Make up your own Mind

Blue Link News

Kill Switch: Obama Administration Fears Egypt-Style Revolt In U.S.

http://dprogram.net

January 31st, 2011

(PaulWatson) – The Obama administration is busy attempting to pass legislation that would give the President a kill switch for the Internet in the United States while at the same time decrying Egyptian authorities for shutting down the Internet in a bid to deflate the unfolding revolution against Hosni Mubarak. The reason is simple – the government fears an Egypt-style revolt occurring in the U.S. and wants to block access to the world wide web if and when it happens.

Chicago radio host and occasional Alex Jones Show guest Mancow Muller called it right during an appearance on Mike Huckabee’s show this weekend.

“It’s in all the newspapers, ‘Ohblahblah’, we’ve got to free up Twitter, we’ve got to free up the Internet and Facebook for these poor Egyptians – this is the President that let Wikileaks and all of this stuff happen,” said Mancow.

“They create the problems and we react to fear — the the four letter f-word that controls the masses and they offer the solution, “they” being the government. This is the President that wants the kill switch for the Internet….he wants a kill switch.”

“They fear….social networking, Twitter, Facebook, all of this stuff, but oh, no, we must have it in Egypt, but we don’t want to have it in America.”

Mancow also pointed out how Egyptians were rioting over an economic fallout that has led to crippling tax hikes, wage reductions and spiraling food prices, a similar situation to what is unfolding in America, making reference to how Illinois state authorities recently agreed to hike taxes by a whopping 66 percent.

As we have illustrated, despite invoking supposedly genuine security concerns, the only time governments have resorted to shutting down the world wide web is when they feel the need to crush legitimate dissent against the state.

Indeed, at the height of the Stuxnet worm attack, the crisis was cited as another reason why cybersecurity legislation giving government control of the Internet was necessary. It later emerged that the Stuxnet virus itself was created by the US and Israel to target Iran’s nuclear program.

The Communist Chinese government is now blocking searches for the word “Egypt” on social networking websites in China, reflecting “the government’s fears that the protests in Egypt could whip up unrest in China.”

Sina.com public relations officer Ma Taotao confirms that Chinese searches for Egypt are blocked on its instant messaging site, Sina Weibo.

Ma says the company itself did not make the decision, but is only following the “relevant Chinese laws and regulations.” He gives no details and does not say which government department is responsible. He says he does not know how long the restriction will be in force.

The authoritarian Chinese government routinely blocks Internet access when it wishes to derail organized protests and marches, a telling lesson for Americans given the fact that cybersecurity guru Senator Joseph Lieberman openly admitted that the goal of the new kill switch in the U.S. was to mimic the Chinese system of Internet censorship.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley last year.

However, China’s “war” is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it’s against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China’s system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech during times of political upheaval and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns.

It’s a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.

China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse of its citizens. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. In several regions, the authorities completely cut off the Internet for nearly a year. Major news and discussion portals used by the Muslim Uighurs in the area remain blocked. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are all banned in China and even sanitized government approved versions of these websites are now being shut down for long periods of time so that they can “remove all politically sensitive content under orders from Chinese internet authorities”.

Web censorship in China intensified after a micro-blogger began to expose the fact that many government officials, executives and judges had lied about obtaining degrees from prestigious universities. The government responded to the embarrassment by ordering websites to temporarily go into “maintenance” mode while they removed the pertinent material. What this has to do with fighting a “war,” as Lieberman claims, is anyone’s guess.

The Chinese system that Lieberman wants to bring to the United States is not only about censoring material critical of the state, it’s about identifying those who post it and thereby creating a chilling atmosphere that discourages others from exercising free speech in fear that they might be the next victims of the thought police. News websites in China now require users to register their true identities in order to leave comments.

This move towards abolishing Internet anonymity and creating a virtual ID card is a key centerpiece of Lieberman’s cybersecurity agenda.

This strategy revolves around, “The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records.”

Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.

The examples of Egypt and China in shutting down Internet access to quell dissent against the state tell us everything we need to know about the motivations behind this odious policy and why it has no place in America, a supposedly free country.

While Obama criticizes Egyptian authorities for shutting down web access to disrupt protesters, his own administration prepares to launch a fresh attempt at instituting the exact same powers in America, which as recent history clearly demonstrates, represent tools for tyrannical regimes who wish to silence legitimate political opposition.

Source: Prison Planet

.

January 31, 2011 Posted by | Big Brother, Internet | , , , | 1 Comment

Soros and Brzezinski Prepare to Hijack Egypt Revolution with Puppet, Mohamed ElBaradei

Part 1 of 3

Part 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3

 

related news :

Mohamed ElBaradei: Globalist Pied Piper Of The Egyptian Revolt

.

January 31, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, Covert Ops, Middle East, New World Order, World Politics, Zionism | , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Flashback : Massmedia vs 9/11

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net


by Christopher Bollyn

September 2, 2007
Final Edit – August 23, 2009

from Bollyn Website


The government and controlled media have lied to the public about 9-11 since the day it occurred.

Those who have discerned and exposed the lies about the “false flag” terror attacks and the fraudulent “War on Terror” have been treated like madmen and criminals.

It’s time for this criminal nightmare to end.

  • Who controls the “hidden hand” in the U.S. mass media that censors and suppresses the crucial 9-11 evidence?
  • What is the nexus connecting the architects of 9-11 with the mass media moguls who are covering up the truth?

Rupert Murdoch, a Jew,

is a supporter of Zionism and a friend of Israeli president Shimon Peres.

The on-going cover-up of the evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11 and explosions in the World Trade Center by the U.S. mass media is indicative of a high-level connection between the architects of the “false flag” terror attacks and the media moguls who control the major news networks in the United States.

As a longtime observer of Israel and the Middle East, I have watched how the U.S. mass media has increasingly become an instrument of Israeli propaganda.

As Zionists have extended their grip on American media networks the major television, radio, film and print media outlets have effectively become propaganda tools of a foreign state – Israel – and are used to manipulate U.S. public opinion to support the Zionist agenda. The painfully obvious anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bias of Hollywood films and news-related programs has become ever more extreme as pro-Israel Zionists have achieved near total control of the U.S. mass media.

It needs to be understood that the Zionist conquest of the U.S. mass media did not simply happen by chance or as a result of natural market forces. It is the planned result of a long-term covert strategy put into effect decades ago by the government of Israel to control the news and entertainment networks that inform how Americans view Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East.

The Israelis realized that if they could control what Americans read, see, and hear about Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East then they would be able to control how they think.

Controlling U.S. public opinion is crucial to realizing the Zionist agenda.

Rupert Murdoch’s media empire acts as a Zionist propaganda network.

Zionist control of the major media networks has resulted in Americans getting an extremely distorted and biased view of the world, particularly of the Middle East and of such significant events as 9-11 and the “War on Terror.”

Understanding the strategy and the people behind Israel’s conquest of the American mass media is an essential step to recovering our national sovereignty.

As an independent journalist and researcher of 9-11, I have seen how Zionist-controlled media outlets are actively engaged in covering up the evidence of Israeli involvement in the “false flag” attacks of 9-11 and the Zionist-planned “War on Terror.” I have personally been subjected to years of slander and defamation from a host of Zionist-controlled news outlets, including CNN and FOX News, simply because I have investigated and written about the evidence of Israeli involvement.

Today, the United States of America is by all appearances an Israeli-occupied state. The U.S. Congress dutifully authorizes the annual payment of an immense tribute to Israel, some three thousand million dollars a year. Like a subservient colony, the United States provides hundreds of thousands of its young men and women to fight and die as mercenaries in Zionist-planned wars in the Middle East.

The tens of thousands of American and European christian soldiers and mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are very similar to the former Mamluks of Baghdad – captured “male white slaves” serving their Zionist rulers.

This dismal situation is, of course, not new. It has only become more obvious and extreme. The United States has provided more than $108 billion in direct aid to the state of Israel since 1949 (Washington Report, July 2006) and the U.S. State Dept. recently promised the Israeli military another $30 billion over the next ten years – a twenty-five percent increase.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers have died as a result of serving on or near the front lines in Israel’s wars. The 241 American marines killed in the Beirut bombing of 1983 and the 34 servicemen killed during the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty are the first that come to mind.

More than 4,000 American men and women have died during the current phase, the occupation stage, of the nearly two-decade-long war against Iraq.

The U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, an illegal war of aggression, is clearly a Zionist-planned war in which Americans and other mercenaries actually do the fighting – and dying.


WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

The obvious question is, where is the outrage?

Where is the spiritual, intellectual, and political resistance to this blatant exploitation of Americans and their national resources by a tiny foreign state with a militant and racist ideology? Why do patriotic Americans tolerate this abuse of the “land of the free and the home of the brave?”

While the power of the Israeli lobby (and an occasional murder) may explain the lack of any significant political resistance in the U.S. Congress to Zionist demands, it can not explain how the American population has come to accept this extremely bizarre and abusive relationship with a foreign state.

How has Zionist control of the United States been foisted onto the American people?


ZIONIST DECEPTIONS

Many Americans willingly accept the extremely one-sided and abusive relationship with Israel because they have internalized three fundamental Zionist deceptions, which have been forced into their brains by the controlled mass media.

  • The first is the religious hoax that equates the modern state of Israel with the Israel of the Bible. This religious fraud elevates modern-day Israelis, regardless of their actual ethnicity, to being the rightful heirs of the Promised Land. Although this hoax is quickly revealed to anyone who actually reads Zionist history, it has been successfully foisted onto millions of extremely naive and gullible Christians. These misled and abused people are often referred to as christian Zionists.
  • The second fundamental Zionist deception is that Israel is a “sister democracy” of the United States and that Israelis and Americans share the same “democratic” values. This lie is also quickly exposed by reading Israeli history or visiting Israeli-occupied Palestine. The only Americans who could possibly share Israeli values are those who believe in Jewish racism and supremacism – the central pillar of the Zionist worldview that is completely un-American.
  • The third Zionist deception is that nineteen Arab Muslims under the leadership of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden were behind the 9-11 attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This deception has been used to usher in the Zionist-planned “War on Terror,” which has brought U.S. and European troops into an extensive long-term Middle Eastern war.
  • Why hasn’t the media interviewed the families of the nineteen suspected hijackers?
  • Why does the media not demand an open trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “mastermind” of 9-11, currently held by the U.S. in Guantanamo?
  • Why is the media treatment of these people only as deep as their photos?

While the first two deceptions are primarily philosophical in nature and rather pointless to argue, the 9-11 deception is painfully real and something we allow to continue at our own peril.


“AUSCHWITZ OF THE MIND”

These Zionist deceptions, which are all demonstrably false, have been carefully planted and cultivated in the minds of millions of people through the devices of the Zionist-controlled media.

Zionist domination of the mass media and academia in the United States is so pervasive that Americans are subjected, like Truman Burbank in the film The Truman Show, to a constant barrage of multi-level deception, as if the entire population were living in a false construction – an “Auschwitz of the mind.”

Like the false world of Truman Burbank, the Zionist-created worldview is so overwhelming that it prevents many people from ever realizing that they are being held mentally captive. Even when we peel away the layers of deception and expose the fraud, somehow the show goes on. For the criminals in high places, the show must go on.

The first deception, the religious hoax of the Zionist state’s connection to the biblical Israel, is doctrine to television evangelists like Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition, while the second and third have become “conventional wisdom” for the U.S. news and entertainment media.

Because millions of Americans have accepted and internalized these Zionist-created falsehoods, they are unable to understand the actual realities of the Middle East or the massive fraud of the “War on Terror.”

The controlled media is careful to censor any information that might disturb the perverse worldview of America’s forty million Christian Zionists who are kept in the darkness like children locked in a closet.


ZIONISM – “THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS”

When, for example, the highly-regarded Israeli historian Avi Shlaim wrote his 2005 editorial entitled “Is Zionism today the real enemy of the Jews?” (below insert) his comments were published in the International Herald Tribune (IHT), which is read in 180 nations, but kept out of the pages of The New York Times, the domestic newspaper of its parent company.

 


A debate : Is Zionism today the real enemy of the Jews?
by Avi Shlaim
February 4, 2005

from TheNewYorkTimes WEbsite


OXFORD, England — Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and the state of Israel is its political expression. Israel used to be a symbol of freedom and a source of pride for the Jews of the Diaspora. Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians, however, has turned it into a liability and a moral burden for the liberal segment of the Jewish community. Some Jews, especially on the left, would go even further by linking Israel’s behavior to the upsurge of the new anti-Semitism throughout the world.

Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 is the underlying problem. Occupation transformed the Zionist movement from a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jews into a colonial power and an oppressor of the Palestinians.

By Zionism today I mean the ideological, ultra-nationalist settlers and their supporters in the Likud-led government. These settlers are a tiny minority but they maintain a stranglehold over the Israeli political system. They represent the unacceptable face of Zionism. Zionism does not equal racism, but many of these hard-line settlers and their leaders are blatant racists. Their extremism and their excesses have led some people to start questioning not just the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders but also the legitimacy of the state of Israel within those borders. And it is these settlers who also endanger the safety and well-being of Jews everywhere.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon personifies this xenophobic, exclusive, aggressive and expansionist brand of Zionism. One of the greatest accolades in Judaism is to be a rodeph shalom, a seeker of peace. Sharon is not that by any stretch of the imagination. He is a man of war and the champion of violent solutions.

Sharon’s purpose is politicide: to deny the Palestinians any independent political existence in Palestine. His plan for withdrawal from Gaza is called “the unilateral disengagement plan.” It is not a peace plan but a prelude to the annexation of large chunks of the West Bank to Israel. Sharon, the unilateralist par excellence, is a Jewish Rambo — the antithesis of the traditional Jewish values of truth, justice and tolerance.

Sharon’s government is waging a savage war against the Palestinian people. Its policies include the confiscation of land; the demolition of houses; the uprooting of trees; curfews, roadblocks and 736 checkpoints that inflict horrendous hardships; the systematic abuse of Palestinian human rights; and the building of the illegal wall on the West Bank, a wall that is as much about land-grabbing as it is about security.

It is this brand of cruel Zionism that is the real enemy of what remains of liberal Israel and of the Jews outside Israel. It is the enemy because it fuels the flames of virulent and sometimes violent anti-Semitism. Israel’s policies are the cause; hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism are the consequences.

There has been much talk in recent years about “the new anti-Semitism.” The argument, in a nutshell, is that the resurgence of anti-Semitism has little or nothing to do with Israel’s behavior. Anti-Zionism is merely a surrogate, so the argument runs, for bad, old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

These arguments need to be addressed. First: What is anti-Semitism? Isaiah Berlin defined an anti-Semite as “someone who hates Jews more than is strictly necessary!” This mischievous definition has the merit of applying to all anti-Semitism, old as well as new.

But we need to look beyond the labels. Is there a lot of classic anti-Semitism about? Yes. Is anti-Semitism spreading in Europe? Yes, at an alarming rate. Do some people use anti-Zionism as a respectable cover for their despicable Judeophobia? Alas, yes again. What is the relative weight of hatred of Israel on the one hand and Judeophobia on the other in the making of the new anti-Semitism? I don’t know.

What I do know is that a lot of decent people, without any anti-Semitic baggage, are furious with Israel because of its oppression of the Palestinians. There is simply no getting away from the fact that attitudes toward Israel are changing as a result of its own shift towards the Zionism of the extreme right and of the radical rabbis. During the years of the Oslo peace process, Israel was in fact the favorite of the West because it was willing to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Israel’s image today is negative not because it is a Jewish state but because it habitually transgresses the norms of acceptable international behavior. Indeed, Israel is increasingly perceived as a rogue state, as an international pariah, and as a threat to world peace.

This perception of Israel is a major factor in the recent resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and in the rest of the world. In this sense, Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews. It is a tragedy that a state that was built as a haven for the Jewish people after the Holocaust is now one of the least safe places on earth for Jews to live in. Israel ought to withdraw from the occupied territories not as a favor to the Palestinians but as a favor to itself and to world Jewry for, as Karl Marx noted, a people that oppresses another cannot itself remain free.

Now, why would the New York Times, whose motto is “All The News That’s Fit to Print,” censor the viewpoint of a renowned Israeli historian writing on the causes of modern anti-Semitism?

What did Shlaim say that the editors at the Times thought was unfit for Americans to read?

“Israel’s image today is negative not because it is a Jewish state but because it habitually transgresses the norms of acceptable international behavior. Indeed, Israel is increasingly perceived as a rogue state, as an international pariah, and as a threat to world peace,” Shlaim, an Iraqi Jew who was born in Baghdad, wrote.

“This perception of Israel is a major factor in the recent resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and in the rest of the world. In this sense, Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews.”

When one understands that the primary function of the Zionist-controlled media is to keep Americans in the dark about the Middle East and Zionism, it becomes clear why Shlaim’s article was published in the international publication owned by the New York Times but kept from their U.S. readership.

Shlaim’s comments would have greatly disturbed the carefully cultivated Zionist worldview of millions of Americans – both Jews and Gentiles – an audience that is both protected and held captive.


THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF 9-11

As an independent journalist I have seen how many important stories have been covered-up or ignored by the controlled media.

I have written about many of these suppressed stories, such as the sinking of the Estonia, the downing of Flight TWA 800, and the dangers of depleted uranium.

At the top of my list, however, is the most egregious and criminal cover-up of the evidence of 9-11.

“Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation,” German intelligence expert Andreas von Bülow told me in December 2001.

This deception is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events.

“Journalists don’t even raise the simplest questions,” he said. “Those who differ are labeled as crazy.”

After the London press conference during Jimmy Walter‘s 2005 European 9-11 Truth tour, two reporters from the BBC were eager to interview me.

“Why are you the only journalist who does not believe the official explanation of what happened on 9-11?” was their first question.

The BBC interviewing the author in London

“If that is the case,” I told them, “it is probably due to the fact that others who have questioned the official version have lost their jobs as a result.”

The van was leaving for the hotel so I decided to cut the interview short. I could see where the interview was heading.

When FOX News and CNN interviewed me on the pretense that they were interested in my 9-11 research and evidence, all they really wanted to do was to smear me as an anti-Semite.

In both cases the interviewers were clearly not at all interested in the 9-11 evidence or my research.

Alan Samuel Colmes, a Jewish talking head for Fox News,

was not interested in discussing the evidence of 9-11

but only in trying to smear the author as an anti-Semite.


“WOE BETIDE HIM…”

“The dissident cannot be taken seriously,” the veteran British journalist Roland Huntford wrote about the mass media in his book The New Totalitarians. “There is a range of tolerated opinions, and a narrow one it is: woe betide him who departs from it.”

While Huntford was writing about the controlled media of Sweden in the 1970s, his comments hold true for the Zionist-controlled mass media in the United States today, particularly when the subject is 9-11 or Israel.

I, for example, have paid a very high price for investigating and writing about the evidence that contradicts the government’s version of what happened on 9-11. The first attack came from the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) in November 2001.

The ADL, a private organization dedicated to supporting Zionist and Israeli interests, first smeared the American Free Press, the newspaper I wrote for, as a,

“conspiratorial and anti-Semitic weekly newspaper,” which it said had “repeatedly turned to the subject of the 9-11 attacks as grist for its mill.”

The ADL then singled me out for my article, “Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded Inside WTC” in which, the ADL said,

“Bollyn suggests that the ‘mainstream media’ is ignoring eyewitness accounts of bombs that exploded inside the World Trade Center before the collapse of the TwinTowers.”

Indeed, the first line of my article from September 2001 said exactly that:

Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.

But, I asked,

  • Why would an organization dedicated to Israeli and Jewish interests attack me, as a journalist, for writing about eyewitness reports of explosions in the World Trade Center?
  • What did my writing about this extremely newsworthy subject have to do with Israel or Jews?

Had my BBC interview gone on, I might have asked why the BBC editors had ignored and censored the comments of their own reporter, Steve Evans, who had been in the SouthTower (WTC 2) when it was hit and who reported having observed a “series of explosions.” Shortly after the destruction of the WTC, the BBC interviewed Evans on their television news program based in London.

Because Evans’ observations were ignored by the BBC and not followed up, I wrote about his report of the explosions he felt in the SouthTower:

Evans was asked what he had seen:

“Its more what I felt really,” Evans said. “I was at the base of the 2nd tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake… then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions…”

[At this point the London news anchor cut Evans off in mid-sentence rather than listen to Evans continue to describe the "series of explosions" that he saw and felt. Evans' microphone was turned down.]

But in a minute Evans returns to the “series of explosions” that he witnessed:

“We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – which was caused by those explosions – those series of explosions,” Evans said.

Evans is a professional journalist and his observations of explosions in the second tower need to be taken into account by anybody looking into the cause of the catastrophe of September 11.

Many eyewitnesses reported similar explosions, but these reports, and what they suggest, are intentionally being censored and avoided by the very people who are supposed to be investigating the cause of the collapses. The same kind of censorship occurred with FOX News, CNN, and the leading U.S. news networks that had reporters at the World Trade Center.

Firsthand reports of explosions at the WTC from professional reporters were broadcast only once – and never picked up again, except by the much-despised “conspiracy theorists.”

The news reports that five Middle Eastern men were being sought or had been captured in New Jersey after they had videotaped themselves celebrating in front of the burning towers were treated in the same way.

The arrest of the five men, all Israelis, two of whom were known Mossad agents, was only reported in the Bergen Record (New Jersey) on September 12, 2001 – but never discussed or investigated by the national news networks.


ISRAELIS FOREWARNED

Likewise, the story of the Odigo text message warning of the attacks – before they occurred – was dropped into the media’s memory hole. The instant text messages, which were precise to the minute, had been sent via the Israeli-owned Odigo instant messaging service and had even been received by Odigo employees in Israel, but the story of Israelis having prior knowledge of the attacks was never discussed in the U.S. mass media.

How did the news editors at the BBC, FOX News, CNN, and the leading networks decide to censor their own reporters and avoid discussing certain aspects of 9-11?

Let’s look at this logically.

The 9-11 event was the biggest story these news editors had ever handled. Suffice it to say that the editorial decisions about how to cover 9-11 must have been made by the boss at the top.

Any decision to omit or censor reports about explosions at the World Trade Center or indications of Israeli involvement would have been made by the senior executive of each network. In the case of CNN it would have been Gerald M. Levin, the CEO of Time Warner, who acquired Turner Broadcasting in 1997. (Levin unexpectedly announced his resignation in December 2001, less than three months after 9-11.)

At FOX News the top decision maker would have been Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation. At ABC News it would have been Michael D. Eisner, CEO of Disney, the network’s parent company.

  • Were the media moguls Murdoch, Levin, and Eisner involved in 9-11?
  • How else could they know that certain aspects of the event needed to be suppressed by their news networks?

Their networks have been suppressing important information about 9-11 since the day of the event.

They have also been actively involved in a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.

  • How can that be?
  • Who is behind this cover-up?
  • What occult power, what hidden hand, would be able to communicate with these men and influence them to suppress important reports and evidence from the terror attacks of 9-11?


ARNON MILCHAN – MOSSAD’S MAN IN THE MIDDLE

If one considers the known evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of 9-11, the Odigo text messages and the five arrested Mossad agents, for example, as indicative of Israeli state involvement in the crime, the identity of the occult power behind the cover-up is rather obvious.

The “hidden hand” suppressing the information about 9-11 would have to be a high-level person in the Israeli political-military intelligence establishment who also has very close relations with media kingpins like Murdoch, Levin, and Eisner.

Arnon Milchan (a.k.a. Milchen) is such a person.

While millions of Americans have watched his films, such as Pretty Woman and JFK, very few know that Arnon Milchan is a “best friend” of Shimon Peres (born Szymon Perski in Wiszniewo, Poland) the current Israeli president and godfather of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

The Israeli movie producer Arnon Milchan (between Peres and Netanyahu) is a close friend of

Israel’s president Shimon Peres (“his first letter he wrote as president went to me”),

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Likud Party leader Binyamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu.

Milchan, who began his career with the fertilizer/chemical company Milchan Brothers,

reportedly owns 30 companies in 17 countries involved in plastics, electronics, communications, and pharmaceuticals.

Milchan’s 40-year friendship with Peres, the man who oversaw the illegal development of Israel’s nuclear weapon program is key to understanding Milchan’s career as an undercover operative, weapons procurer, and film producer.

The fact that Milchan, the Hollywood producer, has been Israel’s “foremost weapons procurer” for decades, brokering deals for “everything from nuclear triggers to rocket fuel to guidance systems,” is seldom mentioned in the U.S. news media.

This is probably due to the fact that Milchan is also a “best friend” and business partner of Rupert Murdoch. He is also a friend a business partner with Levin (Warner Brothers) and Eisner.

“I consider him one of my best friends,” Milchan said about Murdoch, “and I think vice versa. We’re having a ball. He’s a very cool guy.”

“Kingpins like Warner Brothers’ Gerald Levin and Disney’s Michael Eisner are quick to return his calls,” the American Jewish journalist Ann Louise Bardach wrote about Milchan in her article ‘The Last Tycoon‘ in April 2000.

In 1997, after a six-year relationship with Warner Brothers, Milchan became a partner with Murdoch, selling him twenty percent of his film company, New Regency Productions, for $200 million. Murdoch also invested another $30 million in Regency Television.

Today, Murdoch’s equity partnership with Milchan is close to fifty percent.

“Milchan’s deal with Fox also assures him a level of financial security,” Bardach wrote. “With Murdoch’s $200 million investment and a subsequent $600 million line of credit from a team of banks led by Chase Manhattan, Milchan is well into mogul territory.

“Milchan’s tony offices occupy most of Building 12, right next door to the Executive Building on the Fox lot,” Bardach wrote. “And it is from this seat of power that Milchan is building an entertainment empire that could one day rival Murdoch’s.”

Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, left,

presents Arnon Milchan with a lifetime achievement award at an event celebrating

the 60th Anniversary of the state of Israel in Los Angeles on September 18, 2008.

Chernin, Murdoch, and Milchan have worked together for many years.



THE MILCHAN INFLUENCE

The Israeli influence in films and news media has profoundly affected the quality of news reporting and entertainment.

Israeli attitudes and ideas are now disseminated through national media outlets which reach the entire U.S. population on a daily basis. Israeli-made films often reveal hints or clues about actual crimes or criminal plots the Israeli producers are aware of.

One such project, The Lone Gunmen, produced by Milchan’s “best friend” Rupert Murdoch, had an uncanny resemblance to the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Was this Milchan’s influence? The Milchan-Murdoch partnership in television production may be key to understanding the genesis of the plot of the pilot episode of this short-lived television series. In the first episode a passenger airliner is hijacked by remote control and flown toward the World Trade Center.

Disaster is averted at the last minute by over-riding the computer program that has hijacked the plane.

The Lone Gunmen, produced by Rupert Murdoch in 2000, revealed an extremely uncanny prescience of 9-11(click above image).

During the same year it was made, Milchan was producing two television series in collaboration with Fox Television: Roswell, which aired on Warner Brothers network, and Malcolm in the Middle, which was aired on Fox. The Lone Gunmen pilot episode aired on FOX Television in March 2001.

Given the long, close, and extensive collaboration between Murdoch and Milchan, it seems fair to ask:

  • Was Arnon Milchan the original source of the plotline for The Lone Gunmen?
  • Why were the people involved in the production of this episode not investigated by the media?
  • Why did the media ignore its own uncanny prescience, The Lone Gunmen episode, which mirrored reality six months later?
  • Was the similarity between the Murdoch-produced show and reality too close for comfort?
  • Was it too uncomfortable to discuss the origin of the idea for the show?

Apparently so.

Was the Israeli chemical magnate Arnon Milchan the author of

the plotline for The Lone Gunmen pilot episode in which a passenger airplane

was remotely hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center?

In Milchan’s highly-controversial film JFK (1991), directed by Oliver Stone, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is ascribed to conspirators within the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Whose idea was this? Why is Arnon Milchan’s own connection with Itzhak Rabin, who was in Dallas on the day Kennedy was shot, not an issue here?

In his futuristic film Brazil (1985), directed by Terry Gilliam, terrorist explosions go off in cafes for no apparent reason, very much like the seemingly senseless terrorism that plagues occupied Iraq.

Is this Milchan’s influence?

“Anyone closely associated with Peres pretty well must be satanic,” Barry Chamish, a Canadian-Israeli wrote, “but Milchan produced a film that shows he has insider information.”

Chamish advises his readers to watch The Devil’s Advocate with Al Pacino to “understand the implication.”

“Milchan runs his company like a family business. Heading up New Regency Productions for him is his childhood friend David Matalon, whose parents were best friends with Milchan’s,” Bardach wrote.

“Daughter Alexandra [Milchan-Lambert] is vice president of production in Los Angeles.”

Matalon has served as president and CEO of New Regency Productions since 1995.

In 1986, Matalon, an Israeli co-founder of Tri-Star pictures, released a film entitled Iron Eagle, in which the aerial combat scenes were filmed entirely with the Israeli Air Force. The plot of this film is about how a few teenagers are able to steal U.S. military codes, aircraft, and information from under the noses of the military brass and run an entire military operation in which they bomb Libya without the knowledge of the military command.

This film gives some indication of the kind of projects and ideas the Israeli military has collaborated on with their fellow Israelis in Hollywood.


THE SECRETIVE MOGUL

“Averse to publicity and little known outside Hollywood” is how Arnon Milchan’s biography begins. “My idea of a good profile is no profile,” Milchan told Bardach.

Murdoch, Levin, and Eisner have obviously respected the Israeli’s wish, but why would a Hollywood mogul not want to be known to the public?

“Arnon Milchan has kept his secrets to himself,” Bardach wrote.

Arnon Milchan with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie

Indeed, very little is known about Milchan, Israel’s super weapons agent, except that he spends more time in Tel Aviv and France than he does in his office on the 20th Century Fox lot in Los Angeles, according to Bardach.

Now, why would a Hollywood movie producer spend more time in Tel Aviv, where no movies are being made, than in Hollywood?


POLISH ZIONIST ROOTS

Milchan was born on December 6, 1944, on the Zionist settlement of Rehovot, in what was then Palestine, according to his biography in Current Biography (2000). Rehovot, one of the earliest Zionist settlements, was founded in 1890 by Polish and Russian Jews, one of whom was Milchan’s paternal grandfather.

Rehovot has a street and a neighborhood named “Milchen”, no doubt in memory of his grandfather.

“My family’s been there for 500 years,” Milchan told Bardach.

“My grandfather was a very close friend of President [Chaim] Weizmann.”

Oddly, Bardach does not provide the name of his grandfather who was “a very close friend” of Israel’s first president. Nor does she give the name of the ancestors Milchan proudly claims have lived in Palestine for five hundred years.

“Milchan’s father was an enviable success story himself, having laid the sprinklers that irrigated Israel,” Bardach wrote. “Later, he would handle some of Israel’s lucrative military contracts, according to his son.”

Bardach continues:

However, it was young Milchan who put the company on the map internationally, after his father’s sudden death. Following a spot of schooling in London and Geneva, where he excelled in soccer and tennis, Milchan dropped out and returned to Israel. Soon, he struck gold.

By marketing a newly discovered nutrient that quadrupled citrus production, he brought his company stratospheric sales throughout the world.

“This is a man who made his fortune by screwing with nature,” says screenwriter Shawn Slovo, who began her career as Milchan’s secretary in 1977. “He’s the Israeli who made the desert bloom. Amazing when you think about it. He could have retired at the age of 22.”

Instead, like a kid racing around the Monopoly board, Milchan gobbled up another half dozen businesses–including electronics, chemicals, aerospace and plastics.

Still in his early twenties, he met the Shah of Iran and reportedly talked the wily Persian into dozens of contracts, one to build much of Tehran’s airport.

When one considers that Arnon Milchan, in his early twenties, was among the founders of Israel’s Labor Party in the 1960s with Shimon Peres, Moshe Dayan, and Teddy Kolleck, then one can appreciate that his contracts in Iran and his career in arms dealing and Hollywood have been done with the active collaboration of the Mossad.


“I’M AN AGENT”

Milchan is a,

“go-between for American weapons manufacturers and the Israeli government, thus playing a major role in the strengthening of the Israeli military,” according to Current Biography (2000).

“Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and even up until the Gulf War in 1991, Milchan was Israel’s foremost weapons procurer, brokering deals for such prized superweapons as the Hawk missile and the famous Scud-foil of the Gulf War, the Patriot,” Bardach wrote.

“At different times in his career, his Israeli company, Milchan Brothers, has represented arms manufacturers such as Raytheon, North American Rockwell, Beechcraft, Bell Helicopter and Magnavox. Or, as Milchan downplays it, “there were a bunch of them.”

Nevertheless, he bristles at being called an arms dealer.

“I’m their rep in Israel,” he says emphatically. “I get a fee, a commission. I’m not even the buyer. I’m an agent.”

“What we do is send my people to the United States,” Milchan told Bardach, “so we know what these guys are talking about, and you go back and say to the buyer, ‘I think this guy has some interesting stuff. Would you meet with him?’ And then you arrange a meeting with the head of the [Israeli] air force and the head of this and the head of that.”

In 1992, Milchan was described by the Jerusalem Post as being “among the handful of Hollywood moguls with the muscle and money to single-handedly give the go-ahead for a new movie project.

The Mossad is undoubtedly the source of much of Milchan’s “muscle and money.”

Who pays Milchan’s commissions? Whether the commission is paid by the weapon’s vendor or by the state of Israel, the money going to Milchan is American money. He is paid either by the company or from the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to Israel for weapons every year.

In this way, Milchan, Mossad’s man in the middle, has been greatly enriched by U.S. weapons sales to Israel.


“BIG STAR” TO RAYTHEON

In 1975, for example, Milchan reportedly received an improper $300,000 commission paid by a Raytheon subsidiary for the sale of Hawk missiles.

Raytheon makes the Patriot and Hawk missile systems and key components of the Global Hawk. Of particular interest is Raytheon’s Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) which allow remote operators to pilot the Global Hawk from “thousands of miles away.” This is the kind of technology that is thought to have been used in the terror attacks of 9-11.

Terry Gilliam told Bardach that he’ll never forget a visit to the Paris Air Show with Milchan during the filming of Baron Munchausen.

“It was wonderful to see how the whole arms business worked,” Gilliam said. “Arnon was very psyched about the video games. He brought his son with him, who was then a teenager, to play the games, which can replicate the destruction of the planet. He took me to the Raytheon booth, and it was all showmanship. He was obviously a big star to Raytheon.”

“Growing up, I would read that he was an arms dealer; he was in the Mossad, and he was a movie producer,” his daughter Alexandra told Bardach.

She is married to a Scott Lambert, an agent with William Morris in Beverley Hills and graduate of American University in Washington, D.C. (Lambert happens to share the same name of a former Director of Manufacturing Systems at Raytheon.)


MODUS OPERANDI

When one looks at Milchan’s career as an Israeli agent who bought media outlets with dirty money one should consider that this may be the modus operandi he has employed to gain influence and outlets in the U.S. media market.

Money laundering could explain his ability to make huge deals and control media networks – and his desire for secrecy.

“He’s extremely powerful because he brings money to the table,” journalist Anita Busch wrote.

“He’s unique in that way. He’s got a credit line that’s astronomical, like, you know, almost a billion dollars.” Terry Gilliam, the director of Brazil, wondered where the money came from. “Arnon can be great, but when it comes to money there’s something – I don’t know – bits just don’t seem to connect.”

Charles McKeown, a film writer, had a hard time getting paid by the billion dollar Israeli.

“You just never know whether he was telling the truth or not,” McKeown said.

“The kind of deals he was in, the level of finance and the way he operated, seemed to me like a world upside down. I felt we were dealing with a sort of dangerous, shady quality.”


MONEY LAUNDERER

In 1975, the Israeli government headed by Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres recruited Milchan to launder money from South Africa.

Milchan,

“has admitted laundering some of the more than $100 million spent by the South Africans during the 1970s in an attempt to improve the white government’s image abroad,” according to the authors of The Iran-Contra Connection.

Because both Israel and South Africa were ostracized in the 1970s,

“The money laundering was part of the two countries’ plan to buy newspapers and other media in various parts of the world,” his biography reads.

“The Rabin government recruited… Milchan to launder cash… to purchase influential publications,” Andrew and Leslie Cockburn wrote in their book Dangerous Liaison.


THE MIDDLEMAN

Milchan told Bardach he was asked by,

“prominent Israelis if ‘we can use your companies to make deals to buy newspapers.’ I said, ‘Sure. It sounds like fun.’ Basically, I was used as a middleman.”

A citizen of both Israel and Monaco, he is said to control thirty companies in seventeen countries, profiting in everything from film production to the weapons trade.

But, how does one man control thirty companies in seventeen countries? Clearly there must be an entire team behind these businesses.

Milchan’s team could be called Team Mossad.

“I’ll say it in my own words,” Milchan told Bardach. “I love Israel, and any way I can help Israel, I will. I’ll do it again and again. If you say I’m an arms dealer, that’s your problem. In Israel, there is practically no business that does not have something to do with defense.”

Milchan also funds Christian Zionist movements.

Milchan has reportedly contributed significantly to the Christian Coalition, an organization started by the Reverend Pat Robertson, a staunch supporter of Israel. He also underwrites the Israeli Network which transmits Israeli television programs to the United States and Canada via cable and satellite.

Milchan is also an owner of the Israeli television station known as Channel 10. The other owners are Ronald Lauder, who like Milchan owned about twenty-five percent, and Josef (Yossi) Maiman, who owns fifty-one percent and who has been with Channel 10 since it was founded in 2003. Rupert Murdoch bought nine percent of Channel 10 stock from Milchan and Lauder in 2006. Maiman, a Mossad agent, owns and controls a great deal of the gas fields of Turkmenistan.

One of the main goals of the occupation of Afghanistan is to build a pipeline to bring the Israeli-owned gas of Turkmenistan to India and China.

(Maiman and Lauder are both linked to the Mossad and 9-11. For more on Maiman read my article, “The Great Game: The War For Caspian Oil And Gas.” Information about Lauder can be found in “Mossad -The Israeli Connection To 9-11″)


SMUGGLING NUCLEAR TRIGGERS

Milchan should have been busted in 1985 for smuggling triggers for nuclear bombs, when a business associate, Richard Kelly Smyth, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on charges of smuggling 810 krytrons to Israel.

Because krytrons are used as detonators or triggers for nuclear weapons, their export is tightly regulated.

In 1973, Smyth started a company called Milco International, Inc., financed, according to the Washington Post, by Milchan, hence its name. Up to eighty percent of Milco’s business was reportedly with Milchan and Israel. In 1980, the federal indictment asserted, Smyth and Milco sent 610 krytrons to Israel without the necessary licenses, plus another 200 in 1982.

The 1985 indictment identified the Israeli buyers of the nuclear triggers as Heli Trading Ltd. and Milchan Brothers, two of Milchan’s Israel-based companies. Federal authorities told NBC News in 1993 that Milchan also shared in the profits derived from the sales.

Announcement of the indictments came four days after the Israeli Defense Ministry, reacting to news of the grand jury probe, admitted that it had the devices, known as krytrons. The krytrons were shipped between 1979 and 1983 to an Israeli firm under contract to the government for defense work.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense returned only 469 of the krytrons, and Smyth vanished a week before he was to appear for trial.


PROTECTING ISRAEL

Robert C. Bonner, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, refused to comment on questions about whether the Israeli government had been involved in the illegal actions.

State Department spokesman Edward Djerejian said,

“I can only note that the indictment does not mention any Israeli citizen.”

Djerejian added that the United States,

“has expressed its serious concern to the Israeli government about this alleged violation of U.S. law” and had been assured that Israel will cooperate with the continuing U.S. investigation “to the full extent permitted under Israeli law.”

“Smyth’s disappearance, and the unwillingness of Israeli officials to cooperate with U.S. investigators on the case, left federal authorities unable to proceed,” Robert Windrem of NBC News reported in July 2001.

Although Milchan is not mentioned in the indictment, a Milco employe, Gretel Siler, who identified herself as corporate treasurer of Milco, told the Washington Post that Milchan had been associated with Milco in various export transactions and had been involved in purchasing the krytrons from the manufacturer, EG&G, of Wellesley, Mass.

Milchan denied being involved in the $60,000 krytron deal, but told “60 Minutes” (CBS) that he had allowed the Israeli government to use his companies as conduits for trading with the United States.

“I’m not saying I’m an innocent person – but in this specific case, I knew nothing about it,” Milchan told Frank Rose of Premiere magazine.

In any case, Milchan was never charged in the case.

Robert Mainhardt, a nuclear scientist and former director of Milco, told “60 Minutes” that he had resigned after Milchan had asked him to obtain advanced nuclear reactor designs and a supply of uranium hexachloride, which is used in the enrichment of bomb-grade uranium. Mainhardt’s fellow directors at Milco, Arthur Biehl and Ivan Getting began to feel uneasy sometime in 1982, the Washington Post reported.

The Washington Post did a series of articles about this smuggling.

The most important excerpts are the following:

When they joined the board of directors of Milco International in 1980, Biehl and Getting recalled, they thought the company’s primary business was developing aerospace software for U.S. military and space programs.

They had been recruited by the company’s owner, Richard K. Smyth, while serving with him on an influential panel that advises the U.S. Air Force on advanced technologies, work that required them to have top-secret clearances.

But they soon realized that Smyth, a California-based computer expert, spent most of his time trying to buy equipment with military applications, including a uranium byproduct known as “green salt” that can be processed into weapons-grade uranium, for the government of Israel.

Often, they said, the sales were made through an Israeli middleman, Arnon Milchan, a flamboyant businessman who sold arms before becoming a producer of such popular movies as the recent Brazil.

“I didn’t have any evidence there was anything improper,” Biehl said. “I just thought it was a strange way to do business… I wondered why the Israelis were paying fees to (Milco and Milchan) when they could get the same equipment directly” using U.S. foreign aid.

In late 1982, Biehl and Getting resigned from Milco’s board of directors, in part because of their misgivings about Smyth’s dealings with Milchan and Israel.

Asked why Israel didn’t buy the krytrons through its 200-member procurement staff in New York, which buys military equipment with $1.8 billion in annual U.S. aid, Yossi Gal, spokesman with the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, told the Post that Israel occasionally used “independent agents” to make purchases.

Under U.S. laws, Smyth needed a munitions license from the State Department to ship the krytrons overseas. If he had tried to obtain one, according to a knowledgeable State Department source, he would have been turned down because Israel has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Smyth’s relations with Israel began in the early 1970s when he was working for North American Rockwell as a chief engineer in its avionics division and traveled to Israel to help set up a subsidiary. There, he met Milchan, who was Rockwell’s representative and “point man” with the Israeli government, according to an associate of Smyth from that period.

In January 1973, Smyth founded Milco while still working at Rockwell. His associate recalled Smyth once saying that Milchan provided money to start Milco; this associate said he believes that the name Milco was derived from Milchan.

At the time that Milco was founded, former U.S. intelligence officials said, the Central Intelligence Agency knew that Israel was working to perfect a solid-fuel tactical missile, known as the Jericho, that could carry nuclear warheads. In late 1973, Smyth’s associate recalled, he saw Milco order forms for several barrels of a butyl compound used to bind explosive powders into solid rocket fuel. Smyth said he was shipping the butyl to Milchan through another company he owned in Houston, the associate recalled.

Smyth’s next known contact with Israel occurred in 1975, about a year after he left Rockwell to run Milco full time. On Oct. 30 of that year, Smyth applied for a munitions license to ship 400 krytrons to Heli Trading Inc., Milchan’s company in Israel.

The application, which is filed in court records in Los Angeles, said that the “end user” would be Rehovot Instruments Ltd. and that the krytrons would be used as “remotely located intrusion detectors.”

Smyth filed the application after being told by an official from an unnamed U.S. intelligence agency that a license was required, according to court records.

Smyth met with the official and told him that,

“Arnon Milchan [had] requested that a certain number of krytrons be shipped to Israel,” according to a letter filed by William Fahey, the prosecutor in the current case.

Internal Milco records, provided by former Smyth associates, show that the company struggled financially from 1975 to 1980. It landed several small contracts for less than $25,000 with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Air Force for studies on computer software for avionics systems in advanced aircraft, the MX missile and a small ship defense missile called the Patriot.

It was also in 1980, the federal indictment alleged, that Milco sent 610 krytrons to Israel in 11 shipments without obtaining the needed licenses. Smyth bought them from EG&G in Salem, Mass., the sole producer of the switches in the United States.

In mid-1981, Smyth listed several contracts with Heli Trading to acquire training simulators for Hawk air defense missiles, a voice scrambler and lasers. He also cited “probable” contracts for a computerized flight control system for Israel’s Lavi fighter plane, and thermal batteries and gyroscopes.

James Russell, vice president of Incosym Inc., a maker of gyroscopes in Thousand Oaks, Calif., said he sold Milco several $10,000 gyroscopes in that period. Smyth told him the navigation aids would be used on Israeli navy patrol boats. Milco also won a flight control contract for the Lavi in 1983, according to a listing in Aviation Week magazine.

Smyth’s world started to crumble in early 1983 after someone broke into Milco’s offices and took several thousand dollars worth of computer and software equipment.

Because he was doing some classified U.S. government work and feared some records of it might have been stolen, Smyth wrote a lengthy report about the theft for the Pentagon and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, then-company attorney Brian R. Carter said.

Milco company records revealed that Milchan’s companies had ordered large quantities of missile-related equipment and materials between 1977 and 1982.

Among the nuclear items listed were the 810 krytrons, plus neutron generators, high-speed oscilloscopes and high-voltage condensers, according to a 1996 paper on Israel’s Nuclear Weapon Capability by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

In August 1985, U.S. Customs subpoenaed the financial records linking Smyth and Milchan. The records were neither turned over nor found.

Smyth and his wife disappeared just days before his scheduled trial, which almost certainly would have involved Milchan.

“There were so many…indictments that they probably decided just to get out,” Mainhardt, who operates a security business in Dublin, California, said. “If I had to make a guess, I’d say they’re in Israel.”

“Let’s assume that there’s nothing that Israel and the United States do separately,” Milchan told Bardach. “Smyth, a U.S. fugitive for more than a decade, was last seen in Herzliya Pituach, an affluent suburb of Tel Aviv, where Milchan owns a home,” Bardach wrote in 2000.

In July 2001, Smyth was arrested in Malaga, Spain. Smyth pleaded guilty in December to one count of violating the Arms Export Control Act and one count of making a false statement to Customs agents. Prosecutors dropped twenty-eight other counts.

On April 29, 2002 Smyth was sentenced to forty months in federal prison and fined $20,000 for illegally exporting to Israel the devices that are used as triggers for nuclear weapons.

Smyth, 72, was immediately made eligible for parole at his sentencing.


MILCHAN AND PERES

“In Israel, Milchan spends much of his time with best friend Shimon Peres,” Bardach wrote.

She continued, “Milchan’s political connections would prove to be the foundation of his future empire. In addition to agriculture, there would be biotechnology, advertising, aerospace, and the biggest jackpot of them all – arms.”

Arnon Milchan is deeply engaged in chemicals and helped build Israel’s nuclear arsenal,

which was developed by his good friend Shimon Peres.

What does he know about the super-thermite that demolished the World Trade Center?

In 1953, at age thirty, Shimon Peres was appointed by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, to become Director-General of the Ministry of Defense.

Within three years, Peres had laid the foundation for Israel’s nuclear weapon program, according to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Peres started Israel’s program to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons by convincing the French to help Israel build a secret nuclear reactor beginning about 1957. He chose France as the major supplier, arranged the sale of a nuclear reactor, and spent the next decade overseeing the construction of the Dimona nuclear weapon production complex.

Peres is the one who came up with Israel’s most often repeated nuclear declaration. At an April 1963 meeting in the White House, Peres responded to President John F. Kennedy’s questions about Israel’s nuclear program by saying:

“Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.”

Two years later, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol elevated Peres’s words to Israel’s official nuclear line.

Sources & Recommended Reading

Bardach, Ann Louise, “The Last Tycoon” Los Angeles Magazine, April 2000 http://www.bardachreports.com/articles/oa_20000400.html

Bollyn, Christopher, “Intel Expert Says 9-11 Looks Like A Hollywood Show” December 2001

Bollyn, “9/11: What Did Rupert Murdoch Know?” October 3, 2003

Bollyn, “Mossad – The Israeli Connection To 9-11″ April 14, 2005

Bollyn, “Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded in WTC” September 2001

Bollyn, “‘Series of Explosions’ in WTC – BBC” June 28, 2002

Bollyn, “9-11 Mossad Agents Admit Mission: ‘Our Purpose Was to Document the Event’” June 28, 2002

Bollyn, “Why was Kobi Alexander Allowed to Flee? The Israeli Fugitive, Odigo, and the Forewarning of 9/11″ August 24, 2006

Bollyn, “The Great Game: The War For Caspian Oil And Gas” October 14, 2001

Lima, Paolo, “Five men detained as suspected conspirators,” Bergen Record, September 12, 2001 http://web.archive.org/web…/2bombvan200109125.htm

McArthur, Shirl, “A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $108 Billion” Washington Report, July 2006 http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2006/0607016.html

Washington Post, “Computer Expert Used Firm to Feed Israel Technology” October 31, 1986

Washington Post, “L.A. Man Indicted in Export of Potential Nuclear Bomb Component to Israel” by John M. Goshko, May 17, 1985

Washington Post, “U.S. Asks to Inspect Israeli Atom Sites To Verify Use of Restricted Device” by John M. Goshko, May 15, 1985

Washington Post, “Israel Got U.S.-Made Devices” by John M. Goshko, May 14, 1985

Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, “Israeli Nuclear Program Pioneered by Shimon Peres,” The Risk Report, Volume 2 Number 4, July-August 1996 http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/Israel-nuclear-peres.html

.

January 30, 2011 Posted by | 9/11, Anti NWO, Big Brother, Covert Ops, Disinformation, New World Order, World Politics, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

INTERVIEW IDF : ‘OPERATION CAST LEAD’

http://www.veteranstoday.comJanuary 30, 2011 posted by Debbie Menon · 8 Comments

ISRAELI DEFENCE FORCES AFTER ‘OPERATIONS CAST LEAD’

INTERVIEW YOU WILL NOT SEE IN ZIONIST CONTROLLED AMERICAN MAINSTREAM MEDIA

They were told:

“ENTRY WOULD BE DIS-PROPORTIONATE”

The orders were to:

“CLEANSE THE NEIGHBOURHOOD”


“Every house gets a shell, that was our job…”

“We were to shell the top and shell the bottom…”

“The moment the tank hit the second shell, we see processions of the family walk out with children, with babies, with white flag on a stick….”

“We entered the city in a big hullabaloo…”

“The squadron… with a lazer marked clearly the houses that had to be shelled….”

Alex Thompson has their story here…

Channel 4 News – Dispatches from Gaza – 26 January 2011

Enough of  Hamas Rocket fire ?

After Sabra & Shatila, Jenin, Nablus, Rafah, and Gaza massacres.  Sixty years of brutal ‘Israeli Defence Force’ ?

Can someone arm Hamas with modern weapons to defend themselves, perhaps we can then witness a real war?

Copyright @ Debbie Menon

Also see:

Journalist Robert Fisk who had been one of the first on the scene, returns 15 years later to the Sabra & Shatila Palestinian refugee Camp in Lebanon…

.


January 30, 2011 Posted by | Anti War, Disinformation, Gaza, Middle East, Zionism | , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Egypt Protests (Pic of the Day)

courtesy Al Jazeera

January 30, 2011 Posted by | Middle East, World People | , , , | Leave a Comment

US : FORECLOSURE CRISIS WILL WORSEN

http://www.americanfreepress.net

By Pat Shannan

A recent Morgan Stanley finance report cited by financial analyst Jeff Adams warns that a huge “shadow inventory” of homes with delinquent mortgages, which has yet to move through the foreclosure process, would take 47 months to clear at the current market sales rate.

While realtors and bankers claim—or at least want the American people to believe—that the real estate market is “turning around,” Adams reports that Americans are not being told of this “shadow inventory” amid the rising tide of residential foreclosures that continues to paralyze prices and hamper housing market recovery. It appears this second foreclosure wave is about to arrive.

More than 10 percent of all mortgage borrowers in the U.S. are seriously delinquent, and the shadow inventory riding that new tidal wave totals around 8 million. While there are no exact numbers on the extent of the nation’s growing shadow inventory, Morgan Stanley is telling its investors to slow down and not jump too soon, Adams adds.

People in Florida and California, particularly, have watched helplessly as the real estate crisis has pushed their home values to as little as 25 percent of what they paid for them less than a decade ago.

The report continued, “Given the sheer number of potential homes for sale and the weak pace at which demand is trending, the bottom of the housing market may last another three to four years, during which annual appreciation may reach only as high as inflation or income growth, meaning real asset values will remain unchanged or lower throughout this period.”

The shadow inventory includes all loans behind by 90 days or more, already in foreclosure, as well as a large majority of loans that are 30 to 60 days delinquent and about to be in foreclosure. Morgan Stanley even includes a portion of current loans expected to eventually default.

banner_newsletter

Considering that, as of March 2010, approximately 7.5 million, or 15 percent of borrowers, had fallen behind—with the above-mentioned 8 million still to come—the bankers and realtors have not even reached “half time” in the predatory economic “game.” It takes place on a rigged playing field ultimately run by the shadowy private central bankers and their cohorts in commercial banking, wielding their debt-based monetary and crooked financial system against the middle class.

Adams noted that firms besides Morgan Stanley are trying to measure the shadow inventory. Barclays Capital predicted that it would peak at 4.7 million in the summer of 2010. Capital Economics, a research firm, predicts that the shadow inventory could reach 5.5 million by the end of 2011. Thousands of people remain in their homes after banks have attempted to foreclose on them, because many banks do not have original titles on the homes due to the bundling and securitization of mortgages.

Pat Shannan is a contributing editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including, Everything They Told Me Was A LieOne in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan’s experiences with Tupper Saussy. They are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS ($25 each). Shannan’s latest book, Everything They Ever Told MeWas a Lie (softcover, 300 pages) is available for $30 plus $5 S&H. Call AFP/FAB at 1-888-699-NEWS toll free to charge to major credit cards.

.

January 30, 2011 Posted by | Americas, Gran Theft Economics | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

LIVE FROM THE EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION

http://www.veteranstoday.comJanuary 30, 2011 posted by Debbie Menon · 2 Comments 

” The military was greeted warmly on the streets of Cairo. Crowds roared with approval as one soldier was carried through Tahrir square today holding a flower in his hand. Dozens of people clambered onto tanks as they rode around the square. Throughout the day people chanted: “The people, the army: one hand.”


By Sharif Abdel Kouddous / DEMOCRACY NOW

# Protesters have an army officer shouldered who joined in their protests in Cairo. # Image Credit: EPA 

CAIRO, EGYPT– I grew up in Egypt. I spent half my life here. But Saturday, when my plane from JFK airport touched down in Cairo, I arrived in a different country than the one I had known all my life. This is not Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt anymore and, regardless of what happens, it will never be again.

In Tahrir Square, thousands of Egyptians–men and women, young and old, rich and poor–gathered today to celebrate their victory over the regime’s hated police and state security forces and to call on Mubarak to step down and leave once and for all. They talked about the massive protest on Friday, the culmination of three days of demonstrations that began on January 25th to mark National Police Day. It was an act of popular revolt the likes of which many Egyptians never thought they would see during Mubarak’s reign. “The regime has been convincing us very well that we cannot do it, but Tunisians gave us an idea and it took us only three days and we did it,” said Ahmad El Esseily, a 35 year-old author and TV/radio talk show host who took park in the demonstrations. “We are a lot of people and we are strong.”

In Cairo, tens of thousands of people–from all walks of life–faced off against riot police armed with shields, batons, and seemingly endless supplies of tear gas. People talked about Friday’s protest like a war; a war they’d won. “Despite the tear gas and the beatings, we just kept coming, wave after wave of us,” one protester said. “When some of us would tire, others would head in. We gave each other courage.” After several hours, the police were forced into a full retreat. Then, as the army was sent in, they disappeared.

The military was greeted warmly on the streets of Cairo. Crowds roared with approval as one soldier was carried through Tahrir square today holding a flower in his hand. Dozens of people clambered onto tanks as they rode around the square. Throughout the day people chanted: “The people, the army: one hand.”

While the police and state security forces are notorious in Egypt for torture, corruption and brutality, the army has not interacted with the civilian population for more than 30 years and is only proudly remembered for having delivered a victory in the 1973 war with Israel. A 4pm curfew set for today was casually ignored with people convinced the army would not harm them. The police were a different story. Their brutality the past few days–decades in fact–has been well documented.

Saturday, some of the police forces were holed up inside their headquarters in the Interior Ministry building near the end of a street connected to Tahrir Square. When protesters neared the building, the police began firing live ammunition at the crowd, forcing them to flee back to the square. Three bloodied people were carried out. “The police are killing us,” one man yelled desperately while on the phone with al Jazeera from outside the building. When the firing stopped, defiant protesters began approaching the building again. In the background, the smoking, blackened shell of Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party headquarters served as an ominous reminder of their intentions.

At this point it seems clear the people are not leaving the streets. They own them now and they are refusing to go until Mubarak does. They chanted, “Mubarak, the plane is waiting for you at the airport,” and “Wake up Mubarak, today is your last day.”

At one point, a rumor spread through Tahrir Square that Mubarak had fled the country. A massive cheer rippled through the crowd. People began jumping up and down in joy. One man wept uncontrollably. When it turned out not to be true, the cheers quickly ended but it provided a brief glimpse of the sheer raw desire for Mubarak’s ouster. Reports now indicate that Mubarak’s two sons and his wife, Suzanne, have fled Egypt, as have some of his closest business cronies. Many people believe that is a sign that Hosni will not be far behind.

There is a great sense of pride that this is a leaderless movement organized by the people. A genuine popular revolt. It was not organized by opposition movements, though they have now joined the protesters in Tahrir. The Muslim Brotherhood was out in full force today. At one point they began chanting “Allah Akbar” only to be drowned out by much louder chants of “Muslim, Christian, we are all Egyptian.”

* Egyptian anti-government protesters pray in front of an Egyptian army tank during a protest in Tahrir square in Cairo. * Image Credit: AP 

As the sun set over Cairo, silence fell upon Tahrir square as thousands stopped to pray in the street while others stood atop tanks. After the sunset prayer, they held a ‘ganaza’–a prayer for those killed in the demonstrations. Darkness fell and the protesters, thousands of them, have vowed to stay in the square, sleeping out in the open, until Mubarak is ousted.

Meanwhile, across Cairo there is not a policeman in sight and there are reports of looting and violence. People worry that Mubarak is intentionally trying to create chaos to somehow convince people that he is needed. The strategy is failing. Residents have taken matters into their own hands, helping to direct traffic and forming armed neighborhood watches, complete with checkpoints and shift changes, in districts across the city.

This is the Egypt I arrived in today. Fearless and determined. It cannot go back to what it was. It will never be the same.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/1/29/live_from_the_egyptian_revolution_by_sharif_abdel_kouddous

Sharif Abdel Kouddous is a senior producer for the radio/TV show Democracy Now.

Follow him on Twitter at @sharifkouddous.

related news :

The CIA’s Role in Egypt’s Regime Change? Who Is Omar Suleiman?


.

January 30, 2011 Posted by | Middle East, World People, World Politics | , , , | Leave a Comment

Get Internet Access When Your Government Shuts It Down

http://www.pcworld.com

Does your government have an Internet kill-switch? Read our guide to Guerrilla Networking and be prepared for when the lines get cut.

By Patrick Miller, David Daw, PCWorld Jan 28, 2011 5:50 pm

These days, no popular movement goes without an Internet presence of some kind, whether it’s organizing on Facebook or spreading the word through Twitter. And as we’ve seen in Egypt, that means that your Internet connection can be the first to go. Whether you’re trying to check in with your family, contact your friends, or simply spread the word, here are a few ways to build some basic network connectivity when you can’t rely on your cellular or landline Internet connections.

Do-It-Yourself Internet With Ad-Hoc Wi-Fi

Even if you’ve managed to find an Internet connection for yourself, it won’t be that helpful in reaching out to your fellow locals if they can’t get online to find you. If you’re trying to coordinate a group of people in your area and can’t rely on an Internet connection, cell phones, or SMS, your best bet could be a wireless mesh network of sorts–essentially, a distributed network of wireless networking devices that can all find each other and communicate with each other. Even if none of those devices have a working Internet connection, they can still find each other, which, if your network covers the city you’re in, might be all you need. At the moment, wireless mesh networking isn’t really anywhere close to market-ready, though we have seen an implementation of the 802.11s draft standard, which extends the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard to include wireless mesh networking, in the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) XO laptop.

However, a prepared guerrilla networker with a handful of PCs could make good use of Daihinia ($25, 30-day free trial), an app that piggybacks on your Wi-Fi adapter driver to turn your normal ad-hoc Wi-Fi network into a multihop ad-hoc network (disclaimer: we haven’t tried this ourselves yet), meaning that instead of requiring each device on the network to be within range of the original access point, you simply need to be within range of a device on the network that has Daihinia installed, effectively allowing you to add a wireless mesh layer to your ad-hoc network.

Advanced freedom fighters can set up a portal Web page on their network that explains the way the setup works, with Daihinia instructions and a local download link so they can spread the network even further. Lastly, just add a Bonjour-compatible chat client like Pidgin or iChat, and you’ll be able to talk to your neighbors across the city without needing an Internet connection.

Back to Basics

Remember when you stashed your old modems in the closet because you thought you might need them some day? In the event of a total communications blackout–as we’re seeing in Egypt, for example–you’ll be glad you did. Older and simpler tools, like dial-up Internet or even ham radio, could still work, since these “abandoned” tech avenues aren’t being policed nearly as hard.

In order to get around the total shutdown of all of the ISPs within Egypt, several international ISPs are offering dial-up access to the Internet to get protesters online, since phone service is still operational. It’s slow, but it still works–the hard part is getting the access numbers without an Internet connection to find them.

Unfortunately, such dial-up numbers can also be fairly easily shut down by the Egyptian government, so you could also try returning to FidoNet–a distributed networking system for BBSes that was popular in the 1980s. FidoNet is limited to sending only simple text messages, and it’s slow, but it has two virtues: Users connect asynchronously, so the network traffic is harder to track, and any user can act as the server, which means that even if the government shuts down one number in the network, another one can quickly pop up to take its place.

You could also take inspiration from groups that are working to create an ad-hoc communications network into and out of Egypt using Ham Radio, since the signals are rarely tracked and extremely hard to shut down or block. Most of these efforts are still getting off the ground, but hackers are already cobbling together ways to make it a viable form of communication into and out of the country.

Always Be Prepared

In the land of no Internet connection, the man with dial-up is king. Here are a few gadgets that you could use to prepare for the day they cut the lines.

Given enough time and preparation, your ham radio networks could even be adapted into your own ad-hoc network using Packet Radio, a radio communications protocol that you can use to create simple long-distance wireless networks to transfer text and other messages between computers. Packet Radio is rather slow and not particularly popular (don’t try to stream any videos with this, now), but it’s exactly the kind of networking device that would fly under the radar.

In response to the crisis in Egypt, nerds everywhere have risen to call for new and exciting tools for use in the next government-mandated shutdown. Bre Pettis, founder of the hackerspace NYC Resistor and creator of the Makerbot 3D printer, has called for “Apps for the Appocalypse,” including a quick and easy way to set up chats on a local network so you can talk with your friends and neighbors in an emergency even without access to the Internet. If his comments are any indication, Appocalypse apps may be headed your way soon.

Tons of cool tech are also just waiting to be retrofitted for these purposes. David Dart’s Pirate Box is a one-step local network in a box originally conceived for file sharing and local P2P purposes, but it wouldn’t take much work to adapt the Pirate Box as a local networking tool able to communicate with other pirate boxes to form a compact, mobile set of local networks in the event of an Internet shutdown.

Whether you’re in Egypt or Eagle Rock, you rely on your Internet access to stay in touch with friends and family, get your news, and find information you need. (And read PCWorld, of course.) Hopefully with these apps, tools, and techniques, you won’t have to worry about anyone–even your government–keeping you from doing just that.

Patrick Miller hopes he isn’t first against the wall when the revolution comes. Find him on Twitter or Facebook–if you have a working Internet connection, anyway.

David Daw is an accidental expert in ad-hoc networks since his apartment gets no cell reception. Find him on Twitter or send him a ham radio signal.

January 30, 2011 Posted by | Internet | | Leave a Comment

Egyptian Police Have Opened Fire On Thousands Of Egyptians Outside The Interior Ministry

http://www.businessinsider.com

 

Gus Lubin | Jan. 29, 2011, 8:50 AM
egypt

A dead protester is carried through the crowd

It is nighttime in Egypt and the riots continue for the fifth day.

More than 100 people have been killed in the protests, according to Al-Jazeera. There is also extensive looting and destruction.

President Hosni Mubarak has announced some changes to his cabinet, but no one is impressed.

Previously at 11:59 ET: Clashes between police and protesters at a Cairo prison have left 8 dead, according to Reuters. No prisoners escaped.

Also looters have destroyed several ancient mummies at a Cairo museum, according to Al-Jazeera.

11:00 ET: Mubarak has appointed his first vice-president in decades and a new prime minister. The VP is former spy chief Omar Suleiman and the prime minister is former airforce chief Ahmed Shafiq.

10:37 ET: Protesters are trying to storm the Interior Ministry again.

9:40 ET: At least three protesters have been killed today in Tahrir Square, Al Jazeera reports. Videos show the bloody body of one protester being carried through the crowd. Reporters say this is actually one of the calmest protests in the country.

9:00 ET: It’s 4 PM in Cairo and the curfew has just started. Everyone is ignoring it.

egypt

Today in Cairo

Previously: Police have opened fire on a crowd of thousands that were trying to storm Egypt’s Interior Ministry, Al Jazeera reports.The protesters are gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The army is there too with tanks.

Al-Jazeera correspondents say the horizon is filled with burning buildings from yesterday.

Apparently the protesters were not satisfied by Mubarak’s offer to change his cabinet. The president may need to offer more concrete reform.

Get up to speed on the last four days of riots >

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/egyptian-police-just-opened-fire-on-thousands-of-egyptians-outside-the-interior-ministry-2011-1#ixzz1CT1T0MV5
.

January 29, 2011 Posted by | Middle East, World at War ( not the Game ), World People, World Politics | , , , | Leave a Comment

Losing its Reputation of Invincibility ?

http://www.americanfreepress.net

By Richard Walker

There was a time when the very mention of Mossad, Israel’s premier spy agency, sent shivers through its friends and enemies alike. It had an almost mythical status and its highly trained assassins were the stuff of Hollywood legend. Mossad agents, both men and women, would be parachuted into a country or would arrive on its coastline from a submarine or fishing trawler. Teams providing technical back-up and other logistical support, including vehicles and escape routes, would already be in place.

Kidon, as the agency’s assassins were known, would use guns, knives, chemical weapons or secret means of assassination, which left few forensic traces. They even knew how to conceal a bomb in a target’s phone and activate it with a phone call.

Mossad spies also had a legendary status. Some were sleeper agents for decades, living a lie in other communities and waiting for a phone call or coded letter to activate them.

It has therefore come as a shock to the Israeli public and spy watchers across the globe that Mossad is showing signs it is no longer the invincible agency it was once cracked up to be.

A former British intelligence officer, who spoke to AMERICAN FREE PRESS on condition of anonymity, felt Mossad had fallen into the trap of thinking it was so superior to its enemies that it did not need to worry about them. In this officer’s view, it failed to recognize that Israel has fewer friends across the globe and therefore the Mossad’s mistakes, which might have been glossed over in the past, are now more likely to make headlines.

“Mossad was never going to maintain the level of success it once had because countries it targeted in the past have improved their intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities,” he said. “Mossad has taken on more tasks than it can handle with the assets available to it. There is a finite limit to the number of jobs any agency can handle because training agents for work in the field is a costly, time-consuming job and top-class talent is limited. Few people realize that Israel’s growing dependency on the CIA for running ops in the Middle East is a sign of Mossad’s limitations,” the former intelligence officer explained.

banner_newsletter

The assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai in 2010 was an operation the former intel officer singled out as an example of Mossad’s decline. The 11-person hit team that carried out the Dubai killing was caught on camera and the agents’ identities were compromised.

So, too, was the way they operated, using fake passports and credit cards supplied by private American financial institutions. The operational base used for the hit was located in Europe, not Israel, but even some of the people who ran it are now known to the German authorities.

The former British spy has this to say about the Dubai hit: “It was a disaster and it did a lot of damage to Mossad. Having those operatives on camera and later on an Interpol wanted list means their training was wasted. They are of no further value in the field. For that to happen was proof, if anybody needed it, that Mossad had become sloppy and overconfident.”

There is now evidence Mossad has recently been dealt an even bigger blow by the exposure of 10 of its spies in Iran, where it has been busy running a dirty war with the direct assistance of the CIA and U.S. Special Operations agencies. One element of this undercover war has been the targeted assassinations and abductions of Iranian scientists and other Iranian nuclear experts.

Some of the Mossad-CIA operatives used in Iran were trained at a joint Mossad-CIA facility within an Israeli base close to Herzliya on the Mediterranean Sea coastline. The base is classified within CIA files as one
of a number of U.S. military-intelligence sites in Israel.

The sites have numbers from 51 through 56. Most of the sites contain military and technical equipment to be used in the event of a war with Iran but the one at Herzliya is also reserved for managing combined CIA Mossad operations aimed at Iran.

The Mossad and the CIA appear to have underestimated their Iranian counterparts because it took just one year for Iran’s internal security apparatus to unmask the spy network, which Iran says was involved in killing one of its scientists. Among the spies seized was a young man who admitted he was trained by the Mossad in electronic surveillance and counter surveillance, as well as in techniques for attaching bombs to cars.

Israel did not deny Iran’s claims about the spy network. In the past year, Iranian intelligence has also captured and executed leaders and senior fighters of the Jundallah terror network, which has been used by America and Israel against Iran. [See AFP issue 1/2, 2011 for more.—Ed.]

Much to the displeasure of Mossad and the CIA, Pakistan has begun handing over Jundallah fighters it has captured to the Iranian military, as well.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

January 29, 2011 Posted by | Covert Ops | , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

The US Has Long Supported Egypt’s Dictatorial Leadership

http://dprogram.net

(WashingtonsBlog) – As I wrote Tuesday:

Egypt’s president Mubarak is a yes-man to the U.S., and the fall of the Tunisian and now Egyptian leaders are really the ouster of U.S. puppet regimes in the Middle East.

Indeed, Egypt was for many years the second-biggest recipient of American aid in the Middle East, behind Israel). As leading military publication Janes notes:

Egypt is reliant on US military aid to finance major equipment and this is worth just over 25 per cent of the total defence spend in 2008, US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is fixed at USD1.3 billion annually.

America has also long provided training to Egypt’s army. See this and this.

And as Free Press notes, American companies have helped to maintain Egyptian leaders’ dictatorial powers:

An American company — Boeing-owned Narus of Sunnyvale, CA — has sold Egypt “Deep Packet Inspection” (DPI) equipment that can be used to help the regime track, target and crush political dissent over the Internet and mobile phones.The power to control the Internet and the resulting harm to democracy are so disturbing that the threshold for using DPI must be very high. That’s why, before DPI becomes more widely used around the world and at home, the U.S. government must establish clear and legitimate criteria for preventing the use of such surveillance and control technology.

In addition, Egypt has long tortured prisoners, and the U.S. used extraordinary rendition to fly prisoners to Egypt to be tortured. As Wikipedia notes:

In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, “In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea… ‘What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,’ Scheuer said. ‘It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.’ Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek ‘assurances’ from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was ‘not sure’ if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed.”[30] However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received.[31] He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been “up to U.S. standards.” However, he stated,

This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.[32]

Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat [Egypt's intelligence service].

Vice President Biden’s attempt to defend President Mubarak by saying he’s “not a dictator” is like Nixon saying “I am not a crook.”

And the statement of CNBC’s Erin Burnett to the effect that the U.S. must support Middle Eastern dictators to keep cheap oil flowing doesn’t really help.

Make no mistake … a revolution in Egypt is a refutation of American policy.

And see this.

Source: Washington’s Blog

related news :

The Egyptian Revolution Will not Be Tweeted: A First-Hand Report from Cairo

and

While Egyptians Take To The Streets, Americans Accept Their Enslavement – Paul Craig Roberts

.

January 29, 2011 Posted by | Middle East, World Politics | , , , | Leave a Comment

Confronting David Rockefeller – Sunday Update – James Corbett

http://dprogram.net

Posted by sakerfa on January 27th, 2011

 

(CorbettReport) – January 23rd, 2011 –

See Also:

Rockefeller Confronted in Chile – Matias Rojas on The Corbett Report

 

SOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION:

Rockefeller confronted in Chile:
http://ur1.ca/2zmz0

Matias Rojas on The Corbett Report:
http://ur1.ca/2zmz3

Rockefeller and the FTAA
http://ur1.ca/17hcs

Information on Rockefeller funding of eugenics laboratories
http://ur1.ca/2zmzl

Rockefeller funding of German Nazi eugenics
http://ur1.ca/d1qw

Rockefeller founds the Population Council
http://ur1.ca/2zn05

John D. III appoints the founder of the American Eugenics Society to head the Population council
http://ur1.ca/2zn0k

Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO
http://ur1.ca/2zn0v

Details on WHO vaccines laced with hCG
http://ur1.ca/2zn1a

David Rockefeller speaks about population control
http://ur1.ca/2zn1x

Elite Billionaires meet in Secret
http://ur1.ca/2zn24

David Rockefeller’s obituary for Chairman Mao
http://ur1.ca/2zn2d

Rockefeller confronted by We Are Change
http://ur1.ca/2zn2p

Rockefeller confronted by Sovereign Independent
http://ur1.ca/2zn2w

Special report on Bilderberg 2010 (including Rockefeller confrontation)
http://ur1.ca/2zn39

.

January 27, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, New World Order, World Politics | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Reports of ‘Massacre’ in Suez as Protests in Egypt Move into Third Day

http://www.sott.net

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:10 CST
Print

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story

Egypt protestors 

© Guardian UK

Anti-government protests in Egypt moved into their third day early Thursday, with unconfirmed reports of police “massacres” of civilians in the port city of Suez.

In Cairo, protesters “played cat and mouse with police” into the early hours of Thursday, Reuters reported. Opposition groups reported on their websites that electronic communications had been cut off in the city center, and parts of the city were experiencing blackouts.

The official death toll stood at six over the first two days of protests, but social networks were abuzz with claims of police shooting at protesters, many of those reports focusing on the city of Suez, where protesters torched a government building on Wednesday.

“Security forces are committing heinous massacres and there is zero media coverage,” read an update on the web page of Suez from Egyptian Association for Change – USA, an opposition group that had joined the call for an uprising starting on January 25.

“Government is trying to cover up what happened in city of Suez. Media banned from entry,” read another update. “Reporters from Suez, Al Jazeerah, Dream and Al Mehwar were prohibited from entering Suez to enforce a media blackout on the subject.”

Others reported on the web page that a curfew was placed on the city and police were using “live ammunition.”

Yet another update asserted that communications and electricity in Suez had been completely cut off, something also asserted by the We Are All Khaled Said protest group, which didn’t report a “massacre” but did warn of an impending one.

Suez is completely cut off. Police has been evacuated. Protesters there are very angry. The army is being brought in according to reports. Some sad speculations say that a massive crackdown will take place in Suez on protesters which could end up with a REAL Massacre.

Some 130 people were reportedly injured in clashes between protesters and police in Suez on Wednesday. Officials confirmed that more than 1,000 people have been arrested in protests around the country.

Anti-government protesters appeared to be encouraged by news that Mohamed El-Baradei, a former chief UN weapons inspector and prominent figurehead for Egyptian opposition groups, would be returning to the country amid the protests.

Others noted a significant “shift in tone” in Washington towards the government of President Hosni Mubarak, whom the US has long supported with billions in foreign aid. Reuters reported:

The United States bluntly urged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday to make political reforms in the face of protesters demanding his ouster, in a shift in tone toward an important Arab ally.

In issuing a fresh call for reforms after a day of clashes between Egyptian police and protesters, Washington appeared to be juggling several interests: its desire for stability in a regional ally, its support for democratic principles and its fear of the possible rise of an anti-U.S. Islamist government.

Although Western observers have been cautious thus far not to declare the protests a Tunisia-style uprising, the mood among opposition groups suggested they believe that this is a seminal moment in Egyptian history.

“Egyptians’ desire for freedom has reached the point of no return,” We Are All Khaled Said declared. “Egyptians have said their word. They want change … freedom and justice … There is no coming back. They had their chance.”

“Protesters are being released. They say will not stop. Change has come to Egypt. There is no going back. The people have spoken and their demands must be met,” the Egyptian Association for Change declared.

Journalists Under Attack

The protests in Egypt have taken a particular toll on reporters covering the conflict, with the Committee to Protect Journalists reporting that security personnel beat at least 10 reporters in the first two days of protests.

Egyptian authorities have blocked access to at least two websites of local online newspapers: Al-Dustour and El-Badil, the CPJ stated.

Guardian reporter Jack Schenker described in detail being beaten and arrested by Egyptian security forces.

Other protesters and I were thrown through the doorway, where we had to run a gauntlet of officers beating us with sticks. Inside we were pushed against the wall; our mobiles and wallets were removed. Officers walked up and down ordering us to face the wall and not look back, as more and more protesters were brought in behind us. Anyone who turned round was instantly hit.

An Associated Press cameraman and his assistant were arrested while filming clashes between protesters and police in Cairo on Tuesday, the first day of protests, and had not been released as of this report. 

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the US was putting pressure on Egypt to release the AP staffers. “We have raised this issue already with the ministry of foreign affairs and we will continue to monitor these cases until they are successfully resolved,” he said.

related news :

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat:The Downfall of Mubarak of Egypt

.

January 27, 2011 Posted by | World People | , , , , | Leave a Comment

Will Obama and Friends Forsake “Falk” for Telling the Truth

January 26, 2011 posted by Veterans Today

Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Occupied Palestine, is under fire for writing what is obviously true about the U.S. government and the media. Calls for his firing abound from the usual suspects.

Such commitments to truth as Falk possesses can pose problems for prospective careerists, but the 80-year-old human rights activist and scholar likely doesn’t care all that much about resulting slander.

By Michael Leon

The truth will set you free.

How about the editorial boards of The Nation and The Progressive where Falk has long served? When will the statements of support come out? Falk’s story is an excellent candidate for the Progressive editor Matthew Rothschild’s exellent McCarthyism Watch. [To contact Matt Rothschild about Richard Falk.]

Falk’s lifetime commitment to the truth puts him beyond the reach of McCarthyite slanderers and cowards who see Falk and other human rights activists and truth-tellers as betraying the causethat is, America and Israel right or wrong and don’t make waves. Liars cannot erase a lifetime with one lie. It’s been tried with Helen Thomas and it failed.

So what’s the hubbub that has U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice demanding that Falk step down from his UN position, and saying, “In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the U.N.”? (Reuters, Charbonneau)

Falk’s Blog January 11, 2011 Commentary [Full text posted below]

Turns out Falkhas the temerity to suggest that the mainstream media refused to accept “well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.” (Reuters, Charbonneau)

We thought this was axiomatic. But the American Jewish Committee and various crusaders for truth in the U.S. Congress want Falk fired.

The 9/11 Commission member and staff is composed of the sort of insiders Washington elites wanted on the blue-ribbon committee to prevent accountability and disclosure to the American people 0f what their government knew and when its many agencies knew it.

Remember when George W. Bush made his over-the-top appointment of Henry Kissinger to the 9/11 commission in late November, 2001. (CounterPunch,  December 17, 2002;  Leon) Even then those—like the 9/11 victims’ families—who doubted the would-be chair Kissinger’s commitment to investigate the truth of the events leading up to 9/11 were smeared as conspirators and radicals.

Kissinger’s appointment as chair was withdrawn as too obvious a choice for a cover-up. And Kissinger gave away the store on the Lou Dobbs Moneyline show (CNN, December 16, 2002) in a laugh-a-minute interview excerpted below:

I hope that everybody has his partisanship out of his system now. And that people remember that this [9/11] was an event that was totally unexpected to the American public; that it came from a direction that nobody had ever thought of. And that it was the first attack on the continental United States … . (Dobbs quickly interrupts)

As for Falk, here is his commentary crime:

The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues [of secrecy in government]. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin (and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008). What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.

Did we miss something? What’s the problem here?

Of course, the official 9/11 version of events is a lie. As the great journalist I.F. Stone once wrote: “All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.’

Falk knows this truism about governments; most everyone does. He dare speaks this truth? Thank you, Richard Falk.

Regarding David Ray Griffin, I am going to make a point to read:

.

January 26, 2011 Posted by | 9/11, Anti NWO, Covert Ops, Disinformation | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Egypt Revolution? Video of deadly anti-Mubarak protests in Cairo

January 26, 2011 Posted by | World People, World Politics | , , , | Leave a Comment

Eurozone Break-Up

http://globalfire.tv

http://telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/8215358/Pimco-says-untenable-policies-will-lead-to-eurozone-break-up.html
20 Dec 2010

Greece, Ireland and Portugal cannot get back on their feet without either their own currency

Pimco says ‘untenable’ policies will lead to eurozone break-up

Pimco, the world’s largest bond fund, has called on Greece, Ireland and Portugal to step outside the eurozone temporarily and restructure their debts unless the currency bloc agrees to a radical change of course.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Andrew Bosomworth, head of Pimco’s portfolio management in Europe, said current policies are untenable in the absence of fiscal union and will lead to a break-up of the euro.

“Greece, Ireland and Portugal cannot get back on their feet without either their own currency or large transfer payments,” he told German newspaper Die Welt.

He said these countries could rejoin EMU “after an appropriate debt restructuring”, adding that devaluation would let them export their way back to health.

Mr Bosomworth said EU leaders were too quick to congratulate themselves on saving the euro last week with a deal for a permanent bail-out fund from 2013.

“The euro crisis is not over by a long shot. Market tensions will continue into 2011. The mechanism comes far too late,” he said.

The bond fund argues that the EU strategy of forcing heavily indebted countries to undergo draconian fiscal austerity without offsetting stimulus is unworkable.

The austerity policies are stifling the growth needed to stabilise debt levels.

“Can countries inside a fixed exchange-rate system like the euro grow and tighten budget policy at the same time? I don’t think so. It didn’t work in Argentina,” Mr Bosomworth said.

Pimco also gave warning that the bond vigilantes have lost faith in the policy and are trying to liquidate their holdings of peripheral EMU faster than the European Central Bank (ECB) can buy the debt, causing a relentless rise in yields, and a vicious circle.

Despite this, the ECB said on Monday that it had cut purchases of government debt last week, settling €603m (£509m), down from €2.68bn a week earlier. The withering comments from the world’s top investor in EMU sovereign debt is a blow for Portugal and Spain. Both nations are hoping bond spreads will start to narrow before they face a funding crunch in the first quarter of next year.

Jacques Cailloux, chief Europe economist at RBS, agreed that last week’s European summit had failed to grasp the nettle.

“None of the policy responses put in place in Europe since the start of the crisis provides a credible backstop to prevent further contagion,” Mr Cailloux said.

We remain most concerned about an escalation of the sovereign debt crisis hitting larger economies in the euro area. Markets continue to underestimate the potential disruption via financial transmission channels that such an event could trigger.”

Meanwhile, Spain must cut harder and deeper to rein in its finances, the OECD has warned, calling for an overhaul of its labour laws and employment practices. Madrid is already in the midst of harsh austerity measures, but the influential Paris-based think-tank said more must be done. The Spanish economy should be able to shrink its budget deficit from 11pc of GDP last year to the 6pc target next year, the OECD believes.

.

January 24, 2011 Posted by | World Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Two Heads of the Same Coin, “Elvis Bin Laden” and “Wiki-Israel”

http://dprogram.net

Posted by sakerfa on January 23rd, 2011

(RedactedNews) – In 1977 Elvis Presley, “King of Rock and Roll”, died.  Since his death, sightings of Elvis around the world have numbered in the tens of thousands.  In 2001 Osama bin Laden, CIA asset and critic of Israel’s policies in Palestine, died.  Since his death several video tapes and a string of audio recordings have been attributed to him.

In a sense, bin Laden has become “Elvis bin Laden,” the “King of Terrorism”.  However, unlike the real Elvis, whose musical legacy will live forever, the legacy of “Elvis bin Laden”, the “Al Qaeda” organization and the illusory underground Tora Bora “terror-plex” is only kept alive by the charlatans of the military-industrial complex and their media partners.

NOT ANOTHER PHONY BIN LADEN TAPE…
A new “bin Laden tape,” audio only, reputed to sound “something like bin Laden,” was released today.   Media insiders have, for years now, referred to bin Laden as “Elvis bin Laden,” a name coined by UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave.
“TERROR-PLEX”  BIN LADEN’S “UFO FORTRESS”

YouTube

(link to Veterans Today’s Tim Russert obituary)
“THERE AREN’T ONE OF THOSE, THERE ARE MANY OF THOSE”…Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense
“10 YEARS AND STILL LOOKING…STILL LOOKING…STILL LOOKING…WHAT WE NEED IS RUMSFELD STRAPPED DOWN,  A FLASHLIGHT, A BLOWTORCH AND A PROCTOLOGIST.“…Gordon Duff, Veterans Today

CIA OR CIA AND MOSSAD?

CIA OR CIA AND MOSSAD
You see, across the Islamic world, Osama bin Laden’s obituary was front page news back in 2001.  His “obit” was in the papers then because that was when he died.
In the years since his death, bin Laden, or more correctly “Elvis bin Laden,” has been a busy boy.  The first crude attempts at videos, routinely “found” on the internet by an Israeli group, were laughable.  Actors playing bin Laden were chosen like department store Santas.  Eventually the videos ceased and Elvis bin Laden went “audio cassette only”, but audio experts quickly debunked these as phony also.
The most recent Elvis bin Laden debacle, one those of us in the media have been dreading as we are tired of writing about this trash, has the long dead bin Laden discussing the fate of two French journalists held in Afghanistan.  A few minor inconsistencies are ignored, as is one very major inconsistency, which we will deal with in a moment:
  • The Taliban managed to supply video of the kidnapped journalists, but only audio of Elvis Bin Laden.  Perhaps the physical deterioration of years of decomposition has made him camera shy;
  • The Taliban, warlike, proud Pashtun tribesmen of Afghanistan and Pakistan never accepted bin Laden or any Arab as a leader.  In fact, Arabs are barely tolerated as guests, when they “behave”, and then only because the teachings of the Koran demand it.  They are not held in esteem and are seen by the Taliban as a nuisance.
As “leaders” or “fighters”, Afghan tribesmen look on outsiders as amateurs, something a thousand years of history seems to support quite easily.  In Afghanistan and Pakistan current estimates of Arab strength, a group the US labels as “Al Qaida,” is less than 20.  No Arab, especially not one who has been dead for a decade, would ever be allowed to speak for the Taliban.
THE ASSANGE FACTOR
Elvis bin Laden and Julian Assange of Wikileaks have one very major thing in common, both are very “sensitive” to the needs and feelings of Israel.  Osama bin Laden, when actually alive, continually berated the United States as being controlled by Israel.  The real bin Laden couldn’t order tea without using the word “Zionist”.  The phony bin Laden tapes have a “Wikileaks” aspect to them.
  • They come from Israeli sources
  • They blame America and Arabs for everything
  • They call for attacks on America, implying that Israel’s actions against Palestinians are entirely America’s responsibility.
TWO HEADS OF THE SAME COIN
Elvis bin Laden, like Julian Assange, seems to have a powerful “pro-Israel” filter.  In continual calls for “holy war”, there is always a suspicious absence of calls to actually attack Israel.  Targets are always “America and the West”, even during “Operation Cast Lead”, the Israeli attack on Gaza, which killed thousands of civilians.  Elvis bin Laden, instead of calling for a holy war or “Jihad” against Israel, for some strange reason said the following:
Calling Arab leaders “hypocrites”….. “liberating Jerusalem needed honest Arab leadership….It has become clear that some Arab leaders were complicit with the Crusade Zionist alliance against our people”.
Elvis bin Laden then called the Gaza attacks an “historic event and a tragedy”.   In place of a the murderous Jihad of Osama bin Laden, Elvis bin Laden called for “devoted committee from the Islamic world to establish an advisory body”.
Does blaming Arab leaders have a familiar “Wiki-ring?  Despite Elvis bin Laden’s mention of “Crusader Zionists”, those he holds responsible for Israel’s targeted attack on Gaza schools and hospitals using cluster bombs, depleted uranium and white phosphorous,  all war crimes and crimes against humanity, not a word about Israel.  No, Elvis bin Laden, like Julian Assange, blames Arabs but mostly blames America.
“Crusader-Zionists” are Americans, Evangelical “Christians”, the “Israel-firsters” that Israel lobbies for money, but “throws under a bus” when “blamin’ time” comes.  Elvis bin Laden doesn’t blame Israel nor considers Operation Cast Lead a war crime.  He calls it an “historic event and a tragedy”.  Murder can be an historic event.  Murder can be a tragedy.  Murder, however, is still murder.  Someone needs to remind “Elvis bin Laden” of that.
Our Elvis bin Laden, like Wikileaks Julian Assange, certainly sounds Israeli, but not just Israeli.  Elvis bin Laden never demands attacks on Israel. In fact, he never even suggests that Israel bears any responsibility whatsoever.  To the new guitar playing bin Laden, Zionism is an American problem.
Assange, however, is far more insidious than bin Laden was ever accused of being. He doesn’t just censor things for Israel, but actively plants “leaks” fabricated by Israel as disinformation. This has been both admitted and widely acknowledged.
Assange lives to punish the enemies of Israel’s ultra-nationalist faction.  In America, collecting money for an orphanage, which takes in children whose parents were killed by drone attacks, is considered “material support of terrorism” and makes one subject to immediate rendition.  Under this policy, long deemed “legal” by the United States and Britain, Julian Assange would have been named an “enemy combatant” and taken to Bulgaria, Poland or perhaps Southern Sudan for torture or even a shallow grave.
With him would go every person helping him, his “co-conspirators”, not merely a dozen employees at the New York Times, the Guardian and other papers, but his “special internet friends” as well.  Anyone who can’t see that amongst his “best friends” and co-conspirators the best of all is Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, simply isn’t paying attention.
Much the same, Elvis bin Laden seems to be equally allied with Netanyahu.  If “bin Laden” – albeit a “ghost”, an actors voice on an audio tape or a clownish stooge in Arab “fancy dress” as though going to a masquerade – is considered a terrorist,  isn’t  Israel, indeed Netanyahu himself, to be considered equally complicit?
Consider this.  If bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 why is it that the only terrorists arrested on 9/11 worked for Israel? Five Israelis, dubbed the “dancing Israeli’s for their celebration of joy,  later admitted on live television that they were sent to “document the attack.”  Of course, the more likely scenario is that this Mossad camera crew was there to guide the planes to their targets,  given that they were strategically set up well in advance of the attack, cameras perfectly aligned for either filming the most dramatic footage since Zapruder…
Or were they “painting” the World Trade Center towers with target lasers?  Was it something else?  10 weeks of interrogation and they were shuttled back to Israel while Americans hunted for that other bin Laden, by that time dying, his last CIA paycheck uncashed.
Assange, Elvis bin Laden, custom leaks on demand, bizarre threats from a dead man, all have the same things in common.  They are two heads on the same coin.  Both are Israel.
Assange, now fighting exposure by feinting at attacking Israel, is trying to appear less the Mossad operative by “releasing” stories through selected newspapers and claiming they are secret documents.
Bin Laden, however, remains a mixed bag. His messages are supposedly intended to recruit and inspire real terrorists yet continually advocate only the death of American troops.  The even more ridiculous coincidence, if you consider such things either ridiculous or coincidence, and they are neither, is that the same sources who have been caught passing off Elvis bin Laden as real have also released video of  Americans being killed by snipers or IED attacks.
Whoever is managing the Elvis bin Laden franchise also seems to be murdering Americans and filming that also.  This much is not conjecture.  Murdering Americans seems to be the Assange agenda too. An agenda not of peace nor of “openness”, not even of “freedom of speech” emanates from the “Wikileaks Censorship Bureau.”
Two heads of the same coin.

Source: Redacted News

.

January 23, 2011 Posted by | 9/11, Big Brother, Covert Ops, Disinformation, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Taliban release video alleging to show the damage done to people’s homes by NATO troops.

http://www.uruknet.info

AlJazeera.net

 

22tal-a646b.jpg
Taliban release anti-NATO video

The Taliban has released a video alleging to show the damage done to people’s homes by NATO troops.

January 22, 2011

The Taliban in Afghanistan is taking aim at US and NATO forces, this time through pictures.

It has released a video alleging to show the damage done to people’s homes by NATO troops.

The video’s release comes amid rising criticism of foreign troops, and how they are handling the issue of compensation.

NATO has agreed to reimburse those who suffered during Operation Omaid, a clearing operation for new roads to be laid or mines and bombs to be destroyed.

Al Jazeera’s Sue Turton reports from Kandahar.

.

January 23, 2011 Posted by | World at War ( not the Game ) | , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Clinton unveils U.S. policy on Internet freedom

http://www.voltairenet.org/by Hillary Clinton* 


Newseum [1]
Washington, D.C.
21 January 2011

Thank you very much, Alberto, for not only that kind introduction but your and your colleagues’ leadership of this important institution. It’s a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. The Newseum is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I’m grateful for this opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century.

Although I can’t see all of you because in settings like this, the lights are in my eyes and you are in the dark, I know that there are many friends and former colleagues. I wish to acknowledge Charles Overby, the CEO of Freedom Forum here at the Newseum; Senator Edward Kaufman and Senator Joe Lieberman, my former colleagues in the Senate, both of whom worked for passage of the Voice Act, which speaks to Congress’s and the American people’s commitment to internet freedom, a commitment that crosses party lines and branches of government.

Also, I’m told here as well are Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Ted Kaufman, Representative Loretta Sanchez, many representatives of the Diplomatic Corps, ambassadors, chargés, participants in our International Visitor Leadership Program on internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, and Lebanon, and Moldova. And I also want to acknowledge Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute, recently named to our Broadcasting Board of Governors and, of course, instrumental in supporting the work on internet freedom that the Aspen Institute has been doing.

This is an important speech on a very important subject. But before I begin, I want to just speak briefly about Haiti, because during the last eight days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents for the situation we’re facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response. They were, of course, decimated and in many places totally destroyed. And in the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector; first, to set up the text “HAITI” campaign so that mobile phone users in the United States could donate to relief efforts via text messages. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the American people, and thus far, it’s raised over $25 million for recovery efforts.

Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. When I was with President Preval in Port-au-Prince on Saturday, one of his top priorities was to try to get communication up and going. The government couldn’t talk to each other, what was left of it, and NGOs, our civilian leadership, our military leadership were severely impacted. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help us identify needs and target resources. And on Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an American search-and-rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. Now, these examples are manifestations of a much broader phenomenon.

The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan, the rest of us learn about it in real time – from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the supermarket are connected in ways that were not even imagined a year ago, even a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity today. As we sit here, any of you – or maybe more likely, any of our children – can take out the tools that many carry every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world.

Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

Because amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can either energize a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.

In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. One member of this group, Bassem Samir, who is thankfully no longer in prison, is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and the human welfare of the world’s population.

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. Now, this challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to our Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. Now, at the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day. And years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation, guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty.

So as technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual. And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown a few days later, I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.

There are many other networks in the world. Some aid in the movement of people or resources, and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that’s why we believe it’s critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship.

As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain.

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality. We’ve seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation’s leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening inside their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights, the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice.

Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.

The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not the only one. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune or not commune with their Creator. And that’s one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Today, they may also take place on line.

The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the President said in Cairo, freedom of religion is central to the ability of people to live together. And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out such tremendous promise. We’ve already begun connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool to foster discussion between individuals from different religious communities.

Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year, for example, in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found that the Saudi Government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information.

Now, just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. Now, prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals’ ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life.

There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world, as I’ve said many times, talent may be distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serve as a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist.

Over the last year, I’ve seen this firsthand in Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30 percent since they started using mobile banking technology; in Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect themselves to global markets.

Now, these examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world’s economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the Green Revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. And one World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10 percent increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost 1 percent increase in per capita GDP. To just put this into context, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year.

A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. But that hasn’t happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today. Many of them are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who’ve historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them a freedom from want.

Now, we have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. But make no mistake – some are and will continue to use global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness of our societies to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear.

Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. Now this is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability to bank online, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on the security of our information networks.

Disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by all governments, the private sector, and the international community. We need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks for financial gain. The same is true when social ills such as child pornography and the exploitation of trafficked women and girls online is there for the world to see and for those who exploit these people to make a profit. We applaud efforts such as the Council on Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses. And we wish to redouble our efforts.

We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. We have a lot of people in the State Department working on this. They’ve joined together, and we created two years ago an office to coordinate foreign policy in cyberspace. We’ve worked to address this challenge at the UN and in other multilateral forums and to put cyber security on the world’s agenda. And President Obama has just appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that everyone’s networks stay free, secure, and reliable.

States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an internet-connected world, an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all. And by reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons.

The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about and wrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from the four I’ve already mentioned: the freedom to connect – the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.

The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. The protests were the largest antiterrorist demonstrations in history. And in the weeks that followed, the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade of military action. And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations in all of the country’s 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in protest. So the internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and crime and extremism.

In Iran and Moldova and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results. And even in established democracies like the United States, we’ve seen the power of these tools to change history. Some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential election here. (Laughter.)

The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I was recently moved by the story of a doctor – and I won’t tell you what country he was from – who was desperately trying to diagnose his daughter’s rare medical condition. He consulted with two dozen specialists, but he still didn’t have an answer. But he finally identified the condition, and found a cure, by using an internet search engine. That’s one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in individuals’ lives.

Now, the principles I’ve outlined today will guide our approach in addressing the issue of internet freedom and the use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic, and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country more than America stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples and states. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict and misunderstanding drive nations apart. So we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, including the internet itself, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we need to develop our capacity for what we call, at the State Department, 21st century statecraft.

Realigning our policies and our priorities will not be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect of receiving daily instructions from capitals was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually mastered the telegraph, they are doing the same to harness the potential of these new tools as well.

And I’m proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority at the United Nations as well, and we’re including internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time, with a focus on implementing these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.

We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, to fight climate change and epidemics, to build global support for President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to encourage sustainable economic development that lifts the people at the bottom up.

That’s why today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation.

Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.

In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.

Now, these new initiatives will supplement a great deal of important work we’ve already done over this past year. In the service of our diplomatic and diplomacy objectives, I assembled a talented and experienced team to lead our 21st century statecraft efforts. This team has traveled the world helping governments and groups leverage the benefits of connection technologies. They have stood up a Civil Society 2.0 Initiative to help grassroots organizations enter the digital age. They are putting in place a program in Mexico to help combat drug-related violence by allowing people to make untracked reports to reliable sources to avoid having retribution visited against them. They brought mobile banking to Afghanistan and are now pursuing the same effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Pakistan, they created the first-ever social mobile network, called Our Voice, that has already produced tens of millions of messages and connected young Pakistanis who want to stand up to violent extremism.

In a short span, we have taken significant strides to translate the promise of these technologies into results that make a difference. But there is still so much more to be done. And as we work together with the private sector and foreign governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we have to remember our shared responsibility to safeguard the freedoms that I’ve talked about today. We feel strongly that principles like information freedom aren’t just good policy, not just somehow connected to our national values, but they are universal and they’re also good for business.

To use market terminology, a publicly listed company in Tunisia or Vietnam that operates in an environment of censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. If corporate decision makers don’t have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions over the long term. Countries that censor news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nations are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably impact on growth.

Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.

The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. Now, the United States and China have different views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.

Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.

Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions.

As it stands, Americans can consider information presented by foreign governments. We do not block your attempts to communicate with the people in the United States. But citizens in societies that practice censorship lack exposure to outside views. In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. This lopsided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements could escalate. So I hope that responsible governments with an interest in global stability will work with us to address such imbalances.

For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. It really comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their own personal information. Firms that earn that confidence of those countries and basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the global marketplace. I really believe that those who lose that confidence of their customers will eventually lose customers. No matter where you live, people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be used against them.

And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.

Now, we are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world, and we are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit.

We’re also encouraged by the work that’s being done through the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary effort by technology companies who are working with nongovernmental organizations, academic experts, and social investment funds to respond to government requests for censorship. The initiative goes beyond mere statements of principles and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency. As part of our commitment to support responsible private sector engagement on information freedom, the State Department will be convening a high-level meeting next month co-chaired by Under Secretaries Robert Hormats and Maria Otero to bring together firms that provide network services for talks about internet freedom, because we want to have a partnership in addressing this 21st century challenge.

Now, pursuing the freedoms I’ve talked about today is, I believe, the right thing to do. But I also believe it’s the smart thing to do. By advancing this agenda, we align our principles, our economic goals, and our strategic priorities. We need to work toward a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer together and expands the definition of the global community. Given the magnitude of the challenges we’re facing, we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the global economy, to protect our environment, to defeat violent extremism, and build a future in which every human being can live up to and realize his or her God-given potential.

So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up because these networks took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. No nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries.

So let us recommit ourselves to this cause. Let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over. And let us go forward together to champion these freedoms for our time, for our young people who deserve every opportunity we can give them.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

 Hillary Clinton
Senator (D) for New York (2001-09). US Secretary of State (since 2009)

January 22, 2011 Posted by | Internet | , , , , | Leave a Comment

Zahir Ebrahim: WOW – Israel Shamir Works for Wikileaks!

http://www.veteranstoday.comJanuary 22, 2011 posted by Gordon Duff · 3 Comments

The photograph of Israel Shamir with Julian Assange lifts the fog on Israel Shamir’s bizarre support of Wikileaks! But why did Israel Shamir not disclose his close association with Julian Assange when he called Zahir Ebrahim a ‘denier’? (Image via aangirfan via the Swedish Expressen.se)

WOW: Israel Shamir Works for Wikileaks – And He Did Not Tell Us About This When He Called Us ‘Denier’!

By Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

My response to the unexpected confirmation that ASSANGE & SHAMIR – DISINFORMATION AGENTS?, is reproduced below. This case once again underscores the fact that the beleaguered public, wildly searching for leaders and guidance among the alternate media and the various dissent-chiefs who dominate it, simply cannot trust anyone to be who they claim they are just because they play dissent. See my report Manufacturing Dissent. As also my recent discovery concerning the famous rebel-author on banking reform, Ellen Brown, J.D.!

While dissent-chief extraordinaire, recovering former Israeli Military Occupation Forces Russian-Jewish soldier for Zion, turned Swedish-Christian pacifist-soldier for Jesus, a favorite of many beleaguered Muslims, speaker to many an audience worldwide, Israel Shamir’s bizarredom is cogently explained by this new revelation of his association with Julian Assange, Ellen Brown’s bizarre statements: “Of course the oligarchy is the problem, but that doesn’t mean we can’t steer the Fed. Bernanke drives a Ford Falcon. I think he’s one of us!”, and “the U.S. is the last holdout, and the Fed is what’s holding us out. Bernanke is standing up to the Gnomes of Zurich and Basel”, still remain inexplicable. Are these two secretly friends too?

This explains much to me. Thanks [to blogger writing under the nom de plume aangirfan] for discovering the references that Israel Shamir actually works for Wikileaks!

I was initially very surprised when Israel Shamir, with whom I had corresponded a few times over the years, mentioned my name in one of his articles along with others, and wrote:

‘Theirs are familiar and respected names of the free web: F. William Engdahl, Gordon Duff, Zahir Ebrahim.’

‘They are not to be accused of collaboration with Pentagon and the CIA.’

And then he went on to strangely label me a “denier”:

‘A second denier, young Pakistani intellectual cum American Ivy League graduate Zahir Ebrahim, writes: “The core-lies retained in the Wikileaks’ disclosure is to once again reaffirm that there is a real nemesis called “Osama Bin Laden”, that the “war on terror” is real, that it is being inflicted upon the West from the Pakistan-Iran nexus, in order to re-substantiate the handoff of former President George W. Bush’s clairvoyance to the Obama Administration that “If another September 11 style attack is being planned, it probably is being plotted in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan”!

Zahir makes the same mistake. The files are the reports of what US officials believe or claim to believe. I’d ask Zahir: if you were to get hold of all reports sent from and to Afghanistan, would you censor them to remove ideas and names that are not to your liking? Remember, these are not files from God Almighty, this is the kind of stuff that spooks and soldiers write, and it naturally reflects their view of the world. So it is not “core-lies”, but “core-truth”: US officials express under the stamp of “top secret” the very same views they openly espouse.’

I couldn’t believe this load of crap – he first published it in the article titled “Wikileaks: The Real Stuff” (subsequently also published under other titles I believe), and then forwarded it to me and others mentioned for comment without disclosing that he actually worked for Wikileaks (!!)

While I had him pegged as a disinfo artist immediately, I couldn’t really grasp his motivation.

Why would a stellar dissent-chief coasting on his reputation with a loyal following of sycophant (like all other dissent-chiefs) be so stupid as to believe any of that Wikileaks business when it was all so transparent, and he was supposedly a very learned person with command of this and that, and all that? But Chomsky and Ellsberg believed it too – and I already knew them to be controlled dissent. So, since a man is known by the mantras he echoes, was Israel Shamir too one of them? How did that transpire – for it wasn’t at all obvious from what little I knew of his background. I had in fact met him at Stanford University many years ago when he came there to give a talk, and I had come away rather impressed by the metanoia of this fellow, even mentioning his metanoia in one of my essays.

The fog is lifted here, just by looking at the photograph above!

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

January 19, 2011 Comment for: http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/12/assange-shamir-disinformation-agents.html

.

January 22, 2011 Posted by | Disinformation | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Top Secret America: Expensive, Chaotic and Dangerous

http://www.thenewamerican.com

Written by Bob Adelmann

Wednesday, 22 December 2010 16:00

Last July the Washington Post published a three-part story on “the huge security buildup in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.” This week, the Post published “Monitoring America,” the fourth installment of its “Top Secret America” series, describing security efforts at the local level.

After two years of research, hundreds of interviews, and thousands of hours poring over documents, the Washington Post investigation was unable to determine anything for sure — except, of course, that the security system is massive:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work….

After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is [that] the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

The system now spreads over more than 10,000 locations, employs an estimated 1 million people, and involves 1,300 government organizations and almost 2,000 private companies. And yet, it was virtually helpless in the face of the Fort Hood shooter or the Christmas Day bomber, both of whom had left tracks that had gotten buried under volumes and reams of incoming and irrelevant data.

The study did reveal Top Secret America’s mind-numbingly complex operations. In a moment of candor, retired U. S. Army Lt. General John Vines, who was asked to review just part of the system, exclaimed:

I’m not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities. The complexity of this system defies description.

And the growth of the agencies tasked with keeping the country safe (the mission defined as “defeating transnational violent extremists”) is astonishing. The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency has more than doubled since 2002, the National Security Agency has doubled in size, and the number of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces jumped from 35 to 106. The researchers could provide only rough estimates of the cost of the operation: $40 billion was committed by Congress nine days after the attacks, followed by an additional $36 billion in 2002, $44 billion in 2003 — “and that was only a beginning.” The number of agencies involved in “Top Secret America” (TSA) grew from 24 at the end of 2001, with 37 more being added in 2002, 36 new ones in 2003, and successively larger additions in the following years, for a total, so far, of 263 organizations created in the wake of the attacks. After reviewing the Washington Post’s findings last July, retired Admiral Dennis Blair succinctly summed up the effort: “After 9/11, when we decided to attack violent extremism, we did as we so often do in this country: the attitude was, if it’s worth doing, it’s probably worth overdoing.”

At the end of its study, one was left with the impression of enormous waste, inefficiency, and mind-boggling complexity — all in the name of freedom. As Warren Mass pointed out, the real danger of such a massive intelligence operation was ignored entirely: “the danger posed to our freedom by building [such a] powerful secret intelligence network that’s exempt from Congressional oversight … the only power Congress maintains over them is control of their budgets.”

Thus was laid the groundwork for the next effort at the Washington Post which was published this week: “Monitoring America.” The dangers to individual citizens as a result of Top Secret America are now in full public view. The web of agencies involved in intelligence-gathering has grown to “4,058 federal, state and local organizations, each with its own counterterrorism responsibilities and jurisdictions,” and it now

collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U. S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing. [Emphasis added.]

The Post found that the technologies and techniques which were “honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated into the hands of law enforcement agencies in America. The FBI is building a database with the names and … personal information … of thousands of U. S. citizens and residents whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen believed to be acting suspiciously. (Emphasis added.)

The Post’s findings paint a picture of a country at a crossroads, where long-standing privacy principles are under challenge by these new efforts to keep the nation safe.

As one example, in Memphis the technology now allows police officers to “troll” for suspects through the use of a military-grade infrared camera mounted in the cruiser. The camera moves eerily from side to side, scanning for license plates and then analyzing the results instantly.

Suddenly, a red light flashed on the cruiser’s screen along with the word “warrant.”

“Got a live one!” an officer called out: “Let’s do it!”

The Maricopa, Arizona, County Sheriff’s Facial Recognition Unit uses the same technology provided by L-1 Identity Solutions in war zones to record 9,000 biometric digital mug shots every month. Predator drones fly over the Mexican and Canadian borders, courtesy of the U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, taking pictures with real-time, full-motion video cameras. When quizzed informally about these drones, the senior military official involved in directing military operations in Desert Shield and Desert Storm told the author that these drones “had the capability not only of seeing someone make an ATM withdrawal, but could determine the amount of the withdrawal and the name and address of the individual making the withdrawal.”

And these are just a few examples. Others exist but could be not revealed to the researchers. Memphis Police Department Director Larry Godwin said, “We have got things now that we didn’t have before. Some of them we can talk about. Some of them we can’t.”

There’s fingerprint technology as well. Fingerprints from crime records are entered into the FBI’s data base located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Those fingerprints are stored along with others collected by American authorities from prisoners in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan. As the authors chillingly observed: “There are 96 million sets of fingerprints in Clarksburg, a volume that government officials view not as daunting but as an opportunity.” (Emphasis added.)

Myra Gray, head of the Defense Department’s Biometrics Identity Management Agency, explained that this year, for the first time, the FBI, the DHS and the Defense Department will be able to search each other’s fingerprint databases: “Hopefully, our relationship with these federal agencies — along with state and local agencies will be completely symbiotic.”

And so, despite the enormous amounts of money unceremoniously dropped into the laps of agencies tasked to “defeating transnational violent extremists,” with no concern for or accountability about how that money is being spent, little attention is being paid to the jeopardy faced by innocent citizens who have been targeted for a “suspicious activity,” which the government has defined as “observed behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity.”

Being lost in all these efforts to keep citizens safe is the loss by those citizens of their rights to be “secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

.

January 19, 2011 Posted by | Big Brother, Covert Ops | , , , , | Leave a Comment

They dare not to speak it’s name: Rothschild Zionism – David Icke

http://dprogram.net

Posted by sakerfa on January 17th, 2011

I have written and spoken extensively about the agenda behind the unfolding global financial crisis and here I will expose the coordinating force, or at least the prime one, behind that agenda and so much else, including 9/11.

Most conspiracy researchers either don’t realize the fundamental significance of this network or are too frightened to say so if they do. Sod that.

It is widely known as Zionism or, as I call it, more accurately, I suggest… Rothschild Zionism. I add the ‘Rothschild’ to constantly emphasize the true creators of Zionism and its controllers to this day (see Human Race Get Off Your Knees).

I’ll explain the connection later to the gathering economic catastrophe, but some background is necessary to put it all in the context that it needs to be seen.

Ask most people about Zionism and they will say ‘that’s the Jews’, but while this is the impression the Rothschild networks in politics and the media have sought very successfully to ‘sell’ as ‘common knowledge’, it is not true. It represents only a minority of them and many others who are not Jewish.

Rothschild Zionism in its public expression is a political ideology based on a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine and a belief that the Jews are God’s ‘chosen race’ with a God-given right to the ‘promised land’ of Israel (historically this is nonsense, as I show in my books)

They also believe that the real borders of Israel must encompass what is now Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank still officially owned by the Palestinians, plus Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan, or, as Genesis puts it:

‘… from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates’.

That’s the public expression of Zionism, but at its inner core it is a secret society created and controlled by the House of Rothschild.

They have sought to sell the ‘Zionism-means-all-Jewish-people’ lie so that they can condemn as ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘racists’ anyone who exposes the truth about Rothschild Zionism and its agents in government, banking, business, media, military etc.

This is why most researchers won’t go there even if they are aware enough to know that they should go there. To uncover and expose what is happening in the world we need all the ‘bees’ – brain, backbone, balls – and never more so than now.

Oh yeah, and add consciousness if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole really goes beyond five-sense reality.

Racism is the ultimate ignorance in that it relates ‘self’ to the body instead of the Consciousness – Awareness – animating and experiencing through the body. It is like judging a man by his spacesuit instead of the person inside it.

So racists are ridiculous, juvenile and silly, but no way is the threat of being branded as one (they have already tried and failed) going to stop me exposing what must be exposed if the Control System is to fall.

The world’s most extreme racists are, after all, the Rothschild Zionists, anyway. Israel is an apartheid state every bit as much as were apartheid South Africa and apartheid America.

And by that I don’t only mean the evil that is inflicted upon the Palestinian people minute-by-minute, day-by-day, but also the extraordinarily racist divisions within Jewish society with the black Jews from Ethiopia, for example, treated as little more than vermin.

So let us get past the calculated smokescreen that challenging Rothschild Zionism and the horrors of Israel means you are anti-Jewish and instead look at the simple facts that they don’t want you to know and acknowledge.

Firstly, you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Rothschild Zionist, as US Vice-President, Joe Biden, publicly said while arse-licking his masters in Tel Aviv (ultimately his masters at Chateau Rothschild).

Some of the most vehement Rothschild Zionists are the Christian Zionists in the United States and elsewhere, led most vocally by their ‘spiritual’ leader, John C. Hagee. Think of the worst kind of extreme Bible-bashing hypocrite and you’ve got him to a tee.

Hagee is the founder and National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel, he’s a regular visitor to Israel and has met every prime minister since Menachem Begin.

Hagee – the voice, though not brain, of the Christian Zionists.

His John Hagee Ministries has given more than $8.5 million to relocate Jews from the former Soviet Union to Israel and he is the founder and Executive Director of an event called ‘A Night to Honor Israel’, which pledges solidarity between Christians and the State of Israel.

See the story later in this exposé headed ‘GOD-TV Erase Israeli Bedouin Village to Bring Jesus’ Second Coming’ to appreciate the extreme and heartless way the non-Jewish Christian Zionists support the official Zionists – Rothschild Zionists.

By contrast, a large number of Jewish people are not Zionists, some even vehemently oppose it and support the Palestinians in their battle for survival against the onslaught of genocide from the Israel government and military funded by the United States.

Jewish people organize protests and call for boycotts of Israel in response to the Rothschild Zionist agenda for the Palestinians and yet how many people know that who glean their ‘information’ from the mainstream media?

How many people know, as portrayed in this picture, that many religious Jews abhor the demands by the Rothschild Zionists for a US attack on Iran and have had warm meetings with Iran’s President Ahmedinejad to give their support?

No one who only gets their ‘news’ from the Rothschild-Zionist-controlled mainstream media would know any of this because they push only one line – Zionism means all Jewish people, end of story.

But anyone who thinks that is true should read the article by Jewish musician and writer, Gilad Atzmon, later in this package, headed ‘How Israeli leaders kill for their people’s votes‘.

The Rothschilds have a network of organisations, including B’nai B’rith and its offshoot, the Anti Defamation League (ADL), that work with other Rothschild- controlled groups to target anyone who gets close to seeing the elephant in the living room and exposing it for all to see.

They attack and undermine them in every way they can to stop the simple and devastating truth coming to light – that the Rothschild Zionists control,

  • the mainstream media
  • Hollywood and the movie industry
  • governments, not least in the United States
  • crucially in the light of current events, they control global finance and commerce

I am going to take you through the personnel of the Obama administration that ‘he’ appointed after his election in late 2008 to give you an idea of how the very few dictate to the very many via the Rothschild networks.

Remember as we go through the names that only 1.7% of the population of the United States is Jewish and significant numbers of those will not be Rothschild Zionists.

Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel (Rothschild Zionist) to be his White House Chief of Staff (handler).

Emanuel, who has served in the Israeli army, is the son of a former operative with the Irgun terrorist group that helped to bomb Israel into existence in 1948 and cause some 800,000 Palestinians to flee their homeland in terror.

(Many Israelis connected to the Rothschild networks were sent to the United States after the State of Israel was established to specifically produce children who would be American-born citizens to infiltrate the US government system in the following generations.)

Obama’s White House Senior Advisor (handler) is David Axelrod (Rothschild Zionist), a close associate of Emanuel and the man who ran Obama’s ‘change you can believe in’ election campaigns against Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Axelrod now oversees the words on the teleprompter screens to which Obama is welded for even the most minor announcement. Axelrod, like Emanuel, is the product of the Rothschild Zionist ‘political’ Mafia that controls Chicago where Rahm Emanuel is now running for mayor.

One of Obama’s chief funders and controllers is the Rothschild Zionist agent, George Soros, the multi-billionaire financial speculator and manipulator of countries, not least in the former Soviet Union.

Obama appointed a stream of Rothschild Zionist ‘advisors’ and ‘czars’ in various subject areas, including infamous Rothschild Zionist agent, Henry Kissinger, and one, Cass Sunstein, ‘Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’, has called for ‘conspiracy theories’ to either be banned or taxed.

This is another Rothschild goal – to ban any view or research that exposes the Rothschild agenda.

Sunstein (Rothschild Zionist) says the opinion that ‘global warming’ is a manipulated hoax could be an example of what should be banned or taxed (see banned), and so how appropriate that Obama appointed Carol Browner (Rothschild Zionist) and Todd Stern (Rothschild Zionist) to take charge of his ‘global warming’/’climate change’ policies.

Rothschild Zionists Browner and Stern – on message.

And so to the economy…

The key economic post in the United States is the head, or chairman, of the Federal Reserve, the privately-owned and Rothschild-controlled cartel of banks that hilariously call themselves collectively the ‘central bank of America’.

A national central bank should be answerable to the people, otherwise it’s just another private bank lending the government ‘money’ which the population has to repay, plus interest.

The latter describes the US Federal Reserve, which, as the saying goes, is no more Federal than the Rothschild-controlled Federal Express. The ‘Fed’ prints money for literally cents on the dollar and then ‘lends’ it to the government at interest and for profit.

What a great scam if you can get away with it and because the Rothschild networks control the government and media as well as the Federal Reserve banks – they have.

We can pick up the ‘Fed’ story with the appointment of Paul Adolph Volcker to head the Fed during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan (in truth George Bush senior).

Volcker was a former vice president and director of planning with the Rockefeller (Rothschild)-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and left the Fed in 1987 to become chairman of the New York investment banking firm, J. Rothschild, Wolfensohn & Co., run by James D. Wolfensohn (Rothschild Zionist), who later became president of the World Bank.

Next in line at the Federal Reserve was ‘Mr Big’, Alan Greenspan (Rothschild Zionist), a practicing Satanist according to some who say they have attended rituals with him.

Greenspan was ‘appointed’ by President Reagan (presidents don’t ‘appoint’ Fed chiefs, they are told who it is going to be) and he remained head of the Fed and thus American economic policy through all the Clinton years and most of Boy Bush before stepping down in early 2006.

In that time he oversaw the systematic dismantling of financial regulation that allowed greed and corruption to run riot and in the same period that vicious and despicable duo, Tony Blair and his Chancellor and later successor, Gordon Brown, were doing the same in Britain.

Greenspan received unquestioning support for this policy from Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretaries, Robert E. Rubin (Rothschild Zionist), former co-chairman of the Rothschild-controlled Goldman Sachs, and Larry Summers (Rothschild Zionist), former Chief Economist at the World Bank.

Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in this same period and Senior Economist and Senior Adviser on the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration was Peter Orszag (Rothschild Zionist).

Another Greenspan supporter of deregulation was Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist), the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful in the Federal Reserve cartel.

Without the collective demolition of financial checks and balances by this cabal of Rothschild Zionists there would not have been the crash of September 2008 with its catastrophic consequences for billions worldwide.

But when Barack Obama became US President a few months later, who was in the ‘economic team’ that he ‘appointed’ to ‘sort out the mess’? Er, the very ones who created it and it was all done from a White House controlled by Rahm Emanuel (Rothschild Zionist) and David Axelrod (Rothschild Zionist).

Geithner speaks

‘I don’t know where the money’s gone – who cares?’

Obama made Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist) his Treasury Secretary – Obama’s mother worked for Geithner’s father, Peter F. Geithner (Rothschild Zionist), the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York.

Larry Summers (Rothschild Zionist) was appointed director of the White House National Economic Council, and Paul Adolph Volcker, business partner of the Rothschilds, was made Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

The gang that trashed the town was now back in town to trash it even more and you’ll never guess… they decided that the only way to save an economy brought to its knees by their collective actions and the banking system they represent was to, well, no, surely not… hand trillions of taxpayer-borrowed dollars to the Rothschild-controlled banks and insurance companies like CitiGroup (advised to disaster by Rothschild Zionist Robert E. Rubin, see above), J. P. Morgan, AIG and a long list of others.

Overseeing this and all other American government spending was Obama’s Budget Director, the already-mentioned, Peter Orszag (Rothschild Zionist), who worked closely with Rahm Emanuel (Rothschild Zionist) to impose the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has devastated American industry in line with Rothschild policy.

Summers, Orszag and Geithner: used car anyone?
Summers resigned in late 2010 and at the time of writing the favorites to replace him

are Roger Altman (Rothschild Zionist) and Gene Sperling (Rothschild Zionist).
Peter Orszag was the founder and president of the economic consultancy firm which advised the Central Bank of Iceland in the period before it went bankrupt and he advised the Russian Ministry of Finance when the country’s resource assets were being given to Rothschild Zionist oligarchs like Chelsea football club owner, Roman Abramovich, who became instant billionaires.

Orszag resigned as Budget Director in July this year with his job done, but, no matter, Obama announced that Jacob Lew (Rothschild Zionist), an under-secretary of state to Hillary Clinton, would take over and resume the same post he held under Bill Clinton.

By the time the brown stuff hit the spinning wheel in September 2008, Alan Greenspan (Rothschild Zionist) had stepped down from the Fed before the crash he knew was coming. But, once again, no matter. He was replaced by Bernard Bernanke (Rothschild Zionist) who printed even more money (at interest to the taxpayer) to hand to his Rothschild Zionist mates in Wall Street.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist), who has been centrally involved in handing trillions of dollars of public money to his banking associates with no strings attached, asked the opinion of a private international Rothschild Zionist ‘law firm’ called Squire, Sanders & Dempsey to see if American states could, as some requested, legally use bail-out money or TARP – the Troubled Asset Relief Program – to support the legal bills of people trying to protect their homes from foreclosure by the bailed out banking system.

The privately-owned Rothschild Zionist Squire, Sanders & Dempsey said ‘no’ and so Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist) said the money could not be used to protect the public who had bailed out the banks from foreclosure by those same banks.

David Millstone, a very active Rothschild Zionist, partner at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

and regional chairman of the Anti-Defamation League’s international affairs committee.

His firm says that public money can go to the Rothschild Zionist banks, but not to the innocent victims of the banks.

And while all this has been going on, these have been the heads of the major international financial institutions with the power to impose global economic policies:

The President of the World Bank is Robert Zoellick (Rothschild Zionist), a big-time Boy Bush administration insider who was a fervent advocate of invading Iraq long before even 9/11.

Zoellick took over at the World Bank from the disgraced Paul Wolfowitz (Rothschild Zionist), another orchestrator of the Iraq invasion as Deputy Defence Secretary.

The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Rothschild Zionist), the French politician who is expected to run to replace President Nicolas Sarkozy (Rothschild Zionist) at the next election.

The head of the European Central Bank (ECB) is Jean-Claude Trichet (Rothschild Zionist), another Frenchman who took over in 2003 following his acquittal in a trial over ‘financial irregularities’ at Crédit Lyonnais, one of France’s biggest banks.

Anyone think, given these facts, that the Rothschilds could control global finance and could possibly, oh just a little bit, have orchestrated the crash of 2008 and what has followed??

At the heart of the ‘bail out’ of Ireland (the bail out of Irish banks and the elite investors, like the Rothschilds, by the people of Ireland) were Jean-Claude Trichet (Rothschild Zionist) at the European Central Bank and Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Rothschild Zionist) at the IMF.

And the banks that caused the crash to which the Rothschild Zionists in power are ‘responding’ for their benefit are also invariably controlled, directly or ultimately, by Rothschild Zionists.

These include Goldman Sachs headed by Lloyd Blankfein (Rothschild Zionist) and created by Rothschild Zionists Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs who came, like so many of these people, from families that settled in America from the country where the name Rothschild originated – Germany.

Even more specifically, the German region of Bavaria comes up again and again – the home of the infamous Bavarian Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt (who today I would be call a Rothschild Zionist). The Pope and Henry Kissinger are just two examples of ‘born in Bavaria’.

Goldman Sachs was fundamentally responsible for the crash of 2008, but by that time its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Henry ‘Hank’ Paulson, had been installed as US Treasury Secretary to begin the bank bail out policy, with enormous benefit to Goldman Sachs, in the closing weeks of the Bush administration.

Goldman Sachs was also instrumental in the collapse of the economy in Greece that started the ‘Euro panic’ that later engulfed Ireland.

The symmetry is called Rothschild Zionism

They have the whole thing stitched up because the Rothschild Zionist secret society network have their agents in governments, the banking system, including the international institutions like the IMF, and control the reporting of their activities through ownership of the mainstream media.

As a result, if it is happening economically and politically, it’s because the Rothschilds want it that way – be it in banking, stock markets, commodity markets, currency valuation, the price of gold, the lot.

The world of finance is dictated by ‘investor confidence’ and who controls that?

Those who have the power to control the media, government and central bank financial statements and have the financial resources to move trillions around the financial markets every day. In other words, the Rothschilds and their lackeys.

Rothschild Zionism is an elite secret society at its rotten core and the people I am naming here and so many more are not agents of Jewish people as a whole, but agents of the secret society that has mercilessly manipulated the Jewish population for centuries to advance its goals.

It is impossible to become President of the United States without support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a massive Rothschild Zionist lobby group currently headed by Obama friend and funder, Lee Rosenberg.

It is also very difficult to hold high office of any kind if AIPAC doesn’t approve and a real struggle to even become a member of Congress or the Senate if AIPAC is against you.

As former BBC and Independent Television News correspondent, Alan Hart, wrote in Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews:

‘Jewish people make up less than two per cent of the American population, but account for 50 per cent of the political campaign contributions.’

And that 50 percent is overwhelmingly made up of a few Rothschild Zionists and is not in the least representative of half the Jewish population.

American political leaders may disagree on this and that, here and there,

but on one thing they are all agreed …

As I write, the Rothschild Zionist-owned New York Times and Washington Post have been urging people to reject the left and the right and support ‘centrist’ politicians – the alleged ‘centrists’ and ‘moderates’ are often the most extreme of them all and need their ‘centre’ image to hide that.

Barack Obama made claims to be a ‘centrist’ and so did Tony Blair.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman (Rothschild Zionist) endorsed two attempts he said were underway to create a new ‘centre party’ in the United States and the Washington Post reported that a new grouping, known as ‘No Labels’, had been formed to occupy the ‘centre ground’ of American politics (they did the same in Britain with the creation of the Liberal Democrats who are now in an extremist coalition government with the ‘right-wing’ Conservative Party).

It turns out that a major funder of ‘No Labels’ is the Rothschild Zionist billionaire, James Tisch, the founding chairman of the Jewish Leadership Forum, executive committee member of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and a president of the Jewish Communal Fund.

He is also a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, headed until 2008 by Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner (Rothschild Zionist). Yes, how very ‘moderate’ and ‘centrist’ you must be, Mr. Tisch.

The Tisch family, one of the wealthiest in America, took control of the CBS empire in 1986 with the intention, they said, to promote the interests of Israel.

Two founders of No Labels, the Washington Post revealed, were David Frum (Rothschild Zionist), the ‘Axis of Evil’ speechwriter for Boy George Bush, and William Galston, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, who is close to the Rothschild Zionist Zilkha family, founders of Mothercare.

Galston holds the Ezra Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies at the Rothschild Zionist ‘think tank’, the Brookings Institution.

No Labels is also supported by one of its ‘Citizen Leaders’, Kenneth R. Weinstein, CEO of the Rothschild Zionist ‘think-tank’, the Hudson Institute, founded by Herman Kahn (Rothschild Zionist), one of the inspirations for Stanley Kubrick’s character, Dr. Strangelove.

The Hudson Institute and the Brookings Institution are major strands in the Rothschild ‘think tank’ network worldwide.

The aim of No Labels is to target anyone who is ‘partisan’ in their political views (challenges the manipulated ‘consensus’) and thus force them into the ‘centre ground’ – those who support the Rothschild agenda. You can see this for yourself at http://nolabels.org/.

No Labels is just another Rothschild Zionist extremist organization masquerading as the moderate, ‘sensible’ centre – the wolf in sheep’s clothing technique that the Rothschilds employ to great effect.

In Britain and so many other countries around the world we have the same tail wagging the dog. The British version of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the Friends of Israel network in every major party.

One investigation discovered that 80-per-cent of Members of Parliament in the now ruling Conservative Party are members of the Friends of Israel – which has the stated goal of supporting anything that is good for Israel (the Rothschilds who own Israel).

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is a Rothschild Zionist and so is the leader of the Labour ‘opposition’, Ed Milliband, who got the job after a campaign in which his brother, David Miliband (Rothschild Zionist), was the other major candidate.

This in a country where the Jewish population (with many not Rothschild Zionists) is around 280,000 in a national population of 62 million.

The key manipulating force in the previous UK governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was Peter Mandelson (Rothschild Zionist), who flaunts his close connections to the Rothschilds with holidays at their mansion on the Greek island of Corfu.

Lap dog Mandelson, on the right,

with his owner, Jacob Rothschild. Wuff, wuff, Peter.

The Rothschilds controlled Blair as they controlled Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and this was the connection that led to Blair going into wars in support of both presidents who were being urged on by Israel (the Rothschilds).

It was the Rothschild network that orchestrated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the War of Terror and its justification, September 11th.
9/11 – The Rothschild Zionist Connection

The lease of the twin towers at the World Trade Center was bought just weeks before September 11th by businessmen, Larry Silverstein (Rothschild Zionist) and Frank Lowy (Rothschild Zionist), who both have very close links to Israeli leaders, including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said that what happened on 9/11 was ‘good for Israel’.

The World Trade Center deal was struck with Lewis Eisenberg (Rothschild Zionist), the head of the New York Port Authority, vice president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and a former partner at the Rothschild-controlled Goldman Sachs.

Eisenberg is also close to the Israel leadership.

The man pictured here who lobbied heavily for the New York Port Authority to sell the lease into private hands was Ronald S. Lauder (Rothschild Zionist) from the Estée Lauder cosmetics family.

He is involved with a stream of Rothschild Zionist organizations, including the Jewish National Fund, World Jewish Congress, American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Anti-Defamation League.

Buying the World Trade Center lease was a terrible business deal for Silverstein and Lowy because the towers were known as the ‘white elephants’ given the state they were in and the fantastic amount of asbestos that needed to be dealt with.

Asked why he had bought the lease Silverstein said:

‘I felt a compelling urge to own them’.

I bet he did.

When the deal was done Silverstein and co massively increased the insurance for a ‘terrorist attack’ and were awarded $4.55 billion after the towers were hit. The lease had cost $3.2 billion and Silverstein reportedly only invested $14 million of his own money.

The judge who oversaw the litigation between Silverstein and the insurance companies was Michael B. Mukasey (Rothschild Zionist) who later became US Attorney General.

‘Lucky Larry’.

Silverstein and Lowy had originally been outbid by $50 million for the World Trade Center lease by a company called Vornado, whose chief shareholder was the Jewish businessman, Bernard Mendik.

He was Silverstein’s former brother-in-law and they had fallen out big time after his divorce from Silverstein’s sister.

Then Vornado, despite having the best bid, ‘suddenly changed their minds’ and ‘suddenly pulled out’ leaving the field free for Silverstein and Lowy. No wonder they call him ‘Lucky Larry’.

Weeks after Silverstein and Lowy presented their final bid for the WTC, Vornado’s Bernard Mendik died after becoming ‘suddenly ill’. So many ‘suddenlys’.

Silverstein had breakfast every morning with his children in the Windows on the World Restaurant, more than 100 floors up in the North Tower, but none of them showed on 9/11. Silverstein said he had a last minute ‘dermatologist appointment’ when in truth, as one his bodyguards has said privately, he had a phone call in his car telling him to stay away from the World Trade Center that morning.

He then got on his car phone to tell his children.

‘Where’s Larry today?’

It was Silverstein who said in a television interview (which he now deeply regrets) that when another of his buildings in the World Trade Center complex, Building Seven or the Salomon Brothers Building, was on fire the decision was made to ‘pull it’ – the classic term for a controlled demolition.

Soon after this decision, the building, which had not been hit by a plane, did indeed come down in a controlled demolition.

The problem with Silverstein’s story is that it can take weeks to place the charges in a building like the 47-storey Building Seven to make it collapse in on itself as it did.

How could the decision be made to ‘pull it’ and then down it comes?

Building Seven collapsed perfectly onto the land on which it stood – and that

could only happen with a controlled demolition.

The charges were planted long before the official decision was made to ‘pull it’ and the whole 9/11 scenario unfolded from a pre-planned script.

The BBC announced on live television that Building Seven had collapsed half-an-hour before it actually did because the authorities released the ‘news’ too early. Security at the World Trade Center was the responsibility of the Rothschild Zionist- owned Kroll Associates which has close links to the CIA and Mossad.

Security at all three airports involved on 9/11 was run by ICTS International/Huntsleigh USA, companies owned by Rothschild Zionists, Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon, and dominated by ‘former’ agents of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service and counter-intelligence agency that handles security for the Israeli airline, EL AL.

Rothschild Zionist-owned ICTS was also responsible for security at the Paris airport where the alleged ‘shoe bomber’, Richard Reid, boarded his plane to the United States and ICTS was providing the ‘security’ at Amsterdam airport when the underpants bomber boarded his flight after paying cash for a high-priced last-minute ticket, boarded without checked baggage and, reportedly, even a passport.

As a result, travelers are now being radiated in full-body scanners, of which more in a moment.

The CIA at the time of 9/11 was headed by George Tenet (Rothschild Zionist) and the ‘investigation’ into the attacks was overseen by Assistant Attorney General, Michael Chertoff (Rothschild Zionist), the son of an agent with the Israeli (Rothschild) enforcement agency, Mossad.

Chertoff co-authored the notorious Patriot Act which deleted basic rights and freedoms on the justification of 9/11 (Problem-Reaction-Solution) and then became the second head of Homeland Security, an organization also created on the back of 9/11.

Chertoff now runs his own company, the Chertoff Group, a ‘risk management and security consulting firm’, which employs several senior colleagues from Homeland Security and also Michael Hayden, a former Director of the National Security Agency and the CIA.

Chertoff was all over the TV networks after the engineered ‘underpants bomber’ incident urging the government to introduce full body radiation scanners, which they then did. They are produced by one of the Chertoff Group clients, Rapiscan Systems.

The underpants bomber (well, more the burn-his-own-arse ‘bomber’) was, as I’ve said, allowed onto the plane despite a string of red flags, and apparently no passport, through a ‘security’ system operated by the Rothschild Zionist, ICTS.

The Pentagon at the time of 9/11 was controlled by people like Paul Wolfowitz (Rothschild Zionist), the Deputy Defence Secretary who went on to head the World Bank; and Dov Zakheim (Rothschild Zionist), a dual Israeli/American citizen and the Pentagon Comptroller who managed to ‘lose’ trillions from the Pentagon budget - a fact that was announced on September 10th, 2001.

Anyone wonder why this announcement was not widely reported? Did something happen the next day then? It had to be a coincidence, surely, they couldn’t have known what was coming, could they??

Zakheim also wrongly classified squads of US F16 and F15 fighters as military surplus so they could be sold to Israel at a knock-down price (and bought with American ‘aid’ money, anyway).

This and other military sales (often gifts) means that Israel, with a population of just seven and a half million, has one of the biggest air forces on the planet.

With love from Dov.

The Bush administration was famously controlled at the time of the September 11th attacks by the so-called ‘neocons’ or neoconservatives.

These were led by a cabal of Rothschild Zionists like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Robert Kagan, Douglas Feith, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, the disbarred American attorney and convicted felon who was former ‘advisor’ to Dick Cheney, and William Kristol, editor of the Rothschild Zionist neocon propaganda sheet, the Weekly Standard, owned at the time by Rupert Murdoch (Rothschild Zionist).

Oh yes, and this gang also included Robert Zoellick, now head of the World Bank, who took over in that post from his neocon and Rothschild Zionist colleague, Paul Wolfowitz.

I repeat – Jewish people make up only 1.7% of the American population and many of those are not Rothschild Zionists.

The ratio to positions of power is simply fantastic and I am only highlighting here what you might call a ‘headline list’. It goes much, much deeper – see for instance this list of Rothschild Zionists controlling ostensibly non-Jewish organizations…

The neocon leadership wrote to Bill Clinton urging him to attack Iraq before 9/11 and they then went into overdrive to advocate the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after the World Trade Center attacks under Bush.

Interestingly, these same Rothschild Zionists, along with puppet Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney, both vehement supporters of Israel, launched a ‘think tank’ before Bush came to office called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

In September 2000, this organization published a document called Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century in which they called for American forces to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars’ with emphasis on places like Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

But the document said that this,

‘…process of transformation… is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor’ to justify it to the people.

One year to the month after that document was published and nine months after most of these Rothschild Zionists came to power in the Bush administration, America did indeed have ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ which was then used to justify the agenda laid out in the document.

Coincidence? Of course not.

The Bush State of the Union address in 2002 which called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the ‘axis of evil’ was written by the neocon, David Frum (Rothschild Zionist), now supporting the Rothschild Zionist front, No Labels, and was straight from the pages of the Project for the New American Century document.

The official 9/11 Commission ‘investigation’ into what happened that day was only forced upon Bush and Cheney kicking and screaming and the man they first appointed to head the Commission was Henry Kissinger (Rothschild Zionist).

This was so ludicrous and incredible that he resigned, citing ‘conflicts of interest’, which had never stopped him before.

But the ‘investigation’ and the final report was still overseen by Phillip Zelikow (Rothschild Zionist) and it decided that the official story was basically true after failing to interview or quote key witnesses that gave another version of events.

Phillip Zelikow

‘You mean it was supposed to be open, thorough and tell the truth? Henry didn’t mention that.’

The federal judge assigned to deal with all wrongful death and personal injury cases filed by the families of those who died on September 11th was Alvin K. Hellerstein (Rothschild Zionist) who has major family ties to Israel.

Attorney Kenneth Feinberg (Rothschild Zionist) oversaw the 9/11 victim’s compensation fund and 97 per cent of the families were persuaded to take the money in exchange for not pressing for an independent investigation of the September 11th atrocities.

Those that did demand an investigation or rejected the limitations of the compensation fund were dealt with through a ‘special mediator’, Sheila Birnbaum (Rothschild Zionist).

Feinberg (Rothschild Zionist) went on to become the ‘Special Master’ for TARP Executive Compensation related to the bank bail outs, and is currently the government-appointed administrator of the compensation fund for victims of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Kenneth Feinberg (Rothschild Zionist) – busy life.

Then there is the story of the five ‘dancing Israelis’ who were arrested after police received several calls from New Jersey residents outraged that ‘middle-eastern’ men were high-fiveing, whooping and cheering as they videotaped the burning Twin Towers.

‘They were like happy, you know … They didn’t look shocked to me’, one witness said.

Police and FBI officers reportedly discovered maps of New York in the Israelis’ white van with locations highlighted, and also $4,700 in cash hidden in a sock, foreign passports, and box cutters of the type alleged to have been used by the ‘Arab hijackers’.

It was further reported that sniffer dogs found traces of explosives in the van, which belonged to a Mossad front company called Urban Moving Systems owned by Israeli Dominick Suter (Rothschild Zionist), who dropped everything (literally judging by the haste the office was evacuated) and fled back to Israel immediately after the attacks.

The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, said the FBI found that at least two of the five arrested Israelis were Mossad agents and that Urban Moving Systems was a Mossad front operation.

The five were held for 71 days, but then released without charge and allowed to return to Israel where three of them appeared on television to say that,

‘our purpose was to document the event’.

Yes, an event they knew was going to happen.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College, has said publicly says that US military leaders now know that Israel ‘and those traitors within our nation’ were responsible for the 9/11 attacks (see here).

Three of the ‘dancing Israelis’ on Israel television.

Since September 11th we have been subjected to a series of ‘Bin Laden’ videos and other ‘information’ promoting fear of Arab terrorism from two organizations called IntelCenter and S.I.T.E., or the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute (so long as they are not from Israel).

IntelCenter is headed by Ben Venzke (Rothschild Zionist) and S.I.T.E was co- founded by Rita Katz (Rothschild Zionist).

In an article headed, Is Israel Controlling Phony Terror News?, writers Gordon Duff and Brian Jobert ask some key questions:

‘Who says Al Qaeda takes credit for a bombing? Rita Katz. Who gets us bin Laden tapes? Rita Katz. Who gets us pretty much all information telling us Muslims are bad? Rita Katz? Rita Katz is the Director of Site Intelligence, primary source for intelligence used by news services, Homeland Security, the FBI and CIA.

What is her qualification? She served in the Israeli Defense Force. She has a college degree and most investigative journalists believe the Mossad “helps” her with her information. We find no evidence of any qualification whatsoever of any kind. A bartender has more intelligence gathering experience.

Nobody verifies her claims. SITE says Al Qaeda did it, it hits the papers. SITE says Israel didn’t do it, that hits the papers too. What does SITE really do? They check the internet for “information,” almost invariably information that Israel wants reported and it is sold as news, seen on American TV, reported in our papers and passed around the internet almost as though it were actually true. Amazing.’

But not quite so amazing if you have read this far and seen the extent to which the Rothschild Zionist secret society networks control and manipulate world events.

Rothschild Zionists Katz and Venzke provide ‘intelligence’ and Bin Laden videos for ‘security’ agencies and the media, and Adam Gadahn, pictured at the top here, is an alleged spokesman for ‘Al Qaeda’ who releases videos of himself supporting terrorism. His name is on the FBI ‘most wanted’ terrorist list.

How strange then that ‘Adam Gadahn’ turns out to be a Jewish man called Adam Pearlman, grandson of Carl Pearlman, who served on the Board of the rabid Rothschild Zionist Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

The Chairman of the US Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is Senator Joseph Lieberman (Rothschild Zionist) who, like the Rothschild cesspit in general, is desperate to use the ‘threat of terrorism’ to censor the Internet to block the truth from coming out.

Rothschild Zionists have kept exposure from the door, up to now, through ownership of the mainstream media.

Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, wrote:

‘The Jews [Rothschild Zionists] do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge.’

Not only in America, either, and not only the ‘news’ media of Rothschild Zionist moguls like Rupert Murdoch.

The Los Angeles Times columnist, Joel Stein (Rothschild Zionist), wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don’t think Jews (Rothschild Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain ‘dumb’:

‘I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew!… As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.’

I emphasize again that we are not talking here about ‘the Jews’ owning the media, Hollywood, politics, banking and big business, but a tiny clique answering ultimately to the secret society that I call Rothschild Zionism.

The mass of Jewish people have been mercilessly used and abused by the Rothschild networks that don’t give a damn about them. They are not pursuing what is best for Jewish people as a whole, but what suits the Rothschild conspiracy for global domination on behalf of their hidden masters.

The Rothschilds and their Zionist secret society web control American government policy on Israel and everything else – and it’s the same in Britain and country after country, including France, Germany (of course), Italy, Belgium and the European Union, which was a Rothschild creation from the start.

Obama’s first major speech on the Middle East in 2008 was, according to the Wall Street Journal, written for him by James Steinberg (Rothschild Zionist), Daniel Kurtzer (Rothschild Zionist) and Dennis Ross (Rothschild Zionist).

It was delivered to the Rothschild Zionist lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Any chance of it being biased against the Palestinians, do you think?

The man appointed to oversee the war in Afghanistan and the targeting of Pakistan was Richard Holbrooke (Rothschild Zionist), Obama’s ‘Special Representative’ for Afghanistan and Pakistan who died in December 2010.

Holbrooke served the Rothschild Zionist cabal in positions of ‘diplomacy’ from the Vietnam war to the conflict in Afghanistan, taking in posts as a special envoy to the Balkans before and during the war in the former Yugoslavia; as United Nations Ambassador; as the man given responsibility for selling the Aids agenda, and so much more.

It is the Rothschilds’ duel control of America and Israel that has led to astonishing amounts of American tax dollars being transferred to Israel in military and financial ‘aid’. One arm of the Rothschilds is simply giving it to another.

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt write in their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy:

‘Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America’s entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year.

This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.’

The US House of Representatives recently approved another $205 million in military aid for Israel for an ‘anti-missile’ system.

‘When it comes to defense, military, and intelligence cooperation, the relationship between the US and Israel has never been stronger’, said Democrat Representative Steve Rothman (Rothschild Zionist), a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

As he spoke, the Israeli authorities were using their American-supplied military might to continue the blockade of the Gaza Strip which has been stopping supplies of food, fuel and basic needs for 1.5 million Palestinians since 2007.

I have set out here to reveal the true face of Zionism – the House of Rothschild and its networks – and how its agents in Big Government, Big Banking, Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Biotech, Big Media and so on, are working as one unit to impose a global Orwellian dictatorship on the human population – including the mass of Jewish people.

Zionism is a subject that all but a few are either too ignorant or too frightened to tackle and expose, but it must be made public and the web dismantled if global tyranny is to be avoided in the very near future.

In fact, it’s not even about the ‘future’; the tyranny is already here and it is just a case of how deeply we are going to allow ourselves to be enslaved by it.

The Rothschilds have spent a century hiding the true and ever-gathering extent of their global control and that veil must be lifted for the mass of the people to see.

I should also stress that when I say ‘Rothschild’, I don’t only mean those called ‘Rothschild’, nor even all of the people who are known by that name. There are many in the Rothschild family and its offshoots who have no idea what the hierarchy is doing and there are many ‘Rothschilds’ who don’t carry the name itself.

When I say ‘Rothschild’, I am referring to the Rothschild bloodline because, as I have detailed in my books, they have long had breeding programs that produce offspring that are brought up under other names.

So when these people come to power, they carry the Rothschild genetics and answer to their control system, but they are not officially called ‘Rothschild’, and in this way the scale of the Rothschild infiltration of government, finance and so on remains hidden behind an army of offspring known by different names.

It is time to put the Rothschilds on public display because that’s the last place they want to be.

They have operated from the shadows for long enough and we must urgently ensure that those days are over.

    Source: Bibliotecapleyades Yahoo! Bookmarks

    Related posts:

    1. Video: We Are Change San Francisco Confronts David de Rothschild on Climategate, Sustainability Agenda
    2. The Plague of Zionism and the Cleansing Fire of the Apocalypse
    3. Film: 1934 Film The House Of Rothschild – Hollywood Propaganda That Is All Too Clear Now
    4. Four Reasons Why Americans Should Oppose Zionism
    5. David Icke – Mainstream Media Propaganda and Brainwashing
    6. ‘Zionists control US foreign policy’
    7. Video: David Icke – Elite Moves To Lobotomize, Zombify Global Population into Lifetime of Servitude
    8. David Icke – mind control and other topics

    .

    January 17, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, Anti War, Big Brother, Covert Ops, Disinformation, New World Order, World People, World Politics, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

    What’s Going on in Tunisia?

    http://original.antiwar.com

    A revolution in progress

    by Justin Raimondo, January 17, 2011

    The dethronement of Tunisian strongman Ben Ali, and his flight to Saudi Arabia, has our media conjuring visions of a powerful upsurge of “democratic” populism in what was previously thought of as a minor backwater, famous for its beaches and little else. A friend of the West, Ben Ali was the spitting image of his predecessor, Habib Bourguiba, whom he overthrew in a bloodless coup. Always tempered by the moderate tone of Tunisian politics, which stresses continuity and stability over revolutionary change, Bourguiba and his Destourian (pro-independence) party took decades to negotiate a peaceful transition from French protectorate to full independence in 1956.

    For the next thirty years, Bourguiba managed to tamp down popular discontent in all its forms, from the leftist trade unions to the Islamist militants – the latter a very small minority with limited influence. This was done not so much by outright repression, as in other one-party states during the rise of Third World nationalism in the 1960s, but through cooptation – and the strategic gyrations of Bourguiba, a skillful manipulator of competing interests who never let one faction get the upper hand for very long.

    As he got into his late seventies, however, the Tunisian strongman who had successfully steered his country toward independence without an armed struggle – as in neighboring Algeria – went downhill physically and mentally, and his policies became increasingly erratic. Things reached the point where his incapacity was obvious even to his most devoted supporters, and so on November 7, 1987, Ben Ali and his supporters invoked an article of the Tunisian constitution which provides for the transfer of power in case of the president’s incapacity.

    In his message to the nation announcing the succession of power, Ben Ali was careful to pay tribute to his predecessor, who still enjoyed tremendous prestige as the veritable father of the nation. In accordance with the Tunisian temperament, which values moderation and continuity, he stressed his intent to build on the foundations laid down by the previous regime. In spite of the renaming of the Destourian party, which was now the Destourian Socialist Party, the new ruler was determined to keep the country open to Western development and maintain its official nonaligned stance.

    The great problem for the regime, however, was its self-insulating and self-perpetuating statism, which encouraged – indeed, made inevitable – the development of a particularly brazen form of crony capitalism, with the economy in the hands of the state – and the state in the firm grasp of Ben Ali’s immediate and extended family. As a WikiLeaked US diplomatic cable put it:

    “Whether it’s cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your yacht, President Ben Ali’s family is rumored to covet it and reportedly gets what it wants. Beyond the stories of the First Family’s shady dealings, Tunisians report encountering low-level corruption as well in interactions with the police, customs, and a variety of government ministries. The economic impact is clear, with Tunisian investors – fearing the long-arm of “the Family” – forgoing new investments, keeping domestic investment rates low and unemployment high. These persistent rumors of corruption, coupled with rising inflation and continued unemployment, have helped to fuel frustration with the GOT and have contributed to recent protests in southwestern Tunisia (Ref A). With those at the top believed to be the worst offenders, and likely to remain in power, there are no checks in the system.”

    But of course there is always the ultimate check on the system – revolution in the streets. Which is precisely what happened when a young man by the name of Mohamed Bouazizi, a graduate student forced by poverty to sell fruits and vegetables in the market, set himself on fire in protest at having been denied a permit. Apparently he had declined, or could not afford, to pay off the appropriate party-state officials. His desperate act sparked a series of demonstrations which soon spread beyond his small town in the southwestern countryside, and in a matter of a few weeks Ben Ali was on a plane and out of power.

    Tunisia had a brief fling with economic liberalization in Bourguiba’s day, but this was firmly opposed by both Party militants and Islamists, who feared the social consequences of economic liberty (albeit for different reasons). The liberalizing era was soon halted, however, when Bourguiba saw the opposition it was engendering from his most devoted followers, and when Ben Ali took power there was no similar “liberal” phase. By this time the Destourian apparatus had become completely distanced from the people, with party and state effectively merged and all power vested in the person and family of the President. Elections were held periodically, but there was no effective competition, and besides the whole process was rigged.

    As we go to “press,” as they used to say, the Tunisian revolution is far from over. A wing of the ruling party has managed, so far, to retain control, and there is some fighting still going on between Ben Ali loyalists and the New Gang in Charge, but the differences between these two factions is marginal, at best, as underscored by this report:

    “A state of emergency has now been declared in Tunisia that bans demonstrations and imposes a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew, with orders given to security forces to shoot anyone disobeying orders or fleeing. “

    Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.

    The “Jasmine Revolution” is being held up as a hopeful harbinger of things to come in the Arab world: for the first time, we are being told, a sclerotic despotism is being challenged and successfully overthrown by a populist uprising. This is simplistic, to say the least.

    To begin with, the folks in charge are hardly revolutionaries, but partisans of the old Tunisian establishment – the party of Bourguiba and Ben Ali. Secondly, the Tunisian temperament is not conducive to revolutionary upsurges in the sense that we understand the concept: Tunisians are no more likely to start their own version of the French Revolution than they are likely to convert en masse to Buddhism. It simply goes against the cultural grain.

    Yet there are certain economic imperatives – such as a street vendor’s need to make a living – that militate against a return to the old normalcy. With the world economy undergoing a radical contraction, and countries such as Tunisia entirely dependent on foreign trade and aid, demands for economic liberalization are bound to rise – and surely crony corporatism of the Tunisian or any other variety is going to face increasingly militant challenges.

    What this portends for US foreign policy is not all that clear at the moment, but one thing is certain: the US is bound to see this turmoil as a wedge to be used by radical Islamists. This is why we pour billions into regimes such as Ben Ali’s – with Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak a very similar case. It’s too late to disavow our support for these tyrants: the history of their collaboration with Washington is too extensive to be denied. As the economic screws tighten worldwide, and these rigid, reflexively repressive regimes come apart at the seams, the US will be caught between the need to be “pragmatic” (i.e. preserve stability at all costs) and its rhetorical stance as the standard-bearer of “democracy” and liberalism internationally.

    What to do? The only course is to stand aside and let the process work itself out. Intervention at any level is bound to boomerang and have the opposite effect from the one intended. Tunisian nationalism, the overriding ideological force in the nation’s politics and traditions, has a very weak adversary in the Islamist parties, which are all in exile and wield minimal if any influence in the current upsurge. However, that could change if the US hand becomes too apparent: that is, if Washington creates a problem where none presently exists.

    The ruling party will no doubt try to secure its tenacious grip on power, and yet that power is being challenged by a secular populist movement. If, if the interests of promoting “stability,” the US gets too close to Ben Ali’s successors, then this will give the Islamists the opening they have been waiting for. I see that our Secretary of State has already made a statement welcoming the prospect of “democratic reform” in Tunisia and calling for calm: if only our public officials did not feel the need to comment on happenings in every country on earth, no matter how far removed from our shores – if only, in short, they would button their lips, for a change, our national interests would be very well served. The best policy, at the moment, is to sit back and watch as the Tunisians take care of business in their own way, and for their own reasons.

    Lots of Westerners fell for the “’Tunisian success story” narrative, which Christopher Hitchens limned pretty well in a 2007 article for Vanity Fair:

    “Who wouldn’t want the alternative of an African Titoism, or perhaps an African Gaullism, where presidential rule keeps a guiding but not tyrannical hand? A country where people discuss micro-credits for small business instead of “macro” schemes such as holy war? Mr. Ben Ali does not make lengthy speeches on TV every night, or appear in gorgeously barbaric uniforms, or live in a different palace for every day of the week. Tunisia has no grandiose armed forces, the curse of the rest of the continent, feeding parasitically off the national income and rewarding their own restlessness with the occasional coup.

    “And the country is lucky in other ways as well. … It has been spared the awful toxicity of ethnic and religious rivalry, which makes it very unusual in Africa. Its international airport is named Tunis-Carthage, evoking African roots without Afrocentric demagogy.”

    For Hitchens, it is enough that the country is not afflicted with what he regards as the curse of religiosity, and he goes on to detail the views of a female professor of theology attached to a Tunis mosque and university who denies the veil is mandated by the Koran. Hitchens characterizes the Ben Ali regime’s attempts to police the internet as “crude and old-fashioned” – not repressive. His main concern is that Islamist radicals who are not “welcome” in Tunisia are given somewhat freer rein in England, from which they broadcast their message, and he ends his piece with this warning:

    “An enclave of development, Tunisia is menaced by the harsh extremists of a desert religion, and ultimately by the desert itself. As with everything else in Africa, this is not a contest we can view with indifference.”

    The Bourguibas and Ben Alis who created this “enclave of development” sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and yet as long as no one was rocking the boat Hitchens and his fellow interventionists were willing to tolerate their “old fashioned” tyranny. The problem with this kind of ideological one-dimensionality is that it doesn’t take into account the Mohamed Bouazizis of this world, who yearn to be free.

    Read more by Justin Raimondo

    related :

    Tunisia is burning…

    .

    January 17, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized, World Politics | , , , | Leave a Comment

    Tony Blair ‘misled’ Commons over legal advice on war in Iraq

    http://www.sott.net
    Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:36 CST
    Print

    UK Telegraph

    Tony Blair will give evidence before the Chilcot inquiry again on Friday
    Tony Blair misled Parliament by claiming that Britain could legally attack Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition despite being given clear advice to the contrary, new evidence suggests.

    In evidence to the Iraq inquiry, Lord Goldsmith, who at the time was the government’s top legal adviser, disclosed that he was “uncomfortable” about statements made by the then-prime minister in the run up to the 2003 invasion.

    Two months before the war began, in a meeting at No 10, the former attorney general told Mr Blair that war would not be legal without a fresh mandate from the UN.

    In a statement to MPs the following day, however, the Labour prime minister said that there were “circumstances” in which an attack could be valid.

    The following month, he gave an interview in which he suggested that war would be legal if another nation had made an “unreasonable” veto at the UN on military action.

    A witness statement to the Chilcot Inquiry into the war, published today, makes clear that Lord Goldsmith considered that this did not accord with the advice he had given Mr Blair.

    Asked whether Mr Blair’s words were compatible with the advice he received, the former attorney general wrote simply: “No.”

    He added: “I was uncomfortable about them (the prime minister’s comments) …

    “My concern was that we should not box ourselves in by the public statements that were made, and create a situation which might then have to be unravelled.”

    Lord Goldsmith evidence to the inquiry has come under scrutiny after he admitted changing his mind about the legality of military action on the eve of the war.

    His views were swayed during meetings he was encouraged to have with American government lawyers and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the UN.

    Giving evidence to the inquiry last year, he denied that he was “leant on” by No 10 to change his legal opinion.

    Until two weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, Lord Goldsmith had been of the view that UN resolution 1441, which was passed in November 2002 and declared Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations to disarm, was not sufficient to sanction war by the UK and United States.

    In the new evidence to the inquiry, Lord Goldsmith said in his statement that the phrasing of resolution 1441 was “problematic”.

    He was not actively consulted on the final drafting of the resolution after telling Mr Blair in October that the text as it stood did not authorise the use of force.

    The former attorney general said: “I was not being sufficiently involved in the meetings and discussions about the resolution and the policy behind it that were taking place at ministerial level.

    “Much of the later difficulties could have been avoided if my view had been sought on the drafts that were developed during the later stages of the negotiations, particularly bearing in mind the fact that I had not been persuaded that the early drafts achieved our objectives.”

    The Chilcot Inquiry also released a previously secret memo in which Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, warned Mr Blair of the “high” risks of his visit to US President George Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.

    In the letter, dated March 25 2002, Mr Straw said: “A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action.

    “We also have to answer the big question – what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything.”

    The former foreign secretary said there was no certainty the regime that replaced Saddam would be any better, adding: “Iraq has had no history of democracy so no one has this habit or experience.”

    Mr Blair will appear before the inquiry for a second time on Friday, when he will be asked to explain gaps in his earlier evidence and discrepancies between his account and official documents and other witnesses’ testimony.

    A spokesman for Mr Blair said: “Tony Blair will deal with all these issues in his evidence on Friday. The issue of the so called unreasonable veto was not the basis on which Britain took part in the military action. The basis was that given in the Attorney General’s advice which he has confirmed in the statement published today. What Peter Goldsmith’s statement does is make it categorically clear that there was a proper legal basis for the military action taken.”

    .
    .

    January 17, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, Anti War, World at War ( not the Game ), World People | , , , , | Leave a Comment

    Food “Safety” Bill Empowers Monsanto To Control Food Industry

    http://www.sott.net
    Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:55 CST
    Print

    Stephanie Spinelli
    TruthSquad.TV

    Monsanto to enforce food regulation.

    Under the guise of protecting Americans from food-borne illnesses, Congress has passed the S510 Food Safety Act, granting unlimited power to the FDA to oversee the processing of food from farm to table. The FDA has led the public to believe over a number of years that we desperately need government protection from food-borne illnesses. As a result of this manipulation, the S510 Food Safety has been passed without opposition. Ironically, the regulatory actions made possible by this bill will only promote the type of farming that produces food borne illnesses.

    The S510 Food Safety Act will regulate the entire process of food production from every source in the United States. Farms must submit to government inspections and have safety documentation on record for 2 years. This documentation must be made promptly available upon oral or written request by an FDA agent. Farms are responsible for the fees associated with their own inspections. The FDA will also oversee food transportation within the United States; food imported from other countries will not be regulated but must simply carry a guarantee of safety by the exporting country. This imbalance in addition to the bill-related costs imposed on farmers will cause prices of locally produced food to increase exponentially.

    Starting with the enactment of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) measures by President Bill Clinton in the 90′s, the biotech/agribusiness industry has been making the necessary moves to arrive at this point; while HACCP is focused on prevention, the S510 Food Safety is focused on inspection. Combined, these laws will enable the FDA to completely control the process of food production. As if controlling our food weren’t enough, the agribusiness industry is voraciously seeking to have vitamins and supplements be redefined as drugs, so that the FDA can limit the amount that can be legally purchased. Once we can no longer take the proper amounts of nutrients for prevention of disease, we will be forced to turn to the pharmaceutical industry for medication.

    As the bill is written, the FDA must consult with “farmer representatives” to publish guides for good practice. The farmer representatives will no doubt include Monsanto, the biotech company standing behind the bill that stands to benefit from it the most. The FDA is intimately linked with Monsanto – Michael Taylor, a lawyer who volleys between an appointed post at the FDA and employment by Monsanto, pushed through the concept of “substantial equivalence“, which opened the doors for Monsanto to flood the market with unlabeled Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). In July 2009, the Obama Administration appointed Taylor “Food & Drug Czar” as head of the FDA. This move ensures Monsanto’s influence of its own regulation. The fox now has the keys to the hen house.

    S510 grants the FDA and in turn, Monsanto, unbridled power to make all of their own rules for governing food going forward:

    ‘No Limit on Secretarial Authority- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of the Secretary to review and act upon information from food testing, including determining the sufficiency of such information and testing.’

    The FDA will determine if, when, and what types of food safety testing are necessary. “In the interest of national security“, the FDA will decide what information will be made available to the public. In keeping with their trend of raiding farms and markets that sell raw milk, the bill also provides for the organizing, training and equipping of animal, plant, and food emergency response teams.

    Police raid organic market with guns drawn.

    Police raid organic market with guns drawn.
    The L.A. Times reported that in June of 2010, four officers raided Rawesome Foods, an organic food co-op in Venice California, with their guns drawn. The officers were in search of raw, unpasteurized milk. Cartons of raw goat’s and cow’s milk as well as blocks of unpasteurized goat cheese were among the groceries seized by federal, state and local authorities. If raw milk could produce such an excessive show of force when there were no laws being broken, what will happen now that there is a law in place?

    Interestingly, the bill includes a provision requiring parents to provide documentation to their children’s school regarding any food allergies their children have. On the surface, giving the school administration advance notice of an allergy seems like a good thing; however, as Truth Squad has previously reported, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Fusion Centers” across the country are consolidating and standardizing the databases of local and federal agencies in an attempt to fight foreign and domestic terrorism. These “fusion centers” violate the 4th & 5th Constitutional Amendments and set up frightening Stasi-like government lists, with no judge, no jury, no due process. Do you want your child in the DHS database?

    Since the bill was first introduced in March of 2009, articles written about it have done their best to squelch any fears consumers might have of losing their favorite local farmers’ markets by supposing they would not be included. This created false hope: Within the US, “very small businesses” are to be regulated, including farmers markets, farm stands and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA’s). In fact, the only exclusion is food grown for personal consumption. In other words, our only hope is to each learn how to grow our own food, because the day is coming when that will be the only food safe to eat.

    “If you control the food, you can control the people.” – Henry Kissinger


    .

    January 17, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, GM Foods ,Transgenicos etc., Health and Wellness | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment