DaniMartExtras, Too



Posted by Xaniel777 on January 30, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : January 30, 2012

How do we change our world for the better ?

{ XANIEL’S NOTE : Please bear in mind, that this was actually started last year, a couple of months before November ( 11 ) 11 , 2011 but is just as good for now on forward !! } ~~ Xaniel777


The ” Declaration of Spiritual Independence ” Reality Shift at Danimart.com

Posted by Xaniel777 on March 11, 2011

Good question is, ” How do we change our world for the better and remove all ( the Anunnaki, the Powers That Were, and Hostile Alien Life Forms, if any ) that have enslaved and abused us? “

Here Is your answer below :

Give some serious consideration to this important message which comes from New Reality Transmission. And although there was more to it, here is the heart of that message which can and will help you to help all of us, to change our world without the help of Off Worlders, whatever their intent may be !

According to the most well tested theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, your consciousness changes reality. In this theory, the phenomenon known as the collapse of the Quantum Wave Function is what brings reality into existance. This is a fancy way of saying that one’s conscious observation of small unseen waves to ” collapse ” into matter.

In other words, conscious observation materializes particles into existence. So if we believe that we will experience 2012 cataclysms, could this tip the scale and cause such possibilities to occur? And is it possible that we can heal our planet and pervent cataclysms? Could we visualize world peace into existence through a massive pulse of belief transmitted by one million people around the world at the same time?

The answer is ” YES “!

How to make this work per person :

Use your intuition to make a decision on whether or not your consciousness exists outside of your body. And decide; does it exist even when your body dies? If your intuition leads you,then jump into this belief with all your heart. Go for it.

Next, visualize your consciousness as a swirling cloud around your body that creates the perception of your physical existence. Imagine that this cloud is waiting for you to give it instructions. Again, listen to your intuition. And if it feels true, then choose to believe it firmly. Now, in your mind’s eye, see your vortex cloud rapidly spiraling as it waits for you to steer it into action. It’s your choice. You can create your reality just like you subconsciously create your dreams every night.

But if you are oblivious to this ability, then your life is like a flag being blown in the wind…and you’re like a passenger riding on a train going in circles. So visualize that your mind’s attention is gently taking control of this spirialing cloud, which can change the Reality Matrix of your world. See it!

Now point your spiraling consciousness vortex out and forward towards Earth’s future. See a calm and harmonious world blossoming after a massive planet wide awakening takes place in the months ahead. Visualize this awakening as being a shocker, similar to our whole species believing the Earth is flat on Friday and then on Monday realizing with delight that it is actually spherical.

Make pictures in your mind of CNN announcing breaking news of the empirical proof that human consciousness exists outside of the body…the scientific validation of the existence of the soul and of the interconnection between all souls. Imagine that under the crushing weight of this offical new reality, there is a crumbling of the brittle old house of fear-based mental delusion in its three forms. Fear of dying becomes a joke. Fear of people taking your gold becomes silly. And fear of people laughing at you becomes irrational.

Envision the true cooperative hearts of your planetary family coalescing like millions of rain drops on giant green leaves. Now stop a minute and ask yourself a question. Is this audacious reality possible? If there’s nothing you can think of which makes it absolutely impossible, then by definition it’s possible. And therefore large numbers of us can literally will it into reality with our minds. So continue “ programming ” your consciousness vortex with this template energized by belief and activated by visualization.

See pictures in your mind of people around the world abruptly awakening from a trance and realizing that their group belief controls their group experience of reality in exactly the same way we create the reality landscapes within our dreams. See the whole planet being hit with the surprising understanding that reality is exactly like a group dream, where there are two ways to exist. The first way is how we’ve dreamed for eons; the lie in which we’ve relinquished our reality control and been pushed around by our nightmares and limitations.

The new way will be to wake up and take control and fly together in a new fearless reality that we co-created like a beautiful group mosaic. So envision our species enlightened by this major scientific discovery of the Reality Matrix…which leads hundreds of millions of us to wake up and fearlessly change the story that we are experiencing together.

Now, see your consciousness vortex intertwining with one million others, who are all projecting this New Reality Transmission into our future at the same time. Amplify both your belief that it is actually working and increase the color and brightness of the pictures you are envisioning. Belief and visualization are your two keys to creating within the Reality Matrix.

Now New Reality Transmission’s goal is to get a million people world wide to use the ideas above on a special date ( 11.11 ) and make change as a group. See their link above to join. However, each of us can do this at any time, and the more we do it, the stronger that Reality Shift will become. Always remember, You are the power! So, your power joining with everyone else’s power can shape and create the Reality we desire. We do not need the help of the Global Federation or anyone else to do for us what we ourselves can do without them!


Police State : X-ray scans while driving next to a line of vehicles

                  A ‘ Z Backscatter Van ‘

Posted by ProPublica

This is a Z Backscatter van. It can perform X-ray scans while driving next to a line of vehicles, and delivers about twice the level of radiation as airport scanners. Soldiers in Iraq nicknamed it the “white devil.”

The NYPD owns some. They’ve been used at the Super Bowl. And they’re an example of how law enforcement has increased the use and dose of X-ray devices that were once considered taboo.

Read more about them here: http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning-officials-expand-use-and-dose-of-radiation-for-security-s

To help determine the extent of the use of these devices, we’re seeking stories from those who have had personal experience. You’re welcome to share your stories in a private email to xray@propublica.org. All comments and information are appreciated.


Will You Occupy AIPAC?

From Occupy AIPAC

January 23rd, 2012 · Posted by 

Dear friends,

We are excited to announce that plans for OCCUPY AIPAC are under way and we hope you will join us March 2-6 in Washington DC.

With the Occupy movement that has swept the country demanding social and economic justice, many have concluded that AIPAC—the powerful pro-Israeli government lobby that distorts U.S. policy in the Middle East— is a mandatory “occupy target”.

Adbusters, the magazine that issued the initial visionary call for the takeover of Wall St. on September 17th, has declared: The time has come for the Occupy Movement to demand an end to the Occupation of Palestine… We need a hashtag, #occupyAIPAC” (Kalle Lasn).

Timed to coincide with the annual AIPAC policy conference in March 2012, the Occupy AIPAC summit will be a long weekend of teach-ins, cultural performances, protests and creative direct actions, and a sneak preview of the forthcoming film Roadmap to Apartheid.

Co-sponsored by The Nation, the Institute of Policy Studies, CODEPINK and Just Foreign Policy, the Saturday conference will feature educational panels on Iran, Palestine, the Arab Uprisings and the Occupy Movement (see the list of speakers).

The Occupy AIPAC summit is endorsed and supported by a variety of organizations including the Interfaith Peace Builders (IFPB), the US Palestinian Community Network (USPCN), Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Justice in Palestine chapters, and over 120 other groups.

Right now AIPAC is trying to drag us into a disastrous conflict with Iran, just as they had pushed for the Iraq war. We must show our opposition by exposing AIPAC and standing against a war with Iran. AIPAC’s underhanded tactics and their manipulation of our political process destroys the possibility of a just peace in the Middle East.

 Recent public criticisms of the Israel lobby make the call to Occupy AIPAC all the more relevant.

Now is the time to make a large, people-powered push to show our opposition to the stranglehold the Israel lobby continues to hold over our government.

Register for the conference or support this summit with a donation. Your outreach and presence is critical to help us ensure a strong turnout, because now is the time to Occupy AIPAC, not Palestine!

In solidarity,
Medea, Rae, Alli and Sasha
The Occupy AIPAC team

In addition to peace and justice groups around the country, we are reaching out to Occupy communities for support and participation (see the Occupy AIPAC GA resolution). If your group would like to endorse or join this effort, please email occupyaipac@gmail.com.


