AIPAC's Spy in The Obongo Camp...

AIPAC's Man in the Obama Camp
by Philip Giraldi

Barack Obama's first appointment, that of Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, is quite frankly unsettling and suggests that voters who had hoped for real change in Washington will be disappointed. There should also be some concern on the part of Americans who believe that a close and continuing relationship with a foreign government might disqualify one for high office in the United States.

Emanuel, far from serving as a neutral gateway to the president, has some very strong views on foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East, views that are closer to those of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney than they are to the millions of voters who thought that Obama would put an end to "wars of choice." And Obama appears to share at least some of those views, though he might be driven primarily by unwillingness to antagonize Israel's numerous cheerleaders in the Democratic Party. During the presidential campaign Obama refused to meet with American Muslims, and on a fact-finding trip to the Middle East last summer he spent several days in Israel but only 45 minutes with Palestinian leaders.

More recently, Obama did not respond to a congratulatory letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only world leader to be snubbed in that fashion. In his first press conference on Nov. 7, Obama, who has promised to do "everything in his power" to denuclearize Iran, reiterated that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon would be unacceptable, a position adhering closely to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) line. There are also reports that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has already called Vice President-elect Joe Biden to tell him that even talking to Iran would be a sign of weakness, a signal that Israel might be willing to unleash its all-powerful lobby against the Obama administration if it is perceived as going too far.

The extremely partisan and foul-mouthed Emanuel, who has the reputation of a junkyard dog, is a retread from the Clinton White House, where he served in two senior advisory positions after demonstrating his expertise in fundraising during the 1992 presidential campaign. Though born in Chicago, he was an Israeli citizen through his father until he, according to his own account, renounced his dual citizenship when he turned 18. When the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991 the 31-year-old Emanuel rushed off to join the colors, though the colors in this case were the blue and white flag of Israel. He claims that he was a civilian volunteer in the Israeli army who was assigned the task of "rust-proofing brakes" on military vehicles, an assertion that has been questioned because his father's background suggests that he would likely have been offered something much more important.

Emanuel's father, an Israeli physician, was a member of the terrorist group Irgun in the 1940s. Irgun was responsible for blowing up the King David Hotel and ethnically cleansing much of Palestine through selective massacres of Arab civilians. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel said he was convinced that his son's appointment as White House chief of staff would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Commenting on his father's statement, Rahm Emanuel noted that Obama does not need his influence to "orientate his policy toward Israel."

Other Israelis and prominent American supporters of Israel also see Emanuel as their man in the White House. The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz hailed his appointment, describing him unambiguously as an Israeli. William Daroff of the United Jewish Communities also praised Emanuel, describing him as "a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock." Ira Forman, head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, welcomed the appointment, saying, "It's just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship … that was never true," an indication that some will actually expect Emanuel to act on behalf of Israel when the chips are down.

Emanuel left the Clinton administration in 1998 and went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and head of the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He made $18 million in a little over two years. He was deliberately placed in a position where he could exploit his White House connections, which he did, to obtain a nest egg to finance his political career. In 2000 he was named by Clinton to the board of Freddie Mac, where he earned an additional $260,000 but was later criticized for not taking his oversight responsibility seriously. In 2002, he was elected to Congress, where he was noted for his ability to attract large political contributions. Emanuel soon moved into a leadership position, eventually becoming chairman of the Democratic Caucus in January 2007, the fourth-ranking Democrat in Congress.

In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, particularly close to right-wing politicians such as Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu, sometimes even more so than President Bush. In June 2003 he signed a congressional letter criticizing Bush for being weak in his support of Israel. The letter, signed by 34 Democrats, stated, "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror." The letter supported Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders because it "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense."

Not surprisingly, Emanuel has always been in favor of the Iraq war, and he supports an aggressive policy toward Iran. In his 2006 book with the pretentious title The Plan: Big Ideas for America he advocates increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating a domestic spying organization like Britain's MI5. More recently, he has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25.

