AIPAC: Inside America's Israel lobby

How Big Business Has Taken Control Of The US Government

Courtesy Of: Democracy Now
Host: Amy Goodman
Guest: Ralph Nader

What are the consequences of lifting financial regulations and allowing big businesses to accumulate power without limits? What about launching a full-scale invasion that leads to years of endless war? Some pundits echo the voices of their governments, egging them on towards their special interests. Others dissent—and later say, “I told you so.”

Former presidential candidate and Nation contributer Ralph Nader joins Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! to discuss his new book, Told You So: The Big Book of Weekly Columns, a compilation of his columns from over the years and the social marginalization of those who predict catastrophes from the beginning.

The White House That Never Was

By Zeke J Miller

In the months before the 2012 election, a group of high-powered consultants and political operatives prepared a secret report for candidate Mitt Romney, explaining how he should take over and restructure the federal government should he win the presidency.

“The White House staff is similar to a holding company” read one PowerPoint slide, which would have been presented to President-elect Romney as part of an expansive briefing on the morning after Election Day. It went on to list three main divisions of the metaphorical firm: “Care & Feeding Offices,” like speechwriting, “Policy Offices,” like the National Security Council, and “Packaging & Selling Offices,” like the office of the press secretary. This was the view of the Presidency Romney would have brought with him to Washington, a glimpse of the White House that never was — and plan that never saw the light of day.

But now the secret is out. On May 29, the Romney Readiness Project, the Republican candidate’s transition organization known as R2P,  published a 138-page report detailing how it prepared for a potential Romney victory. It is the product of a team of nearly 500, who labored in Washington and around the country to be ready to help Romney assume the reins of power on January 20th, 2013, in accordance with the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010.

The non-profit R2P, Inc., chaired by former Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt and run by former General Motors chief financial officer Christopher Liddell, benefited from free rent and other federal support, and drew heavily from the business and consulting community Romney, a former consultant and private equity executive, knew so well.

Among the recommendations for the Romney administration:

• Corporate-style training seminars were planned for appointees and nominees before the inauguration to teach management skills.
• A plan to restructure White House operations to suit Romney’s corporate management style, with clear deliverables.
• Detailed flow charts delineating how information and decisions were disseminated through the administration to achieve “unity.”
• Plans to evaluate Cabinet secretaries’s performance by “systematically assessing the efforts of their departments in contributing to [Romney's] priorities and objectives, perhaps by a newly created  ”deputy chief of staff for Cabinet oversight.”

More than 100 detailed one-page project management sheets were in circulation at R2P headquarters by Election Day, charting the organization’s progress and preparing for the run-up to inauguration. Movements for Romney, his wife Ann, and Vice President-elect Paul Ryan were heavily choreographed for the days following the election, and many campaign staffers were told to prepare to assume roles on the transition immediately following a victory. (All were guaranteed a job on either the transition or the inaugural committee.) A painstakingly prepared seating chart and floor plan was developed for Romney, his aides, and transition staff across three floors of the Mary E. Switzer Building in downtown Washington, ready for the rapid post-election expansion.

R2P also prepared a detailed plan for Romney’s first 200 days in office—a list including preparations to repeal Obamacare, develop a tax reform plan, and roll back federal regulations, all in accordance with the Romney campaign’s policy agenda and his campaign promises
.

Even before the election, hundreds of staffers held table-top practice drills to game out how they would parachute into federal agencies to learn the ropes and explore policies and procedures for the new administration to change. Another team would work in “the bunker,” a secure room in the federal office building housing the transition where potential Cabinet and senior staff nominees and appointees were vetted. By Election Day, nearly 20 researchers and lawyers had prepared Romney to select his entire Cabinet and more than 25 senior White House staffers, as well as deputies for key departments and agency heads.

More than 20,000 pages of vetting material had been gathered awaiting Romney’s sign-off—so many documents that they had to be transported to Boston from the transition’s Washington, D.C. headquarters by train since they wouldn’t fit in the overhead compartments on the US Airways shuttle.  (The documents were deemed too sensitive to put in checked luggage).

But ultimately it was all for naught, and the report now only a potential blueprint for the 2016 presidential nominees. A White House spokesman did not respond when asked if Obama’s team had reviewed the transition report for ideas for the second term.

The full slideshow outlining proposed restructuring of the Romney White House follows below:

From Colony To Nation To Israel's Slave

By Michael Scheuer
Courtesy Of "Non-Intervention"

As Americans fixate on the presidential campaign, they also should note the status of President Obama and Governor Romney. Yes, both are presidential candidates, but both are also men who — with their predecessors and the Congress — have willingly surrendered American sovereignty and independence to Israel and its U.S.-citizen advocates (Jewish and Evangelical), their organizations, and much of the media.

In return for campaign contributions and positive media coverage, Obama and Romney have enslaved themselves and their country to Israel and some few thousands of disloyal Jewish-Americans and their equally disloyal Christian Evangelical allies. One has to wonder whether Obama and Romney refer to Israel’s prime minister as “Massa’ Benyamin,” or whether they shuffle and pull their forelocks when groveling for money from Israel’s Jewish-American and Evangelical operatives.

If independence and sovereignty mean anything for a national government, they mean that that government alone decides whether or not the country it governs will go to war. In the United States, more specifically, its means — constitutionally — that the Congress will decide via a formal vote whether it will declare war on behalf of the American people, who once upon a time were its constitutional masters. This is, at any rate, how the Founders meant the process to work.

Both houses of the craven U.S. Congress, however, have long since illegally delegated that decision to the president, and our current president regards the Congress with such contempt that he looks first to the UN to see if it is okay for him to bomb hell out of a country like Libya or some other offending party. If on the issue of war-making Israel has become America’s master — and it has, despite Obama’s cowardly ducking of a face-to-face with Massa’ Benyamin — the UN surely is becoming its overseer. Congress, at day’s end, simply and unquestioningly pays for the U.S. troops who go off to die in wars that have nothing to do with protecting genuine U.S. national interests, but do please Israel, the UN, or some figment of those militarist viragoes Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Rice, as well as of the pro-war boys McCain and Graham, such as the “democratic and human-rights-loving Libyan and Syrian freedom fighters.”

So each of us can vote as we see fit in November, but we all should recognize that neither candidate intends to restore U.S. sovereignty and independence. As president, either man will take America to war with Iran — Obama just wants it after 6 November — because that is what Israel and its U.S.-citizen advocates want. Iran, of course, poses no direct military threat to the United States, but it will exact a fierce and bloody revenge after we and Israel attack by using the intelligence/terrorist surrogates it has long maintained in the United States for just such a response. Iran’s response likewise will wreck much of what remains of the U.S. economy by disrupting the oil-tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf and perhaps elsewhere.

And all of this pain for what? Another unjustifiable and ahistorical reliance on air power to do what it has never done and cannot do without nuclear weapons — win a war. And so we will have yet another unfinished and lost war that will further stoke the fires of the aggressive cultural war both U.S. political parties are waging on the Islamic world.

When America was part of Britain’s Empire, Americans — as loyal British subjects — had no choice but to be at war when the British Crown was at war. In the two-plus centuries since we won independence from Britain, we have declined in manliness, commonsense, and allegiance to our Constitution to the point where we will go to war at the behest of a foreign nation and in direct violation of U.S. national interests. In addition, our major mainstream and cable networks use the public’s airwaves to routinely act as agents of a foreign power by supporting Israel’s prime minister against the U.S. president, while disloyal American citizens enthusiastically corrupt the U.S. political system in support of Israeli interests, Evangelical fanaticism, and the one-world fantasies of the super-national and super-corrupt UN. … Who knows, perhaps we were better off with the Crown. It fought often, but only for genuine British interests.

Who Is The Client State?

By Stanley Kutler
Courtesy Of "The Huffington Post"

Benjamin Netanyahu pointedly assailed his presumed ally, the Obama administration, over its reluctance to set "red lines" to prevent Iran from any further uranium enrichment program. 

Exactly which regime change does Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have in mind -- Iran's or that of the United States, specifically with the ascent of his old/new pal Mitt Romney to the White House? 

Romney blatantly is willing to outsource the making of our Israel policy allowing Netanyahu to advance his agenda, an agenda not only not ours, but probably not a majority of Israelis'. Like everything else, Netanyahu's policies are always subordinated to his political needs. He lost his office once before, losing the microphone and perks he so cherishes. He is determined not to allow that again.

We need not look back too far in history to realize the danger of handing blank checks to client states. In 1914, the lights went out all over Europe as its nations embarked on a war that eventually spread to the rest of the world, lasting until 1945. The war resulted when the Great Powers, England, Germany, and Russia, blindly supported the extremist ambitions of their feeble client nations, Serbia and Austria. The long-range results were catastrophic, far beyond any anticipated, including the Holocaust, which Netanyahu twists into an all-purpose rationalization for Israeli behavior. 

Netanyahu's remarks smack of his usual political opportunism and willingness to interfere in American domestic affairs. This is from a man who supposedly understands the United States. 

Netanyahu's own political problems are myriad, with his willingness to appease the extreme right-wing and racist allies in his coalition, the settlers, and a collection of war hawks, eager to stand up to the United States, suffering as they do from their perceived client status. Probably a majority of Israelis are reluctant to attack Iran, but that is not the nature of Israeli politics. The prime minister stirs the pot to maintain his political alliances. Such is his definition of leadership. The usual suspects of American allies, Senators Joseph Lieberman, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham, sing in the Romney chorus, with Lieberman proclaiming that this will seal the deal for Obama to lose Florida. 

Make no mistake: domestic politics are very much in play. The White House hurriedly announced that the president had spoken with the prime minister for an hour "as part of their ongoing consultations." We received the usual boilerplate confirming American determination to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and they agreed to continue their "close consultations." The statement gratuitously concluded that Netanyahu never requested a meeting with Obama in Washington. What a wonderful way to invoke "plausible deniability." 

In measuring the political calculus, Israel is no different than we. Friends and opponents alike threaten Netanyahu. He plays his moral authority and a stiff neck to the Americans to overcome any criticism. Dan Meridor, Netanyahu's deputy prime minister for intelligence and atomic affairs, and certainly no peacenik, bluntly undercut the PM, telling Israeli Army radio, "I don't want to set red lines or deadlines for myself." The Kadima opposition leader, Shaul Mofaz, strongly criticized the Prime Minister but some of his party members worried he may have gone too far and cost the party votes. After all, as one said, Netanyahu is more popular than Obama in Israel.

Netanyahu is coming to the United States ostensibly to address the UN; of course he and his American supporters wanted the legitimacy of a White House meeting. Why else would Netanyahu come to the United States? To speak to all of his close friends and allies at the UN, who tuned him out long ago? Sheldon Adelson, his best money friend, is in Las Vegas. The trip to New York is hardly a subtle provocation. It deserves the back of the president's hand, and not such a polite one.

Dennis Ross, the American special envoy to the Middle East for many years, in his book, The Missing Peace, quotes President Bill Clinton as telling his aides after his first meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in July 1996 that "he thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires." 

As Israel has isolated itself further from the international community, they have mostly themselves to blame. But the United States likewise has much to answer for because of its long-standing indulgence of extreme Israeli views, and worse yet, to their small, well-financed, well-placed, and shrill supporters in the United States. Why is the Obama administration so diffident toward Ross, an AIPAC man, who periodically doubles as the president's Middle Eastern adviser, or even to the deservedly out of power neo-con crowd, including Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, et al. Why are they so fearful of Eric Cantor, AIPAC's favorite Capitol Hill shill? 

The Israeli prime minister's blustering demands for his way while threatening the possibility of Israel's annihilation -- or, in one of his more inelegant statements, the prospect of "Auschwitz" -- is a false choice. Israel remains militarily powerful; its economy is innovative and prosperous; and it has American guarantees for its security, not to mention a treasure of aid and bribes. Netanyahu would be well advised to look to his own "tsouris," and deal with the blood sport of Israeli politics rather than meddle in ours.

Netanyahu should reflect on what he wishes for. His postures have provoked unprecedented critical American media reaction, focusing on matters rarely raised, including the American military's forceful opposition in 2006, and again this year, to any military action against Iran, or in any way enabling an Israeli attack. The media now reports the opposition within Israeli intelligence and military circles to any attack on Iran because Israel lacks the bomb power, and even if it did, the Iranians only would rebuild. They offer a withering critique of Netanyahu's blatant interference in U.S. domestic politics, and they tell of the Netanyahu's egomaniacal press "conferences," which brook no opposition or criticism. Altogether, a rather refreshing moment which should give Netanyahu real pause.

For nearly seven decades, American Jews have walked a fine line on the issue of dual loyalties. One thing is certain: they will not support Israel or any nation that so blatantly interferes in our domestic affairs. On the whole, they have managed that line quite well, acknowledging at once their emotional attachment to the Land of Israel, supporting its militarily and needs, probably beyond what actually may be needed, and they have created a lobby that rivals the force and power of the NRA. Yet American Jews are on record as opposing the harsh brutality of the occupation -- except when AIPAC or the likes of the Israeli government overwhelms their voice. They have accepted the dubious support of fundamentalist Christians, even those whose root ideology favors the return of all Jews to Israel to ensure the Second Coming. Polls consistently reveal that American Jewry's doubts about American policy to Israel is marginalized in single figures. Any charge of disloyalty simply cannot hold water.

So, will Netanyahu now force American Jews to choose between the stakes and interests of their own government, or his own political needs and ambitions? Who can doubt the outcome? 

Obama Changes Middle Name To Convince Jews He Is Not Muslim

By Frank Scott

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jul 21, 2010, 00:12

Courtesy Of "The Online Journal"

After publicly stating that he feared his middle name was causing many Jews to be suspicious of him as being a Muslim, the president has changed it from Hussein to Schmulka.

“I believe that by taking this ancient and honored Jewish name I can once and for all convince my very few lunatic Jewish detractors who logically feared that I might be a Muslim because of my other hate-speech name which I will no longer use and will hereafter be referred to as the “H” name, that I am truly devoted to Jews and Israel, as I have always been since long before this necessary name change.

“Further, to convince some of my good lunatic friends on the right that I am not now nor have I ever been a socialist and have a lifelong dedication to capitalism, my two daughters are having dollar signs tattooed on their arms and I will proudly wear an American flag pin with a large dollar sign over my heart. I hope that in this spirit of bipartisan citizenship I can help bring Americans together in unity that crosses lines of race, creed, bankroll or intelligence and we can move on to make this country once again a beacon of light in a dimming universe with food for thought for the intellectually hungry and for people who need to stand up and be proud of what they once were but still are and when the day is done we can all join hands and say free at last free at least, thank God almighty and whatever . . .”

At this point the president stopped as the assembled Washington press corps spontaneously broke down into hysterical weeping at this emotional display by this most emotionally spellbinding orator in the history of American presidents who engage in spellbinding oratory. There were a few laughs coming from the back of the pressroom, but these were journalists from foreign countries representing the overwhelming majority of the global population, so who cares?

Copyright © 2010 Frank Scott. All rights reserved.

Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in print in the Coastal Post and The Independent Monitor and online at the blog Legalienate.
 

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Can The Government Keep Us Safe?

By Andrew P. Napolitano
Courtesy Of Lew Rockwell

What a week we have all just endured! While the Democrats were re-writing the federal takeover of healthcare behind closed doors, the public face of the federal government was fixated on denying and then explaining all the gaps in its intelligence gathering. The Obama administration has been finger-pointing over who in the government let a murderous thug on a plane in Amsterdam that he tried to explode over Detroit. First, the government said that the system worked. Then the President said it didn’t. Then he announced that the intelligence communities and security people would start to talk to each other so the bad guys could be kept out. Weren’t they supposed to be doing this all along?

At Newark Liberty Airport last Sunday, a TSA agent left his post, and a young man walked past it to kiss his girlfriend good-bye. Then the young man turned and left the secured area and left the airport. So far no harm, no foul. But because the government’s surveillance cameras in the airport didn’t work, the feds panicked and ordered over 10,000 passengers to leave the terminal, go out into the 15-degree Newark, NJ cold at night, and then re-enter the airport. Flights were delayed and missed, kids did not get to school on Monday morning, and soldiers were listed as AWOL. All because the government overreacted to a kiss. This humiliated the feds: New Jersey's 86-year-old senior Senator Frank Lautenberg demanded that the guy who kissed his gal be hunted down and prosecuted because of the chaos he caused. He caused? Let’s see; the government has cameras that watch us every time we scratch our noses, and when those cameras don’t work, the government blames the person whose picture it was supposed to be taking? Come on.

All this, of course, brings out the false argument of liberty versus security. And we hear it from the Progressives that the government must take our freedoms in order to keep us safe. That’s hogwash. Freedom is our birthright. It doesn’t come from the government; it is part of our humanity. America is the only country in the history of the world dedicated to the truism that we are endowed by our Creator, as Jefferson wrote, with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government has forgotten basic civics: "Endowed by our Creator" means that our rights come from God and not from the feds. "Inalienable" means that we and our freedoms cannot be separated, unless and until we are convicted by a jury of violating someone else’s rights. What is the value of being safe if we are not free? Did our forefathers flee the kings and despots of Europe and come here to be safe? Did Patrick Henry say "Give me safety or give me death?" Here is the mistake that the Big Government crowd wants to thrust upon us: They want to balance liberty and safety. There is no such thing as balance when it comes to freedom. We will not trade freedom for anything, or balance it against anything, and we certainly won't give it up to the TSA.

Can the government keep us safe? I don’t think so. Airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, cockpit doors are like bank vaults, and the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals in the private sector, not by the government. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe – by keeping and bearing arms – 9/11 would never have happened. How about letting the airlines decide who gets on the planes, rather than a TSA worker who leaves his post? When industry competes for your business, you fly where you want to go, you get there in comfort and safety, and you do all this at a competitive cost. When the government runs the show, you stand in the cold night air for six hours because of a kiss. The government can’t deliver the mail, it can’t operate surveillance cameras at an airport; it can't pay back its debts; it can't tell the truth. That would be the same government that wants to manage your healthcare.

America, do you see what happens when we rely on the government too much? It gets authoritarian and we get weak. Our children grow to expect from the government what we once did for ourselves. Government is a fearful master. It is not faithful to us; it is not truthful to us; it can’t produce for us. It doesn’t obey its own laws; it doesn’t keep us safe; and it won’t leave us alone. It is mortgaging our futures, raising our taxes, and treating us all like children.

What to do? Challenge it at every turn. Expose it to friend and foe. Educate all you know about what you see and hear every day on this show. And return no one to the government who has stolen your freedom.

And one other thing: The God who gave us life also gave us liberty. He loves us. Praise Him from the roof tops, and ask Him to save us from a government that is out of control.

January 11, 2010

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His next book is Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, (Nelson, 2010).

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Middle East's Master Pimp

By Yvonne Ridley
December 27, 2009 "ICH" Cairo - December 26, 2009
Courtesy Of "Information Clearing House"

The activities of the rent boys who parade up and down Al-Shawarby Street in Cairo provide a good metaphor for the relationship the Egyptian Government has with Israel and the US.

Both are quite shameless and ruthless; prepared to do whatever it takes to please ... in order to secure a fistful of dollars.

But at least the man whores of Al Shawarby are honest about their trade as they eagerly hustle potential customers.

Yes, they are shameless but so is the Egyptian Government as it continues to enforce the brutal siege in Gaza for Israel's pleasure and America's dollars.

The tears it sheds for the besieged people of Gaza are crocodilian.

And today the government stands before its people completely naked, without honour as the last fig leaf of decency floats despairingly to the ground.

I am making this rather crude analogy as I sit in my hotel room over-looking the River Nile. The view is breath-taking and just 50 yards away is the Egyptian Museum which reveals a rich history of a once great country.

The buildings around are decrepit, rundown like much of the country.

But I haven't sat down to give you a travel report. I am one of 1400 peace activists from across the world who is trapped in Cairo unable to move forward to take part in the Gaza Freedom March planned for New Year's Day. Most of us answered the rallying call of the US peace activist group Code Pink.

Meanwhile another shameful drama is unfolding just a few hundred miles away as life-long Palestinian supporter George Galloway sits trapped in the port of Aqaba as his latest Viva Palestina convoy has been stopped from moving forward.

The British MP's convoy of 250 vehicles and hundreds more supporters has been prevented from leaving Jordan with its much needed aid.

Why? Because America and Israel have told Egypt not to let a single vehicle or peace activist pass through its country to the Rafah border and in to Gaza where an entire population is suffering beyond belief and, it seems, beyond humanitarian relief.

So why doesn't Egypt tell Washington and Tel Aviv to get stuffed? For exactly the same reason a rent boy will do as his master tells him ... hard cash.

Proof? Exactly two years ago under the Bush Administration, both houses of US Congress agreed to withhold 100 million dollars in financial assistance to Egypt following Israeli claims that Egyptian authorities were failing to prevent weapons smuggling to the Gaza Strip. Egypt receives nearly two billion dollars in US aid making it the second largest recipient of US largesse after Israel, which receives three billion dollars a year in military assistance.

And now the Middle East's most active rent boy has a new master pimp - Barack Obama - although his White House enforcers have made sure the same house rules apply.

Now while the Egyptian Government might bend over backwards - or just bend over - the real enforcers will find Viva Palestina and the Gaza Freedom Marchers far less compliant.

We have traveled from more than 40 different countries to Cairo while others have driven thousands of miles to Aqaba to show our solidarity to the people of Gaza - we represent the largest gathering of international solidarity activists in the history of the Middle East.

Using the pretext of escalating tensions on the Gaza-Egypt border, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said that the Rafah border will be closed over the coming weeks. Our message to the politicians is crystal clear: "Let us enter Gaza and let the Gaza Freedom March proceed."

Quite simply, you can not buy us. Integrity, freedom and our love for Gaza is not for sale at any price.

Egyptian Security goons have already used fear and intimidation on the management of the venues the Gaza Freedom Marchers have booked, as well as transport companies who contracted buses to carry us from Cairo to Gaza, with the result that these deals have been cancelled.

Egyptian Security even tried to pressurise the management of the Groppi coffee shop on Midan Talaat Harb to shut down while we were organising meetings. Despite warning us that more than six people can not gather in public places our meeting continued.

We will not bow to fear and intimidation but what we will do is increase the pressure on the Rent Boy Government and where injustice is the law resistance is our duty.

And as Malcolm X once said: "Power in defense of freedom is greater than power on behalf of tyranny and oppression."

*British journalist Yvonne Ridley is travelling with Indy film-maker Warren Biggs making a documentary about the Gaza Freedom March. She is a founder member of Viva Palestina and a member of the RESPECT Party. She also presents the Rattansi & Ridley show and The Agenda for Press TV, as well as writes columns for newspapers across the world. Her website is www.yvonneridley.org

How Israel Lobby Took Control Of US Foreign Policy

AIPAC Becomes Foreign Agent Dominating American Foreign Policy While Disguised As Domestic Lobby.

By Jeff Gates
July 19, 2009
Courtesy Of "Information Clearing House"

LOUISIANA - In the early 1960s, Senator William J. Fulbright fought to force the American Zionist Council to register as agents of a foreign government. The Council eluded registration by reorganizing as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has since become what Fulbright most feared: a foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby.

Israelis and pro-Israelis object when they hear that charge. How, they ask, can we so few wield such influence over so many? Answer: it’s all in the math. And in the single-issue advocacy brought to bear on US policy-making by dozens of ‘domestic’ organizations that now compose the Israel lobby, with AIPAC its most visible force.

The political math was enabled by Senator John McCain whose support for all things Israeli ensured him the GOP nomination to succeed Christian-Zionist G.W. Bush. McCain’s style of campaign finance reform proved a perfect fit for the Diaspora-based fundraising on which the lobby relies. Co-sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, this change in federal election law typifies how Israeli influence became systemic.

‘McCain-Feingold’ raised the amount (from $1,000 to $2,300) that candidates can receive from individuals in primary and general elections. A couple can now contribute a combined $9,200 to federal candidates: $4,600 in each of the primary and general elections. Primary elections, usuall low-budget, are particularly easy to sway.

Importantly for the Diaspora, this change also doubled the funds candidates can receive without regard to where those contributors reside. A candidate in Iowa, say, may have only a few pro-Israeli constituents. When campaign support is provided by a nationwide network of pro-Israelis, that candidate can more easily be persuaded to support policies sought by Tel Aviv.

Diaspora-based fundraising has long been used by the lobby with force-multiplying success to shape US foreign policy. Under the guise of reform, John McCain doubled the financial resources that the lobby can deploy to elect and retain its supporters.

Fulbright was Right

The influence-peddling process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth AIPAC interviews. Those found sufficiently committed to Israel’s agenda are provided a list of donors likely to “max out” their campaign contributions. Or the process can be made even easier when AIPAC-approved candidates are given the name of a “bundler.”

Bundlers raise funds from the Diaspora and bundle those contributions to present them to the candidate. No quid pro quo need be mentioned. After McCain-Feingold became law in 2003, AIPAC-identified bundlers could raise $1 million-plus for AIPAC-approved candidates simply by contacting ten like-minded supporters. Here’s the math:

The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say in Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills. Each of them max out ($10 x $9,200) and call ten others for a total of 11. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.]

Imagine the incentive to do well in the AIPAC interview. One call from the lobby and a candidate can collect enough cash to mount a credible campaign in most Congressional districts. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than ten percent of the 435 House races are competitive in any election cycle (typically 35 to 50).

Additional force-multipliers come from: (a) sustaining this financial focus over multiple cycles, (b) using funds to gain and retain seniority for those serving on Congressional committees key to promoting Israeli goals, and (c) opposing any candidates who question those goals.

Jewish Achievement reports that 42% of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish, including four of the top five. That compares to less than 2% of Americans who are Jewish. Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25% are Jewish according to Michael Steinhardt, a key funder of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was led by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman when he resigned in 2000 to run as vice president with pro-Israeli presidential candidate Al Gore.

Money was never a constraint. Pro-Israeli donors were limited only by how much they could lawfully contribute to AIPAC-screened candidates. McCain-Feingold raised a key limit. The full impact of this foreign influence has yet to be tallied. What’s known, however, is sufficient to apply the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Of the top 50 neoconservatives who advocated war in Iraq, 26 were Jewish (52%).

Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, remains one of the more notable recipients of funds. In 1948, he was trailing badly in the polls and in fundraising. His prospects brightened dramatically in May after he recognized as a legitimate state an enclave of Jewish extremists who originally planned to settle in Argentina before putting their sights on Palestine.

That recognition was opposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bulk of the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and numerous distinguished Americans, including moderate and secular Jews concerned at the troubles that were certain to follow. Not until 1984 was it revealed that a network of Jewish Zionists had funded Truman’s campaign by financially refueling his whistle-stop campaign train with $400,000 in cash ($3 million in 2009 dollars).

To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from the Israel lobby’s network is paid to media outlets largely owned or managed by members of the same network. Presidents, Senators and Congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass lasting political influence.

The US system of government is meant to ensure that members of the House represent the concerns of Americans who reside in Congressional districts—not a nationally dispersed network (a Diaspora) committed to advancing the agenda of a foreign nation. Federal elections are meant to hold Senators accountable to constituents who reside in the states they represent—not out-of-state residents or a foreign government.

In practical effect, McCain-Feingold hastened a retreat from representative government by granting a nationwide network of foreign agents disproportionate influence over elections in every state and Congressional district. Campaign finance ‘reform’ enabled this network to amass even more political clout—wielding influence disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.

This force-multiplier is now wielded in plain sight, with impunity and under cover of free speech, free elections, free press and even the freedom of religion. Therein lies the perils of an entangled alliance that induced the US to invade Iraq and now seeks war with Iran. By allowing foreign agents to operate as a domestic lobby, the US was induced to confuse Zionist interests with its own.

Jeff Gates is A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide. Gates’ latest book is Guilt By Association—How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. For two decades, he was an adviser to policy-makers worldwide and Counsel to the US Senate Finance Committee (1980-87)—working with Senator Russell Long of Louisiana.

US, NATO Created 'Parallel' Government

Karzai: US, NATO Have Created 'Parallel Government' That Undermines Afghan Authority

FISNIK ABRASHI
Source: AP News
Nov 26, 2008 09:09 EST
Courtesy Of Wire Dispatch

President Hamid Karzai criticized the U.S. and other foreign countries for creating a "parallel government" in the countryside during a blunt overview of Afghanistan's problems before a U.N. Security Council delegation.

Karzai called Tuesday for the international community to set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan and asked why — given the number of countries involved and the amount of money spent — the Taliban remains so powerful.

"This war has gone on for seven years, the Afghans don't understand anymore, how come a little force like the Taliban can continue to exist, can continue to flourish, can continue to launch attacks," he asked.

With an entire NATO force in Afghanistan and the entire international community behind them, "still we are not able to defeat the Taliban," Karzai told the gathering at his presidential palace.

Karzai — facing re-election next year and making increasing overtures to conservative Afghan tribes most likely to vote for him — has been criticized for being ineffective and weak, while his government was accused of deep-seated corruption.

The president's Tuesday comments appear to be a response to that criticism and lay the blame for the deteriorating security situation and other woes on the international community.

Foreign governments, the United States in particular, have been ramping up military and aid efforts in Afghanistan. The U.S. has some 32,000 troops in the country, but military leaders say up to 20,000 more could be sent to Afghanistan next year.

President-elect Barack Obama has said he will increase America's focus on Afghanistan. Despite that, Karzai for the first time said a timeline for the end of the war needs to be set.

"If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations," Karzai said.

International forces have set up a countryside system of joint military and civilian teams whose primary task is not combat but reconstruction and development. But Karzai said the presence of the so-called provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs, has undermined provincial governments.

"The problem here is, in a diverting play, the presence of the international community has created a parallel government to those such as of the Afghan government that are functioning. The PRTs in certain parts of the country have become a parallel structure to the governor of the province," he told the U.N. team.

Karzai did not elaborate on how the reconstruction teams had created parallel governments, but the significant amount of international aid attached to them would wield substantial influence in impoverished regions.

He also complained that private security companies "have become a parallel structure to the security forces of Afghanistan," employing thousands of Afghans, most with criminal backgrounds, who are "equally as harassing to the Afghan population as Taliban and other terrorist outfits."

An estimated 40,000 private security guards are employed in Afghanistan, a senior NATO official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figure.

Security has deteriorated in Afghanistan since the presidential elections in 2004, because the international community lost focus and allowed the Taliban to regroup and create sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan, which were not addressed until last year, Karzai said.

"Rather than conducting the war against terrorism, and the sanctuaries, we began to conduct this war in the villages of Afghanistan where there were no terrorists," Karzai said. He said bombings and operations in the villages must stop, a demand he has made repeatedly in the face of civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO bombings.

Despite billions of dollars in aid and major construction finished since the a U.S.-led invasion ousted the Taliban in 2001, Karzai said Afghan people have not seen security. He called for more investment to develop and quickly expand the army and police force.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military said its troops killed 25 militants and detained 10 more in operations in the east and south of the country, which are centers of the Taliban-led insurgency.

On Wednesday, troops killed 15 militants and detained four others in a raid on a compound associated with a roadside bombing network in southern Kandahar province, the military said in a statement.

Another 10 militants were killed during raids in eastern Paktia and Paktika provinces on Tuesday, the statement said.

In the south, unknown gunmen killed five Afghan police early Wednesday in the Nad Ali district center in Helmand province, said Dawood Ahmadi, spokesman for the provincial governor. Ahmadi said five police were also missing, and that early reports suggested that some police may have links with the Taliban and could have participated in the attack.

More than 5,500 people — mostly militants — have been killed in insurgency-related violence this year according to an Associated Press tally of figures provided by Afghan and Western officials.

The Pentagon's New Guided Bullet Tech

Pentagon Shoots $22 Million Into Guided Bullet Tech

By Noah Shachtman
November 26, 2008 | 1:27:27 PM
Categories: Ammo and Munitions, DarpaWatch, Guns
Courtesy Of Wired Blog Network

What if a sniper could fire a bullet that changed course in mid-flight, to hit its target? The Pentagon is handing out nearly $22 million to try to find out.

Darpa, the Defense Department's far-out research arm, announced a pair of contracts yesterday, to start designing a super, .50-caliber sniper rifle that fires guided bullets. Lockheed Martin recieved $12.3 million for the "EXACTO" (EXtreme ACcuracy Tasked Ordnance) project, while Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC got another $9.5 million.

If the system works, it'll "provide a dramatic new capability to the U.S. military," Darpa says. "The use of an actively controlled bullet will make it possible to counter environmental effects such as crosswinds and air density, and prosecute both stationary and moving targets while enhancing shooter covertness. This capability would have the further benefit of providing increased accuracy and range while reducing training requirements."

"In other words," Sharon wrote last year, "it would be the ultimate sniper round."

Darpa won't say, publicly, how far, how long, and how accurate they want the new bullets to be -- all that information is classified. But the will say that EXACTO should contain next-gen scope, a guidance system that provides information to direct the projectile," an "actively-controlled .50 caliber projectile that uses this information
for real time directional flight control," and a rifle. "Technologies of interest may include: fin-stabilized projectiles, spin-stabilized projectiles, internal and/or external aero-actuation control methods, projectile guidance technologies, tamper proofing, small stable power supplies, and advanced sighting, optical resolution and clarity technologies."

EXACTO is one of several projects Darpa is developing, to make snipers more accurate, and more deadly. The agency has earmarked $7.5 million for a laser-guided bullet program. Darpa gave Lockheed $2 million for advanced sniper scopes that could boost kill rates by tenfold, or more. If the system works out as planned, it would actually allow snipers to remain virtually invisible, lost in the "heat haze" in between them and their targets. Our own David Hamling called the project the "next war's secret weapon."

ALSO:

• Super Sniper Scope: Next War's 'Secret Weapon'?
• Nanowires vs. Snipers
• Next-Gen Scopes for Can't-Miss Snipers
• Lasers Stop Snipers Before They Fire
• Start for Pentagon Super-Sniper Scopes
• Your Own Personal Sniper Detector
• Pain Ray vs. Snipers
• Mythical Female Snipers Stalk Russians
• Pentagon Wants 50-Caliber Guided Bullets
  

Six For Six

Six consecutive examples of American-backed governments changing their policies and coming to terms with their insurgent foes may not be a pattern.

By Rami Khouri
First Published 2008-10-29,
Last Updated 2008-10-29 12:29:37
Courtesy Of Middle-East-Online

BOSTON -- If you’re keeping score of George W. Bush’s foreign military adventures, under “Somalia” you should probably chalk up another one for the Americans in the “loss” column. But the latest developments in Somalia are not only fascinating for what they tell us about the misconduct of American foreign policy in recent years.

Somalia seems to offer more intriguing evidence about how governments often must come to terms with militias, insurgent forces and other such informal armed groups in countries around the Arab-Asian region -- and the roles these entities play where formal governments appears unable to deliver the basic requirements of statehood.

On October 26, in an agreement in Djibouti brokered by the United Nations, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia and the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS) agreed that the Ethiopian troops who invaded the country two years ago with American support would start to withdraw from the capital of Mogadishu as a prelude to leaving all of Somalia. The two sides also agreed that insurgent troops and the official armed forces would jointly police this battered country which is on the brink of a massive humanitarian disaster.

This is a fragile agreement and could collapse if some of the insurgent groups do not adhere to its ceasefire provisions. Yet the mere fact that the agreement was reached represents another setback for American-backed efforts to use proxy forces to fight against indigenous Islamist forces that have gained strength in many parts of the Arab-Asian region. This seems to be the sixth country in the past two years where United States-supported and -armed governments have had to come to terms with local Islamists who have either challenged the government or built parallel governance systems alongside the official ones.

In Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine and Somalia -- to varying degrees, and in very different contexts -- we have witnessed US-backed governments fight back against Islamist groups, and in some cases -- due to defeat or merely fatigue and stalemate -- make overtures to the opposition to find a modus vivendi that formalizes the role of the insurgents in running the state.

• In Afghanistan, the government has merely broached the idea of talking with the Taliban and has not gone so far as to strike a deal.

• In Lebanon, the Hizbullah-led opposition shares power in the cabinet.

• In Iraq, the United States and the Iraqi government bought off some Islamist and tribal insurgents in order to fight the more onerous Al-Qaeda killers.

• In Pakistan, the army fights some Taliban-friendly Islamists and tribalists, while most of the parliament prefers to talk and strike a deal that ends the domestic fighting and terror.

• In Palestine, Hamas defeated Fateh and now rules in Gaza until they return to a unity government soon, and Hamas also forced Israel to accept a cease-fire as a likely prelude to a prisoner exchange and a longer cease-fire.

Is there a pattern here, or just a string of bad luck for the Legions of Liberty of George Bush and Condi Rice? Perhaps, six instances in a row don’t make a pattern, but neither can these instances be dismissed as unfortunate bad luck for Washington.

A more reasonable assessment would suggest that indigenous forces fighting for what they believe to be their sovereignty and their liberation from foreign invaders or hegemons are more likely to succeed in the end because they tend to fight in their own communities and with greater intensity.

Some of these groups (the Taliban) are totalitarian thugs. Others are legitimate nationalists (Hamas and Hizbullah). And others fall in between. More interesting is the other half of the equation -- the US-backed government forces that fight them, and that ultimately have to change course and strike a deal. The deal-making process is intriguing, partly because in most of these cases it has not worked very well. Its significance is not in the successes, but in the attempts to achieve peace and security through political bargains.

It is too early to tell what will happen in any or all of these cases. All of them, though, confirm yet again the futility of distant powers using foreign armies and local proxies as an instrument of imposing their will on local populations who are usually more inclined to make a deal than to engage in perpetual war.

If the transitional government and the insurgents in Somalia succeed in implementing the cease-fire and working out power-sharing arrangements, they would provide a rare example of how to do this after driving out the foreign forces.

Six consecutive examples of American-backed governments changing their policies and coming to terms with their insurgent foes may not be a pattern. We’ll leave that for the academics.

Let’s just agree that it is a fascinating sequence of six consecutive American-backed governments changing their policies and coming to terms with their insurgent foes.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.

Copyright © 2008 Rami G. Khouri

(Distributed by Agence Global)