BUSTED! SO-CALLED WHITE SUPREMICIST GROUP EXPOSED AS ISRAELI PROPAGANDA OPERATION!

whatreallyhappened.com

Every time the Israeli lobbyists in the United States demand more money or more special legal protections, they wave about these so-called "Neo-nazi" or "White Supremacist" groups like Stormfront and the American Nazi Party. AIPAC, ADL, JDL, and their ilk raise tons of money by waving these boogie-men around as a real imminent threat and danger!

Yet no matter what laws get passed and no matter how many millions ADL, JDL, etc. raise, Stormfront and the American Nazi Party remain strangely unmolested by either criminal or civil actions.

How very strange!!!

So, earlier today, the Commander of the American Nazi Party, one Bill White, posted an article on the official American Nazis website an article accusing rising Presidential candidate Ron Paul of being a "Secret" White Supremacist.

Now, one might suppose that the American Nazi party would be happy to have a candidate who shares their views, and one might assume that Bill White is smart enough to know that making such a public accusation is going to be quite harmful to the candidate he claims shares his philosophy. Indeed it does appear that Bill White's accusation is intended to cause as much harm to Ron Paul as possible.

Of course, Bill White's claim did not do much more than incite a great deal of laughter. But in their haste to get this message out, one of Bill's minions slipped up.

Rather than cut and paste the text of Bill's accusations, one of the members of Bill's blog, apparently to prove the story's source, screen captured Bill's article, posted it to various newsgroups and in doing so, let slip a rather interesting secret.

Here is that screen capture.

Click for full size image.

Note the tiny little icon indicated by the arrow in the Windows toolbar. It's a megaphone. But not just ANY Megaphone, it is the icon proving that the member of Bill White's American Nazi group is ALSO a member of Megaphone, the Israeli propaganda communications network!

Here is what the Megaphone looks like when it is running.

More about Megaphone can be found at Wikipedia and more about Bill White and his many fronts can be found HERE.

But what we have here is what appears to be a group of self-proclaimed NeoNazis using the Israeli propaganda network!

... which goes a long way to explaining why they are never arrested or sued by those groups that raise so much money using them as scarecrows!

Chertoff Concealed Role in Tape Destruction

Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t
Friday December 21, 2007

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff advised the CIA between 2002 and 2003 that its agents had the legal authority to use techniques that included waterboarding on one of the agency's so-called "high level detainees," according to a little-known report published in January 2005.

That interrogation was videotaped and the tape later was destroyed

Chertoff was head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division when CIA officials inquired whether its agents could be charged with violating the federal anti-torture statute for employing interrogation methods such as waterboarding. The tactic causes detainees to slowly drown, and is generally terminated before the detainees die.

"The CIA was seeking to determine the legal limits of interrogation practices for use in cases like that of Abu Zubaydah, the Qaeda lieutenant who was captured in March 2002," says a January 29, 2005, New York Times story. That story quoted unnamed sources who told the newspaper that "Chertoff was directly involved in these discussions, in effect evaluating the legality of techniques proposed by the CIA by advising the agency whether its employees could go ahead with proposed interrogation methods without fear of prosecution."

During his Senate confirmation hearing in February 2005, Chertoff maintained that he provided the CIA broad guidance in response to its questions about interrogation methods and never specifically addressed the legality regarding waterboarding or other techniques.

However, Chertoff, according to intelligence sources who spoke to Truthout, was briefed about the videotaped interrogations. Chertoff told former CIA General Counsel Scott Muller and his deputy, John Rizzo, that an August 1, 2002, memo widely referred to as the "Torture Memo" put the CIA on solid legal ground and that its agents could waterboard a prisoner without fear of prosecution. The memo was written by former Justice Department attorney John Yoo.

Yoo's memo said that Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."

The videotaped interrogations were destroyed in November 2005, after The Washington Post published a story that first exposed the CIA's use of so-called "black site" prisons overseas to interrogate terror suspects, using techniques that were not legal on US soil. The Post's story discussed Abu Zubaydah and the harsh methods the CIA used when questioning detainees. However, it's unknown whether the Post's story directly led to the destruction of the videotapes.

An intelligence official told Truthout that the CIA's Muller and Rizzo feared that the Justice Department's issuance of a new legal opinion defining torture in broader terms than Yoo's August 2002 memo would expose its agents - specifically those who interrogated Abu Zubaydah - to prosecution and so Rizzo had approved the destruction of the videotapes. That reported approval followed publication of The Washington Post story exposing the CIA's secret prisons, and the new legal opinion defining torture. Last week, The Times reported, however, that Rizzo did not give a top spy in the agency's clandestine division final approval to destroy the videotapes. Whether Rizzo did or did not approve destruction of the videotapes is one of the questions Congress said it was determined to get answers to.

Rizzo, a 30-year veteran of the CIA, is now the agency's acting general counsel. Congress has requested Rizzo to testify before a Congressional committee investigating the videotapes' destruction. However, the Bush administration is blocking Rizzo from testifying. In September, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee requested that Rizzo be withdrawn as the administration's pick to lead the CIA's legal department, on grounds that he was a strong supporter of the White House's so-called "enhanced interrogation methods." Those methods include waterboarding, which has been described as torture by human rights groups.

At his confirmation hearing in 2005, Chertoff claims he did not advise Rizzo or Muller on the legality of specific methods agents used during their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Rather, he said, he answered general questions the CIA had posed about interrogations.

"You are dealing in an area where there is potential criminality," Chertoff said he told the agency. "You better be very careful to make sure that whatever you decide to do falls well within what is required by law."

A spokesman for Chertoff said the Homeland Security secretary would not comment on his previous role in advising the CIA on its interrogation methods.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an internal probe in late 2004 to determine whether one of two "torture" memos drafted by Yoo's office at the DOJ was unethical and opened the door to legal challenge. The details of that probe have not been disclosed. A DOJ spokesman would not respond to specific questions regarding the issue. The agency is required to turn over to the attorney general an annual report of its activities and internal probes. However, OPR has not posted on its website a copy of its annual report on its website since 2004, and the spokesman for the agency would not say whether the agency has submitted reports for the past three years or whether the findings of its probe into Yoo's "Torture Memo" were included in its fiscal year 2005 report, nor would the spokesperson provide Truthout with a copy.

The Capture and Interrogation

Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan on March 28, 2002, and whisked to a secret prison site in Thailand for interrogation, according to published reports.

During the early stages of his interrogation, Zubaydah was somewhat cooperative. Later he became tight-lipped when questioned about alleged terrorist plots against the United States and the whereabouts of other high-level associates of al-Qaeda.

In July 2002, a meeting was convened at the White House, where former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department attorney John Yoo, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's attorney David Addington, and unknown CIA officials discussed whether the CIA could interrogate Zubaydah more aggressively in order to get him to respond to questions.

It was at this July 2002 meeting where Yoo, Gonzales and Addington gave the CIA the green light to use a wide variety of techniques, including waterboarding, on Zubaydah and other detainees at several secret prisons to "break" them and force them to cooperate with interrogators, according to an account published in Newsweek in late December 2003. Less than a month after the meeting, on August 1, 2002, Yoo drafted a memo to Gonzales that was signed by Jay Bybee, the assistant attorney general at the time. That memo declared that President Bush had the legal authority to allow CIA interrogators to employ harsh tactics to extract information from detainees. Human rights organizations and Democratic and Republican lawmakers have characterized the methods outlined in the Yoo memo as torture.

In his book "The One Percent Doctrine," author Ron Suskind said Zubaydah was not the "high value detainee" the CIA had claimed. Rather, Zubaydah was a minor player in the al-Qaeda organization, handling travel for associates and their families, Suskind says.

Abu Zubaydah's captors soon discovered that their prisoner was mentally ill and knew nothing about terrorist operations or impending plots. That realization was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes.

But Bush portrayed Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States.

"And, so, the CIA used an alternative set of procedures" to get Zubaydah to talk, Bush said in the spring of 2002, after Zubaydah was captured.

Suskind writes that Zubaydah became one of the first prisoners in the wake of 9/11 to undergo some of the harshest interrogation methods at the hands of American intelligence officials.

Suskind says that, despite the fact that Bush was briefed by the CIA about Zubaydah's low-level al-Qaeda status, the president did not want to "lose face" because he had stated his importance publicly.

"Bush was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes. Bush questioned one CIA briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?"

Zubaydah was strapped to a waterboard and, fearing imminent death, he spoke about a wide range of plots against a number of US targets, such as shopping malls, the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. Yet, Suskind writes, the information Zubaydah had provided under duress was not credible.

Still, that did not stop "thousands of uniformed men and women [who] raced in a panic to each ... target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

Ron Paul: Nation "Going Broke"

You Tube
Friday December 21, 2007

American Thinker's New Smear about Racist Ron Paul

Nolan Chart
Friday December 21, 2007

Thomas Lifson, editor at AmericanThinker.com recently published a new piece in a series of smears about Ron Paul’s connections to racist groups. Although it does not claim that the latest evidence is the best evidence yet, it specifically eschews past critics’ concerns over the American Thinker’s previous hysteria by alluding that they have finally obtained…well, the best evidence yet.

Lifson cited an article by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, which cited a post by Bill White, a Commander of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party and a white supremacist. White claimed that Ron Paul had been at some dinners that were originally organized by Pat Buchanan, where several members of white supremacist groups attended. That’s pretty much the long and the short of the alleged facts. Oh…they also met on Wednesdays.

The only provocative part of the post was the tone. White claims that he is exposing Ron Paul’s "extensive involvement in white nationalism". White also states that he is upset that Ron Paul denies any affiliation with white supremacist groups. He says that Ron Paul is a white supremacist of the "Stormfront-type". Finally, White claims that the Ron Paul Campaign is being ridiculous by calling "white racialism" a small ideology.

Given Thomas Lifson’s excitement over the "extensive involvement" issue, one might expect to see more damning facts. Instead, Lifson claimed that Charles Johnson had assembled all the links to the corroborating evidence. I went to Little Green Footballs to find out this supposed dirt on Paul. The first sentence of Johnson’s page reads "Take this one with a grain of salt, please". I will be charitable and assume Lifson missed that statement.

Johnson’s "corroborating evidence" included an expenditure at the Thai restaurant and two links to websites. One of the websites claimed that Paul gave a speech to the Robert Taft club, a club organized by Pat Buchanan and dedicated to oversight of the Republican Party to ensure adherence to libertarian-conservative values. The website called the Robert Taft club an "extremist group" because it is headed by a man with "racist connections", whatever that means.

The other website was the white supremacist forum where Bill White made his claim. The forum was rather interesting. Amazingly, none of the comments from other white supremacists supported White nor did they allude to any similar knowledge of Paul’s "extensive" ties. Almost all of them chastised White for being generally obnoxious. Many claimed that they had seen White in various forums and consider him to be chronically attention-hungry. Perhaps the most inetresting point came from a comment which insisted self-respecting white supremacists don't go to Thai restaurants. I never would have guessed that white supremacy could be so nuanced. (I did not link the forum, because it can be a little shocking in other respects).

This is what it all the corroborating evidence boils down to: 1) White claims that he has been in the same room as Paul at undescribed dinners organized by Pat Buchanan. 2) Those were likely Robert Taft Club meetings. 3) Paul paid for his own dinner. 4) White, an observed attention-mongerer, wants this to be significant without citing anything significant. But here is another wrench in Lifson's gears: Don Black, the leader of Stormfront (the group Ron Paul is supposedly a member of), has recently admitted that while he endorses Paul's campaign, he has never met Paul and he regrets that Paul does not share his white supremacist views.

So which white supremacist is lying? The American Thinker position would have to be that Don Black is lying about the disconnect between himself and Paul and that the two have engaged in a massive conspiracy to defraud the public into believing Paul doesn’t care for Don Black, Bill White, or white supremacy in general. Second, Lifson would have to maintain that, while Black took the all the precautions to maintain Paul's secrecy, he forgot to not endorse Paul. Finally, Lifson would have to hold that Paul has spent the last 20 years in Congress reigning in all of his white supremacist furor, while faking the most libertarian platform in GOP memory, on the off-chance that he may someday become president, whence he can unleash his true socialist white supremacist agenda.

Of course, the more reasonable position is that Bill White is a social pariah in the white supremacy movement who is trying to capitalize on Paul’s fame, that Don Black simply endorsed the 'small government' candidate as white supremacists usually do, and that American Thinker, despite its name, wants Paul to be a racist a little too much.

So here is my take on Charles Johnson and Thomas Lifson: Johnson doesn’t get a complete pass just because he warned readers to take it with a grain of salt. He made an obnoxiously-attenuated connection with no real evidence. I am sure he has been in this game long enough to know that anyone who hates Paul as much as the staff of American Thinker would completely ignore the warning. The "ooohs" and "ahhhs" of his comment section are a testament to the value of hype over substance and Johnson ought to know about that factor.

Thomas Lifson and American Thinker do not get a shred of respect for this. This is the latest episode in American Thinker’s larger campaign to smear Paul with weak and attenuated claims. The fact that he thinks this one will finally silence the critics and the "abusive" Ron Paul supporters (whine), just shows how weak his previous claims were. It is an indictment on the quality of American Thinker as a publication and an indictment on Thomas Lifson’s seething bias. It stems from a broader attitude of dismissal about Ron Paul and his supporters: an attitude which Lifson would surely like to preserve. However, I cannot intelligently predict how the ends could justify Lifson turning himself into a conspiracy theorist.

The Real Reason this is Happening

There is a subtlety at play that readers may not pick up on. There is a major battle over control of the GOP right now. In one corner, there are the old-school libertarian-conservatives. They oppose war, taxes, spending, and any behavioral mandates. In the other corner are the neoconservatives. They espouse similar core principles, but often take to equivocation because they regularly breach them. They have more or less redefined ‘conservative’ to mean anything ‘right wing’ and ironically attempted to mandate their brand of conservatism on the people. Moreover, neoconservatives have coerced original conservatives to vote their way ever since Bush took the White House and they have even resorted to overt threats.

To libertarian-conservatives, Ron Paul is a hero. He stands for uncompromised integrity, unwavering adherence to the core principles of the old GOP, and a refusal to buckle under the threat of new GOP ostracism. More important, Paul’s candidacy has come to symbolize a possible resurgence of Goldwater’s GOP. So much in fact, that he has been endorsed by Goldwater’s progeny.

American Thinker has made it clear which side they take, which is why they don't mind wrapping non-neoconservative Republicans like Pat Buchanan in this obnoxious claim. Yet, they have miscalculated some key facts. When Dan Rather miscalculated neoconservative power by misreporting Bush’s dereliction of duty, he found himself retiring early. But now neoconservatism is an injured animal and libertarian-conservatism just raised $23 Million dollars for a humble country doctor’s presidential bid. Sure, it has been open season on Ron Paul until late, but his support has firmed and it is ready for action. It does not take kindly to Republicans who lie, obscure, and side with white supremacists against honest members of the GOP. Lifson’s complaining about the "abusive" letters from supporters misunderstands normative ideas of political power and refuses to acknowledge this obvious resurgence. Barry Goldwater, who once said, "I think every good Christian ought to kick [Jerry] Falwell right in the ass," has returned in the form of 130,000 donating Ron Paul supporters to kick neoconservatism in its metaphorical ass. They might be pleased to start with American Thinker, but I should not speak for them: I’m sure they will be talking to Lifson himself.