Emanuel has always expressed intense hostility toward antiwar Democrats. When, in November 2005, Congressman Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." In late 2005 and early 2006, Emanuel played a key role as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in lining up candidates to run against the Republicans for congressional seats in November 2006. Out of 22 candidates vetted and supported financially by Emanuel, 20 were pro-war, despite the fact that the Democratic Party base was not. Antiwar candidates were routinely denied funding and support from his DCCC. Only eight of Emanuel's candidates won, a percentage considerably lower than the success rate for other Democrats, possibly because voters had a hard time embracing their pro-war positions.

In a June 2006 congressional debate on Iraq policy, Emanuel made his own views clear, declaring, "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. … Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." In his speech, Emanuel fully embraced the questionable "War on Terror" concept and aligned himself far to the right of the Democratic Party base, which, at the time, was 60 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several congressmen who called for the cancellation of an impending speech before Congress by visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki because Maliki had called Israel's bombing of Lebanon "aggression." Emanuel was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart Sen. Charles Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?" Emanuel described the Lebanese and Palestinian governments as "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a subsequent speech on July 19 regarding a House resolution supporting Israel's bombing, which produced thousands of civilian casualties.

On March 12, 2007, the Democratic Party leadership announced that it would separate the issue of Iran from consideration of funding measures for the troop surge in neighboring Iraq. Opponents of a possible military action against Iran had sought specific language in the appropriation that would deny funding for any military operations outside Iraq without prior congressional approval. The proposal had seemed reasonable enough, given the Bush administration's track record on the use of force, but apparently it was not acceptable to Emanuel. AIPAC mobilized immediately and began an intensive lobbying campaign against the proposal, instructing its supporters to call and write Congress, adding that it is best to telephone just after lunch, when there are more staffers available to answer the phone. Emanuel organized resistance to the measure from inside the House of Representatives and promised AIPAC early in the process that the offensive language would be dropped. The Democratic Party subsequently held a number of closed-door meetings on the issue and decided that the prohibition would not be included in the funding measure because of "possible impact on Israel."

During the summer of 2008, Emanuel was a key player in the marginalization and humiliation of former president Jimmy Carter, whose book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid had outraged Israel's supporters. Carter was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention, an unprecedented snub toward a former president and a further indication, if one was needed, that in American politics it is possible to do or say nearly anything as long as one does not criticize Israel.

And now Emanuel is the president's chief of staff, one of the most powerful positions in the White House. Perhaps there is a limit to the mischief that he will be able to do; at this point one can only adopt a wait-and-see policy. One thing is certain, however. If the subject is Israel, Emanuel knows very clearly where his loyalty lies.

Rahm Emanuel is a prime example of why us Whites must fight against Jewish Supremacism in America and our homelands.
Article Here

AIPAC Espionage Case Lingers On...

More meddling by the "tribe" in America's affairs:

In August 2005, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were indicted under the Espionage Act on the extraordinary charge that they had improperly received and transmitted classified information that was provided to them by a government official. More than three years later, their case has still not gone to trial.
But next week a federal appeals court will hold a hearing on a government motion to reverse certain lower court rulings concerning the disclosure of classified information at the still unscheduled trial, if and when it does finally occur.

Both the law and the facts of the case are in significant dispute.

From the prosecution’s perspective, the two defendants “conspired to obtain classified information from government sources and passed that information to a foreign government, journalists and others, in violation of [the Espionage Act].”

Yet in an August 20 response (pdf) that was redacted and unsealed last week, the defense not only denied guilt but also said it would prove that no crime had been committed:

“Defendants will demonstrate, among other things, that they acted with innocent states of mind, believing they were acting in the national interest, that officials were authorized to disclose the information to them, and that their conduct was lawful and necessary to save both American and Israeli lives. They will demonstrate that the information at issue was in the public domain, was not damaging to national security, and was not even classified.”

At the hearing next week on October 29, prosecutors will argue that Judge T.S. Ellis, III, who presides over the case in the lower court, “erroneously authorized the disclosure of irrelevant classified information at trial.” Furthermore, they said in a September 12 reply brief (pdf), Judge Ellis “improperly grafted on to Section 793 [of the Espionage Act] several additional intent elements that are nowhere to be found in the statute and [he] repeatedly misapplied the test by which the government’s classified information privilege is adjudged.”

The government’s harsh assessment of Judge Ellis’s handling of the case is remarkable since he is an extremely cautious and deliberate judge (and a Reagan appointee). In an additional complication for the government, Judge Ellis himself sometimes sits on the court of appeals as a designee, making it perhaps a bit less likely that his holdings will be easily overturned by his sometime colleagues.

Adding to the prosecution’s disarray, the U.S. Attorney who has been in charge of the case, Chuck Rosenberg, recently resigned. The lead prosecutor, Kevin DiGregory, quit several months ago. (From Jewish pressure, no doubt.)

Given the unusual charge, the questionable factual basis for the prosecution, and the unfavorable judicial reception so far, some observers wonder why the government continues to pursue the case.

In fact, “defendants in the classified-information case involving two former pro-Israel lobbyists are hoping a change in administrations next year will bring a fresh review of their prosecution, according to sources on the defense team,” writes Nathan Guttman in the Forward.

Story Here

Lieberman And AIPAC: Israeli War Hawks

Do you really want to know whom wants war wit Iran/ Persia along with McCain? This article below answers that question:

Lieberman: `Time for Israel to Act` Against Iran

In all the coverage of Joe Lieberman’s address to the Christians United for Israel ( John Hagge's flock) gala last month, only Justin Vogt, writing for The National, seems to have noticed that Lieberman tacitly called for Israel to attack Iran.

Considering that this man may be John McCain’s running mate in a few days or weeks, I can’t understand why this story hasn’t gotten more play:
Though careful to say he hoped war with Iran could be avoided, the senator ended his address with a Biblically-coded call for military action against the Islamic Republic. According to the Book of Exodus, when faced with Pharaoh’s army behind them and the Red Sea in front of them, the Israelites panicked…

“But God…said to Moses, ‘Why do you cry out to me? Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to go forward.’ In other words, God was saying to Moses and the Israelites, ‘The time for prayer is over. It’s time for Israel to act.’”
…A tribal leader called Nachshon took the initiative and leapt into the Red Sea. “Nachshon understood that there comes a moment when faith and prayer must be followed by action right here on Earth,” Lieberman concluded. Coming on the heels of his dark warnings about Iran, there was no mistaking the kind of Israeli action Lieberman had in mind.
I think this speech justifies the question: does Lieberman see Israel as a U.S. surrogate? That is, a nation which has none of the strictures preventing it from taking actions Lieberman and the U.S. wish they could take. This raises another legitimate question whether, if McCain wins the presidency, Israel will receive a green light to attack Iran.

This is an issue the American people should know about in considering which candidate they vote for in November. If McCain wins, you can expect a nudge-nudge, wink-wink arrangement between his Administration and Israeli generals who’re fully prepared to teach Iran a lesson–at least in their minds. Whether they can pull it off is something about which even Israeli specialists and military analysts have raised serious doubt.

An important theme of Vogt’s story is the competition that has developed between AIPAC and the new Jewish kid on the block, J Street. The reporter manages to elicit a lot of over-reaching and chest-thumping by AIPAC operatives and boosters. This is characteristic of the genre:
“AIPAC represents the organised Jewish community,” argued Robert Asher, a former AIPAC president and a member of the “Gang of Four”. “And we are the only organisation that is recognised that way.”
There you have it in a nutshell. All the hubris. All the hegemonic pretensions. And this from a group supported, according to a recent J Street poll, by only 38% of American Jews. AIPAC aims to suck all the air out of the Jewish room. Thank God, J Street won’t let ‘em.

Vogt managed also to tease out a lot of the unintentionally comic aspects of the CUFI conference. In case you didn’t know this, Israel has oil and the Bible tell us so:
…A jumbo-sized cinema screen bombarded the audience with an infomercial touting the work of the evening’s proud corporate sponsor, Zion Oil & Gas, a company founded by a Hagee supporter who believes that the Bible contains clues that point the way to plentiful deposits of oil in Israel. (“The geology has confirmed the theology,” explained one executive.)

And this is the outfit about which Lieberman said:
“The bond I feel with Pastor Hagee and each and every one of you,” he told the audience, referring to the campaign to pressure him, “is much stronger than that [any opposition raised by J Street], and so I am proud to stand with you tonight!”
Do you want a potential vice-president who communicates to Israel that it would be acceptable to attack Iran, and does so at a convention of religion whack jobs and wingnuts? And lest anyone argue that Lieberman hasn’t been picked for this post yet, I’d reply that Lieberman clearly has McCain’s ear and even if he isn’t vice-president, he will be a very close advisor over the next four or, God help us, eight years should the Republican candidate win.

Story Here
Another Interesting Veiwpoint Here

In the following story below this Bill Kristol is pushing the idea of a McCain-Lieberman Republican ticket. More meddling by the Jews in our government.

AIPAC Is Spying On America...

Dusty old documents collected into a new book tells the truth of the real reasons why AIPAC exists:

Declassified Old Documents Shed New Light on AIPAC Espionage Prosecution

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 -- More than one thousand documents released under Freedom of Information Act filings reveal details of a secret battle that raged between founders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and top US law enforcement officials. The new book "America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government" reproduces and analyzes these files and their troubling implications for rule of law in the United States. "America's Defense Line" also reveals stunning details of a preferential deal engineered within the highest levels of the US Department of Justice over the course of three years and implemented in 1965 -- but kept secret from the American public until today. Old documents and new analysis from the Center for Policy and Law Enforcement raise many questions about the upcoming October 2008 AIPAC espionage trial.

In 2005, Colonel Lawrence Franklin was indicted alongside two executives of AIPAC for allegedly violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Franklin later pled guilty to passing AIPAC a classified presidential directive and other secrets concerning America's Iran policy. Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC allegedly forwarded the highly sensitive information to Israeli government officials and select members of Washington's media establishment. This covert leaking appears to be one of many AIPAC tactics designed to encourage tougher U.S. policies toward Iran, from financial boycotts to naval blockades and possibly even military strikes.

On October 28, 2008, government prosecutors are scheduled to appeal the ruling judge's order that they must prove the alleged AIPAC leaks of national defense information actually harmed the United States. The 1917 Espionage Act actually requires a much lower standard of proof: "the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign country."

According to Grant F. Smith, the declassified documents bolster the prosecution's position that the Espionage Act should be tightly interpreted as it was written. "In the early 1960s, the Attorney General found that the Israel lobby was acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Israel and ordered it to register. Nevertheless, after a similar three-year period of delays and appeals, AIPAC's predecessor was allowed to file a secret Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statement, our nation's first exception to that very important public disclosure law. Forcing today's prosecutors to operate under a higher standard of evidence smacks of institutionalized preferential treatment for a lobby that has serially engaged in activities harmful to the United States."

Federal, state and local law enforcement officials may request a complimentary hard copy of "America's Defense Line" by sending their agency's mailing address to info@IRmep.org from a government email domain. Complimentary books will be sent only while supplies last.

Members of the public can purchase the hardcover edition of "America's Defense Line" for $29.95 at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble and other fine bookstores. The 340-page report's ISBN number is 0-9764437-2-4.

SOURCE Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

Story Here

Promote Peace In The Middle East: Stop AIPAC.

(Give credit to Curt Maynard for this!)

For Peace in the Middle East, Stop AIPAC

New website:

For Peace in the Middle East, Stop AIPAC!

White Woman Calls AIPAC's-ADL's Bluff, Gets Labeled As An "Anti-semite"...

As long as a tiny minority has control over what a person says, there can be no intelligent debate over AIPAC/ ADL. Lee Whitnum found out the hard way. She was labeled as an "anti-semite" by jewish mayor of Stamford Dan Malloy on her comments on AIPAC:

On the eve of the Democratic primary, Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy blasted petition candidate Lee Whitnum, calling her anti-Semitic and saying statements she had made about Israel are “deeply disturbing.”

She and Jim Himes fellow Greenwich resident Jim Himes are seeking the Democratic nomination to face off against 4th District incumbent Rep. Christopher Shays this November.

Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, made his comments at a brief press conference Monday as a reaction to an editorial written by Ms. Whitnum in Sunday’s edition of the Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate.” In the editorial, Ms. Whitnum, who has made several past statements critical of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), stated that the group was “instrumental in getting the United States to invade Iraq and that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were retaliation by Al-Qaeda for America’s close relationship with Israel.

Ms. Whitnum accused AIPAC of “influence peddling” with politicians, including her primary opponent, Mr. Himes, who recently went on a trip to Israel. Ms. Whitnum charged that AIPAC paid for it and that the group now has Mr. Himes “in it’s pocket.” Mr. Himes has denied that AIPAC had anything to do with the trip and has criticized Ms. Whitnum for her remarks about Israel and the Sept. 11 attacks calling them “abominable.”

In a statement issued Monday, Michael Sachse, communications director for the Himes campaign, said, “We are pleased that people in Stamford denounced Lee Whitnum’s extreme statements, such as implying that Israel is responsible for 9/11 and the War in Iraq. Jim Himes has been clear that these statements are wrong and offensive. We are confident that Connecticut voters will reject this ugly rhetoric, and will choose Jim Himes to face off against Chris Shays in the fall.”

On Monday, Mr. Malloy, a Himes supporter, took it further, directly labeling Ms. Whitnum’s comments as anti-Semitic, saying she was invoking “age-old stereotypes of Jewish media control in her attacks on Himes.”( )

“I haven’t been active in this primary campaign and I have only had two conversations with Lee when she called my house seeking my support,” Mr. Malloy said. “I’ve observed this campaign and I’ve been bothered by this campaign and the things that have been said. I thought for a moment that ignoring this woman and some of the most outlandish thing she’s said would be the best policy to not give it more credence but when I saw her statement in the Advocate I found it to be most offensive and taking a full swing at those of us in this country who support the state of Israel.”

He later added, “To claim that Israel is somehow to blame for 9-11 is deeply disturbing and quite frankly belies a disturbed sense that Ms. Whitnum has. I also have come to the conclusion that her statements are unfortunately anti-Semitic in their nature.”

Mr. Malloy said he wishes he had condemned her earlier and that his timing has nothing to do with tomorrow’s election.( )

“She has crossed the line and is clearly anti-Semitic,” Mr. Malloy said.

Ms. Whitnum openly admits she’s raw and unpolished and doesn’t always say what people want to hear, from immigration to the war in Afghanistan — particularly in comparison to her party-endorsed competition.

But, she said, her voice is the only one speaking for the people. The 48-year-old substitute teacher forced the primary after a petition drive got her the required number of signatures to do so.

Turnout for tomorrow’s primary is expected to be low and Ms. Whitnum admits chances of winning tomorrow’s primary are low. Mr. Himes got the party’s support at its convention earlier this year. He has raised record amounts of campaign money for an opponent against Mr. Shays.

“I do not anticipate that this woman will win the primary,” Mr. Malloy said. “I do not anticipate, I hope, that she will get too many votes in the primary.”

In an e-mailed statement to the Post, Ms. Whitnum responded to Mr. Malloy’s statements, urging people to do research on AIPAC and on neo-conservatism. She rejected the idea she is anti-Semitic and accused politicians of being scared by AIPAC.

“Our politicians appease AIPAC for fear that they will be Percyized, which is a Washington term used to describe former Senator Charles Percy of Illinois who felt he lost his reelection because AIPAC funded his pro-Israel rival,” Ms. Whitnum said. “No one stands up to Israel and for that reason. That is why the settlements continue and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict never gets resolved and that is why anti-American sentiment will continue to grow. I am not anti-Israel. I am for taking a tough-love stand with Israel for the good of the United States and Israel. I am not anti-Semitic just anti-AIPAC and AIPAC’S control on our members of Congress.”

Mr. Malloy was joined at the podium Monday by Jewish leaders from the district. Rabbi Eric Eisenkramer of Temple Shearith Israel in Ridgefield, said Ms. Whitnum’s remarks went beyond politics and it is important for them to be condemned.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and political debate is certainly healthy,” Mr. Eisenkramer told the Post. “But when it turns into personal attacks of an ethnic group it becomes something more. This is anti-Semitism. Saying Israel had something to do with 9/11 is incredibly offensive.”

Veronica Reich, a Stamford resident who attended the press conference, also said the comments went beyond who was supporting whom in tomorrow’s primary.

“We need to speak out when you see language like the kind of language she uses,” Ms. Reich said to the Post. “It’s offensive, I think, not just to Jews or supporters of Israel or Himes supporters, but to everyone. I found her comments strongly offensive.”

Story Here