|
======================================
Subject:
Communiqué du jeudi 8 avril 2004
:: Un Land allemand sollicite un prêt islamique ! ::
Le gouvernement du Land allemand de Saxe-Anhalt vient dannoncer son intention de recourir un emprunt islamique hauteur de 100 millions deuros. Objectif : attirer des investisseurs arabes mais aussi, comme le précise, le ministre des Finances de Saxe, Karl-Heinz Pque, envoyer un signe : nous voulons envoyer un message de respect envers les autres cultures .
Les conditions de cet emprunt répondront aux conditions posées par la religion musulmane, qui interdit notamment le paiement d'intérêts. Les souscripteurs d'obligations islamiques ne peroivent pas d'intérêts, ce qui serait considéré comme de l'usure par la religion musulmane, mais des versements réguliers correspondant une part des bénéfices réalisés sur certains investissements clairement identifiés et approuvés.
Cet emprunt doit être lancé en mai ou juin et est coordonné par le groupe américain Citigroup.
Cette annonce apporte une nouvelle preuve du comportement suicidaire de la classe politique européenne.
======================================
Subject:
Hey! Can conservative whites get a special screening of the Super Bowl without Janet Jackson's tit? No? Why not?
Here.
======================================
Subject:
General Says: More aid to Israel is the problem...
General David Says:
While Americans will have to make sacrifices because of the enormous U.S.
debt that the war in Iraq has caused, it seems that there is no limit to the
amount awarded to Israel. Previous aid to Israel was used to build illegal
settlements, and now more U.S. aid will be used to relocate these settlements. And
don't be surprised if this relocation isn't in other occupied lands including
the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Will it ever end? Extra aid to Israel is
no more than extra hatred by those who already hate us. Instead of reducing
this aid to Israel the U.S. only ignites the flames that continue the ongoing
violence. As long as we have corrupt American politicians who have their hands
in the pockets of the Jewish Lobby, we will never see peace in the Middle East.
4-08-04
Retired General David
BGJDAVID@aol.com
========
US mulls extra aid to Israel in return for disengagement
The aid will take the form of grants for developing the Negev and for
combating terror.
Yoav Yitzhak
7 Apr 04
Here.
The US administration has promised to give favorable consideration to
granting extra economic aid to Israel if the Israeli government approves the plan for
disengagement from the Palestinians, and work towards implementing it. This
was agreed between US representatives and the professional team headed by Prime
Minister's Bureau director Adv. Dov Weissglas. The aid requests reportedly
include grants for development of the Negev, and financial aid in combating
terror. The extra aid, which is in addition to the $10 billion already pledged by
the Bush administration, is worth billions of dollars.
However, it was agreed that the aid requests would not be formally submitted
at this stage, and would not be raised explicitly in the talks Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon is due to hold with President George W. Bush. This understanding
was reached in order that the additional aid should not seen as a direct quid
pro quo for Israel's evacuation of Gaza, but should rather be given after
approval of the plan and commencement of implementation, so that it will appear as
direct financing for development of the Negev and direct aid for the war on
terror.
Sharon reportedly informed Minister of Finance Benjamin Netanyahu of the
understanding with the US at a meeting at Sharon's Sycamore Farm yesterday. Sharon
told Netanyahu that the evacuation of the Gaza Strip, and the economic aid
Israel will receive, would enable Israel to realize the vision of successive
Israel governments: the reclamation of the Negev desert, and the creation of
infrastructure for the absorption of thousands of people in that region of the
country. Netanyahu sees this as a lever for speeding up growth.
======================================
Subject:
Saddam's out, seder's in:
Passover in Hussein's palace
By Joe Berkofsky
NEW YORK, April 5 (JTA) -- When Rabbi Mitchell Ackerson asks why this Passover is different than any other, the answer involves Saddam Hussein.
Ackerson, the senior Jewish chaplain for Operation Iraqi Freedom, was set to lead historic seders this week for Jewish servicepeople and civilians in Saddam's former Presidential Palace in Baghdad.
As he readied a seder for up to 125 Jewish troops, civilian administrators and diplomats, and even a few Iraqi Jews, Ackerson considered the prospect of celebrating the Jewish people's liberation from slavery in Egypt in Saddam's palace appropriate.
"We've all come in partnership to provide freedom for this country, in a place where freedom was ripped apart," Ackerson told JTA in a phone interview late last week from Baghdad.
The seder marked another historic milestone: In a rare move, the Department of Defense requisitioned "seder kits" from a civilian supplier for the estimated 1,000 Jews serving in the Iraqi war effort and elsewhere.
"This is the true spiritual victory over an evil empire," said Rabbi Jacob Goldstein, joint forces command chaplain for the National Guard in New York, who has helped ferry religious supplies to Jewish troops in the war.
"Our government takes the religious needs of its soldiers very seriously and goes out of its way to make sure they are met."
Other organizations are also pitching in for Passover. The Aleph Institute in Surfside, Fla., has sent Passover supplies to more than 1,300 soldiers around the world, continuing a tradition it has upheld since 1995.
The group, which is affiliated with Chabad-Lubavitch and also minister to the needs of Jews in U.S. prisons, shipped thousands of pounds of shmura matzah -- the matzah baked especially for Passover following strict guidelines -- as well as seder plates, Haggadahs, grape juice, gefilte fish and macaroons to soldiers from Haiti to Italy to Iraq.
E-mails to the Aleph Institute came from troops aboard Sixth Fleet ships off Italy; from Navy personnel in Haiti; and even from a Protestant Air Force chaplain asking for help for 6-8 Jews.
Rabbi Menachem "Mendy" Katz, of the Aleph Institute, said the organization sends out Passover and other holiday supplies to any member of the military that responds to its e-mails seeking out Jews.
"Not one piece of matzah was sent out without a specific request," Katz said.
Other organizations including the Jewish War Veterans of New Jersey, the Jewish Federation of Rockland County, N.Y., and a newly launched group called the Jewish Soldiers Foundation have also helped fund similar efforts.
These groups stepped in after some said Jewish troops were not receiving sufficient holiday supplies on time for other holidays. In the past the Jewish Chaplains Council of the Jewish Welfare Board in New York was generally in charge of such efforts.
A series of reports in the Jewish Week of New York detailed delays and other organizational problems with the delivery of religious items under the Welfare Board's aegis.
Ackerson, for example, said he was still waiting to receive more than 400 Purim baskets that the National Council of Young Israel, a modern Orthodox group, had spent more than $10,000 gathering and sent according to the Welfare Board's instructions.
A Welfare Board official could not be reached for comment.
Ackerson, meanwhile, said the Defense Department, via its Defense Logistics Agency, purchased enough supplies for Jewish servicepeople in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar.
They include two seder kits with Haggadahs, seder plates that include the necessary ritual foods, beef stew, fish, fruit, grape juice and gum, along with kosher-for-Passover rations for 14 more meals, he said.
The military's official kosher supplier, My Own Meals of Chicago, produced about 4,000 MREs, or meals ready to eat, at $6.95 per ration, about 30 cents more than conventional rations, said its founder and president, Mary Ann Jackson.
This was the first year the company got back into the Passover business, she said. In 1995 and 1996, the company made thousands of Passover meals, but the Welfare Board only ordered a few hundred.
Goldstein is among those who welcome the government's supplying Jewish troops with food and religious items.
He spent this past Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in Iraq, and was "floored" to find kosher meals including corned beef and pastrami, bagels and lox, cakes and doughnuts -- enough that troops had leftovers for Sukkot, which he marked by helping erect a sukkah outside the main doors to Saddam's main palace.
Goldstein also led High Holiday services in Saddam's compound, a massive area encompassing 40 buildings, gardens and lakes, greenhouses and an opulent palace featuring hand-painted vaulted ceilings, marble floors and gold fixtures.
"Spiritually it was uplifting to have two Torahs and be dancing in Saddam's palace and declaring the unity of God," he said.
Other Jewish chaplains leading seders in military hot spots include Rabbi Shmuel Felzenberg in northern Iraq; Rabbi Mordechai Schwab in Kuwait; Rabbi Avraham Cohen in Qatar; Rabbi Kenneth Leinwand in Afghanistan and Rabbi Brett Oxman in South Korea.
======================================
Subject: McCarthy article
While I will agree that the constitution of the United States is a fine
document in theory. It is not relevant for our times in one respect and was
subverted by the time of the civil war anyway. The constitution was written
for White Men and White Men only. It's ideas of fairness and the seperation
of powers is an alien concept to most races. Other races see it's freedom
granting as it's weaknesses and either don't understand or don't want to
understand that with freedom comes responsibility. They just take advantage
of these freedoms while eschewing its responsibilities.
A good example here would be the enormous advantages jews have enjoyed with
the freedoms granted by that document, while they almost never do anything
to help protect it. They are always trying to tear it down in one way or
another. The jew however, has the brains to understand what the document
stands for, but the ideas contained within it are contemptible to him and
he only will use it to further the interests of the jew.
The negro on the other hand, is too dull on the whole to understand much of
the constitution. He just lives for today and is just suited to a primitive
society where there is a tribal chief with absolute power over life and
limb.
The east asiatic has the brains to understand it and might value it, as he
pretends that he is a "real american". To the east asiatic however, knows
deep down that it was a document written by a people with a very different
mindset from his own people and that he could never be part of that people.
He is only pretending and that is what life in this artificial country is,
pretending.
All the other races in the US are only taking advantage of the advantages
accorded to them by the constitution and don't even try to understand it.
They also don't even try to call themselves "american" as they are only
here for the economic advantages living in the US gives them. Perfect
examples of this are east indians, hispanics and arabs.
======================================
Subject:
Restrictions on Rice speech worry Israeli lobbying group
By Howard Witt
Tribune senior correspondent
March 28 2003
WASHINGTON -- When Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, gives a speech Monday to roughly 4,000 members of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, her remarks will be closed to the media and the public, the White House said Thursday.
The decision, termed routine by the White House, is causing particular discomfort for the lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has been battling the perception among some political commentators that Jewish groups unduly influenced the Bush administration's decision to wage war against Iraq.
Some of the harshest commentaries, viewed as blatantly anti-Semitic by Jewish groups, allege that prominent Jews within the administration conspired to persuade the president to target Iraq because of the threat Saddam Hussein poses to Israel.
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) said at an antiwar forum earlier this month. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
Moran later apologized for the remarks, and Bush administration officials roundly dismiss allegations of any improper lobbying from Jewish or Israeli interests.
But American Israel Public Affairs Committee officials say privately that they are concerned that a closed-door briefing in the midst of the Iraq war by the president's national security adviser may only add fuel to the conspiracy theories.
Rice is among several senior Bush administration officials and other political leaders who are scheduled to speak to the group's annual policy conference in Washington on Sunday and Monday.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns as well as House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) are also scheduled to speak.
The committee had intended for all the speeches to be open to the media, but the White House informed the group Thursday that Rice's remarks would be closed.
An official in Rice's office, who declined to be identified, said that since the beginning of the Iraq war, "all of [Rice's] speaking events are closed to the press now."
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1593734.php?theme=1
======================================
Subject:
London's mayor calls for Sharon to be jailed
By Sharon Sadeh ,
Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and DPA
London - Ken Livingstone, the left-wing mayor of London with a reputation for outspoken comments, has called for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be thrown into jail.
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper published Thursday, Livingstone predicted there would be no peace in the Middle East until "the West shows it is taking on board the injustice of what's happening to the Palestinians, and looks at the financial network of corruption between some of the oil sheikhdoms, the oil companies and the White House."
Livingstone said he would like to see Sharon locked up in the cell next to former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, the nationalist Serb strongman on trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity and genocide.
Ignoring the unease shown by his aides, Livingstone said, "I just long for the day I wake up and find that the Saudi royal family are swinging from lampposts and they've got a proper government that represents the people of Saudi Arabia."
Livingstone gave his backing to attempts by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to press the Palestinian issue with U.S. President George W. Bush, but was scornful of Bush's foreign policy skills.
"I'm not even sure he was aware there were any Palestinians before he was elected, any more than he knew the name of the president of Pakistan," he said, repeating a jibe often made about the U.S. president.
Livingstone has frequently spoken out against Bush and embarrassed Blair during Bush's state visit in November last year, when he held an anti-war reception in London as Bush was being hosted at a banquet given by the queen.
He has also described Bush as the greatest threat to life on the planet in reference to his environmental policies, and his comments are likely to further embarrass Blair, coming a week before the British prime minister visits Washington to discuss the Iraq crisis.
Regarding his relationship with Blair, Livingstone said: "He's not going to make me foreign secretary and I'm not going to persuade him to dump George Bush. We work together on things we agree about and we accept there are going to be things we don't agree about."
Livingstone was thrown out of the Labor Party in 2000 when he stood against the official Labor candidate in the London mayoral elections. Blair then called him a "disaster" for London but has since changed tack, backing Livingstone's return to the party he leads.
Livingstone's campaign for re-election begins in earnest next month. He is thought likely to win a second term in June by a substantial margin - this time as Labor's official candidate.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/413857.html
======================================
Subject:
Is Mexico reconquering Aztlan?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Aztlan/Mexico: "Forum on Binational Thought"
to be held in Mexico City
by
Hector Carreon
La Voz de Aztlan
Los Angeles, Alta California - April 8, 2004 - (ACN)
The "Fundacion Solidaridad Mexicano Americana (FSMA)"
will be sponsoring its "First Forum on Binational
Thought" at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Mexico City
on April 28th - 29th, 2004. The FSMA has national
headquarters in both Mexico City and Washington D.C.
and is comprised of high level Mexican government
officials and the leadership of national Mexican-American
organizations such as the National Council of La Raza
(NCLR), the League of United Latin American Citizens
(LULAC), the American GI Forum (AGIF) and the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC).
The FSMA counts on the full support of the Mexican
Senate, the Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores
(Mexican Department of State), the Secretaria de
Educacion Publica (Mexican Department of Education) as
well as that of seven major corporations in Mexico
that includes Grupo Televisa, Telefonos de Mexico,
Grupo Bimbo, Conservas La Costea, Gruma, Grupo Modelo,
and Grupo Jumex. The organization was established in
1994 and is presently headed by one of its founders
Graciela Orozco, an International Relations expert
from the UNAM. Executive Director and CEO of FSMA
Graciela Orozco has extensive experience in directing
programs focused on Mexican-Americans on behalf of the
Mexican presidency as well as on behalf of Mexico's
Departments of State and of Education.
The "First Forum on Binational Thought" has great
contemporary significance for the US/Mexico
relationship. It come at a time when a growing number
of Americans are becoming increasingly "paranoiac"
about what some xenophobes are calling the "reconquest
of the southwest" by Mexico. It comes at a time when
these same American xenophobes are calling for the
construction of higher and stronger "walls" along the
US/Mexico border and for sending the US Armed Forces
to take the place of the US Border Patrol.
The "First Forum on Binational Thought" and its agenda
is particularly relevant at a time when huge ethnic
demographic changes in California, Texas, New Mexico
and Arizona have compelled politicians as well as
professors at US colleges and universities to write
and publish a series of hysterical books and papers on
the "dangers of the Mexican invasion". One of these
books is "Mexifornia" by Professor Davis Hanson in
which he predicts the collapse of the Golden State
because of the "uncontrolled immigration by Mexicans".
Another is a recent treatise by Harvard professor
Samuel P. Huntington in which he writes that "high
levels of Mexican immigration threaten to disrupt the
political and cultural integrity of the United States,"
and that, "the United States faces the loss of its
'core Anglo-Protestant culture' and may soon be
divided into 'two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and
Mexicans) and two languages (English and Spanish).'"
And then we have the "politician has-been", Pat
Buchanan, author of "The Death of the West", who is
going on national television and radio warning
Americans that "we are going to lose the southwest if
we don't stop the Mexicans".
The "Fundacion Solidaridad Mexicano Americana (FSMA)"
works towards four major goals. They are: 1) To
promote knowledge and understanding between Mexicans
and the communities of Mexican origin in the United
States, 2) To elevate the image of Mexico in the
United States and the image of Mexican-Americans in
Mexico, 3) To promote commerce between the two groups
and collaborate in areas of mutual interest in order
to further the development of both communities and 4)
To maintain and disseminate the values of "la
mexicanidad ".
The agenda of the "First Forum on Binational Thought"
adheres closely to the above four goals. The theme of
the forum is "Los mexicanos de aqu y de alla:
perspectivas comunes" (The Mexicans here and there:
common perspectives) and will include seminars on
various issues each moderated by a Federal Mexican
Senator. The keynote speech will be delivered by the
President of the Mexican Senate Enrique Jackson.
From Aztlan, Henry Cisneros will deliver the speech
"Future of the relationship between Mexican and
Mexican-Americans". Cisneros was Bill Clinton's
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and is
presently a John Kerry campaign aide within the
Mexican-American community.
Some of the more significant seminars within the
general conference includes "Latino voices on
migration reform proposals in the United States"
moderated by Senator Silvia Hernndez. Participants in
this seminar are Eliseo Medina of the Service
Employees International Union, AFL/CIO, Baldemar
Velasquez of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC),
and Antonio Gonzlez of the Southwest Voter
Registration Education Project.
Another seminar is titled "Conditions for a migration
agreement" that will be moderated by Senator Raymundo
Cardenas. Participants in this seminar are Jorge
Bustamante of Notre Dame University, Frank Sharry of
the National Immigration Forum and Rafael Fernandez de
Castro of the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de México
(ITAM).
A seminar "Political Rights for Mexicans in the United
States" will be moderated by Senator Jorge Zermeo.
Participants in this seminar includes Diego Valades of
the Institute of Legal Research at the UNAM, Raul Ross
Pineda of the Coalition for Political Rights of
Mexicans Abroad and Jose Woldenberg of the Universidad
Nacional Autnoma de México (UNAM).
Another significant seminar will be on "Cultural
identity: here and there" that will be moderated by
Senator Gloria Lavara. Participants are Luis Leal of
the University of California at Santa Brbara and
writer Elena Poniatowska.
Senator Miguel Sadot Sanchez will moderate "Human and
Labor Rights for Mexicans in the United States".
Participants includes Katherine Culliton of the
Mexican-American Legal and Educational Defense Fund
(MALDEF) and Patricia Kurczyn of the Institute of
Legal Research at the UNAM.
"Migration and its social, cultural and economic
effects" will be moderated by Senator Hector Osuna
Jaime and includes one of the founders of La Raza
Unida Party in Texas Jose Angel Gutierrez as well as
former Mexican Ambassador in the US Jess Silva-Herzog.
Another former Mexican Ambassador in the US will
participate in the seminar "Is there a common destiny?"
He is Jess Reyes Heroles. Ambassador Heroles will be
joined by Arturo Madrid of the University of the
Trinity in Texas. The seminar will be moderated by
Senator Genaro Borrego.
Is there a common destiny? Is there a common destiny
for Aztlan and Mexico? Will Mexico recover its lost
territories? There is a Mexican-American activist that
use to be a radio talk host that would broadcast in
English, "Wake up and smell the refried beans!" and
"We are reconquering Aztlan without firing a shot,
house by house, block by block!" Y que?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
La Voz de Aztlan
http://www.aztlan.net/binational_thought.htm
======================================
Subject: Soviet Canada
http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=13053
Canada's Plan to Combat Hate Crimes
Josh Pringle
Thursday, April 8, 2004
The Federal Government is reportedly finalizing a Canada-wide plan to combat racism and hate crimes.
The plan includes the establishment of hate-crime police units as well as initiatives to educate Canadians about dangers of hate.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says the plan was designed, in part, to fight the growing anti-Semitism, such as the fire-bombing of a Jewish school in Montreal and racially motivated incidents against Jews and Muslims in Toronto.
The multi-million-dollar and multi-year plan will also have a particular emphasis on teaching Canadians about hate and will encourage community leaders to preach tolerance.
======================================
Subject:
Dear VNN readers:
In the article below, David Ross interviews Chalmers Johnson, the author of Blowback. Time and time again, brilliant Americans expose the rot in American politics but to no avail. There is a real disconnect between what is in the best interest of Americans who want to live peaceful lives and what is in the best interest of jews and the political power elite who want imperial power and money at any cost including American deaths. Eventually the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. Blowback is a real awakening for Americans.
05.04.2004 [09:47] Fickle, Bitter, and Dangerous
Author:An interview with Chalmers Johnson by David Ross
Chalmers Johnson served in the Navy during the Korean War. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at UC Berkeley and taught there and at UC San Diego until 1992. He served as chairman of the Center for Chinese Studies and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Chalmers Johnson is president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute. He has written numerous articles and reviews and twelve books on Asian subjects, including, Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power, MITI and the Japanese Miracle, and Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. His latest book is titled, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.
David Ross (D.R.): Throughout the Internet after the September 11th attacks, there was a lot of talk of blowback. When, in fact, a year before the attacks, you wrote the book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, where you predicted events such as 9-11. What is blowback and what are its causes?
http://www2.iraqwar.ru/index.php?lang=ru&userlang=en
http://www2.iraqwar.ru/index.php?lang=ru&userlang=en
======================================
Subject:
Here.
Time to assert a core of Britishness?
by Tom Griffin
9 April 2004
Britain must scrap multiculturalism, that is the conclusion that the Times newspaper reached last week, after an interview with Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality.
We need to assert that there is a core of Britishness, Mr Phillips told the Times. What we should be talking about is how we reach an integrated society, one in which people are equal under the law, where there are some common values democracy rather than violence, the common currency of the English language, honouring the culture of these islands, like Shakespeare and Dickens.
Mr Phillips point is a reasonable one as far as it goes. No nation can survive without some basic consensus on fundamental issues.
The real question, however, is how you reach that consensus. It is not clear that one exists in Britain today.
Perhaps the most telling response to Phillips comments came from Robina Qureshi, the director of a Glasgow-based anti-racism group, who questioned what 'Britishness' meant to the Irish, Scottish and Welsh people as well to Asian people.
It is no mere truism that Britain has always been a multi-cultural society.
Indeed, according to the Office of National Statistics, people from non-white ethnic groups are more likely to describe themselves as British than white people, who are relatively more likely to see themselves primarily as English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish.
This reflects the fact that the concept of Britishness is one with fairly shallow historical roots. It was plucked from obscurity in 1707 when England united with Scotland. The move was partly intended to put an end to Scotland's attempts to become a rival commercial power in the Caribbean. Ever since, Britishness has been associated with the idea of Empire. Parts of Africa, Asia, North and South America were all described as British. The British Empire ultimately went into a decline, in which the Irish War of Independence was an important episode.
Nevertheless, the British state remains today the institution that was at the core of that Empire. Britain's political, economic and military role in the world is still a reflection of its imperial past.
However, its determination to 'punch above its weight' is increasingly at odds with the needs of its citizens.
For example, the government defied the largest protests in British history over Iraq, in order to maintain the alliance with America on which British imperial pretentions ultimately depend.
The biggest threat to British democracy comes not from ethnic communities, but from the inflexibility of the state itself.
In its first term, Tony Blair's Labour government recognised it had to bring in devolution and the Good Friday Agreement to maintain the legitimacy of the state. In its second term, however, it has increasingly reverted to the habits of the imperial past. That will only accelerate the decline of British identity.
======================================
Subject: Hale trial
http://www.pjstar.com/news/topnews/b2m5gf14050.html
19 potential jurors excused in Hale trial
April 8, 2004
By MIKE RAMSEY
of Copley News Service
CHICAGO - Nineteen potential jurors in Matt Hale's murder-solicitation trial
were excused Wednesday after they were interviewed in private about
publicity surrounding the East Peoria white supremacist.
At least half the 100-member jury pool raised a hand when U.S. District
Judge James Moody asked if anyone knew about Hale, Benjamin Smith or the
"racially motivated shooting spree" in July 1999 that killed former
Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong. Moody did not
explain that Smith was a Hale follower who went on the two-state rampage that left two dead and nine wounded before the gunman committed suicide.
One by one, the individuals with knowledge about the topics met behind
closed doors with the judge, federal prosecutors and Hale's defense
attorneys, ending with the 19 being excused and the others retained as
candidates.
The preliminary screening at Chicago's Dirksen Federal Building lasted
several hours. Hale, 32, was left mostly alone and silent at a defense table
under the watch of federal agents; his parents were seated in the audience.
"The problem is that you'd have to have been living in a cave not to have
heard about Matt Hale or Benjamin Smith and Ricky Byrdsong," Hale's lead
defense attorney, Thomas Durkin, told reporters during a break. "That's
what's delaying things, and it should delay things, because people have to
get beyond that. We can't have people thinking that Hale shot Byrdsong or
Hale had something to do with that or whatever."
Once selected, a jury of 12 and four alternates specifically will consider
whether Hale tried to convince two people, including an FBI informant who
had been spying on him for years, to kill a Chicago-based federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in late 2002 ordered Hale's avowed racist
organization, the World Church of the Creator, to stop using that
trademarked name.
Hale also is accused of lying to Lefkow, trying to intimidate her and
interfering with a grand jury investigation.
His trial is expected to include information about his unpopular views and
relationship with Smith.
Also Wednesday, Moody again warned Hale that his insistence on wearing an
orange prisoner's jumpsuit at trial, rather than dress clothes, could be
prejudicial to the jury.
"I think it's a bad idea," the judge told the defendant before the pool of
candidates arrived.
Hale held fast. He has suggested he's wearing the prison garb to protest the
way he has been jailed without bond under virtual isolation. He was arrested
in early January 2003 on his way to a contempt-of-court hearing before
Lefkow at the Dirksen Building.
This morning, remaining members of the jury pool are expected to answer
broader questions about their backgrounds, families and views. Prosecutors
and defense attorneys can dismiss some members without cause.
Moody is from Hammond, Ind., but is presiding over the Hale case in Chicago,
rather than one of Lefkow's colleagues
Indyslave
======================================
Subject: "Why Restoring the Constitution is Not the Answer"
Joe McCarthy is right. The Constitution, a worthy document and set of principles when applied to whites, is not much defense against the Third Worldization of America. Mexicans don't know what the Fourth Amendment says, but Jews make sure they get its full benefit.
It isn't law that will restore us. It's changes of mind. The constitution we need to amend is the one supporting the white mind.
Douglas Wright
======================================
Subject:
Nice shootin', Yoon Ho. Maybe we'll keep you around for New White America.
Douglas Wright (D.W.)
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A 26-year-old Los Angeles man who prosecutors say shot at two thieves stealing his car, killing one of them, was charged on Wednesday with murder.
Yoon Ho Song could face 50 years to life in prison if he is convicted of the first degree murder of Mario Sandoval Martinez and a special allegation of using a handgun, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said.
Prosecutors say Song came out of his house to find two car thieves pushing his customized Honda out of his driveway in the predawn hours on Monday and opened fire, hitting Martinez, 25, in the back. The second suspect got away.
======================================
Subject:
From the Daily Reckoning (http://dailyreckoning.com/)
WILSON'S DESTINY, Part I
by Byron King
At any given time in the life of a nation, events and
circumstances offer its leader the opportunity to
articulate and clarify key ideas that define its substance
and govern its destiny. Woodrow Wilson (b.1856, d.1924) was
such a figure, on both a national and international scale.
During his two terms as President of the United States,
Wilson inalterably changed the face of not just the United
States, but of the world. The community of nations of today
represents a world still spinning on a Wilsonian axis.
When Wilson took office in March of 1913, the U.S. was a
gold-standard nation, developing inwardly and filling its
own continent with people, industry and capital. Since
Colonial times, U.S. development had focused on westward
expansion across the continent. The U.S. in 1913 had few
historical precedents or cultural proclivities for
international adventurism, and in fact was experiencing a
bad case of indigestion of the modest fruits of the Spanish
American War, a sore spot with the voters.
When Wilson left office in 1921, he had involved the nation
in Europe's Great War, and was in no small personal measure
attempting to dictate the world's peace. Under Wilson's
stewardship, the federal government was large and getting
larger, the U.S. currency was beginning a long slide into
debasement, and no American could even buy a legal drink at
a bar.
No one can truly understand the issues of the modern era
without knowledge of the man who mid-wifed it into
existence. It is not too much to say that the 20th Century
was Wilson's Century, and that we live in Wilson's World.
Woodrow Wilson was the son of a preacher, born and raised
in Virginia, and certainly a Son of the South. He pursued a
career as an academic, making a name for himself as an
Anglophile scholar of government theory. Wilson taught at
several schools, Pennsylvania's Bryn Mawr College and
Connecticut's Wesleyan University among them, eventually
taking a position at Princeton, in New Jersey. He rose
through the ranks of college teaching and academic politics
to serve as president of Princeton University between 1902
and 1910.
Somewhat late in his career, at age 53, Wilson leveraged
his prestigious socio-academic position at Princeton into a
very short tenure as Governor of New Jersey (1911-1912).
Then, being the top political figure in an important state,
Wilson toured the country, and ran for and won the U.S.
Presidency in 1912.
The election of 1912 was a close, three-way race, with
about 43% of the votes cast for Wilson. The race was, in
reality, Wilson's to lose because it was marked by a
seismic fault line in the Republican Party. But while many
viewed the election as a reflection of internecine
Republican politics, Wilson saw the election results in a
somewhat different light. He is quoted as having told a key
supporter, after the ballots were counted, "Remember that
God ordained that I should be the next president of the
United States. Neither you nor any other mortal or mortals
could have prevented that." Certainly, that should have
settled things.
Historian Paul Johnson has described Wilson as having "... A
self-regarding arrogance and smugness, masquerading as
righteousness, which was always there and which grew with
the exercise of power." After all, how could one argue with
a man "ordained" by no less than God to hold the nation's
executive power?
Historian Robert Nisbet wrote that Wilson was, if not
ordained by God to lead the nation, "an ardent prophet of
the state, the state indeed as it was known to European
scholars and statesmen... (Wilson) preached it... " Thus,
according to Nisbet, from Wilson has come the
politicization, the centralization, and the commitment to
bureaucracy of American society during the 20th Century.
Historian Donald Miller has concluded that Wilson intended
from his first day in office to transform America as well
as the other nations. "From a domestic and economic
standpoint, as with his foreign policy, (Wilson) wanted to
expand the power of government to effect a revolution in
society. He sought to increase both the size and scope of
government. He said that he wanted to put government 'at
the service of humanity.'"
In March of 1913, when Wilson took his oath of office, the
nation, if not humanity at large, was in the process of
handing him the necessary tools that he would soon be
using. Wilson's ambitious political goals, refined during
his hard years of labor in the academic library stacks and
teaching in the sweat mills of Princeton, could not have
been accomplished without key changes in the power system
defined by the U.S. Constitution.
The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving
Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived," had been passed by Congress
in 1909. After several years of bitter political
infighting, ratification by three-fourths of the states was
completed on February 3, 1913, just in time for Wilson to
put it to the test.
The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which
called for the direct election of Senators, had been passed
by Congress in 1912. Ratification by three-fourths of the
states was completed on April 8, 1913. Again, only a true
scholar of governmental powers could discern the import of
this new enactment.
Both of these Amendments changed the fundamental power
structure of the nation, certainly altering the
relationship between individual citizens and their national
government. That they occurred in such close sequence of
time was the equivalent of another American Revolution.
The direct election of U.S. Senators diminished greatly the
republican form of governance envisioned by the Founding
Fathers, in which "the several states" had a semblance of
influence and control over half of the legislative branch.
That is, previously Senators were directly beholden to the
interests of their electors in state legislatures. This
system of selection insulated Senators, at least to some
degree, from the day-to-day whims and caprices of popular
will. Up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the
Senate had been traditionally focused on the interests of
the states, vis vis the federal government, as opposed to
reflecting the will of, and acting like, a popular
assembly. With direct election becoming the law of the
land, Senators began to become simply another form of
populist politician.
The Sixteenth Amendment led directly to the enactment of a
national income tax in Wilson's first year in office,
albeit only on the wealthy. These "rich people" were
defined then as those earning over $4,000 per year, or the
modern equivalent of a household today earning about
$80,000. But wealthy or not, the power to tax incomes was
the breach in the dam holding back federal power and
influence based on spending by the central government.
Before Wilson was elected president, federal government
spending had never exceeded three percent of the Gross
Domestic Product, except during the War of 1812 and the
Civil War.
Federal revenues were derived primarily from customs
levies, import duties, and various other excises and
tariffs. During Wilson's two terms as president, the dam
burst and federal spending rose to more than twenty percent
of GDP.
With interests of "the several states" on the wane in the
Senate, and the prospect of federal revenues being raised
via a national income tax, Wilson's next alteration of the
structures of governance came with his support of the
Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913. Note the date.
This statute to create a federal central bank was signed
into law, with little fanfare, by Wilson at a time when
Washington, D.C. was all but deserted for the holidays.
Financial panics had plagued the nation throughout much of
the 19th Century. With its economy based for the most part
on a hard-money system of gold and silver coinage, and
paper currency backed by monetary metals, the nation had
gone through numerous cycles of boom and bust. Few people
complained during the boom times. But the busts were
another story entirely. Many critics viewed bank failures,
business bankruptcies, and economic downturns and
accompanying personal hardships as being caused by a poorly
integrated, unregulated banking system and the lack of a
flexible money supply.
A particularly severe financial crisis in 1907, in which
the national solvency was preserved only through the
intervention of New York banker J.P. Morgan, led Congress
to establish the National Monetary Commission. This
Commission was chartered to propose a solution that could
deal with banking issues and other monetary problems.
After considerable debate, the Commission proposed remedies
that were written into law as the Federal Reserve Act. The
Act stated that its purposes were to "provide for the
establishment of Federal Reserve banks, to furnish an
elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting
commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision
of banking in the United States, and for other purposes."
(Yes, it says that, "for other purposes.") But, to pose an
issue that has governed national history ever since, was
this new federal entity a cure for the economic problem of
"busts"? Or, by furnishing "an elastic currency" and thus
mitigating the effects of the busts, did the Federal
Reserve serve to push the booms along, such that they would
grow into bubbles? In all fairness, who could have even
asked such a question back in 1913?
Wilson's new organization, the Federal Reserve (FED), was
comprised of a Board of Governors in Washington D.C., and
twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks. The statutory
responsibilities of these entities are to:
* Conduct the nation's monetary policy by influencing the
money and credit conditions in the economy.
* Supervise and regulate banking institutions to ensure
safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial
system.
* Maintain the stability of the financial system.
* Provide certain financial services to the U.S.
government, financial institutions, the public, and foreign
official institutions, including a major role in operating
the nation's payments system.
Then as now, the FED conducts monetary policy using three
major tools: (1) open market operations to control the
level of reserves in the depository system; (2) setting
reserve requirements for depository institutions, and (3)
setting the discount rate for lending reserves.
Policy regarding open market operations is the
responsibility of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)
comprising the seven members of the Board, the president of
the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and the presidents of
four other reserve banks on a rotating basis. However, the
Board has sole authority over changes in reserve
requirements and the discount rate.
Since its inception, the Federal Reserve System was
considered an "independent central bank" - a European
concept reflecting the need to provide banking services to
the sovereign. But the Federal Reserve is "independent"
only in the sense that its decisions do not have to be
ratified by the president or anyone else in the executive
branch of government. It is more accurate to say that the
Federal Reserve is "independent within the government." But
still, it is a creature of government.
The Federal Reserve is, of course, subject to the oversight
of Congress, on the legal basis that the Constitution gives
to Congress the power to coin money and set its value. In
1913, with the assistance of Wilson, Congress delegated
that power to the Federal Reserve. Congress could, in
theory, reclaim its power at any time, but would it dare to
do so? Throughout its existence, the Federal Reserve has
tended to act within the framework of the overall
objectives of economic and financial policy established by
Congress.
Statutory provisions and lofty goals of monetary management
aside, the Federal Reserve is fundamentally a European-
style central bank that can create, on its own account and
subject only to indirect oversight of Congress, credit
denominated in U.S. dollars. In the world of 1913, these
dollar-denominated credits would enter the economic flow to
compete with the more traditional currency, or gold, as
money.
Thus Wilson was able, in his first year in office, to
establish an embryonic form of credit-backed U.S. fiat
currency - a currency in direct competition with
traditional gold money. Coupled with the ability of the
federal government to raise revenue via a direct tax on
"incomes, from whatever source derived," this was the seed
of an enlargement of central government based on spending
financed by taxes, borrowing against national credit, and
the resultant national debt.
If, as historian Donald Miller concluded, Wilson intended
from his first day in office to transform America, and to
increase both the size and scope of government, here were
Wilson's tools.
WILSON'S DESTINY, Part II
by Byron King
Yesterday, we began to explore the impact President Woodrow
Wilson has had on the international system. The world, we
wrote, still spins on a Wilsonian axis. Yet how did one man
manage to impart such a lasting legacy - one that has
shaped national and world events ever since?
Wilson clearly could not have achieved what he did without
the help of a few key tools. The first year of his
presidency say the advent of three elements which would, as
Wilson put it, greatly assist him in putting government "at
the service of humanity." Today, we look at how Wilson used
these tools... and how his actions have shaped the world we
know today.
Wilson was an activist in expanding the federal role in the
economy, pushing through such legislation as the
establishment of the Federal Trade Commission (1914) and
the Federal Farm Loan Act (1916). Both of these laws
brought the federal government into the daily lives of
Americans, in a way that would have been incomprehensible
to the Founding Fathers.
On the international front, during his first term Wilson
embroiled the U.S. in Mexico's civil war, up to and
including invading Mexico, a bone of contention between the
two nations ever since. (In his second term, Wilson would
send U.S. troops into Russia to oppose the Bolshevik
Revolution, but this gets ahead of the story.)
When the Great War broke out in Europe in 1914, Wilson's
administration of U.S. international trade and monetary
policy was decidedly lopsided, and certainly lacking in a
sense of balanced neutrality towards all belligerents. The
Wilson administration forbade "loans" by U.S. banks to the
warring powers. Yet Wilson's administration permitted U.S.
banks to extend massive "credits" to the French and
British, thus creating an economic situation in which the
U.S. bankrolled their conduct of the Great War.
Without U.S. "credit" to fund their purchases in 1914 and
1915, such credit extended into the economy by the U.S.
Federal Reserve and its "elastic currency," it is quite
likely that Britain and France would have run out of cash
after a few months of fighting. In all likelihood, Britain
and France would have had to make some accommodation for
peace with Germany, and bring the War to a relatively swift
conclusion. But absent peace imposed by the pocketbook, the
European war went on and on, sucking more nations into the
fray and wrecking the lives and cultures of many peoples.
It cannot be overstated that, during Wilson's first term in
office, European combat was funded and supported on the
Allied side by U.S. money, its elastic currency, and U.S.
materiel. Meanwhile, Germany, a militaristic culture
lacking any real internal political process that would
sanction failure of its armed forces to prevail, had little
choice but to dig deeper into its economy and fight on.
In essence, Wilson's economic and trade policies, abetted
by the Federal Reserve, perpetuated the European War. They
also led to (and even required, from a military standpoint)
German submarine warfare on the high seas. That is, with
submarine technology at its disposal, German military
strategy had no other option but to sink ships carrying war
materiel to Britain and France. So long as U.S. "credit"
paid for the materiel, the ships would sail and the
cargoes, once landed, would threaten Germany.
There was deeply rooted opposition in the U.S. electorate
to any direct American participation in the European War.
However, the nation enjoyed the economic boom times caused
by the war-related orders pouring in from Britain and
France. Mines, mills, factories and farms all posted and
received premium prices for their wares, courtesy of U.S.
"credits" to the Allies and the newly created Federal
Reserve and its elastic currency. The economic myth was
that the Allies were supporting the booming U.S. economy
with their purchases of war materiel. The reality was that
the Allied purchases were based on U.S. credits, supplied
ultimately by Wilson's new creation, the Federal Reserve.
Thus, the war boom was at root simply inflation created by
the FED.
Running for his second term in 1916, Wilson's campaign
slogan was "He kept us out of war." This was not quite
correct, because by 1916 the U.S. was deeply invested in
the British and French role in the fighting. After Wilson
was safely re-elected for a second term, his obstinate
pursuit of his otherwise failed economic and trade policies
favorable to Britain and France led to a point where German
submarine warfare became an American cassus belli. Less
than ninety days after beginning his second term, Wilson
called upon Congress for a declaration of war against
Germany.
Domestic opposition to Wilson's policies was intense,
particularly within the large Irish and German populations
in the U.S. But Wilson, the learned scholar of Government
and former President of Princeton, was prepared to control
this dissent with some of the most sweeping laws ever
passed to limit free speech and political dissent. And
Wilson's Federal Reserve and newly enacted national income
tax funded the war effort, all the while giving Wilson the
resources he needed to expand his domestic vision of a
powerful central government that literally took over many
elements of U.S. industry.
According to historian Robert Nisbet, "The blunt fact is
that when (under Wilson) America was introduced to the War
State in 1917, it was introduced also to what would later
be known as the total, or totalitarian, state."
As if the foregoing accomplishments would not be enough for
any president, whether or not "ordained" by God to govern,
another of Wilson's enduring legacies was a direct
outgrowth of U.S. participation in the Great War. This was
Wilson's effort to shape the peace and his remarkable turn
of phrase, to "make the world safe for democracy." This
term, and its underlying panglossian concept of remaking
the world in a Princeton-honed image of American
participatory government, has haunted U.S. policy ever
since it was uttered. Nine decades later, U.S. foreign
policy is fundamentally Wilsonian. The concept of a world
"safe for democracy" has such Jovian gravity as to be
inescapable, and essentially all modern political debate in
the Western world is framed in its terms.
But a "world safe for democracy" requires certain
underlying assumptions of power and price, which are the
key elements in "making" anything happen anywhere, and
certainly in "making the world safe for democracy." Whether
he understood the implications or not, Wilson had a Federal
Reserve, an elastic currency, and a national income tax
with which to do his bidding. Not all peoples, races and
nations are so fortunate.
Had Woodrow Wilson never been president, would the U.S. and
the world have had a far different 20th Century? Or was
Wilson just one man in a particular time of great change, a
man who articulated concepts that were beneath the surface
and waiting to be revealed? When Wilson walked into the
White House in 1913, Germany and Italy had already spent 40
years creating and building centralized, debt-financed
governments. In this regard, Wilson was an imitator, not an
inventor. So did Wilson make history, or perhaps give it a
shove in a particular direction, or was he merely governed
by historical forces whose time had come?
These types of questions are endless, and just asking them
certainly gives one thoughts of a world far different from
this one in which we live. Absent Wilson, would there have
been a U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, to fund the
type of world economy that has evolved? Absent Wilson, what
would U.S. politics have done with the 16th Amendment, the
income tax amendment? How did Wilson's presidency effect
the direction of the national income tax? And absent the
tax revenue, what would have happened with the early growth
under Wilson of centralized federal power in the U.S.?
Absent Wilson's inept neutrality, his biased diplomacy and
willingness to throw U.S. dollars into the Great War on the
side of Britain and France, would the U.S. have become
involved in what was later named World War I? Would the
Great War have lasted so long and caused so much damage to
the fabric of European civilization and colonial influence?
Would the world ever have heard, just a few years later, of
war veterans such as Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini?
Absent U.S. participation in the European War, would a
pedestrian lawyer, and middling state-level politician
named Franklin Delano Roosevelt have found his first
federal job as Assistant Secretary of the Navy? Would the
U.S. ever have bred such soldiers as Douglas MacArthur and
Harry Truman, and most of the rest of the list of future
political-military leaders of mid-century?
Absent events put into motion by Wilson, would the Great
War have lasted so long as to cause Russia to break up and
descend into a Bolshevik Revolution? Absent Wilson, would
U.S. troops have gone ashore in Russia to take sides in the
matter? In another region of the world, absent Wilson,
would the Ottoman Empire have dissolved, to spawn the
modern politics of the Middle East? And absent Wilson,
would the concept of League of Nations/world governance
ever have gained the traction it did?
Woodrow Wilson said that he wanted to put government "at
the service of humanity." But when you distill things to a
basic essence, Wilson bequeathed his nation, the world, and
"humanity" the legacy of federal credit, national debt, a
large centralized government, and an imperious, if not
crusading, international moral ideology built and financed
thereon.
What is more, Wilson's legacy has lasted for nine decades
and today seems immutable. None who are alive have
experienced anything different from a Wilsonian world. No
one can remember or recall first hand any time when this
world of ours worked otherwise. And when things change, and
change they certainly will, most people will be trapped in
a Wilsonian paradigm and not understand what is happening.
Regards,
Byron King
======================================
Subject:
Coontact Tales
http://www.nathan-forrest.pochta.ru/tales1/coontact1.shtml
---------------------------------------
Coontact Tale #1
This isn't my funniest black outburst, but it's fresh in my mind.
I just got back from lunch at a sandwich shop. I was sitting there eating and a black lady and white dude walk in. They order and she heads right to the counter where the sandwiches are being made.
She oversees the work and proceeds barking orders "no, doan be usin no mayonaise" "spread those tomatos out" etc. The mexican worker flashes her a look and she flew off the handle. "I'm YO customer, doan be givin me no dirty look, you can give me my money back and I'll give you yo drink and chips back!" Her credulous companion shrank away like whites tend to whenever a water-buffalo goes off.
She then scanned the restaurant to witness the effect of her confrontation. I was the only one grinning ear-to-ear. I knew she was too spent to come confront me, besides I would have mocked her with things like "chiiiiile you better rec-og-nize!" and "why you put me on front street?". She got her money and left.
It left me thinking about culture shock and how blacks on average are confrontational and Mexicans are shifty and sneaky, they're pretty much evenly numbered as minorities picking on whiteys broken carcass. So expect more fun to come.
-----------------------------------------
Coontact Tale #2
When I worked retail I had this black woman ask me a question and she didn't like my answer. She started to yell that she was the customer and "money talks". I responded by saying Food stamps don't say shit. Yes I was fired but it was worth it.
Niggers typically think of foodstamps as real money. Our foreign friends should know that foodstamps are a form of vouchers given out to non-working niggers to pay for basic food. Of course, the niggers being niggers, often exchange foodstamps for 50 cents on the dollar so they can purchase 40 oz. liquor, cigarettes and illegal drugs.
-------------------------
Coontact Tale #3
I was in a movie watching "The Transporter". 2 ladies behind us who had seen it before begin discussing the upcoming scenes. Before I could do it, a fat dumpy old man said "Do you mind?"
The heffalumps turned around to him and said "I payed mah 8 dollars, why dont choo juss turn your white bald head back to the screen" Then they began discussing how racist white folks are, and how THEY were going to get the manager.
I am convinced when I see practices like this, that some people in that community are so self centered
Not just self centered but exhibiting TNB or "Typical Nigger Behavior"
-------------------------------
Coontact Tale #4
Let's see, my favorite black outburst....
About 2 years ago I was in a Lowe's (hardware) store. There were 2 hoodlum niglets (around 10 and 13) acting like total animals, whooping and screaming, pushing carts around hitting people, shelves and other carts. The manager comes along and tells the black mammy to keep her kids under control, she starts telling him, 'shut the fuck up, you can't be telling me how to raise my kids, ect, ect..." Well, the welfare puppy pumper let the glits run amok, the manager calls the police. Meanwhile the oldest niglet is standing in one of the carts with the little glit pushing it around. The little niglet stops pushing and the oldest one goes to do a Shaquille Oneil jump from the cart. He jumps, pushes off, the cart whisks out from under his feet, he hangs his toe on the front of the cart, and promptly lands on his forehead on the concrete floor. The little fucker has a gash OVER 2 inches long on his forehead gushing blood like a broken fire hydrant. He is out cold on the floor unconscious. The police arrive about this time, the nigra mammy is screaming and hollering about her baby, the police call an ambulance for the downed wildebeast. The mammy is screaming about how she is going to sue them, EMS takes the wounded glit and it's mammy away. The manager tells the police all about the incident, me and several others sign affidavits stating that she was warned to get her children under control several times and basically told the management to fuck off. The police took the surveilance video as evidence. The nigra mammy didn't get shit in court, the judge threw the case out when he read all our affidavits, even threatened action against her lawyer!
The sight of that monkey on the floor and the mammy screaming was hilarious!
Wonder why the cops called an ambulance? Everyone knows you can't hurt a nigger by hitting them in the head.
======================================
Subject:
American Professors Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions
http://www.academicboycott.org
April 7, 2004
A group of American professors published on Monday a statement calling for
boycotting Israeli academic institutions in protest of the continued Israeli
practices against the Palestinian people, including disruption of academic life
in Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps.
On a website for the boycott letter, the professors called on all those
supportive of such a move to join and sign a petition of boycott to encounter the
Israeli practices against the Palestinian academic process.
The petition included a list of professors from the United States, Canada,
Britain, France, Chile, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland,
Scotland, Norway, Egypt, Lebanon, Australia, Japan, Argentina, Bahrain, United
Arab Emirates, Palestinian National Authority, Israel and others.
The statement and the list of signatories can be found:
http://www.academicboycott.org
Professors Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions
Recent reports tell us that leading members of Israels academic institutions
are organizing to fight the international boycott. We are told that
Israeli academics are outraged at this unwarranted attack on Israeli academic
freedom.
In order that the issue of academic freedom may be discussed within a context
free of hypocrisy, we, the undersigned, defenders of Palestinian academic
freedom and supporters of the academic boycott against Israel, call for a
response to the deterioration of Palestinian education as a consequence of Israeli
policies from those leaders of Israels universities who now organize to fight
the boycott.
Academics worldwide should have an accurate picture of the situation that has
long confronted Palestinian education: the Israeli government has set up a
system of roadblocks and checkpoints that makes it difficult or impossible for
Palestinian teachers and students to reach their universities, colleges and
schools. Its policy of harassment, arrests, random shootings and assaults is
carried out almost weekly by Israeli troops on Palestinian campuses. All of this
takes place against the backdrop of an ongoing 37 year occupation and
relentless attack on Palestinian civil society, thus disrupting the necessary framework
for any successful educational structure. Such Israeli government policies
negate Palestinian academic freedom.
Go to :
Reader Mail Index
|