Facebook Admits To Sharing Your Personal Data

From Site trail

It’s no secret that Facebook harvest user data, but what’s not so clear is just what the world’s biggest social network does with it. Well, the suspense can be put aside for at least a little while because Facebook has for the first time admitted to this data mining and even gone as far as to say what it will do with the data.

Facebook made an official announcement last week that in keeping with its monitoring of election fervor in the US, it will mine data from posts and comments and share that data with Politico.

According to the statement: “Facebook will compile mentions of the candidates in U.S. users’ posts and comments as well as assess positive and negative sentiments expressed about them. Facebook’s data team will use automated software tools frequently used by researchers to infer sentiment from text.”

Social media was such a big part of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign that it is hardly surprising that this year’s election hopefuls are using it as key tool for mobilizing votes. And while some candidates are better at tapping the power of social media for an advantage, Facebook’s overt involvement will certainly make things easier—at least from a strategy perspective.

Do you think Facebook’s data mining exercise is a pretext for more covert digging into user data? Share your thoughts through e-mail or social media ! Spread the word and find out what your family and friends truly think of all this. 


The War on Truth: Defending Palestinian Rights Can End Your Career

Posted by 

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 | Posted by 

Canadian Professor Denis Rancourt Eliminated for Allowing Palestinian Activists to Speak to His Students


As sociologist James Petras has observed, our era has seen the dawn and, in large measure, the gradual fruition of the “globalization of Zionist power”, a process which Benjamin Netanyahu initiated with the publication of Terrorism: How the West Can Win (1986).

Since 9/11, a false-flag event which Israel was heavily involved in, we have not only witnessed the use of military force to shatter Arab states into smaller statelets at enormous cost to many a nation’s treasury but we have also seen our academic institutions forced to comply with the mythology that underlies the “war on terror”, which has resulted in the degradation of our public educational capacity.

Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., is a victim of this post-9/11 politicization of academia. In March of 2009, the professor of physics saw his accomplished career of 23 years abruptly brought to an end, at least temporarily, when he was dubiously fired by the University of Ottawa administration based on a litany of false-pretexts. Rancourt has always been fiercely independent intellectually and has been unwilling to aid and abet the war machine.

                 The University of Ottawa

Indeed, Denis challenges power whenever it should be challenged, which means that he could be described as a true revolutionary. A prominent champion of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli colonization, he was fired ostensibly because he had decided to challenge the hierarchical grading method typically employed by academics.

“My job is not to rank students for corporations”, Rancourt has stated in an interview on TV-ONTARIO. His pedagogical methodology in advanced physics courses, which was to use a student-centered individualized approach, is one widely used throughout campuses in North America. Indeed, as a nice illustration of the double standard displayed by those who used Rancourt’s grading method as a pretext for firing him, another professor at his very institution has been celebrated for using the very same teaching method.

The difference between them, however, appears to be that Professor X is a supporter of Israeli colonization, whereas Rancourt is a defender of international law and of the rights of the Palestinian people.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

The contrived “false-pretexts” that have been used to oust him have been numerous and varied and provide sufficient material for several articles and even multiple books. Here is a “thumbnail sketch” of some of the horrors to which this distinguished professor has been subjected (as a recounting of his own personal experiences):

(1) Dean bursts into classroom, forced to apologize
In September 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science barged into tenured professor Denis Rancourt’s Physics and the Environment class unannounced to the students and declared that the class was cancelled and that professor Rancourt would be removed if needed before the course could be continued.

This had a lasting negative impact on the course and caused damage to the professor’s reputation and relationship to the class. The resulting grievance was settled by the union with a written apology from the university dated November 7, 2007. The university followed the dean’s in-class outburst with a letter of discipline against Rancourt for allegedly subverting the content of the course. The latter discipline and false claim of subversion were overturned by a labour arbitration award (Michel G. Picher arbitrator; June 25, 2008).

(2) Fabricated existence of a student complaint
In a letter dated October 25, 2005, the dean of the Faculty of Science threatened professor Rancourt with discipline regarding an alleged student complaint that the dean did not provide to professor Rancourt. When Rancourt grieved the matter and repeatedly asked to be shown the alleged student complaint by any mechanism (such as via a lawyer or accepted third party) to preserve the student’s identity, a student complaint about the alleged matter was never produced.

Instead, the grievance process led to the dean retracting in writing (November 22, 2005) all his letters and allegations of a student complaint in view of discipline. The University never apologized for or repaired the harm from the dean’s demonstrably false claim and intimidation. (A further grievance that the dean had lied was not assumed by the professor’s union.)

Denis Rancourt was the “star professor” of the University of Ottawa until he began defending Palestinian rights

(3) Ad hoc barriers against professor booking classrooms
Starting in 2006 and every semester until the 2009 wrongful dismissal of Denis Rancourt, the dean of the Faculty of Science, the chairman of the Department of Physics, the VP-Governance and the President interfered in numerous and coordinated ways to frustrate and block my various bookings of classrooms for extra help sessions, workshop time related to scheduled courses, and a weekly documentary film and discussion series (Cinema Politica).

Unprecedented administrative barriers were applied and ultimately the weekly film and discussion series was outright barred using the false pretext that I was an outside group and that these activities were not part of my professional service to the community, despite a dean’s earlier (2006) written confirmation to the opposite. The same series was then allowed to be scheduled by a colleague who agreed to act as the guarantor of the classroom for Cinema Politica renamed Cinema Academica.

(4) Illegitimate directives on grading methods

Since 9/11 there has been increased collaboration between university administrators and police. Professor Denis Rancourt held his foot in the door of his laboratory for more than three hours to resist the encroachment of the police state onto his and his student’s academic freedom

In December 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science in writing arbitrarily forbade professor Rancourt from using the satisfactory/not-satisfactory (S/NS) grading method, claiming that this was not allowed. The dean went on to send a memo to all faculty staff reaffirming his claim that professors did not have the discretion to use the S/NS grading method.

A labour arbitration award (Michel G. Picher arbitrator; June 25, 2008) established that my use of the S/NS grading method was protected under the purview of my academic freedom. In addition, a union association grievance caused the university to declare the dean’s December 2005 memo to all staff retracted and without standing (February 2009 settlement).

The University never apologized for or repaired its violation of my academic freedom regarding these grading directives.
(5) Overturned discipline for “subverting” course
Following the successful completion of professor Rancourt’s fall-2005 Physics and the Environment course and despite a signed September 2005 agreement with the university that it would allow the course to precede in the manner planned by professor Rancourt and the students, the dean of the Faculty of Science nonetheless disciplined me for having attempted to “subvert” the purpose of the course.

The discipline was grieved and the grievance went to labour law arbitration. In a precedent-setting award (Michel G. Picher arbitrator; June 25, 2008), the arbitrator found that “… the major change being with respect to the pedagogical innovation of independent group studies, the involvement of the students themselves in identifying areas of interest and the introduction of the satisfactory/not-satisfactory grading system. The Arbitrator is satisfied that those pedagogical initiatives were legitimately within the purview of the academic freedom enjoyed by Professor Rancourt …” A law journal review of the arbitration was entitled “Teachind Science Through Social Activism is Protected by Academic Freedom, Abitrator Rules” (College and University Employment Law E-Bulletin, February 2009, Issue No. 23).

(6) Failed attempt to discipline for “anti-Semitism”, hyperbolic claim
In November 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science in several letters falsely and boldly claimed anti-Semitism based solely on a campus Jewish student association’s (Jewish Student Association, JSA) complaint about a guest speaker, himself a professor, in one of Rancourt’s classes.

The accusation was that the guest professor had shown a map of the Middle East from a web site (having articles critical of Israel) that the JSA considered anti-Semitic. Despite the obvious concocted nature of the JSA claim aimed at attacking the guest professor, the dean went after Rancourt. Following a grievance, the university in a September 2009 settlement agreement retracted and declared void all of its letters of allegations in the matter.
(7) Failed attempt to discipline for critical comments

Also in November 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science in several letters pursued Rancourt under the threat of discipline to retract critical statements Rancourt had broadcast about the lack of fundamental understanding of physics concepts by teachers and teacher assistants at the University of Ottawa — as part of Rancourt’s broad explanation of his pedagogical methods in a course which the dean was attacking (Physics and the Environment, fall-2005). Following a grievance, the university in a September 2009 settlement agreement retracted and declared void all of its letters of allegations in the matter.
(8) Condoned campaign of defamation and intimidation

In the two-year period 2006-2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science and the university administration condoned repeated and sustained unethical, defamatory and libellous attacks (approximately 100 incidents) against professor Rancourt by Chairman of Chemistry Alain St-Amant. These attacks included several derogatory broadcasts about Rancourt’s courses and an unsubstantiated claim in the media that one course was replete with anti-Semitic content.

St-Amant also publicly insulted and belittled students who were openly supportive of Rancourt’s courses. Following many student complaints against St-Amant, a grievance, and several letters to the administration, St-Amant was ordered to stop only in late 2007 and this was confirmed by a letter from the dean to Rancourt dated November 6, 2007. Professor St-Amant was never made to correct his many false broadcasts or to apologize to students and Rancourt.

No reparations were ever made.
(9) Covert information gathering campaign, 2006-2008
In the period 2006-2008 the university organized and operated a broad campaign of covert information gathering against professor Rancourt and several students. It hired a student journalist for this purpose. The student took on a false Facebook identity to integrate student groups and also reported on live student political campaign meetings and governance meetings directly to the dean of the Faculty of Science and the university Legal Counsel.

The covert campaign included gathering voice recordings, obtained under false pretexts, of professor Rancourt’s talks on other campuses, as far as British Columbia. Weekly reports were provided by the student reporter, as shown in access to information documents. The matter is extensively documented thanks to access to information (ATI) results. The teacher assistant union grieved the covert campaign and struck a pre-arbitration settlement.

The university has to date continued to illegally refused to proceed with professor Rancourt’s grievance about its covert campaign.
(10) Abuse of process to intimidate and suppress

In 2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science improperly used his right to call informal information meetings with an employee as a device to make several aggressive face to face interrogations with the purpose of applying discipline in relation to ridiculous charges including:

(1) making me responsible for a statement in a third party press release,

(2) that there had been improper course content in my fall 2006 Science in Society course (in the absence of any investigation), and

(3) that I had hired an unqualified non-student to do specialized scientific research about environmental nano-particles.

Charge (3) was dropped without an apology and never resurfaced after the dean’s intimidation sessions.

Charge (1) led to a disciplinary reprimand that would make a professor responsible for what others, in a press release, say he said and that is demonstrably false. The latter discipline is grieved by the union and awaits arbitration.

Charge (2) led to a disciplinary reprimand (without due investigation) in which the choice of invited speakers in the course was argued to be inappropriate. The latter discipline is grieved by the union and awaits arbitration.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

(11) Abusive letter alleging mental wellbeing concern
In September 2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science sent me a disturbing letter expressing without explanation that “The University of Ottawa has developed some concerns regarding your physical and mental wellbeing.” An access to information request and appeal documented that the dean first alleged to the IPC (Information and Privacy Commissioner) that he had acted alone in this matter based only on informal conversations with an undisclosed number of unidentified colleagues and that there were no respondent records; whereas on appeal to the IPC a large number of respondent records established that the disturbing letter had arisen from a broad covert process with several university executives and staff.

(12) Violation of academic freedom, research project denied
In 2007 I was barred from offering a research project course about “politics and ethics in the physics profession”, in violation of established practice for research project courses and in violation of academic freedom. The course was not allowed on the schedule and students were barred from registration.

(13) A plan develops to focus on grades as a pretext for dismissal
In November 2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science imposed a disciplinary reprimand for high student grades in a winter-2006 introductory physics course, without any investigation and based solely on the university-approved grades being higher than in previous years. This late and fabricated charge, following university (department and faculty) approval of the high grades, is now used as supporting discipline for the 2008 grades pretext used in my dismissal (see below).

(14) Failed attempt to silence by lawsuit intimidations
In 2007 my “U of O Watch” blog was attacked using several threats of libel lawsuits against me, two students and a student newspaper. The threats of lawsuits came from the University of Ottawa VP-Resources Victor Simon using the BLG law firm directed in Ottawa by Marc Jolicoeur who, at the time, was President of the university’s Board of Governors (BOG). The university and Mr. Simon objected to documented blog posts showing that Mr. Simon had altered a document and fraudulently used the altered document and that the President argued that this was acceptable because Mr. Simon “was trying to make a point”.

(15) Unjustified barring from all large first-year-level courses
In 2007 I was barred from all the first-year (introductory-level) science and physics courses that I had developed and always given, including the unique courses Science in Societyand Physics and the Environment. I was barred from all large classes and assigned only small advanced physics courses. This was done without explanation and caused much added re-scheduling efforts for other professors. The Science in Society course was the result of significant student effort to have it approved and it was only ever offered once (fall-2006).

(16) Illegitimate use of copyright law to violate academic freedom
In 2007 I received a disciplinary reprimand and in 2008 I was disciplined by unpaid suspension for using images from the university’s web site on my “U of O Watch” blog which is critical of the university.

An administrative directive allows images from the university web site to be used by professors “solely for the positive promotion of activities related to the University”. The administrative directive is a violation of academic freedom and is thereby void. All the images and many more remain on my blog and have not led to further attempts of discipline or legal challenges despite the university’s initial charge from Legal Counsel that it “may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its intellectual property rights.”
NOTE: June 2008 is the start of Allan Rock’s first mandate as president of the university.

(17) Summarily removed from all teaching 
In 2008 I was barred from all teaching using the pretext of an on-going “investigation” into the student grades to the 23 students in one course of the winter-2008 semester. Despite being a tenured professor, I was never allowed to teach any courses after the winter-2008 semester. I was not allowed to practice my profession until the university’s fast-track dismissal of me in 2009.

(18) Bogus attempt to remove graduate supervision credentials
In 2008 I was subjected to an orchestrated campaign to remove my membership in the school of graduate studies, using criteria (bogus administrative technicalities) other than the only accepted criteria (of research supervision and research expertise) for membership in the school. Irregularities in the planned fast-track removal of my credentials caused the campaign to be delayed and it could not be completed before the 2009 dismissal. My eight graduate students and post-doctoral fellow rejected the campaign and affirmed my qualities as a supervisor and researcher.

(19) Violation of academic freedom in undergraduate research project supervision
In 2008 I was barred from supervising or co-supervising a research project course about “the influence of advances in human thought (all disciplines) in the development of physical theories” because it was ruled – based only on a title and short promotional description to prospective physics students – to not be a “physics” research project. A registered physics student keen to pursue this course was improperly deregistered by the university to prevent the course from being offered by any professor.

(20) Violation of academic freedom in supervising planetary warming physics research
In October 2008, while I was a tenured and full professor and a leading scientific researcher in several areas of science including environmental science, the dean of the Faculty of Science covertly intervened at high levels within the university to bar me from supervising research in my chosen research area of the physics of planetary warming processes. As a result, a prospective scholarship physics graduate student was barred from applying to my research group. This was only discovered after the University was ordered (IPC Order PO-2909-I) on appeal to release a key access to information record.

(21) Illegitimate sudden lock out of all researchers from the laboratory
In November 2008 all my research graduate students and post-doctoral fellow (eight persons supervised by me) were ejected and locked out of my laboratory of 22 years for which I was legally responsible, without any forewarning or explanation. Only a four-hour physical standoff with my foot in the door and surrounded by Ottawa Police, campus police and a union representative produced a union-negotiated agreement that the university would explain itself at a mediation meeting the following week. The university provided a bogus excuse based on a “radiation security policy” that was being developed and agreed to re-open the laboratory. On re-entering the laboratory it was found that essential research materials (radioactive sources) for which I was legally responsible had been removed, again without notice or explanation, thereby blocking all scientific experiments.

(22) Unannounced summary dismissal of research associate of 12-years
In November 2008 my post-doctoral fellow (research associate) of more than 12 years was summarily fired and locked out of her office and my laboratory without notice or explanation. She sued the university and (by settlement) this produced her legal fees, a cash reparation, and a letter of apology/explanation.

(23) Arbitrarily barred from campus under threat of police arrest
In December 2008, while I was a full and tenured professor with outstanding 22-year research and teaching record, having developed several of the most novel and popular graduate and undergraduate courses in the Faculty of Science and having obtained some of the largest research funding awards in the Faculty of Science, I was summarily barred from all campus grounds and facilities under the threat of police arrest and accompanied off campus by campus police, with the pretext given that it had been recommended to the Board of Governors that I be fired for attributing high grades in one course from the winter-2008 semester.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

(24) Coercion and blackmail for graduate students to change supervisors
The latter barring from campus was accompanied by a university campaign to coerce the resisting graduate students to immediately abandon me as their research supervisor and accept alternative supervisors, under the pretext that I had been suspended from my supervisory role and all administrative duties. Several students filed lawsuits (later abandoned for reasons of cost) and unresolved/on-going internal complaints about the heavy handed intimidation (such as threats of loss of scholarship) to abandon their supervisor.

(25) Illegal barring from allowed venues using Ottawa Police force

The December 2008 barring from campus was explicitly extended to bar me from my weekly campus radio show (since 2005) at the studio legally occupied by the CHUO 89.1 FM corporation and explicitly extended to bar me from the weekly public documentary film and discussion series that I hosted continuously for many years (2005-2009), in an auditorium where the legal occupier was a colleague who had duly reserved the space. In January 2009, while I was still a full and tenured professor, the university had me arrested, handcuffed and removed by Ottawa Police for attending the film and discussion series, improperly using the charge of “trespass”. The charge was abandoned at trial on the second hearing date before the judge.

(26) Violation of natural rights to a fair process
In January-March 2009, during the required process following the December 2008 recommendation for dismissal, several violations of process and natural justice were perpetrated by the university, including: (1) demanding student examination copies as alleged key evidence followed by refusal to consider this evidence when provided under duress, and (2) refusal to admit and consider duly submitted written submissions to the Board of Governors for making its final dismissal decision. These process violations compounded the fact that, using its ad hoc pretext of fraudulent grading, the university systematically refused to duly investigate or consider the pedagogical context of my grading method; my teaching was never investigated by a committee of my peers or by any of the process steps foreseen in the procedural rules for tenured professors.

(27) Public defamation, interference and bias
During the January-March 2009 period, in an atmosphere of intense local, national, and international media attention in the dismissal process, the university ignored its often stated position that it cannot bias or harm on-going legal processes by making public comments, and released two press communications (still present on its web site; one was modified after first release) that attacked my professional reputation. In addition, high-ranking executives of the university (including the President) have made various inappropriate written statements siding with the university position and commenting on the process.

Among the main protagonists of the persecution of Professor Rancourt, moreover, has been the former member of the Canadian parliament Allan Rock, who was appointed as the President of the University of Ottawa in June 2008. Rock had just emerged from the inner sanctum of the Canadian political class after having served as Canada’s Minister of Justice and then as Ambassador to the United Nations. Rancourt has listed a number of illustrations of Rock’s allegiance to the pariah state of Israel rather than to the principles of truth and justice:

“Allan Rock’s ardent support for Israeli policy is evidenced both in his political career and in his actions on campus as president at the University of Ottawa: In 2004, under Martin’s Liberal government and as Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock changed Canada’s longstanding foreign policy on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that vote with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine. In July 2008 the media reported that Allan Rock participated in a trip to Israel “partly financed by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA)”, along with five other Canadian university presidents. The media reported that Mr. Rock’s visit “yielded immediate results” as “the University of Ottawa agreed to launch an exchange program in law.” 

As Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock changed Canada’s longstanding foreign policy on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that votes with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine

After a few months in office, President Allan Rock announced his plan in October 2008 for the University of Ottawa. This plan included what he calls putting “Canada’s University in the service of the World”. In explaining it to students on October 24, 2008, he talked about exchange programs. When one student asked if Palestinian students would be allowed to participate in the exchange programs with Israel, Mr. Rock stated that he could not answer that. In the fall of 2008, the University of Ottawa chapter of the independent student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) took a principled stand in line with its mission statement and refused to sponsor a Hillel event due to that organization’s stated unqualified support for Israeli policy.

Allan Rock responded by pressuring the student union (SFUO) president to write a letter condemning OPIRG. A letter from the SFUO president delineated the administrative relationships between the SFUO and OPIRG and this letter was made public by Allan Rock on his president’s “Rock Talk” blog.

Allan Rock also publicly stated that he would look for an “administrative” mechanism to deny OPIRG student-levy funding (which has been approved by a student referendum).

In 2009 the Rock administration banned a student poster announcing Israeli Apartheid Week – a move widely criticized in some media such as the CBC and in the student media.”

Far too many academicians, alas, are willing to accept blood-money to study everything and anything that poses no challenge the ongoing genocide of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. Indeed the persecution of Denis Rancourt had a great deal to do with him inviting Palestinian speakers into his classroom, as he explains in this talk on Academic Freedom.

As Rancourt has observed,
“I would sum up the real reason for my being fired as follows: as part of the Activism course I dared to invite Palestinian speakers into the classroom and as a result of that the controlled local newspaper wrote a very damning editorial of that event in the classroom and after that, in terms of the chronology, I was removed from all first year teaching and eventually from all teaching.
“And so if you look at the chronology of the events, every time I spoke out in criticizing Israel, or gave a venue with regards to the Palestinian problem there were repercussions that followed immediately all the way up to my dismissal. . .that I believe is the real reason that I am being fired. 

“The firing involved student spies, professional reporters being hired to come and tape record and write reports on my talks that I gave at other universities. I know this from Freedom of Information Requests. . . My research associate of 12 years was fired. . . . My graduate students were removed, I was not allowed to book rooms. You name it they did it. ”

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Professor Kenneth Westhues of the University of Waterloo has appropriately described Rancourt as having been victim of “administrative mobbing”, a subject on which he has recently published a book, Winning, Losing, Moving On: How Professionals Deal with Workplace Harassment and Mobbing (2006). “Is this a case of workplace mobbing in academe? Yes — and more precisely, administrative mobbing” writes Westhues. 
What we appear to have here turns out to be a form of academic lynching for a brilliant professor whose commitment to truth overrides his tolerance for political correctness, especially in relation to Israel and the Palestinians, for which he has been paying a very heavy price, a gross violation of his rights and a black stain on the reputation of the University of Ottawa – compliments of a former Canadian “Minister of Justice”.

Joshua Blakeney is a graduate student at the University of Lethbridge, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Staff Writer at Veterans Today.
James Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.


The Zionist Plot to Stop Ron Paul

From 9-11 Inside Job

Updated January 25, 2012

20 January 2012 – Ron Paul speaks at a rally in Greenville, S.C. the day before the primary. Paul, who has energized the Republican party and the youth vote, drew a large crowd of several hundred despite heavy rain and frigid temperatures, according to the AP. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, had to cancel a major campaign stop in Charleston because nobody came. With so little popular support how could Gingrich have possibly won the South Carolina primary? Is this yet another case of vote fraud by electronic voting machines? Photo: The Washington Post

But, now, how on earth could Newt Gingrich win the South Carolina primary when the day before the vote he had to cancel a major campaign stop because of lack of attendance?
– “There’s something very odd about GOP primary pre-polling and vote” by Eric Blair, 22 January 2012 

I just found your site and read your book ( Solving 9/11 )… As I was reading your book I was struck how the Zionists must hate Ron Paul. This would explain why he faces such intense media bias. The other thought I had was that his proximity to winning the White House is directly proportional to his assassination. 
– C.H. in Illinois

South Carolinians voting on ES&S voting machines in the presidential primary on January 21, 2012. According to the tally produced by the privately-owned voting machine company ES&S, Ron Paul came in last place behind three Big Government Zionist-funded candidates who support war against Iran. Surprise, surprise.

Ron Paul, a popular Southern conservative who supports states’ rights, supposedly came in fourth place in the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday, January 21. The winner, according to the tally produced by the privately-owned voting machine company ES&S, was Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is supported by Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist casino billionaire who supports the most extreme hard-liners in the right-wing Likud in Israel. The Gingrich campaign received a $5 million donation from Sheldon Adelson the week before he “won” the South Carolina primary. Gingrich calls the indigenous Palestinian population an “invented” people and supports Israel’s right to attack Iran as “self defense”. Gingrich told CNN he would help Israel attack Iran and would move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem on his first day in office by executive order. These are the hard-line positions Adelson is paying Gingrich to espouse.

“Adelson uses his money to abuse or anoint Israeli prime ministers and American presidents (Gingrich versus Obama).” Source – “Is Gingrich’s Hard Line on Palestine Paid for by Sheldon Adelson?”

Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson (left) is a close friend and supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu of the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is one of the suspected planners of the false-flag terror attacks of 9/11 and a friend of Newt Gingrich.


Mitt Romney is supported by the Crown family of Chicago, a Zionist family that is closely connected to Israeli military intelligence. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is supported by Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist billionaire who works closely with the same people. Are these different factions or is this a Zionist plot that has the same goal?

The Zionist strategy is to stop the very popular conservative Ron Paul. Because there is obviously no candidate that can beat Paul in popularity or on the issues, the Zionists are supporting a slew of venal candidates in order to steal as many votes as possible from Paul. These candidates are essentially a gang of Zionist-funded candidates who form the anti-Paul coalition. Using privately-owned and controlled electronic voting systems like ES&S, the South Carolina primary shows how the Zionists plan to block Ron Paul from being the Republican nominee. 

From this event, one can state as fact – not theory, that Israel and its supporters in the US are actively working to derail Ron Paul’s race towards the GOP nomination, and the Presidency. This fact alone, should be cause for alarm from even the most moderate of public corridors. Should a foreign country, in this case Israel, be allowed to buy a significant influence through the media in American democratic elections? Should candidates be allowed to accept donations – even indirectly, from foreign interest PACs or agents thereof, thus creating a serious conflict of interest, and threat to national security?
– “Israeli Lobby launch new Super PAC effort to bring down Ron Paul” , by Patrick Henningsen, Global Research, 21 January 2012


After two weeks, the Republican Party of Iowa released its certified tally of the January 3 caucus. The certified final tally released on January 18 indicates that Mitt Romney did not win the Iowa caucus and that the results had been manipulated to give Romney the important first victory. The scale of the fraud in the Iowa caucus is so large that it suggests that there was a hidden hand manipulating the data from across the state as it was sent to party headquarters to give the victory to Romney. This suggests that the people behind Romney are likely to be the people behind the vote fraud, i.e. Lester Crown, Israeli intelligence, and the Zionist Fifth Column in the United States. 

I spoke to Ryan Gough, the 24-year-old Organization Director for the Republican Party of Iowa on January 20. I asked him how there could be so many mistakes in so many precincts. The Des Moines Register, for example, reported that “typographical errors in tabulations” for two Fayette County precincts resulted in an inflated vote for Romney, who was initially reported to have carried the county by 67 votes. The final count showed Santorum carrying the county by 36 votes. Romney was reported to have won the caucus by only 8 votes on January 3. This was false.

There were similar problems in 131 precincts with double-digit errors in 51 precincts. In spite of the wrong candidate having been declared the winner, Gough defended the caucus, which he called a “volunteer-driven process” in which typographical errors had occurred across the state to benefit Mitt Romney. I don’t buy it.

I reminded Gough that we had spoken a week before the primary and that he had told me that the way in which that precincts would communicate the results to caucus headquarters in Des Moines was being kept secret for security purposes. Now that the caucus was over, I asked, could he tell me how this was done. Gough said that a phone and computer system had been used but he had not gone into detail. When I asked if the telephonic system had been voice-to-voice, he said it was.


I then asked Gough if any outside agency had been involved in the tally of the results on January 3. He asked me what I meant and I told him that the Democratic Party of Iowa had used a telephonic tally system based in Florida called Voxeo in 2004 and 2008. I had been told by Nicole Sizemore of the GOP of Iowa that no outside agency would be involved in the tally, I told Gough.

Yes, Gough said, there was an outside “telecom” involved in the tally, although he said he could not reveal the name of the company. This “telecom” is the most likely culprit behind the fraudulent tally in the Iowa caucus. I am seeking information from people who were involved in the caucus to find the identity of this mysterious “telecom” that gave Romney the first, but fraudulent victory on January 3. As the rest of the primaries will use even less verifiable electronic voting machine systems, solving what happened in the Iowa caucus is important because it could expose the criminals who steal our elections.


GOP officials discovered double-digit errors in 51 of those certified precincts when they compared what was reported on caucus night with the official Form E documents signed by precinct volunteers. Eleven precincts had errors of 50 or more votes.
– Des Moines Register, 19 January 2012

“The one thing that we can’t say is, we can’t certify every precinct in the state.” 
– Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn, 19 January 2012

When I began writing this article, just after Christmas, I was simply going to predict that Mitt Romney would win the Iowa primary by vote fraud, just like Obama and John Kerry had won the Democratic state polls of 2008 and 2004. My dire and pessimistic prediction was based solely on the fact that Romney was being supported by the high-level Zionist family of Lester Crown of Chicago. These are people who steal elections, I thought, and they will find a way for Romney to win the crucial first caucus – one way or another. 

I repeatedly queried three different people at the Republican Party of Iowa about how the results would be tallied and after hearing that they would not use an outside contractor to count the votes, decided to qualify my dismal prediction by giving them the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t want to be a bearer of bad news so I wrote this (in the article below):

Mitt Romney would most likely win the caucus if the Republican Party of Iowa were to tally the caucus results using the dodgy telephonic tally system (Voxeo) used by the Iowa Democrats in 2004 and 2008. But after having intensively queried the Republican Party of Iowa about how the results will be tallied it seems to me that the Republican Party of Iowa will be tallying the results themselves in Des Moines… Let’s hope Ron Paul wins Iowa in a truly honest and transparent caucus on January 3. We certainly don’t need anymore illegal Zionist wars for profit and the people of Iowa know that as well as anyone. 

Today, two weeks and three days after Romney was declared the winner in Iowa, the certified final tally from the Republican Party of Iowa shows that he did NOT win the caucus at all. The caucus process and tally were completely messed up and, according to the final, but still seriously flawed results, Rick Santorum reportedly won the caucus. There is now very clear evidence of serious vote fraud in the Iowa caucus. This cannot be simply dismissed as human error. This was criminal vote fraud that cheated the entire nation. The people involved in this case of egregious vote fraud must be investigated and prosecuted.


Here are the key extracts from the Washington Post article of 19 January 2012:

Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses Thursday — 16 days after the last vote was cast — when the state Republican Party said a final count showed him 34 votes ahead of Mitt Romney.

Santorum’s strange, belated victory also served to embarrass the Iowa GOP — which had to admit that it had misallocated some votes, and simply lost some others, in a razor’s-edge election where every vote mattered.

It also cast an unflattering light on the old-fashioned and convoluted system that the party uses to collect and count caucus votes. 

“It should be like a fine Swiss watch,” said Iowa State political science professor Steffen Schmidt. “It’s really more like a sundial.” He said the system used by Iowa Democrats was not significantly better.

In fact, Iowa Republican leaders seemed to cast doubt on their own results, saying Thursday that it was hard to declare a “winner” without knowing what happened in those eight precincts. 

Thursday’s final count came from these forms, which had to be submitted by Wednesday evening. The Des Moines Register, citing unidentified officials in the Iowa GOP, reported that in 131 precincts, the forms showed numbers different than those reported on caucus night.

But some Form E’s didn’t show up at all.

The state party found that it was missing results from eight precincts, spread across five counties. 

Source: “Santorum finished 34 votes ahead of Romney in new Iowa tally; votes from 8 precincts missing”, by David A. Fahrenthold and Debbi Wilgoren, Washington Post, 19 January 2012


Now we find out that Texas Congressman and GOP candidate Ron Paul has been targeted by a new breed of PAC, this time with foreign backing.
– “Israeli Lobby launch new Super PAC effort to bring down Ron Paul” by Patrick Henningsen, Global Research, 21 January 2012

I sort of have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being dangerous. We are dangerous to the status quo in this country.
– Ron Paul after his second-place finish in New Hampshire primary, 10 January 2012

I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” The world must hear this. I pray God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we’re fighting a war.
– Martin Luther King, Jr., “Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution”, 31 March 1968, National Cathedral, Washington, D.C.


Monday, 16 January 2012, is Martin Luther King Day. The same day will also mark the passage of 21 years since the United States military began fighting in the Middle East. The U.S. has been actively engaged in war fighting in Iraq and the Middle East for a full 21 years, which is to say that Americans who will become adults in 2012 have never known what it means to live in a nation at peace. 

Ron Paul, the anti-war Republican candidate for president, is a threat to the status quo of open-ended military intervention in the Middle East. While some 70 percent of the American population wants an immediate end to the U.S.-led wars, Ron Paul is the only candidate that speaks for the majority that wants peace. 

Barack Obama has ratcheted up the war in Afghanistan and has imposed sanctions on Iran that will lead to war if not reversed. All of the Republican candidates other than Ron Paul are trying to outdo each other with their bellicose threats against Iran. To understand why the candidates advocate such belligerent positions in spite of the growing anti-war sentiment among American voters, it is essential to understand that they are being paid and supported to do so by their Zionist (i.e. pro-Israel) backers. Mitt Romney, for example, has very close ties to a high-level agent from Israeli military intelligence, the woman he made CEO of Bain & Company. 

ROMNEY’S ISRAELI HANDLER – Orit Gadiesh, former “War Room” assistant to Ezer Weizman and Moshe Dayan, is the daughter of Israeli Brigadier General Falk Gadiesh (born Falk Gruenfeld, Berlin, 1921) and his Ukrainian-born wife. Gadiesh is chairman of the management consulting firm Bain & Company, the parent company of Bain Capital, and was the company’s managing director under CEO Mitt Romney in 1992. “She’s like a Jewish mother figure to many of the people at Bain,” ex-Bainie Dan Quinn told Fortune magazine in 1996. 

Bain Capital owns Clear Channel, the largest radio station group owner in the United States. Clear Channel owns the networks which air the most popular radio talk shows, including The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Glenn Beck Program, The Sean Hannity Show, America Now with Andy Dean, Coast to Coast AM, The Savage Nation, The Mark Levin Show, and The Dave Ramsey Show. (Graphic: “Rush Limbaugh Spills the Beans on the Jewish Conspiracy” by Pat Healy)

Mitt Romney was a co-founder of Bain Capital along with Bill Bain, seen here. Bain was ousted in 1991 and Romney served as CEO of Bain & Company in 1991-1992. In May 1991, while Romney was CEO, Gadiesh was named chairman of the company’s Policy Committee, which set the company’s business strategy and policy. In 1992, under Romney, she became managing director. Orit Gadiesh, who has worked at Bain & Co. since 1977, became chairman of Bain & Co. in 1993. 

Orit Gadiesh, born in Israel in 1951, has worked closely with Mitt Romney since at least 1991, and probably much longer since she joined Bain & Company in 1977, when she was 26. Romney appointed Gadiesh to his transition team when he became governor of Massachusetts in November 2002. Gadiesh is the daughter of Falk Gadiesh, an Israeli brigadier general and former member of the general staff who reorganized the Israeli army in the early 1950s after a stint at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 

Falk’s daughter Orit was chosen to serve in Israeli military intelligence. Her first position in the Israeli military was as assistant to Ezer Weizman, the deputy chief of staff who later became president of Israel. During the early 1970s, she worked in the war room, a bunker where Gen. Moshe Dayan was in charge. As a war room assistant to Weizman, Orit provided military leaders with documents and correspondence. 

Prior to joining Bain & Company, Gadiesh served in the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army. Currently, she is on the board of directors of the Peres Center for Peace, an organization headed by a former chief of staff of the Israeli military, Lt. General Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. The high-level Mossadnik Avner Azulay, managing director of the Marc Rich Foundation, is also on the executive board of the Peres Center.

Mitt Romney speaking at the Mossad’s (IDC) Herzliya Conference in 2007. 

ROMNEY’S INTELLIGENCE CHIEF AND CAMPAIGN ADVISER – Mitt Romney named Michael Chertoff, the Israeli agent who supervised the destruction of the crucial evidence of 9/11, co-chair of his counterterrorism and intelligence advisory committee in October 2011. The 9/11 cover-up continues.

Romney greets his old friend, Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the suspected architects of the false-flag terrorism of 9/11.

Mitt Romney attended the Mossad’s “Herzliya Conference on Israeli Security” in 2007. Romney and the current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu worked together as consultants at the Boston Consulting Group early in their careers.

Romney’s close relationship with Orit Gadiesh and Israeli military intelligence is the real reason he is the chosen candidate of the Zionist establishment. Romney is being supported by high-level Zionists, Israeli military intelligence, and their controlled media network. This relationship between the Israeli military and Mitt Romney, a presidential candidate, should be of great concern to all Americans because this is how the Israeli military plans to drag the United States into a war with Iran.


WHO STOLE THE IOWA CAUCUS? – Edward True, 28, helped count the 53 votes in his precinct and jotted down the results. When he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn’t. “When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa,”


There are alarming news reports that show that the tally of the Republican caucus in Iowa was manipulated giving fraudulent additional votes to Mitt Romney. In one precinct alone, where Romney received only two votes, the tally showed twenty-two, an increase of 1,000 percent! If such egregious vote fraud happened in one precinct, it most likely happened in others:

Des Moines TV station KCCI reported that a Ron Paul backer attending his first precinct caucuses in Appanoose County, in southern Iowa, said the vote from his precinct was inaccurately reported and gave Romney 20 more votes than he actually received.

The Paul supporter, Edward True of Moulton, told The Associated Press that he helped count the ballots cast at his precinct caucuses and that Romney received two votes. True said he was shocked to see the official results on the Republican Party website showed Romney with 22 votes in the precinct.

“I assume somebody made a typographical error,” he said in a telephone interview. True said that when he contacted local Republican officials, “They said they would sort it out in the next couple of weeks, but how many primaries will have happened by that time?”
– “Santorum shrugs off report of Iowa vote errors” , 6 January 2012


Edward True, 28, said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received only two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party’s website, True’s precinct cast 22 votes for Romney. “This is huge,” True said. “It essentially changes who won.” While the mainstream media portrays this as a single typographical error it may be an indication of a more serious case of vote fraud. Edward True’s discovery is clear evidence of vote fraud and a complete audit of the Iowa tally must be done to determine if the caucus results were manipulated on a statewide scale. 

When I began this article about Ron Paul and the Iowa caucus, a week before it happened, I was strongly inclined to predict that Mitt Romney was going to win, based solely on my knowledge that he is supported financially by the Crown family of Chicago, a family of high-level Zionist weapons dealers closely tied to the state of Israel. The Crown family, which profits directly from war and defense spending, also supports Barack Obama and is one of those highly-connected Zionist clans that knows how to make their candidates win elections – one way or another. Lester Crown also sits on the board of the Peres Center, along with Orit Gadiesh and other high-level Mossadniks.


Orit Gadiesh (age 60) is a high-level Israeli military intelligence agent at Bain & Co. who has worked closely with Mitt Romney for decades.

Orit Gadiesh, born 1951, is the daughter of Falk Gadiesh (formerly Gruenfeld) one of the Israeli army’s first brigadier generals and a member of the General Staff. The Gruenfeld family immigrated to Palestine in 1939 when Falk was 18. He became a Brigadier and was sent by Israeli military intelligence to the United States in 1952 (see names on KLM’s U.S. passenger manifest) on a diplomatic passport to study at MIT. He then returned to Israel and reorganized the Israeli army.

A book about the Gruenfeld family provides information about Brigadier General Falk Gadiesh. (Source: Das Leinenhaus Gruenfeld, Berlin 1967)

Romney’s support from the Crown family, which is closely tied to the state of Israel and its military intelligence agencies, is most likely based on his decades of working with Bain & Company, which is headed by Orit Gadiesh, an Israeli military intelligence agent. Romney and Gadiesh have worked together at Bain since the early 1990s. Gadiesh is the Israeli intelligence agent who steers Bain & Co., and who probably advises Mitt Romney on the Middle East and other matters. She served on Romney’s transition team when he became governor of Massachusetts.

The following extracts provide some basic information on the Israeli agent who controls Mitt Romney:

Founded in 1973 by former Boston Consulting Group vice president William H. Bain, Jr., Bain & Co., based in Boston, has offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco. After experiencing a serious crisis in the 1980s and 1990s, Bain rebounded under the leadership of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (who had previously worked with Bain Capital, a separate company) and Orit Gadiesh, one of the few women to head a top consulting firm. It had revenues of $1.6 billion and over 4,000 employees in 2007. 
Source: http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/organization/bain-company

Orit Gadiesh
52, Chair, Bain & Company
She stands over 6 feet tall in heels. She worked in military intelligence in her native Israel. And she runs one of the world’s largest, most elite business-consulting firms, with big-hitter clients like De Beers, ITT, and Dell. Twelve years ago, Gadiesh succeeded Mitt Romney as head of what was once called the KGB of consulting firms. Given her connections to the governor, it was no surprise when he named her to his transition team. Gadiesh was one of only two Bostonians listed the last time Fortune magazine published its female power list in 2000. 

A Romney victory in Iowa, I wrote, would have certainly been the result if the Republicans were to use the same dodgy telephonic tally system (Voxeo, a firm tied to Israeli military intelligence) which had been used by the Democrats of Iowa in the two previous elections. I have written extensively about how the Israeli-linked Voxeo system was used to manipulate the tallies of the Iowa Democrat caucuses of 2004 and 2008. The rigging of the Iowa caucus allows for the presidential election to be stolen at the beginning – like a baby from its crib. It now appears very likely that the Republican caucus of 2012 was also manipulated and stolen. The national importance of the Iowa caucus means that we have a right to demand an independent audit of the results. The evidence indicates that the Republican Party of Iowa is not able to provide verifiable results in a timely manner. We should not have to wait two weeks to have the results from such a simple, but important poll. 

One week before the caucus I contacted the Republican Party of Iowa and spoke with three different people in their communications department about how the results would be tallied. Patrick, the first person I spoke to about the vote counting process, told me that he could not reveal how the tally would be done “for security purposes.” Ryan, the second person, told me that the precincts would communicate the results to caucus headquarters in Des Moines but the way in which the precinct results were to be sent was being kept secret for security purposes.

Finally, I spoke to Nicole Sizemore, the assistant director of communications. Sizemore told me that there was no outside agency involved in the tally process and that it would be “very transparent” with oversight by observers from the different campaigns. The complete tally with “total breakdown” by precinct, she said, would be released within 14 days of the January 3 caucus. I was glad to hear this and decided not to come out with a gloomy prediction that Mitt Romney would win. With the information I had from the Republican Party of Iowa it seemed that there was a good chance for a honest and transparent caucus. It now seems that my trust was misplaced and that my instinct that vote fraud would give Romney a victory in Iowa was correct after all. 

If the statement of Edward True is true and correct, the tally numbers for Mitt Romney were manipulated. If vote fraud happened in True’s precinct, it probably happened in others all across the state. The tally from the Iowa caucus must be examined to see if the statewide results match the precinct results for each of the 1,774 precincts. Now that the Iowa caucus is over, the method by which the results were communicated to caucus HQ needs to be exposed and examined because, just like the Voxeo telephonic vote-counting system, this appears to have been the weak link through which the results were manipulated giving Mitt Romney his victory in Iowa.

* * * * *

To those who believe that America has a “free press”, impartial and unbiased, just watch the following short video in which CNN blatantly censored the comments of Corporal Jesse Thorsen, a U.S. Army soldier from West Des Moines who has served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan – and who supports Ron Paul because he is tired of war and would like to have some “peace time” duty:

“I’m really excited about a lot of his ideas, especially when it comes to bringing the soldiers home. I’ve been serving for ten years now and all ten years of those have been during wartime. I would like to see a little peace time army.”
– Corporal Jesse Thorsen to CNN

Ron Paul came in third place in Iowa behind the two Zionist-supported pro-war candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Santorum recently stated on “Meet the Press” that he would bomb Iran’s nuclear reactors if elected president. Is that an acceptable policy statement from a candidate for president? Does 50 percent of the Republican Party of Iowa truly want to wage yet another disastrous and costly war in the Middle East, i.e. against the Islamic Republic of Iran, or is there another explanation for these results? These results are from the Washington Post and are not final.

I had always believed, and still believe, that oppressive forces draw much of their strength from their ability to wield their power in secret.
– Julian Assange – The Unauthorized Autobiography (2011)

Israeli general Amos Yadlin traveled to Chicago in an effort to enlist [Lester] Crown’s help in convincing the administration to attack Iran.
– “Israel, Big Money and Obama”, 20 August 2010

The Crown family supports candidates from both parties, depending on their strategic goal. Susan Crown, for example, who gave at least $12,300 to candidate Obama between 2003 and 2007 is now supporting the Republican Mitt Romney’s bid for the White House. 
– “Chicago’s Elders of Zion and Obama’s War for Profit”, October 2011

The final report of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan said that somewhere between $31 and $60 billion has been lost through contract waste and fraud in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Put another way, war profiteers took as much as $60 billion from taxpayers and didn’t give us anything in return. 
– “No Success in Iraq – Unless You’re a War Profiteer” by Robert Greenwald and Derrick Crowe

The ongoing cover-up of 9/11, the fraudulent “War on Terror”, and the trillion-dollar U.S. military intervention in the Middle East are the key elements coloring the political context of the U.S. presidential election of 2012. The false-flag terror attacks of 9/11 and the U.S. military aggression in the Middle East are two sides of the same counterfeit coin which has been used for the past decade to deceive and defraud the American people – and the world. The massive fraud that began with 9/11 and which has been used to rob the nation of untold billions could not possibly be maintained were it not for the utterly corrupt political establishment of Washington, D.C. and the controlled media. This ongoing deception is the real background against which the Iowa caucus, the first poll of the 2012 presidential election, needs to be viewed.

The Republican caucus in Iowa on January 3 is of great importance because it is the first poll to determine which candidate will challenge Barack Obama for the presidency. A CNN/Time poll indicates that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are currently the front runners polling about 25 percent each. Two days earlier Ron Paul was the clear front runner, several points ahead of Romney and Newt Gingrich, who has now fallen further behind. Despite Paul’s common sense positions and popularity with voters, the paid pundits of the controlled media outlets constantly attack his positions as “out of the mainstream”. 

Paul, who is a very popular candidate, is treated most unfairly by so-called alternative media outlets such as Salon and the Huffington Post. When one reads, for example, the first sentence of the Bob Cesca piece on the Huffington Post in which he says progressives that support Ron Paul are “out of their blessed gourds”, it is worth remembering that the Huffington Post was acquired by AOL in February 2011 for $315 million. There is always a political reason for such media acquisitions and the Ron Paul candidacy is that reason. This is a perfect example of how, and why, the so-called alternative media is controlled by the same sinister forces that control the “mainstream” press. What better way is there to control the thoughts of progressive voters than to control the websites they rely on for information?

Ron Paul is opposed to waging war against Iran.

I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. 
– Ron Paul

A CNN/ORC poll released in November found that 68 percent of Americans opposed the war in Iraq and 63 percent are against the one in Afghanistan. Yet, we keep hearing that only hawks have a chance to be elected president… Dr. Ron Paul is firmly anti-war, anti-empire, and anti-torture. He has been drawing large crowds in Iowa. He has legions of volunteers and a steady source of money through Internet fundraising. His supporters are willing, as one said, to “crawl over broken glass” for him. So if there is snow in Iowa or New Hampshire, that should be no problem.
– Ron Paul, the anti-war candidate” by Mary Meehan, The Baltimore Sun, 2 January 2012

One of the key issues, perhaps the most crucial issue, in the GOP Iowa caucus is the position of the candidates regarding the Zionist war policy against Iran. Ron Paul is opposed to waging war against Iran while Romney and most of the others are eager armchair warriors against the Islamic Republic of Iran. With the new U.S. sanctions seeking to strangle Iran financially having brought counter threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. position vis-a-vis Iran is now of the utmost importance as the chances of war are greater than ever.

Iran has been the subject of a Zionist war strategy for years in the same way that organized Jewry declared war on Germany in the early 1930s, long before the invasion of Poland in 1939. The punitive sanctions against Iran are war by other methods and unless the United States changes its approach to Iran it will find itself in another major war in the Middle East, one with drastic and unforeseeable consequences. 

Henry, Lester, and Susan Crown of Chicago. A family of Zionist war profiteers, the Crowns became rich on U.S. defense spending in World War II and have profited on every war since. The Crowns are big financial supporters of Republican Mitt Romney and the Democrat Barack Obama – both Zionist-controlled pro-war candidates.

The Crown family of Chicago is one of the key Zionist supporters of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. As a major shareholder of General Dynamics, the Crown family profits from U.S. defense spending and war. As a leading Zionist family, the Crowns support sanctions and the Israeli warmongering against Iran. The Crowns have invested in Mitt Romney because he is willing to wage war to please his Zionist supporters. To push the nation into war to serve a foreign state is treasonous.

Mitt Romney is hawkish on Iran because he is supported by Zionist warmongers like the Crown family of Chicago.

Mitt Romney would most likely win the caucus if the Republican Party of Iowa were to tally the caucus results using the dodgy telephonic tally system (Voxeo) used by the Iowa Democrats in 2004 and 2008. But after having intensively queried the Republican Party of Iowa about how the results will be tallied it seems to me that the Republican Party of Iowa will be tallying the results themselves in Des Moines. 

Nicole Sizemore, assistant communications director for the GOP of Iowa, told Bollyn.com that there is no outside contractor involved in the tally and that it will be a “very transparent” poll with multiple observers. Although Sizemore could not reveal the specifics about how the results would be communicated to headquarters, she confirmed that a complete breakdown of the 1,774 precinct results would be published within 14 days. These are the key elements of an open and transparent poll. 

This is good news because it suggests that the results of the January 3 Republican caucus are likely to be more representative, honest, and accurate than the Democratic caucus in 2008 that helped bring the dark horse candidate Barack Obama to power. In 2004 another dark horse candidate, John Kerry, came from behind to run against George W. Bush. In both cases, pro-war candidates from the back of the pack won the rigged caucus, effectively removing the question of the illegal war policy from the debate. Let’s hope Ron Paul wins Iowa in a truly honest and transparent caucus on January 3. We certainly don’t need anymore illegal Zionist wars for profit and the people of Iowa know that as well as anyone. Iowa has lost 69 servicemen in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with more than 477 wounded, according to iCasualties.org.

In the following video clips from a Republican debate Ron Paul explains his position on Iran. Rick Santorum recently stated that he would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities if elected president. Iran is the central foreign policy question facing the presidential candidates. The U.S. has been at war in the Middle East for 21 years, since January 1991, when President George H.W. Bush went to war against Iraq over Kuwait.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Associated Press, “Gingrich cancels campaign event, poor attendance”, 20 January 2012

Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Wikipedia, January 2012

“Bain names two top executives”, Boston Globe, 7 May 1991

Bollyn, Christopher, “Chicago’s Elders of Zion and Obama’s War for Profit”, 14 October 2011 

Bollyn, “The 9/11 Cover Up – The Destruction of the Steel Evidence”, May 2011

Bollyn, “ELRON – VOXEO: The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus”, 31 December 2007

Bollyn, “Voxeo’s Ties to 9-11 and the Israeli Military”, 5 January 2008

Bollyn, “Bollyn Responds to Voxeo”, 7 January 2008

Das Leinenhaus Grünfeld , Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1967

Henningsen, Patrick, “Israeli Lobby launch new Super PAC effort to bring down Ron Paul,” Global Research, 21 January 2012

“In the War Room”, by Glenn Rifkin, New York Times, 8 September 1996

“Israel, Big Money and Obama – Mr. Crown and the President”, by Margaret Kimberley, CounterPunch.org, 20 August 2010

“No Success in Iraq — Unless You’re a War Profiteer”, by Robert Greenwald and Derrick Crowe, Huffingtonpost.com, 15 December 2011

“Orit Gadiesh rises to head Bain & Co. in Boston”, Boston Globe, 31 March 1992

Orit Gadiesh, Chairman, Bain & Company, MIT Sloan School of Management

Orit Gadiesh Interview, Harvard Business School

Peres Center for Peace, International Board of Governors, Cached November 2011

Peres Center for Peace, President and Executive Board, Cached November 2011

“Romney taps Chertoff as campaign adviser”, by Max Pizarro, PolitickerNJ.com, 6 October 2011 

“Rush Limbaugh Spills the Beans on the Jewish Conspiracy” (Satire) by Pat Healy, 21 December 2010

“Why Haven’t ES&S Voting Machines Been Outlawed?”, CrooksandLiars.com, 12 June 2010



Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: