By Anthony Lawson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

There can be absolutely no doubt that Israel has created an inhuman, illegal and utterly disgraceful Apartheid state, and the international community will never be able to excuse itself if it takes no action against this blatant, ongoing and in-plain-sight crime against humanity.

Please join the millions of decent people around the world who are crying out against Israel's ongoing persecution of the Palestinians. Send the link to this video to your elected representative and make sure he or she does something about it. You have to ask yourself: If I keep quiet , will it ever end?

This video started life being loosely based on the YouTube video: 'Press TV- Epilogue -Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa -02-24-2010', and uses some of its imagery, and wording. It was expanded into its present form to take into account the U.S. vice president's recent visit to Israel and the announcement that Israel was to build yet more structures on the illegally occupied settlement of Beitar Illit. I wrote to Press TV to tell them what I was doing, but received no reply. In any event, I think that the issues are too important for anyone to be concerned about drawing from research done by others, and anyone who would like to use extracts from this video is welcome to do so.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxxYTJNEZJo

* Anthony Lawson is a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad-agency creative director and voice over. He used to be known for shooting humorous commercials, but doesn't find much to laugh about, with the way the world is going, these days.

(Credit: AP)

The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since President Obama took office.

The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion.

President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.

But the Obama Administration routinely blames the Bush Administration for inheriting a budget surplus and turning it into years of record-breaking deficits and debt -- and then leaving it on the doorstep of the new president.

"I walked into office facing a massive deficit, most of which was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program," Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to corporate executives at a Business Roundtable conference.

"When we walked in, we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion and projected debt over the course of a decade of $8 trillion," he told the CEOs on February 24th. "The lost revenue from this recession put us in an even deeper hole. And the steps we took to save the economy from depression last year have necessarily added to the deficit -- about $1 trillion, compared to the $8 trillion that we inherited."

The most the administration says it can do is try to slow the growth of the National Debt - but its own forecasts show it doesn't look promising.

In the 2011 federal budget released last month, the administration projects the National Debt will soar ever upward to over $25 trillion in the year 2020. The total debt will amount to more than 100 percent of the national economy as early as 2012.

Mr. Obama frequently argues that one of his reasons for seeking to overhaul health care coverage in America is the costs it imposes on the government. He says "the status quo on health care is simply unsustainable."

He warns that if his health care plan is not enacted, "our government will be plunged deeper into debt."

In the belief that politicians lack the resolve to make the tough decisions needed to reduce annual deficits and slow the growth of the debt, the president signed an Executive Order last month creating a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to recommend steps the government can take to balance the budget by 2015 - excluding interest payments on the National Debt.

Mr. Obama set a December 1st deadline for the Commission to vote on its final report.

Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Tenet told Hamilton and Kean not to pursue questioning of terror patsies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Documents recently obtained by the ACLU show that the government warned the 9/11 Commission against getting to the bottom of the September 11 terror attacks in a letter signed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet.

In a letter dated January 6, 2004, the Commission was refused permission to question terrorist detainees, with inquiry leaders Hamilton and Kean being told there was “A line that the Commission should not cross,” in the course of its investigation.

A PDF of the letter (page 26) can be read here.

The government urged the Commission, “Not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees,” according to the letter, citing the need to “Safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks.”

The warning was just one example of how the Bush administration fiercely struggled to prevent the 9/11 Commission from conducting a deeper probe into the attacks. Bush and Cheney refused to appear before the Commission separately and both refused to testify under oath, instead meeting with panel members informally and in private, with no recordings of the meeting allowed.

“It appears that David Addington took the lead on refusing the 9/11 Commission’s request,” writes the FireDogLake blog. “It appears Addington got the draft of the letter from 9/11 Commission–which was addressed to Rummy and George Tenet. Tenet and Addington clearly had a conversation about how to respond. But it seems that Addington drafted the response, got Condi, Andy Card, and Alberto Gonzales to review it, and then sent it to Tenet (and, presumably, Rummy) to okay and sign the letter.”

As FireDogLake rightly points out, this was part of an attempt to cover-up the systematic torture of detainees which did not fully come to light until the Abu Ghraib scandal was exposed in April 2004.

