Random

The Hate Mongers Among Us – Part 4: Staying on Message to Advance the Narrative

Keeping the “anti-Semitism” theme front-and-center remains essential to advance the hate-monger’s narrative with the assistance of mainstream media.

Thus the Anti-Defamation League criticized the current cover of Time magazine for what ADL President Abe Foxman suggested was a portrayal of Israelis as more interested in making money than in striking a peace accord with the Palestinians.

The article highlighted Israel’s booming real estate market and the pleasure Israelis are taking in late-Summer vacations.

Nevertheless, according to Foxman: “The insidious subtext of Israeli Jews being obsessed with money echoes the age-old anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews care about money above any other interest, in this case achieving peace with the Palestinians.”

Foxman insisted that Managing Editor Richard Stengel issue an apology to readers both for the timing of the article and for calling up old anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money.

As if right on cue, the next day filmmaker Michael Moore jumped into the Islamic Cultural Center debate, arguing that the center should not be near the 911 site but inside it as a way for Muslims to recover their religion from Islamic extremists.

In his branded controversial style, Moore could have left it at that. Instead, he used his assured media profile to relate an account of George Washington’s wish to see Jews receive equal rights.

Impressionistic Warfare

From a psy-ops perspective, the subject matter is secondary to the impressions left with the public. The imbedding of imagery and emotion is the strategic purpose of much of what you see.

For instance, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaking to ABC’s “This Week,” said on September 12^th that the controversy over the site of an Islamic Cultural Center has heightened concerns among Muslims of rising anti-Muslim sentiment, saying he felt there was “growing Islamophobia in this country.”

That’s a foreseeable result of creating widely shared impressions that foster and sustain widely shared beliefs that, in turn, are kept intact with emotional triggers. That’s how the hate-monger narrative progresses in plain sight.

When waging war in the shared field of consciousness, the most powerful weapon is often the power of association. Michael Moore’s film success shows how it’s done.

In his popular Fahrenheit 911, he deployed impressionistic “weaponry” to associate the war in Iraq with “Bush Oil.” How was that done? He showed on film that one of the several dozen siblings of Osama bin Laden served on the board of advisers to the Carlyle Group, an investment banking firm in Washington, D.C.

Also serving on that board was former president George H.W. Bush, the father of George W. Bush. Therefore, by the power of association, the war in Iraq was for “Bush Oil.” Storylines don’t need to true, just plausible. The point of psy-ops is not reality but credibility.

Impressions gain the traction required to advance a storyline—in plain sight.

Consensus beliefs create and sustain a narrative—in plain sight.

Psy-ops succeed when they attract enough eyeballs to misdirect the public’s attention—in plain sight.

Fahrenheit 911 was produced by Miramax, a Disney subsidiary. Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein loudly claimed that Disney reneged on its promise to distribute Moore’s film. Disney chief executive Michael Eisner objected—just as loudly.

The high profile sparing between these two Hollywood titans dragged on for months in mainstream media. By the time the film was released, the interest generated by this “dispute” ensured that Moore’s film opened on a record number of screens for a “documentary.”

At virtually no cost, that public relations ploy helped ensure an international audience for a film that discredited not only the U.S. but also the office of the president. In its practical effect, the Moore film helped ensure there was virtually no mention of how key Zionist goals were advanced by this war—in plain sight.

Real-time Terror

Meanwhile, September 12 news reports highlighted the extradition to France from Egypt of a terrorist who reportedly planned to bomb an Israel Defense Forces event in Paris. Noticeably absent were facts about the timeframe of this threat or even when the arrest was made.

That account provided an opportunity for the chief of French intelligence to make a high profile announcement that the risk of a terrorist attack on France “has never been higher.” This week, the French Senate is scheduled to vote a ban on wearing Islamic veils known as burgas, a vote certain to reinforce The Clash of Civilizations as the consensus narrative

Also on September 12, the leader of Shin Bet announced in Tel Aviv: “Hamas forces in Gaza and the West Bank are engaged in an effort to foil peace talks.” Israel’s domestic security chief told cabinet ministers “threats are due to increase in the near future, as diplomatic developments occur…This isn’t just an estimate but is supported by real intelligence.”

Unmentioned in this volatile mix is the psychology of the hate monger. The purveyors of hate routinely project onto their opponents both their own personality traits (hatred) and, as here, their anticipated agenda. This announcement is far more likely to mean that Shin Bet will stage provocations designed to make it appear that Hamas is the instigator of violence.

For the Zionist agenda to continue in plain sight, peace must be avoided no matter what the cost. Disruption of the peace process, in turn, must plausibly be the work of others. The hate monger must appear to be hated; the aggressor must plausibly appear to be the victim.

Thus the need to portray as anti-Semitic (a hater) those who document the dynamics of how hate-mongers induce hate—in plain sight.

The Assassination of Bibi Netanyahu

Should we see a revival of the U.S. national security apparatus, we will also see a push back against the right-wing extremist coalitions that have long ruled Israel. However, any resistance to the Zionist agenda runs the risk that Israel’s masters of game theory warfare will collapse another government.

That’s how Tel Aviv responded when in June 1963, President John F. Kennedy pressured David Ben-Gurion for inspections of Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. This young president sought to ensure that the Zionists of that era did not start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He foresaw what we now see.

Before JFK’s strongly worded letter could be physically delivered, Ben-Gurion resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. By the time a replacement governing coalition was in place and fully functional, the Kennedy problem had been handled.

In the parlance of national security, that’s called an entropy strategy.

Fast-emerging circumstances suggest the likelihood of a similar strategy, particularly should there emerge any prospect of peace with the Palestinians. As Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman candidly put it, peace is impossible: “not next year and not for the next generation.”

Should “Bibi” pressure his fragile governing coalition for an extension of the “temporary partial freeze” on settlements, members of his nationalist government could withdraw, collapsing the government. Key members of the coalition signaled their intentions on September 12^th by announcing that any extension of the freeze will end the Netanyahu government.

On September 13^th, four Likud Party members threatened to withdraw budget support if the freeze is extended. That threat was issued as Netanyahu departed for peace talks in Sharm el-Sheikh with Palestinian leaders and U.S. Secretary of State Clinton.

The recurring possibility of governmental collapse has long given Tel Aviv leverage over peace talks sought by the U.S. That era may soon draw to a close if our national security apparatus is now guiding U.S. foreign policy. To date, our elected officials have proven themselves unable to navigate through the manipulations often deployed by Israel to stymie agreement on the terms of a peace accord.

Tel Aviv knows the power that the perception of political vulnerability offers in negotiations. When the game theory dynamics of Israeli psy-ops are fully grasped, that leverage will quickly dissipate as negotiators realize they have long been manipulated. That makes the duplicity personal.

The key barrier to realization is the fast-fading belief among policy-makers in the U.S. and the E.U. that Israel is an ally and a friend rather than a sophisticated foe skilled at using deception to leverage its small numbers to great effect.

Though collapse is one possible strategy, Bibi may instead be assassinated.

The threads of a plausible storyline were laid in a September 9^th article on Haaretz.com where he was compared to French president Charles de Gaulle against whom French nationalists staged numerous assassination attempts.

Either approach would inject enough entropy into the peace process to sustain the Palestinian conflict and extend the occupation yet again.

Either strategy would strengthen the hand of the hate-mongers as settlers build another 19,000 homes and U.S. legislators continue to pretend that the Zionist state is a victim of anti-Semitism rather than a serial agent provocateur.

John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil (Part 14)

John McCain – A Closer Look at Evil (Part 8)

You can tell a lot about a Senator by how he treats his staff. McCain is a serial abuser.

During my seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, I heard lots of scuttlebutt about how staffers are treated.

I had no direct contact with McCain until June 2010 at a Town Hall meeting in Tempe for us constituents. His office was here in 1982 when organized crime first put him in Congress.

He moved to the Senate in 1987, just as I was leaving. I know his type by the consistency of his conduct.

Though he’s clearly abusive as a person, he’s also indictable as an asset for performing as the reliably pliable pawn of a foreign nation.

Yet no grand jury has been convened. Nor is there yet any sign of a pending indictment.  That speaks volumes for the current condition of the rule of law.

A Quick Exit

Then again, he may resign. He could try to retire into obscurity rather than endure his pending notoriety. At present, resignation seems unlikely.

Then again, we’ve seen how quickly public perceptions can shift.

As praise emerged for The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s 2004 blockbuster film, Hollywood operatives began to sharpen their swords. Like Gibson, McCain could be transformed into a “controversial figure.”

He too could become mired in scandal, shredding his image and imploding his career. If it can happen to Mel, why not McCain? The parallels are striking yet strikingly different.

John McCain is a political star: a pop-culture political icon. Like Mel, people recognize him.

Gibson’s star is fading fast as he’s morphed into a “has been.” His fans don’t get a vote on that.

McCain barely escaped a “honey pot” scandal with lobbyist Vickie Iseman. Mel’s honey pot was a Russian beauty. Watch his career go kaput.

Was this Gibson’s Monica Lewinsky moment? Was this akin to Lyndon Johnson having an affair with Israeli-Irgun operative Mathilde Krimthe night the Six-Day War began?

Timing is everything.

Controversy may yet engulf John McCain. But don’t hold your breath. Those who produced and protect the McCain brand are those destroying the Gibson image.

What is it about Israel that outrages Gibson and enthralls McCain? Why is this Arizona Senator so loyal to a nation so long disloyal to the U.S.?

MoveOnMcCain.org

But for his seven homes in Arizona, a local rumor suggests that McCain could relocate to Israel.

A favored retreat for Russian oligarchs, the Zionist enclave ranks first worldwide as organized crime’s non-extradition venue of choice.

Soon after the financial pillaging of Russia in the mid-1990s, six of the top seven oligarchs qualified for Israeli citizenship. Figure the odds on that.

McCain should feel right at home.

Cyprus is the tax haven of choice for this transnational syndicate. Its banks are welcoming and its officials are happy to issue Jewish birth certificates for $5,000.

Displacing an indigenous Greek syndicate, the Russian-Jewish mafia now vacations in Cyprus, an easy 55-minute flight from Tel Aviv.

Ask John McCain about this arrangement. He met abroad with Russian-Jewish oligarch Oleg Deripaska. They even dined together in Switzerland with Lord Rothschild V.

Deripaska was banned from the U.S. At age 40, he had amassed personal wealth estimated at $40 billion defrauded from the Russian people.

Will John McCain Retire to Israel?

As with McCain’s political career, Deripaska typifies how organized crime operates across time and distance. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain is well briefed. He’s also dined with the experts. Who could know better?

So why does McCain remain in Arizona? Perhaps it’s love for his dogs.

You can tell a lot about a Senator by how he treats his dogs. Mitt Romney’s presidential quest ended when he put his dog in a luggage rack on top of his car.

Does McCain keep dogs at each of his seven homes? Are there cats at some; dogs at others?

If it’s true that McCain’s marriage is on the rocks, has he negotiated pet visitation rights?

Will his challenge to their pre-nuptial agreement prevail after almost three decades of marriage? Or will Cindy succeed in excluding him entirely from her $200 million estate?

Could that explain why he’s courting senior operatives of trans-generational organized crime?

It that why he spends so little time on national security issues of interest to the armed services? Is his retirement planning distracting him from matters of concern to the military?

John McCain needs an intervention. Those who know him must persuade him to resign.

Or a U.S. attorney can determine whether he’s criminally complicit—or just profoundly incompetent.

His conduct suggests he should not be in a federal campaign. He should be in a federal prison.

Who has an even lower opinion of McCain than his staff, his dogs and his fellow Senators? Answer: our senior military leaders. What does that tell you?

For Whom Is Phil Angelides Working?

Phil Angelides serves as chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission appointed by the leadership of the House and Senate. I informed him June 8th of evidence confirming the presence of organized crime in looting the nation’s pension plans. As Senate Finance Committee counsel, 1980-87, the pension area was a central focus of my work.

I was also familiar with his role, while State Treasurer of California (elected in 1998 and again in 2002), as an ex officio member of the board of the nation’s first and third largest public pension plans, both in California. The vice-chairman is Bill Thomas, a former Congressman and chairman of the House Committee on Ways & Means, the committee in charge of pension legislation in the House of Representatives.

Thus I was initially heartened at the interest of Mr. Thomas. At his request, I was happy to offer brief introductory testimony (recorded at the Commission office) and to follow up with a written submission (below). As a good faith investigation would confirm, transnational organized crime has been treating these “funds under management” as a means to line their own pockets—akin to the “casino skim” from the early days of the national crime syndicate.

The oral testimony was not well received. Further, it appears that confirmed facts in the written testimony were not pursued. Had the evidence been pursued consistent with the Commission’s charter, investigators would have by now arranged for testimony from three individuals who are firsthand witnesses to the sophisticated modus operandi by which this looting proceeds in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity—to the detriment of retirees, future retirees and Americans at large. Those  witnesses were not contacted and a follow-up inquiry call was not returned.

Thus the question: for whom is Phil Angelides working?

Oftentimes, the political past offers clues to present behavior. In this case, it was while serving as chair of the California Democratic Party that he oversaw the first-ever election to the U.S. Senate of two Jewish females from the same state the same year (1992): Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein who chairs the Senate Committee on Intelligence.

As referenced in Guilt By Association, the first release in the Criminal State series, it was “Chicago Outfit” money that migrated from California to dominate the Democratic Party, the Hollywood studios and the Republican Party.

Both the grandfather and the great-grandfather of Chicagoan Penny Pritzker, Barack Obama’s top fundraiser, were lawyers for organized crime. Chicago’s Crown family (ne Krinsky) share a similar lineage in Ashkenazi organized crime while also owning a quarter interest in General Dynamics, arguably the nation’s largest corporate beneficiary both of the War on Terrorism and taxpayer outlays for Homeland Security.

Boxer is best known for pressing  in 2010 for a Senate resolution declaring an “unbreakable bond” with Israel as a means to assert the Senate’s loyalty to the Zionist enterprise. No one has yet fully assessed the impact of today’s version of the National Crime Syndicate and its impact on: (a) the nation’s pension plans, (b) how the U.S. was induced to war in the Middle East on false intelligence, and (c) the relationship between the two.

A good faith investigation of the facts provided to Mr. Angelides would have clarified that relationship. Thus the question: for whom is Californian Phil Angelides working?

Rather than follow the facts wherever they may lead (per the Commission’s charter), he and Mr. Thomas chose another course. The 911 Commission chose a similar course when its leaders chose not to investigate this same evidentiary trail despite the fact that both Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton were provided a similar evidentiary trail on April 12, 2004, as was Executive Director Phillip Zelikow. How do I know that? I hand-delivered that evidence to ensure it was signed for at the 911 Commission office.

Then as now, the challenge for representative government lies in how best a long-deceived citizenry can ensure that “our” government acts consistent with the facts and in compliance with the rule of law. That course of action must be distinguished from acting consistent with what officials may believe to be true or what they may need to believe is true.

As an example of what can be proven by a good faith investigation by this Commission (or by the 911 Commission), these two analyses confirm the gravity of the ongoing capital crimes being aided and abetted by those—such as Messrs. Angelides and Thomas—who decline to follow the facts—wherever they may lead:

America Needs Pakistan’s Help – Again from Veterans Today

The Real Origins of Barack Hussein Obama – from Veterans Today

These accounts were provided in April 2004 to the 911 Commission. The 911 Commission interviewed more than 1200 people but refused to speak with James M. Rockefeller. In similar fashion, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has thus far declined to take the testimony of Mr. Rockefeller or Ron Burd, his attorney since 1992 despite its direct relevance to the mandate set in the Commission charter.

The written testimony to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission appears below along with the cover letter to Mr. Angelides and a summary of supporting exhibits provided on DVD to Chairman Angelides and to Commission investigator Bruce McWilliams. Note the parallels throughout to the 911 Commission whose report has since been disavowed not only by its leadership and several members but also by senior staff.

As with accountability for the false intelligence that induced the U.S. to war on fixed intelligence, accountability for this ongoing financial crisis commences with ensuring that this Commission conducts its investigation consistent with its Congressional mandate to follow the facts wherever they may lead. If the facts underlying this financial crisis are followed in good faith, they will lead to the same trans-generational criminal syndicate that took the U.S. to war on false pretenses.

Those who fail to follow these facts can rightly be accused of giving aid and comfort to an enemy. They can also rightly be charged with adhering to an enemy by failing to protect this nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. In short, the failure to follow this evidentiary trail — wherever it may lead — suggests complicity in an ongoing form of treason.

< ——- >

June 23, 2010

Phil Angelides, Chairman

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

Mr. Angelides:

Attached please find a submission to the Inquiry Commission along with a copy of my cover letter to Senator Rockefeller.

My colleague, Mel Rockefeller, and I look forward to working with you to solve this problem.

Best regards,

Jeff Gates

Enclosures:

• June 23, 2010 submission to Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
• June 23, 2010 letter to The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

< ——- >

June 23, 2010                                                            Certified Mail Receipt 7008 1830 0004 9005 8773

Phil Angelides, Chairman

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

Transnational Organized Crime at Work in Financial Crisis

Chairman Angelides:

You and I spoke briefly June 8^th at the “America’s Future Now” conference where I informed you of evidence confirming the presence of organized crime in this latest financial crisis. I also explained that, as Senate Finance Committee counsel (1980-87), I helped craft federal law that grew funds under management from $800 billion in 1980 to $16.6 trillion by April 2007.

For the transnational criminal syndicate I have researched for the past seven years, that pool of money has been treated similar to the casino skim. The research and analysis pivoted off the firsthand experience of James M. Rockefeller who has profiled this criminal syndicate from the inside since 1982. Key portions of that experience are summarized on the enclosed DVD.

You urged that I contact investigator Chris Seefer. Bruce McWilliams requested that I stop by Commission offices for a brief interview on June 11^th. In that recorded interview I urged that investigators interview Mr. Rockefeller and Ronald P. Burd, his counsel since 1992. Neither man has heard from the Commission. Mr. McWilliams sent a letter to me dated June 16^th that read: “If additional information is needed, the Commission will not hesitate to reach out to you.”

I left with Mr. McWilliams a highlighted copy of Guilt By Association, the first release in the Criminal State series. Enclosed is a copy for your review—tabbed and highlighted. Topical analyses are found on the Criminal State website. The DVD features exhibits chronicling this ongoing criminality. Attached is a summary of those exhibits.

Mr. Rockefeller and I followed up with emails to Mr. McWilliams. Mr. Rockefeller included names and phone numbers of knowledgeable insiders for Mr. McWilliams to contact. In addition, Mr. Rockefeller and I provided several relevant email attachments on which I trust Mr. McWilliams briefed you along with the outcome of those confirming phone calls.

As I explained in the interview, the consistency of the fact patterns confirms that Mr. Rockefeller was repeatedly drawn into the most senior nodes in this node-and-network system of transnational organized crime. In those networks, the operatives profiled were pre-staging or orchestrating large scale financial frauds and/or geopolitical manipulations.

One key component stands out above all others in the course of chronicling these ongoing operations: the confidence of the perpetrators that they will not be held accountable.

Attached are Mr. McWilliams June 16^th response and the emails described above along with an op-ed by Mr. Rockefeller published in the interim in Arab News and elsewhere titled, “Helen Thomas—a casualty of Zionist duplicity.” Let me briefly describe its relevance to this inquiry.

The intelligence failures that enabled 911 were widely described as a “dot disconnect.” The 911 Commission has since acknowledged that its report failed in key areas to make those connections, particularly when evidence pointed to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Doubtless the American public is heartened to know that this Commission is mandated to integrate all aspects of this crisis without boundaries, to move in directions that might constrain others, and to pursue the evidence wherever it leads. This submission meets that broad mandate in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.

If the Commission will connect the dots, the cause of these crises will become transparent and syndicate operatives apparent. For example, Appendix A describes how Mr. Rockefeller was drawn into a network of relationships that included Katherine Hapka, founder of Rhythmns NetConnections, the first stock used in the Enron fraud. Mr. McWilliams was given the name and phone number of a witness to confirm that account.

Appendix B describes proceedings pending before the State Bar of Arizona. Those proceedings confirm how the law is currently being deployed to obstruct an investigation that would prove systemic criminality, including the common source of frauds under investigation by the Commission. Investigate the circumstances surrounding those ongoing proceedings and the modus operandi deployed more broadly will become apparent.

As an example of the lengthy premeditation and ongoing criminality that can be proven with good faith engagement, review the two attached commentaries chronicling geopolitical manipulations into which Mr. Rockefeller was routinely drawn:

• “The Truth About America and Pakistan” from Veterans Today
• “Zionist Dominance in the Obama Presidency” from Veterans Today

As with the financial mega-frauds into which he was drawn, Mr. Rockefeller was also drawn into senior nodes of syndicate operatives pre-staging a geopolitical mega-fraud by which U.S. decision-makers were induced with fraudulent intelligence to order an invasion of Iraq.

[See “War in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented” on DVD.]

The modus operandi deployed in frauds that corrupt both private and public sector decision-making: the displacement of facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe. The only modern component of this ancient form of fraud is the technological means to deceive on a national and global scale. Therein lies the core cause of the frauds now under investigation.

Thus the dominance of syndicate operatives in what Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes as the “in between” domains—between a targeted populace (“the mark”) and the facts required both for reliable markets and for systems of governance reliant on informed choice.

[See “War Waged in the Mental Environment” at pp. xx-xxi of Guilt By Association.]

The fact-displacing corruption that plagues political governance also corrupts corporate governance. Regardless of facts on the ground, executives are mandated to maximize those values calculable in money—a critical in-between domain. Non-monetary values are routinely disregarded and displaced—by consensus design. That design, in turn, is reinforced by an executive compensation system wed to financial returns.

Widespread belief in this consensus framework serves as the “operating system” that enables systemic frauds. Whether financial or geopolitical, the fraud modus operandi remains the same.

Much of today’s financial and economic crisis can be traced to a “generally accepted truth” (aka a consensus belief) that generates predictably dysfunctional results—as chronicled at page 6, below. Only recently are those affected able to discern the ruinous impact of this widely shared belief on those values most essential to healthy and sustainable communities and nations—such as civil cohesion, fiscal foresight and environment sustainability.

A focus on symptoms alone (such as the rampant fraud accompanying this consensus mindset) will fail to fulfill the Commission’s mandate to address core causes. The foundational cause is the systemic displacement of facts with fabricated beliefs. Absent a systemic diagnosis, the prescription is destined to fall short of what is required to protect the American people

By focusing on a common enabling factor found in these diverse frauds, the materials address each of the 22 substantive areas of inquiry related to the financial crisis.

Please ensure that interviews with Messrs. Rockefeller and Burd are scheduled by July 15th when these materials will be posted on the Criminal State website. With good faith engagement, this problem can be solved.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

Jeff Gates

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senate [Cert. Mail Rcpt. 70081830000490058780]

Bruce McWilliams, Investigator, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

Special Agent David Williams, FBI Phoenix Office

Special Agent Harold Davis, FBI Phoenix Office

Shauna Miller, Senior Bar Counsel, State Bar of Arizona [File No. 07-1059]

Appendix A: A Portal into Nonlinear Criminality

The nonlinear nature of this criminality has long enabled a transnational criminal syndicate to operate in plain sight yet non-transparently and, to date, with legal impunity.

Absent a good faith investigation of how the U.S. was subjected to serial mega-frauds (including the S&L fraud, the Enron collapse and the dot.com crash), the Commission will fail in its mission to identify the domestic and global causes of the current financial and economic crisis.

In the financial domain, Mr. Rockefeller was drawn into the most senior nodes of those active in the Savings & Loan fraud. Likewise for the Enron fraud where, for example, he was drawn into the circles of Katherine Hapka, founder of Rhythmns NetConnections, the first stock used in the special purpose entities deployed to perpetrate that fraud. Ms. Hapka was a close friend of Bernard Ebbers, CEO of the massive accounting fraud known as WorldCom.

With less than $1 million in sales, Citicorp telecom analyst Jack Grubman valued Rhythmns at $4 billion. The day this DSL carrier went public (with its Chief Financial Officer in Tel Aviv), its market capitalization topped $9 billion. Hapka’s stake was valued at ~$228 million.

The consistency of the fact patterns confirms that none of these sophisticated mega-frauds “just happened.” Each was pre-staged and orchestrated over a lengthy period by the trans-generational criminal syndicate chronicled in these accounts. That same syndicate took the U.S. to war on false pretenses—another mega-fraud.

The Commission cannot make practical suggestions without first grasping the systemic nature of these serial frauds and their common source. Corrective action is impossible without acknowledging that much of this criminality is imbedded in nonlinear operations that require lengthy pre-staging. That pre-staging often requires changes to law and/or regulations—as with the S&L fraud, the “too-big-to-fail” effects of loosening the standards in Glass-Steagall and the fraud-enabling impact of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

To solve this problem also requires a grasp of how control frauds can proceed in plain sight with the help of “assets” who may not be fully aware of their role in such operations.

[For a description of assets, see Guilt By Association, pp. xxvii – xxxi and pp. 30-32.]

To grasp the common source of this corruption requires an understanding of the fraud-enabling impact of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. [See Guilt By Association pp. xvii-xxii.]

In 1995, Mr. Rockefeller was drawn into a node of senior operatives that included Carl Lindner of Cincinnati-based American Financial Group. Charles Keating served as general counsel before relocating to Phoenix as the “face” on a control fraud managed by Drexel Burnham Lambert operatives Michael Milken in Beverly Hills and Leon Black in New York (now Apollo Management).

[For control frauds, see William K. Black in the index to Guilt By Association. See also

“Boston Globe Treason memo” on DVD and review the exhibits, including “Poland Fraud,”

“Corsi-related photos” and a timeline in the memo at pp. 17-25.]

Guilt By Association describes in brief how Mr. Rockefeller was first drawn at age six into the circles of California political operative Eli Broad whose influence on Senator Alan Cranston (of the “Keating 5”) is chronicled at pp. 43-46. Note also the Broad relationship to AIG—into whose circles of influence Mr. Rockefeller was drawn on three separate occasions. Note at page 46 a post-911 surge of $40 billion in AIG’s market capitalization.

See also attached:

• “All Too Familiar” (re the pending role of private equity in the recapitalization of banks)
• “Warren Buffet—Wall Street’s Teflon Don?” (syndicate payoff to a rating agency?)
• “Is the ‘Times Square Terrorist’ an Asset of Organized Crime?” (nonlinear criminality)

When lengthy pre-staging is combined with the nonlinear/nontransparent nature of these operations, their complexity can be daunting. Thus the need for Commission staff to investigate ongoing frauds (see below) as typical of how such criminality can proceed in plain sight and—as in Arizona—with the complicity of local, state and federal law enforcement.

Micro Frauds Mirror Macro Criminality

The enclosed DVD includes a summary of serial frauds perpetrated on Arizona resident Ronald Burke, a colleague of Mr. Rockefeller since 1973. Those frauds, staged two decades apart, involved a common perpetrator and a common purpose. They remain ongoing. Mr. Burke is one of several professionals close to Mr. Rockefeller whose personal resources were drained to deplete funds that may otherwise have been available to support this work.

In every incident chronicled over the past seven years of research, each “micro” fraud provided a template reflecting how “macro” frauds proceed in a similar fashion—with lengthy pre-staging and nonlinear orchestration. By investigating the Burke fraud, the Commission will confirm how mega-frauds are routinely perpetrated over lengthy periods by this same syndicate.

The Commission will reach no useful conclusion unless its leadership can explain to a defrauded public—simply and clearly—the common components of this systemic criminality.

Chapter 6 in Guilt By Association explains how this economic crisis flows “downstream” from a widely shared “consensus” mindset. That widely shared belief, in turn, is typical of how frauds become systemic as criminal operations are enabled by changes in law consistent with lawmakers’ misplaced faith in that flawed mindset. Should the Commission address only the downstream effects, its inaction will leave intact the upstream cause.

Consensus-model financial dynamics guarantee the concentration of wealth and income, thereby undermining both democracies and markets—in the name of financial freedom as a proxy for personal freedom. As proxies for the American people, you and Bill Thomas need to explain—with confidence—that within this consensus model financial framework we will never experience an era of broadly shared prosperity. And finance, as presently framed, will never become a suitable means to serve the economy and society either justly or sustainably.

The multi-decade fraud against Mr. Burke originated in an operating agreement and flowed downstream from there. Likewise for the fraud that enabled serial financial crises: each crisis was enabled “upstream” by a consensus-model “operating agreement” that evolved—with the help of consensus-framed changes in law—to become common commercial practices.

[See Appendix B: A Micro Portal into a Macro Fraud.]

In effect, the law is being deployed to perpetrate financial fraud on a national and global scale. Unless the Commission identifies this foundational cause, its efforts will not protect the American people.

< ——- >

Here are the financial dynamics that must be clarified for a long-misinformed public:

How Consensus Model Finance Creates Oligarchies INTERNAL FUNDS RETAINED EARNINGS AND PROFITS  – Reinvested for current owners DEPRECIATION RESERVES – Reinvested for current owners EXTERNAL FUNDS DEBT – Repaid on behalf of current owners EQUITY – Most affordable by current owners

Sources of Funds – Today’s Closed System of Finance

See Guilt By Association (2008), pp. 103-121.

The Fraud is the Consensus Mindset

Based on these “closed system” dynamics, the concentration of wealth and income was certain to increase at a steady pace. With globalization of the “Washington consensus,” results seen in the U.S. were mirrored abroad as economies worldwide experienced record inequality:

• From 2003 to 2005 the increase in combined income for the top 1% of Americans exceeded by 37% the total income of the poorest 20%.[1]
  • Incomes for the top 1% grew an average $465,700 (42.6%) each.
    • Incomes for the bottom 20% grew an average $200 (1.3%).
    • By 2005 Americans claiming more than $1 million in annual income (less than one quarter of 1% of U.S. taxpayers) claimed 47% of total annual income gains.[2]
    • By 2006 the top 1% of U.S. families claimed the largest share of national income since 1929.
    • Adjusted for inflation, from 2002 to 2006, incomes of the bottom 99% grew at less than 1% annually.[3]
    • The wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans grew by $290 billion in 2006 alone, for a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion in 2007.
    • By 2008 the minimum personal wealth for inclusion on the Forbes list was $1.3 billion, up from $91 million in 1982.
    • The average CEO of a large U.S. company was paid $10.8 million in 2006[4]—364 times the pay of one of their employees—as much pay each day as an employee takes home in a year.[5]
    • Of the $619 billion growth in America’s total income for 2007, 42% went to those who made more than $1 million in 2006.[6]

Similar wealth and income patterns accompany the spread of this consensus model abroad:

• By 2007, India’s 40 billionaires had amassed a combined wealth of $351 billion, up from $170 billion in 2006.
• In 2006, China had 15 billionaires. The following year, their ranks had swollen to more than 100.[7] By January 2008, China Daily reported 146 billionaires.[8]
• In 2008, Forbes reported 1,125 billionaires worldwide worth $4.4 trillion, up from 946 worth $3.5 trillion in 2007, an increase from 476 billionaires worth $1.4 trillion in 2003.
• In Indonesia, 61.7% of the country’s stock market value is held by its 15 richest families. The comparable figure for the Philippines is 55.1%, and 53.3% for Thailand.[9]
• The richest 2% of adults worldwide own more than 50% of global assets, while the poorest half of the adult population holds 1% of worldwide wealth.

To do anything practical about this systemic fraud requires the Commission to acknowledge that not only does today’s “closed system” not work, it never could have worked. Plug any mainstream policy initiative into this system (left, right or centrist) and the end result is the same.

No matter how many generations of new technology are financed—green, clean or otherwise—that new wealth (“well being”) will become concentrated in the hands of a few.

By our advocacy of this dysfunctional model, the U.S. ensured the emergence of oligarchies everywhere “our” model was implemented. The consensus mindset ensures a systemic transfer of wealth from lower and middle income-earners to the topmost one percent—even without the assistance of the frauds and abuses that catalyzed formation of the Commission.

Who Oversees the Overseers?

Those charged with correcting this financial and economic crisis have long been key enablers of this “consensus” corruption. The transnational syndicate profiled in these materials stripped at least $1 Trillion out of Russia according to former President Mikhail Gorbachev. Six of the top seven Russian oligarchs (84%) qualify for Israeli citizenship in a nation, like the U.S., whose population is less than 2% Ashkenazi.

[See Chapter 5 in Guilt By Association: “The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime.”]

The easy way out would be for the Commission to recommend “band aids” similar to those comprising the bulk of the financial reforms under consideration by the Congress. Those consensus-framed “fixes” operate well downstream of the consensus-assured systemic criminality chronicled in these accounts.

The model itself must be challenged if we hope to see America returned to its own people.

Detailed complaints confirmed Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi-style fraud yet no one took it seriously until the crisis reached critical mass. Similarly, as Mr. Rockefeller informed Mr. McWilliams, had these facts been engaged in good faith after his return from Iraq in February 1997, there’s a high probability that 911 might have been prevented. It’s now clear that the invasion of Iraq (reliant on fraudulent intelligence re Iraqi WMD) could have been prevented.

[See on DVD “War in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented” and “The Indonesian Connection.”]

Why did no one at the SEC engage Mr. Madoff despite facts evidencing an ongoing massive fraud? Why can no one—even now—engage the facts in Mr. Rockefeller’s files?

Why is the “dot disconnect” regarding Mr. Rockefeller’s experience still ongoing almost nine years after 911? If the Commission investigates all aspects of this crisis without boundaries, the common components in this systemic corruption will become apparent.

If the Commission follows the facts wherever they lead, it will become clear that the criminal syndicate responsible for inducing the U.S. to war in Iraq on false beliefs also orchestrated this financial and economic crisis in the U.S. As with a war commenced on false beliefs, these frauds find at their core false beliefs.

To betray, one must first befriend. To defraud, one must first create a relationship of trust.

Is the ongoing lack of engagement due to the fact that Mr. Rockefeller’s records confirm federal capital crimes, including ongoing systemic treason?

Will this Commission take the same path as the 911 Commission and create an appearance of useful action while, in practical effect, doing little to protect the American people?

Or will you and Vice Chairman Thomas insist that the Commission acknowledge a systemic problem before this financial and economic crisis destroys our national security?

Content in Context

Mr. Rockefeller is prepared to testify to his multi-decade experience profiling this criminal syndicate from the inside. Ronald P. Burd, his counsel since 1992, is also prepared to testify as am I. We can identify other parties with firsthand experience who can offer confirming testimony. Mr. McWilliams was provided several names and phone numbers for that purpose.

When I agreed to take on this project after meeting Mr. Rockefeller at a venue in London in November 2002, I initially had little evidence with which to work. I began by asking if there was any person or firm with whom he interacted three times. Without hesitation, he mentioned A.I.G.

Mr. McWilliams was provided the name of Lloyd Wander and a phone number for Minnesotan Randy Schwake who is familiar both with that A.I.G.-related incident and with a 1995 Jerome Corsi/Carl Lindner fraud perpetrated in Poland. FBI agents in the Minneapolis office sought to frame Mr. Rockefeller for that Polish fraud after his return from Iraq in February 1997 with intelligence that could have prevented the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

At the end of WWII, the U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. That financially dominant position ensured that our bonds would dominate global financial markets for at least two generations. For the transnational criminal syndicate identified in these accounts, debt is always the prize and war is routinely deployed as a means to create debt.

Consensus model monetary policy ensured we could sustain for decades a global “asymmetry” in living standards by issuing debt to stimulate demand even as our purchasing power outpaced our capacity to produce. By borrowing to produce weaponry and wage war, we created the appearance of real jobs and purchasing power—without the profit-inhibiting downside of producing consumer useful goods and services able to compete for those consumer dollars.

As the component of our economic output traceable to financial products steadily outpaced physical production as a proportion of GDP, the U.S. economy was steadily hollowed out—from within. With consensus-model metrics unable to distinguish the production of goods from “bads” and with numerical models designed to reward “financial creativity,” the stage was set for systemic frauds to succeed on both a national and global scale.

As “due diligence” became divorced from any reality other than financial, frauds progressed on “autopilot” as the real-world economy entered a period of steady decline that included a steady worsening of fiscal woes at the local, state and national level. Long obscured by deceptive accounting, pension commitments promise to catalyze the next financial and economic crisis.

Economic Warfare

The dynamics underlying the current crisis point to a form of financial warfare being waged on the U.S. by those made transparent in the records chronicling Mr. Rockefeller’s experience. Those he profiled share a common faith tradition. Guilt By Association (at page one) explains how those subscribing to that tradition routinely deploy game theory to wage war in plain sight—by way of deception.

At the heart of this deception lies a shared mindset that—by law—grants priority to values calculable in money—often to the detriment of those values essential for healthy and sustainable communities. Thus the systemic perils associated with the ~$17 trillion in funds under management incentivized with an annual fiscal subsidy in excess of $150 billion.[10]

Absent good faith engagement and an in-depth investigation of the facts pivoting off Mr. Rockefeller’s lengthy firsthand experience, this Commission will join the ranks of other official entities that chose not to deal with the facts. To date, those who refused to engage these facts have given aid and comfort to parties perpetrating serial frauds that have weakened the U.S. economy and systematically undermined U.S. national security.

On April 12, 2004, I hand-carried a lengthy memo to the 911 Commission offices. Copies were signed for on behalf of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and Executive Director Philip Zelikow. The memo was addressed to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and included much of the evidence on the enclosed DVD.

Though the Commission interviewed more than 1,200 people, Mr. Rockefeller was not contacted. After the report was published, Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton expressed regret that they failed to hold hearings on the motivation for 911—particularly the role of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Commission members and senior staff expressed dissatisfaction with the report, including the evidence-gathering process. As Chairman, you and Vice Chairman Thomas could face a similar backlash if, like the 911 Commission, the evidence-gathering process fails to identify the common cause of these mega-frauds—for fear of offending the Israel lobby.

The lengthy pre-staging of these frauds required that legislative leaders amend federal laws to enable this financial and economic crisis. I urge that you consult the 911 Commission leaders about the source of the objections to hearings on the motivation for 911. Do Messrs. Kean and Hamilton now wish they had pursued the facts—wherever they lead?

[For the systemic impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. lawmaking, see “Repeal

of Representative Government” at pp. xviii-xxii of Guilt By Association.]

Choosing to Follow the Facts

On April 30, 2004, Florida Governor Jeb Bush replied to Mr. Rockefeller’s April 12, 2004 correspondence [See letter on the enclosed DVD.] In August 2004, the Fresno Police Department sought to discredit Mr. Rockefeller by subjecting him to an involuntary psychiatric incarceration after deceiving him with an offer of assistance regarding the ongoing criminal stalking to which he continues to be subjected.

Thereafter, acting on the appearance of good faith, Mr. Rockefeller relocated to south Florida and sought the assistance offered by Gov. Bush in his letter. Instead, Mr. Rockefeller was stalked virtually non-stop with the complicity of local law enforcement and clear signs of cooperation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

On April 30, 2005, Governor Bush called Dr. Glenn Olds at his home in Oregon and spoke to him for a half hour. After numerous instances of serial criminal stalking in Florida, including an attempt on Mr. Rockefeller’s life (by forcing his car into a bridge abutment), operative Carol Barr induced Mr. Rockefeller to relocate to remote Gila County, Arizona with an offer to advise her on a paid basis.

I agreed to join him in July 2005 in a rental property offered by Ms. Barr without charge so that we could complete the research and fine-tune the analyses featured in Guilt By Association.

Dr. Olds served as Mr. Rockefeller’s senior adviser from 1994 until his death in March 2006. An adviser to four presidents (two of each party) and a confidant to four of the five third-generation Rockefeller brothers, Dr. Olds accompanied Messrs. Corsi and Rockefeller on a Carl Lindner-funded trip to Poland in 1995. At his death, Dr. Olds had been a friend of former president G.H.W. Bush for 59 years. After Dr. Olds fully grasped what could be proved with these facts, he summed up his assessment as follows: “I am stunned at the depth of the treason.”

An informed public will draw the same conclusion. While a referral to the Department of Justice is clearly mandated by these facts, keep in mind that Attorney General Eric Holder previously served as counsel to Carl Lindner, a key Zionist operative identified in numerous venues.

[See Lindner in the index to Guilt By Association; see also

“Poland Fraud” and “Corsi-related photos” on DVD.]

As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder supported the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich after being lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In 1987, Mr. Rockefeller was drawn into the circles of Rich partner Pincus Green. Those circles included Ivan Boesky, a co-conspirator of Michael Milken who oversaw a major S&L control fraud at Lincoln S&L involving Charles Keating, former Lindner counsel.

It is just such “fields within fields…within fields” of relationships that enable this syndicate to operate openly yet, to date, undetected as its nonlinear operations progress in plain sight.

[See pp. 44-47 of Guilt By Association and “The Iranian Connection” on DVD.]

Responsibility for identifying the cause of this financial and economic crisis lies neither with the Attorney General nor with the Department of Justice but with you. The Commission charter envisions deployment of its investigatory powers to ensure that the American people are protected from serial financial predators.

The consistency of the fact patterns uncovered over the past seven years of full-time research and analysis—pivoting off Mr. Rockefeller’s experience—suggests a common source not only of this latest financial and economic crisis but also of our national security crisis.

Match these confirmed facts against the template of means, motive and opportunity and the perpetrator comes into focus. When combined with stable nation state intelligence able to operate inside the U.S. with impunity, the list of potential suspects narrows even more.

A good faith investigation would compile a list of AIPAC’s top-rated Congressional supporters and those who recently endorsed “an unbreakable bond” with Israel. Then compare those lists with a list of those Senators and Representatives most active in supporting the changes to law and regulations that enabled this systemic fraud on the American people. For example:

• 1981 – Tax incentives for accelerated depreciation on commercial real estate
• 1982 – Garn-St. Germaine Depository Institutions Act
• 1994 – Cutback in the antifraud provisions of the securities law
• 1999 – Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act—loosening Glass-Steagall standards
• 2000 – Commodity Futures Modernization Act

Was this same profile disproportionately represented in the Orange County bankruptcy of 1994 (interest rate swaps)? In the 1998 failure of Long Term Capital Management? To what extent did a pro-Israeli bias populate the ranks of those who championed the loosening of Glass-Steagall standards and passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act?

Appendix B: A Micro Portal into a Macro Fraud

The Commission’s capacity to move in directions that might constrain others provides a historic opportunity to address a systemic fraud that has long financially undermined the U.S. economy from within. Branded worldwide as the Washington consensus, the U.S. discredited itself—by our association with its known dysfunctional results.

By investigating two ongoing frauds at the personal (“micro”) level, Commission investigators will learn firsthand the modus operandi by which national and global (“macro”) frauds can proceed in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity.

Commission investigators can most usefully commence this process by interviewing two FBI Special Agents copied on this correspondence. Agent Davis is familiar with the ongoing fraud against Ron Burke. Agent Williams interviewed Mr. Rockefeller March 30^th. That interview took place the same date as a letter denying Mr. Rockefeller a claim for recovery in a fraud aided by a corrupt Arizona attorney who was disbarred. [See “Arizona State Bar” on DVD.]

Whether this timing was intentional or coincidental, the consistency of the fact patterns suggests that those complicit in this multi-decade stalking are confident they will not be held accountable. As confirmed in these accounts, local, state and federal authorities have been consistent in their refusal to follow these facts wherever they may lead. With remarkable consistency, law enforcement officials have signaled Mr. Rockefeller (with means both subtle and direct) that no one will investigate and that this syndicate dominates the legal process.

Agent Williams can testify to his reluctance to “connect the dots” when he was called to interview Mr. Rockefeller at the request of the Polish government in connection with a 15-year old Jerome Corsi/Carl Lindner fraud. Agent Williams initially refused to consider facts connecting that “micro” fraud to the systemic trans-generational criminality proven by Mr. Rockefeller’s personal experience.

The serial frauds against Mr. Burke (in the tens of millions of dollars) remain ongoing with the assistance of parties identified for Agent Davis in a May 11^th meeting with Mr. Burke. Thus the relevance of these ongoing frauds for explaining to an oft-defrauded American public how large-sized “macro” frauds can be perpetrated in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity.

[See on DVD “Gates Letter to AAA re Ron Burke” chronicling key components

of this ongoing fraud. Mr. Burke can be reached in Arizona at 480-720-8000.]

Serial Frauds over Multiple Decades

The serial criminal stalking of Mel Rockefeller commenced in 1981-82 with a sophisticated bank fraud involving a fraudulent federal document submitted to Security Pacific Bank by the comptroller of Hewlett Packard. The key perpetrator was Dr. Robert T. Birndorf. The totality of the facts suggest that fraud was being pre-staged when Mr. Rockefeller (then James Melvin Cunningham) was being stalked at age six. [See Guilt By Association, p. 215, note 30.]

The coordination of frauds against Messrs. Rockefeller and Burke is reflected in the relationship between operative Doug Skeen, an adviser to Mr. Rockefeller, and Arizona attorney Leo Beus, Mr. Skeen’s cousin and then a law partner of Neil Wake. Mr. Wake served as mentor to Steven Herman, a key operative in frauds against Mr. Burke perpetrated two decades apart.

[See Guilt By Association, p. 216, note 31.]

Mr. Wake, appointed a U.S. District Court judge by President G.W. Bush, aided the Burke fraud when he became attorney of record and took custody of critical records required by Mr. Burke to prove this fraud. Those records had been fraudulently obtained by Mr. Herman and transferred to Mr. Wake. Judge Wake remains the attorney of record. A proper FBI vetting would have precluded his March 2004 approval by the U.S. Senate.

A timeline provides an overview of serial frauds perpetrated against Mr. Rockefeller, initially with oversight by Doug Skeen (1981-1994) and thereafter by Carol Barr, reportedly a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency and a key operative against whom Mr. Rockefeller filed suit in Arizona for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract and conspiracy. Attorney misconduct in that suit led to the disbarment of Arizona attorney John T. Franklin, Mr. Rockefeller’s counsel in that lawsuit.

[See “Motion for Voluntary Dismissal” on DVD.]

This material is in the public record as part of court filings in the Payson, Arizona Superior Court of Gila County where systemic corruption remains rife. The financial cost to Mr. Rockefeller of the serial frauds perpetrated against him since 1981—with the assistance of Doug Skeen and Carol Barr—total in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

In each case, as with the initial fraud by Dr. Birndorf, the facts suggest that the perpetrators would not have proceeded but for their confidence that they could escape detection and/or prosecution. This critical “micro” lesson should not be lost on the Commission as they investigate the brazenness with which “macro” frauds are still being perpetrated on the American people in plain sight and, to date, with impunity.

At no time did Mr. Rockefeller consider his genealogy a relevant factor in whether law enforcement was obliged to investigate the facts required to protect his rights as a citizen. On four separate occasions, I wrote to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV offering an apology should any of the personal facts in these files be in error. I have yet to receive a single response from those certified receipt letters. Senator Rockefeller is copied on these materials.

I first met “Jay” Rockefeller in 1981when he was Governor of West Virginia and I was asked by Senator Robert Byrd to advise on an employee buyout of the state’s largest private sector employer. I later worked with Senator Rockefeller for two of my seven years as Senate Finance Committee counsel where he became a freshman member in January 1985 under the sponsorship of Louisiana Senator Russell Long for whom I worked.

Ron Burd also unsuccessfully sought functional engagement with a law firm representing the Rockefeller family. After Mr. Rockefeller contacted Laurance Rockefeller, he broke off all contact with Dr. Glenn Olds who had been a friend for many decades.

The Systemic Roots of Corruption

Had the Birndorf bank fraud been investigated in good faith by the FBI in 1981-82, federal investigators would have uncovered the seeds of systemic corruption that have since matured into serial frauds costing the American public hundreds of billions of dollars. Two asides that may prove indicative of the systemic nature of this corruption:

• SEC chairman Christopher Cox began his political career in the Reagan White House. From there, this Minnesota native was dispatched to Orange County, California where the same syndicate that produced many other political careers also produced his. Orange County was a node for numerous frauds perpetrated against Mr. Rockefeller. While in Congress, Mr. Cox engaged political operative Lewis Libby as counsel for the “Cox Commission” examining U.S. trade with China. The crisis under study by this Commission was enabled not only by Mr. Cox’s relaxed anti-fraud position but also by a systemic lack of SEC vigilance, enforcement and prosecution. And by a trade policy guaranteed, under consensus model dynamics, to result in the current imbalances with China whereby U.S. security is backed with financial assets while China, using American purchasing power, invests in commodities.

• As Senate Finance Committee counsel (1980-87), the scope of duties for each attorney was extensive. Yet the GOP staff included one lawyer, Donald Susswein, who was notable for spending much of his two-year tenure working one issue: mortgage-backed securities as a means to facilitate an originate-to-distribute model for extending credit and transferring risk. Robert Lighthizer was then Chief of Staff for the majority; Michael Stern for the minority and Bobby Shapiro for the Joint Committee on Taxation. [

[In Guilt By Association, see pp. xxvii-xxxi for a description

of agents, assets and sayanim (“volunteers”).]

When Mr. Rockefeller was drawn to Orange County in 1979, Doug Skeen moved into his neighborhood and befriended him and his young family. In retrospect, it’s clear that those complicit in these serial frauds share a common faith tradition rooted in Zionism, either as members of the Judaic faith or, more often in Mr. Rockefeller’s early years, Mormons (aka The Lost Tribe of Israel). That common ideological bond also typifies the ranks of those active in ongoing serial frauds against Mr. Burke.

The DVD includes a photograph of J.D. Heppler who together with his wife befriended Mr. Rockefeller’s mother when she relocated from West Virginia to Detroit in 1952. Mr. Heppler progressed from owning a body shop in Detroit to painting Formula One racecars in Arizona for the rich and famous.

Mr. Rockefeller first met Ron Burke in 1973 when both men were residents in an apartment complex on Scottsdale Road in Tempe while attending Arizona State University. Soon after Mr. Rockefeller moved in, this syndicate moved in next door the beautiful blond “beard” of Merv Griffin, Nancy Reagan’s best friend for decades. The ongoing serial criminal stalking of Mr. Rockefeller and its implications for U.S. politics will be addressed in future releases.

When Sam Zeniya relocated to Arizona from Japan to work for Mr. Heppler, he shared an apartment with Mr. Rockefeller. Mr. Zeniya was only recently confirmed as a member of the Mitsubishi family. Over his mother’s objections, Mr. Rockefeller accepted an invitation from Mr. Zeniya to visit Japan in 1974 where Mr. Rockefeller stayed at the home of Kenjo Minato whose personal residence adjoining the royal palace was valued at ~$250 million in the late 1980s. The facts suggest that Mr. Zeniya was the Rothschild agent for Japan.

[See “Early Arizona” on DVD for photos of Messrs. Heppler

and Zeniya and Mr. Minato’s business card.]

A Closer Look at Common Components

Indicative of the common Mormon-Zionist component in these ongoing serial frauds is the fact that Mr. Rockefeller was drawn into the “fields within fields” of relationships of those complicit in the pre-staging and orchestration of the S&L fraud.

[In Guilt By Association, see pp. 214-16, notes 24-35 and refer to the index for

David Bonderman (now Texas Pacific Group). The first organized crime casinos

were financed in part by Parry Thomas, “the Mormon banker to Vegas.” (p. 33).]

This Mormon/Jewish Zionist connection suggests how this ongoing mega-fraud may proceed with the help of those Mormons for whom federal law enforcement is seen as a career track. The consistency of the fact patterns suggests that this undisclosed bias in law enforcement may help explain the inability of the FBI to engage this evidentiary trail in a functional manner. This shared ideology may also be a factor in the intelligence community’s ongoing “dot disconnect.”

Note, for example, that Mr. Rockefeller traveled to Iraq in January 1997 when travel was prohibited. He met there for several days with a nuclear physicist who oversaw the industrial division that included Iraq’s nuclear program. On his return FBI agents declined to charge him and failed to interview him (either pre- or post-911). Agents in the Minneapolis office then sought to frame him in 1997 for the 1995 Corsi/Lindner fraud described above.

Despite the submission of voluminous evidence to the FBI Phoenix office in December 2005, Mr. Rockefeller was first interviewed March 30, 2010. However, that interview came only in response to a request by the Polish government based on a 15-year old fraud. The interview lacked sufficient depth to begin to expose this multi-decade criminality. To grasp the systemic nature of this transnational operation, the Commission would be well advised to determine the source of the timing of that 15-year delay. [See Mr. Rockefeller’s FBI response on DVD.]

Throughout Mr. Rockefeller’s experience (still ongoing), repetitive factors became apparent:

• Those with line authority refused to undertake good faith investigations.
• No investigation meant no offense—which meant no access to a remedy at law.
• Perpetrators focused on keeping him financially unstable.
• Operatives routinely sought to discredit him, often by seeking to portray him as crazy.
• Corruption is systemic within local, state and federal law enforcement.
• Operatives remained confident throughout that they would not be prosecuted.

If Mr. Rockefeller is paid what he is owed by the State Bar of Arizona Client Protection Fund, the conduct of John Franklin (the disbarred attorney) will become the subject of a grand jury proceeding. That proceeding will begin to unwind ongoing frauds in Arizona that will lead to frauds perpetrated in other states and abroad—by the same network of syndicate operatives.

At present, operatives in the State Bar of Arizona are protecting Mr. Franklin from indictment by denying Mr. Rockefeller’s claim. The Commission could greatly upgrade its grasp of the systemic nature of this criminality if investigators identified who is providing this protection.

