L'OBSERVATEUR DU PÉRIL INNOMMABLE

LA JUDÉE DÉCLARE LA GUERRE À RON PAUL ... JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON RON PAUL

2012-01-23T20:42:00.000-08:00

Youtube - Scheuer: America’s Warmongering Foreign Policy Is ‘Beholden to the Israelis’
(Michael Scheuer est l'ancien directeur de l'Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA)

Emergency Committee for Israel (including Bill Kristol) VS Ron Paul

Une soif de sang difficile à cacher...

American Free Press

Smear Job

• Plutocrats ramp up efforts against Rep. Ron Paul
• Launch media smear campaign in New York Times

Ron Paul - targeted by New York Times

By Michael Collins Piper

December 31, 2011

AMERICAN FREE PRESS got frontline mention as the very first words in the first paragraph of a muddled smear of Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul published as a lengthy hit piece beginning on the front page of The New York Times on Dec. 26. That article was followed up by a lead editorial by the Times in its Dec. 28 issue denouncing what it called “Mr. Paul’s Discredited Campaign,” citing its own article as the evidence. The Times article was clearly a sustained effort to undermine Paul, making no pretense otherwise.

Constituting no less than 80 full column inches, the articled zeroed in on AFP at the get-go and focused on the fact that AFP has promoted the book The Ron Paul Revolution, presenting an overview of Paul’s speeches and writings over the last two decades.*

The Times ranked AFP as its lead “evidence” that—in its view—unseemly groups and individuals endorse Paul’s efforts. The Times said a variety of “white nationalists,” “far right groups,” “white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists”—and other villains—are rallying behind Paul.

Although the Times never categorized AFP per se, it described this paper by reporting that AFP “markets books like The Invention of the Jewish People and March of the Titans: A History of the White Race.”

Obviously seeking to impute “anti- Semitism” to AFP by referencing the book The Invention of the Jewish People, what the Times didn’t mention is that the book was written by an Israeli Jewish academic, first published in Hebrew in Israel where it was a national bestseller. Most people would not know that, and that’s what the Times counted on.

And while the Times was horrified AFP would carry an advertisement from another publisher on the history of the white race—proof somehow that AFP was “racist”—it never occurred to the Times that a book about the white race would seem no more shocking to the average American than books, for example, about the history of Africans, Chinese or Indians, which are in every library and bookstore.

The Times’ smear is an obvious effort to force Paul to denounce those who have united behind him and to divide Paul’s diverse groups of supporters and set them at odds with one another.
——
*Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free to charge your copy of The Ron Paul Revolution (softcover, 286 pages, $20 plus $5 S&H or five copies for $70 plus $10 S&H inside the U.S.) by calling AFP toll free at 1-888-699-6397 and charge your subscription to a major credit card. See AFP’s website at www.americanfreepress.net.

L'homme le plus puissant de Washington D.C., selon GQ: le juif orthodoxe Eric Cantor

2012-01-23T16:58:00.000-08:00

CANTOR THE POWERFUL: House Majority Leader tops GQ’s “50 most powerful people in Washington list.”

Eric Cantor, républicain sioniste, juif orthodoxe, est devenu le plus puissant leader de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants de toute l'histoire des États-Unis. Son pouvoir est tel qu'il rivalise celui du président lui-même, car si la Chambre peut faire pression sur le président, l'inverse n'est pas vrai.

Voir aussi:

Eric Cantor, dangereux juif orthodoxe intégriste, leader de la majorité républicaine au Congrès, protégera les allocations à Israël

Un autre grand comique, propriétaire et éditeur d'un journal juif américain, soutient qu'il ne prônait pas vraiment l'assassinat d'Obama

2012-01-23T16:51:00.000-08:00

Quelques excuses et la mauvais blague est toute pardonnée...

"Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?
Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives … Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?
You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table."

(Source)

Ce qui revient à dire, dans la langue de Molière:

"Troisième option, donner l’ordre pour que les agents du Mossad basés aux États-Unis éliminent ce président qui n’est pas considéré comme étant amical envers Israël afin qu’il soit remplacé par le Vice-président actuel [NdT: Joe Biden est connu pour ses positions pro-sionistes], et qu’il donne l’ordre indiscutable que la politique des États-Unis est basée sur le fait que le pays se rangera toujours aux côtés de l’État juif pour l’aider à oblitérer ses ennemis.
Oui, vous avez bien lu cette “troisième option”. Ordonner l’assassinat du président des États-Unis afin de préserver l’existence d’Israël. Réfléchissez-y. Si un tel scénario à la Tom Clancy m’est passé par la tête, est-ce que vous ne pensez pas qu’une telle idée – aussi insondable soit-elle – a pu être discutée dans les plus hautes sphères du pouvoir israélien?
Une autre manière de mettre cette “troisième option” en perspective consisterait à dire: Jusqu’où iriez vous pour sauver une nation composée de sept millions de vies… juifs, chrétiens et arabes?
Vous devez penser, comme moi, que toutes les options sont sur la table."

Note: Michael Collins Piper et Mark Glenn en parlaient déjà il y a 3 ans, au moins!

VIDEO - Mark Glenn interviewed on PressTV - Jan 26 2012

VIDEO - Israël va-t-il assassiner Obama?

VIDEO - Will Israel Assassinate Obama?

“ISRAEL DEVRAIT FAIRE ASSASSINER BARACK OBAMA, CELA RÉGLERAIT TOUS SES PROBLÈMES”

Scandale aux USA: «Tuez Obama –sauvez Israël»

Pour les sionistes, assassiner Obama est une option “sur la table”

Newspaper Editor: Israel Should Consider Assassinating Obama

Have Israel’s “inner circles” discussed assassinating President Obama? By Alan Hart

Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama

Atlanta Jewish Times owner apologizes for Obama assassination scenario

"Jewish Times" Threatens Obama with Assassination and gets away with it

Prominent Jewish Leader: Assassinate Barack Obama At the height of a growing frenzy among American friends of Israel who demand the United States attack Iran, a leader of the Jewish community publicly called for Israel’s Mossad to assassinate President Barack Obama in order to save Israel from Iran.

Atlanta paper owner quits over Obama hit article

VIDEO - Rabbi defends ‘poor man’ who suggested taking out a president ‘deemed unfriendly to Israel’

Prominent Jewish Leader: Assassinate Barack Obama

January 27, 2012 dave

By Michael Collins Piper

At the height of a growing frenzy among American friends of Israel who demand the United States attack Iran, a leader of the Jewish community publicly called for Israel’s Mossad to assassinate President Barack Obama in order to save Israel from Iran.

On Jan. 13, Andrew Adler, editor and publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times—joining an ever-more-boisterous chorus of angry voices—wrote a column declaring Israel had three options (all violent) to ensure its security. The first option was to attack its enemies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The second was to attack Iran. The third option: “Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

To ensure readers understood what he was saying, Adler underscored his call for Obama’s murder, writing: “Yes, you read [that] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.”

He added: “Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles? . . . You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”

News of this open call by a Jewish leader for the president’s assassination did not receive any notice outside the Jewish community until after an independent Internet website discovered the story and publicized it. In fact, most major news outlets completely suppressed this important story.

Forced by public outrage to comment, other Jewish leaders asserted this was “just one man’s opinion” but the truth is that one man—known to be deeply religious and long active in Jewish affairs—was the publisher of an influential newspaper serving one of the wealthiest and most powerful communities in a pivotal metropolitan area.

Although Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and other Jewish lobby kingpins denounced the candid opinions expressed by one of their own, their outrage seemed to some observers to be more hinged on the fact that Adler’s honesty too openly exposed the point that there is deep anger toward Obama by those who perceive the president to be hostile to Israel.

As far back as its July/August 2009 issue, Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee, referred to Obama’s “turn against Israel”—just one notable example of this mindset.

Adler’s viewpoint reflects the attitude of many in the pro-Israel community, evidenced by heavy-handed attacks on the president appearing in Jewish community newspapers from the beginning of his presidency.

Chemi Shalev admitted in an essay in Israel’s Ha’aretz on Jan. 21 that Adler’s views do reflect the thinking of what Shalev referred to as “many.”

Commenting that “Adler’s crazy and criminal suggestions are not the ranting of some loony-tune individual and were not taken out of thin air,” Shalev said Adler’s anger was “the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom” spewed at Obama by “many who still believe he is a Muslim, who are convinced that he wants to destroy Israel and who seriously debate whether he is more like Ahmadinejad than Arafat or. . .more like Hitler than Haman.”

Some speculate the Adler affair was stage-managed from the start—a contrived provocation to stir up more discussion in the Jewish community of Obama’s intransigence toward Israel. Adler himself said he “wanted to get a reaction,” and he did: Jewish people across America are aware—now more than ever—that many of their leaders are hostile to Obama because of his policy toward Israel.

The Secret Service claims it is “investigating,” although few believe Adler will be prosecuted. In the meantime, Adler “resigned” as editor of his own newspaper and put it up for sale.

The call for Obama’s assassination does come at a time when pro-Israel voices are howling for Obama to wage war against Iran on Israel’s behalf.

On Jan. 18, The Wall Street Journal—controlled by hardline pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch—published a screaming pro-war commentary titled “The Mortal Threat from Iran.” The author—Mark Helprin—is an American conservative who holds membership in the influential Council on Foreign Relations and who is also a former member of both the Israeli infantry and the Israeli air force.

Helprin declared that “any president of the United States fit for the office . . . should order the armed forces of the United States to attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex.”

Acknowledging Americans would suffer retaliatory attacks from Iran, Helprin concluded it would be worth the cost to put an end to such a “vengeful, martyrdom-obsessed state in the midst of a never-subsiding fury against the West.”

This hysterical bellicosity appearing in the otherwise staid Wall Street Journal is not out of the ordinary. It is found in much of the media as the pressure for war escalates.

The question remains: Will Obama be intimidated by the threats, or will he withstand the demands of the powerful minority who want war?
——
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

TUT Podcast Jan 30, 2012

The Jewish threat to assassinate Obama–typical ‘out of the overflow of the heart the Jewish mouth speaks’ or something more organized? We are joined by Keith Johnson, Mark Dankof and Michael Collins Piper to discuss the latest threat from Israel that Obama better shape up lest he be shipped out in a pine box.

Download Here

Uriel Heilman
Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) (Analysis)
January 24, 2012 - 12:00am
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/01/24/3091336/obama-assassination-column-ra...

(...)

As wacky as Adler’s column was, it was an extreme expression of a viewpoint that carries great currency among Obama’s Jewish critics: that the president represents a serious danger to Jews and to Israel.

While few of those critics might go as far as Adler, it doesn’t take much discussion in certain Jewish circles to find those who see something far more sinister in Obama than a president whose policies are bad for the Jews and Israel.

“I think Obama’s overriding goal is to have Israel destroyed,” said Randy Silver, a businessman from Glenview, Ill. “He puts steps in motion to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel.”

One New Yorker who insisted on anonymity said, “He’s not a Hitler in the sense that he’s anti-Semitic and wants to put every Jew into a concentration camp -- at least not as we see things right now.”

He also said he believes that if Obama hangs on for a second term, he’ll find a way to stay in the White House beyond that, even though the Constitution bars a president from serving a third term.

Noah, a physician from the New York's Westchester County suburb who asked that his full name be withheld, told JTA: “I will admit to serious questions about whether he’s a Muslim and whether he hates Jews. It’s a possibility. I’m very uncomfortable with him.”

To be sure, such views constitute a minority viewpoint even among Obama's Jewish detractors, and the American Jewish community has been -- and largely remains -- a stronghold of support for Obama. In 2008, Obama won an estimated 78 percent of the Jewish vote, and even though his popularity in the Jewish community has dwindled during his Oval Office tenure, it has declined far less among Jews than among the general U.S. population. A Gallup poll released four months ago showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating among Jews, though an American Jewish Committee poll released at approximately the same time showed the president with a 45 percent approval rating. Still, the AJC poll showed that Obama would win the Jewish vote against any hypothetical Republican candidate by at least 18 percentage points.

Obama is hardly the first president to be called an anti-Semite or hostile to Israel. In 1991, George H.W. Bush found himself the subject of withering Jewish criticism when he sought to delay $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel unless Jerusalem agreed to a settlement freeze in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said he remembers holding a news conference to denounce Jewish characterizations of Bush as Satan and evil.

But the rhetoric and conspiracy theories against Obama seem to constitute an unprecedented level of vitriol, say many longtime observers of the Jewish political scene.

“I’ve never seen as much enmity toward a president by American Jews as I do toward Obama,” said Morton Klein, the national president of the Zionist Organization of America. “I’ve never heard people say, as they say to me, 'I hate him.' ”

Klein, who called on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to disinvite Obama from its annual policy conference last year and thinks AIPAC should bar Obama from this year’s conference, lays the blame on the president.

“Among those who care about Israel, he surely is to blame for it,” Klein said. “Every chance he gets he blames Israel.”

Foxman says that extreme hatred of Obama is not so much about the president’s policies as it is about America’s economic troubles, the sense that Israel faces greater existential threats today than at any time in the last 30 to 40 years, and the Internet, which amplifies and spreads radical voices and conspiracy theories.

“All of these add an anxiety element that intensifies fear and anxiety,” Foxman told JTA. “Attitudes have intensified.”

Then there’s Obama himself -- a black president with the middle name Hussein who has been accused even by some Jewish Democrats of not being able to show sympathy for Israel in his kishkes.

“Here’s a president who doesn’t show emotion on anything, and the Jewish community is used to emotion,” Foxman said.

Democrats blame the Republicans for the vitriol; Republicans say Democrats are practicing divisive politics.

Obama's most vehement Jewish critics are not the only ones who accuse Obama of being a secret Muslim, a socialist and a threat to America. Many Tea Party activists have sounded similar themes, with some going so far as to decry his adminsitration as pursuing Nazi-like policies.

But Obama’s most extreme Jewish critics also accuse him of seeking to erase the Jewish character of the Jewish state and plotting to wage war against Israel or the Jews. They see anti-Semitic overtones even in Obama’s hiring of Jewish advisers.

“A Jacob Lew or a Rahm Emanuel is a danger to the Jewish people because they make treif look kosher,” Silver, the Illinois businessman, said of the current and former Obama chiefs of staff. “I think these are anti-Jewish Jews. They make Obama look like he’s not a threat, but he’s a clear and present danger to Israel.”

A Jewish New Yorker named Clive said of Lew's hire, “We know that Pharaoh hired Joseph because it suited him, but down the road when it didn’t suit him he made his family slaves.”

Pamela Geller, a Jewish writer whose blog, Atlas Shrugs, is a popular source of information for anti-Obama conspiracy theorists, says Obama is trying to stir up Muslim enmity toward Jews.

“The President of the United States is advancing jihad against the oath of office that he took,” Geller wrote in April 2010. “If he is agitating Muslims against Jews, will he declare war on Israel?”

Obama administration officials repeatedly have denounced these sorts of accusations as patently false and waged a campaign in the Jewish community to highlight the president’s record on issues of Jewish concern, ranging from domestic issues to Obama’s pushes for Iran sanctions and endorsement of unprecedented U.S.-Israel military cooperation.

But ultimately, for that subset of the Jewish community that sees ominous signs in Obama’s record, the concern isn’t so much what Obama has done so far in his three years in office as it is what he might do in the future.

"He takes baby steps and is slowly putting things in play to do Israel damage in the long run," Silver said. "There’s a strategy behind this."

Nov 27 2011 - Man with 'Israel' tattoo charged with attempting to assassinate Obama

The Emergency Committee for Israel in a full-page ad in The New York Times attacked President Obama’s treatment of the Jewish state

VIDEO - Obama Campaign Ad: "America and Israel: an Unbreakable Bond"

Voir aussi:

Certificat de naissance d'Obama: quand les "patriotes" font le travail de Netanyahou

Campagne anti-Obama et préparation pour un nouveau parti "centriste" aux États-Unis

Maîtres du monde, maîtres de l'humour: Netanyahou accuse le New York Times et Haaretz de donner le ton de la campagne anti-Israël à travers le monde

2012-01-18T22:28:00.000-08:00

Journalist: Netanyahu told me Israel’s biggest enemies are N.Y. Times, Haaretz

January 18, 2012

(JTA) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel’s two greatest enemies are The New York Times and Haaretz, the editor of The Jerusalem Post said in a speech.

Steve Linde, addressing a conference in Tel Aviv of the Women's International Zionist Organization, said Wednesday that Netanyahu made the remark to him about the newspapers at a private meeting "a couple of weeks ago" at the prime minister’s office in Tel Aviv.

“He said, ‘You know, Steve, we have two main enemies,’ ” Linde said, according to a recording of the WIZO speech provided to JTA. “And I thought he was going to talk about, you know, Iran, maybe Hamas. He said, ‘It’s The New York Times and Haaretz.’ He said, ‘They set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign all over the world. Journalists read them every morning and base their news stories … on what they read in The New York Times and Haaretz.’ ”

Linde said he and other participants at the meeting asked Netanyahu whether he really thought that the media had that strong a role in shaping world opinion on Israel, and the prime minister replied, “Absolutely.”

The Prime Minister’s Office could not be reached immediately for comment.

Faux avertissements Avast!: "Ce site risque d'endommager votre ordinateur"

2012-01-07T20:24:00.000-08:00

Peut-être avez-vous été alertés, lors de vos récentes visites, par un avertissement disant que le présent site serait infecté par un virus et risquerait par conséquent d'endommager votre ordinateur.

Nous croyons qu'il s'agit d'un canular ou d'une attaque.

Désolé pour ce dérangement, qui nous l'espérons, ne sera que passager.

Blitzkrieg 2.0 : Anonymous attaque l'extrême droite allemande

(...) Une gifle de bonne année, en deux temps. D’abord, une attaque en règle des sites internet d’extrême droite, pour les mettre en veilleuse, dans les premiers jours de 2012. Une "opération" (terme employé par les Anonymous pour qualifier leurs actions) qui s’inscrit dans la continuité de celle lancée au printemps 2011. Nom de code: Opération Blitzkrieg. Cible: la blogosphère néo-nazie. Les attaques de ces derniers jours en sont le dernier épisode.

'A CLEAN BREAK': un document incontournable du gvt israélien pour comprendre le projet du Grand Israël et les agressions impérialistes au Moyen-Orient

2012-01-07T12:47:00.000-08:00

PRESQUE PERSONNE NE PARLE DE CE DOCUMENT!

En omettant de nommer ce document par son nom, nous évitons d'attirer l'attention du public sur les liens démontrés entre ce projet israélien officiel et les révoltes cashères (encouragées par l'Occident) du soi-disant "printemps arabe". Plus clair que 'Rebuilding America's Defense' du PNAC, plus évolué que 'A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties', aucun autre document officiel, à part A Clean Break, ne décrit aussi nettement le plan de déstabilisation des pays voisins d'Israël au profit de ce dernier.

Canadian Researcher: US Targeting Syria to Change Region's Geo-Political Reality

OTTAWA: Canadian writer and researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya said that the encirclement of Syria has long been in the works since 2001, and that permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative, adding that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."

In an article published on the Canadian website globalresearch.ca, Nazemroaya said that the 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of Turkey and other Arab countries, in addition to creating the March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

He said that the first step towards this was the war on Iraq and its balkanization, fomenting sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a regional alliance against it.

Nazemroaya noted that the U.S. initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts, which is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc, all while the mainstream media networks controlled by Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.

He also said that the city of al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory, adding that Turkish and Lebanese media said that France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria, and that the so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria, and Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria.

Nazemroaya that there are companies that have not left Syria and are actually used to siphon money out of Syria, with the goal of preventing any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to an internal implosion in Syria.

He said that, regarding Turkey, "Ankara has been playing a dirty game," as Turkey initially pretended to be neutral during the start of NATO’s war against Libya while it was helping the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, stressing that Erdogan's government does not care about the Syrian population but rather wants Syria to submit to Washington’s demands, adding that Turkey has been responsible for recruiting fighters against Syria.

"For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria," Nazemroaya wrote, adding that Turkey also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.

He affirmed that it's no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran, nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus, saying that Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass.

Nazemroaya said that the U.S. leaving Iraq will cement the Resistance Bloc, dealing a major strategic blows to Israel and the U.S., stressing that Washington is working to create a new geo-political reality by eliminating Syria, in addition to activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.

"For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc," he said, noting that the U.S. sent massive arms shipments to countries in the region including Israel and started to openly discuss murdering figures, all of which constitutes a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia and China and their allies.

IASPS (israeli site):

A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing The Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.ht

A Clean Break

A Clean Break 'A Clean Break' (War for Israel) agenda of the Likudnik JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons (pages 261-269/318-321 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):
Get your own copy of A Pretext for War Now! *

Also see video: Condoleezza Rice Lied

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

The following excerpts come from pages 261-269 of Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book*:

"Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.

The blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it saw fit. "Israel," said the report, "can manage it's own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past."

But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme right-wing Israeli group.

As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote, dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's strategic environment, they said.

