A blog dedicated to investigating events as they occur in Judea and Samaria, in Israel and in the world, and as they relate to global powers and/or to the Israeli government, public figures, etc. It is dedicated to uncovering the truth behind the headlines; and in so doing, it strives to do its part in saving Judea and Samaria, and by extension, Israel and the Jewish People, from utter destruction at the hands of its many external and internal enemies.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Lots of new, explosive info about Libya and Israel; but first read my disclaimer below, please: the title of the video is not correct!



To all, Shalom.

Here is my latest interview on the Barry Chamish show. Honestly, I think it is worth listening to. However, please be warned of the following:

First of all, I never said or implied that NATO is controlling both sides of the conflict. That is the creator of the video's interpretation, not mine - not even Barry's, apparently. I said, the CFR, with other words, the NWO, ROME, is controlling both sides. NATO at this point is controlling the rebel side, they are siding with the Muslim brotherhood . The Vatican is on the side of Gaddhafi, and essentially claims to want peace in Libya, yet all the while supporting NATO fully; I think they are not happy to see Arabs die, what they want to see is JEWS die! Libya is testing ground. And of course NATO and the US want Libyan GOLD, Libyan OIL, etc.

Follow Ben Ami, you get to Shimon Peres and Rome.

Follow NATO, you get to Rome.

But NATO could play their opposition to Israel in this particular war, so if they want, they can expel Israel, and go to war against Israel, which is their ultimate goal, in my opinion.

So essentially ROME is playing both sides. Not NATO.

In addition, I made a couple of errors: for instance, Shlomo Ben-Ami is not the head of the Toledo Center for Peace, he is its vice-president

 I also erred slightly regarding the exact date of the disturbances in Benghazi. They actually started on February 15, but the planned "DAY OF RAGE" of the protestors took place on February 17, at which time it was countered by the killing of protesters by Gaddhafi's forces:

I apologize for these errors.

Hopefully I will find the time to write about this topic soon, and give links to all my sources and articles.

There are four parts to this interview, this video is part I, the other three parts are linked below. May I suggest you listen to all of them.

And here are some comments:

Eric Phelps writes:

You are right.  Rome is playing both sides, not NATO---that Nazi vassal of the Pope.

Further, Gaddhafi is a papal Knight of Malta with massive financial holdings in Italy.  Thus, Gaddhafi is pretending to really wage a war but he is really killing his own Berber people, ancient enemies of Rome since the days the Berbers occupied Spain (750-1492).  In the end, all of North Africa will be in the hands of the Pope’s Muslim Brotherhood, established by the Order in Cairo, 1928 (same year the Order created Opus Dei in Spain).  And the Muslim Brotherhood has a prominent Knight of Malta in its ranks....  Meanwhile, Rome delights in the killing of Arab descendants of Ishmael (Egyptians especially) as well as the Jews descending from Jacob

what's the hope?  In the Talmud it says that separation between Rome and Germany is necessary to stop evil from spreading, perhps separating between Rome and NATO is the key- are our leaders that smart?


Libyan Rebels Sold Hizbollah and Hamas Chemical Shells « Daily News
April 1, 2011

Senior Libyan rebel “officers” sold Hizballah and Hamas thousands of chemical shells from the stocks of mustard and nerve gas that fell into rebel hands when they overran Muammar Qaddafi’s military facilities in and around Benghazi, debkafile’s exclusive military and intelligence sources report.

Word of the capture touched off a scramble in Tehran and among the terrorist groups it sponsors to get hold of their first unconventional weapons.

According to our sources, the rebels offloaded at least 2,000 artillery shells carrying mustard gas and 1,200 nerve gas shells for cash payment amounting to several million dollars.

US and Israeli intelligence agencies have tracked the WMD consignments from eastern Libya as far as Sudan in convoys secured by Iranian agents and Hizballah and Hamas guards. They are not believed to have reached their destinations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, apparently waiting for an opportunity to get their deadly freights through without the US or Israel attacking and destroying them.

It is also not clear whether the shells and gases were assembled upon delivery or were travelling in separate containers. Our sources report that some of the poison gas may be intended not only for artillery use but also for drones which Hizballah recently acquired from Iran.

Tehran threw its support behind the anti-Qaddafi rebels because of this unique opportunity to get hold of the Libyan ruler’s stock of poison gas after it fell into opposition hands and arm Hizballah and Hamas with unconventional weapons without Iran being implicated in the transaction.

Shortly after the uprising began in the third week of February, a secret Iranian delegation arrived in Benghazi. Its members met rebel chiefs, some of them deserters from the Libyan army, and clinched the deal for purchasing the entire stock of poison gas stock and the price.

The rebels threw in a quantity of various types of anti-air missiles.

Hizballah and Hamas purchasing missions arrived in the first week of March to finalize the deal and arrange the means of delivery.

The first authoritative American source to refer to a Hizballah presence in Benghazi was the commander of US NATO forces Adm. James Stavridis. When he addressed a US Senate committee on Tuesday, March 29, he spoke of “telltale signs of the presence of Islamic insurgents led by Al-Qaeda and Hizballah” on the rebel side of the Libyan war. He did not disclose what they were doing there.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

So really, WHO is going to put a stop to these animals masquerading as police? Somebody has to do it: we cannot afford to get used to this criminal, nazi behavior.

