“All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is surrender. For it is all give and no take.” – Mohandas Gandhi

This is real life where there are compromises and there are pitfalls of being compromised. There is the question of flexibility, and then the notion of fundamental principles to stand by. There exists a fine line separating ‘bending the rules’ from actually breaking them. The question is where one begins to draw the line to separate compromise from being compromised, to hold to one’s fundamental principles while remaining flexible, and to bend core rules without actually breaking them.

When it comes to American politics the above dilemma has had but one answer. The same consistent answer throughout the past century: one can’t, and one won’t – that is, for those who seek viability for their candidacy and political campaigns. The fundamental rules every single political candidate in search of viability and a chance for success adheres to are: readily submit to being compromised, prepare to revise and change your fundamental principles and beliefs, and be ready to break without hesitation every rule you once adhered to.

Political candidates rise to lead the masses only to quickly turn to serving the interests of the very few- the few that count when it comes to gaining needed ‘viability’ and becoming a candidate with a ‘chance.’

Political actors must go through a crash course in learning the real art of compromise, which translates into willingness to part with core fundamental principles they once adhered to.

Wanna-be political leaders have to submit to training in becoming masters of breaking the rules while making it look as if they are only bending them.

The closer American political candidates get to the finish line where the ‘viable’ are separated from the ‘nonviable’, the more willing they become to give up old sentimental notions of principles and integrity- the greed that naturally flows from their intense desire and inflated egos now tied to the outcome: to win or to lose.

Everyone knows what is meant by becoming the devil’s advocate. Many have seen the film with that title. However, only a few are familiar with a slightly modified application of that term: the willingness to have the devil as the advocate; a familiar pattern showing up with every ‘viability seeking’ political candidate in the US. Just take a quick look at the last few presidents’ candidacies and you’ll see exactly what I am talking about.

We have already seen it vividly with Obama’s candidacy and presidency – appealing to the masses while placing his main focus on appealing to the few that held the key to his ultimate viability test and a real chance to win. What better way to do this than bringing in a few devils as the advocates! He wanted the support of and the green light from the powerful Israel lobby, so he brought in the dual citizen Israeli agent Rahm Emanuel as his advocate. Checkmark that. He wanted the nod from the Neocons so he brought an advocate or two from their camp and promised a key seat to one of their agents, Hillary Clinton. He sought the approval of the corrupt financial megas, so he brought in an advocate from their turf. Very quickly, with the real devils on board, Obama became a ‘viable candidate’, not withstanding his racial disadvantage, his lack of experience, and his less than stellar record.

With the interests of the very few, to name a few – the financial and military industrial complex and the Israel lobby, represented and check-marked, Obama was declared ‘viable’ and guaranteed the securing of the unknowing masses’ vote.

Let’s look at a recent candidacy resorting to advocacy by devils that is developing before our eyes as I type this article. I have written a series on the recent addition of Bruce Fein to the Ron Paul campaign as Paul’s Chief Legal Advisor. I am not going into too much detail here since I have covered the highly troubling case, but you can read more here.

Despite letters, e-mails and phone calls from Paul’s grassroots supporters to the campaign, and despite warnings and advice from Paul’s current and previous senior advisors, the campaign headquarters has refrained from removing Fein from this very key and sensitive position. The justification, more like an excuse, provided by the campaign heads, is the following: we are aware of Mr. Fein’s past and present conflicts but he has been a vocal advocate of the First Amendment and no one can deny his ability to help us expand our base by bringing in American Jewish communities and influential neocons…

This is a perfect example of the repeated pattern exhibited and practiced by US political candidates:  bringing in devils as advocates to seek ‘viability’ and to attempt to increase their chances to win. In Ron Paul’s case it becomes even more glaring. We are looking at a candidate who managed to remain outside the usual beltway corrupt machine yet succeeded in holding on to his office year after year. We are talking about a representative who had stayed away from foreign lobbyists and influence peddlers’ sphere of influence. We are speaking of Ron Paul, the man who had consistently opposed the US war machine, thus the bread and butter of the few MIC whose interests count tremendously when it comes to candidate viability. Ron Paul, who unabashedly has opposed the Israel lobby and its influence over US politics. Why?

According to insiders it is not Ron Paul but two key campaign managers who have become way too greedy and ambitious, and seek to expand at all cost and gain viability at any price. These men must have quickly forgotten the reasons in the first place for Ron Paul’s popularity among those rightfully disillusioned by the establishment candidates, and those who value integrity and honesty above the establishment glitz marketed by the US mainstream media. Bringing in a devil as an advocate comes with a high price. Has the ambition to become mainstream and viable made this price acceptable to Ron Paul?

