Thursday, March 21, 2013

“HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY’LL PRINT IT?”





In our tradition of publishing timely and relevant journalism by highly respected and credible authors, we are pleased to present this piece by Thomas Lipscomb* in which he argues that the media's allegiance to the Democratic Party is suppressing news.
 

[Click here for link to Lipscomb's blog]

                                                 [desertnews.com]
In one of the most egregious violations of American pretentions to an independent press, John Kerry conspired with the Boston Globe, Associated Press, and the Los Angeles Times organizations to set the ground rules for the long awaited release of his papers after his defeat in 2004.

No one has revealed what the agreement was, but there had been eager anticipation by the public and news media punctuated by lies and promises by Kerry to release them for years before.


When they were finally “released,” the receiving news organizations, none of which had shown any ability or interest in pursuing the numerous discrepancies in Kerry’s claimed war experiences as shown by other records and witnesses, preferring to characterize them as “not proven,” proceeded to put out one to two days brief extract from the papers which contained little of note besides Kerry’s inferior grades to George W. Bush’s in college.

                   [Wellesley College]


When I pressed those news organizations, and others for access, they refused. I reminded them I had run the book publishing company that published “The Pentagon Papers” in their entirety and at considerable expense, and that today with internet publishing, it would cost practically nothing to put them entirely on line in the interest of answering the public’s many questions about Kerry.

And I asked, as with the “Pentagon Papers,” wasn’t it in the public interest to do so?


They still refused to give access to anyone.

It seems highly likely to me, from what I had already learned about the many fraudulent statements in the material I had been able to see, that had they done so, Kerry would never have become our Secretary of State.

 It was the first case I know of showing the press as an outrageously partisan player in American politics, far less interested in its traditional role of informing the public what it wished to know and ought to be aware of than protecting their political allies. And interestingly, circulation and advertising in newspapers and magazines suffered a catastrophic drop about the same time from which it is not recovering.

The strange case of the invisible Hillary Clinton- Sid Blumenthal correspondence might well be in that tradition. Only this time it is worse.

Benghazi
The cover-up on Benghazi is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the American Presidency.

There can be little doubt that the details of that scandal, which may well have affected a Presidential election, were carefully left in doubt by mainstream media, more than 80% of whom were in support of the Obama Administration.



Guccifer's Hack

We don’t know which members of the American Press are refusing to publish or even reveal what they know about the copies of the Clinton-Blumenthal e-mails “Guccifer” claims to have supplied them,

But if there is one thing we do know now it is that we can no longer trust the mainstream media to report in the tradition of Adolph Och’s instruction to his New York Times: “without fear or favor.

Guccifer” should be smart enough to give them directly to “Thesmokinggun” or other investigative internet media, if he wants to get these emails to the public.

As Forbes points out in a fine and well-balanced account, left hanging by their own mainstream media, Americans only access to what is claimed in the “Guccifer” material are Russian sources like Pravda, Moscow Times, and RT. Those are hardly sources without major political spin games of their own.

Three Days of the Condor               [GoneMovie.com]
Some may remember the question hanging in the air at the end of the film of Sydney Pollack’s THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR... A CIA agent challenges whistleblower Robert Redford who has just given classified material on a scandal to the New York Times. "How do you know they’ll print it?" he asked.

It seemed a ridiculous question back in 1975, still a year before America’s Bi-Centennial Celebration. Of course they would publish it.



As Abe Rosenthal said to me one day about some hot manuscript: “If I get my hands on it, it is going in the paper.

Now, it is a valid question. News media are no longer media. They are active partisan players in American politics. And it appears they decide what the “news” is according to what fits their scenario, rather than what’s fit to print.




 *Investigative reporter/editor Tom Lipscomb is a Senior Fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future (USC) and the founder of Times Books. He broke stories on questions about the military records of both John Kerry and George W. Bush in the 2004 election in the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Sun.  
His blogpost:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/tom-lipscomb-how-do-you-know-theyll-print-it.php.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Spy Release?




Israel's Super-Spy, confident he'll be released because the US is anti-Semitic

 Click here for related story [The Guardian]


We were concerned that Mr Obama's visit to Israel would result in an agreement to release one of the most heinous spies in US history -- as a means to satisfy Israel that Mr Obama is "pro-Israel" and that the US is not anti-Semitic; yea verily, it has come to pass.  All US politicians learn that they must pay obeisance to AIPAC if they value their political careers.
[Note the intense questioning regarding views on Israel surrounding the nomination of candidates for US Secretary of Defense.]

Although the Parole Board has ruled that Pollard must remain in the US for five years following his release, we fully expect him to violate his parole and will be whisked away by private jet to Israel where he will be greeted as a hero.

On several occasions, US Presidents have been pressured to release Mr Pollard as a sign of good-will towards Israel, our "ally".  On those occasions, the US Intelligence and Military Communities have joined together [a highly unusual event] to vehemently oppose Pollard's release; once CIA Director [Tenet] threatened to resign, and other Directors and senior Military officers began going public with disclosures of just how much damage this spy had caused to national security, causing both Mr Clinton and Mr Obama to rethink their inclinations.

The spy is Jonathon Pollard, who claims he got a raw deal and was persecuted because he is a Jew, also claims that his extensive espionage was solely to protect the interests of Israel, and certainly did no harm to the US. 

At least one of those statements is true.  Mr Pollard is, in fact, a Jew.

So, why is Mr Pollard so special in the espionage world, where the US has traditionally exchanged spies with our enemies?


Plain and Simple: Jews serve Israel!

 First, Mr Pollard worked primarily for Israel, which has assured us since its inception that it is not our enemy, but in fact, is an ally -- if not our "friend."

So, the espionage aspect is a bit unpalatable -- even though it has continued unabated for many decades, often using US politicians as the means to emplace their operatives into positions with access to sensitive, compartmented intelligence [e.g., NJ governor McGreevey, and Assistant Secretary of Defense Perle]. 

There are some who believe it was Mr Perle and/or Lieutenant General Sidney Weinstein who protected Mr Pollard each time he was fired or investigated -- but there is no conclusive evidence supporting those allegations.

When the US demanded the return of the "tens of thousands" of classified documents Pollard had provided Israel, it received only a few dozen minimally classified documents -- with Israel denying possession of any other documents.  

US investigators traveling to Israel came under non-stop harassment from the time they arrived until their [empty-handed] departure.

Mr Netanyahu's arrogance in recent times, during which he demanded the release of Mr Pollard has done more harm than good -- particularly since many in the US Intelligence and Military Communities recall Mr Pollard's activities in detail -- to include the lives of US Intelligence officers lost because of his duplicity and espionage.

Jonathon Pollard was recruited by Israel to spy against the US, worked at Navy's HUMINT program [TF-168] and collected thousands of Top Secret intelligence documents, to include satellite codes, from the Navy, CIA, DIA, NSA, and the NRO, turning them over to Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, Argentina, Taiwan, and China.  

He also provided information on the location and activities of US intelligence personnel, who were covertly assigned to the US Embassy in Beirut which was blown up in a 1984 false flag "terrorist" incident - attributed to Hezbollah. His assignment to TF-168 had gained him access to highly compartmented HUMINT and Special Operations conducted by TF-157 and all the Military Services, as well as joint operations with the CIA.  The special team of intelligence analysts detailed to the embassy to monitor

It appears that Pollard was recruited as early as 1979 and managed to gain employment in Naval Intelligence in spite of issues such as heavy drug usage and failing his polygraph.  A series of supervisors recommended his immediate dismissal and revocation of his security clearance -- any one of which would have ended the employment and security clearance of the average intelligence officer. 

Pollard on VideoCam stealing docs
Nonetheless, Pollard not only kept his employment, but received a much higher security clearance and an assignment to highly sensitive operations and heavily restricted material.  Within that environment, he was able to obtain "courier status" and carry out tens of thousands of highly classified documents without a challenge.

In retrospect, it is clear Pollard did not act alone, and certainly had a sponsor within Naval Intelligence or DOD protecting him.  Speculation included a flag rank Army Intelligence officer [now deceased]

 His activities undermined and destroyed a large number of clandestine operations, resulting in the death of both US case officers and recruited agents.

In addition, Mr Pollard provided to Israel the 10-volume RASIN [Radio-Signal Notations] manual which detailed the US global surveillance network -- to include SIGINT/COMINT and other sensitive electronic systems.

In addition to passing sensitive intelligence to Israel,  Mr Pollard passed our most sensitive secrets and methods to China, the Soviet Union, and to a number of other countries.

That information included the US Navy's highly sensitive methodology for tracking Soviet submarines -- putting US national security at risk, as well as the lives of US Navy personnel tracking the Soviet subs.

Mr Pollard achieved substantial financial gain by selling classified economic and financial intelligence to investment counselors on Wall Street, and profited from their gain.

Mr Pollard, who claimed he performed his espionage solely through his love of Israel -- and his hatred of the US -- accepted a stipend from Israel of $2,500/month [in that time frame, a sizable sum] plus at least one cash payment of $50,000.  

US Prosecutor's estimated his financial gain in the neighborhood of $540,000.  
We remain unsure how much profit he derived from the other foreign intelligence agencies he serviced.  

One of his accomplices, Kurt Lohbeck, advised in an interview with syndicated columnist Seymour Hersh that, at no time during their associated activities did Pollard once mention that his motivation was to support Israel.  Lohbeck advised Pollard's sole motivation was "money".

The Israelis were particularly pleased with Pollard's delivery of technical details of US satellite surveillance so they could defeat any US monitoring of Israeli ground movements or nuclear weapon developments. 


In 1967, they went to the extreme measures of bombing, torpedoing, and strafing an unarmed, clearly identified US Navy electronic surveillance ship (USS Liberty) in international waters where it was monitoring the Six-Day War -- ironically as a stand-by measure to lend Israel assistance in the event the Soviets intervened on the part of Egypt. 

US casualties were 34 dead, 171 wounded.

Israel later bragged it created the 
6-Day War so they could attack Egypt.

[On the anniversary of that attack, US 5th Fleet ships came under attack by unidentified fighters.  There was speculation that the  fighters were Israeli in a "false flag" attack to force the US to attack Iran.]

Israel later apologized, advising they misidentified the US ship, which was flying the US flag, which was communicating with IDF headquarters in English and Hebrew, identifying itself as a US Navy ship.  

The Israelis claimed they thought it was an Egyptian ship, although the NSA and the US Navy produced recordings of Israeli fighter pilots laughing as they strafed "the stupid Americans"; the Israelis were unable to explain why they were jamming the Liberty's attempted communications with the 6th Fleet.

Although Israel and AIPAC regard the attack on the USS Liberty a minor, and ancient issue -- for which they've apologized, 
US Intelligence and Military folks give it a higher ranking as a terrorist act than the attack on the USS Cole, and on a par with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor;
the difference in the latter case was that the Japanese attacked the US as an enemy, while Israel attacked the US as an ally.

"Don, don't forget: I make US Foreign Policy
Go bomb Iran or I'll have Congress Impeach you!"
But, to return to our original focus, we grow weary of Israel and AIPAC attempting [and often succeeding] to direct our foreign policy.  

We invaded Iraq to topple Saddam reportedly on the basis of Israel's intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction -- and in the process, alienated the US from the 
Arab world; 
and we learned the WMD meme was purely Israeli propaganda. 

Israel and AIPAC routinely threaten our politicians if they do not stridently support Israel 
-- even if such support is directly in contradiction to US interests.




So we should not succumb to the demands for releasing Mr Pollard whose egregious acts of treason cost the lives of a number of US intelligence officers and seriously threatened our national security.

We urge our Congress, and particularly Mr Obama, to take the appropriate action in this issue, and to deny Israel's pressure to release Mr Pollard. 

To this day, we still do not have an accurate damage assessment, and Mr Pollard's accomplices and protector within Naval Intelligence and DOD remain not formally identified.  LTG Sidney Weinstein is a suspect, but he's now deceased.

FOOTNOTE: 
We fully expect to come under attack from AIPAC proxies over this discussion; if they stay true to form, we will be accused of being hateful, anti-Semites -- a charge most of our Jewish supporters will rebut.





Monday, March 18, 2013

Banking Collapse?


Click here for related story {Reuters}

We recall with crystal clarity that moment in 2008 when Senator Schumer [Democrat - NY] announced that he was concerned that Lehman Brothers was "insolvent" and unable to meet its obligations. 

The consequent run on Lehman caused its collapse, creating a domino effect as Bear Stearns and AIG then collapsed, and the rest of Wall Street was faced with massive client account liquidations as morbid fear spread throughout the financial community -- and the investing population. 

That collapse cost the US roughly $22 Trillion, according to the GAO.


As we ease into the New World Order, can we expect the IMF to direct our banks to impose taxes, similar to those to be imposed on Cypriot banks, on US savings accounts?  The official concept is to impose a 3% tax on savings deposits below €100,000 [US$130,000] and to 12.5% for deposits above €100,000. 

That's a fairly massive tax which depositors will go to great lengths to avoid, particularly since they've likely already paid a tax on their earnings which they then deposited into their local banks.


We rank this move as one of the most stupid concepts emanating from the IMF to date.


This move will likely cause a run not only on Cypriot banks, but on all the banks within the European Community as depositors anticipate similar measures in EC banks to "stabilize the economies and reduce debt."

One rationale for this move was that Russians [and other foreigners] were depositing their savings in Cyprus banks to avoid being taxed on those savings at home. 

We suspect that foreigners will no longer make any deposits in Cypriot banks, significantly eroding/destroying the lending capacity of those banks in Cyprus or internationally.





Can we look forward to this process occurring in the US?  It seems the Socialist dominated United Nations, the IMF, and the World Bank all seem to be having a greater sway in US financial policy -- a fairly worrisome situation since those organizations all depend on US contributions to support them.



In years past, we watched Middle Class citizens of Third World countries across the globe pull their savings out of local and national banks when their governments attempted to tax those accounts; governments, such as Argentina and Venezuela restructured and revalued their monetary units, wiping out life savings of their Middle Classes. 




The more astute citizens recognized the warning signs and moved their cash out of the country; efforts to increase taxes on incomes and savings in Venezuela in 1980 caused a run on the Workers' Bank, with a subsequent movement of citizen's deposits out of Venezuela [much of the cash ended up in Miami in the form of condominiums - creating an unprecedented real estate boom] -- and a depletion of Workers' Bank deposits.

Panicked depositors in 1929

We expect this poorly thought-out IMF concept to destabilize the European banking communities in the near term, and to unsettle depositors throughout the globe who will fear for the safety of their savings. 

We also expect to see new investment categories emerge here in the US in which depositors will place their savings, but which will not have the FDIC safety net -- and which will destabilize the US economy once again.

 



Footnote:
The IMF is saturated with posturing, highly paid, and untaxed Socialists and Emerging Nation, self-styled  "economists" who have no grasp of reality, and who view those with savings and real income [excluding themselves, of course] as "greedy capitalists" and subject to unrealistic taxation.



Notably, IMF executives have an average compensation of $181,000 - untaxed, plus living expenses.

More senior executive salaries approach $500,000, plus living expenses [housing, leased-chauffeur-driven limousines, expense accounts, armed guards, etc.].

We doubt if these executives park their savings in banking systems in Europe now, but more likely will find them in off-shore accounts not subject to IMF or World Bank oversight.




DISCLAIMER:
Our expertise in addressing this issue is based on several years conducting international financial analysis at the US State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.