This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors. From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a dangerous and provocative change in philosophy. They recommended launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East, attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Then, to gain the support of the American government and public, a phony pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.

The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter potentially hostile reactions from the American government and public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.

Another way to win American support for a pre-emptive war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the American public.

Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin "striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in original]."

The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war. Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United States would replace Israel:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq--an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right--as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.

For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest, and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early 1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.

The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as he stood in a crowd at the funeral.

But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation. Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.

Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.

Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.

The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . . .Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his hand.

Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians. The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's "Clean Break" report.

I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go. Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there at this point, he said.

Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he quickly objected.

He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army, recalled Paul O'Neill, who had be sworn in as Secretary of the Treasury by Bush only hours before and seated at the table. Powell told Bush, the consequences of that could be be dire, especially for the Palestinians. But Bush just shrugged. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things, he said. Powell seemed startled, said O'Neill.

Over the following months, to the concern of Powell, the Bush-Sharon relationship became extremely tight. This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman, said Thomas Neuman, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs "JINSA" a pro-Israel advocacy group. In an article in the Washington Post titled "Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Middle East Policy," Robert G. Kaiser noted the dramatic shift in policy.

For the First time, wrote Kaiser, a US administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier US administrations, from Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton's, held Likud and Sharon at arm's length, distancing the United States from Likud's traditionally tough approach to the Palestinians. Using the Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party to the new relationship between Bush and Sharon, a senior US government official told Kaiser, "The Likudniks are really in charge now."

With America's long struggle to bring peace to the region quickly terminated, George W. Bush could turn his attention to the prime focus of his first National Security Council meeting; ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Condoleezza Rice led off the discussion. But rather than mention anything about threats to the United States or weapons of mass destruction, she noted only that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region. The words were practically lifted from the "Clean Break" report, which had the rather imperial-sounding subtitles: "A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."

Then Rice turned the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet, who offered a grainy overhead picture of a factory that he said "might" be a plant "that produced either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture." There were no missiles or weapons of any kind, just some railroad tracks going to a building; truck activity; and a water tower--things that can be found in virtually any city in the US. Nor were there any human intelligence or signals intelligence reports. There was no confirming intelligence, Tenet said.

It was little more than a shell game. Other photo and charts showed US air activity over the "no fly-zone," but Tenet offered no more intelligence. Nevertheless, in a matter of minutes the talk switched from a discussion about very speculative intelligence to which targets to begin bombing in Iraq.

By the time the meeting was over, Treasury Secretary O'Neill was convinced that "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus, that much was already clear," But, O'Neill believed, the real destabilizing factor in the Middle East was not Saddam Hussein but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--the issue Bush had just turned his back on. Ten years after the Gulf War, said O'Neill, "Hussein seemed caged and defanged. Clearly, there were many forces destabilizing the region, which we were now abandoning."

The war summit must also have seemed surreal to Colin Powell, who said little during the meeting and had long believed that Iraq had not posed a threat to the United States. As he would tell German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer just a few weeks later, "What we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. . . .Containment has been a successful policy."

In addition to the "Clean Break" recommendations, David Wurmser only weeks before the NSC meeting had further elaborated on the way the United States might go about launching a pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East. America's and Israel's responses must be regional not local, he said. Israel and the United Staes should adopt a coordinated strategy, to regain the initiative and reverse their region-wide strategic retreat. They should broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the center of radicalism in the region--the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, and Gaza. That would re-establish the recognition that fighting with either the US or Israel is suicidal. Many in the Middle East will then understand the merits of being an American ally and of making peace with Israel.

In the weeks and months following the NSC meeting, Perle, Feith and Wurmser began taking their places in the Bush administration. Perle became chairman of the reinvigorated and powerful Defence Policy Board, packing it with like-minded neoconservative super-hawks anxious for battle. Feith was appointed to the highest policy position in the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. And Wurmser moved into a top policy position in the State Department before later becoming Cheney's top Middle East expert.

With the Pentagon now under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz--both of whom had also long believed that Saddam Hussein should have been toppled during the first Gulf War--the war planners were given free reign. What was needed, however, was a pretext--perhaps a major crisis. Crisis can be opportunities, wrote Wurmser im his paper calling for an American-Israeli pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East.

Seeing little reason, or intelligence justification, for war at the close of the inaugural National Security Council meeting, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was perplexed. Who, exactly, was pushing this foreign policy? He wondered to himself. And "why Saddam, why now, and why [was] this central to US interests?"

The following excerpts come from pages 318-322 of Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book*:

"Hadley and Libby were part of another secret office that had been set up within the White House. Known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), it was established in August 2002 by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr., at the same time the OSP (Office of Special Plans) was established in Feith's office. Made up of high-level administration officials, its job was to sell the war to the general public, largely through televised addresses and by selectively leaking the intelligence to the media.

In June 2002, a leaked computer disk containing a presentation by chief Bush strategist Karl Rove revealed a White House political plan to use the war as a way to "maintain a positive issue environment." But the real pro-war media blitz was scheduled for the fall and the start of the election season "because from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," said Card.

At least once a week they would gather around the blonde conference table downstairs in the Situation Room, the same place the war was born on January 30, 2001, ten days into the Bush presidency. Although real intelligence had improved very little in the intervening nineteen months, the manufacturing of it had increased tremendously. In addition to Hadley and Libby, those frequently attending the WHIG meetings included Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, communications gurus Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; and legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio.

In addition to ties between Hussein and 9/11, among the most important products the group was looking to sell as Labor Day 2002 approached were frightening images of mushroom clouds, mobile biological weapons labs, and A-bomb plants, all in the hands of a certified "madman." A key piece of evidence that Hussein was building a nuclear weapon turned out to be the discredited Italian documents purchased on a street corner from a con man.

The WHIG began priming its audience in August when Vice President Cheney, on three occasions, sounded a shrill alarm over Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat. There "is no doubt," he declared, that Saddam Hussein "has weapons of mass destruction." Again and again, he hit the same chord. "What we know now, from various sources, is that he . . . continues to pursue a nuclear weapon." And again: "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

Facing network television cameras, Cheney warned, "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. . . . Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law." The relative was Hussein Kamel, who defected to Jordan in 1995 with a great deal of inside information on Iraq's special weapons programs, which he managed. He was later convinced by Saddam to return to Iraq, but executed by the ruler soon after his arrival.

But what Kamel told his interrogators was the exact opposite of what Cheney was claiming he said. After numerous debriefings by officials from the United States, the UN, and Jordan, he said on August 22, 1995, that Saddam had ended all uranium-enrichment programs at the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991 and never restarted them. He also made clear that "all weapons --biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed." Investigators were convinced that Kamel was telling the truth, since he supplied them with a great deal of stolen raw data and was later murdered by his father-in-law as a result. But that was not the story Feith's OSP, Bush's WHIG, or Cheney wanted the American public to hear.

At the same time that Cheney began his media blitz, Ariel Sharon's office in Israel, as if perfectly coordinated, began issuing similar dire warnings concerning Hussein and pressing the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq. Like those from Cheney, pronouncements from Sharon's top aide, Ranaan Gissin, included frightening "evidence" --- equally phony --- of nuclear, as well as biological and chemical, threats.

"As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, " said an Associated Press report on the briefing, "Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin. 'Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,' he said. . . . Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, Gissin said."

It was clear, based on the postwar reviews done in Israel, that Israeli intelligence had no such evidence. Instead, the "evidence" was likely cooked up in Sharon's own Office of Special Plans unit, which was coordinating its activities with the Feith/Wurmser/Shulsky Office of Special Plans. The joint get-Saddam media blitz would also explain the many highly secret visits by the Israeli generals to Feith's office during the summer..

"Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Minister said Friday," the AP report continued. " "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage with serve no purpose,' Gissin told the Associated Press. 'It will only give him [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.'"

As expected. Sharon's callw as widely publicized and increased pressure on Congress, which often bows to Israel's wishes, to vote in favor of the Bush war resolution. "Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack," said a CBS News headline. "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday," said the report.

The story also made the news in London, where the Guardian newspaper ran the headline: "Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq." It went on, "With foreign policy experts in Washington becoming increasingly critical of the wisdom of a military strike, and European governments showing no willingness to support an attack, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, wants to make it clear that he is the US president's most reliable ally."

It was as if the Feith-Wurmser-Perle "Clean Break" plan come full circle. Their plan for Israel to overthrow Saddam Hussein and put a pro-Israel regime in his place had been rejected by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now Bush, with Sharon's support, was about to put it into effect.

Across the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Tony Blair also contributed to the war fever by releasing a much-hyped report that reinforced the White House theme that Iraq was an imminent threat not only to the United States but also to Britain. In addition to including a reference to the bogus Iraq-Niger uranium deal, the report -- later dubbed the "doggie dossier"--made another frightening claim. It warned that Iraq could launch a deadly biological or chemical attack with long-range ballistic missiles on British tourists and servicemen in Cyprus with just forty-five minute's notice.

Only after the war would it be publicly revealed that the reference was not to a strategic weapon that could reach Cyprus, but simply to a short-range battlefield weapon that could not come anywhere close to Cyprus. And because all the missiles were disassembled, even to fire on them on the battlefield would take not forty-five minutes but days of assembly and preparation. At least three times prior to the war, Blair was warned by intelligence officials that the report was inaccurate, but he made no public mention of it.. "

* The paperback edition of A Pretext for War includes new Afterword

WAR FOR ISRAEL
Crimes of Zion (Blog)

(...) The real driving force behind the U.S. government's insane hunger for war is Israel: the zionist regime itself, zionist agents inside the U.S. political system who represent Israel's interests and work to further them via lobbying, funding and other means, [8] and those who work to realise the objectives of Israel from within the highest levels of the U.S. government and beyond, even to the extreme detriment of the U.S. itself, as American leaders and policy-makers, and as representatives of the American people. The so-called neo-conservatives are the most powerful and obvious example of the latter, and their rise to power was, in many ways, the final phase of the Israeli coup d'etat. [18] [19]

The Ziocons

The American neocons (most of them Jewish, many of them Israeli 'dual nationals', and all of them ardent zionists) [20] [21] are openly loyal to Israel and their hawkish foreign policy reflects it. U.S. foreign policy under the neocons is barely distinguishable from Israeli foreign policy, because that's basically what it is [22] [23]. Israel has long sought to weaken and destabilise its Arab neighbors as a means to improve and ensure its own security [24] while simultaneously disrupting support given to the indigenous Palestinians by Arab groups and nations sympathetic to their cause. In The Israeli Origins of Bush II's War Stephen J. Sniegoski writes:

Because Israel's neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in Ramallah, Palestine, writes:

"Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and [Israel's] attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement." [25]

It's by no coincidence that we're seeing the U.S. use the same modus operandi right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. Thanks to a well-established network of powerful Jewish Bush administration executives and the Israel lobby at large, the Zionist agenda has become America's agenda, and the new preemptive war-for-Israel doctrine of post-9/11 USA has become official American policy.

The ziocons made their policy views clear well before 9/11 in the document called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [26], prepared back in 1996 for Israel's psycho right wing Likud party, led by then prime minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. It was authored by a group of rabidly zionist neoconservative Jews including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, on behalf of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), and proposed a hawkish plan based on military preemption, a more aggressive approach to the Palestinian 'problem', the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and the eventual elimination of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran - the kind of ideas that only sit well in the minds of madmen and belligerent Jewish supremacists. A Clean Break stated, in part:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

There was nothing new in the Clean Break paper, it was just good old fashioned zionism: territorial expansion by force in the name of a 'Greater Israel'. Its authors, Richard Perle (Israeli dual national), Douglas Feith (also an Israeli dual national) and David Wurmser (another zionist Jew) would all go on to hold powerful positions in the Bush administration where they've worked tirelessly to realise the vision they outlined for Netanyahu in the Clean Break document [27] - Feith as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Wurmser as Middle East Adviser to Dick Cheney, and Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

Richard "The Prince of Darkness" Perle is a particularly nasty zionist. Aside from his treasonous role in the U.S. government, he's a member of such pro-Israel think tanks as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) , the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP, which is basically an offshoot organisation of AIPAC), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [28]. He's also a director of the Jerusalem Post, a personal friend of former Israeli prime minister and arch-zionist Ariel "The Butcher" Sharon, an ex-employee of Soltam, an Israeli weapons manufacturer [29], and a spy for Israel [30] [30b].

When prominent ziocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) [31] in 1997, Perle and Feith were keen to come to the party along with a whole host of other ardent zionist neocons such as Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Elliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz et al [32], and the following year in 1998, the PNAC group sent Bill Clinton a letter [33] urging him to attack Iraq and oust Saddam from power, in keeping with the policy advice given to Israel by the same group years earlier in the Clean Break document. From the letter:

"Such uncertainty [about Iraqi WMDs] will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat." [34]

By "world", of course, they meant "Israel", since Saddam was never a threat to America, and PNAC knew it. In December of 1998, Clinton went ahead with PNAC's advice and heavily bombed Iraq, citing the security of its neighbours as part of his reason for doing so:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." [35]

Clinton's attack on Iraq left Saddam in power though, which wasn't good enough for the PNAC ziocons. That was made Kristol clear with the September 2000 publication (just before Bush's non-election) of their infamous 90 page long 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' (RAD) policy document [36.pdf], in which they advocated more of the same aggressive, warmongering strategy proposed earlier in the Clean Break paper. RAD was just a massively beefed up version of Israel's Clean Break dressed up to look as though it had American interests at heart. Peter Shaenk put it this way in an article called Once a Company Man, Always a Company Man:

When PNAC was founded, a group of neo-cons wrote a spin-off paper elaborating on "Clean Break". It was entitled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" or RAD. The title implies that agents of Israel, (Perle and co.) got together and wrote a policy paper that was concerned only with America’s future security and establishment as the preeminent world power. A PAX Americana if you will. They even got Dick Cheney to participate to give it a more "American" look and less of an "Israeli" front group image. [37]

When Bush was not-elected in January 2001 [38], the ziocons' time had come. No less than twelve of PNAC's members scored prominent positions in his administration - Dick Cheney, Vice President; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon [39]; Richard Armitage, Deputy Sec. of State; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff to Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, Member, Defense Policy Advisory Board; John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Elliot Abrams, Special Asst. to the President; Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Zalmay Kahlilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq; and James Woolsey, Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board [40]. It was nothing short of an Israeli political takeover of the U.S. government. The pieces had been put in place to implement the ziocon vision outlined in A Clean Break and RAD, and now all that was needed was the false flag attacks of 9/11 [41] [42] [43] to kickstart and justify the neocon wet dream of endless Israeli proxy wars in the Middle East in the name of the oxymoronic "war on terror". (...)

Préparation de l’échiquier du « choc des civilisations » : Diviser, conquérir et régner au Moyen-Orient
par Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-12-13
(...)

Le plan Yinon : l’ordre à partir du chaos…

Le plan Yinon, qui constitue un prolongement du stratagème britannique au Moyen-Orient, est un plan stratégique israélien visant à assurer la supériorité d’Israël dans la région. Il souligne qu’Israël doit reconfigurer son environnement géopolitique par la balkanisation des États arabes, soit la division de ceux-ci en États plus petits et plus faibles.

Les stratèges israéliens voyaient l’Irak comme l’État arabe représentant leur plus grande menace stratégique. C’est pourquoi l’Irak a été caractérisé comme la pièce maîtresse de la balkanisation du Moyen-Orient et du monde arabe. En Irak, sur la base des concepts du plan Yinon, les stratèges israéliens ont réclamé la division de l’Irak en un État kurde et deux États arabes, l’un shiite, l’autre sunnite. La première étape de ce plan était une guerre entre l’Irak et l’Iran, abordée dans le plan Yinon.

En 2006 et en 2008, les publications de l’armée étasunienne Armed Forces Journal et The Atlantic ont respectivement publié des cartes ayant circulé abondamment et lesquelles suivaient de près les grandes lignes du plan Yinon. Outre la division de l’Irak, également recommandée par le plan Biden, le plan Yinon appelle à la division du Liban, de l’Égypte et de la Syrie. La partition de l’Iran, de la Turquie, de la Somalie et du Pakistan fait également partie de cette vision. Le plan Yinon réclame par ailleurs la dissolution de l’Afrique du Nord et prévoit qu’elle débutera en Égypte et débordera au Soudan, en Libye et dans le reste de la région.

Protection du domaine : redéfinition du monde arabe…

Bien que tordu, le plan Yinon est en marche et voit le jour dans « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm » (Une nette rupture : Une nouvelle stratégie pour protéger le domaine), un document de politique israélienne écrit en 1996 par Richard Perle et le groupe d’étude sur « Une nouvelle stratégie israélienne vers l’an 2000 » pour Benjamin Netanyahou, le premier ministre d’Israël à l’époque. Perle était alors un ancien secrétaire adjoint au Pentagone pour Ronald Reagan et est devenu par la suite conseiller militaire pour George W. Bush et la Maison-Blanche. Le groupe d’étude comprenait par ailleurs James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies) et Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University).

Les États-Unis réalisent à bien des égards les objectifs précisés dans le texte de politique israélienne de 1996 visant à protéger le « royaume ». Par ailleurs, le terme realm, « domaine » ou « royaume », sous-entend la mentalité stratégique des auteurs. Realm fait soit référence au territoire sur lequel règne un monarque ou aux territoires soumis à son règne mais gérés et contrôlés par des vassaux. Dans ce contexte, le terme realm, est utilisé pour signifier que le Moyen-Orient constitue le royaume de Tel-Aviv. Le fait que Perle, un homme ayant essentiellement fait carrière comme officiel du Pentagone, ait contribué à écrire le document sur Israël soulève la question de savoir si le souverain conceptualisé du royaume représente Israël, les États-Unis, ou les deux.

Protéger le royaume : L’avant-projet israélien pour déstabiliser Damas

Le document de 1996 demande de « repousser la Syrie », aux environs de l’an 2000 ou après, en poussant les Syriens hors du Liban et en déstabilisant la République arabe syrienne avec l’aide de la Jordanie et de la Turquie. Ces événements se sont respectivement produits en 2005 et en 2011. Le document indique : « Israël peut modeler son environnement stratégique en coopération avec la Turquie et la Jordanie, en affaiblissant, en endiguant et même en repoussant la Syrie. Afin de contrecarrer les ambitions régionales de la Syrie, les efforts pourraient viser à expulser Saddam Hussein du pouvoir, un objectif stratégique en soi important pour Israël [1].

Comme première étape de la création d’un « nouveau Moyen-Orient » dominé par Israël et encerclant la Syrie, le texte demande de chasser Saddam Hussein du pouvoir à Bagdad et fait même allusion à la balkanisation de l’Irak et à la formation d’une alliance stratégique régionale contre Damas qui comporterait un « Irak central » sunnite. Les auteurs écrivent : « Toutefois la Syrie entre dans ce conflit avec de potentielles faiblesses : Damas est trop préoccupé par la nouvelle donne régionale pour permettre toute distractions sur le front libanais. De plus Damas craint l’"axe naturel" avec Israël d’un côté, l’Irak central et la Turquie de l’autre, et la Jordanie, au centre, qui exercerait une pression sur la Syrie et la détacherait de la péninsule saoudienne. Pour la Syrie, ce pourrait être le prélude à la reconfiguration de la carte du Moyen-Orient, ce qui menacerait l’intégrité territoriale du pays [2] ».

Perle et le groupe d’étude « Nouvelle stratégie israélienne vers l’an 2000 » recommande également de mener les Syriens hors du Liban et de déstabiliser la Syrie en utilisant des personnalités de l’opposition libanaise. Le document dit : « [Israël doit détourner] l’attention de la Syrie en utilisant des éléments de l’opposition libanaise pour déstabiliser le contrôle exercé par la Syrie au Liban [3]. »C’est ce qui arriverait en 2005 après l’assassinat d’Hariri ayant contribué à déclencher la soi-disant « révolution des cèdres » et à créer l’Alliance du 14 mars, un groupe farouchement anti-Syrien contrôlé par le corrompu Saïd Hariri.

Le document demande par ailleurs à Tel-Aviv de « saisir l’opportunité afin de rappeler au monde la nature du régime syrien [4] ». Cela convient parfaitement à la stratégie israélienne consistant à diaboliser ses opposants par des campagnes de relations publiques. En 2009 des médias israéliens ont ouvertement admis que, par le biais de ses ambassades et missions diplomatiques, Tel-Aviv avait lancé une campagne médiatique mondiale et organisé des manifestations devant les ambassades iraniennes pour discréditer les élections présidentielles en Iran avant même qu’elles n’aient lieu [5].

L’étude fait aussi mention de ce qui ressemble à la situation actuelle en Syrie : « Il va de soi, et c’est le plus important, qu’Israël a intérêt à appuyer diplomatiquement, militairement et opérationnellement les actions de la Turquie et de la Jordanie contre la Syrie, comme en protégeant des alliances avec des tribus arabes à travers le territoire syrien et hostiles à l’élite dirigeante syrienne [6]. Les bouleversements de 2011 en Syrie, le mouvement des insurgés et la contrebande d’armes par les frontières jordanienne et turque sont devenus des problèmes majeurs pour Damas.

Dans ce contexte, il n’est pas surprenant qu’Israël, alors dirigé par Ariel Sharon, ait dit à Washington d’attaquer la Syrie, la Libye et l’Iran après l’invasion étasunienne de l’Irak [7]. Finalement, il importe de savoir que le document de 1996 préconise également une guerre préemptive pour modeler l’environnement géostratégique d’Israël et sculpter le « nouveau Moyen-Orient » [8]. Il s’agit d’une politique que les États-Unis adopteraient aussi en 2001.(...)

Ray McGovern and John Pilger VS Emergency Committee for Israel Bill Kristol

VIDEO - The War Party (Panorama - BBC)

JINSA Proposes Iraq War on 9/13/2001

JINSA DEFECTIONS: After canning a longtime staffer, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs lost several of its most prominent advisory board members, including former CIA chief James Woolsey and former Pentagon official Richard Perle.

The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire, par Michael Collins Piper

À lire:

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les "dictateurs" comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur...

"De la dictature à la démocratie

L'American Jewish Committee derrière les mensonges humanitaires qui ont rendu possible la guerre en Libye

L'American Jewish Committee derrière l' "intervention humanitaire" en Libye

L'actuel président du National Endowment for Democracy, le marionnettiste du "printemps arabe", serait un ancien de l'ADL

Philip Zelikow (signataire du PNAC): La Libye est un modèle pour la redivision du Moyen-Orient

Après la Libye, la Syrie?

Révolutions arabes? ou balkanisation-remodelage du "Grand Moyen-Orient"?

McCain et Lieberman: "bombardez la Libye!"

Louis Farrakhan: la nation libyenne massacrée par les démocraties, les plus grands hypocrites que la Terre ait porté...

Le messager BHL informe Netanyahou que les rebelles libyens vont reconnaître Israël ; Netanyahou remercie Sarkozy d'être intervenu en Lybie

Pourim 2011 et l'attaque atlanto-sioniste contre la Libye

L'inventeur du concept d' "Axe du Mal" veut y inclure le Pakistan

"Révolutions arabes"ou déstabilisations-remodelage (sionistes) du Moyen-Orient?

Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur et la guerre en Irak

Les fauteurs de guerres

James Petras lève le voile sur les agents sionistes responsables de la guerre en Irak et du scandale d'espionnage à l'AIPAC

Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères

Non-ingérence / non-interventionnisme

Philip Zelikow (signataire du PNAC): La Libye est un modèle pour la redivision du Moyen-Orient

Un officiel égyptien accuse Israël d'avoir fomenté le chaos en Égypte

Rick Santorum, le nouveau candidat sioniste le plus en vue aux États-Unis, représente un grave danger pour la liberté d'expression

2012-01-07T11:43:00.000-08:00

The Piper Report Jan 4, 2012

Rick Santorum as–SURPRISE SURPRISE–a paid and willing agent of Jewish interests out to destroy American freedoms.
Download Here

Santorum: 'There Is No Palestine'

Submitted by Douglas Bloomfield on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 07:29

GOP Presidential contender Rick Santorum, who appears likely to come from far behind to finish in the top 3 in Tuesday's Iowa Caucuses, is trying to out-do his former Congressional colleague Newt Gingrich when it comes to insulting Palestinians.
Gingrich called the Palestinians an "invented" people who didn't exist until sometime in the 20th century. Santorum criticized Gingrich’s widely-reported remarks as “provocative,” but his own more extreme views got little attention at the time because he was considered a hopeless back-of-the-pack candidate and not being taken very seriously.
But now that he is rising rapidly in the polls, his comments deserve a second look.
As far as Santorum is concerned, Palestinians don’t exist.
“There are no Palestinians,” he told a questioner at a campaign event in Iowa. You can see the video here.
"All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land," the former Pennsylvania senator said.
"The West Bank is part of Israel," which won it as "part of an aggressive attack by Jordan and others" in 1967. Israel doesn't have to give it back any more than the United States has to give New Mexico and Texas to Mexico, which were gotten "through a war," he said.

Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'

Rick Santorum’s Islamophobia Problem

Santorum: 'There Is No Palestine'

VIDEO - Rick Santorum Owned on Palestine

Bachmann ends her campaign, Perry stays in

Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry had been courting support from evangelical Christians. Bachmann's announcement that she is dropping out of the race could help boost Santorum, who finished second in Iowa, just eight votes away from front-runner Mitt Romney.

Résultats du Caucus de l'Iowa, pour les Nuls
1. Va-t-en-guerre Pro-Israël
2. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
3. Ron Paul
4. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
5. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
6. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
7. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël

christ-roi:

Mercredi 4 janvier 2012

Primaires républicaines 2012 : Qui est Rick Santorum ?

L'Iowa a donné le coup d'envoi de la primaire républicaine hier soir, 3 janvier 2012. Un processus qui s'étalera jusqu'à la Convention républicaine qui aura lieu à Tampa, en Floride du 27 au 30 août et pendant laquelle sera désigné le candidat qui affrontera Barack Obama à l'élection présidentielle.

Avec 15 % des intentions de vote dans l'Iowa, le catholique Rick Santorum, fils d'un immigré italien, est apparu brusquement samedi 31 décembre comme la nouvelle surprise de la primaire républicaine pour l'élection présidentielle américaine de 2012.
Dans de récents sondages Rick Santorum s'approchait du mormon Mitt Romney et devançait les autres candidats cherchant à rassembler l'électorat chrétien fondamentaliste protestant, Michele Bachmann, évangélique luthérienne, et Rick Perry, gouverneur du Texas, anciens favoris des sondages, dont les campagnes se sont effondrées ces derniers mois. Les chrétiens conservateurs des multiples églises protestantes américaines (luthérienne, méthodiste, baptiste et mennonite), ainsi que les catholiques, comme M. Santorum, représentaient une des clés du scrutin dans l'Iowa. En rassemblant cet électorat sous son nom, M. Santorum espèrait s'imposer comme un concurrent viable à l'échelle nationale.
Pari réussi puisque Rick Santorum qui selon un sondage publié samedi 31 décembre par le Des Moines Register, se plaçait en troisième position derrière M. Romney (24 %) et Ron Paul (22 %), enregistrant "la plus forte hausse d'intentions de vote", est arrivé en deuxième position aux primaires républicaines d'hier soir à seulement huit voix de Mitt Romney.
La victoire du favori Mitt Romney , pro-IVG (depuis 2005), lui confère une position confortable pour le prochain scrutin, le 10 janvier dans le New Hampshire. Le vainqueur et son dauphin ont chacun réuni 25 % des suffrages. Ron Paul, libertarien isolationniste violemment opposé à toute emprise de l'État fédéral sur la société et l'économie, qui remonte aux origines de la Constitution américaine, termine à la troisième place, avec 21 % des voix. Newt Gingrich, ancien président de la chambre des représentants, a attiré 13 % des bulletins, devant le Texan Rick Perry (10 %) et Michele Bachmann (5 %).
Le 7 février 2088, devant la Conservative Political Action Conference, Mitt Romney avait déclaré craindre un destin européen pour l'Amérique : « L'Europe affronte un désastre démographique qui est le produit d'une foi affaiblie dans le Créateur, de familles en faillite, d'une absence de respect pour la sainteté de la vie et d'une morale érodée (...). Si nous ne changeons pas de politique, nous deviendrons la France du XXI^e siècle. Encore un grand pays, mais pas le leader mondial, la superpuissance » (« Mitt Romney laisse la voie libre à John McCain chez les républicains », Le Monde, 8 février 2008.)

Sans moyens, longtemps resté cantonné dans la queue de «la classe» des candidats en lice, Santorum a gagné sa place dans ce doublé de tête en sillonnant l'Iowa à l'ancienne, se rendant patiemment et systématiquement dans ses 99 comtés pour y défendre sa vision d'une Amérique renouant avec ses valeurs traditionnelles chrétiennes.
L'effondrement progressif des autres candidats chrétiens conservateurs a fini par jeter sous les feux de la rampe ce père de sept enfants, passionné, plutôt bon orateur, qui parle «de reconstruire l'Amérique du bas vers le haut». Santorum affiche des positions très va-t-en-guerre sur l'Iran, pour éliminer son potentiel nucléaire. Il nie le réchauffement climatique et défend la pratique du waterboarding, la torture de la baignoire, utilisée par la CIA à Guantanamo.
Si Rick Santorum est connu pour être un fervent opposant à l'avortement (même en cas de viol), à la contraception et au "mariage" homosexuel, il s'est récemment distingué en déclarant être prêt à frapper les installations nucléaires iraniennes s'il était élu président. Sa haine de l'Iran s'inscrit dans une ligne sioniste pro-israélienne parfaitement néo-mondialiste compatible.
Un blog en langue anglaise nous donne un indice, et indique qu'il y a six ans, malgré que Rick Santorum soit contre l'avortement, il a soutenu un sénateur juif, franc-maçon 33e degré, pro-avortement, Arlen Specter, contre Pat Toomey, candidat anti-avortement (!) : ce soutien est "inexplicable". Specter est connu pour son hostilité à toute tentative de revenir sur la décision judiciaire Roe vs. Wade ayant abouti à la légalisation de l'avortement. Pat Toomey aurait participé à des évènements dans des localités maçonniques.

53 ans, ancien jeune loup du camp républicain, trois fois élu à la Chambre des représentants puis au Sénat, Rick Santorum a disparu de la scène nationale depuis la perte de son mandat de sénateur de Pennsylvanie, en 2006. Il a survécu politiquement comme éditorialiste sur la chaîne ultra-conservatrice Fox News.

Les Américains redécouvrent aujourd'hui ce père de famille, au look rétro dans ses inamovibles pulls sans manche. Ils s'amusent de le voir représenté sur Google (en deuxième et troisième résultat de recherche pour le mot-clé "Santorum") par une blague de mauvais goût, par laquelle des activistes avaient cherché à le ridiculiser en 2003, après qu'il eût comparé l'homosexualité à la polygamie et à l'inceste.

Si la rapidité du retour en gloire de M. Santorum fait ainsi apparaître quelques vieilles casseroles, elle l'a également protégé, en Iowa, des attaques de ses adversaires. Rick Santorum a été épargné par le flot de spots publicitaires hostiles, financés par les supporteurs "indépendants" des candidats, qui déferle actuellement sur les chaînes locales de l'Iowa, et dont son rival Newt Gingrich a fait les frais.

«Les conservateurs sont à la recherche d'un candidat anti-Romney, ils ne veulent pas répéter l'expérience de 2008 quand ils avaient dû se ranger derrière le modéré John McCain. Ils sont persuadés que c'est ce qui les a fait perdre face à Obama, explique le politologue Dennis Goldford. Avec Santorum, ils ont peut-être trouvé leur homme.»

L'une des questions est de savoir si les autres prétendants conservateurs, comme Newt Gingrich (13%), Rick Perry (10%) ou Michelle Bachmann (5%), accepteront de jeter l'éponge pour se rallier rapidement à Santorum.

La quasi-égalité de Santorum avec Romney est-elle un simple feu de paille, comme cela avait été le cas pour l'ancien gouverneur social conservateur de l'Arkansas Mike Huckabee, sorti vainqueur dans l'Iowa en 2008, mais très vite marginalisé par la suite? C'est ce que va plaider le candidat Mitt Romney pour en tirer un maximum de profit pour les primaires à venir, et notamment celle toute proche du New Hampshire, le 9 janvier.

Sources:
- http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2012/01/02/rick-santorum-nouvelle-surprise-des-primaires-republicaines_1624715_829254.html#ens_id=1550858
- http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/live/2012/01/04/elections-americaines-le-caucus-de-l-iowa_1625332_829254.html
- http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/01/04/01003-20120104ARTFIG00253-rick-santorum-cree-la-surprise-au-caucus-de-l-iowa.php
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

The Real Rick Santorum

January 06, 2012

While senator, he had plan to end free speech on college campuses

By Michael Collins Piper

In 2003, then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) cut a back-room deal with high-powered lobbyists to introduce legislation to limit freedom of speech on American college campuses.

Proposing to rewrite the federal funding formula under Title IX of the Higher Education Act to include what was called “ideological diversity” as a prerequisite, Santorum’s intent was to cut federal funding for American universities that allowed professors, students and student organizations to criticize Israel in class or in other open campus forums.

A major recipient of campaign money from pro-Israel sources, Santorum said criticizing Israel was “anti-Semitism.”

Initial details surrounding the senator’s Orwellian proposal came in an article of April 15, 2003 in a fanatically pro-Israel conservative daily, The New York Sun.

The website of the pro-Israel student group, Hillel, also favorably reported the origins of Santorum’s plan.

Hillel said Santorum invited Jewish organizations to a private meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss concerns about criticism of Israel on college campuses. Joining Hillel were the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America and the American Jewish Committee.

The Sun summarized Santorum’s conclave with the influential lobby groups: “By the end of the meeting yesterday, Mr. Santorum was talking about introducing legislation that could cut federal funding to colleges where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are prevalent—or . . . where ‘ideological diversity’ is lacking.”

Hillel’s Wayne Firestone said: “Everywhere I go, this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest.” However, the truth is that—outside the Jewish community—few knew of Santorum’s initiative, until AMERICAN FREE PRESS reported the story, which concerned academics circulated widely on the Internet.

Forced into a defensive mode, the Jewish lobby claimed AFP’s story was a lie—a “rumor . . . sweeping Arab and left-wing media,” as New York’s Jewish Week reported on May 9, 2003.

In a story titled “Diversity Disinformation,” Jewish Week asserted that “to pro-Israel leaders and leading members of the Senate, it’s a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst,” adding falsely that “the story originated with . . . conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists.” This was a lie to save Santorum from public opprobrium for his scheme to gut the First Amendment.

Today Santorum seems to be getting his reward. Pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch, head of the influential Fox News empire, has endorsed Santorum’s presidential ambitions.

The Plot Against
Free Speech

By Michael Collins Piper

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is an appealing candidate to many conservatives, but he has does have a dark side. Although he fervently declared in 2006 that “the American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom,” just a few years earlier Santorum planned a war against a traditional American liberty — freedom of speech.
In 2003, Santorum planned to introduce “ideological diversity” legislation that would cut federal funding for American universities found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel. Santorum considered criticism of Israel to be “anti-Semitism.”
Santorum wanted to rewrite the federal funding formula under Title IX of the Higher Education Act to include “ideological diversity” as a prerequisite for federal funding. Joining Santorum was another pro-Israel ideologue, then-Sen. Sam Brownback (RKan.), who had his own scheme to institute a federal commission — critics called it a “tribunal” — to be established under Title IX to “investigate” anti-Semitism on American campuses.
Although the average student or academic had not heard of the scheme, Wayne Firestone, director of the Center for Israel Affairs for the Hillel Foundation, said that “Everywhere I go, this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest.”
It was Hillel — a national network of pro-Israel student- manned “campus police” — that first leaked word of Santorum’s scheme. Further details appeared onApril 15, 2003 in The New York Sun, a pro-Israel daily published by a clique of billionaire financiers.
Hillel told supporters that Santorum and several GOP senators — including Brownback (now governor of Kansas) — had invited representatives of a number of Jewish organizations to attend a private meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss concerns about growing criticism of Israel on campuses.
At the meeting were the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Jewish Committee and Hillel.
In the meantime, word of the Santorum initiative was spreading as a result of an exposé by AMERICAN FREE PRESS (AFP). Widely circulated on the Internet, the AFP report arrived in the emails of educators across the United States and around the globe. As a consequence of growing concern about the scheme, the pro-Israel lobby began denying Santorum had proposed such legislation, claiming the AFP story was a lie.
Ultimately, the New York-based Jewish Week reported on May 9, 2003 that the State Department had contacted senators to advise them that Palestinian newspapers were carrying the story about Santorum and asking if the story was true.
Jewish Week’s story — titled “Diversity Disinformation”— declared a “rumor of pending legislation barring campus criticism of Israel [was] sweeping Arab and left-wing media.” The article asserted that “the story originated with . . . conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists.” Obviously, this was a lie, since AFP’s report was based on a story in a pro-Israel newspaper.
Despite this, Jewish Week said the story “has become an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles,” and asserted that “to pro-Israel leaders and leading members of the Senate, it’s a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst.”
The article in the pro-Israel Sun stated flatly, in discussing the Capitol Hill meeting where the scheme originated:

By the end of the meeting yesterday, Mr. Santorum was talking about introducing legislation that could cut federal funding to colleges where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are prevalent — or more generally, where “ideological diversity” is lacking.

Yet, now that the story had been unveiled, Jewish Week contradicted the Sun and claimed that “No such legislation has been introduced or even contemplated.”
According to an un-named source, cited by Jewish Week, the Capitol Hill meeting featured “many presentations from different groups,” failing to mention that the “different” groups were all pro-Israel organizations.
The “new” version of events, as outlined by Jewish Week, never mentioned that Santorum’s colleague, Brownback, had urged formation of a federal commission to “investigate” so-called anti-Semitism on campus.
So, if the story was an “urban legend,” why did a pro- Israel newspaper publish the story in the first place?
As a candidate for president, Santorum should be forced to address the controversy surrounding this matter.

Congress Acts to Censor Academics Who Criticize Government Policy

Assault on free speech, thought ignored by mainstream

By Michael Collins Piper

(...)
The current House legislation is a disguised reincarnation of an even earlier pernicious proposal by two White-House-hungry Republican senators, Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.), who were clearly pandering to the Israeli lobby (and pro-Israel campaign contributors) by promoting such measures.

After AFP learned of the scheme by Santorum and Brownback and focused on their intention of introducing so-called “ideological diversity” legislation designed to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses, the resulting negative publicity forced the duo to back off.

Angry that the scheme had been derailed, the New York-based Jewish Week published a story about the controversy generated by AFP’s reportage saying AFP’s revelation of the Santorum-Brownback scheme was “a dangerous urban legend, deliberate disinformation at worst” concocted by “several leading conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists,” which had become “an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles.”

In fact, the first and little-noticed report about the Santorum-Brownback scheme, (which later spawned the House measures) was first mentioned in the April 15, 2003, in the small-circulation New York Sun, a stridently pro-Israel “neo-conservative” daily. The Sun revealed that the two senators and several of their colleagues had discussed such legislation in the company of representatives of a number of powerful pro-Israel organization at a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

In any event, the Santorum-Brownback proposal has — like the proverbial “bad penny” — popped up again, in new guise, and is now before Congress.

Thought Police Back in School

Dangerous College Censorship Bill Returns Under New Guise

By Michael Collins Piper

(...)

Note, too, that one of the cosponsors is Hoekstra, who was the sponsor of the similarly intended H.R 3077, a bill initially inspired by an even earlier proposal by two Republican senators, Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Sam Brownback (Kan).

After American Free Press learned of the scheme by Santorum and Brownback and focused on their intention of introducing so-called "ideological diversity" legislation designed to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses, the resulting negative publicity forced the duo to back off.

Angry that the scheme had been derailed, the New York-based Jewish Week published a story about the controversy generated by AFP's reportage, saying AFP's revelation of the Santorum-Brownback scheme was "a dangerous urban legend; deliberate disinformation at worst," concocted by "several leading conspiracy theorists and Holocaust Revisionists," which had become "an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles."

In fact, the first and little-noticed report about the Santorum-Brownback scheme, which later spawned H.R. 3077 and now H.R. 509, was first mentioned on April 15, 2003, in the small-circulation New York Sun, a stridently pro-Israel "neo-conservative" daily published in Manhattan. That report revealed that the two senators and several of their colleagues had discussed such legislation in the company of representatives of a number of powerful pro-Israel organizations at a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

Those who are concerned about freedom of speech on the campus would be wise to contact their representatives in Congress and urge that Tiberi's H.R. 509 be put to rest once and for all.

The U.S. Congress switchboard can be reached at: (202) 224-3121. Operators will be able to connect callers to their own representatives.

Hagee Worships Israel in D.C.

ON JULY 21, REPORTERS AND EDITORS from AMERICAN FREE PRESS, while covering the annual Christians United for Israel’s 2010 summit put on by the multimillionaire preacher for profit Pastor John Hagee, couldn’t help but do some demonstrating in front of Washington’s convention center. The conference drew some of the most powerful pro-Israeli figures in the United States. This included rabidly pro-Israel legislators like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), as well as neo-conservative mouthpieces Frank Gaffney and Michael Medved. Billionaire publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, one of the wealthiest Jews in America, was also in attendance.

Confronting the Cult of
'the Corpulent Con Man'

Veteran Christian nationalist Willis Carto scares
arch-Zionist preacher John Hagee half to death

By Michael Collins Piper

Others who lent their prestige to Hagee’s cult were: Jonathan P. Falwell, son of the late evangelist Jerry Falwell; and neo-conservative pro-Israel Muslim-bashing propagandists Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Clifford May, Robert Satloff and Dennis Prager. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)—defeated for reelection and angling for a comeback—and country singer Randy Travis also popped up.
Last, but far from least, joining the festivities were the Bilderberg group’s William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard, and Kristol’s close friend and collaborator Gary Bauer, touted as a defender of “family values” in Republican circles.

