AMPHIKTYON -FOREIGN: Μάϊος 2011

PROVIDING INFORMATION NOT FOUND IN THE CONTROLLED MEDIA,
MONITORING THE AGE OF DARKNESS, IGNORANCE, GREED AND STUPIDITY,
& THE ZIONIST WAR FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE.
SETTING STRAIGHT THE RECORDS OF HISTORY

KALI YUGA REPORT 110530

1 - US Congress Becomes a Mob of Mindless Cheering Sycophants - James M. Wall
2 - Netanyahu's speech to Congress shows America will buy anything. The man who explicitly said he would do his level best to destroy
the Oslo Accords suddenly says he's in favor of peace with the Palestinians - Gideon Levy
3 - Some Questions for Bibi - Philip Giraldi
4 - Nakba Protests: A Taste Of The Future - Jonathan Cook
5 - Former Israeli soldiers break the silence on military violations, Testimonies posted on YouTube by campaign group describe
outine harassment and humiliation of Palestinian civilians - Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
6 - American Armageddon : Why US Economy has Already Plunged Over the Cliff - Terrence Aym Salem
7 - Cameron drops Israel ‘racist’ charity
8 - Rae Abileah Disrupting Netanyahu’s Congress Speech, “Netanyahu proved that he’s the Primary Obstacle to Peace and Justice for
Israelis and Palestinians”
9 - Every President and Congress Are Complicit in Israel’s “War Crimes”

10 - Remember U.S.S. Liberty and Crew this Memorial Day - Bob Johnson
11 - Encircling Russia with US Bases - Stephen Lendman
12 - THE HOLOCAUST CONTROVERSY: The Case For Open Debate - Bradley R. Smith
13 - How the Zionist AIPAC Lobby Group Controls Washington & OTHER Videos
14 - Revolt: US could create full-employment forever, but chooses Americans’ misery, decay, death - Carl Herman
15 - Dr Scampa’s Lethal Doses Count Increases Dramatically - Bob Nichols
16 - GMO Study: GMO Study: OMG, You’re Eating Insecticide … - Matt Spaeth
17 - Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display - MANSUR MIROVALEV, Associated Press
18 - Elie Wiesel and the Catholics - David O'Connell

All articles are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and are for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. The material presented underneath does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editor. Then : everybody should do research of his own and check for deception or some 'agenda'. As always it is : 'Caveat Lector'!

Thanks to : Debbie Menon (http://mycatbirdseat.com/,http://www.intifada-palestine.com), Alex James, Vatic Project (http://vaticproject.blogspot.com) , "Information Clearing House'', Antiwar.com , DAILY CENSORED, VETERANS TODAY, REDRESS INFORMATION & ANALYSIS, PAK ALERT PRESS, INTIFADA PALESTINA, The European Union Times, Global Research, Electronic Intifada, Sabbah Report, RADIO ISLAM, John Dinardo, Glutimas Maximus, BOB GREGORY, Yasin Aslan, ET AL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 - US Congress Becomes a Mob of Mindless Cheering Sycophants

Anyone who has ever been a delegate to a decision-making gathering like a national Democratic or Republican national nominating convention, knows this drill.

by James M. Wall

Scenes like the one above evoked veteran Jewish activist Uri Avnery to write this harsh description in his weekly Israeli-based column, Gush-Shalom:

It was all rather disgusting.

No one has said it better, nor with greater passion. It was, most certainly, as Avnery described in painful detail, a disgusting exhibition of congressional subservience to the leader of a foreign power.

This Congress is also guilty of a despicable act of defiance of the President of the United States, who is currently engaged in delicate negotiations to find peaceful solutions to the Middle East quagmire.

The American mainstream media found nothing out of the ordinary as the US Congress enthusiastically embraced the words of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, in a refutation of the long-standing American understanding that “partisanship stops at water’s edge”.

In this instance it was not a partisan deviation. It was, instead a total capitulation of both parties to a foreign leader who stood before the members of Congress and ignored the ugly and costly results his own country’s policies have brought to both the Middle East and to the United States.

It was, indeed, disgusting.

Avnery, a veteran of Israel’s Irgun who also fought in the 1948 war that created the state of Israel, watched the spectacle on television from his home in Jerusalem. This is how he expressed his disgust:

There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world’s only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos, applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu. . . .

The sight of these hundreds of parliamentarians jumping up and clapping their hands, again and again and again and again, with the Leader graciously acknowledging with a movement of his hand, was reminiscent of other regimes. Only this time it was not the local dictator who compelled this adulation, but a foreign one.

Avnery writes that while Bibi’s speech was “finely crafted”, it can be summed up in one word, No.

NO return to the 1967 borders. NO Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. NO to even a symbolic return of some refugees. NO military withdrawal from the Jordan River – meaning that the future Palestinian state would be completely surrounded by the Israeli armed forces. NO negotiation with a Palestinian government “supported” by Hamas, even if there are no Hamas members in the government itself. And so on – NO. NO. NO.

The aim is clearly to make sure that no Palestinian leader could even dream of entering negotiations, even in the unlikely event that he were ready to meet yet another condition: to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” . . .

Netanyahu, along with his associates and political bedfellows, is determined to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by all and any means. That did not start with the present government – it is an aim deeply embedded in Zionist ideology and practice.

Franklin Lamb, an American retired diplomat, now working in Washington and in Beruit, Lebanon, knows the American political scene from the inside.

Dr. Franklin Lamb
Lamb is a former Assistant Counsel of the US House Judiciary Committee. He has been a Professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon, earned his Law Degree at Boston University and his LLM, M.Phil, and PhD degrees at the London School of Economics.

He is currently the director of Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC.

Lamb wrote an analysis for the Dubai-based site, My Catbird Seat, which examines the speech before the US Congress where members enthusiastically embraced Netanyahu and the policies of his right-wing Israeli government.

He also identified, however, potential signs of hope among what could be a growing number of congressional staff members who reacted quite negatively to Netanyahu’s speech.

His conclusion:

The effects of the Arab Spring are being felt in both Houses of Congress as well as in numerous support agencies such as the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress”.

Staffers with whom Lamb has communicated “understand that the Arab Awakening of 2011 is an historic game changer”, a change with which these staffers “are often deeply sympathetic and supportive.”

Lamb’s investigation also led him to conclude that “virtually all Congressional staffers who objected to Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress expressed rejection of his following assertions as ludicrously false”.

Those statements were applauded by those members of Congress so limited in their knowledge of the narrative Netanyahu was selling, that they believed him. Those few who did know the assertions were false, also applauded, on demand.

Here is the “ludicrously false” Netanyahu list Lamb found in his discussion with staff members:

“Of 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights.”

“Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem.”

“In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.”

“In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.”

“We have helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people, and the results have been nothing short of remarkable.”

“The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.”

“They (Palestinians) continue to educate their children to hate.”

“A nuclear armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”

Lamb also found that the applause moments that “erupted” during the speech, according to two staffers who work with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were organized by AIPAC.

AIPAC, as it always does with visiting Israeli officials, edited Netanyahu’s speech to identify points that assured “most favorable local consumption”. These points were marked as “applause lines”.

Key Members such as Eric Cantor (R-VA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV) were designated as floor leaders and were seated in strategic locations in the Chamber.

Once Bibi began his speech, the floor leaders would leap up at the indicated cue phrases and begin to applaud enthusiastically.

Anyone who has ever been a delegate to a decision-making gathering like a national Democratic or Republican national nominating convention, knows this drill.

I have served as floor whip for several Democratic conventions. From those experiences, I can report that it works this way: the delegate chief in the trailer calls in and instructs the whip, “Lift up the signs and cheer”.

(A young man named Tom Donilon, who now has a much bigger assignment as Barack Obama’s National Security advisor, was in one of those trailers, relaying instructions to me during Jimmy Carter’s second nominating convention.)

During Bibi’s speech, the Big Four of Cantor, Hoyer, Schumer and Reid, had their carefully marked speech text. When they jumped up to cheer and applaud, all members of Congress followed their lead. Failure to do so could be costly in the next primary election.

MJ Rosenberg writes this weekend about a 1988 experience he had as a Senate staffer. The story appears on the blog, Political Correction, a “Project of Media Matters Action Network”.

(Media Matters was initially created by David Brock, the former right wing political operative, who repented of his role as the “attack dog” against Bill and Hillary Clinton. The current issue of New York magazine has the detailed account of Brock’s conversion and his repeated apologies to the Clintons.)

Rosenberg begins:

It was in 1988 and I was a foreign policy aide to Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). One February day, Levin called me into his office to say that he was disturbed at a quote he saw in that day’s New York Times. An article quoted Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir saying that he rejected the idea of withdrawing from any of the land Israel captured in the 1967 war:

Mr. Shamir said in a radio interview, ”It is clear that this expression of territory for peace is not accepted by me.”

Levin instantly understood what Shamir was saying. He was repudiating UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (which Israel had helped draft) which provided for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict” in exchange for peace and security. Those resolutions represented official U.S. and international policy then, and they still do.

But, in 1988, Shamir tried to declare them null and void. Levin asked me to draft a letter to Secretary of State George Shultz stating that it was the view of the Senate that the U.N. Resolutions remained the policy of the U.S. whether Shamir liked it or not.

In great detail, Rosenberg continues with the story of his exciting journey through the jungle warfare that is the Israel Lobby, the Congress, the media (most notably, the New York Times‘ William Safire), and the White House.

Rosenberg concludes by linking his 1988 experience to this past week’s Congressional craven conformity to Israel:

So what’s the moral? It is this: Criticizing Israel is dangerous business. On what other issue would a New York Times columnist call a Senate staffer and threaten to destroy his career? None. And why was a New York Times columnist acting as if he was working for the Israeli government? Safire wasn’t a journalist that day; he essentially was a representative of the Israeli government.

Accordingly, is it any wonder the whole Congress abased itself the other day by jumping up and down and hurling love at Netanyahu? Who wants to mess with an 800-pound gorilla? Certainly not members of Congress.

We conclude this narrative of a nation’s legislative leaders as they wander in the wilderness with a short clip of the Bibi Netanyahu performance before the US Congress.

The picture above of the Congress applauding for one of 29 times is from Palestine Uprooted. The picture of Franklin Lamb is from My Catbird Seat. The clip of parts of Netanyahu’s performance before Congress is from C Span and is available on Youtube.

JAMES WALL is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. He has made more than 20 trips to that region as a journalist, during which he covered such events as Anwar Sadat’s 1977 trip to Jerusalem, and the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. He has interviewed, and written about, journalists, religious leaders, political leaders and private citizens in the region. Jim served for two years on active duty in the US Air Force, and three additional years in the USAF (inactive) reserve. Jim launched his new personal blogWallwritings, on April 24, 2008. He can be reached at: jameswall8@gmail.com

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/29/us-congress-becomes-a-mob-of-mindless-cheering-synchophants/

Former U.S. Senator: The Trouble with AIPAC
James G. Abourezk
http://www.alternet.org/story/150764/former_u.s._senator%3A_the_trouble_with_aipac

.. .. The problem here is that AIPAC is a group of American citizens who have bonded together to influence the American government to work for the interests of a foreign government - Israel .. .. In all, the United States can do without AIPAC, even though Israel most likely cannot. Should AIPAC somehow disappear, which is unlikely, U.S. Middle East policy would be more directed toward America's interests rather than toward Israel's.

Challenging AIPAC's Abuse of Taxpayers Money
Omar Barghouti
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/14-5

.. .. The fact is, U.S. citizens have been bankrolling Israel's system of occupation, racial discrimination and denial of basic human rights to the tune of billions of dollars annually without knowing what they were funding and why. AIPAC is the main culprit in this process of defrauding the American people, while one cannot ignore the fact that the U.S. military and oil establishments have also stood to gain from Israel's colonial expansion, endless bloody wars of aggression, and role as the police of the region, preventing popular revolt from threatening the pillage of its vast strategic resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 - Netanyahu's speech to Congress shows America will buy anything
The man who explicitly said he would do his level best to destroy the Oslo Accords suddenly says he's in favor of peace with the Palestinians.
By Gideon Levy

It was an address with no destination, filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions. Only rarely is a foreign head of state invited to speak before Congress. It's unlikely that any other has attempted to sell them such a pile of propaganda and prevarication, such hypocrisy and sanctimony as Benjamin Netanyahu did yesterday.The fact that the Congress rose to its feet multiple times to applaud him says more about the ignorance of its members than the quality of their guest's speech. An Israeli presence on the Jordan River - cheering. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel - applause. Did American's elected representatives know that they were cheering for the death of possibility? If America loved it, we're in big trouble.

The fact that the only truth spoken in the Capitol was that of a former Israeli shouting "equal rights for Palestinians" is a badge of honor for us and a mark of shame for America. Netanyahu's "speech of his life" was the speech of the death of peace.

It was a 1970s show. Maybe back then people still bought the piles of pretty, wise words shoveled by a peace-loving Israeli prime minister. How can an Israeli prime minister dare to say his country "fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely" without spitting out the entire bitter truth - as long as they aren't Palestinian. Suddenly Netanyahu marvels at the Arab Spring, but where was he when it began? He was on his standard scare campaign, warning of the dangers of an extremist Islamic regime and rushing to build a fence along our border with Egypt. And yesterday, suddenly, it's "the promise of a new dawn." Apparently there is no end to hypocrisy.

And how could he rain praise on Israeli democracy when his government has done more than its predecessors to deal the mortal blow to that democracy, to pass completely anti-democratic laws? How can he boast of the status of Israel's Arab citizens, while his right-wing, nationalistic coalition is passing racist laws against them? Saying that Israel's Arabs have more freedom in Israel than in any Arab state is like saying that blacks in American have more rights than those in Africa. So what? Does that mean that African-Americans had equal rights for generations, that they didn't have to fight for their rights?

And how dare he speak about freedom of worship in Jerusalem at a time when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been denied that freedom for years. Freedom of worship in Jerusalem is for Palestinians aged 35 and up, sometimes 45 and up; sometimes even 65 isn't old enough. And for the 2 million people of the Gaza Strip, there is no such freedom at all.

How can Netanyahu praise the peace with Egypt, when it's easy to guess he would have voted against it? The man who explicitly said he would do his level best to destroy the Oslo Accords suddenly says he's in favor of peace with the Palestinians.

Last night we saw that the Americans will buy anything, or at least their applauding legislators will.

More on this topic
Netanyahu to Congress: Ready to make painful compromises, but Jerusalem will not be divided

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 - Some Questions for Bibi

Posted By Philip Giraldi

On May 18, 2011

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives in the United States today for a much anticipated visit. He will do a little fund-raising, will speak before Congress and at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual conference, and will meet with President Barack Obama. Netanyahu can expect the visit to go smoothly, with an adoring joint session of congress rising to its feet to applaud him and more adulation from the AIPAC gathering. AIPAC’s gala dinner will undoubtedly include many members of both the congress and the Obama Administration vying to be seen. Netanyahu will likely have a couple of friendly encounters with the press corps, which will lob a few softball questions his way. The meeting with Obama might just possibly have a couple of sharp edges when they converse privately unless “Israel’s lawyer” Dennis Ross is hovering anywhere near and taking corrective action, but the president knows when he has been whipped and will surely steer clear of any controversy over Israeli behavior.

It is anticipated that Netanyahu will excoriate Iran before unveiling a phony peace plan which will ostensibly open the door to negotiations with the Palestinians on all outstanding issues as long as Hamas is excluded from the process and President Mahmoud Abbas agrees to take all steps necessary to guarantee Israel’s security. Which will be impossible to do unless the Palestinians surrender completely and cede to Israel actual sovereignty plus all their land and water before moving to Jordan. Even normally oblivious congressmen will know that an Israeli prime minister talking peace is all a game and a lie, as will Obama, but they will all stand up and cheer anyway. Nobody ever loses by being nice to Israel.

Since no one will ask the prime minister anything that will require a genuine answer, I will be sending the following ten questions that I have come up with to Bibi by way of the press officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington. I would recommend that readers of this column who feel the questions are legitimate do the same. The press officer is Jonathan Peled. The embassy fax number is 202-364-5423 and the email address is press@washington.mfa.gov.il. If you send anything over, feel free to add other questions that you have come up with.

Israel has by far the strongest military in the Middle East plus a nuclear arsenal that is unique to the region coupled with delivery systems that can strike any target in Europe and Asia. It also has a defensive missile shield largely funded by the US taxpayer that no one else has. You have a history of attacking and crushing your neighbors whenever you consider yourself provoked, just as you did last weekend when you shot dead twenty unarmed Palestinian protesters and used tank cannon fire against civilians. In light of all that, why do you keep complaining about being vulnerable and threatened by the other countries in your region?

Speaking of attacking, you rocketed, strafed, and torpedoed a US Naval vessel the USS Liberty in international waters in 1967, killing 34 of the crew and injuring 174. The attack was both unprovoked and brutal, intended to sink the ship and kill everyone on board. You claim it was an accident but have never given American investigators access to your government records. It sounds like a cover-up and many Americans are wondering whether you will ever come clean on what happened that day. Will you ever open up your records relating to the Liberty?

You are the 27th wealthiest nation in the world per capita, just ahead of Italy, according to the International Monetary Fund. So why do you continue to receive $3 billion from the US taxpayer every year, a sum that some in congress including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor want to make a permanent untouchable subsidy through incorporation into the US defense budget rather than as part of the foreign aid package. What can possibly justify American taxpayers subsidizing the Israeli standard of living, which includes free medical care and university education, at a time when social programs in the US are being cut?

Israel spies on the United States more than any ostensibly friendly country. You steal our defense secrets and our commercially valuable proprietary information and then use it or barter it to your advantage and America’s disadvantage. Prior to 9/11 you were running a massive and illegal spying operation inside the United States and you might even have known in advanceabout some aspects of the terrorist attack. You have even penetrated our telecommunications systems, allegedly including the White House. You do what you do because you know you can get away with it, that the Justice Department and President are reluctant to arrest and convict Israeli spies. Don’t you think that it is time for Israel to admit that it has been spying on Americans and for it to make a firm commitment to stop doing so with sanctions for non-compliance like shutting your exports out of our domestic market?

Speaking of spies, you have been regularly asking that convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard be released from his American prison. Pollard stole more classified information than any spy in the history of the United States and may be responsible for the deaths of a number of US intelligence officers. He has never even regretted his actions. He is a hero to many in Israel, including some leading figures in your own government. How can someone who has done so much damage to the United States be considered a hero in a country that is the biggest recipient of US aid dollars and that relies on Washington for political protection? It suggests that you are willing to take our money and rely on our political support but that you don’t really respect us very much. How do you explain it?

The United States has used its veto scores of times in the United Nations Security Council to shield Israel from any criticism. Most recently this was done to protect you from criticism of your settlements policy, which is both inhumane and illegal under international law. In spite of the fact that the resolution in question was carefully drafted using language that Washington had previously approved, the US nevertheless vetoed it even though America’s Ambassador to the UN made clear that it was against US interests to do so. Protecting you makes Washington a hypocrite and a liar before the eyes of the entire world and it endangers all Americans when they travel overseas. Isn’t it time for Israel to begin accepting the consequences for its own policies and stop using its powerful lobby to make Washington act against the interests of the American people?

Many believe that the United States went to war with Iraq partly because of pressure from Israel and its friends in the Bush Administration. Iraq did not threaten the US and the war has now lasted eight years, has killed nearly 5,000 Americans, and has cost trillions of dollars. Now you have told us that Israel would like to see the United States attack Iran. Since 1995 your government has repeatedly warned that Iran is either six months or a year away from having a nuclear weapon. The timetable slips every time you make a new prediction and you never seem to be embarrassed by your inability to anticipate actual developments in Iran. It appears that Iran might not really want to have a bomb and might never have the capability to make one even if it decides to move in that direction. It would seem that you have always been exaggerating the Iranian threat to turn Iran into America’s enemy as well as your own. Recently your former head of Mossad Meir Dagan said that attacking Iran would be “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.” Isn’t it time to stop citing Iran as a justification for the American military’s costly and dangerous remaking of the Middle East to suit Israel?

The endless Israel-Palestine conflict does terrible damage to American interests worldwide. Even General David Petraeus and Vice President Joe Biden have admitted that it endangers American soldiers overseas. Terrorist groups like al-Qaeda have repeatedly cited Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as a principal reason for attacking the United States and Americans since Washington enables Israel to behave without any restraint. Shouldn’t your country delegitimize the terrorist argument by behaving responsibly and beginning to take genuine steps that will satisfy reasonable Palestinian demands for a viable state?

Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are called terrorist but they are really resistance organizations that have grown in stature by standing up against Israeli occupation of Lebanon and Palestine. Neither threatens the United States in any way. Both have morphed into legitimate political parties and Hamas has offered Israel a fifty year truce. As there is no possibility of any sort of peace agreement in the Middle East without including Hezbollah and Hamas isn’t it time to start talking? And also to Syria, which has made plain that it wants a settlement? A useful starting point might be the 2002 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposal for a comprehensive peace settlement which would have all of Israel’s Arab neighbors recognizing Israel in exchange for fixed borders and creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has rejected the plan. Given the unrest resulting from the Arab Spring, isn’t it time to reconsider?

You have avowed racists in your government, most particularly your Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who has called for the execution of Arabs in the Israeli parliament who met with Hamas representatives, has advocated drowning Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea, has demanded expelling any Arab citizen who would not agree to a loyalty oath to Israel as a Jewish state, and might even have called for a nuclear strike on Gaza. Isn’t it time to distance yourself from such policies if you want to be seen as a genuine statesman instead of the leader of an extremist party?

Read more by Philip Giraldi
The Book of Netanyahu – May 25th, 2011
Osama bin Laden Transfigured – May 11th, 2011
War is a Sticky Business – May 4th, 2011
What’s In It for Us, Mr. Obama? – April 27th, 2011
Goldstone Recants, Gaza Dies – April 13th,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 - Nakba Protests: A Taste Of The Future
By Jonathan Cook

19 May, 2011
Countercurrents.org

Nazareth: They are extraordinary scenes. Film shot on mobile phones captured the moment on Sunday when at least 1,000 Palestinian refugees marched across no-man's land to one of the most heavily protected borders in the world, the one separating Syria from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Waving Palestinian flags, the marchers braved a minefield, then tore down a series of fences, allowing more than 100 to run into Israeli-controlled territory. As they embraced Druze villagers on the other side, voices could be heard saying: "This is what liberation looks like."

Unlike previous years, this Nakba Day was not simply a commemoration of the catastrophe that befell the Palestinians in 1948, when their homeland was forcibly reinvented as the Jewish state. It briefly reminded Palestinians that, despite their long-enforced dispersion, they still have the potential to forge a common struggle against Israel.

As Israel violently cracked down on last Sunday's protests on many fronts -- in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and on the borders with Syria and Lebanon -- it looked less like a military superpower and more like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dam.

The Palestinian "Arab Spring" is arriving and Israel has no diplomatic or political strategy to deal with it. Instead on Sunday, Israel used the only weapon in its current arsenal -- brute force -- against unarmed demonstrators.

Along the northern borders, at least 14 protesters were killed and dozens wounded, both at Majdal Shams in the Golan and near Maroun al-Ras in Lebanon.

In Gaza, a teenager was shot dead and more than 100 other demonstrators wounded as they massed at crossing points. At Qalandiya, the main checkpoint Israel created to bar West Bank Palestinians from reaching Jerusalem, at least 40 protesters were badly injured. There were clashes in major West Bank towns too.

And inside Israel, the country's Palestinian minority took their own Nakba march for the first time into the heart of Israel, waving Palestinian flags in Jaffa, the once-famous Palestinian city that has been transformed since 1948 into a minor suburb of Tel Aviv.

With characteristic obtuseness, Israel's leaders identified Iranian "fingerprints" on the day's events -- as though Palestinians lacked enough grievances of their own to initiate protests.

But, in truth, Israeli intelligence has warned for months that mass demonstrations of this kind were inevitable, stoked by the intransigence of Israel's right-wing government in the face of both Washington's renewed interest in creating a Palestinian state and of the Arab Spring's mood of "change is possible".

Following in the footsteps of Egyptian and Tunisian demonstrators, ordinary Palestinians used the new social media to organise and coordinate their defiance - in their case challenging the walls, fences and checkpoints Israel has erected everywhere to separate them. Twitter, not Tehran, was the guiding hand behind these demonstrations.

Although the protests are not yet a third intifada, they hint at what may be coming. Or, as one senior Israeli commander warned, they looked ominously like a "warm-up" for September, when the newly unified Palestinian leadership is threatening to defy Israel and the United States and seek recognition at the United Nations of Palestinian statehood inside the 1967 borders.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, alluded to similar concerns when he cautioned: "We are just at the start of this matter and it could be that we'll face far more complex challenges."

There are several lessons, none of them comfortable, for Israel to draw from the weekend's clashes.

The first is that the Arab Spring cannot be dealt with simply by battening down the hatches. The upheavals facing Israel's Arab neighbours mean these regimes no longer have the legitimacy to decide their own Palestinian populations' fates according to narrow self-interest.

Just as the post-Mubarak government in Egypt is now easing rather than enforcing the blockade on Gaza, the Syrian regime's precarious position makes it far less able or willing to restrain, let alone shoot at, Palestinian demonstrators massing on Israel's borders.

The second is that Palestinians have absorbed the meaning of the recent reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. In establishing a unity government, the two rival factions have belatedly realised that they cannot make headway against Israel as long as they are politically and geographically divided.

Ordinary Palestinians are drawing the same conclusion: in the face of tanks and fighter jets, Palestinian strength lies in a unified national liberation movement that refuses to be defined by Israel's policies of fragmentation.

The third lesson is that Israel has relied on relative quiet on its borders to enforce the occupations of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza. The peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, in particular, have allowed the Israeli army to divert its energies into controlling the Palestinians under its rule.

But the question is whether Israel has the manpower to deal with coordinated and sustained Palestinian revolts on multiple fronts. Can it withstand such pressure without the resort to mass slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters?

The fourth is that the Palestinian refugees are not likely to remain quiet if their interests are sidelined by Israel or by a Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations in September that fails to address their concerns.

The protesters in Syria and Lebanon showed that they will not be pushed to the margins of the Palestinian Arab Spring. That message will not be lost on either Hamas or Fatah as they begin negotiations to develop a shared strategy over the next few months.

And the fifth lesson is that the scenes of Palestinian defiance on Israel's borders will fuel the imaginations of Palestinians everywhere to start thinking the impossible - just as the Tahrir Square protests galvanised Egyptians into believing they could remove their dictator.

Israel is in a diplomatic and strategic dead-end. Last weekend it may have got its first taste of the likely future.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 -
5 - Former Israeli soldiers break the silence on military violations

Testimonies posted on YouTube by campaign group describe routine harassment and humiliation of Palestinian civilians
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 May 2011 11.26 BST

Campaign group Breaking the Silence has met with a hostile response from Israel, especially after it published testimony by soldiers who took part in the war on Gaza in 2008-09. Photograph: Ali Ali/EPA
Transgressions by the Israeli army in the occupied Palestinian territories will be disclosed by a group of former soldiers in an internet campaign aimed at raising public awareness of military violations.

Video testimonies by around two dozen ex-soldiers - some of whom are identifying themselves for the first time - will be posted on YouTube. The campaign by Breaking the Silence, an organisation of former soldiers committed to speaking out on military practices, launches with English subtitles on Monday.

Some of the former soldiers describe the "neighbour procedure", a term for the use of Palestinian civilians, often children, as human shields to protect soldiers from suspected booby traps or attacks by militants. The procedure was ruled illegal by Israel's high court in 2005.

Others speak of routine harassment of civilians at checkpoints, arbitrary intimidation and collective punishment.

Idan Barir, who served in the artillery corps, describes in his testimony how an officer forced Palestinian civilians to crawl in a "race" towards a checkpoint near Jenin in the West Bank during the 2000 olive harvest. Only the first three out of "teams" of eight were allowed to pass.

Another, Itamar Schwarz, says Palestinian homes were routinely ransacked in search operations. He describes the day of the World Cup final in 2002, when soldiers confined a Palestinian woman and child in the kitchen of their home for two hours while the unit watched the game in the middle of an operation.

Arnon Degani, who served in the Golani brigade, describes the distress of a young woman who tearfully pleaded to be allowed to pass through a Jenin checkpoint in order to sit an important exam. He gradually came to understand, he says, that the Israeli army's intention was "to enforce tyranny on people who you know are regular civilians" and to "make it clear who's in control here".

"Part of the silence of Israeli society is to believe these are isolated and exceptional incidents. But these are the most routine, day-to-day, banal stories," said Yehuda Shaul, of Breaking the Silence.

Identification of the ex-soldiers willing to speak out was important, he said, "so that Israelis understand that there are people behind these stories, that in a sense we're all involved".

The former soldiers were aware of the potential legal and social consequences of going public, Shaul added. "They understand that they risk being prosecuted for what they're saying. But they're doing it because it needs to be done."

Since Breaking the Silence was launched in 2004, it has met with a hostile response from Israel's political and military establishment, partly targeting the anonymity of some witnesses. There have been attempts to discredit supporters and block funding, and its leaders have been subject to interrogation. Censure increased after it published testimony by soldiers who took part in the war on Gaza in 2008-09.

Schwarz, 29, who served in the Nahal infantry brigade between 2000 and 2003, told the Guardian that he had gone public with his testimony "because to me it's important that Israeli society is exposed to the moral price and moral experience that an Israeli soldier goes through in armed service".

The events he describes are "things that are really little, but they tell you the big picture of the occupation".

He said his army experience was "like a scar, I carry it with me. We have to talk about it, to put it out to the world. Only then can a society deal with the moral price."

The Israeli Defence Forces said: "The allegations made by Breaking the Silence are unfamiliar to us. The organisation has been informed, on numerous occasions, of the option of filing specific complaints including personal testimonies and other evidence through the appropriate channels. This is to ensure that their allegations are subjected to a thorough and proper legal investigation. To date the organisation has refused to provide substantiated allegations, making it impossible to properly examine their claims."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 - American Armageddon : Why US Economy has Already Plunged Over the Cliff

Terrence Aym Salem-News.com
Time has run out. Making do with the status quo signals the certain death of the Republic.

Many political, economic and market pundits have been warning of an approaching "tipping point" for several years. They warn that once America tips over that cliff there'll be no avoiding certain disaster.(CHICAGO) - 2011 may be remembered by historians as the year that America died.

Well, that proverbial tipping point has already occurred. The debt has reached such stratospheric heights that—under the current system—it will never be able to be repaid. And still Washington adds more debt.

Poking fingers at a living corpse

Now, the death of America didn't happen overnight. Its demise played out as a slow train wreck eight decades in the making.

Five killers are responsible for the murder of the United States of America. Any one of them alone probably could not have caused America's demise. All five forces in unison, however, are a perfect storm of economic and cultural death. Neither political party has the vision, the urgency or—frankly—the guts to avert the now almost certain doom.

Centuries past the vision of the men and women who ignited the torch of individual liberty and raised that torch for all the world to see, the politicians of today are little more than doting morticians poking their fingers at a living corpse.

Although the historic 2010 elections swept a tidal wave of new Representatives into the House, so far many of the members have been ineffectual and the committees have been chaired by many of the good-old-boys that have a penchant for doing business as usual.

The halls of the centralized government are overflowing with glad-handers, smirking know-it-alls, arrogant legislators, nodders and winkers, and shady politicians making shady deals with cronies in the corners of the Capitol's back rooms. The Congress has become an echo of the ineffectual, gutless Senate that presided over the death throes of the final days of the Roman Empire.

It's 2011. Time has run out. Making do with the status quo signals the certain death of the Republic.

Jeff T. Allen has identified three of the killers in his recent in-depth article published at the American Thinker website. Two more that he overlooked have been added.

Spending

Half-hearted attempts to get a handle on the nation's debt is woefully inadequate. Cutting $100 billion from a budget pegged at $3.7 trillion dollars still leaves an added deficit of an additional $1.6 trillion. This is because if the federal government spends $3.6 trillion while receiving only $2 trillion in tax revenues the gap is more than one and a half trillion dollars.

With the projected budget shortfall already equal to the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every additional dollar spent is one that government will not be able to pay back, ever.

While Senator Rand Paul proposed a $500 billion cut (that would still leave a deficit of $1.1 trillion), he was largely criticized or at best ignored. Yet that cut represents only the first bold step desperately needed to take swift remedial action to save the economy, the dollar and the American peoples' lifestyles and property.

No serious attempt is being taken to stop the spending that has drained the lifeblood of America and sent it into a dizzying spiral towards becoming a Third World country with a worthless currency.

Unemployment

Many people are aware that the statistics released by the Bureau of Labor are a sham. Unemployment being touted as hovering just under 10 percent is a lie. The actual figure is closer to the low 20 percent range.

Add to that the dissection of the internal statistics released in January 2011 that revealed that less than half of those Americans that fall into the age group that can work hold full-time jobs and the real picture of the shocking emergency that's facing the nation emerges.

Just 48 percent of those that want (and need) a full-time job have one. The rest are either unemployed or underemployed with low-paying part-time jobs.

The workforce has shrunk as well. More than 500,000 jobs were permanently lost during 2010, evidence of a dying—or dead—economy.

The Federal Reserve's QE2

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's horribly misguided "quantitative easing" that results in printing hundreds of billions of dollars of Monopoly money, is inflationary and will lead to the U.S. currency becoming next to worthless. As the value of the dollar shrinks everything else will go up at the gas pump, grocery store…all retail stores. The cost of energy will skyrocket as will the cost of labor and services.

The effects of this policy can be easily traced to the run up of world commodity prices during the past six months. Staples needed for life are all skyrocketing: corn, wheat, sorghum, soybeans and other grains have increased from 30 to 50 percent.This has led to food riots.

Corn riots driven my U.S. economic policy have broken out across Mexico three times in the past five months. During December of 2010, riots broke out in the UK.

But nowhere have people felt the squeeze as those that live in Africa and the Middle East. Strong evidence exists that the unrest and uprisings across the Middle East—including Egypt—were ignited by food prices. The cost of wheat in Egypt had risen so high that millions are on the verge of literally starvation.

The Fed monetary policy of qualitative easing is driving the U.S. towards five to six percent interest rates not that far down the road with inflation at the door and hyperinflation just down the street.

All of this will exacerbate the federal government's ability to repay its debt as each time the interest rate ratchets upwards hundreds of billions more will be added to the existing debt.

Without a swift reversal of policy and huge, epic cuts in the deficit, 100 percent of Americans annual earnings will be needed to simply repay the country's debt.

The United States of America will be a banana republic.

Entitlement programs implosion

Some are now projecting the cost of Social Security and Medicare to reach upwards of $140 trillion by 2050. That number represents ten times the entire annual economic output every business and worker in the nation.

Although previous accounting projections had the Social Security trust fund falling into a negative cash flow by 2020, it arrived nine years early.

Social Security will sit at a negative $56 billion at the end of 2011.

Its' now official: Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in—and all actuarials admit that the situation will mushroom each year forward. There's no going back.

As the dollar spins out of control, the currency dumped on the world markets, the inflation rate soaring, employment languishing and property values continuing to shrink the 1930s Great Depression will begin to look like the land of milk and honey.

Long before 2050 America—for all intents and purposes—will have ceased to exist.

Mortgage policies and home ownership

The American housing market already in a slump worse than that experienced during the Great Depression years. Depending upon the region of the country, homeowners have seen market values tumble from 25 percent to more than 50 percent off the peak in 2006. The housing recession/depression is now into its fifth year with no end in sight.

Now buyers and builders are about to get another one-two punch that could set housing off into a final death spiral it may not be able to recover from for many decades.

The federal government is now moving ahead with a scheme to tighten the credit management of those seeking to purchase a house.

In essence, the scheme involves tighter regulation of the industry and raising the minimum downpayment for a piece of property to 25 percent of the assessed market value.

Additionally, the mortgage interest rate will be set depending upon the buyer's credit rating. The lowest rates will be given to those with credit rating scores above 740. Those that fall below that benchmark will pay higher rates. The lower the rating, the higher the rate.

For the conclusion of this article, visit: helium.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 - Cameron drops Israel ‘racist’ charity
Stop the JNF Campaign : Media Release

27 May 2011 – Prime Minister David Cameron has quietly terminated his status as an Honorary Patron of the controversial Jewish National Fund (JNF). His office confirmed he had “stepped down”.

For many years leaders of all three main political parties became Honorary Patrons of the JNF by convention. According to Dick Pitt, a spokesperson for the Stop the JNF Campaign, “Cameron was the only leader of the three major parties remaining as a JNF Patron. This decline in political support for the JNF at the highest levels of the political tree may be a sign of the increasing awareness in official quarters that a robust defense of the activities of the JNF may not be sustainable.”

The news of Cameron’s move has reached Palestinians in refugee camps, people whose land is under the control of the JNF. Salah Ajarma in Bethlehem’s Aida Refugee Camp was “delighted to hear the news that the British Prime Minister has decided to withdraw his support for this sinister organization involved in ethnic cleansing. My village, Ajjur, was taken by force from my family and given to the JNF who used money from JNF UK to plant the British Park on its ruins. For the Palestinians who were evicted from their villages and have been prevented from returning, Cameron’s withdrawal is another victory on the road to achieving justice and freedom for the Palestinians”.

The JNF chairman Samuel Hayek defends the work of the organization saying, “for over 100 years we have had one mission: to settle and develop the Land of Israel” as pioneers of the “historic Zionist dream”. The registered charity claims their work, especially in the Negev region of Israel, deals with “the rising demographic challenges faced by Israel”. In recent months the JNF’s activities in the Negev have received extensive international media coverage, linking them to the demolition of Palestinian Bedouin villages and confiscation of the land of the village. Campaigners report that “even Israeli courts have criticized the JNF as an organization that discriminates against non-Jews and there is mounting evidence of the JNF’s involvement in Israel’s programme to change the ethnic composition of areas inside 1948 Israel as well as in Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories. It is not acceptable that such an organization is allowed to operate in the UK, much less to enjoy charity status”.

Michael Kalmanovitz, UK co-ordinator of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, said “Cameron’s patronage of the JNF lent parliamentary credibility to a criminal organization backed by a highly-equipped occupying army and masquerading as a ‘humanitarian charity’. Now parliamentarians who are ‘Friends of Israel’ must consider how much longer they can defend Israeli apartheid and worse.“

Pressure has been mounting on Cameron and the JNF. An Early Day Motion in the Westminster Parliament highlighted the Prime Minister’s status as honorary patron and claimed that “there is just cause to consider revocation of the JNF’s charitable status in the UK”. UK and international JNF fund-raising events increasingly face protests due, campaigners argue, to “a shift in public opinion on Israel generally”. In 2007, the American JNF application for consultative status on a key UN committee was rejected because delegates were unable to distinguish between the activities of the US Branch and those of the JNF in Israel whose activities the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concerns about.

The Stop the JNF Campaign has workshops planned in London on 4 June 2011 and protests against JNF fundraising activities will be organized throughout the coming year.

ENDS

http://www.stopthejnf.org/greatbritain_campaignnews_pressrelease27may2011.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 - Rae Abileah Disrupting Netanyahu’s Congress Speech

“Netanyahu proved that he’s the Primary Obstacle to Peace and Justice for Israelis and Palestinians”

Rae Abileah, a Jewish-American activist disrupted Netanyahu’s speech at the Congress. Standing in the congressional gallery, she was yelling, “No more occupation! Stop Israel war crimes! Equal rights for Palestinians! Occupation is indefensible!”

As she was screaming, members in the audience tackled her to the ground. Undercover security forces dragged her outside. She was taken to George Washington University Hospital, where she was treated for neck and shoulder injuries. At the hospital, police arrested Abileah and charged her with disorderly conduct for disrupting Congress.

Rae Abileah explains her Protest to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! from Washington, D.C.
Thanks, Amy, for having me on. Yesterday I stood up and unfurled a banner and spoke the truth about what’s going on in Israel. The war crimes and occupation, oppression and inequality that Palestinians are suffering from must end. And it was absolutely despicable to see our Congress pandering to Netanyahu as if he was the president of the United States. And I think after seeing the speech, every American should be outraged, and the progressive community needs to rise up and take courage and take action for justice, democracy, freedom and equality, in the Middle East as well as here at home.

I think that the act I took of courageously standing up in front of Congress doesn’t come along—the opportunity to do that doesn’t come along very often. But every day, as Americans, we have an opportunity to stand up.

And whether it’s putting our money where our hearts are, by participating in economic pressure against Israel through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or calling our Congress people or taking other actions, it’s time for us to say no to this terrible policy that, just as Dr. Barghouti has illustrated, will not bring about peace. Netanyahu proved yesterday that he is the primary obstacle to peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians. And to see our Congress giving away three billion of our tax dollars every year to Israeli war crimes, while our economy suffers, while our kids can’t go to college, while our needs aren’t being met here at home, is absolutely an outrage.

As I stood up and spoke out, members of the audience tackled me, covered my mouth and violently threw me to the ground. Several of them were wearing badges from the powerful pro-Israeli government lobby group AIPAC. Amidst the assault, the police came and dragged me out of the gallery. They took me to an ambulance for urgent care, and later placed me under arrest at the hospital

AMY GOODMAN: What were you just saying? You were tackled by members of AIPAC?

RAE ABILEAH: I just wanted to say that the people that were sitting around me in the gallery of Congress yesterday were mostly wearing badges from the AIPAC Israel lobby conference. And I did not expect that people holding such power and representing such a huge lobby group would respond so violently to my peaceful disruption. And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, “This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia.” And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.

We have a very skewed policy that ignores the rights of the Palestinians, sanctions the Israeli violations of international law, sullies the U.S. reputation internationally and gives $3 billion a year of our tax dollars to the Israel military when we need this money here at home. Before we go preaching democracy abroad, we should make our own democracy more responsive to the public good, not the wishes of wealthy lobbyists.

I have been charged with disorderly conduct and have a court date next month. I also plan to press charges against the person who assaulted me. Unfortunately, we have discovered that in our democratic system, the police are quick to go after those who disrupt the powerful, but rarely go after the powerful who attack the “little guy.”

RAE ABILEAH
AMY : Many people will feel you are a crazy person to disrupt a world leader as he speaks before the U.S. Congress. Might there be other ways to make your point?

Yes, I try to make my point many ways—lobbying, writing articles, speaking to community groups. But I am reminded of the song by Malvina Reynolds that says, “It isn’t nice to block the doorways, it isn’t nice to go to jail, there are nicer ways to do it, but the nice ways always fail.”

I am as committed as ever to continuing to exert pressure on our US government using all the traditional channels, but I also recognize that it has been direct action and nonviolent resistance that has ultimately worked to create powerful change like the 8-hour work day, women’s right to vote, liberation in India, and the overturning of apartheid in South Africa.

One of the most important ways that we can bring about a change in policy in Israel is to exert economic pressure by participating in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

I’ve been to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza several times. And after witnessing the destruction, the Jewish-only roads, the wall, the bombing of Gaza and the inequality there, I feel like, when I returned to the U.S., I had no option but to speak out for justice. And I feel this tremendous responsibility as a Jewish American to speak out for justice and against these war crimes that are being committed in my name as a Jew, and as a U.S. taxpayer.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/rae-abileah-disrupting-netanyahu%E2%80%99s-congress-speech/

LISTEN TO THE WHOLE INTERVIEW HERE

Rae Abileah on Disrupting Netanyahu’s Congress Speech

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 - Every President and Congress Are Complicit in Israel’s “War Crimes”

“He (Netanyahu) thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires. Who’s the (expletive) superpower here”?”
–President Bill Clinton after meeting with the newly elected Benjamin Netanyahu

Under International Law and America’s War Crimes Act, all U.S. Presidents and the 535 members of the U.S. Congress are “complicitors” in Israel’s long history of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; and as such are “war criminals” themselves.

by Mohamed Khodr

Since 1922’s Congressional Adoption and Support of the illegal Balfour “Declaration” gifting Palestine to European Jews as “A”, not “The”, national homeland for Jews, Congress and every Administration have either remained silent or directly and indirectly supported Zionism’s use of terrorism and force to ethnically cleanse Palestine’s indigenous inhabitants and strongly supported the establishment of an illegal nation that was founded by terrorism and lives by terrorism. By being complicitors in such war crimes they are under International Law guilty of war crimes themselves.

Under the U.N. Charter member states must promote: “Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” The U.S. and Israel are signatories to the U.N. Charter and as such violate this fundamental principle of the Charter. Israel is also in violation of the U.S. War Crimes Act which states, “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to carry out the international obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes”

Upon signing the law President Clinton said “Today I am pleased to sign into law H.R. 3680, the “War Crimes Act of 1996.”

This bill, in furtherance of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extends U.S. criminal jurisdiction over certain war crimes and provides the United States with clearer authority to prosecute violations of the laws of war. … It applies to U.S. nationals or members of the Armed Forces who are perpetrators or victims of war crimes. This expansion should address war crimes committed by any person who comes within the jurisdiction of the United States courts, including crimes committed by non-U.S. persons against non-U.S. victims;

Under the Arms Export Control Act all U.S. arms transfers and military aid to any nation are to be used only for defensive, not offensive, purposes.

The Act is intended to prevent weapons from being misused to commit human rights abuses. The Foreign Assistance Act states that “No assistance may be provided… to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

Given that neither Presidents nor Congress have ever enforced these laws, among others, against Israel as it continues its genocidal war crimes and clear violations of Humanitarian and Human Rights law against Palestinian civilians, both the Presidents and every Congress are in violation of the very “War Crimes Act’ they passed into law as well as in violation of International Law.

In a column in the Israeli paper, Haaretz, in an article titled: “U.S. taxpayers are paying for Israel’s West Bank Occupation”, November 16, 2010. Akiva Eldar writes “According to a June 2010 fact sheet on the USAID Internet site, last year American taxpayers funded the paving of 63 kilometers of asphalt roads in the West Bank.” Such payments are a gross violation of International and U.S. Criminal laws and are a clear indication of America’s complicity and guilt in Israel’s commission of “war crimes” against the Palestinians.

In March 2008, Attorney Charles Judson Harwood, Jr. sent an email to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees titled: “Prosecuting U.S. complicity in Israel settlement war crimes” The email contained a “legal memo” attachment. In it he asks the Committees “To consider, once again, creating an Independent Counsel to prosecute U.S. complicity in this (Israeli Settlements) war crime, specifically, multiple criminal acts, enterprises, and conspiracies, by U.S. nationals and residents, to incite, aid and abet, facilitate, a war crime by Israel:—“To examine the U.S. criminal law of complicity, to ensure, it reaches all complicit acts under international criminal law and applies to all complicit acts in this particular war crime, by U.S. nationals and residents and others, such as members of Congress and their staffs, officials in the State Department (including its Legal Advisers), White House, congressional witnesses, think tank advocates, lobbyists, fund-raisers, contributors, settlement real estate agents, settlement house buyers, settlement house mortgage lenders, editorial/Op-Ed writers, broadcasters, preachers, professors, paid propaganda contractors, Israeli government officials, and such.”

In summary, based on the above and the findings of many legal organizations and experts on domestic and international laws, the U.S. Administration and Congress, among others in the public and private sectors, are guilty as complicitors in Israel’s long standing war crimes and violations of all international treaties, humanitarian and human rights laws. That is why Israeli governmental and military officials fear traveling to Europe as they may be arrested and prosecuted for “war crimes”

Here are some comments from the war criminal Netanyahu, America’s man of peace, the “generous compromiser” willing to cede “some” land to the Palestinians from the Jewish homeland, biting and insulting the very hands that feed his genocidal country and military.

To me the most shocking statement in Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was his statement that Israel is not a “foreign occupier” in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as it is their Jewish homeland in the first place, thus making the Palestinians the foreign occupiers of Jewish land.

According to the Washington Post’s articleon Netanyahu , “America is a thing you can move very easily”, July 16, 2010.

A video recording of Netanyahu reveals his contempt for the sovereignty of the U.S. government and people and the ease which he can manipulate both. In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu -speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process. He boasts of his knowledge of the U.S. by saying, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.” He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process “They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” he said. “I said I would, but. I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 Borders.”

In his web site “Tikun Olam” Richard Silverstein posted the article “Bibi in 1989 Supported Palestinian Mass Expulsions”. January 14, 2011 in which he quotes Netanyahu as saying “Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when the world’s attention was focused on what was happening in that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the Territories. However, to my regret, they did not support that policy that I proposed, and which I still propose should be implemented.”

According to the Israeli paper, Haaretz, in “Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel”, April16, 2008, Netanyahu is quoted as saying “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq, adding that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”

Thus to Netanyahu, the murder of 3000 Americans, requires no sympathy or solidarity with the American people but is simply viewed as a golden opportunity for Israel to once again manipulate an American tragedy to Israel’s benefit. If he is this heartless to the U.S. imagine how blood thirsty a war criminal he is toward the brutally occupied Palestinian civilian population.

In 1998 President Clinton asked Netanyahu to live up to Israel’s agreement with the Palestinians and withdraw from13% of West Bank land as per the Interim Agreement of 1993. Netanyahu was furious with Clinton but given his arrogant confidence in the total subjugation of Congress to Israel’s demands he knew he had Clinton at a disadvantage. (Sounds Obama familiar)

The Chicago Tribune on May 19, 1998 (“Netanyahu Denies Pullback Agreement. Israel’s Leader Scuttles Report of Progress as Albright and Arafat Talk’) reported that:, “Netanyahu felt confident enough about his position during his five-day U.S. tour to threaten privately to aides that he would “BURN” Washington if Clinton tries to lay blame for failure of the talks on Netanyahu’s government”

Prior to his May 1998 meeting with President Clinton in Washington, Netanyahu exclaimed “We do not accept dictates…They cannot dictate to us on issues that only we can decide on.” –Washington Post, “Netanyahu: U.S. Cannot Dictate to Us” May 7, 1998

During Bill Clinton’s second term Newt Gingrich in 1994 became the Republican Speaker of the House. Given the rift between Clinton and Netanyahu over the 13% withdrawal from occupied land in the West Bank, Speaker Newt Gingrich and a large bipartisan Congressional delegation went to Israel to celebrate its 50th founding anniversary. In Israel Gingrich told Netanyahu to stand up to Clinton and he can count on the entire Congress to support him to the hilt against the President.

Here’s how a Washington Post article titled, “Netanyahu’s Backers on Capitol Hill Foment Split with White House”, May 23, 1998. “No Israeli Prime Minister can afford to be indifferent to Israel’s ties to the White House. But during Netanyahu’s U.S trip last week, even members of his entourage were amazed at the willingness of prominent members of Congress, notably House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), to denounce their own government and express support for the leader of a foreign power that receives $3 billion in U.S. aid each year.”

It went on to say that: “the legislators are prepared to do everything in their power to ensure that he wins such a confrontation.”

In another paragraph in the same article, we read “Netanyahu has no peer when it comes to understanding the American arena,” said Nahum Barnea, a leading political commentator for the Israeli daily paper.Yedioth Ahronoth, “”He knows that U.S. officials, from (Madeleine) Albright down, are angry yet helpless. But he also knows he can always beat them because he owns the U.S. Congress”

It’s troubling that Washington D.C.’s institutions from the government, to think tanks, to the media, AIPAC, and other lobbyists, are more Zionist and Jewish than Jews in Israel. They have ensured that the United States of America only serves Israel, and only Israel, damn the American family.

Here’s a comparison between the rabid Zionist columnist Charles Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post versus a column in the Israeli paper Haaretz by an Israeli Jew.

Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post in a column titled “What Obama did to Israel”, May 26, 2011 (during Netanyahu’s visit) “The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.”

Here’s a column by Meray Michaeli in the Israeli paper, Haaretz, titled “The Israeli reality that Obama doesn’t understand”, May 23, 2011

“It’s hard to understand a reality in which a prime minister sits and, contrary to all logic and every code of conduct, arrogantly lectures his host, the president of the United States. It’s hard to understand a reality in which a day before their scheduled meeting, a prime minister responds to the speech of the U.S. president, who is about to host him, with an announcement that is as good as spitting in his face.”

With the exception of the great majority of the American people, the entire world knows that Israel and its lobbies run the U.S. Government, and no President or Congressman will dare challenge or swerve from the path AIPAC draws for their subservience.

America, Israel is suffocating your freedoms, your government, your Constitution, and your destiny and future. Will you ever care again about this nation, who’s running it, what’s happening to it, and where it’s heading?

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
–Abraham Lincoln

Related Sources
War Crimes Act
‘Israel Violates International Law With EU Complicity’”, March 5, 2010
PLEASE READ: Attorney Charles Justin Hayward’s Legal Memo to Senate and House Judiciary Committees titled Prosecuting U.S. complicity in Israeli settlement war crimes: plunder, colonizing, murder, and arson
Russell Tribunal on Palestine, London 20-22 November 2010; Corporate Complicity in Israel’s Violations of International Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 - Remember U.S.S. Liberty and Crew this Memorial Day

by Bob Johnson

On June 8, 1967 the terrorist Jewish state of Israel launched attacks against the U.S.S. Liberty which killed 34 U.S. sailors and Marines. The U.S. government ordered pilots flying American fighter jets that were on their way to rescue their fellow Americans from this vicious attack of Biblical ferocity to return to their carriers and let their fellow American sailors and Marines die. The politicians did this for the benefit of their own political careers.

This Memorial Day we need to take stock of this very disgusting, cowardly and revealing act of Israeli aggression and murder. We need to make certain we all learn the real lessons this war crime is teaching us. If we don’t, we’re letting those 34 Americans die in vain and we will allow Israel to continue its destruction of the United States via sacrificing our troops in Israel promoted wars and draining our finances through billion dollar hand outs the politicians give them.

The key lesson is Israel has far too much power over American politicians. Political whores in both parties sell-out American military personnel and America herself to please their string-pulling Israeli overlords to selfishly promote their own political careers. If they refuse, the Israel lobby will do all they can to see to it that they will lose in the next election.

This is why Congress and the White House are unAmerican and kosher. This is why American sailors, airmen, soldiers and Marines are being sent off to wars for the benefit if the Jewish state of Israel. This is why one Jewish “U.S.” Senator, Chuck Schumer, actually believes and openly said that he’s on a mission from God to be Israel’s protector in the U.S. Senate! Not one “journalist” questioned him about his priority of Israel, not America, first.

To help seal the fear of Israel they use the Bible. The Bible teaches all sorts of Jewish superiority. One fear based Bible threat is found at Isaiah 60:12 which plainly teaches that God said, “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” Another is found at Genesis 12:3which has God saying to Abram, aka Abraham, which is taken to apply to Israel, too, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” This is nothing but psychological warfare plain and simple.

And U.S. politicians appear to fall for it! U.S. Representative Michelle Bachmann recently said to the Republican Jewish Coalition, “I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States. . . [We] have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis, we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong an beautiful principle.” Do we really need politicians who believe in curses and hexes???

The only thing that will help free us of the deep rooted Hebrew/Jewish superstitions found in the Bible which are causing so much misery and suffering in the world is our God-given reason. Our God-given reason teaches us to reject such deadly nonsense. God-given reason united with belief in God is Deism. And as the Deist Benjamin Franklin warned, “Hear Reason or she’ll make you feel her.”

The Main Battle Dressing Station on the USS Liberty was described as a “bloody scene reminiscent of the American Civil War.” The Israeli torpedo and machine guns took a terrible toll on the Liberty’s crew, killing 34 and wounding 172.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 - Encircling Russia with US Bases

by Stephen Lendman

In 1991, after the Soviet Union dissolved, everything changed but stayed the same. As a result, today’s stakes are far greater, presenting much larger threats to world peace.

In America, neocons are still dominant. Obama is more belligerent than Bush, waging four wars and various proxy ones. The Israeli Lobby, Christian Right, and other extremist elements drive them. Conflict is preferred over diplomacy.

Congressional majorities support Washington’s imperial agenda, including global militarization against potential challengers and America’s main rivals – China and Russia, encircling them belligerently with bases and strategic weapons. It’s a policy fraught with danger.

NATO has 28 member states, including 10 former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact countries. Prospective new candidates include Georgia, Ukraine, and potentially others later to more tightly encircle Russia and China.

At the same time, the Middle East and parts of Eurasia have been increasingly militarized with a network of US bases from Qatar to Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond – a clear breach of GHW Bush’s promise to Mikhail Gorbachev that paved the way for unifying Germany in 1990 and dissolving the Soviet Union.

Washington’s promises, of course, aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, a hard lesson many nations later learn painfully.

Moreover, the Pentagon has an expanding network of 1,000 or more global bases, including secret and shared ones for greater control. In fact, at a time no nation threatens America, trillions of dollars are spent anyway for what military planners call “full spectrum dominance” over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.

Encroaching Belligerently Near Russia’s Borders

In late summer 2009, Obama suspended Bush administration plans for interceptor missiles in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, both NATO members. Purportedly targeting Iran and other “rogue states,” they, in fact, very much aimed at Russia, what new ones will do when installed.

At issue is assuring first strike capability, preventing or diminishing retaliation if America attacks Russia or China, a potentially catastrophic possibility under any scenario, but especially if nuclear war erupts.

For now, according to Obama, Washington will pursue “stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies,” including Poland and the Czech Republic. Tactics alone may change, not hardline imperial policies.

Last September, Defense Secretary Gates explained a four-phase missile shield plan, including deploying Aegis class warships in the Eastern Mediterranean equipped with SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite interceptors, followed by upgraded land and sea versions when available.

Moreover, stationing SM-3s in Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland were announced. Last summer, in fact, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors and about 100 US troops were sent to eastern Poland, close to Russia’s Kaliningrad region, 200 miles from its border.

This same capability was installed in the Persian Gulf, including supplying regional allies with longer range Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile systems, the strategy being to have in place impenetrable interceptors from the Baltic to the Arabian, Black and Red Seas.

In addition, a warning system is planned for the Czech Republic and other countries as well as centrally controlled missile interceptors – from Southern and Eastern Europe through the Middle East to close to Russia’s borders, too close perhaps for comfort.

Instead of abandoning Bush’s scheme, Obama’s plans a far more extensive, sophisticated, flexible, mobile system to be developed through 2020. Included is nearly doubling the number of Aegis class warships to 38 by 2015, equipped with state-of-the-art missile interceptors.

As a result, America’s front line capability will shift from Eastern Germany through the Middle East to the Black Sea and other strategic waterways to the Caucasus and Russia proper, encroaching on Moscow with new Eastern European bases in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland.

It represents the most significant US presence there since WW II. Currently, only limited troop numbers are involved up to 150 or so permanently, but expect an expanded presence ahead.

Last March, in fact, Secretary of State Clinton said Washington will deploy missile interceptor elements and F-16s in Poland. Russia expressed concern, Dmitry Rogozin, its permanent NATO representative, saying US plans complicate dialogue regarding creating a joint European anti-ballistic missile system, adding:

“Mrs. Clinton’s statement contradicts the foundational relationship (between the) Russian Federation and NATO signed in 1997, (stipulating) that NATO must not strengthen the military structure close to the borders of Russia.”

A Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement also expressed concern, saying:

“We have known about plans regarding (an) anti-ballistic missiles system long ago and we plan to (react in response) in the network of the EuroABM project. As for the idea of (US) Air Force base deployment, it requires an additional explanation.”

In late April, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reacted as well, saying:

“The expansion of NATO infrastructure towards our borders is causing us concern. NATO is not simply a political bloc. It is a military bloc. No one cancelled the agreements on how the bloc reacts to external threats. It is a defense structure,” but it’s acting aggressively.

In a post-G-8 Summit press conference, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said:

“I am not satisfied with the American side’s reaction to my proposals and with NATO’s reaction in general. Why? Because we are wasting time. Even though I spoke about the year 2020 yesterday as a deadline, (the) year when the construction of a four-stage system of the so-called adaptive approach ends. After 2020, if we do not come to terms, a real arms race will begin.”

Perhaps much sooner as he’s gotten no assurances that Russia isn’t being targeted. As a result, he added:

“When we ask for the name of the countries that the shield is aimed at, we get silence. When we ask if the country has missiles (able to strike Europe), the answer is no.”

So “who has those type of missiles” interceptors wish to deter? “We do. So we can only think that this system is being aimed against us.”

He and other Russian officials worry about it expanding to Ukraine and Georgia with missile interceptors, attack aircraft, and US troops on its borders, threatening its security.

Obama in Poland

On May 28, Obama met with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski and Prime Minister Donald Tusk, discussing, among other issues, reaffirming a US military presence with “American boots on the ground,” including a permanent aerial detachment of F-16s and C-130 transport planes.

White House national security official Liz Sherwood-Randall said:

“What we will be doing is rotating trainers and aircraft to Poland so they can become more inter-operable with NATO. It will be a small permanent presence on the ground and then a rotational presence that will be more substantial.”

On May 28, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said:

“To the east of the Oder River (dividing Germany and Poland), American forces will appear, and this at a time when America is reducing its overall military presence in Europe.”

In fact, redeployment with interceptor missiles, other offensive weapons, and boots on the ground close to Russia’s borders, not reduction, is planned, what clearly has Moscow officials alarmed.

On May 29, however, Obama disingenuously downplayed those concerns, reaffirming mutual defense and inviting Russia to participate in European missile defense plans, saying:

“I am very proud of (America’s) reset process (with Russia). We believe missile defense is something where we can cooperate with Russia….This will not be a threat to the strategic balance.”

Concerned Russian officials very much disagree, Vladimir Putin’s earlier sentiment likely again being discussed.

In February 2007, in response to US planned missile defense then, he said:

“NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders. (It) does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represent a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

At the time, his comments drew a storm of US media Russia bashing, as well as an article by this writer titled, “Reinventing the Evil Empire,” saying:

Russia is back, proud and re-assertive, not about to roll over for America, especially in Eurasia. For Washington, it’s back to the future with a new Cold War, but this time for greater stakes and much larger threats to world peace.

It’s especially true during economic hard times, especially with austerity policies addressing them when social stimulus is needed, provoking spreading discontent for change.

As a result, Western powers may invent threats to distract people, waging greater war for imperial dominance, Russia and China perhaps directly threatened this time.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

The Progressive News Hour

David Ray Griffin is a distinguished scholar, author, theologian, and Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA. He’s also the author and editor of more than 30 books, including “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11,” “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,” “The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7,” and his newest one titled, “Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.” Griffin’s two newest books will be discussed. Also his book on bin Laden titled, “Osama Bin Laden: Dead or alive?”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 - THE HOLOCAUST CONTROVERSY: The Case For Open Debate
by Bradley R. Smith

THE CONTEMPORARY ISSUE

No subject enrages campus Thought Police more than Holocaust Revisionism. We debate every other great historical issue as a matter of course, but influential pressure groups with private agendas have made the Holocaust story an exception. Elitist dogma manipulated by special interest groups corrupts everything in academia. Students should be encouraged to investigate the Holocaust story the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical event. This isn't a radical point of view. The premises for it were worked out centuries ago during a little something called the Enlightenment.

THE HISTORICAL ISSUE

Revisionists agree with establishment historians that the German National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment. In addition to viewing Jews in the framework of traditional anti-Semitism, the Nazis also saw them as being an influential force behind international communism. During the Second World War, Jews were considered to be enemies of the State and a potential danger to the war effort, much like the Japanese were viewed in this country. Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, deported from the countries of their birth and otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom.

Revisionists part company with establishment historians in that Revisionists deny that the German State had a policy to exterminate the Jewish people (or anyone else) by putting them to death in gas chambers or killing them through abuse or neglect. Revisionists also maintain that the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and that no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe which was under German control. Fumigation gas chambers did exist to delouse clothing and equipment to prevent disease at the camps. It is very likely that it was from this life-SAVING procedure that the myth of extermination gas chambers emerged.

Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments decided to carry their wartime "black propaganda" of German monstrosity over into the postwar period. This was done for essentially three reasons. First, they felt it necessary to continue to justify the great sacrifices that were made in fighting two world wars. A second reason was that they wanted to divert attention from and to justify their own particularly brutal crimes against humanity which, apart from Soviet atrocities, involved massive incendiary bombings of the civilian populations of German and Japanese cities. The third and perhaps most important reason was that they needed justification for the postwar arrangements which, among other things, involved the annexation of large parts of Germany into Poland. These territories were not disputed borderlands but included huge parts of Germany proper. The millions of Germans living in these regions were to be dispossessed of their property and brutally expelled from their homelands. Many hundreds of thousands were to perish in the process. A similar fate was to befall the Sudetan Germans.

During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist organizations joined with the Allied Governments and became deeply involved in creating and promulgating anti-German hate propaganda. There is little doubt that their purpose was to drum up world sympathy and political and financial support for Jewish causes, especially for the formation of the State of Israel. Today, while the political benefits of the Holocaust story have largely dissipated for the others, the story still plays an important role in the ambitions of Zionist and other organizations in the Jewish community. It is the leaders of these political and propaganda organizations who continue to work to sustain the orthodox Holocaust legend and the myth of German monstrosity during the Second World War.

Those who would claim that these interpretations are anti-Jewish are reading into them something which simply is not there. Revisionists do not claim that Jewish leaders or organizations did anything in the war and postwar era which the Allied Governments themselves did not do.

For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealed the truth about German war crimes, it is a bracing shock to discover that the then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone, described the Nuremberg court as "a high-grade lynching party for Germans."

THE PHOTOGRAPHS

We've all seen "The Photographs." Endlessly. Newsreel photos taken by U.S. and British photographers at the liberation of the German camps, and especially the awful scenes at Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen. These films are typically presented in such a way in which it is either stated or implied that the scenes resulted from deliberate policies on the part of the Germans. The photographs are real. The uses to which they have been put are base.

There was no German policy at any of those camps to deliberately kill the internees. In the last months of the war, while Soviet armies were advancing on Germany from the east, the British and U.S. air arms were destroying every major city in Germany with saturation bombing. Transportation, the food distribution system and medical and sanitation services all broke down. That was the purpose of the Allied bombing, which has been described as the most barbarous form of warfare in Europe since the Mongol invasions.

Millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouring into Germany. The camps still under German control were overwhelmed with internees from the east. By early 1945 the inmate population was swept by malnutrition and by epidemics of typhus, typhoid, dysentery and chronic diarrhea. Even the mortuary systems broke down. When the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers, they found the results of all that. They took "The Photographs."

Still, at camps such as Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen TENS OF THOUSANDS of relatively healthy internees were liberated. They were there in the camps when "The Photographs" were taken. There are newsreels of those internees walking through the camp streets laughing and talking. Others picture exuberant internees throwing their caps in the air and cheering their liberators. It is only natural to ask why you haven't seen those particular films and photos while you've seen the others scores and even hundreds of times.

Jewish internees playing football at Theresienstadt 'Konzentrationslager' Camp.
DOCUMENTS

Spokesmen for the Holocaust Lobby like to assure us that there are "tons" of captured German documents which prove the Jewish genocide. When challenged on this, however, they can produce only a handful of documents, the authenticity or interpretation of which is always highly questionable. If pressed for reliable documentation, the Lobby will then reverse itself and claim that the Germans destroyed all of the relevant documents to hide their evil deeds, or it will make the absurd claim that the Germans used a simplistic code language or whispered verbal orders for mass murder into each others' ears.

With regard to the alleged genocide of the European Jews, all available documentation indicates that there was no order for it, no budget, no weapon (that is, no so-called execution gas chamber) and no victim (that is, not a single autopsied body at any camp has been shown to have been gassed).

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

As documentary "proofs" for the mass-murder of the European Jews fall by the wayside, Holocaust historians depend increasingly on "eye- witness" testimonies to support their theories. Many of these testimonies are ludicrously unreliable. History is filled with stories of masses of people claiming to be eyewitnesses to everything from witchcraft to flying saucers.

During and after the war there were "eyewitnesses" to mass murder in gas chambers at Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau and other camps in Germany proper. Today, virtually all recognized scholars dismiss this eyewitness testimony as false, and agree that there were no extermination gas chambers in any camp in Germany proper.

Establishment historians, however, still claim that extermination gas chambers existed at Auschwitz and at other camps in Poland. The eyewitness testimony and the evidence for this claim is, in reality, qualitatively no different than the false testimony and evidence for the alleged gas chambers at the camps in Germany proper.

During the war crimes trials many "eyewitnesses" testified that Germans made soap out of human fat and lamp shades from human skin. Allied prosecutors even produced evidence to support these charges. For decades, highly respected scholars at the most prestigious universities in the Western world sanctioned these stories, leading us to believe that they were "irrefutable truths." But with time, many such stories have become untenable, and in May 1990 Yehuda Bauer, director of Holocaust studies at Hebrew University in Tel Aviv, admitted that: "The Nazis never made soap from Jews . . ."(quoted in The Jerusalem Post, International Edition, 5 May 1990, p. 6). This is only one recent example where an "irrefutable" Holocaust "truth" has been exposed as a monstrous lie.

With regard to confessions by Germans at war crimes trials, it is now well documented that many were obtained through coercion, intimidation and even physical torture.

AUSCHWITZ

British Historian David Irving, perhaps the most widely read historian writing in English, has called the Auschwitz death-camp story a "sinking ship" and states that there were "no gas chambers at Auschwitz . . ."

The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-century-old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there. The Museum now says maybe it was 1 million. But what proof does the Museum provide to document the 1 million figure? None! The communist propagandists who manage the museum have put on display piles of hair, boots and eyeglasses, etc. While such displays are effective propaganda devices, they are worthless as historical documentation for "gassings" or a program of "extermination."

Meanwhile, Revisionists want to know where those 3 million souls have been the last 45 years. Were they part of the fabled Six Million?

Those who promote the Holocaust story complain that "the whole world" was indifferent to the genocide which allegedly was occurring in German occupied Europe. When asked why this was the case the promoters usually respond by saying that it was due to some great moral flaw in the nature of Western man. At other times they make the absurd claim that people did not realize the enormity of what was happening. It is true that the world responded with indifference. How else should people have responded to that which they did not believe, and which for them was a non-event?

It is certain that if there had been "killing factories" in Poland murdering millions of civilians, then the Red Cross, the Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower and many others would have known about it and would have often and unambiguously mentioned it, and condemned it. They didn't! The promoters admit that only a tiny group of individuals believed the story at the time -- many of whom were connected with Jewish propaganda agencies. The rise of the Holocaust story reads more like the success story of a PR campaign than anything else.

Winston Churchill wrote the six volumes of his monumental work, The Second World War, without mentioning a program of mass-murder and genocide. Maybe it slipped his mind. Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir Crusade in Europe, also failed to mention gas chambers. Was the weapon used to murder millions of Jews unworthy of a passing reference? Was our future president being insensitive to Jews?

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM

Many people, when they first hear Holocaust Revisionist arguments, find themselves bewildered. The arguments appear to make sense, but "How is it possible?" The whole world believes the Holocaust story. It's just not plausible that so great a conspiracy to suppress the truth could have functioned for half a century.

To understand how it could very well have happened, one needs only to reflect on the intellectual and political orthodoxies of medieval Europe, or those of Nazi Germany or the Communist-bloc countries. In all of these societies the great majority of scholars were caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a prevailing ideology and its interpretation of reality, these scholars and intellectuals felt it was their right, and even their duty, to protect every aspect of that ideology. They did so by oppressing the evil dissidents who expressed "offensive" or "dangerous" ideas. In every one of those societies, scholars became Thought Police.

In our own society, in the debate over the question of political correctness, there are those who deliberately attempt to trivialize the issues. They claim that there is no real problem with freedom of speech on our campuses, and that all that is involved with PC are a few rules which would defend minorities from those who would hurt their feelings. There is, of course, a deeper and more serious aspect to the problem. On American campuses today there is a wide range of ideas and viewpoints that are forbidden to be discussed openly. Even obvious facts and realities, when they are politically unacceptable, are denied and suppressed. One can learn much about the psychology and methodology of Thought Police by watching how they react when just one of their taboos is broken and Holocaust Revisionism is given a public forum.

First they express outrage that such offensive and dangerous ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. They avoid answering or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would give them a forum and legitimacy. Then they make vicious personal attacks against the Revisionist heretic, calling him dirty political names such as "anti- Semite," "racist" or "neo-Nazi," and they even suggest that he is a potential mass murderer. They publicly accuse the Revisionist of lying, but they don't allow the heretic to hear the specific charge against him or to face his accusers so that he can answer this slander.

The Holocausters accuse Revisionists of being hate filled people who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But Revisionism is a scholarly process, not a doctrine or ideology. If the Holocaust promoters really want to expose hatred, they should take a second look at their own doctrines, and a long look at themselves in the mirror.

Anyone on campus who invites a Revisionist to speak is himself attacked as being insensitive. When a Revisionist does speak on campus he is oftentimes shouted down and threatened. Campus libraries and bookstores face intimidation when they consider handling Holocaust revisionist materials. All this goes on while the majority of faculty and university administrators sit dumbly by, allowing political activists to determine what can be said and what can be read on their campus.

Next, the Thought Police set out to destroy the transgressor professionally and financially by "getting" him at his job or concocting a lawsuit against him. The courts are sometimes used to attack Revisionism. The Holocausters often deceptively claim that Revisionist scholarship has been proven false during a trial. The fact is that Revisionist arguments have never been evaluated or judged by the courts.

Finally, the Thought Police try to "straighten out" that segment of academia or the media that allowed the Revisionists a forum in the first place.

It can be an instructive intellectual exercise to identify taboo subjects, other than Holocaust Revisionism, which would evoke comparable responses from Thought Police on our campuses.

Recently, some administrators in academia have held that university administrations should take actions to rid the campus of ideas which are disruptive to the university. This is a very dangerous position for administrators to take. It is an open invitation to tyranny. It means that any militant group with "troops at the ready" can rid the campus of ideas it opposes and then impose its own orthodoxy. The cowardly administrator finds it much easier and safer to rid the campus of controversial ideas than to face down a group of screaming and snarling militants. But it is the duty of university administrators to insure that the university remains a free marketplace of ideas. When ideas cause disruptions, it is the disrupters who must be subdued, not the ideas.

CONCLUSION

The influence of Holocaust Revisionism is growing steadily both here and abroad. In the United States, Revisionism was launched in earnest in 1977 with the publication of the book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz. Professor Butz teaches electrical engineering and computer sciences at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

Those who take up the Revisionist cause represent a wide spectrum of political and philosophical positions. They are certainly not the scoundrels, liars and demons the Holocaust Lobby tries to make them out to be. The fact is, there are no demons in the real world. People are at their worst when they begin to see their opponents as an embodiment of evil, and then begin to demonize them. Such people are preparing to do something simply awful to their opponents. Their logic is that you can do anything you want to a demon.

That logic will not succeed.

* * *

For those wishing to verify the truthfulness of statements made in this paper, you may want to contact experts who are prominent authorities on these matters. It's important to ask specific, concrete questions on matters of fact and receive direct and unambiguous answers. Organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Hillel and the Anti-Defamation League are not scholarly institutions, but are primarily political and propaganda organizations.

Auschwitz Director Comes Clean About Fraudulent "Gas Chamber"

An exclusive videotape interview Debunks a major part of the "Holocaust" story, and reveals the deception that is STILL GOING ON. . . !

This is a video that will make you ask -- "Just how much of the 'Holocaust' story can we believe?" -- as you learn of falsified "proofs" and deceptive claims about "gas chambers," not from the mouths of Holocaust "revisionists" but in the words of one of the most knowledgeable and ardent supporters of the orthodox "Holocaust" story. This is a video that affirms what revisionists have maintained for years: that the Soviets and Poles made a practice of "creating" proofs of "homicidal gas chambers" AFTER World War Two, and that the hundreds of thousands of tourists who journey to Auschwitz each year to see for themselves proof of the "final solution" are being deceived.

In this unprecedented interview given to Jewish revisionist David Cole, (who has debated the "Holocaust" nationally on the Montel Williams Show and has been profiled by CBS' 48 Hours), Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator and Director of Archives at the Auschwitz State Museum states on camera that the alleged "homicidal gas chamber" at the Auschwitz main camp shown off to tourists from all over the world as being in its "original state" is, in fact, a RECONSTRUCTION, redesigned AFTER THE WAR to look like a gas chamber.

Dr. Piper reveals to David Cole, on camera, how walls were knocked down and holes with "Zyklon B induction chimneys" installed in the roof so that the building could be exhibited as a "proof" of the "final solution." And he doesn't stop there. For a solid hour Dr. Piper talks about other "proofs" at Auschwitz for the "final solution" which are ALSO "reconstructions," and discusses details of the camp that only a man such as he, who has worked at Auschwitz for a quarter century, would know. Then, in stunning footage, you'll see David Cole, while on the official tour of Auschwitz, being told by his guide that the Auschwitz main-camp "gas chamber" is in its ORIGINAL STATE, the same -- and there's no other word for it -- lie told to all tourists. The uncomfortable conclusion cannot be avoided: the people who run Auschwitz tell people things that THEY THEMSELVES KNOW ARE NOT TRUE!

Will you be able to argue with the words of a respected "Holocaust" scholar when he states for the record that one of the main "proofs" of the "final solution" is NO PROOF AT ALL?

(Video available from: "CODOH," POB 3267 Visalia CA 93278, or the Institute for Historical Review P.O. Box 2739 Newport Beach, CA 92659).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 - How the Zionist AIPAC Lobby Group Controls Washington

Video - Anthony Lawson :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqM2EXFdOnM
Explains how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, DC, maintains its grip on the US Congress and American political life. Written and presented by Anthony Lawson: Runtime: 9:39 mins.

Terrorists Attack Jefferson Memorial with Deadly Dance Moves
http://rtr.org/videos/2/21418, posted by Lonelantern
Saturday 5/28/11

http://RTR.org | Terrorists struck the Jefferson Memorial on May 28th in an apparently coordinated effort. Early reports revealed this coordinated attack carries the signature of past Al Qaeda attacks using multiple targets and unrelated agents. However, it is unclear if dance attacks affected other national monuments but authorities have been placed on high alert. Law Enforcement officers on duty at the time acted swiftly to diffuse the dance threat before damage could be done to the memorial and the tourists at the site. The terrorists are now in the custody of Washington DC officials and are being interrogated. (Sarcasm intended)
Eyewitnesses report scuffed elbows and two iPods containing multiple tracks from Jordan Page's new album "Liberty" were damaged as a result of the attacks.
This report is ongoing - for more information or to demand the release of the Terrorists contact the authorities at (202) 610-8703 and the US Park Police: 202-610-7500
For more information on the music the Terrorists were listening to see: http://JordanPageMusic.com or Download it at http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/liberty/id418425213

Netanyahu in DC: Shameful Spectacle Affirms Zionist Hold on Congress
Mark Weber - Podcast
http://reasonradionetwork.com/category/programs/the-mark-weber-report
Nothing more vividly underscores the Jewish-Zionist grip on US political life than the stormy, fervent approval given by American politicians to Israeli premier Netanyahu as he addressed a joint session of the US Congress. For every American who cares about our national interest and our long term welfare as a country, as well as basic justice, the performance of these politicians was a shameful spectacle. Their behavior highlights the entrenched corruption and lack of principle of the American political system. It's an expression of a society, and of a political system, that has become terminally corrupt, craven, and unprincipled.

http://vimeo.com/21508099

Video originally created and uploaded by Anthony Lawson to YouTube.
youtube.com/watch?v=0gycNMf0xAc&feature=player_embedded
Suppressing free and open discussion on any subject is as bad as telling lies, and knowingly suppressing the truth is the biggest lie of all, because it is based, not on a mistake or a genuine error, but on a deliberate intention to deceive.
Having been tortured, Rudolf Höss, who was the commander of Auschwitz from 1940 to 1943, almost certainly lied to save the lives of his wife and children. Even if torture and duress cannot not be proven, the overwhelming reason for recognizing the utter falsity of the Höss confession is that the gassing method he described was not scientifically plausible.
Yet Höss's conviction has stood, by inference, as a testament to the cruelty of Germans in general, since he was tried at Nuremberg, in 1947, and subsequently hanged on April 16th, 1947, in Poland.
With great respect for those who have tried—though harassed, punished, fined, imprisoned and otherwise abused—to tell it like it really was: Arthur R. Butz, Robert Faurisson, Paul Grubach, Gerd Honsik, David Irving, Kevin Käther, Nicholas Kollerstrom, Fred Leuchter, Horst Mahler, Ingrid Rimland, Germar Rudolf, Bradley Smith, Sylvia Stolz, Fredrick Töbin, Ernst Zündel and many others.

The interview Chris did with Paul Flynn is well worth a listen.
http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/ntr-paul-flynn-interview-the-power-behind-the-new-world-order/

Demystifying The Occult is an essential piece for spotting the tricks of New Age Luciferians.
http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/ntr-demystifying-the-occult-a-presentation-for-youth/

Prof.Dr.BUTZ : 'The HOAX of the Century',
Link to the pdf-file.
PDF: 12.8 MB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed Note : ALL CENTRAL BANKS on a NON-PROFIT BASIS ....................
It would change our world entirely. By mail I tried to 'sell' the idea to some member of parliament, but was not even honoured a reply ....

14 - Revolt: US could create full-employment forever, but chooses Americans’ misery, decay, death

May 29, 2011

Carl Herman, Examiner.com

Americans could have full-employment if government created money, and employed anyone interested for infrastructure improvement (hard and soft).

Below is an article I wrote in 2009 (slightly revised) to explain this accomplishment is as easy as the sentence above describes.

For my comprehensive explanations on economic solutions, read this and this(and here for foreign policy interests, here if you’d like me to verbally explain all this from a radio and podcast interview).

Because what US “leadership” does rather than these easy solutions are criminal acts that every year kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of our dollars, I advocate for revolution. Revolution stops all allegiance to a government’s crimes and criminal leaders, and demands prosecution – or because both political parties are so deeply criminal - Truth and Reconciliation.
“I know the American People are much attached to their Government;–I know they would suffer much for its sake;–I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.” - Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address

Here’s my explanation and documentation of how easy full-employment is:

One of the key statistics to determine how well government policy is supportive of labor is unemployment. A government role in employment may be distasteful for some of you, but give me a moment to explain government’s rightful role in supporting full employment. The failure of unemployment often translate into even more distasteful social costs: loss of potential economic productivity, crime, public health costs, and the immeasurable feeling you get seeing beggars in arguably the most successful economic environment in world history.

The official unemployment statistic for the US is now at 9.7%, or 14.9 million American adults seeking employment who have not found even a part-time job of one hour a week. Economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics explains in a 5-minute video below that this is the government’s rosiest figure, called U-3. The more realistic figure is to include part-time workers who want full-time work and all discouraged workers (U-6), but calculated in the same way before the Clinton Administration stopped counting millions of unemployed workers in the official statistics in 1994. If you don’t trust the government to self-report, William’s figure of 20% unemployment is more accurate, or roughly 30 million American adults.

One of the goals of the Federal Reserve is to maximize employment. They do not have the tools to directly achieve this goal, and I argue that their motivation is profit to banks rather than the public good. The maximum employment is all adults seeking a job having a job. Let’s consider policy to achieve full-employment with the assumption that we really do honor labor and want every American adult seeking work to be successful in both the short-term and long-term. When the free-market economy cannot achieve an economic goal, economists call that a market failure. Free-markets will never achieve the economic goal of full employment; they never have. Given that obvious history, the intelligent policy response is to have a back-up plan, an employer of last resort. It’s obvious that when your primary strategy has never achieved a goal that you MUST develop a back-up plan, yes?

But who should be the employer of last resort for what jobs, and who will pay wages for unemployed workers? Simple: the collective expression of American organization to address community needs, otherwise known as government. If the market cannot absorb willing workers, the government is the only alternative IF we’re serious about achieving the goal of full employment. What type of jobs? Easy: public service.

Advertisement

I wrote a few days ago that the Los Angeles fires would have been prevented if the full-employment aspect of monetary reform was policy. Government at some level (details would have to be best-determined in hearings) would be the employer of last resort to have people do cost-positive work like clearing fire-hazardous brush. And consider the following investments we should make (three glaring for brevity):

the American Society of Civil Engineers grades US infrastructure at a “D,”
lack of health care kills about 45,000 Americans every year according to the recent study championed by Harvard’s Medical School despite cost-benefit analyses range between $100 to $300 billion annual cost increase to the US with universal single-payer healthcare.
One in three US families are now officially in the “low-income” category.
How do we pay for full-employment and the benefits of improved hard and soft infrastructure? Elegantly beautifully: monetary reform.

Monetary reform transforms our Robber Baron monetary system written by the banksters for the banksters where banks create money that the government then borrows at interest into government-created money for the direct payment of public goods and services. The benefits to our nation are a trillion dollars every year. Put on your Economics 101 hat for a moment: as long as the economic productivity or government work is greater than the cost of wages, then price levels decrease. That is, as long as we’re intelligent about cost-positive projects, a policy of full employment has our money worth more rather than less from inflation.

In history, government have successfully employed workers for rapid economic improvement. Meiji Japan rapidly upgraded infrastructure to Western standards. Napoleon took a nation ravaged by ten years of revolution that killed or drove-off their highest economic producers and made France the strongest country in Europe. Mind you, economic productivity should be focused on constructive projects rather than military domination of Europe. But it was Napoleon who took the unemployed, created currency, and paid them to beautify Paris that gives its reputation as one of the world’s most romantic cities today. Germany was an economic tragic-comedy in the 1920s and without government-held gold. They resourcefully created money for wages and put unemployed Germans to work on public projects. They, too, became the dominant economy in the world (caveat above standing). To understand Germany’s transformation, read this.

American could use an economic breakthrough. Imagine the work that could be done on roads, schools, investment in alternative energy, or just the joy of beautification projects. I don’t know about you, but I do amateur cost-benefit analyses for beautification of city and state land often. For example, it would take SO little money for our freeways to be environmental gardens if we were willing to pay the team to produce the result.

Almost all people want to be productive. On a related subject I touched on above: for American adults who reject employment for whatever reason and have a homeless life, every cost-benefit analysis in US history shows its cheaper to provide dignified and simple housing, healthy food, minimal health care (usually weekly nurse visits to the facility), and job training than to bear the social costs of homelessness. I explain in detail here. The studies also show that given the opportunity, almost all people choose productive work and independence rather than sheltered assistance.

After economist John Williams explaining unemployment statistics, I have a 4-minute fictionalize consideration of full-employment policy from the movie, Dave (go to original article for these two videos).

As always, please share this article with all who say they care about our economy’s success. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free).
Continue reading on Examiner.com Revolt: US could have full-employment, but chooses our misery, decay, death – National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/revolt-us-could-have-full-employment-but-chooses-our-misery-decay-death#ixzz1NkROhiU

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 - Dr Scampa’s Lethal Doses Count Increases Dramatically
by Bob Nichols
(San Francisco) – The world’s second big nuclear disaster occurred at Chernobyl Reactor No. 4 in the Ukraine on Apr 26, 1986. Simply tagged as “Chernobyl,” it is what the next big and well known nuke disaster, after the American Three Mile Island, on March 28, 1979 came to be called. “Chernobyl” ejected 30% of one 192 ton, three month old reactor core. That’s 57.6 radioactive tons thrown into the air by fire and explosions.

The tiny radioactive and burning smoke particles traveled around the world many times since 1979, killing an estimated one million people to date from radiation caused illnesses and cancers. This is according to Editor Dr Janette Sherman’s exhaustive and widely acclaimed book on 5,000 Chernobyl scientific papers recently published by the New York Academy of Sciences [1].
Fukushima Daiichi Equals 50 Plus Chernobyls
As Dr. Michio Kaku, a world renowned CUNY theoretical physicist pointed out on CNN March 18, 2011, Chernobyl involved one reactor and only 57.6 Tons of the reactor core went into the atmosphere. In dramatic contrast, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster immediately involved six reactors and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN Agency) documented 2,800 Tons of highly radioactive old reactor cores.

Further clarification is needed, of course, and it is being worked out now by independent physicists. Note that the lethality of radioactive reactor cores goes up the first 250,000 years they are out of the reactor – not down.Simple division tells us there are at least 48.6 Chernobyls in the burning old reactor cores pumping fiery isotopes into the Earth’s atmosphere. It is no stretch to say Fukushima Daiichi’s six reactors and the dry holding pools for old reactor cores are equal to more than 50 Chernobyl disasters.

Looking at the current Japanese meltdown as more than 50 Chernobyls is just the start. In addition, the fate of the four nearby reactors at Fukushima Daini is as yet unknown by the outside world. Working at the nearby reactors, only 10 km (6 miles away) is a quick, painful death sentence. They are inside the mandatory evacuation zone.

This much is known. All radioactive exposures are cumulative for each human, animal and plant. What’s more, mutated genetic codes are passed on to offspring forever. This means all Japanese and all Northern Hemisphere inhabitants suffer internal radioactive contamination from Fukushima Daiichi reactors already.

Fukushima Equals 3,000 Billion Lethal Doses

Dr Paolo Scampa, a widely know EU Physicist, single handedly popularized the easily understood Lethal Doses concept. “Lethal Doses” is a world wide, well understood idea that strips Physics bare and offers a brilliant, understandable explanation for all the physics gobbledygook Intelligence agencies and their respective governments use to disguise the brutal truths of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster.

VeteransToday calls on the world’s nuclear powers to intervene sooner rather than later. It is up to the world’s only remaining Super Power, the United States, to get the Japan Reactor Disaster Intervention meeting officially underway.Three thousand billion (3,000,000,000,000) Lethal Doses of Radiation means there are 429 Lethal Doses chasing each and every one of us on the planet, to put it in a nutshell. This is up from about 70 Billion Lethal Doses March 23, 2011. It is getting worse everyday without any intervention by the US and the other nuclear powers.

The Fukushima Kill
The Fukushima Kill, already underway world wide, will certainly dwarf that of Chernobyl. All US Super Power President Obama’s delay and waiting does is increase the numbers of The Kill. That is a clear Choice. We call on President Obama to re-visit that Choice.

Further, the Genetic and DNA changing aspects of the radioactivity now in the air, spreading worldwide within a year, will spawn a grotesque new assortment of radiation-degraded mutants; both human and of other life forms.

What We Know Now about Fukushima

Many of these creatures in the animal world will not survive long outside the womb, if carried to term. What’s more, future Human Genetic Mutants of ever-lower intelligence and greater, more grotesque physical deformities are the genetic legacy of Humanity forevermore. That is the new starting point for any rational and reality-based national or foreign policy.

Here is what is known more than 75 days after six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor Plant started a disastrous and lethal nuclear meltdown on March 11, 2011.

- March 11, 14:46, a One Million Kiloton Earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter Scale hammered Japan off-shore near the six Japanese reactors. The reactors attempted to shut down automatically when electronic sensors detected the earthquake. The huge earthquake dropped the reactors three feet, moved Japan 8 inches to the West and altered the tilt of the Axis of planet Earth.

- March 11, about 15:30, the giant Earthquake caused a tsunami up to 30 meters (98.4 Ft) high washed away all the fuel tanks for the reactors Emergency Generators and all the reactors’ outside electrical feeds. This was the Death Blow to the reactors.

The six Fukushima Daiichi reactors were dead in the water and their fate sealed. Without an external source of electricity for the water pumps and hot reactors, they are just so much radioactive scrap iron – good for nothing. The internal temperature of the reactors started climbing immediately.

- March 11, about 18:00, only two and a half hours later, multiple reactor cores started melting down as the reactors internal temperatures skyrocketed to the melting point of uranium and beyond – a measured 1,718 Deg C (3,124.4 Deg F) past the melting point.

Uranium melts at 1,132.2 Deg C (2,069.9 Deg F.) The internal reactor temperatures reached at least 2,850 Deg C, (5,162 Deg F.) The millions of 1 mm Uranium fuel pellets in the reactors and in the core pools had no defense at all without the powerful water pumps and billions of gallons of cooling water against those temperatures.

The Uranium pellets simply melted forming a white hot lava-like radioactive uranium isotope blob that was and probably still is super heated by the power of the uranium atom itself. The highly radioactive blob then burned through the graphite seals of the General Electric Mark 1 Reactor Control Rods at the bottom of the American submarine based reactor design of US Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover, now deceased.

General Electric copied the US Government financed Navy nuclear reactor design for many commercial nuclear reactors. The Radioactive Blobs trickled out of hundreds of control rod holes instead of melting together to form a single giant, highly radioactive, burning lava blob like that of Chernobyl.

The Solution, Then and Now, has Changed

World famous theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku caught the world’s attention on a March 18, 2011 CNN broadcast when he suggested the Prime Minister of Japan immediately choose the “Chernobyl Option” for the Fukushima Daiichi General Electric reactors.

Kaku said the Japanese PM should order the Japanese Air Self Defense Force to bomb the reactors into submission with boron, sand, water and concrete like the Red Army did to kill the out-of-control Chernobyl reactor on orders of USSR President Gorbachev. Boron absorbs neutrons, the radioactive heart of the reactors.

The time for Dr. Kaku’s “Chernobyl Option” has passed. Multiple explosions destroyed the reactors and the swimming pools holding old reactor cores weeks ago. Hundreds to thousands of tons of burning highly radioactive reactor cores are scattered all over the Fukushima Daiichi site. The reactors are releasing as much as a Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) measured 10 Quintillion (10,000 Trillion Bq) radioactive counts per second of deadly radioactive smoke particles into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The invisible, killing Radioactive Smoke is already all over the Northern Hemisphere and everyone in it – each and every one – is radiologically contaminated. The scope of Dr. Kaku’s once brilliant former solution is unfortunately, now too small and ineffective.

Generally speaking, most Radiation cannot escape into the atmosphere if it is covered by water. Honshu, Japan is an island and the Pacific Ocean is conveniently located nearby.

Specially equipped submarines can then pick up the pieces of reactor cores from under water. The surface of the ocean blocks the escape of radiation. The submarines must work fast to limit killing more of the Earth’s Oceans.Subsidence charges from multiple nuclear weapons buried by drilling rigs 500 ft (152.4 meters) below and inland of the string of six reactors must be engineered to slide the reactors into the sea. This method works best if there is igneous or volcanic rock behind the subsidence charges, to “bounce” the blast and pressure wave from and “push” the trashed reactors area of the beachfront into the sea.

Veterans Today calls on President Obama to authorize the disposal of the six reactors at sea and the collection of the deadly radioactive metals with submarines. We conclude there are no other options left.

The “Do Nothing Option”

The “Do Nothing Option” allows the deaths and maiming of many millions of people to rapidly proceed. Doing nothing, by default, allows the Fukushima Kill to ruthlessly continue unabated. Doing nothing is also not acceptable from a practical standpoint; because, Japan does not own the nuclear weapons to use themselves.

Nuke the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi right into the sea, Mr. President.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/05/19/gmo-study-omg-you%e2%80%99re-eating-insecticide/
16 - GMO Study: OMG, You’re Eating Insecticide…
By Matt Spaeth on May 19, 2011

Most Americans remain blissfully unaware (or don’t care) they are eating genetically-modified (GM) organisms every day. Passivity and blind faith in the USDA, FDA and EPA have largely contributed to this attitude. Perhaps that will change now that a new study reveals an insecticide produced in GM corn actually gets absorbed into the human body.

If you haven’t been paying attention to your food lately, biotechnology giants such as Monsanto thank you for that. Because behind your back, they’ve succeeded in replacing 86% of US corn with their patented insecticide-producing “frankencorn”.

The industry name for this is “Bt corn” and the insecticide is actually produced inside the plant, so it is impossible to wash it off. This is accomplished by inserting genes from the bacteria Bacillus Thuringiensis into the corn.

Up until now, scientists and multinational corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont have spent billions in lobbying, campaign donations and “testing” in an attempt to convince world governments that GMOs are safe. In the case of Bt corn, they stated the insecticide produced within the corn posed no danger to human health because it was broken down in the digestive system.

Despite corporate assurances, many have been skeptical. Non-GMO advocates such as Jeffrey Smith from The Institute For Responsible Technology and the Organic Consumers Association have long been concerned about the potential impact this Bt toxin could have on human health.

Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, proved the validity of these concerns when they detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of both pregnant and non-pregnant women. They also detected the toxin in fetal blood, suggesting that the toxin can be passed on to the fetus. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology.

Neither the women studied or their spouses worked in agriculture. All reported to be consuming a typical Canadian diet that is virtually identical to the American diet.

“Generated data will help regulatory agencies responsible for the protection of human health to make better decisions”, said researchers Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc.

Unfortunately, I don’t feel that our pro-GMO Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack will pay attention to this research. I also doubt that our Deputy Commissioner of Foods Michael Taylor, who also happens to be Monsanto’s former vice-president, will pay this study much attention either. It doesn’t stop there. The revolving door is growing exponentially and the foxes have taken up residence in the hen house.

Are you pissed? You should be. We’ve let corporate interests turn us into poison-fed lab rats. It doesn’t end at corn either. 93% of both soy and canola are also genetically-modified. On top of that, Monsanto has acres of laboratories containing new mutant species awaiting to slip into your pantry. You’re probably wearing some of their Bt cotton right now. It comprises 93% of US cotton and 68% of Chinese cotton.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the uproar around Bt brinjal, a GM variety of eggplant, in India. When it was approved in 2009, a country-wide protest began and the Indian government applied a moratorium on its release.

Meanwhile, here in the US, GMO crops are getting approved left and right and most Americans still don’t even know what “GMO” even means.

Want to do something about it? We can’t rely on our regulatory agencies to do it for us and we possess more power than we think. It won’t take much to reach the tipping point of consumer rejection and get these “frankenfoods” out of our lives. Information spreads like wildfire these days withFacebook, Twitter and email. Tell your family and friends and vote with your dollar, the world’s food supply depends on it! Now that you know, it’s your responsibility to pass it on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 - Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display

By MANSUR MIROVALEV, Associated Press

Tue May 24, 1:15 am ET
MOSCOW – For the first time ever, ordinary Russians can now see documents that appear to confirm long-standing rumors that Vladimir Lenin had Jewish heritage.

In a country long plagued by anti-Semitism, such heritage can be a significant taint, especially for the founder of the Soviet Union who is still revered by many elderly Russians.

Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State History Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna Ulyanova, saying that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew who converted to Christianity to escape the Pale of Settlement and gain access to higher education.

"He came from a poor Jewish family and was, according to his baptismal certificate, the son of Moses Blank, a native of (the western Ukrainian city of) Zhitomir," Ulyanova wrote in a 1932 letter to Josef Stalin, who succeeded Lenin after his death in 1924.

"Vladimir Ilych had always thought of Jews highly," she wrote. "I am very sorry that the fact of our origin — which I had suspected before — was not known during his lifetime."

Under czarist rule, most Jews were allowed permanent residence only in a restricted area that became known as the Pale of Settlement which included much of present-day Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Moldova, Ukraine and parts of western Russia.

Many Jews joined the Bolsheviks to fight rampant anti-Semitism in czarist Russia and some were among the leaders of the Communist Party when it took power after the 1917 Revolution. Most prominent among them was Leon Trotsky, whose real name was Bronstein.

But Lenin, who was born Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov in 1870, identified himself only as Russian. He took Lenin as his nom de guerre in 1901 while in Siberian exile near the Lena River.

A brief period of promotion of Jewish culture that began under Lenin ended in the early 1930s when Stalin orchestrated anti-Semitic purges among Communists and hatched a plan to relocate all Soviet Jews to a region on the Chinese border.

Ulyanova asked Stalin to make Lenin's Jewish heritage known to counter the rise of anti-Semitism. "I hear that in recent years anti-Semitism has been growing stronger again, even among Communists," she wrote. "It would be wrong to hide the fact from the masses."

Stalin ignored the plea and ordered her to "keep absolute silence" about her letter, according to the exhibition's curator, Tatyana Koloskova.

Lenin's official biography, written by his niece Olga Ulyanova, said his family had only Russian, German and Swedish roots.

The letter from Lenin's sister became available to Russian historians in the early 1990s, but its authenticity was fiercely disputed. It was chosen for inclusion in the exhibit by Koloskova, who as director of the State History Museum's branch dedicated to Lenin is one of the most authoritative scholars on his life.

The exhibition in the museum on Red Square, near the mausoleum where Lenin's body still lies, also discloses that he was in such misery after suffering a stroke in 1922 that he asked Stalin to bring him poison.

"He did not incidentally pick Stalin to fulfill this request," Lenin's youngest sister, Maria Ulyanova, wrote in a 1922 diary entry. "He knew Comrade Stalin as a steadfast Bolshevik, straight and devoid of any sentimentality. Who else would dare to end Lenin's life?"

Initially, Stalin promised to help Lenin, but other Politburo members decided to turn down his request, the letter says. Trotsky, whom Stalin forced out of the Soviet Union, claimed in his memoirs that Stalin had poisoned Lenin.

The 111 documents on display, many of them only recently declassified and all of them open to the public for the first time, give surprising insights into top figures of the Soviet Union. Men usually portrayed as stern and fearless are seen as sometimes whimsical, frightened and even despairing.

One of the documents contains a desperate plea that Stalin received in 1934 from an arrested Communist leader, Lev Kamenev, whose real name was Rosenfeld.

"At a time when my soul is filled with nothing but love for the party and its leadership, when, having lived through hesitations and doubts, I can boldly say that I learned to highly trust the Central Committee's every step and every decision you, Comrade Stalin, make," Kamenev wrote. "I have been arrested for my ties to people that are strange and disgusting to me."

Stalin ignored this letter, too, and Kamenev was executed in 1936.

A slightly more humorous — but no less macabre — aspect of the exhibition is caricatures drawn by Politburo members.

Nikolai Bukharin, a leading Communist ideologue, depicts Stalin with a giant, exaggerated nose and his trademark pipe. His portrayal of other Communists is also unflattering — one is shown as a White Army officer. The anti-Communist White Army, which was backed by Western powers, unsuccessfully fought Lenin's Red Army in a civil war from 1917-23.

Prominent economist Valery Mezhlauk ridicules Trotsky as a Wandering Jew and depicts a finance minister hanging in an awkward position. In a handwritten note under the latter caricature, Stalin recommends that the minister be hanged by his testicles.

The minister and both cartoonists were arrested and executed in 1938.

The exhibition, which opened last week, runs through July 3.

The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Early Soviet Regime
Mark Weber
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

Jews played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years .. .. With the notable exception of Lenin, most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews .. .. The US ambassador in Russia warned in a dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

Allied Diplomats Wanted Pius XII to Stay Silent About Nazi Deportations
Catholic Herald (Britain)
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/20/allied-diplomats-urged-pius-xii-to-stay-silent-about-nazi-deportations/

US and British diplomats discussed exerting pressure on Pope Pius XII to be silent about the Nazi deportations of Hungarian Jews, according to newly discovered documentation. The British feared that the wartime pope might make a "radio appeal on behalf of the Jews in Hungary" and that in the course of his broadcast would "also criticise what the Russians are doing in occupied territory". Sir Francis D'Arcy Osborne, the British ambassador to the Vatican, told an American diplomat that "something should be done to prevail upon the pope not to do this as it will have very serious political repercussions".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 - Elie Wiesel and the Catholics

by David O'Connell

Elie Wiesel is widely admired by many of the Catholics who wield power in the diocesan chanceries and the administrations of the nation’s Catholic schools and universities. He has received honorary degrees from a number of Catholic institutions, including Georgetown, Notre Dame, Fordham and Marquette. He is also fawned over by assorted Catholic intellectuals. He is accorded this treatment despite the fact that he plays a prominent role in exploiting the abusive relationship that exists between the representatives of the major Jewish Organizations and those Catholics who “dialogue” with them. In the 40 years since Vatican II, this alleged “dialogue,” well intentioned at the beginning, has actually turned out to be a monologue in which the Jewish side ritually denounces Catholics and Catholicism while the Catholic representatives nod in approval. No serious criticism is ever made of Jews or Zionism. The dialogue, for instance, is strangely “silent” about the unrelenting Israeli war against the Christians of Palestine. In 1948, 18-20 percent of Palestinians were Christian. That figure is down to about 2 percent today. The Christian population of Bethlehem, once 95 percent, has dwindled to about 15 percent. Even worse, the “separation fence” now under construction cuts through many places that are holy to all Christians.

The role that Wiesel has assumed in the abusive relationship is to exploit his privileged access to the media to attack high value Catholic targets. In 1979, he attacked the Pope for not mentioning the word “Jew” while visiting the Auschwitz victims’ monument, which also omitted the word. He also attacked the Pontiff for not mentioning the word “Israel” on his visit to the U. N. When the Pope invited him to come to Rome for a personal visit, Wiesel turned him down. Then, in 2000, he rebuked the Pontiff because his apology to Jews for past persecutions was not good enough.

His attacks against Cardinal O’Connor of New York, an honest, sincere and terribly naïve man, began in the 1980s. When O’Connor visited Jerusalem in 1987, he broke down in tears over Jewish suffering during World War II. Upset, he stated that this was a “gift.” What he meant was that, in Catholic terms, it was a possible occasion of grace, as is all suffering. Wiesel and other New York Jewish figures ripped him in the media for his supposed bigotry and insensitivity. He and Wiesel then became “friends” when Wiesel came to visit him.1 Wiesel then convinced O’Connor to do an “interview” book with him. It was called Journey of Faith (1991), and in it the Cardinal was on the defensive from cover to cover. In 1997, he talked O’Connor into helping him dedicate the Jewish Holocaust Museum in New York City. While there, the Cardinal took it upon himself to “apologize” for all Catholics who had contributed to past Jewish suffering.2 Then, on September 8, 1999, very sick and not far from death’s door, he wrote Wiesel a personal letter in which he made the same kind of “apology.” Wiesel then paid $99,000 to turn the cardinal’s private missive into a full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times on September 19. Strongly implied in each of O’Connor’s gestures was the idea that Jewish suffering of World War II replicates the sufferings of Christ in the 20th century, an idea that a faithful Catholic simply cannot accept.3

Wiesel’s relationship with Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris followed the same pattern in the 1990s. First he attacked Lustiger because he had converted to Catholicism as a boy, then he achieved reconciliation and finally “friendship” with him.

Wiesel also delights in desecrating what is for many Catholics the beloved memory of Pope Pius XII, routinely trashing him for his supposed “silence” during World War II. No other Jewish media voice even comes close to Wiesel in terms of the frequency and the vitriol of his insults to the Catholic memory of that Pope. Wiesel has been claiming for the past 35 years that Christianity died at Auschwitz. As early as 1971, he stated: “The sincere Christian knows that what died in Auschwitz was not the Jewish people but Christianity.”4 Yet, the Catholic press, intellectuals and hierarchy treat Wiesel with reverence! To Wiesel (as well as to our disproportionately Jewish mediarchy), Jewish suffering during World War II has replaced the sufferings of Christ as the functioning paradigm of the post-Christian era. It is the media’s benchmark, the sacred “burnt offering” of the secularists. As Rabbi Jacob Neusner has pointed out, “the Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption” has become the civil religion of America.5 Hardly a day goes by without the Judeo-corporate media producing an article, report, TV show or movie of some kind on the subject of the Holocaust and the dubious “lessons” we are supposed to draw from it. Media propaganda, both against Catholicism and in favor of the “specificity,” or superiority of Jewish suffering, never stops.

Over the course of his career, Wiesel has told many tall tales about his alleged experiences during World War II. They can be called “true lies,” since they are meant to edify and are told with supposedly good intentions, even though they are not true. In the following pages, I shall examine closely one of these “true lies.” It has to do with his internment at Buchenwald. As I tell the story, it will become apparent to readers that I avoid using the word “Holocaust.”6 Since that term is has become a media code word that is all too often used as a justification for the Jewish war crimes and crimes against humanity that are routinely committed in occupied Palestine, it is tainted. It is also associated with the scams and manipulations of various Jewish holocaust profiteers, of whom Wiesel himself is probably the most flagrant example. It also serves the purposes of the pro-Israel Judeo-corporate power structure, since it justifies foreign adventures to “prevent another Holocaust.”7 I refer instead to the Jewish Ordeal of World War II (JOW) to describe the Nazi persecution of innocent Jews.

Wiesel’s Credibility

But who is Elie Wiesel, and how is he related to the JOW? One Jewish commentator, Pierre Vidal Naquet, whose father died at Auschwitz, wrote of Wiesel: “For example, you have Rabbi Kahane, the Jewish extremist, who is less dangerous than a man like Elie Wiesel, who says anything that comes to mind. . . You just have to read parts of Night to know that certain of his descriptions are not exact and that he is essentially a Shoah merchant. . . who has done harm, enormous harm, to historical truth.”8 Another Jewish voice made the following comments on Wiesel’s self-righteous autobiography: “Elie Wiesel’s memoir is written by a man whose inner postures have gone so long unreviewed he cannot persuade us he is on a voyage of self-discovery, the first requirement of a testament. His book, I am sorry to say, gives being witness a bad name.”9 Christopher Hitchens, taking issue with Wiesel for his silence about Jewish war crimes in Palestine, wondered out loud: “Is there any more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel? I suppose there may be. But not, surely, a poseur and windbag who receives (and takes as his due) such grotesque deference on moral questions.”10

From November 1947 to January 1949, Wiesel worked for Zion in Kampf, the newspaper of the terrorist gangsters of the Irgun. The Irgun extermination of innocent Arabs at the village of Deir Yassin took place on April 8, 1948, while Wiesel was on the payroll, yet he is always appalled by Palestinian “terrorism.” Likewise, while he was actively campaigning for a Nobel Prize in the 1980’s, he made a trip to South Africa. Of course, the New York Times was there with him and recorded his ritual denunciation of apartheid. Yet Wiesel now strongly favors the apartheid wall being built in occupied Palestine even though it will impose additional inhuman hardships on the Palestinians. Even worse, he has attacked Pope John Paul II for proposing that what the Middle East needs is bridges, not walls, writing: “From the leader of one of the largest and most important religions in the world, I expected something very different, namely a statement condemning terror and the killing of innocents, without mixing in political considerations and above all comparing these things to a work of pure self-defense. To politicize terrorism like that is wrong.”11 Ironically, the same Wiesel who accuses Pius XII of “silence” now wants Jean Paul II to be “silent” about Jewish war crimes in Palestine.

Wiesel and François Mauriac

Wiesel’s claim to fame is his problematic “autobiography,” Night, which is actually a novel, since it contains a good deal of invented material. It was first published in French in 1958, and was based on a much longer Yiddish version, which he had published under the title And the World Forgot (Und Di Velt hat Geshveyn) in Buenos Aires in December 1955. At a reception held at the Israeli embassy in May 1955, which Wiesel attended as a reporter for an Israeli newspaper, he approached the well-known Catholic novelist, newspaper chronicler, man of letters, and 1952 Nobel Prize winner, François Mauriac (1885-1970), and asked if he would consent to be interviewed.

Mauriac was a French right-wing nationalist by birth and upbringing. In his family in the early days of the 20th century, they referred to the bedroom’s chamber pot as “le zola,” since the Mauriacs were convinced, like many French people, that Dreyfus had been guilty despite the media campaign in is favor. But he changed political stripes in the mid-1930s, becoming a strong supporter of world Jewry. He continued this support through the war years and after, when he favored the creation of Israel. Then, in 1951, he was the first Catholic to accuse Pope Pius XII of “silence” during the war years. Amazingly, just two years later, when his career seemed dead, for he had not published a major piece if fiction since 1940, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature—for his novels! The Parisian literati were stunned! How could this be, they wondered, especially at the height of the “existentialist” craze? One question they did not dare ask was the possible role of the Jewish lobby, so powerful with the Nobel Committee, in this decision. Was the Nobel Prize a payback for his support of Jewry through the years of World War II, as well as for waving an accusatory finger at Pius XII, who was still very much alive? I have not yet been unable to resolve this question.

In any case, Mauriac invited Wiesel to his home. They talked about the war years and the concentration camps. In fact, it seems clear in retrospect that this was the only subject Wiesel wanted to talk about. The two men became friends, and Mauriac told Wiesel he would help him find a publisher for his book. But his book was not only written in Yiddish, it was also several times longer than what would eventually become La Nuit. How did the transformation take place? Did Wiesel rewrite it, as he has always claimed, or did he get help from Mauriac? The answer to this question could probably be found in their voluminous correspondence, but Wiesel is in possession of both the letters received from Mauriac and the ones he wrote to his friend and benefactor. Wiesel sits on this correspondence and refuses to publish the letters, despite the entreaties of his rather naive liberal Catholic admirers.12

La Nuit became Night when it appeared in New York in 1960. With the backing of the ADL, it became mandatory reading in high schools shortly thereafter and has sold millions of copies since then. It contradicts Jewish holocaust dogma on many key points, and in fact is guilty of “holocaust denial” in this respect. Nevertheless, it remains the only “holocaust memoir” with any redeeming literary qualities (which brings us back once again to the question of who actually wrote the final draft of the book). In the meantime, Wiesel moved to New York, where he continued to work as a correspondent for an Israeli newspaper. Shortly after his arrival, he was struck by a car near Times Square. Given to exaggeration by nature, he later claimed: “I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and the ambulance picked me up at 44th. It sounds crazy. But I was totally messed up.”13 Then, after the success of Night, he was awarded a tenured teaching position at a public institution, Hunter College. Despite his claims over the years about having studied philosophy and psychology at the Sorbonne and doing a two year internship at the Hôpital Sainte-Anne in clinical psychology, he actually never enrolled for any credit-bearing course at the Sorbonne, or any other branch of the University of Paris. Even worse, there is no evidence that he ever earned a French secondary school diploma. Yet, he now earns a huge six-figure salary as a year as a Mellon Professor of Literature at Boston University, a position that theoretically requires a Ph.D.

During the years from 1960 to 1967 the two men kept up a regular correspondence. After the conquest of Palestine in 1967, Mauriac voiced concern in his Bloc-Notes column in Le Figaro that the Israelis were now behaving more and more like Nazis. During the war, Mauriac had been obliged to give shelter to several German soldiers in his home for over four years, and he knew what occupation did to both occupier and occupied. The two men quarreled, and there were harsh words committed to paper. Wiesel would prefer nowadays not to revive this issue, for he probably wrote some things he is now ashamed of. Yet, for years he proclaimed he was going to some day publish the letters.14 But I believe there might be a much more important reason for the suppression of the correspondence, for it could possibly reveal Mauriac’s active role in the redaction of La Nuit. After all, as Naomi Seidman has pointed out, La Nuit differs dramatically from the Yiddish original in length, tone, basic themes and meaning. She rightfully attributes this difference to Mauriac’s “influence.”15 But how do we define “influence?” While the Yiddish original appears to be hated-filled, dripping with a Jewish desire for vengeance against goyim, the latter is more oblique and restrained. In a word, it is a work of literature and, as such, implies the presence of a mature literary hand, like Mauriac’s. Conversely, when one compares La Nuit to the many novels that Wiesel has written since then, the absence of a mature literary hand, like Mauriac’s, is obvious. In France, La Nuit is mandatory reading in state-sponsored indoctrination classes, but none of his other novels are read in schools or taken seriously by critics. The same situation prevails in this country. In a word, La Nuit is totally different from anything else that Wiesel has written, and it is fair to ask if in fact Mauriac’s influence went beyond the level of mere suggestion and advice.

Wiesel at Auschwitz and Buchenwald

Wiesel, along with his parents and three sisters was deported from Sighet, Hungary, to Auschwitz in May 1944. Born in September 1928, he was fifteen and a half years old. The Germans needed labor for their factories, since Nazi ideology forbade German women from engaging in such work. Women stayed home in Nazi Germany, a policy that made sense to the Nazi racists who ruled the country but left the Germans short of blue-collar labor. Wiesel’s mother and a sister died at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944, probably in the horrible typhus epidemic that raged in the women’s camp. Their death certificates are in the files at Auschwitz, but on a research trip there I was not allowed to see them. The two other sisters survived the epidemic, and lived to advanced age. Wiesel was sent to the men’s camp with his father. In late 1944, when Wiesel injured his foot in an industrial accident, he was operated on at the camp hospital. According to the vulgate version of the Jewish holocaust story, he should have been disposed of in a gas chamber since he was not only a child but was also disabled. Yet nothing of the sort happened. While in the hospital, he befriended the hospital personnel and, as the Russians approached in January 1945, was offered the opportunity by the Jewish staff physicians to stay on and not be evacuated with the retreating Germans. Yet, Wiesel preferred to go off with the Germans who, according to the Jewish holocaust story, were allegedly sending 20,000 people a day to the gas chambers. This decision raises a number of very serious questions. Not only that, he also insisted on dragging his sickly father along with him, which was the equivalent of writing the man’s death certificate. The latter, physically weak even before the horrible trauma of the camps, died of dysentery shortly after arriving in Buchenwald in the dead of winter. Repatriated to France in late April at the age of sixteen and a half, Wiesel was reunited there with the two sisters who had survived the typhus epidemic.

On July 4, 2004, Parade magazine featured an article by Wiesel. It included what is probably the most famous propaganda picture from World War II. In it, a circle is drawn around the face of a man who is supposedly Wiesel. The picture was taken by Private H. Miller of the Civil Affairs Branch of the U. S. Army Signal Corps at Buchenwald concentration camp on April 16, 1945, five days after the American arrival there on April 11. It was not taken on the spur of the moment on April 11, but was one of a larger group of about a dozen photos in which professional montage and mise en scène techniques were used.16 The shot was then released to the media to be used for the usual propaganda purposes: project an image of the Germans as war criminals while distracting the American public from the horrible war crimes then being committed by Allied forces. The fact that the picture is still being exploited almost 60 years after it was taken shows how successful and adaptable it has proved to be.

The last two pages of Night recount the events associated with the flight of the Germans and the arrival of the Americans at Buchenwald. Wiesel writes in Night that “three days after the liberation of Buchenwald, I became very ill with food poisoning. I was transferred to the hospital and spent two weeks between life and death.” Thus, Wiesel’s first claim about his mysterious illness is that it occurred “three days after the liberation of Buchenwald,” that is, on April 14. He was immediately hospitalized, and “spent two weeks between life and death.” According to this scenario, he would have been in the hospital from April 14 to April 28. Since the picture was taken on April 16, he could not have been in it.

Wiesel later changed this basic story a number of times. Here is the second version of events, which he invented many years later. “After the liberation I became sick and it’s strange how it happened. I hinted at it in Night but it’s not the full story. April 11, 1945, when the Americans came, we were some 20,000 left in Buchenwald out of some 60,000 or 80,000, and we hadn’t had food for a week or so. Suddenly the Americans came and brought their food but they really didn’t know what they were doing; they gave fats. 5,000 people died immediately from food poisoning. . . and my body rebelled; I lost consciousness immediately and was sick for ten days or so—unconscious, in a coma—blood poisoning or something.” In this second version, Wiesel says that he ate the food “an hour or two after the liberation,”17 which contradicts his original claim in Night that he only got sick three days after liberation. Also, in this new version he is sick, unconscious and in a coma for ten days, or from April 11 until about April 21. Here, once again, he could not have been in a picture that was taken on April 16. As for Wiesel’s claim of 5,000 deaths from food poisoning, it is pure hysteria, and is not supported by the historical record.

Wiesel, Mendacity and the New York Times

The Buchenwald picture first appeared in the New York Times on May 6, 1945, several weeks after it was taken. The caption read: “Crowded Bunks in the Prison Camp at Buchenwald.” The caption does not date the photo, but it does imply that the picture was taken when the prisoners were being liberated on April 11. The media has always implied this date, but that is the basic lie on which everything else is based. Also, the New York Times does not identify any of the men in the picture, which did not so much portray the chaotic reality of Buchenwald on April 11, but rather the Holywoodized version of it that had been carefully crafted by the Signal Corps. The photo appeared in conjunction with an article by correspondent Harold Denny, in which he communicated the official U. S. Government propaganda line. Entitled “The World Must Not Forget: What was done in the German prison camps emphasizes the problem of what to do with a people who are morally sick,”18 his piece was a distraction from what the Allies were doing to innocent German civilians. As he wrote, Germany was a smoldering ruin as a result of Allied carpet bombardment of civilians, Dresden and Hamburg had been bombed to a pulp, the dams on the Rhine had been destroyed drowning untold numbers of innocents and destroying their homes, countless German civilians whose families had lived in East Prussia and Poland for generations were being forcefully evicted by the advancing Soviets, the five million Volga Germans who had been settled in Russia since the 18th century had been deported to Siberia during the war where most of them would perish, the valiant men of the Red Army were in the process of raping millions of German women as they advanced through Germany, and, most dreadful, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were on the drawing board. For the NYT, however, it was the Germans who were “morally sick.” But the Allies had saved “civilization.”

The third version of Wiesel’s liberation from Buchenwald is linked to this photo. In 1983, almost 40 years after the picture was taken, the NYT published it with the caption: “On April 11, 1945, American troops liberated the concentration camp’s survivors, including Elie, who later identified himself as the man circled in the photo.” It is important to note here that Wiesel had never claimed to be in this famous picture before 1983. Why had he never told anyone about this before 1983? And why did the NYT suddenly want to associate Wiesel with this picture, especially since the individual circled in it was a young man, and clearly not a boy of 16? Furthermore this man does not resemble in any way what Wiesel actually looked like at this age! Obviously, no checking was done by the paper to see if Wiesel’s claim was true, but the NYT knows that in the matter of the Jewish holocaust story, no one would dare to challenge them. In retrospect, however, it is clear that this bogus claim was a first step in the NYT campaign to secure a Nobel Prize for Wiesel, either for literature or peace.19 The picture was published in the high circulation Sunday NYT Magazine, and included the statement, “His name has been frequently mentioned as a possible recipient of a Nobel Prize, for either peace or literature.”20 Incredibly, after the NYT had manufactured history by declaring erroneously that Wiesel is seen in the picture, they had the nerve a few years later to castigate Buchenwald Museum authorities for not repeating their lie as fact! In 1989, a NYT reporter visiting Buchenwald wrote: “A large photograph in the [Buchenwald] museum shows Mr. Wiesel, among others, on the day of liberation. He is not identified in a caption. And the guide who has shown visitors around Buchenwald for 14 years had never heard of the author, who has written eloquently about that camp.”21 In addition to Wiesel’s earlier claims that he was sick when the picture was taken, another major problem with Wiesel’s alleged image in this picture is that it is quite unlike his appearance in a photo taken shortly before his deportation eleven months earlier. Clearly, he was merely a boy at the time, and his image bears no relationship to that of the man shown in the bunk at Buchenwald.22 This picture, coupled with the fact that he has stated repeatedly over the years that he was sick on April 16, offers double proof that his claim be to shown in the Buchenwald shot is nothing but a Jewish holocaust scam. Tragically, this true lie exploits the tragic sufferings of Wiesel’s relatives and all the other innocent Jews.

As the Nobel campaign went forward, the NYT usually tried to present Wiesel in dramatic terms, even if it meant telling more “true lies.” His image as a JOW survivor needed to be enhanced. Thus, for example, when he made a trip to Berlin in January 1986 to attend a JOW conference, the NYT reporter declared solemnly: “Elie Wiesel returned to Germany this week for the first time since he was released from the Buchenwald concentration camp almost 41 years ago.”23 Unfortunately, this dramatic statement was nonsense, as the NYTshould have known, since Wiesel had begun his career as a New York journalist in December 1962 when he published a hate-filled article appropriately entitled “An Appointment with Hate” in Commentary, the organ of the American Jewish Committee. Its subject was a recent trip he had made to Germany. In it, he wrote: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate—healthy, virile hate—for what the German personifies and for what persists in the Germans. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.” The word “Catholic” can easily be substituted for “German” here.

Likewise, even after the Nobel award was announced on October 14, 1986, the NYT would continue to embroider the facts, always trying to dramatize Wiesel’s life experience. For instance, on November 2, they triumphantly republished a severely cropped version of the Buchenwald photo with the caption: “Elie Wiesel, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (at far right in the top bunk) in the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, when the camp was liberated by American troops.”24 The picture was cropped in such a way that the man who is supposed to be Wiesel remains barely visible. The NYT also suggests the picture was taken on April 11, 1945 without, of course, actually saying so. Then, in January 1987, they erroneously claimed that Wiesel had been “freed from Auschwitz” during the war.25 A year later, when he made a trip to Auschwitz, the NYT wrote: “Mr. Wiesel was a prisoner at Auschwitz and witnessed the killing there of his father and one of his sisters.”26 Of course, Wiesel’s father died in Buchenwald, and the tragic details of his sister’s death are contained in the unavailable (to me at least) Auschwitz camp records. But the word “Auschwitz” is one of the three Jewish holocaust terms that have been sloganized in the pages of the NYT, along with “six million” and “gas chambers,” while “Buchenwald” is not.

In 1987, a year after cashing his $270,000 Nobel check, Wiesel appeared at the Klaus Barbie trial in Lyons, France. Here, once again, the Buchenwald photo was put to use by the media, although it is not clear to what extent Wiesel was involved in this particular Jewish holocaust fraud. On June 3, 1987, the Chicago Tribune published an AP photo containing a cropped version of the men in the bunks at Buchenwald. What was completely new in this fourth tall tale about his liberation was that Wiesel, accompanied by two other people, one of whom might have been French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, was shown standing in front of a blown-up version of the picture and pointing to himself in it. The caption read: “Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel points to a picture of himself, taken by a German at the Auschwitz death camp in 1945. The photograph is part of the Holocaust Memorial in Lyon, France.”

This caption is totally mendacious, and the only problem with this particular scam is determining Wiesel’s role in it. However, when we recall words he wrote early in his career and has repeated many time since then, we have a possible key. “Some events do take place but are not true; others are true although they never occurred.”27 Telling a “true lie” with good intentions is simply not a problem for Wiesel. Also, since the Barbie trial focused on deportations to Auschwitz, not Buchenwald, the former was in the news every day during the summer of 1987, while hardly a word was being said about the latter. Thus, Wiesel, never shy about generating publicity for himself, might well have felt that a “true lie” was called for here.

In 1995, Wiesel offered a fifth version of his liberation experience in an interview published in the German weekly Die Zeit. It contained two new pieces of information. The first was the claim that the picture had actually been taken the day after the liberation, that is, on April 12, 1945, not on April 11th, as the media had always implied. This new date not only contradicts the date of April 16 given by the U.S. Army, but it also made it impossible for him to be in it if we believed his second claim that he had been put in the hospital for ten days immediately upon eating American food on April 11th. The second new assertion to emerge from this interview was that the picture was taken in the children’s barracks, orKinderblock at Buchenwald, where Wiesel was lodged. The following statement to this effect appears twice in the article, once in the text and once again as the caption to the picture (in which the person alleged to be Wiesel is circled as it had been in the NYT in 1983): “On the day after the liberation the picture was taken in the Children’s Block at Buchenwald by an American soldier. It shows old men. But these old faces are the faces of men who, in truth, were 15 or 16 years of age like I was.”28 Since 1945, when the NYT first made propaganda use of this picture, no one has ever claimed that it depicts children. Yet, Wiesel actually expects us to believe that these men, some of whom are heavily bearded or partially bald, were mere boys. Finally, when Wiesel states that the picture was taken “by an American soldier,” he gives the impression that it was a spur-of-the-moment event and not one that was carefully orchestrated for propaganda purposes.

A sixth version of events at the liberation of Buchenwald was concocted by Wiesel in 1989 when a black filmmaker and a Jewish producer were trying to create a new myth, namely, that a black unit, the 761st Tank Battalion, had actually liberated the Jews at Buchenwald. Their intention was to increase black and Jewish mutual “understanding” in Brooklyn through a movie to be shown on PBS called Liberators. For the benefit of the NYT, which gave serious coverage to this far-fetched story, Wiesel conjured up a brand new memory that he had never mentioned before: “I will always remember with love a big black soldier. He was crying like a child—tears of all the pain in the world and all the rage. Everyone who was there that day will forever feel a sentiment of gratitude to the American soldiers who liberated us.”29 He made this statement despite the fact that there were no blacks present at the liberation of Buchenwald on April 11, 1945, and the black unit in question was over 50 miles away on that date. After a gala preview screening of the movie in Harlem, it was gradually revealed that the film’s thesis was a hoax. Thus, it was never released. Jeffrey Goldberg, among others, denounced this media fabrication that the NYT had so strongly supported.30 Yet, Wiesel repeated this true lie in his autobiography: “I will never forget the American soldiers and the horror that could be read in their faces. I will especially remember one black sergeant, a muscled giant, who wept tears of impotent rage and shame, shame for the human species, when he saw us. He spewed curses that on his lips became holy words. We tried to lift him onto our shoulders to show our gratitude, but we didn’t have the strength. We were too weak to even applaud him.”31 In Wiesel’s patronizing and essentially racist view of the world, blacks are portrayed as physically strong but inarticulate. They can only spit out obscenities. Amazingly, even though the story was known to be false, he later incorporated it into his lecture routine, as needed.32

Conclusion

Elie Wiesel, so admired by many U. S. Catholic leaders, is in fact a con man who has enriched himself with his tall tales. Although courted by various misguided Church representatives, he is actually an outspoken enemy of traditional Catholicism, and should play no role whatsoever in Catholic life in this country. It is also evident that both Wiesel and the NYT are comfortable using true lies to promote the Jewish holocaust story and, in turn, Israel. Even worse, it is appalling that Wiesel, in his drive to become a multi-millionaire (he charges a standard fee of $25,000 per appearance and demands a chauffeur-driven car to go with it), and media personality, has so heartlessly exploited the suffering and death of his parents and sister at the hands of the Nazis. In falsifying his “memories” for personal gain, Wiesel has trivialized the personal tragedies of not only his closest family members, but also of all those, Jews and Gentiles, who died in the camps. The old shame of the JOW was, and is, the documented deaths of all too many innocent Jews during the war. The new shame of the JOW is the ongoing media exploitation of those deaths by people like Wiesel and the editors of the New York Times.

David O'Connell is a professor of French at Georgia State University in Atlanta.

Notes
1. Ari L. Goldman, “For Cardinal, Wiesel Visit Proved a Calm in Storm Over Trip,” NYT, February 15, 1987, I, 67.
2. Brian Caulfield, “Holocaust Memorial: Cardinal Asks Forgiveness for Christians Who Turned Their Backs on Jews,” Catholic New York, September 18, 1997, 14-15.
3. Brian Caulfield, “University Award: Cardinal Honored for Promoting Catholic Jewish Relations,” Catholic New York, November 13, 1997, 12. “Although many Christians were persecuted by the Nazis, the cardinal said, only Jews were killed mainly because of their ethnic background. He stressed that he is ‘passionately committed’ to making the truth about the Holocaust known.’” Of course, this statement is absurd, for Nazi ideology was equally scornful of the Catholic Poles, whose country was supposed to provide living space for the Germans. Furthermore, an archbishop’s primary responsibility is to proclaim Christ, not to tell the Jewish holocaust story.
4. “What is a Jew? Harry Cargas Interviews Elie Wiesel,” U.S Catholic/Jubilee, September 1971, 28.
5. Jacob Neusner, “American Jews Embrace a Religion of Memory,” St. Petersburg Times, April 12, 1999. This is why the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the New York Times and other media outlets were so one-sided and hateful in their attacks on Mel Gibson’s Passion. He was not only reiterating the centrality of Christ’s suffering for the redemption of all mankind, but in doing so he was also undermining our country’s civil religion. It was no accident that various mediarchs repeatedly accused him of “Holocaust denial” for reasserting Christ over “Holocaust.” It should be noted that the capital H in Holocaust underlines the racist assumption that other holocausts, whether they refer to the millions of victims in Ruanda, Armenia, Cambodia, the Stalinist Ukraine (in which Jewish commissars played a major role) or Palestine, are not important.
6. Limitations of space do not permit a description of how Wiesel, with the help of his mentor at the NYT, Abe Rosenthal, created the word in 1968 as a cover for the 1967 conquest and occupation of the rest of Palestine. Catholic victimhood at the hands of the Nazis, well documented at Nuremberg, was declared by Wiesel to be henceforth inoperative. Only Jews could be true victims of the Nazi “holocaust.”
7. Bob Woodard, Plan of Attack, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2004), 320-1. Woodward recounts Wiesel’s visit to the White House in late February 2003, when Bush was still allegedly wavering in his decision to attack Iraq. After hearing Wiesel tell him that Israel’s security was at stake, Bush made the decision easily. Americans must fight to protect Israel. Did Bush know at the time that Wiesel is on the CIA payroll, as he boasts in his autobiography? Wiesel, of course, had previously been a leading supporter of Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1998.
8. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Zero [monthly magazine], avril 1987, 57. “Par exemple, vous avez le rabbin Kahane, cet extrémiste juif, qui est moins dangereux qu’un homme comme Elie Wiesel qui raconte N’IMPORTE QUOI. . . Il suffit de lire certaine description de La Nuit pour savoir que certaines de ses descriptions ne sont pas exactes et qu’il finit par se transformer en marchand de Shoah. . . Eh bien, lui aussi, porte un tort, un tort immense, à la vérité historique.”
9. Vivian Gornick, “The Rhetoric of Witness: All Rivers Run To the Sea: Memoirs by Elie Wiesel,” The Nation, December 25, 1995.
10. Christopher Hitchens, “Wiesel Words,” The Nation, February 19, 2001.
11. Anon. “Wiesel Slams Pope’s Comments,” News24.com, November 17, 2003.
12. Eva Fleischner, “Mauriac’s Preface to Night: Thirty Years Later,’ America, November 19, 1988, 411, 419.
13. Clyda Haberman, “An Unoffical but Very Public Bearer of Pain, Peace and Human Dignity,” NYT, March 5, 1997, C1.
14. Isreal Shenker, “The Concerns of Elie Wiesel: Yesterday and Today,” NYT, February 10, 1970, 48. “The two became close friends, and Mr. Wiesel plans to publish a volume of their dialogue—which have had strongly polemical moments, notably on the subject if Israel.”
15. Naomi Seidman, “The Rage That Elie Wiesel Edited Out of Night,” Jewish Social Studies, December, 1996.
16. Jonathan Heller, War and Conflict: Selected Images from the National Archives, (Washington, D.C., National Archives and Records Administration, 1990), 253.
17. Cargas, Conversations with Elie Wiesel, 88.
18. Harold Denny, “The World Must Not Forget,” NYT, May 6, 1945, 42.
19. After Wiesel received the prize, several Jewish writers denounced him for shamelessly lobbying for it. See, for example: Jacob Weisberg, “Pop Goes Elie Wiesel,” New Republic, November 10, 1986, pp.12-3.
20. See: Samuel G. Freedman, “Bearing Witness: The Life and Work of Elie Wiesel,” NYT, October 23, 1983. The picture appeared on p. 34.
21. Henry Kamm, “No Mention of Jews at Buchenwald,” NYT, March 25, 1989, 8.
22. Elie Wiesel, “Le Jour où Buchenwald a été libéré,” Paris-Match, #28126, du 10 au 16 avril 2003, 116.
23. John Tagliabue, “Elie Wiesel Back in Germany After 41 Years,” NYT, January 23, 1986, A4.
24. Martin Suskind, “A Voice from Bonn: History Cannot be Shrugged Off,” NYT, November 2, 1986, IV, 2. The article points out that the Nobel Committee “chose precisely Elie Wiesel for the award” because they wanted to send a message to the Kohl government in Germany, which had not demonstrated sufficient guilt in 1985 in commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the end of World War II.
25. “A Survivor’s Prize,” NYT, January 4, 1987, XIII, 3.
26. “Wiesel and Walesa Visit Auschwitz,” NYT, January 18, 1988, I, 3.
27. Legends of Our Time, (1968), viii.
28 “Am Tag nach der Befreiung wurde das Bild aus dem Kinderblock von Buchenwald von einem amerikanischen Soldaten aufgenommen. Darauf sind alte Männer zu sehen. Doch diese alten Gesichter sind die Gesichter von Menschen, die in Warheit wie ich um die um die fünfzehn oder sechzehn Jahre alt waren.” Elie Wiesel [aufgezeichnet von Werner A. Perger] “1945 und Heute: Holocaust,” Die Zeit, April 21, 1995, 16.
29. Henry Kamm, “No Mention of Jews at Buchenwald,” NYT, Mar 25, 1989, 8.
30. Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Exaggerators,” New Republic, February 8, 1993, 13-14.
31. All Rivers Run to the Sea, 97.
32. Anon. “Maya Angelou and Elie Wiesel on Love, Hate and Humanity,” Massachusetts, Spring 1995, 4.

AMPHIKTYON -FOREIGN

Τρίτη, 31 Μαΐου 2011

War Is A Racket -By Major General Smedley Butler

KALI YUGA REPORT 110530

Πληροφορίες

Αρχειοθήκη ιστολογίου