Here in the United States we know we have a viable political candidate when principles quickly become ultra flexible, and when the art of compromise becomes the willingness to become compromised. And you know the path you are on when the devil becomes the advocate – It is the road leading to hell.

And with that, I will leave you with the following powerful quote from the movie ‘The Devil’s Advocate’:

“You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God… and where can you go from there?” – John Milton, ‘The Devil’s Advocate’

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

 Last week, right after publishing my article on Congresswoman Schmidt and Bruce Fein’s brilliant foreign lobby money rechanneling-laundering scheme, and to my shock, I found out about this:

The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today that constitutional and international law expert Bruce Fein will join the campaign as senior advisor on legal matters.

“Bruce Fein’s participation adds to our campaign’s already intellectual heft, enabling us to more broadly engage the conversation about constitutionality, civil liberties and the dangers to national security of an increasingly interventionist foreign policy,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

While some at Rep. Paul’s Camp were busy celebrating and cheering the announcement as a brilliant strategic move, I was frantically gathering cases and research notes, corresponding with current and former colleagues from the intelligence community who had come to support Rep. Paul, and communicating with a few friends with Rep. Paul’s Campaign who were equally troubled by this development.

I understand the ‘cheering’ side of Paul’s camp as they have been excited and impressed by the in- writing-and-words-only side of Bruce Fein. Not so different than those who were fired up and sold on the in-words-only rhetoric and promises staged by President Obama. The Constitutional Scholar Fein and the Constitutional Expert Obama. A Great Penman Fein and the Great Orator Obama…and of course the contradicting realities and the contradicting facts.

However, in this case, there are already too many established facts and too much history on Mr. Fein, and way too many rational and realistic people among Paul supporters to ring the alarm bells and counter this great threat before it’s too late. I will go as far as calling the penetration of the Ron Paul camp by Bruce Fein ‘the greatest threat to Paul’s camp to date,’ and will make a solid case for this characterization based on glaring and alarming facts; facts and concerns shared by several loyal Paul advisors today.

Who is the real Bruce Fein? Why there are so many different versions of Fein – one contradicting the other? How do his real actions and intimate associations stand in stark contrast to Ron Paul? What is the most likely plot in planting Mr. Fein within Paul’s campaign?

Foreign Lobby & Influence Peddling

Ron Paul has been consistent and exemplary in his strongly held principles on the Foreign lobby and influence peddling; a rarity in the US Congress. He has displayed intense disdain for foreign lobbying and foreign influence. He even considers congressional ‘junkets’ as another means to be compromised: stressing that he would not travel abroad on agenda-driven foreigners’ dime: “I just think it’s unnecessary for congressmen to travel overseas, and the people in our district were on my side,” he said in an interview. “You don’t need to go to Bosnia to understand we have no business there.”

With Bruce Fein you have exactly the opposite stand. He has been a crusty foreign lobbyist making millions of dollars peddling his foreign bosses’ interests and influence in Congress and government agencies. For Fein it has never mattered who the foreign client or what their agenda. He does not care whether his foreign clients are criminals or terrorists or dictators. As long as they pay him handsomely he’ll sell their agenda and interest no matter what they may be. The words ‘principle’ or ‘taking a stand’ have never entered this foreign lobbyist’s dictionary or comprehension:

One minute, on behalf of one set of his foreign designated ‘terrorist’ bosses, Bruce Fein is busy selling the need for a genocide declaration by the US Congress against one nation:

“For the past year I have written about Bruce Fein in many articles that have been widely published and circulated. He is reportedly paid $100,000 per month to tell lies in Washington about the Government of Sri Lanka… Who are the American individuals backing this group? Where are they getting their money to pay Bruce Fein? Does former US Ambassador Blake have something to do with them…”

The next minute, on behalf of another well-known foreign mob boss, Bruce Fein is busy peddling influence and selling Congress his foreign bosses’ anti-genocide agenda:

“In 2007, Ayasli transferred $30 million in stock to fund a new endeavor, the nonprofit Turkish Coalition of America. The organization is headquartered in a Washington suite that has also been listed as the address for the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, the lobbying firm of Lydia Borland (who has represented the Turkish government), and the law firm of Bruce Fein and Associates (Fein comprises half of the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund)…”

“materials put out by the Turkish Coalition of America and authored by a lawyer, Bruce Fein, who now represents Schmidt in the complaint, say that Congresswoman Schmidt has on numerous occasions voiced her opposition to such resolutions and maintains that the historical question is not appropriate for Congress to legislate. The congresswoman, based on her independent research, does not believe the tragic events constitute genocide…”

Bruce Fein sees no problem with representing foreign groups like this:

Fein hit the jackpot in 1991 when he signed on to represent Mozambique’s notorious guerrilla army, RENAMO, which was seeking to overthrow its country’s leftist government. When Fein came on board, RENAMO’s reputation has hit bottom…

…

Even the Reagan and Bush administrations kept their distance from RENAMO, despite their anti-Communist rhetoric…

…

Fein, however, eagerly signed up to flack for Dhlakama’s terror army. Like most foreign lobbyists, he bilked his client for huge sums of money while performing virtually no work.

Mr. Fine, who now fakes and preaches non-interventionism and anti-influence peddling only to echo Ron Paul, in real life has been practicing the exact opposite:

“Now, Fein has returned to lobbying and is working for a client that has the dubious distinction of making RENAMO look good: The Sudan. That country’s government is barred from receiving U.S. foreign aid because of its support for terrorism and because of its revolting human rights record. Amnesty International reports that the Sudanese government not only assassinates and tortures its “enemies,” but that paramilitary forces have kidnapped scores of children, who are believed to be held in domestic slavery by their abductors or taken to camps in remote rural areas, where they are trained for military service”

Here is another on-the-spot description of Real Bruce Fein as a crusty “Beltway Prostitute”:

“Well, well, well. Wasn’t Bruce Fein just recently condemning the Government of Sri Lanka for trying to put an end to the LTTE? But this time he’s defending a sovereign government for protecting itself – rather than slandering it using falsehoods. Now you see what I mean when I earlier referred to Mr. Fein as a “Beltway prostitute.” He will accept money from anyone who can pay the price – regardless of where that money came from, or who his legal and public relations services might unjustly hurt. What an embarrassment to the US legal profession.”

You see, for Mr. Fein pimping the Congress on behalf of foreign clients is about dollars. Nothing more; nothing less. Whether it is advocating additional foreign aid for one country while our nation is being bankrupted, or dragging our Congress to get involved with domestic meddling and the affairs of another foreign country, Bruce Fein has never been about the United States’ interests; just the opposite. Give Fein the dollars and he’ll sign up to lobby for any one: terrorists, corrupt foreign governments, mobsters, assassins …

Long pocketed as a ‘lobbyist’ by Pakistan, Sudan, Turkey, Tamil, and others, Bruce Fein is the exact antithesis to Ron Paul’s principled position on issues related to foreign lobby, corruption and influence peddling in government.

Overt Neocon Ties & Covert Israel Pedigree

Ron Paul has been in staunch opposition and a counter to Neocon agendas and field players. Whether on the Israel lobby and agenda driving the hawkish currents in our nation today, or the corporate war machine interests guiding our foreign policy practices, Paul has consistently stood firm and unrelenting.

Mr. Fein’s public pedigree makes it fairly easy to spot his overt ties and links. For example: he has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). By now I think the majority of Americans know about AEI’s claim to fame:

“AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas.[10] Irving Kristol, widely considered a father of neoconservatism, is a senior fellow at AEI, and many prominent neoconservatives—including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Joshua Muravchik—spent the bulk of their careers at AEI.”

A well-known couple of facts about AEI:

1- In order to be accepted by AEI, to become one of their scholars, proven neoconservative inklings and ties are the never-waivered prerequisites.

2- AEI seeks candidates who put Loyalty and Allegiance to Israel above all.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt state in their controversial bestseller, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, that the tone of the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby results from the influence of the leaders of the two top lobby groups: AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. They go on to list, as right-leaning think tanks associated with the lobby, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute.

Acceptance to the tightly knitted and guarded AEI Neocon community also extends to family members and religious affiliations. Bruce Fein has passed both litmus tests in becoming a highly-regarded member of AEI. His wife, Mattie Fein, has been a vocal hawk, neocon propaganda distributor, and a very familiar face within the Beltway neocon community:

In 2007, Fein penned an opinion piece in the Washington Times calling on the United States to pledge military support to Iranian dissidents in the event of an uprising. Fein, whose father is of Iranian descent, was identified in the piece as the founder and president of the Institute for Persian Studies.

While Fein’s AEI and neocon connections and strong ties are overtly stated, his loyalties and allegiance to Israel and the Israel lobby are not; that is, until you start digging. A former AEI member who now works as a congressional aid stated, ‘Bruce Fein was liked and trusted there as ‘one of them,’ a real Jewish man loyal to Israel and its interests.’

Fein has been successful in playing both sides of this field, and keeping his Israel related activities and ties mainly covert. However, in 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing the couple’s views on Israel and Israel’s interests less covertly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

And here is Bruce Fein’s buddy from AEI, the scandalous John Bolton, who’s been backing the Fein couple including Mattie Fein’s fundraising and campaign:

I was privy to some of the logistics involved in setting up the fundraiser that Bolton held for Mattie’s campaign. It amazed me how quickly some establishment Republicans tried to steal the thunder of Bolton’s appearance through various subterfuges and poaching, and it is a credit to the man’s character and timber that he refused to be a part of it. He was there to endorse Mattie Fein against Jane Harman, and he wouldn’t let third parties screw that up.

Mattie Fein’s established Neocon pedigree, her hawkish propaganda and activities nicely echoes Bolton’s own.  Some liken the relationship to mentor-protégé dynamics that began with the marriage to Fein and entry into the AEI circle.

The Question of Ethics …or Lack of

Even Ron Paul’s foes would admit that he has been a man of principle throughout his life; both inside and outside his congressional career. Those who may disagree with his political platform and stand would acknowledge his adherence to ethical practices, whether in his personal-family life or career.

Bruce Fein’s career on the other hand, in contrast to his writings and well-played public role, has been driven by lucrative foreign lobbying deals, influence peddling in the halls of Congress, the State Department and the CIA, and all that mostly for foreign agendas directly in conflict with those of Americans. Not only that, his regard for ethics as an attorney appears to be nonexistent. In his most recent scandal involving indirect funneling of foreign lobby dollars to Rep. Jean Schmidt, he was determined to have been intentionally misguiding his client on the sources of $500,000 dollars in legal fees:

In a statement released on August 5, the House Ethics Committee ruled that Rep Jean Schmidt has received multiple improper gifts totaling $500,000 from the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) between 2008 and 2010. The Committee ruled that Schmidt must pay the money back, However, she will not face sanctions by the House as she was able to pin the blame for her behavior on her attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman

You can read the full report by the House Ethics Committee here. It remains to be seen whether anyone will go after Bruce Fein and his license for this highly scandalous case and ethics violations. His two possible explanations for this case would be: 1- I did not tell my client that my legal representation of her case was part of foreign lobby money funneling to her; 2- My client was fully aware of the foreign lobby bribery nature of my legal representation and services, but to protect her and my foreign bosses I took the blame. Under either explanation one glaring point remains clear, and that is the lack of ethics on behalf of the involved attorney-Bruce Fein. On the other hand, Mr. Fein appears to have had practice in riding ethics related scandals and waves. At least in the scandalous ethic violations case  involving Bruce Fein and his partner Ephraim Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, Esq.

I started with that famous quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero because it applies to this report and the plots delivered from within. When it comes to Ron Paul’s Campaign no one would ever have to worry about known snakes and neocons like Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle. The enemy sent to you will be one who talks just like you; speaks your words and shouts your slogans. And does so very convincingly.

I have tried to be brief with carefully and well-sourced facts and cases to provide a factual profile for the real Bruce Fein. Considering the facts and who Mr. Fein is, and has been, why would he methodically go about attaching himself to Ron Paul and his campaign? After consulting with several well-respected and trust-worthy sources, the troubling answer was summed up in two possibilities:

1- This is a commonly used ploy by the establishment to penetrate Ron Paul and his camp which has been gaining momentum. This is where the plant carries inside information and strategic plans to the establishment, and simultaneously tries to exert negative influence over decision making and strategy-setting processes.

2- The plant willingly and knowingly becomes the fall-guy bringing down the target candidate. Highly damaging and scandalous information about the plant would be strategically released to the media-public, and the candidate suffers the ultimate consequences.

Personally I am leaning more towards the second possibility and here is why:

I was privy to the extensive rap sheet maintained on Mr. Fein, his foreign mob bosses and their operations at J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Mr. Fein is well aware of this rap sheet and the FBI’s long-maintained operations. I know with certainty that if released by the FBI, whether partially or completely, it would be used as ongoing front-page headlines by the media, to bring down the entire Paul campaign before the primaries.

Ron Paul already has a highly-respected constitutional scholar who is articulate, eloquent, passionate, and most importantly, trust-worthy, clean, and from outside the poisonous capital beltway. That person is Tom Woods. Paul does not need this man Fein. He does not need this glitzy-oily foreign lobbyist who stands in total contrast to Paul’s platform.

I like Ron Paul. I support his stand on foreign policy related matters and his objectives on what need to be changed. I applaud Paul’s stand on our liberties, and I back his quest for a much smaller government. I have done so for years. Please don’t let the establishment succeed in their plot. Bruce Fein is the greatest threat to Paul’s movement to date. He would be a stain – a taint; not one easily removed after the fact. Please begin the countdown, and have Ron Paul remove this man from the campaign as a trusted advisor and insider. Let the countdown begin today; at this hour -at this very minute. Before it is too late.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

I’ve been meaning to write about this for weeks, and just got around doing it. Maybe the subconscious procrastination was due to the conscious sanitization of this news by venues like this. Maybe it was the dread of having to tackle one of the quasi media phony darlings like this guy. Or maybe it was the repressed exhaustion-frustration I went through a couple of years back with this. Okay, allow me to start with the fairly recent development reported ‘incompletely and badly’ by the New York Times:

Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, has been ordered by the House Ethics Committee to repay a Turkish-American group $500,000 for legal services it improperly paid for to help her pursue a defamation lawsuit and other legal proceedings against a Democratic opponent in the 2008 election.

As you can see, very consciously the Times avoids naming ‘that Democratic opponent.’ Because naming him, David Krikorian, would require some fact citing and more context-background on the case; the case they together with the rest of the mainstream media went out of their way to black out. And doing ‘that’ would God forbid bring up the long-blacked-out state secrets privilege in my case. And ‘that’ my dear friends, is something that has been forbidden to these stenographers in the media circus.

So let’s continue the no-coverage coverage of a very significant case involving Congresswoman Jean Schmidt and the twisted and rechanneled Turkish Foreign Lobby dollars:

The action by the House committee, disclosed Friday, did not come with a formal punishment, because ethics investigators concluded that Ms. Schmidt had been misled by her own lawyers from the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund about who was paying the legal bills.

Ms. Schmidt was ordered to amend her annual personal financial disclosure reports to acknowledge the gift from the Turkish Coalition of America, which actually paid the bills, and then reimburse the lawyers.

 The report above casually, and very quickly, glosses over one of the implicated, that is, directly implicated, parties in this case: Schmidt’s lawyer- the lawyer who supposedly, and intentionally, misled his client, and did so with a dollar amount not in the thousands, but actually half a million dollars. Ordinarily this slip by a government garbage disposal facility like the Times would not raise big flags. However, this lawyer is no ordinary lawyer. The lawyer in question here happens to be a famous, very public, high-profile and very deviously and shrewdly marketed man. The lawyer in this case is none other than deceivingly perceived Bruce Fein.  A man who has gotten very wealthy thanks to the foreign lobby, in this case the Turkish lobby in need of a man who knows the maze that gets the cheese to the congressional mice:

In 2007, Ayasli transferred $30 million in stock to fund a new endeavor, the nonprofit Turkish Coalition of America. The organization is headquartered in a Washington suite that has also been listed as the address for the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, the lobbying firm of Lydia Borland (who has represented the Turkish government), and the law firm of Bruce Fein and Associates (Fein comprises half of the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund).

…

In addition to the advocacy done through the ATC (which also funds trips to Turkey for congressional staff), a handful of its members–Citigroup, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Chevron, Textron, United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which spent a combined $80 million lobbying Washington last year lobbied Congress directly on the genocide resolution and other issues important to Turkey; the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group, helped coordinate the effort.

…

Oh wait, Bruce Fein is married to Mattie Fein, the Republican candidate who ran against Jane Harman in 2010. Had she won, how would one go about calculating and deducting her campaign-donation  ‘gifts’ from her husbands million-dollar foreign lobby gifts? Isn’t it interesting? And as far as Turkey’s former partner lobby, the Israeli Lobby, this is where Bruce & his voluptuous wife stand when given the Zionism litmus test:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

I know Mr. Fein has many pro-liberties fans out there who are mistaking him for ‘real;’ some consider him a real constitutionalist who stands for liberties and against secrecy. That’s very similar to those who fell for Obama the constitutionalist. Remember, Obama the author of a very constitutional book? Recall the beautiful words spoken and sold as pro liberties, pro change, anti secrecy and beyond? Well, you have a similar situation with Mr. Fein: he talks a good talk, and writes well. As for who Mr. Fein is: you are looking at a man long succumbed to foreign lobby and military industrial complex lobby dollars. You are looking at a man far more loyal to Israel and its lobby than to our nation. You actually have a man who believes any war would be justified for the sake of Israel. And in the latest Schmidt case you are looking at a man who helped funnel half a million dollar foreign ‘Bakshish’ to his congresswoman friend, and even indicted by the lame Congressional Ethics Committee as an attorney who intentionally misled his client.

Yet, you see none of this in the New York Times coverage. These points are intentionally omitted in mainstream media reports. Just as they were during my case-a topic that threatened corrupt US officials, MIC and Foreign lobbies.

I think I have made the case for the intentional black out and modification of this development by the US media. I am going to stop here, but you can read and watch more on this here.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.