Gaddafi Unplugged and Uncensored

Translated by Professor Sam Hamod, Ph.D.

Recollections of My Life: Col. Mu'ummar Qaddafi

For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.

I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from us.

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.

I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...

In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

c: Col. Mu'ummar Qaddafi, 2011/05/04

From a Comment on Smoking Mirrors:

The worst crimes ever committed hardly anyone knows about it and that's the 65 million lying in mass graves all over Eastern Europe. This is genocide and it wouldn't have been near as bad, but they took the most intelligent. They executed 25% of the most intelligent people in Eastern Europe. The damage done to the White race is unbelieveable. I mean if a fair IQ test were given to Whites and Jews we would probably beat them on average by 10 points and if they hadn't killed the most intelligent it might be 15 points. Now around every city and town in Eastern Europe lie millions and millions in millions of mass graves. But they are so sorry when they find a mass grave they let the Jews take control and fence off the area and then blame it on Germans. Now they don't allow the Red Cross to test for when this was done. The problem for the Jews would be the number of people and the time. Because out of 70 years of Jewish control of Eastern Europe the Germans were only in part of it from 1939 to 1945. So if mass grave was found and carbon testing or just the metals and artifacts in the grave would prove when they were killed. So in their own country the Slavs are letting the Jews control this. If the Ukrainians took control of a mass grave discovered in Odessa, Ukraine 3 or 4 years ago they would discover it couldn't be blamed on the Germans. They discovered a mass grave in Vladivostock a few months ago, but they would have hard time blaming that on the Germans.
So the Jews knows sooner or later they can't keep putting people in prison for questionign the holocaust. That lie is falling apart. They know people are learning the truth about vaccines and big pharma and the wars and they know that the list of people wanting the truth about 9/11 is growing. But you people have waited too long. The hammer is going to drop and Communism is going to rear it's ugly head, because the Jew knows the time is short.
Cancer has been cured for fifty years, but the Jew media has kept this hidden, so the Jews who own big pharma wouldn't lose profits.
The only hope is Americans decide they will not give up their guns. The bloodbath is going to be horrendous. WWI and WWII and the Communist holocaust will not compare to what's going to happen, because when America is in a Civil War the rest of the world will explode in certain pockets. I would say all the Jews and brown people will be in trouble.

Was the WTC Demolished by Mini Nukes?

(Ed. Note- This would explain why everything disintegrated into a fine dust.)

From Anonymous

If you want to know what really happened during 9/11, you should visit
this site:
http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/2010/05/dimitri-khalezovs-nuclear-demolition.html

It has links to an interview with a former officer of the Soviet nuclear
intelligence unit, Dimitri Khalezov.

This interview runs for over 4 hours and has 26 parts.

I recommend you start with part 4 when he explains that the New York
building authorities will not approve the construction of skyscrapers in
NYC unless the developer also submits a demolition plan that meets with
their approval. In the case of the WTC, the developers opted for a
nuclear demolition plan. In other words, nuclear devices had been placed
under the WTC complex from the time the buildings were constructed for
their future demolition.

The Americans were scammed into believing that mini nukes were planted
in WTC1 and 2 on 9/11 because the Pentagon was hit by a missile carrying
a nuclear warhead which did not explode. I'm not even sure whether
there were any planes hitting the WTC - the TV coverage would appear
to be a complete computer fabrication (watch parts 2 and 3 of the
interview which covers this).

As a result, the Americans demolished WTC1 and 2 as the mini nukes would cause less destruction if the explosions were at ground level rather
than high up in the skyscrapers.

Be sure to watch video #14 when Khalezov talks about the collapse of WTC 7. Do you remember the BBC reported its collapse 24 mins before it fell?

Even though it was not hit by any plane....
The nukes which were to be used for the demolition of the WTC complex
(mentioned in video 4) were stored under WTC 7. Building 7 had to be
destroyed so nobody would find the underground railway system used for
delivering the nukes to WTC 1 and 2.

If you are wondering why the WTC workers were not dropping dead like
flies as in Chernobyl, watch parts 24 and 25 when Khalezov explains the
difference between acute and chronic radiation sickness and how the
Americans minimised the effect of their exposure to the radioactivity.

Khalezov has a site with a lot of info on the truth behind 9/11
http://www.911-truth.net/

His personal site is http://www.dkhalezov.com/911thology.html

His book is available from:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapters.pdf

or from:
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/s5socosne
--

p314285@fastmail.fm

Question from Fetzer about 9/11:
"...have you looked into any of these high tech weapons?"

Reply from Steven Jones:
"Ah, well, I just read about them. I have not been involved
in the event."

And then Fetzer starts talking over him.

Do you realize what happened in this interview?
Steven Jones denied involvement in "the event"
when the question was about high tech weapons.

DING DING DING DING!!

Jones denied involvement when the question wasn't
about involvement. It's similar to a spouse saying,
"Hi, honey. How was your day?" and the spouse
responding, "I wasn't flirting with that secretary."

Huh?

Me thinks thou dost protest too much, Steven Jones.
Nobody asked if you were involved in "the event".
Why are you denying involvement?

Something else about the response bears close scrutiny.
Jones denied his involvement in "the event" after a particular
question. That question was about high tech weapons.
This indicates that Jones knows that high tech weapons
were actually used, and when Fetzer brought it up, alarm
bells rang off and he made the mistake of denying his own
involvement.

It's basic childlike behavior. Caught red-handed? DENY!
Jones knew he was "caught" although it wasn't obvious
to the casual listener, so he went straight to denial. OMG,
I really can't believe this juicy find!

Nota bene how Fetzer immediately starts talking over
him when Jones makes this huge gaff. I'm pretty sure
Fetzer knows all about what really happened, and Jones'
role in the cover up.

Maybe they didn't work it out precisely beforehand,
and Jones was caught off guard by the question from
Fetzer. Then Fetzer had to recover control of the situation
and did so by talking over Jones.

If you don't believe this, listen to the clip yourself.

Who denies they were involved in 9/11? This is a real
question. Who NEEDS to deny they were involved in 9/11?

Looking at another Anti-Zionist Blog:

THE UGLY TRUTH
ASSEMBLING THE EVIDENCE FOR HIGH LIKLIHOOD OF COMING THIRD WORLD WAR

Comment Section:

knuckledragger
August 2, 2010 at 3:49 am

That’s because you’re a jew, and we both know it. An ugly one at that…Don’t complain because I say you and your kike brethren should be executed on sight. It’s your fate, and you can’t escape it. I’m not basing it on the fact that you have a bunch of jews come and talk a bunch of propaganda on your website. I’m basing it on the fact that I recognize a jew when I see one, and both YOU and YOUR WIFE are kikes. Carry on with the disinfo, but don’t think it makes you immune to execution with the rest of your tribe.

(The Ugly Truth Blogger)
MG–And this, ladies and gents, is why we are losing the battle. Not because the power of the Jews over us, but because THIS represents the “A-Team”–inbred, violent, unthinking creatures incapable of rational or moral thought. A guy who uses a pistol as his avatar and who threatens innocent women and children.

And this is supposed to be morally superior to the garbage out there who wars with us incessantly?

My God, its a miracle we’ve come as far as we have when this is what passes for ‘the resistence’.

PS–there was another guy whose MO was just like this–his name was Hal Turner and used much of the same tactics and language. As it turned out, Turner was a self-admitted FBI informant/provacateur.

(Posted by Me - Dionysus Scrolls)
I will document the A-Team super-patriot super Jew-hater's run in with the relatively Jew-protecting Me:

George Benkel says:
June 24, 2010 at 8:08 pm

“See, people like me, we know, if you leave one Jew behind, and allow it to fester, we’re going to be right back… our ancestors will be right back in this same boat another 2000 years from now if we let them live!”

You sure are mesuggener.

Have your checks cleared from the Jabotinsky Center ?
reply

*
Subverted Nation says:
June 24, 2010 at 9:28 pm

Excuse you kike mother fucker? If you don’t like what I have to say, tough fucking shit. Take your sorry ass on down the road bitch, because the real story is this. If you don’t like what I have to say, you are likely a fucking jew. The question is, how much is the ADL paying your sayanim ass to run your gullible fucking mouth on my website? Or, do you just do it because you feel it’s your duty to the tribe? You sound like a typical baby raping, nation wrecking, genocidal kike afraid to meet your fucking maker. I will be more than happy to send you there myself.

(My Response for here)
For the record, I will not apologize for having a Jewish last name. The MOTHER carries the Judaic lineage. DO YOU KNOW ANY JEWS WHOSE FATHER'S ARE RETIRED BLUE-COLLAR AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY LINE WORKERS?

THE WTC'S DECLINE AND EXODUS



Talking about "9/11 institutions", what of the WTC complex itself? What was it exactly? Most people in the world are still, I think, under the impression those towering behemoths really were the pride of US bustling capitalism, with shiny modern offices and luscious furniture - and lots of happy tenants. Hence, in order for the public to start accepting that perhaps the WTC towers were empty (and hopefully everyone knows no one can die in an empty building), this basic myth has to be blown apart.

Here are some extracts of "Divided we stand" by Eric Darton (1999) which should be quite illuminating for people who don't know - or cannot come to terms with the notion - that the towers were, in fact a redundant, decrepit and largely vacated ghost structure long before 2001.




(from p.190)
DETAILS: THE PHYSICAL PLANT

Pacing out the periphery of the trade towers in the late 1990s, one nav-
igated a cracked badlands of sidewalk crudely patched with mismatch-
ing cement. The weathered, gray (originally white) Italian marble
paving on the plaza was a spiderweb of cracks, a condition that under-
mined the addition of benches and flowerbeds and the tinkling medley
of new-age harmonics emanating from a score of tiny speakers mounted
beneath Yamasaki's arcades. Construction equipment and barricades
around the site appeared to have been deployed and then abandoned
by a retreating army.

And up in the towers, where asbestos removal was still under way,
a host of details pointed toward a rift opening up within the trade cen-
ter itself. In 1985, when New York State moved most of its offices out,
Dean Witter consolidated its operations in twenty-four floors of Tower
2 under a twenty-year lease. Visiting the brokerage and investment
firm's offices and cafeterias, one invariably found them spotlessly
maintained. But on adjacent floors, particularly those with multiple
tenants, the paint was dingy, the carpets were stained, fixtures re-
mained broken, and burned-out fluorescent lights went unreplaced, as
did discolored ceiling tiles. And the listing of a company on the direc-
tory did not reliably indicate that a company was still there.

And who indeed was there, inhabiting the self-proclaimed heart of
world trade? In 1966, as the PA was bulldozing Radio Row, the City
Planning Commission reported that "the prime objective of the WTC is
to simplify and expand international trade by centralizing and consoli-
dating within the Center essential world trade services and activi-
ties.... The Center will contain only government agencies and private
firms which play a part in international marketing and in the adminis-
trative processing of world trade. " Yet according to its own
1993 occupancy survey, the Port Authority found that trade service and
import-export tenants accounted for only 5 percent of its leases.

The Port Authority closed out the 1990s with a stream of press re-
leases announcing the rental of unimaginably huge quantities of trade
center office space to "cutting-edge" firms like Sun Microsystems. Yet
around the complex a million square feet stood empty, and the build-
ings originally intended as great catalyzing chambers of world trade
were, by degrees, transforming into a kind of disjunctive real estate
layer-cake. One story above the carpeted, wood-paneled offices of a
Japanese securities firm, a group of artists filled bare walls with boldly
colored images and hung sculptures from the exposed ceiling girders of
a vast echoing cavern. As part of a Lower Manhattan Cultural Council
program that turned some of the vacant space in the towers over to
artists rent-free, 40,000 square feet of concrete floor lay paint-
spattered and strewn with the raw materials of a creative urge that has
never been easily reconciled with the imperatives of a bottom line.


On page 204, Eric Darton mentions what is defined as 'the modest economy boost'
of the WTC1993 bombings (I kid you not!) which allowed to relocate
350 bombed-out trade center tenants into vacant office space nearby...



from p. 204

In January 1996, Governor Pataki announced that he was moving
the trade center's last state tenant, the governor's office itself, to cheaper,
more convenient space in midtown.

ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE

The February 1993 blast in the basement of the World Trade Center
killed 6 people, injured 1,000 others, displaced 50,000 workers, and
threw 900 Vista Hotel and Windows on the World employees out of
work, but it also provided a modest boost for the regional economy.
This, at any rate, was the conclusion the Port Authority came to in an
April 1993 report released six weeks after the bombing.

(...)

For the agency, this silver lining was due in part to the ease with
which the 350 bombed-out trade center tenants could be moved into
abundant vacant office space nearby. Breathing an almost palpable
sigh of relief, then-PA chair Richard Leone noted that relocating ten-
ants would have been far more protracted and expensive had the ex-
plosion occurred in the boom year of 1985.



In other words, may I tentatively presume that the 1993 bombings helped scare the sh#t out of the last remaining WTC tenants and make them get the hell outta there? You should also know that the official line (post-2001) was that "in September 2001 the WTC towers were at 95% capacity and had 400 tenants". Could that possibly have been a ...ehrm...a lie?

In any case, the material in Darton's book written in 1999 informs us that:
- After the 1993 bombings, 50,000 workers were displaced and 350 tenants were relocated outside the WTC.
- At the end of the nineties, " a stream of press releases announced the rental of unimaginably huge quantities of trade center office space."
So, this begs the question: Could they possibly have "re-populated" the WTC towers with a string of unimaginably phony press releases?

rhw007 said:
We NEED more Soldiers to do a WikiLeaks based on their making hard decisions to STOP killing based on a lie.

Sword:
I clearly cannot condone this wikileaks website - nor the motives behind whatever agenda they have.
...

Sword's Blog is:
HHMSS Sword

The repository of thought that the pentagon would rather have stay silent... ...

Asked and Answered. The drugged-up insider homosexuals can't get their stories straight. They're well-funded and will get everyone killed in upcoming Economic Collapse and inevitable WW3.

The US Congress and Senate preach only their undying love of the Zionist state without even a word about their own constituents that actually "elected" them to office.

The Crimes of Communist Jews

by Jim Gehring

"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish Dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose work is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also through the same Jewish mental and physical forces become a reality all over the world." --The American Hebrew, Sept. 10, 1920



"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism (Communism) itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." --The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1919.


"It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type..." --Captain Montgomery Schuyler, US Army Intelligence Report, 1 March 1919



"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England, with a view to concerted action." --Directorate of Intelligence, Home Office, Scotland Yard, London, in a Monthly Report to Foreign Embassies, 16th July, 1919.




The most heinous act ever committed, but nobody seems to care and the evidence is right under our feet. From 1917 to 1989, Communist Jews killed the most intelligent people of Russia and Eastern Europe clean to China. This was worse than random mass killings, they hand picked the intelligentsia including the generals, scientists, teachers, Priests, Nuns and Politicians and took them just on the outskirts of the cities and shot them execution style in the back of the head. They did this because they figured these people could lead them to victory against the Communists.

Every now and then they stumble across a mass grave in Eastern Europe. The local Jews roll in and they fence off the area and they take control of the forensics. You would think something this huge would get national attention. This occurred recently in Odessa, Ukraine. No doubt some of the Jews knew the true number and when they were buried there, because some of the Jews taking part in the examination of the graves were the very people that put them there. One Jew there said, there are probably 600 more mass graves in Eastern Europe. Why would he say this and how would he know? Strange but the Jews never mentioned mass graves of Jewish people until mass graves started to be discovered.

The number of victims makes a big difference, because the Communist Jews would only represent 3% to 5% of any given city. So a city with a population of 250,000 would pose a problem to the Jews if a mass grave contained 60,000 bodies. When they find a mass grave in Eastern Europe the Jews just blame the Germans, because it is so easy. Just blame the ones who went into these countries on their way to Russia. But the mass graves around the cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Perm, Omsk and Novgorod would have to be blamed on a different culprit. This would be the work of the Communist Jews.


There is a reason the Jews don't allow non-Jews to examine these graves, because a forensic doctor could determine who the people are whether they are Jews or Eastern Europeans. They could also determine when they were killed. This is a big problem for the Jews, because a mass grave couldn't be blamed on the Germans if they were killed in 1920 or 1980. Also the type of execution and the bullets used, because the Communist killed the people with a single .22 bullet to the base of the skull. The only hope is the Eastern Europeans decide it's time to learn what they did with their ancestors.


There is a reason it's not widely known, because these Jews don't want it known. There have been mass graves found and these Jews were always able to take control of the operation. It occurred not long ago in Odessa, Ukraine. The problem is what are Jews doing in control of Ukraine and why aren't experts and the Red Cross called in to examine the bodies? We also have the Karyn Forest Massacres as proof of another mass grave. The Germans discovered the graves when they ran the Russians out. They called in experts from all around the world. You could tell the people were killed recently. Two years later when the Germans were run out the Russians dug up the bodies and blamed it on the Germans. I would say the bulk of the graves are on some of those huge tracts of land and today are owned by these Jews to keep Russians away from them. They wouldn't want anyone building homes on this land.

But the fact a large grave was discovered not long ago in Odesssa, Ukraine is proof enough they exist. They killed the people by the millions and the bodies didn't vanish in thin air.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/27/gordon-duff-was-america-the-golden-goose/

The calendar says 2010 but it feels like 1955, not the real 1955, not by a long shot, but a fictional, "Hollywood version" with Americans cowering under their beds from the Red Menace, "Duck and Cover," and a bland, colorless ignorance is seeping into our souls. Instead of cowboy movies, where evil scalping redskins menace our forefathers, wagons circled and arrows flying, the cry is "creeping socialism" and imaginary terrorists. But it isn't 1955, too much has happened, so much that we have blocked out the realities of 55 years of our history, a history meant to be a lesson, good and bad. We have replaced everything we believe with a continuing fantasy, and not a very nice one at that. Our fantasy is written by storytellers, the public relations agents for the massive organized crime syndicate that dwarfs any political leader or government.

8 years of Eisenhower produced one thing only, a warning about the "military industrial complex." It was 8 years of poverty and starvation for many, decline in education, impoverishment of our middle class, decline in national defense and a massive growth in class hatred in America. The only uniting force for most "voting Americans" was race hatred. You see, African Americans, then called "Negroes" but actually seldom that, couldn't vote, not in most parts of the country. Every American was raised to ignore that, that and a thousand other unAmerican abuses of our imaginary Constitution. Freedom meant freedom to do what you were told, when you were told or a cop would bash in your skull with a club.

Then one day, a man came and stopped the train. His name was John Kennedy. No, his dad was never a gangster, that is nothing but conspiracy theory, no, Nixon wasn't beaten in a rigged election, Nixon stole more votes than Kennedy or he would have lost by millions. Americans have always hated Richard Nixon, a vicious paranoid now proven to have been right too often, one of the little surprises time gives us when we aren't looking. Never have two influential Americans, Nixon and Kissinger hated and distrusted each other so much, but that is for another day.

America wasn't ruled by politicians or labor unions. Our real government was the massive organized crime syndicate that controlled our political parties with the aid of mob enforcer J. Edgar Hoover. Mobs controlled labor unions, courts, police departments, entire cities, most of them in fact, and industry after industry from oil to agriculture to trucking. There was no federal law enforcement, Hoover had decreed that the Mafia didn't exist. He was right in some ways, the Italian Mafia was never anything more than a boys club for criminals. My father explained that to me early on. We would sit up and watch The Untouchables. He always said, "Don't let them fool you, Jews run everything, the Mafia is just a fable." As my dad was a bootlegger and rum runner in the 20's, nephew of Josef "Legs" Lehman of the Purple Gang and half the aging mobsters Detroit was famous for were in and out of our home, I had to believe him.

For those of us alive then, alive and awake, Kennedy was a game changer. Americans had lost faith, had come to believe their country would always be something they could wave flags about but be ashamed of too. America was a land of coal miners living in shacks, of sharecroppers and barefoot children wearing rags, of malnutrition and ignorance. It snowed brown in Detroit, sulphurous fumes filled the air. Everyone smoked so it didn't really matter, cigarettes and alcohol were considered a rite of passage. Lake Erie, St. Clair and the Detroit River emitted a foul stench, devoid of fish, unsafe to swim in or even touch.

The only way out of poverty was union work in factories. My dad worked at Ford, having quit the Teamsters Union. "Little Jimmie" had been a friend of my dad from the old neighborhood until my mother forced my dad to break it off, not wanting to see him in prison again. My dad called the factory, Ford's transmission division in Livonia, "the jute mill." Every week it was one friend or another "carried out feet first." Life expectancy for an auto worker was low, with many dying in their 40s of heart attacks brought on by a combination of smoking, fried foods and breathing poisonous 130 degree air during 12 hour shifts.

America has become a class society, workers and management, black and white, urban working poor and rural very poor. Few Americans had been on a plane, other than bombing Germany, Europe was still largely in ruins from the war, the "third world" was still ruled by Britain, France and, if you can believe it, Portugal and Belgium. If America got sick of a government somewhere, we simply "dealt with it," usually an assassination or rigged election or both.

It was John Kennedy that told us we didn't have to be what we were. When he talked, he didn't sound like a cartoon. "Ike" had been one of the worst public speakers in history. There was a reason for that, he wasn't very bright, had no vision and really didn't give a damn about very much. He was the Ronald Reagan of his day, an empty hat "blowhard" and time waster. Leaders were supposed to be "place holders" who did what they were told while the inexorable went on, money flowed up, "crap" flowed down, low pay, dirt and filth, adulterated food, poor medical care, 4th rate education and a thinly veiled police state under the control of a massive crime cartel older than any of us would ever learn.

What would happen when the day came where Americans would no longer work for a dollar an hour, buy milk for their kids filled with chalk, hot dogs that were made of ground corn, rat droppings and suet or bread made from wood shavings. Oh, you didn't know this? This was the real "good old days" you don't hear about.

What changed with Kennedy was America's expectations. Everything we know about America, everything hated by some, started then, college education as a reality for millions, safe medicines and safe food, clean water and air and a decent lifestyle for working people. American workers began to move out of poverty, "wage slavery" and into a social class where children could move beyond their station without selling their souls.

We can't have a talk about culture without mentioning Kennedy and the Beatles. An entire era, America's real golden age, has been repackaged by our media morons and fabricators as a few anti-war demonstrations and the mini-skirt. What happened, what was real was a total rejection of what the idiots loved to call "convention." What was "convention?" It wasn't just "Negroes" that were supposed to stay in their place. Education meant 2 years of highschool or graduation and some sort of trade, maybe teaching but more likely some sort of factory skill, even for the best and brightest. Life was planned, work, buying, eating garbage, finally getting sick and dying or retiring in poverty. The only way of sidetracking this was being killed in Vietnam, in Vietnam or "by" Vietnam, something that "did in" a quarter million Americans.

Everything good that happened is now described by our media, yes, the media controlled by the same mob J. Edgar Hoover protected his entire life, as "Marxism" or "elitism." Not wanting your job shipped to China or blaming all the wrong people for oil spills, false flag terrorism, market crashes, rigged elections, massive "white collar" crimewaves that have "disappeared" most of our country's wealth while we jail millions of drug users and poor....

The charade, of course, is the house you own belongs to a crooked bank. The job you may still hold could blow away like a leaf in the wind. The education you can no longer afford for your child, affordable education is "elitist" don't you know, doesn't matter anyway. Nurses, teachers and engineers are being laid off by the thousands around the country while Wall Street bonueses paid out of America's massive debt go through the roof.

We can't even go back to being slaves. The factories are gone. Even if they were there, nobody could afford to buy anything they built. Try to find a newspaper that will tell the story of the collapse of American industry. What is the single biggest reason our jobs went overseas? Our workers have long been the most productive in the world but, with $9000 worth of health care costs tacked on to a car, building in the US became impossible. Organized crime running insurance companies, the "outfit's" drug scams and the medical monopoly, the "non-profit" hospitals that funneled a generation's livelihood into numbered accounts in foreign banks are why we are on this rollercoaster ride.

Drive down any highway. See cars with flat tires and empty tanks along the road? Wonder why that is?

Are we paying for things we did wrong? Did too many buy in on Reaganesque "greed is good" baloney or the phony "war on terror?" I think a better focus is "deregulation." Every industry that has been deregulated has collapsed under massive criminal wrongdoing. Does this mean organized crime runs every financial operation in the US, from the Federal Reserve to every "house" on Wall Street? What do you think?

We couldn't have done anything about it anyway, even if we weren't being manipulated to blame each other. I love it when I hear about conspiracies. Our entire financial system is a conspiracy, always has been. Conspirators wrote our Constitution. Federalists were nothing but agents of the British banks, working phony currency games to make sure America would remain a colony of Britain forever. Britain, of course, is a colony of the Rothschild's and has been since the 1700s. Is any of it a conspiracy or is the fact that the actual world financial system is a criminal conspiracy, the World Bank, the IMF, the EU, the Federal Reserve.

Phony money, debt, massive counterfeiting by every world government, games meant to keep the world in chaos, war and poverty isn't a secret, certainly not theory but very definately a conspiracy.

Back when we had so much money, so much wealth, when American "productivity" could sustain economic security for working Americans, we could ignore the obvious questions. How often did you ask yourself why America bought its own money from foreign banks? Who, in the name of all that is holy, thought up the monstrosity we call the Federal Reserve System? Now that everything has collapsed, with all major currencies in "free fall" simultaneously, it has to be obvious.

Will your next tank of gas be paid for by a credit card you will never live to pay off? When will your home be worth what you owe? Should you walk away? Is there anywhere to go? Where are the safe communities, the economic "hot spots" with all the high paying jobs? California is bankrupt. Texas is dead. Can we all move to Washington and become lobbyists?

How can Americans explain the Federal Reserve system when none of us understand Afghanistan, our current war, where we are now supporting opium growers and spending billions arming people to fight us who are fighting us only because we are, curiously enough, paying them to. Why would Americans arm the Taliban, protect poppy fields and prevent Afghanistan from establishing a democratic government? Is America, just maybe, run by organized crime?

Check your bank account, check your mail, check the job section in your newspaper. It ain't no conspiracy, it is simply a pack of criminals like it has always been. They just got too greedy and have finally killed the golden goose, us.

The German Government Has Had Enough

If you thought the German government was going to be a lapdog for Sarcozy, or worse, was going to fellate Brussels and the ECB, you got a rude shock today.

It appears that the German Government has just plain had enough of the crap that the banksters have tried to pull, and has decided to do what Barack Obama should have done in early 2009.

That is:

• No more naked credit crap, especially against sovereigns but not only against sovereigns. No insurable interest, no CDS - period.
  
  
• Naked shorting will now be actually stopped in 10 leading financial institutions.
  
  
• Germany has had it with naked shorting of Gold, and specifically noted bank manipulation of gold prices via naked shorts beyond intent or ability to deliver.
  
  
• Germany has also said that they're not going to permit Euro derivatives that are not a "bonafide" FX hedge. That is, no more naked bets on Euro movements either.
  
  
• Hedge funds are going to be regulated, position size limits mandated and enforced, reporting enhanced and a transaction tax is coming.

It's about damn time.

Oh, and it appears that instead of telling all the banksters what they were going to do and "getting permission" first, or even discussing it with other governments, the German Government did what all governments should do - make up your mind and then do it without giving a good damn whether the banksters or other governments like it - and without giving them input into the decision or notice that it's coming.

The bid rigging, the game-playing and the rest are all a bunch of crap. I've been hollering about this now for more than three years and yet our government spends it's time fellating the bankers and their dogs instead of enforcing the law.

It is illegal to defraud people.

It is illegal to rig markets, including the massive bid-rigging that I wrote about this morning, the Jefferson County Alabama scam and dozens if not hundreds more - all committed, it is alleged (and in some cases proved) by the major banks.

It is illegal to short stocks with no intention or ability to deliver.

And it is illegal to bribe government officials, no matter how you accomplish it.

These are not "isolated incidents" or even a pattern of conduct - as the bid-rigging report this morning makes clear ripping people off has become an institutionalized practice and policy throughout the entire banking system.

Many said that the Germans were not "really" arm-twisted by Sarcozy and the French Banking interests a week or so back. I think we can put that to rest here and now, as it's pretty clear that the truth is something else entirely.

Now Barack, about your willingness to get up off your knees and kick these banksters in the nuts?

Better late than never.

DOUGLAS CHRISTIE – CANADA’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAWYER

___________________________________________________________________________

Notes for Doug Christie’s Speech
University of Ottawa, April 8, 2010

I’m here to talk about free speech. I’m not here to practice it.

Unlike Ann Coulter, I don’t need a warning from the provost. I am a Canadian, trained by law in the way of silence, sullen silence, and code language. I have been trained by the Supreme Court not to engage in hate speech, even though no one can define it in advance, so I can avoid it.

There are general taboo topics which I must avoid or tread lightly around, like race, religion, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability or mental status. Then there are peripheral taboo topics like multiculturalism, immigration, affirmative action programs and a host of other ill-defined topics.

I have been trained to remain very sensitive to the broad political implications of these topics lest I face a very expensive lesson from the Human Rights Tribunal.

What the Supreme Court taught me when I appeared in Taylor and Zundel and Keegstra was that free speech has its limits in “hate” which means “extreme dislike.” So presumably I must like all races, religions, ethnic origins, etc. equally or at least dislike them only moderately. Or at least pretend to, which is more Canadian. I cannot denounce any one as evil.

The Law Society, through its decision of Harvey Strosberg taught me that if I speak in public, “law students” may tape some but not all of my words, and the Chairman of the Discipline Committee can issue a statement to the media condemning me as “identifying with a lunatic fringe,” even in the very act where he decides not to give me the benefit of a hearing where I could answer the allegation with evidence where both sides could be heard.

I learned in McAleer and Malcolm Ross, both of which went to the Supreme Court of Canada, that expressing your religious beliefs on your own time, is no defence and placing the messages in the United States where it is legal, is no defence if you mention where you can get the message to someone in Canada.

I learned that our parliamentarians of all parties love free speech so much that they banned someone from the precincts of Parliament who wanted to rent the parliamentary press gallery, a place anyone can rent for a press conference.

What was the press conference about? That the Human Rights Tribunal had ruled in Zundel’s case that “Truth was no defence,” and the truth of the statement could not be proven by any evidence. I know because that someone was me, the only lawyer in Canadian history to be banned by all party agreement from the precincts of parliament. Because in Canada truth is no defence. Orwell was right about double speak. Randy White a so-called Reform MP said he did not want me in his work place. Orwell was right about a lot of things.

I have learned and been carefully taught to avoid the taboo topics, to measure every word lest a tape recorder in the audience be taken to the Human Rights Commission, the police, the Law Society, or someone likes to complain to the Human Rights Commission.

I have learned to talk about free speech but never practice it. Never say anything like Ann Coulter would say, coming from a free society. And being in a university setting is all the more reason to be very careful about how you choose your words. The left-wing political giants who run most universities are able to let loose the mob with a wink and the students know their success with many professors depends on how successfully they can entrap a political foe.

Universities are the most dangerous place to practice free speech. Even topics like abortion which you would not normally think involve a taboo topic can quickly be spun into forbidden territory and sexism can result in expulsion or criminal charges. The civility of universities is accorded to those who can mobilize the largest screaming mob. No one listens.

I have to even be careful how I speak about Freedom of Speech.

So let me just speak about freedom of speech. I have come here to praise freedom of speech, not to bury it. I do not want to be cynical or bitter. But since 1984 when I took up the cause of freedom, I have become aware of the price to be paid for this precious legacy of freedom.

My office has been vandalized, repeatedly; my name has been defamed in the press; I have been the target of spurious complaints to law societies, I have been banned from the precincts of parliament. The very press who today became the target of complaints themselves because they post on the internet, who have come late to the battle, because of their money and power, are turning the tide. They were not long ago in the forefront of the mob, vilifying my clients and myself, since it was not their ox that was gored. Irony, thy name is Canada.

1984, the year Orwell entitled his most famous work was actually the year I got involved in the defence of James Keegstra. From that moment on, the lawyer who had defended successfully all manner of criminal cases from drugs to rape to murder and with no ill effects to his reputation other than professional jealousy became in the eyes of many, through the window of the media, a hated nazi-lawyer. This title, I have worn to this day, at first reluctantly and gradually resigned myself to it, knowing as “Human Rights” law tells us, “Truth is no defence.”

I would never be elected anywhere to anything. Any party would expel me, the right of left for fear of the media. I was warned this would happen. “Better alone than in the company of hypocrites,” I reasoned. There is one hope and that is that truth cannot be buried forever, and people will tell it come what may, even about race, religion, or ethnicity. There are some truths to be told on that score. They are the building blocks of culture and even the government of Quebec is recognizing this, even though they wrap it in convoluted language. Oops! I almost practiced free speech!

The best indication of what is the true value of free speech is provided by what happens when it is taken away. The thinking people become “bush league.” The first reaction to a controversial idea is not to hear the person about whom you heard, but to adopt the mob-mind view.

Left-wing, multicultural, tolerant, good. Right wing, xenophobic, intolerant, bad. A few code words and the mob takes the argument to the streets. The psychological guillotine cuts off debate and civility like the real guillotine cut off heads in Paris in the revolution till there were no heads to cut off. Everybody was at the same low level of passive, intellectual obedience to the omnipotent state. Then a forceful tyrant like Napoleon can impose his will with very little difficulty. Do we really have to go through these cycles of oppression, revolution, depression? Have we no intellect to listen for ourselves, evaluate for ourselves, accept or reject an idea with a civil attitude of tolerance? Do we need to have a hysterical violent reaction to every idea of a different perspective?

The Roman maxim: “Audi Alteram Partem” was over the door of the law library at McGill University where I once spoke. I entered through that doorway to face a hostile screaming mob, much like Ann Coulter faced. They had never met me. They could never hear me. Why did they reject me before hearing me? Why not hear both sides? Sometimes all sides need to be heard. Until they are, how can you really form an intelligent and informed opinion?

I believe the truth is that the idea of tolerance has been used as an Orwellian doublespeak smoke screen for intolerance and is really about narrowing the scope of debate before the debate begins. This is consistent with Marxism, but it is not consistent with liberalism or of constitutional principles of free speech. Certain topics cannot be discussed.

We don’t absolutely make it illegal to talk about certain subjects, we just make it so dangerous, with so many obscure and complex rules that no one dares to go there. Somewhat like gun laws. We don’t overtly ban all fire arms. No, we would find too much resistance and rational criticism. The hypocritical Canadian way is simply to regulate them out of existence, gradually, just like controversial speech. Hate laws mean whatever we say they mean. We will only tell you after you say something if you have offended. This is the process of gradual Marxism. The state gradually disarms the citizen of their weapons and their free speech by slow degrees so that absolute control both physical and mental will be with the state.

The other side of this equation is the enforcers, state agents, professional complainers, the enablers of state power. The people who go from politicians to judge or from politician to president of a University. They create a network of willing and compliant officials who can be counted on to cleverly manipulate and manage the progress from freedom, which they call “anarchy,” to the tyranny they call a “benevolent oligarchy.”

Thus they acquire through a system of servants and paid enforcers, through Human Rights Commissions and police forces the only persons authorized by law to break into your house, seize your computer, examine your files, your books, your speeches, your appearances and even your surreptitiously recorded comments as in the case of David Ahenakew.

They can ruin you. They can prosecute you. They can and will vilify you in the press. As was done to David Ahenakew and then even if you win, you still lose. You go through court for four years of stress and when you are finally acquitted, no one says “sorry” or pays your costs. On the contrary, they repeat in the media around the world the words of the judge condemning you in the very act of acquitting you.

And the state has all the guns, police, sheriffs, jails, probation officers, all paid by the state which you support with your taxes. If you want to be a paid bully, there’s a job for you. If you want to shoot people, just don’t say so, join the RCMP. If you want to taser people like Dziekanski, if you want to shoot teenagers like Ian Bush, or misfits like Jess Hughes, and never be charges, join the RCMP.

Just be sure you don’t admit what you did and the establishment will protect you. You are after all, protecting them. We are paying for our own enslavement. Only a few really know where we are going. The rest are following along for the ride, and the free lunch.

(Oops! Too much free speech!)

So if you want to carry on down the road to tyranny, just shout me down. If you want to go quietly into the night of tyranny, just ignore what I have said. Put it out of your mind and never think of it again. The legitimate function of the state is to preserve and maximize the freedom of the conscience, belief and opinion of the individual. It is not to enforce a social model of artificial cultural stew, enforced by law. We have inherent rights to survive as a free people only to the extent we articulate, manifest with rigorous debate and listen to all criticism with an enlightened and critical mind. Let us not presume we are possessed of all knowledge before the discussion starts, and set a limited agenda for social and acceptable speech.

Where once sex was a taboo topic, it has now become an obsession. Speech about race, if suppressed, becomes an obsession and if further suppressed, leads to violence. Let’s get debate out of the closet on all matters. Let’s use it, or we’ll lose it.

I have not said anything. More than anything, I have been allowed to speak here without interruption on the belief I would be ineffectual and secondly I would make the administration look better than the last speaker who was cancelled. I realized this at the beginning, but it is an opportunity to make the point that the redemption of an individual like me, or a society like your university, or of a country like Canada, is only possible if we listen to each other and talk openly about all of our serious and sensitive issues. Unless this really happens, Canada isn’t worth saving and neither is this university.

I will leave here knowing more than anyone in this room about the battles for free speech that have gone on in this country in the last thirty years. I see only minor changes occurring. This is your chance to ask what you need to know to make a difference.

According to the Torah teachings, Jews are in exile by divine decree. They are forbidden to leave exile and create their own state by physical means. Secondly, Jewish law forbids Jews to rebel against any other nations. Jews are required to be loyal citizens in the countries in which they reside. Hence, the state of "Israel" is forbidden.
The creation of the state of "Israel" transgresses these and other basic principles of Torah law.

Below you will find an excerpt from an email message sent out by the
National Council of Young Israel--an ultra-pro-zionist group.


SZM&PL>Chill Political Wind Threatens U.S.-Israel Relations
SZM&PL>Shlomo Z. Mostofsky and Rabbi Pesach Lerner

SZM&PL> For decades, the bedrock of the relationship
SZM&PL>between the United States and Israel has been an unbreakable SZM&PL>bond
built on trust and a mutual respect for the ideals and SZM&PL>practices of
democracy. Surrounded by enemies on all sides, SZM&PL>Israel has always known it
could rely on its powerful ally to SZM&PL>support and stand with it in times of
need. Similarly, in SZM&PL>dealing with a region characterized by strife and
turmoil, the SZM&PL>U.S. has always known it could rely on its sole democratic
ally SZM&PL>in the Middle East.


Since it seems the jewrusalem post now keeps tabs on us, perhaps
Pesach and Shlomo do as well...


If we've always known we could rely on our supposed sole "democratic" ally,
why is it we had to have a huge base built to
operate out of in Saudi Arabia for the Persian Gulf War and also
had bases in Kuwait? Why could we rely on Iran when the Shah
of Iran ran it?

How much more difficult was it to secure permission to build the
base in Saudi Arabia after decades of zionist interests doing
everything in their not-inconsiderable power to try to prevent
us from proving we were not enemies to other nations in that
region by selling them defensive weapons systems ilke AWACS and
F-15s? We did sell those systems, but surely not at the full
functional levels of operational readiness the buyers would
have preferred--in other words not capable of standing against
zionists equipped with the fully-functional versions of same.


Everything we do for zionism makes anything we'd like to accomplish
with the rest of the middle-east ten times as difficult.
Further, I strongly suspect much of our problems with other
middle eastern states are as much a function of how badly
the zionist deep cover operatives can poison that well as they
are any fundamental cultural/religious differences which
are not able to be overcome. After all, if the nation which stood
as the one significant bulwark against the communist takeover of
the Whole Earth can now play patty-cakes with one of the last
worst communist behemoths--the PRC--I really don't see why
we should be having ANY problems getting along with ayatollahs
and such-like who have so much in common with many of our
right-wing religious types.


Why was Turkey allowing us to keep those nuclear-tipped missiles up in
Turkey which so incensed the CCCP that
they surreptitiously placed nuclear tipped missiles in Cuba--the
genesis of the Cuban Missile Crisis (which I am old enough to
personally remember, BTW)?

It seems to me we have a number of good friends in the middle east,
even if not all of them are demo-commie terrorist states
with heavy overtones of rabid anti-semitism against the group
in the middle-east who can really claim that title as an
undiluted group of semites---the Arabs.

It seems to me the Hashemites over there in Jordan were a
pretty darn good friend to "the west" when they agreed to help
"great" britain oust the turks from Palestine---a certain
prerequisite to it's ever having even been partitioned and then
recreated "israel" by dint of western power entirely.

They were intending to be friends of the western powers in
so-doing, anyway. I think they sort of got shafted on the deal
they thought they had.

So Shlomo and Pesach, just precisely what benefit has
your favorite terrorist anti-semitic faux state provided to
the United States of America for all we've given and sacrificed
to it? I don't know of one single dog-darn thing.

One time an idiot who just happens to by my double-cousin told
me the zionists had overrun a SAM site provided the Arabs
by the CCCP and they'd gained extremely valuable information
"for us" to have in designing countermeasures against the CCCP's
SAM.

This was supposed to "make up" for things like what was done to
the U.S.S. Liberty intentionally, according to my idiot double-cousin.


Well, given the amount of money we poured down that zionist
rat hole to get that information, I'd be willing to bet we could
have had the information far cheaper by spending a lot less
than that on increases in our own intelligence-gathering and operational
covert agencies' budgets.

If you want something done right; do it yourself! I've found that
to be true so many times I don't even want to think about it. The
only reason I don't do everything done on my behalf myself
is simply that some things you can't easily do for yourself--like
dentistry and surgery--or because if you did everything for yourself you'd
have no time left to do anything else. The same is not true of our nation
though. We as a nation are perfectly capable of doing operations and
collecting intelligence data--and our own
sources are the only ones we can even begin to trust with any confidence.
Anything we get from "friends" is sure to be slanted to their advantage. It's
just too much of a temptation.