The motivation to protect Mr. Franklin is multi-dimensional. If a grand jury is convened, jurors in Arizona have the right to ask questions of those who appear. With the capacity to take testimony from Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Burd and myself (per my June 11^th recommendation to Mr. McWilliams), the Franklin case will expose:

• A former C.I.A. operative (Carol Barr) complicit in the serial criminal stalking of a witness able to prove with his personal experience a half-century evidentiary trail confirming the common source of ongoing capital crimes, including treason while this nation is at war. Ms. Barr knows that Mr. Rockefeller uncovered ongoing operations of this transnational syndicate in numerous venues key to U.S. national security, including Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, China, Russia, the European Union and elsewhere.
• Complicity of a U.S. District Court Judge (Neil Wake) in the serial criminal stalking over a two-decade period of Ronald P. Burke with evidence of ongoing complicity by numerous operatives in the Mormon Church. Those operatives include California resident Doug Skeen and his cousin, Phoenix attorney Leo Beus, a former law partner of Judge Wake. By linking these serial frauds to a common motivation, all parties are liable for conspiracy.
• Evidence of complicity in the office of the Attorney General of Arizona (Terry Goddard) and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, now Secretary of Homeland Security, when they failed to engage in good faith an evidentiary trail submitted December 2005 that would have enabled the American public to protect itself from this transnational criminal syndicate.
• Evidence of complicity by Governor Jeb Bush in the stalking of Mr. Rockefeller when he sought to contact President G.W. Bush in April 2004 with evidence of the fraudulent nature of the WMD rationale for invading Iraq. That stalking intensified when Mr. Rockefeller relocated to Florida believing that the letter from Jeb Bush was sent in good faith.
• Evidence of Mr. Rockefeller being drawn into the senior-most nodes of this syndicate when they were pre-staging several of the mega-frauds that are the subject of this Inquiry.

That grand jury testimony will include evidence of this submission and an assessment of whether the facts in these files were engaged in good faith and consistent with the gravity of what these facts can prove provided investigators follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Given the capacity of jurors to question Mr. Rockefeller at length, that questioning is destined to lead to the broader dimensions of this corruption, including the frauds to which he was subjected as well as the frauds to which jurors and their families were subjected—by this same syndicate.

Jurors will find it unsettling to discover that law enforcement officials not only refused to engage the confirmed facts in Mr. Rockefeller’s files, they also refused to engage Dr. Glenn Olds who, at his death in 2006, had been a friend of G.H.W. Bush for 59 years. The former president succeeded Dr. Olds, an ordained minister, as U.N. Ambassador under President Richard Nixon. When the facts cannot be challenged, those complicit target the fact-finder, typically by attacking their credibility. That tactic should be anticipated this Commission.

Those complicit in this criminal operation know what they have done—to Mr. Rockefeller, to similar families (both here and abroad), to this nation and to other nations. Those identified also know the sanctions to which they are liable as these facts work their way to transparency.

With good faith engagement (e.g., a state and/or federal grand jury), the entirety of this evidentiary trail becomes relevant. Those complicit know this evidentiary trail is poised to expose this ancient fact-displacing modus operandi. With transparency, the American public will grasp the costs to them in both blood and treasure. As Americans grasp how they were deceived, who and why will come sharply into focus. That’s when accountability can commence.

Forensic Profile

By investigating how serial frauds were perpetrated against Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Burke, the Commission will gain the forensic profile required to properly investigate the cause of the current financial and economic crisis. Absent that profile, the scope, scale, depth and duration of this corruption may remain undetected and unpunished—to the detriment of the American people and U.S. national security.

For those chronicled, debt is always the prize. Recall the peace dividend? The fiscal cost of this latest war (every dollar borrowed) could top $3 Trillion (with $700 billion in interest) as we witnessed a seamless segue from the Cold War to a Global War featuring a plausible Evil Doer.

Chapter 5 of Guilt By Association chronicles the systemic financial pillaging of the former Soviet Union. The Commission would be well advised to ponder this key question: Is the U.S. next?

At what point does the Commission shift its focus from fraud to recovery? As with key Russian operatives, will those complicit in financially pillaging the U.S. economy flee to Israel to take refuge behind a wall of non-extradition while portraying their pursuers as “anti-Semites”?

At the close of WWII, the U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. That financial and economic strength ensured the U.S. economy would have the most secure bonds for at least two generations. Did today’s financial and economic crisis “just happen”? Or was this crisis a “probabilistic” outcome enabled by a money-myopic mindset (shared belief) that evolved into the finance-fixated “Washington” consensus.

[See description of game theory at p. 1 of Guilt By Association.]

How systemic is this ongoing fraud? How was this narrow mindset imbedded in education such that money-denominated values were granted not just priority but primacy? How did this manipulated belief displace informed choice? How was the U.S. public induced to freely embrace the very forces that now jeopardize their freedom?

The facts suggest a key geopolitical reason that Mr. Rockefeller has not yet been functionally engaged by federal law enforcement: if a good faith investigation is pursued wherever the facts lead, the evidence will lead to a trans-generational criminal syndicate to which a U.S. president (Harry Truman) was induced to extend nation-state status in May 1948.

The consistency of the fact patterns over multiple decades suggests that those complicit in the lengthy pre-staging of serial financial frauds and geopolitical manipulations routinely stalk influential families. Senator Rockefeller withdrew from the Democratic presidential primary on August 7, 1991 citing personal and family reasons.

Did a 1991 attempt on Mel Rockefeller’s life in New Orleans influence that decision? Were those electoral dynamics pre-staged four decades beforehand? Is it possible that those profiled were framing a U.S. election that far in advance? Is that because this syndicate would have been unable to deploy their money to dominate decision-making in a Rockefeller presidency?

If the Commission follows these facts wherever they lead, to what extent will the influence of this syndicate be found in shaping the policies required to enable these serial frauds?

Integrating All Aspects

Vice Chairman Thomas and you committed the Commission to “integrate all aspects of the crisis” in order to provide a clear and complete explanation to the American people. The public’s trust in our financial system is rightly shaken. To suggest that the consensus model can deliver a “new era of broadly shared prosperity” only obscures and perpetuates this “macro” fraud.

This crisis is not unique to the United States. Leaders in the European Union are worried that their debt crisis poses a threat to the foundations of democracy and the rule of law. The U.S. is home to 78 million Baby Boomers born from 1946 to 1964. The syndicate identified in these accounts systematically pillaged the private sector retirement plans on which Boomers believed they could rely. The same is true for public sector pension plans. In both cases, this syndicate’s treatment of those immense funds was similar to organized crime’s casino skim.

The U.S. has more armed citizens than any nation. What will be their response when they realize that their modest Social Security benefits will also be cut? Or, as with the 1983 Report of the National Commission on Social Security (the Greenspan Commission), they see their retirement again deferred and payroll withholding again increased?

The multi-dimensional costs of this ongoing fraud are difficult to overstate. This was far more than just a financial crime. The systemic nature of this fraud undermined our credibility, jeopardized our credit standing, weakened our fiscal condition and, in the headlong pursuit of financial returns, endangered the environment for future generations.

The capacity of systemic fraud to proceed in plain sight makes it all the more essential that its cause be conceded. When contemplating a fraud woven into the very fabric of our national consciousness, how do we “see” that with which—or through which—we were taught to see?

The remedy lies in education, transparency, accountability and improved design.

Should the Commission fail to make practical recommendations on the recovery portion of the law’s mandate, to whom should an aggrieved public turn for accountability?

As with the financial pillaging of Russia by this transnational criminal syndicate, the bulk of America’s wealth is presently perceived as “private property.” If the Commission performs consistent with its charter, a portion of that wealth can be recovered when the public realizes that many of those financial assets are the spoils of frauds perpetrated over decades, often with the assistance of political “assets” who operate in that enabling in-between domain of policymaking.

As retirement draws closer, a defrauded American public is looking for answers. Those answers can be found by studying two ongoing frauds in Arizona, a state long dominated by organized crime. [See Guilt By Association, chapters 2-4.] A good faith investigation will confirm that these “micro” frauds mirror how ongoing “macro” frauds put America at risk.

Special Agent Harold Davis in the Phoenix office of the FBI reportedly told Mr. Burke on May 11^th that the failure to investigate the fraud against him was largely due to a lack of resources. Agent Davis should be interviewed ASAP as should former Special Agent in Charge John Lewis and Supervisory Special Agent Julie Halferty. As confirmed in the materials on DVD, on five separate occasions correspondence on this matter was refused (or returned) from that office.

• If there is no FBI investigation, does that mean no crime was committed?
• If federal laws are changed to accommodate fraud, does that make the fraud legal?
• If the Commission fails to investigate, does that mean no crime was committed?
• If the Commission fails to acknowledge systemic fraud, does that make the fraud legal?
• Is this how the rule of law is used to protect those who consider themselves above the law?

As these evidentiary trails work their way to public disclosure, where will credibility reside? Will a long-defrauded public believe the facts? Or will they believe those who, to date, have refused to do the job they swore an oath to perform—consistent with the facts?

If, as the facts suggest, this evidentiary trail also makes transparent those committing ongoing treason, what is the appropriate federal sanction should Commissioners and/or staff decline to follow the evidence—wherever it leads?

---

[1] Reporting on findings by the Congressional Budget Office in David Cay Johnson, “Report Says the Rich are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster,” New York Times, December 15, 2007, p. 3.

[2] Internal Revenue Service data reported in David Cay Johnson, “’05 Incomes, On Average, Still Below 2000 Peak,” New York Times, August 21, 2007, p. C1.

[3] Justin Lahart and Kelly Evans, “Trapped in the Middle,” The Wall Street Journal, April 19-20, 2008, p. 1.

[4] Average pay was $14.2 million in 2007 based on reported compensation for CEOs of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies. That figure is based on preliminary data from The Corporate Library drawing on 211 proxy statements filed through April 9, 2008. The median pay was $8.8 million.

[5] Jeanne Sahadi, “CEO pay: 364 times more than workers,” CNNMoney.com, August 29, 2007.

[6] David Cay Johnston, “Average US Income in 2006 Showed First Rise Over 2000,” New York Times, August 26,2008, p. C3.

[7] David Barboza, “Little-Known Entrepreneurs Putting China Near Top of Billionaires’ List,” New York Times, November 7, 2007. Forbes identified 66 billionaires in China.

[8] “China has 146 billionaires,” China Daily, January 1, 2008.

[9] Stijn Claessens, Simeon Djankov and Larry H.P. Lang, “Who Controls East Asian Corporations?” (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1999).

[10] For all plans of deferred compensation, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the annual “tax expenditure” totals ~$150 billion, largely for the tax deduction for funds set aside, the tax-deferred growth and the receipt of funds by retirees when they are in lower tax brackets.

< ——- >

Summary of Criminal State Exhibits on DVD

The materials on the accompanying DVD are summarized here. In reviewing the materials, consider the probability that any one person would be drawn into each of the relationships described unless the same operatives serially defrauding James M. (“Mel”) Rockefeller are also defrauding the U.S. – from within. Ongoing frauds in Arizona are described at pp. 5-7. The materials are presented in approximate chronological order.

< ——- >

Correspondence. From the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department in response to Freedom of Information/Privacy Act requests:

• The C.I.A. confirmed that the Agency could not release any of its files pertaining to James M. Rockefeller because his files are classified:
• “by Executive Order in the interest of national defense or foreign policy” and
• “to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods.”
• The response from the U.S. Department of State confirmed the national security and foreign policy implications, including statements regarding Mr. Rockefeller’s personal knowledge about the pre-staging of the war in Iraq.

Similar requests to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, commencing in 2005, have thus far resulted in the disclosure of only a dozen pages despite volumes of documents known to be in the FBI’s possession as a result of activities in several offices both in the U.S. and abroad.

Note also an April 1997 fax from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs where Mr. Rockefeller briefed senior staff of the Middle East Division after regional specialists in the State Department declined to meet with him following his return from Baghdad in February 1997.

A compilation of responses from world leaders, including Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt (then President of the EU), UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Middle East envoy George Mitchell. Florida Governor Jeb Bush responded to a research compilation hand-delivered on April 12, 2004 to key Congressional and Executive Branch offices, including the 911 Commission.

Correspondence from July 2005-July 2007 is addressed to a Strawberry, Arizona residence to which Mr. Rockefeller was induced to relocate by Carol Barr, a key operative. A photocopy of Mr. Rockefeller’s passport is also featured on the DVD.

The Iranian Connection (1987-2006).

• Mel Rockefeller was asked to sell a Manhattan office building previously belonging to the Shah of Iran’s educational foundation. At the time, the top two floors were occupied by arbitrageur Ivan Boesky, a Michael Milken co-conspirator in securities violations.
• In the course of the transaction, he met Pincus Green, partner of Iran oil trader Marc Rich who was defended by former Nixon White House counsel Leonard Garment and Lewis “Scooter” Libby who was then working in the Pentagon for Paul Wolfowitz in the G.H.W. Bush administration. In 2001, Libby became Vice President Dick Cheney’s White House Chief of Staff. Libby was convicted of federal charges for attempts to obscure the fixing of the WMD intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq.
• In 1987 the office building was being sold by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, then President of the Iranian Parliament and now chairman of the Expert Council that appoints the ayatollah. The Rafsanjani family has long operated as “middlemen” in Iran.
• On April 9, 2004, Mr. Rafsanjani proclaimed as “heroic” an insurgency catalyzed by Iraqi Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr that fractured Iraq and Iraqi politics. Ahmed Chalabi, an Israeli asset, joined Rafsanjani in celebrating the al-Sadr-led insurgency. Mr. Chalabi’s disinformation was reported as factual intelligence by Judith Miller in The New York Times. Chalabi was developed as an asset by Richard Perle over a two-decade period.
• Note that intermarriage into Mr. Rockefeller’s family was an integral part of serial criminal stalking over multiple decades. That stalking remains ongoing.

War in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented (1997-2006). Note:

• Photo of Dr. Nidhal Al Hamdani, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist and head of a large industrial division that included its nuclear weapons program before it was mothballed in 1991.

• The U.S. was persuaded to rely on information re Iraqi WMD from a low-level file clerk in her division.
  • Meanwhile regional experts in the U.S. State Department declined to meet with Mr. Rockefeller on his return from Baghdad with a means to remove Saddam Hussein without war.
    • At the time, Saddam was known not to make phone calls, knowing that they were being monitored which is why he made this call to impress on listeners that he was taking seriously what was discussed with (and proposed to) Mr. Rockefeller.
    • Saddam made another open call to King Hussein of Jordan to ensure that the cross-border security for Mr. Rockefeller was arranged.
      • On his return in 1997, the Minneapolis office of the FBI tried to frame him for a fraud orchestrated in 1995 with the help of Israeli asset/agent Jerome Corsi (see below).
    • Had he been engaged (rather than stalked) by FBI agents, a good faith investigation may have uncovered those support networks in Minnesota pre-staging the logistics there for  Zacarias Moussaoui, the “20th hijacker.”
    • The 9/11 Commission interviewed 1,200 people but not Mel Rockefeller even                                      though the chair, vice-chair and executive director were provided a 152-page research compilation on April 12, 2004 (hand-delivered to their offices).
      • Nine years after 9/11 and Mel Rockefeller has yet to be debriefed by anyone with line authority for national security or federal law enforcement.
    • 19-year old UC San Diego student Patrick Hammara, a relative of San Diego resident Munther Ghazal, was murdered nine days prior to a mid-February 2003 meeting in Tucson with Mel Rockefeller, Jeff Gates and Dr. Glenn Olds, a friend of G.H.W. Bush since 1947. Mr. Ghazal cancelled his attendance at the meeting.
      • Mr. Ghazal was the person closest to Saddam Hussein living in the U.S. on 9/11 (his family had known him since the Baathists’ rise to power in 1958)
      • Mr. Ghazal’s family built the Baghdad Hotel in the 1950s (their 5-star hotel is now at the heart of the Green Zone).
      • Mr. Ghazal accompanied Mel Rockefeller to Baghdad in 1997.
      • Four days after 9/11, San Diego FBI Special Agent Stephen Butler interrogated Mr. Ghazal to ask if he was financing Mel Rockefeller (no one from the FBI contacted Mr. Rockefeller).
      • On that same day, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz argued in a principal’s meeting at Camp David that the U.S. should invade Iraq.
      • Pentagon war-planners began the invasion of Iraq five weeks after the meeting in Tucson with Dr. Olds, Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Gates.

• Dr. Al Hamdani was speaking to Saddam Hussein about Mr. Rockefeller in January 1997 when Mr. Rockefeller took this photo of her in her office.

• Iraqi dynamics suggest that Saddam Hussein could have been removed without war or an insurgency had Mel Rockefeller been engaged in good faith in 1997.
• Munther Ghazal

• Mr. Ghazal agreed to host an August 2009 dinner meeting at his home that would have been filmed. Attendees who had agreed to participate include Harriet Fulbright, Helen Thomas and John Duke Anthony. Attendance was also anticipated by Chas Freeman and filmmaker Rory Kennedy who produced the HBO Special on Ms. Thomas. As the details were confirmed, Mr. Ghazal canceled.
• Likely points of leverage include Ghazal-owned properties in Iraq, including his interest in the Baghdad Hotel and the Diana Hotel.
• See the photographs of Messrs. Rockefeller and Ghazal at Babylon in February 1997 when Saddam had closed the site to anyone but them and a security detail.
• In 2006, those interviewing Mr. Ghazal showed him photographs of he and Mr. Rockefeller at that venue.

The Indonesian Connection (2001). Note:

• A multi-billion dollar Israeli-orchestrated bribe meant to encourage the Indonesian Parliament to push the U.S. out of the region in favor of China.
• This effort, reportedly fronted by a George Soros NGO, was uncovered by Indonesian intelligence chief Arie Kumaat.
• Mr. Kumaat was murdered in January 2002 (poisoned) after agreeing to arrange a meeting for Mr. Rockefeller with President Wahid, the leader of 80 million moderate Muslim men. Mr. Rockefeller anticipated that meeting would lead to an introduction to Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad as Mr. Rockefeller sought to stop the invasion of Iraq based on what is now known as false intelligence about Iraqi WMD.
• Photos of Mel Rockefeller in: (a) a Jakarta restaurant with Arie Kumaat and son Henrie, and (b) in Oregon after a debriefing for Glenn Olds by Mr. Kumaat.
• April 5, 2001 email to State Department Indonesian specialist Rick Haynes. Note:

• Beijing announced the release of 24 U.S. service people on the morning that Mr. Rockefeller appeared at the State Department for a scheduled meeting to discuss concerns by Indonesian intelligence that Israel was collaborating with China against U.S. interests in the region.
• The last paragraph expresses concern about the ability of a president to get accurate information “in a more timely manner, during a crisis that will begin limiting third party intervention that has for too long painted our leaders into corners they have difficulty getting out of.”

The Chinese Connection (2000-2001).

• Harlan Peltz, a lifelong friend of Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger oversaw a fraud that undermined a project to educate 235 million Chinese students.
• Nokia was prepared to invest $250 million in this Youthstream project.
• A major IT company was shut down rather than allow the deal to close.
• See photograph of Mr. Rockefeller with Deputy Education Minister Liu Bin.
  • Ben Bassi (in photo) was fired after a 2003 interview on this subject by Jeff Gates; he was then subjected to an IRS audit.
  • Mr. Bassi reports lost $62.5 million when he was fired after signing an MOU with the Ministry that would have increased Youthstream’s value by ~$300 million.
• Mr. Bassi and Bill Townsend (w/ hand up in photo) were co-founders of Lycos.
  • Four years ago, Mr. Townsend again encountered Bruce Resnick, chief financial officer for Youthstream. Resnick extracted a reported $20 million from the firm by selling his shares before the company was taken into bankruptcy to ensure that Mr. Rockefeller did not get paid (he had a one-third stake in the China venture).
  • Mr. Resnick reportedly conceded the fraud and sold his shares because he was not part of the Ashkenazi clique behind this fraud.
  • SEC records reflect no charge filed for Mr. Resnick’s insider trading.
  • At the time that the value of this publicly traded company was destroyed, it had a reported market capitalization of ~$600 million.
  • After the dot.com crash, Nokia Ventures offered to acquire Youthstream for its then reported value. Rather than allow Mr. Rockefeller to attain financial viability, the offer was declined. Rupert Murdoch was then involved with Youthstream as a principal in Six Degrees. Six Degrees’ technology became the intellectual property behind Linked In.
  • Mr. Townsend can be reached at 512-228-2400. Mr. Bassi was working for Liquid Machines when he was fired. Richard Clarke serves on the advisory board.
• AIG, founded in Shanghai (1927), saw a $40 billion surge in its market capitalization post-9/11. Henry Kissinger was then chair of AIG’s International Advisory Board. Note:
• On three separate occasions, Mr. Rockefeller was drawn into business relationships with people close to A.I.G.
• On 9/11, AIG’s ~$700 billion portfolio was invested 93 percent in bonds; the portfolios of its top three competitors were invested 50-60 percent in bonds.
• On 9/11, AIG was holding just $258 million in cash; its competitors held between $2.1 billion and $5.6 billion.

How I met Kaisa Kautto-Koivula (a reflection by Mr. Rockefeller).

• When we met in Tampere (August 1999) she was the Senior Manager of Nokia Ventures, the venture capital firm that reinvests Nokia profits.

• See paper on DVD titled “Evolution Towards Human-Centric Knowledge Society” published in Global Peace Through The Global University System.

• It was through their interaction that Nokia agreed in 2000 to invest $250 million in an education-centric venture in China (see below) designed by Mr. Rockefeller and Dr. Glenn Olds (See Dr. Olds’ CV).
• When Nelson Rockefeller was Governor of New York, Dr. Olds was hired as Executive Dean to internationalize the curriculum of the 64-campus State University of New York (S.U.N.Y.).
• Dr. Olds was then asked by U.N. Secretary General U Thant to design the curriculum for the U.N. University (established in Tokyo).
• After the on-campus National Guard shootings at Kent State University during a Vietnam War protest, Dr. Olds took over the presidency. He and David Packard put in place a system to ensure that tragedy could not be repeated.
• While president of Springfield College (reportedly then the nation’s youngest), the trustees included Senator John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy asked that Dr. Olds design the nation’s first technology-transfer system to ensure that public-funded NASA research was recycled back into communities and education.
• Thus the legacy of the education-centric business model agreed to by the Ministry of Education in China, as described above.

James M. Rockefeller to Colin Powell (February 2003).

• This letter was mailed the same day that Secretary of State Colin Powell was deployed to the U.N. to associate his credibility with false intelligence about Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories.
• That intelligence was fixed around a preconceived agenda to invade Iraq due, in part, to Iraq’s possession of mobile biological weapons laboratories.
• It was not until months later that General Powell acknowledged he had been deceived.

Aleksandra Prusa Letter (March 2003).

• Mr. Rockefeller’s pre-invasion assessment addressed to Russia Vice-Consul Aleksanda Prusa anticipating what has since occurred in Iraq.
• Account of Mel Rockefeller’s meetings with Vladmir Zelman, Armand Hammer’s personal physician, and Anatoly Sobchak, mayor of St. Petersburg and mentor to then Deputy Mayor Vladimir Putin.
• See accompanying photo of Mr. Rockefeller with Messrs. Zelman and Sobchak.
• Note book dedication from poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko.

Motion for Voluntary Dismissal—Statement of Facts in support of (October 16, 2007).

• This litigation was withdrawn to preserve Mr. Rockefeller’s rights to proceed with civil litigation against Carol Barr, a key operative involved in 12 years of serial criminal stalking that included numerous instances of her aiding and abetting civil frauds.
• This litigation will serve as an opening wedge for civil claims against others who perpetrated frauds against Mr. Rockefeller in the U.S. and abroad.
• Ms. Barr reportedly served two ten-year contracts with the Central Intelligence Agency.
• The accompanying Statement of Facts includes an overview of the serial criminal stalking to which Mr. Rockefeller continues to be subjected.
• Sufficient evidence was provided for a criminal investigation. Consistent with the systemic corruption evident in other venues, no investigation was undertaken.
• After Ms. Barr and her daughter perjured themselves in a Gila County Superior Court proceeding, the recording of their testimony disappeared.
• As this litigation is renewed, the circumstances of this case will help make transparent systemic corruption at the federal, state and local level.
• The bulk of this evidentiary trail is part of the public record in the Payson, Arizona files of the Superior Court of Gila County.

Ron Burke Fraud (May 2006) [See “Gates letter to AAA.”]

• Provides an overview of the pre-staging and orchestration of serial frauds (two decades apart) perpetrated on Ronald L. Burke, Mr. Rockefeller’s colleague since 1973.
• The motivation for both frauds: to deny Mr. Burke the financial capacity to assist Mr. Rockefeller. An overview commences at page seven of the letter.
• Key operatives in this ongoing fraud portrayed Mr. Rockefeller as a “threat” prior to his relocation to Arizona and described colleague Jeff Gates as his “accomplice.”
• The arbitration process was integral to this sophisticated fraud involving all parties except “the mark” (Mr. Burke).

Arizona State Bar/FBI/Burke fraud (March/April 2010)

• March 30, 2010 – The State Bar of Arizona Client Protection Fund denied Mr. Rockefeller’s claim on specious grounds.
• March 30, 2010 – At the request of the Polish government, the Phoenix office of the FBI had Mr. Rockefeller sign a statement in response to questions involving a 1995 fraud in Poland that was orchestrated by Jerome Corsi and funded by Carl Lindner.
• April 23, 2010 – Mr. Rockefeller filed an appeal with the Client Protection Fund citing the factual and logical inconsistencies of their rationale for denying his claim.
• May 28, 2010 – Mr. Burke’s letter to accountant Peter Davis chronicled the complicity of Davis in this multi-decade fraud. Note how Arizona operatives (largely Mormon) sought to discredit Messrs. Rockefeller and Gates even before they relocated to Arizona.

Early Arizona (1969-1974)

• Photo of J.D. Heppler, Andy Granatelli and Mario Andretti at the 1969 Indianapolis 500. The Hepplers befriended Mr. Rockefeller’s mother when she relocated to the Detroit suburbs. When Mr. Heppler relocated to Arizona, his business shifted from managing a body shop to painting Formula One racecars for the rich and famous.
• Photo of Sam Zeniya with dune buggy (1974) – he moved to Arizona from Japan to learn how to paint racecars. Over the objections of his mother, Mr. Rockefeller (then Mel Cunningham) accepted an all-expenses paid trip to Japan where he stayed in the home of Kenjo Minato. Only recently was Mr. Zeniya confirmed as a Mitsubishi.
• Business card of Kenjo Minato whose personal residence near the Imperial Palace in downtown Tokyo was reportedly valued at ~$250 million in the late 1980s. The fact patterns suggest that Mr. Minato was the Rothschild agent for Japan.

Birndorf, HP, Security Pacific (1981-87)

• These files describe in brief a sophisticated bank fraud as the first in a series of frauds perpetrated against Mr. Rockefeller (then James M. Cunningham).
• The participation of Dr. Birndorf and his relationship to Michigan native Eli Broad suggests that this syndicate first stalked Mr. Rockefeller at age six when a close friend of Dr. Birndorf became his family physician.

Alpha Base (1982-86)

• These files describe in brief how Mr. Rockefeller was defrauded of his equity stake in a software applications firm that industry experts claim may have become Oracle
• These serial frauds were routinely facilitated by Mormon-Zionist operatives working in collaboration with Jewish Zionists.

Ron Burd correspondence with Secret Service Agent Brian Korbs (September 2000)

• This letter by Mr. Rockefeller’s counsel chronicles how personnel in the Salt Lake City office of the FBI harassed Mr. Rockefeller’s ex-wife and his response to that harassment.
• Though the FBI knew of Mr. Rockefeller’s whereabouts, two agents visited her place of employment to inquire of his whereabouts. Mr. Rockefeller sought from that office an explanation for the behavior of those agents. That explanation has not yet been provided.
• Though the Secret Service protects the president, this Secret Service agent alleged that he was dispatched (along with two uniformed Fresno police officers) to assess whether Mr. Rockefeller had threatened a FBI agent in the Salt Lake City office.
• Consistent with serial attempts to discredit Mr. Rockefeller, this agent requested in 2000 that Mr. Rockefeller sign a waiver form for U.C.L.A. medical records dating from 1986.
• At the time of this unannounced visit, Senator Joe Lieberman was campaigning in the Fresno area as part of the Gore-Lieberman presidential ticket.
• This attempt to deploy the perceived authority of the Secret Service to portray Mr. Rockefeller as a “nutcase” was staged 45 months after Mr. Rockefeller returned from Iraq with evidence that Iraq had no WMD and 12 months prior to the 911 attack that led to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq—reliant on false intelligence re Iraqi WMD.

Mr. Rockefeller to Rupert Murdoch (September 2001) [In Boston Globe file].

• Mr. Rockefeller challenged Fox News coverage of 911 and cited precedents for the disinformation and misdirection deployed during events that shape U.S. history.
• This letter also chronicles the means, motive and opportunity for the Zionist state’s role in that mass murder as a provocation.

Meetings in Europe (December 2001)

• When no one with line authority in the U.S. would meet with Mr. Rockefeller, he traveled to Europe to brief senior staff and officials of the European Union.
• Note the relevance of ricin aboard an El Al airliner that crashed in 1992 at Schiphol airport (Amsterdam).
• Note the follow-on correspondence with Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, then president of the EU.
• Note the role of FBI agents in undermining an attempt by Messrs. Rockefeller and Ghazal to travel to Jordan to seek engagement with facts with direct relevance to 911 that have yet to be engaged in the U.S.

Correspondence with Secret Service Agent Richard Sierze (January 2003).

• While working with Dr. Olds, Mr. Rockefeller sent an email to Governor Jeb Bush informing him that if his brother (the president) ordered an invasion of Iraq without first debriefing Mr. Rockefeller on a public record, Mr. Rockefeller would do everything within his lawful power to see the president executed for treason.
• When Agents Sierze and Rob Holman interviewed Mr. Rockefeller (with attorney Ron Burd present), Mr. Rockefeller asked that Agent Sierze speak to Dr. Olds. He declined.
• Mr. Rockefeller then requested that Agent Sierze charge him with a crime and take him before a federal magistrate so that the evidence in these files could be assessed.
• Had Agent Sierze performed as requested, the totality of the evidence suggests that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq may have been prevented.
• Agent Sierze should be interviewed to determine his after-the-fact assessment.

Refused Correspondence to Phoenix Office of the FBI (October 2007-March 2010).

• Refused correspondence from Mel Rockefeller to Special Agent in Charge John Lewis, head of the Phoenix divisional office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
• Refused correspondence directed to Supervisory Special Agent Julie Halferty.
• Refused Gates correspondence to Special Agent David Williams (March 4, 2010).

Boston Globe Treason memo (August 2008).

• This memo was crafted after publication of The Obama Nation when a Boston Globe reporter inquired about Mr. Rockefeller’s relationship to author Jerome Corsi while there was a “phony Rockefeller” story featured in Boston media.
• This memo was copied to the general counsel of The New York Times and was written to preclude the Times’ media group (including the Globe) from attempting to associate Mr. Rockefeller with a phony Rockefeller.
• Should the Times proceed with such a guilt-by-association media strategy, this memo will ensure the ability to prove actual malice as part of a libel cause of action.
• Jerome Corsi has long been an Israeli asset (or agent) that Mel Rockefeller first met in 1995. See files titled:

• Poland Fraud – led by Jerome Corsi and financed by Carl Lindner
• Corsi-related photos – note Atomic Iran and launch of Minutemen at Ground Zero
• Gates – Blair 03-16-05 (Mr. Rockefeller “outed” Mr. Corsi as Israeli asset/agent.

List of Correspondence (1991-2005).

• This list chronicles 15 years of good faith attempts to engage officials with line responsibility for law enforcement and national security—with no success.
• This correspondence suggests the depth, scope, scale and duration of the corruption—still ongoing—inside government at the federal, state and local level.

January 2009 Correspondence

• This letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requested a meeting to discuss confirmed facts proving ongoing federal capital crimes, including treason while this nation is at war.
• No response was received.

February 2009 Correspondence

• Mr. Rockfeller’s letter to President Barack Obama sought good faith engagement to expose and hold accountable those committing ongoing treason.
• Note the reference to good faith attempts to engage Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano while she was governor of Arizona.
• Mr. Rockefeller’s letter to National Security Adviser Jim Jones again confirms that, with functional good faith engagement, this ongoing treason can be stopped.
• No response was received to either letter.

November 2009 Correspondence

• Mr. Rockefeller’s letter to Lt. General Robert Cone followed the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas of U.S. troops. General Cone is the commanding general of Fort Hood.
• As with all previous correspondence, this letter seeks good faith functional engagement by those willing to follow the facts wherever they may lead.

Systemic Criminality

• This overview explains how duplicity proceeds in plain sight by targeting knowledge to affect thought and emotion—and thereby manipulate behavior in a nonlinear fashion.
• Imagine what a different nation (and world) we would now inhabit if:

• President John Kennedy had succeeded in 1963 in forcing Israel to shut down its nuclear weapons program.
• Senator William Fulbright and Attorney General Robert Kennedy had succeeded in 1962-63 in forcing the Israel lobby to register as a foreign agent.
• Robert Kennedy had been elected in 1968 and continued JFK’s program re Israeli nuclear weapons and (with Fulbright) mandated foreign agent registration for AIPAC.

• This file also includes one of several letters to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV and a photocopy of Mr. Gates and Senator Rockefeller (circa 1985).

CVs – for Dr. Glenn Olds and Jeff Gates

• Dr. Olds served as an adviser to four presidents, two of each party.
• Mr. Rockefeller’s senior adviser for 12 years, Dr. Olds died in March 2006.
• Dr. Olds served as a confidential adviser to four of the five third-generation Rockefeller brothers. He was particularly close to New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller who he said Mel Rockefeller most resembles in speech and thought.
• He had known Senator John D. (“Jay”) Rockefeller since age 27 when Jay served in West Virginia in Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), a program Dr. Olds conceived and shepherded to enactment.
• At his death, Dr. Olds had been a friend and professional colleague of G.H.W. Bush for 59 years. They first met when Dr. Olds was a teacher’s assistant at Yale University for Philosophy I and G.H.W. Bush was a student—six months before he met Barbara.
• G.H.W. Bush succeeded Dr. Olds as U.N. Ambassador for Nixon.
• As a special assistant to President Nixon, Dr. Olds recruited more than 1,000 people, including Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
• Dr. Olds’ conclusion based on the confirmed facts gathered by examining the “fields within fields…within fields of relationships” into which Mr. Rockefeller was drawn since his birth in 1952: “I am stunned at the depth of the treason.”
• The CV for Mr. Gates includes colleagues’ comments on The Ownership Solution (1998) and Democracy at Risk – Rescuing Main Street from Wall Street (2000).

Guilt By Association (2008).

• This book is the first release in the Criminal State series.
• In this initial “generic” account, Mr. Rockefeller is referenced only as “John Doe” in the preface and the endnotes.
• Book excerpts, endorsments and topical op-eds appear on www.criminalstate.com.

Watching Israel Delegitimize the U.S.

What’s behind the sudden crisis in Korea? Who benefits?

Which nation’s nuclear arsenal is problematic?

The U.S.-Israeli relationship has long been America’s Achilles heel. Our first president warned against “entangled alliances” particularly when, as here, there’s a “passionate attachment.”

Our “special relationship” with this rogue state has placed the U.S. outside the same system of international law that we now seek to impose on others, including Iran.

Our handling of the current crisis on the Korean peninsula could restore our tattered reputation.

What’s the first issue that needs to be addressed?

Here’s where you the reader may well ask: “Do you mean the issue concerning the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center?” No, but nor is that question irrelevant to this latest crisis.

Here’s the second issue that must be addressed: to which nations has Israel transferred nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology? Is North Korea on the list?

That issue became relevant with the release of The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa. Archival research by author Sasha Polakowsky-Suransky uncovered “top secret” minutes of a military agreement signed in April 1975 between Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and South Africa’s defense minister P.W. Botha.

Though Israel denies the conclusions reached by reporters for The Guardian (U.K.), the agreement suggests an offer of nuclear weapons while its Apartheid regime was under international sanctions.

Israel was then building a surrogate arms industry in South Africa using what was, in practical effect, slave labor. That industry has since moved to Israel where it employs “guest workers.” Peres was responsible for building Israel’s nuclear program with help from France in the 1950s.

Some weeks before the offer, Israel and South Africa signed a covert agreement (code name Secment) governing their military alliance. In the subsequent meetings, “correct payload” was used to describe the nuclear warheads Israel would provide for a Jericho missile system. As The Guardian explained:

“The use of a euphemism, the ‘correct payload’, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons… the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.”

South Africa did not go ahead with the deal it was offered though it did develop its own nuclear weapons, possibly with Israeli assistance. The Apartheid government revealed the program to Nelson Mandela when he became president.

In 1986, nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the Sunday Times (London). Vanunu was kidnapped by Mossad agents in Rome and returned for trial in Israel. Sentenced to 18 years, he served 11 years in solitary confinement. On May 23^rd, he was sentenced to another three months in prison for breaking the terms of his release by having unauthorized meetings with foreigners.

Evil Doers vs. Evil Doing

Even now Israel strives against all odds to maintain “ambiguity” about its nuclear weapons. But how can you offer nuclear weapons you don’t have?

Who provided nuclear technology to North Korea? That backward state, now nuclear-armed, was included in G.W. Bush’s post-911 “Axis of Evil” speech. Care to guess who wrote that speech?

Shortly thereafter the U.S. invaded Iraq to remove an Evil Doer. Only later did we learn that our “flawed” intelligence was “fixed” around a goal long sought by Israel as chronicled in A Clean Break, a strategy document written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a team of Israeli-Americans led by Richard Perle.

In 2001, Perle became chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Review Board.

The United Nations has long been scheduled to review the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to consider the creation of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. As the date approached, the world community experienced a well-timed torpedo attack on a South Korean warship, reportedly by a North Korean submarine.

In the midst of these negotiations, mainstream media has been flooding the national consciousness with power-of-association stories about Iran, its nuclear program and even its links to North Korea. Tehran, of course, was the third member in the trio of Bush-era Evil Doers.

News outlets controlled by Israeli-American Rupert Murdoch are particularly active, including Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

Is it true that Tel Aviv transferred to Pyongyang a German-made submarine? If so, does that qualify as evil doing?

Perhaps here is a good place to pose an out-of-sequence question: What about the collapse of Building 7?

Master Myth Makers

Does Israel routinely transfer war materiél to nations subject to international sanctions?

That would help explain their status as the world’s third largest arms exporter. The U.S. holds first place with Russia second. Israel and France vie for third and fourth trailed by the U.K. and China in the Dirty Half Dozen.

If Israel has an extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons, why does the U.S not insist on inspections?

How does U.S. protection of Israel’s illegal conduct advance U.S. interests?

How is our conduct consistent with the behavior we are now pressing on Iran?

What is so valuable about the U.S.-Israeli relationship that we should sacrifice our credibility to cover-up violations of international law that make us appear guilty by association?

By law isn’t the U.S. obliged to support U.N. sanctions for Israel?

Why discredit the U.S. and undermine the stature of the United Nations? Wasn’t the U.N. the post-WWII organization founded in large part by the U.S. to discourage just such behavior?

Serial Provocations and Murderous Misdirection

Instead of sanctions, what do we see instead? Misdirection and intimidation.

The Internet is awash with Men in Black accounts featuring the usual array of conspiracies. Elvis may yet be blamed for a Korean peninsula incident that could ignite a nuclear war in the region.

How long before we see a story blaming Hezbollah terrorists led by the Pakistan Taliban aboard an Iranian submarine advised by Syrian nuclear scientists and Palestinian strategists?

Or aliens.

The stage has been set for another 911, possibly featuring a nuclear incident. A series of “plausible” Evil Doers have been prominently featured in assorted “terrorist incidents.”

Enough pre-staging has been done that Americans again feel insecure following the media coverage given the Ft. Hood shooting, the Christmas Day Bomber and now the Times Square Terrorist.

One small problem: none of these storylines hold up under close scrutiny. But then that’s not the point. Neither did the “intelligence” on which we relied to wage war in Iraq in response to the provocation of 911. It didn’t need to be true, just believable.

Time to Redo the Report

Anyone of substance associated with the report of the 911 Commission knows we still need a good faith investigation. Mainstream Europeans routinely call for it. Those demands are routinely couched in code due to the perils facing those in the EU who question our “special relationship.”

Instead, commentators ask about the “collapse” of Building 7. Good question. Also a fair question. The answer could lead somewhere useful. Therefore, don’t ask, don’t tell.

This entangled alliance has been an exercise in deceit since a Christian-Zionist president, a Democrat, was induced to extend recognition to an enclave of extremists.

Harry Truman dismissed the concerns of the Joint Chiefs who warned him about their “fanatical concepts” and their plans for “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

We were deceived by our own better nature to embrace a relationship that has long been at odds with our national interest. The durability of the relationship has long failed to pass muster as either rational or consistent with our values. The relationship has changed for the worse who we are as a nation.

Yet somehow the relationship endures. Along with the perceived legitimacy of this “state.”

Deception and Self-Deceit

Its persistence can be traced to the strength of a lobby that, to date, has escaped registration as a foreign agent. Those known for their skill at waging war “by way of deception” have routinely betrayed the nation that first befriended and most reliably defended them.

Even when a Christian-Zionist president, a Republican, led us to war on fixed intelligence, we were unable to identity the common source of our troubles. Some blamed G.W Bush. Others now blame Barack Obama. Both critiques miss the point. This treachery is now systemic and thoroughly imbedded in both political parties.

Even now, an undisclosed media bias blocks Americans from the facts they require to make an informed choice about this relationship. And about the legitimacy of a transnational operation that murders with impunity (as in Dubai) and provokes with pleasure—anywhere they please.

Americans are now emerging from many quarters to resist the influence wielded on (and from within) our government by special interests. This special relationship often tops the list.

Many supporters of Israel have been deceived to believe that this relationship is in their best interest. The facts confirm otherwise. Like the nation itself, they too were “the mark” in this long-running fraud.

We have been seduced by those masterful at deceit to freely embrace the very forces that delegitimized us as a nation and collapsed our economy from within.

Which brings me back to the question: what about Building 7?

Who Wants this American Dead?

Why kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American who inspired the Times Square Fizzler and advised the Crotch Bomb Sizzler?

This Islamic preacher is “out there.” No doubt about it. So is Christian preacher John Hagee.

Hagee promises his flock a Rapture that will beam them up to Heaven. But not just yet. First God’s Chosen People must recover Jerusalem.

Remind me: isn’t the status of Jerusalem THE most contentious and volatile issue in the entire Middle East?

Hagee is much loved by the Likud Party wing nuts that have never shown any desire for peace with an indigenous population that has been ethnically cleansed, imprisoned and provoked with impunity for six-plus decades.

Isn’t Hagee’s preaching an incitement to violence? Yet members of his flock can claim a tax deduction to support his inspired preaching. We call this freedom of religion

If the recovery of Jerusalem for The Chosen requires an Armageddon, so be it. That too is part of God’s plan. Hagee should know. He claims a direct line to Yahweh. Just ask him.

Even a nuclear holocaust would fit God’s Plan. Why? An Apocalypse would assure the reappearance of a long-dead prophet.

This End Days prophecy is routinely foretold on the public airwaves by this tax-subsidized televangelist. For The Faithful, he offers an inspiration that has a twisted logic behind it.

When The Chosen recover their God-Given real estate, God will smite all those who refuse to join Hagee’s flock. Or some Christian affiliate thereof.

And, yes, that includes The Chosen. Convert or die. That’s the Hagee-inspired, tax-subsidized version of Christianity.

Such smiting does not qualify as a Holocaust. Why? Because those smitten are only The Chosen who refuse to choose a conversion to this version of a Loving God.

By then Hagee’s True Believers will be safely enfolded in the post-Rapture embrace of a God that prefers Christians Above All.

What about The Smitten? It was their Choice as The Chosen not to Choose. That’s their problem in this Biblical version of Blue State vs. Red State politics in a post-Apocalypse world.

Democracy-meets-theocracy supported by freedom-of-religion tax subsidies that inspire both The Saved and The Smitten.

Light Unto the Darkness

This blend of Star Trek and the Old Testament lacks any basis in either fact or faith. But Never Mind. That’s the burden that befalls those inspired by such a vision.

Just keep on keeping on, faithfully secure that you will be on the side of The Chosen in the post-Apocalyptic era. Provided, of course, that you choose wisely.

For that, consult Reverend Hagee. And keep those tax-deductible donations flowing.

Why do U.S. taxpayers subsidize such preaching? Why are we now using our tax dollars to hunt down and kill Muslim preachers in faraway lands?

Were there not a consensus that Hagee’s preaching merits protectiion as religion, he would be consigned to a padded cell. Or described as a terrorist and a Christian Evil Doer.

But the immediate issue here is neither about sanity nor the freedom to inspire.

The issue is what conduct you inspire. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a no-no. Unless, of course, there’s a fire. Yell “Apocalypse” and you may find yourself in one of those cells.

What about taxpayer subsidies for televangelists who preach a nuclear Apocalypse? Why subsidize such “inspiration” in the world’s most volatile region?

Is Hagee’s inspiration subsidized because it fits into a “Judeo-Christian” narrative? What if he were calling for an Apocalypse here instead of the faraway Middle East?

What is it about a U.S.-born Islamic cleric living in Yemen, the poorest Arab nation, that makes him such a danger to Americans’ interests in the Middle East?

Who benefits from his death? Why is he so problematic?

Why now?

A Contract on the New Mexican

Barack Obama, a political product of the Chicago Outfit, reportedly approved this hit.

Who persuaded this former professor of Constitutional law that this was a good idea?

What is the rationale for this contract? All we know is what’s been reported to date.

But we also know this: FBI agents were actively monitoring at least three “incidents” by Muslim Evil Doers with whom this New Mexico native was in contact:

*  The two San Diego hijackers who flew jets into the World Trade Center on 911.

* The Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable, and

? The Christmas Day Crotch Bomber

And now we discover that he also “inspired” The Times Square Fizzler. Who knew?

Akin to an online Billy Graham for evangelical Muslims offering inspirational DVDs to his faithful flock, Mr. Awlaki appears uniquely capable of inspiring serial acts of “terrorism.”

Or to reframe these events in game theory terminology, perhaps he was uniquely well qualified to inspire uniquely well-timed “incidents”?

But wait a minute. The facts confirm he advised and/or “inspired” four such incidents, including at least three incidents undertaken during FBI oversight of Awlaki.

How did the Times Square Fizzler make 16 trips to and from Pakistan with impunity? How did he show up in Manhattan to launch a high profile “incident” just as the United Nations began debate on a treaty to create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons? See: Israel Defense Official Defends Nuclear Ambiguity.

Well-Timed Sparkle?

Imagine yourself seated in a darkened theater focused on a mystery thriller featuring a complex plot with several intricate subplots.

Then someone in your peripheral vision lights a fireworks sparkler. What happens to your attention? Then someone lights another. What then happens to your focus?

That’s why, in national security parlance, well-timed incidents are called “sparkle.”

Is it coincidence that Awlaki is found on the periphery of so many well-timed incidents? Why are federal law enforcement agents also found on the periphery?

Who benefits from having a Muslim cleric killed in a Muslim country by U.S. forces instead of apprehending him for questioning?

Kill him and watch this evidentiary trail vanish like the “dancing Israelis” who were spotted filming and celebrating the mass murder of 911.

For game theory war planners, a provocation is only the appetizer. The main course is the cascade of reactions that advance a narrative in support of a geopolitical agenda.

Provoked by 911, prodded by phony intelligence and duped yet again by a trusted ally, the U.S. reacted by invading Iraq, a nation now known to have no hand in that event. At last count, 1.3 million Iraqis are reportedly dead of war-related causes.

Rather than a nuclear-free Middle East, we’re now urged to invade Iran, the latest nuclear Evil Doer. Or is the next target now the Evil Doer Pakistan? How about Syria?

What’s been the reaction to our reaction to 911 among Muslims worldwide? Was our reaction modeled by game theory war planners? Are we that easily profiled? How much of the ongoing cascade of reactions-on-reactions-on-reactions could be modeled such that today’s outcomes became foreseeable—in the sense of being probable?

As Israeli war planners aptly say: “When the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”

What if the anticipated reactions fail to emerge on a timely basis? Are these Awlaki-inspired incidents “sparkle?”

Were they meant to distract attention and diffuse the focus required to press for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestine—including Jerusalem? Did the Times Square Fizzler further delay U.N. treaty—first proposed in 1995—that would force Israel to abandon its nuclear arsenal?

If we experience a nuclear “incident,” does it now appear more “plausibly” the work of Muslim Evil Doers? Iranians? Pakistanis? Syrians?

Or will it be the work of Israeli provocateurs?

Advancing the Narrative

Anwar al-Awlaki has the gift of gab. There’s no dispute about that. Raised in New Mexico and steeped in the Koran, his fiery rhetoric combines fluency in both pop culture and theology.

What radicalized him? What personal experiences transformed him from a glib Islamic cleric to a U.S.-bashing Muslim Evil Doer?

How about 18 months in a Yemeni prison, most of that sentence served in solitary confinement?

That alone might not suffice to turn him against his native country—unless his confinement was traceable to an American official.

Remember John Negroponte? He first emerged on the global scene as an overseer of death squads in Central America during the mid-1980s as part of the Reagan administration.

Regarded as a mass murderer by those knowledgeable in that volatile region, he reemerged in February 2005 when Secretary of State Colin Powell was dispatched to the United Nations. With Negroponte seated behind him, Powell’s credibility as a former general was associated with intelligence falsely alleging Iraq’s possession of mobile biological weapons.

Such “associative” psy-ops are business-as-usual for those skilled at displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe. Displacement is an essential component when waging Information Age warfare. See: Guilt By Association.

When watching Powell’s performance (he now concedes he was duped), television viewers saw over his right shoulder CIA Director George Tenet. The intelligence operative that no one could see behind Tenet was Paul Joyal, his chief of staff who boasts of being a Khazar.

Over Powell’s other shoulder peered John Negroponte, then director of national intelligence with oversight of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies. None of those agencies now support Powell’s Power Point presentation of “facts” proving those biological weapons.

Negroponte was the U.S. official who did not object when Yemen imprisoned a U.S. citizen and held him in solitary confinement—where Awlaki immersed himself in the Koran for 18 months.

The U.S. approval of his release in 2007 suggests that he could have been released much earlier.

Try to imagine a better formula for radicalization. Who better than an outraged articulate American cleric to inspire Muslim-American Evil Doers? Or Pakistani-American patsies such as the Times Square Fizzler.

Why was Awlaki imprisoned? Equally important, why was he released? Capture him alive and we may find out. Kill him and the trail goes cold. Could that be the point?

Why has his death been ordered by a U.S. commander-in-chief? Why do Barack Obama’s advisers not want him brought in alive?

When unwinding the multi-layered forces at work behind game theory warfare, what distinguishes the agent provocateur from those profiled to react to those provocations?

Who is the real enemy in this hall of mirrors? Faced with yet another well-timed “incident,” how do we sort out the source of this evil doing?

Do we protect U.S. national security by killing a U.S. citizen?

Think about it.

Is the Time Square Terrorist more Field-Based Warfare?

In March 2001, Indonesian Intelligence Chief Arie Kumaat asked American James M. (“Mel”) Rockefeller to assess the Taliban’s destruction of the two ancient Buddhas of Bamyan carved into a sandstone cliff in central Afghanistan 140 miles northwest of Kabul.

Familiar with psychological operations (psy-ops) that involve lengthy pre-staging, Kumaat inquired of Rockefeller in Jakarta why that incident occurred at that time and place.

Kumaat also noted the curious timing of two other operations: (a) a Defense minister in India had recently been caught in a bribery scandal involving an Israeli company, and (b) that same Israeli firm attempted to bribe the Malaysian Defense Minister.

Six months prior to 911, the motivation for the Bamyan incident was difficult to discern. In hindsight, we now know that high profile event branded the Taliban globally as Evil Doers.

What about the briberies? The amounts involved were too small, Rockefeller suggested, to constitute real bribes. Rather, both were attempts to change key personnel though it was not yet clear to what end. Since 911, the reason for the timing of those Israeli operations comes more clearly into focus.

In national security parlance, the dynamiting of the Buddhas “prepared the mind” of a global public for whom the Taliban remained an obscurity until their extremism was branded by that well timed event. The briberies will be addressed in a subsequent analysis. Suffice it to say that both involved the pre-staging of “out-of-theater” operations.

By Way of Deception

For those skilled at Information Age warfare, the relevant battlefield is the public’s shared field of consciousness. In that intangible realm, the power of association is routinely deployed to create lasting impressions as a means of mental manipulation.

In preparing that ‘field’ for an emerging narrative, mainstream media depicted the incident at Bamyan as a “cultural Holocaust.” Akin to the casting of a movie, by September 11, 2001, the intolerant Taliban had already been cast as a credible enemy of liberal democracies.

When the reaction to 911 triggered a global search for a plausible Evil Doer, the narrative quickly became a morality play with the U.S. pitted against extremists who hate our values.

As a nation, we segued seamlessly from a global Cold War—against those who hate our values to a Global War on Terrorism—against those who hate our values.

The violence inflicted on the peaceful Buddhas of Bamyan also brought Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar onto the battlefield of consciousness—where he remains.

In the unfolding of this storyline, Omar became the oft-featured Epitome of Evil, akin to a Muslim Darth Vader from Star Wars films. Or Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to war in Iraq.

Best Story Wins

This brief overview of “field-based warfare” brings us to the latest incident in New York again featuring in a starring role Mullah Omar as leader of the “Pakistan Taliban.”

But first a brief review of three recent events.

Keep in mind that when waging game theory warfare, it is not the incident but the reaction that advances the narrative. The cascade of reactions to an incident is what gains traction for a storyline when manipulating minds in that “field.” See: Can the U.S. Beat Israel at Their Game?

The first incident was the December 2007 murder of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazim biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice that the return to Pakistan of the corrupt but widely popular Bhutto was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.”

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had announced that an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine was critical to end the conflicts in Iraq and neighboring Afghanistan. That comment made him a target of those for whom that occupation has long served a strategic purpose.

Bhutto’s death was blamed on the Pakistan Taliban. The reaction resulted in the replacement of Musharraf with Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s notoriously corrupt husband. By our alliance with Zardari, the U.S. could be cast as extending its corrupting influence in the region. See: What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?; Israel’s Role in Terrorism

In August 2008, Ashkenazi General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Israeli arms and training. That out-of-theater crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) pledged to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Russia was then negotiating an energy agreement with Iran.

The incident in Georgia was the second of three prepare-the-mind events. Third was “India’s 911” in November 2008 when extremists recruited from the tribal regions of western Pakistan killed 173 and wounded more than 300 in Mumbai, India’s financial center.

The attack included a hostel run by Chabad Lubavitch, an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from New York. In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced: “Our world is under attack.”

Livni then argued: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.” By its exclusion, Pakistan was indicted.

By standing “shoulder to shoulder” with India (the signature phrase of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon), Tel Aviv associated India with Israel’s victim status.

The response to that attack drew Pakistani troops to its eastern border with India. That reaction left its Western tribal regions less well guarded and thereby plausibly more susceptible to extremist infiltrators from Afghanistan joining the Pakistan Taliban.

By May 2009, Israel had delivered to India its first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning & Control Systems (AWACS). That arms sale shifted the balance of conventional air power in the region. That military alliance also confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….” See: The India/Israel Alliance

Whose Pakistan Taliban?

Now let’s turn to the latest incident—also attributed to the Pakistan Taliban. Keep in mind that when waging war on the battlefield of the public’s shared mind space, the power of association is routinely deployed as a form of weaponry.

The “Times Square terrorist” incident occurred at 6:30 pm on May 1^st. That same day, reports emerged from London that more than 3,000 European Jews, including prominent intellectuals, had signed a petition speaking out against Israeli settlement policies and warning that systematic support for the Israeli government is dangerous.

That statement garnered high praise from those aware of how peace in the Middle East has long been kept beyond reach by Israeli agent provocateurs. Serial provocations around the settlements issue have long been a reliable catalyst for well-timed outrage that, in turn, is cited to again defer resolution of a six-decade conflict. See: What Next for Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

Bernard-Henri Levy, a high-profile French writer, led that European effort. That development appeared quite positive when first announced. Then Levy began to appear as a commentator on television following the “Times Square Terrorism” as that incident was portrayed on the cover of Newsweek, a Washington Post magazine.

Rather than promote the petition and the urgent need to solve the settlements issue, instead Levy offered his appraisal of the Times Square incident. He described in depth how he studied what went on “inside the mind” of a Muslim Evil Doer who in 2002 slit the throat and then beheaded an American-Jewish reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

The Levy analysis injected into the “field” the most visually provocative image of the War on Terrorism featuring the epitome of both violence and extremist intolerance. Levy’s well-timed on-camera recitation refreshed in the public mindset the disturbing imagery of a Muslim Evil Doer who brutally murdered and dismembered a young professional with a pregnant wife.

Levy’s described for the television viewer the mental state of the psychopathic Muslim profiled in his book Who Killed Danny Pearl? Where did this evil doing occur? In Pakistan.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped from the Shadows?

As Levy’s account was injected into the field at the same time as the Time Square Bomber, the U.N. Security Council then had under review a 15-year old proposal for a treaty that would create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

The timing of these developments could be coincidental. Yet consider another possibility.

Assume your numbers are few but your ambitions vast. The confirmed facts point to the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy from the shadows with phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a Muslim Evil Doer that had nothing to do with that incident. Is it possible that this latest incident had a strategic purpose that is not yet clear to the public?

If, as the facts suggest, advisers to President Barack Obama are advancing a pro-Israeli agenda, could the timing of this incident be a means to exert influence from outside the White House?

Could that be because their influence inside the White House has become apparent? See: Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?

The facts suggest that Obama, as U.S. commander-in-chief, is feeling pressure from the military to change our policy on Israel. Did the timing of these “out of theatre” events help finesse that issue by refreshing a storyline that calls for the U.S. to lead a Global War on Terrorism?

Was this latest incident timed to provide a rationale with which our policy-makers can preempt Pentagon concerns about the effect of U.S.-Israeli policy on our troops in the field? Note the military concerns described in Foreign Policy: The Petraeus Briefing – Israel Endangering U.S. Troops

How long ago would pro-Israeli White House insiders have known about the pending U.N. Security Council consideration of a treaty that could force Israel to forfeit its nuclear weapons? When was the Times Square Terrorist recruited by the “Pakistan Taliban”?

Is this how a war-making narrative is sustained, using well-timed crises staged in a nonlinear fashion such that their common origin is diffused in the “field”?

Could that explain the well-timed murder of Benazir Bhutto by the “Pakistan Taliban”? Could that explain the well-timed destabilizing impact on Pakistan of the recent “911” attack on Mumbai using operatives recruited and trained in Pakistan? Was this too the “Pakistan Taliban”?

In a televised May 10^th interview, General Stanley McChrystal explained that winning the current war in the Middle East requires a “change in perception.” Is that the purpose of these well-timed crises? Are they meant to refresh our fear of the “Pakistan Taliban”?

The displacement of facts with false beliefs induced us to invade Iraq consistent with a narrative that was revitalized by this latest well-timed “incident.” Is the American public again being manipulated by those skilled at managing perceptions?

Is this incident a high profile example of field-based warfare being waged on America? Are we in the midst of another psy-ops?

Is that possible? Could there be a sufficient critical mass of like-minded operatives in positions of influence capable of inducing enough minds to freely embrace another war that is not in our interest?

Is it possible in the Information Age that psy-ops could operate on such a scale? Is there sufficient collateral support in key decision-making quarters to again deceive an entire nation in plain sight yet, to date, with legal impunity?

Pakistan has long been an ally of the U.S. So was Iraq. Likewise Iran was an ally in recent history. Where are we to find this purported “Axis of Evil”? Does its source reside in nation-states? Or does this evil reside in the mental state of those skilled at manipulating the minds of others to wage war on false pretenses?

War in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented

The answers to those questions may need to await an official, good faith investigation of the three-decade experience of Mel Rockefeller who has been profiling the common source of this duplicity—from the inside—since 1982. That experience remains ongoing.

In March 2001, he and Indonesian intelligence chief Arie Kumaat were not then able to detect the pre-staging of the mass murder on U.S. soil that emerged six months later.

After that provocation and before the manipulated response (the invasion of Iraq), Kumaat agreed to schedule a meeting for Rockefeller with former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid. A religious and political leader of 80 million moderate Muslim men, Wahid had recently presided over the world’s largest Muslim nation.

Rockefeller knew the Wahid meeting would lead to a meeting with Malaysian president Mahathir bin Mohamad. This Muslim leader was familiar with the common source of many of today’s troubles, including a well timed attempt to topple the Malaysian Minister of Defense.

Plus Kumaat had uncovered a multi-billion dollar Israeli bribe that would have destabilized the entire Indonesia government reportedly organized with the help of a nonprofit funded by American George Soros. See: The Truth About America and Pakistan

With all two Muslim nations appraised of the common Israeli source of this manipulation, could the invasion of Iraq have been stopped?

With that knowledge, could a “coalition of the willing” have been assembled to support that U.S.-led invasion? Would other nations have been energized to resist? We may never know.

Soon after agreeing to set that meeting with Wahid, Arie Kumaat was poisoned. He received a state funeral in January 2002, four months after the provocation that took the U.S. to war against Muslim Evil Doers.

Though the official account of his death cited a heart attack, a family autopsy reportedly detected the poison used to induce a heart attack. That account was confirmed in an interview with Kumaat’s son, Henrie. See: Zionist Dominance in the Obama Presidency

The People in Between

In an October 2007 speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates identified “the people in between” as the most problematic combatant when waging “unconventional warfare.” The facts suggest that such warfare is only “unconventional” for those targeted. For the aggressor, this form of warfare is standard operating procedure.

Those waging war from the shadows imbed their operatives in that realm “in between” a targeted populace and the facts they require for a system of governance reliant on informed consent. By displacing facts with false beliefs, mental manipulation can proceed in plain sight.

Between a deceived American public and the facts they required to assess whether to wage war in Iraq were legions of pro-Israeli operatives. Many of those operatives are imbedded in media, a key in-between domain essential for success in field-based warfare.

Thus, for example, the critical agenda-advancing role played by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. He even branded his broadcasting set “The Situation Room” to lend White House-associative credibility on a network branded as “the most trusted name in news.” See: Israel’s Fifth Column: The People in Between

Likewise New York Times “reporter” Judith Miller who featured on its front page the false intelligence provided by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the credible-sounding “Iraqi National Congress.” This Iraqi expatriate and London-based Iraqi liar served as a reliable and pliable Israeli asset developed over two decades by pro-Israeli operatives, including Richard Perle who in 2001 became chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board.

This form of Information Age treason could only succeed if hidden in plain sight. Today’s fast-paced velocity of information ensures that media impressions now shape political agendas. Thus the importance of “the people in between” in manipulating U.S. foreign policy.

Out-of-Theater Repositioning

Pro-Israelis in the Obama administration could no longer directly shape Middle East policy after General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, complained to the Joint Chiefs about the adverse impact of the U.S.-Israeli relationship on U.S. interests in the region.

Could that explain the utility of an “out of theater” incident to refresh the narrative? That may explain the timing of an incident in a high-profile venue (Times Square) featuring a power-of-association component (New York) that could plausibly be attributed to Pakistan as a source of violent Islamic extremists.

The control wielded in Washington by the Israel lobby remains little known to mainstream Americans. As our representatives in what was meant to be a representative system of governance, the U.S. Congress now epitomizes “the people in between.” See: How the Israel Lobby Controls U.S.

The accountability of Congress to the broader population—or even to our troops in the field—is now out of the question. Meanwhile those who deceived the U.S. to war in Iraq are working to induce us to war in Iran—or Pakistan.

If the consensus storyline cannot be sustained, the consequences are clear. If the War on Terrorism loses credibility, the resulting stability will provide Americans with the breathing space required to identify the real enemy. And to begin rooting out a deeply entrenched treason.

This Can Only End Badly

Meanwhile business-as-usual continues in plain sight. The day after Israel was admitted to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu charged that Iran is provoking Israel to wage war with Syria.

When President Shimon Peres denied this week that Israel would go to war with Syria, he meant that Syria is the likely rationale for the next crisis. When on May 11^th he declared in Moscow that nuclear terror is the world’s greatest threat, rest assured that game theory war planners in Tel Aviv have in place a plausible plan for blaming such an incident on Iran-backed Hezbollah.

The same day that “proximity talks” began, the Palestinians confirmed that Israel had another settlement underway in East Jerusalem. The next day, the Israeli minister for public safety announced that Israel will demolish Arab homes in East Jerusalem.

On May 12^th (“Jerusalem Day”), the U.S.-based Conference of Presidents (of Major American Jewish Organizations) took a full-page ad in The New York Times to proclaim “Jerusalem in the Heart of the Jewish People.” Meanwhile, Netanyahu announced from Israel, “We will never divide Jerusalem.”

When this Likud Party leader calls for peace while insisting on conditions that make peace impossible, rest assured that more provocations are planned.

The latest storyline in search of traction: Syrian-provided poison-gas missiles pose a threat to Israel from Lebanon-based, Iran-backed Hezbollah. As the war on terrorism is rebranded, it is not yet clear how the Pakistan Taliban will be worked into the narrative.

All we know for certain is that Muslims will remain the Evil Doers in this storyline. And that Israelis will once again be cast as hapless victims.

Anticipating a tactical need to collapse another government, Israeli politicians are in discussions about an alliance between the Kadima Party and the Labor Party. When the latest Likud coalition falters, the resulting political instability will inject into the field the requisite “entropy” for Israel to continue on its current path without a government with whom other nations can negotiate.

See: What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

What is the endgame for those once again defrauding the nation that befriended this enclave six decades ago and has since defended their interests without question?

What happens when Americans understand the depth and duration of this duplicity? And when the U.S. military confirms the common source of this ongoing treason?

What happens when a long-deceived global public grasps what this entangled alliance has cost them in blood and treasure over the past 62 years?

What Next for The People in Between?

The most recent Sunday edition of The New York Times is filled not with hopes of a nuclear-free Middle East but with fears of the future horrors inflicted on Americans by Muslim Evil Doers.

That storyline is reinforced on television by a reminder of the horrors inflicted on Danny Pearl. Meanwhile it’s made to appear that pro-Israeli moderates are busily working to restrain extremists in the Likud Party. That too is part of the storyline.

The Big Question is this: is anyone still buying it? Meanwhile the Big Sell continues.

The Sunday New York Times featured page after page marketing fear and insecurity:

• The front page featured a large photo of U.S.-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awaki who advised a series of alleged Evil Doers whose photos were also prominently displayed:
  • Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable

• Umar Farouck Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber. See: Christmas Day Crotch Bomber tied to Israel, FBI

• Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber See: Pakistan the Evil Doer and the Times Square Fizzler

The featured article consumed two full inside pages. There was no news coverage—none—of the pending U.N. proposal to free the Middle East of nuclear weapons.

The front page of the commentary section in the national paper of record included two major articles. The first article warned that this enemy “may mutate and even grow.” The second analysis explored “when to suspend fear.”

The book review section featured “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England,” and “Heidegger—The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy.”

The only mention of the pending U.N. proposal for ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons appeared in the lead editorial titled “Fixing the Treaty.” The editors’ assessment of Israel giving up its nuclear weapons: “That is not going to happen any time soon.”

To successfully wage war in the shared field of consciousness, an enemy must hide in plain sight. Otherwise, those deceived cannot be induced to believe.

There lies the fast-emerging peril for those complicit in this ongoing treason. As the common source of this duplicity becomes transparent, its operatives are becoming apparent.

Is Pakistan the Next Evil Doer?

Who was surprised to find Pakistan associated with a “significant terrorist event” in New York? Was anyone surprised that this “car bomb” incident occurred in the same city as the last significant event? Or that news reports promptly featured the Taliban of Pakistan?

Who labeled it a significant terrorist event?  A “security analyst” with IntelCenter.  Visit the site and remember the old adage: Best Story Wins.

Was this a genuine terrorist event? Or was this an agent provocateur operation meant to freshen up a stale storyline: the Global War on Terrorism?

Remember the “Christmas Day Bomber”? Were you surprised to find that “significant terrorist event” was an Israeli operation? Or have you not yet realized its source? See Christmas Day Crotch Bomber Tied to Israel, FBI

Was anyone surprised at the post-event surge in the market value of firms that produce body-scanning equipment? Or that Israel is an industry leader?

Who was surprised to learn that the industry is represented by the law firm of former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff?

If none of this surprises you, read no further because you already have a grip on reality.

For everyone else, please reflect on the seductive fictions that induced us to invade Iraq. And recall the central role played by mainstream media in that successful deceit.

Facts are only valued by those who value a system of law based on facts.

Yet many of us were seduced to become True Believers in what we now know was phony intelligence that took us to war—based on that phony intelligence.

War By Deception

What are the facts of this latest “significant terrorist event”? Was this just a ruse? We don’t yet know. What we know is this: it fits a pattern of displacing facts with beliefs.

The facts are not the point. From a psy-ops perspective, the point is this: notice the impact of this event on what youbelieve to be true. Do you now associate Pakistan with Evil Doing?

What other associations came to mind? When you heard about possible Islamic terrorists in New York, did Iran come to mind? Did fear of a nuclear “event” come to mind?

Regardless of the facts, impressions were created along with mental associations, however subtle. Once again the public’s shared mind space was awash with Muslim Evil Doers.

Who better than the “Taliban of Pakistan” to advance the 911 narrative? The Taliban is Evil. Pakistan is Muslim. Therefore….

Did The Clash of Civilizations come to mind? Islamo-fascism? Images of Osama bin Laden?

What better way to sustain the narrative—regardless of the facts—than an “event” in Manhattan? As with the Crotch Bomber, the profile given the incident reinforces the need for a pricey and highly profitable Global War on Terrorism.

Facts are irrelevant. To advance the narrative is the point. Who better to portray as evil than nuclear-armed Pakistan?

We Americans are not known for our fluency in geography. But we know Pakistan is a neighbor of Iran who—we are constantly assured—is a certified Evil Doer and habitual Holocaust Denier with an agenda of nuclear terrorism.

Again, the facts are beside the point. The storyline is everything.

What’s a Storyteller to Do?

What happens when a storyline grows ragged around the edges? As the last Evil Doer narrative played out, we found ourselves watching on television the end of a storyline as Saddam Hussein, a former ally, dropped through a Baghdad gallows at the end of a rope.

While there’s no doubt he was an Evil Doer, he did not do the evil claimed as the rationale for war: Iraqi WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, mobile biological weapons laboratories, yellowcake uranium from Niger and so forth.

None of it was true.

Never mind. Let’s move on. Hit the reset button and gird your groins for the next Evil Doer. Iran would be nice but Pakistan will do in a pinch.

To punish a genuine Evil Doer would require that we hang those who fabricated the intelligence that induced us to war in Iraq on false pretenses.

To indict and prosecute those Evil Doers would also help restore U.S. national security. Dispatching more Americans to kill more Muslims seems unlikely to achieve that goal.

To convict and execute genuine Evil Doers requires that we do what the 911 Commission members implied: open a new investigation. Americans don’t yet know how this significant terrorist event succeeded. Nor do we know bywhom it was orchestrated. Or why.

With the storyline going stale, Americans are ready for the real facts to displace the report’s many fictions and glaring omissions—as conceded both by 911 Commission members and senior staff.

Those with a grip on reality will not be surprised if a good faith investigation uncovers the same transnational network of operatives as we found in the Crotch Bomber incident. We may find the same operatives at work in the shadows of this latest event.

All that’s required is a singular commitment: to follow the facts wherever they may lead. What a concept.

This time around our national security team is far more cautious. The White House press secretary aptly framed this latest provocation, conceding the Obama administration is “considering all possibilities regarding the motivation behind the bombing.”

One possibility is that this event was the work of the only nation with the requisite means, motivation and opportunity—plus the stable intelligence network—required to stage events such the Crotch Bomber attack and others too numerous to list.

That nation is not Pakistan. Nor is it Syria. Nor is Iran a possibility. However, don’t be surprised if someone uncovers an evidentiary trail pointing to Hezbollah and the Evil Doers of Iran. Or Pakistan.

For several analyses chronicling the “how” of such duplicity, see:

What’s Next From Israel – Entropy or Outrage?

When Will Israel Attack the U.S. – Again?

Can the U.S. Beat Israel at their Game?

Dual Loyalty Revisited

How Israel Wages War on the U.S.

How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight

How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare

How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy

How Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Endangers Us All

Was Israel Ever Legitimate?

A Common Enemy

Veterans Today chief editor Gordon Duff and I traveled to Pakistan in mid-February for ten days of briefings at the invitation of the Pakistani military. My 3-part message was simple:

1. Pakistan is being pre-staged as the next in a series of plausible Evil Doers. With traction slipping for an attack on Iran, Pakistan could well be next.
2. The U.S. was induced to invade Iraq on false pretenses. Pakistan is bearing much of the cost in blood and treasure.
3. We share a common enemy. Please be our friend and remind us who deceived us. Should you encounter any resistance, ask us: what part of this do you not yet understand?

I left behind several dozen copies of Guilt By Association – How Deception and Self Deceit Took America to War.

The invitation was triggered by a 7-part series that first appeared on Opinion-Maker.org, a Pakistani website where the first analysis generated 25,000 reads in the first 24 hours. See:What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?

Pakistanis did not seem to recall how long ago this guilt-by-association storyline began. Every story must have a beginning, a middle and an end.

This story began no later than October 10, 2001 when, one month after 911, two Israelis were arrested with guns and grenades inside the Mexican Congress. What passports were found on them? Answer: Pakistani.

Had that operation succeeded, would those passports have been left behind? Will an investigation of this latest incident uncover evidence that points to Pakistan?

Just prior to our departure for Lahore, Pakistan was routinely referenced on the front page of our national newspapers. Those reports included a high-profile account of the arrest of five young Muslim students from Virginia who flew to Pakistan, reportedly for training.

Two weeks prior to this latest “significant terrorist event,” Jewish-Zionist commentator Charles Krauthammer ridiculed President Obama for the outcome of a nuclear weapons conference convened in mid-April. Portraying the result as “nuke misdirection,” Krauthammer charged that the real concern should be Pakistan and, implied by association, Iran.

Two days prior to this incident, Khalid Khawaja was found dead in Pakistan. The Taliban took credit for the murder of this former Pakistani intelligence agent.

Reportedly he and a colleague were working to strike an accord between the Taliban and the Pakistani military as a means to stop the violence before a massive U.S.-Pakistan assault creates more violence and provokes, in response, more hatred of the U.S.

Preparing the Minds

Such “associative” news accounts typically precede “significant terrorist events.” Those events prepare the public to draw a conclusion announced soon after the event. Just four days after 911, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish Zionist, argued in a principal’s meeting at Camp David that the U.S. should invade Iraq even though Osama bin Laden was then thought to be the culprit and was hiding in caves in Afghanistan.

Our briefings in Pakistan were conducted largely for senior military leaders, including General Mirza Aslam Beg, former Pakistani Army chief. Included in that meeting was Sultan Amir Tarar (aka Colonel Imam) who has even stronger credibility with the Taliban than Khawaja with whom he was traveling. Colonel Imam’s fate is presently unknown.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Tarar ran CIA-funded camps for fighters resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Among his backers was the late U.S. Congressman Charlie Wilson. Among his charges was Mohammad Omar who in the mid-1990s became leader of the Taliban.

Trained in guerrilla tactics as a U.S. Army Ranger at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Tarar was invited to the White House where he was presented a brick from the Berlin Wall by President George H.W. Bush. In recognition of his heroism and his commitment to freedom, the brick signified his role in helping defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan and bring down that wall.

Four days after our return from Pakistan, The New York Times ran a front page article that sought to discredit Colonel Imam by suggesting he was working against U.S. interests by working with the Taliban.

The facts suggest just the opposite: Colonel Imam worked with the Taliban in an attempt to broker a peace that would bring stability to the area—consistent with our interests—while also hastening an early exit of American troops, consistent with U.S. policy.

By derailing that mission, whose interests are advanced? As this analysis is published, it remains unclear whether Colonel Imam is dead or alive.

Nor is it clear who catalyzed this latest “significant terrorist event” that associated the Pakistani Taliban with Evil Doing. In truth, peace requires that we negotiate in good faith with those closest to the situation on the ground in an environment that has long proven a graveyard for foreign invaders.

If not Colonel Imam, who better to broker such a truce with the Taliban? If not, in effect, a U.S. trained Army Ranger with decades of on-the-ground experience, who does the U.S. have that could ease the withdrawal of U.S. troops from this environment?

If not Israel and its surrogates, who had the motivation to create yet another well timed round of impressions hostile to Pakistan? Whose interests are advanced by an event that advances the storyline: the need for a Global War on Terrorism against “Islamo” fascism?

We may yet be surprised when the facts surrounding this incident are clarified. The result, however, is no surprise. To restore U.S. national security requires a reality check. Who are our friends, who are our allies and who—really—is the enemy?

American Intifada — Shaking Off Six Decades of Deceit

During the 1960 Christmas season, Americans flocked to the theaters to see Exodus, a 3-1/2 hour epic featuring romance, handsome freedom fighters and the triumph of Jewish destiny over Arab evil—all set against a Yuletide backdrop of Biblical prophecy as heroic Jews returned to their promised land.

Many moviegoers failed to realize that Exodus was not fact but fiction adapted from a 1958 Leon Uris novel, the biggest bestseller since Gone with the Wind. Directed by Otto Preminger and starring a young Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint, the film featured Lee J. Cobb, Rat Pack member Peter Lawford and Italian crooner Sal Mineo, a teen heartthrob who received an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of a Jewish émigré.

Then as now, Americans are easily swayed by sympathetic portrayals of an extremist enclave granted nation-state recognition by Harry Truman. A Christian-Zionist who had famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15, Truman was a True Believer in the prophecy that the Messiah could not return until the Israelites returned to their ancestral home.

Truman White House counsel Clark Clifford routinely reminded the widely unpopular president that his 1948 campaign was woefully short of funding that the Jewish-American community—with that recognition—was eager to provide. In May 1948, General George C. Marshall, Truman’s Secretary of State, argued vigorously against recognition of this Zionist enclave as a legitimate sovereign nation. Truman heard similarly strong objections from the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose analysis of the perils proved prophetic.

Marshall, the senior U.S. military officer in WWII, was outraged that Clifford, then in charge of Truman’s campaign, would put domestic political expedience ahead of U.S. foreign policy interests. Marshall assured Truman that he would vote against him if he granted the Zionists sovereign status. He also directed State Department personnel never again to speak to Clifford.

In March 1948, a Joint Chiefs paper titled “Force Requirements for Palestine” predicted that the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” Those objectives included an expansionist agenda for Greater Israel that envisioned the taking of Arab land, ensuring armed clashes in which the U.S. was destined to become embroiled.

The Joint Chiefs listed the Zionist objectives as:

• Initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine
• Acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration
• The extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine,
• The expansion of “Eretz (Greater) Israel” into Transjordan and portions of Lebanon and Syria, and
• The establishment of Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.

Akin to the fictional portrayal in Exodus, those Zionists lobbying Truman assured him they would remain within the initial boundaries. We now know that was a lie. They also promised that the Zionist state would not become what it soon became: a theocratic and racist enclave—albeit widely marketed as the “only democracy in the Middle East.” To remove all doubt as to the extremist nature of the Zionist project, the Joint Chiefs assessment added ominously:

“All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group–the Jewish Agency.”

[See Stephen Green, Taking Sides (1984), pp. 20-21.]

Deceit from the Outset

A beguiling combination of Hollywood fiction, manipulated beliefs and outright lies remain at the core of the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.” The deceit deployed to advance the Zionist project remains obscured by a pro-Israeli bias in media and reinforced by pro-Israeli influence in popular culture.

In The Persuasion Explosion (1985), writer Art Stevens reports that Exodus was a public relations project launched by Edward Gottlieb who sought a novelist to improve Israel’s image in the U.S. That writer was Leon Uris, a surname from Yerushalmi, meaning “man of Jerusalem.” The film rights were sold in advance. Translated into dozens of languages, this public relations masterpiece became a worldwide bestseller.

The rewards are real for those who offer aid and comfort to this trans-generational duplicity. As Truman’s whistle-stop train traversed the nation, grateful Zionists refueled his campaign coffers with a reported $400,000 in cash ($3.5 million in current dollars). Those funds helped transform his widely anticipated loss into a clear victory with support from pro-Israeli editorial boards that—after recognition—boosted Truman’s sagging popularity.

Clark Clifford was rewarded with his career goal as a top-paid Washington lawyer. As a “made man,” he remained a reliable asset. During the G.H.W. Bush presidency, his prominence provided cover for a massive bank fraud involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In 2009, Hollywood released an action thriller (The International) featuring the same storyline involving the International Bank of Business and Credit.

Neither Clifford nor Altman had experience in banking when their law firm enabled what prosecutors charged was a global criminal operation. The U.S. press called the scheme the biggest bank fraud in history. This $20 billion transnational operation even included a pop culture component. Clifford’s young protégé and law partner, Robert Altman, was married to Lynda Carter, the star of Wonder Woman, a 1970s fantasy-adventure television series.

The real fantasy in this long-running fraud lies in identifying why U.S. lawmakers continue to befriend and defend a “nation” that has for so long—and so consistently—deceived and betrayed its most loyal ally. As a badly miscast Eva Marie Saint asks in her most memorable line in Exodus: “When will it ever end?”

The greatest wonder will be if, based on the well-documented history of this duplicity, those lawmakers urging continued support for these fanatics are not charged with treason. [See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy”: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=124829&d=24&m=7&y=2009

To restore its national security, the U.S. must shake off its entangled alliance with this extremist enclave. “Shaking off” is the literal translation of “intifada.” Those who comprehend the trans-generational nature of this deception are quickly reaching that conclusion. The others may be waiting for the movie, American Intifada.

Anti-Zionists: The New Heretics

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

– George Santayana

How quickly we forget. With the Inquisition still fresh in memory, America’s Founders embraced democracy as a means to protect liberty from the manipulations of faith. That’s why facts were enshrined at the core of self-governance grounded in the rule of law. The duplicity at the heart of the U.S.-Israeli relationship puts that founding principle at risk.

For seven terrifying centuries, heretics were punished under canon law. In 1633, Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei was condemned for “grave suspicion of heresy” when he showed that the Sun—not the crown—was the center of the universe despite what the King’s subjects—with help from the Church—had been induced to believe.

With the merger of church and state in the 4^th Century Roman Empire, anyone daring to dispute papal authority—by challenging with facts the One True Faith—was condemned as both a heretic and an enemy of the state. That practice continues in modern times.

The New Heretics are those few who challenge America’s faith in its “special relationship” with an extremist enclave granted nation state recognition in 1948 by a Christian-Zionist president, Harry Truman. Critics of this enclave invite condemnation as “anti-Semites,” a modern form of social excommunication.

Defenders of the Zionist Faithful were forced to become more vigilant in monitoring this heresy after Israeli troops used U.S.-provided arms and munitions to kill more than 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza, one-third of them reportedly children.

That well-timed attack, planned for more than a year, was scheduled between Christmas and the January 20^th presidential inaugural. Within 48 hours of ending its assault, Israel had dispatched an army of bloggers to counter anti-Zionist websites. By early February, the Anti-Defamation League was bemoaning a “pandemic of anti-Semitism.” The massacre fueled outrage worldwide even as the ADL portrayed that anger as “anti-Semitism.”

By early March, Israeli policy was being described as a threat to international peace and security, a violation of international human rights and a crime against humanity. By associating the U.S.—its ally—with this behavior, the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship” fueled anti-American hatred, fanned the flames of extremism and set the stage for more terrorism. Meanwhile a wave of modern-day excommunications swept college campuses:

• At Hampshire College in Massachusetts, students urged the school to divest from firms whose operations support the Israeli occupation of Palestine. When Israeli policies were compared to apartheid-era South Africa, Zionist Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned the students as “rabidly anti-Israel” (enemies of the state).
• At Canada’s Ottawa College, Students Against Israeli Apartheid were prohibited from displaying a poster condemning Zionist policies that president Jimmy Carter had already condemned in his 2007 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
• At the University of California, Santa Barbara, Professor William Robinson (Jewish) was attacked as an anti-Semite in an ADL-coordinated silencing campaign. His heresy: sharing with students a photo-essay critical of Israeli policy that had circulated for weeks online. [See “Treason in Plain Sight?”: intifada-palestine.com/2009/07/03/treason-in-plain-sight/and “The ADL Thought Police:”: aljazeera.com/news/articles/42/The_ADL_thought_police.html]

Media-Manipulated Mindsets

Meanwhile Pope Benedict XVI attacked an Argentine cleric whose excommunication he had lifted. As head of the Roman Catholic Church, Benedict claimed he was unaware that Bishop Richard Williamson had challenged key facts of the Holocaust. When condemned by the Pontiff, Williamson apologized. The Vatican insisted he recant, a concept lifted directly from the Inquisition.

Critics suspect this early February dispute was meant to distract attention from the carnage in Gaza and create sympathy for Israel by evoking memories of the Holocaust. No media outlet mentioned that this German Pope, the first since 1523, previously led the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a direct descendant of the Church’s 16^th century tribunal, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition.

The fiercest condemnation of the bishop’s reluctance to recant came not from Rome but from Angela Merkel in Berlin who was elected German Chancellor in 2005. No media outlet mentioned that in 2003 Zionist media mogul Haim Saban acquired control of ProSiebenSat.1, Germany’s second largest broadcaster.

While wielding a major opinion-shaping media outlet during Merkel’s ascendancy as Germany’s first female chancellor, Saban described himself as an “Israeli-American” and “a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Steve Rattner, Saban’s financial adviser, explained the motive for his media acquisition: “He thinks Germany is critical to Israel.” Rattner re-emerged as president Barack Obama’s auto industry “car czar” before resigning in mid-July due to a pension fund scandal.

To put these media-dependent developments in historical perspective requires a grasp of how—in the Information Age—warfare is waged not on a traditional battlefield but in the shared field of consciousness. In the public’s shared mindset—where consensus opinions are created, shaped and sustained—facts are routinely displaced with what “the mark” can be induced to believe.

That’s why national security agencies must monitor media czars such as Saban who is candid about using his influence to advance Zionist goals. In June 2006, a Saban-led group acquired Univision, the largest Spanish-language broadcaster in the U.S. With Latinos the fastest-growing voting bloc in the U.S., Univision is critical to Israel’s ability to sustain its control of U.S. foreign policy. Univision is the fifth largest television network in the U.S., reaching 98% of Spanish-speaking households through 62 television stations, 90 affiliate stations and more than 2,000 cable affiliates. [See “How the Israel lobby took control of U.S. foreign policy.”: www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=124829&d=24&m=7&y=2009]

For a system of self-governance reliant on informed consent, it is difficult to overstate the threat to democracy when policy-making is filtered through the pro-Israeli bias of media-owning Zionists. In addition to emerging as a reliable EU advocate for Israeli policies, Merkel threatened to arrest Williamson for Holocaust denial on a EU-wide warrant. A search of her phone records would doubtless uncover a discussion with a key supporter, Haim Saban.

Zionists and the lawmakers they groom are well positioned to advance a modern-day Inquisition—as when Bishop Williamson simultaneously faced arrest in Europe and expulsion from Argentina, the site of a seminary he directed and home to the largest Jewish population in Latin America.

The People In Between

In October 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates coined a generic phrase to describe the most perilous combatants when waging what he called “unconventional warfare.” A former C.I.A. Director, he portrayed this enemy as “the people in between.” Between Galileo and the facts was Church doctrine deployed to displace science with beliefs or, in modern-day parlance, with consensus opinion. Between the German people and the ballot box was Haim Saban for whom the election of Angela Merkel was critical to Israel. Next is Univision.

To gain credence (believability) for the displacement of facts with beliefs requires that the public’s shared mental environment be fed a steady diet of supportive impressions. Thus the agenda-advancing assistance when “unrelated” events emerge in the same timeframe to reinforce the intended orthodoxy. For example, following the Israeli assault on Gaza, news reports in February included several high profile accounts, including:

• The suspension of U.K. diplomat Rowan Laxton for allegedly making anti-Semitic remarks while riding an exercise bike in a London gymnasium.
• Reports of police protection provided in Dubai to Andy Ram, an Israeli tennis star, reinforcing the media-induced narrative that Israelis were at risk.
• A White House announcement that the Obama administration would attend a planning session for a 2009 World Conference Against Racism but may boycott it.

These narrative-advancing impressions were reinforced by the release in 2008 of eight Holocaust-themed films, including The Reader starring Kate Winslet who received a high profile Academy Award for best actress in a leading role. She even joked about the influence wielded by pro-Israelis in Hollywood and popular culture. In a 2005 filming of Extras, a comedy series in which she played herself, an actor congratulated her on her role in a Holocaust-related film, to which she responded:

“I don’t think we need another film about the Holocaust, do we? It’s like, how many have there been? We get it. It was grim. Move on. No, I’m doing it because I’ve noticed that if you do a film about the Holocaust, [you're] guaranteed an Oscar. I’ve been nominated four times—never won. The whole world is going, ‘Why hasn’t Winslet won one?’ That’s it. That’s why I’m doing it. Schindler’s bloody List. The Pianist. Oscars coming out of their ass!”

Duplicity – From Antiquity to Modernity

Framers of the U.S. Constitution viewed democracy as a form of governance that resides not in a royal court or the papacy but in a mindset shared by its participants. Where else could self-governance reside? Thus the key role envisioned for media as an “in-between” domain essential to convey the facts required for informed consent. Absent widespread access to unbiased information, liberty would succumb to the exploitation of those skilled at preying on ignorance and beliefs. On that key point, the Framers were proven correct.

Thus the perils when those who mean to live free rely on media with an undisclosed bias. It is precisely such “people in between” that routinely displace facts with what an unsuspecting public (“the mark”) can be deceived to believe. In an Information Age, such fraudulent behavior is not akin to treason, that agenda-advancing duplicity is treason. Haim Saban is unusual only in conceding the pro-Israeli bias he brings to his media operations.

This duplicitous modus operandi works the same in modernity as in antiquity. The impact on informed consent is identical regardless whether the media-enabled deceit is a false belief in Iraqi WMD, a consensus faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets, or a shared opinion that this Zionist enclave is a democracy and an ally rather than what the oft-recurring fact patterns confirm: an enemy within.

Such treachery is at least as old as the use of canon law to silence critics of Church doctrine. The only modern component of this deceitful craft is the global reach of contemporary media and its capacity to manipulate minds and emotions on an unprecedented scale.

A 1578 handbook for inquisitors explained that its harsh penalties were “for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.” The New Heretics chronicle the costs of the U.S.-Israel relationship in blood, treasure, insecurity and credibility. Those who yearn for freedom from such manipulation can no longer afford America’s entangled alliance with an extremist enclave notorious for waging war by way of deception