Meet The New Sniper Golem
By Gilad Atzmon
In Jewish tradition the Golem is a robot created by the Jews to serve the chosen people and their tribal interests.
The best known story of the Golem is of Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, called the Maharal of Prague (1513-1609). It is said that the Maharal created a Golem out of clay to protect the Jews from blood libel and to help Jews comply with requirements for physical labour.
The Golem has made it to Israel. By now, the Palestinians are accustomed to being watched constantly by a score of Israeli flying Golem or ‘kosher drones.’
Yesterday we learned that the World Zionist Organization (WZO) has invested in a new cyber Golem designed to spy on all of us. Sniper, the new Golem will scan the net using a new algorithm, looking for anti-Jewish content.
The new Golem will search for certain keywords in different languages. A crew of WZO members will monitor the results, and react immediately. Once an offender is detected, the WZO will either contact authorities in the offending party’s country or, alternatively, send a flying Golem to track the suspected Jew hater.
The Sniper Golem “will create deterrence,” say the entrepreneurs behind it, “it won’t be so easy to publish a status calling for the murder of Jews.”
In my years of activity as a writer and researcher I have never come across a single ‘status’ calling for the ‘murder of Jews.’ This appears to be a severe manifestation of collective Jewish pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PRE TSD) hovering on the verge of psychosis.
The new Golem is set for launch on Sunday, during a WZO conference aimed at combating anti-Semitism in the modern era, which will be attended by Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon and Knesset Speaker MK Yuli Edelstein. In short, if you planned to publish a ‘murderous status’, hurry up, only three days left.
The USA is beginning to feel the effects of the Zionist control of its government. The incident described below reminds one of the type of behaviour one would expect to see in Gaza or the West Bank in Palestine, not America.
The following screen shot is taken from the website shown here: https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/screen-shot-2016-01-28-at-3-38-39-pm.png
Robert LaVoy Finicum was born on January 27, 1961 in Kanab, UT and was murdered the day before his 55th birthday on January 26, 2016. LaVoy was born to David and Nelda Finicum and had six siblings, Sherre, Guy, Jody, Jill, Misty, and Tadi. LaVoy was married to Dorthea Jeanette Finicum on February 18, 1994 and together they have eleven children, Thara, Belle, Tell, Tawny, Arianna, Brittney, Mitch, Thomas, Challice, Danielle, and Tean. Combined they have 19 grandchildren with three more on the way.
LaVoy went to school in Page Arizona. He served a full time mission in the Dakotas for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of which he was a faithful member his whole life. He served in many church positions; among them: the Young Men’s program, Ward Mission leader, Elders Quorum president, a High Priest leader and a member of the Bishopric. LaVoy worked many years in property management but his passions were helping children and ranching. LaVoy had over 50 foster boys whom he was able to have in his home and mentor over the course of the past 19 years. He loved working on his ranch and teaching his children how to ride horses, brand cows, and most of all, to follow Christ. LaVoy loved God, his family, and his country. He believed that the Constitution of the United States was inspired by God and he was willing to, and did, die while defending our freedoms stated within.
Funeral services will be held Friday, February 5, 2016 at 2:30 PM in the Kanab Utah Kaibab Stake Center, 1435 South McAllister Drive, with a viewing from 11:00-2:00 PM at the Stake Center. Arrangements were made with Hughes Mortuary of St George and Mosdell Mortuary of Kanab.
A grieving family responds to the US government’s assassination of a “Patriotic Martyr,” an American hero ruthlessly stolen from them by American Herald Tribune staff
JANUARY 30, 2016
BY AHT STAFF
“We are deeply troubled and saddened that our governments have come to place so little value on life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.”
LaVoy Finicum, just days before days, in his family’s words, he was “gunned down by his own government without due process.”
STATEMENT FROM THE LAVOY FINICUM FAMILY 1-29-2016.
We know that there are always at least two sides to every story. We also know and recognize that the FBI and law enforcement agencies involved will do everything in their power to make it appear as if the needless death of our husband, father, grandfather, brother and son, LaVoy Finicum, was justified.
Like almost everyone else, we were not there, so we don’t know exactly what happened. Like most others, we have no choice but to rely on other sources of information. One of those sources of information is the account of Victoria Sharp. Another piece of information is the video recently released by the FBI, along with the FBI’s chosen narrative of what happened. In response to this information, we would like to make a few observations.
The first observation is that from what we understand, the occupation was on track toward a peaceful resolution. LaVoy and those he was with were en route to a public meeting in an adjoining county when they were stopped in something far different than a “routine traffic stop,” as has been portrayed by the media. Unfortunately, the powers that be were not interested in being patient enough for the occupation to come to a peaceful end. Some had called for LaVoy and those he was with to simply be gunned down, just as he was, with no due process. Oregon Governor, Kate Brown, was putting pressure on the FBI to end it sooner rather than later. The Harney County Sheriff’s Department working in conjunction with the FBI tried to do everything they could to emphasize how disruptive the occupation was to the local community, when in reality it appears to have been their own reaction that was causing most of the disruption. And it was the FBI that chose to escalate the situation to force a confrontation, and violent ending.
With respect to the actual facts and circumstances surrounding LaVoy’s death, the video really speaks for itself. People will interpret it according to their own views. As the FBI’s own narrative stated, LaVoy was not wielding a firearm or any other weapon when he was killed. His hands were obviously in the air. Knowing LaVoy, it is our view that he was moving away from the vehicle in an attempt to draw any hostility or violence away from the others.
Although he may have been animated, he does not appear to have been threatening or posing any real threat or danger to anyone. The FBI claims that LaVoy had a loaded firearm in an inside pocket of his coat. After rereviewing the extended video, at this point we are not accepting at face value the FBI’s statement that LaVoy was actually armed. But even if he was, as far as we can see, that firearm posed no more danger to anyone than it would have if he had stayed in the vehicle, with his hands on the steering wheel. Contrary to what has been stated by some sources, LaVoy was not “charging” anyone. He appears to have been shot in the back, with his hands in the air.
It is our understanding that according to applicable law, the use of deadly force is justified only if there is a genuine threat of death or serious bodily injury. It is our understanding and position that deadly force should only be used as a last resort. In LaVoy’s case it appears that they were determined to go straight to the last resort. It is our understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of appeals have ruled as follows:
“The reasonableness of [officers’] actions depends both on whether the officers were in danger at the precise moment that they used force and on whether [the officers’] own reckless or deliberate conduct during the seizure unreasonably created the need to use such force.”
“[W]here an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation . . . he may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force.” Although officers may claim self-defense, they may still be liable for using excessive force if their reckless and unconstitutional actions create the need to use excessive force.
It is our understanding that in addition to shooting LaVoy multiple times, after he was left lying harmlessly on the ground the officers also fired upon his truck and the passengers in it, putting them all at risk, despite the fact that they were posing no threat to anyone. The video clearly shows one of the windows being blown out. It has been gutwrenching for our family to view the video of LaVoy being shot, and then left to lie in the snow while a whole army of so-called “public servants” terrorized the others.
We can only hope their families never have to watch such a thing. We will be interested to inspect the vehicle. We will also be interested to see the autopsy report. At this point we will await the outcome of any investigation, but based on the information currently available to us, we do not believe that LaVoy’s shooting death was justified. We likewise can’t see any justification for the force and risk of serious injury or death that was exerted against the others in the truck, who posed no threat.
We know that under such circumstances law enforcement typically makes every attempt to cast such shooting victims in the worst possible light. In that regard, we also want to observe and emphasize that LaVoy had a squeaky clean record, and had never had so much as a speeding ticket. In addition to raising his own eleven children, he had also been entrusted with the care of at least 50 foster children over the course of approximately 10 years.
On January 7, 2016, LaVoy issued an official statement from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Among other things, the statement said:
“We want to clarify that we share any and all concerns about safety for everyone involved, including ourselves, our families, the public, and law enforcement officers. All lives are important to us. Ultimately, we want everyone involved to be able to return safely to their homes and families.We are deeply troubled and saddened that our governments do not share the same concern for human life. We are deeply troubled that our governments would view whatever was happening at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to be worth spilling blood over. We are deeply troubled and saddened that our governments have come to place so little value on life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.
We love LaVoy as our husband, father, grandfather, brother and son. He was a hero to us. We believe he died as a patriotic martyr. Regardless of any and all differing opinions, we know that he died standing for a cause HE believed in. LaVoy’s funeral will be held in Kanab, Utah on Friday, February 5, 2016.
We take comfort in our faith and our belief that LaVoy is now in a better place. May our dear Lord bless and receive him into that realm. We sincerely appreciate all the thoughts and prayers that have been sent our way. We pray for those who chose to take LaVoy’s life. We desire justice and genuine accountability for what happened, but we pray for them. And finally, we thank God for this country and what it is supposed to stand for. We pray for this country, and that God will please bless, help and forgive us all.
The Political Assassination of LaVoy Finicum
By Anthony Hall
January 27, 2016
Hall’s Update: The Duff/Dean version to confuse my essay’s introduction is not consistent with Victoria Sharp’s eyewitness testimony given to North West Liberty News
[ Editor’s update: A witness that was stopped and arrested in the first car refutes the allegations made in this early reporting of an execution with his hands up in the air. Finicum had run the first road block, and was not fired upon, and crashed into a snowbank while trying to run the backup road block.
He exited the car and charged the officers and was shot then. This witness was at a distance himself but I suspect we will have video camera evidence of both stops as that is routine now in these situations where both parties want proof of what happened.
The rest of everyone stopped are alive. Those with warrants were arrested and the released. I am sure we will be hearing more about this in the next few days. For my two cents these folks should have been aware that some sort of arrest could be expected and should have had a game plan to move the dispute into the courts, as will happen now. Any kind of shooting served neither the government’s position nor those arrested, injured or killed. The legal process will not churn on it what will be a high profile case…Jim W. Dean ]
by Anthony Hall,Canada
According to a report on his own You Tube channel, LaVoy Finicum was killed on the evening of January 26, 2016 by a US special forces unit while the deceased Arizona rancher “was on his knees with his hands up.”
Finicum is said to have been shot “three times” in an episode that also included the arrest on Highway 395 in Oregon of some of the leadership of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. Nevada Assembly woman Michele Fiore also reported in a tweet that Finicum was shot by federal authorities with his hands up.
In a more recent report, North West Liberty News published an interview with Victoria Sharp who was in the “ambushed” car carrying the targeted entourage with LaVoy Finicum at the wheel. She said that Finicum was shot six extra times by special forces police after he was already downed by police gunfire.
Sharp confirmed that Finicum was initially shot outside the car with his hands in the air. She dismissed the story of three bullets being shot as bunk and indicated that at least 120 shots were fired at the car. She spoke of about 4o police vehicles being involved in the ambush with “FBI snippers” posted
everywhere, including on perches in surrounding trees.
The group had left the camp of the armed protestors that took control of the federal building overseeing the Federal Malheur Wildlife Reservation. The entourage, including Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy who was wounded in the episode, was on their way to address a meeting in the Oregon community of John Day. Police reportedly apprehended a second group in an episode that at this moment remains ill defined.
Inevitably Finicum’s death will be viewed by many as a political assassination by a US federal government that has become accustomed to extrajudicial killing all over the world. A veteran of the controversial standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada in 2014, Finicum was emerging as a compelling voice for a movement that some see as a patriotic defence of the rule of law in the United States. Where some see freedom fighters, others see droves of coddled terrorists cut way too much slack by the federal authorities.
A member of the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints who grew up on the Navajo Reservation in the Four Corners area of the American West, Finicum was fast acquiring prominence as a go-to person by journalists covering the evolving standoff. Again and again Finicum threw out sound bites addressing in an usually clear way major issues whose scope goes far beyond the immediate issues of federal regulation of ranchers on federal lands in the American West. Finicum made history, for instance, when he commented eloquently on his own filmed removal of a spy camera from a lamp post in the vicinity of the protest camp.
After coming down from the ladder with the spy camera in hand, Finicum fended off pressures from his fellow protesters to destroy the expensive spy device. He made a point of letting it be known the spy ware would be sent back to the appropriate authorities in Washington DC. The symbolic importance of this ritual on contested federal lands is obvious during an era when Edward Snowden must live in exile in Russia, ruthlessly criminalized for exposing the pervasive, permeating, privacy-obliterating illegality of the national security states quickly expanding apparatus for “Total Information Awareness.”
Confounding the “Progressive Left’s Stereotypes of Militia Members as Ignorant Red Neck Bigots
Most interesting to me was Finicum’s success in confounding the “progressive” left’s stereotypes of of militia members as ignorant Red Neck bigots. Citing his experiences growing up on the Navajo Reservation, Finicum made it very clear he well understood that the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs applies to America’s Indian reservations many of the same repressive indignities visited on many non-Indian citizens by the Interior Department’s deeply corrupt and politicized Bureau of Land Management. The image cannot be easily brushed aside of LaVoy Finicum declaring days before his death, “The Native American People Need to Be Free…. The Tribes Need to Be Free.”
The symbolic sinew of Finicum’s outreach to the First Nations was his inspection of the deplorable conditions of the First Nations “artifacts” being held in the dank basement in federal headquarters of the Malheur Wildlife Reservation. Finicum made it clear that the artifacts should be “returned to their rightful owners.” Why should this collection of First Nations material culture be “locked away” apart from the communities who properties they most genuinely are.
From these comments Finicum demonstrated his familiarity with the “repatriation” discourse among First Nations people. As this discourse has unfolded, museums around the world have been returning to their true owners material items such as ceremonial pipes, implements and regalia. The giving back of these embodiments of distinct heritages and cultures of Indigenous peoples signifies respect for living societies trying to secure places in the future by claiming for their posterity the material evidence of their own histories.
Finicum repeatedly called for representatives of Native Americans to come forward to begin a dialogue transcending the Hollywoodized mythology of cowboys and Indians. Finicum’s apparent sensitivity to the need for dialogue with Native Americans was part of a plea to find common ground in order to host and support a rainbow confederacy of constituencies all imperilled by an out-of-control federal juggernaut menacing the entire global community in this era of never-ending 9/11 wars.
Finicum made a point of telling the cameras that he and those for whom he was speaking are not “anti-government.” Rather it has been the failure of the federal authority to adhere to even its own laws that has made it necessary for the creation of a mass movement of citizens opposed to the imposition of various forms of tyranny from above. As Finicum declared in the hours before his death, “This is not just a little occupation. This is a mass movement involving tens of millions of people.”
In my estimation Finicum was way too conservative in assessing the true extent of those who have lost all confidence that the federal authority in the USA, or in my own country of Canada for that matter, has any chance of redemption under current conditions. Like some of the leading activists of the Occupy movement, Finicum seemed well aware of the reality that the federal government of the United States has been taken over by a tiny cabal perfectly prepared to advance its interests through fascism, genocide, eugenics, forced migrations, geoengineering and banking frauds.
This list of federal malevolence and malfeasance is far from complete. Under our current conditions only a popular mobilization on a massive scale, capable of transcending many different types of divide and conquer tactics, has a chance of holding back the onslaught. This onslaught of debt enslavement, militarization and environmental holocaust is being forced upon us by an extremely elaborate, old and well organized criminal gang that has rendered the federal authority of the world’s ailing superpower as a blunt weapon exclusively available for its own disposal.
Assassination or Suicide?
Finicum’s death is already raising bitter controversies even before his body is buried. SeniorVeterans Today Editor, Gordon Duff, has already suggested Finicum’s killing by federal bullets amounted to “suicide by cop.” This characterization of Finicum’s death introduces a meme that will probably reverberate across media venues of the controlled opposition. It is true that Finicum spoke openly about his unwillingness to be incarcerated in “a concrete box.” Going from there to making Finicum the author of his own death, however, is a huge leap for the veteran special forces expert to make. Such a judgement, while the body is literally still warm, raises the ante of interpretation concerning the death of a person who will almost certainly be regarded as a martyr taken down in defence of a higher ideal.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada-based patriarch of the US movement of which Finicum was a part, left no doubt of where he stands on the federal killing. The owner of the Nevada ranch at the eye of the conflict with the Bureau of Land Management in 2014 asserted, “It appears that America was fired upon by our government. One of liberties finest patriots is fallen… We’ve got one killed and I can say he was sacrificed for a good purpose.”
The killing is throwing up huge controversies for the USA’s Utah-headquartered Mormon Church that has many of its members involved in various capacities with the libertarian militia movement. How will this rich and successful religious denomination respond? In this election year, how will many right-wing politicians, including Donald Trump, respond to the death of such an iconographic family man, the natural and foster patriarch of a large extended mormon clan? Is Mitt Romney or LaVoy Finicum a better embodiment of Mormon family values, of idealized patriotism growing out of love of country?
Mormon broadcaster Jake Morphonios has already disagreed with the Church establishment’s ruling that the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom are operating outside acceptable Mormon behaviour. For Morphonios, the CCF was engaged in the Nevada and Oregon standoffs in “a legitimate self-defence against an aggressive and abusive bureaucracy that is far outside the rule of law.”
Paul Craig Roberts versus Russia Today
Another emerging controversy over the meaning of Finicum’s death was foreshadowed in disagreement between conservative American pundit, Paul Craig Roberts, and Russia Today. Emphasizing, for instance, the huge implications of the 9/11 false flag event, Israeli domination of US foreign policy, and the undermining of America’s worldwide interests by a kleptocratic banking cabal based on Wall Street and the City of London, Roberts welcomed the militia stand in Oregon as a part of a necessary resistance to the grotesque neocon abuse of federal power.
Roberts criticized Russia Today for looking away from this larger picture and emphasizing instead the disparity of police treatment between the public demonstration by the protestors at the Black Lives Matter demonstration in Ferguson Missouri and the arms bearing “ranchers” who have gathered at the Malheur Wildlife Reservation. While the racism of the US police state was certainly a factor in the contrast, Roberts pointed out how this slant in coverage plays right into the divide-and-conquer agenda of the likes of American plutocrat George Soros.
It is well known that Soros funds the completely compromised and ineffective so-called “peace” movement. Multi-billionaire Soros also funded the so-called colour revolutions that laid the foundations for the Ukranian-Russian divisions presently pushed and exploited by NATO. It is less well known that Soros is also busily funding the Black Lives Matter movement. It seems that all is well with the dominant global cabal of organized crime as long as potential opponents of their bought-and-paid-for devices of pseudo-democratic government are sliced and diced into as many isolated fragments as possible.
Militia Fanatics or Average Americans Standing Up to Fascism?
Gordon Duff is utterly contemptuous of the “Bundy/Oregon militia,” alleging that its members are subject to a plague of “race hatred, religious extremism and tasteless ignorance.” No doubt the group Duff thus dismisses does have some factions and members that display some of these symptoms of extremism in varying degrees. How could it be otherwise in an American failed state permeated with racism, religious extremism, and forms of ignorance that are aggressively and insidiously promoted by a media culture that profits hugely from the dissemination of disinformation and round-the-clock PR bullshit.
But who of us is without sin? What religious extremist was it that said something like, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone?” Are we only
Gordon Duff Being Interviewed on Kevin Barrett’s Truthjihad
qualified to work for revolutionary transformation of our present intolerable conditions when we follow Gordon Duff’s lead in rising above all the foibles and weaknesses inherent in the societies around us?
Part of Duff’s criticism is based on probably-true accusations that the group in and around the Wildlife Reservation protest camp is riddled with undercover federal agents. This observation itself, however, should speak to the covert thuggery of a federal authority that has removed from the vast majority of citizens the protections of social security and the rule of law including due process for the redress of grievances. The domestic and international versions of the national security state are all in place, at huge expense to us, so that no true movement for genuine redress can even get off the ground before the instruments of Full Spectrum Dominance kick in.
The name Pete Santilli seems to come up often when possible undercover agents are mentioned in this context. Santilli is the You Tube-making blogger of the protest camp who was apparently among those arrested. One could observe the great gulf between the positions of Santilli and of LaVoy Finicum. Shortly before his death Finicum vowed that the federal building on the Wildlife Reservation will never be returned to Washington. He spoke of it being handed over instead to the local Harney County government.
This statement of intent contrasts dramatically with a You Tube of Santilli at the height of the crisis driving along somewhere in Oregon looking from time to time into the camera. He speaks into the recording device advising the FBI to hold back from attacking the protest camp said to be full of women and children. A female voice in the car echoes this caution. As justification for this advise, Santilli declares his intent to go to the camp and clear it out of inhabitants.
Finicum himself described the build up of spy planes and spy drones over the camp in the hours before the mobilization of federal actions that led to his death. He anticipated “kinetic action” on the part of the feds stating, “I have no intention of spending my days in a concrete box. There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them.”
“Helpingmind,” the nom de plume of one the commentators on Duff’s Veterans Today article observed, “Militia my ass. They are mostly average Americans who know we are very close to fascism via false flag reaction psychosis around the world… The core group is mirrored by 10s of millions in America alone and their take on the entity in DC is that it is a fascist immoral ‘criminal mob’—- Your words Mr. Duff”
THE CLINCHER: Statement by Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau on Holohoax Remembrance Day by RadicalPress.com
Fellow Truth Revealers,
Canadians who may still be wondering about the new Liberal government’s position on the greatest hoax of the 20 century can now rest assured that the Liberals will continue on promoting this ongoing LIE that has resulted in the promotion of Germanophobic hatred toward the German people over the past 71 years and is the root cause of the death and destruction which the world has been witnessing in the Middle East since the unjust and illegal creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
Promotion of the vile deception that millions of Jews were “murdered” by the “Nazi regime” is absolutely 100% Zionist Jew propaganda and the fact that the Liberal government of Canada has chosen to perpetuate this massive LIE doesn’t bode well for historical truth, integrity or honesty by the Justin Trudeau Liberals or for any serious chance of significant and positive changes to occur within Canada’s judicial system.
Rest assured though that the struggle for truth will continue until this LIE is finally exposed for what it is.
For truth and justice,
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
A Statement regarding Racist Commentary
Publisher & Editor
This morning on FaceBook I unfriended a “friend” and blocked them because of their racist comments made against the Honourable Minister Louis Farrakhan and Black people in general.
I’ve never been a racist at any point in my life and so ridiculing and resorting to all sorts of vile racial epithets when it comes to dealing with or describing any race or colour is something that I don’t condone. If there are “friends” on my FB groups or pages who feel that calling Black people or Red people or Yellow people or Brown people or White people all sorts of derogatory names based solely on their colour is just fine then I think they ought to consider removing themselves from my list of friends.
Every race is but a subset of One Race which is Humanity or the Human Race. Humanity was created by God and like all of His creation He didn’t limit Himself when it came to diversity in the sense I now use that word. Imagine if the Creator had only come up with one type of flower of a single colour or one species of tree or one type of bird and one fish or rock or gem rather than the myriad numbers of various forms and colours and shapes that we were blessed to receive and enjoy.
If I or anyone else posts a story or video on either my Home Page or the Radical Press News Wire or the RadicalPress.com website then it’s obviously open to debate, discussion and criticism but I expect that such debate will be based upon intelligence and a respect for another’s opinions or viewpoints and not the colour of their skin.
It’s plainly evident that in my own case I am adamantly opposed to the machinations of the state of Israel and the actions of any and all Zionists be they Jewish or otherwise but, that said, it doesn’t imply that I’m opposed to everyone who thinks of themselves as being ethnically a Jew based on the fact that they were born into a Jewish family or who might consider themselves to be Jewish by race. For the most part I don’t accept the idea that the present group of Ashkenazim Jews are hereditary descendants of the early Hebrew, Semitic, Arab tribes. What connects them more than anything else is a common mental denominator associated with the Talmud and its teachings which have nothing to do with race and everything to do with religious bigotry and ignorance.
If you don’t like Blacks or Africans as a race that’s your issue but if you come on my Home Page or my News Wire or website thinking that it’s going to be acceptable to start calling Blacks all sorts of idiotic names and condemning them en masse because of the actions of some of them then don’t be surprised if you find yourself suddenly removed. This same standard will apply to all races be they indigenous to the Americas (both North and South) or elsewhere around the globe as well as Asians and Chinese and Japanese and those indigenous to the Middle East and the continent of India.
The English language provides us with a plethora of terms to describe negative forms of behaviour without having to condemn a whole race of people because of a few bad apples in any of them.
We’re here to learn to love one another and live in peace and harmony. Condemning a whole Race of people won’t get us to that point in our collective evolution.
So it is written. So it shall be.
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
4633 Barkerville Highway
Don’t weep for censoring, right-wing Postmedia newspapers
January 20th, 2016
Another 90 dedicated journalists in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa lost their jobs Tuesday as cutthroat Publisher Paul Godfrey slashed away again in an effort to turn Postmedia into a profit-making business.
In a bizarre move, two competing papers will continue to be separate entities, but there will be one set of editors and most journalists will be shared.
This latest maneuver, in effect, reduces the four cities to print media monopolies. Even as weak as the original Postmedia and Sun papers were, they still competed with each other. Now the same editors will assign reporters from both papers.In Vancouver, the Sun and The Province will come under one roof. In Edmonton, the Journal and the Sun will come together; in Calgary, the Calgary Herald and the Sun; and in Ottawa, The Ottawa Citizen and the Sun.
Competition Bureau screwed up
This fiasco is possible because the Competition Bureau was wrong in allowing Postmedia to buy the Sun chain less than a year ago. Godfrey had promised the Bureau he would run two separate chains, but this hybrid arrangement clearly violates the spirt of Godfrey’s promise.
Godfrey’s likely last move to try to save his flagging empire will see him close one of the papers in each of the four cities. Look for this to happen within a year.
Postmedia is losing millions each year because of the collapse of newspaper advertising. Meanwhile, the papers have failed to make a successful move to the Internet. Postmedia, which is controlled by American hedge funds, is carrying a debt of $671-million.
Martin O’Hanlon, president of the Communications Workers of America, said “This is not because these papers aren’t making money, this is because Postmedia has a massive debt. “This money that they’re saving by laying people off is going to hedge fund managers in New York.”
If Godfrey cared about journalism he would have been out of the field long ago. Anyone of integrity interested in good journalism would not have stayed around to see these papers turned into shells of their former selves. Maybe it helps that Godfrey commands a large salary, is a multi-millionaire and that, as a prominent (yet failing) businessman he can strut around town as though he is important. In 2014, when the company lost $263.4-million, Godfrey’s income was $1.7-million.
Media experts talk about the day when someone will come up with a formula for quality media to hold its own on the Internet. We’ve been hearing this for 10 years.
Canadians deserve better
While local communities still rely on the shrivelled remains of the once proud broadsheet newspapers, our cities deserve much better. In addition to the problem of the cuts, corporate-owned media in Canada censors or ignores important news. Officialdom commands their full attention, while unions, the climate crisis, and family issues are pretty much ignored. All Canadian papers except The Toronto Star supported Harper values during his ruthless run in Ottawa.
Because of their systematic censorship and support for damaging neo-liberal policies, we should not weep over the decline of Postmedia newspapers. But communities and all levels of government better wake up and get involved in re-establishing credible media.
Firstly, there are about 10 small, independent news sites on the Internet, ranging from iPolitics, to The Tyee to rabble.ca. None of them reach very many Canadians. I’ve been telling them that if they want to really serve the public, they should amalgamate or co-operate in some way. Among them they employ about 20 journalists. I have fundraising experience, and I know money could be raised for such a project. Nothing has come from my suggestion.
By the way, I’ve developed a model that I think would allow a community-owned, Internet-based news organization to become self-sustaining. If anyone is interested, please email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
I’ve berated progressive, experienced journalist for not getting out of the mainstream media racket and helping operate or set up media groups to serve their communities. But they’ve been beaten down so badly they don’t have any spunk left, let alone demonstrate a social conscience.
The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) is the one organization that could help lead Canadian journalism back from the wilderness. However, the CAJ has lost influence in recent years, and nothing on its website indicates it is concerned about the big picture of quality journalism in Canada being crippled.
If Canada were part of Europe, our mainstream media would probably be more healthy. Europeans read papers a lot more than Canadians. I recall a few years ago that the average Canadian read a daily newspaper once a week, while the average Dane read a paper every day. Those sales help cover more of the costs of European papers compared to fewer sales in Canada.
Some European governments, recognizing the importance of quality journalism, provide different forms of financial support for newspapers. Grants are either awarded to all papers or through a competitive process.
I’ve discussed this possibility of government support for media with Canadian friends, and most of them reject the idea. They say people wouldn’t want government interfering with our media. Hmmm . . . . it’s true that Harper interfered with the CBC but, even so, the CBC remains the best broadcaster in the country and it does a lot of socially responsible journalism.
Nick Fillmore is an award-winning investigative reporter and a founder of the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ). Nick was a news editor and producer with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for more than 20 years. Contact: email@example.com
CLICK HERE, to subscribe to my blog. Thanks Nick
THE CASE AGAINST NOAHIDE LAW
Source: Stop Noahide Law
ED Noor: Americans in their current Islamophobic fervor seem to be terrified of the imposition of Shariah Law upon the nation. They are completely unaware that their nation has already been sold over and that their American legal system has been hijacked by the Talmudics and that their once Napoleonic judicial system has been altered into a truly “jewdicial system”.
“On October 16th , president Bush signed into law the global anti-semitism review act, designed to force the entire world into never being critical of the Jews, whatever their actions.
“This act establishes a special department within the United States state department to monitor global anti-semitism, which is to report annually to congress.
“This act defines a person as being anti-semitic if they purport any of the following beliefs:
~ Any assertion, “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world.”
~ The expression of, “strong anti-Israel sentiment.”
~ Expressing, “virulent criticism,” of Israel’s leaders, past or present. The state department gives an example of this occurring when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behaviour of a past or present Zionist leader.
~ Any criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature with the emphasis on the Talmud and Kabbalah.
~ Any criticism of the United States government and congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish – Zionist community, which would include Jewish organisations such as American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
~ Any criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism or what some call the, “New World Order.”
~ Placing any blame on Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ.
~ Citing any facts that could in any way diminish the, “six million,” figure of holocaust victims.
~ Claiming that Israel is a racist state.
~ Making any claim that there exists a, “Zionist conspiracy.”
~ Offering proof that Jews and their leaders created communism and the bolshevik revolution in Russia.
~ Making, “derogatory statements about Jewish persons.”
~ Asserting that spiritually disobedient Jews do not have the biblical right to re-occupy Palestine.
~ Making any allegations of Mossad involvement in the 9/11 attack.
And now, let us get into the nitty gritty of the Noahide Laws, something this blog has been exposing for several years now.
“All Israelites will have a part in the future world. The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell”. ~ Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha .
PUBLIC LAW 102-14 AND THE NOAHIDE LAWS
Public Law 102-14 is an American Federal law which states that the “Seven Noahide Laws” (Jewish Laws from the Talmud) are the principle on which the United States was founded and that it is the responsibility of America to transmit these “ethical values” to future generation both in the United States and the world. But what are these so-called “ethical values” known as the “Seven Noahide Laws” and what implications do they have for non-Jews?
PUBLIC LAW 102-14 HONORS ANTI-GENTILE RABBI
Public Law 102-14 not only states that the Seven Noahide Laws are the principles upon which the American Nation was founded, it also honors Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of the Lubavitch Movement (also known as Chabad) as being a “great spiritual leader”. According to Rabbi Schneerson, the Noahide Laws are to be kept by force if possible and if not by “pleasantness and peace”. This same Rabbi also stated that non-Jews are inferior to Jews, saying that they have “satanic souls” and their lives are worth nothing except as service to Jews. Why would the USA honor such a Rabbi who preaches the most militant form of Noahide Law and who obviously hates non-Jews?