Incidents like that claimed by my cousin/cousin caused our politicians to
believe
we could rely more heavily on the zionist intelligence agencies while at the
very self-same time you'll find noted jew names in our congress pushing for
hearings into "civil rights violations" by
our own intelligence agencies--crippling ours so we'd be entirely
reliant for what we'd know--or not know---on the zionists.

And let us not forget that the countermeasures against SAM missile sites
did not benefit only the U.S., but certainly was included and shared-back
with the zionists, who were highly vulnerable to such air defense
emplacements when fighting their expansionist wars of aggression against their
understandably reluctant neighbors-by-force. Fighting them and vulnerable to
those systems while using our military hardware. They only obtained the
information on the SAM sites because it would come back to them in more
SAM-resistant war-birds with operational techniques developed by us at our
expense and shared with their pilots.

We know from the Ostrovsky/Hoy book some jew state supreme court judge tried
to keep from being published here that when it came time to warn us about a
huge truck-bomb being prepared in a shop which regularly installed "slicks"
in the personal vehicles of i"d"f goons stationed in Southern Lebanon to
smuggle contraband drugs and who-knows-what-else back into their own country,
our wonderful "democratic friends" apparently decided to take a vote on
whether or not the lives of our USMC personnel were worth letting it slip
that the vehicle-modification shop was known about, and in the end the vote
went against the lives of our USMC servicemen.

We're not talking about weighing lives against lives, we're
talking about weighing lives against continuing to know
about your own corrupt soldiers smuggling activities. I don't see
where the two are even on the same level at all.


We also know that the mossadists had a pretty good idea there was going to be
something worth filming from the roof of a jew warehouse near the WTTs so that
some were set-up ready to film the festivities in time to film both planes
going into the buildings.


It just buggers the imagination to think they could have been set up to film it
all and not have had some useful warnings to impart to us so that so many
would not have had to die--but then if they hadn't died, would we have been so
free-and-easy with the zionist incursions into Palestinian territory with no
meaningful oversight? Would Bush have been so likely to veer off into the
long-sought jew demand for the ouster of Saddam had those planes not been
allowed to (mostly) do their dirty deeds?

I don't think so!

So where's the benefit? Every time they have an opportunity to really
benefit us in some way which would possibly cost them the secrecy of their
sources for finding it out---intelligence assets in the arab world, in other
words---it seems they always take one of their middle-eastern-democratic
votes or something and the decision is to preserve their intelligence asset, no
matter how inconsequnetial it might be, at the expense of our lives.

During the Gulf War the zionists demanded of GHW Bush our recognition
codes for everything that flies in the theatre of war so that messy
accidents can be avoided? I'm talking about transponder codes on planes,
most likely missiles and quite possibly even large shells.

He refused them this. Good for him. After not "getting Saddam" and not
handing over those codes, the poor man was harangued in every corner of "our"
media--especially in the entertainment media---until he had no possible chance
of being elected.

His son handed over the codes upon request. He "got Saddam". He got to be
reelected. Go figure.

I wonder how much the North Koreans and the PRC will pay them for those or
what concessions they'll reciprocate--like countermeasures for weapons
systems they sell Arabs/muslims which the zionists may someday face in
battle?

Don't laugh!

Because Shlomo and Pesach are NOT our friends, and neither is their pet
terrorist state, "israel".

Don't be fooled!

The truth lives!

James R. Stenzel
Missouri
U.S.A.

-- In www_jewwatch_workgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Salemi"
wrote:
>
> Jim, I missed the story/history of the Weltner/Stenzel relationship/rift.
Could you provide a wikipedia-style description for the curious??? SS
> Sent from A BlackBerry


Okay, fair enough.

There's no real rift between myself and Frank Weltner.

I own his life's-work, jewwatch.com now mainly being
at the right place at the right time.

I met Weltner from hearing his calls on a local
call-in-talk radio station, WGNU 920 A.M., operated
and owned by Charles "Chuck" Norman. "The Old Chuckaroo"
as he was sometimes called believed in the principle
of free speech and put his personal fortune where his
mouth was.

I could go on all day about that. The day-time show fare
was generally people from the community who were not
professional broadcasters. They'd get two hours one
day a week and were expected to take one call after another
and be fair. The callers could call once each show.

At night they had network shows and on weekends various
churches paid for time--and anyone could generally
buy time and have their own show.

Here's a link to more information about Chuck Norman and
WGNU if you're interested:

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2005-04-27/news/the-old-chuckaroo/

Weltner got himself a little show on Fridays discussing
a variety of topics. His show was fairly popular, but
eventually he stepped on the ADL land-mine, discussing
a topical news story at that time about scientific/forensic
challenges to some of the holocaust claims--mainly
against the scope of the disaster, not so much
a total denial of it. He further compounded that "sin"
by matter-of-factly mentioning that communism is a jew
invention. I was shown the letter of complaint they sent
the station and it really seemed they were more concerned
by the latter than the former--just my impression.

At about this time the station's owner was suffering from
health issues and his housekeeper was being given an
increasing amount of control of the station. She responded
to an ADL complaint against Weltner and fired him. A friend
and I called up Chuck on his personal line and informed
him of this fact and he had him reinstated immediately.
After we had, his housekeeper, an Assemblies of God minister,
came on the line and angrily forbade us to "bother" him again.


Chuck's history in these matters had been to respond to
threats of boycotts from such groups by promising them
they were not going to control the content of his station's
programming and he'd make the difference up out-of-pocket
if their boycotting succeeded in lowering the station's
income. Basically I think he wasn't trying to make any
profit for himself--he was well-fixed. Revenues went to the
operating costs and salaries of the off-air staff.

On-air personalities got a certain amount of ad time
they could sell and keep the proceeds of--that was my
understanding.

Most were on-air to grind their particular axe.

A wide spectrum of diverse views were represented.
There was no prior restraint on callers unless they
couldn't control themselves from using expletives,
making threats on-air or personal attacks.

Weltner and I were aware of each other from our calling-
in, and then of course he got to know me better from
my calling his show when he had one. We became
off-air friends as many of the callers and some of the
hosts did. At that station you could call the producer
and ask to have someone's phone number and the next
time that person would call they'd ask if it was alright
and often-as-not you'd get the number. Some callers
were so well known and trusted they'd just give them
the number, especially if the other party had already
acquiesced to most such requests.

A whole network of intersecting friendships and acquaintences
was formed that way. I've been cycling down a road, had
someone honk and motion me over and have it be someone
who knew me from WGNU. I didn't know them, but they
knew it must be me.

I used to talk to Weltner while he was online doing
work on jewwatch--before it became so notorious.
In fact, I used to question the value of even putting
it together--I figured most people already had their minds
pretty-well made up whether or not they approved of
zionism or not and it wouldn't influence anyone much
either way.

He surprised me though, once I saw it. I don't know if it's
going to influence anyone--clearly the zionists think so and
that's why they want it off the internet---but it sure did
provide a one-stop-shopping experience for those seeking
more in-depth and uncensored information on the subject.

As the years flew by he increased his internet presence,
started making streaming radio programs after the ADL
succeeded in having him fired from his radio show and
eventually got into the online videos.

His site became more and more visited.
Evidently there was quite a lot of "buzz" in the zionist
world about what a big threat it must be and that probably
drove the results ranking of it on Google up when
one did a search of the term "jew". That in and of itself
became a huge controversy and source of angst for the
zionists and they began a campaign to drive the
search results ranking down.

They showed their arrogance by demanding google modify their
search-engine so as to exclude jewwatch. They weren't willing
to modify their ultra-successful search algorithms--but they did put up a
search result on the search-term "jew" which was
"fiddled" to appear first from google themselves to "inform"
people that "nice people" don't type the letters j, e, and w
together. "Nice people" include the suffix ish.

If they would do that much, now that there are fifty or
so results before my site on the use of the term "jew",
I tend to wonder if they also didn't pass information to the
owners of some of the sites which are now higher-ranked
on things they could do to cause their sites to
rank higher on that search term. That wouldn't in any-way
compromise the successful nature of their search engine, but
would undoubtedly make the haters of jewwatch's truths
deleriously happy.

As far as I'm concerned I'm on there, my information is available.

Nobody who's looking for a source of information like mine is
going to be satisfied with those others. I have faith that just as I do not
stop in the first "hit" on a page of citations returned
on a search of a certain term, neither will the rest of humanity.

I suppose that's one of my differences of opinion with Frank Weltner.
He was extremely happy to find out his site was ranked #1 on a
page of returns for the term "jew". I can only assume it's
a good thing I took it over before it started sinking in rank
because I'm sure he'd be extremely upset if he were still involved.


Many sites sprung up deriding Weltner. Some sites
offered more supportive mention.

After the ADL was finally successful in having his show
removed from WGNU--that being after Chuck Norman became too
ill and infirm to take an active role in it's operation
and management--he tried to become involved in the
local chapter of the National Alliance. That lasted for
awhile and under his tutelage they distributed many
fliers around the metropolitan area which generated a lot
of "concern" on the part of the usual suspects, which
in-turn generated more of the much-cherished free
publicity.

During those times the main message being spread was to
love your own kind. There was no specification as to what
that kind was. Admittedly there was usually a graphic of
a beautiful young caucasian woman.

Of course that increased the pressure to get him off the
internet. The local newspaper printed a story about
him which pointed out that his door frame has a
jew charm designed to hold prayer for the happiness
of the household--originally conceived I believe as
a sign for the angel-of-death to "pass-over" that
house. Further the reporter managed to ferret-out
that Weltner had originally lived in that house with
and shared expenses with another (at that time)
local playwright who was also a flamboyant
well-known member of the homosexual community in St. Louis.


Much was made of this and I think they achieved their
desired effect of driving a wedge between Weltner and
his National Alliance associates. That was probably
a bad move on their part as they've received just about
no positive publicity after they came to a parting-of
-the-ways with him.

I think over the years all the personal attacks on him
started to show and it seemed as if he was getting
disgusted with the whole endeavor. I think when
the jerks got his videos kicked off you tube it really
discouraged him.

I bought the site with the idea-in-mind of providing him
a respite so that (possibly) he could come back refreshed
and with a renewed sense of purpose. I'm still hoping that
could happen.

I would never have created the site in the first place,
but since it has been done I'm interested in seeing
it continue to be available.


There is no rift, but I don't want to bother him or
be in contact with him so that he can have a total
vacation from the whole issue or anything touching on it.

Even if he doesn't ever take the site back fully, perhaps
he will begin contributing to it again--the videos or
doing articles, or even just suggestions for additions
or ideas on how the site might branch out.

Meanwhile I hope he's having a fine time not being bothered
with the whole issue. I keep tabs on him through mutual
friends. He's doing fine (for the benefit of those
who think my owning the site now means something dire
had happened).

Admittedly when I bought the site I lived in a free
country and thought it would always remain so. Since
seeing the controversy erupt regarding the report
produced by my home state defining even such mild
dissidents as those who supported Ron Paul for President
as potential domestic terrorist threats and considering
our new governor is the same individual who tried to
pull that nonsense on Weltner about the Katrina victims
donations, I'm beginning to wonder if it was such a
good idea to buy jewwatch after-all.

Ron Paul got wind of that report--to be circulated to
Missouri law-enforcement personnel and it angered him.
He made a formal demand that his name be redacted from
the report and the publicity surrounding that made our
new governor/former prosecuting attorney look pretty
silly. He denied knowledge of the report or the personnel
at the state agency which authored it.

Too bad for him someone dug up the fact that his
own office had issued a press release bragging about
how he'd briefed Janet Napolitano on the agency and
it's operation and too bad also the report came out with
his name on the header two full months after he
took office...

This is the quality of the types of people one will
generally find attacking Weltner and his works.

They can dish it out, but they can't take it--and
that's the central issue with the objections
to the site and the information found thereon.

The zionists and their friends and accomplices love
to ferret out destructive information on all those
who might possibly stand between zionism and it's
objectives. In fact, they tend to embellish quite a
bit. John Demjanjuk is a perfect case-study in that.

They embellished that one so badly even their own
kangaroo-courts couldn't uphold the "conviction".
If it had been any fair-minded nation the liars
who nearly put a noose around the poor old guy's
neck would have been prosecuted and convicted.

Then when someone creates a collection of information
about them, some of which is less-than-
flattering and puts it where it's conveniently-available,
you'd think it was the end of the world.

I think it's worthy-of-note when a group exaggerates
it's supposed victimization at the hands of every
other group. On that Frank Weltner and I agree. We
have some areas of disagreement, always have and always
will. We're both of a group which is regularly unfairly
savaged by a wide variety of other groups but all-too
-frequently at the bottom of these savagings of the
reputation of the european gentiles, if one looks
closely one will find jews. It's usually pretty blatant.

I even consider the mere proliferation of "holocaust
museums" inside the borders of that very nation which
brought an end to whatever the true basis of the
holohoax is to be such a disparagement. It's all-
to-obvious that a nation which has played host to jews--
mostly with a great deal of tolerance--since before it
was a nation is being singled-out for attention as a
supposed hot-bed of "anti-semitism". Nothing could
be further from the truth.

A thorough expose on the misdeeds of jews in service
of various jew causes is called-for in order that
the true level of the withholding of just retribution
on the part of most european gentiles and their nations
religions cultures and other groups can be accurately
discerned. It's only in light of the true range of behavior
by jews and zionists to those outside their own group
that the level of restraint by those outside their
exclusive group can be accurately judged.

They wish to control their image.

Neither Frank Weltner nor myself intend to allow that.
We're certainly not the only ones. I'm not certain whether
we're the only ones who won't allow it for precisely
that particular reason.

Whether or not I'm in contact with our benefactor
I try to be constantly guided by him through his
high moral principles.

James R. Stenzel
Missouri
U.S.A.

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:22:12 -0700
From: ********@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: you
To: *****@*****.com

GB>What happened to Frank Weltner ?

He sold me his website because he was tired of all the abuse and the constant attempts to do anything which might result in getting jewwatch off the internet. He needed to step back from it because it was having negative impacts on his life.

Nothing has happened to him and mutual acquaintances inform me he's doing well.

Had you heard something to the contrary or were you just curious? (or hopeful?)

It's difficult enough to fight off "burn-out" when you're expected
by those who pay your wages to be there on-time, every day year after year. When you call all the shots about what you're
going to do on any particular day it's that much more difficult.

I'd like to see Frank buy the site back and return to business-as-
usual. I'm not fool enough to think I am as good at what he did--or any part of it--as he was.

For the time being we'll just have to struggle along without him.
He's returned to being a private citizen.

So, how 'bout you? Anything happen to you lately?

As for me, (the subject field of your message) I'm afraid
I've received some bad news recently. It seems all the
experts agree---I'm "un-evolved". Further, it seems that
I speak in some sort of rustic back-woods Appalachian
dialect and I never even realized it! I know it's true---I
read it on the internet.

Do you suppose there's some reason your message appeared
in my spam folder instead of my inbox?

Jim
Mo.
U.S.

The Shamelessness of Jane Harman

She should have the decency to step down

by Justin Raimondo, April 24, 2009

Confronted with clear evidence that she tried to obstruct justice in the case of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman — two former top AIPAC officials slated to go on trial for espionage on June 2 — Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, did what politicians usually do when forced to face unpleasant facts: she brazened it out. In a response to the Congressional Quarterly piece by Jeff Stein that has proved such an entertaining embarrassment, she brayed:

“These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact. I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves.”

Notice how she doesn’t deny saying that she would “engage in any such activity,” i.e. that she would intervene with the Bush White House and the Justice Department to get the charges in the Rosen-Weissman case reduced or dropped — instead, she says she never kept her promise to the “suspected Israeli agent,” as the CQ piece described her interlocutor. What? A politician who breaks a promise? I’m shocked! — shocked!

Seriously, though, from this one might infer that Harman is utterly shameless, but, then again, maybe not. On Wednesday night, she showed up at the Shakespeare Theatre Company’s glitzy “Welcome to Washington” event, although, as Roll Call reported, “she kept a low profile. [Heard on the Hill] spotted the Congresswoman entering the theater in darkness just after the curtain went up, and then saw her slip out while performers gave their final bows.”

As Shakespeare put it in Cymbelline:

“Though those that are betrayed

Do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor

Stands in worse case of woe.”

Could it be that Harman does have a sense of shame — or was she just trying to avoid reporters?

In any case, Rep. Harman is not alone in her shamelessness, not as long as there are people like David Frum around. Frum, you ‘ll recall, is the author of the “axis of evil” trope, fired from his White House speechwriting job for grandstanding — or, rather, for his wife’s grandstanding — and now embarked on a crusade to save the GOP from “extremism” — this from a man who wrote a book calling for the invasion of nearly every country in the Middle East, and advocating total surveillance of the American people by government authorities. He also wrote a deranged piece for National Review that attacked antiwar conservatives as “traitors.” This last is a bit much to take given his latest: a piece portraying Harman — and Rosen and Weissman — as “heroes,” and smearing US prosecutors as anti-Semites and worse.

According to Frum, the thievery of vital US intelligence engaged in by Rosen and Weissman — stealing highly classified secrets related to Al Qaeda, providing documents revealing internal US government discussions, and various other sensitive items — never happened. These acts are described in the indictment, but Frum isn’t interested in the indictment, or in even knowing the details of the government’s case. All that he tells us is that “the story is almost insanely complicated” — when it actually isn’t at all complicated, unless one is trying willfully to misunderstand the charges and their basis in fact.

Rosen and Weissman systematically milked former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin for top secret information to which he had access, and he handed over a veritable treasure trove of secrets: Franklin kept over 80 top secret documents, filched from Pentagon files, at his home, doubtless for reference in case his handlers (Rosen and Weissman) needed to answer an inquiry from their handler (Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli embassy). The spy nest met over a period of two years, always after taking elaborate security precautions: the indictment details one meeting during which the spies switched locations three times. These guys knew what they were doing was treasonous, and rightly feared they were being followed.

None of this makes it into Frum’s narrative, however. Instead, he narrowly focuses in on one detail of the case, and comes up with a truly lame ”explanation” for the arrest and alleged “persecution” of all involved:

“Elements within the FBI and other U.S. agencies have been convinced for years that Israeli spy agencies have penetrated the U.S. government. These anti-Israel elements responded with what spy types call a ‘mole hunt’ — a ferocious search for the suspected infiltrator. Again and again, the search has turned up empty. But from the point of view of a mole hunter, nothing is more damning than the absence of evidence: The inability to discover the mole only proves the mole’s vicious cunning!”

Gee, they thought a “mole” had penetrated our national security defenses — now why do you suppose they thought that?

From the point of view of a committed Israel-Firster like Frum, there can never be such a creature as an Israeli mole, and so a “mole hunt” only proves the inherent wickedness (and ill-disguised anti-Semitism) of the hunters. And of course, these mole-hunters are “anti-Israel” — never mind that their job requires them to protect US national security, no matter what country is trying to penetrate our defenses. We all have a duty to look the other way! Frum cites a supposed “lack of evidence,” and yet refuses to even so much as mention the details of the government’s case — except in one instance, which he manages to get totally wrong. Frum writes:

“At last, in October 2005 the mole hunters found their man: a career Defense Department employee named Larry Franklin. Franklin’s offense? Brace yourself …

“Franklin had learned of U.S. intelligence reports that Iranian sabotage teams were operating inside Iraqi Kurdistan. These reports were being disregarded for a reason very familiar in the Bush years: They contained uncomfortable news that higher-ups did not wish to know.

“Franklin, however, thought the information important — maybe vitally important. He thought it needed to be pushed up the organization chart. Lacking the clout to move the information himself, he decided to do what frustrated officials often do: He leaked it.

“Specifically, he leaked the information to two employees — American citizens both — of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in hope that they could galvanize a response from their contacts in the White House. The two, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, shared Franklin’s information with journalists, colleagues, and the Israeli embassy. For this action, all three were charged with criminal offenses.”

In reality, the story about Iranian “sabotage teams” in Kurdistan was completely made up — by the “mole-hunters,” i.e. the FBI’s counterespionage unit, which had been watching Franklin (as well as his handlers) ever since he showed up at a luncheon attended by Rosen, Weissman, and Naor Gilon, volunteering to commit espionage on Israel’s behalf. They tracked his movements, and listened in on his phone conversations, as he responded to requests for specific information from Rosen and Weissman. After clearly establishing their target’s criminal intent, the G-men pounced, showing up at Franklin’s Kearneysville, West Virginia, home and confronting him with his treason. Franklin admitted his crimes, and agreed to help the feds nab his accomplices in exchange for leniency.

Toward that end, the FBI planted a story — the Kurdistan “sabotage team” story — and sent a “turned” Franklin to meet with his co-conspirators. Franklin told Rosen and Weissman that Israelis who had infiltrated Kurdistan and were engaged in “training” Kurdish militias were in mortal danger from Iranian “saboteurs,” and that furthermore this information was highly classified: he warned them not to use it. It didn’t take too long for them to leak it, bigtime, not only to the Israeli embassy and other AIPAC employees, but to the media as well.

The point of planting this story was to clearly establish the criminal intent of the two AIPAC spies and seal the legal case against them. It’s not clear whether Frum just doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or if he’s deliberately using this story to throw up a smokescreen so as to avoid mentioning the real crimes of Rosen and Weissman — in Frum’s case, I would tilt toward the latter. Whatever — the fact is that Frum is misinforming his readers on a story that is easily checked. Whether it’s sheer laziness, or the habit of deception, I leave to my readers (and Frum’s editors) to decide.

While Frum’s response to the Harman spy scandal is all too predictable, the response from Congress has been to call for an investigation — not of Harman, but of those who uncovered her corruption! If Rep. Harman was overheard telling an Israeli agent that she’d help him get the charges dropped or reduced, in return for political favors from AIPAC — then it’s the eavesdroppers who’re at fault and must be brought to justice. It doesn’t seem to matter that the FBI went before a judge and got approval before they started listening in — nor does the fact that they weren’t listening in on Harman, specifically, but on the “suspected Israeli agent.” All the Democratic-controlled Congress is concerned with is protecting one of its own.

I might add that the Republicans, who are usually quick to pounce on the merest hint of scandal in Democratic ranks, have said not one word about Harman’s embarrassing ties to a spy nest — not a peep. Which makes sense, because they’re just as firmly in the Lobby’s pocket as the Democrats in Congress. Not to mention that whiff of Bush era corruption wafting into the room once we take into account the quashing of the investigation into Harman by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who saved her skin by averring “We need Jane.” Rep. Harman was the Bush administration’s biggest Democratic ally when it came to massively violating the civil liberties of Americans.

Both parties are in this up to their necks. That’s why Obama’s Justice Department is now openly leaking the information that they’re considering dropping the charges against the AIPAC spies — with nary a protest from either side of the aisle.

It looks like Harman, Frum, and the Lobby have won, after all — despite the mountains of evidence against Rosen and Weissman, and the protests of hardworking patriotic law enforcement officials who are dismayed and demoralized by the blank check our Justice Department is giving Israel to spy and steal our secrets with impunity. They leaked the dirt on Harman out of desperation, in the hope that popular outrage would prevent Israel’s American spies from beating the law and slithering back to their nests.

These decisions, of course, are never made in a vacuum: it’s all about politics, and the politic thing to do is to give in to the Lobby, and neo-Pollardites like Frum. Overseas, this will score the administration some brownie points in Israel, and perhaps soften the right-wing government’s increasingly intransigent stance against the new American president, while domestically it will placate and temporarily silence a vocal claque of critics.

After all, what else could we expect a self-proclaimed “pragmatist” to do?

In a better world, a member of Congress caught on tape agreeing to obstruct justice at the request of an agent of a foreign power would have stepped down as soon as the news hit the headlines. In our shameless era, however, that isn’t likely to happen. Instead, the spies will get off, Israel will continue to steal us blind, and a trial that would have shocked the American people and portrayed Israel in a far more realistic light than our news media dares will never take place.

How’s that for change we can believe in?

However, it doesn’t have to turn out that way. It could be that the patriotic, pro-national security counter-intelligence officials who have exposed the AIPAC spy nest and their enablers in government will have their hopes vindicated — their hope that the American people will protest once they understand how and why espionage is allowed to be practiced openly in our nation’s capital, protected and defended in the very halls of Congress.

The outlook of this shocking case doesn’t look too good at the moment, but that could change — if enough Americans are informed and angry enough to protest. The decision to drop the case, as of this writing, has yet to be made: it’s only that they’re considering dropping it. There’s just one way to lodge your protest, at this point, and that is to contact the US Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the case is being tried.

Remember, there are no doubt people in that office fighting to keep this case alive — so be polite. Briefly express your disappointment upon reading news reports that the case might be dropped, and your hope that this is not the case.

Call 703-299-3700 — and remember, be nice!

Or, better yet, write a letter, send a telegram, or whatever, and address it to:

US Attorney

Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s Building
2100 Jamieson Ave
Alexandria, VA 22314

What Choice Does Iran Have?

If Israel attacks, and Americans occupy the country, the Iranians will live like dogs. Special Israeli bombers will cleanse the country of any resistance. And the occupation forces will control the Federal police, and install Death Squads like they did in Iraq.

Notice that countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc, who are satellite puppets of Israel, never get threatened by al Queda. No bombs in Kuwait's restaurants, and Mosques.