When the Nazis did it, it was a crime crying to heaven for vengeance, when the Israelis do it, it's just business as usual and no subject for universal moral outrage or alarm...reduction of the Arab population and increase of the Judaic population is the prime directive.
THE JERUSALEM ROADMAP: EXPAND, DO NOT SHRINK!
by Yoram Ettinger
October 26, 2007
Enclosed you’ll find the English edition of my latest OpEd, which was published by Ynet (Yedioth Achronot), Israel’s leading Internet daily.
The OpEd presents a vision for Jerusalem, based on an integrated analysis of the Demography-Geography-Infrastructure...
The willingness, of some Israeli politicians, to disengage from some Arab neighborhoods, in order to - supposedly - secure a Jewish majority in Jerusalem, reflects weakness of the mind and the spine. At a time of robust demographic Jewish momentum, disengagement would wreck the 66% Jewish majority, would severely undermine the personal security of Jerusalem’s Jewish population and would doom the Jewish capital to a deepening crisis.
THE JEWISH DEMOGRAPHIC MOMENTUM
The presumption that disengagement would be a quick-fix to demographic problems, ignores a solid, long-term Jewish demographic momentum: An impressive increase of the Jewish fertility rate and a quicker-than-expected plunge in the Arab fertility rate, in Jerusalem and between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
The American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG), which has exposed gross errors committed by Israel’s demographic establishment (e.g. inflating the number of Arabs in Judea & Samaria by 70%), has documented a convergence, for the first time since 1948, of Jewish and Arab fertility rates in Jerusalem: 3.9 children per woman in 2006, compared with 4.5 children per Arab woman in 2004. Moreover, the Jewish fertility rate in Greater Jerusalem is higher than the Arab rate: 4.0 in Jerusalem’s Western Suburbs and 4.7 beyond the “Green Line”. The Arab fertility rate has declined, also, due to urbanization and the substantial decrease in Arab teen-pregnancy.
While modern-orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews sustain a high fertility rate with minimal correlation to level of education and income, Arabs converge swiftly toward the average Jewish fertility rate, as their education and income levels rise. Jerusalem Jews are growing relatively-younger as Arabs are becoming relatively-older, while the demographic momentum affects the secular Jewish sector, including the Soviet Olim. In addition, the Arab death rate is approaching the Jewish rate (0.3 and 0.5 respectively), following a 40 year substantial rise in Arab life expectancy – enabled by Israel’s healthcare – which has expanded the ranks of elderly Arabs.
Demography constitutes a strategic asset and not a liability, enhancing Israel’s capabilities to overcome demographic, territorial and political challenges, in Jerusalem, toward 2025 and beyond. However, one should recognize that migration of Arabs and Jews to/from the city – and not birth rate – constitutes the single most potent threat to the Jewish majority in Jerusalem.
THE MIGRATION CHALLENGE
Those who have urged the Jewish State to disengage from Arab neighborhoods, have unwittingly accelerated Arab immigration to Jerusalem and to the “Green Line”. For instance, the “Separation” and “Wall/Fence” policies - which were supposed to improve security and protect Jewish demography, triggered the immigration TO Jerusalem (from Judea & Samaria) by over 50,000 Arabs bearing Israeli ID cards, as well as a larger number of illegal migrants. Minimizing the area of Jerusalem, facilitates increased Arab immigration and dims Jerusalem’s prospects for growth. Further “disengagements” would disengage the city from land reserves, which are essential for long-term urban development and for the safeguarding and expansion of the Jewish majority.
Migration – and not natural increase - has been the most critical factor, determining the Jewish-Arab demographic balance in Jerusalem, as well as between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Jewish emigration and Arab immigration have eroded the Jewish majority in Jerusalem. Without the internal migration factor – 0.4% Arab immigration and 0.7% Jewish emigration – there is a virtual tie between Jewish and Arab natural population increase (2.0%:2.5% respectively), including the Aliya factor (0.7%), which would sustain a 66% Jewish majority. Jerusalem’s Jewish majority would be bolstered by the expansion of the current low-scale annual 3,000 person Aliya to the Jewish capital. Furthermore, the transformation of net-Jewish-emigration into net-Jewish-immigration, via government policy, would appreciably enhance Jerusalem’s Jewish majority.
THE RESPONSE TO THE MIGRATION CHALLENGE
A prerequisite to the growth of the current Jewish majority, in Jerusalem, is the substantial growth of Jewish immigration, stimulated by significant employment and housing opportunities, which requires a dramatic expansion of infrastructures, which means more - and not less - land. Disengagement from Arab neighborhoods - which are surrounded by large sparse areas - would deny Jerusalem its land reserves, which are critical to the upgrading of its infrastructures and to the enhancement of the Jewish majority. The smaller the area of Jerusalem, the larger the Jewish emigration!
In 1950, Prime Minister Ben Gurion established Jewish neighborhoods on Jerusalem’s cease fire lines, in order to provide the city with development and security depth for the coming generations. He did it in defiance of brutal US pressure to internationalize Jerusalem, and thus he eliminated Jerusalem from the negotiation table! In 1967, Prime Minister Eshkol adopted Ben Gurion’s statesmanship, establishing Jerusalem’s satellite Jewish neighborhoods beyond the “Green Line”, while absorbing 80,000 Arabs and a relatively small area.
In 2007, in order to attract, to Jerusalem, business entrepreneurs, researchers, scientists, educators and artists from Israel and throughout the globe, Israel should immediately initiate fast-track dramatic improvement of transportation infrastructures (international airport, fast train, fast roads internally and externally, completion of the “Begin Loop”), traditional and high tech industrial parks, telecommunications, electricity, water, education and housing infrastructures.
The implementation of such a crucial initiative necessitates a dramatic expansion of Jerusalem’s municipal lines. Expanding westward - or toward the inner city - would be grossly inadequate, due to topographic and geographic constraints. The eastward option - toward the largely sparse/empty area - is most suitable according to professional (transportation, employment, housing, migration) requirements.
The potential for Jerusalem’s expansion extends from east of Ma’aleh Adoumim to the Te’qoa’-Herodion bloc in the southeast, to the outskirts of Ofra and Beit El in the northeast, to Modi’in-Kiryat Sefer through Highway 443 in the northwest and Gush Etzion and Beitar Ilit in the southwest. The farther the Jewish neighborhoods from the inner city, the higher the Jewish fertility rate.
The geographic extension of Jerusalem – buttressed by the Jewish demographic momentum – would enable Jerusalem to absorb the 90,000-100,000 Arabs, whose fertility rate is gradually Israelized. Expanding Jerusalem would provide a land-platform to reduce Jewish emigration and maximize Jewish domestic immigration and Aliya, which would bolster the Jewish majority.
Engagement with – and not disengagement from - the relatively vast and sparsely-populated geography outside Jerusalem, would enable the Jewish capital to transform itself from a city of Jewish emigration, job shortage and economic stagnation into a capital of immigration, job creation and economic growth.
Disengagement from a large area in Jerusalem ignores the consequences of the “Gaza Disengagement” and the “Separation Policy.” Thus, it poses the most lethal security and demographic threat to Jerusalem since 1967!
Yoram Ettinger: yoramtex@netvision.net.il
***
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Stars (including Mel Gibson) use Israeli Commandos for "security"
Hollywood Stars Have a Secret Weapon: Israeli Commandos
Rebecca Spence |Forward (Zionist newspaper) Oct 24, 2007
Los Angeles - When Kevin Federline’s lawyer wanted to serve Britney Spears’s closest associates with subpoenas during the ill-fated duo’s recent custody battle, he hired a former Israeli commando to get the job done.
Veterans of Israeli special operations units have found lucrative careers helping Hollywood stars fend off stalkers and paparazzi.
While this service may not have necessitated counter-terrorism expertise, the ex-Israeli operative who carried out the mission, Aaron Cohen, has built a career on the premise that protecting celebrities has more in common with nabbing Islamic radicals than may be apparent. Cohen, 31, is the founder of IMS Security — short for “Israeli Military Specialists” — a Los Angeles-based private security firm operating in the hostile territory of Hollywoodland.
A native of Beverly Hills, Cohen has parlayed his service in Duvdevan — an elite Israeli commando unit responsible for capturing, and sometimes killing, Palestinian militants in the West Bank — into a lucrative, niche business back in his hometown.
Hiring Israelis culled exclusively from the Jewish state’s top four special operations units, Cohen oversees the only private security firm specializing in bringing Israeli-style protection to the upper reaches of stardom. Guarding the likes of Brad Pitt, Jackie Chan and Eva Longoria, to name but a few, Cohen — with a minimum retainer fee in the range of $20,000 and a day’s work costing up to $1,000 — has applied the principles he learned detaining terrorists to keeping aggressive paparazzi and the occasional celebrity stalker at bay.
“Stalking is a form of terror,” Cohen explained in an interview in Los Angeles’s Fairfax district, sipping a cup of strong black coffee. “The formula is a lot like counter-terrorism, because you need to see who you’re dealing with before you freak out.”
Indeed, Cohen called the Spears subpoenas, carried out in mid-August, “pure counter-terrorism.” In that case, Cohen said, he was hired by a client, high-profile attorney Mark Kaplan, to track down Spears’s inner circle, including her former manager Larry Rudolph, who had, according to press accounts, gone into hiding. Locating Rudolph, as well as Spears’s cousin and former assistant, Ali Simms, Cohen said, required the same tactics as tracking a terrorist — performing extensive background checks and pinpointing their exact whereabouts.
Exuding the calm confidence of an experienced Israeli fighter, Cohen, in gold-framed aviator sunglasses — prescription glasses, he pointed out, not worn for intimidating effect — a casual white button-down and jeans, recently sat for an interview with the Forward.
His story, soon to be told in a forthcoming memoir co-authored by Douglas Century (a former contributor to the Forward), is one that would warm any Zionist heart. At 18, Cohen made aliyah and subsequently became the only American to finagle his way into the ranks of an elite military unit — a feat, even for those born in Israel.
As a member of Duvdevan, created in the wake of the first intifada, Cohen was among those who disguised themselves as Arabs to infiltrate the West Bank. In 1999, after returning to Los Angeles, Cohen was hired as a bodyguard and administered security at the home of A-lister Pitt, who was fending off a stalker.
The following year, sensing a demand for his expertise, Cohen founded IMS Security. In order to recruit his employees, he returned to Israel, where he still owns a condominium in the affluent Tel Aviv suburb Herzliya. Cohen tacked up a note in the lunchroom of his unit, offering high-paying jobs in L.A. to anyone who had finished his service. Cohen now employs a staff of 22, and he rotates in new Israelis every one-and-a-half to two years. It is, he said, a way of returning the favor to those who took him in as one of their own and gave him the experience of being a top Israeli fighter.
Cohen’s competition includes other top private security firms, such as Gavin de Becker Associates, Galahad Protective Services and Screen International Security Services. SISS was founded by another Israeli, Avi Korein, who, in a strange twist, has worked for many years as Mel Gibson’s bodyguard. But Korein’s company, in contrast to Cohen’s, is not made up solely of Israeli military veterans.
“Aaron is definitely unique in the fact that he only uses Israelis,” said Steven Katz, a talent manager who first hired Cohen to protect Chan in 2002. “The majority of firms are about crowd control; they’re not doing real threat assessment.”
In the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Cohen has also built a business training American law-enforcement and military units in Israeli counter-terrorism techniques. His client roster includes the Houston Metro SWAT team, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Department of Homeland Security’s Los Angeles office. He has also become a pundit, dispensing security acumen on Fox News and Court TV, among other networks.
Cohen is not the first to put his Israeli training to use in America. After 9/11, Rafi Ron, former security chief of Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, was hired by Boston’s Logan International Airport to implement Israeli-style aviation security. Ron, founder of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md., now consults to a wide swath of both private and government-run American transportation authorities. The program he created for Logan, known as “Behavior Pattern Recognition,” has been duplicated in airports around the country and, like Cohen’s force, is based on the central tenet of Israeli security — to focus on the individual in question and profile him.
“The main difference between the traditional American and the Israeli approach is, we try to focus on people,” Ron explained. “A good guy with a weapon does not present a risk, and a bad guy without a weapon still presents a risk.”
Cohen operates on the same principle, even while protecting a celebrity client on a shopping trip (a recent video clip on the celebrity Web site TMZ.com showed him trailing Longoria as she visited L.A.’s trendy Lisa Kline store). The goal, he said, is not to have bodyguards that resemble 300-pound gorillas, as is often the case, but to have a highly trained, less conspicuous sentry who can size up a threat level and respond before a crisis occurs. “We’re experts in defining people really quickly, and knowing what we’re up against,” Cohen said.
As for warding off the paparazzi, many of whom are known for their ruthless tactics, Cohen’s team devised a new approach that has garnered them the name the “Mary Poppins Squad” in Hollywood circles. The tactic? Cohen assigns a staffer armed with an open umbrella to each of the photographers present, thereby keeping their camera lenses covered.
“It’s low tech, cost effective, nonviolent and can control the majority of the environment,” he said. “There are clever, nonaggressive ways to handle things.”
MICHAEL HOFFMAN COMMENTS:
Cohen worked as an undercover Israeli assassin and killed Palestinians for a living, and now he's guarding the Hollywood crowd. Can we get the details on who he killed? Any collateral damage to civilians? It doesn't seem to matter to The Forward newspaper, but many people would regard Cohen as a state terrorist. And he's acceptable to Hollywood?
Mel Gibson's Israeli bodyguard, Avi, worked for him for years and may still. Avi, through Mel, was privy to many sensitive conversations and meetings.
***
Rebecca Spence |Forward (Zionist newspaper) Oct 24, 2007
Los Angeles - When Kevin Federline’s lawyer wanted to serve Britney Spears’s closest associates with subpoenas during the ill-fated duo’s recent custody battle, he hired a former Israeli commando to get the job done.
Veterans of Israeli special operations units have found lucrative careers helping Hollywood stars fend off stalkers and paparazzi.
While this service may not have necessitated counter-terrorism expertise, the ex-Israeli operative who carried out the mission, Aaron Cohen, has built a career on the premise that protecting celebrities has more in common with nabbing Islamic radicals than may be apparent. Cohen, 31, is the founder of IMS Security — short for “Israeli Military Specialists” — a Los Angeles-based private security firm operating in the hostile territory of Hollywoodland.
A native of Beverly Hills, Cohen has parlayed his service in Duvdevan — an elite Israeli commando unit responsible for capturing, and sometimes killing, Palestinian militants in the West Bank — into a lucrative, niche business back in his hometown.
Hiring Israelis culled exclusively from the Jewish state’s top four special operations units, Cohen oversees the only private security firm specializing in bringing Israeli-style protection to the upper reaches of stardom. Guarding the likes of Brad Pitt, Jackie Chan and Eva Longoria, to name but a few, Cohen — with a minimum retainer fee in the range of $20,000 and a day’s work costing up to $1,000 — has applied the principles he learned detaining terrorists to keeping aggressive paparazzi and the occasional celebrity stalker at bay.
“Stalking is a form of terror,” Cohen explained in an interview in Los Angeles’s Fairfax district, sipping a cup of strong black coffee. “The formula is a lot like counter-terrorism, because you need to see who you’re dealing with before you freak out.”
Indeed, Cohen called the Spears subpoenas, carried out in mid-August, “pure counter-terrorism.” In that case, Cohen said, he was hired by a client, high-profile attorney Mark Kaplan, to track down Spears’s inner circle, including her former manager Larry Rudolph, who had, according to press accounts, gone into hiding. Locating Rudolph, as well as Spears’s cousin and former assistant, Ali Simms, Cohen said, required the same tactics as tracking a terrorist — performing extensive background checks and pinpointing their exact whereabouts.
Exuding the calm confidence of an experienced Israeli fighter, Cohen, in gold-framed aviator sunglasses — prescription glasses, he pointed out, not worn for intimidating effect — a casual white button-down and jeans, recently sat for an interview with the Forward.
His story, soon to be told in a forthcoming memoir co-authored by Douglas Century (a former contributor to the Forward), is one that would warm any Zionist heart. At 18, Cohen made aliyah and subsequently became the only American to finagle his way into the ranks of an elite military unit — a feat, even for those born in Israel.
As a member of Duvdevan, created in the wake of the first intifada, Cohen was among those who disguised themselves as Arabs to infiltrate the West Bank. In 1999, after returning to Los Angeles, Cohen was hired as a bodyguard and administered security at the home of A-lister Pitt, who was fending off a stalker.
The following year, sensing a demand for his expertise, Cohen founded IMS Security. In order to recruit his employees, he returned to Israel, where he still owns a condominium in the affluent Tel Aviv suburb Herzliya. Cohen tacked up a note in the lunchroom of his unit, offering high-paying jobs in L.A. to anyone who had finished his service. Cohen now employs a staff of 22, and he rotates in new Israelis every one-and-a-half to two years. It is, he said, a way of returning the favor to those who took him in as one of their own and gave him the experience of being a top Israeli fighter.
Cohen’s competition includes other top private security firms, such as Gavin de Becker Associates, Galahad Protective Services and Screen International Security Services. SISS was founded by another Israeli, Avi Korein, who, in a strange twist, has worked for many years as Mel Gibson’s bodyguard. But Korein’s company, in contrast to Cohen’s, is not made up solely of Israeli military veterans.
“Aaron is definitely unique in the fact that he only uses Israelis,” said Steven Katz, a talent manager who first hired Cohen to protect Chan in 2002. “The majority of firms are about crowd control; they’re not doing real threat assessment.”
In the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Cohen has also built a business training American law-enforcement and military units in Israeli counter-terrorism techniques. His client roster includes the Houston Metro SWAT team, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Department of Homeland Security’s Los Angeles office. He has also become a pundit, dispensing security acumen on Fox News and Court TV, among other networks.
Cohen is not the first to put his Israeli training to use in America. After 9/11, Rafi Ron, former security chief of Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, was hired by Boston’s Logan International Airport to implement Israeli-style aviation security. Ron, founder of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md., now consults to a wide swath of both private and government-run American transportation authorities. The program he created for Logan, known as “Behavior Pattern Recognition,” has been duplicated in airports around the country and, like Cohen’s force, is based on the central tenet of Israeli security — to focus on the individual in question and profile him.
“The main difference between the traditional American and the Israeli approach is, we try to focus on people,” Ron explained. “A good guy with a weapon does not present a risk, and a bad guy without a weapon still presents a risk.”
Cohen operates on the same principle, even while protecting a celebrity client on a shopping trip (a recent video clip on the celebrity Web site TMZ.com showed him trailing Longoria as she visited L.A.’s trendy Lisa Kline store). The goal, he said, is not to have bodyguards that resemble 300-pound gorillas, as is often the case, but to have a highly trained, less conspicuous sentry who can size up a threat level and respond before a crisis occurs. “We’re experts in defining people really quickly, and knowing what we’re up against,” Cohen said.
As for warding off the paparazzi, many of whom are known for their ruthless tactics, Cohen’s team devised a new approach that has garnered them the name the “Mary Poppins Squad” in Hollywood circles. The tactic? Cohen assigns a staffer armed with an open umbrella to each of the photographers present, thereby keeping their camera lenses covered.
“It’s low tech, cost effective, nonviolent and can control the majority of the environment,” he said. “There are clever, nonaggressive ways to handle things.”
MICHAEL HOFFMAN COMMENTS:
Cohen worked as an undercover Israeli assassin and killed Palestinians for a living, and now he's guarding the Hollywood crowd. Can we get the details on who he killed? Any collateral damage to civilians? It doesn't seem to matter to The Forward newspaper, but many people would regard Cohen as a state terrorist. And he's acceptable to Hollywood?
Mel Gibson's Israeli bodyguard, Avi, worked for him for years and may still. Avi, through Mel, was privy to many sensitive conversations and meetings.
***
NPR admits Israeli attack on Deir Yassin was "massacre"
Listen to this very brief book review by NPR’s Alan Cheuse of Margot Singer's book, "The Pale of Settlement."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15528703&sc=emaf
I thought you would be interested in this review, not because of its brief description of an award-winning book, but because it mentions the DEIR YASSIN war crime and rightly labels the killing there, in April 1948, a "massacre. "
While "Holocaust' Denial" is deemed a horrible thought crime, especially by such academics as Alan Dershowitz and Deborah Lipstadt, Nakba* Denial is perfectly acceptable and even lauded, as the recent lectures by Uri Milstein clearly show.
Don’t expect to hear NPR's Israeli correspondent Linda Gradstein mention that the site of the Deir Yassin massacre lies across from the Yad Vashem "Holocaust" Museum, but every once in a while the other side of the story does filter into the narrative, as in the case of Alan Cheuse's review.
(*"Nakba" is the name the Palestinians give to the Israeli holocaust against them).
For more information contact:
Daniel McGowan
315 891-3418
mcgowan@hws.edu
www.deiryassin.org
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15528703&sc=emaf
I thought you would be interested in this review, not because of its brief description of an award-winning book, but because it mentions the DEIR YASSIN war crime and rightly labels the killing there, in April 1948, a "massacre. "
While "Holocaust' Denial" is deemed a horrible thought crime, especially by such academics as Alan Dershowitz and Deborah Lipstadt, Nakba* Denial is perfectly acceptable and even lauded, as the recent lectures by Uri Milstein clearly show.
Don’t expect to hear NPR's Israeli correspondent Linda Gradstein mention that the site of the Deir Yassin massacre lies across from the Yad Vashem "Holocaust" Museum, but every once in a while the other side of the story does filter into the narrative, as in the case of Alan Cheuse's review.
(*"Nakba" is the name the Palestinians give to the Israeli holocaust against them).
For more information contact:
Daniel McGowan
315 891-3418
mcgowan@hws.edu
www.deiryassin.org
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Rudy Giuliani and his Zionist advisers
Here follows a sketch of Giuliani's barbarous advisers, and then a brief afterword from your editor
******
Mideast Hawks Help to Develop Giuliani Policy
By Michael Cooper and Marc Santora
New York Times | October 25, 2007
...in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers.
...Mr. Giuliani’s team includes Norman Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative who advocates bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible”; Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States’ ban on assassination.
...his reliance on advisers like Mr. Podhoretz, who wrote an article in June for "Commentary" magazine called “The Case for Bombing Iran,” have raised concerns among some Democrats.
...Like the neoconservatives, who played a major role in developing the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq, Mr. Giuliani is a strong supporter of Israel who has expressed skepticism about how far the United States should go to back the creation of a Palestinian state.
...“I would say, as a card-carrying member of the neoconservative conspiracy,” said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, “that I think Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are all getting really good advice — and Romney.” Mr. Kristol said that none of the leading Republican candidates “buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy.”
...Mr. Giuliani calls for continuing the war in Iraq and building up the military by adding at least 10 combat brigades to the Army. He takes a dim view of the United Nations, which he sees as good for little other than humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, but wants to expand NATO and invite Israel to join it.
...If there is a central tenet to his thinking, it may be that the United States must project strength to keep itself safe. “Weakness invites attack,” Mr. Giuliani warned to cheers in a speech he gave recently to the Republican Jewish Coalition.
..Instead of talking about “the war on terror,” Mr. Giuliani speaks of “the terrorists’ war on us,” or, as he put it in a recent speech to a group of conservative Christians, the “Islamic terrorists’ war against the United States.” He sometimes faults Democrats for failing to mention that the terrorist threat comes specifically from Muslims. When Mr. Giuliani was asked in a recent interview if he could be viewed as an evenhanded broker when it came to Israeli-Palestinian issues, he questioned the premise of the question. “America shouldn’t be evenhanded in dealing with the difference between an elected (Israeli) democracy that’s a government ruled by law, and a group of terrorists,” he said.
HOFFMAN'S AFTERWORD
This report only scratches the surface of the all-out support Giuliani enjoys from Orthodox Judaism's fanatical Talmudic rabbis and homicidal, religious Israeli settler-colonists.
However, strictly from the happy prospect of a drastic loss of power and credibility for the masonic-leviathan Federal government in Washington D.C., a Giuliani administration would discredit the United States around the world, as George W. Bush's regime has only begun to do, and, in the long term, substantially diminish the US government's ability to act as a fair broker and neutral negotiator throughout the world, thus no longer being able to deceive wide swathes of humanity concerning the supposed benevolence of the Talmudic-masonic cryptocracy which rules the US government.
China is waiting impatiently in the wings to assume the U.S. mantle of primary world power, and together with Russia and Venezuela, China would, from the ashes of a bombed-out Iran, arise to replace the United States as the world's predominant power, even as the crazed Podhoretz and neo-con Zionists like him will have, through mass murder by means of US taxpayer-supported Air Force and Navy bombs on Iran,unleashed the permanent warfare "clash of civilizations" they are seeking so fervently. The futile and spectacularly wasteful crusade that will result, will end in the drastic decline --if not the actual extirpation -- of the Israeli regime and the Zionist movement; alas, along with America as we know it.
The gravediggers are driving the ship of state. The Democrats, with the exception of Kucinch, are no better and possibly worse than the Republicans, since, if they were to win the White House, would probably pursue most of Giuliani's horrific military policies but with far more stealth, guile and superficial diplomacy, as Clinton did in the 1990s while doing to Serbia and portions of Iraq, what Rabbi Podhoretz would so dearly love to deliver upon the heads of the women and children of Iran.
Finally, the New York Times writers say that Podhoretz's 'Case for Bombing Iran,' raised "concerns among some Democrats." This is a perverse observation. It suggests that the majority of Americans are not concerned, and that those who are, are worried for reasons of politics. If the German people were expected to vigorously protest Hitler's aggression or be considered fair game for the firebombing of their homes and cities, should not Americans protest the Zionist call for bombing a sovereign nation, or be considered fair game for the wrath of the Muslim sons and daughters, fathers, mothers and siblings of those slaughtered by US bombings?
***
******
Mideast Hawks Help to Develop Giuliani Policy
By Michael Cooper and Marc Santora
New York Times | October 25, 2007
...in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers.
...Mr. Giuliani’s team includes Norman Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative who advocates bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible”; Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States’ ban on assassination.
...his reliance on advisers like Mr. Podhoretz, who wrote an article in June for "Commentary" magazine called “The Case for Bombing Iran,” have raised concerns among some Democrats.
...Like the neoconservatives, who played a major role in developing the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq, Mr. Giuliani is a strong supporter of Israel who has expressed skepticism about how far the United States should go to back the creation of a Palestinian state.
...“I would say, as a card-carrying member of the neoconservative conspiracy,” said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, “that I think Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are all getting really good advice — and Romney.” Mr. Kristol said that none of the leading Republican candidates “buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy.”
...Mr. Giuliani calls for continuing the war in Iraq and building up the military by adding at least 10 combat brigades to the Army. He takes a dim view of the United Nations, which he sees as good for little other than humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, but wants to expand NATO and invite Israel to join it.
...If there is a central tenet to his thinking, it may be that the United States must project strength to keep itself safe. “Weakness invites attack,” Mr. Giuliani warned to cheers in a speech he gave recently to the Republican Jewish Coalition.
..Instead of talking about “the war on terror,” Mr. Giuliani speaks of “the terrorists’ war on us,” or, as he put it in a recent speech to a group of conservative Christians, the “Islamic terrorists’ war against the United States.” He sometimes faults Democrats for failing to mention that the terrorist threat comes specifically from Muslims. When Mr. Giuliani was asked in a recent interview if he could be viewed as an evenhanded broker when it came to Israeli-Palestinian issues, he questioned the premise of the question. “America shouldn’t be evenhanded in dealing with the difference between an elected (Israeli) democracy that’s a government ruled by law, and a group of terrorists,” he said.
HOFFMAN'S AFTERWORD
This report only scratches the surface of the all-out support Giuliani enjoys from Orthodox Judaism's fanatical Talmudic rabbis and homicidal, religious Israeli settler-colonists.
However, strictly from the happy prospect of a drastic loss of power and credibility for the masonic-leviathan Federal government in Washington D.C., a Giuliani administration would discredit the United States around the world, as George W. Bush's regime has only begun to do, and, in the long term, substantially diminish the US government's ability to act as a fair broker and neutral negotiator throughout the world, thus no longer being able to deceive wide swathes of humanity concerning the supposed benevolence of the Talmudic-masonic cryptocracy which rules the US government.
China is waiting impatiently in the wings to assume the U.S. mantle of primary world power, and together with Russia and Venezuela, China would, from the ashes of a bombed-out Iran, arise to replace the United States as the world's predominant power, even as the crazed Podhoretz and neo-con Zionists like him will have, through mass murder by means of US taxpayer-supported Air Force and Navy bombs on Iran,unleashed the permanent warfare "clash of civilizations" they are seeking so fervently. The futile and spectacularly wasteful crusade that will result, will end in the drastic decline --if not the actual extirpation -- of the Israeli regime and the Zionist movement; alas, along with America as we know it.
The gravediggers are driving the ship of state. The Democrats, with the exception of Kucinch, are no better and possibly worse than the Republicans, since, if they were to win the White House, would probably pursue most of Giuliani's horrific military policies but with far more stealth, guile and superficial diplomacy, as Clinton did in the 1990s while doing to Serbia and portions of Iraq, what Rabbi Podhoretz would so dearly love to deliver upon the heads of the women and children of Iran.
Finally, the New York Times writers say that Podhoretz's 'Case for Bombing Iran,' raised "concerns among some Democrats." This is a perverse observation. It suggests that the majority of Americans are not concerned, and that those who are, are worried for reasons of politics. If the German people were expected to vigorously protest Hitler's aggression or be considered fair game for the firebombing of their homes and cities, should not Americans protest the Zionist call for bombing a sovereign nation, or be considered fair game for the wrath of the Muslim sons and daughters, fathers, mothers and siblings of those slaughtered by US bombings?
***
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Cohen: Iranian President "looks like a ferret"
Crusader Cohen's Velvet-Gloved War on Iran
by Michael A. Hoffman II
"Sadly, it is simply not possible to dismiss the Iranian threat. Not only is Iran proceeding with a nuclear program, but it projects a pugnacious, somewhat nutty, profile to the world. Various intelligence agencies assure us that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and its president is the voluble and bizarre Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, come to think of it, looks a bit like a ferret. The time may indeed come when the only way to deal with Iran is with force. In the meantime, it might not hurt to lower our voices and try some old-fashioned diplomacy."
--Richard Cohen, (cohenr@washpost.com), Washington Post columnist, Oct. 23, 2007, p. A19.
We can't tell you what kind of marsupial Mr. Cohen resembles because it would be "anti-semitic" to do so, but as a member of the Master Race, Mr. Cohen feels free to compare a Persian leader with a rat-like animal. Ah, the prerogatives of being one of the holy people!
We are allowed, however, to analyze Mr. Cohen's dogmatic assertions:
1. Iran is a "threat" because it is "proceeding with a nuclear program." Correct. And that is its right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Mr. Cohen and most of his fellow liberal crusaders in America and Europe (in concert with conservative crusaders like Rudy Giuliani, the Republican candidate most favored by Orthodox Judaism), can't abide the idea that the ferret-like Persians may have what the god-like Israelis possess. Don't they know their place, at the back of the technological bus?
2."It is simply not possible to dismiss the Iranian threat" because they project "a pugnacious, somewhat nutty, profile to the world." What Cohen means is that Iran has a bad press ("profile") in the United States and European media and what is valiant and endearing in "noble little 'Israel" in the eyes of the media (being pugnacious and a bit nutty), is a "threat" coming from Iran.
3. "Various intelligence agencies assure us that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere..." Well, Mr. Cohen, we can certainly take as gospel the word of "various intelligence agencies" who definitely would never engage in deceit or black ops, do not practice kidnapping, torture or car bombing themselves and can be relied upon to know an Iranian ferret when they see one. We can sleep easy knowing that intelligence agencies that have nothing to report about US or Israeli state terrorism, have fingered Iran in this regard.
4. "The time may indeed come when the only way to deal with Iran is with force," declares Cohen. So, we may have to make war on Iran under the Cohen Dogma articulated in points 1-3. And let us not neglect the fact that Cohen also stews Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust' denial" into the pot, citing it as another irritation to the crusaders. "All educated Iranians" know that the execution gas chambers of Auschwitz killed millions. In fact, the Auschwitz gassings are so much an axiom that the crusaders have felt it necessary to silence Germar Rudolf, a Max Planck chemist who is skeptical concerning them. He is currently a prisoner in Germany because the much better-indoctrinated westerners and those who are similarly "educated" in Iran, cannot permit any scientific heresy to challenge their quasi-religious historical orthodoxy about the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz. The "democratic" answer: jail the scientists who doubt them. The inqusition against execution gas chamber doubters will certainly spread to any future "liberated" Iran.
We beg the pardon of our holy overclass, but the world acording to Cohen seems just about as "nutty" and "bizarre" as can be.
Is Richard Cohen of the Washington Post a "threat" like Ahmadinejad? Purge that bigoted throught from your head! Think only nice thoughts about the members of the Master Race and, after snobbishly distancing yourself from the meat-and-potatoes crusaders like Rudy Giuliani, join Mr. Cohen in conditioning the American people for war with Iran, after the diplomatic preliminaries extend that war the veneer of the dignified liberal carpet-bomber, rather than the neanderthal conservative one.
***
by Michael A. Hoffman II
"Sadly, it is simply not possible to dismiss the Iranian threat. Not only is Iran proceeding with a nuclear program, but it projects a pugnacious, somewhat nutty, profile to the world. Various intelligence agencies assure us that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and its president is the voluble and bizarre Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, come to think of it, looks a bit like a ferret. The time may indeed come when the only way to deal with Iran is with force. In the meantime, it might not hurt to lower our voices and try some old-fashioned diplomacy."
--Richard Cohen, (cohenr@washpost.com), Washington Post columnist, Oct. 23, 2007, p. A19.
We can't tell you what kind of marsupial Mr. Cohen resembles because it would be "anti-semitic" to do so, but as a member of the Master Race, Mr. Cohen feels free to compare a Persian leader with a rat-like animal. Ah, the prerogatives of being one of the holy people!
We are allowed, however, to analyze Mr. Cohen's dogmatic assertions:
1. Iran is a "threat" because it is "proceeding with a nuclear program." Correct. And that is its right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Mr. Cohen and most of his fellow liberal crusaders in America and Europe (in concert with conservative crusaders like Rudy Giuliani, the Republican candidate most favored by Orthodox Judaism), can't abide the idea that the ferret-like Persians may have what the god-like Israelis possess. Don't they know their place, at the back of the technological bus?
2."It is simply not possible to dismiss the Iranian threat" because they project "a pugnacious, somewhat nutty, profile to the world." What Cohen means is that Iran has a bad press ("profile") in the United States and European media and what is valiant and endearing in "noble little 'Israel" in the eyes of the media (being pugnacious and a bit nutty), is a "threat" coming from Iran.
3. "Various intelligence agencies assure us that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere..." Well, Mr. Cohen, we can certainly take as gospel the word of "various intelligence agencies" who definitely would never engage in deceit or black ops, do not practice kidnapping, torture or car bombing themselves and can be relied upon to know an Iranian ferret when they see one. We can sleep easy knowing that intelligence agencies that have nothing to report about US or Israeli state terrorism, have fingered Iran in this regard.
4. "The time may indeed come when the only way to deal with Iran is with force," declares Cohen. So, we may have to make war on Iran under the Cohen Dogma articulated in points 1-3. And let us not neglect the fact that Cohen also stews Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust' denial" into the pot, citing it as another irritation to the crusaders. "All educated Iranians" know that the execution gas chambers of Auschwitz killed millions. In fact, the Auschwitz gassings are so much an axiom that the crusaders have felt it necessary to silence Germar Rudolf, a Max Planck chemist who is skeptical concerning them. He is currently a prisoner in Germany because the much better-indoctrinated westerners and those who are similarly "educated" in Iran, cannot permit any scientific heresy to challenge their quasi-religious historical orthodoxy about the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz. The "democratic" answer: jail the scientists who doubt them. The inqusition against execution gas chamber doubters will certainly spread to any future "liberated" Iran.
We beg the pardon of our holy overclass, but the world acording to Cohen seems just about as "nutty" and "bizarre" as can be.
Is Richard Cohen of the Washington Post a "threat" like Ahmadinejad? Purge that bigoted throught from your head! Think only nice thoughts about the members of the Master Race and, after snobbishly distancing yourself from the meat-and-potatoes crusaders like Rudy Giuliani, join Mr. Cohen in conditioning the American people for war with Iran, after the diplomatic preliminaries extend that war the veneer of the dignified liberal carpet-bomber, rather than the neanderthal conservative one.
***
Monday, October 22, 2007
US fails to convict with secret evidence and Israeli testimony
“Giving charity to the Palestinian people has become a crime in this country.” --Noor Elashi
No Convictions in Trial Against Muslim Charity
By Leslie Eaton | NY Times | October 22, 2007
DALLAS, Oct. 22 — A deadlocked federal jury here did not convict any leaders of a Muslim charity who were charged with supporting Middle Eastern terrorists, and the judge today declared a mistrial in what has been widely viewed as the government’s flagship terror-financing case.
The case, involving the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of its backers, is the government’s largest and most complex legal effort to shut down what it contends is American financing for terrorist organizations in the Middle East. President Bush announced he was freezing the charity’s assets in 2001, saying that the radical Islamic group Hamas had “obtained much of the money it pays for murder abroad right here in the United States.”
But at the trial, the government did not allege that the foundation, which was based in a Dallas suburb, paid directly for suicide bombings. Instead, the prosecution said, the foundation supported terrorism by sending more than $12 million to charitable groups, known as zakat committees, which build hospitals and feed the poor.
The prosecution said the committees were controlled by Hamas and contributed to terrorism by helping Hamas spread its ideology and recruit supporters. The government relied on Israeli intelligence agents, using pseudonyms, to testify in support of this theory. But prosecutors appeared to have made little headway in convincing the jury.
The case involved a total of 197 counts, including providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, years of investigation and preparation, almost two months of testimony and more than 1,000 exhibits, including documents, wiretaps, transcripts and videotapes dug up in a backyard in Virginia.
After 19 days of deliberations, the jury acquitted one of the five individual defendants on all but one charge, on which it deadlocked. A majority of the jurors also appeared ready to acquit two other defendants of most charges, and could not reach a verdict on charges against the two principal organizers and the foundation itself, which had been the largest Muslim charity in the United States until the government froze its assets in late 2001.
The decision today is “a stunning setback for the government, there’s no other way of looking at it,” said Matthew D. Orwig, a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal here who was, until recently, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.
“This is a message, a two-by-four in the middle of the forehead,” Mr. Orwig said. “If this doesn’t get their attention, they are just in complete denial,” he said of Justice Department officials, whom he said may not have recognized how difficult such cases are to prosecute.
David D. Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the jury’s verdict called into question the government’s tactics in freezing the assets of charities using secret evidence that the charities cannot see, much less rebut. When, at trial, prosecutors “have to put their evidence on the table, they can’t convict anyone of anything,” he said. “It suggests the government is really pushing beyond where the law justifies them going.”
And Jimmy Gurulé , who was an undersecretary of the Treasury when that agency froze Holy Land’s assets, described the outcome as “the continuation of what I now see as a trend of disappointing legal defeats” in terror-financing cases. Two previous cases, in Illinois and in Florida, ended with hung juries and relatively minor plea deals, he said.
In the Holy Land case, lawyers for defendants told the jury that their clients did not support terrorism but were humanitarians trying to lessen suffering among impoverished Palestinians. Though their clients might have expressed support for Hamas, the defense argued, that was before the United States government designated it as a terrorist organization in 1995.
The outcome of the trial emerged during a morning of confusion for jurors and those on both sides of the case, who had been waiting to hear the verdict since the jury returned it on Oct. 18. It was sealed until today because the presiding judge, Chief Judge A. Joe Fish, was out of town.
In the verdict, the jury said it failed to reach a decision on any of the charges against the charity and two of its main organizers, but acquitted three defendants on almost all counts.
But in a highly unusual development, when the judge polled the jurors, three members said that verdict did not represent their views. He sent them off deliberate again; after about 40 minutes, they said they could not continue.
In the end, one defendant, Mohammed El-Mezain, was acquitted on all but one charge, involving conspiracy, on which the jury failed to reach a verdict. A mistrial was declared on that count, and on all the other counts involving the other defendants.
James T. Jacks, the first assistant United States Attorney, said in court that the government would retry the case. Both prosecutors and defense lawyers have been barred from discussing the case in the press, and Judge Fish said that order continued in force.
