Archive | April 12th, 2013

ZIONIST EXPOSED: Syrian Human Rights Front is EU-Funded Fraud


By: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

NYT admits fraudulent Syrian human rights group is UK-based “one-man band” funded by EU and one other “European country.”

Toni Cartalucci (LD),- In reality, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has long ago been exposed as an absurd propaganda front operated by Rami Abdul Rahman out of his house in England’s countryside. According to a December 2011 Reuters article titled, Coventry – an unlikely home to prominent Syria activist,” Abdul Rahman admits he is a member of the so-called “Syrian opposition” and seeks the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad:

After three short spells in prison in Syria for pro-democracy activism, Abdulrahman came to Britain in 2000 fearing a longer, fourth jail term.

“I came to Britain the day Hafez al-Assad died, and I’ll return when Bashar al-Assad goes,” Abdulrahman said, referring to Bashar’s father and predecessor Hafez, also an autocrat.

One could not fathom a more unreliable, compromised, biased source of information, yet for the past two years, his “Observatory” has served as the sole source of information for the endless torrent of propaganda emanating from the Western media. Perhaps worst of all, is that the United Nations uses this compromised, absurdly overt source of propaganda as the basis for its various reports – at least, that is what the New York Times now claims in their recent article, A Very Busy Man Behind the Syrian Civil War’s Casualty Count.”

The NYT piece admits:

Military analysts in Washington follow its body counts of Syrian and rebel soldiers to gauge the course of the war. The United Nations and human rights organizations scour its descriptions of civilian killings for evidence in possible war crimes trials. Major news organizations, including this one, cite its casualty figures.

Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually a one-man band. Its founder, Rami Abdul Rahman, 42, who fled Syria 13 years ago, operates out of a semidetached red-brick house on an ordinary residential street in this drab industrial city [Coventry, England].

The New York Times also for the first time reveals that Abdul Rahman’s operation is indeed funded by the European Union and a “European country” he refuses to identify:

Money from two dress shops covers his minimal needs for reporting on the conflict, along with small subsidies from the European Union and one European country that he declines to identify.

Photo: From Reuters: "Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, leaves the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after meeting Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in central London November 21, 2011. REUTERS/Luke MacGregor" Abdelrahman is not the "head" of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, he is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, run out of his UK-based house as a one-man operation.

Zio-NATO Agent R. Abderahman

Photo: From Reuters: “Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, leaves the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after meeting Britain’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in central London November 21, 2011. REUTERS/Luke MacGregor” Abdelrahman is not the “head” of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, he is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, run out of his UK-based house as a one-man operation.

And while Abdul Rahman refuses to identify that “European country,” it is beyond doubt that it is the United Kingdom itself – as Abdul Rahman has direct access to the Foreign Secretary William Hague, who he has been documented meeting in person on multiple occasions at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. The NYT in fact reveals that it was the British government that first relocated Abdul Rahman to Coventry, England after he fled Syria over a decade ago because of his anti-government activities:

When two associates were arrested in 2000, he fled the country, paying a human trafficker to smuggle him into England. The government resettled him in Coventry, where he decided he liked the slow pace.

Abdul Rahman is not a “human rights activist.” He is a paid propagandist. He is no different than the troupe of unsavory, willful liars and traitors provided refuge in Washington and London during the Iraq war and the West’s more recent debauchery in Libya, for the sole purpose of supplying Western governments with a constant din of propaganda and intentionally falsified intelligence reports designed specifically to justify the West’s hegemonic designs.

Abdul Rahman’s contemporaries include the notorious Iraqi defector Rafid al-Janabi, codename “Curveball,” who now gloats publicly that he invented accusations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the West’s casus belli for a 10 year war that ultimately cost over a million lives, including thousands of Western troops, and has left Iraq still to this day in shambles. There’s also the lesser known Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir of Libya, who formed the foundation of the pro-West human rights racket in Benghazi and now openly brags in retrospect that tales of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s atrocities against the Libyan people were likewise invented to give NATO its sought-after impetus to intervene militarily.

Unlike in Iraq and Libya, the West has failed categorically to sell military intervention in Syria, and even its covert war has begun to unravel as the public becomes increasingly aware that the so-called “pro-democracy rebels” the West has been arming for years are in fact sectarian extremists fighting under the banner of Al Qaeda. The charade that is the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” is also unraveling. It is unlikely that the New York Times’ limited hangout will convince readers that Rami Abdul Rahman is anything other than another “Curveball” helping the corporate-financier elite of Wall Street and London sell another unnecessary war to the public.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Campaigns, Syria, UKComments Off on ZIONIST EXPOSED: Syrian Human Rights Front is EU-Funded Fraud

The Meaning of Hugo Chavez


He was a nationalist, not a commie

The death of Hugo Chavez Frias provoked cries of “Hallelujah!” from pundits on the right. Michael Moynihan, writing in the Daily Beast (the internet incarnation of Newsweek), jeered “Good riddance!” while he danced on the Venezuelan strongman’s grave. All the usual suspects – the War Street Journal, the “conservatives” over atNational Review, and the Israel Firsters of Commentary – took the opportunity to revile the deceased. Their collective view of Chavez’s Venezuela was summed up by Rory Carroll’s recent polemic, Commandante, as “a land of power cuts, broken escalators, shortages, queues, insecurity, bureaucracy, unreturned calls, unfilled holes, uncollected garbage.” That this could easily describe any number of American cities – say, Detroit – is apparently lost on Chavez’s detractors.

Chavez was regularly denounced as a “dictator” – a curious charge in view of the fact that he won no less than nine national elections hands down. In spite of the millionsof US taxpayer dollars poured into the coffers of the anti-Chavez opposition – and aUS-supported military coup in 2002 – Chavismo won the hearts and minds of Venezuelans.

The reasons for this are not hard to discern. Venezuela pre-Chavez was supposed to be a model for the region – until things fell apart. The fourth-largest supplier of oil to the US, the country had been a Latinized version of the US for 40 years: power had regularly switched back and forth between the “left”-leaning Democratic Action party and the slightly more conservative Social Christian party. But the worm in the apple was stirring – and when the bottom fell out of the oil market, in the 1980s, the worm emerged in the form of an economic downturn that sent the nation reeling. The irony is that the conditions Chavez’s detractors attribute to his rule were present at the creation: per capita income dropped precipitously, inflation soared, and, by the time Chavez emerged as a major player, capital was fleeing the country at a rate of $500 million every month. The most free-spending government in the region was blindsided by a foreign debt of $29 billion. The social order began to break down: Caracas, always a bit threadbare, descended into seediness. Strikes broke out and brought what remained of public services to a grinding halt.

The ruling elite – “Spanish” grandees who kept their distance from the Indian majority, both figuratively and literally – ignored the crisis, and the political system descended into gridlock. The two major parties were concerned only with preserving their perks and privileges, and corruption was rampant. Chavez’s moment had come.

Born to a poor family in the agricultural region of Barinas, in the poor village of Sabaneta, Chavez was sent to live with his grandmother because the family could not afford to support him. He lionized his great-great-grandfather, who had served in the army of Ezequiel Zamora, the 19th century liberal general who rose in 1876 in an abortive coup against the central government. He entered a military academy in Caracas at age 17, where he took up the study of Simon Bolivar, his hero, and was influenced by the left-leaning military leaders who were then prominent in South and Central American politics: Omar Torrigos of Panama and Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru. Sent to the rural areas to fight leftist insurgents, Chavez saw that the poverty of these landless folks was what motivated the Maoist guerrillas he was battling, and he soon became sympathetic to their plight if not their methods. He began to meet with leftist leaders, and, one day, coming upon a bullet-ridden car used by the guerrillas, he found a cache of literature, including the works of Marx, Mao, and – most importantly – a biography of General Zamora, his youthful hero, whose life he assiduously studied.

By 1977, he had founded a secret revolutionary cell in the armed forces, based on what he called “Bolivarianism“: although he had read the Marxist classics, Chavez was no red but a fervent nationalist who wanted to throw out the corrupt elites – the grandees who extracted oil profits from the soil of Venezuela and invested it in Miami’s luxury highrises. Rejecting both capitalism and communism, he sought to construct an ideology based on the three roots of the tree,” a nationalist triumvirate of Bolivar, Zamora, and Simon Rodriguez (Bolivar’s tutor and mentor).

The 1989 election of Carlos Andres Perez – who had promised to defy the so-called “Washington Consensus” of neoliberal “reforms” – ended in riots as the new President backed down on his campaign promises and bowed to Washington’s diktat. Social programs were cut, land reform was stymied, and the country was opened up to foreign looters. The riots were put down with brutal force: hundreds were massacred. What Chavez called “the dictatorship of the IMF” had triumphed – but he had a plan.

On February 4, 1992, the Chavistas rose up: commanding four military units, Chavez tried to seize the presidential palace, issue a call to rebellion on national television, and take power. The coup failed, however, and Chavez gave himself up to the government, but not before making a deal: he would agree to order his supporters throughout the country to lay down their arms on the condition that he be allowed to appear on television for a final statement – to be delivered in his military uniform.

It was a stroke of genius: the broadcast made him a hero to the urban poor: a popular film was made of his life story. There were massive demonstrations outside his jail cell: he was transferred to another facility. In 1994, he was freed by newly-elected President Rafael Caldera, who had pledged to do so during the campaign: however, Chavez was not allowed to return to the military, where he might organize another coup. He set about building his Bolivarian movement even as Venezuela took a turn for the worse. Inflation was rampant, crime was pandemic, and the country was coming apart at the seams: President Caldera was charged with malfeasance in office and misappropriation of funds, and impeached.

Chavez gave up his dreams of a coup and entered electoral politics, founding his Fifth Republic Movement in 1997 and standing for president as its candidate the next year. The central message of his campaign was a direct attack on the system known aspuntofijisimo, the political patronage system that doled out resources via the two “major” parties. Those parties, unbeknownst to them, were about to be reduced to minor party status. With the backing of a center-left coalition, as well as the largely irrelevant Communist Party, Chavez won over 56 percent of the vote – in spite of a smear campaign in the oligarch-controlled media, including the charge that he was acannibal with a particular taste for tender young children.

His first term in office hardly lived up to his revolutionary rhetoric: he pursued moderately “left”-wing social democratic policies, and even paid a visit to the New York Stock Exchange, where he encouraged investors to sink their money into the new Venezuela. His social welfare programs were exemplified by “Plan Bolivar,” in which the army was instructed to go out into the streets, repair roads and dilapidated homes, and sell food at bargain prices. The program was begun on the anniversary of the 1989 massacre: “We gave them lead,” Chavez remarked, “now we will give them love.”

He held a national referendum on a new constitution that would set up a constituent assembly for the express purpose of abolishing government agencies and dismissing corrupt public officials. He gave back the land to the indigenous peoples it had been stolen from. He started a national literacy campaign, which has succeeded in raising the literacy level to levels unparalleled on the continent.

Washington hated him from the beginning, and did everything to undermine him – including supporting a failed 2002 coup, which was stymied in the end by a mass outpouring of popular protest. Chavez returned to power with a new determination to jealously guard his country’s independence. As he later put it:

“The Bolivarian Movement was born in the barracks some 15 years ago when a group of soldiers came to the conclusion that the enemy was not communism, but imperialism. For many years we worked carefully and gradually to develop a nationalist, patriotic movement with one hand in the barracks and another on the street. We developed a Bolivarian conception of revolution, which understands that we face a different empire to that confronted by Bolívar. Bolívar, however, did foresee that North America was destined to plague us in the name of liberty.

