Husseins bullshit NPP

By David Swanson

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-Rejection-Speech-by-David-Swanson-091210-254.html

That was not a peace prize acceptance speech. That was an infomercial for war. President Obama took the peace prize home with him, but left behind in Oslo his praise for war, his claims for war, and his view of an alternative and more peaceful approach to the world consisting of murderous economic sanctions.

Some highlights:

"There are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I."

Yet, you did argue. You argued by accepting the prize " and then making a false case for war:

"War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences."

This is simply not true of all tribes and civilizations, unless we include war making as a criterion for being considered civilized.

"The concept of a 'just war' emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence."

How dare someone responsible for illegal occupations and air strikes and the use of unmanned drones say these words? (Responsible, that is, given the failure of Congress and of we the people to stop him.)

"America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons."

How dare a president refusing to support a treaty on land mines speak in these terms? Are we supposed to not see the actions and just hear the words?

"I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: 'Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones.'"

Very wise. Very true. And completely violated by Barack Obama's actions and the better part of the words in this speech. Are we supposed to hear these words in a different part of our brains from the rest of the speech and its advocacy of war?

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms."

Now a group of fewer than 100 angry people in Afghanistan, and their allies elsewhere, are the rough equivalent of "Hitler's armies" and justify the brutal occupation of a nation by tens and hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries, tanks and planes, and unmanned drones? And negotiations, with the Taliban or anyone else, are not possible because " because " well, because of that rhetoric about Hitler's armies.

"The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest."

A 1993 Congressional Research Service (CRS) study of the U.S. Navy's Naval Historical Center records identified "234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes" between 1798 and 1993. This list does not include covert actions or post-World War II occupation forces and base agreements. In a 2006 review of this study and two others, Gar Smith found that "in our country's 230 years of existence, there have been only 31 years in which U.S. troops were not actively engaged in significant armed adventures on foreign shores." In other words, fewer than 14% of America's days have been at peace. As of 2006, there were 192 member states in the United Nations. Over the past two centuries, the United State has attacked, invaded, policed, overthrown, or occupied 62 of them. Read more.

"I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation."

The United Nations Charter, to which the United States is party, and which is therefore the supreme law of the United States under Article VI of the Constitution is apparently not a standard that governs the use of force, since President Obama has just thrown it away in a statement of Obama Doctrine that appears indistinguishable from the so-called Bush doctrine. Obama then doubles down with a Bush the Elder / Clintonian doctrine of humanitarian war:

"I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace."

Obama equates non-military action, non-hostile action, with inaction, pure and simple. Where is aid? Where is diplomacy? Where is cooperation? Why are all non-hostile approaches to other nations banished from the text of a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech a mere 25 years after 1984?

"Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable."

What can be said to render that statement less persuasive than it is on its own? Maybe this:

"That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions."

Torture was illegal internationally and in the US code of law before Obama became president. He publicly instructed the Attorney General of the United States not to enforce those laws. He claimed the power to "rendition" people to other nations where they might be tortured. His CIA Director and a top presidential advisor have claimed the president has the power to torture if he chooses to. And President Obama has here claimed the power to prohibit or un-prohibit torture, spitting in the face of the very idea of the rule of law. The prison at Guantanamo is not closed, and moving those prisoners to Illinois or Bagram or any other lawless U.S. prison will not bring the United States into compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

"I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace."

At last, mid-speech, we are presented with a drop of that toxic trademarked substance: hope. Only to swallow a mouthful of this:

"First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one."

Set aside the hypocrisy of the globalism and rule-of-law talk from a commander in chief escalating wars and occupying 177 nations around the world. The message here is that a decent alternative to war is crippling sanctions that "exact a real price." The wisdom of a creative nonviolent outlook has not yet penetrated. And the President does not develop the idea any further, turning instead to nuclear arms:

""those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles. But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted."

The United States is not seriously pursuing disarmament, is developing new nuclear weapons, is in clear violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And Iran is not.

"America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens."

President Obama, in his famous Middle-East speech earlier this year admirably acknowledged the U.S. overthrow of a democratically elected president in Iran, and the installation of a dictator -- who, like many dictators than and now, was one of our closest friends. The greatest success of international law in recent years has been the precedent set by prosecutors seeking to hold responsible Augusto Pinochet. Does anyone recall how he came into power?

"So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal."

Indeed.

"Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door."

And there, as this reprehensible speech is dragging to a close, are the words with which it should have begun, the words denied by the thrust of everything else here and by the actions of the man delivering the words. And then there was a bit more:

"[A] just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want."

A bitter statement for the people of Afghanistan or the United States to hear from a president who has acted to divert our resources upward to Wall Street and downwards into bombs and bases. But true and worth repeating nonetheless. Let's not imagine, however, that George W. Bush would not have said the same. He would simply have said it with a smaller military budget, a smaller war budget, fewer troops in the field, fewer mercenaries in the field, bases in fewer countries, and worse grammar.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.

jews now telling our children what ornaments are acceptable!

Guess who's now banned from Capitol Christmas tree!
Forest Service forbids 'religious themes' on 5,000 decorations recognizing holiday

---

Posted: October 01, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111509

The U.S. Forest Service has banned the name of Jesus from decorations being assembled by children in Arizona for a blue spruce from the state that will become the Capitol Christmas Tree this year, and a legal firm is challenging the censorship.

"Banning Christmas from the Capitol Christmas tree is just absurd. Christian students shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their religious beliefs," said Jonathan Scruggs, litigation staff counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

"The First Amendment does not allow government officials to exclude schoolchildren's ornaments for the capitol's Christmas tree merely because they communicate a religious viewpoint," he said yesterday.

The organization has sent a letter to state and federal officials, including Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, who are supervising the program, calling on them to stop enforcement of the prohibition.

ADF set a deadline for response of Oct. 4, the day before all the ornaments must be turned in.

Get the popular Christmas Magnetic Bumper Sticker - This is America, and I'm going to say it: Merry Christmas

The legal organization said one criterion states: "Ornaments cannot reflect a religious or political theme. Instead, share your interpretation of our theme 'Arizona's gift, from the Grand Canyon State."

But a mother whose child wanted to submit ornaments with holiday themes such as "Happy Birthday, Jesus," "Merry Christmas" and a manger scene raised her concern with ADF.

"[The child] desires to convey a message about Arizona from his religious perspective via Christmas ornaments. It is well established that expression of religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," the ADF letter said. "Religious expression is speech and is entitled to the same level of protection as other kinds of speech.

"The Supreme Court has consistently condemned viewpoint discrimination regardless where it occurs," the letter continued. "Viewpoint discrimination is an 'egregious' form of discrimination that occurs '[w]hen the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject.'

"When the government excludes speech from a forum on an otherwise includible subject because of its perspective, it engages in viewpoint discrimination," the letter said. "Here, there is little question that government officials have opened up a forum for speech on a particular topic – the topic of Arizona – yet have singled out and forbidden religious viewpoints about this topic. … thus, while children may submit ornaments about Arizona from all different viewpoints – whether from different historical or cultural or geographical or economic

perspectives – these children may not submit an ornament about Arizona from a religious perspective."

The ADF demands that the restriction be rescinded or the family "will be forced to take legal action to protect her child's First Amendment rights."

Those in charge of the program, including Capitol Christmas Tree Coordinator Richard Davalos in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, did not return WND messages asking for comment.

A public information officer for the forests promised to research the issue.

The ADF said the tree itself is an 85-foot blue spruce that will be chopped down and hauled to Washington. Four thousand of the ornaments will be on the tree itself, and 1,000 will be displayed at other locations.

The Forest Service ornament program specifies ornaments need to be 9-12 inches tall, able to withstand winter weather for three weeks, include a loop of wire for hanging, and be able to be seen 75 feet away.

Also, "Ornament designs may not reflect religious or political themes."

Fly Me To the Moon: Whites Need NOT Apply

Fly Me to the Moon, or Whites Need Not Apply

By Edmund Connelly

I don’t think my previous column could have been more timely. Titled On the Visual Displacement of the White Race, it appeared May 15. One week later, major news media reported that President Obama had chosen a former astronaut and Marine general to lead NASA.

This move certainly bolsters my point about the displacement of White men in positions that combine excellence in both technical innovation and high status: aeronautics. I showed an ad that Microsoft ran in The Atlantic Monthly — two pages with an unmistakably clear message: White males need not apply to future rocket programs, as engineers or astronauts. The future in this field—as the photo shows—belongs to the usual multicultural hopefuls—women, Hispanics, Asians and most particularly Black males.

Microsoft’s Image of a Future Rocket Scientist

The nominee for NASA administrator is Charles Bolden, who has four shuttle missions under his belt, including two as mission commander.

Charles Bolden in his younger years

Interestingly, Obama chose a White woman as Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver, blocking out any White men at the very top of America’s space program. This comes in stark contrast to the historical make-up of all levels of NASA going back to the 1950s. The Gemini and Apollo programs were essentially White male preserves, from the Mission Control Specialists to the astronauts themselves.

This was accurately portrayed in Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13. One might express surprise that the NAACP didn’t lodge a complaint against the nearly all-White male main cast. And when women did appear, they were in supporting roles as wives and mothers. Clearly, things have changed in America since then.

Unlike other prestigious fields like law, medicine and academia, in which women and minorities have made impressive strides in the last forty years, aviation has remained solidly in the hands of White males. Among commercial airline pilots, for example, only about 2% are women, with Blacks accounting for far less than that. Considering that the astronaut pool had traditionally been drawn from pilots, it became a statement when NASA began to routinely present its unchanging mix of a multicultural crew of shuttle pilots, mission specialists and payload operators. Here, for example, is the crew that was lost in the 1986 Challenger explosion:

The 1986 Challenger Crew

NASA was not the only prominent arena in which White males took a hit last week: On May 26th, President Obama nominated a Puerto Rican American woman to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court left by a retiring White man. As Kevin MacDonald noted, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor “is yet another marker in the march toward the dispossession of Whites in America.”

As I argued two weeks ago, the visual displacement of Whites goes hand in hand with our actual displacement. Surely I am not the only one to notice this. Look, for instance, at the photo chosen by the National Guard in one of its recruitment ads:

Doubtless millions of Americans have observed over the years that the faces in posters for their banks have changed, as has the composition of student photos from their alma maters, even if the student body is still heavily White. As someone I know commented, “Even the WASPiest prep schools now trumpet diversity über alles.”

Incredibly, even a new biopic of famed singer Frank Sinatra might feature African American actor Jamie Foxx as “Old Blue Eyes,” as reported by Political Cesspool host James Edwards last week. (The free download of the show may still be available here.)

Another friend summed up this process well:

Another subtle aspect of modern TV ads is the fact that whenever whites appear in ads with nonwhites, it is always in a subservient position: black boss — white workers, black doctor — white patient, etc. Also, you will see blacks explaining things to whites in ads, or blacks being right and whites having it all wrong. You never see the reverse. In a group context, blacks are always out front with whites in the background.

It is an intentional and dedicated campaign designed to reduce whites to subordinate status. I believe that it has a very psychologically debilitating effect on young whites who are continually exposed to it and don’t understand that it is just a deliberate attempt to beat them down.

These memes have sunk deep into the American psyche by now. Thus we now have the phenomenon of the “Numinous Negro,” which I wrote about a month ago. There we saw that the word “numinous” is a Roman term for “the presiding divinity . . . of a place.” It also means “spiritually elevated.” Accordingly, the Numinous Negro presides over America, “and contact with him elevates us spiritually.”

This shared cultural assumption is everywhere now (despite the lack of any real objective reasons for it). Consider that even the Corn Refiners Association, in trying to counter negative associations with their product, has appealed to prevailing “wisdom.” Their site tells us that “in the summer of 2008, the Corn Refiners Association launched a multimedia advertising and public relations campaign ‘Changing the Conversation about High Fructose Corn Syrup.’” Let’s unpack this professionally made commercial.

In the video, the viewer is positioned in a handsome kitchen, looking out open doors onto the back yard where kids are celebrating. On our right we see a Black woman pouring a container of punch into a glass. A white woman approaches and chides her for her lack of concern for her children’s health, as the drink contains corn syrup. Unconcerned, the Black mother continues pouring, stating confidently that it’s made from a natural ingredient, corn.

The White woman is left confused by this air of authority and quickly changes the topic to fashion. The point is that the makers of this ad felt that by placing their product in the hands of the Black woman, it would be associated with something positive and superior. The Black mother triumphed and by association so should corn syrup over sugar.

Admittedly, this is a trivial example by itself. But when the relationships in the ad are repeated ad nauseum in the media, they doubtless have an important effect on people’s attitudes.

Allow me one more point about the larger context. Thus far I’ve discussed visual images in which it was mostly Blacks replacing Whites in both real and imagined scenes. The paradox here is that there is no real-world corresponding growth in power among individual Blacks or Black groups to even begin to account for their astounding relative rise in the last two or three decades. They’ve amassed few noteworthy fortunes, they control few major enterprises on their own, and they have precious few professional and business networks to boast of. Even with their prominence in sports, music and, more recently, film, they own next to nothing when it comes to movie studios or sports teams. Even when it comes to the NAACP, Blacks were not responsible for creating it, or staffing it for decades. So what is going on?

The answer should be familiar to TOO readers: The overwhelming credit for boosting the image of Blacks goes to their old allies, American Jews. On one level, as I’ve written about, Jews have fought anti-Semitism by supporting the black struggle against racism. I then went on to argue that:

This account is simplistic. While it does refute claims of totally altruistic motives for Jewish agitation on behalf of blacks, it fails to appreciate the larger goals of Jewish Americans. They were not merely interested in defeating anti-Semitism so that they could participate comfortably in American life. They were waging a massive war on Majority Americans, the results of which we see all around us today.

Blacks, then, have been used as foot soldiers in one front of this war. Or, if you prefer a stage reference, they have been used as props in a war not of their making. In any case, as Kevin MacDonald noted on this site last week, for Jews, “making alliances with other minority groups has been a critically important part” of their effort to unseat Majority Whites as primary power holders in America.

This has also been noted on the other side of the Atlantic, as evidenced by the calm, rational prose of John Tyndall of the British National Party. The Occidental Quarterly Online recently ran a 2004 disquisition of Tyndall’s thoughts on The Jewish Question. His words ring true.

Tyndall described this awakening in The Eleventh Hour:

Bit by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence, that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network wielding immense influence and power — through money, through politics and through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in the mass media. . . .

Then what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers, Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.

The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation. . . . Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.

Then, in a line that resonates with so much of what has been written in this TOO space over the last year, Tyndall concludes, “The wrath and hatred of organized Jewry is a mountain that stands in the path of every movement of enlightened racial patriotism wherever one cares to look in the world, but in particular among nations of White European pedigree.”

This, then, is behind the rushing sound of air we hear as Whites vacate positions of power in America and people from other ethnic groups fill them. While Obama may be the most prominent example of this, it is also quite clear that he is a mere prop, as much as are the dark faces we see in so many commercials.

VDARE’s Peter Brimelow, for one, understands this unprecedented process of displacement. “Obama,” he writes, “doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities and dividing the majority.”

Does that sound like a familiar strategy?

Political philosopher Carl Schmitt was right when he years ago wrote: “It’s not only you who chooses your enemy, it’s more often your enemy who chooses you.” Tyndall makes a similar but more specific claim, arguing that “though we may do everything possible to avoid conflict with Jewry, Jewry—or at least its politically organised elements—[is] determined on conflict with us.”

So don’t waste too much time worrying that somehow Obama and other Blacks are conspiring to outcompete you, or that Hispanics like Sotomayor will leave you in their dust.

Your real rival—one that has a two-thousand-plus year record of impressive victories—is the one identified by Mr. Tyndall. So know this, Mr. White Man: Dispossession is coming to a place near you!

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

My Rant - "Whale Wars"

Ok, it was a complete and utter failure last season, so the jewish producers have gone ahead to try again to show a boatload of fucked up hippy, doper, commie wiggers how to illegally interfere with Japanese whaling.
To briefly re-hash last seasons abortion of a show, one girl got a broken hip from slamming over the waves, they almost lost a boat twice; once while lowering and then again, after it was lowered the boat got sucked under as it slid sideways while being towed by the hippy stoners on board. One guy got a busted up arm and Shamoo still got harpooned.
I don't know about you, but I think Steve Irwin is rolling in his grave like a wigger at a Grateful Dead show. I don't hink he intended for morons to get on a boat with absolutely NO experience and brave the seas and commit acts of piracy and vandalism in his name. No, I think Steve would have nix-neined the whole idea.
Ok, the boat is a shambles. If it wasn't for the help of jewish douchebag supporters, the ship would have been sold for scrap years ago. They blatantly attack a legal whaling vessle and illegally board the Japanese ships. Personally, if I had been there, I would have thrown the f**kers overboard! Now they can be environmentally conscious as they get eaten by sharks. Hell, THEY have to eat too! They have to resort to LYING just to get sympathy! What a f**king *sshole that POS captain is! http://earthblips.dailyradar.com/video/sea_shepherd_captain_lies_about_collision_with_whaling/
Actually, I think thay they are racist. After all, I haven't seen a single n*gger on that ship. Maybe they just aren't as eco-friendly as the jews and their stupid white shabbat goyim? Who knows, but trust me, if the jew producers find a n*gger stupid enough to brave the accidents just waiting to happen on that bucket of rust, they'll put his *ss on that ship.
Enough for now. Whale Wars is nothing but a bunch of wiggers, spiggers and gawd damn idiots commiting ac ts of piracy, lunacy and stupidity for naught.

Now this is quite disturbing. A Jewish rabbi living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid
to end Palestinian presence on this earth.
Now suppose that a white man had come out and declared we should exterminate every jew who was 13 yrs old or older. can you imagine the uproar! why, it would be as if hitler himself had risen from the grave and commanded the order!
This just goes to show the back-stabbing jews REAL feelings and intentions!

http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-are-these-israeli-rabbi\
s-so-filled.html

How Does Talmudic Law Affect America?

By Niki Raapana
4-12-9

The First Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called the U.S. Bill of Rights. The law expressly forbids the establishment of a state church. This is the only legal rule of law in the United States. The original Bill of Rights is a ONE PAGE document. Any literate second-grader can read it. The Jewish-Egyptian Talmud is enormous, it includes mysticism and unwritten, hidden texts, and much of the discourse about it is only written in Hebrew and practiced in Eqyptian secret ceremonies that worship the Light Being. Noson Gurary, a Lubavitch rabbi insists "Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America," but that's not entirely true. Property Rights, Common Law, Natural Law, and the need to protect individuals from tyrants is the basis for the legal system in America. American law was designed to protect the people from their government. Jewish law is not American law, it's Israeli law. It's also a vast, ancient library that claims the Jews are God's "chosen people." It has another set of laws for non-Jews who must obey a complex set of confusing rules and regulations that give control over all daily life functions to an agent of the Jewish "court." Much like the religious "law" practiced by priests in the Holy Roman Empire and the Protestant Churches in Europe, Jewish law does not protect the rights and liberties of the common born man (as does U.S. law), it protects the rights of their elites to confiscate all private land and direct the lives of the people placed under their "care." ( in other words, COMMUNISM!) U.S. law is also based partially in American colonial understanding of the Old Testament and the amendment to that law, known as the New Testament. Jewish law was modified and changed by the Son of God Himself, known to world as Jesus Christ. Jewish law is not anywhere near the same as the principles for Christian Biblical law. Jesus spent a lot of time arguing against Jewish law. Christ challenged the authority of the Jewish rabbis and taught His followers a more peaceful path to Heaven. Old Testament Jews (and the early Catholic Church) regularly slaughtered their enemies (as directed by the vengeful God of the Old Testament) and brutally enforced their religious rules and laws against their common membership. Jesus was brutally tortured and crucified for breaking Jewish Law. (There is much Christian scholarship regarding Christ's discourse with the Pharisees. Bobby Garner's recent studies have uncovered many interesting aspects to these great "debates.") The American founders (many of whom were devoutly religious freemasons) believed in a Universal Creator. The Creator of all life was called "God" by almost all of the American founders. They established every common man's inalienable right to pursue a happy life comes directly from God the moment man is born. Many founders further believed that only a nation based in Christian principles and the Ten Commandments could survive as a form of government designed to protect God-given, natural rights. For two hundred years testimony in American courtrooms was sworn to be true with one hand over the heart and the other hand on a copy of the Christian Bible. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" Was the question asked by every American court. That's because almost all Americans are raised to understand (and obey) the Ten Commandments. Only a handful of Americans have any idea what the Talmud is. There are also only a handful of Jews who know all the laws included in the Talmud. Let's repeat the above Bush quote again. "As we face new challenges and welcome new opportunities, our society must continue to promote good character and strong values. Through the study and teaching of Jewish law and philosophy you are contributing to a growing culture of service, citizenship, and responsibility in America," Bush wrote." This quote by Bush explains the "new" communitarian ideology of Americans' need for assigned, mandatory community service, the new requirements for American citizenship based only in communitarian values, and the new responsibility all Americans have to the emerging communitarian collective government. U.S. rule of law is rapidly changing on many different fronts. Schools across our nation can no longer celebrate Christian holidays ("Merry Christmas" is considered politically incorrect.) All American children, including the Christians, are forced to worship the pagan Earth Goddess (Earth Day) in public schools. The U.N. International Court at the Hague is also home to the Temple of Understanding. Etzioni's new communitarian idea of "community spirit" is based in the Talmud, Hegel, and the theosophical ideas expressed by Madame Blavatsky and Alister Crowley. They, along with many other gurus, introduced Americans to the worship of Lucifer as the ultimate "light being." One Thousand Points of Light is a whole program based on Satanic "community oriented" principles. While I don't approve or condone these wacko belief systems, it was never a concern of mine if others practiced them, as long as they didn't harm anyone as part of their creepy rituals. But in a communitarianized Amerika, we'll all be required to bow before a court enforcing Talmudic, communitarian laws. In a recent CNN poll, over 80% of American respondents voted to keep the words "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Alliegance, and the words "In God We Trust" on Federal Reserve Notes. Yet, for some reason American justices of the peace can no longer hang the Ten Commandments in their halls of justice. We find all this Talmudic Law "balancing" very amazing considering what's happened to Judge Moore who refused to follow a court ruling that decided he must remove a monument of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama state Supreme courthouse. In our layman's opinion, we think the Torah and the Biblical Old Testament are what most Christians understand to be Judaic law. Others tell us Judaism is not a religion, it is law religionized. The Talmud is the controversy, even though Judaic-Talmudic law includes several books that include the Old Testament-Torah. Not only was the Old Testament "word of God" modified and edited by scholars throughout the centuries, portions of the Talmud were never written down, they contained secrets passed orally only to elite initiates (much like Freemasonry). As with the Christians and the many very different denominations that represent it, the Torah-Talmud is also an area of contention among the varieties of Jewish people. The key factor to Talmudic law is that it is not fixed law, it is constantly challenged and rewritten, according to case law precepts. And, unlike the Christian arguments, anyone who objects to the overall authority of Talmudic law, or even portions of it, is labeled anti-Semitic (http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net/alerts/jwd_10-antiisraelijews.html even the Jews). Many American Jews do not even http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=5301 identify with Judaism. It's also important to know most Jews did not orignially support Zionism. Today, opposition to political Zionism and/or the religious Talmudic laws are condemmed as a racist attitiude toward Jewish people and are subject to criminal prosecution in a growing number of countries. Why is the international community adopting it as part of their emerging global to local law enforcement? The affects of imposing a law nobody understands are staggering. http://nord.twu.net/acl/commlaw.html - Communitarian Law vs European Community Law : Individual & National Sovereignty versus "the Collective Good" http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki4.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPW5rC-chDU http://www.nikiraapana.com

Passover and Christ and the Romans OH MY!

http://www.christianbiblestudy.org/OPS/WM/wm0010.htm

Pilate Wrote About Christ
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch - Willie Martin's Web Site

There are those who say that the Scriptures are the only record of Christ's travels on this earth. But that is not true, it is totally false there is a historical record of Christ and it is found in the Archoko Volume in The Congressional Library in Washington, D.C., which contains an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RECORD OF Pilate's correspondences, which records a meeting he had with Jesus Christ. Plate stated on pages 137-139:

"To Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome Noble Sovereign, Greetings: '...Among various rumors that came to my ears there was one in particular that came to my attention. A young man it was said, and appeared in Galilee preaching with noble unction a new law in the name of the God who sent him. At first I was apprehensive that his design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled.

Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a fried of the Romans than as a friend of the Jews. One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected, so great was the difference between him and those who listened to him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance an almost celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between he and his hearers with their black beards and tawny complexions!...

Never have I heard in the words of the philosopher, any thing that can compare with the maxims of Jesus. One of the rebellious Jews, so numerous in Jerusalem, asked Jesus if it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, he replied: 'Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God the things which are God's...

I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with him at the praetorium and he came."

Think now for a moment on your own, without having some Judeo-Christian preacher tell you that this is fantasy. What would be so strange in this? Even though this meeting is not recorded in the Gospels, we know for a fact, that MOST of what Christ did during His three years of public ministry was never recorded. (See John 21:25)

Pilate's report to Caesar continues:

"You know that in my veins flows the Spanish mixed with Roman blood...When the Nazarene made his appearance, I was walking in my basilic, and my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement, and I trembled in every limb as does a guilty culprit, though the Nazarene was as calm as innocence itself. When he came up to me and stopped, and by a signal sign seemed to say to me, 'I am here!' though he spoke not a word. For some time I contemplated with admiration and awe, this extraordinary type of man, a type unknown to our numerous painter... There was nothing about him that was repelling in its character and I felt awed and tremulous to approach him.

Jesus, I said to him at last, 'Jesus of Nazareth, for the last three years I have granted you ample freedom of speech (it is not recorded anywhere, either in the Gospels, or Roman historical records, that the Romans ever attempted to suppress Christ's ministry) nor do I regret it. Your words are those of a sage. I know not whether you have read Socrates or Plato, but this I know, there is in your discourse a majestic simplicity that elevates you above those philosophers...'your blood shall not be spilled,' I said, with deep emotion, 'you are more precious in my estimation on account of your wisdom than all the turbulent and proud Pharisees who abuse the freedom granted them by Rome. They conspire against Caesar, and convert his bounty into fear, impressing on the unlearned that Caesar is a tyrant who seeks their ruin...I will protect you against them. My praetorium shall be an asylum both day and night.'

I am your obedient servant, Pontius Pilate."

You can accept this letter, as I do, since it makes sense, or dismiss it as most of your preachers and church Bible scholars will do. Think for yourself! Doesn't it make sense to you that the Jews would try and suppress this truth, since they were the ones who crucified Him?

And we have the testimony of Josephus in his volumes on the history of the Jew. There are many more documents that could be presented

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SonsofLiberty/message/24065

"Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto THE CHIEF PRIESTS...they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver." (Matthew 26:14-15 See also Mark 14:10-11, Luke 22:3-5) That the high priest, Caiaphas, was privy to all these events is proven again when Jesus was taken directly to his [Caiaphas'] palace.

John tells of the people's belief in Jesus' miracles, (]John 7:32) and then identifies Jesus' captors as:

"...A BAND OF MEN AND OFFICERS FROM THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND PHARISEES...THEN THE BAND AND THE CAPTAIN AND OFFICERS OF THE JEWS took Jesus, and bound him." (John 18:3, 12)

Some of our "Ministers" try to make it appear that all the people in Jerusalem were the culprits in His [Jesus'] betrayal and murder, but these same chapters above tell that His followers were willing to fight for Him, but were prevented from doing so by Christ Himself. For when Peter attempted to defend Jesus, He [Christ] said:

"...Put up again thy sword into his place...Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matthew 26:52-54)

So by this, we can see that Christ gave the Disciples to understand that HE MUST be allowed to BE TAKEN CAPTIVE. It was only after this that the disciples forsook Him. (Matthew 26:56)

NOWHERE IN ALL of the New Testament Scriptures is anyone accused of being a part of Jesus' betrayal and capture EXCEPT THOSE who were directly connected with, or PAID BY, THE RELIGIOUS RULERS OF JERUSALEM!

Now that we know who captured Jesus, let us continue with the rest of the account of this ancient drama. Many of our "Judeo-Christian Ministers" [teach a lie -- although they may not know it, for failure to study the Scriptures] and attempt to blame the Romans, through Pilate, for the murder of Christ. However, from the time of His being taken by physical force [by the Jews] until His death on the Cross, Jesus came into the presence, and under the control, of the civil authorities of Judea, NOT OF ROME!

It is true that Rome was in full military control of Judea at that time. But that was due to the actions of the Pharisees themselves. The following is the account related in the Jewish Encyclopedia which led up to the Romans becoming the military conquerors of Palestine:

"It is difficult to state at what time the Pharisees, as a party, arose. Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus. (Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus 13:5,9) Under John Hyrcanus (135-105) they appear as a powerful party opposing the Sadducean proclivities of the king, who had formerly been a disciple of theirs, though the story as told by Josephus is unhistorical. (Ant. 13:10,5; comp. Jubilees, Book of, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs) The Hasmonean dynasty, with its worldly ambitions and aspirations, met with little support from the Pharisees, whose aim was the maintenance of a religious spirit in accordance with their interpretation of the Law. (see Psalms of Solomon) Under Alexander Jannaeus (104-78) the conflict between the people, siding with the Pharisees, and the king became bitter and ended in cruel carnage. (Ant. 13:13,5; xiv.1,2) Under his widow, Salome Alexandria (78-69), the Pharisees, led by Simeon ben Shetah, came to power; they obtained seats in the Sanhedrin, and that time was afterward regarded as the golden age, full of the blessing of heaven. But the bloody vengeance they took upon the Sadducees led to a terrible reaction, and under Aristobulus (69-63) the Sadducees regained their power. (Ant. 13:16,2 -- xiv.1,2) Amidst the bitter struggle which ensued, THE PHARISEES APPEARED BEFORE POMPEY ASKING HIM TO INTERFERE AND RESTORE THE OLD PRIESTHOOD WHILE ABOLISHING THE ROYALTY OF THE HASMONEANS ALTOGETHER. (Ant. 14:3,2) THE DEFILEMENT OF THE TEMPLE BY POMPEY WAS REGARDED BY THE PHARISEES AS A DIVINE PUNISHMENT OF SADDUCEAN MISRULE. After the national independence had been lost, the Pharisees gained in influence while the star of the Sadducees waned. Herod found his chief opponents among the latter, and so he put the leaders of the Sanhedrin to death while endeavoring by a milder treatment to win the favor of the leaders of the Pharisees, who, though they refused to take the oath of allegiance, were otherwise friendly to him...In King Agrippa (41-44) the Pharisees had a supporter and friend, and WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE THE SADDUCEES DISAPPEARED ALTOGETHER, LEAVING THE REGULATION OF ALL JEWISH AFFAIRS IN THE HANDS OF THE PHARISEES. Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A NEW CHAIN OF TRADITION SUPPLANTED THE OLDER, PRIESTLY TRADITION, PHARISAISM SHAPED THE CHARACTER OF JUDAISM AND THE LIFE AND THOUGHT OF THE JEW FOR ALL THE FUTURE..." (Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 665-666)

And it is also true that Rome had ordered that no one was to be put to death by the local authorities. The chief priests were allowed to judge and punish for minor crimes; but the death sentence could be imposed or allowed only by the Roman Governor, who was Pilate at that time. And it was for that reason, the Jewish priests, though they had pronounced the death sentence on Him. "...He is guilty of death." (Matthew 26:66, 27:1)

They could have whipped Him, but their desire was HIS DEATH.

"...when they {the Jews} had bound him {Christ}, they {the Jews} led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor." (Matthew 27:2)

At first Pilate refused to comply with their demands, and they immediately set about to FORCE Pilate to give HIS CONSENT FOR THEM TO PUT JESUS CHRIST TO DEATH. The details of his several attempts to release Jesus are told by all four Gospel writers.

"...Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he [Pilate] knew that for envy they had delivered him [Christ]...And the governor [Pilate] said, Why, what evil hath he [Christ] done?" (Matthew 27:17-23); "But Pilate answered them saying, will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him [Christ] for envy...Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done?" (Mark 15:9-14)

---

JEWS NOT GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE!

One of the biggest lies ever spawned is the lie that the jews are God's chosen people. If the jews are
God's chosen people, we Christians should all close down our churches and go join the synagogues. Any
person who say that the jews are God's chosen people is, in effect, denying our Lord Jesus Christ and
calling Christianity a fraud. Such a person is insulting God. According to the Holy Bible, we Christians
are God's chosen people, not the jews. Open the Bible and read Titus 1:13-14 which says, "This witness
is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to jewish
fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." Revelation 2:9 quotes our Lord Jesus
Christ as saying, "I know that works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the
blasphemy of them which say they are jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. The First
Epistle General of John, Chapter 2, verses 22-23 say: "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is
the Christ? He is anti-christ that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same
hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." The jews do not
acknowledge Jesus Christ so they have not the Father and therefore could NOT possibly be God's
chosen people. The jews are anti-christs. Galatians 3:29 says, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." This verse from the Bible is very revealing. The
jews are not Christians, that is, they are not Christ's; therefore, they are not Abraham's seed and very
definitely are not heirs according to the promise that God made to Abraham. The jews are not the
chosen people. Romans 9:13 quotes God as saying, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
hated." Christians are of the house of Jacob which is the house of faith, whereas the jews are of the
hated house of Esau, the house that God Himself hates. The jews have always hated Christians. Acts
9:22-25 says: "But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the jews which dwelt at
Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many day were fulfilled, the jews took counsel
to kill him: But their laying await was know to Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill
him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket." That has always
been the attitude of the jews toward Christians on up to the present time when they have murdered (200
millions) Christians wholesale in all former communist nations. The jews have always encouraged rulers
to murder Christians, as recorded in Acts 12:1-3 which says: "Now about that time Herod the king
stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the
sword. And because he saw it pleased the jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. Then were the
days of unleavened bread." Acts 13:50 says: "But the jews stirred up the devout and honourable women,
and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out
of their coasts." Even in the 20th century, the jews use the same methods against us Christians.
Our Lord was crucified by the jews at the time of Passover. At that time, it was customary for jews
throughout the known world to gather at Jerusalem for the Passover. When Jesus was carried before the
Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, jews from everywhere composed the mob that gathered in front of
Pilate's judgment seat. St. Matthew 26:17.25 says: "Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate
said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he
knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent
unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day
because of him. "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas,
and destroy Jesus. The Governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I
release unto you? They Barabbas. Pilate said unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called
Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the Governor say, Why, what evil hath he
done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail
nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and
said, His blood be on us, and our children." That is what the Bible said about who killed Jesus Christ.
The jewish mob caused a riot and tumult to force the Roman governor to allow the crucifixion of the
Son of God. They raised the horrible chant to let him be crucified. The jews took the responsibility for
the murder of Jesus when they said, "His blood be on us, and on our children." The jews crucified the
Son of God and the Christ-hating jews of today are as guilty as those of two thousand years ago. 1
Thessalonians 2:14-16 also say that the jews killed Jesus Christ when it says, in part, "the JEWS WHO
BOTH KILLED THE LORD JESUS, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us, and they please
not God, and are contrary to all men." The jews have infiltrated most churches and are now trying to get
church organizations to contradict the Bible by saying that the jews had nothing to do with murdering
Jesus. Regardless of their lying, they can't change the truth in the Bible which say that the jews killed
Jesus. The jews still hate Jesus with a consuming hatred.

JEWS HAVE ALWAYS PERSECUTED JESUS

St. John 5:15-18 says, "The man departed, and told the jews that it was Jesus, which had made him
whole. And therefore did the jews persecute Jesus, and sougth to slay him, because he had done these
things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said
also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." During his entire visitation on this earth,
the Lord Jesus Christ was the object of a jewish conspiracy to murder Him and they finally succeeded,
but He was victorious because he arose from the grave and ascended into Heaven. St. John 7:1 says:
"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in jewry, because the jew sougth to
kill him." St. John 7:13 says: "Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the jews." For two
thousand years, the jews have been carrying on a terror campaign against our Lord Jesus Christ and His
followers. The jews are NOT God's chosen people because they refuse to hear the voice of Jesus St.
John 10:25-31 says, "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye belived me not: the works that I do in my
Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye belive me not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said
unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal
life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, with gave
them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father
are one. Then the jews took up stones again to stone him." The Lord Jesus says that the jews are not his
sheep and plainly tells the jews that they are NOT of his sheep, so they cannot possibly be God's chosen
people. Would God's chosen people stone the Son of God? Would God's chosen people murder God's
only begotten son? Of course not! St. John 11:53-57: "Then from that day forth they took counsel
together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the jews; but went
thence unto a country near to the wildderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his
disciples. "And the jews'passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem
before the passover, to purify themselves. Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as
they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? Now both the chief priests
and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it,
that they might take him." That is the jewish attitude of hatred toward Jesus Christ. Yet, the jews and
Judas Iscariots who have infiltrated the churches are trying to change the Bible so that people won't
know that the jews murdered Jesus. St.John 8:44-48 says: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust
of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father
of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye belive me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And,if I
say the truth, why do ye not belive me? He that is God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not
because ye are not of God. Then answered the jews." The Lord Jesus Christ could NOT speak more
clearly than that. He say that the jews are not of God and that the jews are the children of the devil and
living, walking lies. That makes it impossible for the jews to be chosen people.

Ozzys Remove Christian symbols In Hospital So Muzzies aren't Offended

Australia hospital removes Christian symbols from chapel to avoid offending Muslims

Even though the hospital already has a Muslim prayer room. Dhimmitude in Oz: "The chapel without a crucifix," by Paul Tatnell for the Mosman Daily, April 8

THE home of God at Royal North Shore hospital has fallen victim to a higher power - the (JEWISH-RUN) State Government bureaucracy.

The Mosman Daily has learnt that crucifixes, Bibles and all other Christian symbols are banned inside the hospital’s chapel when it is not being used for a church service. (BUT, it will STILL allow the Satanic Star of David and other non-Christian symbols)

The move, ordered by senior staff, is to avoid offending Muslims, Hindus or other non-Christian believers who may want to pray in the chapel.

(JEWISH) Hospital staff say that while the chapel was built for Christians, they now want the chapel to be completely non-denominational. An inspection of the chapel last week by the Daily found no trace of a crucifix or any other religious symbol inside the chapel.

The Daily has been told that church leaders must bring their own symbols to use in a service.

The chapel building also contains a separate Muslim prayer room....

A (PC liberal, zionist, ass-sucking) hospital spokeswoman said the rule change came after “the chapel was enhanced with the provision of a Muslim prayer space in the loft area”.

“At that time the decision was made to display the symbols of each faith, for example the chapel’s cross and Bible, during specific services and ceremonies only,” she said.

“These important religious symbols are appropriately stored and used regularly. This decision was made out of respect for the many faiths that make up both the hospital and also the modern Australian community.”

How the Jews Have Destroyed Disney and An American Family Icon

Subverting the Disney Legacy
How Michael Eisner Has Transformed the \'Magic Kingdom\'
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p10_Weber.html


Mark Weber

For more than 40 years, the company founded and built by Walt Disney offered popular, well-crafted entertainment that upheld American values and traditions. Its films and television programming -- even if sometimes sugary -- epitomized, to use the much-mocked phrase, wholesome family entertainment.

It was the work largely of one man, Walter Elias Disney (1901-1966), a gifted illustrator, brilliant filmmaker and genial entrepreneur who left a lasting mark on American popular culture. His cartoon characters, animated films, and amusement parks, are recognized around the world.

In 1928 he launched the beloved Mickey Mouse character in an animated film, "Steamboat Willie," that became an immediate hit. In the decades that followed, Disney dominated animation art with such innovative and hugely popular films as "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937), "Pinocchio" (1940), "Fantasia" (1940), and "Bambi" (1942). He also oversaw the production of such enduring feature films as "Treasure Island" (1950), "Robin Hood" (1952), "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (1954), "The Swiss Family Robinson" (1960), "The Absent-Minded Professor" (1960), and"Mary Poppins" (1964).

Politically conservative and ardently anti-Communist, the hard-working Disney was habitually involved in every stage of production and management. He and his work were honored with 39 Academy Awards, and hundreds of other awards and tributes.

Under New Management
A period of stagnation that followed the founder's death came to an end in September 1984 when Michael Eisner became the Disney company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Eisner moved quickly to install fellow Jews in top positions throughout the Disney operation, and soon Hollywood's last gentile-run studio passed into Jewish hands.

As media critic Michael Medved has pointed out, "The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions." ("Jews Run Hollywood. So What?," Moment magazine, August 1996.) Under the new management, Disney company sales and profits soared, and the revitalized company reclaimed a leading place in the entertainment world.

A Mighty Media Empire
With its acquisition in 1995 of Capital Cities/ABC, Disney became the world's largest entertainment company. The Walt Disney Company today is a sprawling and highly profitable international business empire. (Revenue for fiscal year 1998 was $23 billion, and net income $1.9 billion.) With major holdings in film, television, radio and publishing, the company has a tremendous impact on the mindset and behavior of hundreds of millions around the globe.

Through Walt Disney Pictures (headed by Joe Roth), Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Miramax (run by the Weinstein brothers), and Caravan Pictures, it is one of the world\'s largest film producers and distributors.

Through the 1995 merger, Disney acquired the ABC Television network, which owns ten television stations outright. It also has 225 affiliated TV stations in the United States, and is part owner of several European television companies. Among its other TV holdings are Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, and Buena Vista Television. Disney also controls three major cable television networks with more than 100 million subscribers: ESPN (headed by Steven Bornstein), Lifetime Television, and Arts & Entertainment (A&E and the History Channel).

Through its 1995 ABC acquisition, Disney owns 26 AM and FM radio stations, and has more than 3,300 ABC radio affiliates. The company also owns daily newspapers and glossy consumer magazines (including Discover), and Hyperion Press book publishers.

In addition to Disneyland -- the "Magic Kingdom" amusement park in southern California opened by Walt Disney in 1955 -- the company today owns Disney World (Florida), Epcot Center, Tokyo Disneyland, and Euro Disney (France), as well as the "Mighty Ducks" hockey team and the "Anaheim Angels" baseball team. Each year Disney also sells well over a billion dollars worth of consumer products -- toys, books and clothing -- through more than 500 Disney stores.

Wealthy and Machiavellian

Michael D. Eisner, born in 1942 into a well-to-do Jewish family, was raised on Manhattan's Upper East Side and educated in private schools. His father was a Harvard lawyer who served as a high-ranking official in President Eisenhower's administration.

As Disney chairman, Eisner has been fabulously -- some might say obscenely -- compensated. His annual base salary of $750,000 is only a small portion of his Disney income, which is mostly from stock option profits. In 1993, for example, Eisner's total compensation was a staggering $203 million, while in 1997 he exercised options on 21.9 million shares for a profit of $550 million.

Since 1984, chairman Eisner has received nearly $1 billion from Disney, including base salary, bonuses, and stock options (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 4, 1997). In January 1997 he signed a ten-year extension contract with the company valued at some $200 million.

Eisner has cultivated a public image of himself as friendly, trustworthy, and even boyish. But those who know him well regard him as treacherous and Machiavellian. David Geffen, a fellow Hollywood mogul who has known Eisner well for years, said of him in a 1995 interview: "Michael is a liar. And anyone who has dealt with him, genuinely dealt with him, knows he's a liar."

Cultural Revolution

Since 1984, Michael Eisner and his colleagues have refashioned Hollywood's most culturally conservative and family-oriented studio into one of its most culturally seditious and anti-traditional. In doing so, they betrayed the founder\'s legacy, degraded his values, and demeaned the company's defining spirit.

Under Eisner's direction, the Disney company has turned out motion pictures packed with graphic violence and killing (such as "Pulp Fiction"), as well as rock music albums loaded with gross obscenities (such as "Insane Clown Posse" by "The Great Malenko", "hip hop" band).

Even Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee (March 1998), was moved to lament: "If the old Disney tells us something inspiriting about who we were not so very long ago, the new and even more hugely lucrative Disney is just another signpost marking our long, steep cultural descent."

'Pink Triangle' Disney

While support for homosexuals has been widespread in Hollywood for years, under Eisner the Disney company -- in the words of the American Family Association -- has become "one of the leading promoters of the homosexual lifestyle, as well as the homosexual political and social agenda in America today." Eisner himself is a board member of "Hollywood Supporters," an influential and aggressive homosexual advocacy organization. The Disney company advertises in homosexual publications such as Out magazine, and has given financial support to at least one benefit for the "National Gay and Lesbian Task Force."

In 1996, JEW actress Ellen DeGeneres "came out" as openly homosexual, both personally and as the lead character on the "Ellen" sitcom series, broadcast on the Eisner-controlled ABC television network. Eisner introduced insurance benefits for same-gender partners of Disney's homosexual employees. For some years now, he has sanctioned "Gay Day" at Disney World, an event that each year draws throngs of boisterous "in your face" homosexuals.

"In the interest of full disclosure," quipped Boston Herald columnist Don Feder, "Disney should change its corporate logo to show a pink triangle flying over Cinderella's castle." He went on to refer to Disneyland as "The Magic Kink-dom."

Assault Against Christianity

Under Eisner, the Disney company has waged a "cultural war" against Christianity, scorning the religious sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans.

In a 1995 statement, the American Catholic Lawyers Association indignantly declared

We all remember the Disney Company from the days when it produced films your children could actually watch without losing their innocence -- films which showed a decent respect for Christianity and Christian values. But that was before Mr. Michael Eisner took the helm of the Disney conglomerate. Now the Disney Company has joined the rest of Hollywood in obsessively attacking the Catholic Church and pumping R-rated filth into our culture -- under cover of its subsidiary, Miramax Films, whose co-chairmen are Bob and Harvey Weinstein.

A particularly offensive example of the Eisner/Disney assault is "Priest," a 1995 motion picture released by the company's Miramax subsidiary. It tells the story of four Roman Catholic clergymen: one is homosexual, another is alcoholic, a third has a mistress, and the fourth is insane.

One of the strongest voices protesting this movie, and Disney's anti-Christian productions generally, has been that of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a New York-based civil rights organization. "Priest," said League president William Donahue, "displays the most profound hostility to the Catholic Church that I have seen in the last 15 years of reviewing movies." Eisner, Donahue added, would never approve a film that similarly portrays depraved Jewish rabbis or morally bankrupt homosexuals, or which contains cruel caricatures of African-Americans.

Anti-Arab

Reflecting the Zionist sentiments of its top management, the Eisner-run Disney company has produced a number of anti-Arab motion pictures in recent years. In a 1994 movie, "The Return of Jafar," for example, hook-nosed Arabs are referred to as "desert skunks." "The Father of the Bride, Part II" (1995), includes a loathsome Arab-American character named Habib (played, ironically, by Eugene Levy). "Kazaam" (1996), produced by Disney's Touchstone pictures, includes an assortment of villainous Arab characters, including a black marketer named Malik. Other recent anti-Arab Disney films include "In the Army Now" and "GI Jane."

In August 1996 the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee organized a demonstration outside the Disney studios to protest the company's pattern of anti-Arab productions.

White America Under Fire

For some years now, Hollywood and American television have churned out numerous films and television productions that distort European-American history and disparage white America's racial-cultural heritage. Under Eisner, Disney has moved to the forefront of this "politically correct" assault.

Among the recent Disney films that misrepresent and malign America's European heritage has been "Pocahontas," a 1995 animated film that portrays Indians ("native Americans") as liberated, nature-loving, wise and noble, while depicting Europeans as narrow-minded, ignorant, bigoted and greedy.

Under the "Hollywood Records" label, Eisner/Disney has issued CD albums with anti-white lyrics, including one by black "rap" singer "Prince Akeem," who blames black poverty on a "white conspiracy." In April 1996 Eisner fired New York City's most popular radio talk show host, Bob Grant, from his job at Disney-owned WABC for allegedly white racist rhetoric.

'Economic War'

Some of the millions of Americans whom Eisner and his colleagues have affronted are fighting back. Most notably, the nation's two largest Christian groups -- the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists -- have declared "economic war" against Eisner/Disney.

In 1996 the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights announced a "nationwide charge against Disney, making use of every legal means available -- from boycotts to stockholder revolts," to pressure the company into ending its hostility to Christianity and Catholicism. Roman Catholic dioceses across the country and the Catholic fraternal association Knights of Columbus sold off millions of dollars in Disney stock.

The Southern Baptists -- with 16 million members, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States -- voted overwhelmingly in 1996 and again in 1997 to boycott Disney films and products. The group cited the company's trashing of traditional and family values, and in particular its support for homosexuality.

The Assemblies of God church -- an evangelical Christian denomination with 2.5 million members -- launched its own anti-Disney boycott campaign in 1996. It criticized the company for "abandoning the commitment to strong moral values."

Such boycott efforts seem to have had little lasting impact, however, because Disney company products and services are so widely available, often under non-Disney labels, because pre-Eisner Disney images are still so beloved, and, more generally, because of public apathy.

Seductive and Dangerous

Because Eisner and the others who run the motion picture and television industries are able to shape the public's barely conscious basic assumptions about life and society, thereby profoundly influencing the thinking and actions of millions, they wield greater power than even our elected lawmakers.

A lust for profits does not adequately explain the social-cultural agenda of Eisner and the others who control the American media. Rather, they seem driven by priorities that are fundamentally hostile to this nation's most vital traditions and basic values.

Precisely because the Eisners of Hollywood and New York beguilingly pose as friends, they are more insidious, and ultimately more dangerous, than even a military threat from a foreign power.

Eisner's transformation of Disney parallels, and contributes to, the cultural, social and political transformation of the United States as a whole. Like America's political leaders, Eisner and his Disney colleagues reassuringly display familiar symbols and trademarks from an earlier era, exploiting reputations and good-will painstakingly built up over decades. Those who patronize Disney are reassured that such beloved symbols as Mickey Mouse and Snow White are still in place, just as millions of credulous Americans are reassured about the future of the United States because such icons as the American flag and the US Constitution are still in place. But in each case, the spirit that gave life to these venerable symbols has been driven out by a very different one -- a spirit that has not yet dared to show its real face, or speak its real name.

Bill Nye the Science Lemming

The other night I was so bored that I decided to see what the show "Stuff Happens" was all about. Bill Nyes face popped up and my first thought was "Well, he still dresses like a friggin' idiot." and the show just went downhill from there.
This particular show was about cows, flatulance, the ozone, global warming and the hype to become a tree-hugging, soy-slurping vegetarian. Billy tells us that it's the 1.5 million cows farting, and not the space shuttle punchhing 15 mile wide holes in the ozone every time it blasts off, nor is it the estimated 800 billion drivers all over the world (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/MarinaStasenko.shtml ) that is causing all our global warming problems. Of course it's those meat eaters, and good ol' Billy was practically drooling out the anti-meat message to our kids.
He tells us tuna is bad as it's full of mercury, which, is a fact, but not for the reasons he tells. Un-safe ecological practices are the causes for that and not because too many of them are being over-fished. You have the Japanese on one hand, fishing like pirates and then the US, who violates as many rules as the next country. supply and demand is what it's all about and those who own the companies, mainly the jews (don't believe me? Try finding non-kosher tuna!) who don't care about anything except their own greed and the destruction of our environment. Look who ownes those pesky coal-burning power plants! Those people are the culprits, not Charlie tuna!
Bill also goes on to compare the water saved from eating tofu vs beef and that becoming a veggie-tarian that we'll make such a monumentous impact that I can perhaps see a real live dodo again. Well, here's my perspective on that: I, nor any of my relatives and ancestors climbed, scratched, bit, clawed and fought to the top of the food chain just to eat friggin' vegetables! I've never seen a vegan body builder or a vegan athlete worth a darn. You mutts can keep your genetically-altered soy burgers and your falafal salads. I'll take a medium porterhouse with sauteed shrooms and a bottle of A-1. My great-great grandparents ate massive amounts of beef, pork and chicken daily as well as mugs full of milk. They all lived well into their 90's. How can we with all the crap, literally, in and on our foods? Perhaps if we deported all the lettuce and spinach patch crapping wetbacks, we could have enough proud Americans doing that job with a bit of pride adn sanitation. Oh, but that would cost the jew slave laborers too much.
The point I'm making is how the jew-owned media is telling our kids so many false and mis-leading 'facts' and is only self-serving itself. Myself, I'm sticking to organic gardening (no gene-screwed corn or veggies for me) and my farm-raised local beef and pork.
Until Uncle Scam decides to make that illegal too.

16 Signs We Live Under Jewish Tyranny

16 Signs That You Live Under Tyranny

by Jon Roland

Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else. Here are the top 16 signs that you are living in a tyranny or heading that way.

1. Control of public information and opinion: It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public information" or "marketing."

2. Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers: It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

3. Undue official influence on trials and juries: Non-random selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

4. Usurpation of undelegated powers: This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

5. Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force: The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

6. Militarization of law enforcement: Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

7. Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform: Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

8. Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers: When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

9. Use of the law for competition suppression: It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

10. Subversion of internal checks and balances: This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

11. Creation of a class of officials who are above the law: This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders."

12. Increasing dependency of the people on government: The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

13. Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them: When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

14. Use of staged events to produce popular support: Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.

15. Conversion of rights into privileges: Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

16. Political correctness: Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.