ED Noor: “It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not ~ they will be killed.” ~ Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
“THE DIVINE CODE” AND THE CHIEF RABBIS OF ISRAEL
After learning about Public Law 102-14 and the Noahide Laws, discriminatory Jewish religious laws which threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech and sexual expression in the United States and the world, we wanted to learn a little more about modern Jewish opinion on this matter. We are fortunate because in 2008 a book on Noahide Law was published in Jerusalem entitled “The Divine Code”. Better still, the book was reviewed by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Let’s see what “The Divine Code” and the Chief Rabbis have to say about Noahide Law.
NOAHIDE LAW, THE PHARISEES & THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD
American Public Law 102-14 enshrines the “Seven Noahide Laws” as the “ethical values” upon which the United States was founded. The law also asserts that it is the nation’s “responsibility” to transmit these “ethical values” to the generations of the future. We read in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia that under these laws, those who practice other faiths, blaspheme against Judaism or commit “adultery” are to be punished by death and that non-Jews are commanded to set up “courts of justice” to judge the masses upon these laws. It would also seem that the Chief Rabbis of Israel also support the Noahide Laws being commanded upon non-Jews from their blessings upon the 2008 book “The Divine Code“. But where did these ideas about Noahide Law come from? Noahide Law is not some bizarre aberration of Judaism, it is fundamental and central to Jewish cannon. In which Jewish holy book can we find the Noahide Laws? To answer these questions, we need to learn a little about the most important of all Jewish scriptures, The Babylonian Talmud.
NOAHIDE LAW (Public Law 102-14) WAS PASSED BY ONLY FOUR CONGRESSMEN
Many American find it hard to believe that congress would pass Public Law 102-14 (The Noahide Laws) if they were truly detrimental to the freedoms of non-Jews. Aren’t most people in congress non-Jewish? Why would they pass a law that was against their own interests? According to former congressman Bill Dannemyer (this is not an endorsement of him), Public Law 102-14 was passed on the vote of only four congressmen, when 99% of congress was absent. If his testimony and the testimony of his wife Dr. Day (again, not an endorsement) are accurate, then 99% of congress never voted on Public Law 102-14. Why was such an important proclamation passed with the consent of only 1% of congress?
ED Noor: By Congressman Dannemyer serving at the time. An excellent read. Basically they passed this using the same conniving methods they utilized when signing the Federal Reserve Act back in 1903.
NOW THE GOVERNMENT CAN LEGALLY KILL CHRISTIANS
IAJL AND COLPA, NOAHIDE LAW AND TALMUDIC EXECUTION IN THE USA
Ever since the Jewish Talmudic Noahide Laws were introduced into the American legal system back in 1991, some members of the Jewish legal community have been using deceptive practices and outright lies to introduce Jewish Talmudic Laws into the Supreme Court, particularly in the area of capital punishment and execution law. Execution is a legal issue of importance to those seeking to implement Noahide Law in the United States since Noahide Law calls for the decapitation of anyone who practices “idolatry” (which includes Christianity) or blasphemes the Jewish god. Here we will briefly discuss which organizations are infiltrating the Supreme Court, preparing it for the acceptance of Talmudic Law and how they are deceiving the public into accepting Talmudic execution laws (particularly decapitation) in the United States.
ED Noor: Bush Jr. Signing this infamous duplicitous law which had nothing to do with education and everything to do with signing in the Rebbe’s dream of establishing the Noahide Laws in America.
US PRESIDENT AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICES PRAISE JEWISH LAW
The Jews of America and Zionist Israel have not been satisfied with simply enshrining their supremacist, virulent and dangerous Noahide Laws into the United States government via Public Law 102-14. They have been working steadily to further encroach their Talmudic hegemony into the US, and they have won over our Presidents and Supreme Court Justices.
On November 5th, 2002 a Kosher dinner was held at the Supreme Court to celebrate the launch of the International Institute for Judaic Law (IIJL) [currently defunct]. This kosher dinner was attended by three of the Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia, some of whom provided their letters of approval to the founder of the institute, Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi Dr. Noson Gurary. President George W. Bush also sent his greetings and approval for the institute and Jewish Law.
One of the stated purposes of IIJL was to promote the application of Jewish Law and Philosophy in contemporary society. The Jewish Noahide Laws and Philosophy of the Talmud are inherently biased against non-Jews, promoting their general second-class citizenship and even extermination, so why is the President of the USA and Supreme Court giving credence to such an Jewish supremacist legal system?
NOAHIDE LAW…BUT ISN’T ISRAEL SECULAR?
When Americans learn about Public Law 102-14 and the Noahide Laws, many are quick to dismiss the threat because “Israel is a secular nation” and would never push for religious laws… how far this is from the truth!
Today, Jews and their supporters drum the misconception that Israel is a “secular sate”. Israel is a “Jewish sate”, a Zionist state, a religious state and this is very obvious from Israel’s legal system. The nation of Israel has no constitution, on purpose, because this would force the nation to choose between “secularism” and halacha (Jewish Law). Israel does however have state appointed and funded Rabbis and Rabbinical Courts. The Rabbis of Israel have gained control of and have implemented religious law in the sectors of marriage, divorce and adoption and are seeking to develop greater influence over the nation’s military and education sectors. A nation which does not have a constitution of secularism but does have state religious figures with legal powers is not a “secular state”; it is a pseudo-theocracy at best. Surprisingly, recent polls have suggested that support for Halacha law over democracy is very high within the nation of Israel.
IT IS NOT “ANTI-SEMITIC” TO CRITICIZE NOAHIDE LAW
When criticizing the international Jewish legal system known as Noahide Law (Public Law 102-14 in America), one is often accused of being “anti-Semitic”. To call someone an “anti-Semite” implies they have issues with “Semitic” people, and thus you are equating them with being something akin to a racist. It can be stated that Noahide Law is just that, a law, and so opposing this law is no less “racist” than opposing Islamic Sharia law or Communism. A legal text is not a group or people, it is not an ethnicity, and it is not a race, so to oppose it cannot be “anti-Semitic”. However, there is a deeper question that needs to be answered here, are Jew’s really a race or ethnicity? When we look at modern laws in Israel, Jewish theology, and claims by modern Jewish geneticists, we can see that Judaism has been conflated with “Semitism”, they are not the same thing.
Criticism of Noahide Law and Judaism in general has nothing to do with hatred for any race or ethnicity, it has to do with opposing deleterious ideology, nothing more, nothing less.
CHRISTIANS UNDER NOAHIDE LAW
When many Christian learn about Noahide Law and the Talmud, they wrongly believe that the injunctions against “heathens” do not apply to them. Little do Christians know that according to Jewish Law, to be Christian is worse than being a “heathen” since Christians are considered “heretics” and “apostates”. Indeed, according to the Talmud, becoming Christian is one of the worst sins one can commit, and Jesus himself is harshly admonished for being a sorcerer, blasphemer and a whore monger.
LGBTQ UNDER NOAHIDE LAW
ED Noor: The seven Noahide laws, as traditionally enumerated are:
Do Not Deny God
Do Not Blaspheme God
Do Not Murder
Do Not Engage in Incestuous, Adulterous or Homosexual Relationships
Do Not Steal
Do Not Eat of a Live Animal
Establish Courts/Legal System to Ensure Law Obedience
Should the LGBTQ community be worried about Public Law 102-14 and the Jewish Noahide Laws? Absolutely. According to traditional interpretations of Noahide Law, the law against “adultery” includes homosexuality, and like adulterers, homosexuals would be killed under Noahide Law. The Talmud is full of commands to kill homosexuals, classing them with persons who have sex with animals.
Non-Jews accused of homosexuality could be executed at any time in a Noahide court upon the testimony of one witness and upon the verdict of just one judge; Jews on the other hand would need two witnesses to their “crime” of homosexuality and could not be executed unless they were brought before a panel of 71 judges (the Sanhedrin). Further, some Rabbis of the Talmud make prejudicial assumptions, stating that Jews are generally not thought to practice homosexuality, thus providing Jews with a biased favor before the court. Talmudic Law obviously has an inherent bias against non-Jews who have been accused of this so-called “sin” and non-Jewish LGBTQs are obviously in greater danger of persecution under Noahide Law than Jewish LGBTQs.
“ADULTERY” UNDER NOAHIDE LAW, ONLY A CRIME FOR WOMEN?
Adultery is a “crime” under Jewish Noahide Law, one for which non-Jews are to be decapitated. But what is the Jewish definition of adultery? Many might be surprised to learn that under usual circumstance, only a woman can be accused of adultery under Jewish Law, while Jewish men are free to engage in extramarital sex and keep sex slaves, even having sex with non-Jewish infants as young as three years old.
Meanwhile, woman only accused of adultery were stripped naked and put on public display during the Talmudic times. Are these the type of “morals” we want in the USA (Public Law 102-14) or around the world? While many will point to the fact that such practices are not taking place today, according to Halachic material, this is only because current Israeli society has been corrupted by foreign influence (as during Roman times), something that Noahide advocates are working to correct.
MURDER UNDER NOAHIDE LAW, BUT WHAT COUNTS AS MURDER?
One of the Seven Noahide Laws is “do not murder”; who could disagree with that? Well, it depends on your definition of murder. According to the Jewish Law of the Talmud, there is no penalty for killing a person indirectly, thus Jewish law provides provisions for killing others (even other Jews) via starvation, exposure, suffocation, and more. But, this principle only applies to Jews. Non-Jews who commit these same crimes are sentenced to death. Noahide Law (Public Law 102-14) is inherently biased in favor of Jews, and resembles nothing close to what would be considered common morality or ethics.
ED Noor: Read about The King’s Torah, a modern Israeli publication by several prominent rabbis.
THE UGLY FACE OF THE ZIONIST JIHAD
NOAHIDE LAW AGAINST THEFT…JEWS CAN STEAL FROM NON-JEWS
One of the Seven Noahide Laws from the Jewish Talmud is “Do Not Steal”. That sounds pretty reasonable right? But did you know that according to the Talmud Jews are given full permission to steal from non-Jews? And don’t forget, Jews are not prosecuted for stealing small amounts of money, but non-Jews are.
NOAHIDE JUDGES, UPHOLDING “THEOCRATIC LAW”
The seventh and final law of the Seven Noahide Laws (Public Law 102-14) is to “appoint courts of justice”. But what kind of American courts would uphold Jewish law? According to the reputable Jewish legal source, the Mishneh Torah (aka Rambam) written by the famous Jewish scholar Maimonides, non-Jews are to set up “theocratic courts” whose judges are learned in “Torah” and who do no “pervert” the law with secular logic.
Non-Jews who fail to set up theocratic Jewish courts in their nations are subjected to mass execution. If this were not enough, it may (or may not) be required for non-Jews to appoint theocratic kings among themselves who will ensure that the nation is upholding Noahide Law. The United States was founded upon the principle of separation of Church and State, so what is such a law as Public Law 102-14 doing in our federal legal system?
THE NOAHIDE LAW AGAINST “IDOLATRY” PROHIBITS MUCH MORE THAN JUST BOWING BEFORE STONE
The very first of The Seven Jewish Noahide Laws (American Public Law 102-14) is “No Idolatry”. Well most people don’t bow before graven images, so does it really matter if such practices are outlawed? “Idolatry” under Jewish Noahide Law encompasses much much more than simply banning people from bowing before statues.
According to Jewish legal scholars, to avoid “idolatry”, one must:
~ accept Jewish Torah;
~ accept Jewish prophets and teachers;
~ and give obedience to Jewish courts.
~ Also, one must not accept non-Jewish scriptures;
~ not follow non-Jewish prophets or priests.
All non-Jewish religious temples and paraphernalia are to be destroyed and any attempts to proselytize a non-Jewish religion will lead to execution. In addition, under the Noahide Law which abolishes “idolatry”, non-Jews can be executed for doing something as simple as consulting astrologers or getting a tattoo. Finally, non-Jews are commanded to not love those who practice idolatry and to even hate them.
NOAHIDE LAW MAY HAVE RACIST UNDERTONES
ED Noor: “MAY” have racist UNDERtones!? See images above.
Public Law 102-14 in the United States and the Jewish Noahide Laws are of concern to all non-Jews. The Noahide Laws are rules created by Jews for non-Jews, and these rules relegate us to a 2nd class status. But there are layers to this 2nd class citizenship for non-Jews under Jewish Talmudic law.
Did you know that according to the Talmud, the same book which gives us the Noahide Laws, that African people are considered to be cursed? That’s right, according to the Talmud the “negro” race was produced through a curse on Noah’s son Ham. Since it is the Talmud which informs Noahide Law in general, and it is from Jewish Talmudists that we are informed on the laws, it is certainly possible that some of this Talmudic racism could bleed through, infecting the already nefarious Noahide Laws with a new layer of hate, anti-African racism. Anti-African racism in Israel might be a good indicator for the temper in which Rabbis might promote the Noahide Law among non-Jews.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GER TOSHAV AND A NOAHIDE?
When speaking about Noahide Law with either Jews or Noahides, sometimes a person who is either misinformed or even willingly trying to deceive you will proclaim that there is no reason to worry about Noahide Law since according to Jewish theology, no “Ger Toshav” can be accepted at this time. According to Jewish Law, a “Ger Toshav” can only be accepted during a time when the nation of Israel has instated a holiday called the Jubilee, and the modern nation of Israel has not done this. However, this logic is deceptive, since the speaker is either accidentally or intentionally conflating a “Noahide” with a “Ger Toshav”, they are not the same thing!
ALTERNATIVE SATURDAY CARTOONS: JULY 4, 2015: RAINBOW FLAG SPECIAL
RED ICE RADIO: DENNIS FETCHO: HOUR 1: ENGLISH QABALAH & NOAHIDE LAW
WHY IS THE US HONORING A RACIST RABBI?
“Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: ”Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh, they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath.’ At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: ‘‘The Lord alone will appear great on that day! …’” ~ Zohar, Vayshlah 177b
“It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” ~ Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
“Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.” ~ Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ~“Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed”.
Today’s Free Speech Rant: Advocating for Brad Love and Arthur Topham
by Alberta Al
Editor’s Note: The following rant by 79 year old Alberta Al is in response to an article by Paul Fromm on political prisoner Brad Love who has been in and out of jail here in Canada for the past 14 years for the horrendous crime of . . . . writing non-theatening letters of criticism to politicians and bureaucrats on controversial topics! Freedom of expression for Love has turned into hatred by the alien forces of repressive censorship who now rule the Canadian state. Alberta Al’s remarks are poignant and worthy of serious consideration.
If thousands of us across this once great nation were to publish CRITICAL comments about Zionist Israeli policies and programs and deny that the holocaust occurred, and those comments were applied to all Jewish lobby groups in Canada; and if all of us were charged under section 319(2) of the CRIMINAL CODE; and if ALL of us pled GUILTY to the charges there would NOT be enough rooms in our jails and loonie bins to house us all. So what would the Crown do with us? If I were charged and pled guilty I wouldn’t mind the comfort of a private cell where I receive 3 meals a day without having to prepare one morsel, free medical and dental care, free library facilities, free TV and internet and (because some perverts have taken advantage of it) a free make-over making one a woman from a man.
True red-blooded Canadians who have any substance to them have slid into almost nothingness along with the rest of our complacent, uncaring and unfriendly society. We have lost our ability to communicate with each other orally to debate issues or express our opinions without fear of retribution. Instead, we have become robotically engineered by those IN POWER to dance tunes on our bee-bop-a lulus, our gadgets and devices, from which we can HIDE and call anyone any blasphemous name or expletive they can think of. Just look at the comments after particular articles and you will see what I mean. You will also notice that by and large the commentators don’t know the English language which proves to me that FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY is alive and well in Canada even though we spend BILLIONS on trying to educate our children to………THINK ANALYTICALLY!
In the last 40 odd years our politicians have learned very well NOT to communicate with us peons, not to be accountable and transparent to us. They sit back in their GD comfortable office pews with their feet on their desks and fall asleep while the ship of state is floundering. Governments of all stripes have learned that the best way to be reelected is to GIVE money to every Tom, Dick and Mary and corporation and increase the public debt…………………seemingly without batting an eye! What do they care? It’s not their money? And anyway they get 1/3 of their salaries TAX FREE! When was the last time YOU got tax-free wages or salaries?
One cannot advocate for Brad Love – and Arthur Topham – strong enough. Our rights to FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS guaranteed under the CHARTER are being washed away by the shifting, whispering sands. We no long respect and love each other because it is much easier to………………………….HATE! We have become cowering cowards, afraid of our own shadows, afraid to speak out except when we hold a gun to someone’s head! Amen and hallelujah! Al has completed his rant for the day.
Contact Alberta Al: Al Romanchuk firstname.lastname@example.org
The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical
and Scientific Level
By Robert Faurisson
December 31, 2015
“The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.”
~ Robert Faurisson
In France and in the rest of the world historians and specialists of “the Holocaust” no longer know what to answer to the revisionists’ arguments. And to speak only of my own case, which has been going on since 1978 (that is, for some thirty-seven years), never has my country’s justice system, despite the tireless requests by self-righteous associations to rule against me on the substance of my writings or statements, been able to note therein the least trace of any rashness, negligence, deliberate ignorance, falsehood, falsification or lying. My adversaries, rich and powerful though they may be, have never succeeded in getting our judges to convict me on the merits of the conclusions reached through my research work which, for over half a century, has focused on what is commonly called “the genocide of the Jews”, “the Nazi gas chambers” and “the six million (or nearly)” Jewish victims of the Third Reich. At most, at the end countless cases I have lost suits (whether as plaintiff or defendant) or been found guilty mainly 1) for a malevolence, supposed but not demonstrated, towards the Jews, 2) for breaking the gayssotine (the Fabius-Gayssot or Faurisson Act, legislation of convenience specifically targeting the findings of my research) or 3) by virtue of the “good faith” (sic) of individuals like Léon Poliakov or Robert Badinter, even though found to be at fault by the judges themselves.
For years Poliakov had well and truly manipulated the writings of SS officer Kurt Gerstein (who, having “repented” (?), then committed suicide (?)), when not fabricating outright fragments of text to attribute to him. But the judges granted the presumption of good faith to Poliakov. He had been, we were told, “animated by the passionate and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and about facts of contemporary history that were particularly tragic”. It was therefore appropriate to forgive him for having “perhaps, on minor points [sic!!!], broken scientific standards of rigour without, however, it being permissible to state that he is a manipulator or fabricator of texts”. As for Badinter, in 2006 he claimed that in 1981, when he was still barrister for the LICRA and just before becoming Minister of Justice, he had got a court to rule against me “for being a falsifier of history”. A decision of 2007 restored the truth and held that Badinter had “failed in his evidence” to demonstrate my alleged dishonesty; but, the court hastened to add, he had been in good faith. For want of both money and a lawyer (Eric Delcroix having retired – not without being refused honorary membership of the bar), I did not appeal and was forced to pay the Socialist millionaire the sum of €5,000. But at least since then I have had the satisfaction of being able to speak of “Robert Badinter, my liar, my slanderer… in good faith”.
An astute observer will have noted that the more our opponents sense the game is getting away from them on the historical or scientific level, the more they feel the need to increase their propagandistic drum beating, and the repression as well. In France, at this very moment, they are putting all their hopes in having Parliament pass a supergayssotine. Good for them! A few weeks short of my 87th birthday, I have six cases pending, four against me and two others that I have had to instigate, albeit quite unwillingly. Will my judges finally decide, in 2016, to leave us, my wife and me, destitute? Or are they getting ready simply to throw me into a prison of the République? It is understood beforehand, is it not?, that if they were to carry things to such extremes it would only be on the grounds of the noblest républicain principles and in the name of human rights.
Let’s consider our current Prime Minister. One day, Manuel Valls, in full pomposity, his mouth, heart and left hand clenched, let fly: “I am, by my wife, eternally linked to the Jewish community and Israel”. He saw himself as “eternal”: a vast programme! But fervour was leading him astray. He ought to come back down to earth, reconnect with the ground, get treatment and stop deluding himself: the revisionists have, already as of now, won the match.
As early as in 1983-1985, Raul Hilberg, surrendering to the arguments of “Faurisson and others…” had to drop the pretension of explaining, on the basis of valid arguments and documents of his own, that the Third Reich had, with proper Germanic efficiency, designed, prepared, developed, organised and financed the killing of millions of European Jews. The eminent Jewish American historian ended up finding himself reduced to trying to have us believe that this gigantic massacre had come about by the operation of the Holy Spirit or, in his words, by “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading within a large bureaucracy” that had, on its own, spontaneously decided, it seemed, gradually to abandon written communication in favour of verbal or indeed telepathic exchange to such an extent that no written or material evidence bespoke the six million Jews’ (or, in Hilberg’s case, a bit fewer) had been systematically killed either on the Eastern Front or in the gas chambers, mainly at Auschwitz.
A number of historians or researchers, such as Arno Mayer, Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan van Pelt, have also capitulated, in a more frank and direct manner. The first has had to admit, among other bitter observations, that “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”. The second, a protégé of the Klarsfeld couple, came to understand that the dossier of the official story of the Jews’ extermination, “rotten” with too many lies, was bound for “the rubbish bins of history”. The third has concluded that “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about Auschwitz] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove”; despite this, millions of visitors there have been and continue to be shown a “gas chamber” said to be in its “original state”, as well as ruins of other alleged “gas chambers”. As for the figure of “six million”, never subjected to the least scientific verification, it is rooted in the most sordid of realities: an old American publicity slogan used already before 1900 and up to the end of the Second World War to collect a windfall of cash especially from the Jewish community. The searing words amounted to the cry “Six million of our brothers are dying in Europe [by the acts, according to circumstance, of Poland, the Balkan countries, Tsarist Russia, National-Socialist Germany…]; we await your money for the victims of this holocaust [sic already in 1919]!”
Manuel Valls, our Prime Minister, and François Hollande, President of our Republic, devote themselves to launching, in several foreign countries, warlike crusades of the kind that have backfired horribly for us French this year. To proceed as they do, contrary to the Constitution, they dispense with the approval of Parliament, either in advance or within forty days from the start of operations. On top of their foreign wars, conducted in the most cowardly as well as the most comfortable conditions, they instil an atmosphere of internecine war at home. They call “cowards” certain enemies who, after all, are inspired on a grand scale by the practices of our glorious Résistants: “Hey, killers with the bullet and the knife, kill quickly!” If François Hollande has the stature of a pedalo admiral, Mr Valls resembles Picrochole, that character in Rabelais whose Greek name means “bitter bile” and who regularly gets all excited at the prospect of going off to war. Mr Valls began with a crusade against the Saracens of today and against the real or supposed enemies of Israel but he is also on a campaign against the revisionists, against “Dieudonné in peace”, against Marine Le Pen – even though she has pushed her own father down the stairs – and even against his friends of the Socialist clan. A good suggestion for him would be to calm down, take care of himself, try to laugh with Dieudonné, reflect for a moment with the revisionists, allow historians or researchers to work as they wish and, at long last, spare us the flag-waving frenzy, the bugle-blowing, the verse and chorus of the Marseillaise on the “day of glory”, the “impure blood” and the “ferocious soldiers”. As we know, it is, unhappily, all too easy to take the French in with that sort of thing.
Such, today, are the modest New Year wishes for 2016 that I allow myself to make for that person, for his victims, for the French and for the rest of the world. But is it perhaps already asking too much?
For their part, the revisionists know what awaits them: the confirmation in the mainstream media, sooner or later, that they have already won a total victory on the historical and scientific level. The political and media powers will indeed have to resign themselves to the facts: persistence in gunboat policies abroad and in those of gagging and censorship at home will only dishonour them a bit more. For nothing.
The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.
The lies of “the Holocaust” are modelled on those of the First World War. All those “Nazi death-works”, like the ones at Auschwitz, are but a reprise of the myth of German “corpse factories” of 1914-1918. They were merely modernised by the adding of gas (Jewish-American version of November 1944) and sometimes of electricity (Jewish-Soviet version of February 1945). The good people, already generally not well disposed towards the practice of cremating the dead, were led to believe that Germany, a nation considered modern and known for having an abundance of engineers and chemists, had built structures containing, in addition to a cremation space, others called “gas chambers” (in reality, the “depositories”, Leichenhalle or Leichenkeller, technically designed to hold bodies awaiting cremation). Thus a certain propaganda has managed to persuade us that those Germans devils were dumb enough to house under the same roof, on one side, spaces full of a highly inflammable and explosive gas (the hydrocyanic acid or hydrogen cyanide contained in the pesticide Zyklon B, created in the 1920s) and, on the other side, crematory ovens that had to be laboriously brought to a temperature of 900° C.
In 1943 some of the men in charge of British war propaganda deplored “this gas chambers story”. For his part, the revisionist Germar Rudolf sums up the subject rather well in his Lectures on the Holocaust (Chicago, Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005, 566 p., p. 82-85). Even Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, a senior official of the Intelligence Service in London ready to believe just about any nonsense said against the Germans, was to write: “I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to this gas chambers story” (p. 83). The trouble was that the British, undisputed champions of lying propaganda during the two world wars, needed those fables. On February 29, 1944 their Ministry of Information sent the BBC and the Church of England a circular letter of the greatest cynicism, requesting their respective cooperation for the spreading of propaganda on the basis of atrocity stories either already in circulation or currently being concocted. It was a matter of forestalling the disastrous effect that the Red Army, an ally, was inevitably to bring about in Central Europe by real atrocities (p. 84)! On these inventions, these fabrications and the wide-scale dissemination of enormous tall tales, two books remain of great interest: Edward J. Rozek’s Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, New York, Wiley, 1958 and, especially, by Walter Laqueur (a Jew born in Breslau in 1921): The Terrible Secret, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980, 262 p., wherein we see Cavendish-Bentinck, him again, “Chairman of the British Intelligence Committee”, writing in July 1943 that “The Poles and, to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up” (p. 83).
Fifteen months ago, referring to the crisis that the historians of “the Holocaust” were experiencing, I wrote that there was “more and more water in their gas, and slack in their knotted rope”. Since January 2015 and the anniversary of the “liberation” of Auschwitz I have noted a sudden acceleration of the phenomenon. I have a whole file and a whole demonstration on the subject but the continuing judicial repression has not yet left me time to publish this information. In any case, for the historian, it has become captivating to observe the never-ending agony of the “magical gas chamber” (Céline in 1950). This agony is accompanied, as we have seen, by a redoubling of the repression of revisionism and a turning up of the volume of holocaustic propaganda. May our Picrochole refrain, then, from going on the stage and into a trance! He would have a stroke. He might even be cruelly snatched away from us. Who knows? He could precede in death a man who will be 87 years of age on January 25, 2016 and whom some have, thus far in vain, so often sought to kill, not for his ideas (he has hardly any) but for having wanted to publish the result of his research, which is summed up in a phrase of about sixty words. I repeat it here for memory, and to have done with it:
The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.
Note: For sources or references especially regarding certain points of this text one may consult the indices of the seven volumes of my Ecrits révisionnistes thus far published. On the Internet, for “The Victories of Revisionism” (11 December 2006), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/victories-of-revisionism.html and for “The Victories of Revisionism (continued)” (September 11, 2011), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/2011/09/victories-of-revisionism-continued.html.
Aficionados of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979 by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France, President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with… Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the French government: “The left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March 19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.
In preparation: 1) an article about an embarrassing secret of Serge Klarsfeld; 2) a study of the highly inflammable and explosive nature of hydrogen cyanide.
Editor’s Note: It’s with a continuing sense of gratification and appreciation that I post the following letter by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) sent out today, January 13th, 2016 in support of my Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code.
The OCLA has been the only civil liberties association at the forefront in Canada in their determined efforts to bring a sense of clarity, fairness, honesty and responsibility to the nation’s legal jurisprudence insofar as it applies to Charter issues and in particular the fundamental issue of freedom of expression as guaranteed under Sec. 2b of said Charter.
Please try to share this post with as many others as you can.
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
January 13, 2016 By Mail and Fax
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. 
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada: 
And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),  3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”. [Emphasis added].
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression: 
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
 Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”: 
35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat. [Emphasis added.] 
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 31 9(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)  is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein
 Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
 General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
 Ibid., at para. 35.
 Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution. 
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
lf the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Supreme Court of British Columbia
800 Smithe Street
And copy to:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Supreme Court of British Columbia
305-350 Barlow Avenue
8 For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLll); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada,  1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLll 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).
Barclay W. Johnson
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary
Counsel for the Defendant
1027 Pandora Avenue,
Rodney G. Garson
Prosecution Support Unit
Crown Law Division
Ministry of Justice
3rd Floor – 940 Blanshard Street
VIEW SOURCE PDF HERE: 2016-01-13-Letter-OCLA-re-R-v-Topham
The desperate search
for Guy Montag
. . . among indifferent and alienated dupes
oblivious to their own impending demise
By John Kaminski
Guy Montag, Guy Montag, you think, tapping your fingers on your desk. Where have we heard that name before? Suddenly you remember.
He was the conflicted hero in arguably the most famous science fiction story of all time, something almost everybody in America read in school, and marveled over its frightful foresight. Guy Montag was the enigmatic fireman who burned outlawed books in Ray Bradbury’s epic novel Fahrenheit 451.
One day a woman chose to die with her books. But before she immolated herself, Guy stole a book from her to try to learn why she should do such a thing. Then Guy started smuggling books home. His suicidal wife turned him in to the authorities. When they came to burn down HIS house, Guy turned on his chief, sprayed him with fire, and burned him to a crisp. Following that, Guy escaped and lived with the impoverished intellectual hobos, with the hopeful aim of restoring sanity to a deranged society.
In a series of ironic twists years after it was written, small minded school boards tried to ban Fahrenheit 451 without ever realizing they were unwittingly mimicking the book’s plot — destroying books society has been persuaded not to read because their thoughts were too dangerous.
Bradbury’s narrative describes how Montag gradually began to doubt his mission after he saw how important books were to people willing to die rather than give them up, and his brittle life crumbled around him. When the book’s hero changed his mind about books and what he should be doing to them, he brought the power of the totalitarian state down upon him, before escaping into the shadows and yearning for revolution.
Bradbury never mentioned how that revolution turned out, but the future has revealed an uncanny twist in what the famous science fiction author wrote and the way reality has turned out.
Firemen are supposed to put fires out, but Bradbury’s firemen burned books the government deemed illegal.
This is how our future has progressed; what was once the truth is now a lie. Suddenly, forces once thought necessary and beneficial have now turned into their opposite — a destructive menace.
Think cops killing people’s pets while trying to bust somebody at the wrong address. Or a woman pulled over for not signaling a lane change winds up a few hours later supposedly hanging herself in the cell of a local jail.
Politicians and presidents preach for peace yet incinerate defenseless foreign countries while insisting they are killing innocent people to preserve freedom. It’s the modern variation of the old Vietnam proverb: We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
What is the shocking reversal dominating society today? It should be obvious to you. It’s the false flag syndrome, in which the government creates disasters that it then cleans up and boasts how efficiently and vigilantly it has protected the population. The list of FBI provocations reveals there would be practically no crime at all if not for the sadistic schemes like Oklahoma City and 9/11 that our government cooks up.
Firemen who burn things rather than extinguish them are exactly the opposite of the way things should work in a normal world. Most of us know by now the world is nowhere near normal.
Instead of trying to protect us, the police are killing us in record numbers, and then refusing to say how many they’ve killed, or why.
Today, judges ostensibly profess to protect the rights of individuals but consistently rule in favor of big businesses that demolish these very rights. Instead of seeking justice in courts, the judges and the lawyers are deciding how they can fleece and convict us to fulfill the contracts they have with the private prison corporations to keep the jails full.
And as we have seen most recently in Oregon, the government wants to put us in jail in order to take our land because that land contains valuable minerals that our bellicose bigwigs want to sell to the very corporations that provide the campaign finances that keep them in office. As long as the Hammonds are in jail, we are all incarcerated.
I think the thing that got me thinking about this reversal of intent was the discovery that bodies supposedly massacred in a Paris nightclub turned out to be dummies, mannikins, planted by the spinmeisters who arranged the whole hoax to convince the public that the bloody stunt really happened. <http://nodisinfo.com/dead-people-france-concert-theater-dummies-not-real-humans/>
This kind of ridiculous effort on the part of the authorities fits right in with the Sandy Hook school affair, in which children were claimed to have been killed but no bodies were ever reported being seen by local hospitals. <http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html> It was a prima facie example of the cops who are supposedly assigned to protect us preventing us from knowing about the truth of a major crime.
The Boston Marathon bombing was another government sponsored charade, with one designated patsy murdered in the streets by police and his brother sentenced to die by a kangaroo court without ever being allowed to speak candidly. <http://deepinsidetherabbithole.com/The_Boston_Bombing_Hoax.html>
The conspiracy conducting this long-running political campaign to get people to give up their guns is insidious and seemingly inextinguishable, despite the fact that it only increases gun sales. It includes the entire Jewish controlled media, of course, and journalists and cops at every level willing to participate in scams for which, in the specific case of Sandy Hook, they are sometimes paid millions of dollars for their participation in the charade. <http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/27-million-sandy-hook-victims-families-workers-far-counting/>
Why does the government want us to give up our guns? To put us all in prison and to take everything we own before eventually taking our lives. The process is well underway, as the Hammond family of Oregon knows so well. Ammon Bundy’s supporters bivouacked in a nearby forest know it, too, and despite the media slander that calls them vigilantes are really defending the rest of us from a future nobody really wants to see — total government control of every aspect of our lives.
The heroes who try to reveal government criminality — Edward Snowden, Michael Hastings, Julian Assange, Bill Cooper — are constantly killed or jailed by those who resent their lucrative criminal schemes being exposed.
The doctors who try to circumvent the poisonous medicines of Big Pharma — James Bradstreet, Theresa Sievers, Nicholas Gonzalez— are suicided by those who want to continue to poison their patients and deny life saving techniques and medicines from people who really need them.
But what sticks in my mind is the similarity between Bradbury’s descriptive prediction of firemen doing exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to be doing — putting out fires instead of lighting them — and the behavior of the U.S. military monster today, murdering innocents for totally false reasons, and the intelligence community creating phony terrorist incidents and then prosecuting and convicting innocent patsies to make government agents look good when in reality they are criminals.
As deranged firemen scorched neighborhoods as well as the minds of would be intellects oppressed by their governments, so our military and police today do exactly the opposite of what they have been charged to do — preserve our safety and defend our freedoms.
Instead they intimidate the majority into silence and leave them cringing in silence while secretly hoping to avoid the fickle finger of fate and a violent SWAT team crashing through their front door even though it is the wrong address.
This is not to say there aren’t heroic individuals in the U.S. military. This would account for all the generals the last few presidents have fired for counseling common sense rather the following homicidal orders.
And now happening in Oregon, quasi government agencies of questionable authenticity steal land from legitimate farmers, throw them in jail, and the dumbfounded population stands around with their mouths open, criticizing those who would save farmers from being hoodwinked out of their land and homes by corrupt judges in kangaroo courts. <http://www.dailywire.com/news/2303/here-are-five-reasons-you-should-side-hammond-ben-shapiro>
The potential course of the future now depends on the resolve of a small group of patriots gathered in a cold forest sorely lacking in support from the general population. It is no exaggeration to predict that whatever happens to them will happen to the rest of us.
The Jews who run our country are never going to listen to reason and suddenly strive to behave in a reasonable and rational manner. They are going to keep stealing and killing until they are stopped.
The shooting has to start somewhere. Burns, Oregon might be a sensible place to begin.
But the vast majority of Americans don’t want to be bothered with matters of justice. Even as their privately owned land disappears, stolen by the government, they don’t think these issues will affect them. They just sit home and watch TV and wonder what they’ll do when the ATMs stop working and the banks all close.
At exactly the time we need more people to behave like Guy Montag and stop this slide into insanity when truth is what our voracious government says it is, and justice cannot intrude into the consciousness of a citizenry intent on watching TV and texting their friends, we observe an unprecedented turning away from what needs to be done to survive, and misplaced intent leading to the widespread destruction of our species and every other species as well.
Sorry to have to tell you again, but those who sleep now will be the first ones to die in the very near future. Our criminal, Jew-run government must be disenfranchised, detoxified and, where appropriate, disemboweled as soon as possible.
If you must pick a day to start fighting back, today might just be the best choice of all.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.
Editor’s Note: Let’s not delude ourselves about who the real enemy of humanity is. Those who fall for the lies of the Zionist media campaign against the Muslims (as well as the Christians) are being hoodwinked into aiding and abetting the Jewish agenda of divide and conquer of nations for the benefit of their NWO program. Stay focused on the ultimate designers of deception – Israel and World Jewry headed by the Rothschild criminal cartel.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Oregon Standoff. Part I.
By Scott Bennett
The metal flavor of blood and the hard truth of silence was all the dusty denim-clad rancher had won as the double courtroom doors closed behind the exiting attorneys fondling his family’s case.
January, 8th, 2016
He was alone, and felt it deeply, like a far echo sounding in an immensely vast cavern. He tilted his Stetson to the ground, looked at the burgundy courtroom carpet, and thought…and thought…and thought some more.
How could it have come to this? Did he miss something? What just happened? After all, his family had worn the military uniform for a hundred years and pridefully accented their walls and desks with the old pictures, medals, framed citations, and faded ribbons, along with the music of heroic, quiet, and laughing stories of men acting like boys during war, which always changed rooms and lives.
He recounted the basic facts, biting his lip and squinting at floor as he strained his thoughts slowly, and re-ordered in his mind every step taken — every action, every word said, every judgment hammered.
Let’s see, for the last ten years, he thought to himself, somehow he had been — although he didn’t know it — connected to bearded Middle Eastern, Arabic chanting terrorists firing machine guns in shopping malls and bombing marathons; then grimacing at the thought’s odor and shaking his head in bemusement. Oh please, come on, of course it was insane. Surely no one in their right mind could think a cowboy boot wearing, beer drinking, rodeo-howling rancher was a danger to children, his people, his town, his country…but yet this was precisely what the Department of Justice lawyer had so many times inferred in his loud, angry syllables and resentful tone as he repeated the terrorism statute definition used to box-in the rancher. So it had been said, and since words make law, they mean something, regardless.
It would have been surreal and laughable if it wasn’t so repugnantly real and deadly serious. After all, men with guns and blue windbreakers were soon coming to force him back into a jail cell, then turn around and push his wife and their history of existence off the farm; and perhaps eventually erase him from life as his years faded. That is, unless he did something. But what was he to do now?
How do you get back on the roller coaster after being told to exit to the right, other than refusing to get out of your seat? That’s it, he thought, he just wouldn’t move and let them come to him, so he could explain it all over again. This time, he would tell them what they missed the first time…yes, that must have been the reason for their screw up and slandering of them. But then again, he knew human lust and desire for power and laziness — the opiates of politics — and when combined with government authority, it became a deadly and paralyzing tonic.
He shivered again, and felt the anger begin to rise like it never had before. Suddenly his jaw clenched as he heard a familiar drill sergeant somewhere in his mind calling out numbers in his head and speaking the words:
One!…Lighting strikes land, starts fire.
Two!…Boy follows dad’s orders and ignites a counter-action fire
to contain the burn, and save the feed and animals from starving.
Three!…Bureau of Land Management staff file complaint, alleging a crime.
Four!…No crime found, charges dropped by District Attorney. Five years go by.
Five!…Somehow, Department of Justice thinks they know better, contact him by letter, then file another court action—this time accusing him of terrorism activity in relation to the fire, and calling it arson instead of a controlled burn. Strange, and wrong. But…
Six!…Goes to court, judge keeps out key facts, attorney falls apart—or intentionally throws him under the buss—and somehow the jury get find him and his son guilty. Cold shock, gaping mouth amazement…but there has to be some kind of fix or appeal… surely.
Seven!…Goes into sentencing, lies told, confusion, hustled off to jail.
Eight!…Now another letter demanding a second bite of the apple and more time added unto father and son’s sentence?
Something deep in his instincts founded in the primordial passion to defend wife and children began to growl, and the thought cleared…Now the real agenda: theft of property and destruction of life. Isn’t this war? And in war, aren’t you either alive and victorious or dead and defeated?
He would not bow down without a fight.
His blood ran in the creeks and fed the grass and cows and had nourished the land and lives there for over one hundred years….this was beyond life, beyond body, beyond government, this was his time to stand, and show his ancestors what they created in him. For his God and for everything right and true and good, he had to. To fail to, was not just un-American, it was inhuman.
He would get a few hits in, that’s for sure, if for nothing else than for his ancestors who first settled the ranch and planted their blood in the communality. Time would tell.
Most likely these, or something like them, were the thoughts in the minds of the Oregon Rancher father-and-son duo now surrounded by friends and strangers wearing guns and camouflage, and grimly nodding their commitment to him through low country drawls about God and country.
If anything encapsulates the unfolding Oregon drama, this might.
No doubt these may have been some of the thoughts, images, memories, and emotions that rushed and pounded through the minds of the rancher and his son in Oregon as they pondered their fates, and that of their family.
There are three things to consider in order to understand this: the full dramatic history of this event, the laws and interests involved, and the possible future scenarios being prepared. After all, there are global implications, not just American, should an American civil war percolate.
The Temper of Democracy
Over the past couple of days, a seemingly small mole hill has suddenly transformed into a violently erupting volcano, to the terrifying surprise of almost every shallow journalist, Constitutional lawyer, and plastic smiled politician in Washington DC. In short, it has instantly and irrevocably changed America’s constitutional perspective, by forcing Americans to see fellow citizens — branded and prosecuted and imprisoned as terrorists — in a a kind of “perfect storm” of ignorance, government abuse, and lawlessness—and I use the term lawlessness multidimensionally.
It is easy to be blown away on the strong howling winds of terrorist fears and intimidated silent by the thunderous cachophy of tyrannical patriotism. But we are not kites, we are men. And as a military man myself, I am by training and temperament inclined to instinctively not back down or retreat from a rising challenge, but instead meet it head on, either to harmonize and diplomatically engage, or to conquer and destroy. In the gladiatorial arena of willpower, either the citizen is master over the government, or the slave—there is no other role.
If Americans have a right to engage in civil disobedience, then government has an obligation to endure that civil disobedience. That’s how the process of “making known and seeking the redress of grievances” works in a Democratic Republic, and it is essential for government agencies and actors to be willingly compliant with this. And if they refuse to be compliant, this means by definition they are tyrants—which warrants civil war or death. One or the other.
To fully understand and resolve the Oregon stand-off situation, requires that we analyze the history and dynamics of the problem, the competing parties, and the friction between their competing interests. The parameters of the discussion must be justice and law, with human life, liberty, happiness, being the justification for the discussion.
In America, we pride ourselves on the notion of “law and order”, but admittedly our own past examples of engaging them diplomatically have ended badly: the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, the Branch Davidians at Waco Texas — are just a few of the motley crew of memories in our Republic’s vaults.
Now we see and hear at most every corner journalists scrambling to brand the Bundy occupiers and protesters as right wing, gun wielding, hillbilly, backwoodsmen, bark eating, whiskey still running terrorists. The facts show otherwise, but nevertheless the caustic language and propaganda indicates a larger menace: the agenda of a police state crushing all forms of dissent in the United States. Make no mistake about it. This is a political tug of war, with one winner, and the law itself is the rope. The only thing keeping the protesters alive is the incompetence of the Obama Administration, and the conviction of the patriots standing in the shadows.
The Holocaust Hoax Exposed
Perfect Paperback – March 15, 2012
by Victor Thorn (Author)
Today, if a book similar to this one were published in Europe, its author would be arrested and imprisoned. Their crime: simply questioning the so-called holocaust where six million Jews were allegedly exterminated during WW II. Indeed, researchers have endured solitary confinement, brutal beatings by Jewish assailants, ongoing harassment, lengthy court battles, career suicide, and media attacks directed against their work all because they presented a revisionist history of this pivotal event. Other writers have been the victims of hate crimes, extensive smear campaigns, fines, death threats, and monetary rewards placed upon their heads after going into hiding. The perpetrators behind these jack-booted Thought Police tactics are an entire holohoax industry devoted to suppressing factual data in favor of peddling heavy-handed doses of propaganda. Despite these obvious dangers, The Holocaust Hoax Exposed dissects every element of what has become the 20th century s most grotesque conspiracy. Covered in jarring detail is the mythology surrounding concentration camps, the truth about Zyklon B, Anne Frank s fable, how the absurd six million figure has become a laughingstock, and the betrayal by maniacal Zionists of their own Jewish people that led to their deaths (via starvation and disease) after Allied bombings cutoff supply lines to German work camps. Yet, the only way an Israeli state could be created on stolen Palestinian land following WW II was through the most outlandish lies imaginable. Consequently, the holohoax industry has become a tyrannical dictatorship that incessantly manipulates, distorts, marginalizes and manufactures false results to achieve their Machiavellian ends. By taking their hysterical obsessions to psychopathic levels, the charlatans behind this ruse make it glaringly apparent how weak their foundation is. To compensate, these intellectually dishonest con men (and women) continue to persecute revisionist historians all because they re incapable of supporting their arguments through legitimate debate. The Holocaust Hoax Exposed is the final nail in a rotting coffin that has long been buried beneath a plethora of deceit.
Click HERE to view book on Amazon.com
FBI Moves In On Oregon Militia Occupation – What They Aren’t Telling You
JANUARY 4, 2016 BY ASA J
As armed Americans take a stand against a tyrannical federal government near Burns, Oregon, the timid amongst the right and the totalitarian amongst the left offer a resounding chorus: Nothing good can come of this.
I disagree. If nothing else, the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters by the Bundy led militia serves as a much needed symbol for the silent majority of the nation – a silent majority that is fed up with the encroachment on our liberties. Symbols are important, and it only takes a spark to start a prairie fire.
Coincidentally, that’s just what 73-year-old Dwight Lincoln Hammond Jr. and his son, 46-year-old Steven Dwight Hammond did – start fires. The men said they started a series of range fires on their own private property – first in 2001 to burn off an invasive species, and then in 2006 to protect their land and feed crops from fires already ignited by lightening – a tactic known as “back burning.”
The fires spread onto public land controlled by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the ranchers were prosecuted in 2012 as part of a plea arrangement on an array of charges including conspiracy, arson under federal terrorism acts, and attempting to damage property through fire. They were also made to pay $400,000.
As part of their plea deal, the Hammond’s agreed not to appeal their sentences. Dwight was sentenced to three months in prison and Steven was sentenced to 11 months – far below the mandatory minimum of five years their charges demanded – which judge Michael Hogan called “grossly disproportionate” and a “shock [to] his conscience.”
Unfortunately for the ranchers, the feds did challenge the sentencing getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals involved in order to overturn Hogan’s decision and send the men back to prison to serve the entire five year term. They are scheduled to report to the federal Terminal Island prison in San Pedro, California today.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, the federal government claims ownership of nearly 650 million acres of land in the country – almost 30 percent of the nation’s land mass.
This type of land monopolization by government, which is sold to the populace as being “the people’s land” or “common property,” is nothing less than communism and has many detrimental affects. First and foremost, its important to understand that the government is not the people.
It is a separate entity than us. We are not them. We need only to look at the example of the Hammonds to see the reality of this in action, but economist and political theorist Dr. Murray N. Rothbard exemplified this fact perfectly in his essay, Anatomy of the State:
…With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
Primarily, the government “ownership” of vast amounts of land has harmful economic affects on the very people the land is supposedly being maintained for: the people. It’s basic supply and demand. If 30 percent of all land is being kept off the market by the feds, just what to you suppose is going to happen to property prices? They are going to be much higher than they would otherwise be.
This is the primary qualm the Bundy led militia in Oregon has with the present situation surrounding the Hammond case. Not only did the feds essentially railroad the ranchers by overturning their sentencing, the case appears to be just another ploy by the government to continue its illegitimate land grabbing from ranchers.
According to Tri-State Livestock News, former BLM range technician, watershed specialist and Oregon rancher Erin Maupin said backfires set by other ranchers had burned federal lands in the past, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced.
Maupin said ranchers “would call and the BLM would go and help put [fires] out and it was not a big deal,” but that there were numerous instances of BLM fires spreading onto private land causing ranchers to lose significant numbers of cattle, resources, and other property. Maupin claims she is unaware of the BLM ever compensating ranchers for the destruction.
Just as it was claimed, under the auspices of environmental protection, that Sen. Harry Reid wanted Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy off his Clark County ranch in 2014 in order to aid a Chinese solar power firm his son represents build a solar energy complex, corruption also seems to be afoot in Oregon.
As part of a 2000 deal to prevent the government from designating Steens Mountain as a federal monument, area ranchers traded in their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, which allowed Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness with 100,000 acres being deemed “cow-free.”
“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” Maupin said. “[The Oregon Natural Desert Association was] relentless in their pursuit to [drive ranchers] off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness.”
After the Hammonds are displaced from their property, the feds will be free to fully exploit the natural resource rich area in Harney County. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the land has a high potential for silver, “It’s become more and more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch,” area rancher and retired U.S. Forest Service employee Rusty Inglis said. “It would tie in with what they [already] have.”
This is the kind of corruption the Ammon and Ryan Bundy led militia group is standing up against in Oregon. Despite this, the brothers have been mercilessly condemned by the left, the mainstream media, and the GOP establishment – with even Sen. Ted Cruz asking them to stand down.
There have been calls to “mow [the men] down.” Popular media personalities like Montel Williams have even called for “the massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy,” and labeled the ranchers as “treasonous terrorist thugs,” that need to be “disemboweled” in a now deleted Facebook post.
As for the Hammond family, they have made it clear that they don’t want the support of the Bundys and wish to quietly turn themselves in. If the Hammonds wish to submit to being slaves to the federal government without resistance, that’s their decision. It is also the decision of the Bundys however, to stand by their convictions and take up what cause they wish.
“The end goal here is that we are here to restore the rights to the people here so that they can use the land and resources. All of them.” Ryan Bundy said. “We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely. This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute.
For the most part, local cops and federal law enforcement agencies have kept their distance but as history has taught us in cases like Waco and Ruby Ridge, that likely wont last for long. The FBI has now reportedly taken charge of the law enforcement response to the situation and is working with the Harney County Sheriff’s Office, the Oregon State Police, and other local and state agencies.
“Due to safety considerations for both those inside the refuge, as well as the law enforcement officers involved, we will not be releasing any specifics with regards to the law enforcement response,” the FBI said in a statement. They maintain they are looking for “a peaceful resolution to the situation.”
Ammon Bundy said at a press conference Monday that officials have sent messages to the occupiers inside the refuge saying that authorities do not intend to approach the group – which have now taken the name of “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.” He also maintained that he did not believe officials would try to forcibly remove the protesters.
The situation has interesting similarities with a historical incident in Ireland called the Easter Uprising. During the week of Easter in 1916, Irish Republicans mounted a revolt to end British rule and establish an independent Republic.
Starting out with only several hundred members of the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Citizen Army and Cumann na mBan, the rebels seized key locations in Dublin. After gaining the support of around 1600 fighters, the uprising was quickly suppressed by the British army, and most of the leaders were executed.
As I said before however, it only takes a spark, and the rebellion succeeded in changing the political landscape in Ireland. In December 1918, the Irish Republican Sinn Féin party won 73 seats out of 105 in the General Election before forming a breakaway government and declaring independence from the United Kingdom.
Following the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent Anglo-Irish Treaty, Ireland effectively gained independence as the Irish Free State in 1922 with Northern Ireland exercising an option called the Ulster Month to remain in the United Kingdom. Latter, the nation became a republic, with an elected president, under the constitution of 1937.
Remember, it only takes a spark… Now listen to some words of encouragement from Florida Libertarian Senatorial candidate Augustus Sol Invictus: