Veritas News – THE CULT OF ZION – Part 6

Click here for part 1

Veritas News Service Report

by: Todd Stevens



The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee

In examining the source of dispensational ideologies and the usage of the Zionist influence on political and social events, it would be almost criminal not to put forth an examination of the ADL and AIPAC. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has been looked at extensively by many, and for a review of their history one should look at the Cooper broadcast regarding them. In short, they have been racist from the start, supporting the Ku Klux Klan at one point and also helping to foment racial and political discord during the Civil War Era. For the ADL this piece will cover mainly their involvement in affairs of the past few decades and what they influence now. AIPAC will receive a brief examination as to their history, but more will be more centrally looked at as to their affairs in the last few decades as well.

The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee has been investigated or attempted to be investigated numerous times over the course of their history. In their genesis they were forced to adopt the name of AIPAC because they were originally known as the American Zionist Council, or AZC, which wholeheartedly fell under the umbrella of an Israeli foreign agent also known as the Israeli Office of Information. Proof of this is in the fact that the founder Isaiah Kenen was a representative on behalf of the Israeli Embassy for the creation of the state of Israel to the United Nations. Before 1948 Kenen would then represent the aforementioned AZC until he would be held accountable under FARA, or the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938[1]. This act required all foreign agents to register themselves to be identified as such. However, to circumvent this they changed their name and official position to become a legal lobbying agency, hence AIPAC.

It is in no way a personal or smear attack to say that AIPAC is a foreign agency whose only goal is to subvert the political spectrum of the United States and to abuse our freedom, promoting the Constitutional Republic to aid Israel at any cost.

A look at over thirty years of investigations:

August 12, 1977 Chairman John Dingell of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power requested that the GAO examine an alleged incident involving over 200 pounds of unaccounted-for uranium-23, the weapons-grade uranium used for nuclear warheads. It was specifically asked to provide investigation into what information regarding nuclear preventive measures was passed from the CIA and FBI to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy. Among some of the original allegations regarding this issue were:

– The material was illegally diverted to Israel by the NUMEC’s management for use in nuclear weapons.

– The material was diverted to Israel by NUMEC’s management with the assistance of the CIA.

– The material was diverted to Israel with the acquiescence of the United States.

– There has been a cover up of the NUMEC incident by the United States Government.

The GAO’s conclusion was that the allegations were not fully and adequately refuted. Their investigation would focus mainly on two main questions:

-What information has been developed about the alleged NUMEC’s diversion?

-Were the investigations by the Federal Government regarding the incident adequate?

It should be noted that in this investigation the GAO was only given a timeline of meetings with regard to the incident but were denied access to the actual files. However, some select staff of the House Committee were allowed access.

The conclusion of the report states that the Federal Government’s response and investigation to the incident was “uncoordinated, limited in scope, and timeless…Thus the response was inadequate.” It was also concluded by the GAO that “there were serious lapses in the investigation…key figures in the investigation were not contacted in a time span of 2 years.” Subsequently, there are still many unanswered questions regarding the incident and over 200 pounds of weapons-grade uranium-23 disappeared under the watch of the DOE and NUMEC that were never accounted for.

In 1985 the United States and Israel signed the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement. From 1984 and on through 1987 it was uncovered during an espionage investigation that AIPAC had obtained an unclassified document, entitled “Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty Free Treatment for U.S. Imports from Israel, Investigation No. 332-180.” This trade agreement put United States industry as well as small fruit and vegetable American businesses directly at odds with Israel and AIPAC because of the adverse effect on the industries themselves. The document itself was illegally obtained. AIPAC then took the document and passed it along to Congressional members to sway the impending trade agreement to be passed, which would favor Israel and their industries. When the United States Government ordered for the return of the document from AIPAC, it was concluded that the document could have only been obtained by a member of the United States International Trade Commission because of serial numbers indicated on the document.

The incident was concluded to not be a part of any espionage and passed on the Attorney General for review under theft of government property. The Attorney General with the WFO moved to investigate members of AIPAC (who in the reports and FOIA’s have been blanked out.)

In conclusion the final report on the incident stated that:
In view of the above information and due to the fact that BLANK has claimed diplomatic immunity in this matter, active investigation into this matter will be discontinued at WFO. Washington Field will be contacted by the USTR or the ITC if pertinent information is developed regarding this or similar incidents.

In 1992 there was an audit done by Inspector General Sherman M. Frank under the mandate of the Inspector General Act of 1978 and under section 209 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980. In this audit, the Blue Lantern Program, which is a government program to end-use monitoring required by Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), formalized in 1990. This basically watches over and ensures that there is no illegal misuse of the United States governmental and privatized armaments trading. However, the Blue Lantern program relies on government-to-government cooperation in pursuance of this program. Once the arms are transferred, it is the secondary government’s response that is key in ensuring that there is no further passage of arms to unwanted agencies and governments.

The Audit concludes that:
(The word Israel in this report has been BLANKED out.)

They also describe the alleged use and export by BLANK (Israel) of items and technology that violate the MTCR. The items include conventional weapons, such as air-to-air missiles and antitank systems, and missile components and technology. The reports state that BLANK (Israel) is intensifying its arms trade and increasing measures designed to conceal these activities from the United States.

There is no doubt that all measures like this are helped and maintained through support and pressure on Congress and the Senate by AIPAC and their evangelical supports.

In the most recent case we shall look at the case of US v. (defendant) Steven Rosen, (defendant) Keith Weismann, and (defendant) Lawrence Anthony Franklin. This case was filed in August of 2005. Franklin was employed at the Department of Defense and was a former Colonel in the United States Air Force. Steven Rosen was at the time the active director of AIPAC, and Keith Weismann was the director of Foreign Affairs for AIPAC. It should also be mentioned that Steven Rosen was a former social scientist at the RAND Corporation from 1978-82, where he enjoyed top-level security clearance for his work at Defense Industrial Security Clearance Organization or DISCO. He would, however, lose this clearance once he left DISCO in 1982.

The counts and charges laid against the defendants in this case were:

Count 1) Having lawful possession of access to and control over information relating to the national defense, did willingly communicate, deliver, and transmit that information directly and indirectly to a person and persons not entitled to receive it, having reason to believe that said information could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation, a violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 793(d) and

Count 2) Same charge but under Title 18, United States Code Section 793(e)

Colonel Lawrence Anthony Franklin would sign a plea that would charge him with both counts of Title 18, U.S.C Sec 793 (d),(e), and (g) and would also plead to a fifth count under Title 50, U.S.C Section 783 and Title 18, U.S.C, Section 371, which is conspiracy to communicate classified information to a foreign agency. He would receive the maximum of 10 years, $250,000 on count one and 5 years, $250,000 on count five–15 years and $500,000 total maximum sentence.

In the case of Rosen and Weismann things would become extremely interesting. Steven Rosen and Keith Weismann would appeal and claim that they were unaware that they were acting in a way that would hurt the national defense, also claiming that under AIPAC’s policy they were directed to act in such a way and had been for years. In 2009 Steven Rosen would also file a civil suit against AIPAC for defamation of character, claiming that the portrayal of Rosen’s reasons for being terminated in a New York Times article, March 3, 2008, was incorrect and was libel and slander against his character. In the Rosen v. AIPAC case AIPAC, through Patrick Dorton, have filed multiple motions to obtain summary judgments regarding “the issue of whether AIPAC had acted with malice in the statements regarding Rosen’s termination.”

In opposition to the motions of summary judgment, Rosen would oppose by filing an opposition to the claim that would state:

Defendants have offered no new evidence to justify its request for this Court to depart from its earlier ruling.  First, Defendants reiterate their arguments that the March 2008 statement ‘Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court set defendants’ instant motion for summary judgment for oral argument is a republication and therefore time-barred.  But, as this Court previously noted the New York Times article states that AIPAC, through Dorton, said “recently” (as of March 3, 2008) that AIPAC still held the view that it terminated Rosen because his behavior did not comport with its standards. Second, Defendants argue that the statement is true despite the testimony of AIPAC’s own witnesses that Rosen was terminated to avert the disaster AIPAC would face if the public learned that AIPAC did not terminate him. Defendants have come up one new argument: they now claim that when Dorton said that AIPAC terminated Rosen because he violated AIPAC’s standards, he was referring, in part, to the allegation that Mr. Rosen viewed pornographic images on his computer.  This post-hoc rationale is riddled with problems.

It is more than just a riddle with problems; their claims look like a target riddle with shotgun ammo. Previously it had already been shown in court that in August of 2004 it was already public that the Department of Justice was investigating Rosen and Weismann regarding this issue and AIPAC had continually stated that neither had done anything wrong. It was only after a meeting between the Department of Justice and AIPAC on February 15 of 2005 that Rosen and Weismann were placed on involuntary leave on February 17, 2005. It has also been presented to the court that there were emails regarding this issue that showed AIPAC was making concession to the Department of Justice in the hopes and pursuance that AIPAC itself would not in turn be investigated. Here are the presented emails and preceding text:

On February 19, 2005, AIPAC’ s  General Counsel, Phil Friedman told Richard Cullin, an attorney retained by AlPAC to represent Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s Executive Director, with regard, to the Justice Department’s criminal investigation, that the [AlPAC]  Advisory Committee in particular and the [AlPAC] Board [of Directors] as well, quite reluctantly, agreed to take a step in the direction of the government, in the hope that the government would reciprocate in some fashion . . . Placing . . . Steve [Rosen] on leave. . . [Is a] significant concession.  On the same day, another of AIPAC’s attorneys stated:

There was very vocal sentiment against taking even the first step of removing Steve [Rosen] . . .  from [his] office, but a majority favored that action to demonstrate to [the lead federal prosecutor] that we are serious and want him now to take the next step [i.e., relieving AIPAC of any chance of being a target of Justice Department’s investigation.]

As the trial stands today, the ruling is still pending and the case is moving forward. Grant F. Smith from has also stepped in, filing Amicus Curiae, which will allow him to present information regarding the case as a third party and the motion was granted on February 15, 2012. If proven that the practice of obtaining classified and secret government documents is a normal practice of AIPAC and Rosen was just basically doing his job, it should hopefully set precedent to move further on investigations with AIPAC and they should be forced to register under the FARA Act of 1938 at the very least, and at most should be disbanded and not allowed to operate as a PAC any further as they are a foreign agency which swears allegiance to a foreign government over the United States. They should also be tried for treason, but this is something that no one should hold their breath for.

So can it be stated that AIPAC is just a simple super pact that works for the helpful support of Israel without jeopardizing the interest of the United States? In the past two years their official funding looks something like this, and these are only their official numbers, not including Jewish fundraisers and dinners which can also go into the millions.


In total from 2009-2011 the cumulative total was:

Approximately $17,000,000

No less than $16,650,000 (

It should not be taken lightly the influence and sway they have. Even now, Obama has just raised over $1,800,000 at his last Jewish fundraiser, where he stated that, “Obviously, no ally is more important than the state of Israel…This administration – I try not to pat myself too much on the back – but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,”[2] He has also habitually lied regarding issues related to Israel that pull at the heart strings of the masses. On his campaign trail he mentioned that his grandfather liberated Auschwitz, but the only problem with this statement is that Americans didn’t liberate any camps in Poland–Stalin’s Red Army did.[3] The article goes on to say that he was mistaken and meant to say Buchenwald; however, they should have dug deeper because no Black Army liberated any camps[4] as is shown by the immense lies swung by Steven Spielberg in “The Last Day” and properly debunked by Eric Hunt in “The Last Days of the Big Lie.”[5]

It is about time that everyone in this country should have to listen to every politician pandering to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, and it should really piss off the Black and Jewish communities that politicians continually rely on your emotional reactions to nonsensical stories to get your favor. If the courts find AIPAC guilty of defamation, hopefully it will be the end of one of the longest running nuisances to the American political system.

Below is a link to download a .pdf file of information for this article:

And another excellent resource would be the special audio series, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”…go to the HOTT Shop pages for details.

Original article:

Dit bericht is geplaatst in Veritas Nieuws Service. Bookmark de permalink.

Één reactie op Veritas News – THE CULT OF ZION – Part 6

  1. Pingback: Veritas News – THE CULT OF ZION – Part 5 |

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *