Surviving the avalanche by John Kaminski

AvalancheJK 700

Surviving the avalanche

DO YOU SLEEP SOUNDLY KNOWING COPS 

MAY  BREAK DOWN YOUR DOOR AT ANY TIME?

By John Kaminski

pseudoskylax@gmail.com

https://therebel.org/kaminski

 

Which thing keeps you awake at night? Which disaster that you can’t do anything about do you choose to worry about?

Seeing your money evaporating before your eyes? Wondering why your child was killed by friendly fire? Hoping what they say about methane isn’t true, and likely to end all life on this planet in just a few short years?

It makes you feel truly patriotic when you realize the cops can break down your door at any time for any reason and take your life, doesn’t it?

When you finally fall asleep tonight, will you dream of being tazed to death on a Tennessee interstate? Of a drug-addicted doctor amputating the wrong leg? Or of a drunken judge declaring you a terrorist and ordering a Thorazine injection so that you will never recognize yourself again, like Jose Padilla?

The threats to our continuing survival, our everyday health, and our chances for happiness are so overwhelming, so ubiquitous and so in-your-face every moment of every day, that without some kind of stimulant, some kind of sedative or at least some kind of sheep-counting meaningless distraction mechanism, chances are you’re like more and more people these days — lying there staring at the ceiling praying for a good dream to take you away from this nightmare reality.

And it isn’t so much the panic-inducing threats to your continuing existence that keep you from reaching that balmy sanctuary of sleep. Really, it’s the agony of not knowing what to do about any of these atrocities. Stress like this causes cancer, and worse.

People are committing suicide in record numbers, especially in the military <http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16510852-military-suicide-rate-hit-record-high-in-2012?lite>.

For most people who can think with a modicum of functionality, the worst of it is the lies, the betrayals, and the deliberate deceptions that everybody — and I mean everybody — encounters on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

And the worst of those come from our authority figures, the people in whom we place our trust and around whom we attempt to structure our lives. An epidemic of mistrust and lack of faith in our so-called leaders has not only shattered our sleep, but forced us to assess our futures in terms of hours and days rather than years and decades.

Yet, there are faint signs that a revolution is under way. A massive outcry in support of the Second Amendment forced the Congress to derail President Obama’s cynical gun grab.

Even more auspicious are the legislative movements in various states rejecting the Obama’s pathological contentions that he can kill anyone he wants any time he wants. In Missouri, as one example, both legislative houses voted overwhelmingly — with a veto-proof majority — to tell Obama’s police state goons to go to hell by commanding all state and local cops to not enforce unconstitutional federal gun control laws.<http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/missouri-legislature-nullifies-all-federal-gun-control-measures-by-a-veto-proof-majority/> Similar efforts are under way inTexas, Wyoming, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Iowa.

Maybe the biggest slap in the face of the American people in recent memory (although it’s hard to rank them; there have been so many) came from the mealy mouth of Al Gore, recent vice-president and smug Nobel Prize winner, who said he knew all about chemtrails and how bad they were for everyone, when the official government policy practiced by criminal politicians across America was that chemtrails don’t really exist — they’re just tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SrrWXurroWw>

After being misguided and abused by the lies of paid-off politicians throughout our lifetimes, here’s an example of the reward we get for our dedicated patriotic support of the demonic forces that control our country.

The mother of a Seal Team 6 member (you remember Seal Team 6, the ones who supposedly assassinated Osama bin Laden ten years after he died of kidney disease, and then supposedly dumped his body in the Indian Ocean) spoke of suspicious circumstances in her son’s death.  This was their reward — a government set-up to get rid of them so they couldn’t talk about the scam. Listen to her outraged description of her dead son’s funeral. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gafqJ6YMl6c&feature=youtube_gdata_player>

In her words, “It is now time to change things I can’t accept.”

Seal Team 6 has just about been completely wiped out. <http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/05/13/families-of-seal-team-6-demand-answers/>.

The latest episode of this apparent attempt to silence everyone involved with the fake murder of the already-dead Al-Qaida honcho involves Hillary Clinton, with the story resurfacing that she was injured in a secret jet crash in Iran, and the pilot of which was Job B. Price, none other than the leader of Seal Team 6 whom the government claimed committed suicide in Afghanistan. <http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/what-really-happened-to-hilary-clinton-and-us-navy-seal-commander-job-w-price-republished-modified-by-peter-eyre-may-10-2013/>

Then there is also the latest story that no U.S. military personnel witnessed the supposed burial at sea of Osama bin Laden.<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236617/Revealed-Military-emails-NO-U-S-sailors-witnessed-Osama-bin-Ladens-secret-burial-sea.html>

As your head spins while you try to go to sleep, you realize that the general condition of the American population at this time is best reflected by a growing trend in Ohio putting people in jail for not being able to pay their debts, including one man sent to jail repeatedly for not paying fines for not leashing his dog. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z41YRgFll3A> The time he spent in jail caused him to lose his job, which meant he couldn’t pay his fines, and kept going back to jail as the money he owed kept growing.

What to do about this growing onslaught?

What remains the best weapon to use against this avalanche of homegrown tyranny was compiled by the late great American patriot William Cooper, who was assassinated by county sheriffs in Nevada as he was gearing up to deconstruct the 9/11 caper back in 2001.

In his meticulous history of the income tax, he revealed that the Internal Revenue Service is illegally constituted and most people are not required to pay income taxes. If you read this document carefully — and, as Cooper says, memorize the chronology he has so diligently assembled — you can successfully defend yourself against this quintessential federal tyranny that has duped the Americans for a century into paying money to the war machine that they legally don’t have to pay.

This may be the best way to put the federal government tyrants out of business.

According to Cooper, citizens of the 50 United States have never been required to file or pay “income taxes”. Read the sorry history of a law that was never passed, and smell the stench of typical government scams like phony wars for billionaires that impoverish most Americans, or parents put in jail for homeschooling or refusing vaccinations that still wreak today. <http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS%20Criminal%20Report.html>.

Study it carefully. The day will come, if it is not already here, when this knowledge will become supremely important.

Can anybody say “Tax Strike”!? This would be the ultimate no-confidence vote. We can’t count on the politicians to do it, so the people must.

But nowadays, the IRS scam is a relatively minor lie compared to the giant lies of 9/11, the bogus wars, the genetically modified foods and the geoengineering that are poisoning the world, and purchase of ammunition by every department of the government in preparation for a shootout with the American people, whose guns continue to be taken away.

In addition, when you know some of these things and your head hits the pillow at bedtime, there can be no sleep without serious nightmares about your future.

Sooner or later you can only come to one conclusion. That it’s time to fight the criminal traitors who pretend to be our leaders, but who only steal our money, our property and our lives.

There is only one answer. Be who you always dreamed you’d be, who you always wanted to be: defender of hope, arbiter of truth, rescuer of the oppressed, and guilt-free preacher of all that is right and true. Do not accept the lies that ruin your life. If you’re going to die anyway, you might as well check out being the principled hero you always hoped to be, fighting the greatest evil civilization has ever known — the United States government.

The time has come to oppose every single thing the government — the corrupt Obama-Bush machine — orders us to do, by any means necessary.

Of course, if you choose that path, you have a few hard questions to answer.

Like, why do you remain silent about 9/11, the inside job that triggered this cynical neocon war against the world which does not benefit average Americans but only the international bankers who buy our local politicians to help them steal our money. Why haven’t you confronted every public official you can find, and demand that he resign and be tried for treason, for covering up the fact that our own government mass-murdered thousands of its own people to promote a sinister political objective?

Or, why do you remain silent while the government approves poison food that makes everyone sick, poison medicines that are put on the market without mandated clinical trials to prove they’re safe, or puts the clamps on radiation news about the radical rise brain-damaging births among California babies that guarantee the retardation of America’s next generation.

If you think you can escape the consequences of these demonic trends, you’re a fool and an idiot, not to mention a traitor.

The principal threat to world peace and our future survival is our own government in Washington. It’s time for the masses to sweep them from power and into jail where they belong.

It must be done before they shut down the money supply, start World War Three, or gas the population, because then the game will really be over. And since they’ve already started all three projects — the deliberate evaporation of the currency, the war against everyone in the world, and the chemtrail pollution of the atmosphere — you’re running just a little bit late about deciding what to do.

Sleep tight. And sweet dreams.

I hope you survive the avalanche, because many people — many millions of people — won’t.

———-

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.

https://therebel.org/kaminski

http://johnkaminski.info/

http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20040323232319/http://johnkaminski.com/

 

Statement of Roy Arthur Topham regarding his Arrest on May 16th, 2012 on the charge of “Willful promotion of hatred CC 319(2)”

ArrestStatementHeader

ARREST STATEMENT OF ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM
REGARDING HIS ARREST AND INCARCERATION BY THE RCMP ON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16TH, 2012 IN QUESNEL, B.C.  ON THE CHARGE OF:

“Willful Promotion of Hatred CC 319(2)”

Posted May 16th, 2013 on 1st Anniversary of this Event

By

Arthur Topham

[Editor's Note: In the interests of freedom of speech and freedom of the Internet I am posting my "Arrest Statement" which my former lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie advised me to write soon after my arrest on May 16th, 2012. His wise counsel was that this case would likely drag on in the courts for years and by the time it came to trial (should such an event arise) that many of the details of my recollection of that fateful day would by then be hazy and doubtful. Acting on Mr. Christie's advice I wrote out a detailed description of what took place that May morning last year. It's an interesting picture of what can happen to you here in Canada should the Jewish lobby decide they don't like being criticized. Read. Heed. And please pass it on to your friends and associates. ~Arthur Topham]

On Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 I started out my work day travelling out to my mining property on the 2400 Rd off the Barkerville Hwy to meet up with the Petro Canada fuel truck at 9:30 a.m. I was having the company fuel truck filled with 1200 gallons of diesel fuel for use during the upcoming placer mining operations for this season. When that was completed I returned home to my residence at 4633 Barkerville Hwy and prepared for a trip up to Prince George where I had to go to the Richie Bros. Auctioneers site to pick up some mining equipment that my business associate had recently purchased at an auction on May 10th. My business partner and wife, Shastah Topham, came along with me and we left our home at approximately 11:00 a.m. heading west toward Quesnel.

Plans had also been made ahead of time to meet another mining associate at Princess Auto in Prince George at 1 p.m. and between the two of us we would haul equipment back to my placer claims on the 2400 Road.

Due to the fact that the Petro Canada fuel truck was a bit late in arriving at the site plus the additional time necessary to fuel the 1200 gallon truck I was running behind schedule by about half an hour.

We were travelling in a 2009 Chev pickup owned by my mining associate with whom I am presently in a Joint Venture Agreement.

When one leaves my property at 4633 Barkerville Hwy you must turn right on to the Barkerville Hwy in order to travel toward Quesnel and Hwy 97 the route necessary to travel in order to get to Prince George. The section of Hwy 26 (Barkerville Hwy) that runs past my residence stretches in a straight line for approximately 1 km. As soon as I pulled out on to the road I immediately saw that there was a white pickup truck sitting adjacent to the eastbound lane of highway just before the road descended down a small dip and passes Cottonwood Historic Site.

As we drove toward it I remarked to my wife, “There’s the cops sitting there. Looks like they’re either waiting to catch Willie again or maybe they’re doing surveillance on Don Carter’s property. Don Carter has been experiencing ongoing harassment by the Canadian Revenue Agency over the past few years and has also had numerous encounters with the RCMP in conjunction with the CRA.

As we approached the white pickup we could see two men in dark clothing sitting in it trying to look as unobtrusive as possible. Again I said to my wife, “If we weren’t running so damn late I’d stop and asked them if they were lost or needed any assistance.”

As we crested the dip and passed Cottonwood Historic Site I noted that within a minute or so the white pickup was now following us. I asked my wife is she was buckled up (she was) and then I set my vehicle on cruise control at about 95 cpm. The limit was 90 kph so I knew that at least if the cops were going to stop me they wouldn’t have the excuse that I was speeding.

As we proceeded on toward Quesnel Shastah was spoon-feeding me my breakfast as I drove because we were too late for me to sit down at home and eat before leaving. I remarked to my wife that the cops were likely watching us through their binoculars and wondering what she was doing. We also were discussing the vehicle that was now so obviously tailing us. It’s always a joke for the locals around Cottonwood when the police come and try to set up either a surveillance vehicle or radar to catch unwary speeders. The cops never seem to understand that when you live in a very small, tight-knit community that everyone in the area is very aware of who drives what type of vehicle and when they see a vehicle parked on the side of the highway with people sitting in it they know right away that they’re either broke down or else cops.

We continued along the highway talking about cops and related issues until we reached the top of 11 Mile Hill. When one begins to descend you are overlooking the Fraser Valley viewshed and can see westward for over a hundred kilometres. About half way down I noted that a regular white coloured RCMP van with the usual bells and whistles was now directly behind the white pickup. At the same time, due to the steep grade of the hill, I was also watching my own speedometer to make sure I didn’t begin coasting beyond the 100 km speed limit. As we neared the bottom of the hill the RCMP van’s lights came on. I told Shastah and proceeded to slow down and pull over on the right hand side of the highway just where the road levelled off.

[Read more...]

World Jewish Congress approves resolution calling for criminalizing Holocaust denial

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/world-jewish-congress-approves-resolution-calling-for-criminalizing-holocaust-denial/

holocaust

The resolution on anti-Semitism also calls countries where appropriate constitutional provisions exist to consider banning neo-Nazi parties.

[TUT Editor's Note: so, in other words, these same Jewish interests CONSTANTLY lecturing others on ‘free speech’ and CONSTANTLY warning of the dangers of ‘Islamic Shariah Law’ where people are punished for holding/voicing opinions contrary to the precepts of a certain religion are now calling for laws to be made criminalizing free speech/free thought as pertains the ‘holy of holies’–meaning the Holocaust.

As one famous philosopher stated over and over when warning of Jewish power, ‘beware the leaven of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy and lying’]

Haaretz

The World Jewish Congress approved on Tuesday a resolution that calls on countries around the world, “in particular those whose Jewish populations were decimated in the Shoah,” to outlaw the public denial of the Holocaust, and where appropriate constitutional provisions exist, to consider banning neo-Nazi parties.

The resolution also urges Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and other national leaders and legislators in Europe to join the 125 legislators from more than 40 countries in signing the 2009 London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism.

The WJC decided to hold its Plenary Assembly in the Hungarian capital as an expression of solidarity with the local Jewish community in the city, who have been under threat of rising anti-Semitism ever since the extreme right-wing Jobbik Party won a relatively large share of the vote in the last election.

The WJC resolution, supported by hundreds of delegates from Jewish communities around the world, urges the Hungarian authorities “to take effective measures including by enacting and enforcing legislation, for the protection of all citizens and residents of this country, in particular vulnerable minorities such as the Roma and the Jews, against threats of violence, racist hate and insults and the denial of the Holocaust.”

On Sunday night, the Hungarian prime minister opened the Plenary Assembly promising to act more forcefully against anti-Semitism, although he did not specifically mention the Jobbik Party, which captured 17 percent of the vote in the 2010 election. WJC officials expressed disappointment with his speech, which to their minds lacked substance.

In the resolution, the WJC calls on Hungary “to recognize that the ideology and the actions of the Jobbik movement and its subsidiaries, including the New Hungarian Guard, pose a fundamental threat to Hungary’s democracy, and that decisive action by all democratic forces against these contemporary expressions of extremism must now be taken.”

The resolution also expresses concern about recent signs of rising anti-Semitism in Ukraine.

Earlier today, the Plenary Assembly heard about a new legislative initiative in Greece, which promises a radical crackdown on anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the country. David Saltiel, the head of the country’s Jewish community, who reported on the development, said the legislation will be submitted to parliament in the coming days, following the Easter holiday break.

According to the legislation, any individual or group that incites against or acts violently toward other individuals or groups “because of their racial origin, the color of their skin, their religion and/or their sexual preferences” could be punished with three months to six years in jail and be fined up to 20,000 euros. The same punishments would apply to Holocaust denial and the National Socialist salute. The legislation also stipulates that if a parliamentary party chief is found to be in violation, public funding for his or her party would be suspended.

———

Why Justin Trudeau May Be More Dangerous than Harper by Damien Gillis

Common SenseLogo

http://thecanadian.org/item/2066-justin-trudeau-more-dangerous-stephen-harper-politics-keystone-xl-fipa-nexen-damien-gillis

TarSands Sunsetlogo copy 2

Why Justin Trudeau May Be More Dangerous than Harper
Written by Damien Gillis
Monday, 06 May 2013

Screen Shot 2013-05-07 at 8.33.23 PM

Adrian Wyld/CP

Justin Trudeau just may be Canada’s most dangerous man.

He of the throngs of adoring supporters, the pretty new face that promises to resurrect “Canada’s party”.

The key positions he’s taken thus far – supporting the sellout of our strategic energy resources to the Chinese Government, giving away our sovereignty through the Canada-China Trade deal, new pipelines to expand the Tar Sands – hardly vary from those of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They just look and sound far more attractive coming from Canada’s prodigal son.

And that’s what scares me.

keystone.pipeline.route_ copy

Trudeau’s latest decision to out-Harper Mr. Harper on boosting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Texas give us a sobering sense of where the young Liberal leader is headed. Perhaps more troubling is the question of what he actually believes – or whether these positions derive from polling data, focus groups, and a cynical drive to get elected at all costs (more on that in a moment).

In his first swing out west following a successful leadership bid, Trudeau took the time to praise Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s efforts to secure access for Keystone by talking up improved “environmental sustainability” in the Tar Sands (exactly how, we’re left to wonder, beyond a carbon tax proposed by Redford).

“I’m very hopeful despite the political games being played by the NDP…that we will see the Keystone pipeline approved soon,” Trudeau proclaimed.

If Bay Street and the energy sector see that Trudeau is prepared to fulfill the same key objectives as Harper, they will not think twice about swinging their support back to the Liberals. This latest statement on Keystone signals that Mr. Trudeau is truly open for business. For this reason, while backing Keystone may be unpopular with certain segments of the Canadian public, it could prove a shrewd political move in the long-run.

KeystonePipeline2

Harper is uncharacteristically weak at the moment. There is the infighting within his usually locked-down caucus, the cratering polling figures (a recent Nanos poll has the Liberals leading the Conservatives for the first time in years, at 34 to 31% support), and an authoritarian image that is becoming increasingly problematic. He and his embattled foot soldiers, the likes of Joe Oliver and Jason Kenney, have had a very bad month.

Oliver overplayed his hand a couple of weeks ago when he attacked the world’s most respected climate scientist, the recently retired James Hansen of NASA, while on a “diplomatic” mission to Washington to build support for Keystone.

The tone-deaf Oliver ranted that Hansen should be “ashamed” of “exaggerating” the effects of climate change and impacts of the Tar Sands, apparently missing the irony of attacking his hosts while trying win them over. The comments, which backfired severely, were picked up by everyone from the New York Times to the UK’s Guardian. Hansen shot back, aptly branding Oliver a “Neanderthal“.

OOS

On this score, Trudeau seems to understand something his Conservative opponents don’t – i.e. cultivating buy-in for Keystone requires more sophisticated framing and at least a modicum of tact with our southern neighbours.

Meanwhile, the most likeable and politically adept figure in the Harper Government, Immigration Minister Kenney, finds himself embroiled in the growing scandal over his government’s foreign temporary worker program. The seriousness of this political pitfall is evident in the unusual backtracking Harper is doing on the program.

He’s right to do so. The problem for Harper with issues like this one, the buyout of Canadian energy company Nexen by Chinese state-owned CNOOC, and the botched fighter jet program, is the way they rile his base. Unpopular with small “c” conservatives, they drive division within Harper’s tenuous right-wing alliance.

With these troubles brewing on the home front and attack ads aimed at Trudeau falling short of the effect they had on his predecessors – Michael Ignatieff and Sétphane Dion – things are shaping up nicely for Harper’s young challenger.

The question is, what does this mean for Canada?

If all Mr. Trudeau represents is a better-packaged version of Harper’s economic vision, then how will the Canadian public and environment – not to mention the planet – be any better off?

tarsands-beforeafter

The thing that has always bothered me about Justin – ever since his entry onto the public scene at his famous father’s funeral – is that he’s never appeared to stand for anything real. Years later, even following a lengthy leadership race and literally thousands of media clips and public appearances, I still don’t know what core principles motivate his drive to lead the country. He speaks in platitudes, clever but meaningless tweets – which is partly what makes him so effective with social media and our soundbite-obsessed mainstream press.

He is our version of Robert Redford’s character in The Candidate.

Evidently, if Justin stands for anything, it’s selling out Canada’s strategic resources and exploiting the climate-destroying Tar Sands. Where his father tried and failed to build a made-in-Canada energy policy, the younger Trudeau is going in the opposite direction.

A 8189

Even that, though, I suspect, is more a reflection of his willingness to shape-shift his policies into whatever form advisers tell him will track best politically.

With Harper, by contrast, we have a sense that his zeal for expanding Canada’s fossil fuel industries through foreign ownership is something in which he believes on a deep, ideological level. I’m not sure which is better – the guy who believes in something I and many other Canadians patently don’t, or the guy who probably doesn’t but is willing to say he does, just to get elected. If these are our two choices, then I’m ready for a third.

Real leadership means fighting for real principles, even when they’re unpopular. Great politicians find a way to sell good ideas to the public and media.

Justin Trudeau does none of these things. But, boy, does he look good not doing them.
—-

Smearing Kennedy by S.H. Pearson

Screen Shot 2013-05-03 at 11.55.38 AM

http://pearsonpayload.blogspot.ca/2013/04/smearing-kennedy.html
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Smearing Kennedy

Screen Shot 2013-05-03 at 11.56.38 AM

by S. H. Pearson

Listen bitches.  Why would a man go out for hotdogs when he’s got this at home.

In this fast-reading autobiography, George Lincoln Rockwell educates, awakens and entertains.  You will be brought to laughter and tears by his eloquent pendulum.  You can count on this book having been suppressed by his killers for decades.  Rockwell exposes them by it.

F8

He was a brilliant, albeit, secular man.  A Navy Commander whose last fighter cockpit was in the F8F Bearcat.  Oh hell yes.  Top that all you ground-pounding New York rats.  I dare you.

He was tall, talented, well-turned, well-bred and had all the right stuff.  The only thing he lacked was a God-fearing soul.  He charged into the fray of life banking only on his human abilities.  Sometimes a man needs more.  But I read in his words a hard leaning toward Jesus Christ.  Rockwell was devoid of hatred.  He was right as rain and good as gold.  He sang the praises of Christians from a secular mind — in that an honest man cannot deny the fruits of their tree.  Rockwell was an honest man.

A virtuous man on his path to God with too many irons in the fire.  Too many balls in the air.  Too many wild dogs snapping at his heels when he wrote this book — to “be still and know that I am God” as the Word says.

This can be seen by the way life knocked him around.  He leapt out there, taking on the punches without a prayer.  Just his guts and wit.  His first wife was an ice queen.  His second finally collapsed under the pressure of his persecution.  He was survived by seven children.

After a surprisingly good childhood despite the Great Depression and a broken home, Rockwell entered Brown University in the fall of 1938.  A hurricane ravished the New England coast that year — tantamount to the covert, creeping communism.   He fast learned that President Roosevelt was a traitor and a liar.  And that Charlie Chaplin was a Marxist jew who changed his name from Israel Thonstein.  Rockwell wrote that Chaplin “…is so red [that] even our pinko State Department has banned him from the U.S.A.”

However, even an intellectual like Rockwell swallowed the lies about Hitler.  When Roosevelt’s jew-friendly war broke out, Rockwell rushed off to “come to the aid of his country.”  To save them from the evil Nazi’s in a fratricidal war fanned up by the jews for the jews.

Headlong into the U.S. Navy.  Back when “wooden ships and iron men” was still the motto.  Rockwell got a kick out of military discipline.  It was a good fit.  He embraced the dangerous life of a Naval Aviator with zeal.  Catapulted off USS OMAHA into blushing dawn.  Dreams still in his head.  Barely out of bed.  Yonder lay blue Neptune kissing Aurora.  Lip-lock to die for.  Oh the sight of that.  What a wake-up, aye, sailor-boy?

Five hours of wartime surveillance in an old prop-job with every drop of fuel measured to the mile.  One mistake in his calculations and he goes the way of Amelia.  Out here in the Fleet, it’s all pass/fail baby.  Saying nothing of trying to set ‘er back down on a pitching, rolling deck, bleary-eyed, sapped and woozy.  Can you find that little ship?

Rockwell sure as hell did.  The John F. Kennedy Navy hardened him for what would come later.  And like Kennedy in those days, boy was he good-lookin’.  Had his pick of the fillies too.  His accounts of women will make you tingle.  Where are men like that today?  Where are the gentleman in choker whites?  He was eighteen before he got his first kiss.  A Victorian to the bone.

All this in a man whose home life provided no church.  I can only imagine the spiritual edge that a good Catholic or Muslim upbringing would have given him.

Beautiful writing about his Navy days will bring you to your knees even if you never wore the blue.  He puts you there — flying stick in an old recon bird over El Caribe.  The adventures of which he would later recount to the “less heroic deck-apes.”  Lording it over the black-shoe Navy as they eagerly awaited reports from their pilots about what had been seen.  “I ached for a carrier and a hotter plane with more combat…”

He longed for a brand new F4U Corsair, “at that time the hottest and deadliest thing in the air.”  Make me break out in a cold sweat, fly-boy.  Dang that gull-wing thing.  With a monstrous cowling and a monstrous prop.  Surly blue to disappear into the sea.  I long for one too.

P38

But next it was off to Pensacola and the P-38 Lightning.  Life gallops along at top speed.  A wife is taken.  A family emerges.  The war ends.  Civilian life begins.

In 1950 the Korean War recalls Rockwell as a Navy pilot.  This time as an instructor in the F8F Bearcat.  “The F8 is the hot-rod of the sky and how I loved it.”  He called it a bumble-bee.  He called it a hornet.  “It has so much power…  It’s like riding a lightning bolt.”

F84

About this time Rockwell learns about a Senator from Wisconsin named Joseph R. McCarthy.  His awakening to the jewish problem thence began.  It hit him like a tidal wave.  As it does all of us.  Just in time for Harry Truman to fire General Douglas McArthur, Rockwell’s beloved hero.  The jews hated both McCarthy and McArthur, smearing them in their character assassination rags.  Hissing venom and vitriol, they shouted about how McArthur threatened to become another Hitler.

Rockwell wrote, “I found that Communism was not only Jewish, but the Jews boasted about its Jewishness in their books and papers!”  His new mission had begun.  Smitten with the clarion call of duty to rid our society of this menace who was “forcing integration on us, degrading our culture with their filthy art of chaos and pornography and, worst of all, spreading the disease of Communism…”  Once Rockwell heard the speeches of Senator McCarthy, his fire was ignited.  He tore into text like he did everything in life — like a tiger.

SenJoeMcCarthyHeadLrg copy2

He devoured all the commie rags and mags.  The Daily Worker, New Masses, the Library of Congress yielded up its hidden treasures.  He learned how Communist jews planted their seeds in China before the 1949 overthrow of its government.  He read Henry Ford’s warnings from the 1920?s.  He read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

America was crawling with Communist spies in the 1950?s (all jews).  Some of whom were caught and hanged.  I bet you won’t read about them in the New York Times.

Rockwell writes that Jews were in charge of our atomic weapons and programs also.  Leave it to Lyndon to undo what Kennedy did in forbidding the newly-formed jewish state a nuclear arsenal.  Now look at the monster they have become.

All this Rockwell figured out before he got his hands on Mein Kampf.  Like Henry Ford and DeWest Hooker, the blinders were off.  He was wide awake, “I began to wonder why we had gone to war on the side of the Bolsheviks who had openly bragged for a hundred years of their plans to destroy us by force and violence, lies and subversion; while we completely wrecked Christian Germany, which never had a single highly-placed spy in our country…”

HenryFordSr

That was the pivot.  That was the turning point.  Then after he found a copy of Hitler’s magnum opus tucked away in the back of a bookshop, the big picture emerged.  “I could not lay the book down without agonies of impatience to get back to it.  I read it walking to the squadron, I took it into the air and read it, propped up on the chartboard… circling over the desert.  I read it on the Coronado Ferry.  I read it into the night and resumed the next morning.  … I studied it, thought about it and wondered at the utter, indescribable genius of it.”

And thus began Commander Rockwell’s fever to fix what ails us.  He tried doing this without a Nazi arm-band, but the news jews gave him no coverage.  So he started the American Nazi Party knowing damn well that now they would.

He drew fire from the jews something fierce.  They do the usual thing they always do.  Smear you in their crooked press.  Wreck your job.  Go after your marriage and family.  Yadda yadda.  If all that does not deter you then they pay someone to kill you.

Rockwell was picked off like Kennedy in 1967.  Oh well.  Better than dying in adult diapers at 97.  His book survived just fine.  In full Nazi garb, he was invited to speak at universities all over the country.  These speeches were filmed for posterity and can now be seen on YouTube.  Rockwell is all over the Internet.  You can download a free copy of this book here: http://jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/This_Time_the_World.pdf

—–

 

 

Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger by Kevin Barrett

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/22/holocaust-history-denial-a-clear-and-present-danger/

Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 12.03.52 PM

Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 12.03.36 PM Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 12.03.20 PM
Monday, April 22nd, 2013
Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger

by Kevin Barrett

I used to believe in “the Holocaust.”

Not as a religion – I’ve never been to any of the museum-temples or made a pilgrimage to Auschwitz or pored over the sacred texts. And I never was stupid or crazy enough to accept the Holocaust as a valid excuse for the Zionist theft of Palestine.  (If the Holocaust had anything to do with Israel, then Israel would have been established in Germany – not Palestine.)

In short, I believed in “the Holocaust” as history, because I assumed that 99% of Western academic historians can’t be wrong.

I assumed that about six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in concentration camps, mostly in gas chambers, as part of a pre-planned effort to exterminate the Jews of Europe. As far as I knew, all of the reputable historians believed this. The handful of dissenters, I assumed, were cranks of one sort or another. And though I had met many Muslim academic colleagues who were Holocaust skeptics, I thought they were probably biased due to their anti-Zionism.

Then in 2006, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, I was attacked on Wikipedia as a “holocaust denier.” In fact, I was a well-known skeptic about 9/11 – not the Holocaust. I knew next to nothing about the controversies surrounding the alleged gas chambers. Wikipedia claimed I was a supporter of David Irving, Mark Green, and Ernst Zundel. In fact, I had never heard of Green, and barely even knew the names of Irving and Zundel.  (I had spent most of the 1990s reading every French literary classic for my French Literature MA, then learning Arabic and studying Islam and Morocco for my Ph.D. while supporting my wife and two small children, so I wasn’t really paying attention to Holocaust-controversy news.)

I tried to correct the erroneous information – which came from some crank’s personal website, and had never been checked, much less corroborated – along with the dozens of other derogatory factual errors, on my Wikipedia page. The corrections would always be removed, and the lies, reinstated, by the next day. Sometimes it happened in a matter of hours.

This was enough to make me slightly paranoid.

But as the hippies used to say, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.

Somebody was trying to frame me as a “Holocaust denier” – presumably to damage my credibility on 9/11. Why would they do that?

By 2010 or so, I finally got around to reading a few books about the Holocaust controversies. The first book I read was Denying History by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. It had been recommended as the best introduction to why the Holocaust deniers are wrong.

Denying History blew my mind – but not in the way its authors presumably intended. It consists mostly of weak ad-hominem attacks against “Holocaust deniers.” Its arguments about the actual issues – the questions of pre-planned total extermination, cyanide gas chambers, and six million Jewish victims (or was that six million total victims?) – were not nearly as strong as I had expected. In fact, they were surprisingly flimsy.

Shermer and Grobman admit that the keepers of the Auschwitz memorial suddenly decided, one day in 1989, to reduce the number of victims of that notorious camp from 4 million to “about one and one half million.” That is a lot of victims to vanish so suddenly.

Shermer and Grobman claim that the suddenly-missing 2 1/2 million Auschwitz victims somehow magically re-appeared on the Eastern Front, where they turned out to have been shot down by German firing squads. This maneuver preserves the seemingly magical “six million” figure. But it raises some obvious questions about the reliability of the death counts. First, isn’t the mathematics of “subtract-two-and-one-half-million here, add two-and-one-half-million there” just a bit too convenient?  Second, what about the forensic evidence? How can the remains of 2 1/2 million human cadavers have suddenly moved from Auschwitz to the Eastern Front? And third – if the orthodox Holocaust historians were that wrong about Auschwitz prior to 1989, what else might they be wrong about?

Shermer and Grobman downplay the issue of forensic evidence – because, it seems, there really isn’t a whole lot. Millions of people seem to have vanished without a trace. Instead, orthodox Holocaust historians rely on eyewitness accounts, not forensics, to establish the existence of mass-execution cyanide gas chambers and six million dead bodies. They say the bodies and skeletons were almost completely burned, so little or nothing remained. No point in looking for millions of bodies, you won’t find nearly enough.

On that point, the skeptics and the orthodox historians agree.

Denying History raised questions in my mind about the truth of what I had previously believed. It also, paradoxically, evoked my sympathy for the people the authors wanted me to despise. Just about all of them seemed like reasonably nice people. David Irving, Shermer and Grobman admitted, was a highly-qualified and accomplished historian who had suffered greatly, and even been imprisoned, for his sincerely-held scholarly opinions. David Cole, a young Jewish man led to “Holocaust denial” by his penchant for truth, had won a debate against the pro-Orthodoxy forces, including Shermer himself, on the Phil Donahue Show. The only way the forces of orthodoxy could win their debate with David Cole, it turned out, was by issuing death threats to terrify him into recanting.

Shermer and Grobham made me like David Cole, feel sorry for him, and despise the JDL terrorists who threatened to kill him if he didn’t pretend to agree with them.

Since Shermer and Grobman were such poor defenders of orthodoxy, I turned to Deborah Lipstadt, who had won a libel suit filed against her by David Irving. I assumed that anyone who could beat Irving in a history debate must have a rock-solid command of the facts. Her book Denying the Holocaust, I assumed, would put the deniers’ arguments to rest.

As I turned the pages of Denying the Holocaust, my astonishment gradually turned to fury. The book has nothing to do with history. It is one long hysterical polemic in favor of the author’s utterly unexamined a priori belief system. Lipstadt’s book consists of 100% emotion, zero percent rational-empirical argument about historical fact. It is basically an endless chain of mindless ad-hominem insults against the “holocaust deniers.”

If this was the best the defenders of Holocaust orthodoxy could do, maybe they didn’t have quite the airtight argument that I had assumed.

At this point, my faith in Holocaust orthodoxy was somewhat shaken.

Then one of my 9/11-skeptic acquaintances told me I should read Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides by Thomas Dalton. I did – and found it was far better than the books by Shermer/Grobman and Lipstadt. Of course, it wasn’t really as neutral as the title sounded. Dalton obviously believed the holocaust skeptics had a better case than the keepers of orthodoxy. But at least he did try to elucidate the historical arguments, point by point. Though he did not convince me that the Holocaust skeptics were right, he successfully argued that the Holocaust controversy was a legitimate topic of historical debate.

I invited Dalton to join me on the radio to debate two defenders of orthodoxy, Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis, on my radio show. (Read about the show here, and listen at http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-042410.mp3 ).

Then I met Nick Kollerstrom, author of the best book on 7/7, Terror on the Tube. Dr. Kollerstrom, a Ph.D. History of Science chemistry specialist, was expelled from his teaching post at University College of London simply for publishing a scholarly article evaluating the chemical evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers during World War II. Those who expelled him threw in gratuitous insults, but refused to make any effort to dispute the facts as laid out in the offending article.

I got to know Nick, rambled all over London with him, and found I liked him and respected his intellect. His views were legitimate scholarly interpretations, not bigotry.

These experiences have led me to conclude that the problem isn’t Holocaust denial – it’s Holocaust history denial (HHD). People like Deborah Lipstadt, and the other keepers of Holocaust orthodoxy, irrationally deny that the Holocaust is history, and therefore open to free and fearless rational-empirical debate. For them, the Holocaust is emotion-saturated sacred myth, not history.

Western culture – not just a few keepers of orthodoxy – is suffering from HHD. Everywhere you go, it is denied that the Holocaust is just one unfortunate historical episode among others, and that the data can be interpreted and reinterpreted in a wide variety of ways. The sacred shibboleths – six million dead, cyanide gas chambers, and a pre-planned total extermination – are the new holy trinity. Anybody who doubts them isn’t just another revisionist historian, but a heretic.

And the heretics are sent to prison, or have their careers destroyed, simply for writing or speaking about their interpretations of historical data.

Nick Kollerstrom tells me that many thousands of people have been prosecuted, in Germany alone, under the “political correctness” laws. How can anyone possibly be a historian in a society that imprisons people for expressing their interpretations of history?

Holocaust history denial is a clear and present danger. The Western tradition of freedom of inquiry is under threat. Ever since Socrates founded philosophy, acerbic skepticism about “public myths” has been central to Western thought. Today, it can get you thrown in prison or ejected from your job.

It’s time to meet the threat of Holocaust history denial head-on. Let’s re-historicize the Holocaust, and put an end to the Holocaust Religion!

I propose that America’s top fraud investigators should be immediately assigned to the Holocaust survivors’ fraud beat. The recent discover of $42 million in phony “survivor” claims is undoubtedly only the tip of the iceberg; billions more are there for the taking. The money recovered from the “no business like Shoah business” shysters should be applied to the endowment of Holocaust Revisionism chairs in a dozen or so of our leading universities. There, the world’s top Holocaust revisionists should be turned loose to develop their very best historical arguments. A lively scholarly historical debate between the revisionists and the defenders of orthodoxy would ensue.

Who would win the debate? I have no idea. Maybe, with the debate reinvigorated, the orthodox camp would find the motivation to go out and look for the long-lost forensic evidence, including the ruins of actual mass-human-extermination gas chambers and the remains of millions of victims’ bodies. Or maybe the revisionists, given a modicum of legitimacy and funding, would definitively prove their case.

Either way, history – and the Western tradition of freedom of inquiry – would be the real winners.

How Many Jews? by Douglas Reed

TheSixMillionMyth1 copy

How Many Jews?

by

Douglas Reed

[Editor's Note: The issue involving the "6 Million Jews" purported to have been gassed and roasted (holocausted) in German concentration camps during WWII continues to be hotly debated within the alternative media sixty-eight years after the war's end. In the case of the Jewish media aka the msm, their ongoing insistence on repeatedly reinforcing their own self-chosen figure of 6 million well after being proven to be historically inaccurate has created greater and greater skepticism on the part of truth-seekers everywhere who, now thanks to the Internet and the freeing up of the facts and the hidden information surrounding this controversy, are realizing that the 6 million lies of the Jews is nothing but Zionist Jew propaganda designed to buttress their failed attempt at mesmerizing and brainwashing the world into believing the greatest lie ever told throughout recorded history.

One of the earliest debunkers of the 6 million myth was British war correspondent and author Douglas Reed. Having lived through WWI and covered WWII in depth Reed was well aware of the historic context in which he lived and wrote. His comments below on the impossibility of ascertaining with any accuracy the actual number of Jews supposedly living in Europe from 1939 until 1945 are taken from Chapter 42 of his 1956 classic, The Controversy of Zion and give the reader a much needed reference point from which to judge just who is more correct when it comes to this ongoing clash over how many Jews died during WWII.]

from
Chapter 42
The Talmudic Vengeance

The trials of “war criminals” formed the peaks of the vengeance and the Everest of them all was reached in the Nuremberg trial of the chief Nazi leaders….

By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the Jews.” The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. “Crimes against Jews” were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made “the crux of the case” against the defendants (Captain Liddell Hart’s words) and was based on the assertion that “six million Jews” had been killed (as time went by the word “perished” was substituted for “killed”). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out any suit based on this completely unverifiable assertion: At Nuremberg lawyers, who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic figure as the basis of their demand for conviction.

I earlier described, with illustrations from Jewish sources, the process by means of which, over the years, the Jews were “singled out” from the mass of Hitler’s victims and their number inflated at will from day to day (Hitler’s book-bonfire became “the burning of Jewish books”; his concentration camps where ninety percent of the inmates were Germans became concentration camps for Jews; a wartime report about the killing of” 150,000 White Russians, Ukrainians and Jews at Kieff” was changed to “150,000 Jews”; and so on interminably).

The statement about the “six million Jews,” allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times over.

The figure would not even deserve scrutiny if it had not been used to give the Second War the brand of “a Jewish war” and if that, again, did not foreshadow the shape of any third war. Because of that, it may be examined here.

At no time in history, from antiquity to this day, can the number of Judahites, Judeans or Jews, living at any given time, be determined; for that reason the number afflicted in any calamity also cannot be determined, and there are many more reasons why the number of Jewish victims in the Second World War cannot be fixed. The process of mystification begins in Genesis and continues through the Torah (the seventy people taken by Jacob to Egypt, for instance, apparently increased to two or three million within 150 years). At all periods large, and sometimes huge variations occur in the “estimates,” and only estimates are possible, as the present term, “Jew,” is legally indefinable and statistically elusive.

An eminent Jewish authority, Dr. Hans Kohn, in his article on “the distribution of Jews” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1942, writes:

“In view of the fact that in several of the countries where the largest number of Jews were living in 1941 the census did not contain any questions regarding religion … the exact number of Jews in the world in 1941 could not be ascertained. The definition of persons falling under the classification of ‘Jewish race’ is in no way agreed upon … In countries where the census included questions of religious origins, even this religious criterion of Jewish faith is difficult to define exactly. Thus the assumption which generally varied around the figure of 16 million” (for the entire world) “cannot claim any foundation on exact ‘figures. To this uncertainty about the number of Jews in the world was added in recent years a growing uncertainty about their numerical distribution in the different countries and continents. Probably more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and the U.S.S.R.”

A weaker basis than that even for “estimates” (not to speak of “statistics”) can hardly be imagined, yet in the ensuing period, when all the additional confusions of war and occupation were piled on this infirm foundation, precise numbers of Jewish casualties were produced day by day, circulated by thousands of assiduous propagandists, and at the end declared to amount to six millions!

Dr. Kohn says that “probably” more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and U.S.S.R. in 1941. In respect of the U.S.S.R. this might corroborate another Jewish authority (Prof. H.M.T. Loewe), who said in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 that 2,700,000 Jews then lived there. Similarly, four years earlier (1933) the Jewish journal Opinion had stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was under 3,000,000; and the Soviet official Encyclopaedia in 1953 stated that “the Jewish population of the Soviet Union in 1939 was 3,020,000.”

This near agreement among four authorities in respect of the period 1933-1941 might lead the reader to think that the number of Jews in one country at least (the U.S.S.R.) was established with reasonable accuracy at a given time. On the contrary, this is a statistical jungle where nothing is ever established. In 1943 the Jewish Commissar Mikhoels said in London (according to the Johannesburg Jewish Times of 1952), “Today we have in the Soviet Union 5,000,000 Jews.” That is two million more than two years before, and if it was true presumably meant that most of the Jews in Poland, after Hitler and Stalin fell out, moved into Soviet territory. However, in the same issue of the Jewish Times a leading Jewish writer, Mr. Joseph Leftwich, stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. in 1952 was 2,500,000, “a loss since 1943 of 2,500,000.” He asked, “where and how did they disappear?”; the answer, in my judgment, is that most of them disappeared into the statistics.

That is not the end of the confusion in this one section of the question. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 (in giving the above-cited figure of 2,700,000 Jews in Russia on Jewish authority) said they formed about six percent of the total population. The total population was elsewhere given in the same encyclopaedia as 145,000,000 and six percent of that would be 8,700,000!

The encyclopaedias, statistical yearbooks and almanacs are in this one question all at odds with each other and untrustworthy. I could multiply examples (for instance, the Jewish World Congress in 1953 announced that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 1,500,000) but wandering in a maze without an outlet is profitless. All published figures are “estimates” made at the estimators’ pleasure, and are without value. A professional accountant might write a book on the efforts of the encyclopaedists to make the post-war figure of Jewish population in the world conform with the pre-war “estimates,” minus six million. Figures are tricky things: a few examples:

The leading American reference yearbook, the World Almanac, in 1947 gave the 1939 Jewish world-population as 15,688,259. In later editions up to 1952 it increased this prewar estimate (without explanation) by a million, to 16,643,120. It gave the 1950 population as 11,940,000, which, if subtracted from the first figure given for 1939, gives a reduction of nearly four millions (though not of six). However, it based even this “estimate” on another estimate, namely, that in 1950 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 2,000,000. This still left unanswered Mr. Leftwich’s question in respect of Commissar Mikhoels’s statement, that in 1943 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 5,000,000.

In England Whitaker’s Almanac, of similar eminence, struggled with the same problem. In its 1949 and 1950 issues it gave the 1939 “estimated” Jewish world population as 16,838,000 and that of 1949 as 11,385,200, a reduction of nearly 5,500,000. However, the figures given for Jewish population in separate countries added up to 13,120,000 (not 11,385,200). Incidentally, Whitaker’s in 1950 gave the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. as 5,300,000, against the World Almanac’s figure for the same year, of 2,000,000.

Both these publications are of the highest repute for painstaking accuracy and the fault is not theirs; in this one matter alone only Jewish “estimates” are available, and for obvious reasons no dependence can be placed on these. I pointed out the discrepancies in a book of 1951 and observed that Whitaker’s in 1952 no longer contained these “estimates of Jewish populations”; apparently it had abandoned the statistical quest as hopeless, and was right to do so. Another encyclopaedia in its 1950 edition also dropped the subject.

Finally, the New York Times, which may be described as the world’s leading Jewish newspaper (it is Jewish-owned and New York is today primarily a Jewish city) in 1948 published what claimed to be an authoritative statistical article, computing the Jewish population of the world (three years after the war’s end) between 15,700,000 and 18,600,000. If either figure was near truth this meant that the Jewish world-population had remained stationary or increased during the war years.

Newspaper articles are soon forgotten (unless some diligent student preserves them) but the great propagandist fabrications are handed on. Thus the historians, those men of precision in other questions, passed on the legend of “mass-extermination” to posterity. At the war’s end Professor Arnold J. Toynbee was producing his monumental Study of History and in its eighth volume (1954) said that “the Nazis … reduced the Jewish population of Continental Europe, west of the Soviet Union, from about 6,5 million to about l,5 million by a process of mass-extermination.” He called this “a bare statistical statement” and then added a footnote showing that it was not a statistical statement: “it is not possible to give exact figures based on accurate statistics and it seemed improbable in 1952 that the necessary information would ever be obtainable.” Professor Toynbee explains that his figure was based on Jewish “calculations, in which there were several possible sources of error.” He concludes that “it might be estimated” that five million Continental Jews had been done to death by the Nazis.

The estimate is historically valueless. The starting-point for consideration of this question is the fact that six million Jews, or anything approaching that number, cannot possibly have been “done to death” or caused to “perish,” for the reasons given at the start of this discussion; the very assertion, made before the Nuremberg court, was an affront to their 825,000 fighting-men, sailors and civilians, killed in all theatres of war, of which only the Western politicians of this century would have been capable.

The number of Jews who were killed or perished will never be known, for the reasons already stated and partly discovered by Professor Toynbee in his footnote to history. The very term “Jew” is indefinable; Jews are often not isolated in statistics; and at no time can the number of living Jews in the world be ascertained with any approach to accuracy. Indeed, any attempt to reach statistical clarity through census or immigration data is attacked as “discrimination” and “anti-semitism.” For instance:

“Immigrants seeking to settle in Australia will from now on not be asked on application forms if they are Jewish, it was made known in Sydney by the executive committee of Australian Jewry, which protested against this practice to the immigration authorities” (the Jewish Times, Johannesburg). In England, “it is impossible, in the absence of official statistics, to do more than make an intelligent guess … the exact number of Jews in Britain remains a mystery” (the Zionist Record, Johannesburg). In America, President Roosevelt was brought under unremitting pressure to abolish the requirement to state “Jewish” on immigration forms, and in 1952 a major campaign was waged by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee against the McCarran-Walter Act because it sought to restore this requirement. This act was in the event passed over President Truman’s veto, but even a rigorous application of the reinstated requirement would not lead to clarification, as applicants, if they wish, may insert “British” or any similar description, instead of “Jewish.”

This state of statistical affairs is now well-nigh universal, so that the whole question is a mystery and has deliberately been made one. None can even guess the number of Jews whose deaths, during the war, were not natural or the result of bombing and the like, but who were done to death by the Nazis. My opinion is that, whatever was the number of Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler, the number of their victims was in roughly that proportion to the total population stricken, Polish, Czech and other. I have found this to be the opinion of all persons known to me who survived the concentration camps and occupations. Having suffered themselves, their feeling for Jewish victims was as strong as for all others, but they could not understand why the one case of the Jews was singled out and the number of Jewish victims monstrously exaggerated.
——-

Sweden: Bishop (member of billionaire Jewish media dynasty) wants to censor and edit the Christian Bible

 

http://blog.balder.org/?p=1565Balder'sBlogLogo

Jewish Bishop behind Bible falsification
Sweden: Bishop (member of billionaire Jewish media dynasty) wants to censor and edit the Christian Bible   
By Balder
April 26, 2013

Aake-Bonnier-Bishop-Sweden-Skara-Stift-Jewish-Convert-260

         Bishop Aake Bonnier – Sweden

The Bishop in Skara Stift in Sweden, Aake Bonnier, has become an advocate for falsifying the Bible, since he thinks that the Bible ought to be edited in such a way, that every piece of criticism of the Jews is removed from the Christian Bible.

He allegedly wants to remove the anti-Semitism of Christianity, and he has chosen deception as his tool. That was not very smart, for if one begins with cheating, the project will of course never be accepted.

Aake (Åke) Bonnier was born into the wealthy Jewish publishing family, and he has converted to Christianity, but perhaps he was not all that sincere, taking his latest anti Christian project into account.

Bonnier demands that the Swedish Church stops its alleged Christian misinterpretation of Biblical texts about Jews and Judaism, and cleanse the Christian Liturgy of any type of anti Jewish perspective.

Church to deny difference between Old and New Testament

Manis-Friedman-Chabad-Rabbi-Kill-Men-Woman-Children-600

And even more outrageous, he wants the Church to deny the crucial difference between the Old and the New Testament! This demand practically means that the Church is to give up the meaning of the coming of Christ, the very core event in the New Testament.

That Bishop Aake Bonnier’s project is outrageous and mad, is obvious for many Christian Swedes, but sadly he is protected by his enormous fortune and that of his family; more specifically his family’s influence in the Swedish press has shielded him from a lot of public criticism he otherwise would have been subjected to.

The Church ought to purify itself by excommunicating the false Christian Aake Bonnier, who intends to attack the very soul of Christianity with a forged Bible. But Aake Bonnier’s outrageous attempt to create a falsification of the Bible, sadly enough is not the first time this has been tried.

Quote from Kristeligt Dagblad June 6. 2007:

Abraham-Cooper-Rabbi-Wiesenthal-Center-Liberal-Protestan-Churches-Threat-To-Israel

‘The politically correct Bible, which was published in Germany in the autumn of 2006, is now being heavily criticized by the Evangelical Church in Germany’ [Not to be confused with the American group with the same name].

The character of the Bible and its language makes it unsuitable for services in the Evangelical Church. Martin Luther’s translation will continue to be the most important text during services, the Council of the Evangelical Church said in a press statement, where the Evangelical Church distances itself from the new politically correct ‘translation’ of the Bible.

About 1200 sponsors and the Evangelical Church in Hessen and Nassau have financed the publication of the politically correct Bible. For five long years 52 men and woman have been working on the translation. The result is a text where men and woman are pictured as equal, and where there are no negative depictions of Jews and minorities.

This must be the worst form of deceit known to men. Falsifying the Bible in order ‘to protect Jews and minorities’.

Jerusalem Post – Ovadia Yosef |

Screencap-Ovadia-Yosef-Gentiles-Exist-Only-To-Serve-Jews-Jerusalem-Post

This is an excellent example of what kind of evil individuals these politically correct people are. They don’t even stop at falsifying the Bible, the Holy Book, such big and evil heretics and criminals they are, and just because they themselves don’t care about the Word, they think that ordinary Europeans have completely forgotten what the Bible actually says.

In the News Testament of the Christian Bible, there is no doubt that the Jews turned against Christ, and that they are to blame for his death, and no falsifications and fraud can change these facts, whether one likes it or not, and there are millions of Christians all around the world, who know quite well what the Bible says.

—–

By Kaj Vilhelmsen / some minor edits and right hand column additions by Balder

Source:
?Nationaldemokraten 25 april 2013 – Biskop Åke Bonnier bag bibelforfalskning (Kaj Vilhelmsen)

The Real Terror is the Law by John Kaminski

BOSTON-MARATHON-BOMBING.jpg_full_600

The Real Terror is the Law

Hear the chant of the mindless monster — ‘USA! USA!’

NOW YOU CAN BE EXECUTED
FOR MERELY BEING A SUSPECT

By John Kaminski
pseudoskylax@gmail.com
https://therebel.org/kaminski

 

One thing is certain. It is the cops who are committing the crimes.

In the name of terror, they brutalize the public with concocted fantasies and real episodes of self-destructive social sadism.

And in the name of national security, they mislead everyone into believing that crimes are being committed when in reality the cops are creating the crimes themselves, staging “drills” that turn into live events, hiring “crisis actors” to pose as victims, and feeding false information to media maggots ever eager to fan the flames of fear.

Now you can be executed — as we have just learned — for merely being a suspect — with no evidence, no trial, and no finding of guilt, but only by the hysteria generated by the false testimony of the cops amplified and spread throughout the world by corrupt media.

This is how the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act works in real time.

The cops can commit constant perjury and remain immune from prosecution because the legal system, totally awash in corruption, protects them, while the gullible public, believing what they hear on TV, puts their hands across their hearts and chants “USA USA” without ever really comprehending the deeper reality of what is going on.

This is the new anthem signifying uncritical endorsement of fear and criminal behavior wherever it is heard — “USA! USA!”

It is a blood libel against all of humanity. No one is safe from it, not even the people practicing it for a paycheck nor the social strategists inventing it for purposes of control.

The cops are supposed to protect us, but their mission has curdled. They have turned the law into a weapon of mass murder.

Now, everyone is a criminal and you’re guilty until proven innocent. Babies are being snatched from their parents for not submitting their newborns to poisoned vaccinations. The new Gov. Cuomo in New York has just signed a law that all psychiatric records are now the property of the government.

There is no longer any such thing as doctor-patient confidentiality, which means your life is no longer your own.

Now, they’re creating crimes rather than fighting them, just as doctors now create diseases rather than eliminating them. Can you say “swine flu shot” without choking on the phrase?

Now, when you go to a doctor, you are committing a crime against yourself, by jeopardizing your own freedom by challenging new laws that spawn the real terror in the world. Our demonic President Obama has pontificated that he can kill anyone he wants without a trial at any time for any reason. The day has already arrived when people, especially parents, are being put in jail for refusing vaccines. How much worse can it get?

Be certain that it will.

Some people don’t care. Others are simply not capable of understanding.

The rest of us who are aware to one degree or another endlessly troll the Internet for each new depravity, wondering in astonishment how we could have sunk so far so fast, how we could have permitted all these evil actions and trends to flourish, and grow progressively worse with each passing day.

It’s no exaggeration to say the future of America and the world hangs in the balance. It is the people who don’t care who control the fate of the world.

Those who will decide whether we all live or die are people who really don’t want to know the truth, who don’t care whether the government is killing its own citizens, who just want to be left alone with their addictions, compulsions, and delusions, with their favorite TV shows and self-destructive jobs.

Those who just want to watch football, go shopping, and eat pizza.

Preaching to the choir doesn’t work. It only sinks those of us who are aware more deeply into depression and frustration. Too many of us now realize it is the people who don’t care who matter most. It is up to us to convince them, and we haven’t.

Convince them of what?

That the information they receive shapes their lives, and prejudices every decision they make in their lives with deliberately falsified facts.

The question of freedom in the minds of Americans hangs on the question of whether or not the U.S. government is killing its own citizens to achieve total control of everyone’s mind, thereby eliminating the possibility of dissent. TV news is shaped to the same purpose.

The notion of freedom in America precariously teeters on the question of whether the government is deliberately killing its own citizens to achieve the goals of the rich power brokers.

People who stock up on guns, bulk food and ham radios are just fooling themselves. You can’t win a firefight with the American war machine. And you can’t survive with any degree of health amid a society that has gone totally rancid.

The lady who lost her legs on Boylston Street doesn’t know about Waco. But no lady lost her legs in the staged Boston Marathon massacre. IT WAS A DRILL. She was an amputee hired as a crisis actor, and she did her job well. What a thrill it must be to know she helped the cops make everybody more afraid.

What a sick society. This is the ultimate outcome of not paying attention to the forces who control our lives. This is what happens when we let someone else usurp responsibility for our own lives.

Reality has separated into two parts. It has bifurcated into two levels of consciousness, one that thinks and one that doesn’t. One that reacts to made-up terror dramas and cringes in fear, and one that gathers real facts and ineffectually rails against injustice.

The one thing that is never mentioned is the real cause of all the problems. Because it is against the law to be mentioned, the problems never get solved. The problems only get worse. And the true cause is never identified openly.

For the last two decades, terrorist incidents like blown-up buildings and mass shootings at schools have proliferated. These are what has caused the need for “terror drills” in the first place.

In recent days, after alleged mass shootings at Aurora and Sandy Hook, plus the Boston Marathon bombing, numerous courageous writers have diligently uncovered the scams, pointed out the inconsistencies, and chronicled the shifting cover stories.

But, again, conspicuous by its absence has been any mention of the real cause.

The Jewish penetration and subversion of reality.

(I notice with fear and loathing that Jewish writers have pretty much taken over the opposition, providing Jewish solutions to problems created by Jews in the first place.)

Few people have actually noticed that ever since the assassination of President William McKinley way back in the year 1900, the real cause of all these tragic public events throughout the 20th century — the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the Great Depression, both World Wars, Vietnam, Oklahoma City, 9/11 and the endless succession of terror bombings, the constant attacks and obliteration of the Muslim countries, and most recently the Aurora, Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon sideshows — have all been devised and carried out by the same evil source — cops trained in Israel and soldiers who act without thinking about their immortal souls.

But this source of endless terror is never mentioned, because this same source controls virtually all public media in the world, controls every aspect of it, in ways we still haven’t completely perceived, such as gangsta rap, free sex and the legalization of drugs.

That source is the Jewish mafia, which has perverted our schools, lobotomized our media, perverted our social institutions through non-profit think tanks, and prostituted our children with poisoned drugs and depraved subversive trends masquerading as personal liberation.

And if you do mention it, you probably don’t get published, unless you’re reading discontented sites like this one, hard to find, marginalized, and ridiculed by people who don’t really know what they’re talking about, yet who insist they do, because they got their information from sources who never mention the magic word.

Lawyers collude against their clients, doctors poison their own patients, teachers fill their students’ minds with crap they know is false — this suicidal course was all created by the Jews, just like the erudite commentators who continue to insist Muslims blew up the Twin Towers, white people have plundered the world and deserve to be offed, and you can live a happy life is you just take this bribe, or take this drug, and forget about the rest of it, because there’s nothing you can do about anyway.

Please notice how all the presidential assistants are Jews, how all the lawyers and doctors who craft new laws that threaten our lives are Jews, and how all elected officials are in thrall to the Jews because that’s the only way they can acquire the loans to get themselves elected.

Please notice how all the people on Wall Street who have stolen trillions from the American people are Jews, who read the news on TV and justify government oppression are Jews, and who draw enormous salaries from the government for jobs that don’t really need to exist are Jews or Jew slaves.

Please notice how any news source that forbids the use of the word “Jew” should never be trusted, because it means they are spouting propaganda that has been screened by the Jews, or at least, by not mentioning them, are generally speaking in fear of the Jews.

And most importantly, please notice how any news source that speaks of terrorists as a genuine entity— and specifically the fictional creation known as Al-Qaeda — is simply vomiting Jewish propaganda, because Al-Qaeda is the false flag creation of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Mossad, and the CIA, and is now successfully spreading to every corner of the world as EITHER the reason for the need for military action by armies that the Jews control, or as allies against countries that the Jews want to destroy.

Such convenient terrorists they are, used to fight EITHER for us or against us, depending on what the situation demands. In Afghanistan, they were the targets of our bombs; but in Libya, they were the deliverers of our bombs.

It’s the people who don’t care who matter most now, because they are the ones who uncritically believe the hip but misleading jargon they hear on TV and give the government the excuse it needs to continue its slick deceptions that sicken the general public and spread profit-making diseases across the planet.

923462_362389350527972_761074762_n

It’s the people who don’t care who control the fate of the world, and it’s up to us who do care to convince them that they must care, that the real terror is the law, and that the real criminals are our leaders, and the cops who follow their criminal orders. Without the people who don’t care realizing their indifference is leading to our destruction, we are unquestionably doomed to a painful and diseased oblivion.

So if you understand this message, get to work, because only numbers — and I’m talking tens of millions of people demanding the trial and execution of all these killer millionaires who fix elections and avoid paying taxes with overseas bank accounts — can at this late date hope to save our world and our lives.

Get the Jews out of government, out of schools, out of our minds. As Ben Franklin predicted so long ago, our children will curse us in our graves if we let the Jews sabotage and destroy our country, which they have already pretty much accomplished.

But as long as we don’t give up our guns, stop going to doctors, and never trust the Jewish-dominated mainstream media, it’s not too late to stop them.

The key is getting the people who don’t care to understand that the future of humanity — the whole shooting match — depends on them waking up to the sorry fact that they are being systematically robbed and killed by organizations that are supposed to protect them and make them healthy, but are doing exactly the opposite.

Given the debauched and debilitated condition of the gullible boobs who populate the United States, I concede this is a tall order. Unfortunately, the only alternative is the Jewish program of mass deception and extermination that is already well under way, and has been for at least a hundred years.
__________

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.

https://therebel.org/kaminski
http://johnkaminski.info/
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040323232319/http://johnkaminski.com/

Hydraulic Fracturing [“Fracking”] Worldwide by Robin Mathews

WieboHeader700 copy

Hydraulic Fracturing [“Fracking”] Worldwide.
Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta. Encana Corporation. Market Manipulation. Derivative Bubbles and The Fracking Wars.

By Robin Mathews
rmathews@telus.net

April 26, 2013

They merge.  They interpenetrate. The thread of one weaves into the fabric of the others. “Fracking” operations rush past law, past regulation, past health and environmental concerns. Supporters of ‘quick cash’, gas ‘futures’ pass corporate-written law to silence land-owners, elected councils, voters … you and me.

Narrowly – “fracking” legislation and regulatory behaviour push aside, silence anyone questioning a dangerous procedure. Broadly – they strip away the Rule of Law, disenfranchise populations, ‘despotize’ governments.

In Alberta, Stephen Harper, Alison Redford, Encana Corporation, the newly appointed Alberta Regulator Gerard Protti (enforcing newly written law), and – so far – The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Neil Wittmann all merge … interpenetrate to hold off remedial action – to create toxic law, toxic wealth, toxic environment.

People waken worldwide and begin to battle corporations, “regulators”, police forces, legislatures, courts – the dominators determined to engage in “unconventional drilling” (hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracking’). Conflict on the subject continues.  France (2011) Bulgaria (2012), and Tunisia have banned hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’). It continues in Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, the U.S.A., and more.

Hydraulic Fracturing is the intensive assault on shale, and coal beds, through multiple well bores (often invading water tables) to release marketable gas.  “Fracking” uses giant amounts of sand, water, toxic chemical-mixes near the surface or miles down to fracture strata – ‘fracking’ – for marketable gas.

FrackinWomen

Said to be ‘old hat’ (sixty years old), present hydraulic fracturing to release marketable natural gas has new aspects and possesses multiple knowns and unknowns. Hyper-industrialization of agrarian sites: outcomes unknown. Increased earthquake activity: recorded. Unforeseen “leak gas” explosions: recorded. Increased cancer incidence close to oil and gas wells: measured.  Ground water sources polluted: common, but extent and health effects unknown. Water Tables lowered: unpredictable but occurring. “Migration”/leaks of gases over time: unpredictable but certain and increasingly frequent. Toxic effects on water, soil, animal life, human health: certain, unregulated, largely unresearched, information repressed.

FarmerLady

The commonly named ‘radioactive threat’ is only now starting to be researched.  A. Rich, E.C. Crosby, University of Texas  [New Solutions, Vol. 23 (1), 117-135, 2013] reveal (in layman’s language) that a cocktail of radioactive agents are set free especially by ‘unconventional’ (‘fracking’) gas operations. Radioactive agents are found in depositories [sludge storage, waste pits, storage pools] – AND in the land no longer used for those purposes.

“Out of Control: Nova Scotia’s Experience with Fracking for Shale Gas”, Report Summary, April 2013” reports that from the few test wells undertaken radioactive materials were found to be present “only several years after drilling and disposal of some of the waste….” (p. 4)

Jessica Ernst (Rosebud, Alberta) reports that sludge from fracking operations is spread on agricultural lands in Alberta.

JessicaErnstRosebud

In Alberta, (using Joyce Nelson’s words) “the government has introduced draconian legislation (Bill 2) that would strip landowners and others of their right to object to any energy project that would adversely and directly affect them.” (Watershed Sentinel, Jan-Feb, 2013)  The determined action envisioned in Bill 2 is doubtless a response to Jessica Ernst’s $33 million lawsuit against Encana Corporation and Alberta’s regulator. And so – one may conclude – is the switching of judges on her case.  And so is, one may conclude, (what I would call) the concerted delay engaged in by Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Neil Wittmann.  He is the highly dubious present judge on the Jessica Ernst case.

Something is seriously wrong in Canada. And globally. Evidence is mounting of real, multiple dangers in hydraulic fracturing. Legislatures should be restraining, researching, proving, regulating … preventing … at high speed. But legislatures, joining with corporations, courts, security forces are – often – deregulating, erasing evidence, punishing protesters, repressing criticism.

The whole operation world-wide is so dangerous, so untested, so irresponsible, so despotic, that reasons have to be available for largely unresearched, unregulated hydraulic fracturing in the face of its perils.

And reasons are available.

First. Think of Wiebo Ludwig (1941-2012) of Trickle Creek farm, Peace River, Alberta, fighting “Sour Gas” fracking.  Sour gas “a potent neurotoxin, has left a legacy of death and destruction….” (Andrew Nikiforuk). Think of the attacks on Sour Gas operations around Trickle Creek. Think of the millions of dollars spent to investigate the attacks on Sour Gas fracking around Trickle Creek.

 
SourGaspic600 3

Think of the threats and attacks in B.C. near Chetwyn against Encana Corporation operations and the millions of dollars spent to investigate.

Think of the RCMP/Encana Corporation, alleged to have created a “false flag” and blowing up an Encana well site to spur on distress – no charges laid. Then think of the millions of dollars spent to investigate, charge, jail, and reinvestigate Wiebo Ludwig. One example of many: “RCMP conducted a four-day [fruitless] search of Trickle Creek (2010) involving over a hundred RCMP officers.” (Wikipedia)

Think of Wiebo Ludwig (but do not speak of him).  Think of him driven to desperation by Sour Gas fracking. (But do not speak of him.) Think of his repeated (unanswered) pleas to Alberta government for regulation, for research, inquiry, and investigation of hydraulic fracturing. (But do not speak of him – or risk being accused of sympathizing with lawlessness, terrorist activity.)

Who will speak of the terrorism of Alison Redford, Stephen Harper, Encana Corporation, Gerard Protti and the Alberta Regulators, legislators of Alberta, and – so far – of Neil Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in openly, or tacitly, or passively accepting and/or furthering what many believe is a ruthless attack on the health, the well-being, the security, the privacy, the property, and the reasonable tranquility of honest, law-abiding, innocent Albertans?

JessicaFirewaterUntitled

Alberta may be seen as a poster-location for the kinds of violation named above. But – in various ways – such invasions are happening widely on the planet.   And there is a reason.

LSE professor Lord (Nicholas) Stern and thinktank Carbon Tracker state in a recent Report noted by Damian Carrington in The Guardian (Apr. 19, 2013) that instead of “reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn…in 2012 to find and exploit more….” That is about the sum named in a 2006 report that would “pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy”.

Stock markets “are betting on countries’ inaction on climate change”, the Report says. Stock markets are creating a Carbon Bubble not unlike the massive mortgage/derivatives/fake credit scandal of 2008. “If all goes well” – I say – countries will insist on internationally agreed Climate Change targets, and the “Carbon Bubble” will burst because of over-valuation of oil, coal, and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies.  If all does not go well – Climate Change will ramp up beyond control.

It may be fair to say the same kinds of ‘investors’ are engaged in the present Carbon Bubble as were engaged in the 2008 blow-up … criminally irresponsible people willing to cause any kinds of destruction in their drive for wealth. The whole fossil fuels Bubble is being driven by greed … by big, irresponsible money.

To meet only present agreed Climate Change targets, it is estimated that at least two-thirds of present so-called fossil fuel ‘reserves’ will have to remain unexploited. But … instead of diminishing the push presently going on for hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), it will probably intensify the push. As long as the pollutions created by hydraulic fracturing, by the huge environmental disruptions involved in its activities, and by the waste dumps it creates – as long as they aren’t registered by the present ‘Climate Change/global warming’ regulation machineries, the obviously destructive and dirty activity will be called “clean”.

Pumps&Swings

(But science knows the methane gas leaking and leaking into the environment (almost unmeasured and unrecorded) from oil and gas operations is a potent climate changer! Methane is said to be 25 times more potent in relation to Climate Change than carbon dioxide.  Who will bell the leaking methane cat?)

Redneck and Redford governments in Ottawa and Alberta (and elsewhere in the world) will attempt to criminalize any who resist “unconventional gas drilling” (‘fracking’). They will provide aid and comfort to corporations like Encana Corporation, and they will work to undermine courts seeking just adjudication of disputes about injury done from hydraulic fracturing.  They will do what they can to push for Liquid Natural Gas pipelines – hoping that a Climate Change clampdown on conventional extractions will raise prices on Hydraulically Fractured Gas.

Here is huge field for environmentalists, many of whom are already engaged in the gigantic task of revealing that – however it may (or may not) register on Climate Change measuring devices – the pollution from unconventional gas drilling (hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracking’) is a very, very Dirty Wildcat. Out of (seemingly) nowhere, in the last twenty years at most, one of the dirtiest “mining” operations in history has come into play and into visibility.

The more governments – like the Redneck government in Ottawa and the Redford government in Alberta – are absorbed into private corporate operations and dictated to by those corporations, the more they will resist just demands by citizens and populations for regulation.

The fight is worth it. The outcome certain. People all over the globe will not, ultimately, permit huge corporations and huge governments to desecrate the planet.  “The bigger they are”, remember, “the harder they fall.”
——

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

GuenterDeckerHeader copy

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller

“A prison sentence will not force me into believing.”
~ Guenter Deckert

“When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition.  … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.”

Guenter Deckert1 copy

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.18.38 PM
The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.03 PM

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged “right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged “NSU”,  Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012  was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

 

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.27 PM

CarloM300

On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide.  At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example  the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.45 PM

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert  wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly  presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung,  a Jew, by someone or another   (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

“Known to the court” to be challenged”

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:

“I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.”

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag  12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.”

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court”  the following decisions have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of  “known to the court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning “the Holocaust is a  fact, known to the court” with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II – 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of “Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, “…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it “… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the court.”

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using “ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”

Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the court?”

It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court”, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the “deniers.”

Abuse of procedural rights

After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.

The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first  principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail   circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt  Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote  that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.

The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the court“ (chairman – Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.”

“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because “the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.

The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known to the court” needs to be discussed.

According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.  

The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court research” to which the accused is not entitled.

The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.

On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.

Historical facts are deliberately ignored

The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.

Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:

According to the court’s knowledge “the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact” in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.

According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?

According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?

According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called “Holocaust”, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the court”  I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with “the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of “fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of  the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which “fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court.” The chamber is mistaken.  I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an established fact known to the court” since “an established fact known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.” It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged.  The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not 

My motion of  January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct.  I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”

[Read more...]

Letter to Chief Judge of British Columbia from Jim Townsend

JIMTNewsUPdate copy

Letter to Chief Judge of British Columbia

Wednesday, April 17th, 2013
 
Office of the Chief Judge of British Columbia
 
Mr. Chief Judge,

I am in receipt of the response penned by your boy Gene Jamieson.

He does not appear to have understood my complaint or who I complained about. He mentions ‘the Honourable Judge M. McKimm’. Never met the guy. I am complaining about the black robed dead beat Mayland McKimm who used his position of authority to knowingly and with absolute malice of forethought aid and abet crimes against me with his court.

The fairy tale is that we go to court for Justice. The poster of Justice Blindfolded, deaf and mute as a post in the lobby shows how laughable that contention is.

It is not that everyone in your court conspired to pervert the course of justice. The Right Honourable Judge Klinger put the kybosh on the plans to send me to prison for being the victim of RCMP grow operators committing crimes against me to protect their grow operations out past my mining claim on North Fork Road. But Judges Takahashi and Burdett also happily jumped on the band wagon to try to railroad me and between them and McKimm had me serve a sentence without trial or conviction.

After a protracted harassment campaign to drive me from my mining claim, RCMP Henry Proce had his informant Bruce Prebushewski try to murder my family in a drive by shooting. My wife and I know this because Henry mocked us about it and told us no one would ever do anything about it. He even mocked me as I was lead out of the court in chains and asked how the system was working for me. Bruce’s uncle Arne Gatzke also showed up the next day and told me his nephew Bruce did it.

Bruce Prebushewski has shot through another disabled persons home a few months ago and then a few weeks ago was arrested for being over twice the legal limit with a loaded rifle making death threats to his uncle. Being as how his grandfather is the local alderman who fully supports the grow operations being overseen by Henry Proce, needless to say Brucey is walking around free. Good work fellas. Yeah that’s what we pay you for.

After the attempt to murder us my disability worker cut off my disability cheque saying he was investigating the drive by shooting. I wanted to know how he even knew about it since it hadn’t even made the papers yet at that time. When he instead turned around and made phoney accusations about us, I wrote a letter of complaint about him to the Ombudsman about his suspicious knowledge of the drive by shooting. In short, I wrote a petition to my government for redress. For my pains, Sgt. Wendland had me arrested and charged with uttering threats because he ‘had his panties in a knot’. Seriously, check the transcripts where the arresting officer admits this on the stand in front of the Right Honourable Judge Klinger. The charges were laid to cover up my complaint. The Ombudsman said they would not investigate because the RCMP had charged me. Convenient.

When I then complained to the RCMP Complaints Commission about Wendland and Proce, Wendland and Proce simply turned around and laid more charges of uttering threats against me USING THE SAME EVIDENCE THEY USED IN THE FIRST CHARGE that was supposed to be evidence that I uttered threats to Pat Clemens and was somehow now two years later evidence that I had uttered threats to the police officers that were trying to cover up their informants attempt to murder us. Since that was the second set of charges and I was already charged of course I had to go to jail. The RCMP are well aware of how to manipulate the system to get away with their crimes.

Your Vernon court officers are crooked as Hell and readily aid and abet RCMP crimes and lies about the victims they drag into court. I was arrested the first time in order to prevent me from attending Supreme court to get my mining claims back. Since I was in jail, I sent my wife to represent me but they would not allow her to speak to the case saying it had been adjourned indefinitely by mutual consent. Whose consent? Neither I, nor my wife consented to it. I was not given a bail hearing. Duty Counsel Bill Furman appointed himself my counsel against my wishes and had a private ex parte hearing with JP Dalene Krenz instead. They sent my wife and daughter upstairs to sit and wait in court all day for my hearing and left me in a prison cell. My wife and daughter left at the end of the day wondering why I did not have a hearing.

After nearly a month I finally managed to get a bail hearing. Ever heard of the JIR? Ask Gene about it and he will tell you that I am supposed to have a bail hearing within three days. Unfortunately a friend put up some money for a lawyer who was a dead beat and I believe decided to conspire with the Crown. She grabbed two thousand dollars of my funds for a bail hearing in which she did nothing to defend me or protest the allegations against me. I should never have had to put up any money for bail, should never have been under house arrest and above all, should never had my charter right to freedom of speech limited, especially without the benefit of a trial or conviction. Of such despotism rebellions are made. Judge McKimm simply granted everything the Crown Prosecutor Pontius, who did nothing but lie his face off, asked for.

While I was under house arrest, CRA seized my disability cheque. That is not legal and is outright theft, a criminal code violation against us that left myself and my disabled wife in the high alpine fifty miles from our nearest neighbour without even the basic necessities of life. I believe this attack was initiated by Proce. CRA files obtained under FOIA show that while he had me in jail and court under phoney charges that he was telling CRA lies about us. They did give us our money back when public outrage and many phone calls to them forced them to give it back. But I went to jail for making the video about the crimes being committed against us.

[Read more...]

Are Canadians Really That Stupid? by Arthur Topham

RothschildStar copy

ATMug200

by
Arthur Topham
April 24, 2013

I think about this often – the fact that the vast majority of Canadians can’t seem to figure out that their legal system is still grafted on to that of a foreign nation, i.e. Great Britain.

Given the fact that I’m facing the prospect of having to defend myself against spurious, malicious lies given to Canada’s RCMP “Hate Crime Unit” headed by Cst. Terry Wilson from the Surrey, B.C. precinct by two of the most chronic and overly zealous Zionist zealots who have ever slithered about upon Canadian soil (Harry Abrams and Richard Warman) – fabricated falsehoods that have morphed into criminal charges of a nature that could result in my having to spend two years in a federal penitentiary, I have good reason to contemplate the nature of how Britain is mixed up in this sordid conspiracy.

Now I can understand quite easily that any Canadian citizen who feels they are being unjustly treated should have the right to go to the authorities and state their concerns. This seems to me to be both a wise and fair right in any democratic nation and the only sensible alternative to prevent a citizen from having to take the law into their own hands for their protection and safety.

Even in the case of these two reprehensible, low-life, malevolent troglodytes I have no beef with their right to seek redress for their imagined persecution and hurt feelings. But what I do object to though, in the most fervent and strenuous manner possible, is the fact that I am being forced to argue my case and defend my rights in a supposed Canadian court of law where the pathetic plaintiff’s in this charade are able to have the queen of a foreign country act on their behalf and attempt to prosecute and find me guilty of supposed “hate crimes” against people of the Jewish faith as well as citizens of yet another foreign country, to wit, Israel.

Of course I am referring here to what in Canadian legal jurisprudence is referred to as the “Crown”. In Black’s Law Dictionary the term “Crown” is referred to as “the sovereign power in a monarchy, especially in relation to the punishment of crimes.” To be even more specific the “Crown” is the representative in England of the Rothschild banking cartel that owns and controls the independent state known as the “City of London” and whose public representative is Regina or what Canadians think of as the “Queen of England”.

Now in jolly ol’ England where they have had kings and queens for thousands of years one can easily imagine that their legal system would have the right to use that term and to employ it in any manner they so desire.

There is also a Latin term used in English law which is “Regina” and according to Black’s Law Dictionary it means, simply, “the queen”. Again, fine and dandy for all those who live in Great Britain and wish to be ruled under such conditions.

But I don’t live in England. I live in what is purported to be the sovereign country known as Canada. As I understand it I also live in an independent nation that has its own Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So the obvious question that arises when I look at the legal documents which are before me is: why am I being prosecuted by “Regina” the queen of England and why is the “Crown” involved in my case?

Why, instead, is not the Canadian Legal System taking me task for alleged breaches of the Canadian Criminal Code instead of the queen of a foreign nation? In fact, how can it even be a legal possibility that “Regina” is against me and bringing forth an action against my person on behalf of two Canadian troglodytes when “Regina” is not even a Canadian citizen nor a bona fide representative of Canada?

Are Canadians really that stupid and dumbed down to the point where this glaring contradiction doesn’t register upon their critical thinking abilities?

If, in fact, we are indeed an independent and sovereign nation then why are we still using such legal terminology in our judicial processes? Why do we act as if we are independent and yet still keep using “the queen”  and the “Crown” to represent what ought to be the highest and most legally authoritative designations within Canada’s legal institutions? It’s incorrect. It’s wrong; both legally and morally, and it begs the ultimate question as to the absolute legality and authority of all that purports to be Canada’s legitimate constitutional right to exist!

For Canadians to merely shrug (as Canadians are wont to do) and attempt to dismiss this crucial point as mere linguistics or sophistry on my part is not acceptable. The actual and true legitimacy of Canada as a sovereign and independent nation among other nations of the world depends upon our recognition within our legal system of the FACT of our sovereignty and that FACT must be reflected in the stated reality that Canada’s courts are being represented by Judges and lawyers who are beholding only to Canada and its Constitution.

As the justice system now exists it clearly points to a condition wherein Canada does not actually have a true and independent existence nor does it have a legitimate constitution, i.e., one that has been certified and sanctified by a vote of the whole population of the nation via a plebiscite. If it did we would not still be represented in our independent courts by “Regina” and the “Crown” but by Canada and its appointed representatives.

Is it really that difficult to comprehend or are Canadians just too stupid to see the contradiction?

What’s Up with Bill C-304?

http://humanrightscommissions.ca/index.php/home/181-whats-up-with-bill-c-304Screen Shot 2013-04-20 at 11.42.24 AM
What’s Up with Bill C-304?

Many of our readers are quite familiar with Bill C-304, that freedom-enhancing bill sponsored by Mr. Brian Storseth that seeks to repeal the censorship powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. It passed through the House of Commons relatively easily and moved on to the Senate. That was (at time of writing) 314 days ago. As we reported back in February, the Bill is still languishing there in the Senate, stuck at the “second reading” stage. So what’s going on? As Connie Fournier over at Free Dominion notes, controversial 400+ page omnibus budget bills sail through the Senate in 11 days! The gun registry bill passed in 49 days. What gives? Why is a so-called “Conservative” dominated Senate holding up a free speech bill when 99% of the Conservative membership voted in favour of free speech at the latest policy convention? Is there maybe a link here with the fact that under the Conservative government, funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission has actually increased? We hope not.

senate of canada1

                                Senate of Canada

 

Here are two things you can do:

1. Below is a sample letter for Senators that you can copy and paste into your email browser. We recommend that you edit the letter to make it as personal as possible. Then select the Senators that are in your province (see the list below for B.C., Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario as well as a complete list of all Senators). Copy their email addresses into your “to” field. Create your own subject line. Send off the email. Also, consider calling a few of them to chat directly about this issue and why it matters to you!

2. Below the Senate letter is a sample letter for the Prime Minister. Send that email to the Prime Minister as well, but also (and this is key!) follow up with a phone call afterwards. Just tell whoever answers the phone exactly what’s in the sample letter. The contact information is listed below the sample letter.

That’s it! You’ve just contributed to the preservation of freedom in this country! Thank you.

Sample Senate letter:

Dear Honourable Senator,

I’ve just learned about Bill C-304, the free speech bill. The Bill seeks to ensure freedom of expression for all Canadians by repealing section 13 (the censorship provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This Bill needs to pass through the Senate soon. I understand that it has been stuck in the Senate for over 300 days already!

Some people argue that section 13 is necessary to protect vulnerable groups. However, the evidence is quite the opposite. The section has been abused by a select few for their own purposes and financial gain. And real instances of hate speech are already prohibited in the Criminal Code, which has the proper legal safeguards for fair trials.

Honourable Senator, it is obvious to me that section 13 has to go and that Bill C-304 should pass. Please vote for it and ask all other Senators to do the same.

Thank you for your service to this country.

Sincerely yours,

 

Sample Prime Minister letter:

To the Right Honourable Stephen Harper,

Dear Prime Minister,

I’m sure you are familiar with Bill C-304, the free speech bill. You have consistently voted for it in the House of Commons. In fact, 99% of the membership of your Conservative Party also favour the bill. This is why I am contacting you: I am very confused as to why your so-called “Conservative” Senate appointees are holding this bill up. The anti-censorship bill has been stuck in the Senate for well over 300 days now. Is there anything you can do to encourage them to get this necessary bill passed? For the sake of freedom, please have the Senate pass this bill like they did your omnibus bills.

Sincerely yours,

 

Contact information for Prime Minister Harper

Telephone: 613-992-4211

EMail: stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca

Senators: BC
campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca
jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca
martin@sen.parl.gc.ca
neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca
rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senators: Alberta

Doug Black, email: doug.black@sen.parl.gc.ca
Elaine McCoy, email: mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca
Grant Mitchell, email: mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca
Claudette Tardiff, email: tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca
Betty Unger, email: ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca
Scott Tannas, is a recent appointee and has no email address yet.  His fax is 1-613-943-2280.

Senators: Manitoba
buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca
chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca
johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca
plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca
stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca
zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senators: Ontario
atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca
braled@sen.parl.gc.ca
poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca
coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca
eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca
egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca
finled@sen.parl.gc.ca
fruml@sen.parl.gc.ca
harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca
kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca
lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca
mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca
meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca
munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca
mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca
ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca
runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca
kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca
setha@sen.parl.gc.ca
smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca
whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senators: All of Canada
brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca
fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca
mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca
mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca
tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca
ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca
campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca
jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca
martin@sen.parl.gc.ca
neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca
rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca
buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca
chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca
johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca
plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca
stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca
zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca
dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca
kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca
smithc@sen.parl.gc.ca
mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca
poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca
ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca
stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca
wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca
bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca
doylen@sen.parl.gc.ca
fureyg@sen.parl.gc.ca
mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca
marshe@sen.parl.gc.ca
comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca
cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca
cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca
greens@sen.parl.gc.ca
mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca
moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca
ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca
olived@sen.parl.gc.ca
patted@sen.parl.gc.ca
sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca
atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca
braled@sen.parl.gc.ca
poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca
coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca
eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca
egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca
finled@sen.parl.gc.ca
fruml@sen.parl.gc.ca
harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca
kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca
lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca
mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca
meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca
munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca
mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca
ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca
runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca
kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca
setha@sen.parl.gc.ca
smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca
whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca
callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca
pdowne@sen.parl.gc.ca
mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca
hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca
boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca
brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca
carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca
champa@sen.parl.gc.ca
dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca
dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca
dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca
debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca
tessil@sen.parl.gc.ca
fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca
frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca
hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca
lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca
joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca
maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca
massip@sen.parl.gc.ca
nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca
rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca
jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca
seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca
vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca
wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca
dyckli@sen.parl.gc.ca
merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca
tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca
wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca
langd@sen.parl.gc.ca

Radical Press: Legal Update #11 by Arthur Topham

CanadaScalesofJusticeFinalcopy

ATSuitPic 250

April 19, 2013

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

It’s been quite awhile since my last update which went out in late February. My apologies to all of you who have been left wondering what’s been going on with my legal battle with the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada.

A rather long string of unforeseen events, most notably the death of my lawyer Douglas Christie back on March 11th, 2013, threw a monkey-wrench into the whole process. Then, just prior to the Easter long weekend in March, I came down with a rather wicked, unrelenting “bug” that knocked the wind out of my sails for a few weeks. Only recently have I been able to regain my course.

Of course, there being no rest for the wicked, all of my personal issues, including the passing of Doug Christie, didn’t slow down the onerous movement of the wheels of justice here in Zionist Occupied Canada.

As such I’ll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present.

Last Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 I appeared once again in provincial court in Quesnel. Prior to this date I had been in the same courtroom back on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 to attend what was originally supposed to be a hearing to deal with matters pertaining to the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on my Sec. 319(2) Criminal charge that had been scheduled to begin June 3 – 6, 2013.

Upon the death of Mr. Christie I wrote to Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston on March 12th, 2013 and informed her that because of this unfortunate event I would not be prepared to deal with anything at that time.

When I did appear on the April 2nd I informed Judge Morgan of my situation and the fact that I was without legal counsel. At the same time I advised the Judge that I was planning to submit what is known as a Rowbotham application to the court – a Rowbotham application being a legal document wherein an accused person who has been refused legal aid and who cannot afford a lawyer and who is facing a criminal charge that could include a jail sentence if found guilty can apply to the court to have the government appoint a lawyer if the case is deemed serious enough and the applicant (accused) can show that they aren’t in a position to afford a lawyer nor are they capable of defending themselves due to the complexity of the case.

Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the Rowbotham application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.

Still reeling from the viral infection I did my best to get all the paperwork done by the 16th. For the most part it was complete but in the interim period, on the advice of a lawyer, after reading through some of my previous correspondence with former counsel Doug Christie, I decided to make a second application to the court for an order wherein the Crown would have to furnish me with what is known as “particularization” of the Information. Allow me to explain what that is.

When Crown eventually got around to releasing Disclosure (basically their evidence) of the information surrounding the sec. 319(2) Criminal charge against me on January 31st, 2013 (after an eight and a half month delay!), it became fairly evident that they had scrapped together as much miscellaneous documentation that they could possibly come up with (My immediate impression was that he who had the most pages, regardless of their relevancy, would win :-) ). Disclosure showed that there was over a 1,000 pages of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through.

Given this fact Doug had expressed to me some time after receiving the Disclosure disks that it would be extremely difficult to determine how long a potential trial might take considering that the over 1,000 pages of disclosure contained no real indication as to which of my writings they intended to focus on at trial. If they planned to go through it all and Doug had to raise defences of truth, fair comment, etc. over and over for everything that I’d ever written, (not to mention other writers included in the Disclosure) a four-week trial wasn’t that unrealistic. Thus the need to seek particularization of the disclosure.

On April 10th, 2013 I made an Application to a Judge for the following order: “Particularization of Information” and I based my reasons on the following statement:

“The Crown has provided over 1,000 pages of disclosure, including a broad array of material written by myself (the accused). The Crown has failed to indicate which of this material constitutes “willful promotion of hatred” within the meaning of Section 319(2), and which of the alleged hateful material is not covered by one of the defences in Section 319(3). Without specifics as to which of my writings are alleged to be hateful, it is impossible for me to make an accurate time estimate as to the length of the trial, or indeed to make full answer and defence.”

Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the Rowbotham application it was necessary for me to indicate the duration of any potential trial in order to get an estimate of the cost for hiring a counsel for that period.

Judge Morgan wasn’t present on the morning of April 16th and I appeared before a Justice instead. She asked me if the Rowbotham application had been filed yet and I informed her that it had not but that it would be completed that same day. She then told me that it was the intent of the court to go ahead and set a new date for the preliminary hearing regardless of whether I had counsel or not. Crown also indicated that the likelihood the original dates set for the preliminary hearing would still work were unlikely. The Justice then informed the Crown that unless a date was set soon it would mean a rather long delay again because at that point the earliest a preliminary hearing might be heard was already November or December of 2013.

Following this discussion the Justice then moved on to my most recent application of April 10th and instructed me to come to her office at 1:30 pm that same day and she would then tell me what the dates would be for a hearing for the “particularization” application and for the preliminary trial.

As I had all the documents with me to complete the Rowbotham application I spend the remainder of the morning completing and filing it. Part of that procedure entails sending both a sworn Affidavit and also what is known as a “Notice of Application and Constitutional Issue” to three separate parties, the Crown Counsel, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia.

By my afternoon appointment with the Justice I had all these documents filed and sent off. In the process I also filed another document with the court registry. This one was called a “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. Basically it is a document that argues the reasons (as stated in case law) for why particularization of the Disclosure is vital to my defence.

Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the laying of this specious charge will be most clearly evident, given that a jury of twelve of my peers would have to unanimously agree that none of the defences listed below, were relevant. Further information on the actual nature of the Section 319(2) charge I’ll deal with in future posts.

Under Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an
opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of
which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be
true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters
producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in
Canada.

When I met with the Justice at 1: 30 pm on April 16th she had some new information to add to what she’d told me earlier in the morning. I’m presuming this had to do with the fact that in the interim period I had filed the Rowbotham application as well as the additional “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. The Justice told me that they weren’t clear at this point regarding the Rowbotham application and they were therefore assuming that once the Attorney General of B.C. received the application that the AG’s office would then send me further instructions as to what additional information I must furnish the court with in order that a hearing on the Rowbotham application might then be set. the Justice appeared to think that I would receive these instructions and be able to respond to them by the 16th of May, 2013 and so she set that date for my next appearance; one which would also include speaking to my April 10th application regarding “Particularization of Information”.

I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now. :-)

I’ll summarize this update with one final editorial comment. By all appearances it would seem that there will be a concerted and determined effort on the part of the Crown aka Attorney General of B.C. to have this Rowbotham application quashed or denied. Why? Well, from speaking with other counsel who are in the know, it seems that the government really doesn’t like it when an innocent and financially challenged person is accused of a criminal offence and then displays the audacity to expect that the Crown would ensure that they have professional legal counsel in order to deal with all the spurious and specious accusations made against them. Unfortunately, for them, they have to deal with both the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, Section 8; and the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.

So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013 as the free speech advocates continue their struggle to rid our nation of foreign Zionist interlopers hell-bent on destroying our country, our institutions and our democratic way of life by entrenching their heinous “hate crime laws” in our judicial system so as to cover up their own misfeasance and seditious actions against Canada.

Stay tuned folks!

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone,

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

———

PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on.

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada.

Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses.

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.

Thank you!

Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada by Prof. Kevin MacDonald

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/04/paul-fromm-on-the-demise-of-free-speech-in-canada/
Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada

Paul Fromm CAFE copy

By Kevin MacDonald
April 13, 2013

Paul Fromm, a pro-White activist who writes for his CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) website, has an article on a recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that once again indicates the power of the cultural left at the highest reaches of Western societies “The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech“). The case involves a $15000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north of $150,000) imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings.

WhatcottImage1

Some excerpts and comments:

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of *Frankfurt School* social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the *Frankfurt School*. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the *Frankfurt School* targeted loyalty to family, country and religion. There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:

· Truth is no defence;?

· Intent is no defence;?

· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;

· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;

· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”

The Court depicts Mr. Whatcott as having the power to intimidate homosexuals. The reality is far different:

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was shut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the “question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage, accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same-sex marriage.

Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle. It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence  that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the homosexual agenda.

Fromm targets the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement discussed in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique:

Despite calling themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the way:

The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote in 1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect renounces its insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of  universal injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary societies.

The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority,without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line which the journal takes. (See Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.)

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases: “The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. …

Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision:

Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily over-represented.

abellaFlag_zpsbf55ffb4

The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and “democratic society.”

RothsteinHater
At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case is there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

It is certainly true that the organized Jewish community has been a strong  voice supporting laws curtailing free speech, not just in Canada, but throughout the Western world (see “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“). Irving Abella’s book was cited in my chapter on the Jewish role in promoting immigration. Although the chapter emphasizes the Jewish role in altering U.S. immigration policy in favor of non-Whites, the Jewish community played a similar role throughout the West, including Canada:

In the case of Canada, Abella (A Coat of Many Colors: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada; 1990, 234–235) notes the important contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada [dedicated to a  Jewish ethnostate] when he stated that he looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256).

Abella also co-authored a book, None Is Too Many that was critical of Canada for not admitting Jewish refugees in the World War II era. The title comes from a statement of a senior Canadian immigration official that summed up Canadian policy.

Thus we have Jewish activists involved in academic research on Jewish issues. And perhaps more importantly, Jewish activists are involved in court decisions that reflect consensus views within the Jewish community on issues related to free speech, multiculturalism, and immigration. The hostile elite in action.

—–

Controlled Opposition – From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond by Gilad Atzmon

doublethink photo jpeg_zpsc6d99544.jpeg

Controlled Opposition – From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond

Saturday,
April 13, 2013
By Gilad Atzmon

http://www.counterpunch.org

Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.

Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?

If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?

Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.

Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.

But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.

Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.

Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.

A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.

So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.

As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.

Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.

The Visible Hand

The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.

Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.

Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.

If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.

It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.

Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.
 photo GALLUPPALESTINEISRAEL_zpsfc32fe05.gif

In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned,  ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.

When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinians were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.

This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.

For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.

Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.

So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.

—-

 

Fracking. The One Per Cent. Collapsing Canadian Courts. Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta. by Robin Mathews

FrackingMathews photo hydrolic-fracking-1000_zps51cf6cc2.png

Fracking. The One Per Cent. Collapsing Canadian Courts.  Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta.

by Robin Mathews

April 6, 2013

The One Per Cent, we know, control ‘the banks too big to fail’ and  the corporations too powerful to regulate – which includes (among other things) fracking enterprises worldwide.  The Canadian courts, we are beginning to know, operate – increasingly – outside the Rule of Law in matters concerning The One Per Cent … and fracking.

All over the globe fracking is fouling drinking water, lowering water tables, and endangering agriculture in the search, especially, for what is called “natural gas”. It is doing that in the area of Rosebud, Alberta, where Jessica Ernst makes her home.

All over the globe people are being affected, waking up alarmed, calling for investigation, research, regulation, laws to control fracking.  Jessica Ernst, scientist, oil patch operative, has been doing that for … for going on a decade.  Jessica Ernst has a 33 million dollar lawsuit against Encana*, Alberta Energy Regulators, and the Alberta government, a suit being propelled forward (very, very, very slowly) by the law firm called Klippenstein of Toronto, Ontario.

The fight is tough.  The Alberta Regulator – The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) has argued it’s immune from lawsuits and has “no duty of care” to citizens complaining of groundwater contamination. That indicates the ‘style’ of the conflict about fracking: just who is working for whom?

As if to underscore that “style”, a sort-of shake-up is going on in Alberta energy regulation. A new chair of Alberta energy regulation has been named: Gerald J.  Protti, fifteen year officer at Encana and its predecessor PanCanadian Energy. Deborah Yedlin of Calgary Herald uses this phrase about his appointment: perhaps, she says, “putting the fox in charge of the hen house” (April 2, 2013).  That doesn’t quite describe the appointment: the fox, after all, wants to eat the hens. Maybe the poetic image should be “putting the Mafia chief in charge of criminal investigations”. Whatever, Mr. Protti is not believed by many to be an objective choice.  Par for the course.

Which takes us to the court and the astonishing (I don’t like to say it), almost unbelievable behaviour in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary. (Par for the course?) To put the matter in very simple terms, I believe the administration of justice – in relation to Jessica Ernst’s case – is being brutalized and shredded by a combination of forces including the Stephen Harper forces in Ottawa and the Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (with, doubtless, a cheering section from Alberta government and “the industry”).

The people behind the behaviour of Stephen Harper and Queen’s Bench are not openly visible.  You might say they’re The One Per Cent.

In brief, the judge on the Case Management process, Justice Barbara Veldhuis, about to rule on whether Jessica Ernst can sue the government regulator, was promoted from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Alberta Appeals Court, removed, and prevented from making a finding. By the merest chance, the Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Neil Wittmann volunteered to take over the matter.  And has done so.

All that, I suggest, is probably fraudulent behaviour.

To begin, the promotion of Barbara Veldhuis stinks to high heaven.  Why did she need to move?  She didn’t.  Who moved her?  The only person in Canada who could move her is Rob Nicholson, minister of justice, Ottawa – by which we may say Stephen Harper. Why would Stephen Harper want to reach into the Alberta higher court system and move Barbara Veldhuis?

The answer can only be, I suggest, someone feared that she was about to rule against the interests of The One Per Cent.

The promotion of Barbara Veldhuis, we may say, was ridiculous, unnecessary, and timed to destroy her work on the Jessica Ernst case.  We may say more.

Members of either of the senior Alberta courts mentioned – Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal – are ex officio members of the other court (if the Wikipedia material on the Alberta courts is correct).  Members of those courts are – at the very least – able (at the direction of the Chief Justice) to work in the other court. And so Barbara Veldhuis could be promoted to the Alberta Appeals Court and could also make the ruling on the Jessica Ernst application in the Court of Queen’s Bench.

The whole business of promoting Justice Veldhuis and moving her and preventing her from making the ruling is … I suggest, sham, smoke-and-mirrors, a fraud. The shifting of judges on sensitive cases must be seen for the dangerous activity it is.

Remember that in British Columbia in 2010 a similar action occurred.  That action directly connects the Alberta Jessica Ernst case with the B.C. Supreme Court BC Rail Scandal case. And … Neil Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, is involved in both events.
Supreme Court of B.C. Justice Elizabeth Bennett was swiftly removed from the BC Rail Scandal trial as a result of her promotion, by Stephen Harper, to the Appeals Court.  She was replaced by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie who, some allege, was placed there to protect premier Gordon Campbell, his team, and all the powerful private operators who are alleged to have corruptly transferred BC Rail to the CNR.

There is more. Anne MacKenzie was, within weeks, raised by Stephen Harper to the position of Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court.  And then in some months she was raised by Stephen Harper to the B.C. Appeals Court.

A key fact of her time as judge on the BC Rail Scandal (Basi, Virk, and Basi) case, was that she permitted in her court a Special (Crown) Prosecutor who she was told, formally, was appointed to his position in flagrant violation of the legislation governing the appointment of Special Prosecutors.

Such appointees have to be completely objective and wholly unconnected to political power and civil service officers. But the Special (Crown) Prosecutor, William Berardino, was appointed to the case by a ministry of the Attorney General in which the Attorney General had been his partner and colleague for seven years, and the Deputy Attorney General had been his partner and colleague for eleven years.

The evidence of the Special Prosecutor’s illegitimate appointment was so stark that I wrote to the Chief Justice, the Associate Chief Justice and the judge on the case – on two separate occasions, formally reporting the illegitimate appointment.  They answered, refusing to act.

Two of the accused were cabinet appointed aides reporting to cabinet members and acting on their behalf. And so the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, as I say, was in flagrant violation of the legislation governing such appointments. He was simply too connected (in fact and in perception) to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General to have been appointed. There is not the slightest question about that.

Unsatisfied with the replies I received from the top judges of the B.C. Supreme Court, I decided to address a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council – the highest body in the country. I made a formal complaint of misconduct on the part of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie in the matter of knowing the Special Crown Prosecutor in her court was there by illegitimate appointment.  She was conducting herself as if he was a legitimate appointment and so she was sullying the administration of justice.

The Canadian Judicial Council elected to have the Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Neil Wittmann deal with my complaint.  On his behalf (as is standard practice) his agent on the Council replied to me.  He declared that Chief Justice Neil Wittmann concluded that the conduct of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (which I had pointed out) was a not matter of conduct.  He dismissed my complaint.

I allege that his action supported an illegitimate trial, supported the major wrong-doers in the BC Rail Scandal, and supported the action of Stephen Harper in ‘conveniently’ promoting Justice Elizabeth Bennett, making way for Justice Anne MacKenzie.

That is the same Chief Justice Neil Wittmann who did not protest when Justice Barbara Veldhuis was promoted, did not exercise his discretion as Chief Justice to permit her as ex officio of both courts to make a finding on the Jessica Ernst application, and who volunteered himself to take over the Jessica Ernst action in Case Management with what must be deleterious results.

If he decides to re-hear arguments on the application that were presented in Calgary court in January 2013, he will be choosing to force Jessica Ernst to exceptional expense and delay.  If he chooses merely to read the transcripts of the arguments presented, he will be placing Ms. Ernst at risk of being misunderstood in the presentations made both for her by her lawyers and against her by those opposed to her

A fundamental convention of such cases is that judges are not changed – for the obvious reason that they carry all the information forward as the case develops. Plainly, Chief Justice Wittmann is at sea on this case, wallowing, and is going to have, somehow, to start afresh, causing anxiety, financial cost, delay, and stress to Jessica Ernst.  But, for all we know, that may be precisely (with Neil Wittmann’s and Stephen Harper’s cooperation) what The One Per Cent (who seem to be in charge of this case) want to have happen.

Chief Justice Neil Wittmann can’t help being suspected by many people of simply being a “plant” on the case to make certain that justice will never be done. The strange, sudden, and unusual shifts in the case bring the administration of justice into disrepute, even in the unlikely possibility that they are honest shifts. For all we know, additional facts calling Neil Wittmann’s role into question may well surface in the coming weeks and months.

What Canadians have to see clearly in these two important cases is that, I allege, the Stephen Harper forces in Ottawa interfered with the administration of justice in a manner that prevented justice from being done.  I believe they interfered intentionally to pollute the administration of justice.

Canadians must also see clearly that all the other judges of the higher courts in British Columbia and Alberta – and the Law Societies of both provinces – consented (by inaction) to the pollution – even when they were not a material part of it. We are witnessing the collapsing Canadian courts … and the eroding  Canadian legal system.

We are witnessing here, in particular, what I take to be a highly organized and concerted attack upon Jessica Ernst and her case by the federal ministry of justice (directed by Stephen Harper) and by the most powerful officer of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench -with the silent assent of legal experts who should be protesting loudly and publicly at the attack on the most basic foundations of democratic society.

* ENCANA CORPORATION. Annual General Meeting, April 23, 2:00 p.m. Hotel Arts Spectrum Ballroom, 119 – 12 Avenue Southwest, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

——–

Contact Robin: rmathews@telus.net

Honoring Doug Christie by James Holbeyfield, Counter-Currents Publishing

 photo Counter-CurrentsLogo_zps74edbf7b.png

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/honoring-doug-christie/

DouglasHChristie

Honoring Doug Christie

James Holbeyfield

Douglas Hewson Christie died on March 11th, 2013 at the age of 66. He was among the greatest defense lawyers of his generation, in Canada or any other country, and his greatness was founded on two piers: courage and honor.

In his eulogy for his father, Doug’s son Cadeyrn has said that his father was meant for the battlefield, and in another age would have fought with sword and shield, but in our age, his battlefield was the courtroom.

This identification of warriors with the best lawyers helps us to understand a major lesson of the way Doug Christie lived his life. It is this: the courage to speak freely and publicly against the powerful, the courage to defend those the powerful deem indefensible, and the courage to face threats to career, home, and family from the tolerated minions of the powerful for the sake of principle; all these are first founded on physical courage.

Doug retained tremendous physical courage right up to the end. Incredibly, less than three weeks before he died, his liver riddled with metastatic cancer and refusing pain-killers, so that his brain and his examinations, would be as famously sharp and focused as ever, he had been in court arguing on behalf of a client. There, he collapsed and was brought to hospital. Even then, his chief desire was to be released so that he could finish that case and get back to another, his ongoing defense of Arthur Topham, who has been charged with promoting hate on the internet.

Sadly, that could not be, and Doug’s final regret was that he was unable to carry on for Mr. Topham, just as his greatest concern since he was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 was that once he was gone, there would be no Canadian lawyer to take his place of prominence in battling the endless attacks on freedom of speech in that fallen dominion. Canada is an Anglosphere country that’s particularly vulnerable to the bizarre new ‘tyranny of tolerance’ because it was founded as a nation, not of rebels so much as of men self-selected for conformity, because those men faced a subsequent requirement for an endless, uneasy truce with the pre-existing French population, and because breakdowns in that truce eventually led, under Pierre Trudeau, to a method for reducing its importance by transforming British Canada into multicultural Canada. Unfortunately, Canada shows every sign of needing more lawyers like Doug Christie going forward. Instead, it has lost the only one it had.

If a successor to Doug is waiting in Canada’s future, he will have large shoes to fill. “Very large shoes indeed,” Father Lucien Larré reminded hundreds of mourners at St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Victoria in officiating at Doug’s funeral, “but we must never stop trying to fill them anyway.”

The reason for the magnitude of the task is straightforward: working as a solo lawyer with a staff of one or two assistants, over the course of three decades Doug Christie defined the legal defense of free speech in Canada. When Doug took on his first free speech case in 1983, that of Alberta high-school teacher James Keegstra when he was fired from his job and charged with willfully promoting hatred by discussing Jewish conspiracies with his students, Canada had had criminal hate laws on the books since the 1960s, but they were dormant. “It was a novel proposition to prosecute people for what they said,” Doug reminded the world. But since Keegstra, it has been used scores of times, and Doug Christie was the backbone of the defense in every landmark case. He argued more free speech cases before the Supreme Court of Canada than anyone. All of this from a tiny, sole proprietorship law practice of a type that has now virtually disappeared.

Doug’s widow, Keltie Zubko, has said that his proudest case, which they worked on so hard together, she as legal assistant, was that of Imre Finta. It remains Canada’s only war crimes trial. Following a two-year investigation, the trial took place in three countries, Canada, Hungary. and Israel, over the course of nine months. The prosecution spent millions. It all resulted in Mr. Finta’s acquittal, without needing to call evidence, principally on the basis of Doug’s cross-examination. The prosecution appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where Doug argued against it so effectively that Canada has never attempted to prosecute a war crimes case since.

But the enemies of our race and of our heritage of freedom are legion; in hyperborean Canada, perhaps white enemies especially. They have power, and they have time. They are hydra-headed, and when one begins to tire, thoughts turning to sinecure, he is easily replaced by many more, as the unquestioning graduates of the academies multiply. Even the youngest have none of the fire in Doug Christie’s soul, but the whole corpus can afford to watch as the tiny band of defenders withers. Worse, a single hydra increasingly sprawls across many countries, in the form of international law.

This is underlined by the fate of Doug’s best-known client, Ernst Zündel. Doug had guided him through the ups and downs of a welter of trials, tribunals and appeals in the 1980s, leading to eventual success in R. v. Zundel before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992.  But the global enemies of freedom were not to give up. In 2003, the twisted arm of international law reached in among the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in America and plucked Mr. Zündel out of Tennessee for overstaying his legal visa, tore him from his American wife, and brought him back to Canada for two years in solitary confinement while it bided its time. Eventually, Ernst Zündel was deported to Germany, where he was ultimately convicted of holocaust denial in a trial filled with legal misadventures that smacked of the inevitability of religious ritual far more than it resembled anything within the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Mr. Zündel spent five more years in prison in Germany, despite everything Doug had tried to do for him in the Canadian phase of this horror.

In such ways as this, the truly heroic war of our time, the war of a tiny number of outcasts to awaken a dispossessed majority, has been transformed. Doug Christie was too busy fighting the battles he could see all around him, one after another in a seemingly endless procession, to devote his great mental incisiveness and physical energy to strategy alone. That is necessarily the way of the hero, of the man who acts. Doug’s great role was in law, not in politics. That was not for lack of trying, and Doug struggled hard within the shrinking opportunities of electoral politics. He never overtly gave up on the political project as a potential solution, but the diminution of his efforts in that direction tells us a lot about the metapolitical nature of our fight today. Actions like his legal battles, and the cultural battle reflected here at Counter-Currents, are the ones we need now.

There is another side to Cadeyrn Christie’s metaphorical tribute to his father as warrior. Doug Christie was a man of principles and a man of honor. That was the yardstick by which he measured every proposal that came to him, whether from others or from within his own creative mind. His whole life was a duel over honor, but not the ferocious intensity of single combat on the Trojan plain; rather tireless, patient resistance.

But the principles are the same. Some men cannot be bought off into slavery, and Doug Christie was the most obvious such man in all the Canada of his generation. All who knew Doug knew he was a man who could have attained early what is considered great success in our world. He was tall, he was good-looking, and he had the manners and blue-eyed charisma of the born leaders of the old American and Canadian West. He was gregarious. People liked him right away and were motivated by him. He had a great legal mind, an appetite and flair for courtroom drama, and the courage to stick out every courtroom battle.

Instead Doug gave of himself unstintingly over many decades to the downtrodden and outcast. He did pro bono work. His friends struggled endlessly to raise money for his cases. He ran his tiny law office on a shoestring.

He lived his whole life the way he had been raised: “we always had enough to eat, but there was never anything left on the table.” He was proud of his Scottish roots in that regard. He drove an old pick-up truck, wore a cowboy hat, and throughout his whole legal career, he earned considerably less each year than can readily be made by skilled tradesmen throughout Western Canada, so long as it remains the prosperous corner of Western civilization that it now is.

Today, the pursuit of money, political approval, and comfort are indeed the chief ways in which a man throws his sword and shield down into the dust. It all happens so gradually that it is vastly more difficult for us to recognize our enslavement than it was for our ancestors. Most men never do, and die with the conceit of freedom.

But even today, some men seem to grasp the real message of our ancestors, almost from earliest youth. Doug Christie was such a man, a true man of honor.

——–

 

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Free Speech fall prey to Zionist misfeasance by Arthur Topham

 photo CanadianOutlaws1_zpsbd51ee59.png

 

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Charter of Rights fall prey to Zionist misfeasance 

By Arthur Topham

March 3, 2013

The recent, decision handed down on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by six of Canada’s Supreme Court justices, in the Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott case, was indeed a ‘supreme’ blow to Christians, to freedom of religion and to every individual’s right to freedom of speech in Canada. At the same time, it also was a remarkably clandestine victory for the foreign Zionist-Jew lobby groups such as B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA); all of whom reflect, represent and condone, in unabashed fashion, the principles and policies of the Zionist state of Israel, over and above the traditional rule of law that has been the hallmark of Canadian jurisprudence from its earliest beginnings.

On top of this victorious legal coup that the vast majority of Canadians remain either ignorant of or in denial of, there are the added collaborating players in this long-range agenda to subvert and mould Canada’s judiciary into a type more in keeping with that of the U.S.A’s; one which, in recent years, has become permeated by their Jewish lobby groups to such an extent that they’ve effectively emasculated the US legal system by introducing their own brand of Jewish Noahide laws into American jurisprudence. These Noahide laws are, in fact, ones that stem from the ancient writings of the Jewish Talmud; a horrendously hoary and convoluted compilation of endless sophistry and intellectual meanderings that attempt to cover the full gamut of possible mental masterbation on any conceivable topic capable of debate, all of which boggles the mind and taxes the heart and soul of anyone who is able to locate and delve into the bottomless pit of arcane, abstruse, macabre deliberations found therein.

It is my contention, based upon all recent research and extrapolation, that this same clandestine, Fifth Column Zionist-instigated seditious process is, and has been, occurring here in Canada since the inception of our nation’s “hate speech laws” that, coincidentally, began to gain ascendency in Canada’s house of justice back in the late 1960′s when the major Jewish lobby groups first began to amalgamate and initiate this calculated, step by step, surreptitious program of incremental changes to Canada’s legal system; one that would eventually see the switch over from former Christian democratic principles of freedom of speech to those of the Talmudic Jewish Noahide laws under which Jewry has operated over the past two millennia.  It is also my added contention that these subtle changes have been, and are being, spearheaded by those very justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who hold duel citizenship with the state of Israel and whose ultimate allegiance, I strongly allege, is first and foremost to that foreign nation.

Compounding and exacerbating this traitorous intent to corrupt and debase Canada’s legal system via “hate crime legislation” is the growing realization by many Canadians that our so-called “independent” media is, in fact, totally controlled, editorially and otherwise, by this same self-serving Zionist Jew consortium and that these media monopolists, along with their line of sycophantic, sayanim journalists and talking heads, are the major propaganda force behind this plot to subvert the Canadian justice system.

Most Canadians who have not been asleep at the wheel politically are now fully cognizant of the fact that the Harper Conservative government is the key to the success of these Zionist “hate crime” operatives and their eventual triumph in binding the mouths and minds of Canadians so that any and all criticism of their planned take-over of the country will not be openly discussed, either in the print media, television or on the Internet. Their arsenal of epithets stands ready 24/7 to support any smear & fear campaign necessary to belittle and slander and denigrate those who show any indication of not bowing down in obeisance to their treasonous scheme to dismantle and re-create our former legal system so as to have it fit harmoniously with all the other nations that have also been infiltrated by these same self-chosen zealots.

The whole of the homosexual agenda is but one of the ruses that these lobbyists use in order to divide, confuse and conquer their opponents and justify, via their human rights commissions, tribunals and their Supreme Court double-agents, the introduction of more and more repressive anti-democratic “hate speech” laws. These tactics, for those who have studied the Zionist’s modus operandi to any degree, are par for the course. The crucial thing for them is to use others rather than come straight out and say we’re bringing in all these repressive, Orwellian laws because we don’t want Canadians discussing and debating our ideology, our motives or our agenda; one that includes enslaving and punishing anyone who steps out of line and beyond that the total destruction of the Christian religion as we now know it.

There is, on top of all these seemingly inexplicable occurrences, a vital question that needs to asked and addressed with respect to the inordinate number of Zionist, duel-citizenship Jewish justices who have somehow wended their way upwards to the apex of Canada’s judicial system and are now literally in positions of supreme power and control with respect to influencing both our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given that Canada is noted world wide for being a proactive, multicultural nation; one that welcomes immigrants from around the world to its shores and touts itself as being an open, free and culturally diverse society, the blatant imbalance that we are witnessing today in the ethnic composition of our Supreme Court justices is beyond question a problem in dire need of explanation.

Were we, as a nation, to give equal opportunity and consideration to the various visible minorities that make up our country’s population then this ought to be reflected in the composition of those who sit in judgement at the top of our federal judicial system.

Knowing that our First Nations population is the largest minority group in Canada it behooves all Canadians to ask the obvious: why do we not have a First Nations justice sitting in on our supreme court? Given that this nation was formed, literally, from the soil of the original people’s land and also given that the First Nations people constitute the largest group in the Canadian population matrix does it not make sense that when it comes to representing their interests that someone from their ranks ought to be a member of this august group of supreme court justices?

Next in line is our Chinese-Canadian population topping the list as the largest visible minority in Canada and again the obvious question is: why do we not have a Chinese-Canadian justice sitting in the SCC?

Next in line we have a very large South Asian population followed by an equally large black population. Where are the South Asian and the Black supreme court justices?

Finally, getting to the crux of this perplexing situation, as we go down the scale of relative population demographics  we come to the ethnic Jewish population in Canada which, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, in 2010 numbered 375,000 in population, ranking somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25th in terms of group size and comprising, out of a total population of 33,890,000 Canadians, 1.1% of Canada’s total population. Yet, for their relatively small numbers in terms of percentages they now hold 4 out of 9 positions on Canada’s Supreme Court. That works out to 44.4% of Canada’s supreme court justices somehow stemming from 1.1 % of the country’s total population. If common sense cannot tell people that there is a glaring discrepancy here then something surely is wrong in the way that Canadians view the make-up of their nation’s highest court.  No amount of intellectual verbiage can explain why this is so without getting into the fundamental question of what the real reasons are for this most obvious of imbalances wherein we have a preponderance of duel-citizen Jewish justices sitting and deliberating the vital questions currently being discussed in this brief essay.

Of course the immediate reaction from the Zionist lobbies is to reach up their proverbial sleeve and pull out their “anti-Semitic” and “hate speech” cards and flash them across the nation via their controlled media in typical fashion whenever their power base is questioned or threatened. Then will follow their sophistry and rhetoric emanating from the academics and talking heads arguing that this blatant discrepancy is simply due to the fact that Jewish lawyers are the most intelligent, experienced and therefore qualified of all of Canada’s lawyers and, like the cream atop the cow’s milk, they naturally rise up to those positions of eminence and power.

As the kids would say, “Yah, sure.”

To conclude, it cannot be stressed or repeated enough that we either have free speech or we have controlled speech where Big Brother takes control of our conscience and our mind and leaves us as automatons and slaves to do their bidding and those who now sit in judgement over our collective rights , due to their recent actions in the Whatcott case, must be treated with the utmost suspicion and their motives fully analyzed.

The time to act on these concerns is yesterday. Tomorrow may be too late.

The SCC Puppets

I present below the figures of the three Ashkenazi Zionists who have, along with their controllers in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, and the other three Shabbez Goi justices, perpetrated this seditious act of attempting to twist the truth and our human right to freedom of speech into some form of kosher, Zionist fritter all the better to fragment and confuse the people of Canada so as to lure our nation further astray into the nightmare that awaits the world should Zionism ever gain full control over independent nation states.

It must also be adamantly born in mind as well that the fact that I am presenting and focusing on these three individuals is absolutely not to be misconstrued as having excused the other three protagonists in this deceptive legal drama. The primary purpose here is accent the Jewish lobby in Canad and its unsavory effect upon Canada’s legal system. It goes without saying that the other three justices have, for whatever reasons, also consented to this agenda and ought to be removed from their positions along with the three Zionist duel-citizen justices in question here.

McLachlin photo McLachlincopy_zps96a077d6.png

With respect to Canada’s current Madam Chief Justice McLachlin it is also relevant and fitting that the following quote by Jason Moscovitz of the CBC be mentioned here as it is most relevant to an understanding of the mindset of these six judicial side-kicks when it comes to our right to freedom of speech.  Jason Moscovitz states: “Of all the attributes she brings to the high court, there is one that sticks out. Many legal experts say she does not consider the Charter of Rights to be necessarily sacred.” [Jason Moscovitz CBC Date: 991103 Time: 22:00:00 ET - 22:26:00 ET]

AbellaFlag photo abellaFlag_zpsbf55ffb4.png

While still in her twenties SCC Abella was appointed a member of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. Her husband, Irving Abella, is the J. Richard Shiff Professor of Canadian Jewish Studies at York University in Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, one of the leading “hate speech law” lobby groups in Canada.

SCC Justice Abella is on the International Board of the Hebrew University, a member of the United States Holocaust Museum’s Committee on Conscience (again, pushing the 6 million lies of the Zionists that have become since WWII one of the principal pillars supporting all of their criminal actions since that time).

The president (Canadian Section) of the International Commission of Jurists, cited her as one whose “entire life has revolved around the cause of human rights… She has shaped Canadian policy in equality rights, and…has also had a profound impact on human rights law and policy outside Canada.” The precise manner in HOW SCC has “shaped Canadian policy in equality rights” is now fairly apparent given her complicity in this recent and deplorable attack upon Canada’s unquestionable right to freedom of speech.

SCC Justice Abella also served as a commissioner on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Again, those who have been complicit in the actions of the human “rights” commissions here in Canada have revealed their motives clearly enough over the past decade and longer and have lost credibility in the eyes of the rest of the 98% of Canada who do not want to have their rights tampered with to satisfy the spurious and fraudulent false front arguments of special minority groups.

FishFlag photo FishFlag_zps0946efd9.png

True to his name there’s definitely something “fishy” about this lastest SCC decision.

 

RothsteinFlag photo RothsteinFlag_zps2256d32f.png

SCC Justice Rothstein has served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992. He has also held many other offices or appointments connected to the Manitoba Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

So what have people like Marshall Rothstein learned from all of their involvement in harassing and vilifying and criminalizing Canadians for having exercised their God-given right to freedom of expression and speech? By all appearances he’s learned that the manipulation of the law,when it is being supported by a Fifth Column media and a host of complicit, compromised politicians under the sway of the Zionist lobby, is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually a fait accompli.

———

Canada’s Israel Lobby by Peyton Vaughn Lyon

CanadaIsraelLobby photo CanadasIsraelLobby_zpscd09799c.png

 

Canada’s Israel Lobby

By

Peyton Vaughan Lyon

Professor EmeritusPolitical ScienceCarleton University

DPhil., Oxford

 

This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and  Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.

March 2010

Dr. Lyon is Professor Emeritus Political Science, Carleton University. He was a Rhodes Scholar, and obtained his D.Phil. from Oxford University. He served in the RCAF from 1940 to 1945.

He held posts as Foreign Service Officer, Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, Canada and in Bonn, Germany. He is the author of five books on Canadian foreign policy, trade and defence.

 

Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.

Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader(1) This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.

Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at

  • compared to 5.40 for each of the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs. The Canadian/Arab Community at 1.80 was ranked sixteenth out of the eighteen estimated influence inputs. (2) Although the Arab Community has become better organized in recent years, interviews with senior officials and case studies suggest that there has been little change in this ranking.

There is of course nothing illegal or immoral about lobbies, even those operating in the interest of foreign entities. A significant number of ethnic groups do in fact lobby for their countries of origin. (3) Canada’s Israel lobby is simply by far the most powerful and effective. It has become customary to refer to it as “the Lobby”, and I shall follow that practice. The Lobby claims to act on all Canada-Israel matters on behalf of an estimated two- thirds of the three hundred and fifteen thousand Canadians of Jewish origin.(4)

For obvious reasons, the American-Israel lobby is far larger, more powerful, and better known than its Canadian counterpart. (5) There are further significant differences and I shall begin with them. American Jews number about three percent of the population whereas the Canadian equivalent is a more modest one percent. American Jews, having arrived earlier in North America, are more integrated into the general population and less united in support of their government’s Mid-East policy. Canadian Jews, in the words of Professors Taras and Weinfeld, “are more Jewish.” Other authorities have said they are more conservative. (6)   “Is there,” asked Gerald Caplan, another prominent Jew, “any act of Israel that will shame the leaders of Canadian Jewry into saying enough is enough?” (7)

The biggest difference in the tactics followed by the two lobbies lies in their degrees of openness and use of threats. Because the role of Congress in making foreign policy is much greater than that of Parliament, and party discipline is weaker, the American lobby focuses on individual members of Congress, none of whom can take refuge behind a party line. Because cabinet solidarity matters more in Ottawa, the Canadian Lobby makes a greater effort to focus on every minister. Lobbying, moreover, is more acceptable in the American political culture and can be more open and hard hitting. A reputation for wealth, ruthlessness and success is in fact an asset whereas in Canada lobbies operate more discreetly and soft- pedal their influence. American elections are more frequent than in Canada; this makes raising funds more difficult, thus increasing the vulnerability of candidates to lobby pressure. Lobbying in the United States, however, is subject to greater legal restriction than in Canada. One authority goes so far as to say that, because of tighter organization, it is more effective in Canada. (6)

All in all, lobbying in each country is probably about equal in effectiveness. Elections afford each Lobby the greatest opportunity to exercise influence. Although most Jewish Americans have voted Democratic, and Canadian Jews Liberal, neither are formally aligned and votes can be swung if a party adopts what might appear to many Jews to be an anti-Israel approach. Jimmy Carter, in making an exceptional effort to bring peace to the Middle East, angered Israel and its American Lobby. As a result, Carter lost almost half his Jewish vote between 1976 and 1980, a loss which contributed to his defeat in the 1980 election. Sydney Spivak, chairman of the Canadian Lobby’s 1998 policy conference, threatened a similar outcome when Joe Clark, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, criticized Israel’s suppression of Palestinian rights.

A particular triumph for the American lobby was the defeat in 1984 of Charles Percy, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As Tom Dine, executive director of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs committee) — the predominant US-Israel lobby — boasted to a Toronto audience, “All the Jews in America … gathered to defeat Percy. And the American politicians got the message.” (8)

A comparable Canadian case was that of Dr. Frank Epp, an outstanding scholar and President of Waterloo University. In 1979, Epp ran as a Liberal in what was considered the safe Liberal seat in Waterloo. However, his desire for a more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict was falsely depicted by the Lobby as “anti-Semitic” – a charge the Lobby frequently uses to discredit critics of Israeli government policies. In Epp’s case, the attack culminated in a full-page advertisement on election eve. In a constituency containing several thousand Jews, Epp was defeated by a mere 155 votes.

In the Toronto riding of Saint-Paul’s, with about 20,000 Jewish voters, the 1979 election featured a Conservative promise to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Conservative candidate, Ron Atkey, won. In the election the following year –after Prime Minister Clark had abandoned his promise to move the embassy– the seat swung back to John Roberts of the Liberals.

In 1984 a Manitoba court ruled that unfair lobbying could have caused the defeat of Conservative candidate Luba Fedorkiw in Winnipeg North. Fedorkiw accused the Jewish advocacy group, B’nai Brith, of having defeated her by suggesting she was anti-Semitic and levelling the false charge of “Jew-baiting” against her. She was awarded $400,000 in damages.

The Lobby concentrates on the ten constituencies where most of the Jewish and Arab/Muslim populations are located. Proportionally more Jews, however, go to the polls and are more likely to make a difference. It should also be noted that a substantial minority of the Arabs are Maronite Christians who are indifferent to the fate of the majority of Arabs.

[Read more...]

Supreme Court muzzles free speech in Canada, rules against Catholic pro-family activist by Peter Baklinski

Supreme Court muzzles free speech in Canada, rules against Catholic pro-family activist

by Peter Baklinski

February 27, 2013

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-muzzles-free-speech-in-canada-crushes-born-again-christian-ac#

SCCLARGE

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

OTTAWA, Ontario, 27 February, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canada’s top court has released an unanimous decision today that critics say has struck a monumental blow against freedom of speech, opinion, and religion across the country. The court ordered the defendant, a Catholic pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“It’s a bad day,” said Bill Whatcott to LifeSiteNews.com in an interview. “The ruling and the reasoning [behind it] is terrible. They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”

“It’s worse than I expected. What it means is that my life is over, as I know it. It means that the Christian Church is going to be libel for speaking the truth,” he said.

In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court decided that born-again Christian William Whatcott was guilty of hate-speech for distributing flyers to neighborhoods in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not however directly attack homosexual persons. (The flyers are appended to the end of the decision linked above)

The Court focused on Whatcott’s main argument, namely that he loves homosexuals with a brotherly Christian love, and it is only their sexual activity that he denounces.

The Supreme Court found however that with regards to hate-speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies. No longer can Christians give the defense before courts that one ‘loves the sinner, but hates the sin’.

“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the Court stated. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid s. 14(1)(b) [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

“Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself,” the Court stated.

The Court ordered Whatcott to pay the Human Rights Commission’s legal fees and to pay $7,500 in compensation to two homosexuals who were offended by his flyers.

Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, called the ruling “very depressing” and “bad news”.

Landolt accused the Supreme Court of “dancing on hot coals, one foot here and one foot there, trying to pretend that they’re doing one thing, but doing another.”

“On the one hand they’re saying, ‘Oh, no, no, no, we’re not really infringing on freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of opinion’, but in fact, what they say is not what they’ve done,” she said in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com.

“In effect, what they’ve done is they’ve hit-out at religious beliefs and promoted again, as is constantly happening, homosexual rights.”

“They’ve picked up ‘sexual orientation’ and slammed ‘religious freedom’ with it and given it a big wallop as with a baseball bat,” she said.

Landolt said that the Court has damaged freedom of religion by “manipulating and twisting” the whole intent of this freedom “to serve their own objective which is to protect homosexuals.”

She said that Christians had better take the ruling as a “warning sign” that they are going to be “pounced on” if they decide to speak about Christian sexual morality in the public square.

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) is concerned over the Court’s equating homosexual activity with homosexual persons such that it turns criticism of sexual behaviour into “hate-speech” of an identifiable minority.

“A key teaching of Christianity is to hate the sin, but love the sinner,” said CCRL president Phil Horgan, pointing out that as a society, “we incarcerate convicted persons for their crimes, not out of hate for the individual.”

“But with Whatcott, the SCC has stated that criticism of behaviour(s) can be treated as potentially hateful speech against the minority. Will criticism of activities at gay pride parades be treated similarly? Will criticism of certain homosexual sexual activities be now conflated as an example of hate speech of an individual or minority? This conflation of behaviour with the person or group, is a proposition at odds with most religious teachings, and of concern coming from our highest court.”

Chris Schafer, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) executive director and lawyer, said that the “Supreme Court missed an excellent opportunity to rein in the power of various human rights commissions and tribunals to censor the expression of unpopular beliefs and opinions.”

“Free expression is the lifeblood of democracies and all forms of expression, especially the offensive kind, needs to be protected. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees,” he said.

André Schutten, legal counsel for the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), said he was disappointed with the ruling since the Court decided to “keep as constitutional” the ambiguous hate-crimes language of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which prohibits any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred” persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

Schutten told LifeSiteNews.com that upholding such language is “problematic” since “hatred is an emotion that cannot be easily and objectively measured.”

Schutten said that the ruling means that Christians will now be “less likely to engage in political debate from their viewpoint, which means that Christians are kept out of the political process”. He said that the ruling will also hamper Christians in preaching the “full Gospel”.

“The preaching of the Gospel requires that we know what the Good News is. And the Good News is that we’re saved. But in order to understand that we are saved, we have to know what we are saved from. So, when we are preaching the Gospel, that includes preaching about sin. And sin is always going to be offensive to some people. When we talk about sin, some people will interpret that as hateful.”

Schutten said that the ruling “puts a chill on religious expression and any expression.”

Ezra Levant from Sun News has predicted that the ruling will inundate Human Rights Commissions with hate-speech based complaints.

“You will see a boom in the Human Rights Commission business because the law is so vague and the Supreme Court is saying: ‘Yeah, you can go after someone if they say something hateful’. We are going to see an explosion of hate-speech complaints out there,” he said.

Whatcott agrees. He told LifeSiteNews.com that the ruling will embolden homosexual activists to file complaints against those who raise a voice against sexual anarchy.

Despite the ruling, Whatcott said that he will continue to “publicly witness against homosexuality” since he sees it has “God’s will” in his life. The Christian activist is soliciting prayers from people of faith so that he will receive the spiritual support needed to get through this time.

- See more at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-muzzles-free-speech-in-canada-crushes-born-again-christian-ac#sthash.dAdDRrU1.KFVzIJFa.dpuf

 

Patmos, The Emperor Worship Cultus, and The American Sniper by Pastor Mark Dankof

Mark Dankof’s America

Patmos, The Emperor Worship Cultus, and The American Sniper

March 1, 2013

PastorMarkDenkof photo pastormarkdankoftx_zps75bd49a0.jpg

 Pastor Mark Dankof

   “I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering, and kingdom, and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.”

Revelation 1:9

“I [Jesus] know your afflictions and your poverty–yet you are rich!  I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not [ref. Romans 2: 28-29], but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days.  Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

Revelation 2:9-10 [To the Church at Smyrna]

“I [Jesus] know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.  I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not [ref. Romans 2: 28-29; cf. John 8: 31-58], but are all liars–I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.”

Revelation 3: 8-9 [To the Church at Philadelphia]

“The whole world was astonished and followed the Beast.  Men worshiped the Dragon because he had given authority to the Beast, and they also worshiped the Beast and asked, ‘Who is like the Beast? Who can make war with him?’ . . . Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth.  He had two horns like a lamb but he spoke like a dragon.  He exercised all the authority of the First Beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the First Beast . . . And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.  Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the First Beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth.  . . . He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.  . . . His number is 666.”

Revelation 13: 3-4; 11-14; 16-18

“For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again.  If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.  At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.  For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.”

Matthew 24: 21-25 [Jesus  in the Olivet Discourse]

“When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar [Jewish revolt against Roman administration in Palestine] was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd.  ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said, ‘It is your [Jewish mob's] responsibility!’  All the people [Jewish mob] answered, ‘Let his blood be upon us and on our children!’ Then Pilate released Barabbas [Zionist Jewish political revolutionary and capital crimes convict] to them.  But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.”

Matthew 27: 24-26

 The Empire’s next phase in deception and destruction both foreign and domestic unfolds next week in Washington with the latest American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conclave.  Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden will pinch hit for El Presidente as the main podium attraction for the Synagogue of Satan’s pep rally for an American-Israeli pogram of mass murder directed at the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).  Biden’s presence at this sinister event is superseded in ominous overtone only by the presence of Mr. Obama in the Zionist State itself during the Vice President’s appearance at The Tribe’s lovefest in the Capitol, an event The Times of Israel emphasizes will concentrate on the achievement of two objectives with the American Congress.  Objective One is to extract from Congress the enactment of legislation that will designate Israel a “strategic ally” of the United States, a status enjoyed by no other country.  Objective Two is to “. . . facilitate a U. S. green light should Israel decide to strike Iran.”

This agenda is right on with John Hagee of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and Christians United for Israel.  Hagee’s $150 million dollar empire is entirely devoted to the Empire, and the Empire’s strategic alliance with the Zionist State, Talmudic racial supremacy, and a Jewish driven International Banking System fueling the advent of the global New World Order.  One may be forgiven for seeing Hagee as a version of the second beast with two horns in the Apocalypse, providing religious legitimacy to the Dragon and The First Beast with his satellite television audience of 100 million awesomely mesmerized. ‘Who is like the Beast? Who can make war with him?’ seems to be making its way to the forefront of Evangelical and Pentecostal Television in a nightly paroxysm of moral and political obscenity differing from the ancient offerings of Al Goldstein’s Midnight Blue only in Mr. Hagee’s insistence on thankfully covering his rotund temple with tailored clothes, and in his avoidance of the ‘F’ word.  Paradoxically, in terms of absolute and ultimate evil, he may have trumped Goldstein in spades.

Perhaps the most absurd of Hagee’s intellectual deficiencies and theological assertions contradicted by history is his insistence on the application of an absolutely toxic brand of exegetical quackery when it comes to half of Genesis 12: 3, which states that ” I [God] will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”  Ignoring the 7 fold structure of God’s promise in Genesis 12: 2-3; the Old Testament’s account of the specific reasons for the judgment of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 B. C. at the hands of the Assyrians; the Old Testament’s account of the specific reasons for the judgment of the Southern Kingdom of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians in 586 B. C.; the entirety of the New Testament teaching on the nature of the Kingdom of God in Christ; the specific condemnations of National Israel for its rejection of Jesus Christ chronicled in the New Testament (Matthew 21-24 as merely one example); the New Testament’s use of the 7th aspect of God’s promise in Genesis 12: 3 (Acts 3: 25; Galatians 3:8); and most importantly, the eschatological evidence in the New Testament that the evil World System and its Beast have their roots in False Israel and “signs and wonders” of demonic source and origin, the Christian Zionist juggernaut led by Hagee seems determined to provide redemptive history with the ultimate fulfillment of 2 Corinthians 11: 13-14. There, in Paul’s conflict with the Judaizing infiltrators of the Church of Corinth in the first century, the Apostle observes that, “Such men [Judaizers] are false apostles, deceitful, workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”  The Ugly Truth’s re-post today on “Israel Wields Bible’s Soft Power as Far as Brazil,” seems grimly suggestive of what is developing.  Global deception is well underway, courtesy of The Hidden Hand.

If Hagee believes the United States has been especially blessed of God since the establishment of the modern Zionist State in 1948, he must be looking at a different America than that observed by an increasing number of his countrymen and countrywomen.  Economically, the United States has seen the evaporation of its once awesome manufacturing capability; the accumulation of a national debt approaching $17 trillion dollars; the eclipse of what was the strongest middle class of any country on the planet; and a binge of Fiat Money creation by the Federal Reserve matched only by the intoxicating resort to perpetual borrowing from foreign Central Banks and the postponement of the day of reckoning.

Militarily, the tie-one-for-the Gipper outcome in the Korean War and the military disaster of Vietnam, have now paled in comparison to the eroding cancer of America’s Israeli-driven War on Terror in the Middle East and Central Asia.  The final tally for the invasions and losing wars of counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan in lost lives and casualties remains to be tabulated, as do the final economic numbers for these miserable ventures.  Steiglitz of the World Bank speaks of a $3-5 trillion dollar expenditure on these quixotic efforts, even apart from new ventures in Syria and the threatened war with Iran.  Add the eventual tally for the Empire’s military competition with China in Africa for raw materials and minerals, and the larger picture emerges.  Paul Craig Roberts wryly observes that dying Empires run out of both men and money before the life support plug is pulled.

Politically, the United States continues to be downgraded in the eyes of the global community, even as its adoption of Israeli police state philosophy and methodologies connect the War on Terror to a War on the American Constitution.

And culturally, a Zionist-run America has produced the full blown acceptance of abortion-on-demand, homosexuality and every other form of sexual perversion, and the replacement of a lawful society with one soaked in lawless and violence. The questions I thought Ron Paul should have asked Ralph Reed and the denizens of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference during the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary sweepstakes, may be asked of John Hagee and the advocates of an American Empire wedded to Israel at this very moment.  How would he and they respond to the following presentation and analysis?:

     “The truth of the present crisis is that every advocate of American Empire and its marriage to the Zionist Beast, is an avowed advocate of supporting–and being financed–by the very people who have given us every one of the maladies we decry: a fiat American currency, a direct Federal income tax, usurious interest rates, endless foreign wars, a morally polluted American culture, an economic globalism which has destroyed the once-vaunted American manufacturing economy, and the imposition of a domestic technological surveillance structure that threatens to replace the freedoms of our beloved Old Republic with a repristinated Stalinism.

     “To  all Ladies and Gentlemen of genuine Christian faith and commitment and all American patriots of any religious persuasion, I simply ask a few simple questions of you, and of the American people who are listening.  First, why is the domestic and foreign policy of the modern American conservative movement and the Republican party being defined by a view of Biblical prophecy unheard of until the 19th century, and largely promoted worldwide by the House of Rothschild’s distribution of the Scofield Reference Bible through its Oxford University Press?  Secondly, why are we in an alliance with a nation that has repeatedly committed crimes against the United States, including the Lavon Affair, Mossad involvement in the Kennedy assassination, the premeditated attack on the USS Liberty in June of 1967, the Pollard spy case, participation with Communist China in the theft of American nuclear secrets at Los Alamos through the PROMIS affair, and the more recent Ben Ami Kadish and AIPAC/Rosen/Weissman spy cases?

     “Why are we in an alliance as American conservatives with a domestic Jewish lobby which has militantly supported and financed the radical feminist, abortion, and homosexual lobbies most of us are sworn to oppose?

     “Why are we, as a pro-life movement, committed to policies of genocide against the Palestinians and the advocacy of the mass murder of Iranians, at the behest of an ‘ally’ which is the chief nuclear, biological, and chemical military power in the Middle East, and a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed, however, by Iran?

     “And why, pray tell, are people presently in Washington, talking about recovering American Constitutional Principles, in the context of ongoing obeisance to the chief players in a central banking cabal which has handed to us the direct Federal income tax, the Federal Reserve Board, $17 trillion in national debt, and every globalist trade treaty that has destroyed both American sovereignty and our economic vitality?  

     “And why are American Christians and patriotic Americans across-the-board not concerned that Israeli intelligence is promoting agitation-propaganda through the Rupert Murdoch News Corp chain designed to begin a Third World War?  Why are these people silent about the Israeli infiltration of our intelligence agencies, our Homeland Security Department, our Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), and our telecommunications industry? Who is the real perpetrator of what happened on September 11th, 2001, and why?

Additional recent news stories simply and finally underscore the Beastly character of what Matthias Chang terms the Zionist-Banking-U. S. Military Industrial Complex.

John of Patmos photo johnpatmos02_zpsb5ff2af8.jpg

 John on Patmos: Exiled Because of Resistance to the Emperor Worship Cultus. What Did He Learn of the Beast?

Several of these recent stories will suffice to illustrate the Beast’s stranglehold on the Empire.  The first is Keith Johnson’s February 11th, 2013 essay for the American Free Press entitled, “Wall Street Vultures Drive Up Food Prices Even as Billions Across the Globe Starve.”  Johnson chronicles how the poster boy of Jewish Global Finance and Power, Goldman Sachs, made $400 million dollars in profits last year by betting on the prices of food staples like wheat, corn, and soy.  The pouring of billions of dollars into the commodity derivatives markets, and the financialization of the commodities market with products like the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI), has enabled food speculators like Goldman Sachs to control 61% of the market for basic foods, up from 12% in 1996.  This in turn has facilitated the doubling of global prices for food since 2003, with an estimated 868 million undernourished people the victims.  Trace who and what Goldman Sachs is funding politically in the United States and globally.  Can you say, “He [the Beast] also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.  . . . His number is 666. . . .?”

The second story relates to the American military, the accompanying Warrior Cultus, and the untold story of what serving the Empire does to the Warriors.  Victor Thorn unfolds this metastasizing evil for the same edition of the American Free Press.  Citing the work of journalists Kelly Patricia O’Meara for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and Clay Dillow for Popular Science, Thorn takes the uninitiated into the bizarre world of the utilization of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Ultrasonic Mind Control for American military personnel.  Google these terms with the names of the journalists in question.  We may well ask, “What is the Empire’s real position on the value of innocent human life?”  Its position on the innocent lives in Palestine, the Middle East, and Central Asia has already been established.  But what is it doing to its own flesh and blood?  And what mythology sells its soul-devouring agenda to the comatose subjects of Caesar?

Thorn proceeds to the most ugly fact haunting the Warrior Cultus.  In 2012, the number of American soldiers who committed suicide surpassed those killed on battlefields. He cites Kelly O’Meara’s research, which tells us that from 2001-2009 the United States Army suicide rate increased more than 150%, even as military orders for psychiatric drugs for troops rose 76% over the same period.  Put differently, what happens when, as Michel Lonsdale asks Robert De Niro in the movie Ronin, True Belief for the Warrior has died? Who does the Warrior subsequently decide that he is?  What life is left when Belief in an Empire Served has Died?

In terms of the last 12 years, these lies of the American Empire woven as mythology began with the lie of what really happened on September 11th, 2001 and who was behind the attack.  That was compounded with the lies regarding why the Empire was invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

TilmanBanner photo tillmanstadiumflag_zps7a2c8b57.jpg

Tillman Had Honor, Courage, and Integrity: The Empire Doesn’t

TillmanMagcover photo tillmansportsillustrated_zps081b8e6d.jpg

Pat Tillman as Poster Boy: War and Football Merge for the Empire

That then led to the pack of lies surrounding the tragic death in Afghanistan of NFL star Pat Tillman.  Read the complete Wikipedia account to refresh historical memory.  The official story was that Tillman was killed by “enemy fire.”  After an extensive official cover-up of the truth, the United States Government finally acknowledged that the official story, used ongoingly in television ads and football stadium halftime ceremonies around the country to drive the American public to greater ongoing support for the War on Terror, was a lie.  The new version said that he was killed by “friendly fire.”  Or not so friendly fire.  . . . read the Wikipedia account thoroughly for the troubling circumstantial evidence, never properly investigated, that Tillman came to oppose American military involvement in Afghanistan, and was subsequently murdered by some of his own uniformed colleagues for that opposition. The point is simply this:  the Government that lied about 9-11, lied about the reasons for the invasions and occupations of two foreign countries, and lied about Pat Tillman, is the same Government being used by the Zionist Beast that controls it to justify illegal interventions in Libya and Syria among others, as a prelude to a mass murder in Iran being sold by Netanyahu and his American apologists as “self defense.”

“Enemy Fire,” “Friendly Fire,” “Al-Qaeda,” “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq,” “Bin Laden,” “Democracy,” “Freedom,” and “Self Defense” . . .  Has George Orwell risen from the dead to write American, Israeli, and NATO press releases? And what Beast is being served by the American, Israeli, and NATO press secretaries? Put differently, how do people like John McCain keep effectively spinning these Red, White, and Blue whoppers for a new set of coming victims and their families? Even as McCain’s father, Admiral McCain, wove myths to protect Israel after the USS Liberty attack in 1967?  Whose script are these mannequins reading from?

TillmanmemorialCain photo tillmanmccainflag_zps6ec53ced.jpg  Israel Asset and Warmonger John McCain Spins Mythology on the Pat Tillman Death

This then leads to the recent tragic death of Chris Kyle, the American Sniper.  Kyle holds the all-time record for kills for an American military sniper.  He also holds a distance record for a kill notched at some 2,100 yards removed from the targeted victim.  Unlike what is now known about Pat Tillman, Kyle remained a Warrior For Whom Belief in Empire Lived, until his tragic and ironic death at the hands of an American Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)  victim and Marine Corps denizen, who shot Kyle to death on a Texas gun range.  The American Sniper’s  undeniable prowess with a high-powered rifle and scope is unquestioned and formidable.  His ability to think theologically, morally, and philosophically about what it was he was actually serving is the issue in question, not simply for him, but for the thousands who flocked to Texas Stadium for his funeral adorned in American Flags and carrying placards of support for every long since discredited canard used to support the War on Terror and the War on Civilizations.  Michel Lonsdale might ask these well meaning folks also, “Where do You go, and what do You do when Belief has died?  Who are You, really?”

The Christian Cross was strongly in evidence in Texas Stadium, albeit as a supplemental secondary symbol for the more prominently evidenced Old Glory.  But did the faithful really believe their fallen hero was a defender of a culture informed by the morality of the New Testament and the Lord Jesus Christ? How sustainable is that in the wake of the Roe v Wade decision, the societal and legal imprimatur now placed on homosexuality and the legitimacy of sexual perversion of every brand, and the Economic Darwinism that divides a predatory Elite from the vulnerable?  How sustainable is that given the foundational falsehoods undergirding the War on Terror and unswerving American support for a Zionist ideology that empowered the first century mob that called for the release of Barabbas and the death of Christ, even as it now seeks the eradication of Palestinians and Iranians in the name of an Eretz Yisrael in continued disobedience to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and mere human decency itself?

The February 28th New York Times, the American Jewish Power Elite’s print daily of record, informs us in Matt Haber’s piece for the Thursday Styles section, “A Hush-Hush Topic No More,” that the latest trend in the Empire’s evolving mores in matters sexual involves the move toward the eventual mainstreaming of “sex play involving bondage and domination.”  The reader is treated to the inside scoop on the Big Apple’s Paddles nightclub on West 26th Street; a report on the “blockbuster success” of E. L. James’s “Fifty Shades of Grey” trilogy (65 million copies sold worldwide according to Publishers Weekly); and the February premiere of the movie “Kink” at the Sundance Film Festival, a documentary directed by Christina Voros and produced by James Franco, tabbed by The Hollywood Reporter as a “friendly film” to the world of “bondage/discipline, domination/submission, and sadism/masochism.”

This is the wave of the Empire’s present and future.  It is Emperor Domitian’s Rome all over again.  Does the Christian or denizen of the Old American Empire die and kill for it, as the members of the Cult of the American Sniper apparently believe?  This remains the compelling question of the day, and during the increasing onset of nightfall.

snipershow photo chriskylefuneral02_zps3a97b657.jpg

The American Sniper Funeral at Texas Stadium: Flag, Football, Cross, Cowboys, Coliseum, and 7000 True Believers

snipercoffin photo chriskylefuneral01_zpsd571c7b7.png

The American Sniper at Rest on the 50 yard line at Texas Stadium

sniperdupe photo chriskylefuneral04_zps98d09a66.jpg

A Bereaved American Witnesses the Chris Kyle Funeral Motorcade

The argumentation for a suspense of Belief in Empire and its War on Terror has already been made.  The pictures of the Kyle funeral introduced into evidence simply chronicle the record of that day for those who cling unknowingly to the Beast as the Lamb. The symbolism of the funeral and its venue, suggest that someone was indeed disguised that day as an Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11: 13-14). The light was extinguished, enshrouded in an impenetrable darkness.

sniper&Jew photo chriskyleusafgeneralschwartzjinsa2005_zps729ff72e.jpg

The American Sniper Receives the “Grateful Nation” award from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Jewish Air Force Chief of Staff Norman Schwartz presenting. But what “Grateful Nation” is referenced at this event?

Which leads us to the last question of this particular day headed toward an impending night soon to overtake it.  What will be the fate of those who openly question the American Empire, its marriage to the Zionist Beast, and the unmistakable Emperor Worship Cultus that accompanies it?

     Chapter 1, verse 9 of the Apostle John’s Apocalypse is here most instructive and concurrently proleptic in suggesting the probable answer. John begins his own story and that of all of history by telling us under the influence of the Spirit of God that he is writing from an island called Patmos.

Island of Patmos photo patmosaegeansunset_zps67d74468.jpg

Not a Bad View for an Exile on Patmos: An Aegean Sunset.

Patmos is a small, rocky island of 50 square miles in that part of the Aegean known as the Icarian Sea.  The barren nature of the island made it a logical choice for the Roman government and Emperor Domitian (81-96 A. D.) as a place of banishment for criminals.  In physical appearance, the island was a striking first century paradox, with the island’s desolate countenance in absolute contradiction to the magnificent scenery posited by the white crags of the shoreline and the beauty of the open ocean beyond.

The Apostle was exiled there by Emperor Domitian for a simple reason.  John was in staunch resistance to the demands of the Emperor that the Cult of Emperor Worship be enforced and its practices observed by its subjects.  Christians who recognized that Christ was Lord, not Caesar, were facing increasing hostility and the targeting of the central Roman government.

John does not acquiesce to the demands of the first century Beast in any way.  From Patmos, at the approximate age of 100 and after the death of all of his earliest and closest colleagues, he writes his Apocalypse to encourage the faithful to engage in the identical resistance to the machinations and deceptions of Beast and Empire.  Their Souls in Eternity depend on this resistance and this faithfulness. The resistance requires suffering and faithful endurance (1:9).  For those who persevere, the endgame is the Crown of Life.  There can be no synthesis of the agendas of the Christ and the Beast.  The lines of demarcation must be understood in the Spirit’s provided discernment, and observed faithfully even to the point of death (2:10).  For those who understand the meaning of Eternity and the Crown of Life, they are assured that they will avoid the “Second Death” (2:11). Those who follow the Beast will be the only ones to experience the Second Death and the Lake of Fire.

John’s Apocalypse alternates between the first century Beast and the prophecies pertaining to the Beast of the twenty first.  Both Beasts are wedded to the Synagogue of Satan (2:9/3:9).  Both Beasts deceive with both the wielding of the secular sword and the performance of false signs and wonders (chapter 13). Both Beasts demand deification and the trappings of deity.  Both Beasts desire the death and destruction of all who fail to take their mark and swear ultimate allegiance to them.  Take heed, those who confuse the Kingdom of God in Christ with the Emperor Worship Cultus, the Synagogue of Satan, and the Warrior Cultus attached to them.  The clock is running out.

As for those who pretend to be serving Jesus and the American Republic while working for The Tribe, we know who you are, Alex Jones and Michael Savage, among the many.  We understand how well The Tribe pays, how easy life at present is, compared to a trip to exile on a modern day Patmos somewhere with its mandate of “suffering and patient endurance” (1:9).

But that life of ease is as illusory as the power of the Beast.  His end shall come.  So shall yours.  And Act II for you and your followers, and the followers of John Hagee and The American Sniper, is an Act Without End.  It gets rather hot in the Lake of Fire.  But you will get every primetime interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, John Hagee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, General Stanley McChrystal, General Norman Schwartz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Joseph Lieberman that your heart desires.  The studio bookings are great.  But no studio ice water allowed.

——-

Doug Christie: Freedom Fighter and Hero: In his own words by Marc Lemire

BarbDougMarc

 Barbara Kulaszka, Douglas Christie and Marc Lemire

Dear Freedom of Speech Lovers & Supporters,

True to form, as soon as word leaked out that Douglas Christie was diagnosed with a virulent strain of liver cancer, the Jewish-controlled Zionist media monopoly immediately commenced its vilification of Canada’s foremost fighter for our basic human rights.

Pathetic enough were their endless lies and smears and misrepresentations regarding Doug while he was in good health and standing strong and firm but for them to carry on now like blood-thirsty buzzards perched atop their ivory and steel Orwellian mind-control towers while Doug lays prostrate, fighting to stay alive, has got to be the penultimate example of just how cold, cruel and heartless these so-called “mainstream media” moguls really are.

For those who are still in the dark as to Doug’s condition I am including a recent email that his good and dedicated wife Keltie Kubzo sent out concerning his condition. Please read it and if you can, send Doug some good loving, healing thoughts and good wishes.

Keltie:

I am writing to tell you about Doug’s recent diagnosis of metastatic liver cancer, and its implications.

Ironically, the hundreds of tiny, diffused foci of cancer that have spread to his liver, have apparently not come from the prostate cancer, which seems to be controlled, but from some unknown, new primary, that they are currently trying to locate. The doctors give an estimate of six months to live, but Doug and the kids and I realize this is only approximate and will rely on a number of factors. Consequently, we are dealing with an unknown time-frame. He is pretty weak and fragile, and the disease seems to have been moving extremely quickly, and continues to do so.

He’s been fighting hard in a jury trial for about three weeks, getting progressively sicker each day with pain and nausea until on Thursday he just couldn’t continue. There’s only about two days left in the trial and of course Doug wanted to finish it for the client because that’s Doug’s way. He would always fight to the very last inch for his clients and his principles, and that’s why he’s been both reviled and loved. Anyway, he just couldn’t do it and the case was adjourned for me to take him to emergency and that’s where this pervasive cancer was discovered. Despite the pain and nausea and weakness, up till yesterday afternoon he was still determined that he would go back to court on Tuesday for his very last jury address. That is not going to happen, as he just is not able. It’s very hard to believe that he is at this state in his life, so suddenly.

Our children and I are reeling in shock, but somehow we are not surprised because he’s had such battle fatigue for a very long time. Many of you have realized that, I know, seeing him fight so hard for so many years, being under the pressures of taking on unpopular cases and always being misunderstood for it. That has taken its toll. Despite that, you and I will always remember his humour and his loving generosity and his great joy in music, beauty, and human courage.

I am infinitely grateful for the people who have seen who he really is, and cared enough to communicate this to him, reminding him that he has not been alone in these terrible struggles. I hope that those of you who feel inclined to do so, will send him a little message of what is in your heart and mind for him. You can email me in reply to this letter, or send messages to Box 101, 255 Menzies Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3G6. Emails would be better as they will get here faster. His email address is dougchristie@shaw.caand he can get them on his cellphone, which he has with him in the hospital while they do more tests and try to get his pain and nausea under control before he can, we hope, come home. He does not have the stamina right now for visitors or many phone calls.

For quite a few years now, I’ve been trying to get him to at least start on his memoirs, and I want to tell you that he’s left a body of writing that I will be able to work with so that his courageous story will be told.

Thanks again for the loving kindness of you, our friends near and far. You have supported the principles of freedom for many years, through all these struggles and we are deeply grateful for you.

Keltie Zubko

I would also like to thank Marc Lemire, another giant in the battle to retain our fundamental, God-given rights to freedom of speech, for sending his article which is posted below. To watch and listen to Doug’s YouTube’s and to read some of his words is to gain a true account of the man’s principles and integrity rather than listening to the litany of lies and epithets that are spewed forth from the mouths of Zionist hacks working for Zionist rags and tv stations across our once free nation.

Doug is down but he’s not out yet. Please pray for his recovery and for his family so that they can continue to support him over the next while. It’s never over until it’s over.

Also, please pass this post to everyone you can.

Sincerely

 

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

____________________________________

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/doug-christie-in-his-own-words-immortal.html 

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2013/02/doug-christie-in-his-own-words-immortal.html

Forget about the media invective that is currently being hurled at Douglas Christie by the whores in the controlled media party.  Doug Christie is a decent, honourable and true fighter for individual liberty and freedom of speech in Canada.  You can count on a single hand the number of decent lawyers in Canada, and Doug Christie is one of them!

Find out who Douglas Christie really is – from his own words, in this YouTube video:

DougYou1

Doug Christie had a long and memorable legal practice.  While the media gets in a lather about Doug’s more controversial so-called “racist” and “anti-Semitic” clients (because Doug dared to represent them), they actually only made up a small portion of his legal practice.  According to the video above, Doug has represented clients on about 8,000 cases over 37 years as a defence lawyer – generally representing the rights of the individual against the state. His cases range from child custody cases where the state persecuted parents to tax freedom cases.
 
Douglas Christie is a hero and dedicated fighter for freedom of speech.  In my youth, I recollect attend a meeting where he was the guest speaker. I was struck not only by his superior oratory skills, but even more so by both his passion and love for freedom. He brilliantly conveyed the significance of what freedom is all about and how vital it is to resist artificially induced state control over it.
 
Over the past couple of decades I have become closely acquainted with Doug. The respect that spawned the evening I saw him speak for the first time only deepened with every case and submission that he made on behalf of freedom. His defences consisted of a rare combination of sound logic and reason combined with compelling emotion.
 
In my case before the Kangaroo court also known as the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, Doug flew all the way from Victoria in order to participate. Typically, he had a major impact but none more poignant than when he raised questions about the “mental serenity issues” surroundingCHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna. It was vintage Doug Christie! 
 
Here are some of the transcript references of Doug Christie’s submissions to the Tribunal:
Photobucket

The closing submissions Doug gave in my case was a sight to behold.  The entire courtroom was mesmerized as Doug hammered away at the pillars of censorship for close to two hours!  Doug has a commanding voice and delivery that would make Clarence Darrow jealous.

Doug Christie wrapped up his comments with these very insightful critiques of censorship:

We’re here because this legislation is no joke. It has created a monstrous threat to freedom of speech. The passage of time has changed the nature of the communication, increased its volume, and made it rebuttable from the time of Taylor. If Sec. 13 had attacked the activities of drug user, lawyers would be lined up for their defence of narcotics users, but as it attacks free speech, there are few to defend it. Apparently, drug users are more popular than free speech.

The enemies of free speech don’t want to debate their opponents; they want to silence them. I don’t hesitate to say hate is right in some cases; hate for evil and hate where the lives of innocent people are at stake. We’re not allowed to argue the truth of what we say that might prove the validity of strong opinions.

The Commission wants a cease and desist order against Marc Lemire for a website he neither owns nor controls. This legislation allows this absurdity.

Apparently, to have an honest opinion that people don’t like is to violate the law. It is implicit that truth is no defence, honest belief is no defence, intent is no defence.

Hatred and contempt without reference to truth – which is not a Sec. 13 defence – is an invitation to hypocrisy.  If we keep this legislation, we will undermine democracy and promote hypocrisy.

Doug Christie, you are my hero, and I wish you well.  For 40 years, Doug has stood (often alone) as the beacon for freedom against state control, censorship and bullying.

You’re in my thoughts and prayers, and so is your entire family.

 -Marc Lemire

February 26, 2013 

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.Freedomsite.org

DougYou2

Universal Principles of freedom of speech

Free Speech lawyer Douglas Christie discusses the concept of universal principles in freedom of speech cases. Is free speech for everyone or just your friends?

http://youtu.be/f93BUkI9RQo

DougYou3

Living Free in an Unfree World

Western Canadian Separatist and free speech lawyer Douglas Christie talks about freedom, purpose and self-fulfillment, in an unfree world.

http://youtu.be/oZgQiJh8qNc

DougYou4

Doug Christie on BBC

Douglas Christie, defense lawyer for Imre Finta in Canada’s only war crimes trial, appears on the BBC

http://youtu.be/WGLO-bJPswg

 

This blog is cross-posted to:

·        http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/doug-christie-in-his-own-words-immortal.html

·        http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2013/02/doug-christie-in-his-own-words-immortal.html

 

 

The Rule of Law in Canada: Another Stephen Harper Wreck by Robin Mathews

Trainrek

The Rule Of Law in Canada: Another Stephen Harper Wreck

by Robin Mathews

February 24, 2013

Alberta energy specialist Andrew Nikiforuk (Tyee, Feb. 22, 2013) reports the involvement of the federal Minister of Justice in what may be called direct interference with the rule of law in Alberta. The story Nikiforuk tells leaves the trail of malfeasance clear and examinable.

In “a stunning move the Harper government” – through the Department of Justice (reports Andrew Nikiforuk) – has promoted a key judge (in a landmark fracking case) from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Alberta Court of Appeal.  As Andrew Nikiforuk puts it, the move was made in order to remove Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis, presiding judge, from “the multi-million dollar ($33 million) lawsuit” being pressed by Jessica Ernst in the matter of fracking pollution and those responsible for it.

Madam Justice Veldhuis will be replaced.  Her replacement will automatically be questionable – suspected of being a “plant” to prejudice the case in favour of Stephen Harper and Encana, one of Canada’s largest natural gas producers.

Readers need to know that the judge on a case is usually – for very obvious reasons – bound to that case.  The judge is said to be “seized” with the case – meaning responsible for all aspects of it from beginning to end. Being “seized” usually means not to be interfered with, not unnecessarily delayed, NOT REPLACED  without very sound reason – because the judge knows most about the complications of the case.

The judge is “seized” also because law and courts have a long history of powers of all kinds wanting to get rid of judges in order to tamper with, change, and/or redirect the judgement in cases. That is one of the reasons a judge is “seized” – so that any meddling by power can be seen for what it is, an action intended to violate the fair administration of justice.

Jessica Ernst is fighting Encana. and was close to getting a ruling from Madam Justice Veldhuis that she could sue “Alberta’s energy regulator … for failing to uphold provincial rules, protect groundwater, and respect the constitutional rights of Canadians”.
That ruling would have placed a burden of responsibility upon frackers that they have been doing everything they can to avoid [with the full support of Stephen Harper, anti-environmentalist].

The Harper Junta interference is, I suggest, mischievous, prejudicial, scandalous, and stunning in its obviousness.

But we have been there before.

In the trial of Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi (part of the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR by the Gordon Campbell group) the judge “seized” with the matter was Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. The pre-trial and trial ran from after the laying of charges in December 2004 to the outrageous explosive-ending of the trial in October 2010.

But that ending happened without Elizabeth Bennett presiding.

For – like Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis in the fracking case – Bennett was removed in what many believe was a Stephen Harper decision to protect his ‘friends’ – Gordon Campbell and others.

In order to defend the accused, Defence lawyers had to call for RCMP officers’ notebooks, for investigation records, for materials in BC Rail headquarters, for government records of pre-sale manipulations, and much more. At almost every call, RCMP delayed.  The Special Crown Prosecutor fudged and fumbled. Almost every time, Madam Justice Bennett upheld the Defence request as a reasonable part of the rights of the accused to defend against the charges against them.

Out of the blue Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett – by the power that only resides in the Minister of Justice in Ottawa – was raised to the B.C. Appeal Court. Would she leave the matter that she was  seized with?  In theory, she didn’t have to.

Then a nightmare event happened in the B.C. Supreme Court.  Out of nowhere the bulldog Associate Chief Justice of the day Patrick Dohm appeared to preside at a process.

The apparent reason for the event was for the Special Prosecutor William Berardino to make a motion that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett be removed from the case.  He gave two reasons. The first and completely ridiculous reason was that she couldn’t be in two places at once – and so must go.  The second reason he evinced was that she had incorrectly employed process.  That I believe was a wholly false assertion.

Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm received the motion with enthusiasm … and with such approval that he admitted he had already chosen the person to succeed Elizabeth Bennett.  That meant he had to have chosen Bennett’s replacement before there was a motion to have a replacement made!

The Special Prosecutor, incidentally, had been appointed in flagrant violation of the legislation governing the appointment of Special Prosecutors.  William Berardino was not noted for experience in criminal prosecutions. But he had been partner and colleague for seven years of the sitting Attorney General Geoff Plant.  And he had been partner and colleague for eleven years of the sitting Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel. Because of those connections he was completely unqualified for the appointment he received.

It seems he was to focus on the three men, to get a judgement against them, and to show to British Columbians that there had been real wrongdoers in the “sale” of BC Rail, three of them, three (lower level) Sikh employees, and they were all charged and were all convicted.  Justice triumphs! End of story.

It didn’t work. Mr. Berardino was confronted by excellent Defence counsel. They made a strong and fair case that defence of the accused could only be made by examining the actions of their highly dubious superiors…who gave orders.

Madam Justice Bennett permitted that reasonable defence.

Madam Justice Bennett was removed.

She was replaced by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie who was very soon elevated – a few weeks later – to Associate Chief Justice upon the retirement of Patrick Dohm. Quite soon after the end of the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial, she was elevated to the British Columbia Appeal Court.

Her role, it seemed to me sitting in the courtroom, was to get the case back to the three men only.  But it didn’t work.

The trial became a hilarious display of amnesia … almost of general Altzheimers Disease. Gordon Campbell’s decade-long chief of staff, Martyn Brown, could remember almost nothing. A member of the BC Rail Board, Brian G. Kenning, could hardly remember his own name, and didn’t even finish his testimony before the trial ended. And there were to be about twenty-five more of the same to come.

If the cross-examination had continued in the same way – and it might have grown worse – the cover-up of major wrongdoers would, I am sure, have exploded. Something had to be done to end it. Backroom dealing went into high gear. The three accused agreed to what might be called charges reduced to almost nothing.  The government of Gordon Campbell agreed to pay all of the ($6 million) costs of Defence.

The $6 million (that might be called a bribe by some) to avoid criminal charges against top politicians and corporate ‘leaders’ (and perhaps some years behind bars for them) was cheap. It was a breach of procedure and was paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia – but what the hell!  It worked.

Stephen Harper’s ‘friends’ got out of it all unscathed – and without paying a penny – by the simple action of the Minister of Justice in Ottawa stepping in (on Stephen Harper’s orders?), and promoting Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett from the B.C. Supreme Court to the B.C Appeal Court. To prove his prowess in the matter, Stephen Harper then appointed Gordon Campbell to what is perhaps the highest diplomatic position a Canadian can hold – Canadian High Commissioner in London.

In both cases, in B.C. and Alberta, the Stephen Harper Junta has used the courts and the administration of justice, I believe, to violate trust, to support alleged wrongdoers who might be found to be in serious fault or even criminally responsible, and to make justice in Canada a plaything of corrupt power.

I suggest that only a government powered by a psychopath could so viciously and openly attack the rule of law in Canada.

———

Contact Robin at: Robin Mathews rmathews@telus.net