The 14 Words

Saturday, 30 June 2012

Orthodox Judaism Confirmed as “Incubation Center” for Jewish Community


World Jewry is sustained by the prolific reproduction rate amongst the ultra-orthodox Jewish community, a new study has shown—a development which means that the most religiously extreme element of Judaism is setting the tone for that community.

Pini Herman, Research Director at the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, in an article titled “Will your great-grandchildren be Jewish?” published in the Jewish Journal, said that the “just-released Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011 clearly shows that the Jewish population decline in New York has been stemmed by large numbers of babies born to Orthodox families in America.

“The heroic fertility and educational efforts of Orthodox Jews is legendary,” the article continued.

Herman went on to explain that although large numbers of ultra-orthodox Jews move into more conservative Judaism as they get older, enough remain of this core community to keep on producing large numbers of Jews so that their race will not be absorbed away by intermarriage.

“Ironically, it is historically the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements that have unintentionally benefited from this Orthodox Jewish investment,” Herman wrote.

“In 1990, 44 percent of American Jewish adults had shifted from their childhood denomination. Just 10 years later, in 2000, denominational switching increased to 59 percent of American adults. According to the recent study, now only a minority has stayed in the Jewish denomination in which they were raised. The greatest shifts are away from Conservative and Orthodox Judaism.

“While this has greatly worried the Conservative movement’s rabbis, the denominational shift has always affected Orthodox Judaism proportionally to a far greater extent.

“Historically, Conservative and Reform Judaism owe their very existence and phenomenal growth to the vast Orthodox Jewish migration to America prior to 1924 and the massive shift away from Orthodox Judaism, primarily to Conservative Judaism.

“Orthodox Judaism has traditionally served as the feeder denomination for Conservative as well as Reform Judaism. Conservative Judaism gets the majority of adult denominational shifters from Orthodox Judaism, but Reform Judaism currently has in its pews about one in 10 adults who were raised by Orthodox parents.

“It is in the self-interest of the Conservative and Reform movements to encourage the flowering of the Orthodox American Jewish community, for they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the adult choices of Orthodox-raised children.

“In spite of the best efforts of the Orthodox community, data shows that many of them will choose to live adult lives as something other than Orthodox Jews. In the same manner, it is in the best interests of Reform Jews to support the flowering of Conservative Judaism.

“So, American Jews of all stripes, be nice to the Orthodox Jews, who comprise about one-tenth of the community. When Orthodox polemicists ask: Will your grandchildren be Jewish? The answer is: Probably.”

What Hermann did not add, of course, is that fact that the ultra-Orthodox Jews, as the most strictly religious, are the most vehemently anti-Gentile and make up the most extreme element of the Jewish Supremacists who regard Gentiles as little better than beasts made to serve Jews.



Honesty on Fieger - Presidential Election 2012


Jeff Fieger is a famous lawyer in Michigan. He is pretty much a high profile ambulance chaser that takes cases with the goal of generating maximum publicity. He also ran (unsuccessfully) as the Democratic nominee for the governor of Michigan.

Fieger recently aired the following ad in Michigan. Michigan is a key battleground state for the election and Feiger is attempting to intimidate Whites into voting for Obama. His primary argument is that White people who criticize Obama are "racist".



Interesting, he uses as his prime example the people who question Obama's birth location. According to Fieger, these people are obviously racist. And his evidence of such racism is his claim that Mitt Romney's father (William Romney) was foreign born (born in Mexico) and no one cared back then because William Romney was White. But people now care because Obama is an African-American.

Of course, people DID care about William Romney's birth place and this was a huge controversy with the Democrats at the time. So much so, that William Romney dropped out of the race.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-usa-campaign-romney-birth-certificate-idUSBRE84S1GF20120529

So a simple search on the Internet proves Jeff Fieger's central example of racism was false. The only possible explanations are:

1. Jeff Fieger is a liar
OR
2. Jeff Fieger's legal firm is woefully incompetent in researching basic matters
Such is rather ironic in that Fieger titled his commercial "Honesty on Racism". Life is always amusing.


The Menace of the New “McCarthyism”

 Martin Sewell
On June 25, the Huffington Post “reported” that a Cambridge University academic “responsible for mentoring students” has “come under pressure” to resign his position. Guess which allegations resulted in Martin Sewell, a supervisor in the Faculty of Economics at Cambridge University, coming under intense scrutiny:

(a) Rapist
(b) Pedophile
(c) Serial killer
(d) Flash-mob thief
(e) Cannibalistic predator
(f) Racist, sexist, “pro-Hitler” eugenicist
If you guessed (f), you are correct! Critics are horrified that Sewell, an accomplished academic and incisive observer of human differences, has bucked the forces of political correctness and some how remains gainfully employed.

Sewell, a 43-year-old native of Reading, has posted summaries of “taxonomies of race,” which include notable (hint: notorious) sources: John R. Baker’s Race, a landmark study published in 1974 by Oxford University Press; Michael Levin’s seminal work Why Race Matters; Herrnstein and Murray’s bestseller The Bell Curve; Arthur Jensen’s The g Factor; Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests; Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence; and Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone. Sewell’s Website postings have driven his adversaries raving mad. Surely a “responsible” mentor of students should know better than to risk one’s academic position by favorably citing such radioactive literature on race and ethnicity. Acknowledging that race is a valid scientific taxonomy and that race differences are natural biological realities will generate accusations of “racist” faster than Heidi Beirich can inhale a tray of donuts. After all, “responsible” mentors know better!



"Hideous Heidi" loves to
get people blacklisted
and fired.
 
The fact that an academic with Sewell’s laudable record is under such scrutiny speaks volumes as to the nature of the infraction. From whence does this “pressure” come?

Left-wing critics have worked tirelessly over decades to make it dangerous to espouse such views—positions that are now rendered career-sacking offenses. How this has come about is worth closer scrutiny.


For decades the Left adopted the term “McCarthyism” to describe a dark period of the Cold War era—an alleged age of rampant political repression.

The conventional narrative is that Communists, Socialists, labor union organizers, and various “progressive reformers” were smeared in a ruthless spate of “red-baiting” witch-hunts.

According to legend, Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) recklessly spread baseless charges that ruined careers, disrupted lives, wrecked marriages, and tore families apart.

Major biographies of McCarthy as well as histories of the Cold War repeat a litany of falsehoods and exaggerations: individuals were persecuted, government officials were smeared, Hollywood screenwriters, directors, and actors were blacklisted and eventually ruined, and innocent citizens were targeted as security risks. All were innocent. Critics allege that McCarthy never exposed a single Communist.



Netanyahu to Obama: When We Say ‘Jump,’ You Answer, ‘How High’?

By Dr. Franklin Lamb, Director of the Sabra Shatila Foundation.


Presidential candidate Barack Obama is being targeted by the US Israel lobby from A to Z, (Ackerman, Gary & Aipac to Zuckerman, Mort & the Zionist Organization of America) as no American President seeking re-election has been in the country’s 236 year history.

Israel’s duel loyalty agents, as well as more fair minded American Jewish voters have historically intimidated and influenced US presidents seeking reelection, especially those in a tight race, with various financial and political threats and rewards. That’s part of the American political game and obviously plenty of other lobbies do it also.

And it pays off. From Truman’s recognition of Israel’s declaration of statehood during his tough reelection fight in 1948 when Chaim Weizmann and other Jewish leaders swarmed the Oval Office to Carter’s Camp David sell-out of American humanitarian values during his Democratic party splitting 1980 re-election challenge from Ted Kennedy.

For more than 60 years the Zionist lobby has used cash, real & fake polls, and tactics ranging from threats of exposing sex-capers and corruption to withholding or delivering Jewish votes in key states like Florida, New york, New Jersey and Pennsylvania to achieve maximum obeisance to Israel’s goals.

Read full article here.



Delaney Interviewed on American Underground Network In Regards To 911MissingLinks

28/06/2012

 


The European Atrocity You Never Heard About

In the largest episode of forced migration in history, millions of German-speaking civilians were sent to Germany from Czechoslovakia and other European countries after World War II by order of the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union.

The screams that rang throughout the darkened cattle car crammed with deportees, as it jolted across the icy Polish countryside five nights before Christmas, were Dr. Loch's only means of locating his patient. The doctor, formerly chief medical officer of a large urban hospital, now found himself clambering over piles of baggage, fellow passengers, and buckets used as toilets, only to find his path blocked by an old woman who ignored his request to move aside. On closer examination, he discovered that she had frozen to death.

Finally he located the source of the screams, a pregnant woman who had gone into premature labor and was hemorrhaging profusely. When he attempted to move her from where she lay into a more comfortable position, he found that "she was frozen to the floor with her own blood." Other than temporarily stanching the bleeding, Loch was unable to do anything to help her, and he never learned whether she had lived or died. When the train made its first stop, after more than four days in transit, 16 frost-covered corpses were pulled from the wagons before the remaining deportees were put back on board to continue their journey. A further 42 passengers would later succumb to the effects of their ordeal, among them Loch's wife.


During the Second World War, tragic scenes like those were commonplace, as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin moved around entire populations like pieces on a chessboard, seeking to reshape the demographic profile of Europe according to their own preferences. What was different about the deportation of Loch and his fellow passengers, however, was that it took place by order of the United States and Britain as well as the Soviet Union, nearly two years after the declaration of peace.

Between 1945 and 1950, Europe witnessed the largest episode of forced migration, and perhaps the single greatest movement of population, in human history. Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians—the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16—were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland. As The New York Times noted in December 1945, the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months was about the same as the total number of all the immigrants admitted to the United States since the beginning of the 20th century. They were deposited among the ruins of Allied-occupied Germany to fend for themselves as best they could. The number who died as a result of starvation, disease, beatings, or outright execution is unknown, but conservative estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people lost their lives in the course of the operation.

Most disturbingly of all, tens of thousands perished as a result of ill treatment while being used as slave labor (or, in the Allies' cynical formulation, "reparations in kind") in a vast network of camps extending across central and southeastern Europe—many of which, like Auschwitz I and Theresienstadt, were former German concentration camps kept in operation for years after the war. As Sir John Colville, formerly Winston Churchill's private secretary, told his colleagues in the British Foreign Office in 1946, it was clear that "concentration camps and all they stand for did not come to an end with the defeat of Germany." Ironically, no more than 100 or so miles away from the camps being put to this new use, the surviving Nazi leaders were being tried by the Allies in the courtroom at Nuremberg on a bill of indictment that listed "deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population" under the heading of "crimes against humanity."

By any measure, the postwar expulsions were a manmade disaster and one of the most significant examples of the mass violation of human rights in recent history. Yet although they occurred within living memory, in time of peace, and in the middle of the world's most densely populated continent, they remain all but unknown outside Germany itself. On the rare occasions that they rate more than a footnote in European-history textbooks, they are commonly depicted as justified retribution for Nazi Germany's wartime atrocities or a painful but necessary expedient to ensure the future peace of Europe. As the historian Richard J. Evans asserted in In Hitler's Shadow (1989) the decision to purge the continent of its German-speaking minorities remains "defensible" in light of the Holocaust and has shown itself to be a successful experiment in "defusing ethnic antagonisms through the mass transfer of populations."



Even at the time, not everyone agreed. George Orwell, an outspoken opponent of the expulsions, pointed out in his essay "Politics and the English Language" that the expression "transfer of population" was one of a number of euphemisms whose purpose was "largely the defense of the indefensible." The philosopher Bertrand Russell acidly inquired: "Are mass deportations crimes when committed by our enemies during war and justifiable measures of social adjustment when carried out by our allies in time of peace?" A still more uncomfortable observation was made by the left-wing publisher Victor Gollancz, who reasoned that "if every German was indeed responsible for what happened at Belsen, then we, as members of a democratic country and not a fascist one with no free press or parliament, were responsible individually as well as collectively" for what was being done to noncombatants in the Allies' name.

That the expulsions would inevitably cause death and hardship on a very large scale had been fully recognized by those who set them in motion. To a considerable extent, they were counting on it. For the expelling countries—especially Czechoslovakia and Poland—the use of terror against their German-speaking populations was intended not simply as revenge for their wartime victimization, but also as a means of triggering a mass stampede across the borders and finally achieving their governments' prewar ambition to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states. (Before 1939, less than two-thirds of Poland's population, and only a slightly larger proportion of Czechoslovakia's, consisted of gentile Poles, Czechs, or Slovaks.)

For the Soviets, who had "compensated" Poland for its territorial losses to the Soviet Union in 1939 by moving its western border more than 100 miles inside German territory, the clearance of the newly "Polish" western lands and the dumping of their millions of displaced inhabitants amid the ruins of the former Reich served Stalin's twin goals of impeding Germany's postwar recovery and eliminating any possibility of a future Polish-German rapprochement. The British viewed the widespread suffering that would inevitably attend the expulsions as a salutary form of re-education of the German population. "Everything that brings home to the Germans the completeness and irrevocability of their defeat," Deputy Prime Minister Clement Richard Attlee wrote in 1943, "is worthwhile in the end." And the Americans, as Laurence Steinhardt, ambassador to Prague, recorded, hoped that by displaying an "understanding" and cooperative attitude toward the expelling countries' desire to be rid of their German populations, the United States could demonstrate its sympathy for those countries' national aspirations and prevent them from drifting into the Communist orbit.

The Allies, then, knowingly embarked on a course that, as the British government was warned in 1944 by its own panel of experts, was "bound to cause immense suffering and dislocation." That the expulsions did not lead to the worst consequences that could be expected from the chaotic cattle drive of millions of impoverished, embittered, and rootless deportees into a war-devastated country that had nowhere to put them was due to three main factors.


The first was the skill with which the postwar German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, drew the expellees into mainstream politics, defusing the threat of a potentially radical and disruptive bloc. The second was the readiness of most expellees—the occasionally crass or undiplomatic statements of their leaders notwithstanding—to renounce the use or threat of force as a means of redressing their grievances. The third, and by far the most important, was the 30-year-long "economic miracle" that made possible the housing, feeding, and employment of the largest homeless population with which any industrial country has ever had to contend. (In East Germany, on the other hand, the fact that the standard of living for the indigenous population was already so low meant that the economic gap between it and the four million arriving expellees was more easily bridged.)

The downside of "economic miracles," though, is that, as their name suggests, they can't be relied upon to come along where and when they are most needed. By extraordinary good fortune, the Allies avoided reaping the harvest of their own recklessness. Nonetheless, the expulsions have cast a long and baleful shadow over central and southeastern Europe, even to the present day. Their disruptive demographic, economic, and even—as Eagle Glassheim has pointed out—environmental consequences continue to be felt more than 60 years later. The overnight transformation of some of the most heterogeneous regions of the European continent into virtual ethnic monoliths changed the trajectory of domestic politics in the expelling countries in significant and unpredicted ways. Culturally, the effort to eradicate every trace of hundreds of years of German presence and to write it out of national and local histories produced among the new Polish and Czech settler communities in the cleared areas what Gregor Thum has described as a state of "amputated memory." As Thum shows in his groundbreaking study of postwar Wroclaw—until 1945 and the removal of its entire population, the German city of Breslau—the challenge of confronting their hometown's difficult past is one that post-Communist Wroclawites have only recently taken up. In most other parts of Central Europe, it has hardly even begun.

Still less so in the English-speaking world. It is important to note that the expulsions are in no way to be compared to the genocidal Nazi campaign that preceded them. But neither can the supreme atrocity of our time become a yardstick by which gross abuses of human rights are allowed to go unrecognized for what they are. Contradicting Allied rhetoric that asserted that World War II had been fought above all to uphold the dignity and worth of all people, the Germans included, thousands of Western officials, servicemen, and technocrats took a full part in carrying out a program that, when perpetrated by their wartime enemies, they did not hesitate to denounce as contrary to all principles of humanity.

The degree of cognitive dissonance to which this led was exemplified by the career of Colonel John Fye, chief U.S. liaison officer for expulsion affairs to the Czechoslovak government. The operation he had helped carry out, he acknowledged, drew in "innocent people who had never raised so much as a word of protest against the Czechoslovak people." To accomplish it, women and children had been thrown into detention facilities, "many of which were little better than the ex-German concentration camps." Yet these stirrings of unease did not prevent Fye from accepting a decoration from the Prague government for what the official citation candidly described as his valuable services "in expelling Germans from Czechoslovakia."

Today we have come not much further than Fye did in acknowledging the pivotal role played by the Allies in conceiving and executing an operation that exceeded in both scale and lethality the violent breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. It is unnecessary to attribute this to any "taboo" or "conspiracy of silence." Rather, what is denied is not the fact of the expulsions themselves, but their significance.

Many European commentators have maintained that to draw attention to them runs the risk of diminishing the horror that ought properly to be reserved for the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities, or giving rise to a self-pitying "victim" mentality among today's generation of Germans, for whom the war is an increasingly distant memory. Czechs, Poles, and citizens of other expelling states fear the legal ramifications of a re-examination of the means by which millions of erstwhile citizens of those countries were deprived of their nationality, liberty, and property. To this day, the postwar decrees expropriating and denationalizing Germans remain on the statute book of the Czech Republic, and their legality has recently been reaffirmed by the Czech constitutional court.

Some notable exceptions aside, like T. David Curp, Matthew Frank, and David Gerlach, English-speaking historians—out of either understandable sympathy for Germany's victims or reluctance to complicate the narrative of what is still justifiably considered a "good war"—have also not been overeager to delve into the history of a messy, complex, morally ambiguous, and politically sensitive episode, in which few if any of those involved appear in a creditable light.

By no means are all of these concerns unworthy ones. But neither are they valid reasons for failing to engage seriously with an episode of such obvious importance, and to integrate it within the broader narrative of modern European history. For historians to write—and, still worse, to teach—as though the expulsions had never taken place or, having occurred, are of no particular significance to the societies affected by them, is both intellectually and pedagogically unsustainable.

The fact that population transfers are currently making a comeback on the scholarly and policy agenda also suggests that we should scrutinize with particular care the most extensive experiment made with them to date. Despite the gruesome history, enthusiasts continue to chase the mirage of "humane" mass deportations as a means of resolving intractable ethnic problems. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, in a much-cited study, has advocated population transfers as a valuable tool so long as they are "conducted in a humane, well-organized manner, like the transfer of Germans from Czechoslovakia by the Allies in 1945-47." John Mearsheimer, Chaim Kaufmann, Michael Mann and others have done likewise.

Few wars today, whether within or between states, do not feature an attempt by one or both sides to create facts on the ground by forcibly displacing minority populations perceived as alien to the national community. And although the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has attempted to restrain this tendency by prohibiting mass deportations, Elazar Barkan maintains that such proscriptions are far from absolute, and that "today there is no single code of international law that explicitly outlaws population transfers either in terms of group or individual rights protections."

The expulsion of the ethnic Germans is thus of contemporary as well as historical relevance. At present, though, the study of many vital elements of this topic is still in its earliest stages. Innumerable questions—about the archipelago of camps and detention centers, the precise number and location of which are still undetermined; the sexual victimization of female expellees, which was on a scale to rival the mass rapes perpetrated by Red Army soldiers in occupied Germany; the full part played by the Soviet and U.S. governments in planning and executing the expulsions—remain to be fully answered. At a moment when the surviving expellees are passing away and many, though far from all, of the relevant archives have been opened, the time has come for this painful but pivotal chapter in Europe's recent history to receive at last the scholarly attention it deserves.



Dirty Little Secret - Drugs In Your Water Supply


Think you know what pharmaceuticals you ingest everyday? Think again. Several decades worth of research, most recently and notoriously an April 2008 AP Investigation, has confirmed the pervasive presence of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) in our nation’s water supply. Lesser known sources of water pollution, these drugs include antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones. 

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Lesser Known Sources of Water Pollution

Certainly, one’s initial emotion upon learning of active pharmaceutical ingredients and hearing such reports might be fear, and not shockingly, much of the mainstream media has capitalized on this in articles like this one on the CBS News website last September. While his presentation is heavy on the fear-instilling, light on the solution-proposing, Jim Edwards is correct in pointing out:

Very little attention is likely to be paid to a report by the General Accountability Office that says most drinking water in the U.S. is contaminated with pharmaceuticals, and most of those drugs are estrogen-based hormones and antibiotics.
The report is an important one because in essence it says that although the drug industry is poisoning the U.S. water supply with active pharmaceutical ingredients, no one knows how bad the problem is or what the solution might be. This, in fact, is the key reason the nonpartisan report will get very few headlines: The lack of information is, in itself, the heart of the problem.

Here are some scary facts from the report, most of which remain unaddressed by the federal government, state governments or the industry itself. More potentially frightening than the facts themselves however is the final part of Mr. Edwards’ introduction: ‘most of which remain unaddressed by the federal governments or the industry itself.’


Brother Nathanael - Kagan’s ObamaCare Vote & US Jewry


A CALL TO IMPEACH Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has been initiated by Congressman Louie Gohmert.

Standing on the steps of the Courthouse immediately following the decision affirming the constitutionality of ObamaCare on Thursday, June 28 2012, Gohmert called for an “investigation” that would lead to the removal of Kagan from the nation’s highest bench.



Kagan, a Jew, joined her “Yea” vote with her fellow Jews on the bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer—which, of course, comes as no surprise—given American Jewry’s push to further centralize their control in usurping state and local government.

Gohmert contends that Kagan should have recused herself from ruling on ObamaCare due to her serving as Solicitor General when the law was passed in 2010.

“Kagan needs to be removed from the Supreme Court,” Gohmert cried out on the Courthouse steps, calling for her impeachment…adding that the decision upholding ObamaCare is “illegitimate.”

The case for Kagan to “recuse” herself is supported by a chain of e-mails allegedly demonstrating that Kagan’s office mounted an early and aggressive effort to prepare for legal challenges to the individual insurance mandate before its passage in March of 2010.


But on October 14, 2011, US District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, a Clinton appointee AND a Jew, ruledthat the Justice Department did not need to release “personal” e-mails Solicitor General Kagan typed on her taxpayer-purchased computer to people in the White House.

Moreover, it is a known fact that Kagan wrote an e-mail to Laurence Tribe, (YES - a member of the “tribe”) a Harvard constitutional law professor who was also working for the Obama administration at the time the law passed.

In the e-mail, Kagan wrote: “I hear they have the votes, Larry! Simply amazing.” The e-mail’s subject line was, “Fingers and Toes Crossed Today!” View Kagan Documents Proving Involvement In ObamaCare Here.

Regarding Kagan’s Jewish duplicity, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith in aletter dated July 6, 2011 asked the Obama administration to provide documents and internal correspondence on Kagan’s role in defense of the health reform law.

The Justice Department rejected the request in a return letter that Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent to Smith on October 27, 2011.


Smith then sent his own return letter to Holder on October 28, 2011, asking that he comply with the committee’s original request for Kagan-related documents and interviews by November 4.

According to the House Judiciary Committee, the November 4 deadline came and went and the DOJ did not respond to Smith’s October 28 letter.

When Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 8, 2011, he refused to release any documents that would have disqualified Kagan from ruling on the mandate. Holder fudgedand weaseled his way out of not providing incriminating documents.

“I’m not familiar with that request. I’d have to look at it,” said Holder.

IT’S ALL OVER NOW and the votes have been cast. Better said, the dying of America has been cast. Cui bono? Jews, of course, who through political maneuvering got three of their own to vote for ObamaCare.

And how does American Jewry benefit with ObamaCare now firmly in place? Because the BIGGER the Federal government the BIGGER control the Jews have over the hapless nation of Jewmerica.



Judge Napolitano: "Individual Mandate Most Bizarre Tax in the History of the Country"

Supreme Court rules key part of ObamaCare will become a tax.

More: http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-m...





Obamacare to unleash crushing new taxes

Trillions in debt, huge job losses, and it doesn't even cover natural medicine

By now, we all know the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate portion of Obamacare by declaring it a "tax." This is, in essence, a declaration that the federal government now has unlimited power to force consumers to spend some (or even all) of their take-home pay on various products, services or even intellectual property that they have no interest in buying in the first place. It is a concentration of economic power in the hands of the federal government, and it suddenly ends economic liberty in America (http://www.naturalnews.com/036329_Obamacare_Supreme_Court_economic_fr...).

It's also the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. By upholding Obamacare's individual mandate as a "tax," Chief Justice Robert just labeled President Obama the largest tax increase President in the history of the country! (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/roberts-labels-obama-a-tax...)

And yet President Obama himself declared the individual mandate was NOT a tax. Here's the video: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video?id=8620606

And here's the transcript of his interview with George Stephanopoulos:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-t...

But now, of course, Chief Justice Roberts has declared it IS a tax, after all. Thus, Obama's key legislative achievement has become the single greatest legislative deception in the history of America.

How much will this new tax cost you? The Washington Post has published a handy online calculator:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bil...

It shows that the new tax begins in 2014, then ramps up to its maximum penalty at 2016, at which point you are taxed year after year until you cave in and buy into the monopoly Big Pharma health insurance scam. This is, for the record, the largest tax increase in history. And it's for a system of medicine which is a Big Pharma monopoly that doesn't even give consumers the freedom to choose natural medicine or alternative therapies!


Prince Charles gets a 11% pay-rise from the taxpayer

The annual review of the prince's accounts, released yesterday, show the prince's funding from the taxpayer rose by about 12 per cent to £2,194,000. The money is used to pay for his travel by private jet, helicopter and train as well as the upkeep of Clarence House, his official London residence, and his press office.

The figures also reveal that the prince's income from the Duchy of Cornwall rose by 3 per cent to £18.3million. In addition, they show that Charles – who pays tax voluntarily at the highest rate – saw his bill from the Inland Revenue rise marginally from £4,398,000 to £4,496,000. He was, however, able to write £9.8million off as legitimate working expenses.


A 22 per cent increase in taxpayer-funded travel was due to an increased number of trips taken by Charles's children, a spokesman said. William and Kate visited Canada and the US on their inaugural tour as a married couple last year, while Harry conducted his first solo tour on behalf of the Queen to the Caribbean and Brazil in March.

Related post: Camilla's sister enjoys a £170,000 royal pay day to refurbish Charles' holiday cottages


Soft-touch Britain, the asylum seeker capital of Europe


Britain granted asylum to more people than any other European Union country last year, official figures revealed yesterday.

Some 14,360 immigrants were given asylum within the UK in 2011, compared with 13,045 in the second highest country, Germany, and 10,740 in third placed France. The figure was the third successive rise in successful claims in the UK and an increase of 41 per cent since 2008.


Critics said the data confirmed that Britain is a soft touch when it comes to granting asylum. Britain also approved more than a third of asylum applications last year, while France accepted fewer than one in seven claims and Germany around one in five.

Refugees fleeing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repressive regime in Iran made up the largest group granted asylum in the UK, with 1,985 given protection status in 2011.

Another 1,160 came from Sri Lanka and around 1,020 from Afghanistan, the figures from Eurostat, the statistical wing of the EU, revealed. The number of people granted asylum in the UK has grown steadily in the last four years, from 10,200 in 2008 to 14,360 last year.

Together, the EU’s 27 member states granted asylum to 84,100 people in 2011, an increase of 8,300 on the previous year. Most came from Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: 

‘These figures confirm that Britain is the softest touch in Europe when it comes to grants of asylum. No wonder asylum seekers are still queuing up in Calais.’

Rothschild Stooge Cameron says he DOESN'T want a referendum on Britain’s EU membership

David Cameron yesterday ruled out an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, despite growing demands for one from his own MPs.

Speaking after a marathon Brussels summit that saw European leaders take a significant step towards the creation of a superstate, the Prime Minister mounted his strongest defence yet of Britain’s membership of the EU.

He acknowledged that the creation of a powerful new fiscal union would have ‘consequences for Britain’ and suggested that some renegotiation of our relationship with the EU may be needed in the future. But he explicitly ruled out the in/out referendum demanded by many of his MPs.


Describing himself as a ‘realistic, optimistic Eurosceptic’, he gave a robust defence of Britain’s membership of the EU, saying three million jobs depended on it.


The African village where EVERY family is getting £7,500 from the British taxpayer


This UN-backed Millennium Village project — to which Britain is now contributing millions of pounds for the first time — began in 2004 and encompasses half a million Africans.

It is designed to prove that targeted aid can lift such places out of poverty in just five years. But the scheme is facing mounting accusations that it is a waste of money, and is doing less to help rural Africans than it claims.

According to the project’s documents, the business plan reveals ‘total direct costs’ are expected to be £17.2 million and that the goal is ‘substantial poverty reduction’ for up to 2,250 households. This means spending more than an astonishing £7,500 per household. To put this in perspective, this is 34 times the average annual income of households in the region.

The British Government — desperate to find ways to spend its soaring aid budgets — is handing over £11.5 million to this vainglorious venture. Despite the austerity weighing on British families at home, spending on foreign aid — currently £8.8 billion a year — is rising by more than one-third under the Coalition.



Dresden - The Real Holocaust

Because of the many atrocities committed by the Jewish-directed Allies, not only the firestorm incineration of German civilians in many German cities, but the incineration of hundreds' of thousands of Japanese civilians in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Operation Keelhaul, the murder of one million anti-Communist Russians who were ordered handed over to the Soviet executioners by Eisenhower, and many other horrors, it was necessary to invent a German atrocity which would eclipse these horrors. .......The "extermination" of the Jews seemed made to order.



Friday, 29 June 2012

REPOST: Allied Atrocities by Dr. William L. Pierce

Watch this while you can because YouTube is removing ALL Dr. Pierce's video's 


Thanks to Mally O'Brian at Jew World Order for reminding me of the important video



Blacks Murder 12 Y.O Girl, shoot her once in mouth & once in back of head

KILLED IN 2007...JUST NOW STARTING TO MAKE WAVES:

In S. Africa, niggers are murdering white farmers, white men, women & children. Guess what people, they are doing the exact same fucking thing here in the U.S. They are deliberately murdering whites (& other Humans) and these murders are not isolated or random. Just recently a leader of the new NBPP stated that blacks need to 'kill all whites, bury them, dig them back up and kill them again'

This is the exact type of murderous mentality that niggers have. It saddens me that these beasts are allowed to roam freely, robbing, stealing, raping and murdering. There is nothing of value and good that stems from niggers mixing with society

According to local press reports on Sept. 21, Emily Haddock was home from school with strep throat. When her grandfather came to check on her, she was lying in a pool of blood on the floor. According to police reports she was shot twice, once in the mouth and once in the back of her head. Later autopsy reports it was two .22 caliber bullets. The bullets were fired from a stolen handgun and a gang of five young feral black males were arrested for the murder.

According to The Pilot,

A few hours before Emily was shot with a small caliber gun, police say someone was spotted trying to break into John Lyczkowski's house about a mile up the road. The person was trying to kick in the door and pry open the window with a screwdriver, officials said. Lyczkowski said he and his family couldn't believe it when they heard what happened to Emily. "It was overwhelming to me and my wife. We were both hurt, because an innocent child was involved," he said.

There's no evidence this gang of thieves went in to kill Emily. Five young black men have been arrested and charged with murder. Van Roger Smith, 16, Sherrod Nicholas Harrison, 19, Michael Graham Currie, 18, Perry Ross Schiro, 19 and Ryan Jermar White, 18 broke into Emily's house reportedly to rob it. At this point nobody knows what happened, but from what I read of the coroners report she was shot in face shattering here jaw and tongue. She probably fell to the floor then finished off with a shot to the back of the head. The state is seeking the death penalty for Currie and Harrison.



Jews Still Spreading Holocaust Lies Using Senior Citizen Beauty Pageant

The winner of the event, which is hosted by an Israeli group that aids needy Holocaust survivors, was Mania Herman (third from left).
All this to raise money for the Jews and Holocaust Survivors!! They need the money???

Said by organisers in Haifa, Israel, to be a 'celebration of life', the event has also, unsurprisingly, stirred controversy. Nearly 300 women from across Israel registered for the competition and contestants were whittled down to the 14 finalists, who ranged in age from 74 to 97. Is this the strangest pageant ever? Elderly women compete in Israel to be crowned ‘Miss Holocaust Survivor’:

Grinning and waving, the now elderly women have witnessed horrors during their lifetimes the rest of us can barely even imagine.  But this coming together of brave Holocaust survivors has an unusual motive behind it. For the women are taking part in a pageant that is, to say the very least, a little unusual - they are all vying for the honour of being crowned Israel's first 'Miss Holocaust Survivor'.

Proposed by organisers in Haifa, Israel, as a 'celebration of life', the event has also, unsurprisingly, stirred controversy. In a country where millions have been touched by the Nazi atrocities of the 1940s, many have argued that judging aging women who had suffered so much on physical appearance was offensive.

Colette Avital, chairwoman of Israel's leading Holocaust survivors' umbrella group, said she thought the concept was inappropriate:

'It sounds totally macabre to me. I am in favour of enriching lives, but a one-time pageant masquerading (survivors) with beautiful clothes is not what is going to make their lives more meaningful.'
The event's organiser has rejected the criticism, however, saying that as with many pageants physical beauty was only a small part of the criteria. Shimon Sabag, director of Yad Ezer L'Haver, or Helping Hand, which assists needy Holocaust survivors and which organised the event, said the winners were chosen based on their personal stories of survival and the rebuilding of their lives after the war:
'They feel good together. They are having a good time and laughing in the rehearsals. The fact that so many wanted to participate proves that it's a good idea.'
Nearly 300 women from across Israel registered for the competition and contestants were whittled down to the 14 finalists who appeared yesterday. And the women, ranging in age from 74 to 97, appeared to be enjoying themselves. Wearing black dresses, earrings and necklaces, and sporting blue-and-white numbered sashes, they grinned and waved as they were introduced to the audience. Music played as the contestants walked along a red carpet, introduced themselves and described their memories of World War II.

Esther Libber, a 74-year-old runner-up who fled her home in Poland as a child, hid in a forest and was rescued by a Polish woman, said the event was a great showcase of life:

'I have the privilege to show the world that Hitler wanted to exterminate us and we are alive. We are also enjoying life. Thank God it's that way.'
Miss Libber lost her entire immediate family in the Holocaust.

A four-judge panel consisting of three former beauty queens and a geriatric psychiatrist who specializes in treating Holocaust survivors chose the winner. Hava Hershkovitz, a soon-to-be 79-year-old, who won the event, spoke of her joy:

'This place is full of survivors. It puts us at the center of attention so people will care. It's not easy at this age to be in a beauty contest, but we're all doing it to show that we're still here.'
Banished from her home in Romania in 1941 and sent to a detention camp in the Soviet Union for three years, she lives today in an assisted living home run by Helping Hand. Miss Hershkovitz was joined by her granddaughter, Keren Hazan. who said she was 'very proud' of her grandmother.

In addition to the contestants' accounts of surviving Nazi ghettos and concentration camps, their later contributions to their communities were also considered by the judges. Physical appearance was maybe '10 percent' of the criteria, Sabag said.

'We always tell them to dress well and look good. To think positive and to take care of themselves,' he said. 'Always look at life with a smile and continue to live.'
The thought that physical appearance could even remotely be a factor rubbed some the wrong way, however. Avital, of the Holocaust survivors' umbrella group, criticized the cosmetics company, saying it was using Holocaust survivors in a cheap marketing stunt to promote their products.

'Why use a beauty contest to show that these people survived and that they're brave?' asked Lili Haber, a daughter of Holocaust survivors who heads an Israeli organization that assists survivors from Poland. 'I think it's awful, I think it's something a decent person shouldn't even think about.'

Gal Mor, editor of the popular Israeli blog 'Holes in the Net' said the pageant was well-intentioned but misguided:

'Why should a decayed, competitive institution that emphasizes women's appearance be used as inspiration, instead of allowing them to tell their story without gimmicks?' he wrote. This is one step short of `Survivor-Holocaust' or `Big Brother Auschwitz. It leaves a bad taste. Holocaust survivors should be above all this.'
Related article: The British Resistance


WHY IS SEC. CLINTON GIVING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD?




Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, just won a presidential election in Egypt described by the White House as a “milestone in Egypt's transition to democracy.”


And while no one has brought forth direct ties between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack have pointed to tangible, familial ties between the Islamist organization and the office of Obama’s Secretary of State that cannot be ignored. In particular, they’ve shown that the mother of Huma Abedin, “Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor,” is not only a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, but also a member of its “Guidance Bureau.”

The Muslim Sisterhood is, as its name suggests, a sister organization to the Muslim Brotherhood. Service on the Guidance Bureau of that organization is quite a prestigious position. It is so prestigious that one of the women Abedin’s mother serves with is Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Mohammed Morsi. The plot only thickens when we consider the fact that Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, has allegedly collaborated with “al-Qaeda godfather Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.”

There should be an investigation of whether these ties have helped in what the U.S. government has recognized as the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed goal of “civilization jihad” against America and the West.

Furthermore, the investigation should determine if those ties contributed to Sec. Clinton’s “waiver of Congressional restrictions on aid to Egypt, allowing $1.5 billion to be transferred in a highly unusual lump-sum payment.” Or, if those ties contributed to her waiver of Congressional restrictions on aid to the Palestinian Authority, which “includes the Palestinian franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The mother of Sec. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff is “a close, personal colleague of the wife of a virulently anti-Semitic racist (Morsi) who has officially been declared the first president-elect of post-Mubarak Egypt.”

The brother of that Deputy Chief of Staff has known associations with significant terrorist figures. Coincidentally, Sec. Clinton is overriding Congressional opinion to get money into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Or is it coincidence?

This is simply not the kind of news that should be ignored.



Jewish Supremacists Laud Court Strike Down of U.S. Immigration Rules

Jewish supremacist hypocrisy on immigration matters continues to know no bounds today as the American Jewry’s most prominent pro-immigration lobby lauded the striking down most parts of Arizona’s mild immigration law, while remaining completely silent on Israel’s extreme, technically illegal, forced deportation of African refugees.


According to an article in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which describes itself as the “global migration agency of the American Jewish community,” welcomed the Supreme Court’s striking of three challenged provisions, but the organization’s President Mark Hetfield, “we remain extremely concerned about the potential for racial profiling as a result of today’s decision. HIAS once again calls upon Congress to move forward with just and humane immigration reform. We will continue to seek opportunities to build relationships among law enforcement, immigrant communities, and business, community, labor, and faith leaders to get Congress to fix our broken immigration laws, reinstate the rule of law along the border, and regularize the status of the undocumented immigrants among us who want to come out of the shadows to work legally, support their families, and contribute to our communities.”

(In 2010, after Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law, HIAS coordinated a letter to Congress that was signed by more than 65 Jewish organizations and public figures, condemning the legislation and urging Congress to move forward with federal immigration reform).


Leaders of the Anti-Defamation League, Robert Sugarman, and Abraham Foxman, said in a statement that “the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s harsh immigration is a mixed outcome, bearing both good and bad news and highlighting the need for comprehensive and meaningful immigration reform. We are deeply troubled that Section 2(B) was not struck down.
“One of our primary concerns has been that Arizona’s law would exacerbate fear in immigrant communities and, in particular, make victims and witnesses of hate crimes reluctant to speak with police. Even though the Arizona Attorney General has said that local police will not engage in racial profiling, giving local police the responsibility of checking immigration status will undermine the essential trust between residents and law enforcement, leave local police in an untenable position, and continue to create barriers to effective protection of minority communities.”
Yet none of these Jewish Supremacists have a word to say about Israel’s forced expulsion of African refugees and the building of the world’s “largest detention centre” where these refugees are detained before their forced expulsion.

One law for the goyim, another law for the Jewish Supremacists.



The Hypocrisy of Abe Foxman and the Jewish Supremacist ADL

By Philip Giraldi.

Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, would be unemployed if he couldn’t demonstrate that the world is awash in anti-Semitism. In his latest foray in self-justification, he was interviewed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on June 12.

Foxman states that 30% of Americans believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States. He does not cite the evidence for that statement and fails to indicate how exactly the question was phrased or the poll conducted.

One wonders why anyone should be asking these types of questions anyway and to what purpose, and it might well be that Foxman himself commissioned the polls to keep support for his organization at a high level.


Foxman, of course, represents an organization that is a major component of the Israel Lobby. Jewish organizations, like their Christian Zionist counterparts, tend to line up behind what the Israeli government does no matter what. Foxman’s simplistic polling and the Haaretz interview have a political purpose, which is to suggest that Israel and the Jewish people are constantly under threat, a contention that inter alia supports the existence of Foxman’s organization.

Jews are the best-educated and wealthiest segment of the U.S. population, statistically overrepresented in the arts, professions, media, universities, and politics.

Thirteen senators and 27 representatives are Jewish.

The head of the Democratic National Committee is Jewish, as is the majority leader in the House of Representatives.

There are three Jews on the nine-member Supreme Court. Four out of six Federal Reserve Board governors and seven out of 12 Fed District Bank presidents are Jewish.

Foxman also explained to Haaretz how he defines an anti-Semite. It is someone who criticizes Israel but doesn’t say anything good about it.

By that standard, he calls Professor John Mearsheimer, co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, an anti-Semite. He has also stated that former President Jimmy Carter has been “engaging in anti-Semitism.”

Foxman is also reportedly appalled that people are discussing everywhere and even in the mainstream media whether American Jews control the country’s foreign policy and “that Israel and the Jews are pushing American into a war with Iran.”

Well, Foxman has basically set up a straw man, as I don’t know anyone respectable who claims that Jews control U.S. foreign policy. Many observers do claim that the Israel Lobby, which is not all Jewish, essentially defines what is acceptable in terms of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Effectively promoting a special interest, which has been demonstrated in books like The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, is not the same as controlling U.S. foreign policy.

And as for Israel pushing America into war with Iran, one would have to ask if Foxman has listened to repeated demands coming from the Israeli government? Or has he attended the annual AIPAC conference recently?

If he has done either, he knows that is precisely what the organized Israel Lobby is doing even though many American Jews themselves oppose the call for war.

More recently, Foxman has criticized race riots in Tel Aviv targeting Africans, who have been described by leading Israeli politicians as “infiltrators” and a “cancer,” while carefully and repeatedly noting that the violence was in response to crimes committed by the refugees, his way of always exonerating Israeli actions while delivering the mildest possible slap on the wrist.

In contrast to his generous understanding of what he sees as the Israeli dilemma on immigrants, he is tough on his fellow citizens who oppose illegal immigration in the U.S.

In May 2010 he referred to Arizona’s illegal immigrant legislation as an example of “nativism” and “bigotry,” manifestly “mean spirited” and xenophobic.

He has not commented on the recent statement by Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai that Africans must learn that “Israel is for the white man.” Even Foxman might find it difficult to explain that one.

Original article