Windows 8 – Did You Know?




For those eagerly awaiting Windows 8, you need to hear what Mike Rivero discovered! - Mike Rivero (fast forward to 14:30).

Once my XP goes "Windowzophrenic" I’m switching to Linex.

I’m getting fed up with all the so-called "patches" and "updates".

Microsoft doesn’t care what YOU want … It’s all about what THEY want!

I’m giving Microsoft thumbs down, and my wallet stays where it is … In my pocket!



The Biggest Food Hoax in History: Saturated Fat is Bad for You!




For years the international food manufacturers and their accomplices, the government and media, have been poisoning and killing us with trans-fats. They have done this while they have promoted the myth that saturated fats are extremely unhealthy and cause heart disease and a myriad of other ailments.

In this article Dr Mercola shows how Crisco, a trans-fat was promoted to the world for almost a hundred years as an alternative to animal fat (lard). In fact, lard is light years more healthy than any hydrogenated vegetable oil or spread.

The fact is that every tiny 2 percent increase of trans-fat (which is still found in many foods) raises the risk of heart disease 23 percent. Butter has always been good. Margarine has been the real killer!

Some of you will be shocked by all of this. But, the media and government have lied to you about a lot more things than the Iraq War or how we are so blessed by Hollywood.



Race Is A Social Construct – What a LOAD of BS



How many times have you heard this – "Race is a social construct"?

Hmmm!

Well, what’s the fuss with DNA then? DNA isn’t "social" – It’s RACIAL!
Am I right Mr Pathologist?

"Race is a social construct"

Hmmm!

Under International Law, there’s NO such thing as "race is a social construct" – Just ask Sadam Hussein, he’ll tell you!

"Race is a social construct"

Hmmm!

Why was Sadam Hussein HUNG? Again – Anyone?

"Race is a social construct"

Hmmm!

The Jews DON'T think "race is a social construct" ... I wonder why?

"Race is a social construct"

Hmmm!

Did you know there’s an Immigration Issue?
It’s only "social" … Right?
Sure!

India for the Indians

Mexico for the Mexicans

Africa for the Africans

White countries for EVERYONE!

No one’s flooding India with non-Indians and giving them special privileges like Affirmative Action and special rights.

No one’s flooding Mexico with non-Mexicans and giving them special privileges like Affirmative Action and special rights.

No one’s flooding Africa with non-Africans and giving them special privileges like Affirmative Action and special rights.

ONLY White countries are being flooded,
ONLY White politicians are doing it,
ONLY White Children are affected by it.
It’s GENOCIDE!

Yeah! … There’s an Immigration Issue.

"Race is a social construct"

Hmmm!

Why are Whites bombarded with a Communist DEMORILISATION tactic, if RACE is but a "social construct"?

There’s a reason why ONLY WHITES are called "RACIST" - It’s the tactic.

However, the Jews have thrown the baby out with the dirty water … They call everyone a "NAZI", even the Arabs are now "Nazi’s"!
If you sneeze and you say aaaacheeeuuuwww – YOU’RE A NAZI!

"Race is a social construct"

Hmmm!

No folk! … Race is NOT a "social construct" … RACE IS REAL AND IT MATTERS!

Surely you’ve noticed people of our OWN race trying to demoralise us, knowingly or unknowingly, by saying, "you’re a racist".
However, other Races are not far behind.

How do you neutralise this DEMORILISATION?
Simple!
All you do is stick to a consistent message:

In Your opinion I’m a racist
You’re saying so ‘cause I’m WHITE
Anti-racism is a code word for Anti-WHITE.

That’s it – Make your point!

For the Whites in South Africa … man! … You get pulpified with the "racist apartheid" tactic - You fear IT more than the devil himself!

You need to point out how well the Africans ACTUALLY had it pre ’94.

I see WHITES built OLYMPIC SIZE POOLS in Soweto, then there’s that HUMONGOUS hospital, BARAGWANATH (check spelling) YOU built for the Africans in Soweto. The list goes on … How about the EXPLOSIVE African birth rate pre ’94, what about African life expectancy pre ’94.

Hey, my South African kinsmen, you can REALLY factually waste these self- haters and REAL racists.

YOU have the FACTS!

YOU have the unquestionable TRUTH!

The TRUTH shall set YOU free!

Don’t get a conversation going … MAKE YOUR POINT! Move ON!

So you see folks! … Race is NOT a "social construct" … RACE IS REAL AND IT MATTERS!



China's Ghost Towns: Satellite Pictures Show Massive Skyscraper Cities Which Are STILL Completely Empty



By Daily Mail Reporter
18 June 2011

As sprawling housing developments and skyscrapers in one of the world's most populous countries, these tower blocks and recently-built neighbourhoods should be busy and swarming with people.
But on closer inspection these stunning pictures show elaborate public buildings and open spaces, which are left completely empty.
The most recent pictures of unused housing emerged as China announced plans to build 20 cities a year for the next 20 years.

Soulless cities: Despite being unable to find buyers for the hundreds of millions of new homes, China plans to build 20 cities a year for the next 20 years

Property to let: Rows of neat, newly-built houses like these in Jiangsu are becoming more common in China

Desolate: These skyscraper in Chenggong, where there are already 100,00 new homes, should be bustling with life but are instead empty

And despite pictures last year showing some of the reported 64 million empty homes, Chinese authorities have since erected masses more buildings.
Gillem Tulloch, an analyst for Forensic Asia Limited, described one of the areas in Chenggong, as a 'forest of skyscrapers'.

When asked what has happened in the past six months since the ghost cities were built, he said: 'China built more of them'.
China consumes more steel, iron ore and cement per capita than any industrial nation in history.


Unused: Another vacant development in Jiangsu contains well over 100 new properties
Plenty of room spare: Experts have said some of the developments are like a 'forest of skyscrapers'

'It's all going to railways that will never make money, roads that no one drives on and cities that no one lives in.
'It's like walking into a forest of skyscrapers, but they're all empty.'
Chinese government think tank have warned that the country's real estate bubble is getting worse, with property prices in major cities overvalued by as much as 70 per cent.
Tulloch said that apartments in Chenggong, a fishing village near Hong Kong, were selling for up to $80,000.

Many of the developments like this one in Ordos, China, have swathes of newly-created public space completely unused by anyone

Zhengzhou New District residential towers: Soaring property prices in China and high levels of investment has fuelled the construction of up several new cities. Experts fear a subsequent property crash could damage the global economy

Property bubble: Zhengzhou New District features vast public buildings that have never been used

He added: 'People there were joking that no one in Denaya could afford to live there. If these apartments sell at all, it is to speculators.'


Of the 35 major cities surveyed last year, property prices in eleven including Beijing and Shanghai were between 30 and 50 per cent above their market value, the China Daily said, citing the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Prices in Fuzhou, capital of the southeastern province of Fujian, had the worst property bubble with average house prices more than 70 per cent higher than their market value, according to the survey conducted in September.
The average price in the 35 cities surveyed was nearly 30 per cent above the market value, the report said.




Being Liberal Means Never Having To Face The Facts



By Bob Whitaker (whitakeronline.org)

Can you imagine a Respectable Conservative pointing out to a liberal that "nearly 150 female cadets" being sexually assaulted completely destroys the left's arguments for women in combat?

Everyone knows that conquering armies rape the women of the losers. It is understood that the aggressiveness required for waging war spills over into other behaviors.

So if women were the equals of men in combat, they would sexually assault men at roughly the same rate as men assault women.

"Nearly 150" to zero does not bode well for the combat readiness of women. Only someone as insensitive as ole Bob will point this out.

Of course, it would be really insensitive for ole Bob to point out that none of the traditional religions allow women in combat. Only the religion of Political Correctness insists on this.

The article has several other figures that aren't meant to be studied closely. For example, "55 instances of religious bias in the past five years" translates to 11 per year. For a school with 4,000 cadets, that translates to less than one quarter of one percent. Since the school is 1% Jewish, less than 1% Muslim, and roughly 8% other, does that sound like such a big deal?

Do you think that out of a group of 40 Jews, 30 something Muslims (at a military school in the midst of a war in the middle east) and 350 assorted non-Christians you could find 11 who might not like Bible verses in emails or crosses in dorm rooms?



A Discussion on How the Government is Stealing Children and Selling Them On The “Market”



Before you listen to the discussion below, read Marriage License … A Trap, to get a better understanding as to WHY governments THINK they have the RIGHT to TAKE our children from us.

Ralph Winterrowd’s discussion (MP3)
Hour 1 Hour 2


How about this … POLICE CHANGE SIDES!


German police officers escort an anti-capitalism protest march with some 20,000 people in Frankfurt, Germany, Saturday, May 19, 2012. Protesters peacefully filled the city centre of continental Europe's biggest financial hub in their protest against the dominance of banks and what they perceive to be untamed capitalism, Frankfurt police spokesman Ruediger Regis said. The protest group calling itself Blockupy has called for blocking the access to the European Central Bank, which is located in Frankfurt's business district. (AP Photo/Michael Probst)

By Juergen Baetz

BERLIN - At least 20,000 people held a major rally of the local Occupy movement in Frankfurt on Saturday to decry austerity measures affecting much of Europe, the dominance of banks, and what they call untamed capitalism.

The protesters peacefully filled the city centre of continental Europe's biggest financial hub on a warm and pleasant afternoon, said Frankfurt police spokesman Ruediger Regis. He said 20,000 people were there, while organisers put the number at 25,000.
 
The protest group, named Blockupy, has called for blocking access to the European Central Bank, which is located in Frankfurt's business district.
Organiser spokesman Roland Seuss the protest is "against the Europe-wide austerity dictate by the (creditor) troika of ECB, the EU Commission and the International Monetary Fund."

Last year, thousands in Germany took to the streets in rallies during the worldwide Occupy movement. But as Germany's economy is robust and unemployment at a record-low, those protests have mostly fizzled out.

But Europe's lingering debt crisis has given new fuel to some demonstrations.
Germany, Europe's biggest economy, suffers none of the austerity measures now heavily affecting southern European nations such as Greece, Portugal and Spain. But Germany has championed the sometimes harsh spending cuts across Europe to get deficits under control.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has pushed through a European treaty enshrining fiscal discipline, but she is being criticised for suffocating growth through her insistence on austerity measures.


Her conservative government has rejected significant new stimulus measures, but Merkel is increasingly pressured — not least by newly elected French President Francois Hollande and President Barack Obama — to prop up investment to foster growth and avoid another recession in Europe.
 
"We are in solidarity with the people of Greece and other European countries who are already gravely suffering from (budget) cuts across the board which threaten their very existence," Suess said.

"International resistance against the austerity imposed by troika and governments," read one banner, followed by protesters waving Greek and Spanish flags. "Break the bank's power," read another banner.

An Occupy tent camp in front of the European Central Bank was cleared Wednesday as a safety measure ahead of Saturday's protest. Some 340 activists left, some of them carried by police. Authorities say the camp can be re-erected late Sunday.

Police on Friday temporarily detained some 400 demonstrators during unauthorised Blockupy protests by thousands of activists after they erected barricades and staged sit-ins.

Some 5,000 police officers are assigned to keep the weekend protests in check.


 

Senate Dems Back Increase In Air Travel Fee To Close Funding Shortfall At TSA




By Erik Wasson

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday moved forward with legislation to increase airline passenger security fees, beating back a GOP attempt to keep them at current levels.
The 2013 Homeland Security appropriations bill would increase one-way fees for passengers from $2.50 to $5 in order to close a budget shortfall at the Transportation Security Administration.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said the $315 million in funding would otherwise come from taxpayers and argued it is better to stick passengers who rely on TSA with the bill.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) sponsored an amendment to strip out the fee increase and offset the loss of revenue with cuts to state and local grants, emergency food and shelter funding, and dropping $89 million in funding for a new highway interchange leading to the Homeland Security’s new headquarters in southeast Washington, D.C. Hutchison noted that the Senate had decided not to increase the fees in the recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill.

That amendment was defeated on a 15-15 vote. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined Republicans in supporting the measure to strip out the fee increase.

Hutchinson joined Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) in voting against the DHS bill as a whole. Johnson and Moran have been voting against non-defense 2013 appropriations bills. Johnson has said his votes are protesting the lack of a Senate budget resolution. The other Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee have all voted to support the August debt ceiling deal levels.

The committee on Tuesday also approved the 2013 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs spending bill, traditionally the least controversial of all 12 annual spending bills. The vote was 30-0.



UK Surveillance Program Could Expose Private Lives



By Raphael Satter

LONDON (AP) - British officials have given their word: "We won't read your emails."
But experts say the government's proposed new surveillance program will gather so much data that spooks won't have to read your messages to guess what you're up to.

The U.K. Home Office stresses it won't be reading the content of every Britons' communications, saying the data it seeks "is NOT the content of any communication." It is, however, looking for information about who's sending the message and to whom, where it's sent from and other details, including a message's length and its format.

The proposal, unveiled last week as part of the government's annual legislative program, is just a draft bill, so it could be modified or scrapped. But if passed in its current form, it would put a huge amount of personal data at the government's disposal, which it could use to deduce a startling amount about Britons' private lives - from sleep patterns to driving habits or even infidelity.

"We're really entering a whole new phase of analysis based on the data that we can collect," said Gerald Kane, an information systems expert at Boston College. "There is quite a lot you can learn."

The ocean of information is hard to fathom. Britons generate 4 billion hours of voice calls and 130 billion text messages annually, according to industry figures. In 2008, the BBC put the annual number of U.K.- linked emails at around 1 trillion.

Then there are instant messaging services run by companies such as BlackBerry, Internet telephone services such as Skype, chat rooms, and in-game services like those used by World of Warcraft.

Communications service providers, who would log all that back-and-forth, believe the government's program would force them to process petabytes (1 quadrillion bytes) of information every day. It's a mind-boggling amount of data, on the scale of every book, movie and piece of music ever released.

So even without opening emails, how much can British spooks learn about who's sending them?

THEY'LL SEE THE RED FLAGS
Did you know how fast you were going? Your phone does.
If you sent a text from London before stepping behind the wheel, and a second one from a service station outside Manchester three hours later, authorities could infer that you broke the speed limit to cover the roughly 200 miles that separate the two.
Crunching location data and communications patterns gives a remarkably rich view of people's lives - and their misadventures.
Ken Altshuler, of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, raves about the benefits smartphones and social media have brought to savvy divorce attorneys.

Lawyers don't need sophisticated data mining software to spot evidence of infidelity or hints of hidden wealth when they review phone records or text traffic, he said.
"One name, one phone number that's not on our client's radar, and our curiosity is piqued," he said. The more the communication - a late-night text sent to a work colleague, an unexplained international phone call - is out of character, "the more of a red flag we see."

THEY'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE SLEEPING
The ebb and flow of electronic communication - that call to your mother just before bed, that early-morning email to your boss saying you'll be late - frames our waking lives.
"You can figure somebody's sleep patterns, their weekly pattern of work," said Tony Jebara, a Columbia University expert on artificial intelligence. In 2006, he helped found New York-based Sense Networks, which crunches phone data to do just that.
Jebara said that calls made from the same location from 9 to 5 are a good indication of where a person works; the frequency of email traffic to or from a person's work account is a good hint of his or her work ethic; dramatic changes to a person's electronic routine might suggest a promotion - or a layoff.
"You can quickly figure out when somebody lost their job," Jebara said, adding: "Credit card companies have been interested in that for a while."

THEY'LL KNOW WHO'S THE BOSS
Drill down, and communication can reveal remarkably rich information. For example, does office worker A answer office worker B's missives within minutes of the message being sent? Does B often leave colleagues' emails unanswered for hours on end? If so, B probably stands for "boss."
That's an example of what Jebara's Columbia colleagues call "automated social hierarchy detection," a technique that can infer who gives the orders, who's respected and who's ignored based purely on whose emails get answered and how quickly. In 2007, they analysed traffic from the Enron Corporation's email archive to correctly guess the seniority of several top-level managers.

Intelligence agencies may not need such tools to untangle corporate flowcharts, but identifying ringleaders becomes more important when tracking a suspected terrorist cell.
"If you piece together the chain of influence, then you can find the central authority," he said. "You can figure that out without looking at the content."

THEY'LL KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO
Seeing how networks of people communicate isn't just about finding your boss. It's about figuring out who your friends are.
Programs already exist to determine the density of communications - something that can identify close groups of friends or family without even knowing who's who. If one user is identified as suspicious, then users closest to him or her might get a second look as well.

"Let's say we find out somebody in the U.K. is a terrorist," said Kane. "You know exactly who he talks to on almost every channel, so BOOM you know his 10 closest contacts. Knowing that information not only allows you to go to his house, but allows you to go to their houses as well."

A SNOOPER'S CHARTER?
Detective work at the stroke of a key is clearly attractive to spy agencies. British officialdom has been pushing for a mass surveillance program for years. But civil libertarians are perturbed, branding the proposal a "snooper's charter."
Kane says the surveillance regime has to be seen in the context of social networks such as Facebook and LinkedIn, where hundreds of millions of people are constantly volunteering information about themselves, their friends, their family and their colleagues.


"There's no sense in getting all Big Brother-ish," he said. "The bottom line is that we're all leaving digital trails, everywhere, all the time. The whole concept of privacy is shifting daily."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_MASS_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-18-16-52-15


Man Who Has 30 Kids With 11 Women Wants Child-Support Break

The 33-year-old Knoxville, Tenn., resident has reportedly set a Knox County record for his ability to reproduce


By Rene Lynch

You have to say this much for Desmond Hatchett: He has a way with the ladies.

The 33-year-old Knoxville, Tenn., resident has reportedly set a Knox County record for his ability to reproduce. He has 30 children with 11 women. And nine of those children were born in the last three years, after Hatchett - who is something of a local celebrity - vowed "I'm done!" in a 2009 TV interview, saying he wouldn't father more children.

But Hatchett is back in the news this week because he's struggling to make ends meet on his minimum-wage job. His inability to make child-support payments on such a meagre salary also means he's back in court again and again, most recently to ask for a break on those payments.

"Yes, we've got several cases with Mr. Hatchett," Melissa Gibson, an assistant supervisor with the Knox County child support clerk's office, said with a sigh.

Hatchett's attorney, Keith Pope, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Under the law, there's nothing officials can do to force Hatchett to keep his pants on.

"If there's something out there like that, I'm unaware of it," Gibson told The Times, before adding, "It definitely needs to be."

Read full article Here

 Nice piece of psy-op! – Rolls nicely with "overpopulation".
Soon we’ll all say … Yeah! Maybe China has a point with their 1 child policy.

Next thing you know, we’ll be like China’s peasant farmers, drowning new-borns in water filled buckets. Will we prefer boys to girls or vice versa?

Take a look what the word "kid" means – We refer to our children as "kids" … Right?

King Abdullah I on Zionism - 1947


King Abdullah I of Jordan

This is a remarkable article by the late King Abdullah I of Jordan who was assassinated by a Palestinian back in 1951. Written in 1947, the most striking thing is Abdullah's understanding of American support for the Zionists that seems to have been as strong in the American media in 1947 as it is today.
 Here it is:

As the Arabs See the Jews (1947)
By: King Abdullah I of Jordan.

I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support.

So many billions of words have been written about Palestine - perhaps more than on any other subject in history - that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.

We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.

There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.

The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.
Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumbered - a minority in our home.

Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.

Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.

We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.

Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?

Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.

No people on earth have been less "anti-Semitic" than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours.

Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centres have always contained large and prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatment - far, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers.
I was puzzled for a long time about the odd belief which apparently persists in America that Palestine has somehow "always been a Jewish land." Recently an American I talked to cleared up this mystery. He pointed out that the only things most Americans know about Palestine are what they read in the Bible. It was a Jewish land in those days, they reason, and they assume it has always remained so.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is absurd to reach so far back into the mists of history to argue about who should have Palestine today, and I apologise for it. Yet the Jews do this, and I must reply to their "historic claim." I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!

If you suggest that I am biased, I invite you to read any sound history of the period and verify the facts.

Such fragmentary records as we have indicate that the Jews were wandering nomads from Iraq who moved to southern Turkey, came south to Palestine, stayed there a short time, and then passed to Egypt, where they remained about 400 years. About 1300 BC (according to your calendar) they left Egypt and gradually conquered most - but not all - of the inhabitants of Palestine.

It is significant that the Philistines - not the Jews - gave their name to the country: "Palestine" is merely the Greek form of "Philistia."

Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly - but not all - the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC. Only 250 years later the Kingdom of Judah had shrunk to a small province around Jerusalem, barely a quarter of modern Palestine.

In 63 BC the Jews were conquered by Roman Pompey, and never again had even the vestige of independence. The Roman Emperor Hadrian finally wiped them out about 135 AD. He utterly destroyed Jerusalem, rebuilt under another name, and for hundreds of years no Jew was permitted to enter it. A handful of Jews remained in Palestine but the vast majority were killed or scattered to other countries, in the Diaspora, or the Great Dispersion. From that time Palestine ceased to be a Jewish country, in any conceivable sense.

This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!
Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, "homeland" of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.

Many Mexicans might claim Spain, "homeland" of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the "homeland" of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!

I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as valid - or just as fantastic - as the Jewish "historic connection" with Palestine. Most are more valid.
In any event, the great Moslem expansion about 650 AD finally settled things. It dominated Palestine completely. From that day on, Palestine was solidly Arabic in population, language, and religion. When British armies entered the country during the last war, they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews.

If solid, uninterrupted Arab occupation for nearly 1,300 years does not make a country "Arab", what does?

The Jews say, and rightly, that Palestine is the home of their religion. It is likewise the birthplace of Christianity, but would any Christian nation claim it on that account? In passing, let me say that the Christian Arabs - and there are many hundreds of thousands of them in the Arab World - are in absolute agreement with all other Arabs in opposing the Zionist invasion of Palestine.

May I also point out that Jerusalem is, after Mecca and Medina, the holiest place in Islam. In fact, in the early days of our religion, Moslems prayed toward Jerusalem instead of Mecca.

The Jewish "religious claim" to Palestine is as absurd as the "historic claim." The Holy Places, sacred to three great religions, must be open to all, the monopoly of none. Let us not confuse religion and politics.

We are told that we are inhumane and heartless because we do not accept with open arms the perhaps 200,000 Jews in Europe who suffered so frightfully under Nazi cruelty, and who even now - almost three years after war’s end - still languish in cold, depressing camps.

Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine - a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East - to accept the entire burden. "We have hurt these people terribly," cries the West to the East. "Won’t you please take care of them for us?"

We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore "cruel and heartless nationalists"?

We are a generous people: we are proud that "Arab hospitality" is a phrase famous throughout the world. We are a humane people: no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror. No one pities the present plight of the desperate European Jews more than we.

But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us - even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.

I will be entirely frank with you. There is one thing the Arab world simply cannot understand. Of all the nations of the earth, America is most insistent that something be done for these suffering Jews of Europe. This feeling does credit to the humanity for which America is famous, and to that glorious inscription on your Statue of Liberty.

And yet this same America - the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known - refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself!
I hope you will not think I am being bitter about this. I have tried hard to understand that mysterious paradox, and I confess I cannot. Nor can any other Arab.
Perhaps you have been informed that "the Jews in Europe want to go to no other place except Palestine."

This myth is one of the greatest propaganda triumphs of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the organisation which promotes with fanatic zeal the emigration to Palestine. It is a subtle half-truth, thus doubly dangerous.

The astounding truth is that nobody on earth really knows where these unfortunate Jews really want to go!

You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it.

Some time ago the American Military Governor in Germany was asked at a press conference how he was so certain that all Jews there wanted to go to Palestine. His answer was simple: "My Jewish advisors tell me so." He admitted no poll had ever been made. Preparations were indeed begun for one, but the Jewish Agency stepped in to stop it.

The truth is that the Jews in German camps are now subjected to a Zionist pressure campaign which learned much from the Nazi terror. It is dangerous for a Jew to say that he would rather go to some other country, not Palestine. Such dissenters have been severely beaten, and worse.

Not long ago, in Palestine, nearly 1,000 Austrian Jews informed the international refugee organisation that they would like to go back to Austria, and plans were made to repatriate them.

The Jewish Agency heard of this, and exerted enough political pressure to stop it. It would be bad propaganda for Zionism if Jews began leaving Palestine. The nearly 1,000 Austrian are still there, against their will.

The fact is that most of the European Jews are Western in culture and outlook, entirely urban in experience and habits. They cannot really have their hearts set on becoming pioneers in the barren, arid, cramped land which is Palestine.

One thing, however, is undoubtedly true. As matters stand now, most refugee Jews in Europe would, indeed, vote for Palestine, simply because they know no other country will have them.

If you or I were given a choice between a near-prison camp for the rest of our lives - or Palestine - we would both choose Palestine, too.

But open up any other alternative to them - give them any other choice, and see what happens!

No poll, however, will be worth anything unless the nations of the earth are willing to open their doors - just a little - to the Jews. In other words, if in such a poll a Jew says he wants to go to Sweden, Sweden must be willing to accept him. If he votes for America, you must let him come in.

Any other kind of poll would be a farce. For the desperate Jew, this is no idle testing of opinion: this is a grave matter of life or death. Unless he is absolutely sure that his vote means something, he will always vote for Palestine, so as not to risk his bird in the hand for one in the bush.

In any event, Palestine can accept no more. The 65,000 Jews in Palestine in 1918 have jumped to 600,000 today. We Arabs have increased, too, but not by immigration. The Jews were then a mere 11 per cent of our population. Today they are one third of it.
The rate of increase has been terrifying. In a few more years - unless stopped now - it will overwhelm us, and we shall be an important minority in our own home.

Surely the rest of the wide world is rich enough and generous enough to find a place for 200,000 Jews - about one third the number that tiny, poor Palestine has already sheltered. For the rest of the world, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. For us it means national suicide.

We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?

The sorry story of the so-called "Balfour Declaration," which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the Arabs - promises made in cold print which admit no denying.

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a "national home" for an entirely foreign people.

Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.

I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.

In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered it - in 1927 almost twice as many.

But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.
In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger.

But the next year - the year of Hitler - it jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!

It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.

I have the impression that many Americans believe the trouble in Palestine is very remote from them, that America had little to do with it, and that your only interest now is that of a humane bystander.

I believe that you do not realise how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realise your responsibility you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.

Quite aside from official American support for the "National Home" of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows.

The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The contributions were by private individuals, but they were almost entirely Americans, and, as a nation, only America can answer for it.

The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door. Your government, almost alone in the world, is insisting on the immediate admission of 100,000 more Jews into Palestine - to be followed by countless additional ones. This will have the most frightful consequences in bloody chaos beyond anything ever hinted at in Palestine before.

It is your press and political leadership, almost alone in the world, who press this demand. It is almost entirely American money which hires or buys the "refugee ships" that steam illegally toward Palestine: American money which pays their crews. The illegal immigration from Europe is arranged by the Jewish Agency, supported almost entirely by American funds. It is American dollars which support the terrorists, which buy the bullets and pistols that kill British soldiers - your allies - and Arab citizens - your friends.

We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder. We could not believe this could really happen in the modern world. Now we must believe it: we have seen the advertisements with our own eyes.
I point out these things because nothing less than complete frankness will be of use. The crisis is too stark for mere polite vagueness which means nothing.

I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favours. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it. We ask only that when you judge the Palestine question, you put yourselves in our place.

What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst - enough to dominate your country - merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago? Our answer is the same.

And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you? Ours will be the same.

From The American Magazine, November 1947.



Marriage License … A Trap




We innocently forfeit our legal and parental rights when we purchase a marriage license.

Rich writes:
I wanted to pass along some VERY important information regarding marriage, the marriage contract, contract law, the state and children. This has helped me see the TRUE DANGER in getting married today.

I have been studying the law intensely for the past few years and learned all about maritime law, contract law, trusts, corporations, policies, common law and how nearly ALL such "laws" today are not laws at all, but are merely Policies. They're operating under pretence of law. That is why police today are in fact called Police...because they enforce POLIC(E)-IES... NOT laws. They actually work for the insurance companies who are themselves owned by the banks, especially the Federal Reserve central banks.

by Rich

The marriage license began in the middle ages as a private contract between two families. Most of the time this was recorded in the local church with or without eyewitnesses. Usually the word of a couple that stated they were married was sufficient to have the marriage recorded as such.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - "Permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. They then charge you a fee (which is a bribe) to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

So the state, in instituting any kind of licensing, is forcing you to contract with them and pay a bribe to do something that they claim is illegal.
In Civil Law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture. As the wife goes out to the local market to purchase foodstuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.
Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract."

This contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that are attached to it.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid. This results in an implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.

It should be emphasised that this contractual consideration places the bride and groom in an inferior position (as defined-by-law) and makes them subject to the State. Very few people realise this.

It is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" - meaning the children primarily belong to the State.

In this regard, children are regarded as "contract bearing fruit".

This was established in the US in the 1930's by two doctrines. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.
Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to put it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent.

Along this line, a 1930's Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behaviour at the sufferance of the State.

This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State.

But if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -i.e. the parents are only conditional caretakers. Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship between the husband, wife and state. It's a trinity, just like a pyramid, with the State on top.

Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage (a maritime corporation), to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and instalment debts in the name of the marriage.

Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence.

The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction over the marriage, husband and wife, by the state, now separated, continues over all aspects of the marriage, including over marital property and the children brought into the marriage.

That is why Family Law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage, because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. The marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

This is why time and time again CPS [Child Protection Service] feels that they can just come in and take over your children, because according to the marriage license (along with numerous other un-revealed contracts), they have legal jurisdiction over your children without you really knowing or understanding why.

Much of this also goes back to the 14th amendment, your all capitalised name and each persons name being incorporated, thus giving the states and Feds authority over you.

This is how we have all become enslaved once again, by these dangerous and un-revealed adhesion contracts, many of which, like the marriage contract, are always in force to some degree.

Others include:
Social Security, Drivers Licenses, Building Permits, Property Taxes, and SO many more. ALL of these items are adhesion contracts that have far reaching implications, without you knowing it.

None of them are mandatory!!!!!

Unacceptable Emotions Soon to be Analyzed in Airports



By Brandon Turbeville

A recent article published by the BBC entitled "New Emotion Detector Can See When We’re Lying," introduces a new concept to the prison camp known as Western airports — the addition of "emotion detectors." The "new" technology is essentially a system of video cameras connected to "a high-resolution thermal imaging sensor and a suite of algorithms."

The idea behind the most recent Big Brother system being implemented at British airports, or at least the one that is being touted by the security state, is that since humans give away their emotions through a variety of unconscious means, the ability to read these facial cues would greatly enable security agents to interpret the intentions and the honesty of potential terrorists and thereby thwart coming attacks. In order to do this, the surveillance system uses eye movements, dilated pupils, biting, nose wrinkling, heavy breathing, pressing lips together, blinking, swallowing, and other facial movements. The system also detects swelling blood vessels around the eyes.

As Professor Hassan Ugail from Bradford University, a leading researcher on the project, states, "We bring together all this well-established work on expressions, these recent developments in thermal imaging, techniques for image tracking of subjects and our new algorithms into one operational system." Ugail has also stated that he believes he will eventually be able to detect those who are lying with an accuracy rate of around 90%, even though it is currently far less effective than that, and admittedly will never be 100%. Regardless, the system is ready to be deployed even during a time of heightened fear and paranoia that is leading to millions being added to terror databases or no-fly lists for the slightest suspicions.

Both the article and the researchers (as they are quoted in the article), are also quite deceptive in their presentation. Although the system is presented as a new and much-improved version of the lie detector, the fact is that these systems are not lie detectors at all. They are emotion detectors.

By reading the facial cues listed above, the technology can detect emotions such as fear, nervousness, anger, anxiety etc. These emotions can often be symptoms of one who is lying, but they are not guarantees by any means. Indeed, even the BBC article states that this system only detect emotions "such as distress, fear or distrust, and not the act of lying itself." In short, experiencing one or more of these emotions does not equal lying — these days it equals flying.

Anyone who does not experience at least one of the "trigger" emotions as they get groped, blasted with radiation, yelled at, or intimidated by bomb-sniffing dogs, heavily armed police, and moronic goons is simply not capable of much feeling.

Even without the obnoxious security measures implemented in airports, the normal stresses of travel provide plenty of opportunities to experience negative emotions. Long lines, screaming children, jet lag, inconsiderate fellow travelers, etc can all be taxing enough.

However, with the rape downs occurring at every airport in the Western world, the cancer-causing body scanners, and the constant harassment of travelers for every possible "out of the ordinary" act (even going to the bathroom), it is quite hard to believe that traveling through an airport could evoke any emotion other than fear, distress, distrust, or anger. I, myself, have been through the notorious airport screeners and, I have to say, I was not happy when I got to the other side of security. There is little doubt that, had an emotion scanner been in place in any of the airports I went through, I would have been pulled aside for extra questioning.

Yet, ironically, it is not only the behavior of the TSA and all the other "go along to get along" enforcers that provokes traveler anxiety. The constant fear mongering of the media and the government about the possibility of being blown to bits by foreign or domestic extremists every time one enters a public building might also be cause for some genuine feelings of fear and distress. Now the traveler will be harassed and questioned for the crime of feeling the fear that the system told him he must feel to begin with!

But the issue is not the effectiveness of the technology; the issue is whether law-abiding, innocent travelers should be subjected to screening and pre-crime surveillance. Considering the blatant abuse of power and uncontrollable behavior of the security agents in airports the world over, if anyone should be subjected to emotional behavioral screening based on their actions it should be those doing the bidding of this tyrannical system.

Indeed, if innocent people are forced to virtually strip naked, have their genitals groped and prodded, be subjected to cancer-causing radiation, and the verbal, sometimes physical, abuse of security agents, then be told to endure all of this without feeling the natural emotions of anger, distrust, or distress, then it seems the issue of Freedom vs. Security has been settled. Unfortunately, both have been severely compromised.




Truth About the Talmud: Racist, Rabbinic Hate Literature





The Truth About the Talmud
A Documented Exposé of Supremacist Rabbinic Hate Literature
By Warrant of John 18:37, Galatians 4:16

by Michael A. Hoffman II, foremost scholar of Judaism in the English-speaking world.

The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
- Revelation 3:9 (KJV).

The Public Education System – It Makes You Childish And Stupid



John Taylor Gatto is a retired American schoolteacher with nearly 30 years experience in the classroom. He was named New York City Teacher of the Year in 1989, 1990, and 1991, and New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991.

Have you ever wondered how our form of compulsory education got set-up in the way it is? John Taylor Gatto has. He wrote many essays on the subject, and is also the author of Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling and The Underground History of American Education, to name a few.
He also promotes home schooling, and specifically un-schooling.

What does the school do with the children? Gatto states the following assertions in Dumbing Us Down:

It makes the children confused. It presents an incoherent ensemble of information that the child needs to memorise to stay in school. Apart from the tests and trials that programming is similar to the television, it fills almost all the "free" time of children. One sees and hears something, only to forget it again.

It teaches them to accept their class affiliation.

It makes them indifferent.

It makes them emotionally dependent.

It makes them intellectually dependent.

It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem).

It makes it clear to them that they cannot hide, because they are always supervised.

Here’s an interesting speech by John Taylor Gatto.