Friday, November 13, 2009


Ilan Pappe silenced in Munich

Left-wing groups enraged by Germany municipality’s decision not to allow anti-Zionist Israeli historian to speak at governmental institution. Pappe writes to Munich mayor his policy reminiscent of Nazi Germany

Sarah Stricker

Anti-Zionist historian Prof. Ilan Pappe, one of the most important “New Historians”, was scheduled to speak last weekend at the Pedagogical Institute of Munich. But a letter received from the “Israeli-German association of Munich”, claiming that Pappe’s lecture would turn into “an anti-Israeli propaganda show,” led the Munich Municipality to reconsider the event.

The municipality eventually did not let Pappe use the room, claiming its decision was prompted by fears of violent clashes breaking out in the area. The Munich police insisted that there was no danger of fear for the security of those attending the lecture.

The Munich mayor refused to comment on the issue despite appeals from German media outlets. Pappe’s associates eventually organized a room not owned by the authorities and the lecture took place as planned.

“We are not seeking to criticize Israel, only to hold an informative-scientists discussion,” one of the associates said.

Prof. Pappe wrote an open letter to the mayor, stating that “in the 1930s my father, a German Jew, was silenced in a similar manner, and I am saddened to discover the same censorship in 2009.”
Pappe noted in his letter that he had not experienced oppression or such a strong desire to silence his opinion in any other European country. He said that “a handful of people” attempted to frighten the mayor, “people who view themselves as representatives of the Jewish people and the disaster they went through in Europe.”

‘Words don’t kill’

Germany’s left-wing party, green party and the ATTAC organization, which is against globalization, came to Pappe’s defense and criticized the mayor for giving in to the Jewish organization.

The green party referred to the mayor’s move as “an act of political cowardice.” The local branch of Die Linke (the left-wing party) said that although sensitivity must be shown in terms of Jewish interests in Germany, “the attempt to defend Israel against criticism by preventing information from reaching people is unthinkable.”

Pappe told Ynet about his bad feelings following the incident. “The lecture was held in a different place in Germany, not where it was initially supposed to take place, in a room owned by the municipality. I was surprised by the fact that the municipality was the one to invite me and that a letter sent by some people, and I have no idea if they included Israelis or not, led to a last-minute cancellation,” he said.

According to the professor, “It’s very strange that a lecture should be prevented due to fear of criticism against Israel. This is the reason, it’s obvious to everyone, but why cancel? Words don’t kill, but rather open the mind.

“If they wanted, why didn’t they bring someone from the embassy to present the opposite stand and contradict my remarks? This hasn’t happened to me even in Israel, so it’s even peculiar.”

Bookmark and Share

Rules are rules, the madness of Soviet Britain under . . .

You can’t sell a few eggs without filling in tons of paperwork and keeping countless state funded non jobs in a job:

An expert in microbiology in her 60s was subjected to an interrogation by a Government health official after she tried to sell some eggs at her local village shop.

Susannah Eykyn was visited by a ‘hen inspector’ who taught her how to clean and weigh an egg and designated her kitchen as a ‘packing station’.

The Defra official then donned a protective suit to inspect Mrs Eykyn’s chicken house, before leaving her with a large amount of paperwork to fill in.

Mrs Eykyn, a professor in clinical micro-biology, said she was left ‘bewildered’ at the end of the three-hour interrogation.

She said: ‘It does seem to be quite remarkable that for me to sell a few surplus eggs at the village stores I needed to be subjected to this utter nonsense.

Maybe she should barter them, or just tell the state to fuck the fuck off. But even when you follow the rules the New Labour state will fine you just to be petty, bloody minded and vindictive.

A retired headmaster had an £80 parking fine slapped on his car because his disabled parking permit had faded in the sun.

Harold Cadwallader, 87, did not realise that the record of his personal details had bleached on the card he leaves on the dashboard of his car.

He found the ticket on his windscreen when he left his Vauxhall Vectra in a disabled bay while he went to play his weekly game of bridge at a community centre.

This is what 12 years of Soviet style top down rule on the part of the vile Labour filth has given us, a snooper state where in order to do anything you need to follow the states rules.

Whilst all this happens Comrade Gordon allowed in millions of illegals jihadists and others from abroad and bribing them with benefits in order to re-elect Labour scum to the Commons.

Remember come polling day that this is a party that thinks you should have a license(and pay ever higher taxes) in order to buy a packet of cigarettes or to go for a beer.More

Bookmark and Share

When Dictatorship Came to America

The presidential oath of office contains a pledge to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and by implication the liberties of the American people that the document is intended to preserve. In light of this, can you name which of the delegated powers in the U.S. Constitution allow the president to invade his own country, mass murder his own American citizens, and bomb, burn and plunder their cities? Can you explain how such acts would be consistent with protecting the constitutional liberties of those unfortunate citizens? If you think you can, then congratulations, you are a Lincoln Scholar. If not, do not despair. You are in decent company, including the five living past presidents as of 1861, namely, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan. Lincolns predecessor, President James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, stated the truth when he said the following:

Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw . . . from the Confederacy [of states]? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the federal government (Senate Journal, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, 4 December 1860, 15–16).

Unlike Lincoln, James Buchanan was a constitutionalist. His opinion that a president has no constitutional right to invade his own country and murder his fellow citizens has relegated him to the bottom of every ranking of American presidents by the American history profession for generations. This doesnt mean he was wrong, only that a large segment of the history profession is hopelessly corrupt. Buchanan understood, as did nearly everyone prior to Lincoln, that the states did not give up any of their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution; they merely delegated several distinct powers to the central government that was designed to act for their mutual benefit.

Buchanans position on secession is described in some detail by John Avery Emison in his new book, Lincoln Über Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America. Its high time that Americans grow up, says Emison, and confront the reality of their own history, as opposed to the childish fairy tales concocted by the court historians of the Church of Lincoln. Source>>>

Bookmark and Share

Why Switzerland Is Still Free and America Is Not

The American Time magazine article headline asks, "Will Switzerland Vote to Ban Minarets on Mosques?"

Swiss citizens are becoming concerned about the threat that Islam presents to their traditional culture, economy and religious institutions. As an American, I know how I would vote were I Swiss but the decision will be made by the Swiss electorate as they have this referendum right on all issues.

In Switzerland, the people still rule and have the ultimate right to decide decisions above the government or parliament. Through the right of referendum they can cancel legislation and with the initiative they can pass or create legislative action on issues parliament refuses to act upon.

The bias and closed statist views shown in the article is business as usual for the US media elites out to protect the American political establishment and are so evident in this headline and article. It isn’t the question they asked but rather the question they didn’t dare ask is the "700-lb gorilla in the room."

Quoting from the article, "Critics say the SVP, the largest party in Switzerland's coalition government, has taken advantage of the country's unique brand of direct democracy to push its populist, anti-immigrant agenda on the Swiss electorate. Citizens have the right to propose new laws in Switzerland – the only thing they need to force a nationwide vote on an initiative is a petition of 100,000 signatures."

The question not asked is why doesn’t the American electorate have oversight over legislation and unpopular government regulations in the United States like in Switzerland? Imagine if 4% of the American voters signed a petition requiring a nationwide vote "yea or nay" on the banking bailouts, going to war in Iraq, auditing the Federal Reserve, nationalized health care or on the trillions in new Washington debt added because of the financial meltdown. The United States would still be a decentralized republic with limited government had we had the political option to hold back Washington and the special interests.

How America would be different if we had Swiss-style political rights to restrain government where the people rule instead of the special interests. Imagine an America where the billions in graft and political influence that control Congress could still buy legislation but not ultimate control if we as a people could overrule their actions.

What if the will of the people still ultimately controlled the political system and direction with true limited government at the federal, state and local level? Imagine the American electorate overriding Congress and demanding a strong dollar backed by real gold reserves, an audit of the Federal Reserve, a rollback of the bailouts, a declaration of war for foreign military intervention, the abolishment of the Patriot Act and a return to banking privacy.

Yes, a Swiss political party (The Swiss Peoples Party) promotes a nationalist agenda to the Swiss voters and they will ultimately decide in referendum yes or no on the issue. This is currently impossible in the United States but Swiss direct democracy and limited confederation government have worked in Switzerland for hundreds of years.

This is far superior to the two-party monopoly in America where the elites controlling both parties can push their self-serving agendas without restraint. Currently, short of the Tenth Amendment movement, state nullification or outright state secession, there is no real effective way to push back against Washington.

Until the American people can find a way to restrain the Federal government, the bureaucracy and the judiciary, the best place for Americans to secure and safeguard their wealth is outside their own country. Switzerland is one of the best jurisdictions to consider because their political system has preserved the rights and freedoms we once had as Americans. Still the ultimate problem for Americans is the necessity to restore our liberties at home because history has shown that wealth without liberty is only a temporary condition at best.

I say, it is time to take a real look at direct democracy in the United States or else Americans who value their property and liberties will have little choice but to first transfer their wealth to safety outside the US as it will be lost in the coming crash of treasury debt and the dollar. Next we must stand and fight the Washington leviathan through the political tools of the 10th amendment and John C. Calhoun’s political ideal of nullification both of which the Feds will probably just ignore. Our final democratic political tool is to exercise the political right of state-by-state secession with all the political and historical baggage this entails.

Trust me, Swiss style direct democracy in the United States would be an easier way to control Washington and the special interests but we only have a few years before the Washington debt and dollar collapse is upon us. Therefore I’ll close with a question. Is anybody here for secession?


Bookmark and Share

Tell the Mets: No to the Hebron Fund

The New York Mets are allowing the Hebron Fund, a Brooklyn-based non-profit supporting violent and racist Israeli settlers living in the West Bank City of Hebron, to hold a fundraiser at Citi Field on November 21st. These are the settlers whose unchecked violence against the Palestinian population has been described by Israeli newspaper Haaretz as a lynching and a pogrom.Tell the Mets to cancel the Hebron Fund dinner!

Source: Jewish Voice for Peace
Bookmark and Share

Ehud Olmert could face war crimes arrest if he visits UK

• Prosecution of Israelis likely, says solicitor
• Lawyers working on use of universal jurisdiction

Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister during the Gaza war, would probably face arrest on war crimes charges if he visited Britain, according to a UK lawyer who is working to expand the application of "universal jurisdiction" for offences involving serious human rights abuses committed anywhere in the world.

Neither Olmert nor Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister during the Cast Lead offensive, and a member of Israel's war cabinet, would enjoy immunity from prosecution for alleged breaches of the Geneva conventions, predicted Daniel Machover, who is involved in intensifying legal work after the controversial Goldstone report on the three-week conflict. Neither are ministers any longer.

Prosecutions of Israeli political and military figures remain likely despite the failure to obtain an arrest warrant for Ehud Barak, the defence minister, when he visited the UK earlier this month, he said. In the Barak case a magistrate accepted advice from the Foreign Office that the minister enjoyed state immunity and rejected an application made on behalf of several residents of the Gaza Strip.

"This needs to be tested at the right time and in the right place," Machover said. "One day one of these people will make a mistake and go to the wrong country and face a criminal process — and then it'll be a matter for the courts of that country to give them a fair trial: that's what the Palestinian victims want."

The death toll for the war was some 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. Israel insists it acted in legitimate self-defence in response to rocket attacks by Hamas.

Police sources denied a claim that police maintain a "watch list" of Israeli officers who would face arrest if they try to enter the country.

In 2005 General Doron Almog was tipped off that he was about to be arrested before leaving a plane at Heathrow airport. Last month a former chief of staff, General Moshe Ya'alon, cancelled a visit to Britain, apparently for fear of arrest. Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet security service, faced an arrest warrant in the Netherlands following a complaint by a Palestinian who said he had been tortured.

The development of universal jurisdiction has been boosted by the Goldstone report, which urged Israel to conduct an independent inquiry into alleged war crimes. Failing that, other governments were advised to try suspects using universal jurisdiction. Another option was for the UN security council to refer allegations to the international criminal court. Israel refused to co-operate with the report, which also accused Hamas of war crimes.

But the law is complex and developing unevenly. Lawyers in Germany were this week unable to obtain an arrest warrant for the current Israeli army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, because German law grants immunity to guests invited on state visits. Spain is considered legally "dangerous" by the Israelis.

Machover confirmed that he was working with other lawyers in the EU and elsewhere "in an increasingly organised fashion in different jurisdictions. It's not just about Palestine. It might be about Rwanda or Afghanistan," he said.

Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper reported today that officers of the Israel Defence Forces who took part in the Gaza operation have been asked to consult legal experts at the foreign ministry, where they are instructed how to behave abroad and in some cases advised not to visit certain countries.

The ministry said it was "aware of efforts undertaken by Palestinian groups and their supporters to harm IDF officers through legal and public relations means, and is working to prevent such efforts."

Source: The Guardian

Bookmark and Share

Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment

10th Amendment Pledge

In states around the country, there's a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution -- the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to "Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law"

While the FFA's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:

"federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state."


Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.


Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.

"For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states," said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. "The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen's right to bear arms isn't the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration."

"Enough is enough," urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. "Our founders fought too hard to ensure states' sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don't belong."


In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It's time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."

Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?

The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus -- federal agencies who didn't recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.

Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.

Source: Campaign For Liberty

Bookmark and Share

Forget the Audit: Just Go Ahead & Abolish the Federal Reserve

By Jim Trafficant

ON MARCH 17, 1993, I addressed the House of Representatives in one of the many “budget” debates. Over the past 16 years, many publications and books have reprinted my speech.

They viewed my speech as being on target. Researchers have written to me regarding the speech, confused because it was printed in two areas of the Congressional Record. My floor remarks were brief, but I inserted the entire speech into the “extension of remarks” section of the record.

Nevertheless, the speech stands today as prophetic. America is bankrupt, and it’s growing worse by the day. The U.S. government was technically dissolved by the “Emergency Banking Act” of March 9, 1933. THAT’S A FACT.

If you have any doubt, just look around. Foreclosures and unemployment run rampant. The dollar is dropping so low it could fit under a closed door with a top hat on, yet every day the mainstream media is trying to convince us that the recession is over. Who’s kidding whom? If you take Social Security and Medicare out of our economy, it’s a full-blown depression—a total belly-up depression.

The real rub emanates from the fact that the “trustees” who preside over U.S. bankruptcy are the international bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

I proclaim that all U.S. offices, officials and departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under “Emergency War Power.”

Our constitutional form of government was technically dissolved and replaced by a so-called “democracy,” a government in actuality being a socialist-communist order under a new governor for America.

You must be thinking that I’ve lost my marbles by now—I don’t blame you. But, here come the facts. This chicanery occurred when authority was transferred and placed in the Office of the Secretary of Treasury under the governor of the International Monetary Fund. [Public Law 94-564].

In essence, the dollar was changed from a “promise to pay a dollar in silver or gold” to a “federal reserve note.” Now think about it: the dollar became a “promise,” not “money.”

The U.S. dollar is a debt instrument, nothing more than another debt obligation of the American people. And where is this obligation to be paid? You probably guessed it, to the Federal Reserve Bank.

Let’s tell it like it is. Federal Reserve notes are literally unsigned checks written on a closed account. It’s nothing more than inflatable paper creating more debt through inflation every time our currency is devalued.

Truth is, inflation is actually another tax; invisible, never seen, but a tax just the same. I don’t know about you, but I always thought that a “contract” under common law is only valid if it involves an exchange of some “good and valuable consideration.”

If that’s not enough to frost your pumpkins, check this out: The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the U.S. government. It is in fact, a private corporation.

We, the people of these United States, owe this private corporation consisting of international bankers a mountain of debt. The collateral on this debt is our very own homes and properties.

We the people are nothing more than tenants and sharecroppers, renting our own property from the Federal Reserve Bank. Most Americans are mortgaged to the hilt with few or no assets, working harder and profiting less, constantly in debt to a private corporation they know little or nothing about.

BEAM ME UP. This has gone on way too long—WAKE UP AMERICA.

This is nothing more than economic slavery to a bunch of international fat cats. Our Constitution has been turned upside down, violated and discarded like toilet paper. Unbelievable.

It’s not rocket science folks—CONGRESS SHALL COIN MONEY, so mandates the Constitution. It’s very clear to me: the Federal Reserve System should be abolished, not just audited so the politicians can feel good, but abolished. Enough is enough. In closing I say “audit this.”

Source: American free Press
Bookmark and Share

End the Fed Rally -- Nov. 22

Bookmark and Share