THE IDAHO CAUCUS
(...)

We didn’t invite Ron Paul because, well, it’ll be obvious pretty soon.
Anyway, here’s how the interview, led by yours truly, went down:
(Note to Shas Party members, this is satire. Red highlights are not only mine, but they are the only actual quotes.)
MT: Mr. Santorum, let’s begin with you. Lots of older voters voted for you in Iowa yet you favor cuts in social security by raising the retirement age to something like 105 and for turning part of the system over to a bunch of crooks in the private sector. Once people in their late 50′s and early 60′s figure this out, do you think you have a Herman Cain’s chance in a NOW convention of getting elected?
Santorum – Right now the single most important thing this country can do is put aside more money for Israel. My program will allow us to give Israel three or four times as much each year for the development of its military and to consolidate the emerging Israeli cities in Judea and Samaria. As you know “All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”
MT: Mr. Gingrich, perhaps you could answer the question about social security. What is the future of this fund that so many Americans have paid so much into?
Gingrich: Rick Santorum is a traitor to the state of Israel. My program will allow us to directly transfer social security taxes to holocaust survivors in Israel while allowing us to give Israel 5 to 6 times the current aid Israel officially gets from the United States. “The Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story,” “These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools.” I say fuck’em.
MT: Ah, Mr. Cain, we weren’t expecting you to show up for this. Since you are here, perhaps you could address the question of the future of social security.
Cain: Social security, that’s uh, that’s uh, well it has social in it so that must mean its socialistic or something. I’ll get back to you once my biographers tell me what to say. “I think that the so-called Palestinian people have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak.” I say let’s just clean out the whole area and if a bunch of these so-called Palestinians die, well that’s just tough shit. Oh, and my program to wipe out social security completely now and forever will allow us to give Israel each year 10 times what it is getting now. By the way, I really like Jewish pussy.
MT: Ms. Bachmann, perhaps you could bring some sanity to this discussion, but I digress. Anyway, please let our aging population know how a Bachmann administration would swallow, handle, the social security issue.
Bachmann: My plan is to simultaneously move the US embassy to Jerusalem and transfer the entire social security trust fund to the Jewish Agency my first day in office. If a bunch of old-fart anti-semites don’t like it, well we’ll just have the military arrest them as terrorists and toss their asses into Gitmo for ever. Hahahahahaha. God, I’m funny. I am the only candidate here who really is an Israeli. I’ve worked on a kibbutz. When I was there “We worked on the kibbutz from 4 am to noon. We were always accompanied by soldiers with machine guns. While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines. I really learned a lot in Israel.” “I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian.” See, my heritage is Jewish, which means I am Jewish pussy. Keep your hands off of me Herman, you schvartse. Jesus fucking Christ, the last thing we need is another dumb schvartse in the White House. See, I really am Jewish. Anyway, under my plan, the US could give Israel 20 to 30 times what it is giving now. Oh, did I mention that I am the only candidate who made an entire video dedicated to Israel, you can go here to see it on youtube.
MT: Mr. Gingrich, uh, what is it you are listening to right now on your Ipod? I need you to talk about social security and other issues of critical importance to the average American.
Gingrich: I’m listening to this incredible broadcast about me damn near getting arrested by the FBI back in the 90′s for a huge bribe scheme involving a bunch of Israelis and pro-Israeli Jews. It’s by Mike Piper, never heard of the guy, but man he has basically proven my devotion to the state of Israel – unlike all these anti-semitic candidates you’ve gathered here. Look, social security has the half-life of one of my marriages. Forget it you bunch of pathetic losers. No one gives a rat’s ass about your stupid little social security checks. What you all need to do is support my program to wipe out the Palestinians – not that they even exist – but I digress. Let me finish listening to this thing. You know, you should make his website your featured website on your next post.
MT: Mr. Romney, you are immensely wealthy to a degree that is obscene really. How do you feel about helping out little old ladies living on social security?
Romney: First of all Israel is our only ally in the Middle East and I need to correct the anti-semitic statements of my colleagues here. ” I will travel to Israel on my first foreign trip. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable.” And as soon as I get to Israel I will get on my knees on the tarmac and give Netanyahu a blow job. Furthermore, I will pay not just to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, but I’ll also move the goddamn US Congress there too, this will cut down on the need for all those congressional trips to Israel. And I’ve decided to give all of my wealth to the Jewish National Fund and I will probably have Camp David moved into Kiryat Arba. In my first Defense Authorization Act, I will see to it that Israel gets 40 times as much money from the US as it does now and I’ll have anyone who objects to this treated as a terrorist, arrested by the military and sent to Gitmo forever. Now what was your question?
MT: Mr. Perry, any comments on the future of social security? Can any of you mother fuckers even spell social security?
Perry: First of all, I have already given Netanyahu a blow job. Second “I consider the Israeli settlements to be legal, from my perspective, and I support them.” In fact, I think they should build even more settlement’s, after all “it’s their land.” When I become president “Strategic defensive aid, strategic aid in all forms, will increase to Israel,” because Israel will be “the cornerstone of my larger global strategy.” I mean, who gives a fuck about the United States being a cornerstone of US policy? You’d have to be fucking nuts. Israel yesterday, today and forever. Jesus loves you and he wants you to kill the Palestinians, the Iranians, in fact, pretty much everybody. Praise Jesus. Oh, and I’ll see to it that Israel gets 666 times the money it presently gets from the American taxpayers.
-
MT: Mr. Santorum, back in the 1960′s manufacturing accounted for 25% of the GDP in these United States. Today, manufacturing is about 10% of US GDP. What can you do to re-invigorate this once vital sector of the US economy which provided good jobs for average Americans?
Santorum: Well, look at it like this. Iran is Israel’s enemy, therefore Iran is our number one enemy and we need to put an end to Iranian hegemony in, well, in Iran to start with. You know those Shi’ites have nukes up to their assholes, so I say we start a great big fucking war with Iran. This will put Americans back to work and will probably also kill quite a few of these useless eaters off. I have a long history of advocating wars for Israel – you can see this 2006 interview where I basically just made up everything I said out of thin air and you can see me foaming at the mouth during this very recent interview where I note that Israel is setting the standard for what the US should be doing in Iran in terms of perpetrating acts of international terrorism. And, speaking of Mike Piper, Gingrich is full of shit when he says that Piper shows that Gingrich is the ideal bitch for Israel. Right here in this latest podcast of Piper’s he shows that I am da bitch when it comes to bending over forward and backward for Israel. And yeah, you need to feature his website.
MT: Okay, one last question and since all you people care about is Israel, I’ll ask about that. How many more people must die for the state of Israel? Let’s start with you Herman.
Cain: It’s not about dying, just like General Eisenhower said. Hmmmm, I think it was Eisenhower, you know, the guy who they made that movie about. Anyway, maybe it was General Marshal, or Custer, can’t remember. Oh Lee, that’s who it was. Anyway, it’s not about dying for our country Israel, it’s about killing for Israel. Let’s bring on that shit!
MT: Mr. Perry, you’ve been pretty silent. How many more people must die for Israel?
Perry: Not sure, but why even ask? Anyone who dies fighting for Israel goes straight to heaven so I say let’s send all of our poor people over to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and England to achieve martyrdom. Then we won’t have to pay them shit. No social security, no nothing. And if we give a few pieces of tin as medals to some of them, they’ll be willing to die some more. Fuck, and you people think I’m a stupid son of bitch! I am, of course, but you fuckers vote for me and people like me, you get what you deserve.

Racisme, guerre secrète, assassinat et torture au programme de la politique étrangère des candidats républicains

Réseau Voltaire | 10 janvier 2012

À l’approche de l’ouverture des primaires, les sept candidats en lice pour l’investiture républicaine se livrent à une surenchère néoconservatrice en matière de politique internationale. État des lieux.

Mitt Romney, numéro deux selon les sondages et considéré comme l’un des plus modérés des candidats, a appelé à « passer aux actions secrètes à l’intérieur de la Syrie pour obtenir un changement de régime ».

Rick Santorum, ancien sénateur de Pensylvanie, a estimé que la récente explosion d’un dépôt de missiles iranien était l’œuvre de Washington et averti qu’il poursuivrait dans cette voie s’il s’installe à la Maison-Blanche, avant de plaider pour des assassinats ciblés : « Tout savant étranger travaillant en Iran pour le programme nucléaire sera considéré comme un combattant ennemi et sera promis, (...) tout comme Oussama ben Laden, à l’ élimination. Des savants ont été retrouvés morts en Russie et en Iran. Il y a eu des virus informatiques. Il y a des problèmes dans ces installations. J’espère que les États-Unis sont impliqués », a-t-il dit.

L’égérie du Tea Party, Michele Bachman, a quant à elle jugé que la pratique de la simulation de noyade devait être reprise. Le président Obama avait mis fin à cette forme de torture à son arrivée au pouvoir début 2009.

Le gouverneur du Texas Rick Perry a déclaré devant la Republican Jewish Coalition que « toutes nos lois émanaient de la Torah » et a estimé que les États-Unis devraient aider Israël à attaquer l’Iran.

La palme de la rhétorique néoconservatrice revient sans conteste à l’actuel favori des sondages, Newt Gingrich. Ce dernier a confirmé ses positions après ses commentaires controversés sur les Palestiniens, qualifiant ce peuple « inventé » de « terroriste » lors d’un débat à Des Moines.

Il a promis de financer « tous les groupes dissidents en Iran » et de saboter la plus grande raffinerie du pays.

Il a aussi reproché au département d’État actuel de « procéder au désarmement moral de la tradition judéo-chrétienne » tout en promettant la nomination du néo-conservateur John Bolton à sa tête, à la place de Hilary Clinton.

L’ancien président de la Chambre des représentants déclare que s’il devenait président des États-Unis, il envisagerait d’être très proche, « de plusieurs façons », de Benyamin Nétanyahou, l’actuel Premier ministre israélien. « Bibi est un dur à cuire. Il place la sécurité d’Israël en premier », dit-il.

Enfin, M. Gingrich veut demander au Congrès de redonner leur « liberté » aux services de renseignement étasuniens, suggérant ainsi de revenir sur l’interdiction actuelle d’assassiner les dirigeants en exercice des États qui s’opposent à la politique impériale.

Au-delà de l’habituelle rhétorique sioniste et anti-iranienne qui vise à s’attirer les faveurs du puissant lobby pro-israélien, ce qui ressort de ces déclarations c’est que désormais les candidats à la Maison-Blanche assument ouvertement la dimension criminelle de la politique étrangère des États-unis d’Amérique.

Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: "Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s'en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous"

2012-01-01T19:29:00.000-08:00

"Dear Vlad, The #ArabSpring is coming to a neighborhood near you," McCain tweeted.

(5 Dec 2011)

http://twitter.com/#!/SenJohnMcCain/statuses/143689929975799809

« Révolution blanche », drapeaux rouges et forces de l’ombre

« Les » Russes contre Poutine ? Une « révolution blanche » (ou orange) ? Un « printemps russe », à l’image du « printemps arabe », contre un « système verrouillé », voire « la dictature » poutinienne ? L’imminence redoutable du « retour de l’URSS » ?

AFP Was Right: U.S. Funding Arab Uprisings

VIDEO - Putin dubs McCain ‘nuts’, says US drones killed Gaddafi

TUT Podcast Dec 29, 2011

The “Arab Spring” coming to a resource-rich/nuclear-armed Russia–the US and Israel are playing with a type of fire that could eventually consume the entire world.

We are joined by the ever-brilliant Keith Johnson of http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com to discuss this and other items of equal importance.

Download Here

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

Voir aussi:

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les "dictateurs" comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur...

"De la dictature à la démocratie"

Larry SILVERSTEIN et David YERUSHALMI (gourou de l'anti-Islam aux USA), anciens patrons de l'épouse du candidat présidentiel Newt Gingrich

2011-12-17T11:44:00.000-08:00

Le couple Newt et Marianne Gingrich, prostitués pour Israël... et sous investigation par le FBI dans les années 90!

... lu dans le Washington Post!

Tout comme Rothschild et Bronfman sont les parrains du sénateur et candidat présidentiel John McCain (2008), Sheldon Adelson, "le juif le plus riche du monde" qui vient de donner 25 millions$ au Mémorial de l'Holocauste de Yad Vashem, est le parrain du candidat présidentiel et président de la Chambre des représentants Newt Gingrich. Adelson et Bronfman contribuent à financer Birthright Israel, une organisation sioniste internationale qui fait la promotion de l'immigration juive en Israël. Adelson et Bronfman ont accumulé leur fortune grâce à leurs activités dans le crime organisé. Les sionistes Gingrich et Adelson sont deux puissants alliés du PM israélien Netanyahou. Gingrich a déclaré récemment que l'Iran cachait des armes de destruction massives sous des mosquées! Il manque à ce point de subtilité que cela inquiète certains propagandistes juifs.

Marianne Gingrich a travaillé pour IEDC, qui est sous le contrôle de Larry Silverstein -- un milliardaire juif sioniste, ancien président du United Jewish Appeal, proche ami de Netanyahou et Barak, qui a pris le contrôle du bail du WTC peu de temps avant les attaques du 9/11. (Voir aussi Madoff = Silverstein = Mossad)

Mais son patron à elle au sein de la compagnie était nul autre que David Yerushalmi -- le gourou américain juif hassidique de l'anti-Islam! (Dont les opérations sont financées en partie par le politicien sioniste Frank Gaffney.)

BRIBERY SCANDAL ALMOST NABBED NEWT

NEWT & MARIANNE GINGRICH__SARKIS SOGHANALIAN__LOUIS FREEH

by Michael Collins Piper
for American Free Press

In 1997, hardworking FBI agents in Miami were on the verge (they thought) of snaring then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his second wife, Marianne, in a $10 million bribery scandal involving multiple ties to key elements of the Israeli lobby in Washington. However, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh stepped in, and the impending sting was called off.

This revelation appeared on page A-2 of The Washington Post on Dec. 15, but it has not been mentioned in The New York Times or been given any play in the major broadcast media.

While the Post downplayed the Israeli connection, a limited rendition of the story in one brief UPI report—published in only a few newspapers—never mentioned the underlying pivotal, in-depth role of Israeli-linked intermediaries in the matter.

Instead, the reports focused on international arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian’s ties to the affair, leading many readers to think Gingrich was involved in arms trafficking. In reality, it was the arms dealer, a longtime FBI informant, who was acting on behalf of the FBI in the effort to nab Gingrich.

The Post story was based on a far more detailed and revealing exposition of some 6,400 words by veteran intelligence correspondent Joe Trento, published on his website at dcbureau.org. The entire scenario is complex, reflecting events taking place over several years time. But the bottom line is that Gingrich and his wife were allegedly attempting to shake down Soghanalian for a $10 million bribe and that, from the beginning, operatives for Israel were on the scene, acting as middlemen for the Gingrich duo.

Mrs. Gingrich firstmade a connection to Soghanalian through her position as a former paid pitch-woman for the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC)—a front for a group of Jewish billionaires eager to promote Israeli exports into the United States. Behind IEDC were such big names as Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center at the time of the 9-11 attacks; Sy Syms of the SYMS clothing chain; and Lawrence Tisch, who controls the CBS media empire.

Soghanalian said he was first approached by Morty Bennett of Miami, who told the arms dealer he had a business associate who had an “in” with Mrs. Gingrich and that it might be possible to use that connection on Soghanalian’s behalf.

Knowing U.S. sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were preventing the arms dealer from collecting a legal debt of $54million owed to him by Iraq, Bennett told Soghanalian that Mrs. Gingrich could help arrange—through her husband, then the speaker of the House—the lifting of the U.S. embargo so the arms dealer could secure his debt.

Bennett’s associate, Howard Ash—who had worked with Mrs. Gingrich at IEDC—was a major fundraiser for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a Jerusalem-based think tank headed by Robert Loewenberg, who Mrs. Gingrich has described as a “friend.” IASPS also included another close Gingrich friend, former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), among its “trustees”—a relationship Weber now formally denies.

Following the contact from Bennett, Soghanalian—a longtime FBI informant who had worked closely with Richard Gregorie, the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami—reported the overtures from Mrs. Gingrich’s IEDC-IASPS associates to the FBI. The FBI expressed interest, urging Soghanalian to maintain contact with the group.

Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Gingrich visited Paris—under the auspices of IEDC and at the urging of Loewenberg—in the company of Bennett and Ash, where she met Soghanalian.

Mrs. Gingrich now claims she was soliciting a donation to IEDC from Soghanalian. However, Soghanalian told the FBI that Mrs. Gingrich told him in Paris that she could use her husband’s influence to get the Iraqi embargo lifted in return for “an understanding.”

Sometime later, Bennett came back to the arms dealer, saying Mrs. Gingrich wanted $10million to get the job done.

Soghanalian was told $5 million was for Mrs. Gingrich; another $1 million was for Bennett. The recipients of the remaining $4 million were not named, but those who know how Capitol Hill bribery works presume this money would be used to help “grease the wheels” among other members of Congress who would help Gingrich expedite the operation.

Soghanalian told the FBI he was instructed the bribe was to be paid to the Washington office of IASPS, which would, in turn, launder the money to the Gingriches.

The IEDC-IASPS connection recurs throughout the scenario. Not only did another IEDC associate of Mrs. Gingrich, attorney David Yerushalmi, serve as counsel for both IEDC and IASPS, but both organizations also shared a number of employees and mutual funding sources.*
The FBI insisted it was vital that Soghanalian seal the deal directly with Mrs. Gingrich or her husband. This would clinch the criminal case against them.

As directed by the FBI, Soghanalian insisted he would not make the “donation” to the IASPS—the bribe intended for Gingrich—until he could meet Gingrich and his wife in private.
Pressured by Soghanalian, Ash told the arms dealer the House speaker would send “his own man” to Miami to meet with Soghanalian to facilitate arrangements for the meeting.

Gingrich’s “own man” was Ben Waldman. Closely tied to Netanyahu circles in Israel, Waldman—an associate of both televangelist Pat Robertson and the infamously corrupt pro-Israel Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff—had been Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community. But at the time of the bribery conspiracy, Waldman was chief fundraiser for the IASPS.

Finally, with everything in place, the FBI set the trap for Gingrich. A lavish reception was scheduled for June 8, 1997 in Miami at a luxury home, which had actually been rented by the FBI for the sting.

Soghanalian was supposed to meet Gingrich there and solidify the deal under FBI electronic surveillance.

However, at the last minute, FBI Director Louis Freeh sent down the order that Soghanalian was not to attend the event—which Gingrich did attend—and the two-year-long investigation was brought to an abrupt end just when the FBI might have caught Gingrich agreeing to accept the payoff.

Journalist Trento quoted one FBI agent, who said: “We got so close, and when the target was in sight, we were stopped by Washington.”

In fact, both assistant U.S. attorney in Miami Richard Gregorie and the FBI’s Miami attorney, Martin King, had wanted to pursue the investigation to the end, only to be frustrated by the FBI director.

Soghanalian has since died. Bennett, Ash and Waldman—and Mrs. Gingrich—all dismiss the reported events as a tissue of lies. Gingrich has yet to comment. FBI officials now assert there was never any evidence Gingrich was aware a bribery conspiracy was under way.
——

* Considering the revelations fromthe Gingrich bribery allegations, it does not seema coincidence that longtime Gingrich associate Yerushalmi is today the driving force behind the ongoing, well-financed national Muslim-bashing campaign focusing on the danger Islamic law—sharia—supposedly poses to America. In fact, The New York Times reported on Dec. 21 that “long before he announced his presidential run . . . Newt Gingrich had become themost prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that sharia, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave [as], or graver than, terrorism.” The Times, however, did not mention the bribery scandal, its links to IEDC and IASPS, or even Yerushalmi, although it did point out that Gingrich and his ex-mistress—now his third wife—have produced a Muslim-bashing film.
——

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

The Piper Report Dec 20, 2011

Media ‘ignores’ Jewish angle to Newt Gingrich bribery Scandal…

Among other important items dealing with the destruction of our world.

Download Here

The Piper Report Dec 26, 2011

All new revelations on the Gingrich/Israeli corruption scandal. A MUST HEAR PROGRAM.

Please make sure to spread this broadcast far and wide.

Download Here

Note to those who have been inquiring about purchasing the new book by MCP entitled “Confessions of an Anti-Semite”–

There are multiple ways for people to buy the book, which is $28 per copy.

(However, please note that a signed, numbered, dated copy is $50). Foreign purchasers (including Canada) should add a minimum $15 postage.

Firstly, they can send a check, cash or money order (or credit card information, including card number and expiration date) to:

Michael Collins Piper

PO Box 15728

Washington, DC 20003

or, write to

American Free Press Newspaper

645 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE #100

Washington, DC 20003

or they can buy online with paypal

OR they can call 1-888-699-6397 and order by phone

FBI considered a sting aimed at Newt Gingrich in 1997
Washington Post
By James V. Grimaldi, Published: December 15

It is a curious case in the annals of the FBI: The bureau considered a sting operation against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich after sifting through allegations from a notorious arms dealer that a $10 million bribe might get Congress to lift the Iraqi arms embargo.

The FBI ended up calling off the operation in June 1997. It decided there was no evidence that Gingrich knew anything about the conversations the arms dealer was secretly recording with a man who said he was acting on behalf of Gingrich’s then-wife, Marianne, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.

But details of the case, which became public this week in an article and documents posted online by a nonprofit journalist, show how a series of second- and third-hand conversations alleging that the top man in Congress might be for sale caught the attention of federal investigators.

“There are so many falsehoods,” Marianne Gingrich said Thursday. “The FBI, they should have been protecting me, not going after me. This is scary stuff.”

Her lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said: “There was no basis whatsoever for an investigation. These were people puffing, which means they were making up access to a high-level goverment person.”

Gingrich’s presidential campaign did not provide immediate comment when asked for response Thursday.

The investigation began after the arms dealer, Sarkis Soghanalian, told federal prosecutors and FBI agents in Miami that Marianne Gingrich said during a meeting in Paris in 1995 that she could provide legislative favors through her husband. The case progressed to the point that it was deemed a major investigation requiring approval in Washington.

Soghanalian, a convicted felon who is now dead, said he wanted the speaker’s help in getting the arms embargo lifted so he could collect an $80 million debt from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to an FBI document filed to obtain continuing wiretap authorization for the case. The facts in the document were “developed through a cooperating witness,” whom The Washington Post has confirmed was Soghanalian.

Soghanalian said Marianne Gingrich assured him “she would be able to do anything [Soghanalian] requested of her ‘as long as they had an understanding,’ ” the document states.

Several months after the meeting in Paris, a man who had been on the trip with Gingrich and Soghanalian told the arms dealer that the embargo could be lifted for the right price. In conversations recorded by Soghanalian, the man, a Miami car salesman named Morty Bennett, stated that Marianne “wanted 10 million dollars to get the job done, five million of which would go directly to Marianne Gingrich,” the document states.

Bennett said in an interview Thursday, “I knew somebody and introduced them to somebody and that was it. Thank you for calling, and don’t call me back.”

The document and the existence of the aborted sting was first revealed this week in a 6,400-word story by Joseph Trento, who operates a Web site called DC Bureau (www.dcbureau.org). Trento interviewed Soghanalian several times before his death in October at 82.

The investigation foundered because there was no evidence against Newt Gingrich to establish “predication” — a basis to believe the target was engaging in or about to engage in criminal activity — according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. FBI policy requires predication before significant undercover operations are initiated.

“There wasn’t any direct evidence that he knew anything,” said a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The rules are you just can’t go in there and do an integrity check on someone.”

Bruce Udolph, the former chief federal corruption prosecutor in Miami, said he could not confirm the existence of the investigation but added, “With respect to Speaker Gingrich, I am not aware of any direct, credible evidence linking him to any conspiracy to receive a bribe from anyone.”

The Justice Department referred calls to the FBI, which declined to comment on the case.

The Armenian-born Soghanalian was a high-volume arms dealer nicknamed “the Merchant of Death” who was indicted by federal authorities in South Florida for conspiring to sell U.S. helicopters to Iraq in violation of a U.S. ban. His 6¹/₂-year sentence was reduced to two years in 1993 because of his cooperation with federal authorities.

He was already a federal informant when he met with Marianne Gingrich in Paris in July 1995. Also in attendance at those meetings were Bennett and Howard Ash, who had earlier worked with Marianne Gingrich at the Israel Export Development Corp., a company that advocated for a free-trade zone in the Gaza Strip.

Marianne Gingrich, who had left her position as vice president of marketing at IEDC, said she went to Paris at the request of her former boss to help get an investment from Soghanalian in IEDC.

The FBI document states that Soghanalian, Marianne Gingrich, Ash and Bennett spent several days together in Paris. Gingrich said “her relationship with her husband was purely a relationship of convenience,” the document states. “She told [Soghanalian] that she needed her husband for economic reasons, and that he needed to keep her close because she knew of all his ‘skeletons.’ ”

“She also told [Soghanalian], ‘It’s time for me to make money using my husband, and after we get started doing this, it will be easy,” the document says.

In January 1996, the document states, Soghanalian said he received a call from Bennett, who said he was acting on behalf of Marianne Gingrich and asked for $10 million to get the embargo lifted. Bennett wanted more than $1 million in advance, $300,000 in cash. The rest of the money was to be wired into Bennett’s bank account so that it could be transferred to the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli-based think tank with offices in Washington where Ash was a fundraiser, according to the document.

“Bennett stated that the way they had the deal structured nobody would ever be able to prove it was anything illegal,” the document states. “Bennett stated that it would be handled like a campaign payment and ensured the source that [Marianne] Gingrich knew what she was doing. Bennett stated that the money was for Gingrich and her husband and that they needed buffers to protect them.”

Marianne Gingrich said Thursday, “All that’s hogwash.”

Soghanalian asked for a telephone call with Marianne. Bennett said that “would spook Gingrich” but that he would try to arrange it “for small talk about their Paris trip,” the document states.

But Bennett never produced Marianne Gingrich. He reestablished contact with Soghanalian in February 1997, and the FBI asked for approval from headquarters to keep recording the conversations “to develop evidence of possible Hobbs Act, Conspiracy, and Bribery violations by Bennett, Ash, Marianne Gingrich, and as yet unidentified federal officials,” the document states. Ash did not return calls seeking comment.

In June 1997, Soghanalian was planning to meet Gingrich and his wife at a fundraiser in Miami arranged by Ben Waldman, a Reagan administration official who later was lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s business partner in the controversial purchase of a casino cruise line in Florida. Waldman did not return calls for comment.

FBI agents began preparing to bug the meeting, but Neil Gallagher, then deputy chief of the FBI’s criminal division, ordered the investigation closed prior to the fundraiser, people familar with the case said. They said local agents were upset by Gallagher’s move.

“I’d have to refer any comment back to the FBI,” Gallagher said Thursday.

The FBI special agent in charge in Miami at the time, Paul Philip, who signed the document, said he could not recall the case. After reviewing the document, he said he could understand why the case did not progress.

“When you’re dealing with elected officials, you have to be real careful,” he said. “Not that they can do anything to us. But their reputations are so fragile, if you don’t really, truly try to do the right thing, you could really shaft somebody.”

Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/161-1995-april-may/7779-marianne-gingrich-denies-israel-job-is-a-qpolitical-payoffq.html

Marianne Gingrich Denies Israel Job Is a "Political Payoff"

By Nathan Jones

Marianne Gingrich, wife of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has been hired by the Israel Export Development Co., Ltd (IEDC) as its vice president for business development. Mrs. Gingrich's interest in Israel's proposed free-trade zone, designed to attract foreign investment to Israel, was said to have begun during an eight-day trip to Israel she and her husband made in August 1994 at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel's Washington, DC lobby. "If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making," said Mrs. Gingrich, who has no experience in the field. Her salary, which she has drawn since August, is $2,500 per month, "plus commissions." Neither she nor her employers would disclose the size of the commissions. Speaker Gingrich told the Baltimore Sun, which broke the story in February, that his wife previously had her "own business." IEDC President Larry Silverstein told The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of congressmembers who were lobbied to support his company's proposal.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-04/news/mn-28089_1_free-trade-zone

Gingrich's Wife Hired to Recruit Business for Trade Zone in Israel

February 04, 1995
Susan Baer

The Baltimore Sun

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Newt Gingrich's wife, who has no previous experience in trade promotion, has been hired at an undisclosed salary to help recruit businesses for a free-trade zone in Israel. For the past few months, Marianne Gingrich has been quietly working as vice president for business development of the Israel Export Development Co. Ltd., whose investors include a number of American businessmen, such as CBS president Laurence A. Tisch, clothing magnate Sy Syms and real estate developer Robert V. Tishman.

Mrs. Gingrich, 43, is to make her first company trip to Israel on Wednesday. She declined to make any public comment about her job. The IEDC is trying to win Israeli government approval to run the new free-trade zone, a private, high-tech business park where companies will be able to operate free of most taxes and government bureaucracy. Her appointment seems likely to raise questions about whether the Speaker's wife is being used to help the company gain the favor of the Israeli government, which is heavily dependent on U.S. foreign aid. Since September, 1994, Mrs. Gingrich has been paid a full-time salary by IEDC--neither she nor the company will disclose the amount--and she is also to earn commissions on any business she recruits for the company. Mrs. Gingrich, who is employed by the company's U.S.-based marketing unit, is IEDC's only employee in Washington; the company maintains U.S. offices in New York and Miami. "We were looking for someone with her kind of experience and her excitement," said David Yerushalmi, chairman and CEO of the 2-year-old development company, which is based in Jerusalem and incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

ISRAEL'S FREE-TRADE DESERT FLOWER...HAS A GINGRICH GOING FOR IT (int'l. edition)

Few Israelis have ever heard of Likit, the site of what may soon become the country's first "free processing zone"--a tax-free enclave for foreign trade. Likit lies 10 kilometers northeast of Beer Sheeba, in what is now desert. The government decided the zone should be located in the Negev, the most underdeveloped part of the country. But supporters believe that within two years, the 283-hectare tract will see a boom.

The idea is to eliminate red tape for foreign investors. Israeli Finance Minister Avraham Shohat overruled experts from his own ministry who opposed the proposal on grounds that the zone would not contribute much to the economy. But since Likit is backed by some of the Jewish state's biggest American supporters, Shohat could hardly refuse.

On June 20, 1994, the Knesset passed the Free Processing Zone Law. It states that within the zone there will be no corporate tax, no value-added tax, and no import or export duties. Businesses operating there will pay only a 15% tax on distributed profits. In addition to tax incentives, companies will have the benefit of deregulated utilities, including phones, and will be exempt from foreign currency rules and import and export restrictions.

The zone was first proposed in 1992. Lobbying was spearheaded by Israel Export Development Co. (IEDC), owned by such prominent Americans as Laurence A. Tisch, CBS chairman and CEO; Michael Steinhardt of Steinhardt Partners; Morton L. Mandel, chairman and CEO of Premier Industrial Corp.; and Robert Tishman, chairman of Tishman Speyer Properties.

Backers claim the zone will create thousands of jobs for immigrants from the former Soviet Union and for recently discharged soldiers. They also predict that dozens of multinational companies, which have stayed out of Israel for political reasons, will set up shop.

In late March, the Israeli government plans to issue a tender for building and operating the zone and expects to announce the winner within 90 days. "We're looking for someone who will bring the best companies possible into the zone," says Boaz Raday, senior adviser to Shohat.

The leading contender for constructing the project is IEDC itself, which has already spent nearly $7 million planning the proposed zone and marketing it to potential clients. The Finance Ministry's Raday concedes that IEDC is the only firm entrant but says he has talked with other groups that have expressed interest in joining the bidding.

THREE TIMES. In the meantime, IEDC continues to market the zone aggressively. "We've got over 50 letters of intent from medium-to-large American, British, and German multinationals," says David Yerushalmi, IEDC chairman. All are in high tech, with a predominance of information processing outfits.

IEDC has already signed an agreement with Sprint International for phone service. Under this deal, calls from the zone to the U.S. will cost only 30 cents a minute. Israel's state-owned Bezeq Telecommunications Co. charges three times as much.

Without doubt, IEDC's highest-profile employee is Marianne Gingrich, wife of Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Her weeklong visit to Israel in mid-February sparked a good deal of publicity.

Gingrich was hired by Yerushalmi in September as vice-president for business development. Her compensation: $2,500 a month, plus commissions. After the appointment, questions were raised about her qualifications for the job. In addition to tart comments in the U.S. media, it was suggested that her real function might be to help IEDC gain favor with the Israeli government.

Speaker Gingrich has come out in strong defense of his wife, insisting that there is no ethical problem with her new job. "She works for a private company," he said. "She does no lobbying of the U.S. government of any kind. And it seems to me that since no taxpayer funds are involved and it's an entirely private business, that she ought to be let alone."

"At the end of the day, companies are going to look at the benefits of the zone, and political pull is not going to sway them," says Yerushalmi. But with the Gingrich appointment, IEDC seems to be covering all bases.

EDITED BY JOHN E. PLUENNEKE By Neal Sandler in Jerusalem

Extrait de l'EXCELLENT article LARRY SILVERSTEIN AND 9/11, du blog Crimes of Zion:

Silverstein has investments in Israel. In fact, in 1992 he co-founded the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC) which sought to facilitate safer investment in Israel. This article by Michael Collins Piper states that Newt Gingrich's wife was on IEDC's payroll in 1995:

In early 1995 the then-newly elected Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence officers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range solution that makes any sense.”

That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition” Republican Party endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United States into a high-tech business park in Israel.

Marianne Gingrich was hired in '95 as Vice President for Business Development by Silverstein's IEDC, the same year her husband became speaker of the house. It was around that time that Newt Gingrich's foreign policy views became staunchly pro-Israel and opposed to Israel's perceived enemies, even to the point where he publicly called for the CIA to overthrow the Iranian government, as referred to by Piper in his article. That was well before 9/11, and his views haven't changed. His wife had no experience in international trade, and before that appointment she was an image consultant for BeautiControl Cosmetics (source), but of course, she denied it was a political payoff. From this Dec 1995 article:

According to an article by Connie Bruck in the New Yorker of Oct. 9, "IEDC is trying to win approval from the Israeli government to manage a free-trade zone, and the Israeli government is highly dependent on United States aid—something that Gingrich is in a position to affect." It is no coincidence that despite drastic budget-cutting this year, Congress has left aid to Israel intact.

Bruck Describes the IEDC as an offshoot of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a hawkish arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.

The IEDC is indeed an offshoot organisation of the IASPS. This connects Silverstein to the think tank which produced the Clean Break policy document, authored for the Israeli government by neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser.

Marianne Gingrich works closely with its president, Robert J. Loewenberg, who is also chairman of the board of the Koret Israel Economic Development Fund, which assigns interns to key congressional offices. According to Bruck, Loewenberg writes lengthy diatribes in the IASPS newsletter attacking the peace process, return of the Golan Heights to Syria, and "left-wing politicos and bureaucrats." He supports the immediate move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which Gingrich is asking Congress to endorse.

So Gingrich was staunchly supporting Silverstein's IEDC and its agenda, and the state of Israel in general, but his beauty consultant wife's employment as Vice President for Business Development was not a payoff, even though Silverstein told the Wall Street Journal that Newt Gingrich was one of several members of congress who were lobbied to support his company's proposal. We'll call it a favor then.

Extrait de l'Article de Michael Collins Piper "Elite Says: America Needs Third Party"

A hint that there were high-level forces pulling the rug out from under Obama and laying the groundwork for even more substantial political convulsions on the national level came when David S. Broder opined in The Washington Post on Jan. 21 that the election of Republican Scott Brown to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate race was “a vote of no confidence” for the president and “Democratic controlled Washington.” Broder concluded by saying that “Obama may recover . . . but it will take a significant change of direction to turn things around.”
While most Americans have never heard of Broder (a longtime member of the CFR), it is no exaggeration to say that, “When David Broder speaks, people listen.” Broder’s Post column is considered “must” reading among establishment insiders in Washington. He is regularly hailed as the “dean” of America’s political pundits.
While publicly identified as being the fiefdom of the Meyer-Graham publishing enterprise, the Washington Post Company, which is perceived to be a tightly held family concern, is actually an American extension — like the CFR — of the global empire of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Rothschild-connected holding companies and, in particular, longtime Rothschild family associate, Nebraska-based billionaire Warren Buffett, have a considerably greater stake in the Post Company than even the Meyer-Graham family.
All of this having been said, it is critical to understand that the Post, as one of the foremost media powers on American soil, has been in the forefront of propagating the theme that some sort of “centrist” challenge to the two-party system as now constituted is in order.
For example, on Feb. 25, the Rothschild-dominated Post featured a prominently placed item entitled “Washington rancor angers bipartisan town.” The article proclaimed that even in Newtown, Pa.—one of the famed well-to-do “Mainline” suburbs of Philadelphia where so-called middle-of-the-road or centrist Democrats and Republicans alike have always competed on an even level in local, state and federal elections—disgust with partisan gridlock in Washington is growing steadily.
The Post asserted that the situation in Newtown is reflected all across the country in like-minded communities said by the Post to reflect “what political strategists consider the disaffected middle.”
What this means, effectively, in the carefully crafted code words utilized by the Post, is that many people consider both the Democrats and the Republicans to be “too extreme”—the Democrats perceived to be “too left wing” and the Republicans to be “too right wing.”
Putting aside the argument as to what constitutes either “left” or “right” politically, the point is that the Post is suggesting, as it has repeatedly in recent months, joined by The NewYork Times, that Americans are looking for a “middle ground” or “centrist” alternative.
On May 2, the Post — which heretofore never had anything good to say about relatively larger-scale “independent” or “third party” efforts, ranging from those of George Wallace, Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan to Ralph Nader — featured a lead item in its much-read Sunday opinion section raising the question: “Should the two party system be challenged?”
That the Post would even open up the question for discussion is very telling. While opinions, both pro- and con-, were presented, the words of one commentator in particular, Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics, reflected precisely the tone of recent and notably repetitive Washington Post commentary and reportage regarding the issue.
While Schnur says that the emergence of a third party is unlikely “anytime soon,” he suggests that “angry centrists” have “the best opportunity they’ve had in many, many years” over the next six months to begin laying the foundation for “the need for a new, centrist political entity that will free the country from the grip of liberal and conservative extremists.” He points out that a bevy of “besieged middle-of-the-road political figures could conceivably remake the American political landscape.”
As examples, Schnur cites such figures as longtime liberal Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is now actually being seriously challenged for renomination by a candidate perceived to be even more liberal than even Lincoln herself; Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who gave up running for renomination in the GOP primary facing a serious conservative challenge only to find his reelection endangered by a fight for renomination in the Democratic Party; and Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, who, failing badly in his bid for the GOP Senate nomination against a conservative challenger, has now, to great fanfare in the “mainstream” media, announced his campaign as an independent.
And it’s probably no coincidence that Schnur should be one echoing the Post’s propaganda line in so many respects. In 2008, Schnur was the communications director for vaunted “maverick” Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee that year, who, just four years before, was being touted as a possible partyjumping running mate for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.
Perhaps not surprisingly,considering his own conflicts over the years with more “conservative” elements in his own party, McCain himself faces a renomination challenge—from the “right”—from former Rep. J. C. Hayward.
What is particularly interesting in that another featured commentator in the Post’s give-and-take on the issue was former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said that a third party challenge was “not a path America should follow.”
What Gingrich did not say, however, was something that Washington insiders do know: the fact that Gingrich has been privately “mentioning” to figures in the capital city’s power elite that he is considering picking retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (who — like Gingrich — is another member of the CFR) as his running mate if he (Gingrich) manages to procure the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nomination. This is apparently the “Gingrich Solution” to partisan gridlock, some sort of “bipartisan, middle-of-the-road” approach.

Gingrich: Front Man for Shady, Shadowy Interests

		Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is still considerably influential in high-level political circles in no small part because of the fact that his substantial political and public relations enterprises have been bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, an international gambling tycoon. Known for his devotion to the interests of Israel, Adelson, said to be the third-richest American, has been described by the web site of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise as “the world’s richest Jew.” It should also be noted that Gingrich benefited from the lucrative Israeli-connected intrigues of his second wife, Marianne, whom he divorced some years ago, and who was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), which was promoting the importation into the United States of Israeli products — even as Gingrich was using his influence as a member of Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade. The aforementioned IEDCO was an operation run by mob-connected Larry Silverstein, the billionaire owner of theWorld Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for his now infamous urging — “pull it” — in reference to the trade center’s Building 7 which was deliberately imploded, a point that 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.


PICTURED: Sheldon Adelson and Larry Silverstein are two powerful Zionist figures who have bankrolled the intrigues of GOP kingpin Newt Gingrich

Iran Policy Part of Long-Term Plan
Michael Collins Piper
(...)

. . .In early 1995 the then-newly elected Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence officers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range solution that makes any sense.”
. . .That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition” Republican Party endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United States into a high-tech business park in Israel. (...)

Newt Gingrich, Marianne and the Arms Dealer:
A Buried FBI Investigation

By Joseph Trento, on December 13th, 2011

National Security News Service

Newt Gingrich and second wife Marianne Gingrich.

On October 5, Sarkis Soghanalian, once the world’s largest private arms dealer, died at 82. He had sold weapons to scores of dictators including Saddam Hussein, and he took many secrets with him to his grave. But one secret he did not take involves Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. DCBureau has learned that Gingrich was at the center of a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation in the late 1990s for a scheme to shake down the arms dealer for a $10 million bribe in exchange for Gingrich using his influence as Speaker to get the Iraq arms embargo lifted so Soghanalian could collect $54 million from Saddam Hussein’s regime for weapons he had delivered during the Iran-Iraq War.

Soghanalian was an FBI informant and was responsible for launching one of the most sensitive and secret investigations in FBI history involving the former Speaker and his second wife. According to Marianne Gingrich, it took the direct intervention of then FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to “get the investigation called off.” Freeh did not return emails and telephone calls for comment.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh

A convicted felon with a long history of working with United States intelligence, Soghanalian cooperated with the FBI in the two-year investigation which included secretly taping emissaries with connections to Newt and Marianne Gingrich. The cast of characters include personalities no Hollywood screenwriter could invent. One participant was involved in the Florida SunCruz scandal that resulted in the gangland-style killing of one of the cruise lines owners. Another was a used Rolls Royce salesman who pretended to be part of the international arms trade. A third was a penny stock promoter.

For several years, FBI agents instructed Soghanalian to get beyond the men who claimed to have ties to Gingrich and insist upon meeting with Gingrich and his former wife directly to prove that they could deliver the Speaker. But just before Soghanalian was to meet Gingrich and his former wife at a private Miami Beach fundraiser on June 8, 1997, arranged by one of these men, FBI headquarters called off the investigation. Washington ordered the FBI in Miami not to secretly tape record the fundraiser and to stop Soghanalian from attending. Marianne Gingrich, in a series of telephone interviews from her homes in Georgia and Florida, acknowledges meeting the arms dealer in Paris but insists her participation was to solicit an investment from Soghanalian for her former employer, the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC). She says the company was running short on cash and her meetings with the arms dealer had nothing to do with Iraq and arms dealing. Newt Gingrich did not return repeated telephone calls for comment.

Soghanalian said in a series of interviews before his death that men associated with Marianne Gingrich convinced him that Speaker Gingrich would use his influence to lift the embargo and allow Soghanalian to collect the millions of dollars owed to him by Iraq “in exchange for a $10 million payment to Gingrich through his associates.” Soghanalian was to pay the money – not to the Gingriches directly – but through a think tank, The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS), which has offices in the United States and Israel.

Saddam Hussein’s government owed Soghanalian for arms he had delivered – all with the permission and knowledge of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, but he could not be paid because Iraq was under a U.S. and United Nations embargoes. After his release from prison in the mid-1990s, Soghanalian settled in Paris and started rebuilding his arms business. In the United States he faced a $54 million IRS tax lien for profits he had never received from the Iraq arms sales. He told associates that he was trying to figure out a way to collect the monies owed to him. One of those friends was a London-based Kurdish Iraqi who had close contacts with Israeli intelligence and a car salesman from Miami named Morty Bennett.

Bennett saw Soghanalian’s money problems as an opportunity. He says he passed the information from his Kurdish friend to Howard Ash, a friend from the Rolls Royce dealership in Miami where Bennett worked. Ash was a fundraiser for the IASPS, the think tank, and had worked at the IEDC with Marianne Gingrich.

In May 1995, while visiting his wife, Shirley, and his grandchildren in Palm Springs, California, Soghanalian got a phone call from Bennett. Soghanalian had never heard of him before, but Bennett says he used the name of their mutual acquaintance in London who had experience in the Kurdish arms trade to get Soghanalian to talk to him. Soghanalian said before his death, “My ears perked up when he said he had an arms deal for me in Ecuador. There are a lot of pretenders in the business, but he seemed interesting, and I always need new information for my FBI friends, so I met with him.”

That May 1995 phone call from Bennett to Soghanalian resulted in a two-year FBI investigation so sensitive that details have never before been made public. The goal of the investigation, according to a Justice Department official, “…was to see if Gingrich, through his then wife, was involved in an attempt by political associates to solicit bribes.” One of the team of FBI agents involved in the case says, “The investigation was called off before we were permitted to finish making a case.” Another agent says it was just “too politically sensitive. We got so close and when the target was in sight, we were stopped by Washington.”

According to Bennett, the entire scheme to solicit $10 million dollars from the arms dealer was Howard Ash’s idea. Ash did not return repeated calls for comment left on his answering machine or with a woman who identified herself as his employee.

Soghanalian said of when he and Bennett met, “Bennett claimed that he and a partner named Howard Ash had an ‘in’ with Speaker Newt Gingrich on behalf of the Israelis…They asked me if I would invest with them in the deal.” The “in” that Bennett and Ash had was Gingrich’s then wife Marianne. In addition to being a fundraiser for the IASPS, Ash was also Marianne Gingrich’s boss at the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC). Soghanalian said, “Bennett told me they just hired her before Newt was made the Speaker.” In early 1995, Marianne Gingrich says, she was promoted above Ash to Vice President of Marketing. “He resented my promotion,” she says.

Robert Loewenberg, Head of the IASPS.

Marianne Gingrich says her boss at the IEDC, David Yerushalmi, called and asked her to make the trip to Paris. Yerushalmi served as counsel to both the IEDC and the IASPS. She says that by this time the IEDC was running out of money and she was no longer on the payroll. “David told me that Howard Ash and his wife had been at the Parc Monceau Hotel in Paris for days and still did not have an answer from this arms dealer and that Ash said he needed me to come to get an answer. He paid for my expenses and even though it was at an inconvenient time, I made the trip.” She says she thought the meeting was to win Soghanalian over as an investor in the IEDC. When asked why she would be willing to meet Soghanalian, a convicted felon, when she was no longer being paid by the IEDC, she says because her friend, Robert J. Loewenberg, the head of the IASPS, and her former boss at the IEDC, David Yerushalmi, “wanted me to meet with the arms dealer in Paris as a potential investor. …I believed that Robert Loewenberg had good ideas about free trade in Israel and this would help keep it going.”

David Yerushalmi

Marianne Gingrich says she did not have a good relationship with Ash after she was promoted over him. She says, “He (Ash) really wanted me in Paris, and I thought that was a little strange. He just never had been very nice to me…but he was nice in Paris.” David Yerushalmi, who says he hired both Mrs. Gingrich and Ash, disputes Mrs. Gingrich’s allegation that there was tension between them.

As Marianne Gingrich tells it, she did not expect her job back at the IEDC if Soghanalian made the $10 million investment because she was already too busy “working with Newt on his book projects. I let him attend a meeting by himself on one of the book deals, and he left more money in that meeting than I would have made in a year working at the export zone. I decided then and there Newt needed me to handle these things.”

Mrs. Gingrich made clear that throughout their marriage money was an issue. “We were so pressed he could not even set aside money for congressional retirement until 1991. Living on his paycheck was very, very hard… Newt was like a child when it came to handling money,” she says.

Morty Bennett says he was also in Paris for the meetings with Soghanalian, Mrs. Gingrich, Howard Ash and his wife. As Bennett tells it, he began to “feel uncomfortable with what Ash was trying to do with Sarkis. My antennae should have been sharper.”

Hotel Mermoz, Paris

Bennett stayed at the Hotel Mermoz, which is around the corner from the Israeli Embassy in Paris and was a few blocks from Soghanalian’s luxury apartment on one of the most fashionable residential areas in Paris, not far from the Elysees Palace, home of the French president.

Bennett says that while he was at the hotel between meetings with Soghanalian, the Mermoz manager called him saying a man was asking whether Mrs. Gingrich was staying in his room. “I got on the phone and the man was Newt Gingrich. I explained to him she was not staying at my hotel.”

According to Mrs. Gingrich, her interest in Israel began on an eight day trip to Israel she and her then husband took in August 1994, paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel’s largest Washington, D.C. lobbying organization. Mrs. Gingrich says Robert Loewenberg, the president of IASPS, was impressed with “my knowledge of planning and asked me to attend some meetings in Israel regarding the free trade zone.” She says that led to her being offered the position with IEDC. “Robert Loewenberg was telling me about some of the problems with the Knesset. The head of the Israeli central bank was opposing the free trade zone. I looked on the itinerary, and I went with him to a meeting and asked some good questions and the banker changed his mind. It had nothing to do with Newt. I went to the meeting. The guy kept calling me. He didn’t care about Newt. At one point he asked me to make a trip to Israel with some business people.” After the meetings in Israel with Loewenberg, the IEDC hired Mrs. Gingrich. She says that one of the reasons she took the job was “we did not have enough money. Money was always an issue with Newt…”

According to David Yerushalmi, there was no connection between IASPS, the think tank, and IEDC, the organization working for a free trade zone in Israel. But Mrs. Gingrich tells a different story. She says, “The same American Jewish funders supported both organizations and Howard Ash raised money for IASPS while he worked for the IEDC.”

A group of very wealthy Americans provided the funding for IASPS and IEDC. Both organizations shared some employees. David Yerushalmi, who represented both organizations as general counsel, wrote in an article:

“In June of 1992, a group of leading U.S. Jewish businessmen formed a company that was to become the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC). The founders of IEDC, men like Robert Tishman, Larry Tisch, Sy Syms and Larry Silverstein, were ardent supporters of the State of Israel. But like many Americans, they were leery of investing directly in Israel. However, it was their fears that made them ready to support the rather grandiose proposal embodied in IEDC’s mandate… To contemplate a real direct investment in Israel was not in the cards. The reason was simple: Israel didn’t play by any fixed rules…It was a land without any real legal protections or level playing fields. The horror stories by these men and their friends about ‘doing business’ in Israel were legion. Until IEDC came along, this was a nasty truth better kept under wraps and avoided. Philanthropy – yes; entrepreneurship – no.”

Sarkis Soghanalian and assistant Veronique Paquier the Paris air show.

In Paris, Soghanalian openly and frequently talked about finding a way to get the Iraq embargo lifted. He said he had been approached by “people connected to Newt Gingrich who were setting up a meeting with his wife to talk about what could be done for me.” Tony Khater, who was Soghanalian’s majordomo, confirmed the plans for the meeting with the Speaker’s wife.

Soghanalian said Howard Ash had brought up Mrs. Gingrich’s name “to convince me they were serious.” Soghanalian said he called a number of people to try to find out if the IEDC was a legitimate operation.

New York developer Larry Silverstein, who is best known as the main lease holder on the World Trade Center complex in New York, backed both the IASPS and IEDC. When word got out in 1995 that the IEDC had hired Mrs. Gingrich, Silverstein told The Wall Street Journal that her husband was one of several members of Congress heavily lobbied to support the Israeli free trade zone proposal. Mrs. Gingrich, who had no experience in international trade, said at the time, “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making.” She said her salary in August 1994 was $2,500 per month, “plus commissions.” Then Speaker Gingrich told The Baltimore Sun, which broke the story of Marianne’s employment, that his wife had previously owned her “own business.”

In a recent interview, Marianne Gingrich says she got the job at the IEDC because she had impressed her bosses. “I was able to contact a lot of business people, and I started calling them, especially Jewish people. I went to the head of Home Depot, for example. I tried to identify them and say, ‘Here are opportunities.’ The Jewish community is an incredible community…I thought it was a good idea…I thought it would help Israel.”

Calls to Larry Silverstein’s office for comment on this story were not returned.

No one involved with the IASPS or IEDC knew that after that first telephone call from Morty Bennett to Soghanalian, the arms dealer stopped by the Miami FBI office to see his old friend, Richard Gregorie, an assistant U.S. attorney. Gregorie, a veteran public corruption prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office, had used Soghanalian as a source for years.

Sarkis Soghanalian and Tony Khater in a helicopter over Iraq, 1984.

At the time, Soghanalian had been helping the FBI with several investigations that were unrelated to this one. Soghanalian told Gregorie and several FBI agents that he had a “bad feeling” about why he had been approached. The agents advised him “to make arrangements for another meeting and to keep track of all the details.” Tony Khater, Soghanalian’s top aide, says, “The FBI was aware of every contact Sarkis had with these people. The FBI told Sarkis to push for meetings with Gingrich and his wife. The FBI instructed Sarkis to attend the meetings, if they could be arranged.”

Morty Bennett and Soghanalian met with Howard Ash and Marianne Gingrich in Paris in July 1995. Soghanalian was extremely busy with business generated by the recent Paris Air Show, but he tape recorded the conversations with Bennett and Ash and provided copies of those tapes to the FBI.

Mrs. Gingrich says Loewenberg and Yerushalmi sent her on the trip to meet Soghanalian because “Howard Ash has been over there for weeks. His wife is over there. Can we wait it out, can we work it? The company needed money to last. They called me up and asked me to go over there. I didn’t get paid to go to Paris. They paid for my expenses, but the trip came at a bad time for me. I had to rush over for the weekend and come back because my nephew was coming to visit.”

Soghanalian said, “Marianne came one weekend with Ash and met me and Bennett. I took her to clubs and we had several dinners and luncheons.” In interviews in Paris in 1995, Soghanalian said that he was “making arrangements to get the arms embargo lifted” and that is why he was meeting with Mrs. Gingrich.

A frustrated Marianne Gingrich says it became clear to her from her initial conversations with Soghanalian in Paris that he was not interested in investing in the IEDC. “…Howard Ash and his wife had been there a long time, and my bosses wanted an answer from him. My job was to get him to say, ‘Yes,’ or, ‘No,’ and that was not easy.”

Soghanalian, a popular figure in Paris, took Mrs. Gingrich and her associates to legendary places like Regine’s and several famous restaurants where they posed for photographs with the arms dealer. Finally, Mrs. Gingrich got an answer. “The last night all of us went somewhere till two or three in the morning…It was final. He said, ‘No.’ I caught the first flight out in the morning.”

Soghanalian had a different version of events. He said that he told Ash and Mrs. Gingrich that he would talk to the Iraqis about making an investment in the free trade operation but that he would not personally invest. “I told them this may be a way of getting my money out of Iraq and doing something good for Israel…I also told Marianne I wanted to meet her husband so we could discuss a high speed train opportunity in Florida.”

Around this same time in 1995, Bennett and Ash were involved in a bizarre penny stock scheme. According to an article in the Sun Sentinel, their connection to the IEDC was used to drive up investor interest in a penny stock being promoted by a couple who called themselves Eisenhowers and held themselves out to be relatives of former President Dwight Eisenhower. Bennett, the car salesman, was described to the business press and potential investors as an Israeli consultant while Ash verified claims that the penny-stock company, Triangle Technology, had a deal to build in the IEDC’s free trade zone in Israel a $40 million dollar factory to revolutionize military aircraft x-ray inspections. Marianne Gingrich’s – as well as the very rich businessmen like Larry Silverstein’s – involvement in the IEDC was also used to reassure potential investors in the penny stock scheme. These claims and associations caused the penny stock to soar before the entire venture collapsed and many investors were left with worthless stock.

Because of changes in Israeli tax law, the free trade zone effort lost its investment appeal and the IEDC shut down. But, Morty Bennett says, “Ash still wanted me to push Sarkis. He told me to call him again.”

As Bennett tells it, on January 23, 1996, Ash instructed him to call Soghanalian at his Miami horse farm with a surprising bit of news. Bennett said to the arms dealer that Marianne Gingrich had told him the Iraq embargo could now be lifted. According to the FBI memo, “Bennett stated that it would cost the source [Soghanalian] ten million dollars to get the job done.” Bennett confirms that the FBI memo is an accurate description of what he told Soghanalian. Bennett says that Howard Ash promised him $400,000 if Sarkis made the $10 million payment.

According to Tony Khater, that is when the FBI sting operation went into high gear. That week Miami agents began officially taping conversations between Soghanalian and Bennett. The Miami office received approval for the wiretaps from the Justice Department in Washington. In its memo on the case, the FBI says: “…This matter may relate to a member of Congress and is, therefore, a sensitive investigation… [that] requires Department of Justice (DOJ) notification.”

The first official FBI tape captured Bennett telling Soghanalian that “Gingrich wanted ten million dollars to get the job done.” The split would be “$5 million for her, $4 million for unexplained purposes and $1 million for Mr. Bennett,” according to the FBI memo. Bennett asked Soghanalian for $550,000 in advance.

Bennett says, “I was operating under explicit instructions from Howard Ash. He told me exactly what to tell Sarkis in my conversations with him.”

Soghanalian became even more suspicious when Bennett asked him to deposit $250,000 into his bank account as a tax-deductible donation to the IASPS. “I began to think they were getting me involved in some Israeli intelligence operation,” Soghanalian said. He told the FBI that Bennett asked for an additional $300,000 fee, “preferably… in cash.”

Vin Weber

The IASPS was founded in 1984, according to its website, and has strong ties to conservative politicians in Israel and the United States. It is connected to the Likud Party in Israel in much the same way the Heritage Foundation associates with the GOP in the United States. According to Mrs. Gingrich, Robert Loewenberg, who runs IASPS, recommended her for her job at the IEDC. Howard Ash worked with Mrs. Gingrich at the IEDC and as a fundraiser for the IASPS. Washington lobbyist and former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber was one of Newt Gingrich’s closest associates in Congress and personal friends at the time of some of these events. Weber was a trustee of IASPS, according to IRS 990s, and was mentioned in IASPS newsletters. Weber says his relationship with IASPS ended “many years ago. I never knew I was a trustee.”

Soghanalian, a consummate actor, developed a clever and ironic response to their overtures, with the approval of his FBI contacts. He told Bennett that he would talk to the Iraqi government about financing the entire deal. At the suggestion of the FBI, Soghanalian asked to speak to Mrs. Gingrich in person. Soghanalian said, “Bennett told me not until a week after the deposit was made…It was funny because Bennett said Mrs. Gingrich was very concerned about being caught on tape.”

Bennett says, “Everything I told Sarkis was done under the instructions of Howard Ash. He gave me the words.”

In early February 1996, Bennett told Soghanalian he could not arrange a meeting with Mrs. Gingrich for at least three or four weeks. A few days later Bennett called Soghanalian and asked for another $500,000 to be wired directly into Ash’s account at the IASPS.

Under FBI agents’ instructions, on February 12, 1996, Soghanalian demanded to talk to Mrs. Gingrich. “Bennett was nervous. He said it would scare her, and I should only make small talk and, if I brought up the payments, she would hang up,” Soghanalian said. “Bennett kept putting me off. He told me she had not called him back but he had a better idea. He would get me with both of them once I gave him the deposit. Bennett said that this Institute would hold a fundraiser where we could meet confidentially with Gingrich and his wife.” According to the FBI memo, Soghanalian told Bennett he would not pay $10 million without first talking to Mrs. Gingrich directly “to receive assurances regarding the specifics of this deal.” Another year passed before Bennett called him back.

Marianne Gingrich, 2012

According to Tony Khater, in January 1997, Bennett started calling Soghanalian again at the Miami horse farm. Soghanalian told the FBI, and the Miami field office asked Washington headquarters for an extension of the wiretap, since authorization to continue recording had run out. Section Chief Paul Philip signed the memo along with several other FBI agents. Richard Gregorie, the assistant U.S. Attorney, was a key supporter of the probe. The memo said that Gregorie and the FBI’s Miami lawyer, Martin King, both favored moving ahead with the Gingrich-Bennett investigation. Gregorie, the memo said, “sees no entrapment issues.”

The request was approved and the investigation continued. The FBI recorded the February 2, 1997, conversation between Soghanalian and Bennett. Officials involved in the case, Soghanalian and Khater all confirm that Soghanalian also contacted Ash at the request of the Bureau. “Ash said I should work through him and not Bennett to get to both Gingriches. They were competing for the money,” the arms dealer said. Ash reassured Soghanalian “that Gingrich would send his own man down to Miami to meet with me.”

That man was Ben Waldman, a longtime Republican operative with strong ties to the Christian conservative movement. He was not unknown to the FBI. “His name coming up in the investigation got our attention,” says an official close to the investigation who asked not to be identified. Waldman’s name had surfaced in an earlier federal investigation of bribery and kickbacks during the Reagan administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that resulted in the indictment and subsequent plea bargain of former Reagan Interior Secretary James Watt and other top officials – but not Waldman.

What worried Soghanalian about Waldman were not his connections to the Christian Right, but his connections to the Likud Party in Israel. “My friends in Israel told me there was an effort by the Christian Right to join with right-wing political parties around the world,” Soghanalian said. “Reagan’s people had started this in the 1980s. They even tried to use me to make contact with the Baath Party in Iraq in 1983.”

At the time of the FBI probe, Waldman was listed as the chief fundraiser for IASPS, where Ash, through Bennett, had instructed Soghanalian to send the $10 million. David Yerushalmi, who was the IASPS lawyer, confirms that both Waldman and Ash had fundraising roles at the Institute at the time. When Waldman met with Soghanalian, he said he was a Vice President of the Institute.

For the meeting between Waldman and Soghanalian, the FBI rented a luxury, waterfront home on a canal not far from the posh commercial section of downtown Ft. Lauderdale. Tony Khater says, “The meeting would be a luncheon. I had to order in an Orthodox catered lunch for Waldman.”

On cue from the FBI, Soghanalian opened the front door of the luxurious one-story house. Waldman admired the home and asked Soghanalian about the yacht docked at the backyard pier. “As we ate the lunch, Waldman asked me to donate $20,000 to this institute of his. It was the same place that Bennett wanted me to use to pay him off. I kept trying to talk about other things, like the Iraqi arms embargo,” Soghanalian said. “I asked him could Gingrich get the sanctions lifted if I paid that man the money.”

Ben Waldman

The man Howard Ash picked to replace Morty Bennett as the man to separate Sarkis Soghanalian from his millions was a former Reagan White House aide with a long history in conservative Republican and Israeli politics. Though Waldman looks like an aging boy scout, by the time he met Soghanalian for a kosher lunch, all arranged by the FBI, he had accumulated an impressive dossier of business and political associates. Waldman was among the young Republicans who grew close during the Reagan administration – men like Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan. He was President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community. He also raised funds for the Institute. In an interview in the 1990s, Waldman identified himself to National Public Radio as a Vice President for IASPS.

Waldman played a key role in bringing Jewish conservative voters into the Republican Party as an aide in the Pat Roberson 1988 presidential campaign and as executive director of the National Jewish Coalition, now the Republican Jewish Coalition. He had close business and personal ties to disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. By 2000, Waldman was president and part owner of SunCruz Casinos, a controversial offshore gaming company with organized crime connections. Another owner, Gus Boulis, was battling Abramoff for control of the company. Boulis was shot dead in his car a year later.

Reached for comment, Waldman refused to go on the record, but, prior to that, he did acknowledge he had worked with Howard Ash at the IASPS. When asked specific questions about his meeting with Soghanalian, he says, “First of all, I am not going to go on the record and, second, this happened so long ago, anything I am going to tell you is going to be clouded by my poor memory and lack of specificity. I am not in that business anymore. It is not the right thing to talk about.”

Khater, Soghanalian, and the FBI tapes reveal that at the luncheon Soghanalian insisted to Waldman that he would donate to IASPS only on the condition he could meet with Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich in private. After the luncheon, prosecutors and FBI agents in Miami were convinced that the case should be aggressively pursued.

Working with Ash, Waldman planned a fundraiser for the Institute in Miami for June 8, 1997. Waldman later confirmed to the FBI that it was Ash who gave him Soghanalian’s name as a potential donor. The reception was to feature Marianne Gingrich and “a surprise guest.” FBI agents made plans to bug the fundraiser. In mid-May, the FBI’s Miami field office once again requested permission to tape record the meeting.

According to sources inside the FBI, Neil Gallagher, then the deputy chief of the FBI’s criminal division, after seeking the advice of a half dozen other FBI and Justice Department officials – but not Attorney General Janet Reno – ordered the investigation closed. The Miami field office and prosecutors were dumbfounded. They said Gallagher shut down the investigation just when Soghanalian was to meet Gingrich and his wife at Ben Waldman’s fundraiser.

After his retirement from the FBI, Gallagher said: “We can’t go around encouraging people to offer bribes to elected officials – we don’t do that…” When called recently for comment about the case at his home in Davidson, North Carolina, Gallagher says, “I can’t talk about this. You have to call the Justice Department.”

Another senior FBI official does not believe Gallagher’s explanation: “Do you remember the Abscam case? That is where FBI agents posing as rich Arabs bribed members of Congress. Gallagher did not object then. The truth is the Bureau thought Clinton was through because of the impeachment [proceedings] and they saw Gingrich as the most powerful man in America.”

In one recent interview Mrs. Gingrich says that she was unaware that Soghanalian had been invited to the fundraiser that was held in a private condominium in Miami Beach. She says that Joe Gaylord, her former husband’s political aide, would have handled such events. Gaylord did not return repeated phone calls for comment. A Miami Herald article puts Gingrich in Miami on this date. The fundraiser took place as planned on Sunday, June 8, 1997. Soghanalian, under orders from the FBI, did not attend. Twenty-five guests enjoyed a reception with Marianne Gingrich at an upscale oceanfront condominium in Miami. Her “surprise guest” that morning, her husband, Speaker Newt Gingrich, spoke about and urged support for free-market reform in Israel.

In a later conversation about the event Mrs. Gingrich confirms she and her husband attended the IASPS fundraiser with “about fifty other guests…We stayed about an hour and Newt was a surprise guest.”

After their meetings in Paris in 1995, Marianne Gingrich says she did not hear Soghanalian’s name again for several years. “It was in October of the last election year, 1998, and I get a call from Victoria (Toensing), and I was in Ohio and just found out I had MS, and I had to go into treatment. I was on heavy steroids; I am in the middle of a medical mess, high as a kite on steroids. I had to go to the Cleveland Clinic.” Marianne Gingrich was traveling with her assistant to speak to a conservative group in Ohio. She had scheduled a side trip to see a MS specialist at the Cleveland Clinic. “I get told I have to immediately get treatment. His nurse had MS, and she had the treatments available. Then you have to take pills to come off of it…. I am in the middle of that. I get a call from Victoria, and I said, ‘Just handle it.’ I am drugged up and high as a kite and I was bloating…I wasn’t supposed to be under stress,” she says.

According to Mrs. Gingrich, the entire controversy caught her by surprise. “No hint of this until Victoria called me….to tell me I was being investigated for arms dealing,” she says.

Victoria Toensing, Mrs. Gingrich's private attorney and former Reagan administrative official.

Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan administration official, was Mrs. Gingrich’s private attorney. She and her husband, former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, were one of the most prominent political couples in Washington in the 1990s. Mrs. Gingrich says, “She told me the Justice Department suspected I was involved in arms dealing.” Ms. Toensing confirmed to the media in 2002 that her client did meet with Soghanalian in Paris, but she said that Mrs. Gingrich went only to help “Mr. Ash secure funding from Mr. Soghanalian…The only information she was given … was that he was a Mid-Eastern investor.” Toensing said Mrs. Gingrich knew nothing about the arms dealer’s background despite the fact that Soghanalian had been well known in Republican circles for years in Washington and Florida and had attended several Republican fundraisers that the Gingriches had also attended. In addition, Soghanalian had appeared on 60 Minutes and Nightline prior to the meeting in Paris.

According to Mrs. Gingrich, Toensing told the FBI that her client’s conversations with Soghanalian were “limited to obtaining funding for IEDC and trivial social conversation. Nothing more.” In a prepared statement for the media in 2002 Toensing wrote: “Mr. Soghanalian decided not to invest, and Ms. Gingrich never saw or talked with him again.” Mrs. Gingrich says that Toensing’s efforts to kill the investigation went all the way up to FBI Director Louis Freeh, who made the final decision. Toensing did not return several telephone calls for comment.

Soghanalian’s recollection was far different. He said that after Paris “they (Ash and Bennett) were calling me every day to see how I got along with Marianne.”

Soghanalian told the FBI that he said to Mrs. Gingrich “that Iraq owed me $54 million, and I asked her whether she, with the help of her husband, could get the United Nations embargo against Iraq lifted so I could be paid.” Soghanalian said he also asked her if her husband could help him win congressional backing for a scheme to build a high-speed train through Florida. “Ash had told me this is one of the deals I could invest in – she could help us through Newt,” Soghanalian said. The FBI 302s confirm Soghanalian’s account of this part of the conversation. Soghanalian said Mrs. Gingrich told him “that she could get congressional support for the train, but her organization needed money for investment.”

Marianne Gingrich says, “I was just trying to keep the conversation going about his potential investment. I may have been polite, but I don’t remember ever discussing the arms embargo…I would have never suggested he invest in high speed rail. It was something I knew about, and it was impractical and a poor investment.”

This statement contradicts an earlier account by Victoria Toensing, who said in the 2002 statement, “Neither Iraqi sanctions nor a Florida bullet train … were ever brought up.” The lawyer went on: “It is not unusual for con artists to make false claims about well-known people.”

In a recent interview Mrs. Gingrich did recall the discussion about the possible bullet train deal. “I was humoring him, making small talk,” she says. Despite what is on the FBI tapes, Waldman denied in interviews at the time that there was ever a direct discussion of Speaker Gingrich assisting Soghanalian in getting the UN Iraq embargo lifted in return for money. Waldman claimed he was simply trying to humor Soghanalian, since he was a potential donor to the Institute. Newt Gingrich told the FBI that he “only vaguely” recalled Waldman’s name. He said, “To the best of my knowledge, I never sent anyone anywhere on behalf of the Institute.” The investigation took place while Gingrich was under other unrelated congressional ethics investigations and in the middle of the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Newt Gingrigh and third wife Callista.

A short time later, Newt and Marianne Gingrich separated and went through a contentious divorce. Gingrich resigned as House Speaker and from Congress in January 1999 and married a congressional aide with whom he was having an affair.

On the night of February 6, 2001, Gus Boulis – who had sold most of his interest in the SunCruz gambling ship venture to Adam Kidan, Jack Abramoff and Ben Waldman – was driving home from work when he was gunned down. It was a classic mob hit. Adam Kidan, whom Jack Abramoff had brought into the company with Waldman, had ties to two organized crime families and became an instant suspect. (He denies knowing anything about the death.) While Kidan and Abramoff served prison sentences connected to the SunCruz case, the Miami U.S. Attorney’s office did not bring charges against Waldman, who owned 10 percent of the company. Today he lives in suburban Washington and sells dental equipment. As Abramoff tells it in interviews about his new book, congressional corruption is commonplace. In the book’s acknowledgements, he thanks his “lifelong friend and partner Ben Waldman.”

Howard Ash is still active in penny stock investments and charitable organizations from Miami to South Africa to Croatia. He is involved with a long list of ever-changing companies from a Miami Beach house at 4233 Sheridan Avenue, including Claridge Management, Ashtine Holding Group, Associated Medical Billing, Biocard Corporation, Biorecord Corporation, CMM Consulting Medical Industries, Judaica International, Shesha Holdings Inc. and many others.

On the website Dealmakers, he is described as “a seasoned international businessman with experience in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. In 1990, Howard co-founded Abrams, Ash & Associates, a Merchant Bank, and sold his shares in 1992. Since 1992 Howard has served as CEO, COO and CFO to a variety of high-profile, international companies, including Israel Export Development Corporation, CITA Americas, BioCard, Inc., and several publicly traded companies. Howard’s leadership provided development of business documents and corporate identity packages, business planning, strategy formation, web presence, operations and implementation, investment banking liaisons, and investor relations. Howard, a silent partner in Tudog Creative Business Consulting, leverages his extensive network of international contacts and international consulting firms to provide clients with the broadest and most effective services available.”

Morty Bennett says he is retired and loves living in West Virginia.

FBI Gingrich Investigation

Just Two Degrees of Separation

Posted by Guest at 4:52 pm

By Jane Kaddouri

A new story is making the media rounds, reporting on a proposed 1997 FBI sting targeting GOP candidate Newt Gingrich. According to author Joseph Trento, Newt’s then-wife Marianne was soliciting bribes from an infamous arms dealer in exchange for Gingrich’s lifting of the U.S. embargo of Iraq.

The report details Marianne’s 1995 Paris meetings with arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian—meetings also attended by Howard Ash, who had worked with Marianne at the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC).

While Marianne says she was meeting with Soghanalian not to negotiate a bribe for House Speaker Gingrich, but at the behest of her former boss at IEDC, who was seeking a donation from Soghanalian. The arms dealer, on the other hand, says he met Marianne through Miami car dealer Morty Bennett (also in attendance at the Paris meeting), who told him that Newt Gingrich could lift the Iraqi embargo “in exchange for a $10 million payment to Gingrich through his associates…[at] The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS)”—where the same Howard Ash also served as a fundraiser.

And this is where it gets really interesting for us. Because you have to ask what kind of person would solicit a donation from a known arms dealer (he was profiled on “60 Minutes” the night before the Paris meeting). And we’re here to tell you. The CEO of IEDC at the time—and the Board Chair of IASPS—was none other than David Yerushalmi, the man behind the Islamophobia movement; the man who wanted turn adherence to Sharia into a felony crime.

The 2011 publication Fear, Inc., profiles Yerushalmi’s hatemongering in terrifying detail— from referring to African Americans as “the most murderous of people,” to his authorship of anti-Sharia legislation that’s being used as a model around the country.

Back in 2006, Yerushalmi wasn’t happy with Newt Gingrich—for the simple reason that Newt just wasn’t tough enough on Islam. Newt said that there were 5 challenges America had to meet in order to win the future, the first of which was “confronting a world in which America's enemies, including the irreconcilable wing of Islam and rogue dictatorships, could acquire and use nuclear or biological weapons.” Yerushalmi’s response was to ask if Newt was “articulating a future for America or for the ‘middle wing’ of the Republican Party and for control of Congress and the White House?” Either way, he concluded, Newt was just not his guy. “As much as I admired Newt Gingrich in 1994, and I had a special relationship with him through his former wife Marianne, I fear he is not the leader we await.”

Now that Newt is vying for control of the White House, he seems to be taking a page from Yerushalmi’s book of horrors. Far from the days of being a friend to the Muslim community, he’s now espousing legislation to combat the “spread of Sharia law.” He’s insisting that all Palestinians are terrorists. He mirrored Yerushalmi’s stance on Park 51. The new Newt seems a lot like the same old Yerushalmi—a similarity that’s becoming frighteningly clear.

New World Order Lobby Promoting Gingrich

December 03, 2011 admin

By Michael Collins Piper -

Even though there was no evidence of it, the elite media announced that the presidential campaign of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was picking up steam and gave his ambitions a critical boost. This was no surprise to those who know Gingrich has longstanding ties to powerful circles outside the realm of the grassroots voters.

In 1968, when conservatives were backing Richard Nixon or then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich was a Southern campaign coordinator for liberal internationalist Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York.

Although Gingrich now touts himself as a conservative, he remains a fervent New World Order globalist and a longtime advocate of U.S.military adventurism abroad and destructive so-called free trade policies. In fact, it was Gingrich who helped railroad the discredited North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress.

A member of the Rockefeller-financed Council on Foreign Relations, the New York affiliate of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the policy apparatus of the Rothschild banking empire, Gingrich is particularly close to hard-line pro-Israeli forces on American soil.

One of his chief foreign policy advisors is Ilan Berman, editor of the journal of the Jewish Institute for National SecurityAffairs (JINSA), the U.S.-based operation said by Prof. Edward Hermann of the University of Pennsylvania to be a “virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

Best known for its front-line role through its assets in the George W. Bush administration in misdirecting the United States into the debacle in Iraq and now continuing to clamor for war against Iran, JINSA has had several of its key figures—including JINSA’s founder, Stephen Bryen, and his close associates Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz—investigated by the FBI on suspicion of conducting espionage for Israel.

Gingrich—who has overseen a network of political enterprises that have brought an estimated $100 million into his coffers since he left Congress—has been favored by one donor in particular: Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson, a devoted supporter of Israel, who once described himself as “the richest Jew in the world.” This modern incarnation of crime boss Meyer Lansky bankrolled Gingrich to the tune of at least $6 million.

While in Congress, Gingrich benefited from the activities of his (second) wife, Marianne, then on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), promoting the importation of Israeli products into the United States—even as Gingrich used his influence in Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.

IEDCO was the brainchild of Larry Silverstein, the billionaire owner of the World Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for urging, “pull it”—in reference to the trade center’s Building 7, which was deliberately imploded—as 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.

Silverstein even admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number in Congress who lobbied to support Silverstein’s ventures. This happened at a time when Gingrich’s wife was on Silverstein’s payroll.

Mrs. Gingrich’s IDECO deal was cut in 1994 after she and Newt traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobby for Israel.

Although she took home a monthly salary of $2,500, plus “commissions,” Mrs. Gingrich refused to disclose the size of those commissions. The sums she received are of the level seen in many bribery scandals.

On Jan. 25, 1985, a front-page story in The Spotlight unmasked Gingrich—then a little-known junior House member and the leader of a clique of Republicans, the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS)—as the driving force behind a scheme to scrap the GOP’s historic nationalist stance on foreign policy.

The Spotlight revealed that Gingrich and several other COS members—including then-Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.)— had attended a secret meeting with Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, at which Gingrich and the COS agreed to use their influence to push the GOP into the internationalist camp. In return, the Post’s power-wielders promised to give Gingrich and his collaborators wide and favorable publicity. Until then, the media had relegated Gingrich and company to backbench status, painted as extremists.

Gingrich told the Post the COS would—and they did—call for sanctions against white-ruled South Africa, a reversal of the traditional conservative stand, a move that helped bring down that government and which resulted in South Africa turning its nuclear arsenal over to Israel—a little-known secret then and now.

Soon—as promised—the Post published a laudatory profile of Gingrich, one of many future puff pieces.

Then, Gingrich’s colleague, Weber, authored a Post column openly calling for the GOP to become “America’s new internationalist party.”

The Spotlight was shouted down by conservatives hoodwinked by the big media into following Gingrich’s brand of “leadership.” Ultimately, however, the secret Post-Gingrich meeting was confirmed by the Post—but only after Gingrich had reached a position of influence. The Spotlight’s “conspiracy theory”—as some called it— proved to be a conspiracy fact.

On Sept. 3, 1995 the Post pointed out that “for the ultra-right, Gingrich is just a tool of the world government plot.” The Post said “anyone who glances at The Spotlight . . . knows . . . Gingrich is hardly the leader of their movement; in their eyes, he is [subverting] it.”

According to the Post: “Those with a paranoid bent are convinced that the Georgian is in cahoots with President Clinton, the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations and the entire eastern establishment to abrogate the Constitution and forge a New World Order under the thumb of Jewish central bankers and the UN.”

More than a decade later, that sarcastic assessment of Gingrich stands perhaps more true than ever.

——
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant, The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and The Confessions of an Anti-Semite. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202- 547-5585 to inquire about pricing and S&H fees.

.American Free Press

.Vol XI .#13 March 21, 2011 americanfreepress.net

0digg

Page 10, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * March 28, 2011 *
Issue 13 * AMERICAN FREE PRESS * AFP ON THE CANDIDATES

9-11 Links,
Big Money Swirl
Around Newt

By Michael Collins Piper

.Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who left office under a cloud in 1999 — has pivotal political backing in elite global financial and corporate circles and can count on friendly support from the controlled media in pursuing his aspirations for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Despite his efforts to portray himself as a “conservative” alternative to politics-as-usual, Gingrich is an unabashed New World Order internationalist and a long-standing advocate of destructive “free trade” policies and American military adventurism abroad.
As such, it is no coincidence Gingrich is a longtime member of the Rockefeller family-financed Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York-based affiliate of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the policy- making apparatus of the global empire of the Rothschild banking dynasty that is intricately intertwined with those predatory plutocrats on American soil who dominate the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, the privately owned money monopoly Ron Paul has worked to bring into line. These facts about Gingrich point to where his real loyalties lie.

DIRTY MONEY
On Feb. 26 The Washington Post reported Gingrich has assembled a multi-level, wide-ranging political conglomerate of his own, described as “a financial empire that could prove crucial” in advancing Gingrich’s presidential ambitions. He has already raised more money than possible GOP primary opponents including Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney.
In addition, Gingrich controls an operation known as American Solutions for Winning the Future — a virtual private money machine that Gingrich uses to promote himself. The Post says this Gingrich venture has raised “more money than any other organization of its kind nationwide,” to the tune of more than $50 million, “much of it as large donations from casino, energy and banking interests.”
By far the most generous backer of Gingrich is Las Vegas-based casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson — a hardline supporter of Israel who once described himself as “the richest Jew in the world.” Adelson has given Gingrich some $6 million over the last four years.
Gingrich also has an unusual connection to Larry Silverstein, a controversial figure whose name has been in the forefront of the circumstances surrounding the cover-up of the 9-11 terrorist tragedy.
While in Congress, Gingrich benefited from the lucrative Israeli-connected activities of his then-second wife, Marianne, who was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), which promoted the importation into the United States of Israeli products — even as Gingrich was using his influence as a member of Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.
The aforementioned IEDCO was an operation run by mob-connected Silverstein, the billionaire owner of the World Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for his now infamous urging — “pull it” — in reference to the Trade Center’s Building 7. That skyscraper was deliberately imploded, a point 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.
Mrs. Gingrich’s lucrative deal with IEDCO was cut in August 1994 after she and her husband traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobby for Israel. Although Mrs. Gingrich took home a monthly salary of $2,500, plus “commissions,” she refused to disclose the size of those “commissions.” And while Mrs. Gingrich responded to criticisms of her sweet deal that “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making,” the fact is that the sums she received are precisely of the level often seen linked to political payoffs.
IEDCO’s Silverstein once even admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of members of Congress who was lobbied to support Silverstein’s company’s proposals — when his wife was on Silverstein’s payroll.

INTERNATIONALIST AT HEART
Going back as far as 25 years, evidence was emerging that suggested that Gingrich was not the kind of Republican that could be considered “traditional.” A front-page exclusive published in the Jan. 28, 1985 issue of The Spotlight revealed that, while he was then a little known junior member of the House of Representatives, Gingrich was the brains behind a clique of internationalist Republicans who were working to scrap the GOP’s historic nationalist stance in foreign policy making. Unfortunately, this honest effort to expose Gingrich’s internationalist bent was greeted with a mixture of outrage and scorn by many conservatives, who were hoodwinked by the mainstream media into following the Georgia congressman’s peculiar brand of “leadership.” Gingrich and his fellow GOP lawmakers dubbed themselves the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS).
The Spotlight revealed that Gingrich, along with several other House Republicans, including Reps. Vin Weber (Minn.), Connie Mack (Fla.), and Robert Walker (Pa.), had attended a secret meeting with Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, and Meg Greenfield, the Post’s editorial page editor. At that meeting Gingrich and his colleagues effectively agreed to work to revamp the so-called “conservative wing” of the Republican Party and use their influence to push the GOP into the internationalist camp.
In return, the liberal Post’s power-wielders agreed to give Gingrich and his colleagues widespread favorable publicity in the pages of their influential daily. Until that time Gingrich and company had been relegated to “backbench” status by the media, sometimes painted as “extremists” and “troublemakers.”
Gingrich and his colleagues told the Post that they would come out swinging in favor of economic sanctions against the anti-communist, pro-American regime in South Africa. This was a 180-degree reversal of the traditional “conservative” stand in support of South Africa and in opposition to sanctions. In no short time they did, in fact, call for sanctions, causing syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan to comment that Gingrich and company were “turncoat[s]” who were guilty of “stabbing South Africa in the back.” By adopting the new position, Gingrich and his COS clique had signed on with the liberal internationalists in Congress who had been waging war against South Africa for decades.
Soon — as promised — The Washington Post published a laudatory profile of Gingrich. This set the stage for many future such puff-pieces promoting Gingrich and placing him in line for his ultimate election as House minority whip and then as House speaker. Then, to the outrage of nationalist-minded Republicans, Gingrich’s COS colleague, Weber, authored a prominently placed op-ed column in the Post (never permitted as a forum for GOP conservatives) which called upon the GOP to become “America’s new internationalist party.” Ultimately, The Spotlight’s world exclusive on the secret meeting between Gingrich and the Post was confirmed by the Post itself — but only after Gingrich had reached a position of influence. In short, The Spotlight’s “conspiracy theory” — as some called it — proved to be a fact.
None of this surprised long-time Gingrich watchers. In 1968 when then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were vying for “conservative” support in their respective bids for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich opted instead to sign on as the southeast regional coordinator for their opponent, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Later, Gingrich taught at the Rockefeller-funded Emory University in Atlanta.
What he represents is reflected in the critical role played by Gingrich in railroading the sovereignty-robbing, job-exporting North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress. He rallied enough GOP votes to enable enactment, a major victory for fellow CFR-member, then-President Bill Clinton. Gingrich, in fact, was almost single-handedly responsible for ensuring NAFTA’s passage.
On Sept. 3, 1995 The Washington Post assured its readers that Gingrich was “okay” despite criticism of Gingrich by some liberal critics. The Post rushed to this defense and pointed out in a headline that “For the ultraright, Gingrich is just a tool of the world government plot.” The Post said that “anyone who glances at The Spotlight, the weekly newspaper of the far-right Liberty Lobby . . . knows that . . . Gingrich is hardly the leader of their movement; in their eyes, he is actively working to subvert it.” However, the Post was careful not to mention that it was The Spotlight that first blew the whistle on the secret deal between Gingrich and the Post.
According to the sarcastic and less than factual commentary by the Post, “Those with a paranoid bent are convinced that the Georgian is in cahoots with President Clinton, the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations and the entire Eastern Establishment to abrogate the Constitution and forge a New World Order under the thumb of Jewish central bankers and the United Nations.”
The Post smeared patriots, saying: “It is important for national opinion-makers to understand the chasm between most House Republicans and the loony right. Gingrich and his GOP revolution may be controversial and provocative, but they are not the source of violent extremism.”

GINGRICH THE CENTRIST
Another point to keep in mind: As AFP has reported exclusively, there is evidence Gingrich may be cooperating with a high-level scheme to launch an ostensibly “independent” political movement in the 2012 election, a so-called “centrist” third party that will be used to corral grassroots opposition to the New World Order establishment.
So even if Gingrich does not ultimately wind up as the GOP presidential nominee, he may have other options in the 2012 election arena.

* * * * * * *

. . ..Michael Collins Piper can now be heard on the Internet at michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com. He is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up in the 20th Century, The GOLEM: Israel's Hell Bomb, and Target: Traficant. These works can be found at America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.

(Issue #13, March 28, 2011, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)

.American Free Press

...Volume VI. #6. February 6, 2006..americanfreepress.net

0digg

P. 10, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * February 6, 2006... Behind the Headlines
with Michael Collins Piper

Media Promotes ‘Reformers’
In Wake of Abramoff Scandal

By Michael Collins Piper

In the wake of the growing scandal surrounding the sleazy activities of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a longtime Republican Party activist and promoter of Israel’s interests, the major media has been touting two unlikely Republican advocates for “reform”: former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

However, a careful review of the records of both Gingrich and McCain indicates that they can hardly be counted upon to bring genuine reform to curtail the domination of Congress by special interest lobbies.

Take the case of the former House speaker. While serving in Congress and talking about cost-cutting, he once declared that U.S. foreign aid to Israel was one of the areas that no cost-cutting was possible and that, quite the contrary, required additional funding from tax-burdened Americans.

IT GOES BOTH WAYS: Democrats from the House and Senate listen to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) during a press conference unveiling the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress January 18, 2006, in Washington. Democrats proposed the legislation in reaction to the corruption and scandals involving some GOP lawmakers and lobbyists. Democrat or Republican, the truth is congressmen (and women) routinely do “favors” for lavish gifts.

In addition, while Gingrich was busy on Capitol Hill carrying water for Israeli interests, his then-wife Marianne was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IDECO), which was promoting the financial interests of Israel vis-à-vis lucrative trade agreements with the U.S.

Mrs. Gingrich’s lucrative deal with IDECO was cut in August 1994 after she and her husband traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is the foreign lobby for Israel that, even as this is written, has been embarrassed by the criminal indictment of two of its top lobbyists on charges of suspected espionage on behalf of Israel.

At the time it was first revealed that Mrs. Gingrich was taking home a monthly stipend of $2,500 plus “commissions” from the Israeli corporate operation. However, Mrs. Gingrich has refused to disclose the size of those “commissions.”

Mrs. Gingrich has responded to criticisms of her sweet deal by saying “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making." However, the fact is, the yearly figure of $30,000 is precisely the kind of figures often seen linked to political payoffs. And what is interesting is that IEDCO president Larry Silverstein admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of members of Congress who were lobbied to support his company’s proposal.

Mrs. Gingrich’s Israeli connection was obviously an egregious conflict of interest for Gingrich, but the congressman’s friends in high places saw no problem — since “our ally Israel” was involved. Imagine the ruckus if Mrs. Gingrich had been working for Arab interests.

As for so-called “reformer” John McCain, his track record is not so much more attractive. Following the 2002 elections, when campaign finance reform legislation — shepherded into law by McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) — went into effect, the New York-based weekly newspaper Forward, the most influential voice of the pro-Israel lobby in America, bragged in its first post-election edition that “Jewish interest groups may be the big winners” under the vaunted McCain- Feingold campaign finance measures. Forward asserted flatly:

Political hands say groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and its counterpart, the National Jewish Democratic Council, not-for-profits unaffected by the ban on “soft money” for political campaigns, are poised to be big beneficiaries of the new [campaign finance legislation] regime.

In fact, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” measure, the new strength in organized Jewish political power would come at the expense of corporations, labor unions and other interest groups — and wealthy individuals, too — who were previously exempt from regular limits on campaign contributions if their funds were donated directly to national party organizations for “party building,” voter drives and issues advertisements.

Under the new law only so-called “issues” groups such as the aforementioned Jewish organizations would not be subject to limits. Forward pointed out:

As long as the groups are independent of the parties and candidates do not “coordinate” their activities with them, their contributions remain unrestricted.

What this means is that a wide-ranging number of political action committees focused on Israel interests can now spend unlimited amounts of money working to elect or defeat candidates.

Although top Jewish organizations such as the Anti- Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and AIPAC target offending politicians for destruction, these organizations do not formally involve themselves in election campaigns or donate money to political figures.

However, it is an “open secret” that dozens of other Jewish political organizations rely on “a wink and a nod” from the ADL and AIPAC to determine whom they should support or oppose financially.

Anyone familiar with the history and record of McCain would not be surprised that McCain should be the one responsible for enacting such unfair and biased legislation
designed to benefit the political power of the pro-Israel lobby. In fact, McCain owes his entire career to the indirect sponsorship of the powerful organized-crime-enriched family of billionaire Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress. McCain’s chief backer in Arizona politics, Kemper Marley, was a front man for the Bronfman family, and McCain’s own family beer distribution fortune came through this connection.

In addition, much of McCain’s own campaign money has come from a clique of groups and individuals all of whom have close ties to the Israeli lobby, including: organized crime-linked gambling interests in Las Vegas, international bankers such as Goldman Sachs and Hollywood figures such as the late mob-linked Lew Wasserman.

It will also be remembered that McCain’s father, the late Adm. John McCain, was a key player in the official U.S. government cover-up of Israel’s murder of 34 American sailors aboard the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967.

. . ..A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, The Judas Goats, and Dirty Secrets, all available from America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.

(Issue #7, February 6, 2006, American Free Press)

Newt Gingrich ou la voix de son maître sioniste - Sheldon Adelson: Les poches profondes qui sont derrière Newt Gingrich

par Eli Clifton, Think Progress (USA) le 21 décembre 2011 traduit de l’anglais par Djazaïri

Le financement qui est derrière Newt Gingrich etAmerican Solutions for Winning the Future, son comité politique indépendant, est l’occasion d’une plongée fascinante dans les profondeurs des poches qui soutiennent la candidature de Gingrich. Cette semaine, McClatchy a révélé qu’American Solutions avait réglé la note de 8 millions de dollars de location de jets privés à l’époque où Gingrich réfléchissait à son entrée dans les compétitions présidentielles de 2008 et 2012.

Le milliardaire des jeux de casino Sheldon Adelson était le plus important financier d’American Solutions avec une contribution de 7,65 millions de dollars, la rumeur étant qu’il avait engagé 20 millions de dollars en faveur d’un super PAC (comité d’action politique) pro-Gingrich, rumeur démentie par un porte parole d’Adelson. Quoi qu’il en soit, les faits montrent de manière de plus en plus nette que le patron de casion milliardaire est une pièce centrale de la carrière politique de Newt Gingrich.

L’entreprise Sands Corporation dirigée par Sheldon Adelson est basée à Las Vegas mais a des intérêts politiques et commerciaux à Macao, en Chine et en Israël. En Israël, l’importance d’Adelson tient à sa relation d’amitié proche avec le premier ministre Israélien Benjamin Netanyahou et au journal gratuit Israel Hayom dont il est le propriétaire et qui soutient le parti du Likoud. Pour en revenir aux Etats Unis, Adelson siège au conseil d’administration de la Republican Jewish Coalition et ne cache pas ses vues sur le conflit israélo-palestinien. Pendant la présidence de George W. Bush, Adelson s’était opposé aux efforts de relance des discussions de paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens et était même allé à l’encontre de l’influent American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) quand cette organisation avait soutenu les discussions de paix. « Je ne continue pas à soutenir des organisations qui aident des amis à se suicider simplement parce qu’ils disent qu’ils veulent faire le grand saut, » avait déclaré Adelson à la Jewish Telegraph Agency.

Gingrich, qui a qualifié le 10 décembre les Palestiniens de “terroristes” pendant un débat du parti Républicain et a déclaré à Jewish Channel que les palestiniens sont un peuple « inventé », semble faire écho à la ligne dure adoptée avant lui par son bienfaiteur plein aux as.

“Sheldon a toujours aimé Newt. Il est resté avec lui tout le temps, » a déclaré Fred Zeidman, un ami d’Adelson et un membre important de la communauté juive américaine qui soutient Mitt Romney, à Aram Roston du Daily Beast. « Il est resté avec lui quand il était dans l’ornière. Newt, je pense, reflète bien l’état d’esprit de Sheldon. Particulièrement au sujet d’Israël.”

Si Adelson et Gingrich semblent partager le même agenda de droite pour le Moyen Orient, les affaires du magnat des casinos en Chine se sont avérées politiquement gênantes au pays. Adelson aurait aidé à faire échouer au Congrès une mesure d’opposition à la candidature de Pékin aux jeux olympiques proposée par des Républicains de la chambre des Représentants. «La proposition d eloi ne verra jamais le jour, M. le maire. Ne vous inquiétez pas pour ça, » aurait-il dit au maire de Pékin et 2001 après avoir téléphoné à Tom Delay, le chef de la majorité à la Chambre des Représentants. Par la suite, Sands Corporation obtint une lucrative licence de casino par le gouvernement chinois, ce qui lui permit de commencer un développement massif dans la Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR).

Réagissant à l’étroitesse des relations d’affaires d’Adelson avec le gouvernement chinois, le président de la Christian Coalition of Alabama, le Dr Randy Brinson, avait dénoncé Adelson qui « ne partage pas nos valeurs. » « Les endroits où Sheldon Adelson a placé son argent dit clairement où son cœur balance : vers le jeu d’argent et le soutien au régime chinois qui persécute les Chrétiens, » avait-il dit.

Gingrich va se retrouver devant ses propres difficultés à persuader les Chrétiens évangéliques troublés par ses multiples mariages et liaisons extraconjugales, de soutenir sa candidature. Mais la présence affichée de Sheldon Adelson dans le camp de Gingrich pourrait s’avérer être un obstacle de plus dans la conquête de le très importante droite chrétienne.

VIDEO - Netanyahu and Adelson-Gingrich (GOP) join forces to oust Obama - war on Iran

Allemagne occupée par le sionisme (ZOG) : David Duke brièvement emprisonné pour délit d'opinion

2011-12-03T13:19:00.000-08:00

12/2/2011

New David Duke Podcast: Why I was arrested in Cologne

Listen to the new podcast by David Duke about his arrest in Cologne and the struggle for both free speech and the very survival of the European and American people.

Included:

—How the human rights of the European people are being lost

—How the media distorts my message and the message of our people

—Why European patriots must learn from the failure of violent White resistance in the South, and always keep the moral high ground

—What we must do now

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

11/27/2011

Dr. David Duke speaks about his recent travails in his efforts for our freedom and heritage!

On my recent imprisonment and the fight for free speech and the heritage of our people!

– Composed in a moving Car! by Dr. David Duke

And to think there are politicians in the Western World who criticize the lack of freedom of speech in Iran or China!

My Dear Friends,

I am free now, but a desperate fight is ahead of me for my rights and the rights of the people of Europe to hear me. They truly do want to hear me and they need to hear me and my message. Today videos of talks and appearances are reaching tens of millions of people.

I think by now that you know my spirit, that I simply cannot back down from aiding our brothers and sisters efforts for their heritage in our ancient homelands of Europe any more than I could cease the fight for America. This a global effort to destroy our people, and it requires a global effort on our part to win it. We in America and Canada, Australia, across Europe and even across Russia must help awaken each other and aid each other.

I won’t go into to many details of my arrest at this moment as a court case is yet to be fought, but I was imprisoned by a gross twisting of travel laws in a blatant attempt by the government to prevent a private and peaceful gathering of about a 100 German citizens eager to hear my message of heritage and freedom. My arrest and imprisonment was meant to silence my message and demoralize the people who came to hear it.

For hours before my scheduled presentation at a private event, Police under orders from the politicians stopped all of our cars, including a couple over 90 years old who had driven over 75 kilometers to hear me. They demanded ID from all, delaying them for a long time on the street, and they told the people specifically that the meeting was cancelled. There at the police checkpoint, after a number of people had gone on to the private meeting site, they arrested me. Of course, the claim that the meeting was cancelled was a huge lie. The meeting was not cancelled. The owner of the hall honored the contract with the group, and in fact the meeting went on without me, thanks to the brave people who withstood all the intimidation, and who still persevered and made their way to the hall. (more…)

What Would Happen If Jesse Jackson Were Arrested in Europe?

Mainstream Media Ignores the Arrest of Dr. David Duke in Germany.

by James Buchanan

Dr. David Duke was invited by German patriots to give a speech in the city of Cologne. He was arrested before he could say one word and has been held in isolation since Friday (but is now free) pending resolution of charges in court at a later date.

Now let’s alter this scenario a little bit. Instead of a pro-White activist, let’s say a pro-Black activist, Jesse Jackson had been visiting Europe to organize the many recent African immigrants in Europe into a voting block. Let’s say Jackson stepped off an airplane in Cologne and before he could give a scheduled speech, he was surrounded by submachine-gun-toting policemen and hauled off to a prison as if he were a serious criminal, who had been robbing banks.

To make matters worse, let’s say the German police held Jackson with little -if any- communication with his friends and family. Under those circumstances, the mainstream media would let out howls of rage over the brutal police state tactics and the lack of freedom in the so-called “Republic” of Germany. The US government would similarly react in outrage and begin threatening Germany with sanctions if they failed to immediately release the US citizen or if they ever repeated such tyrannical actions against a US citizen in the future. (more…)

Free David Duke!

David Duke Kidnapped by German Government

EDITORS’ NOTE: “Jewish control and policing of the Infotainment Industry, and enforcing thought control…” who gets whacked for doing what.
David Duke, is an easy messenger for many to shoot, but they will find the facts a bit harder to kill and bury. Truth does not lie dead very long, nor does it rest long in the grave, no matter how deep they dig it.
Likudist extremist elements within the German government set an ambush for Mr. Duke who was en route to a speaking engagement when he was forcibly detained and arrested.

Germany arrests former US presidential candidate "We all have a responsibility to ensure that extreme-right, nationalistic and anti-Semitic groups and networks are not able to again come together," says Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, according to the Associated Press.

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was arrested as he was about to speak at a neo-Nazi event in Germany.

Sur ce blog:

Le plus beau dans nos chères démocraties, c'est qu'on n'a pas à s'inquiéter pour sa liberté d'opinion et d'expression.... N'EST-CE PAS?

L'histoire contemporaine: une fable convenue

Le lobby juif poursuit une organisation musulmane shiite canadienne pour avoir posté un vidéo de David Duke

Qui contrôle les États-Unis?

David Duke: les maîtres sionistes ont enseigné la torture aux forces états-uniennes

Le message de paix de David Duke contre les guerres sionistes

David Duke: retour sur Pourim

David Duke: Terrorisme israélien contre les États-Unis

Esclavage et génocides

VIDEO - DAVID DUKE: No War for Israel in Syria and Iran !

L'AUTRE MONDE - Les médias et les politiques sous l'influence du lobby qui n'existe pas

Alan Dershowitz contre Gilad Atzmon

2011-12-03T12:53:00.000-08:00

Professor Alan Dershowitz trying discredit the Anti Israel End the Fed crowd as anti semetic

Dershowitz: Israel Has Legal Right to Attack Iran

The Warped Morality of a Warmonger: Why Alan Dershowitz is Wrong on Israel’s ‘Rights’

Sur ce blog:

Gilad Atzmon: Il n'est pas de business plus juteux que le Shoah Business

Gilad Atzmon: le sionisme contrôle la Grande-Bretagne

Gilad Atzmon: pas casher

Israël n'est pas "un projet colonial comme les autres"

Gilad Atzmon: Qu'est-ce que le judaïsme (autodéification shoatique)

L'anti Durban 2 : BHL, Dershowitz, etc.

L'avocat de la torture Alan Dershowitz

Professeur de torture: Dershowitz à la défense du "waterboarding"

Lev Leviev, Alan Dershowitz et les diamants de l'apartheid

L'OBSERVATEUR DU PÉRIL INNOMMABLE

LA JUDÉE DÉCLARE LA GUERRE À RON PAUL ... JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON RON PAUL

L'homme le plus puissant de Washington D.C., selon GQ: le juif orthodoxe Eric Cantor

Un autre grand comique, propriétaire et éditeur d'un journal juif américain, soutient qu'il ne prônait pas vraiment l'assassinat d'Obama

Obama assassination column raises question: Why do some Jews see Obama as so sinister?

Maîtres du monde, maîtres de l'humour: Netanyahou accuse le New York Times et Haaretz de donner le ton de la campagne anti-Israël à travers le monde

Faux avertissements Avast!: "Ce site risque d'endommager votre ordinateur"

'A CLEAN BREAK': un document incontournable du gvt israélien pour comprendre le projet du Grand Israël et les agressions impérialistes au Moyen-Orient

A Clean Break

Rick Santorum, le nouveau candidat sioniste le plus en vue aux États-Unis, représente un grave danger pour la liberté d'expression

Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: "Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s'en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous"

Larry SILVERSTEIN et David YERUSHALMI (gourou de l'anti-Islam aux USA), anciens patrons de l'épouse du candidat présidentiel Newt Gingrich

All new revelations on the Gingrich/Israeli corruption scandal. A MUST HEAR PROGRAM.

Please make sure to spread this broadcast far and wide.

Allemagne occupée par le sionisme (ZOG) : David Duke brièvement emprisonné pour délit d'opinion

Alan Dershowitz contre Gilad Atzmon