I’ve never seen a President — I don’t care who he is — stand up to them (i.e. Zionist Jews). The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down. If Americans understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on”.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, U.S. Navy & Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
March 30th, 2003, Karachi, Pakistan: 11 days after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, masked gunmen kidnap scientist Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and her children.
Aafia, 31, is taken to U.S. occupied Afghanistan; held hostage in an American run torture chamber at Bagram and separated from her children; Mohammed Ahmad, aged 6, Mariyum, aged 4 and six month old baby Suleiman: missing, presumed dead; murdered in U.S. custody.
Tortured by her captors, Dr. Aafia endured 5 years of physical and psychological abuse. Fellow hostage Moazzam Begg (later taken to Guantanamo Bay, U.S. occupied Cuba) recounts a woman’s sobs and screams in Bagram, and how his captors implied that it was the sound of his wife being tortured in an adjoining cell.
THE SHOW TRIAL
Aafia is then put on a plane to New York, imprisoned in solitary confinement for 2 years, bought before a kangaroo court run by Judge Ronald Ellis who bans all live media coverage, denies bail and repeatedly spouts proven lies and Israeli approved conspiracy theories about 9/11. Ellis sets the trial date and the case is handed over to Judge Berman.
Corrupt, pro-Israeli Judge Richard M. Berman (who was promoted to senior status on 9/11), presided over the macabre, Sanhedrin show trial like a pernicious Basilisk, safe in the knowledge that the pacified, castrated shills of the corporate media wouldn’t dare delve into his murky past as an aide to Jewish Senator Jacob Javtis. Berman’s predecessor in that role was a loquacious fellow by the name of Harold Wallace Rosenthal. Mossad murdered Rosenthal in 1976 because he was deemed to have revealed too much about the self-chosen:
Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer”.
Harold Wallace Rosenthal, aide to Senator Jacob Javits.
Berman, needless to say, would never make that mistake, and was well aware of what his Rothschild run, Israeli handlers were capable of should he ever stray off message.
Berman gradually became a prominent figure in extremist Jewry’s ongoing campaign to curtail public awareness and civil liberties en route to implementing a Talmudic police state to suppress any form of free speech that opposes them. Responsible for sentencing media researcher Saleh Elahwal for his work with Lebanese TV news channel ‘Al-Manar’, Berman also supported Brooklyn Jew Dov Hikind in his call for New Yorkers to submit to stop & search and racial profiling; Hikind is a conservative democrat and active cheerleader for Israeli terrorism, who even snuck into Gaza in 2005 to encourage IDF conscripts to maintain the occupation.
It was a given that a guy so deeply entrenched in the swamp of extremist Jewry would do as he was told, after all, who wants to end up shot to pieces in a false flag hi-jack staged by a gaggle of Kidon-Mossad henchmen and their underlings? No-one, and certainly not the right honourable Judge Berman, no, Berman was all in, and prepared to deliver a ‘verdict’ that’d been bought and paid for in 1913, when Rothschild agent Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed President Woodrow Wilson to appoint Zionist Jew Louis Dembitz Brandeis as U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
For not since Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake for heresy, has there been a more depraved and politically motivated spectacle than the one that transpired in the Manhattan Federal District Court on September 23rd 2010:
Dr. Aafia is sentenced to 86 years in prison. And despite the trauma she’s suffered at the hands of extremist Jews and their savage, Shabbat goy enablers; she somehow summons the resolve to issue a softly spoken cri de Coeur that vocalizes the sentiments and beliefs of the civilized majority, and says what cowards and traitors dare not:
This decision has come from Israel”.
Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
The harshest criticism in this respect must, of course, be reserved for the Pakistanis themselves. And though The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has always supported Palestine, refuses to recognize the illegitimate state of Israel and often fights the good fight, its current batch of so-called leaders are amongst the most wretched and servile spawn of Israeli collaborators ever placed into power.
Affia Siddiqui’s mother; Asmat Siddiqui, said it all when news of the ‘verdict’ came through:
The rulers of Muslim world have shown more barbarity than any other dictators in the world by maintaining silence over the issue. But I cannot say anything to anyone, if my country’s rulers did nothing. For six months the US court kept seeking a letter for the release of Dr Aafia Siddiqui from the Pakistani government but not a single word or letter was written.”
The vile, Anglo-American-Israeli appointed Zadari regime in Pakistan is more Zionist than the Zionists, even disgraced former ambassador and aspiring U.S. citizen; Mr. Husain Haqqani, has been caught In flagrante delicto on many occasions, and was found to have been engaged in activities that would constitute a capital charge of high treason under Pakistani law: Mr. Haqqani also stands accused of aiding and abetting the unlawful imprisonment of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui; and obstructing efforts to secure her release. Husain Haqqani, who eagerly doled out visas to U.S. ‘Blackwater’ terrorists, denied U.S. congresswomen and pro-Palestinian campaigner Cynthia McKinney entry into Pakistan. Ms. McKinney planned to visit Pakistan to request the Zardari regime act on Dr. Aafia’s behalf and do the bare minimum to help her. Journalist Yvonne Ridley describes Mr Haqqani’s composure once Ms. McKinney bought his hypocrisy to light:
He squirmed and wriggled after being hoisted by his own petard, but like a worm impaled firmly on a fishhook of his own making, he could not escape the humiliating exposure of his duplicitous behaviour”.
THE WAR ON KNOWLEDGE
The Anglo-American-Israeli policy of targeting academics and scholars who refuse to bend the knee, seems consistent in light of Israeli terrorist attacks in Iran and the murder of scientists Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan, Darioush Rezaeinejad, Majid Shahriari and Masoud Alimohammadi. Mr. Rezaeinejad’s case is particularly troubling, as he was shot dead by masked gunmen on motorbikes as he waited to pick up his 3-year old daughter from nursery.
Israeli sponsored terrorism has also taken a heavy toll in Syria over the past year; Dr. Issa al-Kholi, Director of Hamish Hospital in Damascus was ambushed by three gunmen who lay in wait outside his family home in Rukn Eddin. Professor Mayadeh Anees Sayyiouf of al-Baath University, engineer and nuclear scientist Aws Abdul-Kareem Khalil, head of Thoracic Surgery Department at Homs National Hospital Dr. Hassan Eid, Dr. Mustafa Mohammad Safar from Bisan Hospital, Ruba Ibrahim; a teacher at the National Center for Excelled Students in Homs, Talal Na’eem al-Qatreeb; an engineer from Homs Refinery, Fatima Khalifa; an engineer from the General Company for Electric Power Generation in Mhardeh, head of Douma Electricity Department engineering Firas Qaddar and technical assistant Bassam Barakat were also assassinated by pro-Israeli terror groups.
Extremist Jews, fully in synch with their Talmudic mindset and seemingly instinctive parasitism, were among the first to applaud these attacks and among the most vocal in defending torture and calling for Dr. Aafia to be condemned as quickly as possible.
And you can cite all the amendments and laws you like; extremist Jews and their Christian Zionist sidekicks will simply laugh in your face, and not without good reason, because anyone who hasn’t noticed the death of decency and the absence of the rule of law, obviously hasn’t been paying attention. The mere fact that criminal and pro-Israeli stooge Newt Gingrich can openly solicit the murder of Iranian scientists in a presidential candidates debate, is evidence enough of the wet rot that’s soaked into every pore of U.S. society, decaying the entire edifice from within.
The fact is that the U.S. has been an extremist Jew occupied regime since the Rothschild’s scurried back into power through bribery and blackmail in 1913. A nation riddled with Talmudic depravity cannot call itself free by any definition of the word, it ceases to be a nation but becomes a warped, decaying harbinger of criminality; a danger to itself and others. In simple terms, the U.S., unless it acts, will collapse like every other host the parasite has fed off since time immemorial.
The case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui goes beyond that of a mother, a sister, an innocent woman, but is the litmus test for the survival of a nation and the destiny that nation has chosen for itself: History is littered with the cadavers of countries and empires that were hollowed out by the malignant cancer of Talmudism; not through strength of arms or direct war but by appeasement, corrosive collaboration, aid and comfort.
Self-inflicted destruction or self-enacted preservation? This is the stark choice we face today, our illegitimate leaders who dissemble in the guise of men and women, would gladly betray their own citizens as captives to those who would win us without blows. To rely upon this common cry of curs shows a naivety beyond measure. For how can those whose only recollection of honour is a faded memory of an idea they surrendered long ago; on their backs, legs apart and screaming beneath the inbred sodomites of Jewish extremism, help us; when they can’t even save themselves from slavery?
The civilised world simply can’t afford to wait for the enemy to raise their standard in Satanic triumph; for when they bring ‘Abu Ghraib’ to your home, when Goyim become as docile as the cattle they perceive us all to be and the abomination of Israel hangs over a once free and vibrant people, like the stench of death itself. It’ll be far too late, and perhaps too long a wait to turn the tide on these parasites.
Standing up to the Anglo-American-Israeli crime gang, Dr Affia took a bullet for us all, so if we fail to save her and actively de-legitimize the corrupt and compromised U.S. judicial system; we may as well have betrayed her to the enemy ourselves. Dr. Aafia is a prisoner of conscience, and successive U.S. regimes have proven themselves to be part of an endemically corrupt, Rothschild controlled criminal network. They’ve thrown down the Gauntlet for us all: ‘Bring us to justice if you can’, they taunt from afar. And the one question that will define the coming decade is simply this: Who dares accept their challenge?
Much is made of how President Obama’s position on same-sex marriage has “evolved” to an endorsement of legalization. One hopes his position on the atrocity called the “war on drugs” is evolving.
It’s not really a war on drugs. It’s a war on people, most of whom have committed no violence or other aggression against person or property. Those who do commit violence are encouraged to do so by the very “war on drugs” that Obama and other enlightened leaders so enthusiastically support. Black markets often feature violence — precisely because they are illegal. Decriminalize the activity, and the violence goes away.
America had a natural experiment in this principle: Prohibition. When the manufacture and sale of alcohol were made illegal by constitutional amendment in 1920, booze didn’t disappear from society. It simply went underground to be dominated by those with a comparative advantage in thuggery. Ending prohibition brought alcohol into the legitimate market (although unfortunately regulated and licensed). The violence related to the manufacture and sale of alcohol went away.
Thus the violence perpetrated by Latin American drug cartels and gangs in the United States is not an argument against decriminalization. It’s an argument for it.
It’s well known that an unconscionably high percentage of the American population is in prison. We can thank the government’s persecution of drug commerce for that shameful fact. It is also increasingly understood that militarized police drug raids terrorize people every day, often killing individuals who were not even intended as targets. The American people should demand that this systematic oppression be stopped. The police have become the enemy of Americans, mostly but not exclusively members of minority communities.
The raids that end in death at least make the headlines and perhaps upset people for a short while. But another part of the war on drug commerce gets less attention. When consenting people buy and sell drugs, there is no victim to complain. So to make arrests, police need to trap people — many of them young — in drug transactions and then threaten them with long jail terms unless they become informants. Many take these deals — against their deepest beliefs — for fear of having their lives destroyed by felony convictions and time in the hell holes we call prisons. They proceed to set up drug deals with friends and family members just so they can produce cases for the cops and leniency for themselves.
Can there be a worse indictment of the sadistic government crusade against drugs? What possible good is done by police blackmailing the most vulnerable, even helpless, people into informing on others? Cooperation with the police under these circumstances, despite the duress, is morally wrong — but we mustfirst condemn the police — and politicians who back them — for putting people in this situation. What kind of society is this? It does not deserve to be called humane.
But drugs are dangerous, people say. It’s about time this empty slogan was thrown on the trash heap. Illegal drugs are not illegal because they are dangerous. Other substances that can be used in harmful ways — most obviously alcohol — are legal. Many legal activities that people love to engage in are highly dangerous. Certain drugs have been singled out for prohibition historically not because they are especially dangerous but because they were associated with minority communities. The story of the “drug war” is not of a humane effort to create a healthy, safe society. It’s a story of persecution and control — and of tax-funded largess for law enforcement and the “drug-rehabilitation” industry.
Politicians in Latin America are beginning to understand that the drug wars tearing their countries apart would end overnight if the drug industry were decriminalized. No one would be more opposed to decriminalization than the drug lords, because they’d lose their de facto monoplies.
But who patronizingly insists that Latin America stay with its destructive policy? President Obama–an admitted youthful drug user himself–and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. They would rather see the violence continue and spill over into the United States than admit they are wrong.
No drug could do even a tiny fraction of the damage that the drug war does. Mr. Obama, when will your position evolve?
(Originally published by the Future of Freedom Foundation, where Sheldon Richman is senior fellow.)
When I posted Sharmine Narwani’s provocative article Excuse Me, But Israel Has No Right to Exist on Facebook, I got an inappropriate reaction from libertarians. It was summed up by one comment this way:
No territorial State has the right to exist. They are all organisations against individual rights and liberties.
This answer is true but inappropriate. Why?
Narwani was not tendering a general proposition in political philosophy. She had no intention of operating in the realm of abstraction on this occasion. Rather, she was making a point that seems to elude people, including many (most?) libertarians. Narwani was drawing attention to the fact that invocation of the Jewish State of Israel’s “right to exis” is intended to derail any effort to focus on the right of Palestinian individuals to live on and work the land they and their families have inhabited for more than a thousand years (and perhaps much further back.) Changing the subject to the State of Israel’s alleged right to exist—and that’s what this move is, a change of subject—is designed to make sure that the rights of Palestinians are never discussed.
Imagine you caught a burglar in your home pilfering your silverware. Now imagine that when you demanded he put your property down, he responded, “Wait. Before we talk about that, I demand that you first acknowledge my right to exist in this spot with these things in my hands.” You would not regard that demand as legitimate.
To proclaim Israel’s right exist is to proclaim that a political entity founded by a group of individuals on an ideology of ethno-racial chauvinism has a moral right to land it obtained through brutal ethnical cleansing. The Zionist movement had (and has) as its premise that Palestine is “Jewish land” and that the non-Jews are unfit for it. Thus it had (has) to be “redeemed.” The outcome was what the Palestinians call the nakba, or catastrophe. The political entity known as Israel thus occupies land stolen from the Palestinian people.
That is the context from which to judge all that goes on in Palestine/Israel today. This is no “dispute” or “conflict” in the sense that two sides have roughly equal claims to the same land and resources. The claims are no more equal than those of my hypothetical homeowner and burglar. (”Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country…. We have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?” –David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, quoted in Nahum Goldman, The Jewish Paradox.) Contrition therefore belongs on the Jewish, not the Palestinian, side. (I hope no one will say that a UN General Assembly vote made this all morally acceptable.)
(For details see Jeremy Hammond’s excellent brief introduction, The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination. For a close examination of the Zionists’ alleged purchases of land see Stephen P. Halbrook’s “The Alienation of a Homeland.” On the systematic efforts to cleanse the nakba from history see Neve Gordon’s “Erasing the Nakba.” For the Jewish case against Zionism, rooted in the Prophetic tradition, see Jack Ross’s biography, Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism. But you need not take their word for it. Consult an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who thinks ethnic cleansing was a good thing but did not go far enough.)
We may put it another way: Israel is the only country I can think of that, de jure, does not belong to all its citizens. (I am not saying that other countries actually operate as though they belonged to their citizens.) As the self-proclaimed “Jewish State,” Israel is said to belong not to its citizens but to the Jewish People worldwide. Under the “Law of Return,” anyone who qualifies as a Jew (that is, has a Jewish mother and hasn’t converted to another religion or was converted to Judaism by an approved rabbi) may become a full citizen merely by moving to Israel. Note the word “return.” A Jewish person who “makes aliyah” need not have ever lived in Israel, so she would not literally be returning. (It’s merely assumed, despite reasons for assuming otherwise, that her ancient ancestors might have once lived in Palestine.)
On the other hand, a Palestinian who was one of the million-plus Arabs driven from their villages in 1948 (or even earlier) or 1967 and who could therefore actually return to her home is prohibited from doing so. Her home has long been confiscated, perhaps demolished. In fact her entire village may have been leveled to make way for an exclusively Jewish town. (More than 500 such villages were destroyed during the period of Israeli independence.)
Yes, the Muslim, Christian, and secular Arabs who were not among the 750,000 who fled what became Israel in 1948 were allowed to become citizens of the Jewish State, with the vote and representation in the Knesset. But there’s less here than meets the eye. Non-Jews are second (third?)-class citizens who get inferior government services and who have no power to change Israel’s official designation as the state of the Jewish People. Indeed, any political party that aspires to change that designation is outlawed. A recent law requires new non-Jewish citizens to pledge allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish, democratic [sic] state.” In 2010 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed, as a condition for progress in negotiations, that Palestinian leaders acknowledge Israel as “the national state of the Jewish People.” It is worth noting that until a 2005 legal challenge, the Israeli identity card identified citizens not as Israeli but as Jewish, Arab, Druze and Circassian, and so on. Citizens are still so designated in government records.
Thus, in this context, when libertarians say “all states are illegitimate,” they blur a critical distinction and give those who occupy Palestinian property and otherwise oppress Palestinian individuals an undeserved pass. I imagine that an ardent Zionist would much rather hear that response than one that perceives and exposes the real intent behind the proclamation of Israel’s right to exist: the negation of the rights of Palestinians.
I shouldn’t have to mention this but I will: To say that the state of Israel has no right to exist is not to say that the individuals living in Israel have no right to exist—quite the contrary–and the Palestinians would agree. That raises the question of how best to proceed in achieving justice for the long-suffering Palestinians. This is a complicated question to which there is no easy answer. But here’s one thing advocates of universal freedom and justice can say: The rights of the Palestinians must not be plastered over by irrelevant claims about the Jewish State’s right to exist.
The Dictator-A Film Review by Gilad Atzmon
On the face of it, Baron Cohen’s The Dictator is a horrid film. It is vulgar, it isn’t funny and if it has five good jokes in it, they appear in the two minute official trailer. In short, save your time and money – unless of course, you are interested in Jewish identity politics and neurosis.
Similar to Cohen’s previous work, The Dictator is, once again, a glimpse into Cohen’s own tribal morbidity. After all, the person and the spirit behind this embarrassing comedy is a proud self-loving character who never misses an opportunity to express his intimate affinity to his people, their unique comic talent and their beloved Jewish state. But let’s face it, Cohen isn’t alone, after all, he has created The Dictator together with a Hollywood studio. So, it’s reasonable to say that what we see here is just one more Hollywood-orchestrated effort to vilify the Arab, the Muslim and the Orient.
I guess that Arab rulers, regimes and politics are an ideal subject for a satirical take, still, one may wonder what exactly does Sacha Baron Cohen know about the Arab World? As far as the film can tell, not much. Instead, Cohen projects his own Zionist and tribal symptoms onto the people of Arabia and their leaders.
In the film, Cohen plays General Hafez Aladeen, the Arab ruler of the oil-rich North African rogue state Wadiya. On the face of it, he is the satirical version of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, but in reality, Aladeen’s actions are no less than a vast amplification of the crimes committed by Israel and its war criminals such as Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni.
When Baron Cohen ridicules the Arab Dictators who obsessively seek WMD and nuclear weapons he should bear in mind that it is actually his beloved Jewish state that has, since the 1950s, been pushing the entire region into a nuclear race. It is his Israeli brothers and sisters who express every too often their lethal enthusiasm to destroy Iran and other regional entities. When Baron Cohen mocks the Arab rulers who murder their opponents and kill kids, women and elders, he once again projects Israeli symptoms because it is actually the Jewish state that so often engages in systematic mass murder and war crimes on a colossal scale. Someone should remind Cohen that the pictures of white phosphorus pouring over UN shelters were taken in Gaza, not in Saddam’s Baghdad, Homs (Sirya) or imaginary Wadiya. When Sacha Baron Cohen presents the Arab leader as a savage rapist he may want to remind himself that Moshe Katzav, who was, until recently, the President of the Jewish State is now locked behind bars after being sentenced for rape. It is therefore far from coincidence that when Cohen attempts to bond with his protagonist Dictator Aladeen, he actually speaks in his mother tongue, Hebrew. Cohen speaks Hebrew because Aladeen is not an Arab dictator, he is actually an Israeli patriot like Cohen himself.
But let’s try to transcend ourselves beyond Baron Cohen’s projections and confess: as much as Cohen’s new film is lame, Cohen, himself is far from being a fool. In fact, he has managed to bring to light a few interesting and astute political insights. For example, towards the end of the film Dictator Aladeen produces a remarkable speech at the UN in favour of dictatorship. In front of the delegations, Aladeen draws a pretty profound list of unintended parallels between the USA and dictatorship. Delivering a sharp political criticism by means of comedy deserves respect.
Another provocative insight is delivered through the character of Zoey (Anna Farris), a devout feminist and a human right activist. Zoey runs a multi-ethnic eco-friendly grocery store in Brooklyn. She is the ultimate solidarity campaigner and this time she rallies against Aladeen and his regime. While Zoey invades the street demonstrating against Aladeen’s brutality, Aladeen’s Chief of Staff Tamir (Ben Kingsley) plots against his ruler inside the UN building. He sells out his country’s assets to oil tycoons and world leaders. The cinematic meaning of it all is clear- the bond between the so-called Left and the imperial powers has been established. Zoey, the lefty progressive seems to work towards the exact same goal as the leading corrupted capitalist expansionist forces. They all want to bring the Aladeen regime to an end. I guess that many of those who monitor solidarity activism and discourse would agree with Cohen’s readings. After all, it was feminists and women’s rights groups that, in the 1990s, prepared the ground for the War against Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. The Left was also very reluctant to support the democratically elected Hamas. I guess that a Leftist, thrown into a room together with Dershowitz and Bin Laden, would probably attempt to bond first with Dershowitz.
But Zoey isn’t just a progressive solidarity and human right activists. As the plot progresses, Aladeen and Zoey fall for each other. Towards the end of the film ‘solidarity activist’ Zoey and Dictator Aladeen get married. This is when Dictator Aladeen and the rest of us find out that Zoey is actually a Jew. From a cinematic perspective, the Jew, the human right campaigner and the solidarity activist leader are all one. This amusing reading is unfortunately consistent with the reality of the solidarity movement. Those who monitor Jewish Left activism detect a relentless effort among some Jewish campaigners to tribally hijack and even Zionize the discourse of solidarity, human rights and marginal politics. However, from a Judaic perspective, Zoey, the new wife of Dictator Aladeen is nothing short of an incarnation of Biblical Queen Esther. Like Esther, Zoey has managed to infiltrate into the corridors of a lucrative foreign power.
I guess that with AIPAC controlling American foreign policy and 80% of Tory MPs being CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) members, a Jewish queen of a fictional Wadiya is almost exotic.
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics
Previous reviews of Baron Cohen’s films:
Some Things To Keep In Mind While Watching Borat by Gilad Atzmon