McCain Family Secret: The Coverup

Go to this URL:
http://www.criminalstate.com/BookExcerpts.aspx

This important news lead has been brought to you as a public service by
revisionist historian and investigative researcher Michael Hoffman,
author of the massive new reference work, Judaism Discovered:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html

***

Silencing Christians: The Gagging of Stephen Boissoin

Anyone doubting the hatred of Canada's quasi-judicial human rights industry for Christianity should look at the ruthless gagging of a Red Deer, Alberta, Canada preacher Stephen Boissoin. 

For writing a letter critical of homosexuality to the Red Deer Advocate, he had been ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to pay a $7,000 fine, apologize for criticizing one of Canada's privileged minorities, (homosexuals) and never again in any venue or medium criticize homosexuals. He has, thus, been asked to renounce a key tenet of the Christian faith. 

In times past, men and women have died rather than knuckle under to political correctness and renounce their faith. Rev. Boissoin is defiant and has vowed no apology and is appealing the outrageous decision. In a decision reminiscent of Red Chinese executing dissidents and then sending a bill for the bullet to the victim's family, Rev. Boissoin was ordered to compensate his persecutor to the tune of $5,000 for the time and effort he'd spent trying to gag the pastor.

 
"On Friday, [June 6] the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal's November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper. The remedy order demands the pastor to pay $5,000 to Lund personally for the 'time and energy' he has expended and for the 'ridicule and harassment' he has faced. Combined with that financial burden, Boissoin must also pay up to $2,000 in expenses to one of Lund's witness, provided she produces records of such costs.
 
Boissoin was first hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curricula permeating the province's educational system. ‘Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights,’ wrote Boissoin in the letter. In an interview, Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com that he's under attack not only for his letter, but more significantly for his beliefs. 'The point I am trying to make here is what's being attacked at the core is what I believe, according to my personal beliefs and my religious beliefs.'
 
Most disturbingly, says Boissoin, is that the ruling calls for him to "cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals."

Boissoin wondered to what extent the right to freedom of expression in Canada will be deteriorated, stating, "I am not allowed to hold on to my views." ... 'Absurd - beyond absurd. I will never make a public apology; I stand by what I said. My context has never been taken into consideration. Lund's context has always been taken into consideration.'" (LifeSiteNews, June 9, 2008)
 
[This article is from the upcoming issue of the Free Speech Monitor, November, 2008. The Free Speech Monitor is published by the Canadian Association for Free Expression and is available by subscription for $15 (10 issues annually) by writing to CAFÉ, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON, M9W 5L3, Canada.]
 
***

"Holocaust denier" Fredrik Toben's trial soon

(The arrogance of these new inquisitors is almost beyond belief).

Holocaust denier Fredrik Toben's trial soon: prosecutor

Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent | The Australian | October 11, 2008

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24478370-5006787,00.html

THE German prosecutor who wants to put Australian citizen Fredrik Toben on trial for denying the Holocaust warned yesterday that he was determined to see the former school teacher face justice. Andreas Grossmann, the Mannheim district prosecutor handling Dr Toben's case, said that despite his attempts to avoid extradition from Britain to Germany, he expected Dr Toben to be on trial early next year.

Mr. Grossmann also warned that Dr Toben faced up to five years in jail and, although most prisoners in Germany served a third to a half of their sentences, the stubborn refusal of long-term Holocaust revisionists to recant their views meant they usually failed to win parole.
"These people have little chance of getting out before the end of their full sentence," Mr Grossman told The Weekend Australian.

As a foreign citizen, Dr Toben would normally be sent back to Australia halfway through any sentence to serve the remainder there, but that move too would be threatened by a refusal to recant. Mannheim has become the centre of German efforts to enforce laws that criminalise the denial, justification or playing down of the Nazi slaughter of Jews. As a result, the hulking, century-old prison in a quiet residential area on the edge of the city holds more prisoners convicted of those offences than any other prison in Germany, and it is where authorities hope Dr Toben, 64, will soon be incarcerated.

Holocaust deniers held at the brownstone prison include Ernst Zundel, a 69-year-old German neo-Nazi who lived in Canada for 42 years but was deported to Mannheim and is serving the maximum five-year sentence; and Germar Rudolf, a 43-year-old chemist expelled from the US and jailed for 30 months for insisting the extermination of Jews at the Auschwitz death camp could not have happened on the scale accepted by mainstream historians.

Mr Grossmann, a softly spoken lawyer who took responsibility in 2005 for prosecuting political crimes in Mannheim, said the district's leading role on the issue was partly accidental and partly the result of the zeal of his predecessor, Hans-Heiko Klein.

In April 1999, Dr Toben, who was born in Germany, visited Mr Klein's second-storey office on a busy Mannheim street and explained his views of the Holocaust. Dr Toben was asked to come back the next day and repeat his comments; he was arrested and sentenced to nine months in Mannheim prison.

When Dr Toben returned to Australia the following year he continued to express his views on his website and elsewhere. In 2004, Mr Klein laid a new set of charges against him.
Those charges were the basis of Dr Toben's detention at Heathrow airport on October 1.

***

What could be more Talmudic? Only deniers of sacred Judaic tales are put on trial. Jesus Christ-deniers, Immaculate Conception-deniers and deniers of the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians, are all immune from trial. 

***

Judaic Convert Witnesses for Christ at Mass. Synagogue

Oct. 9, 2008

Dear Friends: I am now in the Boston, Massachusetts region for church & street evangelism. All is going well. Last night was the beginning of the rabbinic holiday, Yom Kippur, the "Day Of Atonement." But Judaism has no priesthood and no atonement apart from the sacrifice of the Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
I witnessed in front of a an Orthodox Judaic synagogue last night. This is "Young Israel," a very wealthy synagogue. I preached to them many Old Testament verses regarding the Messiah's role in conquering death, using Hebrew texts which I know well and grew up learning before my conversion from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity.
 
Members of the synagogue asked the Boston-area Brookline, Mass. police to have me forcibly removed, but the Captain of the Brookline Police Department cited my First Amendment rights. May Christ bless him. His name is Captain Keaveney and I would like all of you to say a special prayer for this man who would not bow to the Judaics.
 
A Judaic who was working for the synagogue was an undercover policeman. He insisted over and over to Captain Keaveney that I be forcibly removed. Captain Keaveny simply said, "Why don't you just go home..."
 
Then a Judaic came out of the synagouge swinging his cane in my direction and saying he was going to use it on me. Keaveney walked up to the man and stopped him immediately. 
 
I stayed on and didn't let these Judaics stop me from exercising my first amendment rights. I will be back on the morning of Oct. 10 with a sign that reads, "Jesus The Messiah! Why Not?"

This enrages them as I used it before and they again called the police. In that incident the police more or less took the side of the Talmudists, but then again, Captain Keaveney (he is next in line under the Chief of Police), asserted my constitutional rights.

Please keep me and the police captain in your prayers. 

I sometimes feel very alone...

+Br Nathanael "Street Evangelist"
bronathaniel@yahoo.com
http://www.brothernathanael.com/

***

Kol Nidrei: "The Anti-Semite's Favorite Jewish Prayer"

Every year in October people like Michael Weiss (see below) and a slew of other rabbinic apologists spin Yom Kippur's Kol Nidrei (also spelled "Nidre") absolution of vows into a "context"-based confutation of assertions that it allows Talmudists to cheat in business, politics and religion by permitting them to break their future oaths and promises; which indeed it does, a fact made plain by the belief and more importantly -- the record of behavior throughout history of not only the am-ha'aretz ("ignorant Jews"), but the theological, governmental and commercial elite among the adherents of Orthodox Judaism.

Unquestionably, the public relations-savvy Reform Judaism --the equivalent of Unitarianism in Christianity--has eschewed Kol Nidrei, since they regard it as too blatant an indicator of rabbinic deceit to be salvaged.

In my book Judaism Discovered, on pp. 965-980, I refute every major defense of Kol Nidrei: that it refers only to past vows, oaths and promises; that it constitutes only pious penitence for failing to keep these; or that the nullification of oaths and vows is confined to the realm of the "personal" (as Weiss asserts - as if lying on only a "personal" basis is somehow exculpatory).

Despite the employment of a Biblical text by Mr. Weiss, the fact is that even the Mishnah admits there is no Biblical basis for Yom Kippur's Kol Nidrei liar's rite. Weiss alludes to a supposed Kol Nidrei-like process in "ancient Israel," without telling his readers that this process was founded on the corrupt oral tradition of men, not the word of God as found in the written Torah.

What is perhaps most interesting about the Talmudic defense of Kol Nidrei is the thought cop stigma which is attached to those who dare to reject Judaism's own story concerning it. If you think independently of Judaism and the Michael Weisses of the world and believe, based on the evidence, that Kol Nidrei is a license to lie, you are automatically an "anti-semite."

It's about time that this attempt to intimidate free human beings into thinking in lockstep with the rabbis is seen for what is is, the enforcement of Talmudic tyranny over truthseekers. Refusing to accept the rabbinic/Talmudic narrative in this -- or any other instance -- is not hateful. The "antisemitism" accusation presupposes an infallible Judaic interpretation incapable of eliciting skepticism or dissent from people of good will. Once again, the dictatorship over the mind that is the essence of Judaism, is on display.

-Michael Hoffman

The Anti-Semite's Favorite Jewish Prayer
YOM KIPPUR'S KOL NIDRE

EXCERPT: "As stand-alone statement, divorced of its context and Talmudic source material, it does seem to suggest that there's no such thing as a promise or oral contract affirmed in Judaism. But, of course, context is everything, and the prayer refers only to personal vows—those made by man in relation to his own conscience or to God, not interpersonal ones made by man to his fellow man. Contrary to claims made by perplexed exegetes such as David Duke, Kol Nidre was not invented as a sinister tribal clause to cheat gentiles or one another with impunity....One popular objection to it has been that ignorant Jews would misinterpret the prayer as a license for deceit and treachery—just as anti-Semites have."

By Michael Weiss
SLATE Oct. 7, 2008
http://www.slate.com/id/2201628/

Of all the Jewish prayers, Kol Nidre is one of the most recognizable—and certainly the most controversial. Neil Diamond intoned it in order to penetrate the stone heart of his cantor father at the end of the remake of The Jazz Singer, and Al Jolson sang it, mercifully out of blackface, in the 1927 original. Max Bruch used the haunting music that accompanies the prayer to furnish the full title, and half the theme, of his celebrated adagio in 1881. Beethoven, too, borrowed the theme for the sixth movement of his String Quartet Op. 131, which had been commissioned by the heads of Viennese Jewry seeking to honor the founding of a new synagogue. Even Perry Como and Johnny Mathis recorded their own renditions in the late '50s.

For observant Jews, Kol Nidre represents the liturgical kickoff for Yom Kippur (opening services are named for the prayer, which means "All vows"), a repetitive and crescendoing piece of Aramaic recited before sunset on the Day of Atonement. For anti-Semites, it's evidence that Jews are duplicitous and two-faced. The trouble has to do with a misconstrued doctrine of pre-emption. The full text of the prayer reads:

All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called konam, konas, or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.

As stand-alone statement, divorced of its context and Talmudic source material, it does seem to suggest that there's no such thing as a promise or oral contract affirmed in Judaism. But, of course, context is everything, and the prayer refers only to personal vows—those made by man in relation to his own conscience or to God, not interpersonal ones made by man to his fellow man. Contrary to claims made by perplexed exegetes such as David Duke, Kol Nidre was not invented as a sinister tribal clause to cheat gentiles or one another with impunity.

Judaism goes to great lengths to legislate social behavior, both within and without the community. As Rabbi Gil Student describes it in his primer on the arcana of vow annulment, the Talmud "dedicates one sixth of itself to detailing the Jewish court system which adjudicates based on the sworn testimony of witnesses." Why expend so much ink on the rules and procedures for dealing with betrayal and injustice if a yearly invocation affords an easy get-out-of-jail-free card? The Talmud says that if a person wishes to free himself from a vow made to a second party, he has to plead his case before a religious court in the presence of that person, who must then consent to the vow's nullification. It doesn't matter if the petitioner is beholden to an adult, a child, or a gentile; the same standard applies.

The arduous and prohibitive process by which one can be freed from a personal vow eventually led to the adoption of Kol Nidre in the first place. The only passage in the Pentateuch pertaining to personal vows is Numbers 30:3, which states: "If a man takes a vow to G-d or swears an oath to establish a prohibition upon himself, he shall not desecrate his word; according to whatever comes from his mouth he shall do."

In ancient Israel, gaining absolution for these kinds of pledges meant presenting oneself to a scholar, an expert, or a board of three select laymen. One could plead forgetfulness, unintentional violation, or stupidity. A common excuse was that one had entered into a vow without fully understanding its consequences. Typically, an annulment would be granted if the lapsed pledge-maker could prove through interrogation he had erred in good faith. However, the ritual was eventually exercised to the point of exhaustion—imagine going to court every time you broke a New Year's resolution. Kol Nidre was introduced in the 10th century, and transcribed in the Seder Rav Amram Gaon, the first comprehensive Jewish prayer book, as a convenient umbrella policy.

The original version encompassed the preceding year, "from the last Day of Atonement until this one." Then, in the 12th century, Meir ben Samuel, the son-in-law of the revered French rabbi Rashi, altered the wording to reflect the year to come, arguing that pre-emptive annulment was more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Nedarim, the Talmudic treatise on vows. Ben Samuel also added to the prayer the phrase "we do repent [of them all]," which aligned it more closely with purpose of atonement. His version has been taken up by the bulk of the Ashkenazim, while the Sephardim continue to prefer the older, retroactive one.

From its inception, Kol Nidre never attained universal sanction or appeal. Five of the heads of the Babylonian rabbinical academies rejected it outright, claiming that it undermined both the sanctity of personal vows as well as the necessary custom for canceling them. Nevertheless, the prayer gained traction in the other lands of the diaspora. It came in handy on the Iberian Peninsula during the Inquisition when Marranos—Spanish Jews who pretended to convert to Christianity to escape persecution—were forced to make bogus professions of faith in public and needed the winking dispensation of God to do so.

Jewish authorities have often sought to clarify Kol Nidre's intention, while occasionally advocating for its abolition on the grounds that it is theologically worthless. One popular objection to it has been that ignorant Jews would misinterpret the prayer as a license for deceit and treachery—just as anti-Semites have. The prayer was cited as justification for the Oath More Judaico, a humiliating and sadistic legal vow Jews were for centuries forced to swear before testifying in European courts. It wasn't until the middle of the 19th century that most of the Continent began revising or removing it in earnest. (Romania's remained on the books until 1902.) Perhaps in response to this history of vulgar misinterpretation, Jews themselves have had a hard time deciding what to do with the prayer. A rabbinical conference in Brunswick in 1844 ruled unanimously that Kol Nidre was superfluous and should be eliminated from the entire religious tradition. This decision led numerous congregations in Western Europe and many more Reform congregations in the United States to do just that, or to replace the words of the prayer with a Hebrew psalm while retaining its elegaic melody. Orthodox and Conservative congregations still recite the words. (End quote).

Read: JUDAISM DISCOVERED: A STUDY OF THE ANTI-BIBLICAL RELIGION OF RACISM, SELF-WORSHIP, SUPERSTITION AND DECEIT. 1100 pages. Massive, text-book-sized hardcover.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html

***