Iran terror traced back to Zionist roots -- yet another example of relentless organized Jewish campaign of terror since emancipation

Introduction by Chris Moore:

The following is an article by Glenn Greenwald, in which he discusses the U.S. government-designated terrorist group MEK (the so-called People’s Mujaheddinand), and its connections to top U.S. neoliberal and neocon politicians.

It's now been confirmed that the MEK is the group behind the assassinations of Iranians scientists.

Back in November of 2011, Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com was all over the story of the MEK and its previous terrorism against the U.S., its bizarre, Marxist-theocrat ideological fusion, its connections to Israel, the Israel lobby, and corrupt U.S. politicians, and the not-so-puzzling source of its funding.

My own "back of the envelope" take on the MEK is that it is yet another Trojan horse front for radical, anti-Islamic "secularism," which, just as was "secular," anti-Christian Bolshevism, is itself a front for Zionism and Jewish supremacism.

The important characteristic to remember about these Jewish Zionists and their left-wing "secular" and right-wing, neocon and charlatan-Christian, Judeo-Christian Zionist accomplices is that not only do they hate Islamic civilization, but they hate Christian civilization (i.e. Greco-Christian Western civilization, formerly known as Christendom) because of each one's historical intolerance for Jewish usury and gangsterism. And Jewish Zionist gangsters, of course, inevitably end up in bed with similar, low character, racketeering ideologies, ideological Trojan horses, and Ponzi scheme economic systems (e.g. "secular" communism, liberal fascism, Keynesianism, neoconservatism) and pseudo-Christian, charlatan ideologies like Judeo-Christian Zionism.

Indeed, the MEK might be viewed as a fledgling, pseudo-Islamic version of Judeo-Christian Zionism, but with one foot in the Marxist camp, and one foot in the "Godly" camp.

It's important to never underestimate the ideological breadth, scope and sophisticaation of the front groups these self-worshipping and money-worshipping Zionists are capable of conjuring for their own ends, and the ends of there temporary partners in crime. (As in all viper's nests, there's inevitably an eventual clash between species of snakes, for example when Stalinists eventually turned against the Jewish Bolsheviks after the two teams had together done their worst in eradicating millions of former Russian elites, Christians, dissidents and simple peasants.)

And lest anyone believe that these murderous Jewish con artists are the vanguard on the road to human "progress" and enlightenment, think of the whirlwhind that has been unleashed since Zionist "emancipation": Imperialism, colonialism, mechanized mass murder, world wars, communism, fascism, now Zionist and Globalist neo-fascism in support of dollar hegemony...
-------------------------

FROM:
Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups
A new report claims that MEK is behind the assassination of Iran's scientists, and Israel funds them
(Salon.com) -- by Glenn Greenwald --

One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals “have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any “material support.”

There are several remarkable aspects to this story. The first is that there are numerous Muslims inside the U.S. who have been prosecuted for providing “material support for Terrorism” for doing far less than these American politicians are publicly doing on behalf of a designated Terrorist group. A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers; a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”; a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba); a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted simply for maintaining a website with links “to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel” and “jihadist” sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for — in the FBI’s words — “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the shootings” at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said “does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection.”

Yet here we have numerous American political figures receiving substantial fees from a group which is legally designated under American law as a Terrorist organization. Beyond that, they are meeting with the Terrorist leaders of that group repeatedly (Howard Dean told NPR last year about the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi: “I have actually had dinner with Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions. I do not find her very terrorist-like” and has even insisted that she should be recognized as Iran’s President, while Rudy Giuliani publicly told her at a Paris conference in December: “These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace”). And, after receiving fees from the Terrorist group and meeting with its Terror leaders, these American political figures are going forth and disseminating pro-MEK messages on its behalf and working to have it removed from the Terrorist list.

Given all the prosecutions of politically powerless Muslims for far fewer connections to Terrorist groups than the actions of these powerful (paid) political figures, what conceivable argument is there for not prosecuting Dean, Giuliani, and the rest of them for providing “material support for Terrorism”? What they are providing to MEK is the definitive “material support.” Although these activities (along with those of the above-listed prosecuted Muslims) should be protected free speech, the U.S. Government has repeatedly imprisoned people for it. Indeed, as Georgetown Law Professor David Cole noted, these activities on behalf of MEK are clearly prosecutable as “material support for Terrorism” under the standard advocated by the Bush and Obama DOJs and accepted by the Supreme Court in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law case of 2009, which held that even peaceful advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group can be prosecuted if done in coordination with the group (ironically, many of these paid MEK supporters have long been advocates of broad application of “material support” statutes (when applied to Muslims, that is) and have even praised the Humanitarian Law case). If we had anything even remotely approaching equal application of the law, Dean, Giuliani, Townsend and the others would be facing prosecution as Terrorist-helpers.

Then there’s long been the baffling question of where MEK was getting all of this money to pay these American officials. Indeed, the pro-MEK campaign has been lavishly funded. As the CSM noted: ”Besides the string of well-attended events at prestigious American hotels and locations, and in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin, the campaign has included full-page advertisements in The New York Times and Washington Post — which can cost $175,000 apiece.” MEK is basically little more than a nomadic cult: after they sided with Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, they were widely loathed in Iran and their 3,400 members long lived in camps in Iraq, but the Malaki government no longer wants them there. How has this rag-tag Terrorist cult of Iranian dissidents, who are largely despised in Iran, able to fund such expensive campaigns and to keep U.S. officials on its dole?

All of these mysteries received substantial clarity from an NBC News report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem yesterday. Citing two anonymous “senior U.S. officials,” that report makes two amazing claims: (1) that it was MEK which perpetrated the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and (2) the Terrorist group “is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.” These senior officials also admitted that “the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign” but claims it “has no direct involvement.” Iran has long insisted the Israel and the U.S. are using MEK to carry out Terrorist attacks on its soil, including the murder of its scientists, and NBC notes that these acknowledgments “confirm charges leveled by Iran’s leaders” (MEK issued a statement denying the report)...MORE...LINK

Establishment Right presidential field shaping up as a joke; Americans know it was the corrupt Establishment itself that fumbled country away

From:
GOP Slogan for 2012: Who Lost The Empire?
(The American Conservative) -- by Jack Ross --

...The Republican Primary is already shaping up to be an unsightly mess with possibly as many as 14 candidates in the first debate, assuming that’s in May or June. Trying to handicap at this stage is therefore the height of folly, but really it doesn’t matter, because the major theme of the campaign has already emerged: “Obama surrendered to Islamofascism!” Because even the right already knows how this movie will end, with the Fifth Fleet leaving the Gulf with its tail between its legs and Israel forced to negotiate one man-one vote, the hunt for the enemy within has already begun in earnest.

I agree that in all likelihood this apocalypticism will fall flat in a general election and ensure Obama an easy re-election, but that doesn’t mean things won’t get very, very, ugly — recall that Nixon’s landslide in ’72 nevertheless took place in a toxic political environment.

It is most amusing however to witness the desperation with which the neocons are confronting the situation. John Podhoretz and various B-listers are panicking at the sight of such a weak Republican field, and their rhetoric eerily recalls the Democrats in 2003 and 2004, in what was widely labeled “Bush Derangement Syndrome”. But while the Democrats’ derangement (as opposed to the principled leftists) was about precious little more than who would appoint the successor to Sandra Day O’Connor, the neocons see their whole world collapsing around them. Which, naturally, leads Bill Kristol to remind us that he is one of only six people who still thinks American entry into World War I was a good idea.

Obama is nothing more than the object of blame for the larger forces bringing about the fall of the American empire, and of Israel as a Jewish state, of which he has little to no agency — I have always insisted on this point to opponents of the empire as well as with respect to the neocons. In the end it makes no difference, except perhaps at the margins on Election Night, whether the bearer of these slings is a lightweight windbag like Romney or Pawlenty, a genuine whack-job like Palin or Gingrich, or a true believer like Santorum or John Bolton...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Who lost the Empire? The better question is WHAT lost the Empire? Here’s my back-of-the-envelope list:

The Worst Generation, the neocon/neolib Establishment, ideological Zionism, ideological Globalism, economic Keynesianism, statist-corporatist proto-fascism and war-profiteering, corrupt Wall Street banksters, the Grifter Class comprised of mainstream media, bankers, lawyers, government unions, economic bubble-inflating stock/mortgage brokers, and various and sunder other confidence men, swindlers, and slick charlatan politician, including the likes of Bush and Obama and the self-serving ilk that supported them...

As we’re rapidly approaching rock bottom and the corrupt American Ancien Régime begins getting swept away, the next question becomes: where do we go from here?

Resigning Goldman Sachs executive takes to pages of New York Times to reveal firm leaders so corrupt, they brag about "ripping their clients off"

From:
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
(New York Times) -- by GREG SMITH --

...Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact...MORE...LINK

Nation-Building Should Begin At Home

Nation-Building Should Begin At Home
(RichardcCook.com) -- By Richard C. Cook

...The Republicans, with the victory of their candidate Scott Brown in the race for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts, are jubilant, even though they have absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative. How soon we forget that it was Republican policies, starting with Reaganomics and ending with the George W. Bush catastrophe, that has been the prelude to where we are today.

The prognosis for the U.S. economy is dim. From a larger perspective, we are at the end of the era of Keynesian economics, when the government thought all it had to do was run up more debt to stimulate the economy. When you add to that a generation of outsourcing of manufacturing jobs abroad, completely irresponsible and out-of-control behavior by the financial industry, and the cancerous growth of the military-intelligence-industrial complex and their pet wars, you have all the signs of an empire in precipitous decline.

For those who are habitually against everything the government does, I’d like to say that there are actually a few caring and intelligent people in authority these days who don’t want to see the total collapse of the U.S. as a nation, an economy, and a society. The U.S. remains the world’s largest consumer economy and the dollar the predominant currency. But the rest of the world has caught up. The Anglo-American Empire is seeing the sunset, and the choice now to be made is whether it will end peacefully or in a bang.

We can all hope for a peaceable conclusion, though it will take patience and hard work for the U.S. even to become a functioning economy on the same level as the rest of the world’s developed nations. So we can hope that the “soft landing” will work. But we still have a gigantic debt load to deal with, amounting to $60 trillion from all sources–business, government, and consumer.

We also have a gutted manufacturing sector, the huge overhead of a bloated financial industry (and their obscene bonuses), bankrupt governments at all levels, and way too many people with no real work to do like lawyers, health insurance executives, national security analysts, financial and educational bureaucrats, etc.

The short and simple answer is that we have to rebuild our economy, and our lives, from the bottom-up. We have to relearn how to do manual work like what we have mainly been asking immigrants to do for the last couple of decades. We should rebuild our local farming sector and get rid of bloated monstrosities like Monsanto. We should launch a major assault on the automobile culture and begin to revitalize cities and towns so that people can bike or walk to work or take public transportation.

It will not be easy to do these things. It may not even be possible. We have forgotten how to work because we have wanted our money to “work for us.” But that money, which only ever existed on paper, is gone. Our population is aging and not too healthy, making care of the sick and dying the only growth industry. And the young people who come out of our schools have few practical skills with which to earn a living. This must change too.

And what of investment capital? Loans are harder than ever to get. The small business sector, which could be an economic engine, is in dismal shape with lack of credit, high costs, and weakened markets for their products. Half of all new small businesses fail within one to two years of start-up.

Some say that a nation armed to the teeth and under this much pressure is likely to start a really big war out of frustration and not knowing what else to do. In other words, roll the dice. But World War II ended a long time ago. Since then, except for Vietnam, we have had our way bullying small nations. But that era has ended too. We won’t be able to do to China, Russia, and India what we did to Iraq and are trying to do to Afghanistan.

World War III would be a really bad choice. What we should do instead is take a positive attitude and sit down together and figure out ways to work our way out of this mess. But it will take a heap of humility, leadership, and willingness to face the pain of starting over again. But it could also be an adventure. After all, nation-building should begin at home...MORE...LINK
-----------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Richard Cook's piece got me thinking about some back-of-the-envelope solutions to Americans many problems. My two cents:

We need to control our borders so the insane money worshippers and Left-Right globalization advocates can't continue to drive down the price of labor with mass immigration; we need to dismantle the vast government bureaucracies and government unions sponging up so much of the economy and discouraging entrepreneurs, and dumbing down the population with the failing public school system; we need school vouchers redeemable at private schools, and to encourage the opening of more and more private schools; we need to encourage Christianity instead of allowing Hollywood, commercialism, and cultural Marxism to bludgeon it; we need to go into trust busting mode and dismantle many of the huge, soulless, monopolistic corporations and banks run by unpatriotic internationalists and corporatists in order to spur competition and stimulate innovation and entrepreneurialism; we need to dismantle the satanic military-industrial, war-profiteering complex which has encouraged the government's printing of monopoly money in the false and evil belief that it could coerce the world into playing by the U.S. economic rules and maintain the petro-dollar and the dollar as the world's reserve currency at the point of a gun indefinitely; the existence of the military-industrial, war-profiteering-complex has also encouraged arbitrary and unnecessary wars that have helped destroy our economy, our reputation, and our morality, and has encouraged the delusions of grandeur of our Washington politicians, many of whom are already megalomaniacs and sociopaths; we need to elect politicians who will enforce the Constitution, and cull the laws of the land down to the essentials, which they then enforce competently and tenaciously; we need to dismantle the K Street lobbying complex in general, and the Israel lobby in particular, which encourages many of the warmongering abuses mentioned above; we need to encourage Zionists to immigrate to Israel, which is where their primary loyalties lie anyway; we need to get Israel off of American welfare, and other countries around the world as well, with any ensuing vacuum being temporarily filled by American NGO's; we need to shape up the U.N., and turn it into a real peace-keeping force, with the world deciding collectively to which hot spots and emergencies it should be deployed, but only under strict and limited circumstances (the never-ending conflict and perpetual sore spot between Israel and environs, for example, comes to mind).

Again, all just my two cents.