Monday, February 11, 2008

Dual Citizenship -- Loyal to Whom?

by Dan Eden

Someone wrote and asked me, "Why are there Israeli- but not Mexican-American Dual Nationals?"

Well, here's my take on this. I'd also like your views and opinions.

Unless we are Native American Indians, all Americans have their origins in some other country. Both of my parents were from England. They were proud to be "British" but they were most proud of achieving their American citizenship. Sure, we had pictures of the Queen and nick-nacks with the Union Jack on them. My mother even celebrated the traditional 4 o'clock tea time and was good at making Yorkshire Pudding. In the late 60's my older brother served in the US Army and did his tour in Viet Nam. When it came down to "allegiance," we were all patriotic Americans. Period.

The word "allegiance" means that we promise loyalty. It also carries with it the expectation that this loyalty will be exclusive and unrestrained. In the case of a declared war or real threat or conflict, for example, our allegiance to America should preclude any other interest, be it another country or political ideology.

When they took their oath to become American citizens, my parents had to pledge their "allegiance" exclusively to America and renounce their allegiance to "any and all foreign governments." That included Great Britain, one of our strongest allies.

Before Viewzone asked me to research the meaning of "dual citizenship," I had never heard of the term. How could someone be a citizen of two countries at the same time? But I was just ignorant. Dual nationalities and citizenships are quite common.

From my internet research, I learned that in 1997, a French Canadian with a U.S. passport ran for mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. He argued that the incumbent spoke French too poorly to be running a city so close to Quebec. He lost. Also in 1997, a retired top American official for the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ran for president of Lithuania. He was inaugurated in February to a burst of fireworks!

In 1996, Dominicans from New York not only could vote in the Dominican Republic's presidential elections for the first time, they could vote for a fellow New Yorker. Multiple nationalities have become so commonplace that some analysts fear the trend is undermining the notion of nationhood, particularly in the place with the most diverse citizenry on Earth: the United States.

Debate over the issue intensified in the late 1990s, when Mexico joined the growing list of poor nations that say it's OK for their nationals to be citizens of the countries to which they have migrated. Under the law that took effect in 1998 Mexicans abroad -- most of them in the United States -- will be able to retain Mexican citizenship even if they seek U.S. citizenship. And naturalized Americans of Mexican descent will be able to reclaim their original citizenship. The Mexican government stopped short, for now, of giving expatriates the right to vote.

Security Issues

Since citizenship carries with it a responsibility to be exclusively loyal to one country, the whole concept of dual citizenship and nationality raises questions about which of the dual citizenships have priority. This is extremely important when the two countries have opposing interests. It can be a deadly problem when a dual citizen is in a high position within our American government.

Can one imagine a Japanese citizen serving in the Pentagon during WWII? Or how about a citizen of the Soviet Union holding a cabinet position in the White House during the Cold War?

Today's conflicts are centered in the Middle East. America needs to balance foreign policies towards oil producing Arab nations with our goal being peace and stability in the region. This places a burdon on our government to be even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world and Israel. While the Iraq War was waged on lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and revenge for 911, the real reason has emerged as a well designed global plan to improve the power and leverage of Israel. Added to this policy is yet another potential blow to American interests and security -- the impending War with Iran. This war will be waged for the security of Israel and will be paid for by the blood of American soldiers and the hard-earned money of American citizens whose quality of life is inversely tied to the cost of petrolium.

Recently, in their much lauded paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, and University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, focused attention on the strong Israeli lobby which has a powerful influence over American foreign policies (see BBC article). They detail the influence that this lobby has exerted, forming a series of international policies which can be viewed as in direct opposition to the interests and security of the American people. These acts and policies are more often than not carried out by US government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens. Since the policies they support are often exclusively beneficial to Israel, often to the detriment of America, it has been argued that their loyalties are misdirected.

A few classic examples can be cited here.

Jonathan Jay Pollard was an American-Israeli citizen who worked for the US government. He is well known because he stole more secrets from the U.S. than has any other spy in American history. During his interrogation Pollard said he felt compelled to put the "interests of my state" ahead of his own. Although as a U.S. Navy counter-intelligence specialist he had a top-secret security clearance, by "my state" he meant the state of Israel.

Literally tens of thousands of Americans holding U.S. passports admit they feel a primary allegiance to the state of Israel. In many instances, these Americans vote in Israeli elections, wear Israeli uniforms and fight in Israeli wars. Many are actively engaged both in the confiscation of Palestinian lands and in the Israeli political system. Three examples come to mind:

One is Rabbi Meir Kahane, who founded the militant Jewish Defense League in the U.S. in the 1960s, then emigrated to Israel where, eventually, he was elected to the Knesset. Until he was shot and killed at one of his U.S. fund-raising rallies in 1990, the Brooklyn-born rabbi shuttled between Tel Aviv and New York, where he recruited militant American Jews for his activities in Israel against Palestinians. He claimed to be a "dual citizen" of America and Israel.

Another Jewish American, James Mahon from Alexandria, Virginia, reportedly was on a secret mission to kill PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was shot in 1980 by an unknown assailant. When he was shot, Mahon held an American M-16 in his hand and a U.S. passport in his pocket.

Then there was Alan Harry Goodman, an American Jew who left his home in Baltimore, Maryland, flew to Israel and served in the Israeli army. Then, on April 11, 1982, armed with an Uzi submachine gun, he walked, alone, to Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem's most holy Islamic shrine, where he opened fire, killing two Palestinians and wounding others. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments played down the incident, as did the media.

Most recently, US Navy Petty Officer, Ariel J. Weinmann, while serving at or near Bahrain, Mexico, and Austria, "with intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation (Israel), [attempted] to communicate, deliver or transmit classified CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET information relating to the national defense, to a representative, officer, agent or employee of a foreign government." Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 after being listed as "a deserter by his command," according to the US Navy. The information he gathered was supplied to Israel.

The examples of Kahane, Mahonm, Goodman and Weinmann raise the question of when a U.S. citizen ceases to be, or should cease to be, a U.S. citizen. U.S. Law at one time clearly stated that an American citizen owed first allegiance to the United States. A U.S. citizen should not fight in a foreign army or hold high office in a foreign country without risking expatriation. What the heck happened?

The 1940 Nationality Act

Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, "shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by...voting in a political election in a foreign state."

This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.

But then something very odd happened.

In 1967 an American Jew, Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship -- right? Wrong.

After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act -- the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.

Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court. Here, with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson's former attorney and one of the most powerful Jewish Americans, casting the swing vote, the court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to "rob" Afroyim of his American citizenship!

The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown "intent" to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections. Huh?

While Washington claims it has a "good neighbor" policy with Mexico, the U.S. does not permit Mexicans to hold dual nationality. The US makes them become either U.S. or Mexican -- you can't be both. But the U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well! No other country holds this special exception to our laws of citizenship.

So, you might ask, are there any other dual Israel-American citizens who hold US government positions that could compromise American security? Yes. Consider the following list that I obtained on the web:

Michael Mukasey
Recently appointed as US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.

Michael Chertoff
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.

Richard Perle
One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.

Paul Wolfowitz
Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.

Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith's deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, "to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat" and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Franklin will "remain free while the government continues with the wider case" and his "prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting" former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, [who] are scheduled to go on trial in April [2006]. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials." (source: sourcewatch.com).

Douglas Feith
Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

Feith was investigated by the FBI under suspicion of leaking classified information to Israel, being that he was Larry Franklin's boss when Franklin leaked those documents to Rosen and Weissman of AIPAC. For that he was forced to leave the National Security Council. Feith was also investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee for sexing up 'intelligence' that was used to justify invading Iraq.

Edward Luttwak
Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.

Henry Kissinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor's mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia's Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It's like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.

Dov Zakheim
Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century's position paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11's rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim's watch. We can only guess where that cash went.

Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense.

Judicial Inc's bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel's armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

Kenneth Adelman
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Vice President Dick Cheney's ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband's revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.

Robert Satloff
U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

Elliott Abrams
National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration's State Department.

Marc Grossman
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

Richard Haass
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

Robert Zoellick
U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.

Ari Fleischer
Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

James Schlesinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

David Frum
White House speechwriter behind the "Axis of Evil" label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.

Joshua Bolten
White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.

John Bolton
Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).

David Wurmser
Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.

Eliot Cohen
Member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.

Mel Sembler
President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.

Steve Goldsmith
Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush's Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

Adam Goldman
White House's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

Joseph Gildenhorn
Bush Campaign's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.

Christopher Gersten
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.

Mark Weinberger
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.

Samuel Bodman
Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

Bonnie Cohen
Under Secretary of State for Management.

Ruth Davis
Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

Daniel Kurtzer
Ambassador to Israel.

Cliff Sobel
Ambassador to the Netherlands.

Stuart Bernstein
Ambassador to Denmark.

Nancy Brinker
Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin
Ambassador to Singapore.

Ron Weiser
Ambassador to Slovakia.

Mel Sembler
Ambassador to Italy.

Martin Silverstein
Ambassador to Uruguay.

Lincoln Bloomfield
Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

Jay Lefkowitz
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Ken Melman
White House Political Director.

Brad Blakeman
White House Director of Scheduling.

I don't know about you, but dual citizenship is fine with me for an ordinary citizen. But if you hold an official position that demands that you put American interests above all else -- if you should look transparent and fair to the rest of the world regarding your formation of Middle East foreign policies, then this is a dangerous trend. Even if there were no pro-Israeli agenda, the fact that decision makers have a bias or an allegiance to one of the parties involved in the current conflict should have raised red flags long before now.

If you think we're being unfair here, ask yourself: How you would react to the Head of Homeland Security if he or she were a dual national with citizenship in Iran, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia? Ask yourself why you don't feel the same about Israeli dual citizenship. Then you will understand how powerful the Israeli lobby has been in "adjusting" your acceptance of their special status.

Hey, I could be way off on this. Let's hear from you.

UPDATE: December 4, 2007

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz has been rewarded with a new position in the Bush administration which will allow him to oversee classified intelligence and inform policies on WMD issues.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

THE PLAN

1. Lend each country a great deal of money to assist them with development.

We have travelled and lectured world-wide for over 30 years. In each country I pose the question "Are you in debt?" and the answer comes back strong and clear from many voices, "Yes". This is called audience participation. Please notice, they don't have to think before they answer as this condition has become part of each individual's knowledge.

However there are exceptions where the audience has shouted "No" e.g. Singapore, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands (i.e. Jersey and Guernsey).

Until the year 1961 when New Zealand borrowed from the I.M.F., we had not only full employment, but were seeking workers from outside this country to assist us.

2. Who are the best known money lenders?

  1. The Bank for International Settlements. Within this group we have the G10 and the G7. For information on these groups, please read our book 'Final Notice', pages 242-244. N.B. G7 is the main power group. They meet in the main in Basle, Switzerland.
  2. The World Bank.
  3. The International Monetary Fund.

Forget about the G10, they are relatively unimportant. The Group of Seven (G7) are the key players.

Should the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or the World Bank wish to lend money, they must come to the G7, 'cap in hand' for the authorisation to do so.

3. This is the most important point of all. Do you remember ever borrowing money from a bank or a finance company? Did they require security? Yes, of course. It is called collateral.

When national governments borrow from the money lenders, do they require security? Yes, of course.

Take note now. Their security lies in 'Conditionalities Policies', all signed and sealed at the time the money was borrowed by previous, sometimes forgotten, or even deceased, politicians. In the case of New Zealand, 17th April 1961.

The plan was deadly; slow, but sure. Time was on the side of the planners. Although George Bush referred to the plan as the 'New World Order', Jimmy Carter referred to it as 'Global 2000'. By the year 2000 therefore, the planners' aim is to have everything set up.


a) A One World Government
b) A One World Religion
c) A One World Law System
d) A One World Currency
e) A One World Computerised Tracking System to deal the death blow to objectors to the system.

"Far out", you say. Keep reading!

We are herewith presenting a basic premise, then we will establish this as a fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Politicians - trustworthy or not?

Have you ever wondered why it is that when you elect a politician to power, he never seems to keep his pre-election promises? Why is this?

Many of them are highly honourable people yet, when they arrive at the halls of power, they are quietly taken to one side and given a list of the conditionalities policies to read.

WALKING THE TIGHTROPE

Politicians today are trapped and therefore are merely allowed to decide on such menial subjects as:

1) Should shops be allowed to stay open on Sundays?
2) Should all baby prams and carriages be fitted with seat belts?
3) Should we increase the benefit to unwed mothers? etc. etc.


It is this author's desire that every politician in the world should read this book and clear up the confusion in their minds as to why all their good intentions seem to come to nought.

A Clear Word to Politicians

They have presented you with a problem which faced me many years ago as a school-teacher of 15 years experience. They removed corporal punishment from the classroom, and left the teachers with no final line of defence against classroom saboteurs.

To sum up - you have the responsibility, but owing to the conditionalities policies, you no longer have the authority to fulfil that responsibility placed in you.

Hegel - the German philosopher speaks

Remember again. The New World Order is being set up on the basis of Hegelian philosophy or principles.

By printing the following paragraph, I am not in any way taking a swipe at politicians or leaders of any country on earth. My sympathies lie with you in your frustration to beat off continuous criticism of those who simply do not understand.

Sadly, when politicians get trapped during a television or radio interview, they angrily reply, "The reality is...." but none of them really understands the reality, unless they read books like this.

Antony Sutton in his book 'The Order', goes on to say: "What then is the function of a parliament or a congress for Hegelians? These institutions are merely to allow individuals to "feel" that their opinions have some value and to allow a government to take advantage of whatever wisdom the "peasant" may accidentally demonstrate.

As Hegel puts it, by virtue of this participation, subjective liberty and conceit, with their general opinion, individuals can show themselves palpably efficacious and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to count for something...." End quote. (Emphasis added.)

RUDE, RUDE, RUDE, EXTREMELY RUDE!

So you see then, the political, financial, and social agenda for our country is now in the hands of those who initially lent us the money.

Wherever we lecture, we tell the people -"Stop criticising your government and leaders. Pray for them as this problem which confronts them is spiritual but most of them are not aware of it.

Remember this eye - Lucifer.




THE EYE OF LUCIFER


2"I exhort therefore that, first of all, supplications, prayers and intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men. For kings and for all that are in authority....that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty...."

Pray for a politician - never; why should I? What positive benefits can we expect by praying for them?

Answer -

1. A quiet and peaceable life

2. A Godly, honest life style.

There is therefore a spin-off from this exercise.

Footnotes


1 The Order; Anthony Sutton - pg 119
2 The Holy Bible; 1 Timothy 2:1-2

THE CONDITIONS

These are geared so that gradually each country on earth who gets caught in the money-lenders web then is forced to follow a certain line.

The New Zealand guinea pig experience

In the early 1980's, New Zealand had been selected by the 'planners' and the G7 were somehow involved in the plan.

5 men in the New Zealand Labour Party at the time agreed to the plan, and instead of informing the rest of the party, went ahead, and secretly implemented the policies which would later lead to the selling out of the country and enslavement of its people.

We herewith quote proofs of this action with no animosity, anger, malice, or emotion. These are the facts as recorded by the New Zealand media. You have heard of Reaganomics in the U.S.A.? Read this and marvel. (See also page 46 in our book 'Final Notice'.)

1 "The Plan.

By piecing together statements and documents it can be shown that "Rogernomics" was a plan imposed by a small group of ministers on a party which had confused ideas as to what it was letting itself in for.... Ultimately, the L....e, P....r, C.....l, P.....e, D.....s view of the economic policy had been endorsed before the snap election. Even the Prime Minister D.....d L.....e acknowledged that the agenda of Rogernomics had been withheld from the party which had campaigned for his election...." End quote.

Why did I not write down their full names? There is no reason to bore overseas readers with any names, as these men were obviously not the architects, merely the perpetrators.

Some may feel very angry having read the above article and begin to think in terms of wild west scenes where bodies jerk on the end of ropes, but surely we can show some grace to these deluded individuals and forgive them for what they did. Anyway, hanging for treason was struck from our law books just prior to these restructuring events taking place.

Wait a moment, we aren't finished yet.

In our book 'Final Notice', on page 46, we draw attention to another media article which helped our understanding.

2 "Rogernomics kept secret from the party

The Labour Party hierarchy kept "Rogernomics" secret from party members for the 1984 General Election, the Prime Minister, Mr L....e has told Australian television.

Mr L....e said Labour's economic policy had to be sold to the party and the country in various disguises the newspaper said...." End quote. (Emphasis added.)

That gives you confidence in the democratic system doesn't it? And to think that disillusioned voters, at the time, laid the blame on the Labour Party as a whole. New Zealand people will remember that ultimately we kicked them out, then brought in the National party who by this time understood that it would be political suicide not to continue 'the Plan'.

My concern is this. New Zealand, being the test case, was conned by secrets and various disguises and now, all you others in many different countries will go like sheep to the slaughter unless folk read and understand what we are writing here.

What did they do to New Zealand?

Precis of the plan:

I. Government departments targeted for restructuring

2. Corporatisation

3. Privatisation

4. Shares 49% overseas initially (i.e. locals and foreigners joint control)

5. Overseas raiders come in and buy up local shares until over 51% goes foreign

6. State-owned Enterprises and assets called 'the family silver', have gone forever

7. Investors must be found to stop the country collapsing

8. National sovereignty is an illusion and a thing of the past

9. As the future governments have little or no assets to work with, the final stage is a change to M.M.P. which involves many little groups forming coalitions as they can no longer govern the country anyway. The coalition group voted to power gives the illusion of governing and thus keeps the ignorant masses happy. True control now comes from our New World Order masters, overseas.

In the year 1996, both Israel and Italy have coalition governments, and are proving to be ungovernable. You obviously can't satisfy everybody!

As we do our final check on this manuscript, the New Zealand elections are over and 'The Economist' newspaper from Great Britain, makes the following comment - "Politics crashes on head. The ambiguous result of the New Zealand election should provide Britons with enough evidence to reject proportional representation...

...the state of New Zealand politics was a disaster all democratic societies should fear...

Mr Tony Blair, the leader of the British Labour Party, intends to hold a referendum on election reform if he wins the British election next year.

The Economist said the New Zealand experience, which could well see the country reverting "to the rule of fudge and mudge", is likely to vindicate Mr Blair's personal reservations about proportional representation..." End quote. (Emphasis added.)

Do you have government departments? Yes, we used to have them too, and if you looked them up, they could be found in the front of our telephone directories. Not now though. They've disappeared.

Citizens of other countries, take careful note.

Stage 1 - We awoke one morning in the early 1980's to find that 6 government departments had been targeted for "restructuring".

Stage 2 - The catch word was 'corporatisation'. The clever folk explained to the not so clever folk that this would increase efficiency. Any old fool knows of course that government departments worldwide are notoriously inefficient. All the Kiwis (New Zealanders) said "Oh good!"

Illustration: A gardener, an architect and a public servant had a debate as to who was the most important.

Gardener: "The first man that was created became a gardener therefore, I am the most important."

Architect: "The great architect of the Universe designed this world of order out of chaos, therefore, I am the most important."

Public Servant: "And who do you think created the chaos?"

Stage 3 - We woke a few mornings later to see a new word in the paper. It was 'privatisation'. The learned ones told the non-learned ones that this would increase efficiency, and all the Kiwis said "Oh good!"

Stage 4 - We awake and upon reading the morning paper, see a new word appear- 'shares'. At this point, we smell a rat, and quickly write letters to our leaders asking whether they are selling these shares to overseas people.

"Oh no", is the hasty reply. "We are only selling 49% overseas and thus the remaining major shareholding stays in New Zealand, and all the unsuspecting Kiwis said, "Oh good."

Stage 5 - By a further act of Parliament, or by hostile share takeovers, the overseas investors buy up 51% of the ex-government departments with their assets and those valuable commodities, often called the 'family silver', bought with the tax money paid for through my grandfather's sweat, my father's sweat, and my sweat, go overseas, never to return again. And all the Kiwis said, "Oh dear".

In future therefore, when you read the word 'privatisation', please add the word 'goodbye' and another word 'forever'.

Overseas readers may be interested to read that the Christchurch 'Mail', 20th December 1993, reported "New Zealand 40% foreign owned." Also note a 'Press' headline 10 December 1994, "Most of major firms' shares, foreign owned."

New Zealand Railways - U.S. owned
New Zealand Ferry Service - U.S. owned
Wellington Buses - Scottish owned
New Zealand Herald - Irish owned
Wellington Electricity - Canadian owned

Now should there be a neighbouring Australian laughing up his sleeve and saying "New Zealand, you only have 11% to go and you've lost your sovereignty and independence, let us turn to the Austrade figures reported from a magazine called "Fight", dated July 1994. These were the levels of foreign ownership in various areas at that time.

Processed food

95%

Motor vehicles

100%

Pharmaceuticals

100%

Confectionery and Beverages

84%

Manufacturing

57%

Building Materials

88%

Mining

97%

Electrical

98%

Banking

86%

Chemicals

98%

Insurance

82%

Hotels

75%

Oil and Gas

92%

And that is not all - read on.

Let us divide these percentage totals by the number of industries listed and it would appear that Australia is approximately 88.62% in overseas hands, at least as far as these industries are concerned.

Recap the Stages


1. Restructure Government Departments
2. Corporatisation
3. Privatisation
4. Shares - initially only 49% overseas
5. Shares - increase to over 51% overseas
6. Investors from overseas

Notice now, that without these investors, your country will collapse economically as you have been already cleverly conned into the selling up of your major assets.

Will you believe this, that in the guinea pig country of New Zealand, certain politicians introduced a bill, (and I rejoice to say that it was thrown out) to make it a criminal offence to speak against foreign ownership of land.

These world government characters never give up. Do not be surprised at a later date to see another attempt made to silence those who speak up in defence of their country and its assets.

An Australian commentator wrote a fascinating article during the year 1994, to the 'Sydney Morning Herald'.

"While both sides of Australian politics carry on about the Queen, plans are emerging for a de facto form of global government that will make the republic debate a quaint irrelevancy.

Last week, the leaders of the world's richest countries, the Group of 7 (G7), agreed to proposals which are likely to increase greatly the power of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to discipline governments "who don't do what it says".

The G7 also accepted proposals to boost the power of the World Bank to make third-world countries adopt "free market policies."

....The plan to give the IMF and the World Bank more power, has been devised by a group of bankers calling themselves the Bretton Woods Commission.

....You might'nt get to be crowned at Westminster Abbey, but if you want to exercise real sovereignty, you could do worse than join the de facto world government, now being constructed by the international bankers...." End quote.

Question - Did the social experiment called Rogernomics that was secretly sold to us in various disguises help us at all? A wealthy colleague of mine said that this was the best thing that ever happened to the country. Not being in the wealthy group, I personally dispute his findings.

A Wellington economist writing to the newspaper in 1995 agrees with both of us.

Quote - "Recent government policies have certainly favoured the rich.

....The majority of the population are still worse off than they were in the 1980's.

....The rich of course, are much better off. The tax cuts ensured that. No wonder they are triumphant about their recovery." End quote. (Emphasis added).

Overseas readers also take note that when government departments become privatised, in many cases you will find them being sold off at 'mates' rates' to insiders (those in the know) sometimes at a price less than half their value.

Protestation will avail little.

The Global Scene

Let us offer up some proof about all this from other countries around the world. Remember first of all, those conditionalities policies.

Please take note of the key rules of the New World Order planners.

Rule 1 -

BY CONTROLLING ENERGY

WE CAN CONTROL NATIONS.

---------------------------------

BY CONTROLLING FOOD

WE CAN CONTROL INDIVIDUALS.

Rule 2 -

By excessive rates and taxes, destroy all small business.

Merge all big business until about 6 companies control the commerce of each country.

This is called 'centralisation of control'. Thus merge, merge, merge, is the name of the game.

Rule 3 -



The first area to be privatised in each country and sold overseas to agents of the New World Order planners must be telecommunications (Telecom in New Zealand, Telstra in Australia, Telekom in Malaysia etc). Sell it for a song if necessary but get rid of it. This is so that a global dossier on every individual can be set up.

Footnotes


1 The Listener N.Z.; 19th December 1987
2 The Christchurch 'Press'; 26 June 1987

Saturday, February 2, 2008

THE SOVEREIGN : IS GOD STILL ON THE THRONE?

By: Al Cronkrite

“It is one thing to be free under God in a universe rich with meaning, another to be free in a vast and empty prison cell of meaninglessness.” Quote from “Sovereignty”, R. J. Rushdoony

Those of us who understand the treasonous sell out of our nation being ushered in by the political cadre elected by our more stubborn and less informed citizens are working to preserve our national sovereignty and the integrity of the nation in which we live. However, many of us do not entirely understand the nature of sovereignty and the implications involved in supporting it at a national level.

It is often said that we need not worry since God is still on His throne.

When we maintain that we worship a sovereign God we mean that He has ultimate control over everything that happens in His creation. There is a mystery here that is best acknowledged at the beginning. If God has ultimate power, one would wonder why things are in such a mess in our earthly house. We must acknowledge that His ways are not our ways. He is God and we are His creation made in His image. It pleases Him when we honor Him as our Creator and sovereign Lord and voluntarily obey His Commandments. He intervenes and creates obedience where He wills, but He also chooses not to intervene and allows His created beings to behave as they choose. In the Eighth chapter of First Samuel the elders of Israel came to God’s prophet, Samuel, requesting that he overlay his judgeship and prophetic authority with a king similar to those in other nations. God said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them."

From one who promoted God’s Law, Rushdoony’s book Sovereignty contains a chapter with the curious title “What is Law?” Recalling a legal reverse created in a short span of years he writes that in 1928 it was illegal to possess a bottle of whiskey but legal to have a bar of gold but just a few years hence it was illegal to possess a bar of gold but legal to possess a bottle of whiskey. I have often referred to the anarchy of human opinion. In this instance Rushdoony points to the ease with which totalitarian states can control the conduct of their citizens by controlling the law.

A sovereign is the holder of supreme power. That power allows the control of law. Human law regardless of its source is capricious and when the state becomes sovereign those that control the state control the law. Rushdoony writes, “As sovereign, it has a lawmaking power independent of the people, and it progressively asserts this power. The drift then into a totalitarian order can only be arrested and reversed by a return to the sovereignty of God. No laws passed to arrest that drift can succeed. No sovereign can be bound by the laws of a subject. Men cannot bind God by their laws and wills, and, when the state is accepted by men as sovereign, it is free from all human restraint. Only a return to the one true God and Sovereign can reverse man’s condition of bondage.” (Emphasis mine)

In United States sovereignty is vested in an anonymous cabal (The Hidden Hand) that controls the government that controls the nation. The electorate votes for candidates selected by the Hidden Hand and the election is controlled by the media that is controlled by the same Hidden Hand. Acceptable candidates are given favorable publicity and unacceptable candidates are ignored, derided, marginalized, and mocked. In our urban society where money is the sustenance of life and luxury, control of money is a source of great power. Power over the currency creates an opportunity to usurp sovereignty and create law that requires obedience.

We have arrived at this unfortunate situation because United States citizens failed in their responsibility to proscribe the powers of government and forsook God’s Law by allowing it to be replaced with human law.

Amy Chua in her book Day of Empire makes the case for tolerance as a requirement for growing and maintaining empires. Of the single digit number of entities that history might qualify as empires Chua describes the Roman Empire as one of the most tolerant and successful at incorporating captured nations. However, according to Chua’s description there were very few Romans who enjoyed much freedom. Chua writes that “even when citizenship was extended to nearly every freeborn male in the empire, only a tiny fraction of the population qualified as citizens. Slaves were far more numerous, often condemned to labor in the fields to feed the great Roman cities….The avenues to slavery were many. Among those who found themselves being auctioned off were prisoners of war, wives, and children of prisoners of war, victims of pirates and kidnappers, children of slaves, children whose parents had sold them into slavery, men seized for debt by tax collectors, and even free adults who put themselves up for sale.” Chua goes on to list some of the ways slaves were used. In addition to working in the fields they performed sexual services, worked in homes, were killed as gladiators, were shredded by wild beasts, tied to stakes and cut open as specimens for doctors. Men and women were beaten, skewered, flogged, and gutted. Children were hung by their feet and torn apart by hyenas.

Admiration granted to empires is not because they provide freedom to their citizens. The Roman Empire is famous and was admired for its size and duration. It may have been tolerant by ancient standards but by any civilized criterion it was cruel and restrictive. Freedom in every empire, including the United States, is predicated on obedience to tyrannical laws passed by the sovereign state. Empires are about power, not freedom.

United States was founded as a Republic, so was Rome. United States was an aggressive entity, so was Rome. Citizens of the United States considered themselves superior to the citizens of other nations, so did the Romans. The similarity probably ends there and should be taken up as Professor Chua does with more “barbaric” conquerors like the Mongols.

Our forefathers conducted genocide on the original inhabitants of the land we now occupy. New territories and contiguous additions were taken by armed force. Our leaders schemed to involve us in two world wars. When peace lay calm over God’s creation they created enemies that developed strife. They used the conflicts they themselves created to exert ever increasing control over world affairs.

Now, with a United States Empire in place and control of the Middle East in progress we stand at the door to world government. Europe is already under the yoke and the framework has been constructed in the Americas. Planned illegal immigration is setting the stage for integrating Mexico and the United States without the need to create a legal structure. In this hemisphere, world government is a bonanza for every nation but one. The United States had nothing to gain and everything to lose. The loss of everything is in progress. The Hidden Hand will use and destroy any vehicle that can extend their quest for world hegemony and the United States fits into that scheme. It is being used to further the ultimate empire. Wealth is being transferred to Asia and the nation in which we live is being sold to foreign corporations that will use our citizens as slave labor.

Listen, dear reader, to what the Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord, ‘Stand in the court of the Lord’s house and speak to all the cities of Judah, who have come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word! Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds….. If you will not listen to me, to walk in My law…then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city I will make a curse to all the nations of the earth…When Jeremiah finished speaking…the priests and the prophets seized him, saying, ‘You must die.’” Excerpted Chapter 26:2-8

The few who have had the temerity to warn the United States have been ignored. Solzhenitsyn warned us in a speech at Harvard. Mother Theresa warned us at a prayer breakfast in Washington. A few writers have consistently produced warnings. Congressman Ron Paul has provided a lonely honesty to the government in Washington. He is the representative who has been most obedient to his oath to obey the Constitution.

The Hidden Hand is a persistent evil but the deeper problem is the failure of our voting citizens to recognize what is happening and use their votes to bring change. Fifty percent or so of our people support the killing of babies in the womb and almost as many support the pre-emptive war that is tyrannizing and killing millions of innocent citizens in Iraq. Unlike many Christians in the United States who support the killing of Iraqi civilians, most Iraqi citizens had no rancor against United States and bear no culpability.

When the state, manipulated or not, is accepted as sovereign the people lose control and a progressive despotism ensues. Humans and human institutions are not capable of providing the consistent legal control provided by the unchanging Law of God. When sovereignty is vested in humans or human institutions the instability of human opinion creates a constant source of chaos that always tends toward dictatorial government.

Our nation was constructed to allow sovereignty to rest with the people. The Constitution was designed to restrict the size of the federal government and states rights were incorporated as an additional governor on federal power. The right to vote was restricted to those who had a vested interest in the nation. Senators were appointed by state governments. The system was designed to defuse power and prevent its concentration. It only worked for a short period of time.

Americans have the same mindset that caused Israel to reject Samuel and request a king. They have rejected God and His Law and selected instead human ordnances administered by a sovereign State. In so doing they have enthroned the creation rather than the Creator. God has allowed this to happen and the results are the same as He promised the profligate Israelis of old: conscription of young men and women into military service, wide spread employment in making ordnance, heavy taxation, and the theft of our belongings through inflation. Ironically, the reaction of our citizens to warnings is also the same as in ancient Israel. Our people refuse to listen to the voice of reproof and continue to grant their assent to an aggressive and tyrannical government.

The punishment for prolonged disobedience is often captivity.

United States of America is in desperate condition. God has allowed us to fall into the hand of powerful pagans because we have not been willing to obey Him and serve Him as our Sovereign ruler. He is still on the throne but like the people of Samuel’s era, we have rejected Him and chosen the State instead!

“Only a return to the one true God and Sovereign can reverse man’s condition of bondage.”


NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON : WHO IS STEALING OUR NUCLEAR SECRETS

By: Justin Raimondo

The Valerie Plame case is, by journalistic standards, ancient history, and naturally any follow-up on a once-important story is considered bad form. Yet there is an interesting – and rather scary – new twist to the narrative. It turns out that Scooter Libby and friends weren't the first to "out" CIA agent Plame, whose alleged employer, a company known as Brewster Jennings, was really a cover for a CIA unit investigating nuclear proliferation issues.

The London Times reveals that a former top U.S. State Department official tipped off Turkish agents about Brewster Jennings' CIA connection, according to Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator assigned to produce English-language transcripts of intercepted conversations of Turkish targets – in this case recordings of Turkish embassy officials and a top State Department official discussing, among other things, Brewster Jennings' relationship to the CIA.

As the Times reports, the recordings were made "between the summer and autumn of 2001. At that time, foreign agents were actively attempting to acquire the West's nuclear secrets and technology. Among the buyers were Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's intelligence agency, which was working with Abdul Qadeer Khan, the 'father of the Islamic bomb,' who in turn was selling nuclear technology to rogue states such as Libya."

Plame and her unit were onto a black market nuclear network, run as a cooperative effort by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Turkey, and Israel. Accordingly, the Turks were lured into hiring Brewster-Jennings as "consultants," but when the high U.S. official learned of this, says Edmonds, he "contacted one of the foreign targets and said … you need to stay away from Brewster Jennings because they are a cover for the government. The target … immediately followed up by calling several people to warn them about Brewster Jennings. At least one of them was at the ATC [American Turkish Council]. This person also called an ISI person to warn them."

The Israeli connection is what's interesting about this covert operation, because it involves U.S. citizens, high government officials who have been part of an ongoing investigation that dates back to at least 1999, the earliest year mentioned in the AIPAC indictment. As Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay of McClatchy News Service reported in 2004:

"Several U.S. officials and law-enforcement sources said yesterday that the scope of the FBI probe of Pentagon intelligence activities appeared to go well beyond the [Larry] Franklin matter.

"FBI agents have briefed top White House, Pentagon, and State Department officials on the probe. Based on those briefings, officials said, the bureau appears to be looking into other controversies that have roiled the Bush administration, some of which also touch Feith's office.

"They include how the Iraqi National Congress, a former exile group backed by the Pentagon, allegedly received highly classified U.S. intelligence on Iran; the leaking of the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters; and the production of bogus documents suggesting that Iraq tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from the African country of Niger. Bush repeated the Niger claim in making the case for war against Iraq.

"'The whole ball of wax' was how one U.S. official privy to the briefings described the inquiry."

The whole ball of wax is a pretty tall order, but surely a major part of it is this nuclear black market business that Edmonds has clear evidence of. Edmonds has been subjected to an unprecedented gag order, imposed by a judge in the name of preserving "state secrets" – yet what is being preserved, apparently, aren't state secrets at all but the knowledge that our nuclear secrets are being stolen and sold to the highest bidder with the active collaboration of high U.S. government officials. A whole gallery of top figures has been fingered by Edmonds, who hasn't mentioned any names yet has managed to identify the guilty parties by posting their photos on a Web site associated with her case.


The lack of coverage of this amazing – and quite frightening – story in the U.S. media is easily explained: anything having to do with the activities of Israeli intelligence in this country is sure to sink beneath the radar, although the London Times and a good number of international news outlets have picked up the details. What isn't so easily explained is the cover-up of criminal activities, including treason, by our very own Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Times, seeking corroboration of Edmonds' story, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI, asking for a particular document:

"One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file."

Who is protecting what I called this treasonous camarilla from prosecution – and why have successive investigations into a number of activities by the same cabal of government officials been closed down, repeatedly, over the years?

As Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark point out in their new book, Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy, the network associated with Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan continues to operate in Europe, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia through a series of front companies. They cite a study produced by the BND, Germany's intelligence agency, that found Pakistan is procuring nuclear-related materials and technology far in excess of its needs, leading experts to suspect they're funneling their nuclear assets into a global black market operation. The chilling conclusion of the authors ought to send shivers down your spine:

"Most alarming was the finding that hundreds of thousands of components amassed by Khan had vanished since he had been put out of operation. In other words, Pakistan has continued to sell nuclear weapons technology (to clients known and unknown) even as Musharraf denies it – which means either that the sales are being carried out with his secret blessing or that he is no more in control of Pakistan's nuclear program than he is of the bands of jihadis in his country."

The Pakistanis think they are above reproach, at least publicly, by the U.S. authorities, and this strange immunity may have lethal consequences for us all:

"In 2001, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency, had proof that Osama bin Laden had received in person two retired Pakistani nuclear scientists at his secret HQ in Afghanistan. Both had become Islamist radicals in retirement.

"According to the son of one of them, bin Laden told them he had succeeded in acquiring highly enriched uranium from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and he wanted their help to turn it into a bomb. Amazed, they explained that while they could help with the science of fissile materials, they were not weapons designers.

"Soon afterwards, a secret army audit discovered evidence that 40 canisters of highly enriched uranium (HEU), the feedstuff for a nuclear bomb, were missing from the Kahuta enrichment labs outside Islamabad after A.Q. Khan retired. Dr. Muhammad Shafiq ur-Rehman, an insider who is the son of one of Khan's former key aides, revealed: 'They could only account for 80 out of a supposed 120 canisters.'"

Okay, so let's see where this brings us: an underground network of spies and corrupt public officials is selling nuclear secrets worldwide, and al-Qaeda may very well have gotten its hands on enough lethal materials to make roughly 1,000 "dirty" bombs. Not only that, but the public officials and Washington insiders connected to this network are being protected from prosecution. The case files that document their treason have been withheld, and possibly destroyed.

Our brain-dead media, our kept pundits, and the "mainstream" outlets that determine if and when a news story is "legitimate" have systematically ignored the allegations of Sibel Edmonds, in spite of numerous endorsements of her credibility from two respected U.S. senators, the FBI's Office of the Inspector General, and numerous current and former FBI agents who share her frustration with the shameless cover-up of this important case. It is absolutely outrageous that not a single major news organization in the U.S. has bothered to examine the charges made by Edmonds – especially when it is known that Islamist groups are still planning attacks on Western targets.

None Dare Call It Treason was the title of a ubiquitous right-wing screed of the 1960s, remembered more for its high camp value than for anything the author had to say, but I've always wanted to use it as the title of a column. Now that I've managed to do it, it doesn't seem half as funny anymore.

Is it really time to consider moving to, say, a Pacific atoll and waiting out the catastrophe looming just down the road a bit? I never thought I'd say that, being temperamentally and ideologically opposed to "dropping out," but one wonders, in the face of such a massive cover-up of this appalling danger to our immediate safety, if that isn't the only alternative.