Archive for October 23rd, 2009
Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature
Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs
Hate Crimes Bill Signed into Law:
Mitt Romney: Brainwashed by Zionists
Friday, October 23, 2009 2:05 PM
From: “Paul Sheldon Foote”
To: “Traitors USA” <email@example.com>
Paul Sheldon Foote
October 23, 2009
Mitt Romney’s “Iran: Biggest Threat Since Soviets” (October 22, 2009) provides evidence that he is not only a RINO (Republican In Name Only) but also is brainwashed by Zionists. 
In 1966, while a member of The University of Michigan College Republican Club, I organized a student rally for Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I spoke with Mitt Romney’s parents at Republican campaign events. After Governor George Romney’s trip to Vietnam, he blundered in 1967 in his presidential campaign by saying that the military had brainwashed him. 
While I volunteered and served in the American Army in Vietnam, Mitt Romney, a chickenhawk, obtained draft deferments as a Mormon minister of religion serving in France. 
In “A Special Place in Hell: Mitt Romney, blood libel, and that old time Jew hate”, an Israeli newspaper attacked Mitt Romney for announcing his candidacy for President at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. The complaint about Henry Ford was:
“Named for America’s greatest anti-Semite. “
“Named for a man revered by Adolf Hitler, who awarded him the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle. Named for the U.S. publisher of the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’ and ‘The International Jew: the World’s foremost problem.’” 
To pay for his sins, Mitt Romney lies for the Zionists. America’s defense budget dwarfs the military spending of the world. Iran’s size and military strength is tiny compared with that of the former Soviet Union.
Mitt Romney lies, too, about Holocaust deniers. When Iran hosted a conference on the Holocaust, its television stations showed interviews of Jewish speakers who went to Iran for the conference and who explained on television about their relatives who had been killed during the Holocaust.
Now, Mitt Romney needs to pay for his sins against the hundreds of millions of Christians and others murdered or had their lives destroyed by the communists. 
He can start by reading about Moses Hess (“Communist Rabbi”), who worked with Karl Marx on drafts of The Communist Manifesto, who wrote his own book on Zionism in 1862, and who is buried in Israel. 
Then, he can research about the tens of millions of Christians murdered by Zionists in the Soviet Union. 
Mitt Romney is unfit to serve as a President of the United States. While I supported his father, I did not vote for Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary Election and will never vote for him.
 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression
 Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism
 “Stalin’s Jews”
Masha Vallenchenko: Bolsheviks were mostly Jews and they killed 40 million Russians:
Additional at following URL:
Israel Ever-Present at US-Iranian Negotiations
The strategy of the two parallel tracks, based on incentives and threats, which has been adopted by the Barack Obama Administration is raising debate and discussion, as well as finding those who would challenge it, those who believe in its roots, those who fear for it and those who are wary of it falling like a gift onto the lap of the seasoned experts of procrastination, obstruction and maneuvers. This strategy, dubbed the dual strategy, represents the cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s general foreign policy – clearly appearing in the way it is dealing with Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Israel and Afghanistan. It is a strategy that raises debate and anger among those who want the principle of justice and accountability to stand above all considerations, and especially those who had believed that there would be no compromising on justice in Darfur when President Barack Obama and his team arrived at the White House. Indeed, these people are disappointed by the dual strategy towards Sudan, which was revealed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice this week; and in which they find a reward in advance for obstinacy. Others find ethical duality in the way the Obama Administration is handling the Goldstone Report, as the Administration immediately fled justice when it came close to reaching Israel. Yet there are also those who see in the dual strategy towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, based on the US President’s personal pledge of insisting on finding a just solution, which hints to the possibility of removing the cover of automatic absolution from Israel. These people are waging a two-sided campaign against the Obama Administration, one opposing any strategy that tests the US-Israeli relationship in any way, and the other regarding the new US policy towards Iran, because it is seen as a dangerous risk, especially in its nuclear dimension. Nevertheless, there are those who adopt the opposite opinion towards the dual strategy when it comes to Iran, and they in turn are divided into numerous points of view. Russia for instance wants to encourage US rapprochement with Iran, but opposes adopting parallel tracks, one of them enticing and the other threatening with sanctions, as it sees no need for the stick since Iran is accepting the carrot. Others applaud the fact that the new US policy involves taking measures to prepare for sanctions, in parallel with constructive dialogue and engagement, and consider it wise. There are also those who consider the Barack Obama Administration to be naïve in offering various concessions in advance and without guarantees. Finally, there are those who wager on the efficacy of the new method and consider that there is no other option anyway during this phase where America’s affairs are being reorganized at the internal, foreign, political, military and economic levels equally.
Iran has started to delve deeper and to interact with this phase. What Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, as well as Syria and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should do is rationally analyze Iran’s strategy in response to that of the US and monitor its developments. Yet the national interest of any of these countries or parties lies not only in analyzing and discussing the strategies of others, but rather in positioning themselves as part of such strategies based on their own strategy, one that would be intelligent, practical, far-sighted and good at moving on more than one track towards an unknown fate or tunnel. Here are a few examples:
The Islamic Republic of Iran, with its customary worldly wisdom and skill, has ignored the “stick” of sanctions which the Obama Administration is working on formulating with international partners, and has resolved to make use of the “carrot” of dialogue to make of itself an authority and a partner at the same time. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki declaring this week that “Russia and America were enough” for the task of enriching Iranian uranium abroad and that Iran refuses to have France participate in talks provides far-reaching indications. Officially, what Mottaki said is that “France is not a party that can be trusted to supply Iran with fuel, in view of its inability to fulfill its commitments in the past”, pointing to Paris’s refusal to supply Tehran with nuclear fuel despite the fact that Iran has owned 10 percent of French uranium enriching company Eurodif since the days of the Shah. The important political indication is represented by Iran’s desire to be a regional superpower that only sits down with the United States and Russia under the sponsorship of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to reach an understanding over the steps of enrichment and beyond. Thus Tehran would have succeeded at keeping the nuclear issue in Vienna, where it has always wanted it to be, and under US-Russian-Iranian care, as this would bring it enormous political benefits, especially as it comes in the wake of an Administration that described Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil”. By this Tehran is saying: I am the proper destination; we understand the language of superpowers and are among the superpowers – at least at the regional level. It is noteworthy that Syria spoke in the same tone and language when it tried to exclude Lebanon from the discussion between Saudi Arabia and Syria, on the basis that the KSA and Syria speak the language of great powers in the region; both of them are great, and there is no need to “cram” a small issue or country like Lebanon into the discussions of great ones. But we will speak of this later in this article.
Noteworthy in the discussion between the US and Iran is the fact that Tehran wants to “warm up” bilateral relations with gradual steps, whereas Washington wants to “engage” with the aim of convincing Iran with an adequate explanation that would help it think of “calculating” details and complementarity in a different way. The Obama Administration has laid an important foundation in its policy towards Iran, one based on ending the policy of “either or”. In other words, Washington wants to work with other countries to prepare tough sanctions to be imposed on Iran, in parallel with working with Iran in the framework of dialogue and negotiations. Russia does not approve of such a dual strategy and is opposed to applying this policy to Iran, as it considers that it implies an insult in advance and that there is no need for threats in the age of dialogue and cooperation.
The Obama Administration may wish to reach a phase of détente with Iran, but it certainly does not behave as if it has entered into a relationship of détente with it. The nuclear issue is central of course, but they both want to discuss other issues at the dialogue table. The difference is that Tehran wants to address the various issues that make it a partner as the main country in the Middle East, like Israel or Turkey. The Obama Administration, on the other hand, wants to discuss issues that are broader than the nuclear issue, but has not defined or even addressed them yet. This goes back to either falling short due to lack of awareness or knowledge, or to fears of upsetting Iran in the early stages of dialogue. Iraq is an important part of the discussion between the US and Iran. There may be an implicit agreement there, as some say, and there may be no need to wait for Iraq to be addressed officially at the dialogue table. Israel may very well be ever-present in US-Iranian bilateral talks regarding the nuclear issue, especially as it threatens not to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, while Tehran responds by protesting the fact that Israel is not being punished for possessing unlawful nuclear weapons. What is absent, however, and needs to be crammed into US-Iranian talks is the peace process to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to which the US President pledged to give priority; considering that the ongoing conflict threatens the national interest of the US. What is required should not necessarily be Iran’s blessing of the peace process, but rather an American insistence on Iran ceasing to obstruct the peace process by using the suffering of the Palestinian to its own ends.
There is a clear US stance on the side of moderation and a clear message to the ranks of Palestinian moderation, one which President Barack Obama made sure to convey through his National Security Advisor James Jones to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), headed by Dr. Ziad Asali, at the yearly dinner that gathered senior American and Arab-American officials. It is the message of building the Palestinian state and its institutions under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority to end the occupation through negotiations. Hamas, which Iran adopts supporting through various means, does not want negotiations as a means to end the occupation and build the state, and there are among its ranks today those who speak of reviving armed struggle to topple the Palestinian Authority, knowing that the capabilities of armed resistance are limited. Thus US-Iranian talks deserve for the Obama Administration to take the initiative of addressing the Palestinian issue there. The Obama Administration should also take the initiative of addressing the issue of Lebanon with Iran and with Syria, and should insist upon it with both of them, no matter how much they want to keep it away from the negotiations table. The Obama Administration insists that it has not and will not strike deals with Iran or Syria at the expense of Lebanon, as it insists that it is not in its interest to improve relations with Syria by undermining the interests of a country which it defends, i.e. Lebanon. This entails an invalidation that contradicts what the Obama Administration wants, yet it is not enough, especially that the prevailing impression – or that which some are trying to promote – is that the US does not care about Lebanon.
Certainly there is bias in many US government and media sectors, particularly when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, and Israel is automatically protected from being held accountable and from being criticized, it is spared from punishment, and discussion into it is smothered and repressed. Thus when Israeli journalist Amira Hass spoke in a tone of strong criticism and clear condemnation of Israeli policy before a gathering of American journalists at the International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) lunch at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York, she both amazed and shocked those present. Indeed, her words coincided with attempts to contain discussion into the Goldstone Report, which stated that Israel and Hamas had both committed war crimes in Gaza, and possibly crimes against humanity. The Obama Administration does not want to corner Israel, especially as the latter feels that it no longer enjoys absolute US protection. It considers that Goldstone did not resolve to issue a report that would cripple the peace process. It also considers that it is necessary not to submit to attempts by Israel, Hamas and others to undermine Palestinian partnership in negotiations through the campaign against President Mahmoud Abbas.
Disinformation about the Iranian “Threat” (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski):
Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law
Additional at following URL:
UNHRC endorses Goldstone report, angers Israel
Asia Times: The [Israeli] spy who lost his thumb drives
Oct 23, 2009
By Peter J Brown
Dr Stewart Nozette, American space scientist and noted geophysicist, missile defense expert and leading lunar researcher at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), was arrested this week by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after being swept up in a sting operation aimed exclusively at him. It is a story that started to unfold three years ago.
Nozette is an elite satellite worker who moves easily between the high-tech world of ultra-sophisticated radar systems and state-of-the-art satellites. He was assigned to very sensitive projects for the US Naval Research Laboratory, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and NASA. And then there was his work with the US Department of Energy. During the administration of president George H W Bush, the White House’s National
Space Council had engaged Nozette, too.
In other words, Nozette’s resume was quite electric from a satellite standpoint. Inject a bit of foreign intrigue and missile defense, and the voltage soars. His work involved extensive contact with research teams in Israel and India as well.
Yes, Nozette was in India – he made his latest trip in January as part of a joint project with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) – and for 10 years between 1998 and 2008, he worked for the Israelis, although the identity of the specific government-owned company that paid him has been withheld. In specific, Nozette provided monthly reports to an unidentified Israeli government-owned aerospace company.
Is India, in fact, “Country A” which is named throughout the court documents that have been revealed by US authorities? One can only guess.
When an attempt was made just a few weeks ago to fly ISRO’s Chandrayaan-1 lunar probe in tandem with NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) so that the synthetic aperture radars on both spacecraft could engage in so-called bi-static observations of the lunar surface, Nozette was standing by to help ensure success on August 20 as these two spacecraft – only 20 kilometers apart – passed high over the Erlanger Crater at the lunar North Pole. He was principal investigator on the LRO’s so-called Mini-RF radar system, and he had to go over the pointing problems that arose and ultimately caused this joint mission to fail.
It was left to Nozette to explain what had gone wrong. Readers all across India and around the world caught a brief glimpse of him via numerous newspaper and magazine articles.
“The gyros were drifting 0.8 degrees per hour,” Nozette said at the time. “That was about 10 times worse than we thought.”
Just prior to the sting operation by the FBI – indeed, the timing seems quite odd – Nozette was telling the global media that “ISRO should be congratulated”.
“They did a good job, but the moon is somewhat of a harsh environment,” he said after India’s lunar mission came to an abrupt and unexpected end in late summer.
This week, ISRO is saying nothing about Nozette’s kind words, and conveying a sense of calm by emphasizing that no harm was done to India’s space or national interests by Nozette in this regard now that Nozette finds himself facing a proceeding in a US federal courtroom.
Keep in mind that under US law, Nozette remains innocent of all charges until proven guilty. His alleged actions constitute a federal offense based on allegations that he communicated, delivered and transmitted classified information, according to the US Department of Justice.
But it is the timing once again that is perplexing. Yes, there is much more to this than meets the eye. Just ask Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence at Texas-based STRATFOR, a global intelligence company.
“OK, there is more to it. It must be understood that Israel currently poses one of the most profound espionage threats to the United States – especially pertaining to defense technology – and they are very high on the FBI’s list of counter-intelligence priorities,” said Stewart.
Israel also just happens to be where the US is jointly conducting one of the largest and most sophisticated ballistic missile defense drills that the world has ever seen. This “Juniper Cobra” joint military exercise now underway has a twist. After the drill is over, a lot of the US anti-missile weaponry and associated equipment will very likely be left behind to help defend Israel in the event of an Iranian strike over the coming months.
Strange time for the FBI to be engaged in a sting operation involving someone posing as an Israeli Mossad operative.
Nozette opened his own non-profit company outside Washington, DC, known as Alliance for Competitive Technology, Inc (ACT) years ago, and by 2006, he was battling NASA’s inspector general in court, and spending thousands in legal fees in the process. The US Internal Revenue Service was waiting in the wings, too, because of concerns over how money was handled, or perhaps more accurately, mishandled.
The whole sequence of events that triggered the FBI sting operation in 2009 started then. NASA’s inspector general in 2006 was pursuing leads and looking for false expense claims and that pile of paperwork apparently spawned an investigation after suspicions were raised that Nozette had links to a foreign government.
Well, he was in fact a “technical adviser” for a company that was wholly owned by the Israeli government from 1998 to 2008. In that span of time, Nozette was paid an estimated US$225,000.
In the meantime, he still had his ongoing projects for NASA via ACT and US military agencies eagerly wanted his input. That required US government clearances.
“For this work, he needed a top secret security clearance and access to sensitive compartmented information – referred to as SCI which is very closely protected top secret information,” said Stewart. “This contact [which surfaced during the NASA IG’s investigation] caused the US government to suspend Nozette’s SCI access in March of 2006 and is what brought him to the attention of the FBI and caused them to open an investigation on him. This history obviously influenced their decision to approach him with an undercover officer posing as a Mossad officer, and Nozette’s reaction was telling. ‘What took you guys so long?'”
So long, indeed.
Nozette allegedly flew to “Country A” in January, but only after a US Transportation Security Administration screener at a Washington airport was astute enough to log his airline departure along with two computer thumb drives which did not make the return trip.
By September, the FBI came calling. Days after the above-described joint NASA-ISRO mission failure, Nozette’s phone was ringing. Mossad was on the other end, Nozette was told. The caller was actually an undercover FBI agent.
Israel is livid about this ill-timed and unwelcome slap in the face by the FBI. On Tuesday, a day after the news broke about the Nozette affair, the Jerusalem Post turned to none other than Steve Rosen, former foreign policy chief at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Like Nozette, Rosen and Keith Weissman were accused by the US government of passing along classified information. The case against Rosen and Weissman was dropped last spring.
“One of the things that our case revealed is the very extreme views that are held by some in counter-intelligence agencies of the CIA and FBI about Israel,” Rosen told the Post. “They believe that the Mossad spied on the US on a huge scale and they believe that the Pollard case was the tip of some sort of iceberg.” (Jonathan Pollard, an American former naval intelligence analyst, was sentenced to life in 1985 for spying for Israel. He admitted handing the Israelis thousands of documents, photographs and other highly classified material over 18 months, receiving at least $45,000.)
“When you keep repeating that the Mossad is spying on America, Israel is harming the United States, of course it harms the alliance between Israel and the US,” Rosen continued. “The current case is even more peculiar because the government of Israel did nothing.”
Which is true, of course, absent any evidence to the contrary.
“It’s revealing that they used Israel for the sting,” Rosen added. “They could have used China, or others. But they chose Israel.”
“This case certainly raises the legitimate question of whether this was a legitimate sting or whether it was an unfairly selective sting aimed at Jews to test dual loyalty,” Weissman’s attorney in the AIPAC case, Baruch Weiss said.
As US and Israeli personnel stood side by side for the start of Juniper Cobra – this joint US-Israeli military exercise was delayed a week, but seems to be on track at this time – Nozette was standing in front of a judge.
What is known is that Nozette did meet with the Mossad FBI agent, did express his willingness to work for Israeli intelligence, did disclose that that he once held a very high level security clearance, did accept $11,000 in cash, did provide a single document and a single encrypted computer thumb drive, and did delve into sensitive and secret aspects of such things as vital US surveillance satellite systems, missile detection/early warning systems and communications intelligence information, among other things.
What is not known is how US and Israeli defense and intelligence officials reacted to the news.
Now, consider at the same time, that several satellite experts and non-proliferation supporters in the US had second thoughts about any US participation in ISRO’s Chandrayaan-1 lunar mission in the first place, not only because of the radar technology involved but because US expertise on payload integration might be absorbed directly by ISRO only to resurface later on an Indian rocket or ballistic missile.
Just another strange twist to the tale of Nozette and his twin thumb drives – that are apparently still missing.
Peter J Brown is a satellite journalist from the US state of Maine.
US Scientist Accused of Trying to Spy for Israel
AEI/JINSA/PNAC Neocons honor each other and JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney at CSP
Cheney undeterred by failure, shame
Men from JINSA and CSP:
Robert Fisk references the above article in the following one:
Bush’s Contempt of the World:
Stephen Sniegoski’s lecture on his book, “The Transparent Cabal” about the AEI/JINSA/PNAC Neocons and their war for Israel agenda (access the ‘A Clean Break’ link at the upper right of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM as well) which has gotten thousands of Americans killed/horribly wounded:
“Afghanistan: Back Door to War on Iran” (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski):
Disinformation about the Iranian “Threat” (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski):
The bottom line to Afghanistan:
Afghanistan: A War of Lies:
US-led war in Afghanistan ‘unwinnable’
NATO members: no more troops to Afghanistan now
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia – Two NATO members said Friday they will not send more troops to Afghanistan unless its Nov. 7 presidential runoff creates a legitimate government and until President Barack Obama decides on a new strategy there.
Dutch Defense Minister Eimert Van Middelkoop said his country, with 2,160 troops in Afghanistan, is awaiting the final election results “because the legitimacy of the Afghan government is key,” as well as a decision by the Obama administration.
“I think most countries are waiting for the American decisions,” van Middelkoop said at a meeting in Bratislava of the defense ministers of the 28 NATO countries.
The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrytal, was briefing NATO ministers — including U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates — on his view of the war in Afghanistan at the meeting.
Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade said allies won’t increase troop levels until they’re assured the new government in Kabul is committed to the NATO goals.
“I think whoever is going to send more troops to Afghanistan will put up some conditions,” said Gade, whose country has 690 soldiers in Afghanistan.
“They need to see the new Afghan president and say: ‘If we send more troops to your country, you have to deal with this, this and this.’ We have to make sure the new government in Afghanistan are committed to their job before we send any more troops to Afghanistan.”
Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung of Germany said he also doesn’t expect his country to increase its troop numbers in Afghanistan when the soldiers’ mandate from the German parliament comes up for renewal in December. The existing mandate allows the deployment of a maximum 4,500 soldiers, and Germany currently has just over 4,200 troops in Afghanistan.
Gates said he will prod NATO for more economic and security aid to Afghanistan while trying to sidestep the simmering international debate over sending more troops to the fight.
The bottom line to Afghanistan:
Afghanistan: A War of Lies:
US-led war in Afghanistan ‘unwinnable’