Friday, February 11, 2011

Are The Federal Reserve’s Crimes Too Big To Comprehend?

What if the greatest scam ever perpetrated was blatantly exposed, and the US media didn’t cover it? Does that mean the scam could keep going? That’s what we are about to find out.
I understand the importance of the new WikiLeaks documents. However, we must not let them distract us from the new information the Federal Reserve was forced to release. Even if WikiLeaks reveals documents from inside a large American bank, as huge as that could be, it will most likely pale in comparison to what we just found out from the one-time peek we got into the inner-workings of the Federal Reserve. This is the Wall Street equivalent of the Pentagon Papers.
I’ve written many reports detailing the crimes of Wall Street during this crisis. The level of fraud, from top to bottom, has been staggering. The lack of accountability and the complete disregard for the rule of law have made me and many of my colleagues extremely cynical and jaded when it comes to new evidence to pile on top of the mountain that we have already gathered. But we must not let our cynicism cloud our vision on the details within this new information.
Just when I thought the banksters couldn’t possibly shock me anymore… they did.
We were finally granted the honor and privilege of finding out the specifics, a limited one-time Federal Reserve view, of a secret taxpayer funded “backdoor bailout” by a small group of unelected bankers. This data release reveals “emergency lending programs” that doled out $12.3 TRILLION in taxpayer money - $3.3 trillion in liquidity, $9 trillion in “other financial arrangements.”

Wait, what? Did you say $12.3 TRILLION tax dollars were thrown around in secrecy by unelected bankers… and Congress didn’t know any of the details?
Yes. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The original copy of the Constitution spontaneously burst into flames. The ghost of Tom Paine went running, stark raving mad screaming through the halls of Congress.
The Federal Reserve was secretly throwing around our money in unprecedented fashion, and it wasn’t just to the usual suspects like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc.; it was to the entire Global Banking Cartel. To central banks throughout the world: Australia, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, England… To the Fed’s foreign primary dealers like Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Deutsche Bank (Germany), Royal Bank of Scotland (U.K.), Barclays (U.K.), BNP Paribas (France)… All their Ponzi players were “gifted.” All the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations got their cut.
Talk about the ransacking and burning of Rome! Sayonara American middle class…
If you still had any question as to whether or not the United States is now the world’s preeminent banana republic, the final verdict was just delivered and the decision was unanimous. The ayes have it.
Any fairytale notions that we are living in a nation built on the rule of law and of the global economy being based on free market principles has now been exposed as just that, a fairytale. This moment is equivalent to everyone in Vatican City being told, by the Pope, that God is dead.
I’ve been arguing for years that the market is rigged and that the major Wall Street firms are elaborate Ponzi schemes, as have many other people who built their beliefs on rational thought, reasoned logic and evidence. We already came to this conclusion by doing the research and connecting the dots. But now, even our strongest skeptics and the most ardent Wall Street supporters have it all laid out in front of them, on FEDERAL RESERVE SPREADSHEETS.
Even the Financial Times, which named Lloyd Blankfein its 2009 person of the year, reacted by reporting this: “The initial reactions were shock at the breadth of lending, particularly to foreign firms. But the details paint a bleaker and even more disturbing picture.”

Yes, the emperor doesn’t have any clothes. God is, indeed, dead. But, for the moment at least, the illusion continues to hold power. How is this possible?
To start with, as always, the US television “news” media (propaganda) networks just glossed over the whole thing - nothing to see here, just move along, back after a message from our sponsors… Other than that obvious reason, I’ve come to the realization that the Federal Reserve’s crimes are so big, so huge in scale, it is very hard for people to even wrap their head around it and comprehend what has happened here.
Think about it. In just this one peek we got at its operations, we learned that the Fed doled out $12.3 trillion in near-zero interest loans, without Congressional input.
The audacity and absurdity of it all is mind boggling…
Based on many conversations I’ve had with people, it seems that the average person doesn’t comprehend how much a trillion dollars is, let alone 12.3 trillion. You might as well just say 12.3 gazillion, because people don’t grasp a number that large, nor do they understand what would be possible if that money was used in other ways.
Can you imagine what we could do to restructure society with $12.3 trillion? Think about that…
People also can’t grasp the colossal crime committed because they keep hearing the word “loans.” People think of the loans they get. You borrow money, you pay it back with interest, no big deal.
That’s not what happened here. The Fed doled out $12.3 trillion in near-zero interest loans, using the American people as collateral, demanding nothing in return, other than a bunch of toxic assets in some cases. They only gave this money to a select group of insiders, at a time when very few had any money because all these same insiders and speculators crashed the system.
Do you get that? The very people most responsible for crashing the system, were then rewarded with trillions of our dollars. This gave that select group of insiders unlimited power to seize control of assets and have unprecedented leverage over almost everything within their economies - crony capitalism on steroids.

This was a hostile world takeover orchestrated through economic attacks by a very small group of unelected global bankers. They paralyzed the system, then were given the power to recreate it according to their own desires. No free market, no democracy of any kind. All done in secrecy. In the process, they gave themselves all-time record-breaking bonuses and impoverished tens of millions of people - they have put into motion a system that will inevitably collapse again and utterly destroy the very existence of what is left of an economic middle class.
That is not hyperbole. That is what happened.
We are talking about trillions of dollars secretly pumped into global banks, handpicked by a small select group of bankers themselves. All for the benefit of those bankers, and at the expense of everyone else. People can’t even comprehend what that means and the severe consequences that it entails, which we have only just begun to experience.
Let me sum it up for you: The American Dream is O-V-E-R.
Welcome to the neo-feudal-fascist state.
People throughout the world who keep using the dollar are either A) Part of the scam; B) Oblivious to reality; C) Believe that US military power will be able to maintain the value of an otherwise worthless currency; D) All of the above.
No matter which way you look at it, we are all in serious trouble!
If you are an elected official, (I know at least 17 of you subscribe to my newsletter) and you believe in the oath you took upon taking office, you must immediately demand a full audit of the Federal Reserve and have Ben Bernanke and the entire Federal Reserve Board detained. If you are not going to do that, you deserve to have the words “Irrelevant Puppet” tattooed across your forehead.
Yes, those are obviously strong words, but they are the truth.

Read more...

FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”

by Eric Boehlert

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”

Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.

“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

And that’s the word from inside Fox News.

Note the story here isn’t that Fox News leans right. Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist, depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods.

“They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,” says the source. But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this former insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.

“You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”

The source explains:

“Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining; as along as it brought in eyeballs. But anything—anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it. There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.”

What if Fox News staffers aren’t instinctively conservative or don’t have an intuitive feeling for what the spin on a story should be? “My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead,” the source explains. “You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”

The source recalls how Fox News changed over time:

“When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots. CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC would say the same thing.

“We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable.

Read more...

Thursday, February 10, 2011

You Should Have a Gun

by Jimulacrum

You should have a gun. You really should.

Politicians and news personalities and other talking heads will often tell you that you shouldn’t have a gun. They’ll tell you that guns don’t need to be useful beyond the narrow scope of hunting and personal defense. They’ll tell you that the Second Amendment must have limits so that criminals and maniacs and terrorists can’t have high-capacity magazines and machine guns.

But hunting and self-defense are two secondary reasons why the government isn’t permitted to infringe on your right, as an American citizen, to bear arms. In fact, let’s review the exact text of the Second Amendment right now:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn’t say anything about hunting. It doesn’t say anything about personal defense either. It contains two major parts: a justification of the right, and an unqualified declaration of the right.

The justification explains that the importance of this right is that is allows for local, organized defense (though nowhere does it restrict the right to this purpose). It is not referring to the National Guard of each state. It is referring to civilians maintaining the ability to organize themselves into effective military units if the need should arise.

The declaration does not specify what kind of arms, nor does it provide any room for exception to the rule. The word infringe does not include any connotation of flexibility. It means, “to encroach upon,” with its origins in a Latin word meaning “to damage, break off.” Any baby-step in the direction of restricting possession and carrying of arms of any kind is an infringement of the right.

It is not an oversight that the amendment was written this way. The founders of the United States were rebels and revolutionaries. Access to weapons is what allowed them to defend their country from the theft and oppression of George III.

It’s important to note here that monarchy was a very long-standing form of government as of the late 18th century. The founders were educated people who were facing massive disillusionment with a system that had been in place from time immemorial. The Second Amendment is a recognition that even the most trusted, powerful institutions around us can turn out be destructive elements that need to be stood down. They knew it could happen even in this well-considered arrangement they had created themselves.