The exact nature of the jurors’ disputes, and their reasoning in the cases, remained unclear after the verdict. Judge Fish barred reporters from attempting to contact the jurors, although he said he would provide jurors with reporters’ telephone numbers if they wanted to discuss the case.
One juror told The Associated Press that the panel found little evidence against three defendants and was evenly split on charges against Shukri abu Baker, the former charity’s president, and Ghassan Elashi, its chairman.
“I thought they were not guilty across the board,” said the juror, William Neal, a 33-year-old art director from Dallas. The case “was strung together with macaroni noodles,” Mr. Neal said. “There was so little evidence.”
He said the government should not retry the case — an opinion supported by Holy Land’s supporters, who packed the courtroom during the trial and who carried some defendants around on their shoulders outside the courthouse chanting “Praise God” in Arabic.
“The government spent 13 years and came back empty-handed,” said Khalil Meek, who is president of the Muslim Legal Fund of America and spokesman for an alliance called Hungry for Justice. “I would call that a victory — an overwhelming defeat for the government.”
Lawyers for some defendants said their clients were being prosecuted because of their family ties to Hamas leaders. One defendant, Mufid Abdulqader, is the half-brother of Khalid Mishal, a Hamas leader who has been designated as a terrorist by the United States government.
Another Hamas official and designated terrorist, Mousa abu Marzook, is married to a cousin of Mr. Elashi, who was sentenced last year to almost seven years in prison for having financial dealings with Mr. Marzook and for violating export laws
Mr. Elashi’s daughter, Noor, who was in the courtroom every day during the trial, said she considered her father a hero. “He was singled out for feeding and clothing and educating the children of Palestine,” she said. “Giving charity to the Palestinian people has become a crime in this country.” (End quote)
HOFFMAN'S NOTE: It's Khaled Meshal not "Mishal." Israeli P.M. Binyamin Netanyahu tried to assassinate him by having Mossad agents spray mortal poison in his ear in Jordan. That was not an act of terorrism, of course and terror-fighter George W. Bush is on good terms with Netanyahu, the would-be assassin.
***
No Convictions in Trial Against Muslim Charity
By Leslie Eaton | NY Times | October 22, 2007
DALLAS, Oct. 22 — A deadlocked federal jury here did not convict any leaders of a Muslim charity who were charged with supporting Middle Eastern terrorists, and the judge today declared a mistrial in what has been widely viewed as the government’s flagship terror-financing case.
The case, involving the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of its backers, is the government’s largest and most complex legal effort to shut down what it contends is American financing for terrorist organizations in the Middle East. President Bush announced he was freezing the charity’s assets in 2001, saying that the radical Islamic group Hamas had “obtained much of the money it pays for murder abroad right here in the United States.”
But at the trial, the government did not allege that the foundation, which was based in a Dallas suburb, paid directly for suicide bombings. Instead, the prosecution said, the foundation supported terrorism by sending more than $12 million to charitable groups, known as zakat committees, which build hospitals and feed the poor.
The prosecution said the committees were controlled by Hamas and contributed to terrorism by helping Hamas spread its ideology and recruit supporters. The government relied on Israeli intelligence agents, using pseudonyms, to testify in support of this theory. But prosecutors appeared to have made little headway in convincing the jury.
The case involved a total of 197 counts, including providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, years of investigation and preparation, almost two months of testimony and more than 1,000 exhibits, including documents, wiretaps, transcripts and videotapes dug up in a backyard in Virginia.
After 19 days of deliberations, the jury acquitted one of the five individual defendants on all but one charge, on which it deadlocked. A majority of the jurors also appeared ready to acquit two other defendants of most charges, and could not reach a verdict on charges against the two principal organizers and the foundation itself, which had been the largest Muslim charity in the United States until the government froze its assets in late 2001.
The decision today is “a stunning setback for the government, there’s no other way of looking at it,” said Matthew D. Orwig, a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal here who was, until recently, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.
“This is a message, a two-by-four in the middle of the forehead,” Mr. Orwig said. “If this doesn’t get their attention, they are just in complete denial,” he said of Justice Department officials, whom he said may not have recognized how difficult such cases are to prosecute.
David D. Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the jury’s verdict called into question the government’s tactics in freezing the assets of charities using secret evidence that the charities cannot see, much less rebut. When, at trial, prosecutors “have to put their evidence on the table, they can’t convict anyone of anything,” he said. “It suggests the government is really pushing beyond where the law justifies them going.”
And Jimmy Gurulé , who was an undersecretary of the Treasury when that agency froze Holy Land’s assets, described the outcome as “the continuation of what I now see as a trend of disappointing legal defeats” in terror-financing cases. Two previous cases, in Illinois and in Florida, ended with hung juries and relatively minor plea deals, he said.
In the Holy Land case, lawyers for defendants told the jury that their clients did not support terrorism but were humanitarians trying to lessen suffering among impoverished Palestinians. Though their clients might have expressed support for Hamas, the defense argued, that was before the United States government designated it as a terrorist organization in 1995.
The outcome of the trial emerged during a morning of confusion for jurors and those on both sides of the case, who had been waiting to hear the verdict since the jury returned it on Oct. 18. It was sealed until today because the presiding judge, Chief Judge A. Joe Fish, was out of town.
In the verdict, the jury said it failed to reach a decision on any of the charges against the charity and two of its main organizers, but acquitted three defendants on almost all counts.
But in a highly unusual development, when the judge polled the jurors, three members said that verdict did not represent their views. He sent them off deliberate again; after about 40 minutes, they said they could not continue.
In the end, one defendant, Mohammed El-Mezain, was acquitted on all but one charge, involving conspiracy, on which the jury failed to reach a verdict. A mistrial was declared on that count, and on all the other counts involving the other defendants.
James T. Jacks, the first assistant United States Attorney, said in court that the government would retry the case. Both prosecutors and defense lawyers have been barred from discussing the case in the press, and Judge Fish said that order continued in force.
The exact nature of the jurors’ disputes, and their reasoning in the cases, remained unclear after the verdict. Judge Fish barred reporters from attempting to contact the jurors, although he said he would provide jurors with reporters’ telephone numbers if they wanted to discuss the case.
One juror told The Associated Press that the panel found little evidence against three defendants and was evenly split on charges against Shukri abu Baker, the former charity’s president, and Ghassan Elashi, its chairman.
“I thought they were not guilty across the board,” said the juror, William Neal, a 33-year-old art director from Dallas. The case “was strung together with macaroni noodles,” Mr. Neal said. “There was so little evidence.”
He said the government should not retry the case — an opinion supported by Holy Land’s supporters, who packed the courtroom during the trial and who carried some defendants around on their shoulders outside the courthouse chanting “Praise God” in Arabic.
“The government spent 13 years and came back empty-handed,” said Khalil Meek, who is president of the Muslim Legal Fund of America and spokesman for an alliance called Hungry for Justice. “I would call that a victory — an overwhelming defeat for the government.”
Lawyers for some defendants said their clients were being prosecuted because of their family ties to Hamas leaders. One defendant, Mufid Abdulqader, is the half-brother of Khalid Mishal, a Hamas leader who has been designated as a terrorist by the United States government.
Another Hamas official and designated terrorist, Mousa abu Marzook, is married to a cousin of Mr. Elashi, who was sentenced last year to almost seven years in prison for having financial dealings with Mr. Marzook and for violating export laws
Mr. Elashi’s daughter, Noor, who was in the courtroom every day during the trial, said she considered her father a hero. “He was singled out for feeding and clothing and educating the children of Palestine,” she said. “Giving charity to the Palestinian people has become a crime in this country.” (End quote)
HOFFMAN'S NOTE: It's Khaled Meshal not "Mishal." Israeli P.M. Binyamin Netanyahu tried to assassinate him by having Mossad agents spray mortal poison in his ear in Jordan. That was not an act of terorrism, of course and terror-fighter George W. Bush is on good terms with Netanyahu, the would-be assassin.
***
Friday, October 19, 2007
The "Arab Lobby": what is it really? by Mujeeb R. Khan
The Israeli lobby has asserted that there is a petrodollar-funded "Arab lobby" in the US that influences the media and politicians. Mujeeb R. Khan, a California-based PhD. candidate in political science, makes hash of that claim:
"...the Arab lobby, composed of despotic royal families and American oil and defense corporate interests, has only been able to buy protection for grossly unpopular regimes that in turn are expected to recycle their petrodollars to buy stripped down and overpriced weapon systems that by Congressional mandate may never be deployed in a manner threatening Israel. This hardly compares with the American taxpayers' underwriting of the Israeli military machine.
"Similarly, with the exception of the feeble knuckle-rapping of Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush, no American administration has been willing to apply sustained pressure to get Israel to stop the illegal policy of settler colonialism in the occupied territories. George W. Bush has in fact endorsed the Likud bloc's incorporation of large chunks of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem and quickly muted even mild criticism of the Israeli assault on Jenin in the face of Congressional pressure. This was followed by support for Israel's systematic destruction of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, which was widely viewed in the Muslim world as state terrorism."
***
"...the Arab lobby, composed of despotic royal families and American oil and defense corporate interests, has only been able to buy protection for grossly unpopular regimes that in turn are expected to recycle their petrodollars to buy stripped down and overpriced weapon systems that by Congressional mandate may never be deployed in a manner threatening Israel. This hardly compares with the American taxpayers' underwriting of the Israeli military machine.
"Similarly, with the exception of the feeble knuckle-rapping of Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush, no American administration has been willing to apply sustained pressure to get Israel to stop the illegal policy of settler colonialism in the occupied territories. George W. Bush has in fact endorsed the Likud bloc's incorporation of large chunks of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem and quickly muted even mild criticism of the Israeli assault on Jenin in the face of Congressional pressure. This was followed by support for Israel's systematic destruction of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, which was widely viewed in the Muslim world as state terrorism."
***
David Irving's Letter to the Jewish Chronicle
Jewish Chronicle Alleges this to be David Irving's Letter to their Legal Department
Today's London-based "Jewish Chronicle" newspaper, flagship publication of British Talmudists and Zionists, has published a letter which they allege they received from historian David Irving. Here is the text of the alleged letter as published in the Jewish Chronicle of Oct. 19, 2007:
To the Legal Department of the Jewish Chronicle
Dear Sirs,
The purpose of this letter: This letter puts your publication on notice that if you should print or otherwise publish anywhere including on your Internet website any statement carrying the defamatory and now demonstrably untrue meaning, whether implicit or explicit, that I am “an active Holocaust denier”, or any variations on that phrase carrying the same purport, then I shall without further notice issue a Claim in Defamation against yourselves and the author or authors of the libel, and I shall produce this letter at the hearing of the action as evidence that you published the said libel in the face of such a written warning in support of a possible claim for aggravated damages.
Argument: I refer you to the many statements I have made in public which are a matter of record and will destroy any pleaded defence of justification. These include but are not limited to my biographies of Dr Joseph Goebbels (1966) and of Hitler (1977, 1991, and 2002), where I describe in detail the mass shootings of Jews and others behind the eastern front.
My statements in both the Lipstadt trial (2000) and the Vienna trial (2005) left no doubt that I believe (accepting that Höfle document and Korherr report are authentic and not forgeries) the Nazis and their accomplices murdered 2.4 million Jews in the “Reinhardt” camps along the Bug River (Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor); minor questions arise over Auschwitz, but Holocaust historians have also asked them.
I have demonstrably stated so in public since 1991 (my discovery of the Adolf Eichmann files), 1992 (my discovery of the Hans Aumeier manuscripts and subsequently the full exploitation of the CSDIC files): you will find these statements throughout my website (go to www.fpp.co.uk/search) and repeated in my interview with The Guardian newspaper published on September 29, which you can read most easily at www.fpp.co.uk /online /07/09/Guardian_interview.html, and repeated in The Forward, the foremost US Jewish newspaper (ibid., /online/07/09/Forward.html).
The published diaries of my recent visits to these death camps will destroy any doubts you might still entertain:
www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2007/020307.html et seq.
Notice: Should you recklessly and maliciously repeat the lie as defined in the first paragraph to this letter — as you may feel tempted to do now — I shall issue and serve a Claim in Defamation without further notice.
Yours faithfully
David Irving
(End quote)
***
Deborah Lipstdt, "Amalek" and David Irving (DVD)
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10017
>>>
Today's London-based "Jewish Chronicle" newspaper, flagship publication of British Talmudists and Zionists, has published a letter which they allege they received from historian David Irving. Here is the text of the alleged letter as published in the Jewish Chronicle of Oct. 19, 2007:
To the Legal Department of the Jewish Chronicle
Dear Sirs,
The purpose of this letter: This letter puts your publication on notice that if you should print or otherwise publish anywhere including on your Internet website any statement carrying the defamatory and now demonstrably untrue meaning, whether implicit or explicit, that I am “an active Holocaust denier”, or any variations on that phrase carrying the same purport, then I shall without further notice issue a Claim in Defamation against yourselves and the author or authors of the libel, and I shall produce this letter at the hearing of the action as evidence that you published the said libel in the face of such a written warning in support of a possible claim for aggravated damages.
Argument: I refer you to the many statements I have made in public which are a matter of record and will destroy any pleaded defence of justification. These include but are not limited to my biographies of Dr Joseph Goebbels (1966) and of Hitler (1977, 1991, and 2002), where I describe in detail the mass shootings of Jews and others behind the eastern front.
My statements in both the Lipstadt trial (2000) and the Vienna trial (2005) left no doubt that I believe (accepting that Höfle document and Korherr report are authentic and not forgeries) the Nazis and their accomplices murdered 2.4 million Jews in the “Reinhardt” camps along the Bug River (Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor); minor questions arise over Auschwitz, but Holocaust historians have also asked them.
I have demonstrably stated so in public since 1991 (my discovery of the Adolf Eichmann files), 1992 (my discovery of the Hans Aumeier manuscripts and subsequently the full exploitation of the CSDIC files): you will find these statements throughout my website (go to www.fpp.co.uk/search) and repeated in my interview with The Guardian newspaper published on September 29, which you can read most easily at www.fpp.co.uk /online /07/09/Guardian_interview.html, and repeated in The Forward, the foremost US Jewish newspaper (ibid., /online/07/09/Forward.html).
The published diaries of my recent visits to these death camps will destroy any doubts you might still entertain:
www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2007/020307.html et seq.
Notice: Should you recklessly and maliciously repeat the lie as defined in the first paragraph to this letter — as you may feel tempted to do now — I shall issue and serve a Claim in Defamation without further notice.
Yours faithfully
David Irving
(End quote)
***
Deborah Lipstdt, "Amalek" and David Irving (DVD)
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10017
>>>
Bush can ignore law in "wartime"? But we're not at war!
"Some of the most tense exchanges at the (Judiciary) hearing centered on whether the president must strictly abide by provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law that governs clandestine spying in the United States. (Attorney General nominee Michael) Mukasey suggested that the president can ignore a law, including the surveillance act, if it unduly impinges on his constitutional authority as commander in chief during wartime." --Washington Post, Oct. 19, 2007
This is from yesterday's hearings into the confirmation of Rudy Giuliani's crony Mukasey as Attorney general.
You've heard this "wartime" refrain constantly. I have not heard or read of a single major media reporter or pundit challenge this "Commander in chief in wartime" alibi for a Big Brother police state.
The Constitution requires that Congress must declare war. If Congress declares war then we are in "wartime."
There has been no such formal declaration by Congress in accord with the Constitution. All Congress has done is issue a type of memo of understanding for military action by Bush. This does not meet the Constutional criterion for a declaration of war. Therefore, under the Constitution we are not in wartime and President Bush has no right to make himself King Bush on the pretext of war. We are a nation of laws, not media supposition or Congressonal inference. The Constitution is precise on this and the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war has simply not in any manner been fulfilled.
"Wartime" as understood by the nation's media and politicians is a defacto state of affairs that has existed since World War II. Supposed "temporary" war measures instituted during WWII, the Korean conflict and Vietnam have never been rescinded. They are part of the bureaucratic fog of war that continues to expand the already bloated central government, even as Bush earlier this week made derogatory racist mention of a supposed "Russian gene" for central authority under Vladimir Putin.
The Founders required a declaration of war, so that we would not enter into a fog of war; so that we would not engage in what Harry Elmer Barnes termed, "perpetual war for perpetual peace." In other words, becoming a central government on a permanent war footing that will grow ever more into the proportions of Leviathan based on nebulous and poorly defined concepts of war and wartime that never come to an end. Has anyone spoken of a forthcoming "peacetime" with regard to the so-called "war on terror"? Vice President Cheney has declared that it is a war that will endure for "generations."
This is the illegal war mongering that we have in America today and all reference to the Constitution in discussions of "wartime" powers, are moot when we fail to mention that under the Constitution we are not at war and not in "wartime" since Congress has not declared war.
A band of criminal "public servants" seek to render the Federal government ever more lawless. The major media cooperate in the process. The "we are at war" thesis ignores Constitutional law while invoking the Constitution. This is the doublethink which the prophet George Orwell forecast would arise in situations like ours.
***
Michael Hoffman's talks on audio CD:
The Masqueraders’ Jest
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10003
Skull and Bones “Christianity”
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10002
***
Receive Hoffman's columns by e-mail:
Subscribe to The Hoffman Wire
Send an e-mail to:
HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com
When you receive Topica's e-mail in response to your subscription request, simply click on your reply button; that's all there is to it.
You need NOT visit Topica's website in order to subscribe. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.
There is no cost or obligation.
***
This is from yesterday's hearings into the confirmation of Rudy Giuliani's crony Mukasey as Attorney general.
You've heard this "wartime" refrain constantly. I have not heard or read of a single major media reporter or pundit challenge this "Commander in chief in wartime" alibi for a Big Brother police state.
The Constitution requires that Congress must declare war. If Congress declares war then we are in "wartime."
There has been no such formal declaration by Congress in accord with the Constitution. All Congress has done is issue a type of memo of understanding for military action by Bush. This does not meet the Constutional criterion for a declaration of war. Therefore, under the Constitution we are not in wartime and President Bush has no right to make himself King Bush on the pretext of war. We are a nation of laws, not media supposition or Congressonal inference. The Constitution is precise on this and the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war has simply not in any manner been fulfilled.
"Wartime" as understood by the nation's media and politicians is a defacto state of affairs that has existed since World War II. Supposed "temporary" war measures instituted during WWII, the Korean conflict and Vietnam have never been rescinded. They are part of the bureaucratic fog of war that continues to expand the already bloated central government, even as Bush earlier this week made derogatory racist mention of a supposed "Russian gene" for central authority under Vladimir Putin.
The Founders required a declaration of war, so that we would not enter into a fog of war; so that we would not engage in what Harry Elmer Barnes termed, "perpetual war for perpetual peace." In other words, becoming a central government on a permanent war footing that will grow ever more into the proportions of Leviathan based on nebulous and poorly defined concepts of war and wartime that never come to an end. Has anyone spoken of a forthcoming "peacetime" with regard to the so-called "war on terror"? Vice President Cheney has declared that it is a war that will endure for "generations."
This is the illegal war mongering that we have in America today and all reference to the Constitution in discussions of "wartime" powers, are moot when we fail to mention that under the Constitution we are not at war and not in "wartime" since Congress has not declared war.
A band of criminal "public servants" seek to render the Federal government ever more lawless. The major media cooperate in the process. The "we are at war" thesis ignores Constitutional law while invoking the Constitution. This is the doublethink which the prophet George Orwell forecast would arise in situations like ours.
***
Michael Hoffman's talks on audio CD:
The Masqueraders’ Jest
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10003
Skull and Bones “Christianity”
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10002
***
Receive Hoffman's columns by e-mail:
Subscribe to The Hoffman Wire
Send an e-mail to:
HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com
When you receive Topica's e-mail in response to your subscription request, simply click on your reply button; that's all there is to it.
You need NOT visit Topica's website in order to subscribe. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.
There is no cost or obligation.
***
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Zionist Gospel on Syria Bombing, according to NY Times
Here's our infallible gospel reading from the front page of our Zionist Bible, today's New York Times, by David Sanger et al:Analysts Find Israel Struck a Syrian Nuclear Project
David E. Sanger and Mark Mazzetti
Published: October 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel's air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports. (End quote from the NY Times)
Notice that the Zionist Sanger does not write "according to SOME Israeli and American intelligence analysts ..." or "SOME analysts find."
The headline is "analysts find." Period. The implied connotation is that THE analysts have stated this.
That's the key propaganda omission in the opening paragraph of this front page story. If Sanger and his editors at the Times were to properly qualify the statement with the word "some" then most of the power of the report would be down the drain, because the qualification would imply a disputed analysis, and therefore a debate.
But a gospel from on high is not qualified. It is written to inspire belief, not critical thinking or evaluation. Sanger's opening paragraph, like much of the "reporting" in the New York Times by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller that helped provide justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq, is slanted to tell us what reality is and what we are to believe, like the aftermath of the Tenth Plenary Session of the Communist Party. "Here's what we decided you are going to believe."
Our reponse is supposed to be one of, "Yes, comrade commissar!"
It is so unbelievably neanderthal, stupid and dull. But then so too is intense media coverage of presidential candidates more than a year before the US elections: dim-witted and incredibly boring minutiae about the tedious comings and goings of a host of evil corporate clones (excepting Kucinch and Ron Paul), who don't have an original or alternative thought in their heads.
The Zionist media are intent on distracting investigative attention away from Israeli violence, occupation, racist Talmudic hatred, colonialism, nuclear and conventional militarism and threats to American security and world peace. They summon a bogeyman instead: "North Korea/Syria/nukes!" (when not summoning "Syria/Iran/nukes!"). The unstated assumption is that the Chosen Race of Judaics have the divine right to bomb sovereign nations like Syria who may or may not be seeking what the Chosen Race already possesses, nuclear power and weapons.
This is Master Race theology promulgated by Zionists who brag to the world of their liberal humanist credentials.
***
CHAMELEON JUDAISM:
How Dissimulation is Institutionalized in Rabbinic Tradition
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10029
***
Friday, October 12, 2007
University of Michigan Press and the Israeli Lobby
University of Michigan and Pluto Press
by Daniel McGowan
In August The University of Michigan Press was bombarded with protests from Zionists about their distribution of a new book by Joel Kovel entitled "Overcoming Zionism."
This book was published by Pluto Press, which has published many other fine books, including those of Israel Shahak and Norman Finkelstein.
The University caved in and halted distribution of Kovel’s book.
(This writer has met Joel and I have read his book; it is truthful and forthright and, if anything, it does not go far enough in its condemnation of political Zionism.)
The University of Michigan Press has restored "Overcoming Zionism" to its distribution listings, but indicated its intention to reconsider its contract with Pluto Press in mid-October.
In the words of Howard Zinn, “Pluto is a valuable and unique intellectual resource, publishing progressive books of a consistently high quality. It provides an alternative viewpoint essential to discussion and debate of important social issues, such as those concerning Israel/Palestine and the Middle East. The cancellation of Pluto's contract with the University would be a serious blow to the principles of pluralism, academic freedom and free speech.”
As a member of Deir Yassin Remembered I urge you to protest by sending a letter or, better yet, an email to the following people, demanding that the University of Michigan Press continue its contract with Pluto Press.
Professor Peggy McCracken
Executive Board Chair
University of Michigan Press
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
peggymcc@umich.edu
President Mary Sue Coleman
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
presoff@umich.edu
Janet Weiss
Dean of the Rackham Graduate School and Vice Provost
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1070
janetw@umich.edu
Teresa A. Sullivan
Provost and Executive Vice-President for Academic Affairs
3074 Fleming Building
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340
tsull@umich.edu
***
by Daniel McGowan
In August The University of Michigan Press was bombarded with protests from Zionists about their distribution of a new book by Joel Kovel entitled "Overcoming Zionism."
This book was published by Pluto Press, which has published many other fine books, including those of Israel Shahak and Norman Finkelstein.
The University caved in and halted distribution of Kovel’s book.
(This writer has met Joel and I have read his book; it is truthful and forthright and, if anything, it does not go far enough in its condemnation of political Zionism.)
The University of Michigan Press has restored "Overcoming Zionism" to its distribution listings, but indicated its intention to reconsider its contract with Pluto Press in mid-October.
In the words of Howard Zinn, “Pluto is a valuable and unique intellectual resource, publishing progressive books of a consistently high quality. It provides an alternative viewpoint essential to discussion and debate of important social issues, such as those concerning Israel/Palestine and the Middle East. The cancellation of Pluto's contract with the University would be a serious blow to the principles of pluralism, academic freedom and free speech.”
As a member of Deir Yassin Remembered I urge you to protest by sending a letter or, better yet, an email to the following people, demanding that the University of Michigan Press continue its contract with Pluto Press.
Professor Peggy McCracken
Executive Board Chair
University of Michigan Press
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
peggymcc@umich.edu
President Mary Sue Coleman
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
presoff@umich.edu
Janet Weiss
Dean of the Rackham Graduate School and Vice Provost
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1070
janetw@umich.edu
Teresa A. Sullivan
Provost and Executive Vice-President for Academic Affairs
3074 Fleming Building
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340
tsull@umich.edu
***
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Lawyers Bounce Zundel Attorney from Georgetown U. German Meeting
By Bruce Leichty
Michael Hoffman's Note: Bruce Leichty is a courageous activist-attorney in the tradition of his Mennonite forebears and legal advocates such as Doug Christie and Gerry Spence. Bruce is not the kind of attorney who thinks it's "beneath his dignity" to work the streets distributing literature or canalizing conference participants. In the past two years he has organized, at his own expense, revisionist history conferences at Mennonite convention sites in Charlotte, North Carolina (in 2005) and last July in San Jose, California. In both venues he featured speeches by Ingrid Rimland Zundel and this writer. The following account of his treatment at the hands of German lawyers at Georgetown is indicative of the profound spiritual malaise afflicting contemporary Germans. Bruce also raises a fascinating point of legal history: "the chasm between the United States with its legal pedigree in English common law, and Germany with its dependence on so-called 'civil law' as influenced by the Roman empire." The study of the roots of these two differing legal systems is a book project for an aspiring scholar. Here now is Mr. Leichty's report:
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON D.C.--Although I had successfully engaged members of the German American Lawyers Association (DAJV) in dialogue on Oct. 5, security guards ordered me off the campus of Georgetown University Law Center under threat of arrest on Saturday, October 6, even after I agreed to stop leafletting the DAJV conferees concerning the scandalous treatment of imprisoned German national Ernst Zundel in the courts of both Germany and the United States.
Mr. Zundel is the "thought criminal" who was recently sentenced to five years in prison in Germany for "inciting racial hatred" i.e. publishing dissenting historical viewpoints about "the Holocaust" and its exploitation by Jewish pressure groups. Before that, he was illegally deported from the United States and denied a constitutionally-guaranteed habeas corpus hearing, and then deported from Canada after being declared a national security risk based on the use of secret evidence--a use since prohibited by Canada's highest court.
I have represented Zundel since 2003 in an effort to obtain justice for him in the U.S., where he was abducted by federal marshals at his Tennessee home and taken away from his wife, Ingrid, a U.S. citizen. The pamphlet I distributed October 6, at the inaugural meeting of the German-American lawyers association in the U.S., was titled "Lawyers Alert" and consisted of an article by Mrs. Zundel on Ernst's conviction in Germany and an article this writer authored on the defects in Zundel's U.S. arrest and court proceedings.
The pamphlet featured a quote from German Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen, who wrote in his decision convicting Zundel of a speech crime, "It is irrelevant whether the Holocaust happened or not. Denying it is punishable under German criminal statutes." That quote caused a stir among at least a few conferees who spoke with me.
I had been denied without explanation the chance to register for this conference when I had tried to do so a few days before the conference was to begin. But my client Mrs. Zundel thought it would be timely for me to fly to Washington, D.C. anyway, to try to raise the consciousness of the members of the association, which had been described to me as over 3,000 strong (I was later told that 180 had registered for the Georgetown conference). Ingrid and I created a pamphlet with this specific audience in mind. On Friday, October 5, I entered McDonough Hall on the Georgetown Law Center campus, where the lawyers were meeting, and successfully distributed an estimated 70-80 pamphlets as participants were leaving a session on constitutional law.
There were no brushes with Georgetown officials or security officers on that day. In fact, I managed to engage in dialogue with several members of the association. One was a fellow alumnus of the Boalt Law School at the University of California at Berkeley, who told me about the Georgetown conference a week earlier and urged me to network with lawyers there. He and I had spoken after a screening of the film "Soldiers of Conscience" at Berkeley (about U.S. conscientious objectors to military service), and when I challenged him about Germany's treatment of a different kind of conscientious objector (Zundel) he had expressed skepticism that such a harsh sentence had been handed down to someone for merely expressing his views on the Holocaust. He also attempted to justify imposing a criminal sentence for uttering "falsehoods."
Despite the Berkeley alum's hospitable demeanor while in Berkeley, at the Georgetown campus he seemed somewhat shaken both by my appearance there in Washington, D.C. and by the fact that my conference registration had been refused. Because he was at no time hostile to me and because he wanted more information on Judge Meinerzhagen's ruling, I will refrain from naming him--not that he risks anything in Germany besides embarrassment, apparently. He informed me that as a former German government official he was not concerned about expressing an interest in getting further information about the Zundel sentence.
My conversations in the course of my Oct. 5 visit to the conference also included a conversation with a young German attorney, who cross-examined me skeptically for about ten minutes. He asked me whether I believed in a "Jewish conspiracy," and after I refused to take his bait, he said that anyone who refused to take a position on the question of "Jewish conspiracy" could not criticize Judge Meinerzhagen for his comment on the irrelevance of the historical validity of the "Holocaust." The young German attorney further declared that my refusal was logically inconsistent. I pointed out the logical fallacy of his analogy, noting that one question (historicity of the "Holocaust)" involved judicial determination of a crime; while the other (existence of a "Jewish conspiracy") did not. He did not address my point, and instead chose to continued to taunt me about being "illogical," and bragging about his own superior (German) education in logic, before walking away.
By contrast, an American lawyer born in Germany who was part of the same three-way conversation stated that he was open to the viewpoints of Zundel and that Zundel should be allowed to express them.
This German-born American lawyer suggested that the Zundel case symbolized the chasm between the United States with its legal pedigree in English common law, and Germany with its dependence on so-called "civil law" as influenced by the Roman empire.
I pointed out to both lawyers that my Anabaptist ancestors fled Europe precisely because they were hounded for their resistance to religious and state dogma in the same way that Zundel was resisting a modern form of dogma, and that I was determined to do my part in ensuring that America did not follow Germany's example of criminalizing speech.
If my conversations with the attorneys were relatively civil on Oct. 5, they were decidedly hostile the following day. When I made my appearance at the conference on Saturday morning, October 6, I was accosted outside of the meeting room by an agitated young German woman, a "Ms. Flimm," who admonished me that not only was my distribution of pamphlets prohibited, but that I would have to pay for having dared show up at the conference despite having my registration refused.
In reply I told her, truthfully, that I had not attended any of the sessions and therefore could not be billed for attendance at a conference that had refused my registration and my offer to pay to attend.
When I expressed my desire to exercise my right to continue to distribute my publication next to the elevators of the 12th floor meeting room, she stated I would have to leave and then physically shoved me in the direction of the elevators. I then asked to speak with her superiors. She called on someone who said he was the executive officer for the association, who identified himself only as "Dietrich." This "Dietrich" glared at me and refused to shake my hand. He reiterated Ms. Flimm's order that I leave the premises. An attorney slated to speak on the next panel, on the topic of global warming, Sebastian Deschler, of the Washington, D.C. office of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, attempted to usher me toward the elevator. As Dietrich and Ms. Flimm hastily shut the double doors to the lecture hall to prevent the assembled lawyers from witnessing my eviction, I asked Sebastian Deschler in what capacity he served with the German American Lawyers Association. He gave me no clear answer.
All three of my opponents were urged by an older attorney, who I subsequently learned was Werner Hein of the law firm Mayer, Brown LLP. Hein asked me to step further down the hall toward the elevators, where the two of us spoke rapidly and calmly for a few minutes. Hein said he was one of the founders of the association, and he made it clear that he wanted me to leave the building voluntarily so that he would not have to ask Georgetown security to remove me, which he indicated would be unpleasant for the association. I was "imposing" a topic on the association where it was not wanted, he said. I responded that it (the case of a German dissident publisher imprisoned for his writings and speech) was a topic where discussion was very much needed.
Lawyer Hein stated he was familiar with the issue of criminalization of "Holocaust" skepticism, and he promised to read my pamphlet, but he alluded vaguely to difficulties caused by the subject and to other difficulties he was experiencing with the conference, including a speaker who had exceeded his time and a speaker who had offended the audience, although it was not clear what those matters had to do with my being present. Mr. Hein said that I should take my objections to the German Embassy; I told him I had already attempted to do so (I had participated in a protest at the German Embassy in D.C. several months ago and tried without success to get an appointment with an officer there).
I related to Mr. Hein that I had come to the conference in order to inform German lawyers directly about the judicial outrages perpetrated against Ernst Zundel and that his case was an issue of importance both for international human rights law and to the legal relations of our two countries. I also noted that the establishment American media had effectively blacked out the account of the German repression against Zundel. Hein's response was to suggest that if the Washington Post newspaper had not covered the story, then it must not be worthy of coverage. I reminded him that a man was in prison for his views.
Hein was legally correct in that I had no right, as someone who had been banned from the lawyers' association conference, to pass out pamphlets to the members of the association on private university property, without explicit permission from the university or the association.
When I failed to persuade him of the moral imperative of my being allowed to continue my pamphlet distribution, I agreed--at his suggestion--that I would instead distribute the pamphlets outside the building where the conference was being held, as the attorneys entered and exited.
I had earlier been granted a "day pass" by Georgetown security, and I now had permission from Hein to distribute the pamphlets at the entrance of the building, and I did so.
For about 10 minutes I handed out a number of additional pamphlets to both German and U.S. attorneys who were arriving for the conference. A coupleof lawyers took a look at the title of the pamphlet and showed interest in my brief verbal synopsis, and asked who I was. Another threw the pamphlet into a nearby trash can; she was the only person I saw doing so. After another lawyer said he had received and read the pamphlet the previous day and that it made him "kind of sick," I spoke with him for a few seconds on the importance of allowing dissenting voices. (Was he sick over Germany's treatment of a dissenter or about the fact that someone had daredto question "Holocaust" orthodoxy?)
After approximately ten minutes,a security officer appeared in the person of "Officer Wilson" (with "Officer Harris" arriving somewhat later), presumably at the behest of Werner Hein or one of his colleagues.
Although Officer Wilson was initially courteous, he grew more threatening the longer I spoke with him. After failing to persuade him that Georgetown had effectively allowed me to distribute the pamphlets by giving me a "day pass," I agreed to comply with his "request" that I discontinue literature distribution outside the building where the German lawyers were meeting. All the while Officer Wilson was confiscating the pamphlets that I was attempting to hand to incoming lawyers. He did not succeed, however, in preventing all distribution during our otherwise civil conversation.
But he wasn't done with me. When I said that I wanted to deliver a pamphlet to the office of the student newspaper before I left campus, his attitude became menacing. He issued an ultimatum for me to leave the campus or be arrested.
He stated that I was not allowed to deliver my literature to the editors of the student newspaper. I pointed out to him that he was effectively denying me the right simply to walk across campus and communicate with a student. As I began to walk, he picked up his walkie-talkie and began to give out my physical description to someone on the other end and telling them that I was to be arrested if I did not leave the campus within three minutes. In no hurry, I ambled back to the public sidewalk.
I could have tried and should have been able to visit the office of the student newspaper, since entrance to the Georgetown campus is not prohibited to the public, though entrance to at least some campus buildings is controlled and visitors are asked to state their purpose and show identification. In my case, on October 6 I had explained to the security guard at the McDonough Hall conference site, that I had come "to talk with some of the German lawyers meeting there" and had then received the "day pass" sticker which I was wearing on my shirt when confronted by other members of Georgetown security.
Georgetown did indeed have the right to control access to the campus, and Georgetown had arguably delegated to this security guard the right to revoke or withdraw its consent, even if Georgetown had not originally prohibited my access to the campus earlier in the day and even if one of their other guests had purported to give me permission to remain. As a visitor to the nation's capital with a full workload of law cases in my home state of California, I could ill afford to be arrested, even if the arrest was of dubious merit.
If Georgetown wanted to grant or deny access to lawyers based on the content of their speech, whether verbal or written, there was nothing I could really do about it on October 6. That was clearly what this Georgetown security representative was doing, since I was not posing a threat to public order or to anything or anyone.
The result of my activity? A few lawyers had their consciousness raised, and hopefully the unexpected appearance of an advocate for the free speech rights of dissidents like Zundel will ultimately help pave the way for more discussion and reevaluation among German lawyers--whether inside or outside this German American Lawyers Association (DAJV)group.
But for the time being the DAJV officials and Georgetown authorities intervened to make certain that not too much information reached people in a position to make a difference. I am under no illusions about the fact that there are many powerful vested interests in both Germany and the United States who want to keep it that way.
TAKE ACTION
Bruce Leichty: leichty@sbcglobal.net
German American Lawyers Association (DAJV)
E-mail: mail@dajv.de
Website: http://www.dajv.de/en/index.php
Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of Georgetown University Law School
E-mail: deanpage@law.georgetown.edu
Web: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/dean/deanpage
Student Affairs/Georgetown University Law School:
studentaffairs@law.georgetown.edu
The Georgetown Law Journal:
glj@law.georgetown.edu
Washington Post newspaper:
https://www.washpost.com/news_ed/news/contact_news.shtml
Free Ernst Zundel:
www.zundelsite.org
***
Michael Hoffman's Note: Bruce Leichty is a courageous activist-attorney in the tradition of his Mennonite forebears and legal advocates such as Doug Christie and Gerry Spence. Bruce is not the kind of attorney who thinks it's "beneath his dignity" to work the streets distributing literature or canalizing conference participants. In the past two years he has organized, at his own expense, revisionist history conferences at Mennonite convention sites in Charlotte, North Carolina (in 2005) and last July in San Jose, California. In both venues he featured speeches by Ingrid Rimland Zundel and this writer. The following account of his treatment at the hands of German lawyers at Georgetown is indicative of the profound spiritual malaise afflicting contemporary Germans. Bruce also raises a fascinating point of legal history: "the chasm between the United States with its legal pedigree in English common law, and Germany with its dependence on so-called 'civil law' as influenced by the Roman empire." The study of the roots of these two differing legal systems is a book project for an aspiring scholar. Here now is Mr. Leichty's report:
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON D.C.--Although I had successfully engaged members of the German American Lawyers Association (DAJV) in dialogue on Oct. 5, security guards ordered me off the campus of Georgetown University Law Center under threat of arrest on Saturday, October 6, even after I agreed to stop leafletting the DAJV conferees concerning the scandalous treatment of imprisoned German national Ernst Zundel in the courts of both Germany and the United States.
Mr. Zundel is the "thought criminal" who was recently sentenced to five years in prison in Germany for "inciting racial hatred" i.e. publishing dissenting historical viewpoints about "the Holocaust" and its exploitation by Jewish pressure groups. Before that, he was illegally deported from the United States and denied a constitutionally-guaranteed habeas corpus hearing, and then deported from Canada after being declared a national security risk based on the use of secret evidence--a use since prohibited by Canada's highest court.
I have represented Zundel since 2003 in an effort to obtain justice for him in the U.S., where he was abducted by federal marshals at his Tennessee home and taken away from his wife, Ingrid, a U.S. citizen. The pamphlet I distributed October 6, at the inaugural meeting of the German-American lawyers association in the U.S., was titled "Lawyers Alert" and consisted of an article by Mrs. Zundel on Ernst's conviction in Germany and an article this writer authored on the defects in Zundel's U.S. arrest and court proceedings.
The pamphlet featured a quote from German Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen, who wrote in his decision convicting Zundel of a speech crime, "It is irrelevant whether the Holocaust happened or not. Denying it is punishable under German criminal statutes." That quote caused a stir among at least a few conferees who spoke with me.
I had been denied without explanation the chance to register for this conference when I had tried to do so a few days before the conference was to begin. But my client Mrs. Zundel thought it would be timely for me to fly to Washington, D.C. anyway, to try to raise the consciousness of the members of the association, which had been described to me as over 3,000 strong (I was later told that 180 had registered for the Georgetown conference). Ingrid and I created a pamphlet with this specific audience in mind. On Friday, October 5, I entered McDonough Hall on the Georgetown Law Center campus, where the lawyers were meeting, and successfully distributed an estimated 70-80 pamphlets as participants were leaving a session on constitutional law.
There were no brushes with Georgetown officials or security officers on that day. In fact, I managed to engage in dialogue with several members of the association. One was a fellow alumnus of the Boalt Law School at the University of California at Berkeley, who told me about the Georgetown conference a week earlier and urged me to network with lawyers there. He and I had spoken after a screening of the film "Soldiers of Conscience" at Berkeley (about U.S. conscientious objectors to military service), and when I challenged him about Germany's treatment of a different kind of conscientious objector (Zundel) he had expressed skepticism that such a harsh sentence had been handed down to someone for merely expressing his views on the Holocaust. He also attempted to justify imposing a criminal sentence for uttering "falsehoods."
Despite the Berkeley alum's hospitable demeanor while in Berkeley, at the Georgetown campus he seemed somewhat shaken both by my appearance there in Washington, D.C. and by the fact that my conference registration had been refused. Because he was at no time hostile to me and because he wanted more information on Judge Meinerzhagen's ruling, I will refrain from naming him--not that he risks anything in Germany besides embarrassment, apparently. He informed me that as a former German government official he was not concerned about expressing an interest in getting further information about the Zundel sentence.
My conversations in the course of my Oct. 5 visit to the conference also included a conversation with a young German attorney, who cross-examined me skeptically for about ten minutes. He asked me whether I believed in a "Jewish conspiracy," and after I refused to take his bait, he said that anyone who refused to take a position on the question of "Jewish conspiracy" could not criticize Judge Meinerzhagen for his comment on the irrelevance of the historical validity of the "Holocaust." The young German attorney further declared that my refusal was logically inconsistent. I pointed out the logical fallacy of his analogy, noting that one question (historicity of the "Holocaust)" involved judicial determination of a crime; while the other (existence of a "Jewish conspiracy") did not. He did not address my point, and instead chose to continued to taunt me about being "illogical," and bragging about his own superior (German) education in logic, before walking away.
By contrast, an American lawyer born in Germany who was part of the same three-way conversation stated that he was open to the viewpoints of Zundel and that Zundel should be allowed to express them.
This German-born American lawyer suggested that the Zundel case symbolized the chasm between the United States with its legal pedigree in English common law, and Germany with its dependence on so-called "civil law" as influenced by the Roman empire.
I pointed out to both lawyers that my Anabaptist ancestors fled Europe precisely because they were hounded for their resistance to religious and state dogma in the same way that Zundel was resisting a modern form of dogma, and that I was determined to do my part in ensuring that America did not follow Germany's example of criminalizing speech.
If my conversations with the attorneys were relatively civil on Oct. 5, they were decidedly hostile the following day. When I made my appearance at the conference on Saturday morning, October 6, I was accosted outside of the meeting room by an agitated young German woman, a "Ms. Flimm," who admonished me that not only was my distribution of pamphlets prohibited, but that I would have to pay for having dared show up at the conference despite having my registration refused.
In reply I told her, truthfully, that I had not attended any of the sessions and therefore could not be billed for attendance at a conference that had refused my registration and my offer to pay to attend.
When I expressed my desire to exercise my right to continue to distribute my publication next to the elevators of the 12th floor meeting room, she stated I would have to leave and then physically shoved me in the direction of the elevators. I then asked to speak with her superiors. She called on someone who said he was the executive officer for the association, who identified himself only as "Dietrich." This "Dietrich" glared at me and refused to shake my hand. He reiterated Ms. Flimm's order that I leave the premises. An attorney slated to speak on the next panel, on the topic of global warming, Sebastian Deschler, of the Washington, D.C. office of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, attempted to usher me toward the elevator. As Dietrich and Ms. Flimm hastily shut the double doors to the lecture hall to prevent the assembled lawyers from witnessing my eviction, I asked Sebastian Deschler in what capacity he served with the German American Lawyers Association. He gave me no clear answer.
All three of my opponents were urged by an older attorney, who I subsequently learned was Werner Hein of the law firm Mayer, Brown LLP. Hein asked me to step further down the hall toward the elevators, where the two of us spoke rapidly and calmly for a few minutes. Hein said he was one of the founders of the association, and he made it clear that he wanted me to leave the building voluntarily so that he would not have to ask Georgetown security to remove me, which he indicated would be unpleasant for the association. I was "imposing" a topic on the association where it was not wanted, he said. I responded that it (the case of a German dissident publisher imprisoned for his writings and speech) was a topic where discussion was very much needed.
Lawyer Hein stated he was familiar with the issue of criminalization of "Holocaust" skepticism, and he promised to read my pamphlet, but he alluded vaguely to difficulties caused by the subject and to other difficulties he was experiencing with the conference, including a speaker who had exceeded his time and a speaker who had offended the audience, although it was not clear what those matters had to do with my being present. Mr. Hein said that I should take my objections to the German Embassy; I told him I had already attempted to do so (I had participated in a protest at the German Embassy in D.C. several months ago and tried without success to get an appointment with an officer there).
I related to Mr. Hein that I had come to the conference in order to inform German lawyers directly about the judicial outrages perpetrated against Ernst Zundel and that his case was an issue of importance both for international human rights law and to the legal relations of our two countries. I also noted that the establishment American media had effectively blacked out the account of the German repression against Zundel. Hein's response was to suggest that if the Washington Post newspaper had not covered the story, then it must not be worthy of coverage. I reminded him that a man was in prison for his views.
Hein was legally correct in that I had no right, as someone who had been banned from the lawyers' association conference, to pass out pamphlets to the members of the association on private university property, without explicit permission from the university or the association.
When I failed to persuade him of the moral imperative of my being allowed to continue my pamphlet distribution, I agreed--at his suggestion--that I would instead distribute the pamphlets outside the building where the conference was being held, as the attorneys entered and exited.
I had earlier been granted a "day pass" by Georgetown security, and I now had permission from Hein to distribute the pamphlets at the entrance of the building, and I did so.
For about 10 minutes I handed out a number of additional pamphlets to both German and U.S. attorneys who were arriving for the conference. A coupleof lawyers took a look at the title of the pamphlet and showed interest in my brief verbal synopsis, and asked who I was. Another threw the pamphlet into a nearby trash can; she was the only person I saw doing so. After another lawyer said he had received and read the pamphlet the previous day and that it made him "kind of sick," I spoke with him for a few seconds on the importance of allowing dissenting voices. (Was he sick over Germany's treatment of a dissenter or about the fact that someone had daredto question "Holocaust" orthodoxy?)
After approximately ten minutes,a security officer appeared in the person of "Officer Wilson" (with "Officer Harris" arriving somewhat later), presumably at the behest of Werner Hein or one of his colleagues.
Although Officer Wilson was initially courteous, he grew more threatening the longer I spoke with him. After failing to persuade him that Georgetown had effectively allowed me to distribute the pamphlets by giving me a "day pass," I agreed to comply with his "request" that I discontinue literature distribution outside the building where the German lawyers were meeting. All the while Officer Wilson was confiscating the pamphlets that I was attempting to hand to incoming lawyers. He did not succeed, however, in preventing all distribution during our otherwise civil conversation.
But he wasn't done with me. When I said that I wanted to deliver a pamphlet to the office of the student newspaper before I left campus, his attitude became menacing. He issued an ultimatum for me to leave the campus or be arrested.
He stated that I was not allowed to deliver my literature to the editors of the student newspaper. I pointed out to him that he was effectively denying me the right simply to walk across campus and communicate with a student. As I began to walk, he picked up his walkie-talkie and began to give out my physical description to someone on the other end and telling them that I was to be arrested if I did not leave the campus within three minutes. In no hurry, I ambled back to the public sidewalk.
I could have tried and should have been able to visit the office of the student newspaper, since entrance to the Georgetown campus is not prohibited to the public, though entrance to at least some campus buildings is controlled and visitors are asked to state their purpose and show identification. In my case, on October 6 I had explained to the security guard at the McDonough Hall conference site, that I had come "to talk with some of the German lawyers meeting there" and had then received the "day pass" sticker which I was wearing on my shirt when confronted by other members of Georgetown security.
Georgetown did indeed have the right to control access to the campus, and Georgetown had arguably delegated to this security guard the right to revoke or withdraw its consent, even if Georgetown had not originally prohibited my access to the campus earlier in the day and even if one of their other guests had purported to give me permission to remain. As a visitor to the nation's capital with a full workload of law cases in my home state of California, I could ill afford to be arrested, even if the arrest was of dubious merit.
If Georgetown wanted to grant or deny access to lawyers based on the content of their speech, whether verbal or written, there was nothing I could really do about it on October 6. That was clearly what this Georgetown security representative was doing, since I was not posing a threat to public order or to anything or anyone.
The result of my activity? A few lawyers had their consciousness raised, and hopefully the unexpected appearance of an advocate for the free speech rights of dissidents like Zundel will ultimately help pave the way for more discussion and reevaluation among German lawyers--whether inside or outside this German American Lawyers Association (DAJV)group.
But for the time being the DAJV officials and Georgetown authorities intervened to make certain that not too much information reached people in a position to make a difference. I am under no illusions about the fact that there are many powerful vested interests in both Germany and the United States who want to keep it that way.
TAKE ACTION
Bruce Leichty: leichty@sbcglobal.net
German American Lawyers Association (DAJV)
E-mail: mail@dajv.de
Website: http://www.dajv.de/en/index.php
Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of Georgetown University Law School
E-mail: deanpage@law.georgetown.edu
Web: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/dean/deanpage
Student Affairs/Georgetown University Law School:
studentaffairs@law.georgetown.edu
The Georgetown Law Journal:
glj@law.georgetown.edu
Washington Post newspaper:
https://www.washpost.com/news_ed/news/contact_news.shtml
Free Ernst Zundel:
www.zundelsite.org
***
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Catholic Cardinal Exposes Anti-Christ Slur in the Talmud
[Michael Hoffman's analysis follows this report]
***
Call for Jews to stop calling Jesus a bastard
By Ben Martin
The Daily Telegraph (England) | Oct. 6, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/06/wjesus106.xml
A senior American cardinal has asked Jews to reconsider descriptions of Jesus as a "bastard" in exchange for a softening of traditional Catholic prayers calling for Jews to be converted to Christianity.
The controversial comments, by Cardinal Francis George of the Archdiocese of Chicago, concern a prayer said during Easter celebrations by the small number of parishes or priests who celebrate a particular form of Good Friday mass. Those versions of Good Friday prayers calls for the congregation to pray for Jews to be converted to Christianity.
But Cardinal George said this prayer should be amended to ensure it did not offend Jews. "I suspect (the amendment) probably will be (made), because the intention is to be sure that our prayers are not offensive to the Jewish people who are our ancestors in the faith," Cardinal George said in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter.
"We can't possibly insult them in our liturgy … not that any group has a veto on anybody's prayers, because you can go through Jewish texts and find material that is offensive to us.
But if we're interested in keeping the dialogue strong, and we have to be, we should be very cautious about any prayer that they find insulting." But this should mean that Jews, in turn, consider amending their own religious texts, he said. "It does work both ways. Maybe this is an opening to say, 'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?'"
***
HOFFMAN's AFTERWORD: I surmise that in America's "National Catholic Reporter" newspaper, Cardinal George made his remark about the anti-Jesus slur in the Talmud, based on information he obtained from the book, "Jesus in the Talmud" by Prof. Peter Schafer, a dense, plodding and not entirely satisfactory work, that nevertheless offers irrefutable evidence that it is not an "antisemitic canard" to state that the Talmud contains scurrilous libels against Jesus.
Many conservative Catholics will be elated over Cardinal George's remark about the Talmud. "A prelate who slammed the Talmud, imagine!" Comparisons with Leonidas, Thomas More and every stalwart of western civilization in between will no doubt be invoked by the "faithful." Among those of us who are from Missouri however, and have little or no faith in the modern Catholic hierarchy, we'll be looking for the tale of the tail, which is not hard to find in this case. We start with Judas, proceed to Lenin and conclude with the Revelation of the Method.
Cardinal George Iscariot wants to agree to nullify the central mission of the Christian savior (Matthew 15:24), in return for the rabbis dropping the "Jesus was a bastard" slur from their Babylonian Talmud.
Presumably they will retain the "Jesus was a sorcerer," "Jesus was an idol worshipper," "Jesus is boiling in hot excrement" and "Jesus' mother was a whore" slurs in their Talmud.
Somehow it doesn't seem like, as they say in Yiddish, a graiyzer metzieh ("such a deal"), does it?
Rabbis get to maintain continued hypnotic and Orwellian captivity of the am ha'aretz in their midst, and we in turn obtain the suppression of just one of thousands of objectionable pieces of pornographic filth, black magic and anti-Christian bigotry in the Talmud texts.
Lenin termed the scam, "One step forward, two steps back."
The Revelation of the Method comes into play, because after decades of Vatican denials, we finally have a member of the hierarchy acknowledging a fact about Judaism's holiest book that will get you sent to jail if you utter it in the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany etc.
But why did Francis George even raise the issue? The Vatican is going to suppress the Lenten conversion prayer anyway. As rapacious fraudsters, the pope and his cardinals are no longer about the business of converting Judaics, what Jesus termed His "father's business." They are occupied with running the usual mafia rackets, carving up the territory and cutting the deals, like the one Cardinal George is selling.
If you think about it however, if Jesus didn't come to convert the mentality that committed libels about his lineage to writing in the Talmud, what was the point of his life, death and resurrection? To help Michelangelo earn his crust at the Sistine Chapel?
So, yes, now the cat, or rather the daf yomi, is finally out of the bag. We have official Catholic confirmation of what every reasonably literate scholar of this subject has known for many years. But again we ask, why is the Church divulging this open secret now? What concession is Don Ratzinger von Corleone in Vatican City seeking from the kosher mobsters, and what will transpire if he doesn't get it? Publication of the Vatican Library edition of the uncensored Talmud, fully annotated with the evil stuff highlighted in red typeface? (In which case the whole Talmud would have to be printed in red).
Many Catholics continue to be possessed by a double mind. They are impelled to believe that the Pope and the Cardinals have the standing and authority of Christ's Church, when in fact they have the same standing and authority as the United Nations and the masonic lodge.
The Vatican revived the Tridentine Mass in order to obtain some long lost credibility within its Right wing and gain obedient troops from those ranks. The problem for the Vatican is that the Tridentine Mass was codified more than four hundred years ago by a pope who turned back the Turkish fleet at Lepanto and consigned the soul of Elizabeth I to the lake of fire. Even with modifications by Pope John XXIII, that Mass is still a sign of contradiction in a Britney Spears world. To pare its claws, it is necessary to censor its Holy Week liturgy, in order to satisfy the never-satisfied rabbis.
The spectre of so shocking an act of Catholic self-censorship makes manifest the masquerade, and would reveal the pope and the cardinals to be just rabbis in Christian costume.
How to censor the Catholic liturgical text calling for conversion of the "Jews," while still retaining the allegiance of those badly needed Right wing Catholics? Answer: spread around a bit of shock of your own. In this case, a shocking datum about the Talmud, long disputed by the learned elders of Khazaria.
But when the smoke has cleared, the rabbis will have won again. They will not expurgate their Talmud, much less excise their hateful amidah prayer from their synagogue liturgy. They're too loyal to their ancestors and heritage to countenance such an act.
But Cardinal George and Pope Benedict XVI will jump at the chance to get off the hook: to reinstate the old Mass cleansed of its old verities, thereby winning plaudits from the Right, while acceding to the demands of Pharisaic Judaism to nullify Christ's mission, in the name of Christ's Church.
Part of the 1610 A.D. Catholic English Bible is for sale in PDF text file on disk, here
MICHAEL HOFFMAN is working night and day on his new book on Judaism, taking breaks only to eat his wife's cooking, bounce his children on his knee and write these columns. He can afford all this thanks mostly to donations from middle and working class altruists around the globe who believe in him and his forthcoming book. You too can contribute via Paypal to: rarebooks14@mac.com
***
***
Call for Jews to stop calling Jesus a bastard
By Ben Martin
The Daily Telegraph (England) | Oct. 6, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/06/wjesus106.xml
A senior American cardinal has asked Jews to reconsider descriptions of Jesus as a "bastard" in exchange for a softening of traditional Catholic prayers calling for Jews to be converted to Christianity.
The controversial comments, by Cardinal Francis George of the Archdiocese of Chicago, concern a prayer said during Easter celebrations by the small number of parishes or priests who celebrate a particular form of Good Friday mass. Those versions of Good Friday prayers calls for the congregation to pray for Jews to be converted to Christianity.
But Cardinal George said this prayer should be amended to ensure it did not offend Jews. "I suspect (the amendment) probably will be (made), because the intention is to be sure that our prayers are not offensive to the Jewish people who are our ancestors in the faith," Cardinal George said in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter.
"We can't possibly insult them in our liturgy … not that any group has a veto on anybody's prayers, because you can go through Jewish texts and find material that is offensive to us.
But if we're interested in keeping the dialogue strong, and we have to be, we should be very cautious about any prayer that they find insulting." But this should mean that Jews, in turn, consider amending their own religious texts, he said. "It does work both ways. Maybe this is an opening to say, 'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?'"
***
HOFFMAN's AFTERWORD: I surmise that in America's "National Catholic Reporter" newspaper, Cardinal George made his remark about the anti-Jesus slur in the Talmud, based on information he obtained from the book, "Jesus in the Talmud" by Prof. Peter Schafer, a dense, plodding and not entirely satisfactory work, that nevertheless offers irrefutable evidence that it is not an "antisemitic canard" to state that the Talmud contains scurrilous libels against Jesus.
Many conservative Catholics will be elated over Cardinal George's remark about the Talmud. "A prelate who slammed the Talmud, imagine!" Comparisons with Leonidas, Thomas More and every stalwart of western civilization in between will no doubt be invoked by the "faithful." Among those of us who are from Missouri however, and have little or no faith in the modern Catholic hierarchy, we'll be looking for the tale of the tail, which is not hard to find in this case. We start with Judas, proceed to Lenin and conclude with the Revelation of the Method.
Cardinal George Iscariot wants to agree to nullify the central mission of the Christian savior (Matthew 15:24), in return for the rabbis dropping the "Jesus was a bastard" slur from their Babylonian Talmud.
Presumably they will retain the "Jesus was a sorcerer," "Jesus was an idol worshipper," "Jesus is boiling in hot excrement" and "Jesus' mother was a whore" slurs in their Talmud.
Somehow it doesn't seem like, as they say in Yiddish, a graiyzer metzieh ("such a deal"), does it?
Rabbis get to maintain continued hypnotic and Orwellian captivity of the am ha'aretz in their midst, and we in turn obtain the suppression of just one of thousands of objectionable pieces of pornographic filth, black magic and anti-Christian bigotry in the Talmud texts.
Lenin termed the scam, "One step forward, two steps back."
The Revelation of the Method comes into play, because after decades of Vatican denials, we finally have a member of the hierarchy acknowledging a fact about Judaism's holiest book that will get you sent to jail if you utter it in the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany etc.
But why did Francis George even raise the issue? The Vatican is going to suppress the Lenten conversion prayer anyway. As rapacious fraudsters, the pope and his cardinals are no longer about the business of converting Judaics, what Jesus termed His "father's business." They are occupied with running the usual mafia rackets, carving up the territory and cutting the deals, like the one Cardinal George is selling.
If you think about it however, if Jesus didn't come to convert the mentality that committed libels about his lineage to writing in the Talmud, what was the point of his life, death and resurrection? To help Michelangelo earn his crust at the Sistine Chapel?
So, yes, now the cat, or rather the daf yomi, is finally out of the bag. We have official Catholic confirmation of what every reasonably literate scholar of this subject has known for many years. But again we ask, why is the Church divulging this open secret now? What concession is Don Ratzinger von Corleone in Vatican City seeking from the kosher mobsters, and what will transpire if he doesn't get it? Publication of the Vatican Library edition of the uncensored Talmud, fully annotated with the evil stuff highlighted in red typeface? (In which case the whole Talmud would have to be printed in red).
Many Catholics continue to be possessed by a double mind. They are impelled to believe that the Pope and the Cardinals have the standing and authority of Christ's Church, when in fact they have the same standing and authority as the United Nations and the masonic lodge.
The Vatican revived the Tridentine Mass in order to obtain some long lost credibility within its Right wing and gain obedient troops from those ranks. The problem for the Vatican is that the Tridentine Mass was codified more than four hundred years ago by a pope who turned back the Turkish fleet at Lepanto and consigned the soul of Elizabeth I to the lake of fire. Even with modifications by Pope John XXIII, that Mass is still a sign of contradiction in a Britney Spears world. To pare its claws, it is necessary to censor its Holy Week liturgy, in order to satisfy the never-satisfied rabbis.
The spectre of so shocking an act of Catholic self-censorship makes manifest the masquerade, and would reveal the pope and the cardinals to be just rabbis in Christian costume.
How to censor the Catholic liturgical text calling for conversion of the "Jews," while still retaining the allegiance of those badly needed Right wing Catholics? Answer: spread around a bit of shock of your own. In this case, a shocking datum about the Talmud, long disputed by the learned elders of Khazaria.
But when the smoke has cleared, the rabbis will have won again. They will not expurgate their Talmud, much less excise their hateful amidah prayer from their synagogue liturgy. They're too loyal to their ancestors and heritage to countenance such an act.
But Cardinal George and Pope Benedict XVI will jump at the chance to get off the hook: to reinstate the old Mass cleansed of its old verities, thereby winning plaudits from the Right, while acceding to the demands of Pharisaic Judaism to nullify Christ's mission, in the name of Christ's Church.
Part of the 1610 A.D. Catholic English Bible is for sale in PDF text file on disk, here
MICHAEL HOFFMAN is working night and day on his new book on Judaism, taking breaks only to eat his wife's cooking, bounce his children on his knee and write these columns. He can afford all this thanks mostly to donations from middle and working class altruists around the globe who believe in him and his forthcoming book. You too can contribute via Paypal to: rarebooks14@mac.com
***
Friday, October 05, 2007
Update from Michael Hoffman: "Judaism Discovered"
The book JUDAISM DISCOVERED is nearly written. I can stop anytime to accommodate a budget emergency. I have kept on because donors asked me to pack as much information from my files into the book as possible.
I really have no time for anything but writing the book and for side jobs I take on to earn money to keep at it (I just finished copy-editing a manuscript for a large company that trains personnel managers; that book took me about a ten days to edit).
Anyway, if funds dwindle to nothing, I'll stop writing, start the indexing and direct all available funds to getting JUDAISM DISCOVERED printed. We have almost half the funds for the printing lined up in the form of an interest-free, $6,000 loan. The other $8000 will come due when the printer is finished with the job; and the loan is due in the form of $500 per month for 12 payments.
We also hope to raise funds to advertise the book, hopefully from its pre-publication sale.
I just want to give fair notice to folks who have already donated. Some people must be wondering what's going on.
I still have the laws of Niddah to include; or at least they should be included since they tie into Toaff's blood/ritual murder research.
Much, much more could be added, but perhaps I have strained all available resources and the patience of donors. I know we've strained all of our own resources and donations received in the past ten days total $75. I guess I should have tooted our horn more often lately, but there's so much writing work to do and is non-stop horn-tooting necessary in order to sustain interest and support?
We're at about 725 pages at present. I can stop anytime, add the index and arrange the printing. The book will not be as complete as I would like, but perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist? If that's the case, I just pray we can get it printed soon. I have so much of my life invested in this book that if it is not printed soon it will signal the complete end of our operation, because we have no fallback, except our new line of rare books on pdf files and that's a precarious gamble. Otherwise all time normally devoted to doing new CDs, DVDs and newsletters has been consumed by JUDAISM DISCOVERED.
It would be good to know that you have not forgotten us or this project. Americans have a notoriously short attention span, especially on the Internet. Once the book is in print the momentum it will generate should carry the day, but until then, it's a very dicey proposition.
Friday night is not the best time to send out a notice like this one, but I can't play p.r. games. This is when I had the occasion to write this memo and I can't see sitting it on it until Monday morning to suit the fickle or the disinterested.
At some point we have to develop an audience of persons utterly dedicated to something more than quick-fix columns, five-minute articles and essays and talk radio and TV.
JUDAISM DISCOVERED is an enormous undertaking and if, by the grace of God, I have succeeded with it, it will prove a profound and devastating excavation of the central iniquity of the age.
There is no substitute for a comprehensive book in educating mankind. Anything less than so sustained an effort will not accomplish the job.
Please remember us as we complete this task.
***
I really have no time for anything but writing the book and for side jobs I take on to earn money to keep at it (I just finished copy-editing a manuscript for a large company that trains personnel managers; that book took me about a ten days to edit).
Anyway, if funds dwindle to nothing, I'll stop writing, start the indexing and direct all available funds to getting JUDAISM DISCOVERED printed. We have almost half the funds for the printing lined up in the form of an interest-free, $6,000 loan. The other $8000 will come due when the printer is finished with the job; and the loan is due in the form of $500 per month for 12 payments.
We also hope to raise funds to advertise the book, hopefully from its pre-publication sale.
I just want to give fair notice to folks who have already donated. Some people must be wondering what's going on.
I still have the laws of Niddah to include; or at least they should be included since they tie into Toaff's blood/ritual murder research.
Much, much more could be added, but perhaps I have strained all available resources and the patience of donors. I know we've strained all of our own resources and donations received in the past ten days total $75. I guess I should have tooted our horn more often lately, but there's so much writing work to do and is non-stop horn-tooting necessary in order to sustain interest and support?
We're at about 725 pages at present. I can stop anytime, add the index and arrange the printing. The book will not be as complete as I would like, but perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist? If that's the case, I just pray we can get it printed soon. I have so much of my life invested in this book that if it is not printed soon it will signal the complete end of our operation, because we have no fallback, except our new line of rare books on pdf files and that's a precarious gamble. Otherwise all time normally devoted to doing new CDs, DVDs and newsletters has been consumed by JUDAISM DISCOVERED.
It would be good to know that you have not forgotten us or this project. Americans have a notoriously short attention span, especially on the Internet. Once the book is in print the momentum it will generate should carry the day, but until then, it's a very dicey proposition.
Friday night is not the best time to send out a notice like this one, but I can't play p.r. games. This is when I had the occasion to write this memo and I can't see sitting it on it until Monday morning to suit the fickle or the disinterested.
At some point we have to develop an audience of persons utterly dedicated to something more than quick-fix columns, five-minute articles and essays and talk radio and TV.
JUDAISM DISCOVERED is an enormous undertaking and if, by the grace of God, I have succeeded with it, it will prove a profound and devastating excavation of the central iniquity of the age.
There is no substitute for a comprehensive book in educating mankind. Anything less than so sustained an effort will not accomplish the job.
Please remember us as we complete this task.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