However, the refusal to allow access to detainees was also undoubtedly so that the Commission members couldn’t later blow the whistle on the fact that the men were nothing more than patsies and goat herders who had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks.

As we have constantly emphasized in the face of establishment media spin that has demonized the mere act of questioning the official 9/11 story, the majority of the 9/11 Commission members themselves have all gone on record to publicly slam the official story as untrue.

The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – said that the government agreed not to tell the trth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,

“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.”

Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,

“One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported,

“Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerry said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration.

Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted,

“We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”

Despite the fact that the majority of 9/11 Commission members have openly attacked the official story, the corporate media still frames any suspicion surrounding 9/11 as baseless conspiracy fodder at best, and at worst – terrorist and extremist propaganda.

H/T: Daniel Taylor/Old Thinker News – 9/11 Commission Members Doubt Official Story

Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Fall Of The Republic Right Now Online - Don't Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!

 

CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are "they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU be the next victim? Learn the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY

FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley was interviewed by Scott Horton, professor at Columbia Law School and Contributing Editor of Harper’s Magazine.

Rowley said that in her testimony to the Joint Intelligence Committee regarding 9/11, she was “minded”. Specifically, she said that “FBI minders” listened to her every word, to trail her and make sure that she didn’t tell government personnel with top secret clearance even higher than her own anything which the FBI did not want to be told.

While this might sound fantastic, it is nothing new.

Rowley said the same had happened to Daniel Ellsberg went to members of Congress with the Pentagon papers.

As I wrote a year ago:

9/11 Commission chair Thomas Kean points out that if "minders" had been present during the Commission's investigation, that would have been intimidation, which would have stemmed the flow of testimony from the witnesses:

I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency. You might get less testimony than you would.

However, that's exactly what happened to Kean's own 9/11 Commission.

Specifically:

A recently released 9/11 Commission memo [released in January 2009 from the Commission to the National Archives; referenced in the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Finding Aid: Series Descriptions and Folder Title Lists, page 52, "Memo Concerning Minders Conduct" *] highlights the role of government “minders” who accompanied witnesses interviewed by the commission. It was added to the National Archives’ files at the start of the year and discovered there by History Commons contributor paxvector.

The memo, entitled “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses,” complains that:

• Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”
• Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;” and
• Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.”

The memo was drafted by three staffers on the commission’s Team 2, which reviewed the overall structure of the US intelligence community. One of the drafters was Kevin Scheid, a senior staffer who led the team. His co-writers were Lorry Fenner, an air force intelligence officer, and lawyer Gordon Lederman. The complaint was sent to the commission’s counsels, Daniel Marcus and Steve Dunne, in October 2003, about halfway through the commission’s 19-month life.

The memo makes clear that the problems were not occurring only with witnesses talking to Team 2, but also in “other teams’ interviews.” A hand-written note on a draft of the memo says, “not one agency or minder – also where we’ve sat in on other Teams’ interviews.”

According to the memo, some minders merely policed prior agreements between the commission and their parent agency about what the commission could ask witnesses, and others were simply there to make a list of documents the commission might want based on a witness’ testimony. However, some minders saw their role differently.

Intimidation through Physical Positioning

The three staffers argued minders should not answer questions for witnesses because they needed to understand not how the intelligence community was supposed to function, but “how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality.” However: “When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses’ view of their roles and responsibilities.”

The memo also describes the minders’ conduct in detail: “… [M]inders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses.”

The staffers also worried about minders taking “verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements,” as they thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.” They believed that “the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.”

Another problem with the verbatim notetaking was that it “facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”

Proposals

In response to this, the three staffers proposed not that minders be banned from interviews, but a set of rules governing minders’ conduct. For example, minders were to keep a “low profile,” sit out of witnesses’ sight, not take verbatim notes and not answer any questions directed at the witnesses.

Perhaps the most remarkable proposal is that the number of minders be limited to one per witness. The memo indicates that where an interviewee had served in multiple agencies, more than one minder would accompany the witness. The memo therefore requests, “Only one minder may attend an interview even if the witness served in multiple agencies,” meaning a witness would at least not be outnumbered by his minders.

As the Family Steering Committee (made up of 9/11 victims' family members) wrote in 2003:

The FSC [Family Steering Committee] is shocked with the use of “minders” in the interrogatory process. And, despite the Commissioner's similar objection to “minders”, as stated at the last press conference, “minders” continue to be present during witness examination and questioning. The FSC does not want “minders” present during any witness examination and questioning; it is a form of intimidation and it does not yield the unfettered truth.

Indeed, even 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton admitted that "it is very difficult to tell when a witness is being intimidated by a minder."

Not only did the Bush administration adopt Communist torture techniques geared towards extracting false confessions, it also appears to have adopted Communist intimidation tactics.

Download it, read it, then email it out to every thinking person you know. Available for download in PDF HERE.

QUESTION: Who leased the World Trade Center (WTC) only seven weeks before the 9/11 attacks?


ANSWER: Larry Silverstein who explained his reason for buying the towers as follows: "I felt a compelling urge to own them." Silverstein generally had breakfast in the WTC’s "Windows on the World" restaurant every single morning. But on the morning of 9/11, he never showed up -- nor did his daughter, who worked in WTC Building 7.

Silverstein was personal friends with Rupert Murdoch, a key player in the Zionist controlled media, former Israeli President and war criminal Ariel Sharon, along with current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to Israeli daily Haaretz, Silverstein was such good friends with Netanyahu that he would receive a telephone call from him every single sunday.

QUESTION: Who authorized the lease of the WTC complex to Silverstein?


ANSWER: Lewis Eisenberg,

AP

Israeli archaeologists have announced that ruins long thought to be of an ancient synagogue are actually the remains of a palace used by Muslim caliphs 1,300 years ago.

by Roi Sharon

Jewish settlers cut a Palestinian boy's arm off for throwing stones. This also is, according to Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, a permitted act under Jewish Law and Jewish "religion".

When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book "Torat ha-Melekh" [The King's Teaching - INT], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.

Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.

Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words "Arabs" and "Palestinians" are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.

The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God's name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts - INT]

"When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated," states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a "proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments."

The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. "In any situation in which a non-Jew's presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created," the authors state. "When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew's presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed."

One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the "pursuer," according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. "The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly," the book states. "Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer."

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are "hindrances." The rabbis write as follows: "Hindrances - babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. "It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others," the authors state.

In a chapter entitled "Deliberate harm to innocents," the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.

Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. "In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure," they state. "Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror."

In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.

"A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom," the rabbis write. "Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them."

Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book's conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: "In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents."

Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term "non-Jews," there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the "non-Jews" who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet "The Jewish Voice," which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: "It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews." The leaflet's editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. "The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel's security to the authors," the leaflet states, "who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book."

One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. "The rabbis aren't afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law," the yeshiva student said. "In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah."

Tuesday 16 March 2010

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: _ambrown, Muffet)

"We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all." These were the words of Lord Brian Griffiths, Goldman Sachs international adviser, when he spoke at London's St. Paul's Cathedral last fall. With inequality at historic levels here in the United States and around the world, it's a reassuring message we all might wish to be true.

Unfortunately, scientific research reveals a sharply different reality: inequality is a driving force behind many of our most profound social ills. The Equality Trust reviewed thousands of studies conducted by the US Census Bureau, the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Bank. Consistent patterns emerged, both among and within countries. Inequality is associated with diminished levels of physical and mental health, child well-being, educational achievement, social mobility, trust and community life. And it is linked to increased levels of violence, drug use, imprisonment, obesity and teenage births. In short, Lord Griffiths' claim - despite the venue - was a self-serving fiction.

Shared Outrage and Solidarity

Although there are no easy or quick solutions for reversing today's extreme inequalities and repairing the daily harm they cause, the path forward may be clearer than we realize. Change of this magnitude requires a stubborn, passionate and broadly embraced commitment to greater equality as a moral necessity. Although regularly overlooked and misunderstood, the catalyst for such a transformation is often surprisingly simple: shared outrage. Indeed, when shared by the disadvantaged and oppressed on the one hand and by those with greater security and resources on the other, outrage can spur the concerted action required to overcome the injustice, insensitivity and inhumanity that foster inequality around the world.

Recent work by social psychologists such as Emma Thomas, Craig McGarty, Kenneth Mavor and Emina Subasic (among others) highlights why this is so. Outrage shared among groups that otherwise differ in many ways creates the solidarity vital to forcefully challenging a destructive status quo. This shared emotion is so powerful because it breaks the established boundaries that separate the "haves" from the "have-nots." Outrage over inequality can unite the direct victims of discrimination with those who find discrimination morally repugnant even though they themselves have not experienced it. Similarly, outrage can bring together in common cause people struggling to make ends meet and those who, while better off, are convinced that it's simply wrong for anyone to go without adequate food, shelter or health care.                 More........................

On the 8th of March 2010 Cynthia Mckinney (a former US Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party Presidential nominee) and Dr Nafeez Ahmed (best selling author and political scientist) address a meeting of Members of Parliament on the subject of the need for an independent investigation into the events of September 11th 2001.

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk

brought to you by Dead Dean films join us on facebook
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=195220837205&ref=ts

or http://www.youtube.com/dpuck

Cynthia Mckinney www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com

Dr Nafeez Ahmed
http://nafeez.blogspot.com
http://iprd.org.uk

They spoke at the invitation of http://Reinvestigate911.org

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"We sent thee not, O! Muhammad, save as a mercy to all the people. Say, O! Muhammad: "It has but been revealed unto me that your God is the One and Only God: will you, then, surrender yourselves unto Him?" (Qur'an: 21: 107-108)

There is only one "Absolute" form of Free Speech in the west, the freedom and right to bash Islam, stomp, shoot, and flush the Holy Qur'an down the toilet, and portray Islam's beloved Prophet Muhammad (p) in the most vile manner in all forms of "art".

Freedom of Speech is an ever changing and evolving right that depends on time, person, place, method of delivery, issue, and people involved. Since the time of Socrates who was prosecuted for corrupting young minds to today's blasphemous attacks on Islam, the Quran, and Islam's Prophet; freedom of speech has always been defined and determined by those in power.

Bashing Islam is not new. In fact it began during the Prophet's own lifetime by those who rejected his message in Arabia only to be followed by Christians, Jews, and followers of other faiths. Saint John of Damascus (7th – 8th C) while ironically working as an administrative officer for the Muslim ruler of Damascus wrote that the Prophet Muhammad (p) was a "false prophet…heretic…an Anti Christ." Such attacks continued throughout historical Christian Europe by men such as Martin Luther, Voltaire, Dante, to , right wing European parties, to the U.S. by such men as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey (who called Allah (God) Satan), and politicians. Bashing Islam has become a respectable political and money making cottage industry.

Thus it's not surprising that 9/11 opened the flood gates for a wider multitude of westerners who inflame and further incite hatred of Islam. Such vileness arises out of total ignorance of Islam and the historical innate fear of the "other". The West fears what it does not know. In Europe, especially, fear of an Islamized Europe has conveniently morphed into a political agenda against the immigration of the "other", mainly people of color who immigrate to Europe from formerly European colonized nations.

It is inexplicable to describe the West as civilized when such uncivil behavior toward those of a different faith or color permeates a significant portion of the population. If civilization is based on education then such people must be hailed as arrogant, racists, supremacists, and ignorant fools.
The Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks as part of an art exhibition entitled "Dog in Art" decided to follow in the footsteps of the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who drew cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist) and drew a cartoon of the Prophet with the body of a dog. While the public rationale is freedom of speech, the underlying motive is pure racism. But freedom of speech in the west depends on who you offend. Offending Jews, discussing the Holocaust, criticizing Israel's brutality against the Palestinians is either attacked as "Anti-Semitic", or met with jail time while the western kosher media quashes such "free speech". God forbid such a cartoonist would draw a similar cartoon of Moses (p), a Jew with a swastika as a tail, or of the Crown Prince of Spain. (Spanish cartoonist fined for royal dishonour", UK Telegraph, Nov. 14, 2007)                                       More.........................

FACT CHECK 2: Jesse Ventura on AlJazeera w/ Riz Khan

It may be time not to switch your TV off - just switch the channel from Fox etc... to AlJazeera - or try some of the links on the left side of this blog. Say what you want - but get ready for an interview that is simply impossible to see on Corporamerikan "news" shows.

I wonder how Thom Hartmann*, Rhandi Rhodes, Glenn "shoot him in the head" Beck, Rush, Levin, Ingraham, Boortz, Hannity, Savage, Huffington Post - all of them - I wonder how they will show their faces in public as quality programs such as this become the norm? This single episode belies the diluted impotent nature of their Corporamerikan propascamda shows for the slanted lies-via-omission circus acts they really are.

Here's a snippet from the purblind Huffington Post - click red lettering above to see page:
" Editor's Note: The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories -- including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post."

Now - let's see how it is supposed to be done...

VIDEO 1
 
The first video from AlJazeera begins with a refreshingly fair presentation of the subject matter- Jesse Ventura's book: "American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us." A respectful interview commences with well-reasoned questions - allowing Jesse Ventura the time required to provide detailed answers to challenging questions.

A questioner asks if Jesse Ventura may be doing these interviews more for personal financial gain vs. patriotic reasons - or if possibly he knows more than he is talking about since he held elected positions with an implication that perhaps he has information he cannot divulge publicly that is compelling him to "go public."

Jesse quotes Thomas Jefferson saying "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" as he defends his exercise of duty as an American citizen in holding his government accountable - disregarding the opprobrium the fake Corporamerikan propascamda media goons attempt to slime upon him - all for simply asking questions.

The actual Thomas Jefferson quote, however, seems to be:
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.” There are claims that the wording Jesse uses is misattributed to Thomas Jefferson.

I'd hate to see the reaction in Amerika if Jesse used the verbatim quote since the word rebellion might place him on a "do not fly" list. However - without going to Jefferson's writings I am still relying on the internet for these "facts." Regardless, if not to the exact letter of Jefferson - Jesse's paraphrase certainly captures the spirit of Jefferson's words.

To the question about Jesse having motives other than patriotism ... well you have to listen to his answer to that one. You may agree such criticisms are almost laughable after you hear his answer.

But perhaps this caller didn't really mean it that way. Jesse Ventura did a good job answering. I wonder if he was taken off-guard by an interview program that really was "fair and balanced" as demonstrated by their actions rather than tin-hollow words a la Faux news? I wonder if he may still be extra-vigilant answering questions since most interviewers he faces in the Corporamerikan propascamda media outlets greet him with hostility, insults, ridicule, theatrics and "deer-in-the-headlights" blank stares when he asks how WTC7 fell the way it did?

VIDEO 2
 

In this second video segment Jesse Ventura mentions that the CIA is active within the borders of the United States despite the conflict such activity presents vis a vis their charter - where it is illegal for them to operate within the United States. Hmmm - here's a recent incident that comes to mind that makes me think he's telling the truth:

Here is a snippet from an article to get you started on your own research - see entire article BY CLICKING HERE - make up your own mind.

" Last week’s breakin at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in the New Orleans Federal Building was more than it seemed, much more. All of the 4 arrested had been trained by the CIA and, possibly, Israel. One arrested, Stan Dai, is listed as an Operations Officer of the Department of Defense Irregular Warfare Program and a known expert and lecturer on, not only surveillance but explosives training, assassinations and “false flag operations.” If you wanted a plane to crash, an enemy to get sick and die or a building to blow up, Dai would be the man to know how to make it happen. Problem is, his skills were being used as part of a criminal conspiracy inside the United States against members of our own government."

Another question to Jesse Ventura from audience member: Time=7:38

"Many documentaries support the belief that 9/11 was an inside job. However one becomes skeptical because the U.S. government can't kill it's own people."

Jesse brings up the Gulf of Tonkin incident - good point. Which reminds me of another incident from June 8, 1967 that gives credence to doubters of the honesty and good-will of the United States government when it comes to the well-being of its service members. In this case Americans were killed by non-American forces.


U.S.S. Liberty Memorial Site - Remember the Liberty

From the site (click link below picture for more):
" Despite a near-universal consensus that the Israeli attack was made with full knowledge that USS Liberty was a US Navy ship, the Johnson administration began an immediate cover-up of this fact. Though administration officers continued individually to characterize the attack as deliberate, the Johnson administration never sought the prosecution of the guilty parties or otherwise attempted to seek justice for the victims. They concealed and altered evidence in their effort to downplay the attack. Though they never formally accepted the Israeli explanation that it was an accident, they never pressed for a full investigation either. They simply allowed those responsible literally to get away with murder."

One wonders why, if the United States government is so very concerned with the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that this incident remains without closure?

See time=0:35 in this video where Ron Paul disputes Branch assertions that it is okay for them to assassinate their own citizens:
 

Another video from the left:
 

Murder Incorporated
 

My hat is off to Riz Khan. I wonder if we can hire Riz Khan to give Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, Geraldo, Bill O. and the rest of them listed above training in journalism, critical thinking, manners or good listening skills? Bad idea - maybe just hire Riz Khan period. Or is that the problem - Corporamerikan Propascamda media mouthpieces are doing precisely their jobs - their masters' bidding designed - not to find truth - but to spread fear. To further agendas rather than try to get answers and truth necessary for an informed electorate. To protect their jobs by NOT reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

-------------
*UPDATE MARCH 15, 2010 Thom Hartmann has earned back respect - he had Jesse Ventura on his show today to discuss his book "American Conspiracies"
- perhaps I don't understand completely the pressure radio hosts are under. Thanks Thom Hartmann for doing what you can to get the word out. I'm still piqued that you didn't give me more time to rebut you on Charlottesville, VA radio when you were speaking about your book on the Boston Tea Party when I asked why you are not speaking out more about Cass Sunstein's attacks on free speech. But thank you again for having Jesse on and making time for some discussion on the topic as a follow up - and as time goes on I'll keep listening to your show providing your freedom of speech is not infringed.

by Kim Petersen / March 15th, 2010

The title Eminent Domain: The 400 Year Battle Against Native Americans for Every Square Mile of North America was intriguing. I was interested in the topic of eminent domain and Original Peoples. Eminent domain is the concept that the state may seize land for its own purposes — deemed to be good. I wondered, however, why it was only a 400-year battle, as if it the struggle for the land had ceased.

The author Dudley C. Gould starts with the gold-hungry Christopher Columbus. The author notes how Columbus mistakenly thought he was in Asia; therefore, he named the Indigenous people “Indians.” He also points out how the land masses of the western hemisphere came to be named after Amerigo Vespucci because of his connection with a German mapmaker. This commonly believed derivation of the naming of the Americas is disputed. Samuel Elliot Morris definitively stated in The European Discovery of America that Richard Amerike, a financier of expeditions to the New World, is the eponymous person in question — “not Amerigo Vespucci, if you please!”

Eminent Domain: The 400 Year Battle Against Native Americans for Every Square Mile of North America
By Dudley C. Gould
Publisher: Middletown, CT: Southfarm Press (2008)
Paperback: 95 pages
ISBN-13: 9780913337677

On page 2, there is a picture of Pocahontas and readers are informed about the debated story of Captain John Smith (one wonders why since Gould writes on page 33 that Smith was widely regarded as a “lying braggart.” Gordon M. Sayre in Les Sauvages Américains describes Smith as “egocentric, ambitious, industrious, and self-congratulating.”). Eminent Domain informs that Pocahontas was “converted, baptized, and then married [John] Rolfe.” This is a typical colonial depiction. Rebecca Blavins Faery in Cartographies of Desire wrote the story of Pocahontas and John Smith “points vividly to the ways race, gender, and sexuality were deployed in concert in the ideological theater of colonialism in the new world.” To be made a suitable symbol for colonial America, Pocahontas, argued Faery, had to be “dislodged from her native culture.”

Dr. Linwood “Little Bear” Custalow and Angela L. Daniel “Little Star” presented the oral history of the Powhatan people preserved by the quiakros (priests) in The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History. They relate that Pocahontas was 10-years old when the English colonists arrived in 1607; Captain John Smith was 27. Smith’s story of Wahunsenaca [chief of the Powhatan and father of Pocahontas] wanting to kill him and Pocahontas saving him does not bear up under scrutiny, and, the authors maintain, are contradicted by Smith’s own writings. The oral history tells that Pocahontas had little choice in becoming Christianized, baptized, raped (probably by Sir Thomas Dale), married to John Rolfe, and being taken to England.

Gould delves into the designations of place and people. He criticizes the name “Amerindians” because it compounds the Eurocentric “errors.” But Gould contradicts himself and decides to call the Indigenous peoples “Americans.” It is admittedly perplexing how to refer to the Indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere as a collectivity. People from Europe are Europeans, and people from Asia are Asians, but given that an Indigenous name for the continental landmasses is largely unknown and not uniform among Original Peoples, arrivals to the western hemisphere are confused at what to call them.

Logically, the designation should come from the Indigenous peoples – not from outsiders. Douglas George-Kanentiio, born to the Bear clan in Akwasanee which straddles the US-Canada border, said, “We are not American, and we are not Canadian.” Political prisoner Leonard Peltier said “with no disrespect” in Prison Writings: “I don’t consider myself an American citizen. I am a citizen of Great Turtle Island. I am of the Ikce Wicasa — the Common People, the Original People.” The Haudenosaunee refer to Indigenous peoples as Onkwehonwe (Original Peoples). Still there exists discrepancy; many will call themselves Native Americans and/or Indians. The Indigenous person has that right. This is not an argument for later arriving peoples to use such outsider-concocted designations because this is the result of the colonizers’s program of genocide and assimilation. That Indigenous languages, personal names, and place names have largely disappeared is evidence of the efficacy of the genocide and assimilation.

Yet Gould writes, “To primitive people, naming is to have mysterious power over the named, sometimes possession.” Gould uses the pejorative term “primitive” to describe the Original Peoples. It is part of his erractic pattern of switching from an enlightened portrayal to a derogatory (albeit probably unintended) depiction.

Nonetheless, naming was with a purpose. How would most people feel if someone came to their city or town and began to name the geographic features without asking the inhabitants first what the names were? To accept the names conferred by the Original Peoples would be an acknowledgment of their sovereignty. The colonizers/explorers had the intent of claiming possession, and naming was part of the strategy for achieving possession.

It was not the only mistake. Gould describes the Calusa of southwest Florida as “a vicious people addicted to human sacrifice.” He writes of “little brown men” greeting their “white gods.” He calls Indigenous people “Aborigines.” He describes Indians “as simple as so-called lower animals.” One chapter is entitled “Why Hadn’t Indians Improved?”

He does point out derogatory names, such as “Apache” being Spanish for “enemy.” To be fair, it is apparent that the author tries to take care with the names, but there are flaws in the naming. He points out that “Tecumtha” is the proper spelling for the iconic warrior and uniter more commonly known as Tecumseh. He notes that Ma-ka-tai-she-kia-kiak, Black Sparrow Hawk, was “continuously misnamed Black Hawk.” Yet the first reference to Black Sparrow Hawk calls him only Black Hawk.

Eminent Domain uses large print, a colloquial style, and it informs the reader of critical events in colonial history. But it also raises many questions.

Gould writes that the Norsemen “claim” to have beat Columbus to the western hemisphere. This is superficial research. There is an undisputed archaeological site of the Norsemen settlement in L’Anse aux Meadows at the northern tip of Newfoundland dating to 1000 CE. But he also writes that Norseman Leif Ericson, “brother of Eric the Red,” (wrong! He is the son of Eric the Red and hence the name Ericson) was killed by “Eskimoes” (the correct term is “Inuit”) in Labrador.

“Beothuk Indians” writes Gould. I wonder why he did not just write Beothuk? He calls them “the most primitive of Americans.” To back this up, Gould quotes the explorer Giovanni de Verrazano: “Those Beothuks inhabiting Casco Bay are of such crudity and evil manners who showed all signs of discourtesy and disdain as was possible for any brute to invent.” But the Beothuk did not inhabit Casco Bay – in the state of Maine; the Alnôbak (Abenaki) lived there. I believe the quotation must be incorrect and cannot find it anywhere (and there is no footnote).

Where does Gould get it mostly right?

It is somewhat surprising that Gould who spent much of his life as a military man working for entities spawned by colonialism can debunk the idea of eminent domain for Whites in the territory of another people — a territory captured in large part by military means. But he does do that.

He is scathing in the role of Christianity in the dispossession of the Original Peoples and the colonists’s greed for land.

The list of questions posed by the Pequot to the puritans were very humorous. For example, “If God made hell in one of the six days, why did He do so before Adam sinned?”

Gould informs that introduced diseases ravaged the Indigenous nations. He remarked on “unintended bacteriological warfare” in this campaign for land. This misses out on the exchange of letters between General Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet revealing blatant racism and genocidal intent.

Colonel Henry Bouquet’s letter to Amherst:

I will try to inoculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands taking care not to get the disease myself.

As it is a pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard’s method, and hunt them down with English dogs, supported by Rangers and from Light Horse, who would, I think, effectively extirpate or remove that vermine.

Amherst’s reply:

You will Do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of Blankets, as well as try Every other method to extirpate this excreable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for hunting them Down by dogs could take effect …

Amherst is honored in Canada and the US by having cities in his name.

Eminent Domain relates a history that requires telling to all generations. It conveys the evils of colonialism and dispossession, and it argues that the land belongs to the original inhabitants. The book could have been vastly improved with more rigid research, input from the Original Peoples, and a more enlightened approach that is sensitive to ethnicity and supremacist attitudes.

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org. Read other articles by Kim.

Following recent reports about sexual abuse of children by Dutch priests, it now appears that some nuns also took advantage of their charges. Tuesday’s edition of newspaper De Telegraaf contains the story of Herman Harends, who says he was abused by nuns at a Roman Catholic boarding school he attended in the 1950s.

Radio Netherlands Worldwide and newspaper NRC Handelsblad published their report on sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic church two weeks ago. Since then, more and people have come forward, saying they, too, were childhood victims.

Mr Harends and his two brothers attended a boarding school in the southern Dutch town of Tegelen.
"I have not spoken out before because it is a hard claim to substantiate,” he explains, “I’m not looking for atonement or apologies, most of the nuns have died.”

“The abuse by the sisters started when I was 11. When I was in the bath they played with my penis and tried to give me an erection ... They would also put my hand under their robes and into their underwear.”

Mr Harends (now 63) does not believe the abuse was an isolated case. “I had dealings with two nuns who  worked independently,” he tells the paper, “I can’t imagine that I, one of the hundreds of students, was the only one they used to vent their desires on.”

Mr Harends says he once tried to talk about what happened with one of his brothers. “He didn’t want to discuss it. And I respect that.”

The original article was translated from Arabic thus the name of Mr.Creveld was lost in translation. I thank all the readers who corrected this error.

Noted Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld stated that Israel could find itself one day forced to exterminate the European continent using all kinds of weapons including its nuclear arsenal if it felt its demise neared, stressing that Israel also considers Europe a hostile target.

This came in a press interview broadcast by the seventh Hebrew radio and was translated on Wednesday into Arabic by the press information analysis and study center.

“We have hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that can reach different targets in the heart of the European continent, including beyond the borders of Rome, the Italian capital,”  Creveld said, adding that most of the European capitals would become preferred targets for the Israeli air force.

The Israeli historian reiterated Israel’s ability to destroy the whole world whenever it felt its existence would be doomed to extinction.

As for the Palestinians, the historian said that Israel at the present time pursues a specific strategy based on mass deportation of the Palestinian people and has intentions to expel all Palestinians without exception, but it is awaiting the right moment to take this step.

“Two years ago, there was only seven to eight percent of the Israelis believing in this solution towards the Palestinians and just two months ago this percentage rose amongst the Israelis to 33 percent, but today, according to a survey conducted by Gallup institute, this figure surged to 55 percent,” he noted.

The historian highlighted that Israel must take advantage of any incident that would give it a golden opportunity to expel the Palestinians as happened in Deir Yassin massacre in 1948.

Replying to a question whether Israel does not have fears of being classified as a criminal state if it expelled Palestinians, he said, “Israel is a state that does not care about what others say about it and you must remember the saying of former defense minister Moshe Dayan when he said that ‘Israel must always act as a wild dog because it should be dangerous in the eyes of others, rather than be harmed.’”

Notes/Sources:

The above article was written by Palestinian Information Center Staff;entitled: “Israeli historian: Israel could find itself forced to wipe out Europe” and can be found on Palestinian Information Center