That is why the people of the United States have a right—second only to free speech, free religion, free assembly, and redress of grievances—to own and to carry weapons of their choosing, with no limits. Everything from slingshots to missiles to laser rifles is forbidden to the government to restrict. And that right exists primarily so that we may defend ourselves against the government if it becomes necessary, with the same level of force that the government can employ.

Unless you’ve been living in a hole for the past few decades, there’s no way you could not have noticed the government’s complete lack of impunity in its actions. There’s no way you could not have noticed that, year after year, it looks a lot more like a permanent ruling class than any kind of democracy. There’s no way you could not have noticed that something has gone awry with the founders’ great experiment.

Governments cannot be trusted to correct themselves once they’ve gone bad. Human history does not contain any examples of that. Governing bodies exist to last indefinitely, so that’s what they do—preserve the structure of rule. Sometimes, when they’re acting badly enough, that preservation can take some really ugly forms. It can kill and destroy with an unimaginable ferocity. Human history is filled with examples of this.

Unarmed citizens command no authority and present potential government thugs no deterrent to abuse. Armed citizens represent a power to be reckoned with; any large-scale assault upon them risks running into effective resistance.

No one is saying you should keep an automatic rifle loaded under your bed, ready and waiting to be brought into battle. There’s no call to attack the government. There’s no need to join a militia if you don’t want to.

But you should have a gun, and you should learn to use, store, and maintain it properly. You should assert and protect your and your fellow citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. And you should never forget why.

Source

Monday, February 7, 2011

The Judicial Crackdown on Jury Rights Activists in Florida

It would appear that a judge in Orlando, Florida, Belvin Perry, Jr. , likes his juries not to know that they have the option to nullify the law. He has put out an administrative order "GOVERNING EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT TOWARD SUMMONED JURORS". The order may be read in its entirety here.

Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) activists have been tireless in their efforts to educate Florida juries of their power to nullify the law if they disagree with it or its application. Otherwise juries would be reduced to mere rubber stamps with the government able to convict anyone of anything they choose to make illegal. This is an established principle of law.

The judge is claiming that FIJA activists are trying "to influence summoned jurors as they enter the courthouse" by handing them brochures. (Actually, the brochures are handed out to all who enter or leave the courthouse.) The brochures don't tell jurors how to vote on specific cases they merely inform them of one of their options. Sadly, the judge's view is that "Such occurrences severely impact the court's ability to conduct the efficient, prompt, and proper administration of justice"". Therefore, stopping the FIJA activists' exercise of free speech ""is necessary to serve the State's compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the jury system"". With this Orwellian statement judge Perry has given himself away. What could possibly be more conducive to ""protecting the integrity of the jury system"" than informing juries of one of their powers? Does the judge not want to see the jury system working as it should, as a check on tyrannical government? It would seem not, otherwise he would welcome the FIJA activists educational efforts at his court. Obviously, the judge likes his juries obedient and easily manipulated.

The national leadership is calling on all Florida FIJA activists to stop their outreach efforts until this repressive administrative order is set aside. (The full FIJA response to this outrage can be read here.) This is a sad time for liberty and one that activists of all political persuasions must take note of. There are many demonstrations at courthouses across the USA, especially anti war ones. If they can shut down the FIJA activists they can shut down all activists. We all need to stand together to restore free speech at the Florida courthouses before it is too late.

Source

ADL: WRONG TEACHER OF "CIVILITY"

By Rev. Ted Pike
7 Feb 11

The day after Rep. Giffords was shot, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center did their best to blame conservative rhetoric for the tragedy. (See, AZ Shooting: Right Wing Protects ADL/SPLC Accusers) After the dust settled, there was no evidence that right-wing “incivility” motivated the deranged gunman. Failing to besmirch Christians and conservatives, ADL is now trying the other extreme: posturing as America’s teacher on “civility in public discourse.” In his article, "Leaders Must Set a New Tone for Civility in America," ADL’s national director, Abe Foxman, intones:
In recent years, the Anti-Defamation League repeatedly has warned about the coarsening of the political debate and its broader impact on society. There is no doubt that inflammatory rhetoric can be dangerous. We need only look back to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and other incidents of homegrown terrorism to see where virulently anti-government sentiments and conspiracy theories can lead. Today, anti-government groups and movements continue to feed this toxic environment. Anti-government militias, sovereign citizen groups and others are taking advantage of popular distrust of government and the economic downturn to spread fear and conspiracy theories.
This is ironic. No organization is more devoted to "uncivil" defamation of its critics than ADL. It smears as “anti-Semitic” anyone who speaks negatively of Israel, Talmudic Judaism, or Establishment history of the “Holocaust.” This Jewish attack group created Christian-persecuting hate crimes legislation worldwide. It promotes abortion and sodomy “rights” and wields massive influence in public education on behalf of these subversions. It perennially agitates for removal of Christian symbols from public property and attacks any effort to return Christian values to government.

ADL should be called “The American Defamation League.” No civic group is less qualified to preach “civility” to the world.

How Civil is ADL?

In 1989, the League was found guilty by a California court of illegally collaborating with police to amass detailed private information on 10,000 unsuspecting Americans. These included many conservative and pro-life activists as well as Muslims. (Watch NPN’s Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians)

In 2000, ADL was ordered to pay more than $10 million in damages for smearing a Colorado filmmaker, who worked with Hollywood, as anti-Semitic. The court agreed that, since the Hollywood film industry is Jewish, ADL had ruined his career. (jweekly.com “Judge fines ADL $10.5 million in Colorado defamation suit” 5/12/00)

In 2004, ADL National Executive Board member Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham incarcerated 11 Christians for the “hate crime” of publically witnessing to homosexuals. They faced 47 years in prison and $90,000 fine each if found guilty. (See, Eleven Christians Jailed For Criticizing Homosexuality) In 2010, ADL published a 30-page attack, Rage Grows on the Right. It described millions of anti-Obama Americans as “paranoid” and “conspirators.” (See, ADL Blasts 'Paranoid' Right: Are Millions of Anti-Obama Protestors 'Conspirators?') The National Prayer Network and Jonathan Tobin, editor of Commentary Magazine, led national outrage against ADL’s “incivility.” Even liberal Jewish media was too embarrassed to publicize Foxman’s hysterical rant.

These are only a few of the aggressively uncivil assaults ADL has launched to destroy its critics.

Just this last year, ADL silenced film legend Oliver Stone for mentioning the proven fact that Jews founded and run Hollywood. (See, Jews Confirm Big Media is Jewish) ADL helped ruin the career of CNN anchor Rick Sanchez for briefly suggesting Jewish control of big media. When veteran Washington reporter Helen Thomas criticized Israel and Jewish control, ADL trashed her career and reputation (assisted by Joe Farah’s World Net Daily, which quoted ADL as an acknowledged authority on anti-Semitism). (See, Who's 'Spewing Venom' - Helen Thomas or WorldNetDaily?)

ADL’s tawdry history of defamation, even of sincere and constructive critics of Israel, is legendary. ADL’s power—and the social stigma of being labeled “anti-Semitic”— is so great that any public figure accused of disrespect to Israel must grovel or be ruined. The League is first to scream "Holocaust-denier!" when any scholar suggests that the facts do not show that six million Jews were systematically gassed in WWII. ADL claims "Defamation of the Jewish dead!" against those who conclude from evidence that widespread malnutrition and rampant typhus were mostly responsible for the death of countless internees, including Jews.

True civilization supports scholarly research into any topic without fearing prosecution or persecution. If lines of inquiry are wrong, reason alone should indict them – not courts of law! Yet just this week, Dutch ADL-influenced Jewry is demanding that anyone who questions any aspect of the Holocaust should be arrested and punished as quickly as a drunk driver! Far from a "civil" influence, ADL is returning the world to a medieval inquisition. How long will the Christian/conservative right grovel before ADL’s incivility, too terrified to even mention its existence, much less the fact that it is 100% Jewish?

Only Providence knows how long ADL will be allowed to rage against truth and the laws of God and nature. One thing is sure: ADL is the last place American police, lawyers or government—or the American people—should go for lessons in civility.

Source

Ten Months Later...New Claims: BP Oil Disaster is Causing Health Problems

Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

By Elizabeth Woodworth

For Dr. Niels Harrit, nanotechnology expert and a recently retired University of Copenhagen chemistry professor, it all began when he watched the collapse of the World Trade Center’s Building 7. Harrit watched it come down in amazement, noting, “I had to watch it again… and again. I hit the button 10 times and my jaw dropped lower and lower.”

The 47-storey structure, with a base the size of a football field, was not hit by a plane, but collapsed at free-fall speed seven hours after the Twin Towers, at 5:20 PM. “I had never heard of that building before and there was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way. Straight down, in 6.5 seconds. I have had no rest since that day,” Harrit says.

Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author, peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite – an ultra high-tech incendiary explosive, produced by the military and capable of slicing through steel beams. Nanothermite contains more energy than dynamite and can be used as rocket fuel.

In light of the new discovery by the Harrit team, the mysterious and disturbing features of the World Trade Center collapses can now be explained: buildings WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 all fell symmetrically, straight down into their footprints at nearly free-fall speed, producing thousands of tons of pulverized concrete dust.

New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo reported “molten steel running down the channel rails, like lava.” Weeks later, cranes were pulling red-hot girders, dripping steel, from the rubble piles.

A WTC building engineer was convinced that a bomb went off. He saw a 50-ton hydraulic press in a deep sub-basement of the North Tower “reduced to rubble” by an enormous explosion and a 300-pound steel and concrete door wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil.” The explosion occurred as the plane hit the 95th floor, 92 minutes before the building collapsed.

TV anchors Dan Rather, Wolf Blitzer and Peter Jennings likened the collapses to controlled demolition. Dr. Harrit’s in-depth chemical analysis, combined with the visual and physical features of the collapses, now supports these early impressions. Yet the Harrit team’s paper, which made front-page headlines six times in the major Danish newspapers during the first week of February 2010, was never reported in North America.

The subject continues to haunt the European news. A January 2011 poll by the prestigious Emnid Institute for Welt der Wunder magazine showed that almost 90% of German respondents doubt the official account of 9/11.

When asked on Danish national news why he thinks nanothermite caused the collapses, Harrit replied, “Well, it’s an explosive. Why else would it be there? You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it. Unreacted thermite… [mixed with the concrete dust from the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings].”

The issue of how the buildings fell is central to our rationale for being in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dr. Niels Harrit lectured for 34 years at the University of Copenhagen, and has published more than 60 articles in major science journals. He has delivered 90 lectures on the World Trade Center in Sweden, Norway, England, Holland, the US, Australia and Spain.

Cross-country tour & talks:
Feb 24: Dr. Harrit speaks at UBC, Geography Bldg, Rm 100, 1984 West Mall, 7pm.
Feb. 26: UVic, David Lam Auditiorium (A144), 7pm.
Admission $10 both cities. Tickets in Victoria available from Ivy’s, Sorenson’s, Tanner’s and Cadboro Bay books. He also speaks in Edmonton, Toronto, Hamilton and London.

*www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf



Source

Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google

The Marketplace radio show from American Public Media spoke to Special Agent James Hayes from Homeland Security, who was apparently in charge of the "raids" (if you can call them that) that involved the seizing of domain names under the legally questionable theory that linking to infringing material is, by itself, criminal copyright infringement. I've yet to find any legal expert who seems to believe that the law actually says this anywhere.

In the interview, John Moe asked Agent Hayes a very simple question: given that these domains were all seized based solely on the fact that they link to infringing content hosted elsewhere, and all of the same content is also linked from Google, will the Feds seize Google's domain name? Well, more specifically, Moe asks if ICE could seize Google's domain name. Amusingly, right after being asked, Hayes conveniently gets cut off, but he does call back and the question is asked again. You can hear the whole thing here:

Click for audio

However, once he gets back, he tries to tap dance around this issue. Hayes says "no" that ICE will not seize Google's domain name and that's because it's only targeting sites that "don't do due diligence" to make sure that the content they're linking to isn't infringing. There's a pretty serious problem with this claim in that it's wrong on both sides of the equation. First off, Google, as a search engine, does no due diligence to check that links only go to non-infringing content. Second, in at least some of the cases (specifically in the case of dajaz1), we know that it was actually Homeland Security and folks like Special Agent Hayes who "failed to do their due diligence," so the songs named in the ICE affidavit were, in fact, provided by the labels or representatives of the musicians. In other words, according to Special Agent Hayes' own criteria, Google is more of a criminal operation that Dajaz1.

Read more...

Sunday, February 6, 2011

How Zionism infiltrated the US


Click here for video

Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials.
In this exclusive interview with Press TV's Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations.

He goes further to explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.

Press TV: In 1982, Mr. Bruzonsky, you authored the Paris Declaration- a breakthrough event that greatly contributed to political developments of the time. Please tell us about that.

Bruzonsky: In the 1980s, in a sense, a lot of us knew there was this political cancer; it was very bad, it was eating up the patient and needed to be dealt with and cured. I was in Paris sitting in a hotel room, a big event in my life, with four very important people - I was there to do the work and write the document.

These people were the former president of France - Pierre Mendis France; the founder of the World Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress - Nahem Goldman; his successor, who was the only Jewish leader in America who had ever been president of B'nai Brith and World Jewish Congress and Secretary of Commerce. The man who inspired it was the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) Isam Sartawi, the head of the PLO in Europe. They signed this document called the Paris Declaration, I wrote it and it was on the entire front page of Le Monde newspaper; Arafat responded and that was on the front page also.

But then we ran out of steam. The organizations that had founded were not willing to even entertain a discussion on what they had signed; they disassociated themselves from the people who founded their own organizations.

So then the Donahue show asked me to be on their show. The Donahue TV show was the only talk show in America at that time, there was no other competition and I went on it after no other Jewish leaders would accept to go on the program. The timing of the show was pre-intifada, pre-apartheid and there were very few Israeli settlements on Palestine occupied land at the time and the discussion was all about how to bring peace to the region. The two-state solution (with 'Solution' emphasized) was in fact a possible solution - it wasn't going to be totally fair, the Palestinians were going to get a small piece of territory compared to their homeland, but at least there was a lot of support from political people to make it happen. That world is gone. The two-state solution is now dead with the possible exception that you would have to roll back a tremendous number of things that have happened; that's not going to happen.

The reason that is not going to happen is not because President Obama is not a smart man, not because he doesn't know that cancer has gotten a lot worse; he knows all that. He also knows that politically he is totally blocked. There is no way in the world he can come up against the Israeli Jewish lobby and their great group of institutions, personalities and foundations - no way. He knows it.

So he continues to talk the language of two-state solution, but that's largely to keep Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) from being totally discredited.

Press TV: During his inaugural as US president reports were circulating that his administration was going to move away from the Bush doctrine of rejecting Hamas into talks. Where does Hamas stand in the equation? Can there even be talks with the Palestinians when Hamas is sidelined?

Bruzonsky: In my cable TV program that I ended in 2003 I interviewed Musa Abu Marsuk the No.2 leader in Hamas. He was in New York under arrest at the time. I think it was 1996 and the Israeli Jewish lobby got the congress to pass a law outlawing Hamas and so Abu Marsuk, who was living in America as a successful businessman, was imprisoned. I got permission to interview him and do three reality TV programs. I don't think the Obama people ever said anything positive about Hamas; I think they did say they were going to re-invigorate the peace process - but those are just words, slogans, the devil is in the detail and all that meant was that we (the US) are going to say they have to stop building settlements.

Well, Obama made a joke and a fool out of himself. Didn't anyone tell what was going to happen the moment he tried to get the Israelis to stop building settlements? There is a whole history that goes back to Camp David and US President Carter who also told the world that he had got the Israelis to agree to stop settlements and then the Israelis at that time made a fool out of that president by saying they had discussed freezing settlements, but only for 90 days. And then after that they escalated their program and we now live in the world we live in.

The story of how Obama became president, how he got support is important here. Obama is a different kind of president and we were all relieved. It was very embarrassing for eight years and more so for people throughout the world that suffered and were being killed by a US president who frankly (it's not said in Washington and it's not the kind of thing said at meetings, but many of us consider them as war criminals and we consider Chaney and Bush; they fit the definition of war criminals).

When Obama ran for president he stood for human rights, he was bright and principled, but then during the campaign certain things happened.

First of all the top financiers of the Democratic Party half of them are Jewish and almost all of those are quite Zionist and quite involved with the Israelis. At the time when Hilary Clinton and Obama were competing for support AIPAC had its annual convention. On that day Obama gave a speech and he gave more than what was expected. Lee Hamilton who was on Obama's advisory board said to me that he went too far - he shouldn't have said what he said about Jerusalem - we're going to be correcting it. After the speech, behind the scenes, he was taken to meet the Board of Directors of AIPAC. Rahm Israel Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff escorted him upstairs to the hotel room.

This is very unusual, presidency candidates don't usually get interviewed by boards of directors like this, but AIPAC is different. The way the Israeli community signaled that they were going to support Obama, without actually announcing that they had even had a meeting with him, was to have Rahm endorse Obama. So a few hours later Rahm came out in public and did that, which was the signal to the rest of us that Obama had made his peace with this lobby and that he wasn't going to be able to do anything they weren't going to approve of.

Press TV: You mentioned that it was well-known to you that the Arab-Israeli conflict will be political cancer if it was not resolved, and at this point it has become the cancer that you mentioned. What has been the main obstacle of not reaching a solution?

Bruzonsky: America is the super power - American money; American arms; American UN vetos; American military support at critical times. The Israelis took a decision way back in the 1940s - and it goes back to the holocaust and back to Jewish impotence; there's lots of factors it's not black and white. It was a powerless community, I was part of it - born into a family that my mother and father would tell me we lost all of our relatives nobody knows where they are or they were all killed or maybe some escaped to what had become Israel.

The US has prevented a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict because the Israelis set up such powerful institutions, lobbies, publications, personalities and control in various ways of political parties and of the media making it impossible for American leaders to do what they knew they should do to solve this cancer; and it goes way back to General Marshall the secretary of state. When President Truman told Marshall that he was going to accept a Jewish state, Marshall was going to resign saying it's not in the interests of the US it is going to be war, which we won't be able to end; it's going to get worse; it's going to unleash forces we won't be able to control - he was exactly right.

At every critical moment since: Eisenhower tried to do things in the 1950s, carter tried to do things in the 1970s, but they were blocked. There are plenty of books and academic information about this.

The Israelis then realized since they had control of the US, and Sharon said it bluntly back in 2001, he and Peres had a little debate in a cabinet meeting and the word that leaked out from that meeting was that Peres said that we've got to be careful, the Americans aren't happy with what we're doing and Sharon said stop worrying about the Americans we control things in America, I'll take care of things there don't worry about it. - And he was right.

I've been watching all this. I did a lot of travelling for a lot of years through the Middle East while the US has been my home base; and it's been outrageous.

Bruzonsky: I was a kid journalist just out of school. The Egyptian Embassy in Washington read something I had written. It was a movie review about a film called, “Children of Rage.” And they called me and said it was very interesting and asked if I would like to be the first Jewish journalist that has ever been invited by our government. Of course I said yes. So I went for three weeks and I met everybody: the Foreign Minister, the Minister of State, and then they said to me that they knew the three weeks were up but they wanted me to stay longer because the President wanted to meet with me. And they were so surprised when I said I could stay one more day, but I really have other places I have to go. So I said to thank him so much and it was a great honor and so nice to meet all of them, and I took off.

I went to Oman and then I went to Israel. There was going to be a big peace conference and you will see the connections in just a minute. There was going to be this big peace conference. So I get to Israel and I go to the new outlet magazine, which was sponsoring the conference and George Ball, the most important under Secretary of State, the man who helped resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis was going to be the speaker. And they said to me Mark where have you been. And I said I've just been to Egypt. I said I'm here because they wanted me to stay and meet the President but I'm at your peace conference. And they said oh my god don't you know what has happened. And I didn't because I had been traveling and it wasn't like you could tune in to Al-Jazeera in those days. They said the President gave a speech and said he is willing to go anywhere and do anything to bring peace. They said you were supposed to have a meeting with him, and I said yes.

I was in Israel for about six hours. They gave me a whole bunch of cash and wrote a letter and said Mark go back to Cairo and meet the President and invite him to come to our peace conference. So later I'm sitting with the President of Egypt and am given him this invitation, and he was asking me about my three weeks in his country. So there I am and it's a little hard for me to believe that I'm sitting with the President of Egypt all alone. Maybe forty to fifty feet away there is someone from the Minister of the Interior or somebody to protect, but he can't even hear he was so far away. And I was so disappointed because at the end of the meeting which was very nice he said I'm very sorry but I will not be able to come to your peace conference. Then I suppose I was just looking sad. I don't remember saying anything. But he said I have decided I will send a telegram to this conference. And I already knew that leaders in the Arab world do not send telegrams to Israel. I had never heard of such a thing. There wasn't a procedure. I figured it was just his way of being polite to me. I literally had to leave on the first flight in the morning, and I went to a travel agent that was recommended to me, but at the moment I whispered Israel it was don't say anther word about Israel.

We can't talk about Israel and there is no way we can get you to Israel. He said first flight in the morning goes to Athens and that is all I can do. So I said okay and I'm on my flight to Athens. I'm dog tired and I'm half asleep. I traveled so much in those days the moment anybody asked me anything I would say orange juice and English. When I woke up on the plane, there was this newspaper in front of me, The Egyptian Gazette. And I wasn't sure if was hallucinating or dreaming because as my eyes cleared I said good god that's me. There is this big picture of me and Sadat on the front page at the top of the paper. But there was no story. It was just Journalist Mark Bruzonsky meets President Sadat. There was no story; no nothing. A day later I'm called aside by the Chairman of the conference. He said Mark in one hour there is a press conference and all the media will be here.

You have to come sit up front and you have to tell everybody about your meeting with the President. And I said what's going on, what's going on. He said you know the office is closed but we are all at the hotel. We sent somebody back to get some papers and under the door is this telegram. It wasn't just oh, hope you had a nice conference. It was a whole page of the importance of peace to the region and what this conflict has done. It was a very long statement which I learned later was written for him. And for 24 hours I was the guy who met the President! It was I that had arranged this telegram and then on Thursday morning came the unbelievable announcement. The President of Egypt arrives to Israel on Shabbat (Saturday) as soon as the sun goes down. And it's like something out of some dream, as people starting arriving within hours. A press center was set up in almost minutes. There were free phones. Anybody could pick up a phone and call anywhere. And on Saturday night he arrived and I went to the airport with the Egyptian press delegation. We all thought the world was going to change now.

The Israelis would feel accepted, the Palestinians would have their homeland, for at the time it was called a homeland and we weren't even talking about a state. Then unfortunately everything started to deteriorate, and three years later Sadat was assassinated and it has been downhill ever since.

Press TV: So the postphonement on the decision on settlements led to the fact that it termed from an occupation issue in the eyes of the international community, and everyone who was observing the settlement issues thought it was a contested issue. At that point the issue of settlement could be contested after Oslo. Before that it was an occupation and it wasn't even discussed.

Bruzonsky: Once the Israelis got the PA (Abbas was the man who actually signed the document) at the White House. Once that got them to sign this agreement and become their collaborating regime without having to agree to stop the settlements. That's symbolic. If the Israelis weren't going to stop enlarging the occupation, how could we possibly consider this a major step on the way to a peace settlement? So it was the symbolism of it. Not the actual settlement here or there. The Israelis never intended to stop the settlements.

Rabin in my judgment never attended for what he was signing to end up being a Palestinian state. For them it was autonomy we packaged under different names and they were hiring Arafat and his people to control the Palestinian people. That of course is the origin of the growth of Hamas because many non-religious people and many who had been supporters of Fatah and of more secular things decided we are going to support Hamas. At least they are honest and dignified. At least they have principals and are not corrupt. And Fatah has sold us out. That's the origins of how in 2006 Hamas was elected.

Press TV: I'm going to dare ask this question to wrap up. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Bruzonsky: It's a very long, dark tunnel now but hopefully saner, wiser policies will prevail down the road. And we can't afford this anymore. Our own empire is collapsing financially, morally, and spiritually in terms of the credibility of American institutions. We don't feel it so much in Washington, but around the country, the Tea Party and the other movements is representative of a feeling that our future is dissolving in our place in the world, and our standard of living and what we are providing for our children. There is big conflict here and we don't have the resources to continue these policies even if you want to argue the policies are right.

Press TV: Mark Bruzonsky, thank you very much for joining us on the Autograph.

Bruzonsky: Thank you Susan.

Source

11 States Will Demand Birth Certificates In 2012

Connecticut, SB291 require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot." That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."

Georgia, HB37 not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

Indiana, SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.

Maine, LD34 require for all candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship. It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."

Missouri , HB283, require that certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."

Nebraska, LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation."
That paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."

Montana's plan that candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.

Oklahoma, SB91 would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access. It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad.

Pennsylvania working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."

Texas House Bill 295 A bill filed for the Texas Legislature that would require candidates' documentation. It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

Arizona Bill within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

Source