Monday, September 14, 2009




When looking at the situation that has plagued the cause of peace over the last thousand years, you can take these assumptions biblically or historically and simplify your assertions.

* Khazar’s were hunnic or Huns (Attila as an example) whose armies consisted of Asian and European Nomads, Gypsies and horsemen who were Turkic, Mongolian, Hungarian, etc.

* They battled east and west with success and once they were defeated, filtered into what is now Russia, Western Europe and China and subsequently throughout the world today.

* They adopted Judaism, Christianity and Islam had tribal conflict within the empire

* They also had some victories and then defeats against the Persian and Byzantine (Muslim and Roman)

* A Georgian tradition, echoed in a chronicle, also identifies the Khazar’s with Gog and Magog, stating they are “wild men with hideous faces and the manners of wild beasts, eaters of blood”.

* Some Muslim scholars including Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Tibri believe the Qur’anic Gog and Magog are intended to be the Mongols. The Mongols were a serious threat to Muslim power during the Middle Ages, attacking Muslim civilizations, and eventually destroying the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad and the Khwarezmian Empire of Central Asia.

* According to one modern theory of dispensationalist Biblical hermeneutics, Gog and Magog are supposed to represent Russia. The Scofield Reference Bible’s notes to Ezekiel claim that
“Meshech” is a Hebrew form of Moscow, and that “Tubal” represents the Siberian capital Tobolsk. Taken to mean by some Dispensationalist theology that Russia is the Giant, ‘Gog.’

* ‘Magog’ (also G.H.W. Bush’s skull and bones name) could represent the US and Christian Zionist nation.

* Since the fall of Khazar Empire, the scattering of the forces have moved throughout the world.

* They have mingled, married and metastasized into the governments and businesses we now must endure.

* They make the wars, hold the economies, dictate the terms, present the intelligence, market the media and use the populations to do their bidding.

* This bears the mark of Rothschild’s, Rockefeller’s, Queens, Presidents, Institutions (CFR-BILDERBERG), Popular Religious Evangelists, Business leaders and elite wealth unknown to the public.

  • Why are you sitting there idle?

  • Why aren’t you jumping up and down in the streets?

  • Why aren’t you talking to everyone you meet, not only to preserve your nation and your way of life, but at least making an effort to save the thousands of military men and women who have no idea these days that they are being deliberately sacrificed in battles for the Glory of Israel and the New World Order?

All wars in this world are holy wars,

there are really no enemies,

except the Zionist-Kharzar-Jews

to the common people.

If they were not here on earth

creating trouble between nations

the people of earth would live in peace.

The following series will bring you
up to date on KHAZAR activities
in our modern age.
Truly, it is NOT to be missed.



Bookmark and Share

We Know Something the State Department Doesn’t Know

As the Obama Administration presses forward on its so far fruitless efforts to get Israel to freeze its illegal settlement building in the occupied Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem and end its criminal siege of the occupied Palestinian Gaza Strip, it seems at a loss on how to proceed or how to exert any effective pressure on Israel to achieve these goals.

Take, for example, this exchange last week between a reporter and State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly on the issue of Israel’s discriminatory treatment of U.S. citizens of Palestinian heritage:

QUESTION: A follow-up on the PA-only stamp issued by Israel to U.S. citizens going into Israel, just to follow up on that. I saw that you guys released --


-- something. You said that you’re engaged with the Government of Israel. Just more clarification. Have you complained to them about this specifically? Have you asked them to stop issuing it to your U.S. citizens, and do you consider it a violation of the Oslo Accords?

Oh, well, the latter – the latter issue that’s, I think, something that I probably would want somebody else to pronounce on if it’s a violation of the Oslo because I’m not familiar enough with the Oslo Accords to be able to make a judgment one way or the other.

As our note said last night, we have made it quite known to the Israeli Government, and this is, I think, really on the diplomatic level, that we expect all American citizens to be treated the same regardless of their national origin. And this kind of – these kinds of restrictions we consider unacceptable. And I’d refer you to the Israeli Government for – in terms of their --

So you don’t know if they’re going to stop doing it or not, or if you specifically asked them to stop issuing these specific stamps?

MR. KELLY: We have told them that we think this is – that we cannot accept this kind of practice.

QUESTION: Do you know at what level – do you know if – how many Americans have complained to the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem? How --


QUESTION: -- serious you consider this?

MR. KELLY: No. I’m not aware of the kind of numbers of – the number of people who have complained. Libby.

QUESTION: Different topic.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Can I – can we go back? First of all, what does that mean we cannot accept this kind of practice? You also can’t accept, you know, continued building of settlements, and they seem to be doing that.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So what exactly does that mean?

MR. KELLY: Well, it means that this kind of practice is something that the U.S. Government believes should not be done. This is not --

QUESTION: Yeah, but you say we can’t --

MR. KELLY: -- something that we can accept.

QUESTION: But it’s not – you have to accept it, if that’s what they’re doing.

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: What are you going to do if they don’t stop?

MR. KELLY: We will continue to protest.

QUESTION: But that won’t make any difference --

QUESTION: That – I mean, it’s not a question of whether you can accept it or not. They’re doing it.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.


May we be so bold as to offer you some advice, Mr. Kelly? If the United States doesn’t like Israel’s practices, then we should exert pressure on Israel to change its behavior. And the quickest and most effective way to do so is by ending U.S. military aid, which is misused by Israel in violation of U.S. law to kill and injure Palestinian civilians and sustain Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. Unfortunately what seems so obvious to us hasn’t yet registered with the Obama Administration, which is why we need to organize to educate and build political support to put this policy option on the radar screen of our elected representatives.

Join nearly 1,300 people from 49 states (c’mon North Dakota, we know you’re out there!) who have received an organizing packet from us filled with fact sheets, petitions, postcards, and stickers—everything you need to go out and organize in your community to build support for ending U.S. military aid to Israel. Sign up today to receive your organizing packet by clicking here.

We can’t do this important organizing work without resources. Each organizing packet costs us about $10 in printing and shipping costs. If you value the crucial organizing work we’re doing to challenge U.S. military aid to Israel, then please make a generous tax-deductible contribution to us today by clicking here.

Source: US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Bookmark and Share


Wrongfully imprisoned Congressman comes home to warm welcome after spending seven years in federal jail

Former Congressman Jim Traficant came home to freedom on September 2 after serving seven years in prison for crimes he did not commit. More than a thousand of his friends and admirers bought tickets to a banquet being held in his honor in Boardman, Ohio in his former congressional district surrounding Youngstown.

Although the major media is still smearing Traficant as a “crook,” those who know Traficant know his prison sentence was “a railroad job” from the beginning. The fact is that although there are probably dozens of members of Congress who could be indicted and convicted for major criminal offenses involving high-stakes bribery and influence peddling that is often quite open and never prosecuted, the Justice Department spent many years coming up with a handful of dubious charges against Traficant.

Ask anyone who knows how it works in official Washington and they’ll privately admit that the real reason Traficant was indicted on criminal charges was simply the fact that “the powers that be” didn’t like Traficant: he was just too honest and too outspoken.

Right up front, let’s lay it out. Here were some of Traficant’s real “crimes” in the eyes of the elite who railroaded him into federal prison in 2002:

� Criticizing the Internal Revenue Service and calling for expanded protection for the rights of taxpayers under fire from the IRS;

� Taking a hard-line stand against NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and so-called “free” trade and urging protectionist measures to preserve American jobs, defend domestic industry from predatory global speculators and save the American economy.

� Tackling not only corruption inside the FBI and the Justice Department, but also assailing the personal integrity of former Attorney General Janet Reno;

� Attacking Wall Street wheeling and dealing and raising questions about the enrichment of high-level financial interests through the lending practices of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

� Accusing then-Vice President Al Gore of “trying to steal the election” in the midst of the long-and-drawnout post-election debacle in 2000;

� Calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from trouble-spots around the globe and questioning constant U.S. meddling in the affairs of other nations;

� Charging American policymakers with treason for having given top-secret U.S. defense and nuclear technology to the butchers in Peking;

� Coming to the defense of Ukraine-born Cleveland autoworker John Demjanjuk, who was falsely charged by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Justice Department‘s Office of Special Investigations of being a “Nazi war criminal”—only to be cleared, ironically, by an Israeli court. (Ultimately, with Traficant sidelined in his own federal trial, they went after Demjanjuk again on “new” charges and restarted the process of seeking to deport the beleaguered old man, who is now in Germany facing trial on 29,000 counts of being an accessory to the alleged murder of European Jews.)

� Demanding that U.S. troops be sent to guard the Mexican border and prevent continuing hordes of illegal aliens—and potential terrorists—from entering into the United States; and—last but very far from least:

� Challenging one-sided U.S. aid and support for Israel, saying that the biased policy was to the detriment of America’s security and Middle East interests.

Traficant was the only member of Congress—the day after the Sept. 11 tragedy—to point out that U.S. support for Israel and open borders were root problems leading to the tragedy.

While Traficant enunciated these truths, other members of Congress squirmed uneasily, sitting in silence, as Traficant spoke out—even in the face of his impending trial—never one to be cowed.

Congressman Jim Traficant was most assuredly lynched by the Justice Department just as if he had been taken by force and hanged from a lamp post near the U.S. Capitol in Washington—a method of justice that certainly should be applied to many of the corrupt individuals who continue to misrule America from their positions in Congress and throughout official Washington.

However, what happened to Traficant could happen to any American should he or she fall into the gunsights of the powerful forces that reign supreme in America. The Traficant case is the proverbial tip of the iceberg, for the truth is that sitting alongside Traficant in prisons today—federal, state and local—there are probably thousands of Americans who were as much victims of an unjust system as Traficant.

These people, too, are “political prisoners” in the plainest and most very real sense of the words. But we haven’t heard about these folks because they didn’t have the high public profile of the outspoken Jim Traficant.

So the lesson to be learned is simple: Even someone in a position of influence—such as a U.S. congressman—can be railroaded into prison by the very people whose job it is to enforce the laws.

Source: American free press
Bookmark and Share

The Fading American Dream: The Constitution Circumvented: Attention, Attention: American Forces are here to help; Why are we allowing foreign troops to train to control Americans here?

The Fading American Dream: The Constitution Circumvented: Attention, Attention: American Forces are here to help; Why are we allowing foreign troops to train to control Americans here?

Bookmark and Share

The Fading American Dream: The Constitution Circumvented: Cass Sustein, your new Regulatory CZAR, says you do not have a Second Amendment right

The Fading American Dream: The Constitution Circumvented: Cass Sustein, your new Regulatory CZAR, says you do not have a Second Amendment right

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Parents who ferry children to clubs face criminal record checks

Unregistered adults could be fined up to £5,000 under scheme to prevent paedophiles getting access to children

Parents who regularly ferry groups of children on behalf of sports or social clubs such as the Scouts will have to undergo criminal record checks — or face fines of up to £5,000, it was disclosed today.

They will fall under the scope of the government's new vetting and barring scheme, which is aimed at stopping paedophiles getting access to children.

Failure to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the Home Office agency that administers the scheme, could lead to criminal prosecution and a court fine.

The clubs themselves also face a £5,000 fine if they use volunteers who have not been cleared. Parents who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted.

A total of 11.3 million people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are expected to register with the ISA.

All 300,000 school governors, as well as every doctor, nurse, teacher, dentist and prison officer will have to register because they come into contact with children or "vulnerable" adults at work.

The scheme was recommended by the Bichard report into the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by Ian Huntley, who was a school caretaker.

Huntley was given the job at a secondary school despite allegations of sex with underage girls in his past, which were not passed on.

The scheme will be the biggest of its kind anywhere in the world and involve unprecedented delving into the subject's personal and employment history.

Unlike previous lists of barred individuals, everyone registered with the agency will face continuing monitoring, with existing registrations reconsidered if new evidence is disclosed.

Its creators hope the scheme will reduce the risk of abusers gaining access to children.

A Home Office spokesman said "informal" arrangements between parents to offer lifts would not be covered.

Critics fear voluntary helpers will be alienated by the new rules. The author Philip Pullman said the database was "corrosive to healthy social interaction" and has pledged to stop visiting schools to carry out readings in protest.

Criminal penalties, including jail terms, for employers giving sensitive jobs to those who are already barred, come into force next month.

From November next year workers taking new jobs which qualify for the scheme must be registered. Any activity which involves contact with children or vulnerable adults three times in a one-month period, every month, or once overnight, qualifies, as do jobs in specified places such as schools, prisons and children's homes.

Registration will cost £64 in England and Wales, but unpaid volunteers will be exempt from the charge.

Officials predict nine out of 10 people who apply to register will have no additional information held on them by the ISA and so will not require more detailed checks.

"The vetting and barring scheme does not cover personal or family relationships, so parents making informal arrangements to give lifts to children will not have to be vetted," a Home Office spokesman said.

"However, anyone working or volunteering on behalf of a third party organisation — for example, a sports club or a charity — who has frequent or intensive access to children or vulnerable adults will have to be registered with the scheme. For volunteers, registration is free.

"We believe this is a commonsense approach, and what parents would rightly expect.

"The UK already has one of the most advanced systems in the world for carrying out checks on all those who work in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults."

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said the system was a "disproportionate response" that risked deterring volunteers from coming forward.

"The worst unintended consequence would be if it stopped people and charities from volunteering with children because of the fear of draconian fines," he said.

The shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "We are going to drive away volunteers, we'll see clubs and activities close down and we'll end up with more bored young people on our streets. The government has really got to see sense."

The information commissioner's office said there were "inevitable" security risks of collecting large amounts of personal data.

Martin Narey, the Barnardo's chief executive and former director general of the Prison Service, said: "If the vetting and barring scheme stops just one child ending up a victim of a paedophile then it will be worth it."

Source: The Guardian

Bookmark and Share

This obsession with misery has turned us into a nation of whingers

A Martian listening to Radio 4 would have us all down as codeine addicts. The media have scarred our view of public life

An autumn sun was shining. A late rose bloomed in the garden. The blackbird was in song. Then the BBC did its bit. No sooner was the morning news over than the radio cried: "Now for rape … We should warn listeners that this programme contains explicit descriptions of rape." Just the thing for a nice cup of coffee.

A presumably female audience was then treated to a morning menu of unrelieved misery. After rape, Woman's Hour gave them codeine addicts, war widows, thigh-high boots and heroin-dosed children taken into care. A discussion on how to survive brain damage offered some light relief.

This fare was not exceptional. A Martian listening to Radio 4 today would assume that the females on planet Earth were a genus of raped, harassed, child-oppressed, drug-addicted, underpaid and joyless victims, living in a perpetual state of dependency and bowel cancer. Not since Genesis have women had a worse press.

Nor is it only women who live in this state of un-grace. A Sunday morning programme called Sunday goes out when church bells are ringing and breakfast is sizzling on the stove. To the BBC, the path to Sunday morning salvation is peopled only with homosexual priests, antisemites, Zionists, Muslim fanatics, creationists, ranters, crazies and child molesters. It is X-certificate religion.

Misery syndrome applies, of course, to all the mass media. News is by definition bad. As Lord Northcliffe said: "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress." There is no news in a plane taking off safely or a bank standing secure. News is when they crash. All happy families resemble one another; it is the unhappy ones that grip the attention. Politicians are supposed to rule well; news is when they fail.

Even so, there used to be an editorial rule of thumb that bad news should be dosed with good. The news in brief column would alternate sad and happy items. This discipline has gone, along with discretion in the choice of pictures of the dead. Even the one-time jollity of feature pages has collapsed in a grim worthiness of global warming and swine flu. The media does not do joy any more. If a newspaper is the nation talking to itself, it is talking with a sob in its throat.

Media people are told that their duty is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Only the latter is observable. The comfortable are ruthlessly afflicted, but that is supposed to be enough to spread a sardonic smile across the face of the nation, the inverse of Gore Vidal's "Whenever a friend succeeds a little something in me dies". Amid a world of guns, knives and fallen celebrities, we are supposed to cheer that it is not us.

Does this matter? It certainly must have an effect. Last week the anti-drunkenness lobby demanded an end to all publicity for alcohol, in the belief that this would influence public behaviour. The same belief underlay the ban on cigarette advertising. Most people assume that advertising boosts sales, and hence an end to advertising reduces them. In both cases, public communication is regarded as influential and should therefore be regulated.

If this applies to advertising, it must surely apply to news. News informs, as does advertising, but it also subtly influences and persuades. It makes people feel good, bad or afraid. In 2006 the opposition leader, David Cameron, espoused the new economics of wellbeing in a speech to a Google conference. He declared, as if in a revelation, that there was "more to life than money … there is GWB, general wellbeing". Being a politician, he found it hard to put flesh on the platitude, other than that happiness lay in "belonging to someone and some place".

Other pundits have tried. We have had a Happy Planet Index, a Gross National Happiness target and National Accounts of Wellbeing. In all, the message is similar, that government should concern itself with more than prosperity. Money makes people moody, jealous and negative. But so does bad news.

This month's World Economic Forum report of global comparisons makes eerie reading. Whenever it moves from hard data to opinion surveys of what Britons think about their country, the rating plummets, especially in their regard for public services and institutions. The British are presented as hypercritical of their public realm.

Confidence in Britain in the judiciary is 16th, below Hong Kong and Israel. For the school system it is 28th, and for the police 33rd. In respect for politicians, Britain comes a lowly 41st, below Egypt and Uruguay. Respect for the banking system is 126th, behind Burundi and Tajikistan. In almost no category is Britain on a par with or above France, Germany, Spain or the Scandinavian states.

This tallies with the often noted British dissatisfaction with public services and with distrust of politicians and public figures. Britons whinge like no others in Europe. Yet the whingeing tends to be specific. Opinion polls show that people tend to be more negative about the national tier of public life than the local one. They like their GPs and local hospitals; they have lost faith in the NHS. They like their school, but not schools in general. Denmark's localised health service is among the most popular in Europe.

The public is more inclined to trust – and thus be happy with – rulers they know as opposed to those about whom they only read in the papers or see on television. They prefer local politicians to national ones and have more faith in local government than national. It is significant that local newspapers and radio stations tend to carry more positive stories than national ones. Familiarity breeds the opposite of contempt. It breeds trust.

As the political scientist David Marquand wrote of the Scandinavian move in the 1980s from nationalised to localised government, it followed "growing evidence during the 1970s of public disillusionment with the public sector … service was not close to the public and failed to involve them as citizens". Faced with similar disillusion, Britain was moving in the opposite direction, and has been ever since. The result is to make the public realm seem ever more distant and, it seems, ever more miserable.

I cannot imagine a programme of censorship that would require media organisations to watch their misery count or relay a positive image of public life. We know where that leads. Occasional attempts to launch "happy" newspapers end in tears, if only of hilarity. The fact that Cameron found it so hard to attach a happiness programme to his wellbeing agenda shows how vacuous is the task.

But the media's tone of voice must have an effect. My old newspaper, north London's Ham & High, some years ago changed its policy from reporting news in the round to concentrating on crime. My image of my neighbourhood shifted abruptly from one of pride to one of grim fear, unrelated to any fact. I relate that directly to the press.

If we make ourselves miserable towards public life by what we hear, see and read, that life will not win our support. We shall become ever more inveterate complainers. If happiness really is what we seek, the media should censor itself – and cheer up a bit.

Source: The Guardian

Bookmark and Share

Surveillance cameras in Pennsylvania town prompt privacy concerns

A security camera is mounted on a utility pole in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

A security camera is mounted on a utility pole in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Horses drawing buggies regularly clop down the roads approaching Lancaster, Pennsylvania a peaceful city in the heart of Amish country that had only three murders last year and relatively low crime.

But if the community sounds reminiscent of the past, it also has some distinctly modern technology: 165 surveillance cameras that will keep watch over thousands of residents around the clock.

When it is complete, the surveillance system will be bigger than those in large cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. And the fact that it will be monitored by ordinary citizens has raised privacy concerns.

"They are using fear to sell the cameras as much as possible," said Charlie Crystle, a member of a fledgling citizens group that opposes the cameras and is trying to raise public awareness about them. "There's just a huge potential for personal and political abuse."

Officials in the city of 54,000 say the cameras have deterred crimes and helped solve them.

The white, domed cameras sit atop utility poles in public spaces, business districts and some residential areas. They are monitored 18 to 24 hours a day by employees of the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition, a non-profit board with workers who report suspected crimes to police.

Lancaster is the seat of Lancaster county, a popular and peaceful tourist destination known for having one of the nation's largest Amish populations. Horses and buggies are common on surrounding roads.

The safety coalition, directed by city councilman Joseph Morales, screens prospective monitors and provides training about racial profiling and how to spot trouble. The group has seven monitors, all paid. The coalition does not release their names.

Monitors sit in a room with two large plasma screens and six smaller ones, each divided into views of different cameras. A joystick allows them to zoom in or move the cameras if they see something unusual. If they do, they call police.

"What they are typically seeing is people in their everyday life going through their business," Morales said. "They're looking for anything out of the ordinary."

A special commission recommended the $2.7m (£1.6m) camera system in 2001 in response to a spike in some crimes. Police chief Keith Sadler strongly supports having citizens monitor the cameras because he does not have the manpower to do it with a force of 159 officers, about 20 fewer than two years ago.

"In this economy, nobody has the luxury to take cops off the street," Sadler said. "You are probably watched more by non-police agencies than you are by us."

Lancaster has seen some declines in property crimes since the cameras went up, but those numbers have fluctuated — along with the totals for violent crimes.

Despite inconclusive statistical evidence, police and the commission say the cameras are providing officers with a new tool. Last year, commission workers called police 492 times and provided video to police 305 times. That work led to 82 arrests and 86 citations, as well as 18 charges pending.

Police also credit the cameras with helping to solve a murder in which a man was shot outside a restaurant and the shooting was caught on tape.

Other small cities have also invested in surveillance cameras, though not as heavily as Lancaster.

In Wilmington, Delaware, the city of about 73,000 developed a network of 21 publicly owned cameras and networked them with more than 200 private cameras owned by businesses.

That city also has 37 neighbourhood cameras, and the combined system is monitored by a non-profit group, which refers calls to the police.

Wilkes-Barre, a north-eastern Pennsylvania city even smaller than Lancaster, is planning to install 150 cameras this year, also monitored by a non-profit.

Some research has cast doubt on just how much surveillance systems reduce crime.

A January study by the University of California found that cameras did not reduce homicide in San Francisco but did help reduce the number of burglaries and some thefts. A New York University study found that cameras did not do much to deter crime in some public housing projects.

Those findings and others are part of why Crystle and other critics do not think the effort is worth the risk in a small town like Lancaster.

He also points to examples such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, where officials decided in February against adding surveillance cameras because of privacy concerns.

Crystle and others in Lancaster say they have done nothing to warrant being watched. Nick Boots, who owns a barber shop near a camera, said he thinks the city is using fear to gain support for the cameras.

"Through the fear of the perceived threat, people are willing to give up certain rights," Boots said. "You got to think of Lancaster now being like an open-air prison. Who's the warden?"

Others praise the project, including Francisco Cruz, 65, owner of Cruz Barber Shop, who said he's seen less drug dealing and fewer prostitutes outside his shop since cameras went up.

"I don't care if they put one right here in the shop," Cruz said.

The American Civil Liberties Union also objects to the project, especially since it covers the entire city — not just high-crime areas.

"When you have a blanket network of surveillance, you are no longer about solving crime," said ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper, citing studies that show cameras mainly help solve just small crimes. "Now you're talking about a surveillance community."

Source: The Guardian

Bookmark and Share

Traficant Lashes Israel Lobby On Fox News

In his first interview after being released from prison last week, former congressman James Traficant let the cat out of the bag about the strangle hold that the Pro Israel Lobby has over Washington DC. The interview took place last night with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren.

Susteren asked him if he has any grudges. Traficant says that he was the number one target of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee" and the Justice Department. He goes on to say that "he believes that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control both members of the House, the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don't beat you at the poll, they'll put you in prison." He says "Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child. And people in my district are losing their pension benefits."

Greta asks "Are you an antisemite," James replies, "what I am is an American. You see, I think America comes first. And we have a one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast, and we've alienated Arabs who have no way of fighting. So, what they've done -- and I predicted this on the House floor -- is they would export violence to America. And they have. They have no other way to fight.".

Traficant talked about his controversial defense of John Demanjuk, who was accused of Nazi war crimes, and was facing execution by Israel. Traficant's used the freedom of information act to prove he was innocent and who the real individual was. A rulling by Israel's supreme court released him but Traficant's role angered the Jewish Establishment in America. Demanjuk is now facing trial in Germany, despite being found innocent by Israel.

Unlike most convicted politicians who are sent to country club prisons, he was not given any special treatment. He said he spent time in solitary confinement and was put in danger in a prison full of many illegal immigrants, being a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. He talks about how his experience in prison has changed his entire outlook on the justice system and that he now believes no one should go to prison for non-violence offenses and that he wishes he did more to right the war on drugs when he was in congress.

Traficant expressed interest in running for congress again saying it is a 50/50% chance. Whether he gets back in office or not he is a needed Populist Constitutionalist voice against the powers that control our government.

The full transcript is here.

Interview with Traficant by Greta Van Susteren

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Bookmark and Share

Israel 'A Dangerous Sham' Says Prominent Jewish Historian

Israel: A Stalemated Action of History

In late 1949 I worked on a boat taking Jews from Marseilles to Haifa, Israel. Jews from Arab nations were in the front of the boat, Europeans in the rear. I was regarded by many of the Europeans as some sort of freak because I had a United States passport and so could stay in the land of milk and honey. One man wanted me to marry his daughter – which meant he too could live in the land of milk and honey. My Hebrew became quite respectable but the experience was radicalizing or, I should say, kept me radical, and I have stayed that way.

Later I learned from someone who ran a displaced persons camp in Germany that the large majority of Jews wanted to go anywhere but Palestine. They were compelled to state Palestine or else risk receiving no aid. I understood very early that there was much amiss in the countless Arab villages and homes I saw destroyed, and that the entire Zionist project – regardless of the often venal nature of the Arab opposition to it – was a dangerous sham.

The result of the creation of a state called Israel was abysmal. Jews from Poland have nothing in common with Germans and neither has anything to do with those from the Arab world. It is nationality, not religion, that counts most. Jews in Israel, especially the Germans, largely ghettoized themselves by their place of origin during the first generation, when a militarized culture produced the mixed new breed called sabras – an essentially anti-intellectual personality far different from the one the early Zionists, who were mostly socialists who preached the nobility of labor, expected to emerge. The large majority of Israelis are not in the least Jewish in the cultural sense, are scarcely socialist in any sense, and daily life and the way people live is no different in Israel than it is in Chicago or Amsterdam. There is simply no rational reason that justifies the state’s creation.

The outcome is a small state with a military ethos that pervades all aspects of Israel’s culture, its politics and, above all, its response to the existence of Arabs in its midst and at its borders. From its inception, the ideology of the early Zionists – of Labor Zionism as well as the rightist Revisionism that Vladimir Jabotinsky produced – embodied a commitment to violence, erroneously called self-defense, and a virtual hysteria. As a transcendent idea, Zionism has no validity because the national differences between Jews are overwhelming.

What Zionism confirmed, if any confirmation were needed, is that accidents are more important in shaping history than is all too often allowed. Here was the intellectual café, which existed in key cities – Vienna at the turn of the twentieth century or the Lower East Side of New York before World War I – filled with immensely creative people full of ideas and longing for a golden era to come. Ideas – good, bad, and indifferent – flourished. In this heady atmosphere, Zionism was born.

But Zionism has produced a Sparta that traumatized an already artificially divided region partitioned after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during World War I led to the Versailles Treaty and the creation of the modern Middle East. The state of Israel has always relied on military solutions to political and sociological problems with the Arabs. The result is constant mobilization.

Even more troublesome for peace and stability in the vast Middle East, Zionism has always been symbiotic on some great power for the security of its national project, realized in a state called Israel. Before 1939 it was the British; during the 1950s it was France. Israel has survived since the late 1960s on the influx of US arms and money, and this has allowed it to encourage its fears of annihilation – a fate its possession of nuclear weapons makes most unlikely. But Israel also has an importance far beyond the fantasies of a few confused literati. Today its significance for American foreign policy is far greater because the Soviet Union no longer exists and the Middle East provokes the fear so essential to mobilizing Congress and the US public. “The best hopes and the worst fears of the planet are invested in that relatively small patch of earth” – as George Tenet, the former head of the CIA, put it in his memoir – and so understanding how and why that patch came into being, and the grave limits of the martial course it is following, has a very great, even transcendent value.

In July 2003 Foreign Minister Shalom predicted that Iran would have nuclear bomb capability by 2006. It did not have nuclear weapons in 2006, though in fact a successful strike by conventional missiles on Dimona, Israel’s nuclear facility, would radioactivate a good part of Israel – and both Iran and Syria have such missiles. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, during Vice-President Dick Cheney’s visit in late March 2008, stated that “Iran’s weapons program threatens not only the stability of the region, but of the whole world,” and he did not rule out a war with it. By spring 2008 Israel was also very concerned about the growing ascendancy of Hizbollah in Lebanon and its greatly increased firepower – mainly in the form of rockets capable of striking much of Israel. It regards Hizbollah as a tool of Iran, and its focus on Iran concerns its control over Hizbollah as well as its ability to challenge Israel’s nuclear monopoly. But there can be no doubt that Hizbollah’s strength has only grown since Israel attacked it in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Israel now has an enemy that can inflict immense damage on it, probably resulting in highly skilled Jews migrating far faster than they already are at present – even now, more Jews are leaving Israel than migrating to it.

The existence of Israel is scarcely the only reason American policy in the region is as bad as it is. After all, it did not take Zionism to encourage Washington to seek the elimination of British influence in the region, and today no one can tell how long the US will remain mired in the affairs of the Middle East. But Israel is now a vital factor. While the extent of its role can be debated, without it the politics of the entire Middle East would be different – troubled but very different.

At least equally nefarious in the long run, Israel’s existence has radicalized – but in a negative sense – the Arab world, distracting it from natural class differences that often overcome religious and tribal ties. It has fanned Arab nationalism abysmally and given it a transcendent negative identity.

I am very realistic – and pessimistic – about an eventual negotiated solution to the crisis that has surrounded Palestine and Israel. Given the magnitude of the changes needed, the present situation justifies the most dismal conclusions. After all, the Arabs that live under Israeli control will quite soon outnumber the Jewish population, leaving a de facto Jewish state in which Jews are a minority! This fact is becoming deeply troublesome within Israeli politics today, causing former expansionists to reverse their position and leading to more and more internal controversy. Nor will there ever be an administration in Washington ready to do diplomatically what none has ever dared do since 1947, namely compel Israel to make an equitable peace with the Arabs.

Neither a one- nor two-state solution will come to pass. But the Jewish population is very likely to decline, and if it falls sufficiently then demography may prove to be a crucial factor. The ratio of Jews to Arabs would then become highly significant. The Jews in Israel are highly skilled and many have gotten out, migrating abroad. The Israeli military is the most powerful in the region because it has been deluged with American equipment, which it has learned to service. But US forces need repairmen to service the very same equipment, more than ever because recruitment into the American military is now lower than it has been in a quarter-century (not to mention its astronomical suicide rate), and skilled Israelis can take jobs with America’s armed forces that they are eminently qualified to fill. Moreover, Iran and the other Arab states will eventually develop or acquire nuclear weapons, making Israel incredibly insecure for its highly mobile Jewish population – one exhausted by regular service in compulsory reserves. And as already suggested, destroying Dimona with conventional missiles or mortars would be a cheap way to radioactivate a good part of Israel. Even worse, Osama bin Laden, or someone like him, may acquire a nuclear device, and one nuclear bomb detonated in or near Israel will effectively destroy what is a tiny area. Whoever destroys Israel will be proclaimed a hero in the Arab world. To those with skills, the answer is clear: get out. And getting out they are.

There are also Orthodox Jews in Israel but Israeli mass culture is now virtually indistinguishable from consumerism anywhere – in many crucial respects, there is more Judaism in parts of Brooklyn or Toronto than in most of Israel. The Orthodox too may be ready to leave behind the insecurity and troubles confronting those who live in a nation that is, after all, a part of a highly unstable region.

Sober and quite rational Israelis exist, of course, and I cite them often enough, but American policy will be determined by factors having nothing to do with them. Unfortunately, rational Israelis are an all too small minority.

Gabriel Kolko is the leading historian of modern warfare. He is the author of the classic Century of War: Politics, Conflicts and Society Since 1914, Another Century of War? and The Age of War: the US Confronts the World and After Socialism. He has also written the best history of the Vietnam War, Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the US and the Modern Historical Experience. His latest book is World in Crisis, from which this essay has been excerpted.

Source: Counter Punch

Bookmark and Share

The End Of The Nation States Of Europe:The Irish Referendum On The Lisbon Treaty October 2nd 2009

By Philip Jones
"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU in a letter to a friend 30th April 1952).).
On June 12th 2008, the proud and independent minded Irish screamed a loud and clear NO to the treacherous Lisbon Treaty and to further integration into the EU Superstate being constructed around the hopes, dreams and lives of the peoples of Europe. Typically, arrogantly and not surprisingly, the Euro Fascists, whose credentials are appearing ever more Totalitarian in structure and ruthless in application, simply ignored the voice of the Irish voter, demanding there be a another vote, and this time, the rebellious Irish would have to get it right, or else.
On October 2nd this year, once again, the fate of nearly 500 million people will be decided by a country whose population totals only 4.2 million. The people of the Republic Of Ireland will now for a second time, have been the only `citizens` of the European Union given the opportunity to have their say on what is potentially the most fundamental piece of legislation in the history of the `Old Continent.` All the other member states have simply ignored the wishes of their people and left ratification to be `rubber stamped` by their respective parliaments. However, it is necessary, at least at the moment, for all twenty seven member states to complete ratification before the `Treaty` becomes legally binding.
So, if the Irish vote is `NO` for a second time, then legally, according to its own rules, Brussels will not be able to implement the Treaty. However, if the Irish people this time around swallow the massive `Pro Treaty` propaganda and vote `Yes,` then the fate of, and inevitable demise of the Nation States of Europe will be sealed. There will be no more serious obstacles left to Federalisation. The long dreamed of (by the Federalists that is) a United States Of Europe will inevitably become a reality.
Many, if not the majority of people on both sides of the Atlantic have been `duped` for decades into believing that the EEC/EU is about a `free trade` zone. This is not at all the case, as the above quote by Monsieur Monet illustrates very clearly. So what are the ramifications of a `Yes` vote by the Irish.
The European Union was founded on lies and deceit at the very highest levels of government. This trail of deception has continued since, and on Thursday 13th December 2007 stopped momentarily in Lisbon Portugal, where the `dignitaries` of the member states of this `trading bloc` signed the `EU Reform Treaty`.
This `Treaty` replaces the EU Constitution rejected in 2005 by both France and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and the former French President `Giscard D`Estaing are among many European ministers who have confirmed that the `Treaty` is but the Constitution by another name. The only differentials being the dropping from the new document those articles relating to the EU Flag, Anthem and Motto. Yet only two days prior to the `Historic event` in Lisbon, sixteen member states `broke cover` and called for an amendment to the `Treaty `and the reinstatement of these three articles, thereby transforming the `Treaty` into the original Constitution. They also want to impose the `single currency` on all those member states still retaining their `indigenous` currencies and are suggesting that a `Europe Day` become a holiday for celebration.
The leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party `Nigel Farage` said, "The full treachery being imposed is at last fully out in the open. The pathetic attempts claiming this wasn't the Constitution are now blown out of the water. Back comes the flag, the anthem and the motto. It means that what was 96% of the original constitution is now 100%. Let's not hear any more of the `Reform Treaty`. This is the rejected EU Constitution brought back in all it's pomp."
Whilst still in office, the former Danish Prime Minister and current Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, decided against any referendum on the Treaty, leaving it's ratification to Danish MPs. Since then, nothing has changed here in the `Old Kingdom,` where it's business as usual as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned.
Last year, Mr Fogh Rasmussen stated that the "Treaty` was 'Good For Denmark." Denmark had planned to hold a referendum on the Constitution back in 2005, but following the `NO` votes in France and Holland, the vote was dropped. The Danish Justice Ministry have concluded that the `Treaty` does not threaten Danish Sovereignty. Mr Fogh Rasmussen was quoted as saying, " When sovereignty is relinquished, a referendum is needed, but when no sovereignty is relinquished, Parliament will ratify the text."
He also confirmed plans to hold another referendum on the `Single Currency` (EURO) and whether to end the `opt outs` agreed at Maastricht relating to defence, justice and home affairs.
So, no threat to sovereignty ? Well let's consider the implications: If a Sovereign Nation State no longer controls it's own Economy, Defence, Justice System and Home Affairs, can it truly be called a `Sovereign Nation State` any longer ? The answer is quite simply NO.
The Political and Financial Elite of Europe have been working towards this moment since the end of World War Two. In every member state, the personalities might differ, but the rhetoric is always the same; "No Loss Of Sovereignty, good for the people, good for the economy and so on.".
So let us take a look at what this `Treaty` is really about. What is the difference between this document and the original Constitution ? German Lawyer, Klaus Heeger, a researcher and legal advisor to the Independent Democratic group in the EU Parliament has drawn the following conclusions regarding the two documents:
According to his analysis, the Constitution granted the EU 105 new `competences`. The `Treaty` also grants 105 new areas of competence. Out goes the EU symbols (Flag, Anthem, Motto) in comes Climate Change. The remaining 104 areas remain the same.
Decision making by qualified majority replaces `unanimity` in 62 new areas in the Reform Treaty. One more than in the Constitution. Out goes `Intellectual property rights`, in comes energy and climate change. The other 60 stay the same.
His conclusion; The EU Constitution by another name.
This sixth and final `Treaty` is the `death knell` for the sovereignty of the member states of the EU. Do not be mistaken about this, and no matter what your `elected` leaders are telling you to the contrary, this is it. This is the culmination of years of plotting, deception and conspiring against the people of Europe. So what's the big deal many will ask ? Read on and find out.
This `Treaty` is the EU's most secret and quickest drafted document yet. Opposition to and recognition that the EU is a Police State in the making is growing and they (the conspirators) know that speed is vital. Tony Blair agreed to it in June 2007 as his final `Stab in Britain's Back.` Foreign Ministers agreed it's terms in September 2007 and on 13th December two months later, the representatives of each member state signed the document, and now, all that remains is ratification, and the deed will be done.
So, if the result of the Irish vote is a `Yes` and all other member states do as indicated, ratify this treasonous piece of infamy, how will our lives be affected ?
Our National Parliaments will become redundant as all power that still remains will transfer to Brussels. It will mean the formal end of those Historic Nations of Europe who are member states of the EU. National Embassies around the world will come under the auspices of EU bureaucrats. The ancient counties and provinces will be merged and combined into `EU Administrative Regions`. (The amalgamations of Kommunes in Denmark is a pre-emptive example of this, along with the `devolved` parliaments of Scotland and Wales, to be soon joined by the eradication of `England` and the setting up of similar regional assemblies there).
The EU will take ownership of Police, Military, Nuclear Weapons, Currency Reserves and North Sea Oil as outlined in the Treaty document. Serving members of our Police and Armed Forces will be required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU. Refusal will result in dismissal. The EU will have complete control of all military matters, equipment and facilities.
Political parties will be abolished, phased out or realigned. Only Pan European parties will be allowed. Independence parties will effectively be outlawed as under the 1999 ruling of the European Court Of Justice (case 274/99), it is illegal to criticize the EU. (Even before the Irish Vote, News from Brussels indicates that plans are afoot already to eliminate any `Euro-sceptic groups within the EU Parliament). The EU will have the legal right to close National Parliaments and Assemblies.
Many people will be made unemployed as the EU rule of `retraining` at a citizens own expense becomes universal (including the purchase of a Certificate confirming said retraining). Hundreds of thousands of small businesses will be forced to close due to the enforcement of endless numbers of impracticable and unworkable EU regulations.
Around 107,000 EU laws will criminalise many, as adherence to this amount of legislation is impossible. We will be subject to frequent fines and even arrest as a result of what will be our inevitable ignorance. Take the following as examples: From January 2006, it became illegal to repair your own domestic plumbing, electrics or even your own car. If you buy a boat over six feet long, built after 1999, you will be required to pay the equivalent in Euros of £4000, or face six months in prison. As the EU `Police State` flexes it's muscles ever more, each of us will live under the fear and threat of arrest or prosecution for any one of a myriad of offences, even minor ones.
The Large Corporations will do well of course, utilising massive immigration from within and without the EU, paying minimum wages to immigrants at the expense of the indigenous population, thus forcing salaries downwards. Furthermore, these Corporations will have a near Monopoly on employment (along with Government), and will be able to dictate conditions and terms of employment without fear of contradiction.
Top Government Jobs and the inevitable corruption which will accompany this monopoly, will create a new `Class Divide` ensuring the rich and their `fellow travellers` get richer, whilst the majority decline into poverty. Taxes will increase in order to pay for the massive growth in bureaucracy.
There will be no `redress of grievance` through local `democratic` channels because there won't be any local democracy. Or any democracy at all for that matter. The `EU Administrative Regional Governments` will be unelected (See the EU Regionalisation plan on the EU Website). Our only vote will be to the powerless EU Parliament. We will be ruled by the unelected EU Commissioners, who have no `accountability to the people` at any level.
If we demonstrate or protest, we can be seized and relocated to another EU Region. The EU Arrest Warrant and the various legislation introduced across the EU since 9/11 will give the Authorities absolute power over us. The shootings of innocents `Philip Prout` and `Jean de Menezes` were entirely legal under EU Law. The intimidation and growing `Anti Muslim` vitriol across the EU is becoming reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in pre-war Germany. A Federal European State will become a very unpleasant place to be.
Following Federation, in and around 15 years hence, Europe could collapse under the weight of it's own Bureaucracy and Corruption. There will be so little production, that no amount of taxation will be able to support the vast, inept, corrupt and wasteful government machinery. Many will be reduced to poverty on the brink of starvation. The complete lack of any `checks and balances` will leave the door open for any would be dictatorship.
The EU as monstrous as it is, is nothing more than a `stepping stone` to `World Government`. Before you dismiss this article as `Scare Mongering` or `Conspiracy Theory`, find out how many of your own country's leading politicians are members of such `Secret Organisations` as the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, Club Of Rome, and the Royal Institute For International Affairs.
Each and every one of the above are totally dedicated to a `One World` Government and see a Federal Europe as a necessary evolution towards that goal. Their memberships read like a who's who of the planet's `power players`. Danish readers for example, might be very surprised to discover which of their country's Political and Financial Elites attend the Bilderberger meetings, which has been in the forefront of machinations to further European Federalisation. To find out which of your elected representatives are members of any of the above groups, just type in the organisation's name on any recognised search engine. Then sit back and prepare to be shocked.
We live in an age where people seem to have abdicated all responsibility for their own lives to Government. This has been going on since the end of World War Two, but has accelerated markedly since the 1980's. This `social irresponsibility` led us to Lisbon on 13th December 2007, where our so called leaders signed away our ancient rights and freedoms in the name of their `great plan`. If we sit back and do nothing, the rest of our lives will become a nightmare of our own making, because in the final analysis, it is we who will have handed over our rights and liberties into the hands of `wolves.`
The future well being of a whole continent lies in the hands of the Brave and Heroic Irish people. They need our support. They need to know they are not alone. It's time to start writing to your `elected` representatives, time to find the time to research what the EU `Beast` is really about. It's time to switch off the TV and pick up a book about the EU, or check out the many Internet sites relating to this Totalitarian `Super-State in the making.`
Do something, speak to your friends, neighbours, family; just do something before it is too late, and if the Irish vote yes, it is.
Comments to:
Bookmark and Share

Will Baltimore prosecute other journalists, too?

Before we answer that question, we first have to know the person making the decisions about prosecutions in Maryland. Who exactly is Patricia Jessamy, the Baltimore City State’s Attorney whose office threatened to prosecute the undercover reporters that exposed ACORN’s pimp-protecting and tax-evasion operation? Chris at HAP does a lot of legwork on Jessamy — and finds a partisan Democrat who has invested both time and money in supporting Barack Obama:

Chris also has links to Jessamy’s personal contribution to Obama’s campaign, as well as her position on a steering committee for his campaign. Jessamy isn’t exactly an uninterested party when it comes to Obama and those organizations that support him. That explains the odd decision by the prosecutor to consider charges against the people who uncovered a conspiracy to evade taxes and shield pimps, rather than the conspirators themselves.

But what else has Jessamy done while in office? Mark Tapscott points out that Jessamy likes to highlight her connection to a local children’s shelter:

Jessamy, a Democrat, was appointed to the State’s Prosecutor position in 1995 and has since been re-elected to the job three times. Among the items listed on Jessamy’s extensive resume of accomplishments is that she is president of the Baltimore Child Abuse Center. She also lists her prior membership on the Governor’s Council on Child Abuse and Neglect from 1995 to 1998!

Let’s be clear about what is happening here: O’Keefe and Giles dressed up as a pimp and prostitute and walked into the Baltimore ACORN office seeking “tax advice” for a brothel that would include the use of 13-year-old sex slaves from San Salvador. Two ACORN advisors happily provided all kinds of advice about how to deceive federal and state tax authorities about the true nature of the “business,” and how to insure that the prostitutes “keep their mouths shut.”

In other words, two ACORN employees appear to have voluntarily become accessories to multiple federal, state and local crimes, including child abuse, interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution, tax evasion, and immigration law violations. The two ACORN employees may also have thus provided hard evidence that their employer should be prosecuted as a criminal enterprise under the RICO statutes.

And the Baltimore City State’s Attorney may prosecute the two people responsible for exposing this heinous operation!

On one hand, Jessamy brags about helping children who are abused or neglected. On the other hand, when she discovers evidence that the local ACORN office helps abusers evade detection and protect their child-prostitution rings, she aims her prosecutorial guns at — the people who expose them. Does that help children or hurt them?

Let’s get back to the original question about Jessamy’s roundup of undercover journalists. Jessamy has been in office since 1995. Has she ever pursued this kind of prosecution of undercover journalists in Baltimore before going after the people who went after ACORN? Hot Air reader Carrie W notes at least two times when a local Baltimore TV station used undercover journalists with cameras to record people without their knowledge, and won awards for their efforts. Did Jessamy go after WMAR in 2000?

Baltimore’s Beggars
WMAR-TV, Baltimore
Anchor Stan Stovall went “undercover” as a vagrant to experience what life is like for Baltimore’s beggars. For two days, Stovall wore a disguise–donning makeup and a scraggly beard–and roamed the popular tourist areas of Charm City. “I had to admit I had some reservations about getting made up as a homeless person,” Stovall says. “I could tell you how people would treat me without getting [a disguise.]” But he did it anyway, panhandling during the day and returning to the station for the nightly newscast. “It was one of the ideas that was submitted to look at the issue of panhandling–of whether those people were really homeless and needed the money,” says WMAR News Director Sandra McKeller. “We decided to do it for [the May sweeps] and add a twist by adding our anchor dressed up and actually get the perspective of being a panhandler.” McKeller said the piece tried to examine the plight of homelessness. The burning question Stovall wanted to answer: Should you give panhandlers money? “Some of the research I found in talking with homeless advocates…and even homeless people themselves was you should not give them cash,” he says.

Now, this description doesn’t make clear that WMAR had a hidden camera and mike on Stovall, but that’s certainly the implication. Would a local TV station go to that much trouble and not get the interactions on camera? If that isn’t quite clear enough, though, WMAR’s award-winning effort in 2006 is explicit:


First Place: Tisha Thompson, John Anglim, Susan Kirkwood

(WMAR-TV) “The US Rental Network”

Judges’ Comments: This is just darn good journalism. We didn’t hear enough about the conversation your producer had in the hidden camera part of the story. We loved the MySpace connection & the thoughtfulness of the other people involved in a past scheme. Excellent.

Hidden cameras? Darn good journalism … for WMAR, and apparently not anything in which Jessamy was interested. In 2009, when those hidden cameras go after a group supporting Barack Obama and his policies — well, that’s a different matter altogether. It shows that Jessamy is less interested in enforcing the law and helping children than she is in abusing her power to attack critics who threaten Obama’s power and policies.

How about it, Baltimore? Time for Jessamy to retire, and to find a City State’s Attorney who goes after criminals rather than the people who expose them? And will Maryland journalists take a stand on behalf of Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe?

Source: Hot Air

Bookmark and Share