“. . . We pose the questions of independence and sovereignty by calling for a new continent-wide independence movement,” he averred. The system that had dominated his country since 1945 “was broken,” and “there are no half-measures on questions of sovereignty. There has to be direct democracy, people’s government with popular assemblies and congresses where the people retain the right to remove, nominate, sanction, and recall their elected delegates and representatives.”

In the name of “free enterprise” – Washington-style – the crony capitalists who had taken Venezuela by the throat were choking the nation to death and then fleeing with the proceeds to Miami. Chavez put a stop to that, to Washington’s lasting irritation, as well as putting a stop to overflights by US “drug-fighting” aircraft. His nationalist ideology, expressed in terms of Venezuela’s foreign policy, was to align with whatever tinpot despotism the US was currently trying to overthrow, from “Brother Qadaffi” to Iran’s mullahs. US involvement in the 1992 coup attempt was doubtless behind much of this, but there was an ideological basis for it as well.

It was convenient for the Western media to characterize Chavez as a radical socialist, a “red,” and his friendship with Fidel Castro, whom he called “my father,” is all the evidence long-out-of-work cold warriors require to condemn him as a Marxist “revolutionary.” Yet he was a profoundly conservative man, whose policies proceeded from a regionalist nationalism: Bolivarian populism, as originally conceived, is closer, ideologically, to the American revolutionaries of 1776 than to the Bolshevik revolutionaries of 1917. He laced his rhetoric with leftist rhetoric, and even changed the name of his movement to include the word socialist, and yet this was mainly window-dressing for what was, essentially, a radical nationalism with conventional social democratic overtones. He was, in essence, a patriot, and not a revolutionary at all.

Which is, of course, precisely why the globalists in Washington had every good reason to celebrate his death.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on The Meaning of Hugo Chavez

TUT Broadcast: The Awakening’ Conference in Florida.

TUT Broadcast April 11, 2013

by crescentandcross

We are joined by Joe Cortina to discuss Pamela Geller and the other traitorous Israel firsters scheduled to speak at the upcoming ‘The Awakening’ Conference in Florida.


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on TUT Broadcast: The Awakening’ Conference in Florida.

Shipping Death and Destruction to Syria

By Sharmine Narwani – Wed, 2013-04-10 18:59- Mideast Shuffle

“The weapons of choice in (today’s) new conflicts are not big-ticket items like long-range missiles, tanks, and fighter planes, but small and frighteningly accessible weapons ranging from handguns, carbines, and assault rifles on up to machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and shoulder-fired missiles,” explained William Hartung more than a decade ago in an article entitled The New Business of War. 

“Because they are cheap, accessible, durable, and lightweight, small arms have been a primary factor in the transformation of warfare from a series of relatively well- defined battles between ‘two opposing forces wearing uniforms’ to a much more volatile, anarchic form of violence,” says Hartung, now director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy in Washington DC. “More often than not, today’s wars are multisided affairs in which militias, gangs, and self-anointed “rebels” engage in campaigns of calculated terror, civilian targets are fair game, and the laws of war are routinely ignored.”

“The ready availability of small arms makes these conflicts far more likely to occur, far more deadly once they start, and far more difficult to resolve once the death tolls mount and the urge for revenge takes hold.”

Hartung could have been describing Syria today. And no – the anarchic, violent rebels he describes in his article do not appear everywhere else in the world except in Syria. They are the Syrian prototype.

Tens of thousands of Syrians killed, millions displaced as a result of violence in their direct environment. Would these figures be so wretched if there were no armed rebellion? Most certainly, no.

Since early 2012, the Syrian death toll has increased at least tenfold as rebel supply lines opened up, borders became more porous and the militarization of the conflict was accepted in the mainstream.

The more protracted a conflict, the increased likelihood that a “culture of violence” will develop, further contributing to illegal and dangerous behaviors that most often target vulnerable civilian populations and cause a general breakdown in human rights conditions.

Says security expert Edward Mogire, the “proliferation and easy availability” of these weapons “exacerbate the degree of violence by increasing the lethality and duration of hostilities, and encouraging violent rather than peaceful resolutions of differences.”

Sending weapons? Forget about that peace plan then.

So what’s stopping regional and international players from slapping a total arms embargo on Syria to prevent more death and destruction? Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally of the Syrian government, last week again called for a halt to weapon flows “to all sides of the conflict.”

Yet calls to increase weapons to Syria’s disparate militias still continue every day from other members of the UN’s Security Council. France, the UK and the US (FUKUS) – who claim they do not directly arm the rebels – have collectively provided hundreds of millions of dollars in “non-lethal assistance” to – er – make them more lethal.

Hiding behind a much-touted public posture of “non-intervention,” all three have in fact “intervened” militarily in the Syrian conflict – from training rebel forces, to providing them with military intelligence in preparation for battle, to actually coordinating and transporting weapons into the hands of militiamen.

Washington’s laughable excuse for helping transport weapons into the highly volatile Syrian military theater is that “other states would arm the rebels anyhow.” Whines one US official to the New York Times: “These countries were going to do it one way or another…they weren’t asking for a ‘Mother, may I?’ from us.”

Thought: You could sanction them, instead of helping them load the truck.

“They” are ostensibly Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two thoroughly undemocratic Islamist regimes who are aggressively vying for the upper-hand in the Syrian rebellion by channeling money and weapons into the hands of their preferred rebels. Washington has military bases – official and secret – in both countries, and therefore an awful lot of leverage.

The FUKUS states like this setup. First, they get to maintain a sliver of deniability for weaponizing Syria. Second, all three western states are bankrupt on paper and have recalibrated their 21st century military strategies to utilize third parties to fight irregular wars against political foes.

