Powerful Israel Lobby Has Death Grip On U.S. Politics, Elections, Policies

By Jim Traficant

“We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it.” —Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.

Yes, folks they do! The Israelis manifest their control over America through a series of powerful lobbies. Yes, a series, hundreds of them, all under the umbrella of the parent organization known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). No one ever told you this?

AIPAC controls America with money, big money, that is funneled into the campaign funds of U.S. senators, representatives and yes, even candidates for the president of the United States.

AIPAC channels money through a number of innocently named Political Action Committees (PACS) that no one (I don’t believe anybody wants to) can trace to AIPAC—Israeli money.

As an example—XYZ PAC (for example only/not real). Sounds like it could be an educational lobby, or a science lobby—but alas, it’s money from Israel, routed to political candidates of their choice.

I can’t name all these PACS, but I suspect there are 200 or more such phony lobbies whose real purpose is to elect politicians at all levels, especially state and federal offices, who will support Israel without fail. These politicians will support Israel even when Israel is caught spying on America—yes, spying on America.

To provide background as the precursor to the official AIPAC lobby I cite an infamous Israeli spy. Check this out:

1. Jonathan Pollard was turned down by the CIA (after leaving graduate school) for failing a polygraph test. Pollard lied about his use of illegal drugs. He later admitted to prolific illegal drug usage between 1974 and 1978.

2. Guess what: That didn’t hurt Pollard with the Navy. He was hired as an “intelligence specialist.” The CIA refused to give the Navy any information they had on Pollard.

3. Within two months, Director Richard Haver wanted him fired on suspicion, but Pollard was only transferred to Naval Investigative Service (NIS).

4. In his new position, Adm. Sumner Shapiro ordered Pollard’s official clearance be revoked for suspicious behavior. Once again, Pollard was reassigned.

5. Pollard now complained he was being abused, and, in 1984, he received “excellent performance” reviews and was returned to Naval Intelligence. How’s that for a pat on the back?

6. Shortly after, in June 1984, documents show that Pollard “started to pass classified information” to Israel. The full extent of those crimes/info, that he gave to Israel has “never been revealed.”

7. Israel claimed that Pollard was a “rogue” without Israeli authority or knowledge. If you believe that garbage, it’s no wonder America is a puppet state for Israel. And guess what? Bingo! Israel’s memory improved—10 years later Israel admitted that Pollard was indeed working
for—and with—Israel as a spy.

8. America asked for the return of all documents and materials that Pollard had given to Israel. Israel turned over—“a few, paltry dozen of lowly classified documents” even though our government knew that “Pollard had given Israel close to a million documents,” according to U.S. informants. Uncle Sam really shows great concern over this? I wonder why? I think you can start to figure this out.

9. Israel’s contact/handler of Pollard was withheld by Israel until finally pressured. One Aviem Selvia came forward to “satisfy” America, and then stepped down.

10. America now offered Pollard a plea agreement. In May 1986, Pollard accepted a life sentence.

11. Upon sentencing, Pollard’s wife said, “My husband and I did what we were expected to do for Israel. As Jews, we had a moral obligation to Israel.” Allegiance to Israel, not America! (I get sick reporting this to you, and you should be getting sick as well.)

12. Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert all asked for Pollard to be pardoned. All of these leaders are/were prime ministers of Israel. They said, “He was only spying for Israel—set him free!”

13. “After all—Israel is America’s greatest ally.” They also said “Pollard is a dear friend of both our countries.” Some friend to America!

14. Attorney Alan Dershowitz summed it up quite pointedly—“as an American and a Jew, I am outraged at Pollard’s life sentence. Pollard pleaded guilty to spying on America and should have received a lesser sentence.” Yeah, he only spied on America! I guess that’s no big deal for Dershowitz. I always thought traitors and spies were put to death. They should be.

You see folks, it’s all about power, pure power. I say that Pollard had big, powerful American power brokers behind him from the very start.

Think again about what Ariel Sharon said again: “We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it!”

I keep reminding you of this statement because I’m the man who’s been targeted by both Israel and America for proclaiming that “Israel has a stranglehold on American government, commerce and the media.”

I also said, “Israel has involved us in foreign wars to aid Israel expansion, bankrupts our great nation and has our kids shipped back to us in body bags.”

Source: American Free Press

Who Decides in the United States Government?

by Kim Petersen

It has been a contentious issue among progressives as to what explains the Israel-United States dynamic. Linguistics professor Noam Chomsky has insisted that the US calls the shots and that the US plays a rejectionist role in moves toward Middle East peace.¹ Chomsky is joined by a number of other progressives in this camp. There are a number of progressives in another camp that argue organized Jewry has gained preponderant influence in the world’s superpower. Some argued that Israeli influence was preeminent while being quite uncritical of Zionist crimes against Palestinians — for example, professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.² Others were primarily concerned with the influence of a Jewish Lobby in perpetuating the ongoing dispossession of and slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians.³

A report in Israeli media yesterday boasts that Jews are vetting appointments to the US government. Haaretz claims, “Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.”⁴

The article in Haaretz is another nail in the coffin of adducing Jewish (mainly Zionist) influence over the US government.

For many people this will be unsurprising. When US President Barack Obama pledged fealty to Israel at the AIPAC policy conference in June 2008, when he surrounded himself with arch-Zionists Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc., when he backed down to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the building of illegal colonies (euphemistically called “settlements”) in occupied Palestinian territory (which all Israel is), he merely affirmed genuflection that had been observed in predecessor presidents.⁵

A segment of organized Jewry has gained an influential political foothold in the US, although this is not confined to the US and neither is it confined to politics.

Jews have also gained influence in Canadian⁶ and British politics.⁷ They have gained influence in business, media, and academia. This is not unusual as there is competition for influence and dominance, and other groups dominate in other sectors of society. Is domination of a sector by one group beneficial for society? Should certain sectors be kept open? These questions need to be answered. I submit that when influence supports the oppression of any group of humans, then that influence must be ended.

The segment of Jewry that seeks to dominate and dispossess Palestinians creates an image that tarnishes, wrongly, the entire community of Jews. Israeli Jews, by virtue of the fact that they live on occupied land, elect governments that carry out apartheid and racism, and support massacres of Palestinians (94 percent reportedly backed the slaughter in Gaza⁸ ) are morally challenged.

There is opposition from some Israeli Jews, but clearly, a multitude of Israeli Jews is supporting war crimes and oppression. Zionism, along with its ideology of oppression, has extended its influence overseas which makes other nations complicit in the oppression. All humans must denounce the occupation of Palestine.⁹

Much of the discussion over who wields the preponderant influence in the US-Israel relationship has focused on denouncing persons holding to a certain view. This is unhelpful. It is sufficient to refute the erroneous position of another person by citing superior facts and proffering superior reasoning. The focus must be on ending the oppression of Palestinians and enforcing human rights.

Others may obstinately profess otherwise, but clearly, there is a pressure exerted by a pro-Zionism lobby. That, however, must not detract from the righteousness of seeking social justice for the Palestinians. Support for freeing peoples from oppression must be advocated for oppressed peoples everywhere with the onus being on advocating on behalf of people where one resides.

Simple advocacy is not enough, however. Morality demands an active adherence to principles. It is through solidarizing and committing to actively opposing oppression that people become the deciders.

1. See Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1983, 1999). [↩]
2. See John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby,” London Review of Books, 28(6), 23 March 2006: 3-12 [↩]
3. Jeffrey Blankfort, “Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict,” Dissident Voice, 25 May 2005; James Petras, Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power (Clarity Press, 2008). [↩]
4. Natasha Mozgovaya, “American Jews eye Obama’s ‘anti-Israel’ appointees,” Haaretz, 4 December 2009. [↩]
5. See Grant F. Smith, Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal (Washington, DC: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2007); Grant F. Smith, America’s Defense Line: The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israeli Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government (Washington, DC: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2008). [↩]
6. Kim Petersen, “Zionist Appeasement: A Blight on the Canadian Political Landscape,” Dissident Voice, 11 February 2007. [↩]
7. William A. Cook, “Zionist Control of Britain’s Government: 1940-2009,” Dissident Voice, 20 November 2009. [↩]
8. Etgar Lefkovits, “Overwhelming Israeli support of Gaza op,” Jerusalem Post, 14 January 2009. [↩]
9. Non-Israelis must not feel smug in this denunciation, as Canadians, Americans, Australians, Aotearoans, and non-Indigenous peoples throughout the western hemisphere also live in states wrought through dispossession of the Original Peoples. Original Peoples, especially, must also oppose the oppression of brothers and sisters elsewhere, such as in historical Palestine. To not do so would undermine their own struggles against oppression. Yet there was little outcry heard when the Assembly of First Nations aligned itself with Israel rather than the Palestinians. See: Announcements, “Canadian Jewish Congress, Assembly of First Nations travel to Israel for educational mission,” AFN, 17 February 2006. [↩]

Source: Dissident Voice

“Free” Country Criminalizing Thought?

“Will Congress Criminalize Anti-Semitism and Israeli Criticism? – by Stephen Lendman

In the current climate, perhaps given:

– America’s police state laws;

– no due process or judicial fairness for any state target;

– mass illegal surveillance;

– targeting dissent; and

– the power of the Israeli Lobby over Congress, the media, academia, the clergy, and most anyone confronting them.

During Israel’s war on Gaza, only 5 of 535 congressional members dissented on pro-Israeli resolutions.

On January 8, 2009, the Senate unanimously passed S 10: “A resolution recognizing the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian (no peace) peace process.”

On January 9, the House, by a 390 – 5 vote, passed HR 34 “Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian (no peace) peace process.” More on this below.

Then on October 28, Obama signed the expanded 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act, some call a stealth war on free expression and civil liberties. More on this as well.

Also consider events in Canada, initiated by a body called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA), a voluntary association of 22 MPs investigating anti-semitism because, it says:

Its “extent and severity is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War,” despite contrary evidence and much to show how Israel twists opposition to Zionism and its international law violations to be an attack on Jews.

On October 29, in fact, Reuters reported that:

“Anti-Semitic attitudes in the United States are at a historic low, with 12 percent of Americans prejudiced toward Jews, an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey found” based on polling done from September 26 – October 4 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8%.

ADL said the level of anti-Semitism matched 1998’s as the lowest in the poll’s 45-year history. Yet in his 2003 book, “Never Again? The Threat Of The New Anti-Semitism,” national director, Abraham Foxman, said he’s:

“convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s – if not a greater one,” contradicted by Cato Institute research fellow Leon Hadar (writing in the January 2004 Chronicles) that public opinion polls “indicate anti-Semitism (both its racial and religious versions) has been in steep decline in most of Western Europe….”

Yet various Canadian Jewish organizations, including Hillel, B’nai Brith, and the Canadian Jewish Congress cite rising anti-Semitic incidents. On March 31, 2009, for example, B’Nai Brith Canada claimed Canadian anti-Semitic incidents rose 8.9% in 2008 over 2007, with “more than (a) four-fold increase in incidents over the past decade.”

The result gets bodies like CPCCA to exploit it, with disturbing implications of where this may lead, including calling opposition to Zionism and Israeli crimes anti-Semitism, and criminalizing them at a time the global BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is gaining traction in the wake of Operation Cast Lead and 42 years of military occupation.

CPCCA’s web site (cpcca.ca) says:

“In February 2009, parliamentarians from around the world gathered in London for the inaugural conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Committee for Combatting Antisemitism.” Over 125 legislators attended from nearly 40 countries, after which “The London Declaration for Combating Antisemitism call(ed) on all governments to face the problem….”

CPCCA is a Canadian body, formed in March 2009 by 22 parliamentarians from all parties in the House of Commons. An inquiry was begun on June 2 calling for written submissions followed by public hearings (excluding anti-Israeli groups) running from November 2 – December 8. When concluded, the Steering Committee will produce a report for the government, anticipating a response “no later than the fall of 2010.”

Its web site asks: “What is the new anti-semitism,” saying:

“Anti-semitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is always re-invented and manifested in different ways. For example, while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-semitism.”

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)

Founded in 2002, CJPME (cjpme.org) promotes “justice, peace, prosperity and security for all peoples of the Middle East,” and believes “all positions should respect international law….violence is not a solution, (and) all parties in a conflict must be held to the same standard.”

On August 31, 2009, it issued a “Written Submission to (CPCCA) Concerning Anti-Semitism in Canada,” saying:

– it opposes anti-Semitism;

– Israeli criticism must not be linked to it; and

– because of how it’s vilified, CJPME fears it will result in:

– “a terrifying attack on civil liberties (and free expression) in Canada, and

– a total silencing of debate on Israel out of fear of legal action.”

Yet both outcomes would violate “fundamental protections enumerated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” so efforts must be made to prevent them.

Israel is a secular state, not a proxy for Judaism or Jews. Many Jews globally, including Israelis, are extremely critical of government policies with regard to Occupied Palestine and its own Arab citizens. According to Ryerson University’s Social Justice and Democracy Professor Judy Rebick:

– equating Israeli criticism with anti-Semitism “is based on a claim that the State of Israel is the single outcome of the history of the Jewish people, the final end of generations of diasporic existence. It attempts to make the Zionist project of a Jewish nation the only legitimate project for all Jews,” when, in fact, many Jews publicly oppose Zionism and Israeli policies. Doing so isn’t anti-Judaic, anti-Israeli, or anti-Semitic because they, like Martin Luther King, believe that:

“True peace is not the absence of violence, but the presence of justice,” an element entirely absent in how Israelis treat Palestinians and their own Arab citizens.

Asking why Israel is heavily criticized, CJPME cites the following:

– its continued defiling of “the international consensus for respect for human and humanitarian rights – as reflected in international law….;”

– its maintenance of “one of the longest military occupations in modern history” over Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan, and Shebba Farms area of Lebanon;

– its repeated violations of international law and UN resolutions; and

– its imposition of “elements resembling those of South African Apartheid.”

As a result, it’s unsurprising that anti-Semitism accusations are made to stifle Israeli criticism as a way to diffuse and perhaps criminalize them. The possibility worries CJPME enough to say they can’t be used “to infringe on fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms comprising Part I of the March 29, 1982 Constitution Act. CJPME formally petitioned to participate in CPCCA’s inquiry that so far excludes Israeli critics.

“America’s Last Taboo”

It was distinguished Palestinian American activist/scholar Edward Said’s title for his New Left Review November-December 2000 article citing the “near-total triumph for Zionism in the United States.” Then and now, Israel is cast as victim in a dangerous neighborhood acting only in self-defense against “rock-throwing barbarians (comprising) what is essentially an invasive force. (It’s the) Palestinians who are encroaching on Israeli territory, not the other way around.”

The message is so ingrained that the media repeat it ad nauseam, and Said more than once said that the entire US Senate can be marshaled in a matter of hours to support Israel on virtually anything – even a wanton attack as malicious as Operation Cast Lead and numerous previous ones for many decades.

Exhibits A and B: S 10 and HR 34 with near-identical language saying:

– “Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel.”

Fact Check

Hamas was founded in 1987 during the first Intifada to resist repression and occupation through negotiation and international consensus, not war or terrorism as falsely portrayed. Yet as international law allows, it strongly defends itself when attacked.

– “Hamas has been designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

Fact Check

True because any organization or group opposing imperial aggression and dominance is so designated.

– “Hamas has refused to comply with the requirements of the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) that Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Fact Check

Hamas repeatedly called for peace and an end of violence and expressed willingness to negotiate on the basis of “hudnah” or temporary truce. Its founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said Hamas would end its liberating struggle “if the Zionists ended (their) occupation of Palestinian territories and stopped killing Palestinian women, children and innocent civilians.” More recently, Hamas offered peace and Israeli recognition in return for a Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders, its Occupied Territories.

– “in June 2006, Hamas crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today.”

Fact Check

On June 25, Palestinians, including Hamas, responded to repeated Israeli attacks by striking an Israeli military post near Kerem Shalom crossing, southeast of Rafah, killing two IDF soldiers, injuring several others, and capturing (not kidnapping) a third, corporal Shalit. Israel’s long-planned Operation Summer Rain followed resulting in mass killings and destruction ahead of its horrendous July war on Lebanon, causing over 1,000 deaths and destruction comparable to Operation Cast Lead.

– “Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars since Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005.”

Fact Check

Many dozens, not thousands, of crude homemade rockets and mortars were used only in self-defense in response to repeated Israeli attacks with the most technologically advanced weapons, mostly from Washington, including F-16s, helicopter gunships, and powerful munitions, some clearly illegal.

House and Senate resolutions also cite, but don’t substantiate, Iranian help; Hamas locating “elements of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population centers, thus using innocent civilians as human shields,” a practice Israel has used for decades; the threat “hundreds of thousands of Israelis” face from rocket attacks, giving them no alternative but to respond.

Dismissive about Gaza’s two and a half year siege, the resolutions stress how “Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with over 500 trucks and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since December 26, 2008.”

It also says “the ultimate goal of the United States is a sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will allow for a viable and independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel….”

Fact Check

After Hamas’ democratic January 2006 election, Israel, with Western support, collectively punished Gazans maliciously. It denied all outside aid, imposed an embargo and sanctions, and stepped up repression, repeated attacks, killings, targeted assassinations, and property destruction, followed by a medieval siege since June 2007 causing grave humanitarian harm by restricting essential to life foods, medicines, and medical equipment as well as electricity, fuel, construction materials, and virtually everything needed to function normally.

Israel facilitates misery, not humanitarian aid, peace or Palestinian self-determination it’s spent decades to deny through violence, intimidation, naked aggression, confrontation over diplomacy and peaceful coexistence, and what scholar Joel Kovel calls “a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses,” facilitated by Washington’s financial, military, and political support.

Ending “America’s last taboo” is the way forward toward a viable, sustainable Middle East peace, possible only when 42 years of occupation end and Palestinians are again free – so far, what Israel and Washington won’t allow or even consider.

The 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act

The Department of Justice FBI web site (fbi.gov) defines them as follows:

“A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.”

On April 29, the House passed HR 1913: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 “To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”

On April 28, S 909: Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was introduced “to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”

On July 15, 2009, the measure was adopted as an amendment to S 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. On July 23, the full measure passed.

On October 8, the House passed HR 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 containing hate crimes prevention provisions.

On October 22, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed, then on October 28, it became law after president Obama signed it. A same day New York Times Jeff Zeleny article titled, “Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill” said it:

“expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s (actual or perceived) sexual orientation (or identity). Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin,” even though, short of reading an offender’s mind, there’s no way to know if a crime was committed for other reasons besides “hate.”

Further, the bill doesn’t repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, banning gays from the military if they admit their sexual orientation, or the Defense of Marriage Act, defining legal marriage to be between a man and a woman.

In addition, it doesn’t address universal civil and human rights; patients’ rights to effective health care; students’ rights to a good education to the highest level; and everybody’s right to the essentials of life, including safe food, water, and clean air; adequate shelter; full protection under the law; and democracy for everyone, not just the elite few.

Nonetheless, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group praised the bill as the “nation’s first major piece of civil rights legislation” for LGBT. Others called it advancing civil rights, but critics expressed concerns.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal alliance partnered with over 300 ministries and organizations, fears that pastors calling homosexuality a sin may be linked to a hate crime if a parishioner harms someone for their sexual orientation. ADF says it’s seen:

“evidence of where ‘hate crimes’ legislation leads when it has been tried around the world: It paves the way for the criminalization of speech that is not deemed ‘politically correct.’ (These laws) fly in the face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect unpopular speech.”

Others fear an attack on dissent against anyone expressing politically unpopular views at a time of disdain for human rights and eroding civil liberties putting everyone at risk.

The new law, however, prosecutes “crimes of violence,” defined by section 16, title 18, US code as:

(a) “an offense that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

Whether new measures will follow bears watching given a severe economic crisis and the fragility of American democracy at a time it’s transitioning toward a full-blown police state with noted trends watchers like Gerald Celente predicting the “greatest depression” unleashing violence, street crime, and mass civil unrest because “when people lose everything, and they have nothing else to lose, they lose it.”

If so, government repression will follow with harsh police state measures because when powerful people fear losing what’s taken them decades to achieve, they’ll do anything to defend it, including criminalizing protected speech, dissent, and whatever threatens their privilege or important allies, none more valued than Israel.

Thanks to Orwell's Dream where we first saw the post.

Check them out HERE

It’s All AIPAC of Lies

American Israel Public Affairs Committee—AIPAC. The single most powerful lobby in the world. So powerful that Washington politicians
carefully weigh each and every vote they cast based on the approval of this lobby.

Yes, a foreign lobby has that much clout, power and control over American leaders and thus, the American people. AIPAC has become so overpowering that they have risen above government investigations and mainstream media scrutiny. So powerful that the following statement was NEVER reported in America’s newspapers, magazines, or electronic media:

Every time we do something you tell me that America will do this and America will do that. I want to tell you something very clear; don’t worry
about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.

You may think that maybe that statement was made by an overzealous Jewish American—or—an Israeli comedian—or—an Israeli talk show host. Maybe. Just maybe! No, that was no comment made at an Israeli barbershop or an Israeli wedding—no maybes about it! That comment was made by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. Yes, the prime minister of Israel! The head of state—Israel’s leader.

Think about it.You may not have even heard this statement or read about it were it not for AFP. In fact, this may be the very first time you’ve come to learn of this statement—December 2009.
The power of AIPAC is so evident that the mainstream media of the USA hid it from your eyes and ears. Yes, you should be upset—really mad—because that statement was made October 3, 2001—more than 8 years ago. Eight years ago you didn’t even know that a foreign leader announced, on an Israeli radio show no less, that “We, the Jewish people, control America.”

And it didn’t stop there—consider the far-reaching ramifications of the remainder of that statement: “And the Americans know it.”

What Americans? Do you know it? Do your neighbors know it? Who are these Americans who know it?

Lets get to the point. Every politician in Washington D.C. knows it and has never uttered a word about it, NEVER even a whisper.

I opened up a can of worms in my September appearance on the Greta Van Susteren show, Fox TV Network. I said: “Israel has a stranglehold on America. Their lobby AIPAC has pushed and manipulated America into wars of little or no interest to our national security. . . . Our sons and daughters are being shipped home in body bags. These wars have now bankrupted America and no one—no one—has even whispered a warning from our nation’s capital.” I further stated: “Our one-sided foreign policy in
the Mideast favoring Israel on every issue has turned the Arab world against us and has exported to America the terrorism, violence and danger resulting from these misguided policies.”

I was called a “kook”—demeaned by the mainstream media—labeled an anti-Semite—on and on. The reason is quite clear. No one can even question Israel without being targeted, without retaliation.

“We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans; know it.” (Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.) I’m no anti-Semite—and Israel knows it. Israel also knows that I vehemently oppose any person, entity or
government that attempts to control, manipulate, influence or gerrymander our great nation. Truth is, Israel has done just that.

When a foreign leader such as Ariel Sharon can make such a statement, and get away with it without media or government scrutiny, it speaks to the awesome power that Israel wields over America’s commerce, the American press and the American government.

Transparency? The new buzzword! Who’s kidding whom? American politicians dare not even whisper their concerns about Israel.

It has come to pass. Yes, American kids are being shipped home in body bags to grieving parents who have lost their jobs and pensions due to these “Israeli wars.”

That’s right, “ISRAELI WARS.”Wars of expansion for Israel, at the expense and pain of the people of the USA. “BEAM ME UP!”

Our first president, George Washington, warned:

“Beware of permanent alliances.” George Washington is rolling over in his grave. GW could never have imagined an America being controlled
and manipulated by another government.

If Sharon’s statement had been made by any other foreign leader, it would have been headlines in every newspaper in America. It would have been the hot subject of every American talk show, radio and TV. But not Israel. No talk show host, whether conservative or liberal will ever question Israel. If they do, they will lose their show. Beware, American politicians, or you, too, will become a target.

Source: American Free Press

Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check

There is an amazing story in Ha'aretz today on the "pro-Israel" litmus test that determines who is permitted to serve in the United States government. Here's the sort of lede you're not likely to read in the New York Times or Washington Post:

Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.

In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."

The story goes on to rehearse what happened to Chas Freeman (whose appointment was derailed by the Israel lobby because he voiced a few mild criticisms of Israel's behavior) and reports that similar complaints are now being raised against the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel. Even more bizarrely, the Zionist Organization of America and other rightwing Jewish groups are complaining about the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to direct the Office to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism. Why? Apparently she's been involved with J Street and other "leftwing" organizations that ZOA et al deem insufficiently ardent in their support for the Jewish state, and has suggested that progressive forces need to be more vocal in advancing the peace process.

One has to feel a certain sympathy for Ms. Rosenthal, who is forced to defend her own appointment by telling an interviewer:

I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely."

These are fine sentiments, but isn't it odd that she has to defend her qualifications for a position in the U.S. government by saying how much she "loves" a foreign country? For an American official in her position, what matters is that she loves America, and that she believes anti-semitism is a hateful philosophy that should be opposed vigorously. Whether she loves Israel or France or Thailand or Namibia, etc., is irrelevant. (And yes, it's entirely possible to loathe anti-Semitism and not love Israel).

But the real lesson of all these episodes is the effect of this litmus test on the foreign policy community more broadly. Groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel, and Rosenthal because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on. And it works. Even if the lobby doesn't manage to block every single appointment, they can make any administration think twice about a potentially "controversial" choice and use the threat to stifle open discourse among virtually all members of the mainstream foreign policy community (and certainly anyone who aspires to public service in Washington).

The result, of course, is the U.S. Middle East policy (and U.S. foreign policy more generally) is reserved for those who are either steadfastly devoted to the "special relationship" or who have been intimidated into silence. The result? U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of "experts" whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure. If a few more Americans read Ha'aretz, they might start to figure this out.

Source: Stephen M Walt

Jewish institutional chickens coming home to roost

Decades of determined silence, or aiding and abetting both illegal settlement expansion and vicious attacks on dissenting critics of Israeli state policy have created a kind of “blowback” in the institutional Jewish world.

The new targets of the settlers’ linguistic paramilitary forces, aka the rightwing pro-Israel punditocracy and their followers, aren’t just the usual suspects like Jimmy Carter or Archbishop Tutu. They’re now mainstream, moderate, demonstrably Israel-loving institutional Jews. This is a moment of truth for many of these targets. Faced with new pressure from their right-wing flank, some will fold and adapt to a more McCarthyite environment, especially if loss of funding is threatened. Others will stand strong and even be radicalized.

So, who are the new targets of occupation-supporters like Caroline Glick (Whither American Jewry?) and Isi Liebler (Candidly Speaking: Marginalize the renegades) of the Jerusalem Post and Walter Bingham (Expose the Renegades) in Arutz Sheva? For starters, there’s former Jewish Council for Public Affairs director Hannah Rosenthal, whose principled concern for the Jewish community and for Israel is undeniable. She is the newly appointed head of the US Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism:

Shortly after the announcement of Rosenthal’s nomination, conservative Jewish web sites began to attack her, some of them declaring that Obama appointed an anti-Israeli to fight anti-Semitism. Rumors brewed that she had accused Israel of systemically strengthening anti-Semitism. Bloggers argued that her appointment would cause Jews and Israelis to cast doubt on Obama and his relationship with Israel.

Then there’s the the popular San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, known for its diverse approach to programming, and the Jewish Federation in San Francisco, which (lightly) funds the Festival. Not used to getting hate mail from Jews, and being called anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli, the Federation has been under tremendous pressure to cave in to calls for excessively McCarthyite control over funding recipients; the Film Festival has already lost tens of thousands of dollars and half its board, with no sign of the campaign dying any time soon.

The Federation board wisely said no to an absurd proposal to bar partnerships with any individuals or groups who “defame Israel” (good luck defining that), but they did support a resolution passed by the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America barring partnerships with groups that support Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions.

(Presumably, Time’s Joe Klein, who recently came out in support of a suspension of aid as a way to get the Israelis to actually freeze settlements, could still speak at a Federation-supported venue. Jewish Voice for Peace, however, which promotes selective divestment and sanctions as a way to end Israel’s occupation, would continue to get no funds or support from the Federation. In fact, the Federation would be duty-bound to oppose JVP, according to the resolution. As more mainstream Jewish groups openly advocate against support for 501c3s that support extremist settlers, it’s not clear how this resolution will play out.) Of course, there is the unprecedented smear campaign against Richard Goldstone, including coordinated condemnation of his report in Conservative synagogues across America, and yet he has continued to hold strong and defend his work with tremendous integrity. And then, there are the ongoing attacks on the new moderate AIPAC alternative, J Street, which puts forth an agenda not entirely different from what Netanyahu himself at least says he wants - two states that preserve as they call it, “a Jewish democracy”. Finally, there is the very surprising Glenn Beck (pictured above) attack on the Anti-Defamation League for their new report “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies,” which calls out Beck in particular in a wide-ranging condemnation of hate-mongers. Surprising because the ADL can typically be counted on to overlook hate-mongering and Holocaust-abuse in the service of a rightwing “pro-Israel” agenda, but in this case has done the right thing in identifying this truly scary trend for which Beck has become the figurehead. As MJ Rosenberg writes in his new column at Media Matters

:

Glenn Beck is, not surprisingly, in a state of rage about the ADL report. He defends himself by asking the ADL to “name the person who has been more friendly to Israel” (the predictable defense). This, of course, is utterly irrelevant. The issue here is not Israel but the United States. It is here where Beck spreads his hate, not Israel. And then Beck turns on the ADL itself. Beck said that the Anti-Defamation League itself has “much to do with the plight of the Jewish people.” I don’t know what plight Beck is referring to, perhaps the Holocaust which so often pops into his head and out of his mouth. But, obviously, the ADL fought for the victims of the Holocaust, not its perpetrators. The Holocaust was the product of professional hate mongers, the mob who listened to them, and politicians who came to power on their backs. That is precisely the combination the ADL is worried about now.

It’s tempting to sit back and say, “I told you so.” As Israel is learning all too well regarding increasing numbers of intransigent settlers and religious fanatics who profess open contempt for their own country, you can’t help create a monster and then expect it not to try to devour you. But one hopes that all of the targets of these nasty charges will a) put into perspective the war of words versus the war of lives and homes being waged, for example, in Sheikh Jarakh in East Jerusalem right now and that b) they’ll resist efforts at intimidation precisely because Jews who love Israel should care about the rights of Palestinian Israelis getting evicted from Sheikh Jarakh, as well as the rights of their peace-loving Jewish neighbors. There is only one logical conclusion after reading Rabbi Arik Ascherman’s moving and terrifying account of what’s happening in East Jerusalem: justice for Palestinians is justice, and peace, for Jews. Supporting the ongoing evictions and terrorization of Palestinians is the last way in the world to show love of Israel.

-Cecilie Surasky

Source: Jewish Voice For Peace's Muzzle Watch

Same Song, Different Verse

The American people, barely coping with nearly 20% in actual as opposed to statistical unemployment, a broken health care system, a skyrocketing federal deficit, and a collapse in home values really don’t need another war, but another war is what they are going to get. Blame the usual players in Congress and the mainstream media for a lot of it, but the case being made that Iran is a threat to the remainder of the world is largely being cranked up by Israel and its yapping poodles loosely described as the Israel lobby. That Iran spends only 1% as much on its military as does the United States appears to be irrelevant to the argument because everyone who reads the Washington Post and New York Times knows that those wily mullahs have nukes hidden up the sleeves of those loose gowns that they wear, secret warhead programs, and ballistic missiles that will be able to strike Europe someday for reasons that continue to be somewhat elusive.

Israel, which gets nearly $3 billion in "military assistance" and numerous other perks from Washington annually and spends twice as much as Tehran on its own military gets a free pass even though it has a secret and uninspected nuclear arsenal that undoubtedly contributes to Iranian paranoia. Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has made very clear that he wants the United States to attack Iran. What Israel wants from Washington it usually gets and there is no sign that President Barack Obama has the guts needed to change that sorry history.

Over the past several weeks Israel and its many friends have been particularly busy in beating the war drum. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon declared emphatically on November 6th that Israel’s frequently stated willingness to attack Iran is not just a bluff. On the previous day, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again cautioned Iran, pressuring the country to accept a tentative agreement on its nuclear program that would have denied it the right to enrich its own uranium, warning "We will not alter it and we will not wait forever." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen also joined the chorus. On November 8th the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Mullen "said last week in Washington that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel. Mullen said he would prefer that the US work diplomatically to keep the country from acquiring nuclear weapons, but hinted that should such efforts fail, the US air force and navy could be put into action as well."

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, at the November 3rd Jerusalem Conference, a gaggle of congressmen convened to pledge everlasting loyalty to a foreign nation. Democratic Representative Howard Berman and Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, co-sponsors of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 which advocates cutting off gasoline imports, spoke emotionally about the "Iranian threat." Berman, who reportedly once took an oath of office to represent all of the American people, confirmed "I was a Zionist before I was a Democrat" and added "This administration is serious about preventing a nuclear Iran." Also present was the ever reliable Senator James Inhofe, who said "There are people who want to take Israel off the map, and the US is next." He clearly meant Iran though he did not state who those "people" might be or exactly how they were going to do it.

And then there are the good old Southern Baptists, always quick to defend religious freedom worldwide unless it happens to involve Israeli repression of Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. On November 2nd leading Southern Baptist evangelical Richard Land of the what-must-be ironically named Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission joined Jewish and other evangelical Christian leaders in New York to demand immediate sanctions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The evangelical and Jewish groups support the Berman proposal to sanction firms or governments that export refined petroleum to Iran to "engender (sic) significant steps toward ending the Iran regime’s murderous pursuit of nuclear weapons." Richard had apparently not heard about the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran had abandoned its weapon program in 2003. Nor had he read, or had no interest in reading, the June 2009 report by the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor which noted that Israel discriminates systematically against Christians. It protects holy sites under a 1967 law, but only if they are Jewish. The report noted that Christian and Muslim sites are fair game for exploitation by real estate entrepreneurs.

As the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes in Gaza is about to be debated in the UN General Assembly, Tel Aviv presumably feels a need for some good PR, but some of the recent propaganda coming out of Israel and uncritically replayed in the US media does not pass the smell test. On November 4th, Israel seized an Antiguan registered freighter named the Francop, alleged to be carrying weapons in international waters. Bibi Netanyahu was beside himself, calling the weapons a "war crime" and declaring "Whoever still needed indisputable proof that Iran continues to send weapons to terror organizations got it today in a clear and unequivocal manner. Iran sends these weapons to terror organizations in order to hit Israeli cities and kill civilians. The time has come for the international community to put real pressure on Iran for it to halt this despicable activity and back Israel when it defends itself against terrorists and their patrons."

One has to be amused when Bibi Netanyahu calls a possible ship load of weapons that had not been delivered anywhere as a "war crime" while at the same time refusing to investigate last January’s carnage in Gaza. Some have also noted that the daring Israeli commando action looked like it might have been staged. In its first press announcement, Israel claimed that the weapons had been picked up when the ship stopped in Syria. But the ship had not yet been to Syria and why would Damascus send Iranian weapons by ship when it would have been far easier to do by land? Later Israel claimed the ship was traveling from Iran to Syria, but the shipowners stated that the vessel’s actual itinerary was Egypt to Cyprus to Lebanon, ending in Turkey. So where did the weapons that were displayed by Israel after its commandoes seized the ship and towed it into the port of Ashdod come from and who was supposed to receive them? It is, to say the least, not clear and the Israeli story has a number of holes in it, most particularly its confident assertion that the weapons were bound for Hezbollah. Immediately after the seizure, the Israelis released the captain and crew, saying that they had had no knowledge of the hundreds of tons of weapons that were alleged to be on board. To keep the story fresh, six days later Israel’s Army Chief Gabi Ashkenazi resurrected the tale, stating, without providing any evidence, that Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets capable of hitting most Israeli cities.

A strange story, but no stranger than the spin about the Iranian nuclear facility located near Qom. Readers will recall that the facility was initially described by the US media as a secret weapons facility, proving that the evil Iranians were producing weapons of mass destruction that would immediately be handed off to terrorists who would then use them to blow up the Statue of Liberty. Even though US intelligence had know about the site for several years and had not been particularly alarmed by it, the Obama Administration quickly jumped on the story, denouncing the Iranians and accepting the premise that the hidden facility automatically means a secret weapons program.

On November 3rd Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Major General Amos Yadlin claimed that the Qom site has "no possible civilian use," adding that Iran is "horizontally expanding" its nuclear program so it will be able to develop a weapon in the shortest possible time. But it now turns out that the Qom facility was started by the Iranian government in early 2007 when the Bush Administration had combined three aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf region and was threatening to go to war over alleged Iranian interference in neighboring Iraq, a claim that was largely contrived. In any event, the facility was not developed with any urgency by the Iranians and currently, more than two and a half years later, it is little more than a potential back-up site for uranium enrichment clearly constructed over concerns that Israel or the US would attack the main facility at Natanz. The site was recently inspected by the UN’s IAEA and Mohammed El-Baradei described it as a "hole in a mountain" and "nothing to be worried about."

And let’s not forget about Hamas, also ranked high in the evil incarnate stakes behind Hezbollah and Iran. On November 3rd the ubiquitous General Yadlin also accused Hamas of test firing a missile capable of hitting Tel Aviv, hinting darkly that the weapon might have come from Iran. In reality, the Gaza Strip, 25 miles long and an average of six miles wide and frequently described as "one big prison," is hemmed in by overwhelming Israeli firepower on three sides and cut off by the Egyptians to the south making the import of new military hardware a bit problematic. As a military threat, Gaza is the mouse that roared.

And so the propaganda campaign, referred to during the cold war as agitprop, continues with Iran in the crosshairs. There are reports that Israel has funded a group of young bloggers who have good English to go onto websites to disseminate the party line, particularly regarding Iran, so it is safe to assume that an Orwellian conflict that has no rhyme or reason will be promoted all over the internet. There will be no rest in Congress, within the media, and in the corridors of power in Israel until Iran is defanged. And if it will take the deaths of a few thousand more young Americans and the total destruction of the US economy to accomplish that objective, so be it. Congress and the White House have not been answerable to the American people for quite some time so why should another war change anything?

Source: AntiWar.com

DEMJANJUK FIGHTS FOR LIFE

John Demjanjuk is a retired auto worker from Cleveland. He was born in Ukraine, served in World War II as a Russian soldier, was captured and held as a prisoner of war. Demjanjuk’s captors were soldiers of the German army. Today, as you read this column, Demjanjuk is standing trial for his very life once again. He is facing another Nazi war crimes indictment.

Think about the dynamics of this dilemma for John Demjanjuk. He’s being tried in Germany, by the very country who captured him. They say he was a Nazi war criminal. I don’t know about you, but on its surface it just doesn’t add up.

Demjanjuk is not a war criminal and certainly was never a Nazi. I can remember my first acknowledgment of the “Demjanjuk” ordeal. It seems like yesterday. I was in my Washington, D.C. office in the old Cannon Building in the late ‘80s. One of my staffers came into my office in a sort of cloak-and-dagger mode stating that the “son of convicted Nazi mass murderer ‘Ivan the Terrible’ is in the reception room, and we told him you are not here.” I then inquired of his purpose to meet with me, since I was not his congressman. I was then informed that young John Demjanjuk Jr. told them that he has “been to every office in the House and Senate, and no one would even speak with him because the matter was too sensitive.”

John Demjanjuk Jr. further stated that “they did not want to involve Jim Traficant” because they said that they “knew the government hated him, but he’s our last resort for any help.”

My staffer said, “Do not meet with him; you’ll be ostracized, destroyed, ruined. Let him go back to his own congressman and the two senators of Ohio.”

My staff further advised that I was probably already targeted by the powerful Israeli lobby, since I was an opponent of foreign aid, and certainly my involvement with John Demjanjuk would guarantee that American Israeli Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] would not quit till I was removed from Congress.

I went to the door so I could overhear the conversation between John Demjanjuk Jr. and my staff. I could feel the pain in his voice. John Demjanjuk Jr. finally stated: “My dad’s not asking to meet with anyone. I’m asking, and I’ve never even had a parking ticket. What kind of government is this, that I can’t even talk to my elected officials about my family’s grave concerns?”

I then ordered my staff to bring John Demjanjuk Jr. and his brother-in-law Ed Nishnic into my office. My staff told me this decision would destroy my
career in Congress. I met John Demjanjuk Jr. and Ed Nishnic and offered them a seat to discuss their problems.

John Demjanjuk Jr. is a fine young man, a son any father would be proud of. His demeanor was that of a troubled and worried young man. He was accompanied by his brother-in-law Ed Nishnic and basically let Ed Nishnic explain their plight.

Ed Nishnic is also a remarkable man. Like John Demjanjuk Jr. he’s very intelligent and was very determined to prove the innocence of his father-in-law. I stated emphatically, that “I’ve decided to meet with you for one reason and one reason only: No American should ever be turned away when seeking help from our government.” I then said, “Your dad has been convicted of mass murder, the extermination of one million Jewish prisoners. He has been sentenced to death. I want you to know up front, that if he is really guilty I could personally pull the switch at his execution.”

I then told them I would hear their concerns. (Be advised that the mainstream media wrote that “Jim Traficant supports Nazi mass murderer” as soon as word spread that I had met with the “Demjanjuk” family.)

Nishnic handed me two report summaries of OSI investigators (Office of Special Investigations, the group within the Justice Department created by Congress to apprehend and prosecute Nazi war criminals). They had interrogated one Otto Horn in Berlin, Germany. Horn was a former SS Nazi guard who had assisted “Ivan Grozny” (Ivan the Terrible), at the Treblinka, Poland concentration camps.

These two reports were originals, not copies, and were signed by agents Garand and Daugherty, and were witnessed by prosecutor Moscovitz, who handled the denaturalization trial of John Demjanjuk in Cleveland. The reports were stamped as received by the Justice Department and signed by unit chief Eli Rosenbaum.

I read the documents very carefully without input from John Demjanjuk Jr. or Ed Nishnic. I could not believe my eyes. I could not believe what I was reading. The Justice Department had committed a great crime. Moscovitz, Garand and Daugherty suborned the perjury of Otto Horn in order to convict an American citizen wrongfully—an American now denaturalized, stripped of his citizenship and waiting to be executed. (The authenticity of these two documents cannot be denied.)

At trial, Horn stated that “John Demjanjuk was Ivan Grozny.” But in these two early reports, two years before the trial, Horn could not identify Demjanjuk from the photographs displayed before him.

I had a problem. A big problem. I knew without a doubt that John Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible. John Demjanjuk was in fact another victim, soon to be known as one of the most vicious and infamous mass murderers in world history. John Demjanjuk was awaiting execution as the infamous Ivan of Treblinka, Ivan the Terrible.

I would be defamed and ostracized because I would be compelled to prove the innocence of John Demjanjuk on the strength of these two Justice Department documents. John Demjanjuk was innocent—convicted of mass murder, sentenced to death and awaiting execution—and no one seemed to care.

I thought, what has happened to our great country that it could produce this type of brutal crime against this American and his family?

I realized I had a difficult task ahead, but with the help of John Demjanjuk Jr. and Ed Nishnic, I believed we could prove John Demjanjuk’s innocence. It was imperative to do so. I had these two powerful documents to start with.

Otto Horn’s testimony at the Cleveland denaturalization trial (via videotape) was very direct. Horn had been shown a series of photographs when interrogated in Berlin.

Moscovitz spread eight photos of Caucasian males in uniform, all in their early 20’s. Horn testified that he identified John Demjanjuk immediately. Moscovitz then spread eight more photos of Caucasian soldiers in uniform, but now in their 40’s. Horn again testified that he identified John Demjanjuk, even as an older man, because he knew him so well. Horn’s testimony stripped John Demjanjuk of his citizenship, and he was sent to Israel to stand trial as Ivan the Terrible.

Now, back to the two reports of Horn’s interrogation in Berlin two years earlier. Garand and Daugherty wrote in their reports immediately after their interview with Horn: “We spread eight photos of Caucasian men in uniform, all in their early 20’s. Horn studied the photos at length and stated that ‘one man looks familiar’ [not John Demjanjuk] but FAILED to identify anyone.”

The report goes on:

“We then gathered the eight photos and put them in a stack with John Demjanjuk’s on top. We then spread eight more photos of older men in uniform with John Demjanjuk’s photo among them. Horn studied these photos at length, and looking at the John Demjanjuk photo on top of the stack, then back to John Demjanjuk’s photo in the older soldiers spread, said that ‘this is the same man’ but FAILED again to identify John Demjanjuk as Ivan.”

Be advised that Horn lied through his teeth, and U.S. prosecutor Moscovitz allowed it. Horn later testified at the Israeli trial that he positively identified John Demjanjuk from the photo spreads. When the defense team crossed-examined Horn, they asked if he could see the first photo spread when he was examining the second set. Horn testified:

“They put the first set of photographs in an envelope and removed them from my view.” Horn lied again. John Demjanjuk was convicted, and sentenced to death.

I immediately began my own investigation by utilizing a number of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests on John Demjanjuk. The government response was “classified”; thus I got nothing. At this point I conferred with John Demjanjuk Jr. and Nishnic to evaluate what options were available. We came up with a plan.

We decided to research any and all legal activity that involved the Treblinka camp. BINGO. We discovered that a Ukrainian-American from Chicago, by the name of Feodor Federenko, had been tried for war crimes at Treblinka. Federenko was acquitted. He then traveled to his homeland to visit his family, but was arrested by the Soviet KGB, was tried again in Russia, was convicted and executed. [No doubt our government arranged his demise].

I immediately sent out a new FOIA request, this time on Federenko. Most agencies threw my FOIAs in the wastebasket, but the State Department sent me two telegrams:

The first was from one of our OSI agents in Europe seeking information about Treblinka. The second was the response from the State Department listing the names of four men who had made statements about Treblinka. At the bottom of this was the following; “if you need further help, be advised we have another 100 pages in the file.”

I acted immediately. I phoned the State Department and reached a Mrs. Poindexter, an honest, competent government worker. I asked her to send me those 100 pages, citing the fact that Federenko was deceased and his case was not “classified.” Mrs. Poindexter complied.

Those 100 pages saved the life of John Demjanjuk. They contained the testimony of 17 witnesses about Treblinka.

All 17 identified “Ivan”:

1. He was taller than John Demjanjuk;

2. He had dark hair, not blond like John Demjanjuk;

3. He was nine years older than John Demjanjuk;

4. He had a long scar on his neck.

There was also a photo of two SS Nazi guards who had been identified by one of the witnesses, who said: “The short guard with pistol is Tkachuk. The tall guard is the man the Jewish prisoners feared the most, ‘Ivan Grozny’—IVAN MARCHENKO.”

All 17 witnesses identified a man named Ivan Marchenko as “Ivan the Terrible.”

I asked Congress for a hearing. Congress refused, the case was “too sensitive.” The federal courts would not accept my evidence. I took my evidence to the floor of Congress. I said John Demjanjuk was not “Ivan the Terrible.” A man named Ivan Marchenko was the real “Ivan.”

That night, the U.S. Justice Department issued a statement that “there were two Ivans.”

The next day I released the photo of Marchenko. The Justice Department was silent.

I then forwarded all my evidence to John Demjanjuk’s defense team in Israel, who then submitted it in to the Israeli Supreme Court.

I flew to Israel with John Demjanjuk Jr. and Ed Nishnic, at my own expense. I did a live interview with Bryant Gumbel on the Today show. I stated that if Israel executed John Demjanjuk that Israel will lose $20 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers. Gumbel said that “Israel only gets $3 billion a year.” I countered, “That’s just the foreign aid bill, Bryant. Israel gets military aid, loans, loans converted to grants, and trade compacts and other money. I say that Israel gets $20,000 for every man, woman and child from America every year.”

The interview was over.

I was phoned the following night and was told that John Demjanjuk would be released and delivered to me at the Tel Aviv Airport. We took him home.

I called a press conference for New York. While the press gathered, I ducked out with John Demjanjuk on a small plane. When approaching Cleveland, I directed the pilot to seek a landing pattern at the airport, then directed the flight to a small airstrip near Independence, Ohio, thus eluding the press.

John Demjanjuk went to a safehouse, He was home. I flew toWashington.The next day the Sixth Circuit Court in Cincinnati, Ohio issued the following statement; “A TRAGIC BUT HONEST MISTAKE BY OUR GOVERNMENT.”

That was no mistake. Moscovitz, Garand and Daugherty should have been sent to prison. I said then, “Since when did sensitivity waive our Bill
of Rights?” When we allow the rights of one American to be violated, we endanger the rights of all Americans.

Germany should send John Demjanjuk home. How, in God’s name, can Germany accept any evidence from the U.S. Justice Department who suborned perjury in the first trial, withheld evidence, obstructed justice, and violated John Demjanjuk’s civil rights?

SHAME ON GERMANY AND SHAME ON THE U.S.A. What has happened to our great country?

Why Does AIPAC Spy on Americans?

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Steven J. Rosen will be allowed to move ahead with his civil defamation lawsuit against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosen and fellow AIPAC employee Keith Weissman were indicted under the 1917 Espionage Act in 2005 along with Department of Defense Employee Col. Lawrence Franklin for passing classified national defense information. Franklin pled guilty, but Rosen and Weissman’s case never went to trial — US attorneys gave up (PDF) after the presiding judge made a successful prosecution unlikely.

Rosen’s 2009 civil lawsuit contends that AIPAC defamed him when its spokesperson claimed that he "did not comport with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees." Rosen’s many filings in court reveal that his fundamental case is that AIPAC commonly circulates and distributes classified US government information when it suits the organization’s purpose in lobbying for Israel. AIPAC defamed him, he alleges, by claiming he was somehow unique.

An FBI file declassified and released on July 31, 2009 (PDF) backs up Rosen’s assertions. In 1984 AIPAC obtained a classified report compiled from the business secrets of US industries and associations opposed to signing a bilateral trade agreement with Israel. The FBI found that AIPAC had "attempted to influence members of Congress with the use of a purloined copy of the ITC report and had usurped their authority."

The Washington Field Office of the FBI went on to assert that "AIPAC is a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group staffed by U.S. citizens. WFO files contain an unsubstantiated allegation that a member of the Israeli Intelligence Service was a staff member of AIPAC."

Rosen is well on his way to claiming $20 million in damages for AIPAC’s "defamation" propelled by the court’s new ruling. But for Americans much larger concerns linger. Why isn’t AIPAC registering as an agent of a foreign principal if it is collaborating so closely with foreign intelligence services? Why are these matters being litigated in civil court as a family squabble between members of the Israel lobby? If espionage is a recurring, institutionalized feature of AIPAC, doesn’t that mitigate against its claims to be an American non-profit, working for American interests? From the NRA to the AARP, no legitimate American nonprofit lobby has ever been found to be trafficking in so much intelligence information, or so frequently channeling it to foreign government parties and friends in the establishment media.

Newly emerging declassified facts are reminders to concerned Americans that AIPAC is not at all what it claims to be. Rosen’s lawsuit will not likely make good on his and former lobbyist Douglas Bloomfield’s implicit threats to reveal AIPAC as a stealth, unregistered foreign agent of the Israeli government.

Fortunately for Americans, that uncomfortable fact is now emerging in myriad ways, even in the midst of AIPAC’s new attempts to engineer policies that could accelerate the downfall of the US economy.

Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book Spy Trade: How Israel’s Lobby Undermines America’s Economy. He is currently director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.

Read more by Grant Smith

• Steve Rosen Accuses AIPAC of Espionage – September 1st, 2009
• Subsidies for Israel,
  Sanctions for Iran – June 28th, 2009
• The Samson Gambit – April 7th, 2009
• Should AIPAC Decide What’s Classified? – February 23rd, 2009
• Will Obama Break the Law
  for Israel’s Sake? – February 11th, 2009

Source: AntiWar.com

TRAFICANT SPEAKS TO AFP

We’re glad to be able to sit down with you and let you say what you have to say. Our readers have been strong supporters of yours for a long time, going back to the days of the old Spotlight newspaper.

Pete, let me ask you something: Was John Wayne a subscriber to The Spotlight?

Yes, he was.

That’s interesting, because I get a lot of mail that talks to me about John Wayne. They see me on television and they say that I act like John Wayne. Honest to God, they say that. Someone mentioned to me that he was a subscriber to the old Spotlight.

Well, I always used to look at The Spotlight when I was in Congress. I always looked at it, every week. There were things in there that I checked out, and I know that it was very controversial and I know that the newspaper had a bent—let’s be honest—towards Israel, and I really don’t have a problem towards Israel . . . or the Jewish People. My problem is with the Israeli lobby, with the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee.

The Israeli lobby has a stranglehold over government. I’ve already told you that. I’ve said it on national television. So I’ve been labeled an anti-Semite and all that, and I expected it. But that’s where I am, you know, in this interview now, and I want you to also know before starting out that you are the only print media that I’ve interviewed with.

Another of our famous readers was the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty who was portrayed by Donald Sutherland as “Man X” in Oliver Stone’s famous film, JFK.

I give Oliver Stone a lot of credit. He took [the criticism] they gave him and he wasn’t afraid to put his feelings out there, and the only thing he could deduce is that, in order for anybody to cover up the Kennedy assassination he had to be so powerful that it could only be one entity and that would be the United States government, so at least he had the courage to do that.

And if there is an attack on Israel? . . .

If Israel is attacked, I’d want to support Israel. But quite frankly, we have been so one sided over there. We’ve imported the violence and we’ve imported the hatred from everybody in opposition to Israel. They see us as the protector [of Israel] without objectivity.

But more than anything, I think the Israeli lobby has a stranglehold on the United States. I mean, they can’t pass gas without asking where to do it. Now they can deny it all, call me a “kook” and everything they want to, but I’ve been through it. I’ve seen the other side of the one-eyed jack and it’s a real problem. If it’s not resolved, America will implode. America will implode. It’s a matter of time.

Just like the old Soviet Union.

And you can see what’s happening now: the machinations around the currency and the economic system and China’s foothold: their economic tentacles on America. So we’ve got some real problems and I expect to be really blackballed further by giving you this exclusive interview, so go ahead and hurt me.

You’ve been on five national television broadcasts since you’ve come home from prison and your appearances have caused quite a stir.

I’ve been out of prison about 35 days and I didn’t realize it, come to think of it, of how astounded I was that I always got so much mail in prison. People wrote me for seven years saying, “We miss you. We miss your one minute speeches. We miss your lively comments. We miss your questioning of things that no one else questions” and I didn’t realize how many people missed me.

And when I came home I was surprised by the massive turnout here. People lined up one hour before the place opened. You see, I wasn’t really going to attend. I didn’t want to. I had just gotten into town and I didn’t want that type of pressure, if you will.

I was very bitter, very upset and I didn’t want to manifest some of that in front of an audience that would say, “My God. Look at this guy. Prison changes a man.”

I’m getting a lot of mail from around the country. I’ve started to wonder why all these national television programs had me on as a guest. They’ve told me that I’m an interesting guest and they are all in it for the ratings. But some of the things that I’ve said on television have been quite a revelation and there are some entities that are quite upset with that and they are trying to counter and reduce the impact of some of the words I’ve used and I’m not so sure it’s worked in their favor. I’m not so sure that’s been in their benefit, since they’ve stirred the pot a bit and when you stir the pot, it stinks.

But what amazed me the most is the national response that I got all over the country. Every state. People are writing to me saying, “You are not just refreshing, you’re telling something, you’re telling the truth.” They are saying, “It’s evident what has happened. We don’t hate Israel either, but we know there’s something wrong that they have a tremendous foothold, a stranglehold on the government. There’s no doubt about it now.”

I guess the statements that I made that “We are involved in wars that we have little or no interest in” and that “our kids are coming home in body bags” and that “Our country is bankrupt over these wars” and that “There’s no end in sight,” are hitting home.

Now you see an expansion in Afghanistan. My God, if the American people knew that there are more contractors than soldiers involved in the Middle East, then they would really panic.

Because we’ve got what—about 280,000 soldiers, in the whole mess, but if you look at the contractors, there’s something like 230,000 contractors and many are making more money than our soldiers.

And they are there to provide security, to cook the food. If the American people knew what the Hell we are involved in here. . . . They’re just talking about the troops. No one is talking about these contractors.

The point I’m making is that they are not considered part of our troop force. They’re our contract force. The American people don’t know what we have half a million plus people over there and we are embroiled in something that may last years and years. We’re embroiled in 2009 Vietnam.

We’ve now been there almost as long as we were in Vietnam . . .

And now there’s a religious bent to it that is fanatical. Let’s tell it like it is. And to quote a president that made much sense—GeorgeWashington: “Beware of foreign entanglements.”

President Washington said that in his Farewell Address to the American people. Most politicians today don’t even know about the Farewell Address.

That was the advice of the first president of the United States, and how right he was. And look at Jefferson: “Beware of the appointment of federal judges for lifetime terms because they can take the Constitution and mold it like clay in their hands.”

God bless juries. Problem today is: The Justice Department controls the juries and they spoil the jury pool and the jury selection process.

Isn’t that what happened with the Justice Department in your own case?

No doubt. No question. But you know what? They are going to pay. There are too many people now coming forward admitting they were pressured to lie. And one of the jurors was excused the day before because they knew he was definitely going to vote “not guilty.”

He said, “They wanted to get me off the jury.” He prepared an affidavit to that effect. The prosecutor told her, “This man is a [pro-Traficant] juror,” and they got rid of him. When the former juror heard the decision, he said, he almost fell out of his car, when he heard that the jury convicted me.

And the other juror “Juror Number Eight” said one of the jury women confided in him that she had problem with the IRS and that it was sort of worked out with the understanding that they would try to place her as a juror in the Traficant trial. She was my most adamant opponent on the jury. It happened to be a Jewish woman.

I had no opportunity to cross-examine any agent who worked on the case against me. There was a six year investigation with over 200 FBI agents involved. They spent $15 million dollars investigating me. All of that time terrorists were aiming at the Twin Towers in New York, but the government’s eyes were on me. The Justice Department was focusing on me.

They couldn’t forget the fact that back in 1983 I was the only American who ever beat the Justice Department, acting as his own attorney, in a
RICO case. They couldn’t live with that.

[A RICO case is a federal trial involving the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations act, often applied in organized crime and corporate white collar criminal cases. Falsely accused of having accepted bribery money from organized crime interests, Traficant acted as his own defense attorney in the earlier case and was acquitted by the jury, much to the dismay of the Justice Department, which continued to target Traficant. See AFP correspondent Michael Collins Piper’s book, Target: Traficant, for the details.—Ed.]

They offered one regional director from the IRS as a witness in my earlier trial. He said, in court, that “I know nothing about this case. I just draw up the tax forms.”

The fingerprint “expert” that they offered up was only three weeks on the job, but he had to answer questions about the report.

In the daily press here in Ohio [during the 2002 trial] they said that the FBI and the Justice Department had all this fingerprint evidence against Traficant. But when this so-called expert testified in court, I asked him, “How many, if any, of my fingerprints appeared on any of these documents that are being used against me”” and he said, “None.”

I said, “Not one?”

There was an objection from the prosecutors and it was sustained [approved] by the judge. I said, “How many latent prints of mine were there?” and he said, “None,” and I asked “How many partial prints were there that could possibly have been mine?” and he said, “None,” and I asked how many prints were there that could have been the prints of somebody else but could have been confused with mine and he said “None.”

So this is the government’s Achilles Heel. And I want the readers of American Free Press to know it, since the mainstream media is never going to explain it. I said, “Then certainly you took the audio and video tapes, is that correct, sir?” And then I saw the prosecutor’s head drop. The witness said, “No.” And I asked, “Well, who took those audio and video tapes?” He said, “No one took those tapes. There were none.”

I asked him, “Who told you that there were no audio or video tapes made of me by the FBI during a six-year-long investigation?” He said, “The assistant prosecutor.” He said he couldn’t remember who it was. I asked the witness to point to the person in question and describe what he was wearing, and he did so.

Now I had this retired secret service man acting as an investigator for me in my defense (he went back to the Carter years, having protected Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) and he said that he knew that I was innocent, that I was railroaded, when the government admitted in court that they had no audio or video tapes to use against me after they had conducted a six-year-long investigation of me.

He said that the Secret Service could never have gotten an indictment against me in a criminal case. It would have been a “must” to get some sort of memorialized statement made by me in an audio or video tape.

[And, of course, the FBI was tapping my phone and recording my conversations and they had people coming up and talking to me who were wired.]

What I—JimTraficant—need right now is some whistle-blower in the Justice Department to come out and admit that, yes, the Justice Department destroyed all of those tapes. Why did they do this? Because those tapes were exculpatory for me. They would prove that the Justice Department had me “bugged” for six years and they couldn’t get any evidence against me: not one incident of wrongdoing. I have a number of affidavits here from people who came to court to testify on my behalf, but the judge excused the jury from hearing their testimony. These were people who testified under penalty of perjury, if they were found to be lying [which they weren’t] and the judge did not allow their testimony to be heard by the jury.

They testified to the effect that a number of key witnesses against me had admitted that they lied on behalf of the government to incriminate me in order to avoid being indicted and sent to prison themselves. Juror Number Eight himself said that if he had just known about the pressure the government put on Richard Detore alone that he would have fought to the end to avoid convicting me.

However, they have a new rule in Ohio. If you have a Cleveland judge you have a Cleveland jury. I ended up with a Cleveland judge, Lesley Wells, who had personal animosity toward me since I didn’t support her when she ran for the Supreme Court before she was appointed to a federal judgeship. Personally, I had heard she some funny dealings up there. And I didn’t support too many judges, frankly.

They had news reports that JimTraficant—a sitting congressman—had conspired to have one of the potential witnesses in the case murdered. The FBI told this woman that the only way she could protect herself was to go public. This is how they tainted the potential jury pool in the Cleveland area: that is, putting out these stories such as this one that I was plotting to murder this woman. They wouldn’t try me before a jury pool taken from my own congressional district. No, they transferred the case to Cleveland.

So the people in Cleveland didn’t know me. They only knew me from what they read about me in these negative newspaper reports. When you’re the number one target of AIPAC, you’re not going to have any newspaper writing anything good about you.

However, American Free Press has been very strong in telling what they feel is the truth, with a strong bent going after Israel for many things that they believe are wrong. And quite frankly, many of the things that American Free Press has done have been very truthful and I know that you have suffered for it.

So you had this woman brought before the grand jury to testify against me, and they tried to pressure her to say things that weren’t true, and she realized what they did and she apologized to me and my wife. But it was all over by then. However, the jury pool was already poisoned by the stories in the media: they said I was a Mafioso and that I was going to have this woman murdered. Well, they never made any charges there, since it was all a lie.

There was another fellow that I ran into in a restaurant and he said, “I apologize, Jim. I was going through a divorce and I lost everything. So I lied [against you]. My attorney told me to tell the government what they wanted to hear and get it over with and I did it and I can’t live with it. It bothers me. I’m sorry. You’ve been a good man, a friend.”

He has put together an affidavit on my behalf. He also came to court on my behalf, but the judge didn’t allow his testimony to go before the court.

There was another instance where there were all these new stories about some crime I had supposedly committed but since the supposed witness refused to tell lies against me, there were no charges brought.

Then there was this instance with this Nigerian man, Nnamdi J. Okolo, who was an owner of a car-leasing agency in Northern Virginia, and he said his life was ruined because he wouldn’t perjure himself against me for the U.S. government. They wanted him to say that he kicked back money to me and to Richard Detore. They wanted him to tell lies about Detore in order to pressure Detore to tell lies to be used to prosecute me.

The Nigerian man, Mr. Okolo, told me, when I ran into him at Allenwood prison [where I was first incarcerated and where Mr. Okolo was later sent] that he didn’t know me from Adam, and that he would have been willing to lie against me, but he knew that Detore had two children just like him and that he couldn’t lie. He’s over in Nigeria today and he filed an affidavit with the Nigerian government explaining how the U.S. government tried to get him to lie.

Later an attorney contacted Mr. Okolo and told him that if he did not recant his charges against the U.S. government that his 79 year old parents would be deported from the United States. I feel sorry for that family. The last I heard was that the Catholic charities in Baltimore were looking into his parents’ case. Here’s a man—a Black immigrant from Africa—who showed courage and honor and his life was ruined by our government.

Then there’s the case of Richard Detore. Richard was pressured by the government to say that he saw me accept a cash bribe in my office in Washington from businessman John Cafaro. But he said, “I just won’t do it. Jim Traficant hasn’t done anything illegal with me. If he’s done something wrong, go ahead and get him, but I’m not going to lie about it.”

Richard Detore was a brilliant engineer and they needed a man of his quality to serve as a witness against me to get a conviction. So when he refused they said to him, “Okay, just say you were outside the office door and you heard the transaction.” He said, “I’m not going to do it.”

His attorney, who was a former assistant U.S. attorney [and still close to the government] told him: “Just tell the government what they want. They’re going to get Traficant.”

So finally Richard got a call from his attorney who told him, “Time’s up. You’re going to get indicted if you don’t go along with them.”

But Richard said, “I’m not going to lie.”

His attorney told him, “Richard, there’s no reward for honesty. You’re going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending yourself and you’re still going to end up in prison. They’re going to get Traficant. They want this guy.” But Richard said, “I’m not going to tell lies.”

And his attorney said, “I’m advising you to tell them what they want to hear. Look at it as a business decision.”

Well, when Richard was indicted (after he refused to lie about me) and then went to trial, he was acquitted in one hour. But they were successful in keeping his testimony out of my trial. So you had Detore and Okolo pressured to lie against me and both refused. And there were three other people who testified before the judge (out of the hearing of the jury) in my case who said that they were pressured to lie by the government.

And there were the false charges cast about by television news broadcasts that were never actually filed against me that involved people being pressured to lie. So that’s seven instances right here.

And there was no physical evidence against me [audio or video tapes, documents, fingerprints, etc]. If I were guilty of a crime, why did they have to force anybody to lie?

They later made the prosecutor, Craig Morford, the second highest post in the Justice Department. And they made Michael Chertoff, who headed the criminal division in the Justice Department in Washington (who supervised my prosecution), the head of Homeland Security. Attorney General John Ashcroft even came to Cleveland and gave awards to the team that convicted me. That’s how glad they were to get rid of Jim Traficant.

There was even talk that Morford was going to be appointed as U.S.Attorney General. But people from Virginia let it be known that they wanted to testify about Morford’s role in the Traficant case. This prosecutor suborned perjury, withheld evidence, and obstructed justice to get a conviction.

But he really didn’t convict me. The judge convicted me. She influenced that jury and withheld evidence. She did what she had to do.

Our country has to get at this powerful central government. We’ve got a massive government that the American people don’t even have an association with. They are subject to this government.

They thought they gave me a life sentence at my age. They didn’t think I would live through it. They put me in some rough prisons. I didn’t go to any camp, buddy. I ended up in a “medium-high” called “Gladiator School.” They wanted to medicate me, but I wouldn’t take it. They said I had a corkscrewed aorta, but I wouldn’t take it. So they sent me to the federal medical facility at Rochester, Minnesota.

I didn’t trust them giving me any medication. I didn’t trust the government at all. I was their number one target and the number one target of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). So when you put the Justice Department and AIPAC together, you have the most awesome, most powerful enemies in world history. I’m here. I’m still breathing, so far.

But if one whistle-blower comes forward to expose what they did, I’ll be worth millions and millions of dollars. And they are worried now, because they never thought I would come back. They figured people would have forgotten me.

Quite frankly, you can’t tell, unless you go to the ballot box, but the truth of the matter is that I’m probably more powerful now nationally than 90% of the United States Congress. And I now make this statement: I don’t see a member of Congress who is probably as well known philosophically as I am. There may be those who names are well known because they have big important jobs in Congress, but few know what they stand for.

Most politicians wake up in the morning, brush their teeth, shave, comb their hair, put on their clothes and then go to the window to watch which way the mob is moving. Then they go pick up their trenchcoat and go out and lead the mob, no matter what direction it is going.

And that’s the problem with this country. This country is on automatic pilot and being controlled by interests that are not even American.

We have the best Congress that Japan ever had, the best Congress China ever had, the best Congress Israel ever had, the best Congress Mexico ever had, the best Congress illegal immigrants ever had.

You’ve always been in the forefront of fighting injustice. You made a lot of enemies—including both the Justice Department and AIPAC, among others—when you came to the defense of Ukraine-born Cleveland autoworker John Demjanjuk, a naturalized citizen, who was falsely accused by the so-called “Nazi-hunting” unit of the Justice Department of being a concentration camp guard at Treblinka during World War II. Although the U.S. government stripped Demjanjuk of his citizenship and deported him to Israel where he was tried and convicted as a war criminal and sentenced to death, it was your work that got him released. And now he’s facing new charges, many years later, in Germany. Could you reflect on your experiences in the Demjanjuk case?

It’s a travesty and I’m surprised no one has even lifted their voice. Be advised that the original evidence that resulted in the Israeli Supreme Court overturning Demjanjuk’s conviction came from me. It came through a Freedom of Information Act request regarding a man named Feodor Fedorenko, the only man ever tried for war crimes at the Treblinka camp in Poland. He was acquitted.

He had been a naturalized American and when he went to Ukraine to visit his family, he was picked up by the Soviet KGB and tried in the old Soviet Union and was executed. There’s no doubt our government arranged that, perpetrated that.

When the Demjanjuk case came up, I couldn’t get anywhere. So I tricked the government. I did a Freedom of Information Act on Fedorenko, and bingo. I was told that there were a hundred pages or so on him and in those pages was the information that led to Demjanjuk being cleared of the charges and the dropping of the death sentence against him.

And remember that 17 people testified in the Demjanjuk case and identified him as the concentration camp guard known as “Ivan theTerrible”—IvanMarchenko—a man who was taller than Demjanjuk, had black hair, not blonde hair, was nine years older and had a scar on his
neck.

Then when I went on the House floor and revealed that I had a photo of the real Ivan, the Justice Department turned around and claimed that there were two Ivans.

Well, let me tell you about the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). No one in Congress would accept the evidence I had clearing Demjanjuk nor would they agree to hold a hearing regarding the activities of the Justice Department in this case. Demjanjuk had been stripped of his citizenship and he was scheduled to be executed in Israel. No one in the government of the United States would listen to the evidence.

I tried to put it before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinatti and they would not accept the evidence. So Demjanjuk’s attorney placed my evidence before the Israeli Supreme Court and they asked me to go over.

I went over. I payed my own way. While I was there, Bryant Gumbel of the Today show on NBC interviewed me and I said, “If they put this man to death, Israel is going to lose $20-25 billion a year from the American taxpayers.”

He said, “What do you mean, Congressman? Israel only gets $3 billion a year from the U.S.”

And I reminded him that $3 billion is $5,000 a year for every man, woman and child who lives in Israel (although, of course, that money goes to the Israeli government).

That’s from the foreign aid appropriations bill. However, when you look at the loans to Israel that are converted to grants, economic assistance, military assistance, trade pacts, Israel gets the equivalent of $30-35,000 a year for every man, woman and child in Israel. And my people in my district who are working 40 hours a week aren’t making that much money in Youngstown, Ohio.”

Gumbel’s response was “Thank you, congressman. Thank you.”

That night I got a phone call. Demjanjuk was being released and was going to be delivered to me to take him home from the Tel Aviv airport. I have to give Israel credit. They accepted the evidence and our government wouldn’t. Our congress wouldn’t and our courts wouldn’t, but Israel did. They knew that our government perpetrated one of the greatest crimes in history and as soon as I got Demjanjuk back to the United States, the Sixth Circuit Court issued a statement saying that this case was a tragic but
honest mistake by the government.

No one in the Justice Department ever faced charges for this. They knew that Demjanjuk wasn’t “Ivan the Terrible.” The documents I used to convince the Israelis to free Demjanjuk came from the Justice Department.
Now the Justice Department went after Demjajunk again but this time Israel wouldn’t try him. Israel didn’t want someone like Jim Traficant—if such a person existed—to start questioning the case. Well, now Traficant is out of jail and he is questioning the new case.

So now Germany is trying Demjanjuk for being a guard at another concentration camp, Sobibor. The truth of the matter is that if the government was proven to be so reckless and criminal in a previous action, how can they warrant any serious consideration in the current case. They were embarrassed the first time so now they are determined to hurt Demjanjuk and show the world that he was some kind of Nazi.

The truth is that Demjanjuk was taken prisoner by the Nazis and while the Germans did put guns in the hands of some of their prisoners and made to act as perimeter guards (under the threat of death) even if that was the case, those men shouldn’t be charged.

Well, now that I am out of prison, they are concerned. [People who have heard me on television speaking out] are starting to say, “Hey, wait a minute. This guy Traficant is right. We are bankrupt. We are involved in areas that are very questionable. Do they have this kind of control?”

Look at China. Look at Japan. China is taking $350 billion a year plus out of our economy. They are buying tanks, attack aircraft, nuclear submarines—building them with our money.

Look at our foreign aid. Forget about Israel. We gave $98 million last year to North Korea to convince them to slow down their nuclear development. What do you think they are using that $98 million for?

We gave $58 million to Russia so they would strive toward the word of law. I’ve got to say, “Beam me up” here. Here in Youngstown we have the Delphi workers, formerly Packard and General Motors. The salaried workers lost all their pensions and the hourly workers have to pay for their health insurance now. It’s a $160 million impact on our community. And look at the ripple effect and the other losses of jobs that will subsequently come, it will be a $250 million loss every year. But we can’t get a bit of help for our own people.

You’ve also been focused on the tax issue for a long time. You’ve been a major critic of the IRS and few politicians dare to do that.

The tax code is at the root of the problems we have in America today. We have a communist Marxist-Leninist tax policy in America. People don’t want to believe that, but it’s the truth. The predicate of the Marxist economic platform was a progressive income tax aimed at the so-called wealthy. But the truth of the matter is that the wealthy can avoid payment of taxes and they do, legally. So they are also taking jobs offshore since this tax code has destroyed America’s commerce.

You can’t fix the system. It’s got to be replaced. We should repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and abolish the Internal Revenue Service and institute a fair tax which would be a 25 percent retail sales tax, new retail sales only.

The chairman of the economic department at Harvard did a study that said this would be revenue-neutral, that it would raise the same amount of money our tax system now does and there would probably be no appreciable increase in prices, because if you take the burden of the current tax code off the backs of the companies that have all of these headaches dealing with it, they would be able to reduce prices for consumers. It would be the first border adjusted tax in our history. It’s not protectionism. If you buy an American car, it’s a 25 percent tax. If you buy a foreign car, it’s a 25 percent tax.

But there should be no taxes on savings or investment, no death tax, no capital gains tax. There would be no more withholding on salaries. This tax encourages you to work. The more you work, the more you make. The more you spend the more you pay in taxes.

When people come from Germany and Japan to visit Las Vegas, they will be contributing to our tax system. Illegal aliens who exist outside the income tax system would also now be paying and contributing. And look at the massive underground economy involving narcotics here in this country. They don’t pay income taxes, but they do spend money and a 25% retail sales tax would impact them and they would contribute to the system.

No more April 15. No more tax forms. Get the government the Hell out of our lives.Thirty-five states already collect a sales tax. Ninety-five percent of retail sales are conducted by big retailers. Only five percent are conducted by small business in America. People don’t realize that. Our troops are over in Germany and Japan and spending their money over there. If we had our troops here at home on our wide-open borders they would be spending their money here at home.

That brings up the issue of immigration. You’ve been up front and outspoken on that issue for a long time, saying things that a lot of politicians—both Democrats and Republicans—are afraid to say.

I’ve been called “racist” and “anti-Semitic”— everything—but I’m not. Here’s what I think: If you are in this country illegally, you shouldn’t get health care. You should be thrown the Hell out. My family were all immigrants—legal immigrants. If you come here illegally, we don’t want you in our schools and our emergency rooms.

We need an agreement with Mexico that they understand. We want the troops on the border to keep narcotics out of this country. And I’m not just talking about the southern border. I’m also taking about our northern border. Terrorists could smuggle the components of a nuclear weapon across the border and fire it off at New York. If that’s not a national security issue, I want to know what it is.

Now that there’s a growing Hispanic vote in this country and Congress is conscious of this. They try to make it look at though I am against Hispanic people. But I’m not. Hispanic Americans are being hurt with these policies
themselves. And the Black community is being pushed further to the back of the bus because the Hispanic vote is growing and politicians are catering to them.

So now they are saying that we should at least allow them to buy health insurance. Imagine this: if the policy and framework of a legislative initiative is “They are here and they should be allowed to buy,” it’s obvious they don’t want to throw the illegal aliens out. How much more bankrupt can America be?

Here’s where I want to just cut the line. It may sound strict and severe, but if a woman is pregnant and comes to America illegally and has a child, that child is an American citizen. This sounds harsh but I don’t think that child should be considered a citizen. And the mother and the child should be sent back to where they came from.

There’s only way to enforce our border and immigration security. If you build walls, they’ll build tunnels. We have a massive Army that we are paying all of this money and our soldiers are all over the globe and involved in wars that aren’t in our interests.

Put those troops on our borders. Rotate those troops every six months.America would be protected: our citizens, our resources, our assets would be protected. And we will utilize our resources for American citizens. We’re bankrupt and we can’t keep taking care of everybody all over the world. We have this foreign aid, but we’ve got Americans sleeping on steel grates.

Critics say this is a shallow, simplistic way of looking at things, but it is the truth. We’re too involved all over the world. I remember reading that some senator once said that if we don’t start taking care of the home front, we are going to end up destroying ourselves. And that was a debate on the floor of the Roman senate.

There was also a famous person in world history who said, “Let China sleep, for if China ever awakens, the earth shall tremble.” That was Napoleon—way back then. Well, the earth is shaking. The dragon has got hold of our assets— real strong.

I once said in Congress that Russia is a fly in our face. China is a dragon eating our assets. Russia didn’t have much of an economy ever and anytime we ever had any major international problem, Russia basically—with a lot of caveats—stood by the United States. I predict that if anything happens again, Russia will probably side with the United States. But people better take a look at that dragon.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is sponsoring legislation to audit the Federal Reserve System, the privately- controlled banking monopoly that dominates the U.S. money system. Now a lot of members of Congress are jumping on the bandwagon, but long ago, when it wasn’t fashionable, you were out front in criticizing the Federal Reserve.

To most of those members who are supporting Ron Paul’s measure, it is a matter of political expedience. I don’t attribute that to Ron Paul. I believe he’s sincere and his heart is in the right place. I was a little disappointed, by the way, that he voted with the others to expel me from the House of Representatives. I thought he would have looked at that a lot differently and I know that if he had all this information about what really happened in my case he probably would have. I like Ron and he’s a good man.

Quite frankly, they’ll audit the Fed and come out with their revelations and they’ll get their political victory, but the Fed will go on just like it is, with international banking controlling the money of the United States of America. I’m not for auditing the Fed. I’m for abolishing the Fed. The Constitution says that Congress shall coin money. Now the argument is: “You can’t have politicians handling the money of the United States.” But who do we have handling it? International politicians. I would abolish the Fed and put the money back under the control of Congress and putting the money back as it was originally mandated by the Constitution. The Constitution is quite clear.

The Constitution also says Congress “shall regulate” commerce with foreign nations. “Regulate.” What does that mean? Does it mean opening up the doors to cheap foreign imports? It means to weigh the different variables and cost of production, labor and manpower and regulate some mechanism to assure at least our mutual advantage and satisfaction with our trading partners. How can we with all of regulatory burdens in this country compete with a factory in Mexico that pays its employees 35 cents an hour?

What is more important to the commercial venue of a nation than the control of its money? Beam me up. Abolish the Fed. Let the Congress earn their money. Let them do something responsible. We hear that Congress has questioned the Fed or that Congress is worried about what the Fed is doing with interest rates.

Just abolish the Fed and put America in order. The Constitution ain’t bad, although it allowed slavery, treated women like cattle, treated American Indians like non-entities. But over the years the adjustments were made. There’s no doubt in my mind that our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Congress may go on and do what is politically expedient but this expedience may not be in the best interests of the United States of America. And we are in a Hell of a mess for it.

And if you are not in that pantheon of political machination, you are set aside, you are ostracized, you are even expelled and put in prison. I think my particular case is starting to show that this is only the tip of the iceburg.

Remember what happened to Bill Casey, who was CIA director in the Reagan years. All of a sudden he died. What about Vince Foster [who was Bill Clinton’s White House counsel who is said to have committed suicide]? They tried to make Rep. Dan Burton look like a buffoon for questioning the circumstances of Foster’s death. They found all these fibers all over his body and that implied to me, as a former sheriff, that maybe his body had been wrapped in a rug and transported. And I don’t trust the 9-11 commission either. I think they were just like the Warren Commission. They all seem like honorable men, but you can call me a conspiracy nut.

A lot of people don’t believe the criminal charges against you were valid, that you—yourself—were the victim of a frame-up, a conspiracy. People believe that your prosecution was politically-motivated.

What the mainstream media is saying now is that since I did a lot for this area—I brought $1.7 billion into my congressional district over and above normal formula money to rebuild and help this area that was hurting so bad—people don’t care if I did the things that I was accused of doing by the Justice Department. They still love me anyway. That’s the argument they use to downplay the serious legal issues at hand in my case, where perjury was suborned, evidence was withheld and justice was obstructed, every machination used to get an American citizen whose politics were not liked. And I’m beginning now to believe that my politics were feared. You see one man could light a fire and people might start thinking. They’ll try to destroy that one man so he doesn’t look credible.

But there are too many people who know me and respect me and they are saying, “We believe what you say is true. What the Hell are we doing? We’re bankrupt. Enough is enough. We can support Israel but we don’t have to go bankrupt. We can be objective and support our friends but we don’t have to go overboard. What are we doing? We’re embroiled in wars that are bankrupting us and our kids are coming home in bodybags. Our borders are being over-run. Our dollar is in danger. We’re losing currency reserve status in the world. They’ll start trading in the euro or some other currency. What will that do to us?”

I predict that if there is not a direct and intended change in the policies of the United States of America, America will implode. That’s the word that I’ve used before. I see Alaska, with its own revenue sources as a possibility [of breaking away from the United States]. Americans don’t understand that Alaska’s landmass is bigger than almost every European country, save for Russia.

Then look at Texas and the same thing, with Texas and a compact of states down there. What’s happening is that there is a strong dilution of citizenship and demographics, with a tremendous infusion of Hispanic people down there. But you never know. People are starting to get fed up,
paying a massive amount of taxes and don’t know where the money is going. It’s going all around the world, but our borders are still wide open. Their kids are subject to foreign wars. They can’t make a loan but Congress has bailed out the banks. If you want to make a loan, you have to have three dollars in the bank to borrow one.

What the Hell is going on here?

But nobody is articulating it that way. So everybody’s being put to sleep: they’re talking about the environment, health care, etc and no one is looking at the cancer here. You’ve got a $2 trillion dollar plus budget deficit in one year. And now everybody is mad at Jimmy Carter because he’s criticized our policies in the Middle East.

That’s right. They are starting to call Jimmy Carter an “anti-Semite.”

They are starting to defame Jimmy Carter whose heart is probably the best heart of any president ever elected. His fairness could never be questioned. Now we might question some of those policies he had on economics, with those massive interest rates, but in all fairness to Carter, in his last year he had the budget deficit down to $90 billion and there was no trade deficit. He had a balanced trade scenario. So you can knock Jimmy Carter all you want.

There was pain and pressure in the economy from the high interest rates and the bankers were certainly making a fortune. But the truth is that you had massive foreclosures, you had American turmoil, but America was bankrupting through the bankrupt mechanism of law and reconstructing and reconfiguring, but now what you have is you are just giving away money.

If you’ve got a problem, here’s some money. If Wall Street has a problem, then here’s money. The news media [says]: “If you don’t do it, things will collapse.”

Donald Trump made a Hell of a statement. I like old Donald. Donald says we have bankruptcy laws. Let the bad bankrupt and let the good survive and worry about the American citizen. Donald Trump was right. He gave a sense of wisdom that everybody should listen to.

But we didn’t do that. We didn’t let our own laws, our own structure, our own government, our own predicate of operations and commercial venue take hold. We are officially subsidized once again. What did we do with the automobile industry? We now have Government Motors. The great General Motors’ CEO is Barack Obama. That’s the way it is. That’s the situation.

We had the cash-for-clunkers program. We subsidized Americans buying cars and it looked good for people who had cars they wanted to get rid of. Are we going to have another cash-for-clunkers program? Are we going to subsidize more sales?

So when we have to subsidize the free enterprise capitalistic system, it no longer exists. It’s a socialistic communist system. What frightens me is that the government has gotten so big and now it’s about to get bigger. I’m not so sure that we shouldn’t have the private sector maintaining industry and the government taking care of those who fall through the safety net, as we always have—and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I can’t see us running all these industries. Government can’t do it. It shouldn’t be done.

We are the [most] socialistic nation in history, for the truth of the matter is that socialism is the redistribution of the wealth and no one redistributes wealth more than the United States of America. So we are a socialist system, augmented by a communist dollar program, a Marxist progressive income tax. Jim Traficant is saying that the income tax system in the United States is a Marxist program, the foundation of the Marxist economic platform.

In addition, I’m saying, the Federal Reserve System should be abolished, not audited, abolished. And Congress should coin money and should put our borders in order and regulate commerce with foreign nations and move to a fair tax which empowers everyone and has everybody pay their fair share; and nobody [would be exempt], including drug dealers, people on the street, the underground economy, illegal immigrants. Everybody pays [with the retail sales tax]. For those people who fall through the safety net, Congress has enough intelligence to promulgate plans and programs within that scheme to take care of them.

What would our Founding Fathers think about big government in
America today?

I think they had a Second Amendment to make sure there would be no strong central government. I don’t believe the Second Amendment was placed in the U.S. Constitution to protect duck hunters. It was to, in fact, make sure that a powerful central government would not be the only entity holding the fire power, that the citizens were empowered, because it was their government.

Is it possible that a government could be totally and completely out of control and beginning to manifest great power and that this power was so awesome that no one could even check it, and that this power was so great that no one could even question it? Could that happen? Not only could it happen, it is evidence in the United States of America
right now. We are in a fix here.

Are either of the major parties doing anything to combat this situation?

I see that both major parties tinkering with and trying to repair a mechanism that needs to be replaced. They are afraid. There is no ingenuity. There is no innovative thought.

Are you going to seek public office again?

I don’t know. Right now I don’t have a job and I’m being supported by my wife. There’s a lot of people here who want me to run. My old district was divided up after I left office, so if I were going to run again, I’d have to decide where to run.

Another factor is that I’m not going to get any [campaign contributions] if I do run. People are afraid to give me money, because if you give me money, you have the IRS come and audit you if your name appeared on any of my campaign finance reports.

I mean, I was targeted big time. If I did run, I’d have trouble raising money and I’ve the institutional press against me. You would have the Democratic Party which would join forces against me and try to knock me out. I’ve always been a Democrat, even though I’ve always been independent and voted for what’s best. So I really don’t know.

And while I have been speaking before some of the “tea party” groups and they are just opposing what the government has screwed up, but I don’t think that they have come with what I consider to be an advocacy for a program of what they sponsor, but I think they are starting to promulgate plans around those lines. I’ve even been invited by a group of Republicans to speak.

Among the people, I’m more or less seen as an American [rather than being identified with a particular political party or program]. I’m seen differently by a lot of people in this country. Although I ran as a Democrat, I didn’t always vote as a Democrat in Congress. If I thought their program was weak and it wasn’t good for the country, I didn’t vote for it. The same thing for the Republicans: I thought if the Republicans had a good idea, I’d support it. I think that’s the way it should be. I’ve never been endeared with the Democratic leadership. The Democratic leadership right now— well, I don’t know where they are going.

So I don’t know. I have a lot of groups that are saying I should throw my hat in on a national level and that if more people heard me that it would really start focusing on the circumstances of our government.

Source: American Free Press