| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ken [NY]" |
| Date: |
28 May 2005 09:17:56 AM |
| Object: |
WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS?
by Ann Coulter
May 25, 2005
Bill Moyers, the lamented, demented former host of the PBS program
"Now With Bill Moyers," referred to the American-led war in Iraq as
doing "to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us."
He called American flag pins "a little metallic icon of patriotism"
comparable to Mao's Little Red Book being displayed on every Communist
Party official's desk in China. This is silly. The metallic icons of
patriotism that Mao used to keep the masses in line were considerably
longer and sharper, and were usually applied to the back by a fellow
"comrade."
Moyers denounced Condoleezza Rice for her ineptness in not preventing
the 9/11 attack, despite a clearly worded memo stating: "Bin Laden
determined to attack the United States." In other breaking news:
Waitress in L.A. Determined to Become Actress. As Condi said, "I don't
think you, frankly, had to have that report to know that bin Laden
would like to attack the United States."
In his lengthy diatribe against Rice, Moyers said she had cried wolf,
intentionally misleading "America and the world about the case for
invading Iraq." Apparently Rice had said Iraq was "a part of the war
on terror" on the grounds that Saddam was: (1) supporting terrorists,
(2) a weapons of mass destruction threat and (3) "a tremendous barrier
to change in the Middle East."
But as regular viewers of PBS know, in fact, we invaded Iraq for oil.
Yes, precisely. That's why U.S. forces seized Iraq's oil fields right
after Baghdad fell, confiscated their vast oil reserves, and now we
can buy all the gasoline we want here at home for just pennies a
gallon any time we want. Sorry, we what? Folks, my switchboard is
completely lit up and this isn't even a radio show.
Moyers responded to the 2002 midterm elections in which Republicans
bucked history by gaining seats in both the House and the Senate by
warning Americans of the coming Rapture: "(I)f you like God in
government, get ready for the Rapture." As Moyers described the horror
that was to come: "That agenda includes the power of the state to
force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives."
I'm pretty sure even the harshest anti-abortion laws would only
prevent a woman from killing her baby, not send her to a slave labor
camp. But with his broadcast career crashing down around him, Moyers
took a brave stand against the internment of pregnant women.
Moyers also said the agenda of the coming theocracy "includes using
the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich."
(And we'd appreciate it if you poor people would fold the bills a
little more neatly before mailing them in next time.)
As the extra little cherry on top, all Moyers' nut conspiracy theories
were being broadcast on PBS, subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Not only
that, but Moyers takes a cut of every video of his show sold, and he
has family members on the payroll. Let's see now: a corrupt, partisan
demagogue and his family caught feeding at the taxpayers' trough.
Let's just hope he never took a free golfing trip to Scotland!
When Ken Tomlinson, chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
suggested that PBS was maybe a smidgen left of center, Moyers began
his lengthy public nervous breakdown. Already well-known as an
insufferable jerk, it turns out Moyers is also a crazy megalomaniac,
too.
In a recent speech to the the National Conference on Media Reform - a
conference dedicated to increasing liberal representation in the media
from 94.6 percent to 99.8 percent - Moyers responded to his critics by
reading from his fan mail, reading favorable news articles about
himself, and comparing himself to Jesus Christ or, as he put it, "one
of our boys." If it were possible that he actually believed in God,
PBS would be doing a special report on Moyers after a remark like
that.
He said his critics were "obsessed with control, using the government
to threaten and intimidate" - almost as control-obsessed as 45
senators trying to tell 55 senators which judicial nominees are
acceptable. The threat is: Provide balanced programming or stop
expecting subsidies from the U.S. taxpayer.
Moyers also noted that his critics were the ones behind the bin
Laden-like attack on Iraq in order "to make sure Ahmed Chalabi winds
up controlling Iraq's oil." (And that's why gasoline is so cheap!)
Yep, it's all right there on the Project for a New American Century's
agenda: (1) invade Iraq, (2) somehow get Bill Moyers' PBS show
canceled, (3) invade Syria, (4) invade Iran ...
Moyers has clearly reached the next-to-last stage of the
megalomaniac's life cycle: the persecution complex. We'll know Moyers
has reached end-stage megalomania when he begins to exhibit an
inordinate fear of germs.
According to Moyers, the reason these right-wing radicals focused on
him despite the fan mail he gets - to say nothing of favorable
write-ups in the mainstream media - is that he "didn't play by the
conventional rules of Beltway journalism." (That and the giant piece
of tinfoil on his head.)
These contemptible "rules of Beltway journalism" apparently consist of
reporters completely ignoring important conspiracy theories regularly
featured on Moyers' program and instead functioning as "government
stenographers" - as Moyers called one reporter for The New York Times,
no less.
Moyers did live by one rule of old-media journalism: He believed he
should not need viewers to have a TV show. During fund-raising drives,
scores of local PBS affiliates would drop Moyers' program for fear of
driving away donors. Let me say that I personally believe this was a
mistake. Moyers' show was the one PBS program that made the pledge
drives seem interesting.
But the absence of an audience is no concern for liberals. After all,
Air America is still on air. How about making George Soros pay Moyers'
salary? Then at least he'd have a little less money to spend on
wrecking the country. Hey - maybe that's what Moyers meant about the
Republican government transferring money from working people to the
rich.
Cordially,
Ken (NY)
Women's boxing: Float like a butterfly, sting like a... butterfly.
email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
28 May 2005 01:46:27 PM |
|
|
America is leftist because it is ruled by Jews.
from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000
Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that
separates
church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to any mixing
of
religion and public life.
A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors
that
have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict separation
between
church and state have waned, Jews are far more reluctant than non-Jews
to
accept references to religion in the public schools or other public
arenas.
''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said
Alan
Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square'' project, one
of
seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts examining the
contemporary
role of religious groups in the United States.
The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual
morality
that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more liberal
than
other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of homosexuality,
abortion, birth control and pornography than do Gentiles,'' the study
found.
''In each case, Jewish leaders are even more tolerant than the Jewish
public.''
For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong,
compared to
23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And while 56
percent of
non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of Jews and 96 percent of
Jewish leaders do.
The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing
on the
Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number of
children in
Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy makers have
suggested
that the community supports the use of vouchers, but the survey
suggests
that Jewish reluctance to support such a step runs deep.
Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious
symbols on public property.
Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s,
and is
driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the public
sphere
means a greater presence of Christianity.
''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many
Jews
feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large
Christian
majority in the American population, would promote an explicitly
Christian
character to the American state and its institutions,'' the study
declared.
''Jews, in particular, were concerned that the schools not be used to
indoctrinate their children in the culture and tenets of
Christianity.''
Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of
anti-Semitism
associated with some Christian groups, and by the community's
liberalism and
secularity, the study said. In recent years, the study said, Jews have
become more accepted in the United States, Jews have become less
liberal,
and a significant fraction of the community has become less secular,
but the
attitudes have remained.
Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39
percent
of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with 63
percent of
non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers that could be
used
at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of non-Jews.
The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States,
the
pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a sample -
they
queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed
by mail
on various matters.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim
religious
populations in the United States. Each study will include a poll,
scholarly
papers, and conferences over a three-year period.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
28 May 2005 04:36:34 PM |
|
|
"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:92fh911btin54rk9jisikmll7jq8jd1f9e@4ax.com...
America is leftist because it is ruled by Jews.
Topaz, you're fucking sick...
I hope you die from a long and painful disease...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
29 May 2005 07:49:38 PM |
|
|
Liberating America From Israel
by Paul Findley
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused
to
help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express
this
conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the
catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the
past
35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until
Israel
withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any
determined
president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail and win
overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these
facts
before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to
annex
the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become
Greater
Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli
politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater
Israel is a
reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed,
aggressive, and
influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined
to
prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West
Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of
eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing
the
territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism,
Israeli
forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere
to be
found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured.
Some
are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed.
Entire
cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting
for
weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are
routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are
undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration
camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps
Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most
Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in
most
countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli
violations of
the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all
major
religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S.
lobby
began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S.
role in
the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public
awareness
the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to
Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open
discussion
of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government
all
these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the
House
of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli
military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as
well
as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16
years
and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in
either
chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East
policy.
No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been
offered for
20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more
than a
handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in
private
conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic,
if not
anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when
those
few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and
Reps. Paul
"Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were
defeated
at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily
biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs
year
after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally
lop-sided
in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if
it
were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news
media
candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate America's
complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my
dear
friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated
arms,
completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide
anger
against American policy reached the boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or
listens to
BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin
Laden,
believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S.
complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian society as a
principal
complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express
their
opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity,
especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against
Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every
government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions
of
higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S.
Jews who
object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality...
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to
redress
grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene
far
worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an
alliance
that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the
fact
that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of
Palestinians
as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. No one in
authority will
admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the
American
people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered
9/11
and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because
U.S.
policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of
helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should
suspend
all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in
1967.
The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal
from
office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister
who is
at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can
justify
the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in
winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a
worthy
precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that
freed
only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he make the
restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long
years of
bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois
for
22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member of
the
American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.
Also See: http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/
Citizens for Fair Legislation ALERT: NO NEW AID TO ISRAEL
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1556560.php
Congressman Paul Findley: Liberating America From Israel
http://www.mediamonitors.net/findley2.html
Pat Buchanan: Why Politicians Prefer Israel over American
Interest?
http://amconmag.com/01_13_03/buchanan7.html
Israeli Minister - 'We've Become Barbarians'
http://rense.com/general33/become.htm
Wales Politician Compares Apartheid Israel to Nazi Germany
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=12498073
&method=full&siteid=50082
Israel's image of liberal democracy takes a battering
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/04/wisr04.xml&s
Sheet=/news/2003/01/04/ixworld.html
Israel Bans Christian Politician and Party from Election
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1845530.stm
Israel to Expel Christian Politician and non-Jewish Parties from
Knesset
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,866348,00.html
Row over Arabs' election ban
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/01/wisr01.
xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/01/ixnewstop.html
How Americas Zionist controlled media spin the facts.
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/98414_comment.php
American Media Controlled by Israeli Supporters
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Eric+Alterman+MSNBC+Israel&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3caaa1d0_1%40news.tm.net.my&rnum=1
The Myth of Barak's Generous Offer
http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html
Direct Financial Cost of Israel to US: $1.6 trillion and
growing
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
MAKING MERCHANDISE OUT OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD: SELLING THE UPCOMING
WAR IN
IRAQ http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/m2_s1.html
Zionism Unbound - Vidal Gored 16 Years Ago
http://www.rense.com/general32/unbound.htm
'It's Time To Get Tough With Israel' - Patriotic US Army Brig
General
http://www.rense.com/general33/tough.htm
Israel's Policy Of 'Covert Aggression'
http://www.rense.com/general31/ze.htm
ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM
http://abbc.com/historia/zionism/rokach.html
The Men From JINSA and CSP
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&c=1&s=vest
JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
http://rense.com/general18/JINSA.HTM
Christian Coalition Abandonment of Palestinian Christians is
Hypocritical http://www.mediamonitors.net/sherri64.html
Where does world-famous televangelist's money go?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845747.asp#BODY
Christian Patriarch of Holy Land calls for end of Oppressive
Israeli
occupation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2604761.stm
Zionism versus the Bible - Peace and Jutice on Earth or the
Extremism of
the 'Christian' Right? http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamson4.html
THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE - Christianity & The NWO
http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm
No Joy in Bethlehem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,865083,00.html
'Saddest Christmas Ever' in Bethlehem
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021225&cat=news&st=newsmideas
tdc
For Unbiased News, visit:
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.rense.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.thenation.com/
http://www.mediamonitors.net/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.counterpunch.com/
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.progressive.org/
http://www.yellowtimes.org/
http://www.latimes.com/
For Good Analysis and Commentary, visit:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/
http://www.robert-fisk.com/
http://www.iacenter.org/
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html
http://www.nader.org/public_interest.html
http://reese.king-online.com/
http://fair.org/media-beat/
http://avnery-news.co.il/english/
Please distribute....
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bishop The" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
29 May 2005 08:20:20 PM |
|
|
How about you give us your address and we can liberate
America from you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
29 May 2005 09:01:03 PM |
|
|
Our Jewish Keepers
by Kevin Alfred Strom
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of May 31, 2003
Welcome to American Dissident Voices. I'm Kevin Alfred Strom.
Did you ever wonder why America is declining in popularity around
the world, and especially in Europe?
Perhaps it might have something to do with America's increasingly
common image as a puppet-state of International Jewry. Perhaps it
might also have something to do with growing European resentment
toward being bossed around by U.S. Congressmen who are first and
foremost lackeys of the Jewish power structure. Yes, that's right
-- United States Congressmen are spending more and more of their
time instructing European nations about what steps they should
take to control the growing awareness of destructive Jewish
behaviors throughout Europe. Not only has entrance into NATO for
some nations been predicated upon approval by the American Jewish
Committee, but there exists a little known official U.S.
Government agency called "The Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe", also known as "The Helsinki Commission,"
which consists of nine members from the United States Senate,
nine members from the House of Representatives, and one member
each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. A
professional staff assists the Commissioners in their work -- and
a glance at their website at <http://www.csce.gov> will readily
confirm that their work has recently focused on squelching
justifiable criticism of Jewish involvement in the national and
international affairs of European nations -- or what they refer
to as "combating anti-Semitism." Our American tax dollars are not
only being spent to support an illegitimate Jewish theocracy
(Israel), but we are also funding American intervention in
European affairs on behalf of International Jewry.
Led by Congressman Christopher Smith of New Jersey, "our"
congress is working feverishly to coerce European leaders to
further suppress any criticism of Jewish activities, no matter
how mild that criticism may be. In the April 30, 2003 edition of
the Congressional Record you will find examples of Smith's
shameless application of political pressure on sovereign European
nations:
From [United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
108th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 Washington, Wednesday,
April 30, 2003], we read Smith's own words as he says
"The U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, has worked with
the Museum on several occasions, from pushing for the release of
documents from the Romani concentration camp in Lety, Czech
Republic, to urging Romania to give greater meaning to its stated
commitment of rejecting anti-Semitism by removing Antonescu
statues from public lands. In response to the alarming spike of
anti-Semitic incidents found last summer in Europe, myself and
other Members of the Commission have been very active in urging
governments and elected officials to denounce the violence and
ensure their laws are enabled to prosecute the perpetrators. In
support of this effort, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 49,
urging, among other things, European states to 'promote the
creation of educational efforts throughout the region
encompassing the participating States of the OSCE to counter
anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people,
increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the
necessary resources to accomplish this goal.' It is my hope that
other countries will copy the unique and effective model of the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum."
Smith is not alone in his demands. Congressman Joseph Crowley of
New York wants to suppress any critical discussion of Jewish
behavior: [ Ibid., SUBMITTED REMARKS OF HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY,
MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES]
"Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address this
distinguished forum. I am greatly concerned by the rise of
anti-Semitism throughout the OSCE region....In the 21st century,
countries in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia should not
witness attacks against Jews... Nor should these countries
tolerate the hatred spewed by skinheads and other radical groups
throughout the region. Such hatred has brought catastrophe to the
region in our lifetimes already, and we must ensure that the
fields of Europe and Asia are not sown with the seeds of
intolerance ever again. It is the responsibility of the OSCE
governments to set a zero tolerance policy for anti-Semitic
speech and acts. In their OSCE commitments, all governments
pledged to condemn anti-Semitism unequivocally and take effective
measures to... prosecute those who commit such hate crimes..."
The OSCE site also features the speech of one Juliane
Danker-Wetze, who bewails the fact that some European thinkers
are starting to connect the dots and find that they form a Star
of David:
"Jews are imagined [sic] to be a national and international
influential group who allegedly exert a bad influence on or even
steer politics, the economy and the media, which is a way of
expressing the old anti-Semitic prejudice of hidden Jewish
power."
[<http://tinyurl.com/cuam> ]
And the so-called Helsinki Commission, which was founded in 1976
supposedly to further human rights under Soviet Communism,
recently heard from one of the main opponents of the right of
free speech, none other than the Jewish ADL. [
<http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/121102JTA.shtml> ] Though they
sugar-coat the language, what the ADL is really "pushing" (their
word) the supine Congressmen to do is to make criticism of our
'superhuman' self-chosen masters illegal. The Jewish Telegraphic
Agency informs us:
"Jewish leaders are pushing the White House and Congress to take
a firmer stance against European anti-Semitism. A group of German
and American lawmakers heard Tuesday from Jewish leaders who
expressed concern about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. The
Jewish leaders also suggested ways to combat anti-Semitism in
states that participate in the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. 'Many European Jews today feel more
vulnerable, disillusioned and frightened than at any time since
the Holocaust,' said Ambassador Alfred Moses, past president of
the American Jewish Committee and a former U.S. ambassador to
Romania. 'I know from my personal experience that anti-Semitism
is never far below the surface in Central and Eastern Europe.'
The Anti-Defamation League presented a series of recommendations
on combating the problem, including urging political leaders to
speak out against bigotry, strengthening administrative, legal
and monitoring instruments and using educational initiatives.
'While the last century witnessed the most heinous results of
bigotry unchecked, fortunately we also have witnessed in our
lifetime powerful examples of how strong U.S. and German
leadership have brought about dramatic change,' said Kenneth
Jacobson, ADL's associate national director. 'America and
Germany, each having learned painful lessons from their
respective past experiences with the danger of bigotry, are
uniquely positioned to lead the OSCE' ...The visit to Washington
by members of the German Bundestag was a follow-up to a July
session in Berlin on anti-Semitism. Moses noted that incidents of
anti-Semitism have risen in Europe because of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's ties to the United States
and the momentum that right-wing groups have been gaining in some
European countries. U.S. and German lawmakers signed a letter of
intent to strengthen their work against anti-Semitism, use
educational initiatives and urge other parliaments to follow
their lead."
As Robert Faurisson once said at a meeting in Washington, D.C.
"by 'human rights' is usually meant 'Jewish rights'" -- which
follows the notion, enshrined in the Jewish 'holy book,' the
Talmud, that only Jews are human and that non-Jews are equivalent
to beasts. And isn't that what the Helsinki Commission is
currently all about? -- keeping the European cattle from getting
too uppity and questioning their keepers and questioning why they
are kept in economic and political pens?
The Helsinki Commission isn't the only group under the thumb of
organized Jews, manipulating governments behind the scenes. A
secretive group with the Orwellian-sounding name of the 'Office
of Special Plans' also deserves our attention.
The 'Office of Special Plans' is nominally within the Pentagon
and is headed by a Jew named Abram Shulsky. It is of very recent
incarnation, having been created by several Jewish handlers of
George Bush with the explicit purpose of expanding the U.S.-led
war for Israel in the Mideast.
The Jews who came to power under Bush, or rather over Bush, saw
9/11 as an almost heaven-sent opportunity to get the despised
Americans crying tears for their dead countrymen (the deaths of
whom the Israeli Mossad, who had been following Mohammed Atta for
months, probably condoned to create that very opportunity), and
to get the same stupid American goyim fired up for having
themselves and Moslem goyim slaughtered in the Middle East for
Holy Israel's sake. Afghanistan was their first and easy target,
but Iraq was a harder nut to crack.
The neoconservative Jews' thirst for Iraqi blood began years
before 9-11, of course, as did their determination to find a
justification for spilling it. As early as March 2001, Richard
Perle, then Bush's new chairman of the Defense Policy Board, made
the claim that Iraq almost certainly had nuclear weapons. [
<http://tinyurl.com/cukp> ] In one of the most bizarre cases of
Jewish triplespeak I have ever heard, Perle actually argued
before Congress that Saddam had to have these weapons
specifically because our intelligence indicated that he did not:
"Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does.
How far he's gone on the nuclear-weapon side I don't think we
really know. My guess is it's further than we think. It's always
further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think
about this, to what we're able to prove and demonstrate." Now,
limiting yourself to what you can prove and demonstrate is
certainly dangerous. At least it is dangerous to Jews, as with
their fantastic tales of World War II persecution that are as
profitable as they are fictitious. Instead of limiting ourselves
to facts, far better for us to believe whatever tales the Jews
want us to believe and launch another world war. Now that's safe!
The Jews wanted to destroy Iraq because Iraq's secular Arab
government was a bulwark against Israeli expansionism and
aggression in the region. But that reason wasn't enough to
convince the American people. Since the hated-by-Jews Americans
were still somewhat exercised over the deaths of Americans on
9-11, the Jews decided that a case had to be made that Iraq was
somehow involved in international terrorism and possessed
so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction which could, conceivably,
threaten Americans.
The problem was that there was no evidence for this claim.
Neither the Central Intelligence Agency nor the Defense
Intelligence Agency could discover any credible evidence showing
that Iraq supported al-Qaeda -- in fact, the opposite was true.
And the CIA and the DIA also could find no evidence whatever that
Iraq possessed any of the dreaded 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'
that could threaten America. Bush's Jewish handlers found this
situation intolerable. They wanted their war and they were going
to get their war, by hook or by crook.
In the same way that they 'know' that 'God is the Jewish people'
they also 'knew' that Saddam must have nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons capable of harming or at least frightening
Americans. It would serve their purposes if that were true, so it
must be true. The trouble was that the CIA and the DIA weren't
buying it. The facts that their extensive intelligence networks
turned up all indicated the opposite.
The frustration of Bush's Jewish handlers was profound. What to
do? Create their own intelligence-agency-lite. And so the Office
of Special Plans was born. The small group of influential Jews
who run this secretive outfit even call it -- in typically Jewish
mockery of those who expose Jewish conspiracy -- "the Cabal." [
<http://tinyurl.com/b26r> ]
Starting with just two staff people and never having more than
five (compared to the CIA and DIA with their thousands of agents
and analysts worldwide) and led by the Jew Abram Shulsky, the
Office of Special Plans was designed at the outset to feed
Rumsfeld and Bush, via Wolfowitz and Feith, a series of lies
which would cause them to question the intelligence agencies'
reports.
Jewish writer Robert Dreyfuss describes the procedure:
"Rumsfeld noted that a primary purpose of the unit was to provide
him with ammunition that he could use to harass the CIA staffer
who briefs him every morning. 'In comes the briefer, and she
walks through the daily brief and I ask questions,' said
Rumsfeld. 'What I could do is say, Gee, what about this? Or what
about that? Has somebody thought of this?' Using powerful
computers and having access to reams of intelligence factoids,
Feith's team could create a steady stream of data bits that
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith himself could use to pick apart the
CIA's conclusions, sending the CIA's collectors and analysts back
to rewrite their reports." And, of course, preventing the real
intelligence reports from being believed and from giving the
President any second thoughts about obeying any of the orders of
the neoconservative Jews who surround him.
W. Patrick Lang, former chief of Middle East intelligence at the
D.I.A., admitted that this group has pulled a real coup and has
"...banded together to dominate the government's foreign policy,
and they've pulled it off. They're running Chalabi. The D.I.A.
has been intimidated and beaten to a pulp. And there's no guts at
all in the C.I.A.."
Jewish writer Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, quotes an
unnamed Pentagon advisor who worked with the Office of Special
Plans as crowing about Wolfowitz, Shulsky, and their coup: "I'd
love to be the historian who writes the story of how this small
group of eight or nine people made the case and won," defeating
the combined might of the CIA and DIA.
Shulsky has had a long relationship with the Jewish power
structure, and is described as the intellectual heir of Jewish
philosopher Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago, a person
who, for some unknown reason, decided to flee Europe in 1937.
Shulsky and Wolfowitz both received their doctorates under
Strauss in 1972. It is most revealing, I think, to consider
Wolfowitz and Shulsky as students of Strauss when one of
Strauss's major themes as a philosopher, according to Stephen
Holmes, a law professor at New York University, was the idea that
"philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at
large but also to powerful politicians." I'll say that again -- a
guiding principle of this small Jewish cabal that even calls
itself "the Cabal" that tells our government what to do is that
"philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at
large but also to powerful politicians." "Noble lies," of course,
are lies which advance the interests of the Jews.
Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of anti-terrorism operations
and analysis at the C.I.A., stated of this Jewish group: "...they
all work together. This has been going on since the
nineteen-eighties, but they've never been able to coalesce as
they have now. September 11th gave them the opportunity, and now
they're in heaven. They believe the intelligence is there. They
want to believe it. It has to be there."
The Office of Special Plans also had a very cozy relationship
with the criminal and con-man Ahmed Chalabi of the so-called
Iraqi National Congress, who is very eager to become the Jews'
front man in Iraq, and who "cooperated" by making up stories
which could then be attributed to "Iraqi defectors" when recited
for the President. Experienced intelligence analysts dismiss the
tales told by Chalabi as totally worthless fictions.
[ <http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html> ]
Columnist Harold Meyerson calls what the Office of Special Plans
did "faith-based intelligence." I call it Shilling for Sharon.
The short name of course, is simply lying. And these liars not
only influenced our not-so-bright leaders, but fed their false
stories to the mainly Jewish-controlled media who used them
influence the public to support the Jews' new war.
The Jews' plan worked quite well. They got the ear of the
President, his superstitious heart, and his easily-befuddled
brain. They got their war. But it was all based on lies. It has
been many weeks since the fall of Iraq, and no evidence of Iraqi
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" have been found. Even Task Force
75, the armed services team specifically created to root out
Saddam's supposedly hidden and supposedly illegal arsenal has
found nothing and is actually closing up shop.
The Office of Special Plans is nothing but an odious Jewish lie
factory.
It is this Jewish lie factory that will soon attempt to start
another war, this time for 'regime change' in Iran. [
<http://tinyurl.com/cusy> ] They're already gearing up for a battle
with diplomats in the State Department who oppose the Iranian
step in the Jews' world war. They're already arranging meetings
between a pretender to the Iranian throne and Ariel Sharon.
William Kristol's Weekly Standard is already banging the war
drums against Iran, and another Jew, Michael Rubin, is already
concentrating on Iran from within Shulsky's Office of Special
Plans. We told you months ago on American Dissident Voices that
this was going to happen, and the Office of Special Plans is
making our prediction come true.
It is from this Jewish lie factory that came the tales that Colin
Powell told the UN about Iraq's purchase of nuclear material from
Nigeria. It is from this Jewish lie factory that the story of a
"ring" of chemical weapons around Baghdad originated. It is from
this Jewish lie factory that came the 'revelation' that al-Qaeda
and Saddam were allies. It is this Jewish lie factory that killed
innocent children and blew off their heads and arms and legs. It
is this Jewish lie factory that killed your son and maimed your
daughter.
Their intelligence was worthless. Their lies were priceless.
You're being killed because you believe in the emperor's new
clothes. The purpose of this program is to stop you from
believing in lies; to help you understand how you are being
ruled; to help you see reality; to save your family, your
country, and your life.
Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to stay
active -- stay legal -- and keep on thinking free.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of
ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bishop The" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
29 May 2005 10:37:40 PM |
|
|
It's killfile time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bolwerk" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
30 May 2005 02:56:15 AM |
|
|
Don't tell people when you killfile them. It makes them feel like they won.
Look at "Alvin."
Bishop wrote:
It's killfile time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bishop The" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
30 May 2005 09:37:28 AM |
|
|
On 30-May-2005, Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't tell people when you killfile them. It makes them feel like they won.
Look at "Alvin."
Bishop wrote:
It's killfile time.
Let me re-phrase that.......it's "Block All Messages From Sender" time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
30 May 2005 03:10:34 PM |
|
|
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:
We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.
Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.
The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.
Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.
No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.
It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.
We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.
Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.
If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"
That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.
As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.
At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.
Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.
The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.
Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.
In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."
Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"
Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platorm I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where there
were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised by
what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken [NY]" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
31 May 2005 09:15:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:37:28 GMT, "Bishop" <The Bishop@OnTheBoard.Com>
claims:
On 30-May-2005, Bolwerk <bolwerk@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't tell people when you killfile them. It makes them feel like they won.
Look at "Alvin."
Bishop wrote:
It's killfile time.
Let me re-phrase that.......it's "Block All Messages From Sender" time.
I advise you not to. Believe it or not, that anti-semetic
spewing from "Topaz" is the only leftist argument remaining against
what Miss Coulter wrote. They have no answers, so they use nonsense,
hoping to change the subject. Like certain other conservatives, I hope
to keep a few remaining leftists around to point out to our youngsters
in the future, kinda like a petting zoo.
Cordially,
Ken (NY)
Women's boxing: Float like a butterfly, sting like a... butterfly.
email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
31 May 2005 08:18:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 May 2005 10:15:41 -0400, "Ken [NY]" <email@BelowThe.Text>
wrote:
I advise you not to. Believe it or not, that anti-semetic
Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before the Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.
Americans had a revolution when they were ruled by the British. If
the British accused
them of being "anti-British" would the Americans throw down their guns
and apologize?
Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.
The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.
This is what President Nixon said:
http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html
"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my
policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in the U.S.
control
the entire information and propaganda machine, the large newspapers,
the
motion pictures, radio and television, and the big companies. And
there is a
force that we have to take into consideration."
spewing from "Topaz" is the only leftist argument remaining against
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism
in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
two-and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with
the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of
charge in State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard
to marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be
educated by the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to
be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the
wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the
substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world
movement? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted
this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it
prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the
actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight
against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing
less than a Jewish International."
what Miss Coulter wrote. They have no answers, so they use nonsense,
hoping to change the subject. Like certain other conservatives, I hope
to keep a few remaining leftists around to point out to our youngsters
in the future, kinda like a petting zoo.
Women's boxing: Float like a butterfly, sting like a... butterfly.
Here are some quotes from the account of the women's rally at the 1936
Nuremberg Rally, taken from the official party proceedings. The
speakers were Gertrud Scholz-Klink, the head of the Nazi women's
league, and Hitler himself, who outlines the Nazi view of the role of
women.
The enormous hall was filled two hours before the meeting began. Many
thousands of women were unable to enter, and gathered outside to hear
the proceedings over loudspeakers. The leaders of the women's labor
service and those of the League of German Girls took their places on
the platform, and the officials of the NS Women's League and the
German Women's Work filled the seats. To the side one could see
numerous representatives of German women's groups from abroad in
colorful and elaborate costumes. The farmers among the participants
also wore their beautiful traditional costumes. After a piece by the
Reich Symphony Orchestra, Hilgenfeldt opened the meeting and greeted
the participants and foreign guests in the name of the National
Women's Leader. The 20,000 women rose to sing "Our Fate was to be a
Free People."
Speech by Gertrud Scholz-Klink:
"The Soviet Union declared the legal equality of men and women in all
areas in a law of 18 November 1918. That meant the same right to work,
the same duty to support oneself, the right of control over one's own
body, which for the woman meant the right to abortion. The view was
that men and women had full freedom only when the state stayed as far
as possible form personal relationships. The state provided no legal
rights in marriage, which meant that there were only two forms of
marriage. One could register a marriage before a government office, or
one could be married without virtue of state ceremony.
The result was that, even when one had been married officially, the
individual partners had the right when they were unhappy to go to the
same office and, for a very small fee, dissolve the marriage. Should
there be children, they would be housed in collective homes, since
both father and mother worked and housing was in short supply, given
the migration from the countryside to the cities. The absence of
resources in such homes led of necessity to demanding money from the
economically stronger partner. The result was constant legal battles
and enormous misery for the children.
Simultaneously, women were increasingly absorbed in industry and the
military. In 1918, 24 of every 1000 miners were women. By 1932, 153 of
1000 were women, a number that had grown to 321 by 1935! In automobile
and tractor manufacturing, women are 30.4% of the work force, 63.5% of
the drilling industry.
The full equality of the sexes had the further result that girls are
given the same military training as boys in the communist youth
organization and schools. The Red Army is the only army in the world
in which both men and women are trained as soldiers and officers to
wage aggressive wars...
We Germans had 14 years under an attempt to impose Bolshevist
principles on us. The German woman took her place alongside the German
man when she realized that a struggle was going on between God's order
for earthly affairs and universal apostles of humanity who wanted to
replace these eternal laws. It was a battle between good and evil.
Good and evil are equally strong forces in life. They find visible
form in National Socialism and Bolshevism. National Socialism is good
become visible for we Germans. It respects the earth from which our
people have grown. Bolshevism is absolute evil because it is a
universal approach that rejects the eternal laws of nature. "Good" and
"evil" have never stood in such stark contrast before all the world as
they do today in these two forces...
Our work is to spread this idea. It is nothing other than a daily
struggle between these two forces. It is not ultimately a battle of
means or of money, that is of perishable things, rather it is ennobled
by the spirit in whose service we stand: In the battle between good
and evil, we are the obedient servants of the good."
Speech by Adolf Hitler:
Those abroad may say 'That is fine for the men! But your women cannot
be optimistic. They are oppressed and dominated and enslaved. You give
them no freedom of equality." We answer: What you see as a yoke others
see as a blessing. What is heaven to one is hell for another...
As long as we have sound men-and we National Socialists will see to
that-there will be no women throwing hand grenades in Germany, no
women sharp-shooters. That is not equality for women, rather their
debasement...
Women have boundless opportunities to work. For us the woman has
always been the loyal companion of the man in work and life. People
often tell me: You want to drive women out of the professions. No, I
only want to make it possible for her to found her own family and to
have children, for that is how she can best serve our people!...
If a woman jurist does the best possible work, but next to her lives a
woman who has given birth to five, six or seven healthy children who
are well educated, I would say the following: From the standpoint of
the eternal values of our people, the woman who has borne and raised
children has done more, given more, accomplished more for the future
of our people!...
Real leadership has the duty to enable every man and woman to fulfill
their dreams, or at least to make it easier for them to do so. We seek
this goal through laws that encourage the healthy education of
children. But we have done more than simply pass laws. We are
educating for German women and girls a manly youth, the men of
tomorrow!"
"I believe we have found the right way to educate a healthy youth. Let
me say this to all the literary know-it-alls and philosophers of
equality: (laughter) Do not deceive yourselves! There are two separate
arenas in the life of a nation": that of men and that of women. Nature
has rightly ordained that men head the family and are burdened with
the task of protecting their people, the community. The world of the
woman, when she is fortunate, is her family, her husband, her
children, her home. From there she can see the whole. The two arenas
together join to form a community that enables a people to survive. We
want to build a common world of both sexes in which each sees its own
tasks, tasks that it alone can do and therefore can and must do
alone."
"When I see this wonderful growing youth, my work becomes easy, I
overcome every weakness. Then I know why I do everything. It is not to
build some miserable business that will perish, rather this work is
for something lasting and eternal. A vital part of this future is the
German girl, the German woman, the German woman, and thus we meet the
girl, the woman, the mother."
"I do not measure the success of our work by our roads. I do not
measure it by our new factories, or our new bridges, or the new
divisions. Rather, I measure our success by the effect we have on the
German child, the German youth. If they succeed, I know our people
will not perish and our work will not have been in vain."
"I am convinced that no one understands our work better than the
German woman. (long-lasting, jubilant applause) Our opponents think
that Germany has tyrannized women. I can only reply that without the
support and true devotion of the women of the party, I could never
have led the movement to victory." (renewed enthusiastic applause)
The Reich Women's Leader thanked the Führer after the jubilation at
the end of his speech had calmed down. In the name of all German
women, she promised to work hard to ease his concerns. Not only the
Reich Women's Leader's words, but also the jubilation of the crowd
followed the Führer as he left the hall.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
30 May 2005 03:09:37 PM |
|
|
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bishop The" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
28 May 2005 02:58:41 PM |
|
|
On 28-May-2005, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote:
America is leftist because it is ruled by Jews.
Sure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gman" |
|
| Title: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
28 May 2005 05:25:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:58:41 GMT, "Bishop" <The Bishop@OnTheBoard.Com>
wrote:
On 28-May-2005, Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote:
America is leftist because it is ruled by Jews.
Sure.
No its not the jews its little green aliens in roswell, trust me on
this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: WHAT LEFT-WING P.B.S. BIAS? |
29 May 2005 07:45:29 PM |
|
|
The Finlandization of America
by Edgar J. Steele
Finally, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings has come clean. He dared to
say what everybody else in Washington already knew: America dances to
Israel's tune, as dispensed through its Washington lobby, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You can't have an Israel
policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," said Mr. Hollings
from the floor of the Senate just two days ago. Of course, now it's
safe for him to do so, since he is retiring in a few months.
From the reaction to Mr. Hollings' statement, you would think he had
proposed that American Jews be rounded up, tattooed and sent off to
death camps. Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia?s Beth Shalom
synagogue, who claimed to be "horrified" by Hollings' remark,
hysterically ranted, "It makes him anti-Israel. It's
anti-Semitic...it's dangerous." Abraham Foxman, National Director of
the Anti-Defamation League, issued what has become the ADL's standard
denunciation of any national figure who implies, even, that America
carries Israel's water: "To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such
classical anti-Semitism. It's sad."
The ingratitude apparent in Mr. Hollings' recent statements
particularly must rankle AIPAC's membership, since they thought they
had bought and paid for him, to the tune of $73,275. Of course,
that's peanuts compared to what has been paid for some of AIPAC's
favorites, such as the Senators from Pennsylvania (Arlen Spector -
$366,123), Iowa (Thomas Harkin - $423,895) and Michigan (Carl Levin -
$564,858).
What? You say the Senator from your state won't return your calls?
Well, how much did you bribe...er, give in "campaign contributions" to
him or her recently? What? Well, no wonder he or she refuses to
listen to you. No wonder Israel calls the shots. Is it really any
wonder? And AIPAC is just one of Israel's seemingly countless lobby
groups.
There are lots of other Jewish organizations that also bribe...er,
contribute to Congressmen, such as the World Jewish Congress and The
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, just
to name a couple. And there are a great many wealthy individual Jews
who give serious, and I do mean serious, bribes...er, contributions,
such as Seagram's heir Edgar Bronfman, whose work on behalf of Israel
was recognized with the American Presidential Medal of Freedom (look,
you have to admit that this is so off the wall that I couldn't just
make up stuff like this). Is it really any surprise for you to learn
that well over half of all bribes...er, campaign contributions now
come from Jews?
Getting back to Mr. Hollings for a moment, the 82-year-old gentleman
from South Carolina is retiring from public office after 38 years in
the Senate. That's longer than most Americans have been alive, you
know. Oddly enough, 38 years also is almost exactly as long as it
took for the coup to take place. What coup? You really haven't been
paying attention, have you? Why, the one now reaching its climax in
America. You know, the coup that began with JFK's assassination. The
coup that put the Zionist International Banker cabal atop America for
good.
I appreciate that Hollings has come clean at last, but what I really
want to know is - where have you been for the past 38 years, Fritz?
And where were all your colleagues while America was sold down the
river? You know, the ones busy shuffling their feet and averting
their eyes during your recent floor speech? Yes, the very ones with
whom you took that oath in which you swore allegiance to America and
against all enemies, both domestic and foreign.
Bush recently signed off on Israel's current campaign of genocide
against the Palestinian people whose land Israel steals, inch by mile,
on a daily basis. Why? Because he, and every President stretching
back nearly one hundred years to Woodrow Wilson, the very first
American President to sell America out to Zionist interests, has bowed
low before Zionism.
"Israel's governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry
- which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against
them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and
small, football players and movie stars - folded one after another."
Israeli journalist and peace activist, Uri Avnery, Ha'aretz, March 6,
1991.
John F. Kennedy reneged on his deal and look what it got him.
Incidentally, let me tell you once again about the absolute last word
on the JFK assassination, Final Judgment, by Michael C. Piper - it's
available once again, in a new, expanded edition at
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf. Do yourself a
favor and order a copy. Get this latest, updated version and give
your old one away, if you already own a copy (yes, I know you paid
upwards of $200 for it on the Internet while the book was out of print
because essentially it was banned, but think of it as bread upon the
water).
During his speech to AIPAC the other day, George the Second referred
to a picture we all now have seen, of four black-clad men standing
behind Nicholas Berg and accused of having executed him, saying, "The
faces of the terrorists were cloaked, but we have seen their kind
before." Yes, indeed, Mr. President. We certainly have. We see them
every day, in our own ranks. How ironic that you should bring up this
specific incident, which already has been debunked so thoroughly by so
many.
Just as with 9-11, which now conclusively has been shown to have been
a "false flag" operation, not to mention the Oklahoma City Bombing,
the Berg decapitation quite simply wasn't done by the people being
blamed by George. There really isn't room here today to list, let
alone develop, the mounting anomalies that call the Berg affair into
question and there is not yet a unified site that discusses them all,
but go here and here for some of the more complete preliminary
discussions.
George the Second also told his masters, as represented by those
assembled at the AIPAC Conference: "(A)ll terrorists burn with the
same hatred. They hate all who reject their grim vision of tyranny.
They hate people who love freedom. They kill without mercy. They kill
without shame. And they count their victories in the death of the
innocent." Yes, Mr. President. Once again, you have said something
with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Problem is, w | | | | |
