American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) porno, anti-America-espionage scandal

If Steven J. Rosen, former foreign-policy director and lobbyist for the umbrella Jewish lobby in the US (AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC), is telling the truth and accurately characterizing what has gone on at AIPAC, the whole world should understand that AIPAC is an agency/agent of Israel (a foreign country) even if Israel may not have given it money directly.

During its deposition of Rosen, AIPAC's lawyer Thomas L. McCally clearly tried to make his confessions of pornography and philandering the central issues in his dismissal. Rosen shot back that he had "witnessed" AIPACs executive director Howard Kohr "view... pornographic images on AIPAC computers," as well as "his secretary do it repeatedly, and call people over to see it, including Howard Kohr." He said he "witnessed other members of staff do it," too.

...

...Rosen said he would produce "statements of AIPAC employees to the FBI, internal documents, deposition statements, public statements and other evidence showing that [the] receipt of classified information by employees other than [himself] ... was condoned ... for months prior to being condemned in March 2005 after threats from the prosecutors."

via SpyTalk - Ex-AIPAC official got at least $670,000 from donors.

and this:

"I witnessed [AIPAC executive director] Howard Kohr viewing pornographic material, [Kohr's secretary] Annette Franzen viewing pornographic material, probably a dozen other members of the staff," Rosen said in his deposition. He added that, according to a Nielsen survey, more than a quarter of Americans regularly view pornographic websites at their workplace.

Later in his deposition, the former lobbyist also said he had heard from directors at AIPAC about their visits to prostitutes and he claimed Kohr had routinely used "locker room language" at the AIPAC offices.

...

...AIPAC's lawyers questioned Rosen in detail about his attempts to find male sexual companions through the online classifieds site Craigslist, an act Rosen referred to as "sexual experimentations."

via  AIPAC Gets Down and Dirty in Pushback vs. Defamation Suit – Forward.com

In an FBI sting to catch AIPAC in anti-US espionage, a Pentagon analyst named Larry Franklin gave Rosen and Keith Weissman what Rosen and Weissman allegedly believed was classified Pentagon-intelligence information about Iran in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman passed it on to "senior Israeli diplomat, Naor Gilon, and to Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler."

AIPAC claims that type of behavior was never okay with AIPAC while Rosen says it was standard operating procedure that AIPAC knew full well.

"Rosen then called Rafi Barak, at the time the deputy chief of mission at Israel's Washington embassy." Rosen met with him in a coffee shop and related the details of the FBI investigation.

Here's the interesting point:

...former AIPAC staffer and now liberal columnist M.J. Rosenberg sees more to it. According to Rosenberg, if Rosen proves that his operations, including going to a foreign official to warn him about the investigation, were all part of AIPAC's standard operating procedures, "that would mean that AIPAC is not a domestic lobbying organization at all, but something very, very different."

Where's Rosen now? See: "Standing with Steven J. Rosen :: Daniel Pipes":

Unquestionably, hiring Steven J. Rosen to become part of the Middle East Forum was the most difficult decision since I founded the organization in 1994.

Daniel Pipes has congratulated Rosen for blocking Charles Freeman for Chairman of the US National Intelligence Council. Charles Freeman is not a Zionist, Israel-Firster, but rather his loyalties lie with the whole American people first. Barack Obama caved into the AIPAC and Pipes and Rosen, et al. (See: Charles W. Freeman, Jr.: National Intelligence Council appointment controversy - Wikipedia.)

Freeman should not have withdrawn, or been withdrawn. His appointment hearings, etc., should have been used as a vehicle for openly discussing the undue influence of the Jewish/Zionist lobby, in all its iterations, in the US.

Freeman then issued a full statement on his reasons for withdrawal, stating, "I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country;" he identified the country as Israel. He questioned whether the "outrageous agitation" following the leak of his pending appointment meant that the Obama administration would be able to make independent decisions "about the Middle East and related issues." He cited especially interference by Israel supporters, writing:

"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired. The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonour and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the wilful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."..... "The aim of this lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favours."

—Charles W. Freeman[20][21]

After his withdrawal Freeman gave an interview to Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation saying he regretted he did not identify his attackers as "right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here," what he called the "(Avigdor) Lieberman lobby." He also said that if President Obama had stepped in earlier he might have deflected attacks by Democrats, but that he and the National Intelligence Council still "would have been subjected to a slanderous attack." He said these attacks were as the "Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys," to dissuade other critics of Israel from accepting government positions, but he had received messages from a number of Jews who also disagreed with Israel's policies.[22]

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN he repeated many of the same points, adding a defense of past comments about the September 11 attacks, saying US past actions had "catalyzed — perhaps not caused, but catalyzed — a radicalization of Arab and Muslim politics that facilitates the activities of terrorists with global reach." He stated he was "deeply insulted" by those charging antisemitism and that he had a "great respect for Judaism and its adherents." He also said Saudi Arabia has "definitely been successfully vilified in our politics," despite efforts by the current Saudi king to reform his country and promote peace with Israel. He ended by expressing optimism about President Obama saying he has a "strategic mind" and that what America needs is a "strategic review of the policies that have brought us to this sorry pass in which we now find ourselves — not just in the Middle East, but in many other places, as well."[23][24]

In an interview quoted in The New York Times, Freeman said "Israel is driving itself toward a cliff, and it is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people." In the same article Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper substantiate Freeman's accusations, writing: "The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steve J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group."[4] While some members of Congress denied that the Israel lobby played a significant role,[25][26] The Forward said "Many of the lawmakers demanding an investigation into Freeman's qualifications for the intelligence post are known as strong supporters of Israel."[27]

Here's some of M. J. Rosenberg's take on the case: "AIPAC: Fighting for survival." I followed several of the links in his article in creating mine.

Thanks to Rick Staggenborg, of SOLDIERS FOR PEACE INTERNATIONAL, for broadcasting a Facebook message concerning Rosenberg's article.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.