Wednesday, February 3, 2016
72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents
Note: Before you read the article below, please see here to learn more about who is primarily behind this and what they are trying to accomplish.
Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner? Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order? Do you believe in "conspiracy theories," do you believe that we are living in the “end times” or do you ever visit alternative media news websites? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a “potential terrorist” according to official U.S. government documents. At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists.
But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens. And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay.
So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke. The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for more about mind control, surveillance, directed-energy weapons, slander and demonizing political dissidents. These techniques are very similar to the East German Stasi and this a part of the agenda of Homeland security.
Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union'”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Right-wing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.
We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history. You can now be considered a “potential terrorist” just because of your religious or political beliefs. Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Massive evidence of Israel treating wounded ISIS fighters
Commentary — A quick read of the following article would give one the impression that Israel is treating wounded fighters from the Syrian civil war because Israelis’ compassion for their fellow man is just so powerful that it overwhelms their instincts for self-preservation. Yeah, right! A more careful read provides ample evidence that they are in fact supporting radical jihadists in order to topple the government of President Assad, whom they see as an arch enemy.
The article points out that far from treating all in need without discrimination, the Israeli's admits that only 20% of those treated by their medics are civilian, and none of the fighters are from Shiite factions. In other words, they are backing ISIS and Al Qaeda against Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies. Furthermore, this is not a new development, but has in fact been going on for years, confirming the wide-spread rumors.
Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing wounded men from Syrian warzone – but WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic militants?
- Elite Israeli troops rescue wounded Syrians from the world’s worst war almost every night
- They have saved more than 2,000 people since 2013, at a cost of 50 million shekels (£8.7million)
- Many are enemies of Israel and some may even be fighters for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda
- Mail Online embedded with Israeli commandos stationed on the border between Israel and Syria
- Dramatic video filmed by Mail Online and the Israeli army shows these operations taking place
- Israel says that the operation is purely humanitarian but analysts believe Israel also has strategic reasons
- For more of the latest news updates on the Syrian war visit www.dailymail.co.uk/syria
Under cover of darkness, an Israeli armored car advances down the potholed road that leads to Syria. As it crests a small hill, the driver picks up the radio handset and tells his commanding officer that the border is in sight.
He kills the engine. Ten heavily-armed commandos jump out and take cover, watching for signs of ambush. Then five of them move up to the 12ft chainlink fence that marks the limit of Israeli-held territory.
On the other side, on the very edge of Syria, lies an unconscious man wrapped like a doll in a blood-drenched duvet. The commandos unlock the fence, open a section of it and drag him onto Israeli soil.
But this wounded man is not an Israeli soldier, or even an Israeli citizen. He is an Islamic militant. And his rescue forms part of an extraordinary humanitarian mission that is fraught with danger and has provoked deep controversy on all sides.
Mail Online has gained unprecedented access to this secretive and hazardous operation, embedding with the commandos to obtain exclusive footage, and interviewing the medics who are obliged to treat Syrian militants, some of whom openly admit that they intend to kill Israelis.
Cameraman: Shai Rosenzweig
Danger: Israeli commandos are carrying out similar rescues every night – but their government’s motive for authorizing the extraordinary missions is unclear
The casualty – who doesn’t look older than 20 – is losing blood fast. He has been shot in the intestines and the liver, and has a deep laceration in his left ankle.
After putting him on an emergency drip, the commandos stretcher him back to the armored car and head back to Israel.
Almost every night, Israeli troops run secret missions to save the lives of Syrian fighters, all of whom are sworn enemies of the Jewish state.
Israel insists that these treacherous nightly rescues are purely humanitarian, and that it can only hope to ‘win hearts and minds’ in Syria. But analysts suggest the Jewish state has in fact struck a deadly ‘deal with the devil’ – offering support to the Sunni militants who fight the Syrian ruler Assad in the hope of containing its arch enemies Hezbollah and Iran.
‘My dream is that one day, the Red Cross will say, thanks guys, we’ll take it from here, you go back to your unit and take care of injured Israelis,’ said Lieutenant Colonel Itzik Malka, commander of the medical branch of the Golan Brigade.
‘I am proud of what we are doing here, but it is a great burden. For every Syrian in hospital, there is one less bed for an Israeli. One day we will have to make a choice between an Israeli life and a Syrian one. When that happens it will be hard, but I have to say my first duty will be to Israelis.’
Cameraman: Shai Rosenzweig
Unconscious: A wounded Syrian Islamic militant receives urgent medical treatment from Israeli troops at the Syrian border. The commandos are seen administering ‘tracheal intubation’ by forcing a tube down the man’s throat to prevent asphyxiation
Emergency: The militant is very close to death and requires expert medical attention from the team, including a complex blood transfusion
There is no doubt about the danger involved. Many of the casualties rescued by Israel belong to Salafist groups who harbour a deep-seated hatred of the Jewish State. It has also been reported that some may be members of Jabhat al-Nusra, a Syrian group affiliated to Al Qaeda that has kidnapped scores of UN peacekeeping troops in this area, and has massacred Christians deeper in Syria.
In giving medical support to these fighters, Israel has done a deal with the devil
Kamal Alam, research analyst, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)
It is unclear how the two enemies arrange the rescue. All that has been disclosed is that word reaches Israeli forces that casualties have been dumped at the border, intelligence establishes that it is not a trap, and the commandos are sent in.
In the three years that Israel has been running these operations, it has saved the lives of more than 2,000 Syrians – at least 80 per cent of whom are male and of fighting age – at a cost of 50 million shekels (£8.7 million).
Almost nothing is known about the Syrian as he is wheeled into emergency surgery 40 minutes after the rescue. He may be a member of a relatively moderate Islamist group, or he may be a jihadi. For its part, Israel says it either does not gather, or does not disclose, this information.
Officially, Israel says that this operation is part of its program of humanitarianism, which has provided aid to a long list of countries from Haiti to Nepal. Palestinian civilians are also regular patients at Israeli hospitals such as the Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa.
A spokesman pointed out that about 20 per cent of the Syrians treated by Israel are civilians. Mail Online witnessed Israeli army medics treating a sick two-month-old baby and a middle-aged man who had suffered a heart attack, both of whom were evacuated across the Syrian border by the commandos.
The rescue of the baby girl was particularly poignant. Her older brother had died of a rare bone disease, and her mother feared that she was showing symptoms of the same disorder. Distraught, the woman decided to brave the dangers of the border and appeal to the enemy for help.
One day we will have to make a choice between an Israeli life and a Syrian one. When that happens, my first duty will be to Israelis
Lieutenant Colonel Itzik Malka, commander of the medical branch of the Golan Brigade
The baby was treated under cover of darkness in the back of an armored car, by Israeli military medics with rifles slung over their shoulders. They were able to ascertain that she was suffering from a high fever and gave the mother some much-needed medication.
Then mother and infant were escorted by heavily-armed combat troops back to the Syrian warzone. Diagnosing the bone disorder would have to wait.
‘I wouldn’t say that Israel is doing this for nothing,’ said Chris Doyle, Director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding. ‘If so, it wouldn’t be publicizing it.
‘There is an element of wanting to improve the country’s brand and image abroad, when all the opinion polls show that Israel doesn’t have the greatest reputation. £8.7million is a large price to pay for PR, but Israel’s powers-that-be have realized that it has to invest in its image.’
An Israeli Government spokesman rejected these claims as ‘absurd’.
‘Israel is a world leader in providing humanitarian assistance, both in the Middle East and around the world,’ he said. He also pointed out that this is not the first time the Jewish State has given medical care to those bent on its destruction and their families.
In October, a Tel Aviv hospital treated Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ brother-in-law, and last year it treated the daughter of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. But analysts maintain that in the ‘tough neighborhood’ of the Middle East, it is rare to give something for nothing.
Mail Online was given access to interview Syrian militants at the Ziv Medical Centre in Safed, northern Israel, one of a number of hospitals at which they are treated, on condition that their identities are not revealed. If other Syrians discovered they had received medical care in the hated Israel, they would be in danger of execution.
The casualties lavished praise on Israel. ‘I will not fight against Israel in the future. Israel looks after wounded people better than the Arabs. The Arabs are dogs,’ said a wiry rebel fighter who gave his name as Ahmed, 23, who was recovering from a gunshot wound to the groin.
‘Before I came here, I wouldn’t have said this. But there are many people who got injured and came to Israel for treatment, and they told me about it. I feel safe here in Israel. But when I am well again, I will go back and fight.’
Another rebel, 20-year-old Mohammed, whose leg had been all but destroyed by fire from a Russian-made ‘Dushka’ heavy machine gun, agreed. ‘Thanks to Israel for letting me in,’ he said, eyeing the surgical frame supporting his shattered leg.
‘The butcher Assad is my enemy. Israel is not my enemy. The one who treats you is not your enemy.’ As soon as he was well enough, he added, he too intended to go back to Syria to take up arms again.
The Israeli doctor in charge of their treatment, Russian-born Professor Alexander Lerner – a leading expert in treating war injuries – did not disguise his delight at these responses.
‘We are trying to build peace with our neighbors and win their hearts and minds,’ he said. ‘There are now 2,000 Syrians who have had their lives saved by Israel. We hope that this will change their life position. In the future, they will be more friendly to Israel and they won’t want to fight us.’
Other medical staff, however, believe that the militants were lying. Issa Peres, 36, a Christian Israeli Arab social worker, said that many hospital staff resented having to treat them.
I don’t trust any one of them. You can’t change their minds by taking care of them for two weeks
Issa Peres, social worker, Ziv Medical Centre
‘I work with the Syrians all the time, I see and hear bad things,’ he said. ‘Many of them said bad words to me, that they are going to kill me, they are going to fight with the Christian community, when they are safe they will fight against Israel.
‘They have destroyed churches and Christian communities in Syria. I have to care for them, it is my job. But if I’m sitting with myself, I say no, it is not right for Israel to treat them.’
Asked about the fighters’ promises not to fight against Israel in the future, he said: ‘I don’t trust any one of them. They grew up believing Israel is their enemy, Israel is the devil. You can’t change their minds by taking care of them for two weeks.’
Other Israelis are more bitter. In June, two wounded Syrian jihadis were attacked by a lynch-mob while they were being transported to hospital by ambulance. One was beaten to death, while the other suffered serious injuries.
Six weeks later, two members of the Israeli Druze community – an Arabic-speaking people found in Israel and across the Levant – were charged with murder. It emerged that the militants were suspected members of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate who had attacked Druze villages in Syria.
According to one senior Israeli army officer, Israel’s humanitarian mission may also be part of a security strategy, aiming to ‘keep the northern border quiet and our soldiers safe’ by using medical treatment as an ‘insurance policy’.
‘The Syrians will not strike us because they know we’d stop helping them,’ Lieutenant Colonel Malka told Mail Online.
‘They are desperate for our medical help. They have no doctors, not even a vet. Once we treated a man who had been stitched up by a friend with a needle and thread.
‘If they want our help to continue, they know they must stop anybody from attacking our soldiers and civilians.’
Some experts argue that the status quo makes sense for both sides. The militants are stretched almost to breaking-point in a bitter struggle against Assad, and Israel, which is coping with stabbings throughout the country and sporadic rocket fire from Gaza, wants to avoid a flare-up of terror in the north.
Others, however, believe that Israel is also pursuing more hard-headed geopolitical goals. ‘Above all, Israel wants to prevent Hezbollah from gaining control on the other side of the border,’ said Michael Stephens, Research Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
‘The Sunni militants are fighting Hezbollah, so for now they share the same objectives as Israel. That’s why we’re seeing this odd cooperation between people who would be enemies under any other circumstances.
‘It is also possible that Israel is looking at what capacity these Syrians can add to its intelligence gathering in Syria, which is already formidable.’
Analysts agree that the powerful Shia alliance of Iran, Hezbollah and Assad’s troops is an existential threat to Israel, far outweighing any danger from the Sunni Islamist rebels (who are backed by Saudi Arabia, understood to have a form of working relationship in some areas with Israel).
Significantly, an Israeli spokesman confirmed that no medical support has been provided to any militants from the Shia alliance.
‘From an Israeli viewpoint, it’s a case of my enemy’s enemy is my friend,’ said Kamal Alam, research analyst at RUSI and an expert in Syrian affairs.
‘There is no one they can trust in the Syrian quagmire, but if you get rid of Hezbollah, that’s the end of Iran in the region. Israel’s main aim has to be to eliminate Hezbollah – and whoever takes on Hezbollah is an uneasy but necessary ally.
‘In giving medical support to these fighters, Israel has done a deal with the devil.’
For Israel to actually arm and equip the Sunni militants, he pointed out, would be to risk a fierce backlash, both from the Arab world and in Israel. It would also run the risk that the weapons could one day be turned against the Jewish State.
Humanitarian medical assistance, on the other hand, which is also offered to civilians, raises fewer objections on both sides, while fulfilling mutual strategic objectives.
This is where the commandos come in. For these young soldiers, the night is yet young; taking Syrian casualties to hospital was just the first half of their duties. As the night wears on, an ambulance draws up carrying a patched-up militant ready to be taken back to war.
He has received treatment at the Rambam Hospital in Haifa, Israel’s leading medical facility for treating the most severely wounded patients. A civilian ambulance – with an armed guard – has taken him on the 90-minute journey to the border, to avoid attracting the attention of lynch-mobs along the way.
Mail Online is allowed to film on condition that the militant is not asked his allegiances. When he is wheeled out of the ambulance, it is clear that despite intensive medical treatment, he is still very unwell. One of his legs is in plaster and the other is scarred with shrapnel pockmarks, and his right eye is covered with a bandage. He looks disoriented and afraid as he is transferred into an armored vehicle and driven off into the darkness.
From Israel’s point of view, this is the conclusion of another successful humanitarian mission, which now take place nightly as the conflict in Syria burns on. At the same time, however, many believe that this man’s treatment – and the care given to thousands of Syrians like him – is an important, if unlikely, investment in Israel’s security.
WHO IS FIGHTING WHOM IN SYRIA – AND WHERE DOES ISRAEL FIT IN?
For four bitter years, the Syrian civil war has been raging less than a mile from Israeli-held territory (Jake Wallis Simons writes). But aside from the occasional exchange of fire, the Jewish State has so far avoided being dragged into the conflict.
Nonetheless, Israel has significant interests at stake in the hostilities. Most obviously, it does not want to see Iranian influence creeping close to its borders, as this could have serious security repercussions.
A senior intelligence officer told Mail Online that Israel also concerned about Hezbollah’s role in the Syrian conflict, as the Lebanese militia is gaining valuable combat experience that may strengthen its future operations against Israel.
Below is a summary of the main military actors in Syria, and what each one means for Israel.
Assad’s troops: The Syrian ruler’s forces are now only operational in his stronghold in western Syria, but they are now beginning to regain territory with the help of Russian air support. Israel has fought three bitter wars with Syria, and sees it as a longstanding enemy.
Iran: Officially, the theocracy denies that it has combat personnel engaged in Syria. But analyses of military burials suggests that at least 100 members of the Revolutionary Guards and the elite Quds Force have been killed in action in the country since January 2013, and its financial and logistical support of Assad is significant. Iran is by far Israel’s most powerful foe, having repeatedly threatened to destroy the Jewish State. Given the large sums of money that will flow into Iran following the lifting of Western sanctions, its deep involvement in Syria is of grave concern to Israel.
Hezbollah: The Shia Lebanese guerrilla organization has formidable capabilities, and works hand-in-glove with Iran in Syria. It is one of Israel’s most deadly enemies, having kidnapped a number of Israeli soldiers and fought several debilitating conflicts with the Jewish State.
Russia: Officially on friendly terms with Israel, Vladimir Putin nonetheless threw his hat into the ring on the side of Assad in September. The US says Russia has been mostly targeting the ‘moderate’ opposition, but this may have changed since ISIS downed the Russian Airbus A321 in Egypt on 31 October, killing all 224 people on board. Nonetheless, Russia’s main priority is to prop up Assad.
ISIS: The brutal jihadi group, which has become the number one enemy of the West since it mounted attacks in Paris in November, controls areas of Iraq and Syria which is home to five million people and is thought to earn more than $2billion a year. In October, the group released a video in Hebrew in which it promised that ‘not one Jew will be left in Jerusalem’. But it currently does not occupy territory in immediate reach of the Israeli border.
Saudi Arabia: The Gulf monarchy is the principal financial backer of the Sunni militia who are fighting Assad , including the Army of Conquest, a group of Islamist rebels linked to Al Qaeda. It is engaged in a long-term struggle for supremacy with Iran, and is also fighting Iranian-backed Shia forces in Yemen. It is understood that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states have a working relationship with Israel, which is hated on the Arab street. Israel has recently opened its first ever diplomatic mission in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Shia militia: Iran has mobilized a multinational network of Shia militias in Syria, which analysts believe serves as Iran’s ‘Foreign Legion’, fighting the Sunni networks of ISIS and al-Qaeda. This includes Shia fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these militiamen are informed by Iran’s loathing of Israel, even if they do not necessarily share it to the same extent.
Al Qaeda: Various AQ affiliate groups are fighting Assad in Syria, including the feared al-Nusra Front, also known as the Syrian Al Qaeda. This group attacked Druze villages in southern Syria, angering Israeli Druze on the other side of the border. As a result, two alleged al-Nusra fighters who were being treated in Israel were lynched by Israeli Druze in June 2015.
The Kurds: This proud people has been fighting for an independent Kurdistan for decades, and is currently engaged in a bloody war with ISIS. Kurdish forces are comprised of a number of disparate militia such as the YPG (supported by Syrian Turkmen Brigades) and the PKK, which is locked in an armed struggle with Turkey. The Kurds have long been on friendly terms with Israel, which supports their desire for independence.
Turkey: The country is preoccupied with combating the Turkish Kurds in northern Syria, and has conducted airstrikes against them, as well as against ISIS. It has also provided arms and logistical support to the Free Syrian Army, and wishes to see Assad deposed. Relations between Turkey and Israel were derailed in 2010, when eight Turkish nationals and an American-Turkish activist were killed by Israeli commandos in international waters when they attempted to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The relationship has been repaired to a large extent since.
Moderate Syrian rebels: A range of militias opposed to Assad are referred to generally as the Free Syrian Army. David Cameron has placed their numbers at about 70,000, but doubts remain about how unified they are, given the fact that they do not share a central command structure and operate in different parts of the country. They have no immediate desire to fight Israel, but share the general hatred of the Jewish state that dominates in Syria.
United States: The Obama administration failed to attack Assad when he crossed the ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons in 2014. However, it has conducted significant air operations against ISIS, the al Nusra Front and other jihadi groups. The US is a staunch ally of Israel, though relations have been strained in recent years due to differences between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the settlement policy on the West Bank.
France: Following the Paris terror attacks, France has played a leading role in rallying support for Western strikes on ISIS, and has significantly stepped up its own air operations. Large numbers of French Jews have emigrated to Israel in the wake of terror attacks against Jewish targets in France. The French Government was one of the first to recognize the Jewish State in 1948, but also strongly supports the Palestinian right to self-determination.
United Kingdom: The RAF has been bombing ISIS in Iraq since September 2014. After Parliament rejected military strikes against Assad in 2013, British involvement in Syria was limited to logistical support. The vote to approve airstrikes in Syria in December changed that, and the UK is now carrying out fierce air assaults on ISIS in Syria as well as Iraq. Britain is a longstanding friend of Israel, though Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, has a reputation for hostility towards the Jewish State.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
How Much Do You Know About World War I and World War II?
“The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.” — The Chicago Jewish Sentinel, October 8, 1942.
What do you think was the most important part of World War I and World War II? It probably isn't what you think it is. Let me give you a hint. It involves the Middle East and a homeland for a certain group of people. Yes, it is Israel.
You have probably never heard that before, but it's the truth. The reality is, we live in a world of utter lies and propaganda. At the absolute least, the video below should make you ask some questions about what has been called the "Great Wars." Hopefully, it will make you question the official narrative that has been shoved down your throat for years. Do you know what your ancestors died for? Do you know what they were fighting for? Did they even know?
After you watch the video, read ALL of the comments below the video! Most people do not know or understand all
of the actions that lead to World War II
of the actions that lead to World War II
Samuel Untermyer was the chief Zionist architect of the 1930's, and he helped create enmity toward the German Jewish community. His vitriol also helped propel America into World War 2.
The image below is a newspaper from March 24, 1933. The Zionists encouraged Jews around the world to fight with the Nazis. Was it to protect the Jews from the Nazis? Or was it to start a fight? Learn about it before making a decision. A good article to read is this one here.
"Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!" - These were all headlines in the Daily Express on March 24, 1933.
"The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people." - Daily Express, March 24, 1933.
"Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping.... we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends." - Samuel Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.
Joining with Samuel Untermeyer in calling for a war against Germany, Bernard Baruch, at the same time, was promoting preparations for war against Germany. "I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit." - Baruch, The Public Years, by Bernard M. Baruch, p.347 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).
Samuel Untermeyer was a Jewish leader and close friend of presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. Baruch was a presidential adviser to Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman.
"This declaration called the war against Germany, which was now determined on, a 'holy war'. This war was to be carried out against Germany to its conclusion, to her destruction" (Diese Erklärung nannte den Krieg gegen Deutschland, der nun beschlossen sei, einen heiligen Krieg. Dieser Krieg müsse gegen Deutschland bis zu dessen Ende, bis zu dessen Vernichtung, geführt werden). - Dr. Franz J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands.
"War in Europe in 1934 was inevitable." - H. Morgenthau, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Hearst Press, September, 1933 (also quoted in "The Palestine Plot" by B. Jenson, p. 11 (printed by John McKinley, 11-15 King Street, Perth, Scotland)).
"For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, at each conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany's ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews." - Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934 (also quoted in "Histoire de l'Armée Allemande" by Jacques Benoist-Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303).
"Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year, but soon." - Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted in his book "The New Holy Alliance").
"We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany." - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).
"We want to bring about a deep hatred for the Germans, for German soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We must hate until we win." - Lord Beaverbrook, quoted in Niemals! by Heinrich Goitsch.
"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.
"Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S.A will be formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees." - Paul Dreyfus, "La Vie de Tanger" May 15, 1938.
On the 3rd of June, 1938, the American Hebrew boasted that they had Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France, and that these "three sons of Israel will be sending the Nazi dictator to hell." - Joseph Trimble, the American Hebrew.
"Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her. One may be sure of this: We will lead that war!" - Bernard Lecache, the president of the "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism," in its newspaper "Droit de Vivre" (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.
"The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world." - Brigadier General George Van Horn Mosely, The New York Tribune, March 29, 1939.
"I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made during the last months, and especially in the last week: that the Jews "stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies." Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations. We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating direction of His Majesty's Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, the London Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939.
"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." - Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939.
"Stop talking about peace conditions! Break Germany in pieces!" - The Daily Herald, No.7426, 9 December, 1939.
"The Jews, taken collectively, view this war as a holy war." - The Daily Herald, No.7450, 1939, quoted in "Reichstagsbrand, Aufklärung einer historischen Legende," by U. Backes, K.H. Janßen, E. Jesse, H. Köhler, H. Mommsen, E Tobias.
"Even if we Jews are not physically at your side in the trenches, we are morally with you. This war is our war and you fight it with us." - Schalom Asch, Les Nouvelles Litterairres, February 10, 1940.
"In losing Germany, Jewry lost a territory from which it exerted power. Therefore it was determined to re-conquer it." - Louis Marschalko, "The World Conquerors : The Real War Criminals."
"The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years." - Rabbi M. Perlzweig (head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress), Toronto Evening Telegram, February 26, 1940.
"The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism." - Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942.
"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry... Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.
"Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain). He says that Chamberlain stated that America and world Jewry forced England into World War II." - James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry.
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America." - Adolf Hitler, April, 1945.
The joke doing the rounds of the British Union of Fascists at this time, was that the Jewish national anthem was, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'
Friday, January 29, 2016
Israeli Racism and American Jewish Hypocrisy
By Larry Derfner
On the U.S. Jewish establishment’s double standard regarding what gentiles can say about Jews and what Israeli Jews can say about Arabs and blacks.
On the U.S. Jewish establishment’s double standard regarding what gentiles can say about Jews and what Israeli Jews can say about Arabs and blacks.
The Anti-Defamation League and the rest of the American Jewish establishment owe Jesse Jackson an apology. They put the man through the wringer, they made him apologize in every possible forum for his “Hymie” and “Hymietown” remarks back in 1984. Yet look at the kinds of things Israeli leaders – senior government ministers, chief rabbis – get away with without ever having to apologize, without ever being punished in the slightest.
A couple of weeks ago the economy minister, Naftali Bennett, the fresh new face of right-wing Orthodox Judaism, was saying in a cabinet meeting how he didn’t like these releases of Palestinian prisoners. “If you catch terrorists, you simply have to kill them,” he was quoted in Yedioth Ahronoth as saying. The head of the National Security Council, Yaakov Amidor, told Bennett, “Listen, that’s not legal.” Bennett replied: “I have killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there is no problem with that.”
The media, the left, and the Arabs made a big deal out of it, nobody else. Bennett defended what he said, and so did countless talkbackers and Facebookers.
Two days later the newly-elected Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, David Lau, was seen on a video telling an audience of yeshiva boys that they shouldn’t watch Euroleague basketball games in public; it was bad for their image. “What difference does it make,” Lau said, “if the kushim who get paid in Tel Aviv beat the kushim who get paid in Greece?” Kushim, especially when used in a dismissive context like Lau did, is a well-understood derogatory term for blacks.
Again, the media, the left, some Ethiopian Jews and presumably some African refugees were outraged, but Lau defended his words, blaming the media, saying “they made a big deal out of a joke.” Who else defended his remarks about “kushim”? Bennett: “The media are pouncing on him for a joking, insignificant remark.”
So really – what was so bad about “Hymies” and “Hymietown”? Or the thousand other anti-Semitic or even just possibly anti-Semitic remarks that the ADL and other American Jewish organizations have “pounced on” since then? Israeli public figures say the same kind of garbage, the difference is that they never, ever pay a price for it, in fact they usually manage to play the victim and get away with it, and at worst will be obliged to offer some backhanded apology.
Likud Knesset member Miri Regev is doing fine after having called Sudanese refugees “a cancer on our body” to a crowd of hopped-up south Tel Avivians in May of last year, shortly before the crowd went on a window-smashing mini-pogrom against the Africans in the neighborhood. Legendary basketball coach Pini Gershon’s career and public stature didn’t suffer at all after he explained his racial theory about blacks to a class of amused army officers in 2000. “The mocha-colored guys are smarter, but the dark colored ones are just guys off the street. They’re dumb like slaves, they do whatever you tell them,” Gershon said.
Nor was there any blowback whatsoever after Bibi Netanyahu bragged in 2007 that the cuts he’d made to child subsidies had brought a “positive” result, which he identified as “the demographic effect on the non-Jewish public, where there was a dramatic drop in the birth rate.” Imagine the scandal if an American political leader boasted publicly that his cuts to child subsidies had reduced the “non-Christian” birth rate. Imagine the ADL’s reaction. But in Israel, in 2007, from the mouth of a once-and-future prime minister – nothing.
These are just a few of the more appalling examples of the kind of racist remarks Israeli politicians, rabbis and celebrities are free to make; I haven’t even mentioned Avigdor Lieberman or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. As a rule the slurs are directed at Arabs, now and then against blacks: either Ethiopian Jews, African refugees or athletes.
I’ve lived roughly half my 61 years in the United States, the other half in Israel, and there is absolutely no comparison between American tolerance for public displays of racism and Israeli tolerance for it. I’ve stood in the middle of Israeli crowds chanting “Death to the Arabs.” I’ve sat in a Tel Aviv soccer stadium watching and listening to an entire section of fans erupt in monkey sounds – “Hoo, hoo, hoo!! Hoo, hoo, hoo!! – after a black player on the visiting team scored a goal.
A few liberals and a few do-gooders and a few journalists wring their hands, but the racists in the street, the synagogues, the Knesset and the government go on doing their thing. Does this mean all Israelis, or even most of them, are racists? No. Does it mean Israeli society, by commission and omission, encourages racism? Oh, yes. To a degree that would be unthinkable in the United States.
And the leaders of the U.S. Jewish establishment, Israel’s most valued, devoted, determined friends, keep pouncing on every untoward or conceivably untoward remark about Jews or the Jewish state. Yes, the ADL will also send out the occasional press release about its “concern” over the “inappropriate” remarks made by some relatively minor Israeli figure (though never the majors; it said nothing about Bennett or Lau). But both the ADL and the Israeli powers-that-be know it’s a hollow exercise, done for appearances only. The ADL goes after anti-Semitism with a fist, it goes after Israeli racism with a sigh. It should stop with the press releases; they’re worse than nothing.
As a matter of fact, the ADL and the entire American Jewish establishment should suspend their campaigns against anti-Semitism indefinitely and take a look at what’s going on in Israel. When the Jewish state is this riddled with racism, its advocates abroad should be a little less outraged over the offenses of gentiles. A little more humble. And a whole lot less hypocritical.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
The Right To Tell The Government To Go To Hell
by John W. Whitehead
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”― George Orwell (See here for more excellent George Orwell quotes, see here for a lecture on 1984.)
Free speech is not for the faint of heart.
Nor is it for those who are easily offended, readily intimidated or who need everything wrapped in a neat and tidy bow. Free speech is often messy, foul-mouthed, obscene, intolerant, undignified, insensitive, cantankerous, bawdy and volatile.
While free speech can also be tender, tolerant, soft-spoken, sensitive and sweet, it is free speech’s hot-blooded alter ego—the wretched, brutal, beastly Mr. Hyde to its restrained, dignified and civil Dr. Jekyll—that tests the limits of our so-called egalitarian commitment to its broad-minded principles.
Unfortunately, our appreciation for a robust freedom of speech has worn thin over the years.
Many Americans have become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. We’ve come to prize civility over freedom. Most of all, too many Americans, held hostage by their screen devices and the talking heads on television, have lost the ability to think critically.
Societies that cherish free speech relish open debates and controversy and, in turn, produce a robust citizenry who will stand against authoritarian government. Indeed, oppressive regimes of the past have understood the value of closed-mouthed, closed-minded citizens and the power inherent in controlling speech and, thus, controlling how a people view their society and government.
We in the United States have a government with a ravenous appetite for power and a seeming desire to turn the two-way dialogue that is our constitutional republic into a one-way dictatorship. Emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” the government is whittling away at free speech, confining it to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalizing it when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shaming it when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzling it when it appears dangerous.
Free speech is no longer free.
Nor is free speech still considered an inalienable right or an essential liberty, even by those government entities entrusted with protecting it.
We’ve entered into an egotistical, insulated, narcissistic era in which free speech has become regulated speech: to be celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority and tolerated otherwise, unless it moves so far beyond our political, religious and socio-economic comfort zones as to be rendered dangerous and unacceptable.
Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.
Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Disguised as tolerance, civility and love, political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite. Consequently, college campuses have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.
Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”
Hateful speech: Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook are in the process of determining what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.
Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its newly unveiled war on “extremism,” the Obama administration is partnering with the tech industry to establish a task force to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online is considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted.
The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state. Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use. The end result is control.
In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.
Thus, while on paper, we are technically still free to speak, in reality, we are only as free to speak as a government official or corporate censor may allow.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long been the referee in the tug-of-war over the nation’s tolerance for free speech and other expressive activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Supreme Court’s role as arbiter of justice in these disputes is undergoing a sea change. Except in cases where it has no vested interest, the Court has begun to advocate for the government’s outsized interests, ruling in favor of the government in matters of war, national security, commerce and speech. When asked to choose between the rule of law and government supremacy, this Court tends to side with the government.
In the 225 years since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted, the rights detailed in that amendment—which assures the American people of the right to speak freely, worship freely, peaceably assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and have a free press—have certainly taken a beating, but none more so than the right to free speech.
Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.
Unfortunately, in the war being waged between free speech purists who believe that free speech is an inalienable right and those who believe that free speech should be regulated, the censors are winning. Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms.
If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.
What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.
Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, makes independent thought all but impossible, and ultimately foments a seething discontent that has no outlet but violence.
The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say—frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.
The problem as I see it is that we’ve lost faith in the average citizen to do the right thing. We’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.
In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive populace, content to watch and not do. In this way, we have become our worst enemy. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once warned, a silent, inert citizenry is the greatest menace to freedom.
Brandeis provided a well-reasoned argument against government censorship in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927). It’s not a lengthy read, but here it is boiled down to ten basic truths:
1. The purpose of government is to make men free to develop their faculties, i.e., THINK.
2. The freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are essential to the discovery and spread of political truth.
3. Without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile
4. The greatest menace to freedom is a silent people.
5. Public discussion is a political duty, and should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
6. Order cannot be secured through censorship.
7. Fear breeds repression; repression breeds hate; and hate menaces stable government.
8. The power of reason as applied through public discussion is always superior to silence coerced by law.
9. Free speech and assembly were guaranteed in order to guard against the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities.
10. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground (a clear and present danger) to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent, and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.
Perhaps the most important point that Brandeis made is that freedom requires courage. “Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards,” he wrote. “They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.” Rather, they were “courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government.”
In other words, the founders did not fear the power of speech. Rather, they embraced it, knowing all too well that a nation without a hearty tolerance for free speech, no matter how provocative, insensitive or dangerous, will be easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed.
What the police state wants is a nation of sheep that will docilely march in lockstep with its dictates. What early Americans envisioned was a nation of individualists who knew exactly when to tell the government to go to hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)