Friday, January 29, 2010

The Holocaust Backfires

"Ynet reports:" Peres in Berlin, Netanyahu in Auschwitz, Lieberman in Budapest and Edelstein at the UN headquarters in New York all plan to attack the Goldstone report into the Gaza war on International Holocaust Day this Wednesday.

Israel's political echelon will once again try to divert attention from the fact that the Israeli crime is beyond comparison.

Israeli Propaganda Minister Edelstein told Ynet before leaving for New York. "The connection between the Goldstone Report and the international Holocaust memorial day is not an easy thing”. He is indeed correct. The true interpretation of the Goldstone report is that Israelis are the Nazis of our time. “We must learn the lessons from what happened” Says Edelstein, “then too, those who yelled out were told that Hitler is a clown and that all the gloomy predictions of the 1930s were nonsense.”

Someone should advise the Israeli Propaganda man that by now no one regards mass murderer Barak, Nuclear enthusiast Peres, warmonger Livni or ultra racist Lieberman as clowns. We respect them for what they are. Yet, we prefer to see them locked behind bars.

In fact, those world leaders around the world who bowed to Jewish pressure and made the Holocaust into an international memorial day must have been convinced that the Holocaust carries a universal message against oppression and racism. They were actually correct, if the holocaust has any universal and ethical meaning, stopping the ‘Jews only state’ and bringing its criminal political and military leaders to justice is the true interpretation of the lesson of the Holocaust.

Propaganda Minister Edelstein added "on the Holocaust memorial day of all days, which also marks the battle against global anti-Semitism, we must discuss this connection, because today the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces are accused of harvesting organs and murdering children”. The Israelis better internalise that the truth of Israeli brutality is now common knowledge. IDF mass murder of children, elders and women is part of our collective memory. The Israeli institutional involvement in organ harvesting is also well documented and an accepted fact.

Minister Edelstein is wrong when he argues that "After World War II and the establishment of the State of Israel, anti-Semitism is not directed at Jews but at Israel and the Israelis. The Goldstone Report, the publications in Sweden about organ harvesting and similar reports, are simply a type of anti-Semitism." Edelstein is wrong because all the accusations against Israel are well grounded. Furthermore, the opposition to Israel, its Jewish lobbies and Jewish power in general is politically orientated rather than racially motivated.

In the wake of the ‘International Holocaust Memorial Day’ I will say it loudly and openly. To oppose the Jewish state and Jewish nationalism is the true meaning of the memory of the Holocaust. To say NO to Israel is to say NO to racism. This is what ethics and universalism are all about.

Source: Gilad Atzmon

Bookmark and Share

Australia Bans Small Breasts

by Glenn Church in AustraliaAustralian internet laws, already some of the world’s strictest, are becoming even more defined.

Australia has a Classification Board that regulates what can go on the internet, films and books, and who can see it.

Read The rest Here

Bookmark and Share

Israeli Terrorism

The horrendous massacre of thousands of innocent victims, on Sept. 11 Sept. in New York and Washington, brought a great deal of attention to the subject of terrorism, Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaida.

There has also been some insinuation, by the media and politicians, towards Arabs and Muslims, with reference to the Middle East and the Palestine conflict.

But nowhere is there any mention of Israeli terrorism in relation to this conflict.

Terrorism is defined in a variety of ways. An interesting definition is put forward by the noted intellectual Noam Chomsky, who wrote: “There is another defining property of ‘terrorism’ in contemporary newspeak: it refers to violent acts by Them, not Us.”

Another definition is when the men, women and children who are killed are Palestinians and the gunmen or pilots who murder them are Israelis. This form of terrorism is not terrorism, we are told, but mere retaliation, self-defence or what they may call ‘civilized terrorism.’

The late professor Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor, and then chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, wrote: “There is nothing new in the fact that Israel is a terrorist state, which, almost from its inception, has used its intelligence service (the Mossad) to assassinate people on foreign soil with any violence or terror it considers necessary for its ends.”

Read The Rest here

Bookmark and Share

How the march of officialdom is destroying cherished ways of life

A man in Ayr is facing a criminal trial after he was "caught" blowing his nose behind the wheel of his car.

Michael Mancini was given a £60 fixed penalty notice after a policeman decided he was "not in control of his vehicle" when he wiped his nose with a tissue. Mancini maintains that he was in stationary traffic and had put his handbrake on. He refused to pay the fine, and will now face a trial later this year.

This isn't a one-off, by any means (indeed, the policeman who gave Mancini his ticket was PC Stuart Gray – who recently issued a £50 fixed penalty to a man who accidentally dropped a £10 note in the street). It's symptomatic of life in this country today, which is fast becoming so illiberal that it's almost as if normal life is unlawful.

Read The Rest Here

Bookmark and Share

None Of Your Business

by Rep. Ron Paul,
You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.
The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.

Read The rest here

Bookmark and Share

‘To Make Lies Sound Truthful’

Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

~ George Orwell

Whenever I drive east of Los Angeles toward Palm Springs, I encounter the untold hundreds of gigantic propellers whose stated purpose is to transform wind into electrical power. I wonder about the efficiency of these devices: does the enormous cost of constructing and maintaining them generate a sufficient amount of electricity to make them a profitable investment? Or, as I often suspect, do these towers serve a more secular religious purpose; a modern ziggurat expressing a commitment to a new sacred orthodoxy? Having grown up in farm country, I am aware of the beneficial use farmers have made of windmills to pump water. On the other hand, if the output from these modern wind machines exceeds their costs, why do they not appear across the country, wherever strong winds prevail? Whenever I hear people preach of the importance of some costly technological program they want the state to undertake, my economic understanding always asks the question: if this is such a worthwhile and productive project, why have profit-seeking entrepreneurs not already entered the field?

Read The rest here

Bookmark and Share

ACLU Sues Justice Department over Torture Report

The ACLU filed suit Friday in a bid to force the Justice Department to release its internal report on torture.

by Zachary Roth

The long-awaited report from the department's Office of Professional Ethics considers whether DOJ lawyers like John Yoo broke ethics rules in writing the memos that approved torture.

Read The rest Here

Bookmark and Share


Israel has once again displayed an arrogance that not even a Jewish mother could love. Basically, ‘nothing that happens today really matters….. we suffered in the past and that’s what counts’.
Cashing in on the Holocaust was always a big business….. but there are limits. Israel seems to disagree as can be seen in the following…..
Wednesday was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and an Israeli public relations drive like this hasn’t been seen for ages. The timing of the unusual effort – never have so many ministers deployed across the globe – is not coincidental: When the world is talking Goldstone, we talk Holocaust, as if out to blur the impression. When the world talks occupation, we’ll talk Iran as if we wanted them to forget.
A thousand speeches against anti-Semitism will not extinguish the flames ignited by Operation Cast Lead, flames that threaten not only Israel but the entire Jewish world. As long as Gaza is under blockade and Israel sinks into its institutionalized xenophobia, Holocaust speeches will remain hollow. As long as evil is rampant here at home, neither the world nor we will be able to accept our preaching to others, even if they deserve it.
The above is taken from Gideon Levy’s report in todays HaAretz….
Holocaust remembrance is a boon for Israeli propaganda

Bookmark and Share

99% of Auschwitz Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Substantiated”

"99% der Auschwitz-Augenzeugenberichte sind kriminologisch nicht zu beweisen"
“99% of Auschwitz Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Substantiated”

By the Authors of the National Journal
10 January 2010

Translated by J M Damon
The Original is Posted at


“99% of Auschwitz Testimony Is Forensically Unsubstantiated”

The Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt wants to demolish the physical remains of Auschwitz Concentration Camp.
The pressure from the Islamic world to duplicate the Rudolf Expert Report and adopt its findings is growing from day to day, and van Pelt wants to hinder official state investigations at all costs.
In an interview with the Canadian newspaper The STAR on 27 December 2009, he urges that all the remains of ruined buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau be completely demolished and removed.
In his opinion, only the buildings of the Stammlager (original camp) should be preserved.
(In his book AUSCHWITZ 1270 BIS HEUTE (Auschwitz 1270 Until Today) he admits that no gassings took place in the Stammlager.)

Van Pelt wants to put an end to forensic investigations of “Holocaust” at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
He advocates clearing the site even though the ceilings and ruins of the crematories (alleged homicidal gas chambers) are still present and available for investigation.
If homicidal gassings had taken place there, these ruins would exhibit high residues of Prussian Blue (insoluble compounds of Ferro cyanide).
These residues are traces of the deadly poison gas cyanic acid (marketed under the name “Cyclon B”), which was the principal insecticide before the discovery of DDT.
Such residues are simply not present in the alleged “homicidal gas chambers” morgue and crematoria, although they are bountiful in the walls and ceilings of the fumigation chambers where the Germans used Cyclon B to delouse blankets and clothing of inmates and staff.

The most sensational part of the STAR interview is van Pelt’s admission that none of the testimony of Auschwitz witnesses can be scientifically proven or forensically substantiated.
Countless “Holocaust” researchers over many years have been thrown in prison for making this very statement.
In 2009, the inquisitorial German courts sentenced lifetime dissident Horst Mahler, 73, to 13 years’ imprisonment for insisting that there is no empirical evidence to support “Holocaust Industry” claims of mass gassings or attempted genocide of the Jews.

Following are the most important passages from van Pelt’s interview in the STAR.
In the words of the Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt, “We have no material or forensic evidence to support eyewitness reports of gassings...
Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove [then how do ‘we know’ it!?]...
It has become part of our inherited knowledge.
I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense.
We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past
We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony...
We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner.
To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us [sic] somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.
It has become part of our inherited knowledge.
(The Canadian STAR 27 December 2009.)

According to van Pelt, the “greatest mass murder in world history” should remain un-investigated!
He thinks we should rely exclusively on testimony of mass gassings by former inmates!
Dear reader, everyone should familiarize himself with these “eyewitnesses.”
Jürgen Graf’s book "AUSCHWITZ: TÄTERGESTÄNDNISSE UND AUGENZEUGEN DES HOLOCAUST" (Auschwitz: Confessions and Eyewitness Accounts of Holocaust) gives us some really eye-opening facts concerning the veracity of this “testimony.”
The witnesses would have us believe that what every normal and ingenuous person would consider lurid and fantastic is nevertheless factual.

In the course of the “Auschwitz Trials” (Record 50/Ks 2/63) in Frankfurt, which dragged on for years, neither exhumed bodies nor forensic investigations of the alleged homicidal gas chambers were presented as evidence, even though the so-called “Court” visited Auschwitz on several occasions to visually inspect the scene of the alleged crimes and interview witnesses.
Having dispensed with forensic evidence, the “Court” complained in its verdict about the lack of such evidence:
“An additional difficulty lay in the fact that the eyewitnesses – understandably – were seldom able to give exact descriptions of the time and place of specific events...”

This “Court” was almost completely lacking in all the evidence and methods of gathering information that are available in normal murder trials to form an accurate picture of events at the time of the alleged murders.
Try to imagine murder trials in which there are no bodies of victims, no autopsy reports, no expert opinions as to cause of death, no time of death, etc.!
There was no forensic evidence pertaining to perpetrators or weapons employed in the monstrous alleged crimes, and the Defense was very seldom allowed to question the witnesses.
(See Auschwitz-Urteil 50/Ks 2/63, page 109)

Think about it, dear reader.
Isn’t this incredible?
In its verdict the alleged Court admitted that van Pelt’s much-vaunted eyewitness testimony was inexact and could not be substantiated.
The following sentence is found on page 109 of the verdict:
“The witnesses, understandably, were seldom able to give exact information as to time and place of specific events...
Examination and validation of testimony was seldom possible.”

Thus the authenticity of the “Auschwitz Holocaust” was “proven” with generalized, imprecise witness testimony and a total lack of forensic evidence.
Anyone who points to the Diploma Chemist Rudolf’s EXPERT REPORT and demands free and open discussions goes to jail for many years, even for life.
And yet, the RUDOLF REPORT stands irrefuted, irrefutable.
In 1993, more than 300 professors of Inorganic Chemistry in the Federal Republic were unable to find a single mistake in Rudolf’s report.
The Swiss forensic expert Professor of Chemistry Dr. Henri Ramuz attested to Rudolf’s scientific competence, and the Director of the Jewish Anne-Frank Association, Hans Westra, admitted on the Belgian TV program PANORAMA on 27 April 1995: “The scientific analyses in the RUDOLF EXPERT REPORT are perfect.”


Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)

Source:Adelaide Institute

Norman Finkelstein debates the "Holocaust" with Israeli Auschwitz rep

Bookmark and Share

Nullification: It’s Official.

While speaking to a large crowd of over a thousand people on the campus of Arizona State University last December, Congressman Ron Paul mentioned one thing that might come about as the result of the federal government habitually ignoring the Constitution: Nullification.
About five minutes into the video segment which you’ll find below, he said, “There’s not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There’s not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don’t get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can’t get the results out of Washington — They’re going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that.”
As someone who attended that rally and was doing my best to represent my state’s chapter of The Tenth Amendment Center, I know I cheered very loudly and was very pleased when the rest of the crowd applauded enthusiastically.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president, Thomas Jefferson, when he authored what came to be called the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deemed unconstitutional.
James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is duty bound to interpose its power to prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson’s concept of nullification, Madison’s doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways.
These two documents together came to be known as The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), of 1798. Both were written in response to the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, and the phrase, “Principles of ‘98″ became shorthand for nullification and / or interposition. Over time, “The Principles of ‘98″ would be invoked by many other states, many times for a variety of issues.
Getting back to Ron Paul’s speech in December at ASU, Congressman Paul qualified his prediction about the revival of nullification by saying the following:
“But my suspicion is that there will never be official nullification or secession, but if the [federal] government continues to fail, and they can’t deliver anything..checks bounce..that we will be forced to take care of ourselves. And we will be forced to almost ignore everything they do.”
Less than a week after the speech I attended at ASU, Congressman Paul was interviewed by Mike Church on his radio show. When Mike asked him what his thoughts were on nullification, Ron Paul responded by saying:
“I think it’s a great idea. It was never really successful in our history. But I think it’s going to grow in importance. And I think it’s going to grow because the government, the federal government will be seen as inept and ineffective. And I think it’ll almost be de facto in the sense that the states will eventually just ignore some of the mandates.”
Here I would like to pause for a moment and point out that I am not usually in the business of disagreeing with Congressman Ron Paul. I would hardly need one hand to count the number of times that I have actually disagreed with him on any issue of real substance. I am a great admirer and supporter of Congressman Paul, who is undoubtedly very supportive of the idea of state nullification, even if he has doubted its efficacy in the past. However, in spite of all this, I would like to make two observations.
First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.
Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT.
Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.
So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?
Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.
Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.
With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.
There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:
“25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”
But that’s not all; another example of “official” nullification has occurred in the form of an unlikely states’ rights ally: Medical marijuana.
There was a time when the federal government took the Constitution seriously enough that Congress did what is required in order to enact a nationwide ban on a substance. Even though the experiment would eventually be seen by most Americans as a mistake and a failure, the 18th Amendment was passed and the era known as “Prohibition” began. Four years later, it was repealed.
When it came to marijuana prohibition, however, the feds had another trick up their sleeve. All three branches of the federal government would agree on a very novel, liberal interpretation of the “commerce clause” which would allow them to regulate virtually any substance, including marijuana, even though there’s supposedly no “legal” commerce in the plant. Since that time, the federal government has managed to claim, with a straight face, as it were, that a plant grown in your back yard, never sold, and never leaving your property, is somehow able to be completely banned by the federal government under the interstate “commerce clause.” The only problem with their claim is that the states just aren’t buying it.
Fourteen states have actively refused to comply with federal laws on marijuana, and it looks as if six more are about to join the effort. In a recent blog post, Mark Kreslins observes:
“..medical marijuana now poses a real threat to the enforcement power of the Federal Government. With state after state defying Washington DC over this issue..Washington DC has a choice to make; enforce their laws based on a very liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause by sending thousands of DEA agents into all fifty states…or…look the other way. Thus far, they’ve chosen to look the other way for if they create the appearance of a Federal takeover of police powers in the States, they will fully expose their extra-constitutional behavior and provoke a direct confrontation with the States who will use the 10th Amendment (hopefully) to defend their prerogatives.”
Whatever your view may be regarding marijunana use, medical or otherwise, one thing is apparent: “Official” nullification has happened, and it works! Washington will have to get used to it.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether in addition to “officially” nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, state governments will be willing to use their power to “officially” interpose themselves between agents of the federal government and the people of their state. In the unlikely event that one or more branches of the federal government decides to take extra-legal measures to punish residents of a state for exercising their constitutional rights in defiance of unconstitutional federal laws, will that state’s government have the courage to hamper or even neutralize such extra-legal measures?
There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.
Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.
Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I. Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand or sit on the fence until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.
But do you even know the men and women who represent you? I’m not talking about those who represent you in Washington, but rather in Phoenix, Salem, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, Oklahoma City, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Nashville, Richmond, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Columbus and Springfield.
If you don’t know them, and you care about our republic, you should make it your highest priority to get to know them and establish rapport with them as soon as possible.
For any of you who really want to preserve our union, and at the same time retain your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I can’t say it any better than 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin:
“ is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! ..this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.”

Bookmark and Share

"Our Troops" Shoot Father, With His Kids in the Car, Which They Deemed Threatening (a Toyota Corolla)

Oh, so very proud
Yah, right; the expression some of us know to mean the opposite, definitely not right.
Although I only read an excerpt of an article on this story posted at, the excerpt appearing with the link for the article in the home or main index page of the website, I didn't read the whole piece. Just the title and excerpt were enough to tell me that yet another tragic killing occurred and for no valid reason whatsoever. After all, no one can credibly argue that a Toyota Corolla with a man and children in it is threatening, at all.
I suppose it's because the soldiers who committed this tragic killing are just too psychologically stressed due to being in this zone of a totally criminal war, perhaps really suffering from PTSD. If that's the case, then I can't personally consider them as responsible for this tragic incident. Otherwise, they should be charged with murder and made to stand Nurember style trials alongside the war makers and the leading continuers, which means the responsible or guilty people of the White House, but also plenty of other guilty people or elite, military and corporate; none of whom can credibly be treated as committing their criminal leadership due to suffering from PTSD. They suffer from a severe socio-psychological problem, like psychopathia, and another condition called cowardice, but these certainly are not bases for treating these people as not being responsible for their criminal leadership.
The troops commit the actual killings, but the real murderers, and plunderers, occupy the highest offices of the USA's political body and military, and, of course, their masters in Corporate America. They're so evil it's difficult to even think of referring to them as people.

by Mike Corbeil

Bookmark and Share

Israeli companies considered as USA when bidding for Fed, state projects

A curious op-ed "The Tel Aviv Cluster" by the reliably neoconnish David Brooks appeared in the New York Times on January 12th. Brooks enthused over the prowess of Israel’s high tech businesses, attributing their success in large part to Jewish exceptionalism and genius, which must have provided the ultimate feel good moment for Brooks, who is himself Jewish. That Israel has a booming technology sector is undeniably true, but Brooks failed to mention other contributing factors such as the $101 billion dollars in US economic and military aid over the course of more than four decades, which does not include the additional $30 billion recently approved by President Barack Obama. American assistance has financed and fueled Israel’s business growth while the open access and even "preferential treatment" afforded to Israeli exporters through the Israel Free Trade Implementation Act of 1985 has provided Israelis with the enormous US market to sell their products and services. By act of Congress, Israeli businesses can even bid on most American Federal and State government contracts just as if they were US companies.
Brooks was characteristically undisturbed by the fact that American taxpayer subsidized development of Israeli enterprises combined with the free access to the US economy and government contracts eliminates jobs and damages competing companies on this side of the Atlantic. And there is another aspect of Israel’s growing high tech sector that he understandably chose to ignore because it is extremely sleazy. That is the significant advantage that Israel has gained by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. The US developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against American companies. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of a US adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that are believed to incorporate technology developed by American companies, including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile. There is evidence that Israel has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program, which was funded by the US taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion, to help the Chinese develop their own J-10 fighter.
The reality of Israeli spying is indisputable. Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage." The 2005 report states, "Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry." It adds that Israel recruits spies, uses electronic methods, and carries out computer intrusion to gain the information. The 2005 report concluded that the thefts eroded US military advantage, enabling foreign powers to obtain expensive technologies that had taken years to develop.
A 1996 Defense Investigative Service report noted that Israel has great success stealing technology by exploiting the numerous co-production projects that it has with the Pentagon. "Placing Israeli nationals in key industries …is a technique utilized with great success." A General Accounting Office (GAO) examination of espionage directed against American defense and security industries described how Israeli citizens residing in the US had stolen sensitive technology to manufacture artillery gun tubes, obtained classified plans for a reconnaissance system, and passed sensitive aerospace designs to unauthorized users. An Israeli company was caught monitoring a Department of Defense telecommunications system to obtain classified information, while other Israeli entities targeted avionics, missile telemetry, aircraft communications, software systems, and advanced materials and coatings used in missile re-entry. The GAO concluded that Israel "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally." In June 2006, a Pentagon administrative judge overruled an appeal by an Israeli who had been denied a security clearance, stating, "The Israeli government is actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States. An Israeli citizen working in the US who has access to proprietary information is likely to be a target of such espionage." More recently, FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has reported how many cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department. He provides a "conservative estimate" of 125 worthwhile investigations into Israeli espionage involving both American citizens and Israelis that were stopped due to political pressure from above.
Two recent stories that have been reported in the Israeli media but are strangely absent from the news on this side of the Atlantic demonstrate exactly what is going on and what is at stake. The first story confirms that Israeli efforts to obtain US technology are ongoing. Stewart David Nozette, a US government scientist who was arrested on October 19, 2009 in an FBI sting operation after offering to spy for Israel has been waiting in jail to go to trial on espionage charges. New documents in the case were presented in the Federal court in Washington last week. The documents confirm that Nozette was a paid consultant for Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and it is believed that he passed to them classified material in return for an estimated $225,000 in consulting fees. Examination of his computer by the FBI revealed that he was planning a "penetration of NASA" the US space agency and that he was also trying to crack into other scientists’ computers to obtain additional classified material. Other documents demonstrate that he was cooperating with two Israeli scientists who were administrators with IAI, Yossi Weiss and Yossi Fishman. Nozette made several trips to Israel without reporting them, which he was required to do because of his high security clearance. The FBI reportedly also has incriminating letters and other documents that were obtained from the computer.
The second story relates to the pending sale of twenty-five F-35 fighter planes to Israel. The F-35 is one of the most advanced fighter planes in the world. The $130 million planes would be purchased with US military assistance money, which means they would effectively be a gift from the US taxpayer. But Israel is balking at the sale reportedly because it wants to install some of its own local content in the aircraft. The Pentagon has already made some concessions but is disinclined to grant approval for all the changes because to do so would require giving the Israelis full access to the plane’s advanced avionics and computer systems. Israel also wants to independently maintain the aircraft, which would also require access to all systems. It would be nice to think that the Pentagon wants to keep the maintenance in American hands to preserve jobs, but the Defense Department has never cared about US workers before when the issue is Israel, and the real reason for the standoff is that Lockheed-Martin and the Pentagon both know that Israel will steal whatever it can if it gains access. It would then use the technology to market its own products at a price below that of US defense contractors. The result would be a triple whammy for Uncle Sam: the expensive planes are given to Israel free, the technology is then stolen, and future sales vanish as our Israeli friends market their knock down versions of weapons systems reliant on the stolen technology.
So to David Brooks I would say that there is most definitely an economic surge taking place in high tech Israel, but it is less a miracle than the fruit of a long series of thefts and manipulations fueled by American tax money and the connivance of a Congress that is always willing to do favors for the country that it appears to love beyond all others. I’m sure most Americans would wish the Israelis well and would applaud the prosperity that derives from their own industry and inventiveness but it is also time to put the brakes on business as usual and to take the Israeli hand out of our pocket. I’m sure Brooks’ job is pretty secure and well paid, but many Americans are out of work and suffering, so let’s take some steps to protect our economy from the information thieves from Tel Aviv and keep our money and jobs over here.