youthful indiscretion.
The Post’s article, “Rubio’s summer of ’90: An arrest, then newfound purpose,” painted a picture of a purposeless Cuban teen who, after doing poorly at his first year at Tarkeo College in Missouri, returned to Miami where he hooked up with his close high school friend, Angel Barrios with whom he shared an apartment after graduating from South Miami High School.
On May 23, 1990, during Rubio’s summer break in Miami, he and Barrios were cited by the police for drinking beer in a parked car in Alice C. Wainwright Park after closing hours. The park, which had a dubious reputation for night time activities, lies along Biscayne Bay.
Rubio declined to be interviewed by the Post about the 1990 arrest. However, his campaign spokesman expressed outrage that the paper would have found the incident newsworthy. The Rubio campaign then followed up on the article with a sarcastic video about Rubio’s “crime spree.” A simple rejection of the Post’s article would have been sufficient but the Rubio campaign when into a major production effort to fend off the gist of the article. Clearly, a major damage control operation was underway for Team Rubio.
Although Rubio and Barrios were drinking beer, violating Florida’s and Dade County’s age law on possession of alcohol and open container statutes, alcohol was never mentioned in the police incident report, an indication that there was some plea bargaining and resulting record expunction at play. Barrios told the Post that he could not remember if he and Rubio were handcuffed and taken to jail. In any case, there are no records of mug shots being taken of the two teen offenders. Rubio’s arrest record has been destroyed along with the court case record. Barrios also told the Post that they were given a “PTA” by the police, which is a “promise to appear” in court but added, in what appears to be a case of “selective amnesia” that he did not think he and Rubio ever even went to court. In July 1990, the charges against Rubio, Barrios, and a third unidentified teen were dismissed.
When Rubio was arrested, his family had some recent experience with hiring criminal lawyers. In 1989, Rubio’s brother-in-law, Orlando Cicilia, was arrested for his involvement in a major cocaine smuggling operation.
Barrios told the Post that he and Rubio were just trying to pick up some “pretty girls” when they were arrested. The only problem with that story was the park where the two were arrested was known as a pick up place for male and female prostitutes. Serving as a magnet for the wealthy condominium dwellers along Brickell Avenue, where, incidentally Jeb Bush maintained his businesses that were linked to Nicaraguan contra arms and drug smuggling, Wainwright Park was a one-stop shopping open-air market for gay and straight sex as well as drugs, especially cocaine, which was the preferred drug of that era among the elite class of Miami and Miami Beach.
Rubio admitted that he did not have much money after he left college in Missouri and moved back to Miami.
Rubio eventually enrolled at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, a sort of prep school for the University of Florida. Rubio and Barrios roomed together in Gainesville. Rubio eventually enrolled in the University of Florida, from which he graduated with a Bachelors of Arts degree. He ultimately earned a law degree from the University of Miami. Rubio’s subsequent political career saw him meteorically rise from being a member of the Florida House of Representatives to Speaker of the House and ultimately to the U.S. Senate.
Rubio would have never seen such a charmed political career had it not been for his deep-pocketed political donor “sugar daddy,” billionaire Norman Braman. A former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, Braman, a Miami resident, made his fortune from owning department stores, a pharmaceutical company, and a chain of high-end auto dealerships in Florida and Colorado that sold Bentleys, Bugattis, Porsches, Cadillacs, Rolls Royces, BMWs, and Mercedes. Rubio’s wife, Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader and the daughter of Colombian immigrants, is employed by the Braman Family Charitable Foundation. It is believed that Braman has pumped as much as $25 million into Rubio’s presidential campaign.
Not by a long shot.
It turns out that Angel Barrios went down a completely different career path than his politician buddy.
Barrios’s property investment firm, Barrios Investment Group, was involved with a business that produced gay black and Latino pornographic videos from a building located at 503 Northeast 27th Street, between Biscayne Boulevard and Biscayne Bay in Miami. The corporation name was Flava Works, Inc. and it operated a facility at the Northeast 27th Street address called Coco Dorm, alternately known as “Coco House.” Barrios’s business records were maintained at 2610 North Miami Avenue, a few blocks away from Braman BMW.
According to a 2010 court case in which Flava Works, DBA — do business as –“Cocodorm.com,” appealed in the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a previous U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Miami decision that ruled that the City of Miami Code Enforcement Board was wrong in ordering closed Coco Dorm for zoning violations. The U.S. Appeals Court reversed the previous decision by U.S. Judge Marcia Cooke and found in favor of the City of Miami. Cooke, Florida’s first female African-American federal judge, was nominated in 2003 by George W. Bush in 2003. She previously served as chief inspector general for Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
Barrios’s porn site operations were detailed in the following court document [emphasis added by editor]:
“Flava Works, Inc. is a Florida corporation doing business as CocoDorm.com, which operates an internet-based website of the same name. The CocoDorm website transmits images, via webcam, of the residents of 503 Northeast 27th Street, Miami, Florida, over the internet. This residence, which is zoned multifamily high-density residential (R-4), is owned by Angel Barrios and leased to Flava Works, Inc. The persons residing at the 27th Street residence are independent contractors of Flava Works, and, in exchange for $1,200 per month plus free room and board, are expected to engage in sexual relations which are captured by the webcams located throughout the house. Individual subscribers pay Flava Works, through the CocoDorm website, for access to live or recorded video feeds, including sexually explicit conduct, from the webcams in the 27th Street residence.
Flava Works’s principal place of business, as designated with the Florida Secretary of State, is 2610 North Miami Avenue, where the accounting and financial aspects of the business are conducted. Flava Works holds city and county occupational licenses to operate a video and graphics business at this address. In addition to distributing digital content through the internet, Flava Works distributes physical media, such as videos and magazines, to locations around the world. The computer servers, which house the digital content and provide access to the CocoDorm website, are not located at either the 27th Street residence or the Miami Avenue office.
Flava Works does not disclose the location of the 27th Street residence on its website or in any of its videos or magazines. None of the webcams are located outside of the residence and no external images of the home are broadcast over the internet. Neither customers nor vendors ever physically go to the 27th Street residence.”
On December 4, 2015, WMR reported on rumors swirling around Washington concerning Rubio and a female GOP lobbyist mistress:
“Rumors are swirling around Capitol Hill and the Washington corporate media that a high heeled shoe is about to drop on the presidential campaign of Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio. WMR has learned that the Rubio campaign is fretting about the disclosure of an affair between Rubio and a female Washington lobbyist, whose identity has not yet been revealed. The rumors of Rubio’s affair were leaked to the media by political operatives believed to have connections to the Jeb Bush campaign.
Rubio, who is married with four children, has been a champion of conservative family values.”
Rubio’s one-time best friend Angel Barrios produced gay porn videos starring Latino [left] and black performers. Rubio’s presidential campaign has focused on family values, with a strong anti-gay rights stance [right].
Just as occurred with Barack Obama when stories about his gay past in Chicago first began bubbling to the surface in 2008, a story was “leaked” to the press about a 2004 Obama U.S. Senate campaign worker named Vera Baker. The insinuation was that Obama had an extramarital tryst with Baker during the 2004 campaign. The story had it that Michelle Obama fired Baker from the 2004 campaign and that Baker moved to Martinique in the Caribbean, never to be seen or heard from again. The upside for Obama is that the Baker affair diverted attention from his other “extracurricular” activities in the Chicago area that ranged from the Man’s Country bath house in north Chicago to the Purple Hotel in Lincolnwood. Just as Alice Wainwright Park in Miami drew older and wealthy men from the condos along Brickell Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard who were looking to hook up with young gay male tricks, Man’s Country served the same purpose for the older wealthy men living in condos along Chicago’s North Shore.
In the Vera Baker case and the Rubio lobbyist mistress story, the campaigns of Obama and Rubio sought to divert attention away from strong indications of the gay past of both politicians.
Flava Works and Coco Dorm are still in business and still streaming gay videos. They now operate from 833 SW 14th Avenue in Miami, across the street from the Cubaocho Museum and Performing Arts Center in Little Havana, an area rife with gay strip clubs and bars. The websites flavaworks.com and cocodorm.com contain extreme sexually explicit content that might even embarrass the Rubio campaign. The registrant and technical content contact is listed as Phillip Bleicher, at the 833 SW 14th Avenue address, but also with another contact address at P.O. BOX 2495 Chicago, Illinois 60690, reportedly a satellite office. In 2006, the Chicago Department of Public Health issued a report that claimed there was a high degree of cases of sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV, among Flavaworks models, a charge that Flavaworks denied.
The zoning controversy about Flavaworks’s Miami “porn dorm” was featured in a 2006 Miami NBC 6 investigative story titled “The House Next Door.” The report resulted in neighbors filing a zoning complaint about the activities in the house. Had NBC 6 looked into the story further, it might have discovered that the owner of Flavaworks, Barrios, was a close friend of then-Florida State Representative Rubio, who, in just six months would become the youngest Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. Whether or not that would have derailed Rubio’s political rise will never be known, however, it does point to the current under-staffing and outright absence of investigative journalism at not only the local level, but also statewide, nationally, and internationally.
While nothing that has surfaced to date suggests, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rubio was once a gay Cuban caballero-for-hire in south Miami, the circumstantial links between Rubio, Barrios, and Barrios’s business activities, raise troubling questions about a person who wants to be the president of the United States and potential blackmail of the chief executive.
Rubio portrays himself as a loving husband and father of four children. 1952 and 1956 Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, the governor of Illinois, also portrayed himself as a good husband and loving father of his three sons Adlai III, Borden, and John Fell. However, just prior to running for president in 1952, Stevenson’s wife, Ellen Borden, divorced the Democratic candidate. In 1956, Mrs. Borden, an heiress to a mining fortune, called this editor’s old friend George Fowler, then a reporter for the New York Daily News. Borden complained that the newspapers were not reporting on the homosexuality of the renominated Democratic presidential candidate, to which Fowler replied, “But Mrs. Borden, you and the governor are the parents of three lovely sons.” Borden then sighed, “My dear, any animal is able to procreate!”
So, for Senator Rubio, hiding behind a former cheerleader wife and four children does not constitute a free pass.
Exclusive, explosive breaking reports from the patriot Joint U.S.-French Intelligence Task Force, operating on American soil for over 200 years.
By Tom Heneghan International Intelligence Expert
Sunday January 31 2016
Clinton – Bush Assassination Teams Revealed in Hillary emails
UNITED States of America – It can now be reported that four (4) of the now classified TOP SECRET national security emails tied to the FBI investigation of former U.S. Secretary of State NAZI neocon Hillary Rodham Clinton deal with the existence of domestic political assassination teams headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico with a link to the NSA-administered E-Systems out of Dallas, Texas aka Bush NAZI ‘Skull and Bones’ headquarters.
The emails include a hit list involving patriotic U.S. citizens referred to as “loud mouths” reference individuals that believe 9/11 was an inside job aka George W. BushFRAUD’s 9/11 NAZI German Adolf Hitler-style “Reichstag Fire”, that the war in Iraq was an illegal un Constitutional war crime that murdered millions of people and was designed to cover up the 9/11 coup d’ ‘etat versus the U.S. Constitution and the year 2000 NSA-E-Systems electoral coup d’ ‘etat versus the American People aka the year 2000 DULY ELECTED natural born REAL President of the United States, Albert Gore Jr. of Carthage, Tennessee.
Court adjudicated federal whistle blower Mary Schneider
Federal Whistle blower Stew Webb and his attorney Bret Landrith http://www.stewwebb.comhttp://www.bretlandrith.com
Current U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts
Liaison to the Bush-Clinton Crime Family murder for hire aka assassination teams are former Kenneth Starr employees: current Hillary Clinton fundraiser, homosexual David Brock, alleged born-again evangelical Christian CIA drug money launderer, blackmailer and assassin, Larry Nichols, and NAZI Department of Homeland Security former Secretary, Bush-Clinton Crime Family stooge, anti-Al Gore bitch, Frances Fragos Townsend (CNN National Security Correspondent).
P.S. At this time physical threats versus current Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump tied to assassination team headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico and the Bush Crime Family headquarters at E-Systems in Dallas, Texas are being covered up by the Obama Administration specifically current U.S. Vice President NAZI Jew Irv Bass stooge, Joe Biden.
The Joint U.S.-French Intelligence Task Force operating on American soil for over 200 years is also reporting that President Barack Obama is being blackmailed by both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush on a daily basis reference Obama’s homosexual relationship with former cocaine dealer Larry Sinclair of Chicago, Illinois.
Accordingly, Obama is blackmailing Hillary on her continual lesbian affairs and blackmailing the Bush Family on George W. Bush FRAUD’s previous homosexual affairs with lifelong homosexual lover, former Yale classmate Victor Ashe and Bush era White House male prostitute body builder Jeff Gannon.
In closing, the negative interest rates in Japan is a precursor to a worldwide bank derivative collapse, which will lead to a massive criminal bank BAIL IN on every American citizen’s pension funds, along with their savings and checking accounts.
Note: HSBC is broke.
Stay tuned for future briefings including the criminal activities of NAZI homosexual CIA-administered Salon magazine, including a 15-year illegal espionage operation directed against DULY ELECTED President Albert Gore Jr. with the assistance of Bloomberg News, its owner and neo-con NAZI homosexual, former New York major Michael Bloomberg, its current reporter Al Hunt and CNN’s Gloria Borger, along with NAZI Jew FOX News reporter Charles Krauthammer.
Finally, direct message to the Washington elite from the American Revolutionary Council:
Any attempt to continue to shred the U.S. Constitution reference violating the 2nd Amendment rights of the American People, along with their 1st and 4th Amendment rights reference illegal espionage and spying against the American People will face a massive direct response by the American People and it won’t be pretty.
A Constitutional train wreck is imminent!
DULY ELECTED President Albert Gore Jr. awaits inauguration, the Supreme Law of the United States, our U.S. Constitution, demands it!
When injustice becomes law resistance becomes duty.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
January 24, 2016 by DCWhispers
On Thursday, Fox News will be hosting the final GOP presidential debate just days removed from the Iowa Caucus. A growing din of whispers surrounding the impending debate has at least one member of the moderating panel specifically targeting Donald Trump’s demise.
It appears the Trump campaign has already initiated counter measures as Mr. Trump himself called for Fox personality and upcoming debate moderator, Megyn Kelly to be removed from the moderator panel. Trump and Kelly have engaged in an ongoing war of words since Kelly’s first stint at moderating during a GOP debate last fall that had her issuing what many Trump supporters felt to be an unusually aggressive, anti-Trump series of questions at the Republican front-runner.
This past week, Megyn Kelly focused considerable time on her Fox News program to the National Review’s most recent and highly controversial issue that was devoted entirely to trying to convince voters not to support Donald Trump. That focus on her show led Mr. Trump to issue the following statement via Twitter:
Based on Megyn Kelly’s conflict of interest and bias she should not be allowed to be a moderator of the next debate.
Fox News was quick to respond that Kelly would remain as part of the GOP debate panel.
The timing of the Trump vs Kelly dynamic is made even more interesting given the threats issued against Donald Trump from some of the most powerful geopolitical players on the planet during the uber-exclusive World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland:
Report Global Elite Fear Donald Trump Presidency
This week some two thousand of the world’s most notable economic, political, and media leaders are meeting within the sprawling winter resort sanctuary of Davos, Switzerland. The primary topic on the mouths of those who are attending isn’t Middle East unrest, China’s fiscal challenges, falling oil prices, or even a plummeting U.S. stock market, but
It was at that conference that a figure with significant ties to Fox News’ own bottom line let it be known his intention to make certain Donald Trump will never win the White House. His name is Martin Sorrell, a British citizen and head of WPP, quite possibly the single most influential and prominent marketing firm in the world with decades-old ties to the most elite of the elite. Here is what Mr. Sorrell had to say regarding Donald Trump just days ago:
“It doesn’t matter who the Republicans put up…Hillary will win.”
Now here is where the link between Mr. Sorrell’s comment, which seems to make quite clear his absolute confidence in how the 2016 election will play out well before even the first primary vote has been cast, and Fox News becomes far more clear: MONEY.
Lots and lots of money.
Fox News, like most other similar media ventures, lives or dies on advertising revenue.
WPP and its myriad of affiliates, represents up to HALF of all Fox News ad revenue. WPP’s clients include such corporate giants as Ford, Glaxo Smith, IBM, Microsoft, Nestle, Walmart, Unilever, etc. – clients who in turn represent tens of millions of dollars in monthly ad revenue that keep the lights of Fox News on and pays the salaries of on-air personalities like Megyn Kelly.
Rumor has it that Mr. Sorrell has already played a pivotal role in manipulating the on-air lineups at Fox and other media entities through the sheer, brute force of the significant advertising dollars his clients represent.
So when someone like Martin Sorrell signals it doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate because Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States regardless, it is a prediction/threat that should be taken very seriously.
Now let us add another anti-Trump threat that came out of Davos as well this past week. This one was issued by Niall Ferguson, a highly influential Harvard professor and political policy architect declared by TIME magazine to be among the most 100 influential people in the world.
Professor Ferguson stated he is,”… very much looking forward to” the imminent humiliation of Donald Trump, a rather ominous declaration that hints of an an impending “political kill-shot” intended to end the Trump campaign once and for all.
Sorrell and Ferguson are said to have a relationship that dates back several years. Sorrell himself has aided Ferguson’s considerable publishing ventures. Here is a quote from 2004 where he did just that when asked what reading material he deemed most essential for that year:
Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP Group: Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire, by Niall Ferguson. “Extremely topical,” says Sorrell.
Both men are unabashed globalists seeking to break down the concept of nations in favor of a New World Order. For those looking to learn who was among the architects of the McCain the Campaign movement of 2008 that saw John McCain’s seemingly broken White House aspirations suddenly emerge with new life, look no further than British-born, Niall Ferguson who was an adviser to McCain in 2008. McCain went on to lose in a landslide to Barack Obama, a result some have suggested was the intended outcome of the McCain the Campaign operation all along.
Ferguson’s primary publisher of his books is Penguin Books – a longtime client of Martin Sorrell’s WPP advertising conglomerate. Adding to the incestuous nature of these relations is the fact Megyn Kelly’s husband is himself an author whose primary publisher is Simon & Schuster, itself owned by media giant CBS that in turn has a longtime relationship with…WPP.
The next Fox News GOP primary debate is scheduled for this Thursday, January 28th at the Iowa Events Center in Des Moines, Iowa.
It would appear Donald Trump’s political survival might very well be at stake.
Senator Ted Cruz Birth Certificate born in Canada his Father a Cuban not a U.S. Citizen.
The correct understanding of the fourteenth amendment is that both parents have to be citizens if one is under jurisdiction of another country Alien Citizenship by birth right is not granted.
If one parent was a citizen and the other was not citizenship is not granted and you cannot run for the Presidency.
The Constitution of the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States .
Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., talks with reporters on his charter plane as he travels from Phoenix to Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2008, the day after the Super Tuesday primary elections. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Hillary Clinton isn’t just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint as secretary of state – she’s also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!
Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential candidate’s famously “deleted” emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers’ names.
“I don’t think she’s so concerned about emails referring to her as secretly gay,” said a Clinton insider. “That’s been out for years – her real fear is that the names of some of her lovers would be made public!”
The ENQUIRER learned the list of Hillary’s lesbian lovers includes a beauty in her early 30s who has often traveled with Hillary; a popular TV and movie star; the daughter of a top government official; and a stunning model who got a career boost after allegedly sleeping with Hillary. Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public.
“That’s clearly why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything,” the high-ranking source told The ENQUIRER .
Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement. Anthony later resigned over extramarital sexting scandals, after porn star Sydney Leathers said that she believed he was in an open marriage.
“I think a lot of the time when we were speaking, Huma was probably with Hillary,” she charged, at the time.
One exchange between the women had Hillary mistakenly responding to political correspondence with an email that seemed to be about decorating.
Added the insider: “That makes you wonder if any sensitive information was sent to her romantic partners!”
The scandal unraveled in March, when Hillary revealed she deleted over 30,000 emails, insisting the messages were just “things you typically find in inboxes.”
Breaking News Terror Alert inside America?
August 8, 2014 two hour Radio Breaking News broadcast a must hear Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff, Managing Editor Jim Dean, Author Dr. Preston James and Author Stew Webb.
This interview with Beau Abbott was done by John Gentry a wannabe cameraman at Stew Webb’s request in the 1990s and recently loaded on you tube by John Gentry of Dallas, Texas. I, Stew Webb was held as a Political Prisoner from 1992-1993 and meet and talked for weeks with Beau Abbott who was also a Political Prisoner at the Federal Prison in Springfield, Missouri also known as Siberia- USA.
Beau Abbott, a former DEA Pilot was forced into and compromised into flying weapons to the Nicaragua Contras. Beau girlfriend who just had his child was murdered in Switzerland. Beau Abbott’s boss was DEA Agent Santiberio who was murdered after being illegally arrested in San Antonia, Texas and feed a peanut butter sandwich laces with arsenic.
As we suggested in the previous article, capitalism makes usury not only sophistically alluring for the rich and powerful, but makes it legitimate, and for this purpose it has received widespread criticism.
Capitalism is not just “wealth” or economic exchange in the free market. Soon or later usury is going to sneak in—the exclusion of ethical or moral values in the pursuit of usurious contracts.
As Israel Shamir rightly puts it:
“A capitalist may wish to sell drinking water, but Mammon wants to poison all water in order to force everybody to buy drinking water. A capitalist may build the mall; Mammon wants to destroy the world outside the mall, for the outside world interferes with the only meaningful occupation, shopping…
“Mammon will try to eliminate every distraction to shopping, be it churches, art, forest, rivers, seaside, fresh air, mountains.”
Usury, at its eventual root, is essentially Mammon, and it will destroy whatever interferes with its ideological and economic goal. If destroying the lives of others will bring economic gains, then Mammon will pursue it, no matter how painful the outcome.
And this is where our study gets very interesting because political economy is essentially moral philosophy; in the process, the particular oligarch is going to have to choose whether he wants to cheat the system or not.
If he chooses to cheat the system, inexorably he is going to have to destroy the economic lives of others and ultimately suspend family formation. If he chooses to cheat the system and sophistically suppress the poor, then he has to promote capitalism under the guise of economic exchange.
It must be noted in passing that Adam Smith was not an economist but a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, which had a colony of Whig oligarchy. Similarly, Israeli intellectuals like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who ended up receiving a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics in 2002, were not trained in economics.
Christ told his followers that they cannot serve both God and Mammon at the same time precisely because God is in the business of giving life and abetting the lives of other creatures, namely the poor and needy.
Mammon, on the other hand, is in the business of destroying life sophistically and making people miserable. As a corollary, the love of Mammon will create the most evil act ever conceived. For this reason, the Apostle Paul declared thousands of years ago that “the love of money is the root of all evil.”
Destroying life in a crude way is of course not acceptable in our society. For example, in 2008 some thieves walked into Harry Winston, Inc., and netted $18.6 million worth of jewels in Paris. The police force did indeed try to pursue investigation precisely because it was a crude criminal activity.
But what if those thieves did use a sophisticated way of stealing? What if they were as deceitful and cunning as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan? What if they used advertising so that Harry Winston, Inc., would give them the jewelries of their own free will? Would the police be running after them if they actually use public relations in order to steal those jewelries?
As we shall see, the answer is no. Once again, what we are seeing here is that economics is essentially moral philosophy.
William Deresiewicz of the New York Times, summarizing the avarice and usurious activity of the rich over the past few decades, tells us unapologetically:
“Enron, BP, Goldman, Philip Morris, G.E., Merck, etc., etc. Accounting fraud, tax evasion, toxic dumping, product safety violations, bid rigging, overbilling, perjury. The Walmart bribery scandal, the News Corp. hacking scandal—just open up the business section on an average day.
“Shafting your workers, hurting your customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab. These aren’t anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.”
Indirectly agreeing with the belief that was popular among Christians for centuries, Deresiewicz moves on to say,
“Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones.
“Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every man for himself.”
The thieves who stole millions of dollars worth of Jewels in Parris were not intellectually sophisticated. But one individual who actually used propaganda to dominate other people was none other than Edward Bernays, commonly known as “the father of public relations.”
Bernays, whose uncle was none other than Sigmund Freud, wrote in his book Propaganda:
“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”
Although this form of control was widespread in secret societies such as Freemasonry and the Illuminati, although it was hermeneutically regurgitated in Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, and although it was another version of Carl Jung’s occultism and Aryan cult, Bernays was the first person to formulate it in a way that was conducive to mass propaganda. And sex advertising in the 1970s was no exception.
By 1996, Christopher Simpson of American University argued that
“At heart modern psychological warfare has been a tool for managing empire, not for settling conflicts in any fundamental sense…In practice modern psychological warfare and propaganda have only rarely offered ‘alternatives’ to violence over the medium-to-long term.
“Instead, they have been an integral part of a strategy and culture whose premise is the rule of the strong at the expense of the weak, where coercion and manipulation pose as ‘communication’ and close off opportunity for other, more genuine, forms of understanding.”
When the twentieth century progressively became “Jewish,” all forms of propaganda, including sex propaganda, became the norm.
But when Bernays began to dominate the masses, Wilhelm Reich, a Jewish revolutionary and an ardent student of Sigmund Freud who got kicked out of Germany during the Nazi era for sexually corrupting the masses, began to corrupt Catholic priests and seminarians.
Reich discovered very quickly that the best way to destroy the spiritual lives of priests and undermine their power is through sexual liberation, most specifically masturbation. Here is what the metaphysician observed:
“Let us return to our little girl. The compulsion to pray disappeared when she was made aware of the origin of her fear; this awareness made it possible for her to masturbate again without feelings of guilt.
“As improbable as this incident may appear, it is pregnant with meaning for sex-economy. It shows how the mystical contagion of our youth could be prevented.”
Mystical contagion? Yes. Reich, like Freud, wanted to subvert the Catholic Church precisely because the Catholic Church has always stood against Jewish revolutionary movements. The Church’s teaching, then, was a problem for Reich. He declared,
“We concur, with the opinion of many researchers that all forms of religious mysticism mean mental darkness and narrow-mindedness…”
“Sex economy” quickly became a weapon which eventually weakened the power of Catholic priests and Seminarians. Reich continued,
“We do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of God, we merely eliminate the sexual repressions and dissolve the infantile ties to the parents.
“The inescapable conclusion of all this is that a clear sexual consciousness and a natural regulation of sexual life must foredoom every form of mysticism; that, in other words, natural sexuality is the arch-enemy of mystical religion.
“By carrying on an anti-sexual fight wherever it can, making it the core of its dogmas and putting it in the foreground of its mass propaganda, the church only attests to the correctness of this interpretation.”
We can say that Reich was indeed energizing the sexual revolution. As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“The crucial political struggle, according to Reich, was over who controlled sexual mores because Reich understood, like Nietzsche and Euripides before him, that he who controls sex controls the state.”
Reich again put it quite bluntly:
“The uncovering of the sex-economic processes, which nourish religious mysticism, will lead sooner or later to its practical elimination, no matter how often the mystics run for tar and feathers. Sexual consciousness and mystical sentiments cannot coexist.”
One individual who got infected by Reich’s sexual virus was Lisa Palac, who was raised Catholic. Reich revolutionized pop culture, and pop culture
“glued me [Palac] to my friends, expanded my vocabulary and, of course, tipped me off to the big world of sexual possibilities.”
Palac was far from alone. “Sex economy” gradually became “sexual possibilities,” and that too took a life of its own. And by the 1980s and 1990s, much of Catholic universities such as the University of Notre Dame had succumbed to Reich’s virus. Moreover, Catholic priests such as Theodore Hesburgh “used Rockefeller money to fund secret conferences on contraception at the University of Notre Dame from 1962 to 1965…”
E. Michael Jones was fired at St. Mary’s College for opposing abortion. Of all things! Academic freedom, as Jones gradually found out, did not mean that you give reason for your belief with evidentiary foundation; academic freedom meant sexual liberation—and opposing sexual liberation meant were either a bigot or an idiot or even both.
For example, several members of the school posted pro-choice flyers on their door; Jones, in turn, posed a pro-life flying on his door. But the chairman and others thought that it was Jones who was the bigot! After one year at St. Mary’s College, they kicked Jones out.
Michael W. Cuneo of Fordham University has made fun of what he sees as “graphic [sexual] expose of wrongdoing in the American church” in Jones’ writing. He moves on to say that “Jones has wasted few opportunities in driving it home.”
Yet more than ten years later, Jones was right. Many priests and members in the Church are still locked up in Freudian-Reichian sexual manipulation. And as Euripides noted, no country can survive when sexual liberation is unleashed.
And no religious institution can maintain its spiritual or political power when Reich’s “sex economy” has become a problem in the Church.
Cuneo literally mocked Jones for writing about the Freudian/Reichian sexual drive that has become a spiritual and infectious disease among many priests and seminarians. He writes that “Civility and decorum…are qualities notably absent from the work of E. Michael Jones…”
But Cuneo is also the author of the recent book One Last Kiss: The True Story of a Minister’s Bodyguard, His Beautiful Mistress, and a Brutal Triple Homicide—a grim picture of a series of unfortunate events that ended up in sexual murder!
Why hasn’t Cuneo wasted any opportunity in driving this point home? I am sure Jones is having a good laugh over Cuneo’s book.
After Jones was kicked out of St. Mary’s, he intended to tell his story for a magazine called The Wanderer. The president of the college was mobilized and asked that he, the president, review the articles before publication.
Jones said no because that would infringe upon the truth. The president replied, “Truth—Bullshit! Truth—Bullshit! Truth—Bullshit!” Jones never searched for an academic career after that incident, but started a magazine that “would be fully capable of telling the difference between truth and bullshit.”
It must also be emphasized that political Catholics were subverted by the neoconservative dream. Many of them ended up in neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.
Others ended up writing for neoconservative magazines such as National Review, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, etc. Michael Novak and Rick Santorum are classic examples.
Since 1978, Novak in particular has been promoting the neoconservative ideology to naïve Catholics and thereby deconstructing the Church’s teachings on things like Capitalism, with its vampire teeth called usury.
Novak implicitly declared that economics is based on prior assumptions, i.e. moral philosophy:
“[P]olitics is prior to economics. Before you can have a dynamic economy, you have to have a system of laws based upon consent from the governed.”
What Novak did not want to say was that that “system of laws” is the old usurious contract that has been ravaging mankind for centuries.
What we are saying here is that Capitalism, like Marxism and Socialism, will eventually destroy nations. One anthropologist and historian who has studied this issue from the early centuries likened modern capitalism to “a structure designed to eliminate all moral imperatives but profit.”
Werner Sombart’s 1911 study The Jews and Modern Capitalism linked Jewish revolutionaries to capitalism, arguing that “no colonial enterprise was complete without” Jewish participation.
Sombart predicted that capitalism would eventually be pursued largely by Jewish intellectuals and businessmen, ultimately leading to the decline of culture. All we have to do is to read the newspaper to see whether Sombart was right or not. What did we learn from Goldman Sachs again?
“From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again.”
Does the “vampire squid” really want to help their clients? Here is again the assessment of Greg Smith, a Jew who worked for the company as vice president for twelve years but became disillusioned with their covert activities. Smith argues that Goldman Sachs wants to persuade you, the client,
“to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit…Get your clients—some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t—to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them.
“I attend derivative sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them.
“If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all. It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months Ihave seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as ‘muppets,’ sometimes over internal e-mail.”
Intellectual historian Richard Wolin condemns Sombart for linking American capitalism with the Jewish spirit and declares that “for the fascist intelligentsia during the 1930s, such associations would become commonplace.”
Jewish historian Walter Laqueur declares that Sombart had a skewed view of Jewish history and faults Sombart for not talking about “the entrepreneurs who had been instrumental in developing the American economy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”
Yuri Slezkine indicts that since “Jews excelled under capitalism,” then “Sombart did not like the Jews,” leaving the impression that somehow Sombart was an anti-Semite.
Both Wolin and Laqueur need to pick up a copy of Jerry Z. Muller’s book, Capitalism and the Jews, in which we read in the very first page and the very first sentence: “Capitalism has been the most important force in shaping the fate of the Jews in the modern world.”
The third sentence reads: “But Jews have had a special relationship with capitalism, for they have been particularly good at it.”
Muller, himself a Jewish scholar, continues to say,“Jews have been a conspicuous presence in the history of capitalism, both as a symbol and as reality.”
Muller goes on to cite Milton Friedman, who argued that capitalism has been good for the Jews. Are Wolin and Laqueur willing to shoot themselves in the toes by saying that Muller and Friedman are anti-Semites? If not, why would they accuse Sombart of anti-Semitism?
Moreover, why would Sombart spend time talking about the twentieth century when his book came out in 1911? What is so interesting and laughable is that Muller himself was more than willing to commit intellectual promiscuity by lumping Sombart with anti-Semitism. He writes:
“Sombart’s identification of the Jews with the elements of capitalism that he most deplored provided a scholarly patina for what was already one of the most frequent motifs of anti-Semites…who held the Jews responsible for everything they despised about capitalism and the modern world.”
Didn’t Muller cite Friedman early saying that capitalism has been good for the Jews?
In another publication, Muller again contradicted himself when he declared that anti-Semitism is rooted in the gospels and in Christian churches during the early centuries. Jewish men like Georg Lukacs played an influential role in the 1917-1919 revolutions; for Muller, they did not consider themselves as Jewish but the anti-Semites continued to arrive at the conclusion that they were indeed Jewish.
Moreover, when eyewitness accounts documented the Jewish participation of the Hungarian Soviet, even giving descriptions of how “Christian professors” were replaced by “young Jewish intellectuals” in the revolt, Muller called the details “somewhat fanciful,” leaving the impression that reaction to Jewish participation in revolutionary activity has nothing to do with the Jewish revolutionaries themselves.
Muller moved on to dismiss all of this by saying,
“A clear-eyed analyst would have concluded that although Jews were conspicuously overrepresented in leadership positions, few Jews were communists, and most communists were not Jews.”
If these ideas are true, then we might as well shut down the police department and all other government agencies which seek to draw connections between crimes, ethnicity, and criminal activity. All three elements play a vital role in forensic investigation.
On what grounds, then, should historians, scholars, and people of reason suspend this method when it comes to examining Jewish participation in subversive activity?
Should we apply the method everywhere—even when examining terrorism in the Muslim world, when examining crimes in the black community—but ignore it when it comes to Jewish participation in revolutionary activity?
Moreover, is it rationally sound to quickly conclude that a person who does name names is by definition an anti-Semite?
There is certainly a logical breakdown here that can hardly be ignored. Gathering evidence and drawing logical conclusions from it is a logical step that cannot be dismissed with cheap shots.
Sombart quotes Marx frequently, who in his essay “On the Question of the Jews” wrote,
“What is the worldly basis of Jewdom? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Bargaining. What is his worldly god? Money.”
For Sombart to connect Jewish participation with capitalism would have been a problem had he provided no evidentiary foundation. Yet Sombart spent page after page laying out the historical backdrop, naming Jewish figures in the nineteenth century who had an influential role in colonial enterprise in South Africa and Australia.
Sombart, as a German economist and sociologist, was well aware of the scholarly literature in that particular field and cited many other scholars who assert the same thing. Moreover, Sombart’s analysis was not all negative, for he declared that
“it was the scientific knowledge of Jewish scholars which so perfected the art of navigation that voyages across the ocean became at all possible. Abraham Zacuto, Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University of Salamanca, completed his astronomical tables and diagrams, the Almanach perpetuum, in 1473.
“On the basis of these tables two other Jews, Jose Vecuho, who was court astronomer and physician to John II of Portugal, and one Moses the Mathematician (in collaboration with two Christian scholars), discovered the nautical astrolabe, an instrument by which it became possible to measure from the altitude of the sun the distance of a ship from the Equator…
“The scientific facts which prepared the way for the voyage of Columbus were thus supplied by Jews.”
It is therefore irresponsible to say that Sombart’s book displays flashes of anti-Semitism for the same reason a person does not display anti-Americanism for criticizing American policies or Bush or Obama or any other president.
If Wolin, Laqueur and Muller want us to take them seriously on the Jewish question, they need to tell Jewish revolutionaries to stay away from crimes and covert activities.
Moreover, they need to tell the Zionist regime and Israeli-run NSA (USA) and the GCHQ (UK) to stop manipulating virtually the entire world. The best way to prove that you are not a murderer in court is for you to stay away from committing murder.
We have already seen how companies such as Goldman Sachs cheated clients in order to build their earthly kingdom of Mammon. Jewish economist Lawrence Dudlow admits,
“The heart of the business situation is always the outlook for profits. When the combination of rising costs and falling inflation squeezes profits, then production and employment must be cut back.”
Darwin indirectly gave the intellectual elite a sophisticated tool to propagate capitalism. Michael Shermer himself writes that “Darwin scholars largely agree that he modeled his theory of natural selection after [Adam] Smith theory of the invisible hand.”
There is a certain level of symbiotic relationship between usury and natural selection. We are told that given enough time, natural selection has enough power to create something new.
Through natural selection and long periods of time, magical things can happen: dinosaurs can morph into birds, cows can evolve to whales, etc.
With usury, the same magical thing is possible: given enough time, 30 pieces of silver can gradually become trillions upon trillions of dollars.
Andrew Carnegie understood that magical principle quite well. Carnegie was indeed a classic representative of the Protestant capitalist who dropped his Calvinist background when he discovered Darwin. Once “the tenets of Calvinist orthodoxy” was discarded, Carnegie had nothing left to hang on. He wrote,
“At this period of my life I was all at sea. No creed, no system reached me. All was chaos. I had outgrown the old and found no substitute.”
When he first read Darwin’s ideas, the religious scales fell from his eyes. He declared,
“Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. ‘ALL is well since all grows better’ became my motto, my true source of comfort.”
The new savior, then, was Darwin. But Carnegie was also “obsessed” with Hebert Spencer, the man who actually coined the termed “survival of the fittest.” Biographer David Nasaw writes,
“For the rest of Spencer’s life, Carnegie referred to him in his writings and lectures, sought him out when he visited London, and showered him with letters and gifts…
“What counted most for Carnegie was not simply that Spencer had decreed that evolutionary progress was inevitable and industrial society an improvement on its forbears, but that this progress was moral as well as material.”
For Carnegie, Darwin’s principle and Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” were like immutable physics and mathematics, and you tamper with them at your own peril. Nasaw continues,
“There was, for Spencer, a discernable order to the course of human events and the structure of human societies, study of which would reveal the existence of moral laws that were ‘like the other laws of the universe—sure, inflexible, ever active, and having no exceptions.’ Societies that obeyed these moral laws would prosper; those that disregarded them were doomed to failure.”
Carnegie would often refer to Spencer as “my teacher,” “My Master,” and on some occasions ended his letters with kind words such as “to you reverence.” Nasaw continues to say,
“The law of evolution provided a systematic way of answering [Carnegie’s] questions and explaining, without recourse to the supernatural…It provided a scientific basis for a belief in human progress.”
Nasaw writes that “Spencer offered Carnegie and his generation an intellectual foundation for their optimism,” and after reading Spencer, Carnegie exclaimed, “Man was not created with an instinct for his own degradation, but from the lower he had risen to the higher forms. Nor is there any conceivable end to his march to perfection.”
Henry Adams, Carnegie’s contemporary, felt almost the same way. He wrote that “for the young men whose lives were cast in the generation between 1867 and 1900, Law should be evolution from lower to higher, aggregation of the atom in the mass, concentration of multiplicity in unity, compulsion of anarchy in order.” Nasaw comments,
“Whether they read Spencer for themselves, as Carnegie had, or absorbed his teachings secondhand, his evolutionary philosophy provided the Gilded Age multimillionaires with a framework for rationalizing and justifying their outsized material success.
“In the Spencerian universe, Carnegie and his fellow millionaires were agents of progress who were contributing to the forward march of history into the industrial epoch. Carnegie was not exaggerating when he proclaimed himself a disciple of Spencer and referred to him, in almost idolatrous terms, as his master, his teacher, one of ‘our greatest benefactors,’ and the “great thinker of our age.’”
But Spencer’s intellectual foundation was based primarily on “survival of the fittest,” which was congruent with usury.
But sophisticated form of usury does not eliminate the fact that the idea is evil and destructive. Even people such as Thorstein Veblen, who also wanted to apply the Darwinian ideology to economics, saw problems with it, calling it “the legal right to sabotage.”
The idea is that the rich and the powerful can ultimately stop “the free flow of economic activity in order to maintain the maximum net gain for invested capital.”
Veblen saw that when the “industrial forces” run the country, they can manipulate the economy as they see fit and in the end it will “be ruinous for business.”
All of this economic mumbo jumbo was expected, since the leading figures of the Protestant movement made usury plausible. In fact, Darwin, Spencer, Carnegie, and more recently Michael Shermer, were all Protestants at one time. (Carnegie wooed Protestant writer Matthew Arnold into his capitalist circle.) And they all came up with a secular version of the Protestant form usury. Adam Smith himself bragged,
“Our forefathers kicked out the Pope and the Pretender [to] preserve the precious right of private judgment.”
It was logical that generational children of the Whig oligarchs would implicitly be in agreement with Jewish revolutionaries to destroy “the Pretender” who traditionally condemned usury in all its form.
In fact, the WASP ruling classing—namely the Rockefellers—made a deal with the Rothschilds back in 2012. David Rockefeller himself acknowledged,
“Lord Rothschild and I have known each other for five decades. The connection between our two families remains very strong. I am delighted to welcome Jacob and RIT as shareholders and partners in the ongoing development of our investment management and wealth advisory businesses.”
In a nutshell, the secularized and “scientific” version of usury (Darwin’s survival of the fittest) and the Protestant/Whig version of usury (Smith’s “invisible hand”) are ultimately two sides of the same coin, though there might be some slight variations here and there.
Darwin’s survival of the fittest had its heyday at the dawn of the twentieth century, during which it horridly massacred the poor, the needy and the powerless.
But when the twentieth century completely became “Jewish,” to use Yuri Slezkine’s own word, the Darwinian/Whig coin ended up landing in the Jewish rabbit whole.
Amos Tversky himself started to think about economic theory through survival of the fittest. He declared that “growing up in a country that’s fighting for survival, you’re perhaps more likely to think simultaneously about applied and theoretical problems.”
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are other classic examples of the marriage or similarities between survival in the fittest and Jewish ideology. The net result is that both ended up slaughtering decent and innocent human beings.
Those human beings are still being liquidated in places like Iraq and Afghanistan; others are fleeing from their cherished homes.
Moreover, the Jewish ideology is currently destroying other nations such as Syria. It has already taken the lives of at least 73,000 in 2013 alone. The same ideology is marching against Iran.
Put simply, the WASP ruling class (with its secularized version) and Jewish economists will never be able to repudiate the usurious coin because, to parody the biological determinists, the usurious coin is in their DNA. How else? Didn’t their intellectual antecedents propound the same thing? Didn’t Calvin and Luther produced sophisticated reasons for usurious contracts?
Dante would be pleased to put that usurious coin in hell.
Last year, Pope Francis made the declaration that “unfettered capitalism” is the “new tyranny” on the block. This “idolatry of money” has been dignified by the intellectual elite and been blessed by the rich and powerful. He continued,
“Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.
“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?
“I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security.
“I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor.”
Pope Francis has been weak on many issues, but he definitely has a point here. The capitalist elite, building on the false dichotomy that you are either a Marxist/Socialist or a capitalist, and ignoring the traditional teaching of the Church that monks and priests and even nuns always value labor, immediately called Pope Francis a Marxist, even though he has made it clearly that “the ideology of Marxism is wrong.”
Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, wrote that the pope has a “tragic vision.”
Being trapped in the perennial “either/or” dichotomy (Marxism/Socialism vs. Capitalism), Williams wrote articles such as “The Virtue of Greed” and “I Love Greed,” in which we read:
“YOU CAN CALL IT GREED, selfishness or enlightened self-interest, but the bottom line is that it’s these human motivations that get wonderful things done. Unfortunately, many people are naive enough to believe that it’s compassion, concern and ‘feeling another’s pain’ that’s the superior human motivation. As such, we fall easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers.
“There’s probably widespread agreement that it’s a wonderful thing that most of us own cars. Is there anyone who believes that the reason we have cars is because Detroit assembly-line workers care about us?”
Obviously Williams knew nothing about the Middle Ages, where compassion and love for the poor, the needy, and real labor actually built Western Civilization, including the most prestigious institutions in the West. He obviously does not know that there is a rigorous alternative to Capitalism.
Williams continues to propound his ignorance at an astronomical rate:
“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. With the rise of capitalism, it became possible to amass great wealth by serving and pleasing your fellow man.”
Serving and pleasing your fellow man? What in the world is Williams talking about? Please notice that Williams blatantly contradicts himself by making such a categorically false statement.
If car makers really do not care about us and that their primary motive is to make money, as Williams argues, could it be that this primary goal might be in conflict with “serving and pleasing” fellow men? If you doubt the seriousness of this statement, watch how Milton Friedman addressed a similar issue.
Moreover, has Williams taken a look at what economist John Quiggin calls “Zombie Economics”? Has he read Paul Craig Roberts’ recent book The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism? And has he read the recent news about JPMorgan?
What was so laughable was that instead of arresting the representatives of JPMorgan and putting them to jail for “bribery, mortgage fraud, investor fraud, credit card fraud, forgery, perjury, violation of sanctions against Iran and Syria,” etc., the government just asked them to pay some fines! The BBC reported that “No individual executives were accused of wrongdoing.” As Eric Eskow puts it,
“We’ve always been told that ‘crime doesn’t pay.’ Jamie Dimon and the Board of Directors of JPMorgan Chase beg to differ.”
In the same vein, Andrew S. Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle writes,
“No matter how egregious and systematic the malfeasance, no matter how many lives have been ruined, no matter how loud the calls for accountability, the big chiefs remain untouched. In Jamie Dimon’s case, they get rewarded…
“Forgotten, it seems, is the list of JPMorgan’s crimes and misdemeanors on Dimon’s watch – mortgage fraud, insurance fraud, illegal billing, kickbacks, manipulating California’s energy market, rigging the Libor benchmark interest rate, turning a blind eye to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme; and who can forget the London Whale? Isn’t another price in order?”
Rush Limbaugh, a quintessential representative of the capitalist system, declared of Pope Francis,
“But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him. This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth
Kurdistan does not get much coverage in the US, so Americans consequently know very little about it very complicate situation in a region undergoing great turmoil now.
Gordon Duff is the only one on our VT term who has worked there, so we appreciate NEO’s writers for helping us with good material off the areas we usually write about.
VT readers come here for help in connecting the dots in these complicated geopolitical situations which can sometimes have consequences rightback here, like the price of our gas at the pump.
Iraq is ‘in play’ now, with Saudi Arabi seeming to be rolling the dice on becoming a major power via terrorital expansion…or fading away into the sands of time as they say there. And in that regard we could say that American is “in play”.
Will it continue its forward deployment aggression, replacing American troops with those from proxy nations, with terror brigades seeming to be the most sought after fighters? Will Russian and China, the countries being targeted, sit back and just watch all of this happen without responding?
And when will the American people really have their say about foreign aggression by those proclaiming that they are protecting our ‘interests’, but they are very vague on describing exactly what those interests are?… Jim W. Dean ]
– First published January 24, 2014 –
In recent years, the Kurds have been playing an increasingly important role in the Middle East region. The Arab Spring of 2011 set in motion the broad masses and has been accompanied by irreversible, often bloody and tragic, events in the Near and Middle East.
Ruling regimes were forcibly changed in Tunisia, Egypt (twice), Yemen and Libya; a fratricidal civil war was unleashed in Syria.
There was a wave of mass protests and uprisings in Bahrain, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, the Sudan, Djibouti and Western Sahara. There were intensive armed clashes and rocket attacks along Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip.
It would be premature to draw even the most approximate conclusions on the Arab Spring, which is still under way both in terms of the depth of the political processes taking place in each of the above countries and in terms of the increasing number of states being involved in the sequence of “revolutions”.
There is a real threat that the crisis might even spread beyond the Arab world, in particular, to Turkey, Iran, the Transcaucasian and Central Asian countries. Prerequisites for such developments do exist.
In the situation that is emerging today, an increasingly important role in the region is played by the Kurds – a 40-million people that, due to the force of external circumstances, has been deprived of its statehood and divided by the borders of four states: Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
A few million Kurds live in Europe, the Trans-Caucasus and the CIS countries, including Russia. Until recently, the Kurds constituting national minorities in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have been, in every possible way, oppressed by the central authorities, which have been pursuing the policy of their forced assimilation and relocation, imposing severe restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language etc.
The Iraqi Kurds (about 6 million people) were the first to get rid of the status of second-class citizens by making sure that their status as a federal entity with broad rights and powers was enshrined in the new constitution of Iraq.
The country’s three northern provinces (Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah) making up Iraqi Kurdistan are developing rapidly and confidently, restoring the infrastructure, economy, agriculture, the systems of livelihood, health care and education; they are successfully solving social problems.
There is a favourable legislative climate conducive to the influx of foreign investments, the accreditation of new diplomatic, trade missions and transnational corporations.
In 2014, it is planned to independently produce oil and gas and export them via Turkey to the world market. The region has become a kind of oasis of stability and security against the backdrop of the ongoing terrorist war between the Iraqi Arab Sunnis and Arab Shi’ites.
Moreover, president of Iraqi Kurdistan Masoud Barzani has acted as a mediator in the settlement of the protracted government crisis, which had been going on in the country for nearly a year, and contributed to reaching consensus between the major Iraqi political blocs of the Arab Shi’ites and Sunnis.
The Kurds have quite a decent representation in the central authorities in Baghdad. The President of Iraq is one of the reputable Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani; the Kurds hold 6 ministerial posts, including the post of foreign minister, and have established a substantial Kurdish faction in the federal parliament.
According to the existing law, the Kurds are entitled to 17% – in proportion to their number – of the total export of Iraq’s hydrocarbons.
You cannot say that there are no problems or contentious issues between the region and Nouri al-Maliki’s government, but all most acute contradictions are discussed at the negotiation table and have not so far taken the form of open conflicts. The leaders of the Iraqi Kurds look at the situation in the country and region realistically and are not advocating for their secession from Iraq.
The Kurds could be prompted to proclaim independence only by a further deterioration of the armed confrontation between the Arab Sunnis and the Arab Shi’ites or by the natural collapse of the state due to the ethno-sectarian divide into three enclaves (northern, central and southern).
Paradoxically, the civil war in Syria has significantly improved the political position of the Syrian Kurds. In the face of the possibility of losing power, the government of Bashar al-Assad had to make significant concessions for their Kurds (whose number is estimated to be about 2.5 million people).
At last, the Syrian citizenship was granted to the 300 thousand Kurds who had been stripped of it during the rule of Hafez al-Assad. Hundreds of Kurdish political prisoners were released from prisons; the government troops were withdrawn from almost all areas with compact Kurdish population.
These measures contributed to the fact that the Syrian Kurds adopted a position of neutrality in the inter-Arab conflict in the country and even created self-defence forces in order to prevent Islamist militant groups from invading their territories.
Recently, the national movement of the Syrian Kurds has consolidated considerably. Before March 2011 Syria had about 20 Kurdish political parties and social organisations that were acting separately and in a semi-legal manner.
They have now consolidated into two main political blocs: the Kurdish National Council and the Democratic Union Party (its military wing – the People’s Protection Units).
Thanks to the help from Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani, it has been possible to establish the Kurdish Supreme Committee, the board of which is trying to coordinate the activities of all Kurdish political forces in Syria. Besides, some of the leaders of the Syrian Kurds belong to foreign diasporas and live permanently in Europe and the United States.
The most radical of them, such as, for example, representative of the leadership of the Democratic Union Party (DUP) Salih Muslim, advocate for the establishment of a Kurdish autonomy in Western Kurdistan or even a federal entity of the Iraqi Kurdistan type. One of the autonomous Kurdish districts has already been declared in the area of Qamishli.
But the majority of the Kurdish activists look at the situation in the country realistically (fragmentation of the Kurdish enclaves) and are calling upon their fellow tribesmen to continue, if possible, adhering to neutrality in the inter-Arab conflict.
The Islamist militants’ attacks and reprisals against the civilian Kurdish population have further consolidated the Syrian Kurds in the struggle for their rights and freedoms and accelerated the process of creating self-defence forces. However, their leaders are not refusing to participate in the Geneva II peace conference and continue the dialogue with the supporters of Bashar al-Assad and the opposition.
The Kurdish leaders are hoping that, whatever the outcome of the civil war, they will
Connecting some Financial Frauds the U.S. Justice Department does not want you to know about but U.S. Attorney Eric Holder does know.
The Denver Illuminati Connection and Leonard Millman one of the 12 Illuminati Wizards’ of Oz.
Convicted HUD Scamster Phil Winn who this Whistleblower helped the HUD Independent Prosecutor Arlen Adams in 1989 get the conviction and plea bargain in 1991 against Winn who agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine and was to be sentence to prison for 5-7 years that never happened, instead Denver-U.S. District Court Judge Sherman Finesilver who had been bribed years earlier with his ownership of Westward Newspaper in Denver by Leonard Millman got Judge Finesilver to seal Phil Winn’s case from 1991 until 2001 when CIA Bill Clinton the day before leaving office as the U.S. President gave convicted criminal Phil Winn a illegal Presidential Pardon.
Just think Phil Winn helped steal over 500,000 apartment units from HUD over 20 years for Denver Illuminati Wizard Len Millman and gets a presidential pardon.
Those apartments are hidden under thousand of entities one of the largest is AMICO run by Terri Constadine and Norman Brownstein, who is the attorney for Illuminati Wizards of Oz Leonard Millman and Wizard George HW Bush. Brownstein was one of the six CIA Council to George HW Bush when he was CIA Director in the mid 1970s and Brownstein was on the Board of Directors of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc., and now MDC-NYSE Corporate attorney the parent company of Imperial Savings and Silverado Saving and Loan of Denver which collapsed where Neil Bush the U.S. President’s son was a Director and in charge of Narcotics Money Laundering from Iran- Contra, nearly 12 Trillion Dollars in 9 years was laundered.
Phil Winn’s, Winn Financial was an MDC-NYSE subsidiary company. Phil Winn’s “Buffers-Stooges” were caught selling 4,000 stolen repossessed HUD houses in Arizona in 1992 and served time in Federal detention in Denver.
These were stolen in the late 1970s from HUD computers and re-deeded to Leonard Millman and his attorney Norman Brownstein who was in charge of the stolen houses for Millman and Bush.
Don Boles, a Phoenix, Arizona Investigative Journalist was murdered over his investigations of some of these stolen HUD houses that were being sold in Arizona.
Asset Investors created Mortgages on houses that were never built and duplicate mortgages up to 9 times that they bought from Mortgage Brokers around the United States then sold those Mortgages in bundles as Securities bundled as derivatives those Mortgages which had cause the worldwide financial meltdown in 2008.
Norman Brownstein was the Director and Vice President of HSBC Bank of Canada in charge of Derivatives which bundled the Fake Mortgaged Backed Securities and sold them throughout the world as Mortgage Backed Derivatives.
The current Denver U.S. Attorney is part of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s special Task force to prosecute the Bankers frauds the Denver U.S. Attorney’s office has been a revolving door from the Norman Brownstein law firm.
Ask the former U.S. Denver Attorney who covered up Enron or former U.S. Attorney Michael Norton who covered up the Millman-Bush stolen 2,000 pounds of Uranium from Rocky Flats Nuclear arsenal west of Denver that was shipped in Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Trucks to Apex Aviation in St. Louis, Missouri to keep from triggering Nuclear material transport detectors and flown to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and sold to North Korea that gave North Korea the Nuke Bomb.
Leonard Millman’s CITI Bank’s subsidiary did the fake clean up of Rocky Flats, the cover story was 2,000 pounds of Uranium was spilled on the hillside, cost to U.S. Taxpayer $2.5 Billion what a scam.
Then guess who builds a subdivision on that contaminated land and a great view of the Denver skyline?
MDC’s Richmond American Homes run by Millman’s “Buffer-Stooge” Larry Mizel.
Larry Mizel alias Larry Mizell is the Chairman of MDC-NYSE who dreamed up the Mortgage frauds for Leonard Millman his boss.
In a recent $13 Billion dollar settlement with JP Morgan Bank, Home America Mortgage a MDC Subsidiary had been named in the original suit to cover the whole frauds up in one sweep.
Former FSLIC Attorney and Professor of law at UMKC questions why is there no prosecutions?
Illegally created Mortgage Securities by MDC-Asset Investors estimated at $100 Trillion.
Illegally created Derivatives backed by illegal fake Mortgage Securities estimated at $5,000 Trillion Dollars.
Illegally stealing Americans houses that were paying their Mortgages to other mortgage companies and on time and up to date on their mortgage when the Denver Illuminati Wizard Leonard Millman alias Leonard Hillman alias Michael Donavan would send his crooked attorneys in saying they owned the Mortgage and that it was registered with Meirs and I own the property. 12.5 million American have had their homes stolen from them with crooked attorneys, Judges and others, only the Kentucky Attorney General seems to be doing his job.
Bank of America has 80% of their mortgages on their books are non-performing assets, meaning they got stuck with the false mortgages and Bank of America is cooking their books, which is against the law yet they trade on the NYSE.
Meirs the privately owned Mortgage registration was set up in 1993 by Millman’s “Buffer-Stooge” M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. Director Larry Mizel.
Why was Meirs set up in 1993?
Because these same named criminals above were doing the same thing during the 1980s except they were selling fake Mortgages to their Colorado controlled banks and Mortgage Companies then they triggered the FSLIC, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FDIC Insurance to scam the U.S. Government and investors. Thirty one years of fraud and no one has gone to jail because all U.S. Attorney Generals and Colorado’s US Attorney and Colorado State Attorney Generals since 1981 have been controlled by these two Illuminati Wizards Leonard Millman and George HW Bush who both Graduated from Yale University together and were both Skull and Bone Buddies and members a known Satanic Occult.
Why did Leonard Millman pay a $80,000 Million Dollar fine in 1997 over a grand jury indictment for bribing Government Officials and never went to jail and the case was sealed under National Security by then President Bill Clinton?
Because Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are part of the Denver Illuminati Zionist Organized Crime Syndicate, their attorney James M. Lyons was on the Board of Directors of MDC-NYSE.
Bill Clinton’s fines that were paid over the Monica Lewinsky scandal and oral sex in the Whitehouse and lying before a grand jury saying a blow job and stuffing Monica with cigars is not sex, it did happen but this was the Spin Doctor story to keep the truth about Iran Contra and the Arkansas involvement from coming out.
Judge Lawrence Walsh had them nailed in late 1992 and he was replaced by Independent Prosecutor Kenny Star who obstructed Justice and covered up Iran- Contra frauds. Stars father started Star International the parent company of AIG Insurance the Millman’s “Buffer-Stooge” Maurice Hank Greenberg runs AIG and was directly involved with Meyer Blinder of Blinder-Robinson the world largest penny stock frauds which collapsed in 1990. Millman’s “Buffers-Stooges” Blinder and Greenberg ran National Brokerage Company, on Pine Street, Denver, Colorado. National Brokerage did massive securities frauds in the 1980s with ties to Balcor Securities, Stinger Securities, and gave Iran Contra drug smugglers-pilots stock in dummy companies to pledge as collateral for loans made by Neil Bush a Director at Silverado Savings. Those loans were never repaid, the stock was bogus and the FDIC out of Dallas picked up the tab. FDIC employees out of the Dallas offices were in on the take.
Chubb Insurance Company of Denver paid Bill Clinton’s fines and paid off others including Paula Jones in Clinton’s affairs. Chubb’s Board of Directors at the time was Norman Phillip Brownstein.
Do you really want Hillary Clinton a known 4th Degree Satanic Witch, Lesbian, and Killer of over 300 witnesses and the Jewish Mob attorney (Rose law firm) to be your next President in 2016?
Ask Larry Mizel why he had a meeting with former Rose Law Firm Partner and White House Aid Vince Foster on the day he was murdered in Washington, D.C.
Ask Leonard Millman who controlled Hensel-Phelps Construction Company based out of Greeley, Colorado a nationwide contractor who committed frauds at the Denver Airport why a Helsel-Phelps Construction Company yellow pickup truck license number RCG-702 Arkansas tag was at the White House the evening Vice Foster was murdered.
Guess who sits on the Board of Directors of AIPAC-American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, which is Zionist Espionage against the United States and controls 99% of the U.S. Congress and Senate?
AIPAC’s National Board has approximately 50 members. By tradition, previous Presidents serve as Board members, and are not listed separately here. (Asher, Levy, Mitchell, and Weinberg were sometimes referred to as the “Gang of Four”.) There are also state-level and some city-level AIPAC boards.
“Stew you’re the only person to go after the pinnacle of the Zionist Organized Crime Leonard Millman, your-ex-in-law and Larry Mizel, Millman’s Buffer.”—Gordon Duff Editor Veterans Today May 16, 2013
This interview of Gordon Duff and Stew Webb made in December 2012 was rated as one of 2013 most listened to interview now on Stew Webb’s youtube site.
“I have known Stew for many years and have yet to meet a more energetic Whistleblower and investigator. Stew has suffered persecutions, beatings, verbal abuse and much more for standing up for what he believes in. Stew Webb is loyal to the cause of exposing corruption, not online in America but around the world. January 30, 2014—Gene “Chip” Tatum
Super Spook Gene Chip Tatum 1996 interview with Stew Webb
AIG Harken Energy Winn Financial Group
By Al Martin
There were about 100 such projects in all which were ultimately bailed out by some public guarantee institution.
It wasn’t necessarily the FDIC or the FSLIC, but in some cases, very esoteric public guaranteed funds were used to bail these deals out.
George Jr. naturally specialized in oil since he controlled the Bush family oil portfolio including Harken Energy stock, Tidewater Development stock, and Apache and Zapata stock.
These were all deals where George Sr. had formerly been on the Board of Directors. Now George Jr. was on the Board of Directors, since Sr. as Vice President couldn’t have that capacity.
Harken Energy was a classic fraud. The stock still trades on the AMEX at five or six dollars a share. It’s been pumped up recently because there’s a new fraud going on with those Bahrainian Leases that Richard Secord originally had ten years ago.
The stock will shortly collapse back to two dollars again, as soon as everybody gets out. A lot of Republicans will make money on the deal. ….
I also have a lot of documentation pursuant to George, Sr.’s involvement in fraudulent deals surrounding Zapata and Apache Energy. I have a lot of stuff with him in Harken Energy, also including a lot with George, Jr. in Harken Energy. That’s another possibility. But again, these weren’t large frauds. They were little security frauds, the fraudulent diversion of monies in those bogus Bahrainian leases when they temporarily ensconced Richard Secord to be their Middle Eastern Director for Bahrainian Operations which existed in a file drawer.
What that Bahrainian deal came down to was George Bush, Sr.’s close friend, former Saudi intelligence chief and major IranContra figure, Ghaith Pharaon. That was just a donation to IranContra by the Saudi government. And that’s what the bogus Bahrainian lease deal effectively comes down to. It wasn’t much $38 million, something like that.
Secord received about $3 million for his own pocket. Harry Aderholt was thrown a bone out of the deal. It was no big deal really. I also want to discuss an overview of Bush family fraud, ala IranContra profiteering. …….
The TriLateral Investment Group, Ltd. is also one of the deals (one of the very few deals, perhaps only a few dozen deals in that era by this group of guys) that you could connect Jeb, Neil, George, Jr., Prescott, and Wally Bush.
All five you can put in the TriLateral Investment Group, Ltd. You can put Neil in it visavis TriLateral’s dealings with Neil’s Gulf Stream Realty.
Then you back up a step and put Neil Bush into TriLateral Investment Group’s dealings with the Winn Financial Group of Denver run by the infamous former Ambassador to Switzerland, Phillip Winn. You can put George, Jr. in the deal visavis the TriLateral Group Ltd.’s fraudulent relationship with American Insurance General (AIG) , of which George, Jr. was a part through the same series of fraudulent fidelity guarantee instruments issued on behalf of Harken Energy from American Insurance General.
TriLateral Investment Group then sold bogus oil and gas leases to AIG. This is a direct fraud that George, Jr. profited to the extent of (not a lot) $1.6 or $1.7 million. But it was a clear outandout fraud.
Rolling Stone magazine did a good piece on George Bush, Jr. and three of his oil and gas companies which failed. But the article really didn’t go far enough.
It did not go really into Harken and Tidewater and other public corporations which George, Jr. was involved in and in which securities fraud was committed. He was able to neatly skirt the laws or should we say deflect the shit away from himself through a whole series of contrivances. The way he was able to do this, by the way, was to post these essentially bogus fidelity and guaranty instruments, so the deals wouldn’t be scrutinized until long after they had collapsed.
This was one of George Jr’s specialities and I did this myself, by the way. It was a common tactic in IranContra Securities Fraud. As the expression goes, it was to “back in” fraudulent assets, normally of a real estate nature, to back in fraudulent assets into a public shell. More commonly, they were known by their regulatory names in those days as a Reg D offering, or a Reg 501 or 505, or an S1, S3 or S18 offering. These were the common euphemisms used in the day. This is, of course, Security and Exchange Commission language, or “SEC speak” as we used to call it, for various types of offerings, which govern how large these offerings could be, how many states they could be ‘blueskied’ in (meaning how many states they could be sold in), the total amount of money that could be raised, the market making regulation that was necessary to maintain a market in the shares thereinafter.
Anyway, a very common securities fraud was the use of 144 stock. 144 stock refers to Rule 144, or Restricted Shares (shares that are not free to trade under the twoyear restriction rule). Often a company that would nominally have ten million shares outstanding could issue a hundred million shares of 144 stock that would then be sold at a steep discount to the market price. If you had a stock trading at a dollar, you would issue scads and scads of 144 stock, and you sell it for twenty cents a share. This stock would get bounced out into offshore bank loans, principally through the Union Bank of Switzerland, but also through a whole host of offshore banks through the Caribbean.
The large French bank, Banque Paribas, for instance, was notorious for this because of George, Sr.’s relationship with the bank. What would happen is you would raise an enormous amount of money, but you would also have an enormous amount of restricted stock, out of which at some point, the letter (what is known as the restriction or the letter) would come off that stock, and that stock is going to come bouncing back at some point to the market makers.
Because the scheme was at the banks, this was only meant to be interim financing. We are now talking about cooperative banks who were not meant to be burnt. They were just meant to provide bridge financing. This was very, very true with Union Bank of Switzerland, Royal Trust of Canada, and Imperial of Canada, Banque Z of Curaao, Banco de Populare. These were banks that you did not burn. These banks just acted as facilitator banks. But you have to make them “whole” in the end. Now, if you bury them under a pile of 144 stock, how did you make them “whole” in the end? How you made them “whole” is by pumping up the deal as the letter began to expire on the 144 stock that was out.
You would pump up the shares artificially in the marketplace and begin to bleed the stock back through your market makers at forty or fifty cents on the dollar. You would make money again. You had originally borrowed twenty cents on the dollar. You perhaps would bleed the stock back into the marketplace at forty cents on the dollar by the tactic of what is known as “backdooring” the stock to your market makers and dealers, and issuing certain guarantees to them that they in turn would be made whole. The ultimate bag-holder in these deals, of course, are the people that bought the hype, the people that bought the endless press releases, most of which were all bogus.
In some cases, we would have to make the representation that Company A has a tremendous new product or that it just has a contract with the International Monetary Finance Corporation. And boy, this is just going to be the greatest since sliced bread. Of course, what the prospective hypee didn’t know is that the International Monetary Corporation was in fact a shell that had been formed by the very same people who had perpetrated the original fraud. It is the only way you could keep control of the hype. So you would have one bogus company signing a contract to purchase ten zillion widgets from another bogus company. Not only did the widgets not exist, but both the companies themselves were essentially worthless. In this way, you could pump up the price of the shares and be able to create enough liquidity, enough excitement in the shares to distribute all of the stock, all of this 144 stock that you had bouncing back. Since the problem was obvious, you would vastly expand the flow to the shares in some cases, by a factor of ten.
There were previously, let’s say, 10 million shares authorized, but usually there was 300,000 or 400,000 shares that were actually out. The rest of it was buried in the hands of dealers or constituted restricted stock. So what would happen is towards the end, when the deal would falter, you could always give the deal a second shot by instituting a reverse stock split, which would bring the stock back up to a level where penny stock investors and speculators felt more comfortable, and also back to a level where the shares would then again meet certain regulatory hurdles, thus making it easier to distribute the stock. You took the stock that was originally done and pumped it up to a dollar. In order to maintain it at a dollar and absorb all the stock, you needed a constant flow of hype.
When the shares eventually sank (because the distribution began to back up on the dealers a little bit), you would give the stock a secondary chance by instituting a reverse stock split. That would boost the price of the shares back up to where they were, usually even higher. Of course the spreads would widen out, and as anyone knows in reverse stock split penny deal, the spreads always get very, very wide. But you simply disguise those spreads.
The dealers can very easily disguise those spreads by either not posting Bids and Asks on the pink sheets, or just posting socalled nominal Bids and Asks which would give the appearance to the wouldbe investor that the stock was substantially more liquid than it was. But the reverse stock split was always the last link in the chain of the fraud of the underlying deal. Because the last time you would pump it up would be through this artifice, this device using a reverse stock split. It wouldn’t be long thereafter that simply the deal would fall apart, and you could distribute the stock all the way back down to a penny bid, three cents offered, which we did on a lot of deals.
Once the broker/dealers were out or were “whole” financially as well as your other market makers and specialists, once you had made them whole financially, because you had so severely discounted the stock to them to begin with, then there would always be 30 million or 40 million shares left over. And the Bids and Asks would quickly go to like a penny bid, three cents offered, but with that, you would get a whole new crop of potential investors. You would keep a little bit of hype there. You’d keep a little bit of activity and spread on the sheets. And there’s a whole lot of people that will buy 10,000, 20,000 shares of a two or three cent stock in hopes that it might be a twenty or thirty cent stock. You do open yourself up at a penny making a market of one and three cents you open yourself up to a whole new crop of speculators that will be sellers of a deal at twenty cents, not buyers of a deal at twenty cents.
We use to call these type of penny speculators “green feet.” We used to delineate them by where the stocks traded, on what sheets, in other words. For instance, a pink sheet speculator is someone who bought higher priced penny stocks and shares that traded in the low dollars. Of course, when the stock fell down below the pink sheet regulatory level, it would be kicked down to the green sheets. That’s where you find the one cent, three cent, five cent stocks. When they could no longer be maintained at that level, they would be kicked down to the yellow sheets. That’s where you would sometimes see stocks trading in mils so many mils bid, so many mils offered. As long as there was still somebody willing to buy it, a market could be maintained, particularly since the stock, by this point, did not cost anything to the broker/dealers or those who initiated the fraud. Everybody was out and clean and made their money, and public shareholders were the ultimate bag holders. But you could actually keep these deals floating and alive for a long time before they absolutely fell apart.
Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist of 29 years has been a guest on over 3,000 Radio and TV Programs since September 18, 1991 and was responsible for the Congressional Investigations and hearings that lead to the Appointment of Independent Prosecutor Arlin Adams for in the 1989 HUD Hearings, the Silverado Savings and Loan Hearings, the Denver International Airport Frauds hearings, the MDC Holdings, Inc. NYSE Illegal Political Campaign Money Laundering Colorado’s biggest case aka Keating 5 hearings to name a few. Stew was held as a Political Prisoner from 1992-1993 to silence his exposure by Leonard Millman his former in law with illegal charges of threatening harassing telephone calls charges were dismissed with prejudice. Leonard Millman, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Larry Mizel, Phil Winn, Norman Brownstein, John McCain and Mitt Romney to name a few are all partners in what is known as the Bush-Millman-Clinton Organized Crime Syndicate. Leonard Millman is a member of the “Illuminati Council of 13” Stew Webb Official Website
“Stew you’re the only person to go after the pinnacle of the Zionist Organized Crime Leonard Millman, your-ex-in-law and Larry Mizel, Millman’s Buffer.”—Gordon Duff May 16, 2013 (Stew Webb USMC Honorable Discharge)
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
NY City Mayor De Blasio: Defending Israel is Elemental to Being an American … by Bob Johnson
New York City’s Mayor Bill De Blasio is among the much too large herd of US politicians who believe America and Americans need to defend the Jewish state of Israel.
In a secret speech to the most powerful arm of the Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, DeBlasio said, “There is a philosophical grounding to my belief in Israel and it is my belief, it is our obligation, to defend Israel. But it is also something that is elemental to being an American because there is no greater ally on earth, and that’s something we can say proudly.”
Soulless politicians like De Blasio don’t really love Israel; they love their powerful political careers and the cash and influence that comes with them. They know that if they want to keep their political careers they need to please the overly powerful Israel lobby by putting the Jewish state’s interests above the interests of Americans and America. This selling out of America and Americans virtually guarantees them positive press coverage in the media which is top-heavy with Jewish movers and shakers.
De Blasio is a Gentile. When we hear Jewish politicians in the US say such things we should not really be shocked by it, although we should realize the profound danger it is to America, Americans and to the world. When US Senator Chuck Schumer said on a New York Jewish radio show that he’s on a mission from God to protect Israel, it demonstrated his loyalty to his own people and to their nation.
However, when a Gentile goy-boy like De Blasio makes such statements it strongly indicates that he is ignorant of Judaism OR that he doesn’t care for or love his own children. Judaism, as expressed in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, is what the Jewish state of Israel is based on.
Whether or not the Jews of today are genetically the same as the Jews of the Bible doesn’t matter because the Jews of today in present day Israel have adapted the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and have based Israel on it. This is made clear by Israel not even having a constitution due to religious reasons. Israeli PM Netanyahu makes it clear on a regular basis every time he makes statements like, “[Jerusalem] is not a settlement. It is the sovereign capital of the State of Israel. We have been building in Jerusalem for 3,000 years.”
If De Blasio and all the other Gentile politicians who promote Israel over all do know what is in the Jewish “holy” book, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, then they have to be so cold-hearted and selfish that they don’t care about the future of their own families and children, let alone their fellow Gentiles and nation. This is because the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is a blueprint for Jewish superiority over all Gentiles and for putting Israel “on high above all nations of the earth” (Deuteronomy 28:1).
These soulless politicians like Bill De Blasio, if they are aware of the contents and teachings in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament which they are obligated to be if they’re going to promote a foreign nation that is based upon it, must not care that this Jewish “holy” book teaches Jews that they should not own fellow Jews as slaves, but that they should own Gentiles and our children as slaves “for ever.”
It plainly teaches this ungodly command (and does so in a manner which indicates God/The Supreme Intelligence is giving the command) at Leviticus 25:44-46:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
I never heard any Israeli official or rabbi repudiate this Hebrew Bible/Old Testament teaching which reeks of anti-Gentileism. US politicians, and politicians from all of the Gentile nations, should demand that Israel and Judaism make very clear that they disavow this ungodly and anti-Gentile teaching. Any Gentile who supports Israel and/or Judaism must not care if they and their children and grandchildren become slaves and property of Jews based on Leviticus 25:44-46.
A teaching from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament which makes clear any politician or member of the military of a Gentile nation who supports the Jewish state of Israel is committing treason to their own nation and people is Isaiah 60:12 which goes hand in hand with the Gentiles as slaves teaching of the above quote from Leviticus.
Isaiah 60:12 states regarding Israel, “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” This means that if the US or any other Gentile nation will not prostrate itself before the Jewish state of Israel and become its slave/servant, the Jewish god will utterly waste and destroy that Gentile nation.
When De Blasio and others of his ilk tie America to the foreign religious state of Israel, they are in violation of a principle of neutrality promoted by the Deist and America’s best general and first president, George Washington. In his farewell address George Washington warned America about the dangers of not being neutral in foreign affairs. He said:
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest
Davos, Switzerland hosts the annual World Economic Forum (WEF). It’s a money power celebration. It’s a billionaire’s ball. It’s a convocation of rich, powerful, privileged elites.
They’re “committed to improving the state of the world” for greater personal power and enrichment.
Numerous heads of state show up. Central bankers and other policymakers join them. So do hundreds of corporate bosses, investors and economists.
IMF head Christine Lagarde arrived. US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is participating. So is World Bank boss Jim Yong Kim. John Kerry came.
Privileged journalists and celebrities are invited. Matt Damon, Bono and Margaret Atwood are there. So is Al Gore. About 2,500 participants arrived. They’re from nearly 100 countries. Monied interests run things. They take victory laps. They do it annually. Sessions this year run from January 22 – 25. “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business” is this year’s theme.
Davos is an exercise in self-congratulatory excess. It’s an embarrassment of riches and power. It reflects hubris writ large. It’s ongoing at a time of epic inequality and human misery.Monied interests never had it so good. Poverty and unemployment in much of the world are worse than ever.
Predatory capitalism works this way. It benefits the few. It harms the great majority. A new Oxfam report said the richest 85 elites have more wealth than half the world’s population.
Imagine: Their total net worth exceeds what 3.5 billion people combined have. With a modest annual rate of return, they could spend millions of dollars daily and never dent their principal. A new Gilded Age reflects unprecedented wealth/poverty extremes in much of the developed world.
Davos hills are alive with the sound of wealth, power and privilege. Power brokers strut their stuff. Ordinary folks aren’t welcome. Annual World Economic Forum (WEF) gatherings began in 1971. This year marks the 44th time.
WEF calls itself “an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” It aims for greater wealth and power. It wants unchallenged global dominance. It wants powerful movers and shakers alone benefitting. It claims otherwise.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attended this year. So did Iranian President Hassan Rohani. Their worldviews are polar opposite and then some. Both leaders spoke.
Ahead of his address, Rohani said he prioritizes “constructive engagement with the world.” He wants normalized relations with all countries. He called sanctions imposed illegal. He knows AIPAC wants stiffer ones. “We are not afraid of threats, and the language of threats is ineffective when it comes to Iran,” he said. Treating Iran respectfully benefits the region and other countries, he added.
He believes rapprochement with Washington is possible. It requires both sides making a sincere effort, he stressed.
“No animosity lasts eternally. No friendship either lasts eternally. So we have to transform animosities into friendship….This effort is necessary to create confidence on both sides. Iran is in fact stretching out its hand in peace and friendship to all countries of the world and wants friendly, good relations with all countries” in return.
On Thursday, Rohani addressed the World Economic Forum. He said resolving Syria’s conflict requires combatting terrorism.”There is no military solution to the crisis in Syria and the spreading of terrorism doesn’t deserve the interest of any country.”
He urged all parties to work for peace and stability. At the same time, he doubts Geneva II talks will resolve things. He sees little chance for success because most participants “are behind (Syrian conflict and) instability.” They “support terrorism. They are responsible for the instability in the region.”
Iran seeks regional peace and security. It wants it restored. Geneva II could work if participating countries pursued the same goals, he said. Their agenda is polar opposite. Peace remains a distant hope. Rohani said he came to Davos to convey Iran’s message of friendship, interaction and peace to WEF participants.
No country can solve its problems on its own, he stressed. None can do it while ignoring others. “We are all on board one boat,” he said. “If we do not choose a wise captain, storm will hit us.”
Iran wants constructive engagement with other countries on environmental issues, nuclear safety, joint economic initiatives, expanding trade, Palestinian rights, resolving Syria’s conflict, regional security, and combatting extremism and terrorism.
“I believe that expansion of economic, social, cultural and tourism cooperation plays a pivotal role in establishing peace and security in the region,” Rohani said. Iran won’t sacrifice its legitimate nuclear rights, he stressed. He’ll do all he can to reach a comprehensive final agreement later this year.
Tehran will observe all international regulations. Legitimate nuclear rights won’t be sacrificed. Iran’s program has no military component. It seeks none, Rohani stressed. He took issue with Western and Israeli accusations otherwise. He hopes “constructive engagement” will resolve things equitably.
He wants Iran’s economy to be one of the world’s top 10 in 30 years. He sees it “as the most congruent, capable and closest to that of successful emerging” countries. He called Davos a good opportunity to exchange views on vital world issues. He wants Iran to engage more countries in trade.
On January 23, the Financial Times headlined “Iran courts western oil majors at Davos,” saying:
Rohani “asked a group of western oil majors to detail the conditions under which they would return to his country, as Tehran continues its drive to win back international business amid a thaw in sanctions.”
He held meetings with BP, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell and Total. His oil minister, Bijan Namdar Zangeneh joined him. The asked oil officials to submit contracts they’d like Iran to adopt. Follow-up meetings are planned. They’ll take place in London this summer. Contracts will be prepared in September.
According to Eni CEO Paolo Scaroni:
“The very fact that the president of Iran chose to spend an hour with us shows how interested he is in attracting international oil companies into the country.”
The FT said he wants international companies for new projects. They include developing “the giant South Pars gasfield.” Rohani wants more oil production from existing sites and new ones. Iran ranks fourth in proved reserves after Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Canada.
Scaroni said contractual terms are as important as sanctions. “If we don’t have a good contract, we won’t go into Iran even if sanctions are lifted.”
China is Iran’s major foreign oil producer. Other countries are interested. According to he FT: “Executives from state oil companies, including Pemex of Mexico, Lukoil and Gazprom Neft of Russia and Petrobras of Brazil” met with Rohani.
Netanyahu’s WEF address didn’t surprise. “Israel is not what’s wrong in the Middle East,” he said. It’s “what right.” “I am ready for peace. I’m ready for a real secure genuine peace…”
His notion of peace is unconditional Palestinian surrender. It’s continued occupation harshness. It’s more land theft and ethnic cleansing. It’s stealing Palestinian resources. It’s exploiting its people. It’s confining them to isolated bantustans. It’s wanting all valued Judea and Samaria areas Judaized.
It’s wanting Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital. It’s denying diaspora Palestinians their legal right of return. It’s what no responsible Palestinian leader would accept.Netanyahu is a world class thug. Why Israelis put up with him, they’ll have to explain.
He lied saying Arab countries “understand that Iran remains aggressive, supports terror, that it participates in the slaughter in Syria, (and) that is pursuing the development of ballistic missile and plutonium for nuclear weapons.”
[ Editors Note: Surprise, surprise…up pops the annoucement of what has had to be a long running investigation, and a sensitive one with a Democratic White house having a criminal investigation of an well known senator.
Are we finally seeing some pay back by Obama for those working with AIPAC to punish him for not towing the AIPAC line on Syria and Iran?
What is not reported in the Press TV piece below is the current corruption inside Congress is not limited to being sock puppets for the the Jewish Lobby crowd. AIPAC rents out their sock puppets to others to help cover the costs.
Menenedez seems to have helped two major bank fraud guys, who snagged $660 million, to a soft landing here in the land of opportunity. Menendez’s office claims the Isaias brothers were politically persecuted. Isn’t that special ?
The drug cartels are major political funders of Congress now, compliments of the Bush era Supreme Court that opened the flood gates for overseas donators…and come they did. Everybody that needs a favor, like protection from hiding offshore oil company profits, knows where to where to go to get things taken care of.
The senators who sided with AIPAC against Obama to torpedo the Iran nuclear talks are being funding by gambling interests like Sheldon Adelson, and oil barron manipulators like the Koch brothers who have paid out a bundle to keep oil prices way higher than real demand would support.
AIPAC is the traffic cop for a lot of these deals, everything from organ theft, prostitution and a conduit for the cartel money. The Intel community has watched this in horror for years now, thinking that it could not get worse, but it did. That was mostly due to the Lobby folks being able to offer effectively immunity for anybody that played ball with them. It is called political obstruction of justice.
So that is the big mystery question for us. Why Mendendez, and why now…when there were so many to pick from, including Republicans who excel in their own corruption? AIPAC is an equal opportunity employer.
You can bet we will be beating the bushes to find out a little more about this. And I will wager that our esteemed Congress will have looked upon William and Roberto Isaias and their $660 million dollars as a pinata from heaven… Jim W. Dean ]
– First published January 24th, 2014 –
The Brothers Isaias – Big time bank robbers, says Ecuador
US Senator Robert Menendez, the key architect of unilateral sanctions against Iran, is under criminal investigation for his connection with two Florida businessmen who are fugitives from Ecuador, a report says.
According to WNBC, the Justice Department is investigating the hawkish senator’s ties to brothers William and Roberto Isaias, who are wanted in Ecuador for embezzlement.
The Isaias brothers, who ran Ecuador’s largest bank, were convicted of embezzling more than $660 million during Ecuador’s banking crisis in 1999. They moved to the US in 2000.
The Department of Justice is investigating whether Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, intervened with Homeland Security and the State Department to help the duo escape extradition, the report said.
The office of Sen. Menendez has denied the report.
“Our office works each year with literally hundreds of individuals and families from across the country who are seeking help with the immigration process,” Menendez’s communications director Tricia Enright told the Hill in an email. “We review each and every request we receive, and if we feel any inquiry is appropriate, we make it.”
“In this particular case, Senator Menendez believed the Isaias family had been politically persecuted in Ecuador, including through the confiscation of media outlets they owned which were critical of the government. We are not aware of any inquiry into the Senator’s actions on this matter.”
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), a watchdog group in Washington, has put Sen. Menendez on the list of 13 most corrupt members of Congress. The watchdog put Menendez on the list last year because of accusations that he did favors for a friend and campaign donor, Salomon Melgen, and accepted rides on his private plane without disclosing them.
[ Editors Note: Sal Melgen is no slouch. He has had his offices searched twice over an $8 million Medicare ‘billing dispute’. And being a generous soul, he donated $700,000 to a super PAC affiliated with House Speaker Harry Reid, where Menendez got most of the money. Isn’t that special? Welcome to the best Congress that money can buy folks.]
Similarly, in November 2012, the Daily Caller reported that Menendez had contact with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. The senator, however, has never faced prosecution over the allegations.
In late December, Menendez and Sen. Mark Kirk, who is also accused of corruption
Would you like to stick it to the man and save the world at the same time? You’re not alone. A growing number of Americans want to get involved somehow, but they don’t know what to do. We recall them out of office that’s what we do! It’s not as complicated as you think. Here is the link that will explain everything. Video 25% is the magic number and we can do it. (Download Petition)
You will have to leave your house but it’s worth it. Instead of using Facebook to complain, use it as a recruiting tool to put a small crew together to gather signatures in your neighborhood. Send the petition out to everyone and get started today. 2 legislators have been recalled and a 3rd has resigned due to the filing of a recall petition filed in her name. It works. Link
What about the local city council in your area? YES they can get recalled with this boiler plate petition. This is a boiler plate that can fundamentally transform your city your country and the world if we use it, but only if we use it. Act local & think global.
“We need to pass the bill so that you can see what is in it” Pelosi Video we have legal rights but only if we use them. If we don’t take this country back this year we quite likely won’t have a future at all. This is the perfect answer for a non violent grass-roots solution to save this country that everyone can be a part of. And yes you can bring your dog.
The good news for the treason filled corrupted and compromised politicians, is if they resign they can keep all of the political donations for themselves. If they are being blackmailed this would be the best thing that could happen to them and us. They resign or get recalled and we get a new person in office. The movie doesn’t end there. We will need to have someone run for that office and win. An honest Joe if you will. Signature to freedom.
Download the recall petition and put a team together. Empowerment is an emotion you may not have felt in a while. Want some? Let’s turn this country back into the America we were on track to have. We have less freedom today then we did yesterday. Tomorrow is up to us. Video
This is the perfect answer for non violent grass-roots solutions to save this country that everyone can be part of. Spread the word. Let’s not reelect anyone and recall everyone. Signature to freedom.
Update: This story turned out to be the number one read on PressTV in the last 24 hours.
[ Editors Note: I have been wondering for a long time why the current perpetrators of terrorism in the MidEast and their sponsors were not facing legal action. We know the UN is going to do nothing because it never does. Crimes against humanity prosecution are, to say the least quite selective there, and free passes are a given out to all former colonialists.
The court route strategy will also act as a warmer upper for focusing world attention on the use and abuse of sanctions. Should the US be sanctioned for threatening sanctions on countries because it has been unsuccessful in meddling in their political affairs, as in trying to overthrow a government?
Will we see lawsuits filed against individuals in the US for aiding and abetting Israel in state sponsored terrorism? Could a worldwide push develop to revoke diplomatic immunity when governments can be shown to be doing an expanded type violation of the RICO act of running a continuing criminal enterprise, by seeing that extended to internatioal terrorism violations.
The US has put all of this on the table by its carte blanche use of imposing sanctions without any official body determination about anything, just purely as a commercial competition tool.
Should any country that denies another access to the international banking system then be banned from it itself as punishment for engaging in international financial terrorism? Yours truly might look upon this as Christmas having been moved to January… Jim W. Dean ]
– First published January 21, 2014 –
Will State terrorism sponsors finally reap what they have sown?
Tehran aims to sue Saudi Arabia in international organizations following the recent terrorist attacks against Iranian targets in the region, says Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman.
“We aim to legally follow the cases [of recent terrorist attacks] in international organizations. The preliminary arrangements [for a legal action against Saudi Arabia] have already been made,” Marzieh Afkham told a news conference in Tehran on Tuesday.
The Iranian official added Tehran is gathering the necessary details and documents to prepare the final reports on the Saudi-led terrorist activities against Iranian targets in Lebanon and Yemen so that it can follow the cases “according to legal laws and a more transparent framework.”
“Following the terrorist attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran’s embassy in Lebanon, the proceedings of a [legal] action have started … We are cooperating with the Lebanese officials to gather details in a bid to provide accurate and authentic documents. The same process is underway for the Yemen’s case,” added Afkham.
Saudi Arabia is believed to financially and ideologically fuel the recent terrorist activities in the Middle East region carried out by extremist Takfiri groups.
Dr. William A. Croft graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1970 as a doctor of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Croft then obtained a Ph.D. in Medical Pathology from the University of Wisconsin Medical School, Department of Pathology in 1975. Dr. Croft has studied human disease for the last 29 years as a medical pathologist. He has worked at the University of Wisconsin, Madison on the faculty, as assistant professor and has received grant monies of over $900,000 from the National Institute of Health to study urinary bladder cancer, a human disease, concerning pathological early detection, diagnosis, mechanism of action, and possible therapeutic methods He has studied and determined the safety of toxic chemicals, using various laboratory animals, for the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medical pathologist. Dr. Croft investigated medical health emergencies within the environment such as pesticides, (Buctril), solvents (gasoline), heavy metals (copper, chromium and arsenic), phenol (hog factory) and toxic mold found in sick buildings and people of the community as a medical pathologist.
Dr. Croft has studied toxic mold in animals and humans for the last 22 years and has observed 7,000 humans with inhalation of Trichothecene Mycotoxins. His experience as a medical pathologist has led him to report the signs and symptoms and determine the finger print for Trichothecene Mycotoxicoses in animal and humans within the tissue and reported in the scientific literature. His research has led to the development of a urine assay, confirmed using Koch’s Postulants, which has enabled him to clearly establish exposure and date of that exposure to Trichothecene Mycotoxins and the pathology in humans. This Urine Assay is been referenced many times in medical and scientific literature and is most recently recognized by the National Institute of Health [NIH] and Department of Health and Human Services Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] as one of only two viable means of the detection of the biomarkers of Trichothecene Mycotoxins in human subjects, and the only reliable method for the detection of Trichothecene Mycotoxins in urine.
Dr. Croft has written the first paper on the Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) (1) and has been referenced in peer reviewed medical and scientific literature 167 times to date indicating the acceptance of his work. As a medical pathologist, Dr. Croft has confirmed the pathology, the fingerprint for Trichothecene Mycotoxicosis in humans and animals and has diagnosed the disease in four humans to date. Trichothecene Mycotoxins are stealth poisons that are cumulative in it’s their health effects in humans. In fungi contaminated buildings the urine assay is the only reliable measure or biomarker to detect and date exposure to these Trichothecene Mycotoxins. Many of the Trichothecene Mycotoxins are also release as a vapor and the urine assay is the only method to detect that date that exposure.
Dr. Croft has been recognized as an expert in the United States, Canada and Europe for his knowledge and pathology of causing human disease and including Trichothecene Mycotoxicosis in humans and animals.
In Summary Dr. Croft is a medical pathologist qualified to study human disease to establish safety from disease causing agents.
References to Toxic Mold:
1. Croft, W.A., Jarvis, B.B., and Yatawara, C.S. Airborne Outbreak of
Dr. Croft’s Book
WOW, what a book!! Dr. Croft’s groundbreaking book tells the tale of hatred, corruption, high stakes politics, and greed by bin Laden, his al-Quaeda bioterrorist operatives and the ruthless, all powerful insurance, chemical and pharmaceutical companies that plot to destroy humanity. Dr. Croft takes the reader on a remarkable journey that blurs the lines between fact and fiction; revealing, in the end, the only true antidote to thwart global annihilation. It is surprising that in the simplest principle, “love thy neighbor as thyself” that we find restoration, healing, transformation, and the ability to neutralize and reduce an ominous enemy to nothing. An amazing, must read for anyone who cares about our environment and the future of this earth.–Michele
[ Editors Note: I have been waiting for the dust to settle on the flurry of Sharon stories on his on his final journey to the infernal regions. The purpose was to try to see how the Zios would try to spin him into a noble legacy when he was hated by large numbers in Israel.
And worst of all, I wanted to see what talking points they would hand out to their friendly lap dogs to put flowery comments on his grave when it should be made a dung heap.
Uri’s piece below, I am sure is going to historically be one of the best as he has the personal interactions to share with these historical figures and then his encyclopedic background of Israeli political, diplomatic and military history.
It is one thing for a man to be a ‘crimes against humanity guy’, either for his people or his own personal ambition. In Sharon’s head he was Israel. Anyone who thought different from him was an enemy, Israeli or not.
This ‘I am Israel Israel is me’ attitude was the origin of the Zio PR scame of ‘Israeli and US interests are the same’ scam. It was a ridiculous concept on its face, but one where we watched much of our leadership, as Gordon likes to say, eat their own vomit in public on AIPAC command. Rarely has a once great country so humiliated itself as our own failed leadership and institutions.
Although Israel has never conquered us militarily, that would look hard to tell to ET aliens when they observed how much of our goverment seems subjugated to their demands and desires. As for the rest of the country, primarily our institutions, they generally remain silent on all this, which is why I use the subjugation analogy as that is exactly how you would expect them to act.
So my advice to all, is when bashing Sharon and his criminal legacy, please do not make the mistake of giving a free pass to all those who supported him here, and our institutions that sat silently by who did and said nothing honorable. They are just as bad, if not worse.
Ariel ‘Scheinermann’, had never taken an oath of allegiance to America as had our own, so they deserve an extra dose of contempt in honor of all they did to earn it. They will certainly get it from me as long as I have one breath left. I will curse them with my last… Jim W. Dean ]
– First Published January 18, 2014 –
Uri and Arafat – Younger days
In the middle of the 70s, Ariel Sharon asked me to arrange something for him – a meeting with Yasser Arafat. A few days before, the Israeli media had discovered that I was in regular contact with the leadership of the PLO, which was listed at the time as a terrorist organization.
I told Sharon that my PLO contacts would probably ask what he intended to propose to the Palestinians. He told me that his plan was to help the Palestinians to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy, and turn Jordan into a Palestinian state, with Arafat as its president.
“What about the West Bank?” I asked.
“Once Jordan becomes Palestine, there will no longer be a conflict between two peoples, but between two states. That will be much easier to resolve. We shall find some form of partition, territorial or functional, or we shall rule the territory together.”
My friends submitted the request to Arafat, who laughed it off. But he did not miss the opportunity to tell King Hussein about it. Hussein disclosed the story to a Kuwaiti newspaper, Alrai, and that’s how it came back to me.
Sharon’s plan was revolutionary at the time. Almost the entire Israeli establishment – including Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres – believed in the so-called “Jordanian option”: the idea that we must make peace with King Hussein. The Palestinians were either ignored or considered arch-enemies, or both.
Five years earlier, when the Palestinians in Jordan were battling the Hashemite regime there, Israel came to the aid of the king at the request of Henry Kissinger. I proposed the opposite in my magazine: to aid the Palestinians. Sharon later told me that he, a general at the time, had asked the General Staff to do the same, though for a different end. My idea was to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, his was to create it in the East Bank.
(The idea of turning Jordan into Palestine has a generally unknown linguistic background. In Hebrew usage, “Eretz Israel” is the land on both sides of the Jordan River, where the ancient Hebrew tribes settled according to the Biblical myth. In Palestinian usage, “Filastin” is only the land on the West side of the river. Therefore is quite natural for ignorant Israelis to ask the Palestinians to set up their state beyond the Jordan. For Palestinians, that means setting up their state abroad.)
At the time, Sharon was in political exile. In 1973 he left the army, after realizing that he had no chance of becoming Chief of Staff. This may seem odd, since he was already recognized as an outstanding battlefield commander. The trouble was that he was also known as an insubordinate officer, who despised his superiors and his peers (as well as everybody else.) Also, his relationship with the truth was problematical. David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary that Sharon could be an exemplary military officer, if only he could abstain from lying.
When he left the army, Sharon almost single-handedly created the Likud by unifying all the right-wing parties. That’s when I chose him the first time as Haolam Hazeh’s Man of the Year and wrote a large biographical article about him. A few days later, the Yom Kippur War broke out, and Sharon was drafted back into the army. His part in it is considered by many as pure genius, by others as a story of insubordination and luck. A photo of him with his head bandaged became his trademark, though it was only a slight wound caused by hitting his head on his command vehicle. (To be fair, he was really wounded in battle, like me, in 1948.)
After the Yom Kippur war, the argument about his part in that war became the center of “the battle of the generals”. He started to visit me at my home to explain his moves, and we became quite friendly. He left the Likud when he realized that he could not become its leader as long as Menachem Begin was around. He started to chart his own course. That’s when he asked for the meeting with Arafat.
He was thinking about creating a new party, neither right nor left, but led by him and “outstanding personalities” from all over the political landscape. He invited me to join, and we had long conversations at his home. I must explain here that for a long time I had been looking for a person with military credentials to lead a large united peace camp. A leader with such a background would make it much easier for us to gain public support for our aims. Sharon fitted the recipe. (As Yitzhak Rabin did later.) Yet during our conversations it became clear to me that he had basically remained a right-winger.
In the end Sharon set up a new party called Shlomtzion (“Peace of Zion”), which was a dismal failure on election day. The next day, he rejoined the Likud. The Likud had won the elections and Begin became Prime Minister. If Sharon had hoped to be appointed Minister of Defense, he was soon disabused. Begin did not trust him. Sharon looked like a general who might organize a coup. The powerful new Finance Minister said that if Sharon became commander-in-chief, he would “send his tanks to surround the Knesset.”
(There was a joke making the rounds at the time: Defense Minister Sharon would call for a meeting of the General Staff and announce: “Comrades, tomorrow morning at 06.00 we take over the government!” For a moment the audience was dumfounded, and then it broke out into riotous laughter.)
However, when Begin’s preferred Defense Minister, the former Air Force chief Ezer Weizman, resigned, Begin was compelled to appoint Sharon as his successor. For the second time I chose Sharon as Haolam Hazeh’s Man of the Year. He took this very seriously and sat with me for many hours, in several meetings at his home and office, in order to explain his ideas.
One of them, which he expounded at the same time to the US strategic planners, was to conquer Iran. When Ayatollah Khomeini dies, he said, there will begin a race between the Soviet Union and the US to determine who will arrive first on the scene and take over. The US is far away, but Israel can do the job. With the help of heavy arms that the US will store in Israel well before, our army will be in full possession before the Soviets move. He showed me the detailed maps of the advance, hour by hour and day by day.
This was typical Sharon, His vision was wide and all-embracing. His listener was left breathless, comparing him to the ordinary little politicians, devoid of vision and breadth. But his ideas were generally based on abysmal ignorance of the other side, and therefore came to naught. At the same time, nine months before the Lebanon War, he disclosed to me his Grand Plan for a new Middle East of his making. He allowed me to publish it, provided I did not mention him as the source. He trusted me. Basically it was the same as the one he wanted to propose to Arafat. The army would invade Lebanon and drive the Palestinians from there to Syria, from whence the Syrians would drive them into Jordan. There the Palestinians would overthrow the king and establish the State of Palestine.
The army would also drive the Syrians out of Lebanon. In Lebanon Sharon would choose a Christian officer and install him as dictator. Lebanon would make official peace with Israel and in effect become a vassal state. I duly published all this, and nine months later Sharon invaded Lebanon after lying to Begin and the cabinet about his aims. But the war was a catastrophe, both militarily and politically.
Militarily it was a demonstration of “the Peter principle” – the brilliant battle commander was a miserable strategist. No unit of the Israeli army reached its objective on time, if at all. The Israeli-installed dictator, Bachir Gemayel, was assassinated. His brother and successor signed a peace treaty with Israel, which has been completely forgotten by now. The Syrians remained in Lebanon for many years to come. The Israeli army extricated itself after a guerrilla war that lasted 18 full years, during which the despised and downtrodden Shiites in Israeli-occupied South Lebanon became the dominant political force in the country.
And, worst of all, in order to induce the Palestinians to flee, Sharon let the barbarous Christian Phalangists into the Palestinian refugee camps Sabra and Shatila, where they committed a terrible massacre. Hundreds of thousands of outraged Israelis protested in Tel Aviv, and Sharon was dismissed from the defense ministry.
At the height of the Battle of Beirut I crossed the lines and met with Yasser Arafat, who had become Sharon’s Nemesis. Since then, Sharon and I did not exchange a single word, not even greeting each other.
It looked like the end of Sharon’s career. But for Sharon, every end was a new beginning. One of his media vassals, Uri Dan (who had started his career in Haolam Hazeh) once coined a prophetic phrase: “Those who don’t want him as Chief of Staff, will get him as Minister of Defense. Those who don’t want him as Minister of Defense, will get him as Prime Minister.” Today one could add: “Those who did not want him as Prime Minister, are getting him as a national icon.”
An ex-general, Yitzhak Ben-Israel, told me yesterday: “He was an Imperator!” I find this a very apt description. Like a Roman imperator, Sharon was a supreme being, admired and feared, generous and cruel, genial and treacherous, hedonistic and corrupt, a victorious general and a war criminal, quick to make decisions and unwavering once he had made them, overcoming all obstacles by sheer force of personality. One could not meet him without being struck by the sense of power he emanated. Power was his element.
He believed that destiny had chosen him to lead Israel. He did not think so – he knew. For him, his personal career and the fate of Israel were one and the same. Therefore, anyone who tried to block him was a traitor to Israel. He despised everyone around him – from Begin down to the last politician and general.
His character was formed in his early childhood in Kfar Malal, a communal village which belonged to the Labor party. His mother, Vera, managed the family farm with an iron will, quarreling with all the neighbors, the village institutions and the party. When little Arik was injured in a fall on a pitchfork, she did not take him to the village clinic, which she hated, but put him on a donkey and led him for several kilometers to a doctor in Kfar Saba.
When rumor had it that the Arabs in neighboring villages were planning an attack, little Arik was hidden in a haystack. Later in life, when his mother (who still managed the farm) visited his new ranch and saw a low wall with holes for irrigation, she exclaimed: “Ah, you have embrasures! Very good, you can shoot through them at the Arabs!”
How could a poor army officer acquire the largest ranch in the country? Simple: he got it as a gift from an Israeli-American billionaire, with the help of the finance minister. Several dubious large deals with other billionaires followed.
Sharon was the most typical Israeli one could imagine, embodying the saying (to which I modestly claim authorship): “If force does not work, try more force.”
I was therefore very surprised when he came out in favor of the law dispensing with the military service of tens of thousands of orthodox youngsters. “How can you?” I asked him. His answer: “I am first of all a Jew, and only after that an Israeli!” I told him that for me it was the other way round.
Ideologically, he was the pupil and successor of David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan, leaders who believed in military force and in expanding the territory of Israel without limit. His military career started for real in the 1950s when Moshe Dayan put him in charge of an unofficial outfit called Unit 101, which was sent across the border to kill and destroy, in retaliation for similar actions committed by Arabs. His most famous exploit was the massacre of Qibya village in 1953, when 49 innocent villagers were buried under the houses which he blew up. Later, when requested to put an end to “terrorism” in Gaza, he killed every Arab who was caught with arms. When I later asked him about killing prisoners, he answered: “I did not kill prisoners. I did not take prisoners!”
At the beginning of his career as commander he was a bad general. But from war to war he improved. Unusual for a general, he learned from his mistakes. In the 1973 war he was already considered the equal of Erwin Rommel and George Patton. It also became known that between the battles he gorged himself on seafood, which is not kosher.
The main endeavor of his life was the settlement enterprise. As army officer, politician and successively chief of half a dozen different ministries, his central effort was always to
On January 16, the UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) convened. It did so in the Hague.
Nine years after Hariri’s assassination, show trial proceedings began. Hezbollah members were wrongfully accused. More on this below.
A crime scene courtroom mockup was displayed. Hariri’s killing took place on Beirut’s waterfront. On February 14, 2005, his motorcade was targeted.
A powerful car bomb killed him. Around 20 others perished. Over 100 were injured. The blast left a 30-foot-wide/six-foot-deep crater.
On arrival at Beirut’s American University Hospital, Hariri was pronounced dead. Fingers straightaway pointed the wrong way. Guilty parties were absolved. Innocent ones were accused.
Washington blamed Syria. Bellicose Bush administration threats followed. Media scoundrels regurgitated White House lies.
Washington Post editors said “(t)he despicable murder of Mr. Hariri benefits no one outside the rogue regime in Damascus – and the world should respond accordingly.”
Killing Hariri was “the panicked act of a cornered tyrant,” they claimed. Washington took full advantage. Its ambassador was recalled. Media reports suggested Bush officials had compelling.
Not so. Hezbollah was later blamed. WaPo editors accused its leaders of “homicidal terrorism.” They “threat(en) Lebanon, Israel and the broader Middle East,” they claimed.
At the same time, they called governments in Syria and Iran “dictatorships.” They ignored the real cause of regional violence and instability. Washington and Israel bear full responsibility.
A so-called Lebanese Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch investigation lied. It claimed compelling evidence of Hezbollah’s involvement.
A UN International Independent Investigation Commission alleged “a network of individuals acted in concert to carry out the assassination of Rafik Hariri and that this criminal network – the ‘Hariri Network’ – or parts thereof are linked to some of the other cases within the Commission’s mandate.”
In February 2006, the UN and Lebanese government proposed establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). The Netherlands agreed to host hearings.
On March 1, 2009, STL convened. In June 2011, four Hezbollah members were wrongfully indicted. Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Assad Hassan Sabra were named.
Court-ordered arrest warrants followed. None were detained. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah refused to do so. He denounced the tribunal.
He justifiably called it a sham. Washington and Israel manipulate things. They divert attention from their own involvement.
“The text in our hands now is based on analysis and not clear evidence,” said Nasrallah. It has no credibility whatever. No legitimate court would accept it.
“Those who were indicted should not be called ‘charged’ but unjustly treated,” Nasrallah stressed.
Earlier he said Washington “pushed” for indictment. Americans controlled (its) form and content.” Israel had its say.
“We will not allow our reputation and our honor to be touched,” Nasrallah stressed.
STL lied saying Badreddine was in charge of killing Hariri. Ayyash headed the hit team, it added. No evidence whatever suggests Hezbollah’s involvement.
Plenty indicts Israel. Targeted killings are an Israeli specialty. Eliminating opponents predated Israel’s creation.
Future prime ministers were involved. They headed Jewish terrorist groups. Menachem Begin led Irgun. Yitzhak Shamir was a Lehi (Stern Gang) leader.
Before and after May 1948, thousands of targeted killings occurred or were attempted. Most aren’t remembered today. Others won’t be forgotten.
In November 1944, Lehi murdered Lord Moyne. He was Britain’s Middle East minister of state. He was killed near his Cairo home.
In September 1948, Lehi assassins killed UN mediator Folke Bernadotte. They did so in Jerusalem. Yitzhak Shamir personally approved his murder.
In July 1946, Irgun bombed Jerusalem’s King David Hotel. Ninety-two Brits, Arabs and Jews were massacred. Another 58 were wounded.
Future prime minister David Ben-Gurion approved the bombing. He led the Jewish Agency at the time.
Israel’s entire history is blood-drenched. It reflects crimes of war, against humanity, genocide, and numerous targeted assassinations.
It includes massacres like Deir Yassin. On April 9, 1948, Irgun and Lehi killers slaughtered over 120 defenseless Palestinian men, women and children.
Houses were machine-gunned randomly. Villagers were killed in cold blood. Survivors were assembled outside. They were shot at point blank range.
Children and infants were murdered like adults. So were elderly and infirm Palestinians. No mercy was shown.
It was typical Israeli viciousness. Ensuing fighting killed dozens more. Many other villages were attacked the same way.
Ethnic cleansing involves mass slaughter and displacement. Leaders are targeted for elimination. Death squads kill without mercy.
Mossad credentials are notorious. Its record is indisputable. Its expertise is acknowledged.
Its rap sheet includes targeted assassinations, satellite, drone and other type spying, hacking and espionage, computer viruses, other cyber attacks, bombings, sabotage, and other lawless practices.
Hariri’s assassination was classic Mossad. Hezbollah obtained compelling video and audio evidence.
It intercepted Israeli aerial surveillance footage. It did so of routes Hariri used on his assassination day. At the time, Nasrallah said:
“We have definite information on the aerial movements of the Israeli enemy the day Hariri was murdered.”
“(A)n Israeli drone was (observed) surveying the Sidon-Beirut-Junieh coastline as warplanes were flying over Beirut.”
(V)ideo (evidence) can be acquired by any investigative commission to ensure it is correct. We are sure of this evidence, or else we would not risk showing it.”
I watched the Palestinian ambassador, Prof Manuel Hassassian’s performance before a session of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee enquiring into ‘Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: prospects for 2014′.
He was asked by MP Rory Stewart: “Why did you come back to the negotiating table?” Hassassian replied: “The PLO since 1988 has committed itself to the recognition of the state of Israel and to a two-state solution. And in 1993 we reiterated our commitment believing that the only way out of this conflict is by negotiation.”
This belief, he seemed to be saying, persists despite Israel not complying with agreements that had been signed and despite the Palestinian government not knowing what the future holds if Israel continues with its expansionist policies – and especially its illegal ‘settlement’ programme – which it clearly will do unless firmly checked.
Throughout he was careful not to mention the international law option, nor did he utter the dreaded “J” word (Justice), as far as I recall.
Given the decades of painful failure trying to find a way through the ‘peace process’ cul-de-sac, switching focus to the International Criminal Court, as suggested in the ‘Sabeel’ letter, makes sense (see recent article ‘Help prod the ICC into action over Israel’s illegal settlements – The Palestinian leadership won’t do it – will you?’). The letter campaign urges the ICC to investigate the many charges of war crimes relating to Israel’s ‘settlements’ on territory under its “belligerent occupation” and the transfer of large numbers of the Israeli population into them.
The letter arrived in my inbox out of the blue with an invitation to copy, sign and post it to the ICC. Efforts to trace its origin have failed, although it seems to have come from Sabeel’s autumn conference in Jerusalem. No matter, it adds up, makes sense and hits the nail on the head.
The authors are evidently tired of waiting while Israel’s encroachments and brutality continue. The thrust is to persuade the ICC, in the absence of any positive move by the PA/PLO, to take the lead using the mountain of evidence assembled by various UN bodies and, of course, Goldstone.
Granted, there may be only a slim chance of such a thing happening, but it is important to explore the possibility in the hope that those with a stake will join together and make “public expressions”, as someone put it. It would at least unite the different strands of sympathy and support in a purposeful way.
But not everyone agrees with the ‘Sabeel’ initiative. A law professor wrote to say that the Office of the Prosecutor will not consider investigating Israeli crimes “until the new Palestinian leadership either files another ad hoc declaration or ratifies the Rome Statute”. Letters therefore would be better addressed to the Palestinians themselves. “The Office of the Prosecutor will simply ignore them.”
He did not explain what he meant by a “new Palestinian leadership” or whether this was something we could look forward to in the near future.
I imagine everyone concerned is aware that the Palestinians have to do more paperwork and ratify the Rome Treaty. What angers activists is that the leadership, having been out-smarted and humiliated so many times, still don’t appear to have cleared the decks for action.
And is it not a waste of time writing to the likes of President Abbas with his record and threadbare legitimacy? The never-ending deadlock cannot remain the private playground of stooges and quislings. Many campaigners therefore feel that engaging international law should have been done from the start, and publicising such a move now will highlight the absurdity of the current situation and set the ball rolling in a more productive direction.
Nothing else has succeeded in 66 years. And if the Office of the Prosecutor does, in the end, ignore the concerns of civil society, that will make headline news which should serve as an springboard if handled properly.
Another critic says that according to his reading of the Rome Statute the ICC has no legal powers to undertake legal actions against Israel, and Palestine cannot approach the ICC for crimes committed before 29 November 2012, the date the UN General Assembly upgraded Palestine’s status to “non-member observer state”.
Even if the scope is limited to crimes since November 2012, isn’t the effort worth it
Time the law kicked in
A third critic has suggested that the proper course would be to bring pressure on all governments to demand that Israel abide by already agreed principles. Ending the Occupation and removing the settlements must come first. “To demand that a defenceless occupied people negotiate, under fearful duress, with their oppressor flies in the face of natural justice.”
That might be the ideal course, but is civil society sufficiently organised and orchestrated to apply the necessary pressure on world governments? Yet another argued that nothing should be done until the present round of talks has finished, in case we undermine them.
Aside from the fact that the Israelis have utterly destroyed any credibility the talks might have had, the process is due to end in April, which is not far off, and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has sworn it will not be extended by even one minute.
In the meantime the PA must prepare if they are to be ready to file claims at the ICC in May. There is no sign that a start has been made, so we might as well give them a gentle poke. And campaigners might as well notify the ICC that it’s time the law kicked in.
‘No authoritative explanation of ICC passivity…’
Critics might like to read what another law professor, UN special rapporteur Richard Falk, recently said in an interview with me……
Q – How acceptable is it for a weak, demoralized and captive people like the Palestinians to be forced to the negotiation table with their brutal occupier under the auspices of a US administration seen by many people as too dishonest to play the part of peace broker?
Richard Falk – Even if the United States was acting in good faith, for which there is no evidence, its dual role as Israel’s unconditional ally and as intermediary would subvert the credibility of a negotiating process. In fact, the US Government signals its partisanship by White House appointments of individuals overtly associated with the AIPAC lobbying group as Special Envoys to oversee the negotiations such as Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk… The unsatisfactory nature of the current framework of negotiations is further flawed by weighting the process in favor of Israel, which enjoys a position of hard power dominance.
Q – There can be no peace without justice, so is it right for final status ‘negotiations’ to be held before competing claims are tested in the courts and the many outstanding rulings under international law and UN resolutions are implemented? In any case, shouldn’t a neutral UN peace commission be supervising the final settlement of this long struggle, rather than the US or the Quartet?
Richard Falk – Yes, if the priority were to attain a just and sustainable peace, a framework would be developed that had two characteristics: neutral as between the two sides and sensitive to the relevance of rights under international law. Such sensitivity would favor the Palestinians as their main grievances are all reinforced by an objective interpretation of international law, including in relation to settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, borders, water.
Q – Turning to the role of the International Criminal Court, this is an organ of the UN. So why doesn’t the ICC initiate its own prosecution of Israeli crimes based on UN reports and the mountain of evidence available to it, especially in view of Palestine’s upgraded status?
Richard Falk – There is no authoritative explanation of ICC passivity in face of the Israeli criminal violation of fundamental Palestinian rights. As a matter of speculation it is plausible to assume an absence of political will on the part of the prosecutor’s office to initiate an investigation that would be deeply opposed by Israel and the United States.
In the long struggle for justice more leverage must be found…. BDS is successful but slow, and not enough on its own. The ICC is the correct way to go if it’s justice you want, and the spotlight surely ought to shine into its dusty corners. But does anyone know for sure if the Court could take action on its own initiative?
Our politicians, however, are still happy for Kerry, Netanyahu and Abbas to ponce around the international stage indefinitely, achieving nothing except buying more time for still more injustice… and for Israel to establish the irreversible facts on the ground it needs to make the Zionist occupation permanent. The British Government especially has its head in the sand. Foreign Office minister Hugh Robertson says:
Ariel Sharon embodied the pure, unmitigated evil of Zionism. He was a war criminal, a terrorist, a mass murderer, a torturer, a rapist. The French term “genocidaire” also applies.
But Sharon did have one redeeming quality: He occasionally told the awful truth about himself and his country.
During the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Sharon vented his real feelings in public.
In a Hebrew-language interview with Israeli writer Amos Oz, Sharon said:
“Even today I volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug out from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up a few synagogues, I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal… What your kind doesn’t understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it.”
The interview was published in Hebrew in the Israeli newspaper Davar on December 17th, 1982, later reprinted in a book. The Sharon quotes were attributed to “Z,” a high-level, heavy-set, 50-year-old Israeli officer “with a certain history” who was also a prosperous farmer. Israeli readers knew that “Z” was obviously Ariel Sharon, who perfectly fit the description, and whose real feelings about the subjects discussed in the interview were not exactly a state secret.
At the time, Sharon had just been fired as Defense Minister due to the international outcry over the Sabra and Shatila massacres. This was obviously the “certain history” referred to. No Israeli reader or journalist at the time had the slightest doubt that “Z” was Sharon.
Why did Sharon risk venting his real feelings under such a transparent veil?
Because he thought he had nothing to lose. At the time, everyone assumed Sharon’s political and military career was finished. He had, after all, just orchestrated and supervised one of the ugliest and most brutal massacres in human history – and been caught red-handed and disgraced. It seemed likely that he would either be executed, imprisoned for life, or at least live out the rest of his life hiding from Interpol.
In the Oz interview, Sharon lashed out at the liberal Zionists who were throwing him to the dogs. He felt these liberal Zionists were hypocrites who were just as guilty of genocide as he was, but too cowardly to admit it. In this he was right.
Sharon actually bragged about being evil:
“Tell me, do the evil men of this world have a bad time? They hunt and catch whatever they feel like eating. They don’t suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear us instead of feeling sorry. Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear our madness instead of admiring our nobility.
Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a savage country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go wild, that we might start World War Three just like that, or that we might one day go crazy and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East. Personally, I don’t want to be any better than Harry Truman who snuffed out half a million Japanese with two fine bombs.”
” Isn’t that special! ” – from Saturday Night Live
Paradoxically, Sharon’s interview with Oz may have helped save his political career. Many Israelis identified with Sharon’s sentiments and admired his bluntness. As Israel turned to the right, Sharon and his ideas became increasingly mainstream.
By the 1990s, Sharon had returned to center-stage in the Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Though his brutal words in the Oz interview had helped pave the way for his comeback – and were a net asset in domestic politics, given the genocidal sentiments of the average Israeli – they were a huge liability for someone who wanted to be Prime Minister and appear on the international stage.
Pressure was applied to Amos Oz. When an American journalist named Holger Jensen accurately reproduced the Sharon “Z” quotes in an article published in 2002, the Zionist Liars Lobby went into action. Suddenly, Oz (a dedicated Zionist himself) quite absurdly denied that “Z” was – as everyone in Israel knew and still knows – the butcher of Sabra and Shatila, Ariel Sharon.
That didn’t prevent the truth-teller from being punished. Holger Jensen was subjected to the Zionist equivalent of a journalistic lynching. To save his skin, he was forced to half-sincerely recant his attribution of the quote to Sharon, even though he obviously doubts the veracity of Oz’s disingenuous denial.
Here is another revealing quote attributed to Sharon :
“I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child that will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child are more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on…”
This quote, from an interview by Ouze Merham, has been disputed by the Zionists… which speaks for its likely authenticity! In any case, it accurately describes Sharon’s policies and actions. Under Sharon, the Israeli Defense Forces had a de facto official policy of “enticing Palestinian children like mice into a trap to murder them for sport,” as journalist Chris Hedges described it in his 2001 article “Gaza Diary.”
The sport-shootings of children that Hedges witnessed are official Israeli policy; a British Medical Journal study a few years later confirmed more than 600 sniper murders of Palestinian children by the Israeli military.
The Zionist propaganda machine, which dominates Western media, works overtime to “scrub” such facts from public consciousness, just as it works to scrub the public record clean of Ariel Sharon’s too-revealing words. An apparent Mossad spin-off called CAMERA does much of the dirty work.
CAMERA has published outrageous lies about Sharon’s “Z” interview with Amos Oz. Now it is offering an even more ridiculous lie about Sharon’s notorious post-9/11 “We Jews control America” outburst.
In early October of 2001, three weeks after 9/11, Shimon Peres had been pressuring Ariel Sharon to respect American calls for a ceasefire, lest the Americans turn against Israel. According to a BBC News report, a furious Sharon turned toward Peres, saying:
“Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
Since the Zionist controlled main stream media spins all statements and created their own lies I thought it would be good to let you hear Obama’s full speech.–Stew Webb
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 17, 2014
Remarks by the President on Review of Signals Intelligence
Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
11:15 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee borne out of the “The Sons of Liberty” was established in Boston. And the group’s members included Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots.
Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms. In the Civil War, Union balloon reconnaissance tracked the size of Confederate armies by counting the number of campfires. In World War II, code-breakers gave us insights into Japanese war plans, and when Patton marched across Europe, intercepted communications helped save the lives of his troops. After the war, the rise of the Iron Curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence gathering. And so, in the early days of the Cold War, President Truman created the National Security Agency, or NSA, to give us insights into the Soviet bloc, and provide our leaders with information they needed to confront aggression and avert catastrophe.
Throughout this evolution, we benefited from both our Constitution and our traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances — with oversight from elected leaders, and protections for ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, totalitarian states like East Germany offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers, and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes.
In fact, even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. And in the 1960s, government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. And partly in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against Communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security.
If the fall of the Soviet Union left America without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction placed new and in some ways more complicated demands on our intelligence agencies. Globalization and the Internet made these threats more acute, as technology erased borders and empowered individuals to project great violence, as well as great good. Moreover, these new threats raised new legal and new policy questions. For while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small, ideologically driven groups on behalf of a foreign power.
The horror of September 11th brought all these issues to the fore. Across the political spectrum, Americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in a basement, and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away. We were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks — how the hijackers had made phone calls to known extremists and traveled to suspicious places. So we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities, and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen than prosecuting terrorists after an attack.
It is hard to overstate the transformation America’s intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. Our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. Instead, they were now asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of networks that, by their very nature, cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants.
And it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we’ve made enormous strides in fulfilling this mission. Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with, and follow the trail of his travel or his funding. New laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded, and our capacity to repel cyber-attacks have been strengthened. And taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocent lives — not just here in the United States, but around the globe.
And yet, in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach — the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security — also became more pronounced. We saw, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. As a Senator, I was critical of several practices, such as warrantless wiretaps. And all too often new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate.
Through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time I took office. But a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties.
First, the same technological advances that allow U.S. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al Qaeda cell in Yemen or an email between two terrorists in the Sahel also mean that many routine communications around the world are within our reach. And at a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.
Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse.
Third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against U.S. persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. This is not unique to America; few, if any, spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. And the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. But America’s capabilities are unique, and the power of new technologies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.
And finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work less subject to public debate. Yet there is an inevitable bias not only within the intelligence community, but among all of us who are responsible for national security, to collect more information about the world, not less. So in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate — and oversight that is public, as well as private or classified — the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. And this is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws.
For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy skepticism toward our surveillance programs after I became President. I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers, and in some cases I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities.
What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale — not only because I felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.
To the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job — one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic — the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. They’re not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your emails. When mistakes are made — which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise — they correct those mistakes. Laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friends, the men and women at the NSA know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber-attack occurs, they will be asked, by Congress and the media, why they failed to connect the dots. What sustains those who work at NSA and our other intelligence agencies through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation.
Now, to say that our intelligence community follows the law, and is staffed by patriots, is not to suggest that I or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. Those of us who hold office in America have a responsibility to our Constitution, and while I was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place.
Moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, I believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open-ended war footing that we’ve maintained since 9/11. And for these reasons, I indicated in a speech at the National Defense University last May that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. Of course, what I did not know at the time is that within weeks of my speech, an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day.
And given the fact of an open investigation, I’m not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or his motivations; I will say that our nation’s defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come.
Regardless of how we got here, though, the task before us now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require. We need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber-attacks are not going away any time soon. They are going to continue to be a major problem. And for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the American people, and people around the world.
This effort will not be completed overnight, and given the pace of technological change, we shouldn’t expect this to be the last time America has this debate. But I want the American people to know that the work has begun. Over the last six months, I created an outside Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to make recommendations for reform. I consulted with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by Congress. I’ve listened to foreign partners, privacy advocates, and industry leaders. My administration has spent countless hours considering how to approach intelligence in this era of diffuse threats and technological revolution. So before outlining specific changes that I’ve ordered, let me make a few broad observations that have emerged from this process.
First, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies and threats, and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications — whether it’s to unravel a terrorist plot; to intercept malware that targets a stock exchange; to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised; or to ensure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts. We are expected to protect the American people; that requires us to have capabilities in this field.
Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries — including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures — are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, and intercept our emails, and compromise our systems. We know that.
Meanwhile, a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the NSA, privately acknowledge that America has special responsibilities as the world’s only superpower; that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities, and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtain to protect their own people.
Second, just as ardent civil libertarians recognize the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with responsibilities for our national security readily acknowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance and more and more private information is digitized. After all, the folks at NSA and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors. They’re our friends and family. They’ve got electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram, and they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded, and emails and text and messages are stored, and even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the GPS on our phones.
Third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes; that’s how those targeted ads pop up on your computer and your smartphone periodically. But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends on the law to constrain those in power.
I make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most Americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the crude characterizations that have emerged over the last several months. Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties.
The challenge is getting the details right, and that is not simple. In fact, during the course of our review, I have often reminded myself I would not be where I am today were it not for the courage of dissidents like Dr. King, who were spied upon by their own government. And as President, a President who looks at intelligence every morning, I also can’t help but be reminded that America must be vigilant in the face of threats.
Fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me — and hopefully the American people — some clear direction for change. And today, I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress.
First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances; our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies; and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team.
Second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities, and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of U.S. persons. Since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which provides judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities — including the Section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas, and the Section 215 telephone metadata program.
And going forward, I’m directing the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Attorney General, to annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications, and to report to me and to Congress on these efforts. To ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I am also calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Third, we will provide additional protections for activities conducted under Section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets overseas who have information that’s important for our national security. Specifically, I am asking the Attorney General and DNI to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases communications between Americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under Section 702.
Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on what’s called national security letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. These are cases in which it’s important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. But we can and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority.
I have therefore directed the Attorney General to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite, so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. We will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders that they have received to provide data to the government.
This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months — the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke: This program does not involve the content of phone calls, or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and lengths of calls — metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization.
Why is this necessary? The program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. One of the 9/11 hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar — made a phone call from San Diego to a known al Qaeda safe-house in Yemen. NSA saw that call, but it could not see that the call was coming from an individual already in the United States. The telephone metadata program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists so we can see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. And this capability could also prove valuable in a crisis. For example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. Being able to quickly review phone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical to that effort.
In sum, the program does not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans. Rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific lead — a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retained for business purposes. The review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. And I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved.
Having said that, I believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives, and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future. They’re also right to point out that although the telephone bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate.
For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.
This will not be simple. The review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what is essentially a government function but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability — all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.
During the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advances. But more work needs to be done to determine exactly how this system might work.
Because of the challenges involved, I’ve ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of the current three. And I have directed the Attorney General to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency.
Next, step two, I have instructed the intelligence community and the Attorney General to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the Section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this metadata itself. They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28th. And during this period, I will consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.
Now, the reforms I’m proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. And I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. For example, some who participated in our review, as well as some members of Congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of national security letters so that we have to go to a judge each time before issuing these requests. Here, I have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. But I agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate, and I’m prepared to work with Congress on this issue.
There are also those who would like to see different changes to the FISA Court than the ones I’ve proposed. On all these issues, I am open to working with Congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forward, and I’m confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every American.
Let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas, and focus on America’s approach to intelligence collection abroad. As I’ve indicated, the United States has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. Our capabilities help protect not only our nation, but our friends and our allies, as well. But our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the United States respects their privacy, too. And the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to know what they think about an issue, I’ll pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance. In other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world.
For that reason, the new presidential directive that I’ve issued today will clearly prescribe what we do, and do not do, when it comes to our overseas surveillance. To begin with, the directive makes clear that the United States only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary folks. I’ve also made it clear that the United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, or race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. We do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies or U.S. commercial sectors.
And in terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, cybersecurity, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion.
In this directive, I have taken the unprecedented step of extending certain protections that we have for the American people to people overseas. I’ve directed the DNI, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop these safeguards, which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information, while also restricting the use of this information.
The bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security, and that we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. This applies to foreign leaders as well. Given the understandable attention that this issue has received, I have made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. And I’ve instructed my national security team, as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that rebuild trust going forward.
Now let me be clear: Our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. We will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. But heads of state and government with whom we work closely, and on whose cooperation we depend, should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. And the changes I’ve ordered do just that.
Finally, to make sure that we follow through on all these reforms, I am making some important changes to how our government is organized. The State Department will designate a senior officer to coordinate our diplomacy on issues related to technology and signals intelligence. We will appoint a senior official at the White House to implement the new privacy safeguards that I have announced today. I will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we use to handle foreign requests for legal assistance, keeping our high standards for privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorism.
I have also asked my counselor, John Podesta, to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy. And this group will consist of government officials who, along with the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, will reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders, and look how the challenges inherent in big data are being confronted by both the public and private sectors; whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data; and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security.
For ultimately, what’s at stake in this debate goes far beyond a few months of headlines, or passing tensions in our foreign policy. When you cut through the noise, what’s really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speed. Whether it’s the ability of individuals to communicate ideas; to access information that would have once filled every great library in every country in the world; or to forge bonds with people on other sides of the globe, technology is remaking what is possible for individuals, and for institutions, and for the international order. So while the reforms that I have announced will point us in a new direction, I am mindful that more work will be needed in the future.
One thing I’m certain of: This debate will make us stronger. And I also know that in this time of change, the United States of America will have to lead. It may seem sometimes that America is being held to a different standard. And I’ll admit the readiness of some to assume the worst motives by our government can be frustrating. No one expects China to have an open debate about their surveillance programs, or Russia to take privacy concerns of citizens in other places into account. But let’s remember: We are held to a different standard precisely because we have been at the forefront of defending personal privacy and human dignity.
As the nation that developed the Internet, the world expects us to ensure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment, not government control. Having faced down the dangers of totalitarianism and fascism and communism, the world expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has the right to think and write and form relationships freely — because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress.
Those values make us who we are. And because of the strength of our own democracy, we should not shy away from high expectations. For more than two centuries, our Constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it, and because we have been willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. Today is no different. I believe we can meet high expectations. Together, let us chart a way forward that secures the life of our nation while preserving the liberties that make our nation worth fighting for.
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END 11:57 A.M. EST
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
DENVER — State Sen. Evie Hudak has decided to resign rather than risk facing a recall election that, should she lose, would flip control of the senate to Republicans, FOX31 Denver was first to report Wednesday.
Later Wednesday morning, Hudak made her resignation letter public.
“In the interest of preserving the progress made over the last year, I am resigning as State Senator for District 19, effective immediately,” Hudak wrote.
Hudak, D-Westminster, could have been the third Democratic lawmaker to face a recall over a package of gun control bills they helped pass earlier this year.
Sens. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, both decided to fight recall elections against them, but were ousted in September in favor of Republican replacements.
Knowing that Morse and Giron lost every legal challenge in the run-up to those elections, Hudak and Democrats generally appear to recognize the likelihood of the third recall’s success — as long as the group of gun rights activists behind the recall effort got enough signatures to put it on the ballot.
Hudak’s decision, finalized Tuesday after days of conversations with top Democrats including Senate President Morgan Carroll, is a gamble of sorts.
Like a poker player folding early, she’s decided to give up her job before recall organizers showed their hand and turned in any signatures, even knowing that more than 19,000 valid signatures — more than double the amount needed to get Morse’s recall on the ballot — are needed to force a special recall election.
“Most Coloradans believe that the convenience of high-capacity ammunition magazines is less important than saving lives in tragedies like Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine,” Hudak wrote in her resignation letter. “That’s why I sponsored SB 13-197, a bill that takes guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. … By resigning, I am protecting these important new laws.”
Earlier this week, recall organizer Mike McAlpine told radio host Mike Rosen that the group was “92 percent” to its goal in terms of the number of signatures gathered.
Instead of going all-in and risking a Republican takeover of the senate in the early months of a midterm election year, Hudak is playing it safe.
By resigning before the signatures are turned in, she assures that a Democratic vacancy committee will appoint her replacement, keeping the seat — and the senate — in the party’s hands, at least through November, when her successor will be forced to win reelection.
State law says that an office-holder can resign up to five days after the Secretary of State deems signatures sufficient to force a recall election, but it’s possible a judge could disagree and allow an election to go forward.
Given their track record in court, Democrats decided not to take that risk.
One possible replacement for Hudak is state Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp, D-Arvada, whose House district overlaps with Hudak’s senate seat. But, the first-term lawmaker could opt to stay in her House seat, where next year’s reelection fight looks to be significantly easier.
Financial reports disclosed earlier this week show that the Democracy Defense Fund, a group formed to defend Hudak, has raised $120,000 in contributions, mostly from organized labor including the National Education Association.
Related: By Stew Webb
Senators and Congressman can convert campaign contributuions to personal income.
Is this why Evie Hudak resigned rather than spending her campaign war chest on a recall election she would have lost?
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Stew Webb Radio Store
Bush Illuminati Human Sacrifice Denver June 20-21 2018
REAL NEWS PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN’T WANT YOU TO MISS
President Trump Twitter feed
FBI Raids Satanic Human Sacrifice Video
Letter to Kansas City US Attorney Timothy Garrison purpose to Prosecute Cyber Terrorism April 18 2010
SEE: PROOF (Exhibits 1-22 below) Attemped murder of Stew Webb Federal Whistle blower and Grandview, Missouri Police Covered up the car crash.
March 26, 2018 Letter to President Trump Stop NSA NAZI Espionage
Please email or twitter to President Trump
Letter to President Trump 2017-02-23 from Whistle blowers How to Drain the Swamp Monsters
President Trump Stop Cyber Terrorism against Stew Webb Whistle blower
George Bush High Treason Illegal Sale of F-16s, Apache Helicopters, M-1 Tanks
AIPAC and Abramoff Operate Child Sex Blackmail Ring
Stew Webb 34 Years a Federal Whistle blower
Stew Webb served in the United States Marine Corps and was Honorable Discharge. Stew was a General Contractor-Home Builder until 3 car crashes in one year and is now disabled. Stew turned Federal Whistle blower – Activist of 31 years and has been a guest on over 3,000 Radio and TV Programs since September 18, 1991 and now has his own Radio and TV Network http://www.stewwebb.com Stew was responsible for the Congressional Investigations and hearings that lead to the Appointment of Independent Prosecutor Arlin Adams in the 1989 HUD Hearings, the Silverado Savings and Loan Hearings, the Denver International Airport Frauds hearings, the MDC Holdings, Inc. (MDC-NYSE) Illegal Political Campaign Money Laundering Colorado’s biggest case aka Keating 5 hearings and the information provided that lead to the 2008 Illegal Bank Bailout.
Stew was held as a Political Prisoner from 1992-1993 to silence his exposure by Leonard Millman his former in law with illegal charges of threatening harassing telephone calls charges which were dismissed with prejudice. Leonard Millman, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Larry Mizel, Phil Winn, Norman Brownstein, John McCain and Mitt Romney to name a few are all partners in what is known as the Bush-Millman-Clinton Organized Crime Syndicate. Leonard Millman (Deceased 2004) was member of the “Illuminati Council of 13”
Fair Use Notice
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.