Benign dominoes

Within the context of a spat between Joe Klein and Max Boot over whether the neocons suffer from what is known as 'dual loyalties' - an outrageous slur, as there has never been the slightest evidence that the neocons had any loyalty to any country other than Israel - Klein writes:

"You want evidence of divided loyalties? How about the 'benign domino theory' that so many Jewish neoconservatives talked to me about - off the record, of course - in the runup to the Iraq war, the idea that Israel's security could be won by taking out Saddam, which would set off a cascade of disaster for Israel's enemies in the region? As my grandmother would say, feh! Do you actually deny that the casus belli that dare not speak its name wasn't, as I wrote in February 2003, a desire to make the world safe for Israel? Why the rush now to bomb Iran, a country that poses some threat to Israel but none - for the moment--to the United States...unless we go ahead, attack it, and the mullahs unleash Hezbollah terrorists against us? Do you really believe the mullahs would stage a nuclear attack on Israel, destroying the third most holy site in Islam and killing untold numbers of Muslims? I am not ruling out the use of force against Iran - it may come to that - but you folks seem to embrace it gleefully."

It is a shame, but not a great surprise, that Klein decided not to share the 'benign domino theory' with his readers at a time when Americans could have used the information. It smacks of the conspiracy of a secretive cabal. Of course, the benign domino theory is what I like to call the Zionist plan for the Middle East, and was in full force and effect amongst the neocon conspiracy which tricked Americans into the disastrous attack on Iraq. Iraq was just step one, and had the Old American Establishment not come to its senses and kicked most of the neocons out of the American government, we would now be witnessing their attempts at carrying out the greater plans of the cabal, all intended to lead to the building of Greater Israel. As Josh Marshall notes discussing the same spat, he described Boot's views as far back as 2003 (my emphasis in red):

"The hawks' other response is that if the effort to push these countries toward democracy goes south, we can always use our military might to secure our interests. 'We need to be more assertive,' argues Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 'and stop letting all these two-bit dictators and rogue regimes push us around and stop being a patsy for our so-called allies, especially in Saudi Arabia.' Hopefully, in Boot's view, laying down the law will be enough. But he envisions a worst-case scenario that would involve the United States 'occupying the Saudi's oil fields and administering them as a trust for the people of the region.'

What Boot is calling for, in other words, is the creation of a de facto American empire in the Middle East. In fact, there's a subset of neocons who believe that given our unparalleled power, empire is our destiny and we might as well embrace it. The problem with this line of thinking is, of course, that it ignores the lengthy and troubling history of imperial ambitions, particularly in the Middle East. The French and the English didn't leave voluntarily; they were driven out. And they left behind a legacy of ignorance, exploitation, and corruption that's largely responsible for the region's current dysfunctional politics."

Far from being a worst-case scenario, occupying the Saudi oil fields is the culmination of the Zionist plan for the Middle East (step 10 in my list), finally depriving the Arabs of the 'oil weapon' which constituted the main barrier to the creation of Greater Israel.

The funniest thing about all this is that the plans of the neocon cabal were never a secret, and it should have been common knowledge that the neocons never had American interests at heart. Imperial confusion - for which I blame people like Chomsky - allowed the neocons to clothe their completely Zionist goals in words which looked like plans of the American Empire. It is too bad it took an attack which will end up destroying that empire to teach Americans a lesson.

Like Rabin

Israel Insider considers the incident that occurred at Ben Gurion International Airport:

"Yet the mystery remains: a distinguished soldier with no proclivity for suicide, without leaving a note, standing at a vantage point with a long-range rifle n line of sight of the VIPs, should at the absolutely most ideal moment for an assassination at once shoot himself in the head with a rifle and somehow find a way to fall off the roof? What an odd simultaneous set of coincidences!"

We have two additional pieces of evidence to consider. First, the clumsy way in which the Official Story was produced indicates that this wasn't an official Israeli government operation. Had this been a government operation, we can expect that a plausible Official Story would have been immediately at hand for each eventuality. Officials were obviously not ready for this, and the very weak cover story feels ad libbed.

Secondly, it is very unlikely that Olmert was the target, for the simple reason that Olmert himself boarded the plane to explain to Sarkozy what happened. You can bet that if this was an assassination attack on Olmert, Israeli officials wouldn't have allowed him to stay behind, waiting for another shot from a second planted shooter. He would have been whisked away from the scene.

The most likely explanation, particularly given the Realist Zionist contents of Sarkozy's statements and actions, was that this was an assassination attempt by the Israeli right on someone who they regarded as a supporter-turned-traitor. Like Rabin.

Crazy Jewish billionaire

Sheldon Adelson comes across as the real-life version of a fictional character the Nazis would have featured in a propaganda movie. From the long New Yorker article (my emphasis in red):

"When Adelson was merely rich, he wrote checks for causes that he favored and for politicians whom he supported. Occasionally, he demanded to be heard. But he did not expect to play a significant role in U.S. foreign policy, or in Israel’s strategic decisions, or in the fate of a sitting Israeli Prime Minister. That was before he acquired many billions of dollars. (He has assets of twenty-six billion dollars, according to a Forbes list published in March.) His political expenditures and his expectations have increased proportionately. Not long after Bush’s encounter with Adelson last October, an Israeli government representative said that Bush, describing it to another Israeli official, had remarked wryly, 'I had this crazy Jewish billionaire, yelling at me.' (The Israeli official does not recall the conversation; the White House said that it had no comment.)"

and (while the Israelis may be the victims of the American Jewish Billionaires, they bear a lot of responsibility for falling prey to the one-issue guys):

"During the celebration of Israel’s sixtieth birthday, in mid-May, Shimon Peres wanted to hold a conference that would be attended by leaders from around the world. 'I know they had difficulties raising the money,' a former Israeli official told me. 'And time was short. So they realized they should talk to Sheldon.' Adelson agreed to provide three million dollars; after that, conference organizers were able to raise the rest. That Adelson was supporting an event led by Peres - the man he had helped Netanyahu defeat in the momentous 1996 election - made him appear more ecumenical. He and Miriam were named honorary conference chairs, and a photograph of them was featured in the program for the Peres event, along with a message from them. Throughout the conference, Adelson was treated with deference, reflected in his place in the receiving line, his addressing the conference, and his seat next to President Peres. (He was also one seat away from Prime Minister Olmert; they shook hands but did not exchange a word.) At a formal dinner attended by more than a hundred senior officials of various Israeli and Jewish organizations, guests were offered the opportunity to tell Peres what they considered the biggest challenge facing the Jewish people. Adelson, according to Ha’aretz, declared, 'I think Jews should have lots of sex. That is the solution to our demographic problem.'