‘Police Fired Tear Gas while Young Children Slept

Adar Bet 24, 5771, 30 March 11 01:30
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
( Police fired tear gas and stun grenades in houses while young children were sleeping, and a video shows police brutality beating the back of a man during a raid on the Ronen Hill community late Tuesday night.
"They pulled him by his hands, his feet, and even his sidelocks... as if he's an animal... there was chaos here – stun grenades and tear gas,” said one witness of the police attacking one man. “I was in the house and almost suffocated..."

The raid came less than three weeks after the brutal massacre of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, and Ronen Hill residents said that they did not know whether they were in the midst of a terrorist attack or an arrest. They explained that the plain clothes officers could just as well have been seen as Arab terrorists.
The policemen were without name tags, an illegal tactic that has often been used in arrests of National Religious Jews long before the expulsions from Gush Katif and towns in northern Samaria nearly six years ago.
“They were like animals at our door," said one resident.  We didn't understand what was happening - we were afraid they were terrorists... My husband asked, ‘Who's there? Who's there?' and no one answered. He opened the window a bit to see what was going on outside, and the police seized the moment, opened the window more and drew him outside through the window like animals."
The witness added that one police officer grabbed a mobile phone from someone photographing the violence, erased the picture, and returned the camera saying, "Say thanks that I'm even returning the phone to you."
She said that police beat anyone who was in their way as they arrested a father of eight children by dragging him away.
One police officer pulled out his gun and threatened a resident, according to Shomron (Samaria) Regional Council chairman Gershon Mesika.
He said he saw frightened children hiding behind cupboards, “Two weeks after the massacre of the Fogels, people are afraid of anything that happens around them. The police arrive in the middle of the night and scare children.
“I expect the police to act according to the law and arrive with identification tags and knock on the door instead of breaking windows and causing panic without people knowing if they are terrorists or policemen. They see an enemy and fire tear gas and stun grenades at us.”
 Benny Katzover, chairman of the Residents' Committee of Samaria, told Israel National News, “We see time and time again that police in Israel act like a gang of bullies camouflaged as police officers. They allow themselves to take revenge on citizens, and someone must put an end to their violent behavior that is suitable for street gangs.”

Thursday, March 24, 2011

That is exactly my thinking: Libya is a test case for Israel! Make sure to read "Brilliant comment by Anonymous", below.

As a matter of fact - I wrote about my concerns earlier - I think the MAIN reason for NATO to be in the Mediterranean is just that; THE WAR OF GOG AND MAGOG IS ON ITS WAY! Under some U.N. resolution pretense, the U.N. will give the order to attack Israel. 

But remember what the prophets said about this coming war: IT IS THE ATTACKERS WHO WILL BE BURIED HERE, IN MASSIVE AMOUNTS!

Attack Yaakov at your own risk, Esav and Amalek.

UN Intervention Into Libya An Ominous Precedent For Israel

Center for Security Policy | Mar 21, 2011
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama Administration has just undertaken in its war with Muammar Gaddafi.   How it will all end is just one of them.
Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.
Here's how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:
It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a UN Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood.  Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the Council's recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians' gambit.  She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a "mammoth force" of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel.  Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as First Lady.
This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members - Russia, China, Britain and France - as well as the all of the other non-permanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining.  As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the "international community."
With a stroke of the UN's collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders.  The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its longstanding position:  The sovereign territory of Palestine must be rid of all Jews. 
The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned "settlements" now on Palestinian land, or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish State itself.
Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine.  There, as in Gaza (and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called "Arab awakening"), the winner will likely be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian franchise is Hamas).
The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to "liberate" their land.  As with the Gaddafi Precedent, the first to act is the Arab League.  Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the "Palestinian people" and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.
Turkey (which is still a NATO ally, despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism) is joined by Britain and France - two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel - in applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting "peace."  They call on the UN Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League's bidding.
Once again, Team Obama's leading ladies - Mesdames Clinton, Power and Rice - align to support the "will of the international community."  They exemplify, and are prepared to enforce, the President's willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his personal hostility towards Israel.  The concerns of Mr. Obama's political advisors about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland. 
Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States' longstanding role as Israel's principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts, in accordance with the Gaddafi Precedent.  He warns Israel that it must immediately take steps to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized State of Palestine, lest it face the sort of U.S.-enabled "coalition" military measures now underway in Libya.  In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank - and beyond, if necessary - in order to fulfill the "will of the international community."
Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired end-game, namely "two states living side by side in peace and security."  If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gaddafi Precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome than the two-state "solution":  Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with possible worldwide repercussions.  
At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of the Gaddafi Precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests.  Even if a positive outcome is somehow forthcoming there, should Barack Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisors be allowed, based on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they would surely precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught with truly horrific repercussions - for Israel, for the United States and for freedom-loving people elsewhere. 
A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Article contributed by A.M. Thank you.  

...But meanwhile...

 The Second Time as Farce by Daniel Greenfield

Link to Sultan

Posted: 23 Mar 2011 07:34 PM PDT
 It was Hegel who said that history repeats itself because nations and governments fail to learn from it, but it was Karl Marx who added that history repeats itself a second time as farce. Which makes it all too appropriate that Obama is repeating the Bush era as farce.
For years American liberals accused George W. Bush of being dumb and unserious-- only to elect a man who actually is dumb and unserious. Who announces a war in between his NCAA picks and a trip to Rio. Who has spent more time playing golf, than directing the war effort. Who spends more time in front of the mirror and the camera, than on policy.

They accused Bush of running an imperial presidency-- and that is exactly what they got the second time around. A war without even the thinnest facade of congressional involvement. Without Dick Cheney being anywhere in sight. They accused Bush of having a Nazi collaborating grandfather, and their own grass roots efforts to elect an Un-Bush were funded by a philanthropic Nazi collaborating billionaire.

They falsely insisted that Bush went to war for oil. And now their Great Hope has actually gone to war for oil. For BP's 900 million dollar Libyan oil deal, which Prime Minister Cameron endangered when he precipitously rushed to back the Libyan rebels who seemed on their way to victory, only to crumble at Gaddafi's pushback. After all those years of calling Blair, Bush's poodle-- Obama turned out to be Cameron's poodle. They're no doubt laughing about it in London.

Back when Gaddafi was securely in power, BP lobbied to free the Lockerbie bomber to avoid Gaddafi's threat to cut all commercial ties with the UK. What a difference a year makes. Now the only thing that will save BP is a good old fashioned war. Gaddafi had already called on Russian and Chinese oil companies to replace Western oil companies. Not to be left out, the Libya rebels quickly created their own oil company reminding everyone of what this is really about.

History repeats itself as farce. But who's laughing now?

There is a reason why Europe yawns at Turkey's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels, while sending in the jets when Gaddafi bombs rebel positions. Why the genocide in Sudan was not interrupted by a No Fly Zone, and top European firms still do business with Iran through proxies in Dubai. It's not about human rights. It's not even about the threat potential. If it were, North Korea or Iran would be in our bomb sights. Right now Syria is massacring protesters, but don't look for military intervention there either. That's not what it's about. It's about the bright boys deciding that Gaddafi stands in the way of the future, just like Slobodan Milosevic once did. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and terrorism are minor crimes, compared to obstructing the emergency of a stable order and the fat profits it will bring.

Obama's justification for the bombing to congress, citing, "Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League", and the "international community", as well as "the authority of the Security Council" should send chills up anyone's spine. The idea that the US has become the 'Enforcer' for the Arab League is an ugly enough idea, though it is a remarkable moment of honesty about just who's calling the shots in US foreign policy.

But more meaningful still is the end of that sentence which hinges that trail of justifications on, "efforts to preserve stability in the region". Which is another unexpected moment of honesty, as long as you understand that stability has nothing to do with democracy, human rights or preventing bombs from falling on orphans. It's about keeping the trade going and the oil flowing. Keeping the violence down to a dull roar and maintaining predictable economic conditions. No oil price fluctuations, no crazy demands from a lunatic and an advancement of the new order of the January Revolutions.

This wasn't an intervention in response to genocide or WMD's. Gaddafi is fighting a civil war with few blatant atrocities. Two weeks ago the UN death toll was at a mere 1,000. That would have been a slow month in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But NATO set similarly low standards for declaring genocide in Kosovo. And all the weepy reports and heartstrings tugging was meant to disguise those simple facts. Just as news reports on Libya describe massacres in vague terms and cheer on the bravery of the rebels without telling us who they are.

We're told what we need to know, that Gaddafi is bad and the rebels are good. And while it's hard to argue that a world without him might be a better place, it's unclear what Libya will be like without him. The US and Europe have been encouraged to believe that they will be dealing with former members of the US governments and the Libyan human rights people they have been funding. That may or may not be the case. In Egypt, the Jan 25 twitter activists just got stomped into the ground. With enough members of the old regime around, Libya may experience a more stable transition. Most likely it will trade in one civil war for another. And the African mercenaries will be back hunting down Islamist rebels. If the Libyan air force bombs them, we won't say a thing. So long as the oil keeps flowing on schedule.

When a panicked Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program to avoid going the way of Saddam, European oil companies fared poorly at the bidding, while US companies got the inside track. But last year many of those companies, including the influential ChevronTexaco, pulled out, tired of the corruption and the bribery. BP however remained, holding on to its 900 million dollar deal, even lobbying for the release of one of Gaddafi's mass murderers. The Iraq War had intimidated Gaddafi, but its collapse had him feeling his oats again. Irrational demands followed. And the toadying of the American and British governments to his family only fed the beast.

France's Sarkozy now sees a chance to push his Mediterranean Union, by doing what France routinely does, and yet what President Chirac (now facing trial for embezzlement) lambasted the US for in Iraq-- unilateral intervention. Libya was formerly under French rule, and France is fairly casual about invading its former colonies to restore order. That the new coalition to bomb Gaddafi met in Paris is an ironic concession to its Francocentric nature. This war is a French project, in partnership with the UK, with the US along to provide the brute muscle.

Sarkozy needs to catch fire with French voters, almost as badly as Obama does with US voters. He is polling behind Marie LePen and his UMP party barely outdrew the National Front in local elections. He has failed to rein in domestic Islamism, but bombing Libya is easy by comparison. And gives him the illusion of placing his fingerprint on history's page. Then there's France's Total S.A. oil company which has its own presence in Libya. Between its dirty deals with Saddam Hussein and Iran, Total SA makes BP look good.

Three years ago, Gaddafi was pitching his tent in the heart of Paris, on Sarkozy's lawn. Back then Sarkozy denounced "those who excessively and irresponsibly criticised the Libyan leader’s visit" and his aide explained that Gaddafi's visit was a good thing because it brought billions of euros and tens of thousands of jobs to France. But now Monsieur Gaddafi is Le Monstre.

And what were those jobs and billions of euros coming from? The sale of French fighter jets to Libya, from the country which took the lead in going after the Libyan air force. Considering the poor performance of Libya's air force, Gaddafi would be justified in asking Sarkozy for a refund.

Two years ago, UK PM Gordon Brown was expressing his "admiration and gratitude" for Gaddafi. Now Cameron had to interrupt a Middle Eastern arms sales tour to call for a war on Gaddafi for his suppression of rioting rebels. Pity then that the UK had actually been selling some 350 million dollars worth of military equipment, including a good deal of crowd control gear.

Now France and the UK are stepping in to save the Libyan rebels from the military equipment that they themselves sold to Gaddafi.

Did Gaddafi dramatically change over the past few years? No. The circumstances did. In 2008, Gaddafi was being cooperative and welcoming to Western oil companies and arms dealers in a region ruled by tyrants. By 2011, he was no longer cooperative and it suddenly seemed as if a wave of democratic change was sweeping the region. That made him into an obstacle. Had Gaddafi quickly suppressed the uprising, Sarkozy and Cameron would have kept their mouths shut. But Gaddafi's real crime was to start winning, after the Europeans had decided he was going to lose. Now they intend to make sure he does. It's as cynically simple as that.

Sarkozy and Cameron are committed. The price of oil is also the price of political power. Western economies rise and fall on the price of oil. Falling oil prices after the Cold War helped spur economic development, and rising oil prices will prevent any recovery.

With an election in 2012, Barack Hussein Obama also stands to personally benefit from stabilizing oil prices. But that may be giving him credit for intelligence he doesn't have. What he does have is a need to be the center of attention. And given a choice between backing a fairly safe war, or standing shamefacedly on the sidelines, the choice wasn't surprising. Hillary Clinton needed to end her term as Secretary of State with a bang. It's not her husband's Kosovo, but it's the closest she can come to being Madeleine Albright. Everyone involved has now gotten their war. It's not a very impressive war, but even a small war is better than nothing.
The Libyan rebels range from Gaddafi's own regime cronies to Al Qaeda, to various professional human rights activists and rebels of the sort that all Arab countries collect after a while. And they're all eager for our support, so long as we don't ask any difficult questions. Such as who besides Gaddafi was responsible for human rights abuses and whether they intend to protect equal rights for all peoples regardless of gender and religion. And of course we won't be asking any bothersome questions like that.

Instead we will act as mercenaries for the Arab League, European oil companies and a trio of cynical leaders who embraced Gaddafi one minute and turn him into the world's worst criminal next. Those who wonder why Israel is constantly denounced by Europe while Muslim tyrants are pandered to, need only understand this simple fact. There is neither trust nor honesty in foreign policy.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, ill-considered as it was, had a basic germ of idealism in it. That idealism is wholly and completely absent from European foreign affairs, which is precisely why it stirred so much cynicism and rage. Bush genuinely believed that Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world could be made better if we just showed them what was possible. But Bush is gone now, and this is about trade, money and power. That iron triangle whose shape is regional stability and whose name is hypocrisy.

It is why we are now spending billions of dollars on regime change in Libya, while ignoring genocide elsewhere. It's why a man who denounced the overthrow of Saddam, who actually did commit genocide, is now part of a campaign against Gaddafi, who has not. We are ensuring stability. The stable order. The mold of convenience. Get your war on with Obama and see Iraq repeat itself a second time as farce. Marx would have been proud.


"UN pretense: could this be it?

I just started to read...
As a matter of fact - I wrote about my concerns earlier - I think the MAIN reason for NATO to be in the Mediterranean is just that; THE WAR OF GOG AND MAGOG IS ON ITS WAY! Under some U.N. resolution pretense, the U.N. will give the order to attack Israel. 
I just finished reading this...could it be this??.......3rd paragraph R2P (Responsibility to Protect)

On March 17, Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized the use of “all necessary measures” short of an invasion and occupation of Libya “to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas” — the first UN-sanctioned combat operations since the 1991 Gulf War.

Resolution 1973 was passed by a 10-0 vote within 24 hours of being introduced, contrary to prevailing expectations that the moment for action had passed and the world once again had watched haplessly from the sidelines. An international military coalition has destroyed Libya’s air defence system, targeted tanks, established a naval blockade and is patrolling Libya’s skies to enforce the no-fly and no-drive zones.

The game-changer was the juxtaposition of R2P as a powerful new galvanizing norm; the mass defection of Libyan diplomats who joined the chorus of calls for prompt and effective action to protect Libyan civilians, oust Moammar Gadhafi and promote democratic reforms; and the request for a no-fly zone by the Arab League on March 12.
UN Responsibility to Protect (R2P) 2009

The RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ("RtoP" or "R2P") is a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
The INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (ICRtoP) brings together NGOs from all regions of the world to strengthen normative consensus for RtoP, further the understanding of the norm, push for strengthened capacities to prevent and halt genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and mobilize NGOs to push for action to save lives in RtoP country-specific situations.
***(A UN inspector just this week accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing")

"Spain assumes its responsibility to enforce the UN resolution... and assumes its responsibility to protect the Libyan people," Zapatero said."

Yes, Anonymous, I think you go it right. It makes sense, doesn't it? Thanks for your brilliant and focused research!

Now it is just a matter of time before they apply the exact same rule invented just in time for Libya to "the poor palestinian victims of Israeli oppression and apartheid". Amazing what words can do.  All this incitement, which was started by Benedikt, and which will probably end with a war by the whole world against Israel. Never underestimate the power of speech!

These developments in Libya also go to show you the slavish dedication of Obama to Benedikt's plans. I had told you about this two years ago already; now everybody can see this man for what he really is.

See also:

So after all it apparently was an act of man, of some very evil men, that caused the Japanese nuclear catastrophe.

  • TOKYO, March 18 | Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:13pm EDT
(Reuters) - The dollar spiked about 2 yen to above 81 yen on Friday, after the G7 agreed on joint intervention in the wake of the yen's surge to a record high the previous day.
The dollar jumped to 81.20 yen from roughly around 79.20 yen. The dollar last stood at 80.65 yen, up 2.2 percent on the day, having pulled up from a post-World War Two record low of 76.25 yen hit on Thursday on trading platform EBS. (Reporting by Hideyuki Sano)

Thanks to DP and Anonymous.

By the way, when you say bankers, think Knights of Malta and their controllers, i.e. Rome.

Yes, bankers benefited: they tried very hard to manipulate the dollar via the yen, under the cover of humanitarian aid to Japan - as usual. I thought all along that if this disaster hadn't happened, they would have had to create it: after all, March 2011 is when the dollar's demise is supposed to begin, the month the U.S. officially runs out of money. Interesting coincidence, isn't it.

The Rabbis' declaration re: renewed terror in Israel. Government of Israel, take heed: you are in extreme violation!

  ב"ה   ליל י"ח אדר ב' תשע"א

הודעת צוות ההסברה של ביה"ד בעקבות התחדשות מעשי הרצח על ידי ערבים.

מעשי הרצח המתחדשים מלמדים שאין מקום לערבים הקרויים "פלשתינים" בארץ ישראל. אין ברירה אלא להתחיל בפעולה להגירת האוכלוסיה הזו מארצנו ל22 המדינות הערביות ולאחרות. אנו קוראים למדינות שיצרו את המצב הזה להשתתף במימון המהלך כדי שיתנהל בדרכי שלום.
במיוחד הכוונה הינה לממשלת בריטניה שפעלה בצורה בוגדנית מובהקת בניגוד לכתב המנדט אותו קיבלה על ארץ ישראל בתנאי מפורש לסייע להקמת בית יהודי בארץ ישראל לעם היהודי.
בריטניה פעלה במפורש לעידוד הגירתם לארץ של ערבים רבים מארצות ערב השכנות מחד ומאידך חסמה את הדרך למיליוני יהודי אירופה להגיע לארצם ובכך הסגירתם למוות בידי הנאצים.
מדינות רבות אחרות נוטלות אף הן חלק באחריות ליצירת "עם" שכל מהותו היותו צל לעם היהודי בארצו.
על מדינות אלו לממן התהליך ולפתוח שעריהן לערבים הללו כדי לתקן את מה שעיוותו בהתנהגותן כלפי העם היהודי וזכותו לארצו.
לעם היהודי יש את מלוא הזכות לנקוט בכל הצעדים המתבקשים למניעת טרור ולהרחקת אויבים זרים מארצו.

רבי פרופ' הלל וייס - דובר                                              רבי דב שטיין - מזכיר

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

About the evil U.N., the same U.N. that grants itself the moral right to attack Libya. Reference: earlier posts about Turkey, the flotilla saga, and Benedikt.

The UN Human Rights Council:
Hard at work condemning Israel

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears in The Jerusalem Post.

The meeting on Monday at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva helps explain how it is possible for the horrifying murder of the Fogel family by Palestinian terrorists on March 11 to have been so easily minimized by the “civilized” world. Slashing the throat of a three-month old baby and stabbing a three-year old twice in the heart has sickened and anguished Jews everywhere, but the steady pounding of anti-Semitism at the United Nations has not skipped a beat.

At this session of the Human Rights Council a UN-accredited NGO distributed a publication containing the following picture:

The demonic Jew, with the swastika substituted for the star of David on the Israeli flag, is depicted as an octopus strangling freedom-loving innocents.

The Jews as a vile life-threatening octopus was also a feature of Nazi propaganda. Today, it is how the Turkish NGO, the International Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), is permitted to portray its attempt last May to defy a legal Israeli naval blockade.

An appeal made to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, to take action against the IHH and to object to the distribution of this material on the UN “designated NGO tables outside the plenary room” was ignored.

The UN-accredited IHH “humanitarians” also delivered a statement at this Council’s session in which they said: “we consider the unlawful activities of Israel to be the most serious threat, one that is even more dangerous than that of a nuclear attack.”

Being fanatical hatemongers is evidently no barrier to being UN-accredited.

The IHH is not alone. On March 11 of the current session, the Council “Bulletin of informal meetings” advertised the time and place of a meeting entitled “Human rights in Palestine.” It was organized by the UN-accredited NGO “Nord-Sud XXI” and held in a UN-provided room near the Council chamber. Invited speakers manufactured such accusations as “people are buried alive in Israeli prison cells,” and “one woman had gangrene and they cut her foot off instead of treating her,” followed by “we want a future free of Zionist crimes,” and “we need revolution and intifada against this oppression.” Imad Zuhairi, deputy permanent observer of the Palestinian Authority to the UN in Geneva, was an enthusiastic participant in this event, made possible only with the assistance of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights despite its focus on advocating violence against Israelis. Zuhairi declared a few hours before the Fogel murders: “we cannot equate resistance against occupation with terrorism.”

Such NGOs operate hand-in-glove with the Council. Currently being discussed during the Council session is another resolution on the IHH flotilla, calling for still another report to condemn Israel on the same subject in June. Because the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power at the Council, by controlling the regional groups that form the Council’s majority, the resolution is guaranteed to be adopted later this week.

Furthermore, the flotilla resolution is just one of many. There is another resolution on settlements. It condemns only Israel, references the Road Map only to allege Israeli violations, and demands Israel end “all settlement activity, including “natural growth.”

This is not just verbiage. Such UN settlement resolutions intimate that the three young Fogel children, while living and breathing, were criminals.

And still it does not end. Incredibly, at this Council session there will be a total of six resolutions adopted condemning Israel alone – on the flotilla, settlements, the Goldstone Report and its successors, the “Syrian Golan,” other “grave human rights violations by Israel,” and Palestinian self-determination.

Consider the absurdity of the resolution entitled “human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan.” The Council claims to be “deeply concerned at the suffering of Syrian citizens” and then demands that Israel “desist from…practices that obstruct the enjoyment of their fundamental rights.” There is no mention whatsoever of the Syrian government, its murderous rampages at this very moment in time, and its “obstruction” of the fundamental right of Syrians to live.

On the contrary, Syria is currently running for a seat on the Council and is widely expected to be elected in May.

Saudi Arabia is already a Council member and the ongoing crackdown on democracy advocates in Saudi Arabia is nowhere to be found in the Council’s repertoire. The only states other than Israel subject to a resolution of the Council at this session will be North Korea, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, and Cote d’Ivoire.

In sum, the Council is poised to adopt this week six resolutions condemning just Israel, one resolution for each of four other countries, and nothing for the other 187 UN member states. This is the highest number of resolutions dedicated to the demonization of Israel at a single session of the Council since it began in 2006 as the crown jewel of Kofi Annan’s UN reform.

A great many in the Western world believe either that discrimination against the Jewish people is an acceptable price to pay for progress on other fronts, or that the United Nations serves at worst as an incompetent but necessary escape valve for hot air and play-acting by weak countries with inferiority complexes. The atrocity committed against the Fogel family puts the lie to this reprehensible and deadly exploitation. The world should have learned long ago that demonizing Jews is not a human right. 
As a

Money on Trial

By Doug Hornig
We know that our readers are probably riveted by the trials and tribulations of Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. This is important stuff, no doubt. Chas and LiLo, they’re like, y’know, family.
But while their personal trials are playing out in sunny Southern California, on the other side of the continent another trial just wrapped up. Not for TV, nor the flash of still cameras. No microphones shoved in faces. In fact, virtually no media coverage at all. Yet this utterly ignored event just might have been the trial of the new century.
The defendant, in a sense, was money itself.
The question of what constitutes “money” was raised back at the dawn of human trade, when people first began to realize the limitations of a barter system. Over the centuries, many things were used as money, such as shells, cattle, salt and dozens of others, including human beings. But wherever they were available, gold and silver became the standard, for a host of reasons – rarity, durability, divisibility, portability and so on – with which readers of this letter are quite familiar by now.
In the end, money serves two key purposes. It’s a unit of exchange upon which two parties agree, thereby allowing it to be swapped for tangible goods and services. And it should be a store of value, allowing it to have roughly the same buying power next year as it does today, creating confidence in the user and permitting the accumulation of wealth. Precious metals meet both criteria, and meet them well.
What we use for money today, fiat currency unbacked by gold or silver, is adequate for the first purpose, but it fails miserably with the second, simply because there is no limitation on the amount of paper that government (which holds a monopoly) can print, and no possibility that it can hold its value.
When its authors came to write the U.S. Constitution, they gave to Congress the power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of Foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Immediately following comes the power to “provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”
These provisions may seem straightforward enough, but they’re not. Though there is plenty of debate on the subject, many interpreters of the Constitution believe that when the Founders wrote “coin Money,” they meant exactly that, and that when they omitted the term “print,” that was on purpose. Those in this camp contend that the authors were specific about this because they had experienced the ruinous inflation that preceded the demise of the Continental, a paper currency that helped finance the Revolutionary War but became all but worthless by the end of it.
And of the second stipulation, the question is: what exactly constitutes a counterfeit coin?
Both of these were in play in the aforementioned trial – U.S. vs. BVNH, which opened on March 7 in federal court in Statesville, the county seat of Iredell County, in western North Carolina.
BVNH is Bernard von Nothaus. Some of our readers will no doubt be familiar with Bernard. He is the founder of Liberty Services (formerly known as NORFED, the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act). And, more importantly, he is the creator of the Liberty Dollar, the act for which he is now under prosecution.
The Liberty Dollar – first created in October of 1998 – was intended to give Americans freedom of choice. It was for use by people who wanted to conduct their transactions in something of tangible value, rather than inherently worthless paper. Von Nothaus sees himself as a true patriot, offering a product that can function as a citizen’s defense against the ravages of inflation brought on by the systematic debasement of the greenback.
Thus was born his “money,” consisting of silver “rounds” – which are perfectly legal, as opposed to “coins,” which would not be – and certificates redeemable in silver. (There is a smaller number of gold dollars and certs, too.) I have a Liberty Dollar in my hand right now. (Does this make me a potential co-conspirator?) It was minted in 2006, has a face value of $20, and contains an ounce of .999 fine silver. A real bargain at today’s prices.
It’s a thing of beauty with an obverse of Miss Liberty that, on a very passing glance, might suggest an official silver dollar from the U.S. Mint. But even a minimal closer look reveals that it isn’t one. It even bears the maker’s Web address, and it ain’t (although if you go to today, all you’ll find is a single banner that says: Site Removed Due to Court Order).
Alternative paper currencies are not exactly unknown elsewhere in the U.S. these days. BerkShares, for example, are a currency designed and issued for the Berkshire region of Massachusetts, intended to keep money in the area when locals trade amongst themselves. Launched in September of 2006, BerkShares are issued from 12 branch offices of five local banks, which will also convert them back into Federal Reserve Notes. They incorporate anti-counterfeiting features, are accepted by more than 370 businesses in Berkshire County, and over 2 million shares are in circulation.
In addition to BerkShares, we also have the Ithaca (N.Y.) HOURS (original model for them all), the Burlington (Vt.) Bread (whose motto is “In Each Other We Trust”), the Traverse City (Mich.) Bay Buck, and several more either in operation or planned.
None has been busted. But von Nothaus has. Why? Because he both produced coin-like rounds and backed his dollars with metal. Neither of which the government could tolerate as competitors to fiat dollars and coins worth less than their metal content. Also annoying was the Liberty Dollar’s wide acceptance, with about US$20 million worth – in gold-and-silver specie, redeemable certificates, and digital form – in circulation worldwide.
The mint warned him to stop. He didn’t.
On November 14, 2007, the feds took to the field. Agents from the FBI and Secret Service swarmed the Liberty Dollar Company’s (LDC) Indiana offices and Idaho production facilities. They seized everything in sight, including 9 tons of gold, silver, platinum and copper, along with all the company’s files and all its computers. They froze LDC’s bank accounts. They confiscated the gold and silver bullion that backed up the paper certificates and digital currency, and was securely held in a commercial vault on behalf of the LDC by Coeur d’Alene, Idaho’s Sunshine Mint. Even the dies for minting the Liberties were taken.
It was one of the larger and more egregious confiscations of private property in U.S. history. And no one cared. Outside of the Internet and a handful of right-wing talk shows, virtually no one spoke out publicly against this atrocity. Including, ironically, Ron Paul, whose image had been featured on some of Liberty’s rounds and who was then gearing up for his presidential campaign.
Despite the lack of resemblance between his products and official U.S. coins, von Nothaus was charged with counterfeiting, along with three colleagues, who are being tried separately later on this spring.
The intervening years brought a tangle of legal shenanigans too convoluted to go into here, but the takeaway is this: von Nothaus was offered a plea bargain and turned it down, saying that this raid “was a direct assault against the U.S. Constitution and your right to own and use gold and silver in any way you choose,” and vowing to fight the charge all the way to the Supreme Court.
(As an aside, it’s worth noting that North Carolina is the site of the trial because that’s where the initial complaint against Liberty currency was sworn out. All in the “public interest,” of course. According to a government spokesperson, “Merchants and banks [around the country] are confronted by confused customers demanding they accept Liberty Dollars.” For anyone needing a clear illustration of the difference between a reason and an excuse, there it is.)
The face-off down in Statesville was a classic confrontation between a single individual and the full might of the U.S. government, over some pretty basic rights.
Most gave von Nothaus little chance from the get-go. But considering public sentiment about our fiscal mess these days, a conviction was by no means a slam dunk. It was not inconceivable that twelve good folks and true would take the side of liberty.
You may remember a column I wrote not long ago in which I detailed the efforts of legislators here in my home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia, to launch a study into the possibility of developing our own currency. Among other things, they put their philosophy down in writing, and it’s a credo that puts them on a collision course with the feds every bit as inevitable as Bernard von Nothaus’s: “Americans may employ whatever currency they choose to stipulate as the medium for payment of their private debts, including gold or silver, or both, to the exclusion of a currency not redeemable in gold or silver that Congress may have designated 'legal tender'.” That must’ve warmed Bernard’s heart.
I remember my colleague David Galland once opening a Casey conference by saying: “So who is Lindsay Lohan, anyway, and why do we care how much she drinks?” Good question. I’m sure, given the intellectual quality of our readership, your answer would be, “We don’t.” But far more Americans are fascinated by her trials than have even heard of the supremely important one down in North Carolina. And that’s sad. Because von Nothaus’s fate matters, to all of us, an awful lot more than whether LiLo is headed for jail or rehab.
As I was finishing this article last Friday, the verdict came down, and von Nothaus sent a message to his email list:
I sincerely regret to inform you that I was found guilty on all four counts regarding the Liberty Dollar in less than an hour on Friday, March 18. The only explanation is that a strong, anti-liberty person took control of a weak-willed jury and pushed the verdict through in record time in spite of well-worded Jury Instructions. A government forfeiture hearing immediately followed the conviction. PLEASE NOTE: Your property is at risk, so please continue to read these emails and take action so the government does not steal your property. An appeal is planned, but that will take years. More news to follow. An unofficial, but most interesting account of the trial is available via Heather's blog at:
God help you and our country as America descends into a hellish hyperinflationary future without the benefits of the Liberty Dollar.
I am very sorry our efforts to return America to value failed.
We are, too.
Thanks for reading and subscribing to Casey’s Daily Dispatch.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Happy Purim.....yes, it's true. You should open Haaretz sometimes, and read some of the material: really sickening, pure incitement and lies about us, pure hatred; it makes you want to vomit.

Sheftel: Amos Oz Culpable For Fogel Murders

Adar Bet 12, 5771, 18 March 11 01:20
by Gavriel Queenann
( Attorney Yoram Sheftel, referring furiously to the murder of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, "Our country's history is full of horrific incidents and has had many murders. But in recent years we had no such horror. We have been shown, again, the true nature of our enemy."
Sheftel blames leftist leaders, laying culpability for the murder of settler pioneers squarely at their feet, saying, "Who allowed the blood of the Fogel family [to be spilled]? It is none other than our brothers - Red Sons of Cain! Who allowed the blood of the Fogel family [to be spilled]? Leftists creeps, Haaretz - the leaders of Meretz who criticize Israel every two weeks that arch-serial killer Barghouti sits in jail."
"Amos Oz has called the Gush Emunim a messianic cult, cold and cruel, has said that it is a bunch of gangsters carrying out progroms. This Jew, a respected writer, is culpable for the blood of a large Jewish community. Apparently some of our enemies read his stuff. Amos Oz wants the release of the showman Jew killer Barghouti. Amos Oz argues its permitted to murder settlers, that one may kill them because 'they are bloodthirsty people.'"
Shefter noted Professor Zeev Sternhal often said the settlers should be dealt with using tanks, "Professor Sternhal has written that you can not stop fascists with rational arguments, but only force. He said, if necessary, we will have to deal with Ofra and Elon Moreh, and to use tanks to perform the task. This is clear to the Jews, and indeed to those who heeded Sternhal's call and murdered Jews living across the Green Line."
Shefter said Israel must deal with these 'creeps,' citing as an example, "Gen. Shlomo Gazit (Ret.), said kippot are like a swastikas on Nazi soldiers. Katzmann, a cultural commentator, wrote there are some settlements that must be evacuated by killing them all. Katzman probably meant the swaddled three month old baby who was killed. For the left it is not considered killing - only eliminating weeds."

Thursday, March 17, 2011

MODERN-DAY TAANIT ESTHER PRAYER : This monstruous and sold-out Supreme UNjustice Court has to be expunged from our midst: they are responsible for so much evil done to Jews here. God, please help us get rid of our unbearable internal enemies - all of them!

Fast of Esther Observed on Thursday

Adar Bet 11, 5771, 17 March 11 04:46

Jews around the world will be observing the Fast of Esther (Ta’anit Esther) on Thursday.

The Fast of Esther commemorates the three-day fast observed by the Jewish people in the story of Purim. It is usually observed on the thirteenth day of the Jewish month of Adar, which is the day before Purim. However, when the thirteenth of Adar falls on Shabbat, as is the case this year, the fast is moved to the preceding Thursday.


Here is one example, but there are countless more (Hebrew):

Expert: 'The Supreme Court Doesn't See Israel as Jewish State"

Adar Bet 11, 5771, 17 March 11 09:11
by Elad Benari and Yoni Kempinski
( A special session took place on Wednesday, as part of the 8th Jerusalem Conference, on the Israeli Supreme Court ruling which authorized the 2005 expulsion of Jews from their homes in Gush Katif.
Following the session, Dr. Haim Shain, a lecturer in the Shaare Mishpat College, spoke toIsrael National News TV about the Supreme Court’s failure to stop the expulsion.

“In Israel we now have a division between two sectors: the small sector that would like to see Israel as a state like any other, and another, majority sector that wants to see Israel as a Jewish state,” said Dr. Shain. “The Supreme Court in Israel, however, leads the small group that would like to see Israel be like every other state, what they call a "country of all its citizens". Nobody  there cared about what happened in Gush Katif. In other cases that  I see, the Supreme Court keeps getting involved of its own volition, but in the case of Gush Katif it decided not to get involved.”
The Supreme Court Judges were asked by its residents to come to see Gush Katif for themselves before their decision on whether the expulsion violated citizens' rights, but they refused to do so.
Dr. Shain noted that if the expulsion had occurred in an Arab city, the Supreme Court would have been quick to stop it.
“If it was Umm al-Fahm, I can assure you that the Supreme Court would not allow that, even if the Knesset decided on it,” he said.
The session opened with an address by Shir Lev Ran, a teen who was expelled from his home in Gush Katif. He spoke of how difficult it was for him and his friends to cope with the expulsion. Lev Ran burst into tears during his talk as he recalled the emotional experience of being expelled from his home.
Deputy Finance Minister, Yitzhak Cohen, noted during the session: “The greatest fear is that such a thing could happen again. All the legal systems in Israel worked together to commit this crime. Even when illegal things took place during the disengagement, the Supreme Court went along with the government.”

PS: it seems the following WeJew video has been censored; it is impossible to download it: THE TRUTH HURTS, doesn't it, evil ones?!!!

Dr Haim Shain vs the Supreme Court