FUKUS is fully aware that these weapons transfers are contributing to death, destruction and displacement inside Syria. They are ranking members of NATO, which says the following about the dangers of weaponizing conflicts:

“The illicit proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) has a detrimental impact on regional security, fueling and prolonging existing conflicts thereby destabilising regions and exacerbating international security. Many of the security threats that we face today as organisations, states and regions can be linked to the pervasive problem of illicit SALW. Terrorists, organised criminal gangs, insurgents and even pirates, often find their crimes much easier to commit due to easy access to these weapons.”

Breaking out of the “Revolution Trance”

Two years into the Syrian conflict, there are no signs of “popular, peaceful protests” against the government of Bashar al-Assad. At this point, there’s little point in arguing whether there ever was significant enough opposition to unseat Assad through mass protest – a feature of other successful Arab uprisings.

Today, the only players inside Syria to present any kind of sustained, effective opposition front are armed rebels. Neither the domestic nor external Syrian non-military opposition play a major role in anyone’s calculations, except for rubber-stamping some political decisions.

Many opposition activists, who have nowhere else to turn in their quest to unseat Assad, still uncomfortably rally behind the rebels as their last shot to affect regime-change. But the fact is that there would be no sustained rebellion without massive direct assistance from foreign nations.

Is there a “revolution” when the entire Opposition-Operation is coordinated on the Jordanian and Turkish borders, orchestrated from Doha, and funded by the Americans, Saudis, British, French, Qataris and other smaller players?

No, of course not.

The Syrian “revolution” – whatever many intended for it to be – is one large foreign-backed regime-change special op. With all the various interests vying for dominance inside this space, it is no surprise that the “rebellion” has disintegrated into violence and chaos.

Even in early 2011, it was obvious that regime-change would need some help in Syria. From the first weeks, gunmen shot out at security forces from within peaceful protests; snipers targeted vulnerable civilians in areas where these deaths would have maximum impact; groups of armed men attacked army checkpoints, on and off-duty security forces, and pro-government civilians.

The first external observers in Syria – the Arab League – saw rebel groups bombing civilian and military targets, pipelines, infrastructure. The next lot of monitors – from the United Nations – warned rebels to desist in their looting, destruction of public and private property, assassinations, kidnappings and vandalism.

It took a very long time to concede that there are foreign jihadists in the battle – a story that went from “regime lies!” to “there are only a handful” to “yes, okay, a few dozen” to “thousands” today.

We recognize that the majority of the militias are ideologically Islamist, with an increasing number declaring their partiality to sharia law and an Islamic state in secular Syria.

We see with ever increasing frequency that rebel groups are carrying out crimes against humanity: summary executions, torture, kidnappings, human shielding – but we caveat it with “not as much as the regime,” although we have no independent measure of this.

Since 2011, Syria has seen armed militias entering villages, towns and cities that are not their own and stripping them bare. Shops are shuttered in these areas, remnants of burned vehicles dot the roads, factories are looted and the spoils of war are sold off to purchase more supplies – or for profit. Revolution isn’t what all of them are after. Some seek their own turf; others want power, money.

You’ve seen the videos of these militias. Unlike in 2011, these are nowverifiable rebel videos – they have their own websites and they film their own atrocities. You wouldn’t want them in your town.

We can’t even really get to know them well, such is their fondness for militia-musical-chairs, which they play every time an opportunity arises to trade-up to better-funded, better-armed groups. This fluidity gives us pause – there’s also no way to track their weapons.

Question: Are there any decent rebels out there at all? Answer: Who cares? Weaponization is Syria’s biggest enemy – the bane of all Syrians today. Weaponization is the single biggest factor contributing to the escalation of violence in this conflict and, more importantly, is the single biggest factor precluding its peaceful resolution.

Good guys? Wrong question. On the same day that US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that there were moderates” among the militias, America’s top military man shot him down:

“About six months ago, we had a very opaque understanding of the opposition and now I would say it’s even more opaque,” said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. “I don’t think at this point I can see a military option that would create an understandable outcome,” he cautioned, adding that Syria presented “the most complex set of issues that anyone could ever conceive, literally.”

Unless, of course, one wanted to foment a protracted, destabilizing conflict to split Syria into pieces and ensure even more chaos. With no guarantees about the flow and exchange of deadly weapons inside the country, Syria would be a classic war with no end:

“Guns rarely go silent after wars end,” said Human Rights Watch in a report on weapons in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq. “To the contrary, the widespread availability of small arms in many post-conflict countries has greatly added to the death toll. Particularly where security is weak, former combatants have not been disarmed, and abusive actors have not been held accountable for past behavior, a situation of lawlessness can emerge where civilians are at grave risk.”

Next week, a number of states backing a military solution inside Syria will meet to ramp up the conflict – the US, Turkey, France, UK, Jordan, the UAE, Germany, Italy, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. On the table is a discussion to send further weapons into Syria.

Why? To protect civilians, to stop the humanitarian crisis, to stem the refugee problem, of course.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Shipping Death and Destruction to Syria

What Christians Don’t Know About IsraHell





ed note–an article written in 1998 by the late Grace Halsell that still remains relevant today.

By Grace Halsell

American Jews sympathetic to Israel dominate key positions in all areas of our government where decisions are made regarding the Middle East. This being the case, is there any hope of ever changing U.S. policy? American Presidents as well as most members of Congress support Israel — and they know why. U.S. Jews sympathetic to Israel donate lavishly to their campaign coffers.

The answer to achieving an even-handed Middle East policy might lie elsewhere — among those who support Israel but don’t really know why. This group is the vast majority of Americans. They are well-meaning, fair-minded Christians who feel bonded to Israel — and Zionism — often from atavistic feelings, in some cases dating from childhood.

I am one of those. I grew up listening to stories of a mystical, allegorical, spiritual Israel. This was before a modern political entity with the same name appeared on our maps. I attended Sunday School and watched an instructor draw down window- type shades to show maps of the Holy Land. I imbibed stories of a Good and Chosen people who fought against their Bad “unChosen” enemies.

In my early 20s, I began traveling the world, earning my living as a writer. I came to the subject of the Middle East rather late in my career. I was sadly lacking in knowledge regarding the area. About all I knew was what I had learned in Sunday School.

And typical of many U.S. Christians, I somehow considered a modern state created in 1948 as a homeland for Jews persecuted under the Nazis as a replica of the spiritual, mystical Israel I heard about as a child. When in 1979 I initially went to Jerusalem, I planned to write about the three great monotheistic religions and leave out politics. “Not write about politics?” scoffed one Palestinian, smoking a waterpipe in the Old Walled City. “We eat politics, morning, noon and night!”

As I would learn, the politics is about land, and the co-claimants to that land: the indigenous Palestinians who have lived there for 2,000 years and the Jews who started arriving in large numbers after the Second World War. By living among Israeli Jews as well as Palestinian Christians and Muslims, I saw, heard, smelled, experienced the police state tactics Israelis use against Palestinians.

My research led to a book entitled Journey to Jerusalem. My journey not only was enlightening to me as regards Israel, but also I came to a deeper, and sadder, understanding of my own country. I say sadder understanding because I began to see that, in Middle East politics, we the people are not making the decisions, but rather that supporters of Israel are doing so. And typical of most Americans, I tended to think the U.S. media was “free” to print news impartially.

‘It shouldn’t be published. It’s anti-Israel.’

In the late 1970s, when I first went to Jerusalem, I was unaware that editors could and would classify “news” depending on who was doing what to whom. On my initial visit to Israel-Palestine, I had interviewed dozens of young Palestinian men. About one in four related stories of torture.

Israeli police had come in the night, dragged them from their beds and placed hoods over their heads. Then in jails the Israelis had kept them in isolation, besieged them with loud, incessant noises, hung them upside down and had sadistically mutilated their genitals. I had not read such stories in the U.S. media. Wasn’t it news? Obviously, I naively thought, U.S. editors simply didn’t know it was happening.

On a trip to Washington, DC, I hand-delivered a letter to Frank Mankiewicz, then head of the public radio station WETA. I explained I had taped interviews with Palestinians who had been brutally tortured. And I’d make them available to him. I got no reply. I made several phone calls. Eventually I was put through to a public relations person, a Ms. Cohen, who said my letter had been lost. I wrote again. In time I began to realize what I hadn’t known: had it been Jews who were strung up and tortured, it would be news. But interviews with tortured Arabs were “lost” at WETA.

The process of getting my book Journey to Jerusalem published also was a learning experience. Bill Griffin, who signed a contract with me on behalf of MacMillan Publishing Company, was a former Roman Catholic priest. He assured me that no one other than himself would edit the book. As I researched the book, making several trips to Israel and Palestine, I met frequently with Griffin, showing him sample chapters. “Terrific,” he said of my material.

The day the book was scheduled to be published, I went to visit MacMillan’s. Checking in at a reception desk, I spotted Griffin across a room, cleaning out his desk. His secretary Margie came to greet me. In tears, she whispered for me to meet her in the ladies room. When we were alone, she confided, “He’s been fired.” She indicated it was because he had signed a contract for a book that was sympathetic to Palestinians. Griffin, she said, had no time to see me.

Later, I met with another MacMillan official, William Curry. “I was told to take your manuscript to the Israeli Embassy, to let them read it for mistakes,” he told me. “They were not pleased. They asked me, “You are not going to publish this book, are you?” I asked, “Were there mistakes?” “Not mistakes as such. But it shouldn’t be published. It’s anti-Israel.”

Somehow, despite obstacles to prevent it, the presses had started rolling. After its publication in 1980, I was invited to speak in a number of churches. Christians generally reacted with disbelief. Back then, there was little or no coverage of Israeli land confiscation, demolition of Palestinian homes, wan ton arrests and torture of Palestinian civilians.

The Same Question

Speaking of these injustices, I invariably heard the same question, “How come I didn’t know this?” Or someone might ask, “But I haven’t read about that in my newspaper.” To these church audiences, I related my own learning experience, that of seeing hordes of U.S. correspondents covering a relatively tiny state. I pointed out that I had not seen so many reporters in world capitals such as Beijing, Moscow, London, Tokyo, Paris. Why, I asked, did a small state with a 1980 population of only four million warrant more reporters than China, with a billion people?

I also linked this query with my findings that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post — and most of our nation’s print media – are owned and/or controlled by Jews supportive of Israel. It was for this reason, I deduced, that they sent so many reporters to cover Israel — and to do so largely from the Israeli point of view.

My learning experiences also included coming to realize how easily I could lose a Jewish friend if I criticized the Jewish state. I could with impunity criticize France, England, Russia, even the United States. And any aspect of life in America. But not the Jewish state. I lost more Jewish friends than one after the publication of Journey to Jerusalem — all sad losses for me and one, perhaps, saddest of all.

In the 1960s and 1970s, before going to the Middle East, I had written about the plight of blacks in a book entitled Soul Sister, and the plight of American Indians in a book entitled Bessie Yellowhair, and the problems endured by undocumented workers crossing from Mexico in The Illegals. These books had come to the attention of the “mother” of The New York Times, Mrs. Arthur Hays Sulzberger.

Her father had started the newspaper, then her husband ran it, and in the years that I knew her, her son was the publisher. She invited me to her fashionable apartment on Fifth Avenue for lunches and dinner parties. And, on many occasions, I was a weekend guest at her Greenwich, Conn., home.

She was liberal-minded and praised my efforts to speak for the underdog, even going so far in one letter to say, “You are the most remarkable woman I ever knew.” I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered — from her point of view — the “wrong” underdog.

As it happened, I was a weekend guest in her spacious Connecticut home when she read bound galleys of Journey to Jerusalem. As I was leaving, she handed the galleys back with a saddened look: “My dear, have you forgotten the Holocaust?” She felt that what happened in Nazi Germany to Jews several decades earlier should silence any criticism of the Jewish state. She could focus on a holocaust of Jews while negating a modern day holocaust of Palestinians.

I realized, quite painfully, that our friendship was ending. Iphigene Sulzberger had not only invited me to her home to meet her famous friends but, also at her suggestion, The Times had requested articles. I wrote op-ed articles on various subjects including American blacks, American Indians as well as undocumented workers. Since Mrs. Sulzberger and other Jewish officials at the Times highly praised my efforts to help these groups of oppressed peoples, the dichotomy became apparent: most “liberal” U.S. Jews stand on the side of all poor and oppressed peoples save one — the Palestinians.

How handily these liberal Jewish opinion-molders tend to diminish the Palestinians, to make them invisible, or to categorize them all as “terrorists.”

Interestingly, Iphigene Sulzberger had talked to me a great deal about her father, Adolph S. Ochs. She told me that he was not one of the early Zionists. He had not favored the creation of a Jewish state.

Yet, increasingly, American Jews have fallen victim to Zionism, a nationalistic movement that passes for many as a religion. While the ethical instructions of all great religions — including the teachings of Moses, Muhammad and Christ — stress that all human beings are equal, militant Zionists take the position that the killing of a non-Jew does not count.

Over five decades now, Zionists have killed Palestinians with impunity. And in the 1996 shelling of a U.N. base in Qana, Lebanon, the Israelis killed more than 100 civilians sheltered there. As an Israeli journalist, Arieh Shavit, explains of the massacre, “We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own.”

Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak, “are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become “the Bible.” And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity.

In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden.

The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does — even wanton murder — as orchestrated by God.

Yet, I am not alone in suggesting that the churches in the United States represent the last major organized support for Palestinian rights. This imperative is due in part to our historic links to the Land of Christ and in part to the moral issues involved with having our tax dollars fund Israeli-government-approved violations of human rights.

While Israel and its dedicated U.S. Jewish supporters know they have the president and most of Congress in their hands, they worry about grassroots America — the well-meaning Christians who care for justice. Thus far, most Christians were unaware of what it was they didn’t know about Israel. They were indoctrinated by U.S. supporters of Israel in their own country and when they traveled to the Land of Christ most all did so under Israeli sponsorship. That being the case, it was unlikely a Christian ever met a Palestinian or learned what caused the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is gradually changing, however. And this change disturbs the Israelis. As an example, delegates attending a Christian Sabeel conference in Bethlehem earlier this year said they were harassed by Israeli security at the Tel Aviv airport.

“They asked us,” said one delegate, “Why did you use a Palestinian travel agency? Why didn’t you use an Israeli agency?” The interrogation was so extensive and hostile that Sabeel leaders called a special session to brief the delegates on how to handle the harassment. Obviously, said one delegate, “The Israelis have a policy to discourage us from visiting the Holy Land except under their sponsorship. They don’t want Christians to start learning all they have never known about Israel.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on What Christians Don’t Know About IsraHell

In ‘Judeo-Christian’ America–Abortion Doctor Accused Of ‘Snipping’ The Necks Of Hundreds Of Live Babies


Gruesome allegations are emerging in Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial.

Gosnell, 72, is accused of using unfathomable abortion procedures on inner-city patients who were well into their third trimester at an unsanitary, bloody, and utterly gruesome clinic called the Women’s Medical Society.

While he’s only charged with killing seven live babies, prosecutors believe Gosnell killed hundreds of infants and destroyed related records, according to a grand jury report.

During the trial, ex-clinic employee Stephen Massof testified he “snipped” babies’ spinal cords to kill them after delivering them live.

“It would rain fetuses,” Massof said, according to NBC10 Philadelphia. “Fetuses and blood all over the place.”

Sherry West, another clinic employee, testified Monday that one newborn at the clinic was 18 to 24 inches long when it was killed, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

“It didn’t have eyes or a mouth but it was like screeching, making this noise. It was weird. It sounded like a little alien,” she reportedly testified.

Gosnell is accused of killing seven newborns and a 41-year-old refugee from Nepal who was getting an illegal late-term abortion. He was charged with murder in January 2011 after a grand jury handed down a graphic and disturbing 281-page report on his case.

Gosnell — who wasn’t licensed to practice obstetrics and gynecology — illegally peddled pain killers during the day and murdered babies at night, according to the report.

He allegedly had his staff give women pills to induce labor and showed up around 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. Often, the women had already given birth. Here’s how he dealt with the aftermath, according to the grand jury’s report.

“When you perform late-term ‘abortions’ by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it ‘ensuring fetal demise.’ The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that ‘snipping.’”

Gosnell ran his abortion clinic for decades, and he “snipped” hundreds of babies’ necks over the years, according to the grand jury report. His clinic hadn’t been inspected since 1993 though. That’s when Philadelphia officials stopped inspecting abortion facilities so women wouldn’t face extra barriers when getting abortions, according to the report.

In Feburary 2010 the FBI and other law enforcement finally raided his facility following reports that he’d been writing illegal prescriptions. Here’s what they found, according to the grand jury’s report:

“There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.”

Most disturbingly, investigators say they found a row of jars with the feet of severed fetuses, which the grand jury said defied explanation.

Gosnell could get the death penalty. His lawyer says no babies were ever born alive, the AP has reported.

Posted in USAComments Off on In ‘Judeo-Christian’ America–Abortion Doctor Accused Of ‘Snipping’ The Necks Of Hundreds Of Live Babies

Venezuelan Government Releases “Evidence” that Opposition is Planning to not Recognise Election Results


Tamara Pearson (VA),- This morning United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) leader Diosdado Cabello presented evidence, including phone recordings, documents, and emails, allegedly proving that the opposition has plans to not recognise the 14 April presidential election results.

Cabello presenting the “evidence” on public television this morning (VTV)

Cabello presenting the “evidence” on public television this morning (VTV)

Cabello played an audio recording of a phone conversation to the public in which Joao Nunes, Capriles’ bodyguard and driver, said that Capriles won’t recognise Sunday’s results if he loses.

In the recorded conversation, which lasts just over a minute, Nunes talks with another person, “Michell”, who says “It’s looking to be full on, man”. Nunes responds, “Man, they’re going to rob it from them in the streets…”. Michell then says, “Looking at it from here, here what they are saying is that he’s not going to recognise [the elections] if he loses… there’s going to be problems, full on problems”.

Cabello also showed an email allegedly sent from Amando Briquet, of Capriles’ campaign team, to Guillermo Salas, member of the organisation Esdata. Esdata has reported on Venezuela’s electoral process since Chavez was elected in 1998, and claims there are “statistical irregularities” by the National Electoral Council (CNE) which “violate the right to elect”.

In the alleged email, dated 6 April this year, Briquet wrote, “…we need everything set out in Washington for checking over by the [Capriles campaign]. It’s necessary that all documentation is presented internationally if we decide to take the road of not recognizing the results.”

Cabello said opposition umbrella group MUD’s secretary, Ramon Aveledo, was involved and that he had requested documentation from Salas “in order to be able to support their decision not to recognise the results”.

Further, Cabello denounced an alleged meeting between the head of private, opposition supporting newspaper, El Nacional, Miguel Otero, with Capriles and Briquet. Cabello accused the three men of meeting in order to “discuss not recognising the elections”.

Finally, Cabello said an organisation called Patriotic Board (Junta Patrotica), which includes Guillermo Salas, signed a document which they sent on 7 April to Vicente Diaz. Diaz is a CNE director known to side more with the opposition. In the document the Patriotic Board allegedly expressed its decision to not recognise the CNE’s reports.

Cabello told press he’d made the information public in “order to guarantee peace; this is a …warning so that they know we know what they are planning to do”.

Public prosecutor Luisa Ortega also verified that seventeen people have been detained in Sucre, Monagas, and Aragua states for sabotaging the electrical system. Blackouts have been more common over the last two weeks across Venezuela.

“A small group has been sabotaging the electricity system, and that’s why there have been some power outs, but they aren’t the part of the majority of the people, because the people don’t want destabilisation, they want peace,” Ortega said. She informed that the crime of sabotaging the electricity grid is punishable by up to 30 years prison.

According to Wilmer Barrientos, head of strategic command of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, the seventeen people detained were “caught red-handed” damaging electricity facilities.

In Merida this afternoon, opposition supporters, after a large rally where Capriles spoke, committed various acts of violence in the city. Some of the perpetrators were drunk, and some wore balaclavas, making it likely they were part of the violent Movement 13 group based on Merida’s University of Los Andes. They attacked the offices of the goverment youth, INJUVEM, of public radio YVKE Mundial, the state government building and its workers, and various privately owned shops in the centre of the city. The number of injuries is as yet unknown, and the national guard have calmed the situation.

Other events over the last few days have also pointed towards an opposition strategy of destabilisation and not recognising Venezuela’s electoral power.

Yesterday Capriles refused to sign a CNE document of commitment to recognise the election results, instead signing his own document. There he committed to “respect the will of the people” but attacked the CNE for supposedly being “negligent” and “biased” towards the government, and Maduro’s campaign for supposedly “taking advantage of the poor” and using public media.

On Monday, there was some violence and some people were injured, in an upper class suburb of Caracas. According to reports by residents of the area, it now appears that Maduro supporters were attacked by the opposition group JAVU, which then went to the press and blamed “Castro-communists” for the violence.

On Saturday government officials also released a recorded conversation that allegedly reveals the use of “mercenaries” by the Venezuelan opposition to create chaos in the lead up to the elections.

Maduro alleged that the “mercenaries” were already in Venezuela and had three objectives: to sabotage the electrical grid, increase the number of murders, and assassinate Maduro. He alleged that they were coordinated by the Central American right wing, with some sectors of the opposition. He said his information was based on conversations recorded by Venezuela’s intelligence organisations.

Foreign minister Elias Jaua claimed the “mercenaries” are led by a retired colonel of the Salvadoran armed forces, David Koch, and coordinated by Salvadoran right-wing politician Roberto d Áubuisson.

Yesterday Maduro released a photo of one of the supposed mercenaries, Julio Cornejo, and asked the Venezuelan public to inform authorities if they see him.

Tamara Pearson via Venezuelanalysis

Related articles:

Venezuelan Government Denounces the Presence of Opposition “Mercenaries”

Maduro Orders Military Protection of Venezuelan Electricity System against Presumed Sabotage

Venezuelan Government and Opposition Trade Accusations Ahead of Election Campaign

Maduro Counters Campaign to Discredit Venezuelan Electoral System

Venezuela Breaks Off Talks With the United States

United States Plots Conquest of Venezuela in the Wake of Chavez’ Death

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuelan Government Releases “Evidence” that Opposition is Planning to not Recognise Election Results

Zio-Nazi Operating In Syria? New Report Points To Signs Nazi’s Is Providing Medical Care To Wounded Rebels


UN Vehicle In The Golan Heights

A new report from GlobalPost indicates that Israeli forces have been operating in “a non-combat capacity” beyond the demarcation line in the Golan Heights. The Israelis seem to be in the area to identify and provide medical care to wounded Syrian rebels.

The region immediately east of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is held by Syrian rebel forces. An anonymous Israeli source told GlobalPost the Syrians are taken into Israel to receive medical care and then transported back across the border.

“It’s a terrible situation there. Injured people are dying in the field because of a lack of medical treatment. Sometimes they just bleed,” retired IDF Col. Eshkol Shokron told GlobalPost. “If possible, caring for them on the border without bringing them into Israel is better. I think the army is doing things in the field.”

Another IDF spokesman did not deny that forces might be operating across the Israel-Syrian truce line that has held since the 1973 war, but would not comment on whether they were operating in a military capacity, such as by flying drones.

“The IDF places a great deal of importance on the provision of humanitarian care when necessary. As such, we have provided initial medical assistance to a number of Syrians over the past few months,” the spokesman told GlobalPost in an email.

Israel has been in a state of heightened alert since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in March 2011, concerned, by all accounts, not only about the possibility of spillover but of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s notorious chemical weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah, one of the ruling parties in the Lebanese parliament, is one of the many Arab groups that has sworn itself to destroying Israel, and has supported Assad despite the majority of the Lebanese public opposing him.

Israel has already carried out strikes in Syria in a very public way this year. In late January the Israel Air Force reportedly carried out a series of flyovers and air strikes on Syrian government convoys, thought to be carrying weapons across the border to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel Defense Force spokeswoman Avital Leibovitch refused to confirm that it was Israel who destroyed the trucks.

Israel and Syria do not have the best of relationships, and, in fact, have fought four wars in 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war. The two countries never signed a peace treaty and do not have ambassadors to each other. During the Syrian civil war, Israel and Syrian forces have engaged on three occasions in November 2012 in the Golan Heights when Syrian tanks crossed the line, and when Syrian shells landed in the same area for the first time since 1967. Israel first complained to U.N. peacekeepers and then retaliated by hitting Syrian targets.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on Zio-Nazi Operating In Syria? New Report Points To Signs Nazi’s Is Providing Medical Care To Wounded Rebels

Jewish pressure on Bergoglio begins–Porn downloaded at the Vatican, US website claims


Russian security service wants to ban Skype and Gmail

Pornographic websites featuring sadomasochism, transsexuals and bondage have been downloaded within the Vatican, it has been claimed.

Somebody within the tiny city state has a taste for X-rated films and websites featuring adult entertainment stars such as Tiffany Starr, who promises “some of the hottest transsexual porn” on the internet.

The penchant for porn within the Holy See was discovered by Torrent Freak, an American website that analyses file sharing.

The website initially set out to see if anyone in the Vatican was illegally downloading films and music for free in breach of copyright laws.

But it came up with some rather surprising results, which emerged from an IP address within the Vatican’s stone walls.

It was not clear who downloaded the porn. The Vatican has a permanent population of just 800 people, among them priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope, but several thousand more prelates and officials work there on a regular basis, crossing an all-but invisible border with Rome.

“Over in the Vatican, pirates are having the time of their lives downloading some quite eye-watering media. We spotted some downloads to get pulses racing. It seems that while Vatican dwellers aren’t all that interested in Hollywood movies, they do enjoy adult-related celluloid,” the writers of TorrentFreak said.

The downloads included German-language bondage material as well as performances by Lea Lexis, a Romanian porn star, whose credits include films called Voracious and Sexual Gymnastics.

“In the interests of science we researched each of the titles and discovered that downloaders in the Vatican have one or two unusual ‘niche’ interests,” TorrentFreak said.

“There isn’t a commandment that covers these films directly, but some might argue there should be.”

A Vatican insider, who asked not to be named, told The Daily Telegraph: “This is not China – we don’t try to censure what people download or choose to look at on the web. It’s very hard to control.”

The downloads were not all about sex and sadomasochism – there were also mainstream films such as the romantic comedy Love Actually, starring Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson and Keira Knightley, as well as American television series such as The Neighbours and Chicago Fire.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish pressure on Bergoglio begins–Porn downloaded at the Vatican, US website claims

The Butchers of Gaza are coming to America


angelofdeath (3)

Mahmoud El-Yousseph

10 April, 2013

Two Israeli war criminals will be speaking soon at the Convention of Traitors in New York City. Here is a chance for the United States of America to regain its respect on the global stage and be counted among the countries that enforce the law against war criminals. All US law enforcement agencies should be put on the look out for those two Israeli war criminals who are responsible for the murder of 1,400 Palestinians including 400 children. IDF and war criminal Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi will be coming over for dinner to NYC on April 28, 2013, along with his former boss, the former Israeli Prime Minister and mass murderer Ehud Olmert. There was a warrant served for their arrest in various European countries for their war crimes. Mr. Olmert, who is the highest-ranking Israeli official to legitimized the attack on Gaza along with his cabinet. He should be treated in the same manner like any other war criminal who were persecuted before him.

The Gaza War was a three-week Israeli military assault that took place in the Gaza Strip during the winter of 2008–2009.
Ashkenazi and Olmert are both scheduled to speak in NYC fundraising dinner to benefit the Israeli Defense Forces.

According to the UN Mission Report headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, former member of the South African Constitutional Court and former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Ashkenazi and other Israeli leaders committed war crimes against civilians in Gaza.

Judge Richard Goldstone, a Jew himself, produced a report in September 2009 accusing both Hamas and the Israeli military of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice.

Ashkenazi & Olmert will be present at Mariott Marquis in New York City on April 28, 2013.

These two men who are among a dozen Israeli-firster to address the convention should be arrested, put on trial, and prosecuted for war crimes against humanity instead of roaming the U.S. freely. Now is the time for justice to be served and the rules of law upheld!

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on The Butchers of Gaza are coming to America

Shoah’s pages