UK arrested Tommy Robinson for reporting child-rape gangs that the government caters to. The UK banned reporting of his arrest, denied him a lawyer, and is trying to have him assassinated in prison. Regardless of how you feel about his views, this is a totalitarian government.
Tommy Robinson isn't the first to that the UK has jailed after a secret trial. Melanie Shaw tried to expose child abuse in a Nottinghamshire kids home -- it wasn't foreigners doing the molesting, but many members of the UK's parliament. The government kidnapped her child and permanently took it away. Police from 3 forces have treated her like a terrorist and themselves broken the law. Police even constantly come by to rob her phone and money. She was tried in a case so secret the court staff had no knowledge of it. Her lawyer, like Tommy's, wasn't present. She has been held for over 2 years in Peterborough Prison. read, read
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC✡) is a Jewish foreign special interest group that controls and directs American foreign policy of the Middle East, with foreign jew capital Tel Aviv calling the shots.
It is often refered to as the foreign Israel lobby or the foreign Jewish lobby.
AIPAC was formed by jews during the Eisenhower administration. Since then AIPAC has pressured Congresses and Presidential administrations of both parties to send trillions of $$ in American aid and support to Rothschild's Israel.
Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Spiegel✡, "the tension between the American Eisenhower administration and foreign Israeli jews was so acute that there were rumors that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council for crime. To dodge the law of America, an 'independent' (ostensibly of Tel Aviv) "lobbying" and blackmailing committee was formed, which years later was renamed AIPAC." .
AIPAC is not a political action committee, and does not directly donate to political campaigns. However, according to The Washington Post, "money is an important part of the equation.". AIPAC watches the voting records of U.S. Representatives and Senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel. The Washington Post states that AIPAC's "web site, which details how members of Congress voted on AIPAC's key issues, and the AIPAC Insider, a glossy periodical that handicaps close political races, are scrutinized by thousands of potential donors. Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. ... Between the 2000 and the 2004 elections, the 50 members of AIPAC's board donated an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political action committees."
The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."
5 Dirty Tricks AIPAC Uses Against Congress:
- AIPAC Fixes Elections & Illegally Coordinates Donations to Beat Opponents
- AIPAC Falsely Claims Charitable Religious Status & Ignores IRS Disclosure Regulations
- AIPAC Steals & Uses Opponents' Secrets Against Them in the Media
- AIPAC Places U.S. National Defense Secrets into Israel's Service
- AIPAC Quashes Prosecutions Gaining an Aura of Criminal Immunity
In a widely quoted article, jewish machinations were exposed in the New Yorker :
In 2008, 8000 members attended AIPAC✡; this year, there were 14'000 , including 260 student-government presidents. “These are future opinion leaders."
Jan Schakowsky✡, who has represented a liberal Chicago district since 1999, was another of J Street’s first endorsees. For years, she had maintained good relations with AIPAC, whose members gave money to her campaigns and praised her positions. She voted to condemn the Goldstone report and signed a 2010 letter urging the Administration to keep any differences with Israel private.
But in her 2010 race, she was challenged by Joel Pollak, an Orthodox Jew, who argued that she was insufficiently supportive of Israel. “We were very much aware that AIPAC-associated people were fund-raising for Jan’s opponent,” Dylan Williams, the director of government affairs for J Street, said. A small but vocal contingent of AIPAC members were behind Pollak. But he was also backed by the Tea Party, which J Street believed might drive away other Jewish voters.
The new lobby raised $ 75'000 for Schakowsky (through its PAC, whose financial contributions are publicly disclosed), and she won by a wide margin. “It was exactly the type of race we had hoped for!” Williams said.
“A lot of the power of AIPAC is based on this perception, which I believe is a myth, that if you cross their line you will be targeted, and your opponent in your next race will receive all this money, and it will make a difference.”
Still, Schakowsky told me, the process was painful. “Getting booed in a synagogue was not a pleasure,” she said. “This is not just my base—it’s my family!” She added, “Increasingly, Israel has become a wedge issue, something to be used against the President by the Republicans, and it can be very unhelpful.”
AIPAC’s grip on Congress has become institutionalized. Each year, a month or two before the annual policy conference, AIPAC officials tell key members what measures they want, so that their activists have something to "lobby" for. (AIPAC maintains that only members of Congress initiate legislative action.) AIPAC board meetings are held in Washington each month, and directors visit members of Congress. They generally address them by their first names, even if they haven’t met before. The intimacy is presumed in the manner of basketball recruiters. “If you have a dream about running for office, AIPAC calls you,” one House member said.
“But I also was fairly sympathetic to peaceful resolution and the Palestinian side. These people said, ‘We respect that, but let’s talk about the issues and what you might say.’
The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that. They come to you and say, ‘We’d be happy to host ten-thousand-dollar fund-raisers for you, and let us help write your annual letter, and please come to this multi-thousand-person dinner.’ ” Baird continued, “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” For Baird, AIPAC-connected money amounted to about $ 200'000 in each of his races—“and that’s two hundred thousand going your way, versus the other way: a $ 400'000 swing.”
The contributions, as with many interest groups, come with a great deal of tactical input. “The AIPAC people do a very good job of ‘informing’ you about the issues,” Baird told me.
“It literally gets down to ‘No, we don’t say it that way, we say it this way.’
Always phrased as a friendly suggestion—but it’s pretty clear you don’t want to say ‘occupied territories’!
There’s a whole complex semantic code you learn ...
After a while, you find yourself saying and repeating it as if it were fact.”
Arrogance of power
In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner had to resign when he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner claimed that he had
"met with [then Bush U.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear...
Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about."
Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters ... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs."
A Zogby poll conducted in 2004 found that 61% of respondents "strongly or somewhat agree" that AIPAC should be asked to register as a foreign agent and lose its tax exempt status, while only 12% strongly or somewhat disagree that it should.
Main article: Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal
In May 2005, the Justice Department announced that Lawrence Anthony Franklin, a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working as a Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon in the office of Douglas Feith, had been arrested and charged by the FBI with providing classified national defense information to Israel. The six-count criminal complaint did not identify AIPAC by name, but described a luncheon meeting in which Franklin disclosed top-secret information to two AIPAC officials.
In April 2005, AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were fired by AIPAC amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information received from Franklin on to the government of Israel. They were later indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel.
In May, 2007 AIPAC agreed to pay the legal fees for Weissman's defense through appeal if necessary. Lawrence Anthony Franklin pleaded guilty to passing government secrets to Rosen and Weissman and revealed for the first time that he also gave classified information directly to an Israeli government official in Washington. On January 20, 2006, he was sentenced to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined $10,000. As part of the plea agreement, Franklin agreed to cooperate in the larger federal investigation. Rosen and Weissman are still awaiting trial. Trial had been scheduled for June 4, 2007, but was postponed until January 14, 2008. Several high ranking Bush administration figures who have been subpoenaed about the matter include Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage, and William Burns amongst others.