After Adelson addressed the conference, Nahum Barnea wrote in his column in Yedioth Ahronoth, 'I saw a gambling tycoon from Las Vegas who bought my country’s birthday with three million dollars. I thought with sorrow: Is the country worth so very little? Were the champagne, wine and sushi that were given out for free in the lobby - breaking convention for such events - worth the humiliation?' Barnea went on:

Adelson is a Jew who loves Israel. Like some other Jews who live at a safe distance from here, his love is great, passionate, smothering. It is important to him that he influences the policies, decisions, and compositions of the Israeli governments. He is not alone in this, either; even back in the days of Baron Rothschild, wealthy Jews from the Diaspora felt that this country lay in their pocket, alongside their wallet. Regrettably, in the latest generation, we are being led by politicians who look at these millionaires with calf’s eyes.

In Israel, where political, academic, and business leaders tend to be outspoken, there is a striking reticence at the mention of Sheldon Adelson. Even people who are diametrically opposed to his politics refuse to be interviewed. 'There is a discernible amount of self-censorship going on,' the liberal Israeli-American writer Bernard Avishai said. 'There is no ideological justification for what Sheldon is doing among the Israeli intelligentsia - and a revulsion at an American weighing in so heavily on Israeli politics, in such a crude, reactionary way. But they won’t speak.'"

Suicide or thwarted false-flag assassination attempt?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Jewish and supposedly a friend to Zionism, went to the Knesset and told Israel that it had to return part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, accept that Jerusalem would be the capital of two states, stop all settlement activity, lift all the checkpoints in the West Bank, and end the blockade of Gaza. Has any foreign politician ever said anything so radical in the Knesset? He met with the Palestinians, and said that the "creation of a viable, democratic, modern state for the Palestinians" is a "priority" for France ('viable' is a dangerous code-word). Can you imagine how furious the Zionists and the Jewish Billionaires must have been? So they decided to teach him a lesson by blowing his head clean off, the same lesson they are planning for Obama.

There are Realist Zionists in Israel who have come to accept that the current Zionist plans are ruinous for the State of Israel. Zionist plans will inevitably lead to an apartheid state with an Arab majority, and eventually the world will use sanctions to require one person-one vote, thus leading to the end of a Jewish ethnic state. Realist Zionists are totally different than lite Zionists, who are Americans who pretend to want to see a Palestinian state. This is just a tactic on the road to the eventual total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the beginnings of the road to Greater Israel across the Middle East. Realist Zionists - and Olmert may be one - really have given up the dream of Greater Israel, accepting that there is no way to obtain it without destroying what the Israeli Jews already have.

The Realists appear to have thwarted an assassination attempt on Sarkozy, an attempt which, if successful, would have been blamed on some Palestinian patsy. The cover story took a while to concoct, with the authorities eventually settling on the ludicrous idea that a guard decided to kill himself with a rifle in the middle of his guard duties connected with the grand departure of Sarkozy from Israel. He then fell from a roof! This has to be a new high point in the ongoing history of ridiculous cover stories.

What's the point?

Bill Kristol proliferates the Pipes fantasy that Bush will attack Iran if Obama is elected. Why are the Zionists gossiping about things they know have no chance of happening? The 'anti-Semites' have retaken control, and there is no chance for an imminent new War For The Jews, so World Jewry has reverted to Plan B, the use of the 'strategy of tension' in the Middle East. The idea is to use the fears of war to further Israeli goals by forcing the Sunni states to fall into line with Zionist wishes. Crazy as it sounds, this strategy has worked. 'Iran talk' increases the strength of hardliners in Iran, which increases fears in the Sunni-ruled states, which forces them into falling for Israel's diplomatic tricks.

Obviously, World Jewry is not concerned about the price of gas (the irony is that 'Iran talk' is greatly enriching the enemies of Israel, many of which were in economic dire straits before the Wars For The Jews and 'Iran talk' boosted the price of oil). As the truth of who is behind rising oil prices is unpleasant, we've been hearing lots of lies and bafflegab about shortages and the machinations of those very mysterious speculators. You can't read the truth anywhere, but this is better than most:

"But the Administration's greatest contribution to the rising oil prices is its steady stream of threats to attack Iran if it does not back down on the nuclear issue. The Iranians have made it plain that they would retaliate by attempting to block the flow of Gulf oil and otherwise cause turmoil in the energy market. Most analysts assume, therefore, that an encounter will produce a global oil shortage and prices well over $200 per barrel. It is not surprising, then, that every threat by Bush/Cheney (or their counterparts in Israel) has triggered a sharp rise in prices. This is where speculators enter the picture. Believing that a US-Iranian clash is at least 50 percent likely, some investors are buying futures in oil at $140, $150 or more per barrel, thinking they'll make a killing if there's an attack and prices zoom over $200."

Obviously, the investors don't believe that "a US-Iranian clash is at least 50 percent likely", a ludicrous suggestion. The idea isn't to making a killing, it is to cover one's ass in the extremely unlikely chance of an event which would have catastrophic consequences. It's the ass covering that causes the price to continue to rise, and the 'Iran talk' is what prompts the ass covering.

It is nothing short of tragic that fear of the slur - not to mention those liars misleading us in order to protect the guilty - is causing people to hide from the truth, especially considering the real economic hardship being caused by World Jewry and its never-ending desire to steal land.

Cause and effect

A Michael Gordon article in the inimitable - thank God! - Michael Gordon/Judy Miller style (my emphasis in red; it's like shooting fish in a barrel!):

"Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said."

Note that it took the 'American officials' two full weeks to pipe up about this development and what it signified. Gordon continues:

"A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

'They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,' the Pentagon official said. 'There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.'

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent."

And guess what?:

"At the same time, reports about possible military action against an OPEC state was also contributing to the rise in crude. The New York Times carried an article saying that Israel conducted 'a major military exercise' earlier in June that U.S. experts believe had the makings of preparations for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities."

The Toronto Zero

The Toronto Eighteen, reduced to the Toronto Eleven, should now be the Toronto Zero, with the prosecution reduced to cross-examining its own witness in order to challenge his credibility. Since he is not only their chief witness - in fact the only witness they have dealing with the criminal intention of the accused - he is also their chief agent provocateur, and is therefore more than a witness, he is their entire case. The prosecution is admitting he can't be trusted. How can any court find these defendants, or the later group of adult defendants who have yet to be tried on the same basic evidence, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

The prosecution really has only one honorable out: drop the whole case for lack of evidence. This kind of embarrassment would have come out at the preliminary hearing the prosecution should have had, but decided to skip as part of the propaganda message being sent by the trial. The prosecutors shamefully got onto Bibi Netanyahu's 'war on terror' bandwagon, and should resign, or be fired, for prosecutorial misconduct if they continue with this shameful ideologically-driven persecution. There is an an additional ethical problem, with the revelation that there is even a third agent provocateur, and the possibility that the prosecution is withholding evidence from the lawyers for the defendants, something which in Canada usually results in a very angry judge throwing the whole case out. This is a political show trial, and a travesty of justice.

Are They Really Oil Wars? No

From "Are They Really Oil Wars?" by Ismael Hossein-zadeh:

"It is true that for a long time, from the beginning of Middle Eastern oil exploration and discovery in the early twentieth century until the mid-1970s, colonial and/or imperial powers controlled oil either directly or through control of oil producing countries - at times, even by military force. But that pattern of colonial or imperialist exploitation of global markets and resources has changed now. Most of the current theories of imperialism and hegemony that continue invoking that old pattern of Big Oil behavior tend to suffer from an ahistorical perspective. Today, as discussed earlier, even physically occupying and controlling another country’s oil fields will not necessarily be beneficial to oil interests. Not only will military adventures place the operations of current energy projects at jeopardy, but they will also make the future plans precarious and unpredictable. Big Oil interests, of course, know this; and that’s why they did not countenance the war on Iraq: 'The big oil companies were not enthusiastic about the Iraqi war,' says Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, an energy consultancy firm based in Washington D.C. that advises petroleum firms. 'Corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco want stability, and this is not what Bush is providing in Iraq and the Gulf region,' adds Mohamedi.[20]

Big Oil interests also know that not only is war no longer the way to gain access to oil, it is in fact an obstacle to gaining that access. Exclusion of U.S. oil companies from vast oil resources in countries such as Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and a number of central Asian countries due to militaristic U.S. foreign policy is a clear testament to this fact. Many of these countries (including, yes, Iran) would be glad to have major U.S. oil companies invest, explore and extract oil from their rich reserves. Needless to say that U.S. oil companies would be delighted to have access to those oil resources. But U.S. champions of war and militarism have successfully torpedoed such opportunities through their unilateral wars of aggression and their penchant for a Cold War-like international atmosphere."

and:

"During the past few decades, major oil companies have consistently opposed U.S. policies and military threats against countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya. They have, indeed, time and again, lobbied U.S. foreign policy makers for the establishment of peaceful relations and diplomatic rapprochement with those countries. The Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1996 (ILSA) is a strong testament to the fact that oil companies nowadays view wars, economic sanctions, and international political tensions as harmful to their long-term business interests and, accordingly, strive for peace, not war, in international relations.

On March 15, 1995 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12957 which banned all U.S. contributions to the development of Iran’s petroleum resources, a crushing blow to the oil industry, especially to the Conoco oil company that had just signed a $1 billion contract to develop fields in Iran. The deal marked a strong indication that Iran was willing to improve its relationship with the United States, only to have President Clinton effectively nullify it. Two months later, sighting “an extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the U.S.,” President Clinton issued another order, 1259, that expanded the sanctions to become a total trade and investment embargo against Iran. Then a year later came ILSA which extended the sanctions imposed on Iran to Libya as well.

It is no secret that the major force behind the Iran-Libya Sanction Act was the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main Zionist lobby in Washington. The success of AIPAC in passing ILSA through both the Congress and the White House over the opposition of the major U.S. oil companies is testament to the fact that, in the context of U.S. policy in the Middle East, even the influence of the oil industry pales vis-à-vis the influence of the Zionist lobby.[24]

ILSA was originally to be imposed on both U.S. and foreign companies. However, in the end it was the U.S. companies that suffered the most due to waivers that were given to European companies after pressure from the European Union. In 1996 the EU pursued its distaste of ILSA by lodging complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the U.S. and through adopting 'blocking legislation' that would prevent EU companies from complying with ILSA. Meanwhile, the contract that Iran had originally signed with Conoco was awarded to TotalFinaElf of France for $760 million; the deal also left the door open for Total to sign an additional contract with Iran for $2 billion in 1997 with their partners Gazprom and Petronas.

In May of 1997 major U.S. oil companies such as Conoco, Exxon, Atlantic Richfield, and Occidental Petroleum joined other (non-military) U.S. companies to create an anti-sanction coalition. Earlier that same year Conoco’s Chief Executive Archie Dunham publicly took a stance against unilateral U.S. sanctions by stating that 'U.S. companies, not rogue regimes, are the ones that suffer when the United States imposes economic sanctions.' Texaco officials have also argued that the U.S. can be more effective in bringing about change in other countries by allowing U.S. companies to do business with those countries instead of imposing economic sanctions that tend to be counterproductive.

Alas, Washington’s perverse, misguided and ineffectual policy of economic sanctions for political purposes - often in compliance with the wishes of some powerful special interests - continues unabated. 'Even with the increased pro-trade lobbying efforts of the oil industry and groups like USAEngage, whose membership ranges from farmers and small business owners to Wall Street executives and oilmen, the lack of support from Washington and the Bush administration could not allow them [major oil companies and other non-military transnational companies] to overtake or counteract the already rolling momentum of AIPAC’s influence on Middle East policy or the renewal of ISLA.'[25]"

and (note how Noamian analysis follows the wishes of the real perpetrators by hiding their real motives):

"The widely-shared but erroneous view that recent U.S. wars of choice are driven by oil concerns is partly due to precedence: the fact that for a long time military force was key to colonial or imperialist control and exploitation of foreign markets and resources, including oil. It is also partly due to perception: the exaggerated notion that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney were 'oil men' before coming to the White House. But, as noted earlier, George W. Bush was never more than an ineffective minor oil prospector and Dick Cheney was never really an oil man; he headed the notorious Halliburton company that sold (and still sells) services to oil companies and the Pentagon.

But the major reason for the persistence of this pervasive myth seems to stem from certain deliberate efforts that are designed to perpetuate the legend in order to camouflage some real economic and geopolitical special interests that drive U.S. military adventures in the Middle East. There is evidence that both the military-industrial complex and hard-line Zionist proponents of 'greater Israel' disingenuously use oil (as an issue of national interest) in order to disguise their own nefarious special interests and objectives: justification of continued expansion of military spending, extension of sales markets for military hardware, and recasting the geopolitical map of the Middle East in favor of Israel.

There is also evidence that for every dollar’s worth of oil imported from the Persian Gulf region the Pentagon takes five dollars out of the Federal budget to 'secure' the flow of that oil! This is a clear indication that the claim that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is due to oil consideration is a fraud .[26]

While anecdotal, an example of how partisans of war and militarism use oil as a pretext to cover up the real forces behind war and militarism can be instructive. In the early stages of the invasion of Iraq, when the anti-occupation resistance in Iraq had not yet taken shape and the invasion seemed to be proceeding smoothly, two of the leading champions of the invasion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, often boasting of the apparent or pre-mature success of the invasion at those early stages, gave frequent news conferences and press reports. During one of those press reports (at the end of an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore in early June 2003), Wolfowitz was asked why North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found. Wolfowitz’s response was: 'Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.'[27]

Many opponents of the war jumped on this statement, so to speak, as corroboration of what they had been saying or suspecting all along: that the war on Iraq was prompted by oil interests. Yet, there is strong evidence - some of which presented in the preceding pages - that for the last several decades oil interests have not favored war and turbulence in the Middle East, including the current invasion of Iraq. Nor is war any longer the way to gain access to oil. Major oil companies, along with many other non-military transnational corporations, have lobbied both the Clinton and Bush administrations in support of changing the aggressive, militaristic U.S. policy toward countries like Iran, Iraq and Libya in favor of establishing normal, non-confrontational trade and diplomatic relations. Such efforts at normalization of trade and diplomatic relations, however, have failed time and again precisely because Wolfowitz and his cohorts, working through AIPAC and other war-mongering think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) oppose them.

These think tanks, in collaboration with a whole host of similar militaristic lobbying entities like Center for Security Affairs (CSA) and National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP), working largely as institutional façades to serve the defacto alliance of the military-industrial complex and the pro-Israel lobby, have repeatedly thwarted efforts at peace and reconciliation in the Middle East - often over the objections and frustrations of major U.S. oil companies. It is a well established fact that Wolfowitz has been a devoted champion of these jingoistic think tanks and their aggressive unilateral policies in the Middle East. In light of his professional record and political loyalties, his claim that he championed the war on Iraq because of oil considerations can be characterized only as demagogic: it contradicts his political record and defies the policies he has been advocating for the last several decades; it is designed to divert attention from the main forces behind the war, the armaments lobby and the pro-Israel lobby.

These powerful interests are careful not to draw attention to the fact that they are the prime instigators of war and militarism in the Middle East. Therefore, they tend to deliberately perpetuate the popular perception that oil is the driving force behind the war in the region. They even do not mind having their aggressive foreign policies labeled as imperialistic as long as imperialism implies some vague or general connotations of hegemony and domination, that is, as long as it thus camouflages the real, special interests behind the war and political turbulence in the Middle East.

The oil and other non-military transnational corporations’ aversion to war and military adventures in the Middle East stem, of course, from the logical behavior of global or transnational capital in the era of integrated world markets, which tends to be loath to war and international political convulsions. Considering the fact that both importers and exporters of oil prefer peace and stability to war and militarism, why would, then, the flow of oil be in jeopardy if the powerful beneficiaries of war and political tension in the Middle East stopped their aggressive policies in the region?

Partisans of war in the Middle East tend to portray U.S. military operations in the region as reactions to terrorism and political turbulence in order to 'safeguard the interests of the United States and its allies.' Yet, a close scrutiny of action-reaction or cause-effect relationship between U.S. military adventures and socio-political turbulence in the region reveals that perhaps the causality is the other way around. That is, social upheavals and political convulsions in the Middle East are more likely to be the result, not the cause, of U.S. foreign policy in the region, especially its one-sided, prejudicial Israeli-Palestinian policy. The U.S. policy of war and militarism in the region seems to resemble the behavior of a corrupt cop, or a mafia godfather, who would instigate fights and frictions in the neighborhood or community in order to, then, portray his parasitic role as necessary for the safety and security of the community and, in the process, fill out his deep pockets."

One of the myths floating around is that the attack on Iraq was part of an operation intended to 'seize the oilfields'. This is preposterous from the point of view of oil company interests. Past experience, and the current situation in Iraq, prove that the only sensible way to obtain access to the oil is to have local officials run the situation. 'Seizing the oilfields' is a pure Zionist notion, first suggested by covert Zionist Henry Kissinger in the early 1970s, and is intended not to obtain American corporate access to the oil, but to remove the 'oil weapon' from the Arabs.

The article is inaccurate in putting responsibility for the attack on both Zionists and military contractors. Of course, military contractors want war. They always want war. If the desires of military contractors were determinative, we would always have war. There needs to be another, primary, reason for war. Military contractors just latch onto, and reinforce, the primary motivators. I reject all conspiracy theories based on some kind of James-Bond-style, super-Evil villains, running the world in order to arrange for a war of everybody against everybody. The world doesn't work in this cartoon fashion. There was one and only one reason for the attack on Iraq: Zionism.

Urban Moving Systems

Via whatreallyhappened, Urban Moving Systems Inc received almost $500,000 in a loan from the American government in fiscal year 2001. The loan was a small business loan from the Small Business Administration and was made on June 22, 2001. Urban Moving Systems Inc is most famous now as the employer of the 'dancing Israelis', who videotaped and celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. They arrived at the scene - somehow knowing in advance that there would be something interesting to videotape - in a van marked 'Urban Moving Systems'. Curiously, 'Middle Eastern' men, who turned out to be called Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar, were detained (or here) and turned over to the INS (!) for acting suspiciously and having video footage of the Sears Tower, and were driving a tractor-trailer marked 'Moving Systems Incorporated'. There was another incident near York, Pennsylvania on September 12, another police stop of suspicious persons, involving another Urban Moving Systems vehicle. One of the drivers was a former Israeli paratrooper. The other "is given polygraph tests and claims to have satisfied his questioners except on the issue of who sent him to the US." (my italics) Dominick Suter (whose name is misspelled in some of the whatreallyhappened postings), the 'owner' of the company, immediately fled to Israel.

What was Urban Moving Systems? Christopher Ketcham (my emphasis in red):

". . . two days after the men were picked up, the owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominik Suter, a 31- year-old Israeli national, abandoned his business and fled the United States for Israel. Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks. The suspicion, as the investigation unfolded, was that the men working for Urban Moving Systems were spies. Who exactly was handling them, and who or what they were targeting, was as yet uncertain.

It was New York's venerable Jewish weekly The Forward that broke this story in the spring of 2002, after months of footwork. The Forward reported that the FBI had finally concluded that at least two of the men were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. Two former CIA officers confirmed this to me, noting that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. The Forward also noted that the Israeli government itself admitted that the men were spies. A 'former high-ranking American intelligence official', who said he was 'regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials', told reporter Marc Perelman that after American authorities confronted Jerusalem at the end of 2001, the Israeli government 'acknowledged the operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington'. Today, Perelman stands by his reporting. I asked him if his sources in the Mossad denied the story. 'Nobody stopped talking to me', he said.

In June 2002, ABC News' 20/20 followed up with its own investigation into the matter, coming to the same conclusion as The Forward. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA, told 20/20 that some of the names of the five men appeared as hits in searches of an FBI national intelligence database. Cannistraro told me that the question that most troubled FBI agents in the weeks and months after 9/11 was whether the Israelis had arrived at the site of their 'celebration' with foreknowledge of the attack to come. From the beginning, 'the FBI investigation operated on the premise that the Israelis had foreknowledge', according to Cannistraro. A second former CIA counterterrorism officer who closely followed the case, but who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me that investigators were pursuing two theories. 'One story was that [the Israelis] appeared at Liberty State Park very quickly after the first plane hit. The other was that they were at the park location already'. Either way, investigators wanted to know exactly what the men were expecting when they got there.

Before such issues had been fully explored, however, the investigation was shut down. Following what ABC News reported were 'high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials', a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified 'prominent New York congressmen' were lobbying heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News close to the 20/20 report, high-profile criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men to smooth out differences with the U.S. government. (Dershowitz declined to comment for this article.) And so, at the end of November 2001, for reasons that only noted they had been working in the country illegally as movers, in violation of their visas, the men were flown home to Israel."

It appears to be Mossad protocol to help finance Israeli spy operations by taking out government loans. By June 2001, the Mossad would have been aware that the Urban Moving Systems operation was going to be over in a matter of a few months, meaning that it was intended that the 'loan' was never going to be paid back. To add insult to injury, American taxpayers are not only spied upon by a foreign country, they have to pay for the privilege.

The fox is guarding the chicken coop

Who is in charge of ensuring that an Israeli sniper hired by the Jewish Billionaires doesn't blow the head of way-out-in-front Presidential candidate Barack Obama clean off?: Israeli citizen - with a substantial Zionist background he doesn't like to talk about - Michael Chertoff (again, via Cryptome).

The next six months in Iraq

Via Cryptome, Wired's Danger Room blog reports that the U.S. government, which has 60,000 Iraqis in detention, expects a 'surge' in that number by 15,000 in the next six months.

The crucifixion of Christ, and the attack on Iraq

Pontus Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus. He was a local bureaucrat, and feared the political implications of having the Roman Empire involved in the death of Jesus, implications which might have included insurrections which would have reflected badly on Pontus Pilate in the eyes of his bosses in Rome. There was no Roman imperial reason to seek the death of Jesus, other than appeasing local Jewish religious leaders. He thus set up the situation to allow for Jesus to get off the hook, replaced on the cross by some local thug. Unfortunately, the 'mob' demanded the death of Jesus, and Pontus Pilate had to wash his hands of the matter, hoping that by so doing he might avoid the blame for what happened. Of course, the mob didn't arrive at their antagonism for Jesus on their own. They were put up to it by the local Jewish religious leaders, the ones for whom Jesus represented a threat, and the ones really behind the crucifixion. As it happened, the crucifixion caused no immediate problems for the Roman Empire, but allowed Peter, the first 'self-hating Jew', to base much of the propaganda message for the selling of the new church on the idea that 'the Jews' killed Jesus, an idea that has caused a fair amount of trouble for the Jewish people over the centuries, and one that is still part of official Catholic teaching. Had the local Jewish leadership not forced the crucifixion, Jesus would have died in obscurity, just another religious fruitcake produced by an area of the world that produces a lot of religious fruitcakes, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground, and the Jewish people would arguably have had a much easier time of it.

You can probably see where I am going with this. The crucifixion is the attack on Iraq, the 'mob' is the American Jewish community - those well-meaning people who 'stand for' Israel - and the local Jewish religious leaders are the Jewish Billionaires who fund the neocons on the basis of ideology supplied by the Settler movement, part of which ideology required the destruction of Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot emotionally support Israel in any way whatever without accepting the 'facts on the ground', most notably that Israel is a military dictatorship consisting of a combination of a small number of very rich families and the military, all run according to the dictates of a group of religious zealots. If you 'stand for' Israel you of necessity 'stand for' the violent and racist ideology of the Settler movement, which includes a program of genocide and wars that will cover the entire Middle East. The Israelis tend to understand this much better than American Jews, who remain mired in their destructive combination of deception and self-deception. The same American Jews who will attend an anti-war rally in the morning will go home in the afternoon and write a check to fund a think-tank in Israel or the United States which will churn out the most vile ideology ever produced, ideology which has led, and will lead, to the same wars which the well-meaning American Jewish community will claim it would never support.

There was no American imperial reason for the attack on Iraq, an attack which has destroyed the American economy, weakened American access to energy supplies, ruined the international reputation of the United States, and probably ended the American Empire. There were a few American Pontus Pilates who attempted to stop the folly, but they were powerless in the face of the 'mob', the wider American Jewish community with its disproportionate financial and political strength (including its influence over the American media), and the Jewish Billionaires and their many influential employees. The crucifixion of the Iraqi people has not only had dire effects on the United States, it has also had very negative effects on Israel and the Jewish people, with a much stronger Iran (with a leadership which currently despises Israel), and the good possibility of the eventual resurgence of a new unified Iraq run by people who really, really hate Israel, and with much more power than Saddam had.

If Jesus died for our sins, for whose sins did the over one million (and counting) Iraqis die?

Apologies and parks

Uri Avnery's reflections (I can't access the Gush Shalom link) on the Canadian apology to its aboriginals, illustrated with a photo of trees planted by the Jewish National Fund on land taken by Israel in 1948 during the Nakba, might have gone further and referred to the fact that Canadian taxpayers have effectively paid for another park built over destroyed Palestinian villages, this time villages destroyed as recently as June 1967. That park, called, to Canada's great shame, 'Canada Park', was built and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund, a registered charity in Canada. Donations to the Fund are tax deductible, making the park partly funded by Canadian taxpayers. Since the Fund clearly engages in partisan political acts (most of which would be illegal if conducted in Canada), it is not eligible to be a registered charity, but political considerations, by which I mean the malign power of the Lobby in Canada, mean that this outrage continues. The tax status of the fund should be revoked, and all deductions disallowed retroactively. Canada should also apologize to the Palestinian people for aiding and abetting the ongoing crimes of the Jewish National Fund.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Saturday, June 14, 2008:

1. Stephen Lendman writes (or here) about the pro-Zionist bias of the BBC. In a world filled with 'one-issue guys', many of them in high positions in your line of work, it makes sense, even if your own boss isn't forcing you to lie, to toe the line. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself identified as a truth-teller on issues concerning the Middle East, you might have trouble finding a job. I was thinking about this very issue when I read the BBC headline on the recent video of settlers beating up Palestinians (something which happens all the time but is never reported on): 'Jewish settler attack' on film. What's with the apostrophes? The BBC can't even report the truth without an attempt to make it appear that the truth has been faked.
   
2. The Canadian scandal involving the forced resignation of the foreign affairs minister is slowly becoming interesting, but it has a long way to go. It is the long-standing connections between the Conservative Party and organized crime in Quebec, a taboo subject in Canadian 'journalism', that needs to be revealed.
3. This song, "Death Of The Party", by the Keene Brothers - Tommy Keene and Robert Pollard - ought to become a hit. In looking for it, I discovered this interesting mp3 website.
   

'Iran talk' spinners

George Bush went to Europe with instructions to be nice and diplomatic, and avoid the belligerent 'Iran talk' that is fueling the recent spike in oil prices. He did exactly as he was instructed, and sounded more diplomatic than Obama. What's the headline in the Chicago Tribune? "President revives tough talk on Iran". If you read the article beyond the headline and the first paragraph - the words that will show up if you do an internet search - you will get an exact opposite impression of what happened than what really happened, which is reflected in most of the rest of the article. Who owns the Chicago Tribune? A 'one-issue guy' named Sam Zell.

Con Coughlin, who reported on the illegal and immoral Israeli attack on Lebanon as if the innocent civilians of Lebanon were dropping cluster bombs on themselves, manages to spin things exactly the opposite way, as if George Bush were the last great American diplomat, and all hell is going to break loose against Iran as soon as this paragon of peacemaking leaves office.

Strategy of Mid-East tension

It is nothing short of preposterous to blame speculators for the rise in the price of oil. Speculators have no interest in the price of the commodity; they make money by betting on changes in the price (another sign that you are deep in Conspiracyland is when people who should know better write obvious nonsense). As soon as other speculators see that a commodity is in play, they bet against the trend caused by the (very) temporary bubble, and that betting forces the price back down. Any effect of speculation must be very short term. What we are seeing with oil prices is an almost constant rise.

The rise in oil prices is caused directly by a strategy of tension in the Middle East, a strategy that is utterly and completely inspired by Zionism. The underlying aggravation is the continued brutal American occupation of Iraq. That occupation is intended by Zionism to cause a permanent civil war in Iraq which will break the country into three, separate, non-threatening (to Israel) statlets. That plan is failing, but the main consequence of the attack on Iraq, strengthening the power of Iran, is causing immense unease amongst Sunni-controlled states, and Israel has pounced on this unease to create an anti-Iran alliance between itself and these states. Just about every bad consequence that could occur in the Middle East is now conceivable, from American-Israeli attacks, to civil wars, to Sunni-Shi'ite wars, all occurring on top of the world's largest sources of oil. Is it any wonder that his constantly increasing tension is driving up the price of oil?

Turning up the tension has been an ongoing process. Every few months there is a new baseless rumor about an American-Israeli attack on Iran, an attack which the oil markets know would result in an Iranian response which would lead to (at least) $300-a-barrel oil. It is this tension which is ratcheting up the price, not oil shortages or speculation. The Old American Establishment isn't behind this, as it will be massively damaged by the kind of world recession that higher oil prices are leading us to. It is pure Zionism. Zionists are the only group that benefits from general Mid-East tension. Failure to call it like it is is, out of fears of facing the slur, is leading to a massive economic disaster which will have huge negative effects on people, particularly poor people, all over the world.

One way to tell if you're in Conspiracyland

One way to tell if you're in Conspiracyland is if the 'experts' all pronounce themselves incapable of comprehending an issue that should be simple to figure out. Like the recent rise in the price of oil. We know that much of the rise was simply due to the complete collapse of the American dollar, largely caused by the American government's borrowing of money to pay for the Wars For The Jews (to be fair, complete inattention to the American economy by the Bush Administration would have eventually led to similar problems, if not so fast and not so severe). Since oil is largely priced in American dollars, the price of oil went up.

The collapse of the American dollar doesn't explain the most recent price spiking. Some 'experts' attribute this to a shortage of oil, which is nonsense (have you heard of anyone not being able to get oil?). Some blame it on mysterious hedge fund speculation, which, if true, would only explain very short-term rises. Of course, the main reason for recent oil price shocks is the effects of the Wars For The Jews, both the instability caused by the American occupation of Iraq (not to mention the massive amount of fuel being consumed there, bought at ultra-premium prices), and the instability caused by what I like to call 'Iran talk' (this story in the Asia Times, immediately shot down as outright lies, is the most egregious recent example of it, and is in itself enough to remove the Asia Times permanently from any list of credible sources). The effects of 'Iran talk' on the price of oil have become so obvious that the most recent idle Israeli speculation on an attack had to be shot down by Olmert himself, no doubt on direct and severe orders from the White House. If Americans ever figure out that they can thank World Jewry (with a special shout out to Daniel Pipes) for the cost of filling up their SUV's, there will be hell to pay. Oh, and by the way, can we please stop giving any credibility at all to any more 'Iran talk', at least until President McCain is firmly in office?

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Saturday, June 7, 2008:

1. I hardly ever agree with classic lite Zionist Stephen Zunes, but his column on Hillary is quite good. Of course, Zunes can't bring himself to state the real reason why Hillary engaged in such bizarre voting behavior (hint, it was money and not some vague philosophical problems with international law).
2. An interview by Frank Barat of the outstanding Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé and some guy they found wondering around on the street. Notice the classic Dershowitzean bullshit argument against boycotts:
   

   "Selective boycotts could also be effective against states with a far worse record of violence and terror than Israel, such as the US. And, of course, without its decisive support and participation, Israel could not carry out illegal expansion and other crimes. There are no calls for boycotting the US, not for reasons of principle, but because it is simply too powerful - facts that raise some obvious questions about the moral legitimacy of actions targeting its clients."

   
   This encapsulates the essential immorality of lite Zionism.
3. Just how close is Ledeen to going to jail? In the current Zionist political context, it would be ironic if he faced a trial over his treasonous dealings with Iran. The most obvious reading of the Niger forgery scandal is that Ghorbanifar was working for the Iranian government, who saw an opportunity to use the Zionists traitors in the American government to fool the Americans into fighting a War For The Jews, one disastrous for the United States but the best thing that could possibly happen to increase Iranian power.
   
4. The attempted "security pact" that Cheney wants to force on the Iraqis won't go any farther than the hydrocarbon bill - which is to say, nowhere - and just proves how weak the American Empire has become, laid low by fighting Wars For The Jews.
5. If you read Obama's speech to AIPAC, it really isn't all that bad. It is chock full of code words, most of which involve diplomacy, and none of which will be pleasing to the blood-dripping-from-the-fangs crowd (a funny note on Obama's email problem). They weren't applauding him or the speech; they were applauding themselves for having the power to force him to abase himself before them. Even the seemingly disheartening line:
   

   "And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

   it is completely ambiguous. Jerusalem can't be the capital of Israel until East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, and 'undivided' can easily mean 'not physically divided by an Apartheid wall'. Wall Street, at least the Old American Establishment part of it, which is throwing oodles of money at Obama in order to fix America's 'brand', would be horrified to hear him enrage the world again by continuing the unsavory process of following the trail of blood dripping from the fangs of the Zionists. That's what wrecked the 'brand' in the first place.
   
6. The Obama-McCain race is starting to look like Clinton-Dole, with the Republicans running a guy who is simply too old, and obviously so. The Republicans fear being wiped out in the next election. When the polling results get out of hand, might they try to encourage their voters in the Congressional races with the threat that the Democrats might end up controlling everything? Is running a terrible Presidential candidate part of a strategy to at least keep the possibility of a filibuster in the Senate?
   

Getting close

Getting close. Voting for an aggressive war that is completely against the interests of your own country, solely at the instance of a tiny but powerful - not to mention insanely supremacist - interest group, would doom any party, as the Republicans are in the process of finding out.

It is a funny world when an obviously violent and supremacist group like AIPAC can hold a meeting every year and every single serious American politician falls over himself trying to admit to the greatest of all intentions to commit the worst possible war crimes on behalf of this group, even when such war crimes are clearly against the interests of the country he purports to represent, and anyone who cares to note the oddness of this fact is marginalized by being slurred. Of course, if a group is so powerful that it can push the world's most powerful country around like a feather, it would also be powerful enough to control the very basis of political discourse. In fact, you should probably be able to work backwards from extreme discontinuities in the way we talk about politics to the greatest of all conspiracies.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Thursday, June 5, 2008:

1. While the 'investigation' of September 11 still staggers around, new possibilities continue to open concerning the RFK assassination (for more on Hughes' thug Robert Maheu, and some interesting discussion on the motives of Dan Moldea, who recently assisted the Official Story on the DC Madam 'suicide', see here).
2. An intriguing thread on the Zodiac concerning the possibility that the killer's murders were part of the 'new journalism', the idea that the writer should participate in the news he was covering.
3. Speaking of Zodiackiller.com, I'd never heard of the Keddie Resort Murders of 1981 until I read this thread. See Steve Huff's posting on the subject.
4. From Tikun Olam:
   

   "There is a class of intelligent American Jewish liberal who understands most of the issues involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet for some strange almost atavistic reason, they can’t bring themselves to have the courage of their convictions. When forthrightness is called for they waffle. When intestinal fortitude is needed, they cave."

   I tend to be less polite about the two-faced American Jewish community (I guess you're still waiting on my "A psycho-sexual history . . . "; it is coming soon!).
5. Speaking of things I need to write about, the disgusting Canadian media has studiously avoided the deep political implications of the recent forced resignation of Canadian foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier, focusing on the size of the breasts of the woman involved in his downfall - George Bush, on meeting the couple, said: 'Maxime, well, well, well haven't you been keeping good company' - rather than the connections between politicians and organized crime.
   

Canadian Conservative Party dirty tricks against Obama

Remember the mini scandal over revelations that an Obama operative had contacted Canadian officials to explain that Obama's dissing of NAFTA was just Rust Belt politics that he didn't really mean, revelations that probably hurt him in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania? Lost in the shuffle was the fact that the Clinton camp made exactly the same diplomatic approach to the Canadian ambassador in Washington. Of course, the American media kept that side of the two-facedness of campaigning quiet. The Toronto Star has been following up on the story, and it looks like a Republican dirty tricks campaign against Obama, the candidate they really fear, arranged through the strange religious connections between the Republican Party and the Canadian Conservative Party. James Travers (my emphasis in red):

"Fingers are pointing at Conservatives close to Stephen Harper for leaking a diplomatic memo that badly embarrassed Barack Obama and put Canada's vital cross-border interests at risk. Multiple sources say the Canadian note questioning the Democrat frontrunner's public promise to reopen NAFTA was leaked from the Prime Minister's Office to a Republican contact before it made American headline news.

Their claims come days after an internal probe threw up its hands at finding the source. Contradicting Friday's inconclusive report, they claim the controversial memo was slipped to the son of Wisconsin Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner. Frank Sensenbrenner is well connected to Harper's inner circle and, at Ottawa's insistence, was briefly on contract with Canada's Washington embassy to work on congressional relations."

and:

" Getting the diplomatic memo to the U.S. media was pivotal in amplifying a small Canadian story into big American political news. The interpretation by Canadian diplomats that Obama was speaking out of both sides of his mouth on free trade is widely believed to have damaged his prospects in the Ohio primary and distracted Democrats to Republican advantage.

'This was a very deliberate piece of business for political purpose,' one of the sources said. 'It puts political ideology ahead of what's good for the country.'"

From Tim Harper:

"Frank Sensenbrenner, the one-time Young Republican fundraiser now at the epicentre of a scandal over a leaked Canadian memo which wounded Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama, was always a poor fit at the Canadian embassy.

The ambassador, Michael Wilson, didn't want him there.

The diplomatic corps on Pennsylvania Ave. didn't want him there and ultimately were so distrustful of the son of a right-wing Republican congressman, they muttered that they wanted his door left open so they could hear who he was talking to.

But officials in Stephen Harper's office wanted him there and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day particularly wanted him there, based on Sensenbrenner's long links, dating back to school days, with the former Reform party, the precursor of today's government in Ottawa."

The Conservatives actually installed an American private-sector lobbyist, one born into the top ranks of the Republican Party, in an office inside the Canadian embassy in Washington. His business card, complete with his office address, must have been very useful in proving that he really was well connected to the Canadian government! When some propaganda against Obama fell into their laps, the Conservatives promptly turned it over to their in-house Republican lobbyist, who wasted no time sending to over to the Associated Press, so the story could have the maximum American media exposure, and provide the maximum embarrassment to Obama. Of course, Sensenbrenner denies that he had anything to do with this story. More from Tim Harper (my emphasis in red):

"The network which got him placed in the embassy has its roots in Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Washington.

'It's typical on the part of that far-right cabal of Tories and Republicans who have put together a network, trying to work below the radar, because they think only they can solve the problems of the two countries together,' said one former diplomat.

Sensenbrenner was introduced to senior embassy officials by Gerry Chipeur, a Calgary-based lawyer who was once legal counsel to the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties, the antecedents of today's Conservative party.

Chipeur, a dual citizen who headed the Republicans Abroad Canada, also has deep ties to the evangelical community in both countries and prominent U.S. Republicans, including Kansas Senator Sam Brownback.

The entrée of Sensenbrenner into Canadian diplomatic circles was forged at the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004, where members of the Canadian embassy and Conservative officials such as Day, Chipeur, Alberta MP Jason Kenney and John Reynolds, co-chair of the Tory 2006 election campaign, all attended.

Sensenbrenner had cut his political teeth in Canada, attending private college in the Toronto area and attending early Reform party conventions where he first befriended those in then-leader Preston Manning's inner circle.

The push to get him on the payroll came particularly from Day, sources said, when he took over the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative file, the name given to the Republican move to require all Canadians crossing the U.S. land border to carry passports or secure driver's licences."

The Jew-controlled media

Philip Weiss, after casting the ritual spell by invoking the name of the anti-Semites, steps into the big issue of the controlled spin on the Middle East, what I like to call, in the interests of telling the truth, the 'Jew-controlled media'. Just as the Zionists have never fought a war before ensuring that they greatly over-matched their opponents (victims) in terms of firepower, the Zionists have never fought a propaganda war without ensuring that they controlled all sides of the 'debate' (of course, the lite Zionism of Weiss is just another part of this campaign, making it appear that Nakba-osis is causing ethical Jews to question the deep consequences of what the Jews are up to, and thus again dominating both sides of the phony discussion while making Zionism appear less insane). The major message-controllers in the mainstream media on issues concerning the Middle East are all Jewish (and that is not a coincidence), although most are so assimilated that they would never be identified as such (perhaps they should have to wear yellow stars on their lapels on TV to make it easier for us).

The real mystery, one I have yet to post on, is why. Why are Jewish Americans, no matter how assimilated, so implicitly Zionist, even when not realizing the problem, and even when they expressly reject Zionism? In fact, the paradox appears to be that in many cases, the more assimilated the journalist, the more biased he or she is in favor of what amounts to ultra-Zionism. How can that be? Of course the main guys, the Wolf Blitzers of the world, aren't in their positions of power by accident. But what about the other Zionists-in-effect all through the world of American journalism? What about all the producers and editors who told the members of the mainstream media to cover up the lies of the Bush Administration to allow for a desired War For The Jews against the people of Iraq? How do we explain this? In fact, the irrationality of American Jewish behavior plays a large part in the cover for their deceptions. People can't believe that seemingly rational people can act so hatefully, and thus anyone who points out this obvious fact is branded as a hater, an 'anti-Semite'.

The most telling evidence that something is amiss is the ridiculously one-sided approach of the mainstream media towards Israel. This is supposed to be invisible to Americans, but is stunningly obvious to every other person in the world. Chomsky has created the most complicated and unlikely conspiracy theory ever devised to attempt to explain it, but his failure, which has destroyed his credibility and ruined the rest of his life's work on politics, leaves us with only one other possible explanation. The Jews, many or most of them not Zionists, have spun the United States into a terrible mess.