September 26, 2008

Bush the Socialist and Destroyer

Bush the Socialist and Destroyer

Anyone who has read a good economics book would be quickly reduced to laughter and tears by George Bush's ridiculous economic address to the nation. He put on his 9-11 suit and tried to warn Americans about the impending disaster: that their access to an infinite stream of paper money might be imperiled if they don't cough up hundreds of billions immediately. It is very tempting to go line by line and shout back.

"I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business."

And this is why he nationalized airport security, created huge new bureaucracies, spent more than any president in American history, centralized control of education, put up more protectionist barriers than Clinton and his father combined, bailed out airlines, presided over the Sarbanes-Oxley reign of terror, unleashed anti-trust regulators, intensified health-care controls, and pretty much used every headline as an excuse to demand more money and power?

"The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit, and this will not change."

But the penny itself has lost 94% of its value in those 75 years precisely because of institutions such as the FDIC and the Fed. Does he really think we are that foolish?

Here is my favorite:

"The problems we're witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business."

So those nasty foreigners did it to us, huh? Maybe it was Bin Laden who sneakily tried to create a credit bubble by investing in U.S. stocks!

And here is his description of the grave calamity we face:

"As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending, credit markets have frozen, and families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money."

Imagine that! We might have to live within our means for a bit. That would actually be a wonderful thing. Maybe a recession would last a year or 18 months, and then we would be back on solid footing again. He very nearly admits that too much credit is what created this mess. So he proposes more credit so that we can continue to live on too much credit. And then what happens next time? Ever more credit? This path ends in Weimar-level inflation and total destruction.

What is striking here is the level of public opposition. It is somewhere between 55 and 90 percent, depending on the way the question is worded. Also, it is wide and deep opposition. It is made up of Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, rich, poor, men, women – just about everyone, with no systematic bias among the polled groups. In other words, we have here a wonderful thing: a clash of group interests, as Mises would say. It is the state and its friends vs. the American people.

That doesn't mean that Congress won't pass something or other. The administration is prepared to pay off every member. And yet the proximity to the election complicates matters. A lost election means no payoff, no matter what. If public anger is intense enough, these guys might balk in the end.

This would be a glorious result. The "credit crisis," as Bush describes it, is nothing more than the kind of crisis a college kid faces when his parents cut back on the deposits to his checking account. It means less high living, a few more nights moping in the dorm rather than going out with his drinking friends. It does not mean the end of the world.

The market is working now to make things right, to eliminate bad debt and get us back on a sound economic footing. The government can help by legalizing alternative monies, cutting regulations, cutting spending and taxing and wars (as Ron Paul says), but otherwise by doing absolutely nothing. Lehman failed on its own and yet life goes on. The same should happen to Goldman, Morgan, Bear, GM, and all the rest.

Free enterprise is a profit and loss system. This is a time of losses, stemming from an overinflated credit sector, one that the Austrian economists have warned about for many years. Listen to the Austrians now and permit the failures to occur.

By the way, since when has it been an article of our national religion that the economy must never, ever, under any circumstances, be permitted to fall into recession, even slightly? This is completely insane.

The books you need to get to your congressman and staff now are America's Great Depression and The Mystery of Banking. The first explains that it was credit expansion and the attempt to keep prices high that prolonged the Depression which would otherwise have ended by 1931 or 1932. On this point Bernanke is all wet.

The second book explains how money and banking work in a free market, as opposed to a subsidized, fiat-money, centralized system. These are the two most essential books of our time, because they completely overthrow the prevailing theory behind the bailout.

Our choice is this. We can buckle down for a year-long recession and then get on the path to financial and economic soundness. Or we can set off a calamity that will last a decade or more, and perhaps even wreck civilization as we know it. That's our choice.

September 26, 2008

September 25, 2008

Ahmadinejad's Speech to UN, 9-23-08

Madame President, Excellencies, What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them. By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery. Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger. Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble. Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions,where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice? A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.

A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others. People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for it's sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use? The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?

B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities.

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society,and instigate civil strife. There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability.

Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers. It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants;it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history.

Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Canany logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland? The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'ĂȘtre of this regime, as it has.

The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth.

History has unfolded before our eyes. Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime. Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community. Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why? In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?

C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community.

Excellencies,I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity. Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern. Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?

Excellencies, A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression. Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful; Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility; For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.- Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.

Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council,which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?- The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies,The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion,undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies,How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies. The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently,needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective.Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment,of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live? Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President, Excellencies, It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed. Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away. Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect. No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world. It is for this reason that we state:Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled toinsist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world. We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations. Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics,spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future. Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue,Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection.

Whether we like it or not, justice,peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also it's Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption. He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ(peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion.

Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship? I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice,the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

What Do We Stand For?

What Do We Stand For?

by Paul Craig Roberts

Americans traditionally thought of their country as a "city upon a hill," a "light unto the world." Today only the deluded think that. Polls show that the rest of the world regards the United States and Israel as the two greatest threats to peace.

This is not surprising. In the words of Arthur Silber: "The Bush administration has announced to the world, and to all Americans, that this is what the United States now stands for: a vicious determination to dominate the world, criminal, genocidal wars of aggression, torture, and an increasingly brutal and brutalizing authoritarian state at home. That is what we stand for."

Addressing his fellow Americans, Silber asks the paramount question, "Why do you support" these horrors?

His question goes to the heart of the matter. Do we Americans have any honor, any humanity, any integrity, any awareness of the crimes our government is committing in our name? Do we have a moral conscience?

How can a moral conscience be reconciled with our continuing to tolerate our government, which has invaded two countries on the basis of lies and deception, destroyed their civilian infrastructures, and murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women and children?

The killing and occupation continue even though we now know that the invasions were based on lies and fabricated "evidence." The entire world knows this. Yet, Americans continue to act as if the gratuitous invasions, the gratuitous killing and the gratuitous destruction are justified. There is no end of it in sight.

If Americans have any honor, how can they betray their Founding Fathers, who gave them liberty, by tolerating a government that claims immunity to law and the Constitution and is erecting a police state in their midst?

Answers to these questions vary. Some reply that a fearful and deceived American public seeks safety from terrorists in government power.

Others answer that a majority of Americans finally understand the evil that Bush has set loose and tried to stop him by voting out the Republicans in November 2006 and putting the Democrats in control of Congress – all to no effect – and are now demoralized as neither party gives a hoot for public opinion or has a moral conscience.

The people ask over and over, "What can we do?"

Very little when the institutions put in place to protect the people from tyranny fail. In the United States, the institutions have failed across the board.

The freedom and independence of the watchdog press was destroyed by the media concentration that was permitted by the Clinton administration and Congress. Americans who rely on traditional print and TV media simply have no idea what is afoot.

Political competition failed when the opposition party became a "me-too" party. The Democrats even confirmed as attorney general Michael Mukasey, an authoritarian who refuses to condemn torture and whose rulings as a federal judge undermined habeas corpus. Such a person is now the highest law enforcement officer in the United States.

The judicial system failed when federal judges ruled that "state secrets" and "national security" are more important than government accountability and the rule of law.

The separation of powers failed when Congress acquiesced to the executive branch's claims of primary power and independence from statutory law and the Constitution.

It failed again when the Democrats refused to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney, the two greatest criminals in American political history.

Without the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, America can never recover. The precedents for unaccountable government established by the Bush administration are too great, their damage too lasting. Without impeachment, America will continue to sink into dictatorship in which criticism of the government and appeals to the Constitution are criminalized. We are closer to executive rule than many people know.

Silber reminds us that America once had leaders, such as Speaker of the House Thomas B. Reed and Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Sr., who valued the principles upon which America was based more than they valued their political careers. Perhaps Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are of this ilk, but America has fallen so low that people who stand on principle today are marginalized. They cannot become speaker of the House or a leader in the Senate.

Today, Congress is almost as superfluous as the Roman Senate under the Caesars. On Feb. 13 the U.S. Senate barely passed a bill banning torture, and the White House promptly announced that President Bush would veto it. Torture is now the American way. The U.S. Senate was only able to muster 51 votes against torture, an indication that almost a majority of U.S. senators support torture.

Bush says that his administration does not torture. So why veto a bill prohibiting torture? Bush seems proud to present America to the world as a torturer.

After years of lying to Americans and the rest of the world that Guantanamo prison contained 774 of "the world's most dangerous terrorists," the Bush regime is bringing six of its victims to trial. The vast majority of the 774 detainees have been quietly released. The U.S. government stole years of life from hundreds of ordinary people who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were captured by warlords and sold to the stupid Americans as "terrorists."

Needing terrorists to keep the farce going, the U.S. government dropped leaflets in Afghanistan offering $25,000 a head for "terrorists." Kidnappings ensued until the U.S. government had purchased enough "terrorists" to validate the "terrorist threat."

The six that the United States are bringing to "trial" include two child soldiers for the Taliban and a car pool driver who allegedly drove Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban did not attack the United States. The child soldiers were fighting in an Afghan civil war. The United States attacked the Taliban. How does that make Taliban soldiers terrorists who should be locked up and abused in Gitmo and brought before a kangaroo military tribunal? If a terrorist hires a driver or a taxi, does that make the driver a terrorist? What about the pilots of the airliners who brought the alleged 9-11 terrorists to the United States? Are they guilty, too?

The Gitmo trials are show trials. Their only purpose is to create the precedent that the executive branch can ignore the U.S. court system and try people in the same manner that innocent people were tried in Stalinist Russia and Gestapo Germany. If the Bush regime had any real evidence against the Gitmo detainees, it would have no need for its kangaroo military tribunal.

If any more proof is needed that Bush has no case against any of the Gitmo detainees, the following AP News report of Feb. 14, 2008, should suffice: "The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to limit judges' authority to scrutinize evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

The reason Bush doesn't want judges to see the evidence is that there is no evidence except a few confessions obtained by torture. In the American system of justice, confession obtained by torture is self-incrimination and is impermissible evidence under the U.S. Constitution.

Andy Worthington's book, "The Guantanamo Files," and his online articles make it perfectly clear that the "dangerous terrorists" claim of the Bush administration is just another hoax perpetrated on the inattentive American public.

Recently, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity issued a report that documents the fact that Bush administration officials made 935 false statements about Iraq to the American people in order to deceive them into going along with Bush's invasion. In recent testimony before Congress, Bush's Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor, Condi Rice was asked by Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., about the 56 false statements she made.

Rice replied: "I take my integrity very seriously, and I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false." Rice blamed "the intelligence assessments," which "were wrong."

Another Rice lie, like those mushroom clouds that were going to go up over American cities if we didn't invade Iraq. The weapon inspectors told the Bush administration that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as Scott Ritter has reminded us over and over. Every knowledgeable person in the country knew there were no weapons. As the leaked Downing Street memo confirms, the head of British intelligence told the British cabinet that the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq and was making up the intelligence to justify the invasion.

But let's assume that Rice was fooled by faulty intelligence. If she had any integrity she would have resigned. In the days when American government officials had integrity, they would have resigned in shame from such a disastrous war and terrible destruction based on their mistake. But Rice, like all the Bush (and Clinton) operatives, is too full of American self-righteousness and ambition to have any remorse about her mistake.

Condi can still look herself in the mirror despite 1 million Iraqis dying from her mistake and several million more being homeless refugees, just as Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, can still look herself in the mirror despite sharing responsibility for 500,000 dead Iraqi children.

There is no one in the Bush administration with enough integrity to resign. It is a government devoid of truth, morality, decency and honor. The Bush administration is a blight upon America and upon the world.

April 4, 2008

JPMorgan Chase May Acquire Washington Mutual After FDIC Seizure

Once again the Central bankers are consolidating and stealing our wealth. Just as Napoleon fell at Waterloo and the Rothschields caused the London stock market to collapse by spreading the word that Napoleon had won, and then went in and bought up everything for dirt cheap when panic set in. Just as the Oligarchs in Russia, 8 men, owned the entire country. Just as in our great depression, we are bing duped out of our money, of our land, and of our birthright.

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Washington Mutual Inc. may be seized by regulators later today and parts sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co. in what will rank among the biggest banking failures in U.S. history.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. plans to take control of Seattle-based WaMu, the biggest U.S. savings and loan, according to the CNBC television network, and New York-based JPMorgan will buy deposits and branches, the Wall Street Journal said, without citing any sources. The FDIC insurance fund is not expected to contribute any money, the Journal said.

Sandra Bernhard Reveals Anti-Gentilism!

Sandra Bernhard Reveals Anti-Gentilism!

By David Duke

The exceedingly and stereotypically Jewish comedienne, Sandra Bernhard recently performed at the leading Jewish theater in Washington, D.C. There she viciously attacked Sarah Palin as a “Goy whore,” and threatened the mother of five with gang rape by Black males.

Goy, as you should be aware by now is an unflattering word Jews use for Gentiles, in other words, we non-Jews. Bernhard also warned Palin not to reference the Old Testament and condemned the New Testament as crappy bullsh-t. Here is a direct quote:

Click on This Link for the Video of Sandra Bernhard —-WARNING! Extremely Offensive!

Turncoat b—h! Don’t you f–kin’ reference the Old Testament, bitch! You stay with your New Goyish, crappy, shiksa, funky bulls–t! Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you b—h!

I will discuss Bernhard more in a minute. First I want to get an issue out of the way.

I don’t know how many times I have been described by the media as “anti-Semitic.” I am not an anti-Semite. And the record is clear that I have never said anything as remotely hateful as Sandra Bernhard. But, I can tell you frankly, I am anti anyone who tries to hurt the well-being of my family, my community, my country, and my people. Since Jews divide up humanity into simply two groups, Jews and Gentiles, and since I am conscious of my own, non-Jewish, European heritage, I am definitely “anti” those who are anti-Gentile.

I don’t want my family, my people or myself to endure anti-Gentilism. Perhaps I could more tolerate anti-Gentilism knowing that it flourishes far away in Tel Aviv, but I have hard time accepting it in my own country. And I have an even harder time accepting it when the biggest media in America promotes it.

There’s the rub. You see, a Gentile who does not like anti-Gentilism is automatically an anti-Semite in the Jewish-dominated American media.

Can one be anti-Gentile? Funny, there is no word for being anti-Gentile found in the dictionary as there is for being anti-Semitic. But after a lifetime of reading Jewish literature, I know that anti-Gentiles like Sandra Bernhard exist along with her wildly cheering, Jewish audience in the Jewish Theater where she performed. I also know that they exist in the Jewish pundits that gave her positive reviews in the Jewish-run Washington Post and the Examiner. I know anti-Gentile extremists occupy many of the highest positions of power in America and in many European nations.

In my books Jewish Supremacism and My Awakening I quote a contemporary article in the mainstream Jewish Chronicle which acknowledges for its Jewish readership that the most commonly used Jewish word for Gentile woman or girl is Shiksa, which literally means: ‘whore’.

Here is the direct definition derived from the Jewish Chronicle:

Shiksa - the Jewish term for a Gentile woman, from the root word Sheigetz meaning “abomination” or “whore.”

Shikselke - a Gentile little girl meaning “little female abomination.”

I have quoted from the classic Jewish Encyclopedia article called “Gentiles” in which it says that the Talmud has traditionally held that “Gentiles are not men,” and that “another reason for the discrimination (against Gentiles) was the vile and vicious character of Gentiles…whose flesh is like the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses…” I can quote from Jews who themselves recognize and reject the rampant anti-Gentile hate in the Jewish community. The Israeli website, Daat Emet exposes it as I do. They quote contemporary articles from professors at Jewish universities in Israel that say, “Only Jews are Men.” In other words, only Jews are Human beings.

I have quoted from the worldwide Jewish extremist organization, Chabad Lubavitch that says there is only one reason for the existence of Goys on the Earth, and that is to “serve Jews.” This organization has teach-ins in the White House.

More recently I have quoted from Jewish professor Nathan Abrams in an article he wrote for the Jewish Quarterly in which he shows that the leading pornographers of America (overwhelmingly Jewish) - that these Jews see porn as “a way of defiling Christian culture,… as a two finger sot the WASP establishment…the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority…they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.” Actually, Abrams and the Jewish Quarterly are not critical of this Jewish subversion; the article speaks quite proudly of the dominant Jewish role in porn.

Ari Roth of the Goldstein, Jewish Theater, shows very clearly the anti-White and at the same time, pro-Jewish nature of the show. Bernhard warns Palin, the Goy, to stay away from her Jewish Old Testament and stick with the crappy, bullsh-t of the New Testament. Roth goes on to discuss the anti-White nature of the show. By the way, Jews never refer to themselves as “White folks.”

In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as “A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a F-ked Up White Man’s Racist World” and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk from Sandra’s blistering indictment. When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting.

The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not - to my mind - make it a ‘disgusting show.’ there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as “disgusting… Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge. “

Bernhard’s vicious and hateful anti-Gentile program is praised by the Theater itself, showing the Jewish community is right in tune with Bernhard’s hate. Sandra Bernhard is not some aberration in the Jewish community, but as the J Theater officially says:

We’re proud of our producing — proud of Sandra’s sense of timing — taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with. Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

Indeed, one can watch the video and hear the roaring approval of the Jewish audience. One should also consider the fact that The Washington Post and The Washington Examiner both praised the show. The Washington Post’s Peter Marks called it “a rotating sprinkler that a spectator washes in most happily,” and the Examiner joined in, with the headline “Comedienne delivers enraged optimism.” Barbara Mackay claimed “in the end, oddly and subtly, Bernhard’s message is positive.”

Anti-Gentile hate is “positive” and the Jewish audience “washes in it most happily.”

Hateful Jewish supremacists wouldn’t be such a problem but for the fact that they are not only in the audience in the Jewish Theater in DC, they are also in the editorial rooms of The Washington Post, The NY Times and the rooms adjacent to the Oval Office. They have led us into the catastrophe of the Iraq War and want an even bigger catastrophe in Iran. They have so much power that both John McCain and Barack Obama must prostrate themselves before them in disgusting obsequiousness.

Anyone who dares to expose Jewish extremists will be called an anti-Semite. Anyone who exposes the powerful elements of Jewish anti-Gentile hatred in our society will be called a hater. Such is the reality of American media.

I am thankful for the Sandra Bernhard and her cheering Jewish audience, the DC Jewish Theater and The Washington Post for once again exposing to the world the true masters of hate in America.

I am not one of them. I dare to expose them. To do so comes at no small cost to me personally and politically, but somebody must stand up to ugly, vicious, and hateful psychopaths like Sandra Bernhard and those evil men who promote her and her agenda
Minority Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its Knees

By Jeff Davis EURO

The financial commentators and analysts of Wall Street aren’t unaware of what has caused the present economic crisis. The crash started with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, which is effectively a code word for Blacks and non-White Hispanics. They’re just scared to say it out loud. Fox News recently ran a story more or less admitting this was the case, a long article that spent paragraph after paragraph dancing around the truth.

Subprime loans originally were higher interest loans for people with poor credit. Gradually government pressure was applied to increase the number of minority loans for the sake of political correctness. To make this happen, the quality controls on subprime loans were thrown out one by one. Eventually, people with bad credit histories and who couldn’t make down payments and who verbally stated what their income was (without any proof) were allowed to get home loans. For the first few years these insane procedures went unnoticed because housing prices kept going up. What made it all come crashing down, was the current housing slump. As soon as housing prices dropped millions of Black and Latino subprime lenders walked away from their mortgages. They had nothing to lose because they had made no down payment. They weren’t worried about destroying their credit rating because they already had bad credit ratings.

A recent Fox News article reports “Obviously some sectors of the economy have been doing well, while others, such as housing, have been in a real mess. With the government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as other bankruptcies in the financial sector, there are a lot of questions. The strangest fact is that the housing sector is having such problems when the economy otherwise has been doing well. Why have there been so many defaults when the economy has not been in a recession? Defaults have been at historically high rates despite reasonable economic growth and a relatively low unemployment rate of 6.1 percent. Some, such as James H. Carr, the CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, argue that the high default rates are a result of ‘unfair and deceptive practices, steering customers to high price loans… Surprisingly, research done by economists a decade ago in 1998, particularly by Professors Ted Day and Stan Liebowitz at the University of Texas at Dallas, predicted the current problems and tried to warn people of a different cause. Starting during the early 1990s, mortgage-underwriting standards have been consistently weakened…”

Do you see which way the wind is beginning to blow in this first paragraph?)

Let’s watch Fox inch carefully closer to the real point: “The changes in underwriting standards were pushed to accomplish what many called a noble goal-an increase in home ownership among poor and minority Americans — but the changes created a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline. The new rules involved eliminating verification of income or assets, little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage, and virtually eliminating down payments.”

Eliminating verification of income and assets? On a major financial commitment lasting around 30 years on average? What in God’s name were these people thinking?

The article continues “Making it possible for otherwise unqualified people to buy homes increased demand and increased the price of houses. As long as housing prices rose, the problems inherent in not requiring down payments or relaxing other standards were hidden. While prices rose, no one had to default. Instead, if someone was unable to pay the mortgage, the obvious option was to sell the house at a profit. As long as prices continued to rise, people could accurately claim that the new standards did not have an appreciably different default rate than the old standards.”

Why does the word “fraud” keep popping up in my mind?

I think everyone can see the desire to give more mortgages to minorities loosened standards and caused the subprime crisis. Banks and mortgage companies were giving home loans to every Tyrone, Jose and Roberto in order to get a commission and generate worthless paper for the lender to use as collateral on loans from the bigger fish.

It used to be, back in the day when some faint remnants of sanity still prevailed. Buying a home was the biggest lifetime commitment of an American family. In most cases, people only did it once. They bought in their late 20s or early 30s. Some worked hard and paid off the house early. Others paid off the house about the time they were eligible for Social Security, sometimes with a formal mortgage-burning party in their back yard. They also bought houses for their families to live in, not as an investment or a form of speculation. But that was back in the days when White people were in charge of things and society wasn’t raving mad.

A Letter From Dr. Ron Paul

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

Bailout foes hold day of protests

NEW YORK ( -- The public backlash against the Bush administration's proposal to use tax dollars to bailout Wall Street spilled into the streets Thursday.

"People all over the country are up in arms about this," said David Elliot, a spokesman for grassroots advocacy group UsAction. "Our members are livid, and they're hitting the streets."

The Noose Tightens

The Noose Tightens

The following is a reader email that comes by way of George Ure's Urban Survival website:

"Since 9/11, our Constitutional rights have been systematically dismantled:

  1. USA Patriot Act - A 342 page document presented to Congress one day before voting on it that allows the government access to your bank and email accounts, as well as your medical and phone records with no court order. They can also search your home anytime without a warrant.
  2. USA Patriot Act II - This one allows secret government arrests, the legal authority to seize your American citizenship, and the extraction of your DNA if you are deemed a potential terrorist.
  3. Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Ends habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, and the right to court review of one's detention and arrest. Without this most basic right, all other rights are gone too since anyone can be detained indefinitely. Now anyone may be arrested and incarcerated and nobody would know.
  4. NSPD 51 - A directive signed by George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, that allows the President to declare martial law, effectively transforming the U.S. into a dictatorship with no checks and balances from the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Parts of this directive are considered classified and members of Congress have been denied the right to review it.
  5. Protect America Act of 2007 - Allows unprecedented domestic wiretapping and surveillance activities with a reduction in FISA court oversight. Probable cause is not needed.
  6. John Warner Defense Authorization Act - Signed by George W. Bush on October 17, 2007, this act allows the President to declare a public emergency and station troops anywhere in America without the consent of the governor or local authorities to "suppress public disorder.
  7. Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act - Passed overwhelmingly by Congress on October 23, 2007, is now awaiting a Senate vote. This act will beget a new crackdown on dissent and the Constitutional rights of American citizens. The definitions of "terrorism" and "extremism" are so vague that they could be used to generalize against any group that is working against the policies of the Administration. In this bill, "violent radicalization" criminalizes thought and ideology while "homegrown terrorism" is defined as "the planed use of force to coerce the government." The term, "force" could encompass political activities such as protests, marches, or any other form of non-violent resistance.

So when you add in:

  1. Halliburton Confirms Camps Constructed
  2. Halliburton's Immigrant Detention Centers
  3. Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps
  4. Halliburton Confirms Concentration Camps Already Constructed
  5. KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M
  6. This from Halliburton's own website

It starts to get a little scary."

September 16, 2008

The Criminalization of Free Speech

The Criminalization of Free Speech

By Jeremy Lee

The highly-talented and controversial British historian David Irving has just been released from prison in Austria after serving three years. His crime? A remark he made 17 years earlier.

The Canadian resident Ernst Zundel, whose conviction for ‘hate literature” was overturned by Canada’s highest Court, was kidnapped, held in solitary confinement for two years without charge, and then illegally deported to Germany, where he has just been sentenced to 5 years in prison. Others have suffered similar penalties. Their only crime has been the expression of sincerely-held beliefs about historical events. Traditionally, the right to express personal views - whether popular or not - has been upheld in Christian countries as “the right of free speech”. As many historical anomalies about the Jewish holocaust in Germany came under scrutiny after World War II, pressure was applied to governments to outlaw any discussion and scrutiny under the accusation that to do so was ‘anti-Semitic’. Germany and Austria were the first to succumb to such pressure, followed by France and other western European nations.


Through the United Nations, ‘anti-discrimination’ legislation, on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, marital status or religion, was presented to all members for signature and then ratification, whereby member-states were required to legislate domestically. The first attempt to establish a Human Rights Commission in Australia occurred during the Whitlam years at the hands of the Attorney General Lionel Murphy. It is instructive to read the heated criticism by the Opposition Liberal and National parties. As soon as they gained office under Malcolm Fraser in 1975 they reversed their position and installed the Human Rights Commission in which they had thwarted Labor’s Murphy. The ensuing powers of this body were at odds with traditional freedoms in Australia, including the right to free speech. Thus, a dual court system had to be installed in each signatory nation — traditional Courts versus Human Rights tribunals. The latter resorted to antiquated “star-chamber” principles which had earlier been weeded out of the judicial process as inimical to individual rights and open, fair trials, where justice was not only done, but could be seen to be done. Denied the right to identify and confront their accusers, victims could be summoned on allegations to appear, at their own expense and before any charges were laid, in front of tribunals held in closed sessions. Legal representation was denied. Procedure at such hearings could later be used as evidence in legal trials that followed.


Politicians who, in many cases, knew little of the law, had never read the Constitution and had, in any case, sold their consciences to their benefactors and the Party Whip, raised little objection to this subversion. The Church, without exception, “passed by on the other side”.

On October 16, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, establishing within the U.S. State Department a special unit to monitor global Anti-Semitism and report annually to Congress.

On May 22, 2006, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice swore in Greg Rickman to oversee the Office of Global Anti-Semitism. Within a short time the United Nations, under its new Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, asked its member-States to sign, and then ratify, a similar resolution.

Greg Rickman’s office has already defined ‘anti-Semitism’. Included are the following:

· Any assertion that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world is anti-Semitic.

· Strong anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic.

· Virulent criticism of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic.

· Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.

· Criticism of the US government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community is anti-Semitic.

· Criticism of the Jewish community for promoting Globalism (or the New World Order) is anti-Semitic.

· Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

· Diminishing the “six million” figure of Holocaust casualties is anti-Semitic.

· Asserting that there is a “Zionist conspiracy” is anti-Semitic.

· Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.

· Making ‘derogatory statements about Jewish persons’ is anti-Semitic.


Go through each of the listed points, and it will be seen that between them they ban any research and debate on some of the most momentous issues of the past 100 years. The views of world leaders are to be struck from the pages of history. Take, for example, the origins of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Only three years after that catastrophe Sir Winston Churchill wrote: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by those international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.” (Illustrated London Herald, February 8, 1920)

Traverse the years to 2006, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is now under intense attack for his just-published book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (Simon and Shuster). Whatever one’s conclusion - and there will obviously be diverse and passionately held differences - the right to disagree is vital in a free society. But a concerted campaign to paint Carter’s book as “anti-Semitic” is designed to intimidate genuine inquirers.


What about the criticism of Jewish leaders? Is it now forbidden to mention Menachem Begin’s part in the murderous Irgun movement, cited as terrorist by the British at the end of World War II? Are we to ignore the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila, under the instigation of Ariel Sharon, known widely as “the Butcher of Beirut” during the first occupation of Lebanon? Even an Israeli Court found Sharon culpable Not only gentile leaders are criticized. Many courageous non-Zionist Jews suffer intense criticism if they speak out. Professor Norman Finkelstein’s books have strongly criticized what he calls the “Holocaust industry”, where historical accuracy has been relegated to second place behind political goals and financial profits. Finkelstein’s parents died in Germany’s concentration camps. The continued payment of reparations by Germany to allegedly exaggerated numbers of Holocaust victims could not withstand dispassionate scrutiny; so, such scrutineers must be intimidated into silence.


Or what about those courageous Jews who do not condone the one-sided presentation of Israel’s policy in the Middle East? The young Jewish journalist Antony Loewenstein has been forced to run the gauntlet of attack from his own community for daring to publicly dissent from Israel’s policies against the Palestinians in his meticulously documented book My Israel Question. (Melbourne University Publishing Ltd, 3 printings in the year of publication, 2006) As Peter Rodgers, former Australian Ambassador to Israel said of this book: “Loewenstein shines a spotlight on Israel and its uncritical supporters. That will make them uncomfortable. For that reason alone My Israel Question deserves a strong readership”. Loewenstein is simply the latest dissenter from Zionism.

Authors from Alfred Lilienthal to Israel Shamir, Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak have been denigrated as ‘self-hating Jews’ by those who tread the Zionist path. A growing minority of Jews are expressing similar dissent. On February 5, 2007, the British paper The Guardian reported that 130 prominent Jews, in an association called Independent Jewish Voices declared their independence from the Jewish Establishment, arguing that it put support for Israel above the human rights of Palestinians. Is it conceivable that such a statement should be a criminal offence?


Or take the just-published The Power of Israel in the United States, again meticulously-documented by Professor James Petras, author of over 60 books, and contributor to such papers as The New York Times, the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy and Le Monde Diplomatique. If there was any doubt of Israel’s disproportionate influence in the White House and State Department, as well as over both Republican and Democrat parties, it has been dispelled by Petras. Is he to be prosecuted under the new international law of global censorship?

The argument is brought closer to home by the current controversy (February 2007) over the visit to Australia of Professor Raphael Israeli, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In a blunt warning reported in the Jewish Press, “Professor Israeli said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of their adopted countries and said Australia should limit the intake of Muslim migrants to protect social cohesion and national security.” (Australian Jewish News, Feb 22, 2007) In a tumult of controversy, some of the Jewish organizations which sponsored Professor Israeli’s visit withdrew their patronage, while others defended his right to speak controversially. It is safe to say, however, that Professor Israeli won’t be summoned by the Human Rights Commission, as was the fate of two Christian pastors who criticized Islam and parts of the Koran in a seminar. With the current crisis over the spread of Islam in Western Europe and Britain, such open discussion is essential and Professor Israeli’s right to speak should be defended.


And finally, what is to be done about the many Christian faithful who believe the New Testament accounts of the trial and sentence of Jesus Christ are true, and that the account as portrayed in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ

is accurate? Is the profession of such a belief to be regarded as ‘anti-Semitic’ and therefore illegal? Or will the Gospels and the Book of Acts simply be proscribed? They were in the Soviet Union at one stage. Can we anticipate a day when the “Global Commission for World Religion” finally demands the confiscation of Bibles, and the outlawing of missionary work?

That, I believe, is what this new globalist legislation is all about. It is an “outward and visible sign” of a war to the death between two irreconcilable faiths. On the outcome will depend the future of the world. As Lincoln said: “Silence, when we should protest, makes cowards of us all.”

“The lies of the “60 Minutes” TV program Exposed

Don Hewitt and Jeff Fager, executive producers of 60 Minutes - two dedicated Zionists who will not shrink from lies and deceit to manipulate the American people to Israel’s agenda.

“The lies of the “60 Minutes” TV program Exposed

Interview with Iran President Ahmadinejad cuts out his real answer to the “wipe Israel off the map” allegation.

By David Duke

60 minutes is the most watched news broadcast in the United States of America. About two years ago, TV news magazine 60 Minutes aired an exclusive interview with Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Watched by tens of millions of Americans, the program seemingly showed Ahmadinejad as being evasive and essentially agreeing with Jewish extremist, Mike Wallace’s portrayal of him as threatening to “wipe Israel off the map.” In fact, Ahmadinejad has never called for “wiping Israel off the map,”, not in that interview nor at any time. The proper translation of Ahmadinejad’s comments in his native language Farsi was that he believed that the Zionist Regime in Israel would pass away with time much in the same fashion that the Soviet regime fell in Russia.

I was in Tehran and only a few feet from Ahmadinejad during one of the times he was quoted as saying that he threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” In fact, he said that he believed simply that the Zionist regime would be overthrown and then gave the example of the overthrow of the Communist regime in Russia. He also said that if he Zionist regime fell, there must be respect for the civil rights of everyone, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Of course that is a far cry from the image of a nuclear holocaust presented by the heavily Zionist-influenced media around the world, of Israel “being wiped off the map.”

Shortly after Ahmadinejad made his original statements, 60 Minutes‘ Mike Wallace interviewed him. Here is a transcript of the segment as it was edited and aired on CBS:

MR. WALLACE: You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question. You still have not answered the question. Israel must be wiped off the map. Why?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, don’t be hasty, sir. I’m going to get to that.

MR. WALLACE: I’m not hasty.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government… Do you perhaps want me to say what you want me to say? Am I to understand –


PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: So if that is the case, then I ask you to please be patient.

MR. WALLACE: I said I’ll be very patient.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Maybe these are words that you don’t like to hear, Mr. Wallace.

MR. WALLACE: Why? What words do I not like to hear?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Because I think that you’re getting angry.

MR. WALLACE: No, I couldn’t be happier for the privilege of sitting down with the president of Iran.

The impression that any viewer would receive is that Ahmadinejad affirmed the “wipe Israel off the map” statement by responding to Wallace with the statement that, “the Israeli government is a fabricated government.”

Almost two years later, C-Span aired the original footage of the complete interview, not just the aired version. In it we learn of the lies and corruption of big media in America. Here is the full response of Ahmadinejad to Wallace’s question. The aired part of his answer is in Black, the edited out part of his answer is in red. After Wallace goads Ahmadinejad on the “Wipe Israel off the map” allegation, only the first ten words of Ahmadinejad’s answer were heard by the viewer rather than the complete answer as to what he really advocates.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met.

So we said that allow the people of Palestine to participate in a referendum to choose their desired government, and of course, for the war to come an end as well. Why are they refusing to allow this to go ahead? Even the Palestinian administration and government which has been elected by the people is being attacked on a daily basis, and its high-ranking officials are assassinated and arrested. Yesterday, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament was arrested, elected by the people, mind you. So how long can this go on?

We believe that this problem has to be dealt with fundamentally. I believe that the American government is blindly supporting this government of occupation. It should lift its support, allow the people to participate in free and fair elections. Whatever happens let it be. We will accept and go along. The result will be as you said earlier, sir.

MR. WALLACE: Look, I mean no disrespect. Let’s make a deal. I will listen to your complete answers if you’ll stay for all of my questions. My concern is that we might run out of time.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, you’re free to ask me any questions you please, and I am hoping that I’m free to be able to say whatever is on my mind. You are free to put any question you want to me, and of course, please give me the right to respond fully to your questions to say what is on my mind.

The American people were lied to. Millions of Americans really thought they saw the full answer of Ahmadinejad, but they didn’t and were left with the impression that he was being evasive. Ahmadinejad, far from threatening a nuclear holocaust of Israel that would wipe it off the map, dares to suggest democracy for the area, including for the people who are under brutal Israeli military occupation. He is not threatening bombs, he is suggesting democracy. However, Mr. Wallace, 60 Minutes, and CBS didn’t want Americans to see that so they gave tens of millions of Americans the impression he wants to “wipe Israel off the map” because it is a “fabricated government.”

Notice also that Mike Wallace also promised to report his “complete answers” when in fact 60 minutes deleted the most important part of his response.

The American people cannot have informed opinions on any issue of vital importance when the media is so controlled and manipulated by Jewish extremists who support Israel’s agenda over America’s true interests. War with Iran would be catastrophic; even more catastrophic for America than the “War for Israel” in Iraq, a war started by Jewish extremists such as Perle and Wolfowitz and aided by their powerful allies in American mainstream media.

In addition to Mike Wallace, the executive producers of 60 minutes are Jeff Fager and Don Hewitt, dedicated Jewish supporters of the Zionist State.

60 Minutes is famous for supposedly exposing corruption and deceit, yet as this C-Span tape shows, 60 Minutes itself is corrupt. Americans must demand a free and unbiased media in the United States, not simply one huge propaganda tool for the Zionist agenda.

September 9, 2008

What Do Women Want? A Woman on the Ticket!

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., making up huge ground among white women since putting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on the ticket.

Reports ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer: "From 50-42 percent in Obama’s favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift that’s one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences."

Among white women, 67 percent view Palin favorably; 58 percent say her selection makes them more confident in McCain’s decision-making.

Among those with children, Palin does even better than that.


Who Stole Our Culture?

(Following are excerpts of chapter 10 written by historian William S.Lind for Dr. Ted Baehr's and Pat Boone's book "The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World")

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes so moms could stay
home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, raditional alues.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy,
decadent place we live in today -- so different that those who grew up efore the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?

It didn't just "happen". In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation's history -- and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

What happened, in short, is that America's traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western European, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as "political correctness" or "multi-culturalism". It really is cultural Marxism.

Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms goes back to World War I. Cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America's elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western European culture and the Christian religion.

In 1917, a Communist revolution occurred in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went
wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, they said that Western European culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true Marxist class interests that a Communist revolution was impossible in West Europe until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism's goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

A new strategy was laid out for destroying Christianity and Western European culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, Marxists in West Europe should take political power last, after a "long march through the institutions" -- the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That "long march through the institutions" is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s.

One of its main components was introducing sex education into
schools. Destroying the country's traditional sexual morals would be a giant step toward destroying traditional morals and Christian faith.

In 1923, the Marxists set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany called The Frankfurt School. Originally it was to be called the "Institute for Marxism", but the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives by calling it a neutral-sounding name, the "Institute for Social Research".

The Institute for Social Research would become the place where
political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question "Who stole our culture?" is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.

The institute discarded conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement and pioneered work on further developing cultural Marxism into a full-blown ideology.

They broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure", which was determined by economic factors. On the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.

Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western European culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. They realized that psychological conditioning offered them a far more powerful tool than just philosophy.

Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize"
something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. Cultural Marxism makes powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism's most powerful weapon. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons
the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political
correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany. Since the Nazis hated Marxism, the Frankfurt School with its leading members decided to leave Germany and re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University in 1934. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western European culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

The Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called "Critical Theory". The theory was to criticize every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless unremitting criticism to bring them down, being careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against (notice current political opposition). Critical Theory is the
basis for the"studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities, the home turf of academic political correctness.

They accuse traditional attitudes to be "prejudice". They
incorporated into their cultural Marxism the "transvaluation of all values". What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist". That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America.
(The Frankfurt School said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions taught by teachers certified for Cultural Marxism.)

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which
argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors", while other groups were defined as "victims". Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from,
regardless of individual behavior.

Who would replace the working class as the agents of Marxist
revolution. In the 1950s it was decided it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals -- the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today.

They further took one of political correctness's favorite words,
"tolerance", and gave it a new meaning. They defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance", they mean
"liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity", they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology.

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave them a historic opportunity. The Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism was injected into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, the few people "in the know" did
not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism.

But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans,
especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, leaders of unions, education and government, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.


Who Paid For Obama's Harvard Law Education?

There are many questions which remain unanswered about the mysterious Barack Obama. The mainstream media has vetted Gov. Sarah Palin more in the past week than they've bothered to vet Sen. Barack Obama over the past year. When you start digging into Obama's background, you turn up more questions than answers.

Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen and his mother was American. His name as a young child was changed to Barry Soetoro when his mother married Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro and moved to Jakarta. Indonesian school records state that Obama was an Indonesian citizen and not an American citizen and that his religion was Islam and not Christian, protestations by Obama to the contrary notwithstanding. When or how Obama acquired U.S. citizenship or changed his name back to Barack Hussein Obama is unclear. A birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign was determined by several document experts to be a forged document.

We know from his autobiography that he had Muslim roommates in college of foreign nationality. Now it turns out that an influential, radical black Muslim with close ties to the Saudi royal family and an outspoken opponent of Israel helped finance Obama's law school education. Obama's benefactor at the young age of 25 is Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour a/k/a Donald Warden. Here are some facts you should know about al-Mansour according to a Newmax investigative report:

* "He is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel."
* In a 1995 book, “The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered,” he alleged that the United States was plotting genocide against black Americans.
* He was the mentor of Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his cohort, Bobby Seale.
* Al-Mansour’s more recent videotaped speeches focus on Muslim themes, and abound with anti-Semitic theories and anti-Israel vitriol.
* At the same time he was raising money for Obama's education he was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States.
* He advises Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in his U.S. investments. Prince Talal is most famous for offering $10 million to the City of New York following 9/11, a contribution turned down by Mayor Rudy Giuliani because the Prince said American policies were to blame for the terrorist attacks. Prince Alwaleed has made tens of millions in contributions to Muslim-American charities, some of whose leaders have been charged by our government with terrorism-related ties. Prince Alwaleed also donates millions to Harvard for Islamic studies.

Newmax sought a response from the Obama campaign about the financial assistance Obama received from al-Mansour, but the campaign refused to respond. This disclosure came in a very unlikely fashion. Percy Sutton, a prominent African-American businessman, was being interviewed when he described how he first came to know Obama. “I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas,” Sutton said. “He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” "Sutton, the founder of Inner City Broadcasting, said al-Mansour contacted him to ask a favor: Would Sutton write a letter in support of Obama’s application to Harvard Law School?"

Think about how many mainstream media reports there have been this past week trying to link Gov. Sarah Palin to the Alaskan Independence Party, which supports secession from the United States. Yet, this revelation about Obama's past received no attention from the news media. Why? Obama critic Andy Martin thinks the revelation is a big one. "This latest disclosure may be the 'smoking gun' that discredits Obama and destroys his candidacy." "And I think I know where it came from. I honestly do not see Obama surviving financial links to a close adviser of a member of the Saudi Arabia monarchy, not when Saudis were the instigators of 9/11." "Even a slight link to Saudi money would disqualify anyone from the presidency in the mind of almost every American." I agree with Martin that it is a big revelation. But this American news media has already decided Obama is The One. I have little confidence this will make its way into any mainstream media reports.