Author Topic: Nancy Pelosi forces Govt to drop all espionage charges against AIPAC spies  (Read 26325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
There's a new effective way to change the subject of conversation fed to us by mainstream media... the Swine flu will enable the discontinuation of coverage of torture, bankster fraud, etc... soooooo convenient, yes?
It's a win/win for the govt/NWO - effectively reduce population, send the price of Roche up via Tamiflu sales (I can hear Rummy laughing all the way to the bank), and take the heat of the admin/dems (think Pelosi) about torture.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Irobot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
    • 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK
The flu scare, could serve many purposes. One is distracting the sheepole
from Harman AIPAC Israel SPY CASE, & Torture  Memos, and the crashing economy.
12160  "Destroying the NWO"
Check out the blogs, videos, and discussions!!

Trolls R People 2

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
I heard it said this is a great way to divert our attention from important infomation. Maybe they are saying this "We have been exposed, they are going to attack us, we better get them first"?

Offline uwaf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,033
I think it's a precursor to something worse coming.

Offline Irobot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
    • 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK
Also not in news :
Ron Paul's H.R.1207 Now Has 91 Cosponsors !!
12160  "Destroying the NWO"
Check out the blogs, videos, and discussions!!

Trolls R People 2

Offline Irobot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
    • 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK
Also not in news :

The danger of an Israeli strike on Iran 
Newly Released Memo: Government ‘Minders’ at 9/11 Commission Interviews ‘Intimidated’ Witnesses

12160  "Destroying the NWO"
Check out the blogs, videos, and discussions!!

Trolls R People 2

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
I think it's a precursor to something worse coming.

Yes, as I've always suspected, it's what's NOT BEING BROADCAST that's of utmost importance. Their system is so glaring, it's hard to look right at it for too long.

What is being planned? I mean Martial Law and Infinite Suffering for the masses aside?

PS: we can't let this happen.

Offline mondo

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14
The Harman/AIPAC case is huge and is tied directly into the Israeli spying ring and Israeli wiretapping software that has been around for over a decade now. Remember that initial spying ring netted over 200 Israeli spies and NONE of them were held longer than 60 days. Well, except the first guy in the Rosen-AIPAC treason case implicating Larry Franklin,. He got 12 years and he cooperated! That should mean Harman gets 25?? Most likely she will walk... Lok what happened to Hastert when he was named by Sibel Edmonds... nothing.

By the way, if you want to hear two great interviews about this Israeli spy case, check out Scott Horton over at He interviewed Phillip Giraldi, ex CIA and DIA officer, about this exact case just a few days ago. Really interesting....

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
    • Graphic Design/Printing
Wasnt there an anti organic farming thing to be voted on also?
Make it so!

Offline mondo

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Harman AIPAC Israel SPY CASE, & Torture Memos
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2009, 10:03:20 pm »
Want to add this great link written by Col. Lang, who also is ex CIA/DIA. He has some things to say and he also recommends the Scott Horton interview with his ex colleague, Phillip Giraldi...

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Charges to Be Dropped Against Two Former AIPAC Lobbyists

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 1, 2009 10:29 AM

The U.S. government is abandoning espionage-law charges against two former lobbyists for a pro-Israel advocacy group, federal officials announced this morning.

Prosecutors said they will ask a judge to dismiss the case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman because a series of court decisions had made it unlikely they would win convictions. The two are former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, an influential advocacy group.

Rosen and Weissman were charged in 2005 with conspiring to obtain classified information and pass it to journalists and the Israeli government. They were the first non-government civilians charged under the 1917 espionage statute with verbally receiving and transmitting national defense information. Some lawyers and First Amendment advocates have said the case would criminalize the type of information exchange that is common among journalists, lobbyists and think-tank analysts.

Dana J. Boente, the acting U.S. Attorney in Alexandria, said this morning that prosecutors were abandoning the case because of "the diminished likelihood the government will prevail at trial under the additional intent requirements imposed by the court and the inevitable disclosure of classified information that would occur at any trial.'' Prosecutors have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which must be approved by a federal judge.

Baruch Weiss, a lawyer for Weissman, said that the two former lobbyists "are innocent, and it's been clear to us from outset that we would ultimately prevail.'' He said defense lawyers "were able to put together an array of experts to demonstrate to the government that the information" the men were accused of passing along was "innocuous.''

The decision is a stunning vindication for the former lobbyists, who were accused of providing information about topics that included the activities of al-Qaeda and possible attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Rosen, of Silver Spring, was AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues and was instrumental in making the committee a formidable political force. Weissman, of Bethesda, was a senior analyst. AIPAC fired them in 2005.

The trial had been set for June 2 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. But recent pre-trial rulings had made the case difficult for the government. Those decisions included an appeals court ruling that allowed the defense to use classified information at trial. A lower-court judge also said prosecutors must show that the two men knew that the information they allegedly disclosed would harm the United States -- a high burden for prosecutors.

Boente cited "the additional intent requirements imposed by the court" in his statement this morning. "When this indictment was brought," he said, "the government believed it could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the statute. However, as the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted, the District Court potentially imposed an additional burden on the prosecution not mandated by statute."

The AIPAC case has always been controversial, and it came to public attention again with the recent disclosure that a prominent House lawmaker, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif), had been recorded in 2006 on FBI wiretaps allegedly offering to use her influence on behalf of Rosen and Weissman.

Harman strongly denied the allegations and accused the government of an "abuse of power" in wiretapping her conversations. Law enforcement sources have said the review of the case was triggered by the recent court rulings and was unrelated to the revelations about Harman.

If the high-profile trial had gone forward, it was expected to feature testimony from a number of senior Bush administration officials, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, former national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, and former high-level Defense Department officials Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Irobot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
    • 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK
Re: Govt drops espionage charges agains AIPAC lobbyists
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2009, 10:39:38 am »

 Sharon to Peres: "We Control America"
Congressional Pandering to Israel proves him Right

by Mohamed Khodr

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.  Peres  warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us.  "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

"The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate."

-- Senator Fullbright, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee:  10/07/1973 on CBS' "Face the Nation".

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews..... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country" 

-----Sec. of State John Foster Dulles  quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff
12160  "Destroying the NWO"
Check out the blogs, videos, and discussions!!

Trolls R People 2

Offline Mr Grinch

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,715
Re: Govt drops espionage charges agains AIPAC lobbyists
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2009, 11:45:02 am »

Next time someone says we have a Govt by and FOR the PEOPLE be sure to whip this out.

Disgusting. >:( >:(
The History Of Political Correctness or: Why have things gotten so crazy?

Common sense is not so common.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Govt drops espionage charges agains AIPAC lobbyists
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2009, 03:04:42 pm »
Any questions remaining on who controls America?

Offline Swmorgan77

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: Govt drops espionage charges agains AIPAC lobbyists
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2009, 04:56:57 pm »
I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and DIE from that suprise. 

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Govt drops espionage charges agains AIPAC lobbyists
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2009, 05:11:05 pm »
I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and DIE from that suprise. 


Pelosi, Harman, Gonzales, AIPAC, Mossad, US DOJ...


ARREST THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
How many more huge scandals are going to be buried by this swine flu?

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
    • Graphic Design/Printing
Seriously... we need to hire the people that are revolting in greece, turkey...

Because nothing happens to these bastards. We just dont know what to do.

A Revolution conference is needed.
Make it so!

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
    • Graphic Design/Printing

European Union Wants to Control the Internet!
Vote in the European Parliament on May 5, 2009
Make it so!

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
I would like to comment and have something about history (1917) that I would like to post but I'm afraid someone might just label it as racist, which I'm not it's just I feel history is repeating itself, and anyone who talks about basically gets in trouble, this doesn't feel like America anymore.

If anyone or the moral majority thinks it's alright for me to go ahead and post then, I will if not then we will just let it be then, waiting for your responses.

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
    • Graphic Design/Printing
PP is a free speech zone
Make it so!

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
PP is a free speech zone

It is?
Shall I post then?

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
    • Graphic Design/Printing
Communism death: a ruse*

I assure you, My children, there is no freedom in Russia. It is all a delusion.

Make it so!

Offline Voskhod3

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,373
"It's Israel stupid".

Are people finally waking up to what has been happening since Theodore Herzl (backed by Rothschild) formed the World Zionist Organization?

I sincerely hope so.

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
"It's Israel stupid".

Are people finally waking up to what has been happening since Theodore Herzl (backed by Rothschild) formed the World Zionist Organization?

I sincerely hope so.

Where did Israel come from?

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
"It's Israel stupid".

Are people finally waking up to what has been happening since Theodore Herzl (backed by Rothschild) formed the World Zionist Organization?

I sincerely hope so.

Of course it's Israel, but it's other place too, I got ya  ;)

Offline Voskhod3

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,373
Where did Israel come from?

The wallet of Walter Rothschild.

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
The wallet of Walter Rothschild.

There must be many roads which lead to that wallet. ;)


  • Guest
US govt to DROP Espionage charges against AIPAC officials <--- ROFL
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2009, 04:57:11 am »
You just have to laugh with gallows humour at stories like this :

US govt to drop espionage charges
against Aipac officials - Guardian

Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman accused of providing US defence secrets to Israeli embassy in Washington

The US government is to drop espionage charges against two officials of America's most powerful pro-Israel lobby group accused of spying for the Jewish state because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information.

The two accused, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, worked for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which drives fundraising for some US members of Congress. They were accused of providing defence secrets to the chief political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington, Naor Gilon, about US policy toward Iran and al-Qaida in league with a former Pentagon analyst who has since been jailed for 12 years.

Dana Boente, who was prosecuting the case in Virginia, said that the case was dropped because pre-trial court rulings had complicated the government's case by requiring a higher level of proof of intent to spy. The court said the prosecution would have to prove not only that the accused pair had passed classified information but that they intended to harm the US in doing so.

Rosen and Weissman have argued they were merely using the back-channel contacts with government officials, lobbyists and diplomats that are common in Washington. The defence intended to call the former US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and other officials to establish that the government regularly uses Aipac to discreetly send information to Israel.

A former Pentagon analyst, Lawrence Franklin, has already pleaded guilty to disclosing classified information to Rosen and Weissman.

The dropping of the charges will come as a relief to Aipac because the case threatened to overshadow its annual conference this weekend at which it parades support from American politicians. It was also an embarrassment which laid the lobby group open to charges of putting Israel's interests above those of the US.

The case has been further complicated by a scandal revealed last month by a political publication, Congressional Quarterly, around a member of Congress, Jane Harman, who was secretly taped telling an Israeli agent that she would pressure the justice department to reduce spying charges against the two former Aipac officials.

In return, the Israeli agent offered to get a wealthy donor who helps funds election campaigns for Nancy Pelosi, the then-minority leader in the House of Representatives, to pressure Pelosi to appoint Harman to a senior position on the congressional intelligence committee.

Aware of the sensitivity of the position she has put herself in, Harman finished the discussion with the Israeli spy by saying: "This conversation doesn't exist."

Congressional Quarterly obtained a transcript of the tape recorded by the National Security Agency. An FBI probe of Harman was dropped after the intervention of President Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales.
Aipac has long wielded considerable influence over US policy in the Middle East though a mix of appeals to American sympathy for Israel and a hard-ball approach against members of congress who question the unyielding policies of Israeli governments.

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
One of several stories that is pushed off the front page, but this one is huge. Harman has been caught red-handed on tape, and Pelosi is yet again knee-deep in the middle of another crime against America.

I'd like to see a list of all the real current news stories like this that have been silenced due to this flu distraction...

...Pelosi/Harman Caught Helping Israeli Spys

...House Passes HR1913 Hate-Crimes Bill That Threatens Free Speech

...HR1207 Calls For Federal Reserve Audit

...Obama and Holder Say Waterboarding Is Torture But US Should Move On

...Couple Arrested For Having Sex On Windsor Castle Lawn: Oh the irony!

and so it goes!
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829

Nancy Pelosi, traitor,  sold out to the beings on high.

What price the soul??

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Christopher Bollyn
March 12, 2009

Bernard Madoff's plea of guilt on 11 charges is merely a ruse to protect his Zionist co-conspirators, especially those Zionists in high positions at two private Israeli banks apparently involved in the fraud.

Bernard Madoff's guilty plea of March 12 was clearly meant to do two things essential to protect the billions of dollars of assets stolen in this huge crime:  prevent him from having to cooperate with investigators and thus keep hidden the secrets of where the stolen money is – and how it got there.  By claiming to have acted alone, Madoff is defending the other criminals involved in the massive fraud.  Madoff is simply playing the fall guy for his family members and a whole "army of people" involved in this huge and long-lasting scheme.

As investor George Nierenberg told the court: "I know that the operation was massive. I know that he didn't commit these crimes alone and do not understand why conspiracy isn't one of his pleas."

Nierenberg, who described himself as "one of the many victims of Madoff's egregious crimes," said that just producing the false client account statements for the 4,800 customers in Madoff's investment firm would have required an "army of people."  Nierenberg noted that Madoff was often away from the office so there would have had to have been other people involved in the scheme.

As Madoff victim Ronnie Sue Ambrosino told the court of Judge Chin: "I believe you have the opportunity today to find out as to where the money is and who else was involved in this crime."

Finding the other people and institutions involved in this crime is crucial.  As I have pointed out in the following article about Madoff, he is closely tied with two individuals who are long-standing directors or owners of private Israeli banks:  Sy Syms, a veteran director of Israel Discount Bank of New York (now controlled by the Bronfman family), and Jacob Ezra Merkin, co-owner of Bank Leumi. 

Merkin, for example, is known to have been deeply involved in the fraud as an investor and a person who funneled billions of dollars of funds to Madoff.  In the Madoff scheme, all the victims are not really victims; some of them are actually part of the fraud.  Ezra Merkin is evidently one of them.

Most importantly to the Madoff scheme, both Bank Leumi and Israel Discount Bank have branches in Switzerland where Swiss banking secrecy laws apply.  Bank Leumi has its main office in Zurich and a branch in Geneva.  It should be noted that Bank Leumi's Swiss banking operation has "representative offices" in Budapest and Israel.  Banking secrecy is the first point of Bank Leumi's Swiss branch:

Leumi Switzerland is a full service private banking institution operating according to Swiss regulations. As such, the bank provides its clients with all the benefits that a Swiss-banking environment has to offer:  Maximum discretion in accordance with the tradition of Swiss banking secrecy.

Israel Discount Bank is the same. Oddly, IDB of New York opens it's webpage with this comment about Madoff: 

IDB Bank wishes all of you a healthy and happy New Year. We are also pleased to notify you that IDB Bank has no exposure to the Madoff funds or any of the other funds that were feeder funds to Madoff. Our heart goes out to those who have suffered losses from this scandal and we hope that 2009 will bring you some relief. Our balance sheet is strong, as is our liquidity position. The future is bright, and we look forward to being able to serve all of your banking needs in 2009 and in all the coming years.

IDB has its Swiss branch in Geneva, Switzerland.

Both Bank Leumi and IDB have branches in other countries, such as the Cayman Islands, where money-laundering is common.  While Madoff mentions other banks in his confession, he says nothing about banking at either Bank Leumi or IDB.  How strange.  Stranger is the fact that while JP Morgan had invested hundreds of millions (until recently) in the Madoff scam as had many leading Zionist organizations and individuals, IDB had not.  How is it that the bank run by his close friend and business partner at Yeshiva University's Syms School of Business managed to remain untouched by the Madoff scheme? 
Why would Madoff NOT have used the banking services at these banks, given his very close working relationship with a veteran director and owner of each bank?  This does not make any sense, unless, of course, these banks are part of the crime on a higher level.

This is how Madoff's confession is part of the ruse.  Most likely Madoff used his co-conspirators at the highest level of these private Israeli banks for the most important part of his scheme:  the removal of the funds from the United States to off-shore accounts where they could not be seen or reached by U.S. investigators or courts.  It's all quite obvious.  Why are Madoff's business ties to Merkin and Syms, and the Israeli banks they represent, not being discussed in the Zionist-controlled media?  Don't they want to find the money?  Some of these media outfits lost money in the Madoff scam.

In Madoff's written confession of March 12, he says that he maintained accounts at several banks in the United States and Britain.  These banks are identified as Chase Manhattan, now part of JP Morgan Chase, and the Bank of New York.  Are we, the public, the court, and the victims of his fraud, to believe that Madoff maintained accounts only at these banks, which at times must have held billions of dollars – and nobody thought something was wrong?  This is simply not credible.

Wouldn't the bankers at Chase have wondered why Madoff, who was supposedly running an investment fund, was leaving huge amounts of cash to sit for significant periods?  Wouldn't the bank want to know the purpose of the account and the source of its funds? Who were Madoff's bankers at Chase, and what sort of relationship did he have with them?  Another fundamental question is what kind of relationship did he have with Ezra Merkin and Sy Syms, and with the private Israeli banks they controlled?

Madoff is a accomplished liar and complete criminal.  To accept what he said in his confession as the complete truth would be absurd and foolish.  Madoff is simply taking the fall to protect the ill-gotten gains and his fellow co-conspirators, particularly those at Bank Leumi and IDB.  A proper investigation to find Madoff's stolen assets must include these two banks.

The Strange Case of Ira Sorkin
Why Would a Madoff Victim Defend Him in Court?

Understanding the Zionist Fundraising Scheme
Surrounding Bernie Madoff and the Missing $50 Billion

Update: March 10, 2009
By Christopher Bollyn

Mega-fraudster Bernard Madoff appeared in court on March 10 to discuss whether his head defense attorney, Ira Lee Sorkin, has a conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Sorkin and his family are among the "victims" of Madoff's alleged $50 billion fraud.  Indeed, the names of Ira Sorkin and those of his late parents, Nathan and Rosalie, appear no fewer than 9 times on a published list of Madoff's victims.  Madoff's parents had at least six accounts with Madoff.  Sorkin, however, has yet to appear in a single news photograph with his most notorious client, the much despised Bernie Madoff.

Ira Sorkin, on right in the pumpkin-colored shirt, at a recent Hebrew University event in Palm Beach, has yet to be photographed with his notorious client, Bernie Madoff.  Why does he avoid being seen in public with Madoff?

Madoff is usually seen with another lawyer, not Sorkin, when he leaves court.

Prosecutors are asking Madoff to answer questions about a potential conflict of interest concerning Sorkin, who reportedly invested $900,000 with the Zionist con-man who bilked billions of dollars from unwitting investors, according to the New York Post.  Madoff was the former national treasurer of such major Zionist organizations as the American Jewish Congress and Yeshiva University (YU).

Madoff's defense attorney "Ike" Sorkin had also invested $18,860 with Madoff in a retirement account during the early 1990s prosecutors said in a letter to a federal judge made public today, according to news reports.  Madoff has also reportedly said that he will plead guilty to 11 crimes, in two day's time, on Thursday.

Furthermore, from 1995 to 1997, Sorkin served as the Chief Legal Officer and a Member of the Board of Directors for Nomura Holding America, Inc. and Nomura Securities International, Inc., one of the larger corporate victims of the Madoff scam.  In December 2008 Nomura Holdings reported losing more than $302 million into Madoff's black hole.  Madoff had also defrauded a client's trust fund managed by Sorkin's previous law firm.

Ike Sorkin leaving court on March 10.  Why doesn't Sorkin want to be photographed with his most infamous client?  Is he complicit in the crime?

Given these obvious connections, the real question being avoided by the controlled-media is:  Are Bernie Madoff and Ike Sorkin partners in crime? Three months into the investigation of the Madoff scam and still not one bit of information has been forthcoming about where the billions of dollars disappeared to.  In this day and age, after 9-11, when international transactions over $10,000 are scrutinized by federal snoops, how can it be that $50 billion simply disappeared into thin air, or a financial black hole as the case may be?  This does not make any sense.  Somebody is obviously blowing a very big and thick cloud of smoke around this whole Madoff affair and that cloud obscures the courtroom proceedings and media coverage.

The BBC News reported in February that not one dollar of the Madoff money had been re-invested during the past 13 years.  What does this mean?  In order for such immense sums to be secretly stashed away, Madoff must have criminal partners in the private banking business who have the ability and capacity to transfer billions of dollars to secret offshore accounts without being seen on the books.  Judging by Madoff and the people around him, these accounts are probably in Switzerland or other offshore tax havens, and are controlled by Zionist/Israeli organizations and individuals.

It may, at first glance, seem quite confusing that Madoff's defense lawyer, Ira Lee Sorkin, is actually a defrauded "customer" of his.  Why would a lawyer like "Ike" Sorkin want to defend a fraudster like Madoff who apparently stole his money and that of his late parents? Why would Sorkin even want to defend Madoff?  What are Sorkin's interests in this huge case of fraud in which some $50 billion are said to have been stolen?  Why are high-profile Jewish "victims" like Steven Spielberg and others not going after Madoff with all the power and money they have?  What's going on?

As previously stated, it appears most likely that a great deal of the missing money was sent to offshore Israeli-controlled accounts through such corrupt private banks as Israel Discount Bank, where Madoff's partner at Yeshiva University's business school, Sy Syms, has been a director for many years.  The Israel Discount Bank is controlled by the Bronfman family.  Sorkin, a Zionist supporter and fund-raiser, fits perfectly into this scenario -- as Madoff's lead defense attorney.


Besides his career as a lawyer, Mr. Sorkin is President and Chairman of the Board of a private company called the American Friends of the Hebrew University, Inc. (AFHU).  He is also a member of Hebrew University’s Board of Governors and a member of the University’s Executive Committee.  Hebrew University is located in Jerusalem and is the oldest Zionist university in Palestine.

As head of AFHU, Sorkin works closely with fellow director Harvey M. Krueger, former vice chairman of the now defunct Lehman Brothers, Inc.  Krueger is the former chairman of the Board of Governors of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a position he held for nine years, and was the former President and Chairman of the American Friends of the Hebrew University.  Krueger is also the past Chairman of the [Shimon] Peres Center for Peace and has been a major fund-raiser for Israel and Israeli banks since the early 1960s.

Harvey Krueger (on right) at the same 2009 Palm Beach event for Hebrew University that Ike Sorkin presided over, with Israeli Carmi Gillon (left).  Gillon is a former head of Shabak, the Internal General Security Service of Israel. 


Carmi Gillon, as head of Shin Bet.  Israeli spymasters are asked to serve on past retirement age.  Gillon is the third head of Shin Bet to have a conspicuous role in 9-11 and the financial scam.  Abraham Shalom Ben-Dor and Yaakov Peri, a.k.a. Jacob Perry, are two others.  Are we beginning to see a pattern?


Krueger was Vice Chairman of Lehman Brothers, Inc. and had held other senior positions with the firm since 1977, when Krueger merged Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., the investment banking firm of which he was CEO, with Lehman Brothers.  He is also honorary chairman of Automatic Data Processing, Inc., a provider of computerized transaction processing, data communication and information services.  Krueger was chairman of Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) from 1982 to April 1998 and was its chief executive officer from 1982 to August 1996. 

Harvey Krueger:  Father of Israeli Access to International Capital Markets

At ADP, a company that specializes in "computerized transaction processing," Krueger would have worked closely with Madoff's friend, Josh S. Weston, a subsequent chairman at ADP, and the company's founder, Henry Taub. Taub serves on the Board of Trustees at New York University with the likes of Maurice Greenberg, Larry Silverstein, Mort Zuckerman, and Edouard de Rothschild.  It is through such charitable networks that a great deal of Zionist networking is done.

Krueger has long been a major player in providing Israel with access to international capital, as an 2004 Lifestyles magazine article says, "Since the '60s, this distinguished banking and investment executive has worked tirelessly -- professionally and personally -- on behalf of the Jewish state."

In 1961, when Krueger went to Israel to work on a financing venture for Bank Leumi, he wasn't even sure where the small country was located on the map. He recollects that "Jerusalem was cold and unfriendly." He also says that he didn't particularly love Israel when he first went. However, in 1962, when he returned to do a financing deal for Israel Discount Bank, he had an experience that changed him and his feelings to that mission...

And though to this day Krueger continues to say that whatever he is or has become he owes to Israel, truth be told, a lot of what Israel has become is owed to Harvey Krueger. He is the man who brought Israeli companies into international capital markets: From the 1960s until the '90s he effected almost every international debt and equity financing deal for the country. When in the early '90s other firms realized that Israeli business could be profitable, they, too, wanted a piece of the action and Krueger graciously encouraged it because he knew it would be good for Israel. Nonetheless, to this day, Krueger alone is referred to as the father of Israel's access to international capital markets.

Krueger is a director of a number of American and Israeli public companies, and is a co-founder of the Renaissance Fund, which is dedicated to investing in Israeli companies. The Renaissance Fund was founded by Krueger and Charles Bronfman. 

The Renaissance Fund was created in the early 1990s when Bronfman joined his Claridge Israel Inc. with Krueger's Stockton Partners to invest in Israeli businesses.  Bronfman has created similar Israeli funds, such as Challenge-Etgar, which are designed to funnel billions of dollars from North America to the Jewish State.  With the privatization of the Israel Discount Bank, the Bronfman family obtained a controlling interest in an private Israeli bank that has a branch in Switzerland, where it is allowed to operate with all the secrecy of other Swiss banks.  Money that is deposited in the IDB bank in Switzerland is in a financial black hole -- just like the $50 billion that disappeared from Madoff Investments. 

Harvey Krueger also sits on the five-man Strategic Advisory Board of Markstone Capital Group, where he and Jacob Perry (a.k.a. Yaakov Peri) plan how they will strategically invest the money they control into Israeli ventures.  Perry's bio sketch from Markstone's website says this about him:

Yaakov Peri, a.k.a. Jacob Perry, became a businessman after 30 years in Israel's secret service.  His first post:  CEO of Israeli Cellcom.

Mr. Perry is a leading figure in Israel in both the public and the private sectors. Mr. Perry is Chairman of Lipman Electronics Engineering and United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. and serves on the Board of Directors of Magal Security Systems Ltd. For the past eight years, he served as President and CEO of Cellcom, Israel’s largest cellular operator. During his tenure at Cellcom, Mr. Perry initiated and supervised several acquisitions and mergers. Prior to joining Cellcom, Mr. Perry served for 29 years in Israel’s General Security Service (Shin Bet). There he held a wide variety of positions culminating with his appointment by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to the position of Director of the organization. During his seven years as Director of the Shin Bet, Mr. Perry oversaw the sweeping changes to the country’s security apparatus. He is considered a leading expert in Middle East security matters.

After being the director of Shin Bet for three decades, Perry went back to school and became a businessman in the United States.  Perry was then appointed to serve as president and CEO of Cellcom Israel Ltd., Israel's largest wireless telephone service provider.  It should be noted that Perry also serves as a member of Bronfman's Challenge-Etgar Fund advisory board.

The former Israeli finance minister, Yaakov Neeman, is another strategic advisor for the Markstone Capital Group.  Neeman is the group's "Legal Advisor."  Neeman served as Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Finance from 1979 to 1981 and as Minister of Finance during 1997 and 1998. Neeman has served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Bank of Israel and as a member of the Central Committee of the World Bank.

The co-founder and managing director of Markstone Capital is the Israeli, Ron Lubash.  Prior to joining the Markstone fund, Lubash was a Managing Director of Lehman Brothers and Chief Executive Officer of Lehman Brothers (Israel) Ltd. 


Ran Lubash, head of Lehman Bros. (Israel) carried out $25 billion in cross border transactions for the government of Israel.  Where did Madoff's $50 billion go?  Ask Ran.

Lubash was the head of Lehman Brothers Israel Country Group (with teams in Tel Aviv, New York, and London). In 1994, Mr. Lubash moved back to Israel to open Lehman Brothers’ Tel Aviv office, the first major U.S. investment banking operation in Israel. During his tenure, Mr. Lubash managed a team that was involved as a lead banker with over $25 billion of cross border transactions for the government of Israel and major Israeli corporations. Mr. Lubash was responsible for nine equity financing transactions for Israel’s four leading banks. 

Lubash managed numerous debt transactions for the government of Israel, Israel Electric, and El-Al Israel Airlines, according to his biographical sketch on Markstone's website.  Lubash established Lehman Brothers’ private equity investment activities in Israel through the various Lehman-sponsored Funds. Prior to joining Lehman, Mr. Lubash worked for over seven years as a cross-border M&A specialist with the First Boston Corporation and Credit Suisse First Boston in New York and London.

(End of Part 2)


Where did the Madoff money go?  Said to be as much as $50 billion, the key question about this huge scam remains unanswered.  After examining 7,000 boxes containing the documents of Bernard Madoff's "investment" company, a U.S. bankruptcy court meeting revealed that there was "no evidence" that any of the money had been re-invested in 13 years, the BBC reported on February 21, 2009:

"...trolling through 7,000 boxes of records dating back 13 years, investigators found no evidence that money paid into the fund offering high rates of return had been re-invested.  The monthly statements, they said, "no more than fiction."

Suggested Viewing:  "Madoff money 'never re-invested'," BBC News, February 21, 2009

Meanwhile, with incredible arrogance, Madoff is asking the court that he be allowed to keep some $69 million in assets, saying that they are in his wife's name, according to an AP report:

Bernard Madoff is seeking to keep a $7 million Manhattan penthouse and an additional $62 million in assets, saying they are unrelated to the fraud that authorities say cost victims more than $50 billion. In court papers filed Monday, March 2, in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Madoff and his lawyer claim the apartment, $45 million in municipal bonds and $17 million more in a separate account all belong to Madoff's wife, Ruth.

The bonds in an account held by Ruth Madoff at COHMAD Securities Corp. and about $17 million held by her in a Wachovia Bank account "are unrelated to the alleged Madoff fraud and only Ruth Madoff has a beneficial interest in these assets," Bernard Madoff and lawyer Ira Sorkin said, according to the papers.
Source: Neumeister, Larry, "Madoff seeks to keep NYC penthouse, $62M in assets," Associated Press, March 2, 2009

Stephen A. Weiss, a lawyer who represents about 100 defrauded investors, said investors won't stand for the Madoffs keeping millions of dollars.

"Bernie Madoff has no shortage of chutzpah to suggest as he does that his wife was not the beneficiary of his fraud. It is not only senseless, but offensive," Weiss said after the court hearing on March 3.

The "chutzpah" of Madoff described in the news reports indicates that Madoff is being very well protected by the highest authority in New York and the United States government.  After nearly three months, the investigators have not charged Madoff with any crime and he is still allowed to live in his $7 million penthouse -- a home paid for with stolen money while some of his victims have been made homeless by his crimes.

Where does Bernie Madoff get his arrogance and hubris, the "chutzpah" Weiss referred to?  There can only be explanation:  he knows that he is being protected by the highest power -- and I don't mean our heavenly Father. 

Madoff is being protected by his partners in crime, the Elders of Zion, and the State of Israel.  The $50 billion did not disappear into an unknown black hole.  Such large sums do not simply vanish; these transfers of hundreds of millions are being kept hidden by the investigators and the courts.  They have most likely been funneled into Zionist-controlled bank accounts through Israeli banks (e.g. Israel Discount Bank) and private equity funds managed by Israeli intelligence. 

Madoff has been funding the war chest of Israeli inteligence.  As long as Madoff remains silent about this core aspect of the rip-off, he will be allowed to live and justice will be easy with him.  This is the quid pro quo of his relationship with Israel and the source of his confidence.  He was stealing for a cause - the Zionist cause. 

Why else have the powerful Zionist individuals and groups supposedly defrauded by Madoff not gone after him tooth-and-nail as they would an Arab or suspected Nazi?  Why has the Zionist-controlled media failed to investigate where Madoff's billions disappeared to?  Why is Madoff being treated with kid gloves by the court and the media?  As we can clearly see from the delayed and obstructed 9-11 tort litigation, the New York courts and U.S. mass media are Zionist controlled instruments of injustice.

Madoff, the criminal Zionist treasurer, has been under home detention since being charged with the theft of as much as $50 billion in early December 2008 (he has had a curfew between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m.).  This freedom allowed him to continue to run his criminal enterprise and send millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains to his family and friends.  Why has Madoff not been treated like a criminal, water-boarded in Gitmo, and interrogated? His friends think that is the way to treat people who are suspected of having information that is important to the welfare of the American people.  Why the special treatment for Madoff?  He should hire his own security?  What kind of joke is this?  The judge who has been so lenient with Madoff is Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

"It's all just one big lie."

- Bernard Madoff to his sons about his $50 billion "Ponzi" scheme

Fraudster Bernard L. Madoff was national treasurer of the American Jewish Congress and Yeshiva University (YU).  His business partner at YU was Sy Syms, the long-standing director of the notorious Israel Discount Bank of New York, a bank charged for laundering tens of billions of dollars in 2005.  So where did the $50 billion go?  The evidence suggests that a large amount of money went to the Zionist criminal network headed by Ehud Olmert and his cronies.

If you have read this far, you must have found this article interesting.  To support my research please donate via PayPal to: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Thank you.

If a string of similar crimes are committed in the same city by a gang of close associates from the same ethnic group with the same extremist political ideology, one would naturally think there could be a connection.  This is precisely the case with the huge financial frauds that have struck New York investment banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds.  All of the key players in the current financial crisis are Zionist Jews from a very small political/ethnic community in New York City.  But don't expect CNN or the New York Times to fill you in on the details -- the owners of these institutions are part of the same "community."

I have been pointing out the Zionist connections in 9-11 for more than 7 years and the same connections behind the current financial crisis since September.  I have been accused of being an anti-Semite because of my research.  For American Zionists and "philo-Semites" who genuflect at the word "Jew" it seems that pointing out the Zionist Jew behind a crime is actually worse that the commission of the crime itself.   Indoctrinated by the Zionist-controlled mass media, most Americans are simply unaware that all of the key players in 9-11 and the current financial crisis come from a very small club, i.e. the Zionist Jewish criminal gang in the United States and their comrades in Israel.  The Zionist criminal network is global.

Three years ago, Bernard Madoff's partner in crime Jacob Ezra Merkin (right) bought Israel's Bank Leumi from the Israeli government headed by Ariel Sharon and then finance minister Ehud Olmert.   In January 2007, Israeli State Prosecutor Eran Shendar ordered police to begin a criminal investigation into Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, on suspicion of having influenced the sale of a controlling stake in Bank Leumi.  In the Leumi case, Olmert is suspected of having tried to throw the tender to his friend, Australian real estate magnate Frank Lowy, who was a partner with Larry Silverstein and co-lease-holder of the World Trade Center on 9-11.


Jacob Ezra Merkin is one of the key players of the multi-billion dollar criminal fraud carried out by Bernerd Madoff. He is known as the chairman of GMAC, the financial service branch of General Motors and as the general partner of Gabriel Capital LP, a $5 billion family of hedge funds.  He has also been the head of the Ariel Fund, based in the Cayman Islands, and a managing partner of Gotham Capital.  Merkin secretly diverted vast amounts of money to Madoff's "Ponzi" scheme or pyramid operation.  He was seen as "the Golden Boy controlling the Golden Goose."

Merkin and Madoff served together on the board of Yeshiva University, where Merkin was chair of the investment committee and Madoff was treasurer and chair of the Sy Syms School of Business. Merkin invested Yeshiva University money into Madoff's operation.  Both quit when the scandal broke. YU has tried to erase their names from its website.

Merkin's cousin Michal is married to Uri Lupoliansky, the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem under Ehud Olmert.  Lupoliansky became mayor after Olmert in 2003.  Merkin's family is connected to the highest levels of the Israeli government through his mother, Ursula, who immigrated to Palestine in 1933 with her father Isaac Breuer.  His father, Gerson Isaak Hermann Merkin, was a fur-trading German Jew who lived in London and New York during the 1930's, years before Hitler invaded Poland, and who became a U.S. intelligence/counter-intelligence agent in 1940 -- 4 years before even becoming a U.S. citizen.  (His biographies all say that he fled from the Nazis, of course.)  Hermann made a fortune with the Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG) headed by the Israeli Raphael Recanati, and was a director of the Israel Discount Bank in New York. 
Merkin's $500 million check seen above was for the controlling shares in Bank Leumi.  The check is made out to the State of Israel and is being paid by Barnea Investments B.V. ("Barnea").  Barnea, the "preferred bidder" was incorporated in the Netherlands, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barnea S.A.R.L., which was incorporated in Luxembourg, and which is held jointly and indirectly by Stephen Feinberg (chairman of Cerberus, the owner of Chrysler) and Ezra Merkin (chairman of the now bailed-out GMAC), through the Cerberus and Gabriel private investment fund groups controlled by Feinberg and Merkin respectively.  I suspect that Stephen Feinberg is another Mossad-run criminal operator.

“We try to hide religiously.  If anyone at Cerberus has his picture in the paper and a picture of his apartment, we will do more than fire that person. We will kill him. The jail sentence will be worth it.”

- Stephen A. Feinberg on his business "philosophy"

Why is Feinberg so secretive?  Why does he "try to hide religiously?" This Feinberg is trying so hard to hide that his Who's Who biography says he is "deceased."  I have never seen that mistake made before in Who's Who for a living person.  Feinberg and his father, Martin, avoid the press like the plague.  Martin Feinberg, contacted by the Free Press (Detroit) at his home in Connecticut in May 2007, had very little to say. "We're fairly private people," he said.


The evidence indicates that Stephen Feinberg and his father avoid the limelight for one reason: they are working for Israeli military intelligence.  A "Martin Feinberg," who may be Stephen's father, made a series of trips to Israel in the mid-1950s, which is the period when a network of Israeli agents and American "sleeper" agents was created in the United States after the Israeli false-flag operation known as the Lavon Affair failed exposing Israel's attempts to bomb U.S. and British facilities in Egypt.  Like the trips to Israel made by Michael Chertoff's father and grandfather at the same time, these trips are indicative of involvement with Israeli military intelligence.  Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, the federal judge presiding over the 9-11 litigation made a similar trip in the mid-1950s, via Mexico, after finishing his education.

In May 2004, Feinberg's "private investment group," Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., named for the three-headed dog from Hell, became majority owner of IAP Worldwide Services, Inc., one of the Army’s largest contractors in Iraq.  Having given $500 million to Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon, imagine how easily Feinberg would place Israeli intelligence agents into key positions in their company providing services for the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In Afghanistan, Feinberg's IAP runs a "drugs and addiction facility" in Kunduz.  What would make IAP a proper choice to run a drug facility in the middle of the largest opium supplying nation in the world?  Could it be Feinberg's college thesis on the legalization of drugs and prostitution?

IAP also provides infrastructure support for the British Ministry of Defence in Kandahar.  In Iraq, apart from supporting the U.S. Army, IAP has a contract to provide "infrastructure project work" in Basra.  The Israelis could hardly wish for a better source of information from Afghanistan and Iraq than Stephen Feinberg.

John W. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush, was named chairman of Cerberus on 19 October 2006.  Feinberg's IAP also serves "a broad array of federal customers," including the U.S. Department of Defense, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Internal Revenue Service, and a variety of other federal agencies.

On 30 December 2008, it was reported that the U.S. Treasury will provide $6 billion more for GMAC, which is headed by Merkin and the secretive Feinberg, the two Zionist Jews who bought Bank Leumi from the State of Israel. The Treasury is now reportedly buying a $5 billion stake in GMAC and lending $1 billion to GM. The latest "loan" is in addition to $13.4 billion the Treasury lent earlier to GM and Chrysler LLC.  GM sold 51 percent of GMAC in 2006 to Feinberg's private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, which also owns Chrysler.


The latest massive financial scandal is the giant $50 billion pyramid or "Ponzi" scheme run by a New York Zionist Jew, Bernard Lawrence Madoff.   Madoff was chairman of the Syms business school at Yeshiva University with his partner, Sy Merns, a.k.a. Sy Syms, who has been a director at Israel Discount Bank (IDB) since 1991.  The IDB bank is well known for its money laundering business.

The IDB is the Israeli bank at the center of the 9-11 funding matrix connected to the Bronfman family and Israeli military intelligence.  IDB is the Israeli financial institution at the center of the Zionist crimocracy.  (See: "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11," especially the section on Joseph Ciechanover, the former chairman of IDB's New York branch.)

On January 31, 2006, a controlling interest in the Bank was acquired by an investor group led by Matthew Bronfman and Rubin Schron.  The deal gave Bronfman ownership of IDB's wholly owned subsidiary, the Israel Discount Bank of New York. Bronfman is a younger brother of Edgar Bronfman Jr., chairman and CEO of Warner Music Group Corp.

Matthew Bronfman (left) is the chairman of the board of the World Jewish Congress.  He is the son of Edgar M. Bronfman (center), former president of the WJC.  Here the Bronfmans stand with the newly elected president of the WJC, Ronald S. Lauder, after the Zionist organization known for corruption and financial irregularities held elections in New York, 10 June 2007.

The Bronfman-Schron group paid $300 million for a 26% stake, with an option on a further 25%, in IDB.  Regulators approved the transfer after the bank agreed to pay $25 million to settle a money-laundering probe of its New York unit by the Manhattan District Attorney and the New York State Banking Department.  On Dec. 17, 2005, the New York Times reported that some $2.2 billion of illegal funds had been transmitted from Brazil through the IDB in New York (IDBNY) -- but that was just the tip of the iceberg.


The Jerusalem Post reported on November 2, 2006, that the scale of money-laundering going on at the Israeli bank was much, much larger than the Brazil case reported in the New York Times.  The Post reported that U.S. regulators fined the Israel Discount Bank of New York $12 million for violating federal and state laws designed to thwart money laundering.  The Israeli bank now controlled by the Bronfmans had failed to set up an adequate program to identify and report money laundering, according to federal and state regulators. A "substantial" part of $35.4 billion in third-party wire transfers during the year ended March 2005 showed traits common to laundering operations, the complaint said.

The IDB has a long history of criminal fraud going back to the 1980s, when Merkin's father had been a director for more than 20 years: A notice to the shareholders of PEC Israel Economic Corp. from May 23, 1995, reveals the criminal nature of Israeli banks, especially the IDB, the bank Jacob Ezra Merkin's father was a director of since 1966: 

In February 1994, following a lengthy trial in Israel, the four largest banks in that country, including Israel Discount Bank Limited ("IDBL"), and its former parent IDB Holding, and members of their senior management were found guilty, in connection with acts that occurred prior to October 1983, of engaging in fraudulent securities transactions and making false statements within the meaning of certain provisions of that country's banking, securities and other laws. The violations involve activities, which terminated in October 1983, relating to shares of these Israeli institutions. Mr. Raphael Recanati, who was chief executive officer of IDBL, and Mr. Eliahu Cohen, who was a member of senior management of IDBL, are among the defendants found guilty.

Joseph Ciechanover and Merkin's father, Hermann, were both on the board of IDB Holding and Discount Investment Corp. (IDB) at the time the criminal fraud was committed. 

So, how did Madoff lose $50 thousand million?  How does $50 billion vanish?  Did it disappear to Israel through the Israel Discount Bank?

While Madoff has said that he acted alone in orchestrating the fraud, this is seen as very unlikely. There was probably a very sophisticated team working on wire transfers to secret bank accounts, perhaps at Israel Discount Bank's Swiss branch, which opened in Switzerland in 2000.  (The very building Madoff carried out his fraud from, the so-called "lipstick building" in Manhattan, is itself Israeli owned.  Like Bronfman's partner Rubin Schron, Israeli companies have been aggressively acquiring commercial real estate in the United States -- but where does their capital come from?  Israel, after all, is a recipient of billions of dollars in financial aid from the U.S. taxpayer every year.)

The Lipstick Building:  Madoff rented three floors in this Israeli-owned tower in Manhattan.  He, however, "worked" on a separate floor with a small team that used a computer system that was not connected to the rest of the company network.

John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, said: “It is very rare that a fraud of this proportion could be handled by just one man. There are trades and redemptions to be done that a 70-year-old man would have to work 20 hours a day to do.”

Madoff told two "senior employees," i.e. his sons, Mark and Andrew, at his apartment the night before his arrest that the Madoff hedge fund and his investment advisory business was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme," according to court documents.  His investment fund business was insolvent, and had been for years.

Thursday morning, December 11, at 8:30, FBI agent Theodore Cacioppi confronted Mr. Madoff. "We're here to find out if there's an innocent explanation," the agent said.

"There is no innocent explanation," Madoff said, saying he traded and lost money for institutional clients. He said he "paid investors with money that wasn't there" and expected to go to jail.

Many of Madoff's victims were fellow Jews looking for consistent returns on their investment, which his "Ponzi" scheme had been able to provide until a large number of investors tried to withdraw some $7 billion worth of funds in November.  As the Wall Street Journal reported:

News of money manager Bernard Madoff's alleged fraud sent shock waves through upscale communities in the New York area and Florida where wealthy individuals had entrusted billions of dollars to Mr. Madoff for decades.  Ira Roth, a New Jersey resident, who says his family has about $1 million invested through Mr. Madoff's firm, is "in a state of panic."

"This is going to kill so many people," said a current investor in Mr. Madoff's fund. "It's absolutely awful."

...Many of his clients knew Mr. Madoff personally but had little understanding of his investment strategy, which reported remarkably consistent returns of some 1% per month. They often referred to it as a "black box."

Madoff also allegedly said that the losses from the fraud were at least $50 billion, according to the criminal complaint. He told his sons that he was "finished," and that he had "absolutely nothing" and "it's all just one big lie."


So who is Bernard L. Madoff?  Apart from running his "investment company" and being a former chairman and director of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASDAQ), Madoff is a very committed Jewish Zionist who has served as the treasurer of two leading Zionist organizations.  Madoff is just like Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers, Sanford Weill of Citibank, and Maurice Greenberg of A.I.G., the major culprits behind the $2 trillion bail-out. 

Madoff is another New York Zionist Jew, whose grandparents and parents immigrated to the United States in the 1900s from the hotbed of Zionism in the primitive and backwards Pale of Settlement (today's Byelorussia, Poland, and Lithuania). Madoff is another Zionist "Russian" Jew who has committed a massive financial fraud and cheated Americans and others out of untold billions of dollars.

Madoff at Yeshiva University's (YU) 79th Hanukkah dinner, from the left:  Bernard L. Madoff, YU's treasurer and chairman, Syms School; Sy Syms, vice chairman, Board of Trustees; and Josh S. Weston, chairman of Boys Town Jerusalem foundation.  It should be noted that Sy Syms has long been a director of the Israel Discount Bank, a scandal plagued Israeli bank based in Tel Aviv.

Sy Syms has been a Director of Israel Discount Bank of New York since December 1991.  The Israeli bank's 2004 annual report shows Syms (standing third from left) with the other directors of the bank.  The tall one in the back is Lt. Colonel (res.) Giora Offer, president & CEO of Israel Discount Bank.  He has also been the chairman of the board of directors of Israel Discount Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. since March 2001, according to the website of IDB. The Israelis who ran IDB are (sitting) Arie Mientkavich, then chairman of both IDB and IDBNY, and Arie Sheer, general manager of IDBNY.  The New York bank has long been the IDB’s main source of profit.

Madoff is a former national treasurer of the American Jewish Congress (AJC) of New York City, one of the major Zionist organizations.  Founded by the Hungarian Zionist rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the AJC claims to be "the first Jewish Defense Agency to support the establishment of a Jewish state" and to boycott Germany in the 1930s.  In 1936 the American Jewish Congress was instrumental in establishing the World Jewish Congress (WJC).  Wise, president of the AJC, was also elected president of the WJC. Wise was a Zionist who had been trained at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, where Michael Chertoff's rabbi father and grandfather, both noted Talmudic scholars, studied and taught.

Madoff is (now was) also the treasurer of Yeshiva University, a private Jewish university in New York City, where he is chairman of the board of the university's business school, the Sy Syms School of Business, which he has endowed with large donations, from his "Ponzi" scheme no doubt.

Belfer Hall is the main building at Yeshiva University.

Isn't it lovely?

Madoff has been a member of Yeshiva University’s Board of Trustees since 1996, and was elected chairman of the board of Syms School of Business in 2000. (Yeshiva University is clearly trying to erase traces of Madoff from their website, but the cached versions remain.)

At Syms, where Madoff is the chairman of the board and Merkin headed the investment committee, "Jewish tradition provides the framework for consideration of ethical issues, an integral part of the student's education." Does the "Jewish tradition" taught at Yeshiva U. support giant "Ponzi" schemes like the one run by their chairman?  Is this the kind of business they teach the students at Syms?  Cheat the "goyim," i.e. non-Jews, and steal their money? 

That is exactly what the Talmud teaches, make no mistake about it.  The racist nature of the Talmud, and how this Jewish supremacism has manifested itself in different societies, is the main reason that Jews have been despised and expelled from so many nations throughout history.  (For an scholarly interpretation of the anti-Christian content of the Talmud see: Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, 1994)

Anyone familiar with the teachings of the Talmud, i.e. "Jewish tradition," will know that such anti-Christian schemes are at the heart of such a Talmudic, i.e. Jewish supremacist, "education."  This is why so many of the financial criminals involved in the current Zionist-produced "credit crisis" are Jewish Zionists who have been indoctrinated in such "Jewish traditions."  The Zionist criminals involved in 9-11 and the cover-up of the truth are all tied to the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, which is a similar Talmudic yeshiva and Zionist indoctrination center. 

Jacob Ezra Merkin clearly enabled Madoff's scheme to continue operating by investing hundreds of millions of dollars with Madoff.  Merkin's late father, Hermann Merkin, was a high-level Rothschild-linked director of the PEC Israel Economic Corporation for thirty-three years (1966-1999) until his death.  The PEC, which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Discount Investment Corporation, Ltd. (IDB), is primarily a central funding operation of Israeli military intelligence.  With the Merkin family's old and intimate ties with the chiefs of Israeli intelligence and banking, it is simply not credible that Ezra Merkin was unknowingly pouring millions of dollars from Orthodox Jewish investors, like those of Yeshiva University, into a money-losing operation like Bernard Madoff's investment fund.  The Madoff money did not get lost -- it was stolen by the Israeli network connected to the Merkin family.

Ezra Merkin is the vice chairman of the Ramaz School (an orthodox yeshiva), where his children attend school.  This is the same school that Alvin K. Hellerstein attended and sponsors.  Hellerstein, who has been a trustee of the Ramaz School, is the federal judge in Manhattan who has effectively hijacked all the 9-11 victims lawsuits preventing any legal discovery or trial from occurring.  Michael Mukasey, the current United States Attorney General, is also a devoted Zionist orthodox Jew who graduated from the Ramaz School.  Talk about a small world!

Merkin and Hellerstein also attend the same orthodox synagogue, Kehilath Jeshurun.  If you wonder why Merkin and Madoff are being treated with kid gloves in the courts of Manhattan, despite having stolen some $50 billion, look no further than their connections to the Israeli government and the orthodox Zionist community of New York City.  The courts in New York, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and the Dept. of Homeland Security under Michael Chertoff are all run by members of this foreign anti-Christian sect, the tiny orthodox Jewish community from New York City.


Like the Israel Discount Bank, which has a branch in New York, Yeshiva University has a branch in Israel, as does the American Jewish Congress.  Madoff has been the main treasurer of both Zionist institutions during the period he ran his giant "Ponzi" scheme.  If Madoff has lost billions of dollars, as is alleged, these institutions should certainly be investigated as possible recipients of stolen money.  Israel Discount Bank should be thoroughly investigated for its role in money laundering and criminal operations, like 9-11.

The Zionist criminal structure relies on its tax-exempt "religious" network of schools and charities.  These institutions are the frame of the Zionist criminal and racist network and should be investigated and closed if they are found to be teaching racist ideologies.  Jewish racism is no different than any other racism and should not be tolerated in a free and democratic society like America.

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Cynthia McKinney on AIPAC and Israeli.

Clear Video Link :

Note: when trying to access topic like the above, most are being blocked and taken down.

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Israeli Espionage - Part 1 of 4

Video Link :

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Charles I of England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Charles I
King of England, Scots and Ireland
Portrait by Anthony van Dyck, 1636
King of England
Reign 27 March 1625 – 30 January 1649
Coronation 2 February 1626
Predecessor James I
Successor Charles II (de jure)
Council of State (de facto)
King of Scots
Reign 27 March 1625 – 30 January 1649
Coronation 8 June 1633
Predecessor James VI
Successor Charles II
Consort Henrietta Maria of France
Charles II
Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange
James II and VII
Princess Elizabeth
Princess Anne
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester
Henrietta, Duchess of Orléans
House House of Stuart
Father James VI
Mother Anne of Denmark
Born 19 November 1600(1600-11-19)
Dunfermline, Scotland
Baptised 23 December 1601
Dunfermline, Scotland
Died 30 January 1649 (aged 48)
Whitehall, England
Burial 7 February 1649
Windsor, England
Charles I (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649), second son of James I, was King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 27 March 1625 until his execution on 30 January 1649.[1] Charles famously engaged in a struggle for power with the Parliament of England. He was an advocate of the Divine Right of Kings,[2] which was the belief that kings received their power from God. This Divine Right of Kings could not be taken away (unlike the similar Mandate of Heaven), even if he was stripped of his power. Many subjects of England feared that he was attempting to gain absolute power. Many of his actions, particularly the levying of taxes without Parliament's consent, caused widespread opposition.[3]

Religious conflicts permeated Charles' reign. He married a Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria of France, over the objections of Parliament and public opinion.[4][5] He further allied himself with controversial religious figures, including the ecclesiastic Richard Montagu and William Laud, whom Charles appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Many of Charles's subjects felt this brought the Church of England too close to Roman Catholicism. Charles's later attempts to force religious reforms upon Scotland led to the Bishops' Wars that weakened England's government and helped precipitate his downfall.

His last years were marked by the English Civil War, in which he was opposed by the forces of the English and Scottish Parliaments, which challenged his attempts to augment his own power, and by Puritans, who were hostile to his religious policies and supposed Catholic sympathies. Charles was defeated in the First Civil War (1642–45), after which Parliament expected him to accept demands for a constitutional monarchy. He instead remained defiant by attempting to forge an alliance with Scotland and escaping to the Isle of Wight. This provoked a Second Civil War (1648–49) and a second defeat for Charles, who was subsequently captured, tried, convicted, and executed for high treason. The monarchy was then abolished and a republic called the Commonwealth of England, also referred to as the Cromwellian Interregnum, was declared. Charles's son, Charles II, became King after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.[3] In that same year, Charles I was canonized by the Church of England.[6]

Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Early reign
3 Personal rule
3.1 Economic problems
4 Religious conflicts
5 "Short" and "Long" Parliaments
6 English Civil War
7 Trial
8 Execution
9 Legacy
10 Assessments
11 Titles, styles, honours and arms
11.1 Titles and styles
11.2 Honours
11.3 Arms
12 Ancestry
13 Marriage and issue
14 See also
15 References
16 Further reading
17 External links
17.1 Books about Charles I available online

[edit] Early life
Plaque for Charles I, located near Dunfermline Palace.The second son of James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark, Charles was born in Dunfermline, Fife, on 19 November 1600,[3][7] and, until the age of three, was unable to walk or talk. His paternal grandmother was Mary, Queen of Scots, who had been beheaded by Elizabeth I of England on 8 February 1587.

When Elizabeth died in March 1603 and James VI of Scotland became King of England as James I, Charles was originally left in Scotland in the care of nurses and servants because it was feared that the journey would damage his fragile health.[8] He did make the journey in July 1604 and was subsequently placed under the charge of Alletta (Hogenhove) Carey, the Dutch-born wife of courtier Sir Robert Carey, who taught him how to walk and talk and insisted that he wear boots made of Spanish leather and brass to help strengthen his weak ankles. When Charles was an adult he was 5 feet 3 inches (162 cm) tall.

Charles as Duke of York and Albany, c. 1611Charles was not as valued as his elder brother, Henry, Prince of Wales; Charles himself adored Henry and tried to emulate him. In 1603, Charles was created Duke of Albany, with the subsidiary titles Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch the sixth, in Scotland. Two years later, Charles was created Duke of York, as was then, and remains, customary in the case of the Sovereign's second son.

When his elder brother died of typhoid at the age of 18 in 1612, two weeks before Charles's 12th birthday, Charles became heir apparent (and the eldest living son of the Sovereign, thus automatically gaining several titles including Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay) and was subsequently created the Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in November 1616. His sister Elizabeth married Frederick V, Elector Palatine in 1613 and moved to Heidelberg.

Charles as Prince of Wales by Isaac Oliver, 1615.The new Prince of Wales was greatly influenced by his father's favourite, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham.[9] The two of them travelled incognito to Spain in 1623 to reach agreement on the long-pending Spanish Match between Charles and Infanta Maria Anna of Spain, the daughter of King Philip III of Spain. The trip ended badly, however, as the Spanish demanded that Charles convert to Roman Catholicism and remain in Spain for a year after the wedding as a sort of hostage to ensure England's compliance with all the terms of the treaty. Charles was outraged, and upon their return in October, he and Buckingham demanded that King James declare war on Spain.

Scottish and English Royalty
House of Stuart
Charles I
   Charles II
   James II & VII
   Henry, Duke of Gloucester
   Mary, Princess Royal
   Henrietta, Duchess of Orléans
With the encouragement of his Protestant advisers, James summoned Parliament so that he could request subsidies for a war effort. James also requested that Parliament sanction the marriage between the Prince of Wales and Princess Henrietta Maria of France, whom Charles met in Paris whilst en route to Spain. It was a good match since she was a sister of Louis XIII (their father, Henry IV, had died during her childhood). Parliament agreed to the marriage, but was extremely critical of the prior attempt to arrange a marital alliance with Spain. James was growing senile and as a result was finding it extremely difficult to control Parliament—the same problem would later haunt Charles during his reign. During the last year of James's reign, actual power was held not by him but by Charles and the Duke of Buckingham.

Both Charles and James were advocates of the Divine Right of Kings, but James listened to the views of his subjects and favoured compromise and consensus. Charles I was shy and diffident, but also self-righteous, stubborn, opinionated, determined and confrontational. Charles believed he had no need to compromise or even explain his rules and that he was only answerable to God. He famously said: "Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone,"[10][11] "I mean to show what I should speak in actions." Those actions were open to misinterpretation, and there were fears as early as 1626 that he was a potential tyrant.

[edit] Early reign
On 11 May 1625 Charles was married by proxy to Henrietta Maria of France, nine years his junior. In his first Parliament, which he opened in May, many members were opposed to his marriage to Henrietta Maria, a Roman Catholic, fearing that Charles would lift restrictions on Roman Catholics and undermine the official establishment of Protestantism. Although he stated to Parliament that he would not relax restrictions relating to recusants, he promised to do exactly that in a secret marriage treaty with Louis XIII. The couple were married in person on 13 June 1625, in Canterbury. Charles was crowned on 2 February 1626 at Westminster Abbey, but without his wife at his side due to the controversy. Charles and Henrietta had seven children, with three sons and three daughters surviving infancy.[12]

Sir Anthony Van Dyck: Charles I painted in April 1634Distrust of Charles's religious policies increased with his support of a controversial ecclesiastic, Richard Montagu. In a pamphlet, Montagu had argued against the teachings of John Calvin, thereby bringing himself into disrepute amongst the Puritans. After a Puritan member of the House of Commons, John Pym, attacked Montagu's pamphlet during debate, Montagu requested the king's aid in another pamphlet entitled "Appello Caesarem" (Latin "I appeal to Caesar", a reference to an appeal against Jewish persecution made by Saint Paul the Apostle).[13] Charles made the cleric one of his royal chaplains, increasing many Puritans' suspicions as to where Charles would lead the Church.

Charles's primary concern during his early reign was foreign policy. The Thirty Years' War, originally confined to Bohemia, was spiralling out of control into a wider war between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. In 1620, Frederick V, Elector Palatine, the husband of Charles's sister Elizabeth, had lost his hereditary lands in the Palatinate to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II. Having agreed to help his brother-in-law regain the Palatinate, Charles declared war on Spain, hoping to force the Catholic Spanish King Philip IV to intercede with the Emperor on Frederick's behalf.

Parliament preferred an inexpensive naval attack on Spanish colonies in the New World, hoping that the capture of the Spanish treasure fleets could finance the war. Charles, however, preferred more aggressive (and more expensive) action on the Continent. Parliament only voted to grant a subsidy of £140,000; an insufficient sum for Charles. Moreover, the House of Commons limited its authorization for royal collection of tonnage and poundage (two varieties of customs duties) to a period of one year, although previous sovereigns since 1414 had been granted the right for life. In this manner, Parliament could keep a check on expenditures by forcing Charles to seek the renewal of the grant each year. Charles's allies in the House of Lords, led by the Duke of Buckingham, refused to pass the bill. Although no Parliamentary authority for the levy of tonnage and poundage was obtained, Charles continued to collect the duties anyway.

The war with Spain went badly, largely due to Buckingham's incompetent leadership. Despite Parliament's protests, however, Charles refused to dismiss him, dismissing Parliament instead. He then provoked further unrest by trying to raise money for the war through a "forced loan" -- a tax levied without Parliamentary consent. Although partially successful in collecting the tax, Charles let the money dribble away in yet another military fiasco led by Buckingham. Summoned again in 1628, Parliament adopted a Petition of Right on 26 May, calling upon the King to acknowledge that he could not levy taxes without Parliament's consent, impose martial law on civilians, imprison them without due process, or quarter troops in their homes. Charles assented to the petition, though he continued to claim the right to collect customs duties without authorization from Parliament. Then, on 23 August 1628, Buckingham was assassinated. Although the death of Buckingham effectively ended the war and eliminated his leadership as an issue, it did not end the conflicts between Charles and Parliament over taxation and religious matters.[14]

[edit] Personal rule
"Charles I, King of England, from Three Angles", the "Triple Portrait".In January 1629, Charles opened the second session of the Parliament, which had been prorogued in June 1628, with a moderate speech on the tonnage and poundage issue. Members of the House of Commons began to voice their opposition in light of the Rolle case. Rolle was an MP whose goods were confiscated when he failed to pay tonnage and poundage. Many MPs viewed the confiscation as a breach of the Petition of Right,[15] arguing that the petition's freedom-from-arrest privilege extended to goods. When Charles ordered a parliamentary adjournment in March, members held the Speaker, Sir John Finch, down in his chair whilst three resolutions against Charles were read aloud. The last of these resolutions declared that anyone who paid tonnage or poundage not authorised by Parliament would "be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy to the same". Though the resolution was not formally passed, many members declared their approval. That a number of MPs had to be detained in Parliament is relevant in understanding that there was no universal opposition towards the King. Nevertheless, the provocation was too much for Charles, who dissolved parliament the same day.[16][17] Immediately, he made peace with France and Spain. The following eleven years, during which Charles ruled without a Parliament, are called either The Eleven Years Tyranny or The The Personal Rule. (Ruling without Parliament, though an exceptional exercise of the royal prerogative, was supported by precedent. By the middle of the 17th century, opinion shifted, and many held the Personal Rule to be an illegitimate exercise of arbitrary, absolute power.)

[edit] Economic problems
After making peace, Charles still had to acquire funds in order to maintain his treasury. To raise revenue without reconvening Parliament, Charles first resurrected an all-but-forgotten law called the "Distraint of Knighthood," promulgated in 1279, which required anyone who earned £40 or more each year to present himself at the King's coronation to join the royal army as a knight. Relying on this old statute, Charles fined all individuals who had failed to attend his coronation in 1626.

Later, Charles reintroduced an obsolete feudal tax known as ship money, which proved even more unpopular. Under statutes of Edward I and Edward III, collection of ship money had been authorized only during wars. Charles, however, sought to collect the tax during peacetime. Although the first writ levying ship money, issued in 1634, did not provoke much immediate opposition, the second and third writs, issued in 1635 and 1636, aroused strong opposition, as it was clear that Charles' intention was to revoke the ancient prohibition on collecting ship money during peacetime. Many attempted to resist payment, but the royal courts declared that the tax was within the King's prerogative. The collection was a major concern to the ruling class.

Personal Rule ended after the attempted enforcement of the Anglican and increasingly Arminian styled prayer book under Laud that precipitated a rebellion in Scotland in 1640.[18]

[edit] Religious conflicts
Charles wished to move the Church of England away from Calvinism in a more traditional and sacramental direction.[19] This goal was shared by his main political adviser, Archbishop William Laud. Laud was appointed by Charles as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633,[20][21] and started a series of unpopular reforms in an attempt to impose order and authority on the church. Laud attempted to ensure religious uniformity by dismissing non-conformist clergymen and closing Puritan organizations. This was actively hostile to the Reformed tendencies of many of his king's English and Scottish subjects. His policy was obnoxious to Calvinist theology, and insisted that the Church of England's liturgy be celebrated using the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. Laud was also an advocate of Arminian theology, a view whose emphasis on the ability to reject salvation was viewed as heretical and virtually "Catholic" by strict Calvinists.

William Laud shared Charles's views on CalvinismTo punish those who refused to accept his reforms, Laud used the two most feared and most arbitrary courts in the land, the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber. The former could compel individuals to provide self-incriminating testimony, whilst the latter could inflict any punishment whatsoever (including torture), with the sole exception of death.

The lawlessness of the Court of Star Chamber under Charles far exceeded that under any of his predecessors. Under Charles's reign, defendants were regularly hauled before the Court without indictment, due process of the law, or right to confront witnesses, and their testimonies were routinely extracted by the Court through torture.

The first years of the Personal Rule were marked by peace in England, to some extent due to tighter central control. Several individuals opposed Charles's taxes and Laud's policies. For example, in 1634, the ship Griffin left for America carrying religious dissidents, such as the Puritan minister Anne Hutchinson. However, the overall trend of the early Personal Rule period is one of peace. When, however, Charles attempted to impose his religious policies in Scotland he faced numerous difficulties. The King ordered the use of a new Prayer Book modelled on the English Book of Common Prayer, which, although supported by the Scottish Bishops, was resisted by many Presbyterian Scots, who saw the new Prayer Book as a vehicle for introducing Anglicanism to Scotland. When the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland abolished Episcopalian government (that is, governance of the Church by bishops) in 1638, replacing it with Presbyterian government (that is, governance by elders and deacons), Charles sought to put down what he saw as a rebellion against his authority.

In 1639, when the First Bishops' War broke out, Charles sought to collect taxes from his subjects, who refused to yield any further. Charles's war ended in a humiliating truce in June of the same year. In the Pacification of Berwick, Charles agreed to grant his Scottish subjects civil and ecclesiastical freedoms.

Charles's military failure in the First Bishops' War in turn caused a financial and military crisis for Charles, which caused the end of Personal Rule. Due to his financial weakness, Charles was forced to call Parliament into session by 1640 in an attempt to raise funds. While the ruling class's grievances with the changes to government and finance during the Personal Rule period were a contributing factor in the Scottish Rebellion, the key issue of religion was the main reason that forced Charles to confront the ruling class in Parliament for the first time in eleven years. In essence, it was Charles's and Laud's confrontational religious modifications that ended what the Whig historians refer to as "The Eleven Years of Tyranny".

[edit] "Short" and "Long" Parliaments
Disputes regarding the interpretation of the peace treaty between Charles and the Church of Scotland led to further conflict. To subdue the Scots, Charles needed more money; therefore, he took the fateful step of recalling Parliament in April 1640. Although Charles offered to repeal ship money, and the House of Commons agreed to allow Charles to raise the funds for war, an impasse was reached when Parliament demanded the discussion of various abuses of power during the Personal Rule. As both sides refused to give ground on this matter, Parliament was dissolved in May 1640, less than a month after it assembled; thus, the Parliament became known as the "Short Parliament."[22]

Portrait of Charles I with Seignior de St AntoineIn the meantime, Charles attempted to defeat the Scots, but failed miserably. The humiliating Treaty of Ripon, signed after the end of the Second Bishops' War in October 1640, required the King to pay the expenses of the Scottish army he had just fought. Charles took the unusual step of summoning the magnum concilium, the ancient council of all the Peers of the Realm, who were considered the King's hereditary counsellors. The magnum concilium had not been summoned for centuries. On the advice of the peers, Charles summoned another Parliament, which, in contrast with its predecessor, became known as the Long Parliament.

The Long Parliament assembled in November 1640 under the leadership of John Pym, and proved just as difficult for Charles as the Short Parliament. Although the members of the House of Commons thought of themselves as conservatives defending the King, Church and Parliamentary government against innovations in religion and the tyranny of Charles's advisors, Charles viewed many of them as dangerous rebels trying to undermine his rule.

To prevent the King from dissolving it at will, Parliament passed the Triennial Act, to which the Royal Assent was granted in February 1641. The Act required that Parliament was to be summoned at least once every three years, and that when the King failed to issue proper summons, the members could assemble on their own. In May, he assented to an even more far-reaching Act, which provided that Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent. Charles was forced into one concession after another. He agreed to bills of attainder authorising the executions of Thomas Wentworth and William Laud. Ship money, fines in destraint of knighthood and forced loans were declared unlawful, and the hated Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission were abolished. Although he made several important concessions, Charles improved his own military position by securing the favour of the Scots. He finally agreed to the official establishment of Presbyterianism; in return, he was able to enlist considerable anti-parliamentary support.

Henrietta Maria (c. 1633) by Sir Anthony van DyckIn November 1641, the House of Commons passed the Grand Remonstrance, a long list of grievances against actions by Charles's ministers that were asserted to be abuses of royal power Charles had committed since the beginning of his reign. The tension was heightened when the Irish rebelled against Protestant English rule and rumours of Charles's complicity reached Parliament. An army was required to put down the rebellion but many members of the House of Commons feared that Charles might later use it against Parliament itself. The Militia Bill was intended to wrest control of the army from the King, but Charles refused to agree to it. However, Parliament decreed The Protestation as an attempt to lessen the conflict.

When rumours reached Charles that Parliament intended to impeach his Catholic Queen, Henrietta Maria, he took drastic action. It was possibly Henrietta who persuaded him to arrest the five members of the House of Commons who were perceived to be the most troublesome on charges of high treason. Charles intended to carry out the arrests personally but news of the warrant reached Parliament ahead of him and the wanted men; Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode and Sir Arthur Haselrig had already slipped away by the time he arrived. Charles entered the House of Commons with an armed force on 4 January 1642, but found that his opponents had already escaped. Having displaced the Speaker, William Lenthall from his chair, the King asked him where the MPs had fled. Lenthall famously replied, "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."[23] No monarch has entered the Commons chamber since.

The botched arrest attempt was politically disastrous for Charles. It caused acute embarrassment for the monarch and essentially triggered the total breakdown of government in England. Afterwards, Charles could no longer feel safe in London and he began travelling north to raise an army against Parliament; the Queen, at the same time, went abroad to raise money to pay for it.

[edit] English Civil War
Main article: English Civil War
The English Civil War had not yet started, but both sides began to arm. Following futile negotiations, Charles raised the royal standard (an anachronistic medieval gesture) in Nottingham on 22 August 1642. He then set up his court at Oxford, when his government controlled roughly the Midlands, Wales, the West Country and north of England. Parliament remained in control of London and the south-east as well as East Anglia. Charles raised an army using the archaic method of the Commission of Array. The Civil War started on 26 October 1642 with the inconclusive Battle of Edgehill and continued indecisively through 1643 and 1644, until the Battle of Naseby tipped the military balance decisively in favour of Parliament. There followed a great number of defeats for the Royalists, and then the Siege of Oxford, from which Charles escaped in April 1646.[24] He put himself into the hands of the Scottish Presbyterian army at Newark, and was taken to nearby Southwell while his "hosts" decided what to do with him. The Presbyterians finally arrived at an agreement with Parliament and delivered Charles to them in 1647. He was imprisoned at Holdenby House in Northamptonshire, until cornet George Joyce took him by force to Newmarket in the name of the New Model Army. At this time mutual suspicion had developed between the New Model Army and Parliament, and Charles was eager to exploit it.

He was then transferred first to Oatlands and then to Hampton Court, where more involved but fruitless negotiations took place. He was persuaded that it would be in his best interests to escape — perhaps abroad, perhaps to France, or perhaps to the custody of Colonel Robert Hammond, Parliamentary Governor of the Isle of Wight.[25] He decided on the last course, believing Hammond to be sympathetic, and fled on 11 November.[26] Hammond, however, was opposed to Charles, whom he confined in Carisbrooke Castle.[27]

From Carisbrooke, Charles continued to try to bargain with the various parties, eventually coming to terms with the Scottish Presbyterians that he would allow the establishment of Presbyterianism in England as well as Scotland for a trial period. The Royalists rose in July 1648 igniting the Second Civil War, and as agreed with Charles the Scots invaded England. Most of the uprisings in England were put down by forces loyal to Parliament after little more than skirmishes, but uprisings in Kent, Essex and Cumberland, the rebellion in Wales and the Scottish invasion involved the fighting of pitched battles and prolonged sieges. But with the defeat of the Scots at the Battle of Preston, the Royalists lost any chance of winning the war.

[edit] Trial
Main article: High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I
A plate depicting the Trial of Charles I on January 4, 1649.Charles was moved to Hurst Castle at the end of 1648, and thereafter to Windsor Castle. In January 1649, in response to Charles's defiance of Parliament even after defeat, and his encouraging the second Civil War while in captivity, the House of Commons passed an Act of Parliament creating a court for Charles's trial. After the first Civil War, the parliamentarians accepted the premise that the King, although wrong, had been able to justify his fight, and that he would still be entitled to limited powers as King under a new constitutional settlement. It was now felt that by provoking the second Civil War even while defeated and in captivity, Charles showed himself incorrigible, dishonourable, and responsible for unjustifiable bloodshed.

The idea of trying a king was a novel one; previous monarchs had been deposed, but had never been brought to trial as monarchs. The High Court of Justice established by the Act consisted of 135 Commissioners but only about half of that number ever sat in judgement (all firm Parliamentarians); the prosecution was led by Solicitor General John Cooke.

His trial on charges of high treason and "other high crimes" began on 20 January 1649, but Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch.[28] He believed that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that which grew out of a barrel of gunpowder. In fact, when urged to enter a plea, he stated his objection with the words: "I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority...?"[28] The court, by contrast, proposed an interpretation of the law that legitimized the trial, which was founded on

"...the fundamental proposition that the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern ‘by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise’.[29]
The trial began with a moment of high drama. After the proceedings were declared open, Solicitor General John Cooke rose to announce the indictment; standing immediately to the right of the King, he began to speak, but he had only uttered a few words when Charles attempted to stop him by tapping him sharply on the shoulder with his cane and ordering him to "Hold". Cooke ignored this and continued, so Charles poked him a second time and rose to speak; despite this, Cooke continued his speech.

At this point Charles, incensed at being thus ignored, struck Cooke across the shoulder so forcefully that the ornate silver tip of the cane broke off, rolled down Cooke's gown and clattered onto the floor between them. Charles then ordered Cooke to pick it up, but Cooke again ignored him, and after a long pause, Charles stooped to retrieve it.[28][30]

Over a period of a week, when Charles was asked to plead three times, he refused. It was then normal practice to take a refusal to plead as pro confesso: an admission of guilt, which meant that the prosecution could not call witnesses to its case. However, the trial did hear witnesses. Fifty-nine of the Commissioners signed Charles's death warrant, possibly at the Red Lion Inn in Stathern, Leicestershire[31] on 29 January 1649.

After the ruling, he was led from St. James's Palace, where he was confined, to the Palace of Whitehall, where an execution scaffold had been erected in front of the Banqueting House.

[edit] Execution
This contemporary German print depicts Charles I's decapitation.Charles was beheaded on Tuesday 30 January 1649. At the execution it is reputed that he wore two cotton shirts as to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear or weakness. He put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. His last words were, "I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."[3]

Philip Henry records that moments after the execution, a moan was heard from the assembled crowd, some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in his blood, thus starting the cult of the Martyr King. However, no other eyewitness source, including Samuel Pepys, records this. Henry's account was written during the Restoration, some 12 years after the event though Henry was 19 when the King was executed and he and his family were Royalist propaganda writers.[1]

The executioner was masked, and there is some debate over his identity. It is known that the Commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common Hangman of London, but that he refused, and contemporary sources do not generally identify him as the King's headsman. Ellis's Historical Inquiries, however, names him as the executioner, contending that he stated so before dying. It is possible he relented and agreed to undertake the commission, but there are others who have been identified. An Irishman named Gunning is widely believed to have beheaded Charles, and a plaque naming him as the executioner is on show in the Kings Head pub in Galway, Ireland. William Hewlett was convicted of regicide after the Restoration.[32] In 1661, two people identified as "Dayborne and Bickerstaffe" were arrested but then discharged. Henry Walker, a revolutionary journalist, or his brother William, were suspected but never charged. Various local legends around England name local worthies. An examination performed in 1813 at Windsor suggests that the execution was done by an experienced headsman.

It was common practice for the head of a traitor to be held up and exhibited to the crowd with the words "Behold the head of a traitor!" Although Charles's head was exhibited, the words were not used. In an unprecedented gesture, one of the revolutionary leaders, Oliver Cromwell, allowed the King's head to be sewn back onto his body so the family could pay its respects. Charles was buried in private on the night of 7 February 1649, inside the Henry VIII vault in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. The royal retainers Sir Thomas Herbert, Capt. Anthony Mildmay, Sir Henry Firebrace, William Levett Esq. and Abraham Dowcett (sometimes spelled Dowsett) conveyed the King's body to Windsor.[33][34] The King's son, King Charles II, later planned an elaborate royal mausoleum, but it was never built.

Ten days after Charles's execution, a memoir purporting to be from Charles's hand appeared for sale. This book, the Eikon Basilike (Greek: the "Royal Portrait"), contained an apologia for royal policies, and it proved an effective piece of royalist propaganda. William Levett, Charles's groom of the bedchamber, who accompanied Charles on the day of his execution, swore that he had personally witnessed the King writing the Eikon Basilike.[35] John Cooke published the speech he would have delivered if Charles had entered a plea, while Parliament commissioned John Milton to write a rejoinder, the Eikonoklastes ("The Iconoclast"), but the response made little headway against the pathos of the royalist book.[36]

Various prodigies were recorded in the contemporary popular press in relation to the execution - a beached whale at Dover died within an hour of the King; a falling star appeared that night over Whitehall; a man who had said that the King deserved to die had his eyes pecked out by crows.[citation needed]

[edit] Legacy
With the monarchy overthrown, power was assumed by a Council of State, which included Lord Fairfax, then Lord General of the Parliamentary Army, and Oliver Cromwell. The Long Parliament (known by then as the Rump Parliament) which had been called by Charles I in 1640 continued to exist (with varying influence) until Cromwell forcibly disbanded it completely in 1653. Cromwell then became Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland; a monarch in all but name: he was even "invested" on the royal coronation chair. Upon his death in 1658, Cromwell was briefly succeeded by his son, Richard Cromwell. Richard Cromwell was an ineffective ruler, and the Long Parliament was reinstated in 1659. The Long Parliament dissolved itself in 1660, and the first elections in twenty years led to the election of a Convention Parliament which restored Charles I's eldest son to the monarchy as Charles II.

The Colony of Carolina in North America was named for Charles I, as was the major city of Charleston. Carolina later separated into North Carolina and South Carolina, which eventually declared independence from Great Britain during the formation of the United States. To the north in the Virginia Colony, Cape Charles, the Charles River, Charles River Shire, and Charles City Shire were named for him. Charles personally named the Charles River after himself.[37] Charles City Shire survives almost 400 years later as Charles City County, Virginia. The Virginia Colony is now the Commonwealth of Virginia (one of the four U.S. states that are called commonwealths), and retains its official nickname of "The Old Dominion" bestowed by Charles II because it had remained loyal to Charles I during the English Civil War.

English furniture produced during the reign of Charles I is distinctive and is commonly characterised as Charles I period.

[edit] Assessments
Archbishop William Laud described Charles as "A mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or how to be made, great."[38]

Ralph Dutton says - "In spite of his intelligence and cultivation, Charles was curiously inept in his contacts with human beings. Socially, he was tactless and diffident, and his manner was not helped by his stutter and thick Scottish accent, while in public he was seldom able to make a happy impression."[39]

[edit] Titles, styles, honours and arms

[edit] Titles and styles
Royal styles of
Charles I of England

Reference style His Majesty
Spoken style Your Majesty
Alternative style Sire
19 November 1600 – 27 March 1625: Prince (or Lord) Charles
23 December 1603 – 27 March 1625: The Duke of Albany
6 January 1605 – 27 March 1625: The Duke of York
6 November 1612 – 27 March 1625: The Duke of Cornwall
4 November 1616 – 27 March 1625: The Prince of Wales
27 March 1625 – 30 January 1649: His Majesty The King
During his time as heir-apparent, Charles held the titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of York, Duke of Albany, Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Ross, Baron Renfrew, Lord Ardmannoch, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

The official style of Charles I was "Charles, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc." (The claim to France was only nominal, and was asserted by every English King from Edward III to George III, regardless of the amount of French territory actually controlled.) The authors of his death warrant, however, did not wish to use the religious portions of his title. It only referred to him as "Charles Stuart, King of England".

[edit] Honours
Memorial to Charles I at Carisbrooke Castle, Isle of WightKG: Knight of the Garter, 24 April 1611 – 27 March 1625

[edit] Arms
As Duke of York, Charles bore the arms of the kingdom, differenced by a label argent of three points, each bearing three torteaux gules. As Prince of Wales he bore the arms of the kingdom, differenced by a label argent of three points.[40] Whilst he was King, Charles I's arms were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); II Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland).

[edit] Ancestry
Of Charles's 14 great-great-grandparents, 5 were German, 4 Scottish, 1 English, 2 French, 1 Danish and 1 Polish, giving him a thoroughly cosmopolitan background.

[show]v • d • eAncestors of Charles I of England
  16. John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Lennox
  8. Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox  
  17. Elizabeth Stewart
  4. Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley  
  18. Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus
  9. Margaret Douglas  
  19. Margaret Tudor
  2. James I of England  
  20. James IV of Scotland
  10. James V of Scotland  
  21. Margaret Tudor (= 19)
  5. Mary I of Scotland  
  22. Claude, Duke of Guise
  11. Mary of Guise  
  23. Antoinette de Bourbon
  1. Charles I of England  
  24. Frederick I of Denmark
  12. Christian III of Denmark  
  25. Anna of Brandenburg
  6. Frederick II of Denmark  
  26. Magnus I, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg
  13. Dorothea of Saxe-Lauenburg  
  27. Catherine of Braunschweig
  3. Anne of Denmark  
  28. Albert VII, Duke of Mecklenburg-Güstrow
  14. Ulrich III of Mecklenburg-Güstrow  
  29. Margravine Anna of Brandenburg (not 25)
  7. Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow  
  30. Frederick I of Denmark (= 24)
  15. Elizabeth of Denmark  
  31. Sophie of Pomerania

[edit] Marriage and issue
Painting of Charles I's children. The future Charles II is depicted at centre, stroking the dogMain article: Descendants of Charles I of England
Charles was father to a total of seven legitimate children, two of whom would eventually succeed him as king. His wife also had two stillbirths.[41]

Charles is also believed to have had a daughter, prior to his marriage with Henrietta Maria. Her name was Joanna Brydges, born 1619-20, the daughter of a Miss Brydges ("a member of a younger branch of the ancient Kentish family of that name"), possibly from the line of Brydges of Chandos and Sudeley. Joanna Brydges who was provided for by the estate of Mandinam, Carmarthenshire, was brought up in secrecy at Glamorgan, Wales. She went on to become second wife to Bishop Jeremy Taylor, author of Holy Living and Holy Dying and chaplain to both Archbishop Laud and Charles I. The Bishop and his wife Joanna Brydges left for Ireland, where Jeremy Taylor became Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore in 1660. Joanna Brydges and Jeremy Taylor had several children, including two daughters, Joanna Taylor (Harrison) and Mary Taylor (Marsh).[42][43][44]

Name Birth Death Notes
Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland 29 May 1630 6 February 1685 Married Catherine of Braganza (1638 - 1705) in 1663. No legitimate issue. Charles II is believed to have fathered such illegitimate children as James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, who later rose against James VII and II.
Mary, Princess Royal 4 November 1631 24 December 1660 Married William II, Prince of Orange (1626 - 1650) in 1641. She had one child: William III of England
James VII and II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland 14 October 1633 16 September 1701 Married (1) Anne Hyde (1637 - 1671) in 1659. Had issue including Mary II of England and Anne of England;
Married (2) Mary of Modena (1658 - 1718) in 1673. Had issue.
Elizabeth, Princess of England 29 December 1635 8 September 1650 No issue.
Anne, Princess of England 17 March 1637 8 December 1640 Died young. No issue.
Henry, Duke of Gloucester 8 July 1640 18 September 1660 No issue.
Henrietta Anne, Princess of England 16 June 1644 30 June 1670 Married Philip I, Duke of Orléans (1640 - 1701) in 1661. Had legitimate issue. Among her descendants were the kings of Sardinia and Italy.


Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
[edit] Marriage and issue
Painting of Charles I's children. The future Charles II is depicted at centre, stroking the dogMain article: Descendants of Charles I of England
Charles was father to a total of seven legitimate children, two of whom would eventually succeed him as king. His wife also had two stillbirths.[41]

Charles is also believed to have had a daughter, prior to his marriage with Henrietta Maria. Her name was Joanna Brydges, born 1619-20, the daughter of a Miss Brydges ("a member of a younger branch of the ancient Kentish family of that name"), possibly from the line of Brydges of Chandos and Sudeley. Joanna Brydges who was provided for by the estate of Mandinam, Carmarthenshire, was brought up in secrecy at Glamorgan, Wales. She went on to become second wife to Bishop Jeremy Taylor, author of Holy Living and Holy Dying and chaplain to both Archbishop Laud and Charles I. The Bishop and his wife Joanna Brydges left for Ireland, where Jeremy Taylor became Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore in 1660. Joanna Brydges and Jeremy Taylor had several children, including two daughters, Joanna Taylor (Harrison) and Mary Taylor (Marsh).[42][43][44]

Name Birth Death Notes
Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland 29 May 1630 6 February 1685 Married Catherine of Braganza (1638 - 1705) in 1663. No legitimate issue. Charles II is believed to have fathered such illegitimate children as James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, who later rose against James VII and II.
Mary, Princess Royal 4 November 1631 24 December 1660 Married William II, Prince of Orange (1626 - 1650) in 1641. She had one child: William III of England
James VII and II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland 14 October 1633 16 September 1701 Married (1) Anne Hyde (1637 - 1671) in 1659. Had issue including Mary II of England and Anne of England;
Married (2) Mary of Modena (1658 - 1718) in 1673. Had issue.
Elizabeth, Princess of England 29 December 1635 8 September 1650 No issue.
Anne, Princess of England 17 March 1637 8 December 1640 Died young. No issue.
Henry, Duke of Gloucester 8 July 1640 18 September 1660 No issue.
Henrietta Anne, Princess of England 16 June 1644 30 June 1670 Married Philip I, Duke of Orléans (1640 - 1701) in 1661. Had legitimate issue. Among her descendants were the kings of Sardinia and Italy.

[edit] See also
 Saints portal
List of regicides of Charles I
Society of King Charles the Martyr
Cultural depictions of Charles I of England

[edit] References
^ a b "History — Charles I (1600–1649)". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ "Charles I (of England)". MSN Encarta. Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ a b c d "Charles I (r. 1625–49)". Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ "Queen Henrietta Maria, 1609–69". Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ "Queen Henrietta Maria, 1609–69". Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ "Charles, King and Martyr". SKCM. Retrieved on 2008-10-16. 
^ "Memorable Christians". Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ "Charles I Undiscovered Scotland: The Ultimate Online Guide". Undiscovered Retrieved on 2008-04-24. 
^ "Charles I (1625-49 AD)". Retrieved on 17 October 2007. 
^ "Lecture 7: The English Civil War". History Guide. Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ "Timeline - English Civil War". History on the Net. Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ "Info Please: Charle I's Early Life". Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ See Acts 25:10-12 (NRSV translation): "Paul said, 'I am appealing to the emperor's tribunal; this is where I should be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you very well know. 11Now if I am in the wrong and have committed something for which I deserve to die, I am not trying to escape death; but if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can turn me over to them. I appeal to the emperor.' 12Then Festus, after he had conferred with his council, replied, 'You have appealed to the emperor; to the emperor you will go.'"
^ J.P. Kenyon, Stuart England, pp. 96-97, 101-05 (Harmondsworth, England, Penguin Books, 1978); Simon Schama, A History of England, Vol. II, pp. 69-74 (New York, Simon and Schuster, 2001).
^ "Info Please: Charles I's Reign". Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ Kenyon, pp. [105-06 "Kenyon"]. 105-06. 
^ "Historic Figures: Charles I (1600 - 1649)". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved on 17 October 2007. 
^ Murphy, p.211-235
^ "Charles I of England". Retrieved on 2008-04-24. 
^ "Archbishop William Laud, 1573-1645". Retrieved on 2008-04-24. 
^ "William Laud". Retrieved on 2008-04-24. 
^ "CHARLES I (r. 1625-49)". Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "Some predecessors kept their nerve, others lost their heads". The Daily Telegraph. 28 October 2000. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "Info Please: Charles I's Civil War". Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ [list "of Persons Desired by His Majesty to Attend Him the Isle of Wight, The Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England, 1763"]. List. 
^ "Message from the King; on His Escape from Hampton Court, that He will appear again if He can be heard, and will give Satisfaction.", Journal of the House of Lords, 9, London, South East, South West, East, Midlands, North, Scotland, Wales: (History of Parliament Trust), 12 November 1647, pp. 519–522, 
^ "Letter from Colonel Hammond, that he has ordered, no Persons shall come in or go out of the Isle of Wight without his Pass;—and desiring the King's former Allowance may be continued to Him.", Journal of the House of Lords, 9, London, South East, South West, East, Midlands, North, Scotland, Wales: (History of Parliament Trust), 18 November 1647, pp. 531–533, 
^ a b c Robertson, Geoffrey (2002). "Chapter 1 The Human Rights Story". Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice (2nd ed. ed.). Penguin Books. pp. p.5. ISBN 978-0141010144. 
^ Geoffrey Robertson, The Tyrannicide Brief (Chatto & Windus, 2005)
^ Geoffrey Robertson, The Tyrannicide Brief (Chatto & Windus, 2005)
^ "Red Lion Inn, a Pub and Bar in Stathern, Leicestershire. Search for Leicestershire Pub and Bars". Information Britain. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "Selections from the Trial and Execution of Col. Daniel Axtell in October 1660"". Axtell Family. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "A Narrative by John Ashburnham of His Attendance on King Charles I, 1830". Google Books. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "Memoirs of the two last years of the Reign of King Charles I, Thomas Herbert, 1815". Google Books. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "The Life of Charles the First, the Royal Martyr, Charles Wheeler Coit, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1926". Google Books. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "The Life of Charles the First, the Royal Martyr, Charles Wheeler Coit, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1926". Google Books. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ Stewart, George R. (1967) [1945]. Names on the Land: A Historical Account of Place-Naming in the United States (Sentry edition (3rd) ed.). Houghton Mifflin. pp. 38. 
^ Archbishop Laud, quoted by his chaplain Peter Heylin in Cyprianus Angelicus, 1688
^ Dutton, Ralph (1963). English Court Life: From Henry VII to George II.. B.T. Batsford. pp. 232. 
^ "Marks of Cadency in the British Royal Family". Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ "Britannia: Monarchs of Britain". Britannia. Retrieved on 2008-04-20. 
^ ""The Family of Pollock of Newry and Descendants"". Meddows Taylor. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ ""A Sketch of the Life and Times of Bishop Taylor"". Bible Study. Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 
^ ""Jeremy Taylor, Bishop and Theologian (13 August 1667)"". Retrieved on 2008-10-27. 

[edit] Further reading
Carlton, Charles (1995). Charles I: The personal monarch. Routledge. pp. 423. ISBN 0415121418. 
Gardiner, Samuel Rawson (1962). The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660 (3rd Revised Edition.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 476. 
Kishlansky, Mark A. (2005). "Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity" no. 189, Past and Presentpp. 41–80. 
Murphy, Derrick (2002). Britain 1558-1689. London: HarperCollins Publishers. pp. 384. ISBN 0-00-713850-4.  pp. 211-235
Robertson, Geoffrey (2005). The Tyrannicide Brief: The Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold. Chatto & Windus. pp. 429. ISBN 0-7011-7602-4. 
Williamson, D. (1998). 'The Kings and Queens of England. London: National Portrait Gallery. ISBN 1-85514-228-7. OCLC 153799778. 
Rushworth, J. (1959). The Trial of King Charles I. Lockyer. pp. pp.133–4. 
Carlton, Charles (1995). Charles I: The Personal Monarch. Great Britain: Routledge. pp. 423. ISBN 0415121418. 
Holmes, Clive (2006). Why was Charles I Executed?. Continuum International. pp. 244. ISBN 1852852828. 
Abbott, Jacob (1901). Charles I.. Great Britain: Harper & brothers. pp. 285. 
Cust, Richard (2007-07-21). Charles I. Longman. pp. 512. ISBN 978-1405859035. 
Abbott, Jacob (1900). History of King Charles the First of England. Great Britain: Henry Altemus company. pp. 230. 
Mackintosh, James; William Wallace, Robert Bell (1835). Great Britain: Longman. 
Hill, C. (1991). The Century of Revolution, 1603–1714. Great Britain: Routledge. pp. 296. ISBN 0415051789.
V Wedgwood, C (1955). The Great Rebellion: The King's Peace, 1637–1641. Colins. pp. 510. 
V Wedgwood, C (1958). The Great Rebellion: The King's War, 1641-1647.. Collins. pp. 702. 
Wedgewood, Cicely Veronica (1964). A Coffin for King Charles: The Trial and Execution of Charles I. Macmillan. pp. 307. ISBN 978-0026255004. 
Ashley, Maurice (1987). Charles I and Cromwell. Methuen. pp. 256. ISBN 978-0413162700.
Reeve, L. J. (1989). Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. pp. 325. ISBN 0521521335.

[edit] External links
Find more about Charles I of England on Wikipedia's sister projects:
 Definitions from Wiktionary

 Textbooks from Wikibooks
 Quotations from Wikiquote
 Source texts from Wikisource
 Images and media from Commons
 News stories from Wikinews

 Learning resources from WikiversityChronology Charles I World History Database
The Royal Household. (2004). "Charles I." Official Web Site of the British Monarchy
Archival material relating to Charles I of England listed at the UK National Register of Archives
The Parliamentary Archives holds the original of Charles I's death warrant
The Society of King Charles the Martyr
The Society of King Charles the Martyr (United States)
Biography of King Charles I, 1600-1649

[edit] Books about Charles I available online
History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England: Begun in the Year 1641 by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon (1717): Volume I, Part 1, Volume I, Part 2, Volume II, Part 1, Volume II, Part 2, Volume III, Part 1, Volume III, Part 2
The History of Great Britain Under the House of Stuart by David Hume (1759): Volume I, Volume II
An Historical and Critical Account of the Lives and Writings of James I and Charles I, and the Lives of Oliver Cromwell and Charles II by William Harris (1814): Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV, Volume V
The Trials of Charles the First, and of Some Regicides (published by John Murray, 1820)
The High Court of Justice; Comprising Memoirs of the Principal Persons Who Sat in Judgment on King Charles the First, by James Caulfield (1820)
A History of the British Empire, From the Accession of Charles I to the Restoration by George Brodie (1822): Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV
Memoirs of the Court of King Charles the First by Lucy Aikin (1833): Volume I, Volume II
The Great Civil War of Charles I and the Parliament by Richard Cattermole, with illustrations by George Cattermole (1845)
History of Charles the First and the English Revolution, from the Accession of Charles the First to His Execution by François Guizot, trans. Sir Andrew Scoble (1854): Volume I, Volume II
Charles I in 1646: Letters to Queen Henrietta Maria, ed. John Bruce (1856)
Arrest of the Five Members by Charles the First: A Chapter of English History Rewritten by John Forster (1860)
The Spanish Match; or, Charles Stuart at Madrid by William Harrison Ainsworth (1865): Volume I, Volume II, Volume III
Notes of the Treaty Carried on at Ripon between Charles I and the Covenanters of Scotland by John Borough, ed. John Bruce (1869)
Charles I by Jacob Abbott (1876, 1904)
Eikon Basilike, ed. Catherine Mary Phillimore (1879)
The Fall of the Monarchy of Charles I, 1637-1649 by Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1882): Volume I (1637-1640), Volume II (1640-1642)
A Secret Negotiation with Charles the First, 1643-1644, ed. Bertha Meriton Gardiner (1883)
History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642 by Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1883-1891): Volume I (1603-1607), Volume II (1607-1616), Volume III (1616-1621), Volume IV (1621-1623), Volume V (1623-1625), Volume VI (1625-1629), Volume VII (1629-1635), Volume VIII (1635-1639), Volume IX (1639-1641), Volume X (1641-1642)
History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649 by Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1886-1901): Volume I (1642-1644), Volume II (1644-1647), Volume III (1645-1647), Volume IV (1647-1649)
The Picture Gallery of Charles I by Sir Claude Phillips (1896)
Historical Sketches of Notable Persons and Events in the Reigns of James I and Charles I by Thomas Carlyle (1898)
A History of the George Worn on the Scaffold by Charles I by Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey
King Charles I: A Study by Walter Phelps Dodge (1912)
Commons Debates for 1629, ed. Wallace Notestein & Frances Helen Relf (1921)
Charles I of England
House of Stuart
Born: 19 November 1600 Died: 30 January 1649
Regnal titles
Preceded by
James I and VI King of England
King of Ireland
27 March 1625 – 30 January 1649 Vacant
English Commonwealth, The Covenanters
Title next held by
Charles II
King of Scotland
27 March 1625 – 30 January 1649
British royalty
Preceded by
Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales Heir to the English, Scottish and Irish Thrones
as heir apparent
6 November 1612 – 27 March 1625 Succeeded by
Elizabeth of Bohemia
Prince of Wales
1612 – 1625 Vacant
Title next held by
Charles II
Peerage of England
New creation Duke of York
4th creation
1605 – 1625 Merged in the Crown
Peerage of Scotland
Preceded by
Henry Frederick Duke of Rothesay
1612 – 1625 Vacant
Title next held by
Charles II
New creation Duke of Albany
5th creation
1603 – 1625 Merged in the Crown
[show]v • d • ePart of a series on the Anglican Communion
Organisation Archbishop of Canterbury - Rowan Williams - Primates' Meeting - Lambeth Conferences
Anglican Consultative Council - Bishops, Dioceses, and Episcopal polity 
Background Christianity - Christian Church - Anglicanism - History - Jesus Christ - St Paul
Catholicity and Catholicism - Apostolic Succession - Ministry - Ecumenical councils

Augustine of Canterbury - Bede - Medieval Architecture - Henry VIII - Reformation
Thomas Cranmer - Dissolution of the Monasteries - Church of England - Edward VI
Elizabeth I - Matthew Parker - Richard Hooker - James I - Authorized Version
Charles I - William Laud - Nonjuring schism - Ordination of women - Homosexuality

Windsor Report
Theology Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) - Theology - Doctrine - Thirty-Nine Articles

Caroline Divines - Oxford Movement - Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral - Sacraments

Mary - Saints
Liturgy and Worship Book of Common Prayer - Morning and Evening Prayer - Eucharist - Liturgical Year
Biblical Canon - Books of Homilies - High Church - Low Church - Broad Church
Miscellaneous Topics Ecumenism - Monasticism - Preaching - Prayer - Music - Liturgy - Symbols - Art
 Anglicanism Portal
[show]v • d • eEnglish monarchs
Monarchs pre-Conquest Alfred the Great · Edward the Elder · Ælfweard · Athelstan the Glorious¶ · Edmund the Magnificent¶ · Eadred¶ · Eadwig the Fair¶ · Edgar the Peaceable¶ · Edward the Martyr · Ethelred the Unready · Sweyn Forkbeard · Edmund Ironside · Cnut the Great¶ · Harold Harefoot · Harthacnut · Edward the Confessor · Harold Godwinson · Edgar the Ætheling
Monarchs post-Conquest William I · William II · Henry I · Stephen · Matilda (disputed) · Henry II  · Richard I · John† · Henry III† · Edward I† · Edward II† · Edward III† · Richard II† · Henry IV† · Henry V† · Henry VI† · Edward IV† · Edward V† · Richard III† · Henry VII† · Henry VIII† · Edward VI† · Jane (disputed)† · Mary I† · Elizabeth I† · James I‡ · Charles I‡ · Commonwealth · Charles II‡ · James II‡ · William III‡ with Mary II‡ · William III‡ · Anne‡
¶Also overlord of Britain. †Also lord/monarch of Ireland. ‡Also monarch of Scotland and Ireland.
[show]v • d • ePictish and Scottish Monarchs
Monarchs of the Picts (traditional) Drest I · Talorc I · Nechtan I · Drest II · Galan · Drest III · Drest IV · Gartnait I · Cailtram · Talorc II · Drest V · Galam Cennalath · Bridei I · Gartnait II · Nechtan II · Cinioch · Gartnait III · Bridei II · Talorc III · Talorgan I · Gartnait IV · Drest VI · Bridei III · Taran · Bridei IV · Nechtan III · Drest VII · Alpín I · Óengus I · Bridei V · Ciniod I · Alpín II · Talorgan II · Drest VIII · Conall · Constantine (I) · Óengus II · Drest IX · Uuen · Uurad · Bridei VI · Ciniod II · Bridei VII · Drest X
Monarchs of the Scots (traditional) Kenneth I MacAlpin · Donald I · Constantine I (II) · Áed · Giric · Eochaid (doubtful) · Donald II · Constantine II (III) · Malcolm I · Indulf · Dub · Cuilén · Amlaíb · Kenneth II · Constantine III (IV) · Kenneth III · Malcolm II · Duncan I · Macbeth · Lulach · Malcolm III Canmore · Donald III · Duncan II · Donald III · Edgar · Alexander I · David I · Malcolm IV · William I · Alexander II · Alexander III · Margaret (disputed)  · First Interregnum · John · Second Interregnum · Robert I · David II · Robert II · Robert III · James I · James II · James III · James IV · James V · Mary I · James VI* · Charles I* · Charles II · The Covenanters · The Protectorate · Charles II* · James VII* · Mary II* · William II* · Anne*
* also monarch of England and Ireland.
[show]v • d • eDukes of Albany
Robert Stewart (1398-1420) · Murdoch Stewart (1420-1425) · Alexander Stewart (c. 1458-1485) · John Stewart (1485-1536) · Arthur Stewart (1541) · Lord Darnley (1565-1567) · James VI (1567) · Charles I (1603-1625) · James VII (1660-1685) · Prince Leopold (1881-1884) · Prince Charles Edward (1884-1919)
[show]v • d • eDukes of Rothesay
HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay
David (1398–1402)  · James I (1402–1406)  · Alexander (1430)  · James II (1430–1437)  · James III (1452–1460)  · James IV (1473–1488)  · James (1507–1508)  · Arthur (1509–1510)  · James V (1512–1513)  · James (1540–1541)  · James VI (1566–1567)  · Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1603–1612)  · Charles I (1612–1625)  · Charles James (1629)  · Charles II (1630–1649)  · Prince James (1688–1689)  · George II (1714–1727)  · Prince Frederick (1727–1751)  · George IV (1762–1820)  · Edward VII (1841–1901)  · George V (1901–1910)  · Edward VIII (1910–1936)
[show]v • d • eDukes of York
HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York

Edmund of Langley (1385–1402) · Edward of Norwich (1402–1415) · Richard Plantagenet (1415-1460) · Edward of York (1460-1461) · Richard of Shrewsbury (1474-1483) · Henry (1494-1509) · Charles (1605-1625) · James (1633/1644-1685) · Ernest Augustus (1716-1728) · Edward (1760-1767) · Frederick (1784-1827) · George (1892-1910) · Albert (1920-1936)
[show]v • d • eDukes of Cornwall
HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall

Edward, the Black Prince (1337–1376)  · Richard II (1376–1377)  · Henry V (1399–1413)  · Henry VI (1421–1422)  · Edward of Westminster (1453–1471)  · Edward V (1470–1483)  · Edward of Middleham (1483–1484)  · Arthur Tudor (1486–1502)  · Henry VIII (1502–1509)  · Henry Tudor (1511)  · Henry Tudor (1514)  · Edward VI (1537–1547)  · Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1603–1612)  · Charles I (1612–1625)  · Charles II (1630–1649)  · Prince James Stuart "The Old Pretender" (1688–1689)  · George II (1714–1727)  · Prince Frederick (1727–1751)  · George IV (1762–1820)  · Edward VII (1841–1901)  · George V (1901–1910) · Edward VIII (1910–1936)
NAME Charles I of England
SHORT DESCRIPTION King of England and Ireland
DATE OF BIRTH 19 November 1600
PLACE OF BIRTH Dunfermline, Scotland
DATE OF DEATH 30 January 1649
PLACE OF DEATH Whitehall, England

Retrieved from ""
Categories: English monarchs | Scottish monarchs | Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of France (Plantagenet) | Princes of England | English people of Scottish descent | Princes of Scotland | House of Stuart | People of the English Civil War | Dukes of Albany | Princes of Wales | Dukes of Cornwall | Dukes of Rothesay | Dukes of York | Earls of Ross | Knights of the Garter | English saints | Anglican saints | People from Dunfermline | Executed reigning monarchs | People executed by decapitation | People executed under the Interregnum | 1600 births | 1649 deaths | Executed English people | Heads of state tried for major crimes | 20th-century Christian saints
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since March 2009
ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
Main page
Featured content
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
Bahasa Indonesia
‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬
Simple English
Српски / Srpski
Tiếng Việt

This page was last modified on 30 April 2009, at 05:10 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
Looks like heavy Cope Pink infiltration, still would be worth it to show support if you are in the area.

Quote from:

Stop AIPAC! Confronting the Lobby for Militarism & Occupation Protest at AIPAC Policy Conference, May 3-5

Here's the highlights of the protests that will take place at this year's AIPAC Washington DC event. The complete listing can be found at the Stop AIPAC.  Please support this protest by your presence or by spreading the word.

Sun., May 3
9-11 a.m.: Peace Cafe -- "Show the Youth of Gaza That a Better World is Possible." Busboys & Poets, 2021 14th St. (14th and V). Medea Benjamin,  recently returned from leading a 60-person delegation to Gaza, will speak about CODEPINK's new campaign to pressure both the Egyptian and Israeli governments to open the Gaza border. The campaign includes an ongoing stream of delegations to both the Egyptian and Israeli border crossings, starting in late May, with camps at both borders if they are not allowed in. Medea will also talk about CODEPINK's work with Gazan youth, including plans to build International Friendship Playgrounds in the war-torn region.
Mon., May 4
8:30-10:45 a.m.: Protest in front of the DC Convention Center (555 13th St., NW), just before and during the address to AIPAC by Israeli President Shimon Peres.
11:30-1 p.m.: Wake Up America! A Call to Action -- a discussion of the United States' role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what Americans can do to change our foreign policy. Featuring Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK Women for Peace; Cindy Corrie, mother of Rachel Corrie, who was killed six years ago by Israeli bulldozers; and Daoud Nassar, owner of the Tent of Nations and visiting from Bethlehem. Busboys and Poets, 5th and K, NW.
2-5 p.m.: Celebration of the richness of Palestinian culture in Mt.Vernon Square, sponsored by the Ahimsa House (an activist collecctive). The tentative agenda includes both folk and modern Palestinian music, dance troupes and speakers who have witnessed first-hand the human toll of the current devastation in Gaza.
5-7 p.m.: Rally in front of the DC Convention Center (555 13th St., NW), just before and during AIPAC's gala celebration, where all the attendees and their guests will be gathering. Will feature a dramatic reading of Caryl Churchill's "Seven Jewish Children." Organized by the Coalition for Justice & Peace. Dress in black (with a little pink if you want!).

More here.

Offline Shadow911Zeus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)" 

The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9-11

As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question...

...Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.

 A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)

[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)
"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7) 

One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here's the transcript from NBC News:

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab. (8)

(*Writer's note: Why would this mystery caller specifically say that these "Arabs" were Palestinians? How would he know that? Palestinians usually dress in western style clothes, not "sheikh uniforms")

  Based on that phone call, police then issued a "Be-on-the-Lookout" alert for a white mini-van heading for the city's bridges and tunnels from New Jersey.

White, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals. (9)
When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious "middle-easterners" were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!
According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:

"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." (10)

Why did he feel Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD?

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. (11)

The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture. (12)

Click for full size


The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here's what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001:

American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. (13)

 "...two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around the George Washington Bridge ... The FBI ... says enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge."
WMV video download (545kB)

It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives (14).

What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20 (15), the New York Post (16), and the New Jersey Bergen Record (17) all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel.

But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) (18), and Yediot America, (19) all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel.

It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five.

Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a "get-away van" to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing -the Holland Tunnel- which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 "mystery caller". A classic misdirection play.

From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks.

The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through." (20)

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (21).

Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks. (22)

The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. (23). The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. (24)

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11." (25)

Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." (26)
wmv video download

How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents - here's the most logical scenario:

1. The Israeli "movers" cheered the 9-11 attacks to celebrate the successful accomplishment of the greatest spy operation ever pulled off in history.
2. One of them, or an accomplice, then calls a 9-1-1 police dispatcher to report Palestinian bomb-makers in a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel.

3. Having thus pre-framed the Palestinians with this phone call, the Israeli bombers then head for the George Washington Bridge instead, where they will drop off their time-bomb van and escape with Urban Moving accomplices.

4. But the police react very wisely and proactively by closing off ALL bridges and tunnels instead of just the Holland Tunnel. This move inadvertently foils the Israelis' misdirection play and leads to their own capture and 40 day torture.

5. To cover up this story, the U.S. Justice Department rounds up over 1000 Arabs for minor immigration violations and places them in New York area jails. The Israelis therefore become less conspicuous as the government and media can now claim that the Israelis were just immigration violators caught in the same dragnet as many other Arabs.

6. After several months, FBI and Justice Department "higher-ups" are able to gradually push aside the local FBI agents and free the Israelis quietly.

Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit World Trade Center 1
CIA Director George Tenet said "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." (27)

The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, "experts", and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable.

We were told that the reason bin Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our "freedom" and "democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted to destroy us because they envied our wealth, were still bitter about the Crusades, and were offended by Britney Spears shaking her tits and ass all over the place!

But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the
9-11 attacks. The BBC published bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." (28)

You never heard that quote on your nightly newscast did you?

[A] number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone." A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved. (29)

Bin Laden is not named as the perpetrator of 9/11 by the FBI:

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page (30), [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” (31)

"So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming" - Dick Cheney. (32)

To date, the only shred of “evidence” to be uncovered against bin Laden is a barely audible fuzzy amateur video that the Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan. How very convenient, and how very fake. (33)

There is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the Al Qaeda "terrorist network" to these acts of terror, but there is a mountain of evidence, both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that Zionists have been very busy framing Arabs for terror plots against America.

"I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now" - Senator Bob Graham. (34)

If the sovereign foreign government mentioned by Senator Graham was an enemy of the United States the "compelling evidence" would not be kept secret for 20+ years.

One final point; at 09:40 on 9-11 it was reported that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks (35). This claim was immediately denied by the DFLP leader Qais abu Leila who said it had always opposed "terror attacks on civilian targets, especially outside the occupied territories." (36)

Why would a Palestinian organisation comprising of less than 500 people (37) make the suicidal move of immediately claiming responsibility for the attacks?

Sharon and the other Israeli leaders aspire to fulfil what the goals of the political Zionist movement have been since its origin a century ago: to turn all of historic Palestine into an exclusively Jewish state. A central tenet of the Zionist ideology is expressed in the racist slogan, "A land without people for a people without a land." (38)

The implication of Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks would have handed Zionists a golden opportunity to achieve the above because all Palestinians would have been labelled terrorists.


"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Motto of the Mossad


See also:

Federal Assistance to Recipient URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS INC
2002: Police Seize Rental Truck With TNT Traces Driven By Israelis
Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel
Zionist Circles Benefit From WTC Collapse
Israel and 9/11 - Index of What Really Happened

Offline Aerioch

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,323
Never forget that Pelosi intentionally dropped legislation from a bill at the behest of AIPAC. 

A specific sentence that required Congress to vote on declaring war upon Iran, if it should attack Israel. This change makes War Declaration automatic, without taking the time to even investigate a possible false flag operation by Israel.

This f**king Traitorious, Botoxed Beyotch should be indicted for multiple breaches of her oath of office.
Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb