VNN’s Free Talk Live Friday, March 2nd

SHOW NOTES VNN’s FTL, March 2nd

Israelis at Abu Ghraib

http://uruknet.info/?p=m31032&s1=h1

February 28, 2007

Odd, isn’t it? Sometimes, a truly startling piece of news will grab the world’s attention for a day or so — and then the story vanishes down the memory hole, never to be seen again.

One such “disappeared” news item concerns the tortures conducted at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, now the subject of an important new documentary called The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. For a while, the Rush Limbaughs of the world tried to pretend that the prisoner abuses amounted to nothing much worse than fraternity pranksterism. Administration apologists claimed that all of the persons detained in that facility were terrorists, even though they were actually locked up for a variety of reasons — some had been nabbed for vehicle registration violations. Today, most Americans agree that the name Abu Ghraib will adorn one of the more shameful pages in our history books.

Shortly after the tales of prisoner abuse gained widespread public notice, an unlikely news source, the right-wing NewsMax, broke a remarkable angle: Israeli agents appear to have participated in — and may even have directed — the Abu Ghraib abuses.

What the hell were Israelis doing in that place?

It was explained that the Israelis involved have been assigned as “civilian contractors” to work with Coalition forces in interrogating Iraqi POWs.

The “contractors” are said to be veterans of Israel’s domestic intelligence unit, Shin Bet, as well as the more famous international intelligence agency, the Mossad.

“Who has better experience in dealing with the Arabs than Israel?” one source asked.

It was explained that several of the “interrogation” techniques used by U.S. forces in Iraq have in fact been used by Israel “for years.”


And:

Word in NYC diplomatic circles is that some of the “civilians” seen in recent Iraq prison photos are in fact Israeli nationals “advising” U.S. forces.


For a brief period, other news organs carried this remarkable tale.
This BBC report quotes an unimpeachable source, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. She told the BBC that she personally encountered Israeli interrogators at the notorious prison. The Israeli government denied all such allegations, of course.

Gen Karpinski was in charge of the military police unit that ran Abu Ghraib and other prisons when the abuses were committed. She has been suspended but not charged.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme she met a man claiming to be Israeli during a visit to an intelligence centre with a senior coalition general.

“I saw an individual there that I hadn’t had the opportunity to meet before, and I asked him what did he do there, was he an interpreter – he was clearly from the Middle East,” she said in the interview.

“He said, ‘Well, I do some of the interrogation here. I speak Arabic but I’m not an Arab; I’m from Israel.'”


Seymour Hersh chimed in, claiming that the Israelis had hoped to interrogate intelligence agents who belonged to Saddam Hussein’s anti-Israel units.And then the story disappeared into the ether.

Over the past three years, we have continued to hear much about Abu Ghraib. The nation and the world continues to discuss and decry what occurred there. But why did all talk of Israeli involvement vanish? Why would Israeli Shin Bet and Mossad officers be working alongside our own? Did the Israelis actually have a role in “teaching” naive an easily-manipulated young American soldiers to forego all sense of decency?

Fundamental Rights Agency launched to monitor racism and anti-Semitism

Are Iranian school textbooks preparing students for war and martyrdom ?

Original article: www.ejpress.org/article/13540

 


By Yossi Lempkowicz

Updated: 30/Jan/2007 16:59

http://www.ejpress.org/img/dot_transparent.gif

 

 

 


BRUSSELS (EJP)— Iran’s school hate curriculum prepares its students for a global war and martyrdom against the West in general, and against the United States and Israel, in particular, in the name of Islam.

This is the main finding of a research conducted by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP), a non-political NGO, which is monitoring textbooks throughout the Middle East and determine whether the younger generations are being educated to accept “the other.”

“The continuation of indoctrination inside the school system, which seems almost certain under the current Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, should sound the alarm to all individuals and governments that cherish the principles of peace and international cooperation,” the center said.

Large scale analysis

The organisation analysed 115 Iranian school textbooks and teacher’s guides of all grades.

Although all the books and the vast majority of the teacher’s guides were published in 2004, under former president Mohammad Khatami, they all reflect the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of revolutionary Iran.

“The schoolchildren are taught that the Muslims and the oppressed nations of the world in general, should wage a life-or-death global war against the infidel oppressors, America in particular,” Arnon Groiss, director of CMIP, explained Tuesday during a press conference at the European Parliament in Brussels.

“The final objective is a Muslim political power,” Yohanan Manor, president of CMIP said.

Israel is the enemy

As an example “of the fruit of such an education” the center cited the fact that 36,000 schoolchildren died as “martyrs” during the Iran-Iraq war between 1980-1988.

Israel rather than Jews is presented as the enemy of Iran and Islam.

The center showed a picture story for grade 3 students in which the inhabitants of a tidy and clean town chase away a reopugnant creature that spreads garbage along his way. In one of the pictures, the Jewish symbol of the Star of David is seen as part of the garbage.
“European countries can expect to share the negative consequences of such indoctrination, “ British Conservative MEP Geoffrey van Orden, warned.

“The war intended by Iran and taught in its schools is not necessarily a conventional war utilising tanks and aircraft. It will more likely take the form of terrorist attacks against vulnerable points in the West, exploiting the very openness of our countries,” he added.

He drew the attention of European governments on “the on-going recruitment of tens of thousands of young men and women to the “army of suicide bombers”.

Present-day Sanhedrin court seeks to revive ancient Temple rituals http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/831646.html

The present-day Sanhedrin Court decided Tuesday to purchase a herd of sheep for ritual sacrifice at the site of the Temple on the eve of Passover, conditions on the Temple Mount permitting.

The modern Sanhedrin was established several years ago and is headed by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. It claims to be renewing the ancient Jewish high court, which existed until roughly 1600 years ago, and meets once a week.

Professor Hillel Weiss, a member of the Sanhedrin, told Haaretz on Tuesday that the action, even if merely symbolic, is designed to demonstrate in a way that is obvious to all that the expectation of Temple rituals will resume is real, and not just talk.

   
 

Several years ago, a number of members of the various Temple movements performed a symbolic sacrifice on Givat Hananya, which overlooks the Temple Mount from Jerusalem’s Abu Tur neighborhood. During the ceremony, participants sacrificed a young goat that was donated by a resident of Tekoa. The participants also built a special two-meter tall oven, in accordance with halakha (Jewish law).

The Passover sacrifice is considered a simple ceremony, relative to other works performed in the Temple. On Wednesday, the Sanhedrin will hold its main conference, entitled “Existential threats and ways to correct them.” Rabbi Menachem Froman, far-right activist Moshe Feiglin, and Nativ editor Arieh Stav will participate in the conference. The guest of honor will be Makor Rishon publisher Shlomo Ben-Zvi.

Scholar Pulls Book Revisiting Blood Libel
Says Press Distorted His Work, Pledges Proceeds to ADL

http://www.forward.com/articles/blood-libel-scholar-pulls-book-pledges-funds-to-a/

Bar-Ilan to order professor to explain research behind blood libel book http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gifBy Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and The Associated Press http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

Bar-Ilan University on Sunday said it would order Professor Ariel Toaff to explain the research behind his new book about the centuries-old charge that Jews killed Christians in ritual murder.

University historian Toaff has raised a storm by alleging in his book book that some blood libels – accusations that Jews killed Christians in ritual murders to add their blood to matza and wine on Passover – may be based on real ceremonies in which the blood of Christians was actually used.

The university said in a statement that “Bar-Ilan University – its officers and researchers – have condemned, and condemn, any attempt to justify the awful blood libels against Jews.”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

   
 

The university said that as soon as Toaff returned from a trip abroad it would ask him for explanations regarding his research, adding “until then… we should refrain from relying on baseless reports that have been denied by Prof. Toaff himself and which, apparently, lack any connection to the research itself.”

“Pasque di Sangue” was just released in Italy. It shocked the country’s small Jewish community – in part because he is the son of Elio Toaff, the chief rabbi who welcomed Pope John Paul II to Rome’s synagogue two decades ago in a historic visit that helped ease Catholic-Jewish relations after centuries of tensions.

The author, who is considered an international expert on Italian Jewry, delves into allegations that resulted in torture, show trials and executions, periodically devastating Europe’s Jewish communities.

Historians have long dismissed the allegations as racism, but blood libel stories remain popular in anti-Semitic literature.

Jewish and Catholic scholars have denounced Toaff’s work, saying he simply reinterpreted known documents – and has given credence to confessions extracted under torture.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Toaff responded angrily to his critics, saying, “My research shows that in the Middle Ages, a group of fundamentalist Jews did not respect the biblical prohibition and used blood for healing. It is just one group of Jews, who belonged to the communities that suffered the severest persecution during the Crusades. From this trauma came a passion for revenge that in some cases led to responses, among them ritual murder of Christian children.”

Italian rabbis issued a statement recalling that Jewish law has always banned ingesting blood or using it for rituals.

Toaff’s 91-year-old father said he was looking forward to reading his son’s book and examining the documents, but stressed that according to the Torah and tradition, the consumption of animal blood was strictly prohibited, not to mention that of humans.

In an interview Friday with The Associated Press, Toaff said, “There is no proof that Jews committed such an act.” But he added that the confessions do hold some truth – as when the accused recount anti-Christian liturgies that were mainly used on Passover, when the Israelites’ liberation from ancient Egypt became a metaphor for Judaism’s hope for redemption from its suffering at the hands of Christians.

“These liturgical formulas in Hebrew cannot be projections of the judges who could not know these prayers, which didn’t belong to Italian rites but to the Ashkenazi tradition,” he said.

The 65-year-old Toaff, a rabbi who holds dual Italian and Israeli citizenship, said, “I wanted to see how the Jews felt in this climate of hatred.”

Monsignor Iginio Rogger, a church historian who in the 1960s led the investigation into the murder of a 2-year-old Simon of Trento, for which 16 Jews were hanged, said many scholars have concurred that the confessions were completely unreliable.

“I wouldn’t want to be in [Toaff’s] shoes, answering for this to historians who have seriously documented this case,” he said. “The judges used horrible tortures, to the point where the accused pleaded: ‘Tell us what you want us to say.'”

Hebrew University historian Professor Israel J. Yuval, a blood-libel expert, said, “From the information I have received, Professor Toaff’s interpretation sounds trumped-up.”

The Anti-Defamation League chairman, Abe Foxman, said, “It’s hard for me to believe that someone, especially an Israeli historian, would legitimize the baseless claims of the blood libels.”

Bar-Ilan University spokesman, Shmulik Algrabli, said, “Professor Toaff is one of the greatest scholars in his field, and we have confidence in his scientific method. The contentions of the study will be clarified when the author returns to Israel.”

Jerusalem Takes a Fresh Look at Maligned Vision for Arab Equality

| Fri. Mar 02, 2007

Jerusalem – After an initial barrage of hostile comments from a broad spectrum of Israeli Jews, the so-called Future Vision document on Arab-Jewish relations in Israel — prepared by a group of top Israeli-Arab public figures — is quietly getting a closer look from some of the Jewish state’s leading institutions.

A senior official in the Prime Minister’s Office acknowledged to the Forward this week that he has met privately with a key drafter of the document and that more meetings are planned in the weeks ahead. “Did we read it? Yes. Does it interest us? Yes. What do we think of it? We can’t say,” said Ehud Praver, director of the prime minister’s policy planning bureau.

The drafter, Arab sociologist Aziz Haidar, said that aides to the prime minister had promised to begin implementing the document’s program for economic equality between Arab and Jewish Israelis “within days” after a follow-up meeting where details are to be discussed.

Separately, Israel’s minister of education participated two weeks ago in a forum on the document’s educational vision, organized by the Jewish-Arab civil rights group Sikkuy. The minister, Yuli Tamir, agreed to support efforts to change the curriculum in Israeli Arab schools, but urged caution in order to avoid stirring unnecessary opposition, according to a transcript posted on the Sikkuy Web site. Future Vision drafters speak of an Arab school curriculum that reflects the traditions and “narrative” of the Arab community, rather than one “prepared for us by the Shin Bet security service.”

The Future Vision document, spearheaded by the Council of Arab Local Authority Heads, calls for changes in the existing structure of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in order to give greater equality to the Arab minority. The drafters, a group of 38 Arab Israeli scholars and activists from an array of institutions, say Israel’s current structure has failed to give Arab Israelis the equality promised in Israel’s declaration of independence.

Among other things, the document calls for increased economic opportunity in Arab communities, as well as equalization of government funding in educational, municipal and social services. The document also calls for constitutional changes to give Israeli Arabs a collective voice in governing structures. Most controversial, the document questions such state symbols as the flag and the national anthem, which it says exclude Arab citizens from identification with the state.

When first published in December, the document prompted a deluge of criticism from Jewish Israelis across the political spectrum. Critics said the document was tantamount to a call for Arabs to separate from the Jewish state. Liberal columnist Uzi Benziman of the daily Ha’aretz called it a “declaration of war” on Israel and Zionism. Spokesmen for the Israel Democracy Institute, a liberal think tank that plays a lead role in discussions of Israeli governance and constitutional matters, issued a string of unflattering comments.

“It’s a non-Zionist statement, which negates the Zionist idea and the connection between the Jewish people and Israel,” said Amir Avramovitz, director of the democracy institute’s constitutional project, in an interview with the Forward. “I don’t see in their document any basis for discussion.”

Future Vision drafters expressed disappointment with the responses they have received from Israeli Jews. Most criticism, they complained, has focused on a small portion of the document dealing with symbolic issues, such as the flag and the anthem, which are not essential to the document’s overall thrust. They say the critics have overlooked the document’s complexities, including its elements of self-criticism directed at the Arab community. Most disappointing, they said, the drafters’ calls for dialogue and flexibility have been ignored.

“We say we are Arab citizens of Israel and we want to continue to be Arab citizens in Israel but with equal rights,” said sociologist Haidar, a senior researcher at Jerusalem’s Van Leer Institute and at the Truman Center of Hebrew University. “We say Israel should be a consensual democracy — is that ‘separation’?”

Critics, Haidar said, “always say there is no partner among the Arabs — without reading the details.”

Organizers complain, too, that some of their strongest critics have come from Israeli liberals, traditionally their main allies in struggles for equality. “Our problem is with the left, not the right,” Haidar said.

Nonetheless, despite initial fear and criticism, more and more Israelis, both in academic circles and on a small unofficial basis, are inviting the Future Vision members to give talks to describe what it is they want.

Since its release two months ago, meetings and seminars have been organized to discuss the document at the Floersheimer Institute, Haifa University, the hawkish Herzliya Conference, the establishment-oriented Ben Zvi Institute and the liberal-leaning Van Leer Institute. The left-wing Meretz party held an internal discussion on the document. Next month, Ben-Gurion University and the kibbutz-linked Givat Haviva Institute will hold conferences on it.

Interest abroad has increased, as well. The initiator of the Future Vision project, Shawki Khatib, who chairs both the Arab local council heads and the semiofficial Higher Follow-Up Committee of the Arab Citizens of Israel, is currently traveling in America, meeting with Jewish organizations and community leaders. His trip comes just weeks after a similar tour by one of the lead drafters, Haifa University legal scholar Yusuf Jabareen, who flew to New York to participate in a symposium of the Israel Democracy Institute. (The IDI continues to insist that the Vision should not be discussed; but spokesman Avramovitz said Jabareen had been invited to talk about legal issues in the Arab community.) Haidar has been invited to participate in another conference in New York in October.

In addition, key private meetings have been held, including the meetings with the education minister and the prime minister’s policy planning director.

Tamir, the education minister, expressed support for many of the Vision’s overall goals, but urged caution in proceeding. “It is necessary to act with wisdom and not in defiance, because the [Jewish] population’s attitude on this subject is different from the one in this room,” she said, according to the transcript. “The question is how much can each side accept the narrative of the other.”

A conversation was also held between Khatib, the project initiator, and Arye Carmon, head of the IDI, which is viewed as a key player because of its role in drafting Israel’s future constitution. But Haidar said further meetings with the democracy institute were on hold because of Arab anger over the institute’s public stance.

Still, Haidar said, “we have achieved out first goal: opening a dialogue. No one ever spoke to us about the nature of Israel, about our problems, about the relations between Jews and Arabs. We say that for 60, years the dialogue about us was between Arabists [academics and government advisers specializing in Middle Eastern Studies] and the Shin Bet — but not between the Arabs and Jews.”

Members of the Future Vision project included representatives from a wide array of Israeli Arab factions, including Christians and Muslims, communists and Islamists, academics, professionals and political activists. The document, developed over a year and a half of deliberation, addressed eight different subjects, ranging from relations between Arabs’ legal status and political rights to land and housing, economic development, social services, education and community institutions. The published document is a summary of the longer papers that will be released in a book later this year by the group.

Since publication, the document has drawn not only criticism but also praise and even offers of funding for the group’s plans — “more than we know what to do with,” Haidar said.

“Last week we held a meeting of the whole group in Jerusalem,” Haidar said. “We all felt a sense of pride, but also of deep responsibility — this is not something we can just toss away now.”

US Position in Iraq favoring Iran more by the day

Linkage of near-term destinies of kurds and Iranians

Turkey must strike, immediately to take Kirkuk and Basra.

First, Turkey now knows, if it had any lingering doubts, that the US favors an independent Kurdistan and the Kurdish annexation of Kirkuk, as shown by the favorable US stance on Iraq’s oil law, which opens the way to both Kurdish objectives.

Second, the US has demonstrated that it is prepared to deceive Turkey about its pro-Kurdish stance, as when the US defends its stance on Iraq’s oil law. In other words, US assurances that it will constrain the PKK in Kirkuk are worthless and are humiliating for Turkey, while emboldening the PKK, when Turkey accepts them.

Third, Turkey is deceiving itself if it believes the Iraqis want to discuss the Kirkuk issue in good faith. Postponing the Kirkuk referendum is not an option for Baghdad, which is in the hands of Iran and the Kurds.

Fourth, assured of Iranian and US support, the Kurds have no incentive to compromise on Kirkuk. As time goes by and the US support is formalized in agreements, the more eager the Kurds will be eager to escalate against Turkey in hopes of drawing Iran or the US, hopefully both, on their side. Moreover, as the Iranian-US partnership deepens in Iraq, they will coordinate their actions against Turkey, especially in Kurdistan.

Fifth, time is not on the side of Turkey in building military capabilities in Kirkuk. The longer Turkey waits, the more Barzani can change the facts on the ground by allowing more Kurds to resettle in Kirkuk, while each day more of the pro-Turkish population is forced out of Kirkuk.

Sixth, with each passing day the PKK is able to strengthen its combat capabilities in Kirkuk. The opposite is true for pro-Turkish forces, such as Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia, which is growing weaker by the day due to US repression.

Seventh, if Turkey takes Kirkuk now, Turkey can count on the support of Syria and Saudi Arabia, including participation in a Turkish-led peacekeeping force. If Turkey waits, the US is provided the opportunity to co-opt or coerce both against Turkey.

Eighth, as Iraq’s new oil law kicks in, Kirkuk will experience a financial bonanza that will underwrite a military buildup, to Turkey’s disadvantage. Moreover, the international oil companies will increasingly become stakeholders in Kirkuk.

Ninth, with each passing day, Kurdistan takes on more of the trappings and the legitimacy of a genuine state. This trend is obviously not to Turkey’s advantage. In this context, European support for the Kurdish state will grow as time goes by.

Tenth, and most importantly, with each passing day the PKK is better able to coordinate an internal uprising in Turkey with the defense of Kirkuk. As this PKK capability improves, Turkey may discover that the military option for Kirkuk is no longer on the table and that the PKK has prevailed in Kirkuk and in Turkey itself.

In short, Turkey must act now to secure Kirkuk. A decision to delay brings Turkey no advantages but many disadvantages. Act with overwhelming strength today, as Turkey did in Cyprus, and as Serbia did in Kosovo.

Le Pen Excluded?

France’s far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen is struggling to collect the 500 sponsors required to seal his presidential bid.

The deadline for applications is in two weeks; M Le Pen is still 100 signatures short. A quirk of the French presidential election system is that candidates must persuade 500 elected officials to sponsor their candidacy. As there are 42,000 elected figures in France – many the mayors of small communes and often not affiliated to a major party – finding 500 for a politician of Le Pen’s stature shouldn’t prove too difficult. Hard to imagine that a politician who can command 12-14 percent of the opinion polls might be excluded from the presidential vote.

However, this year he says that many officials who promised their support have been intimidated into withdrawing.

According to the Independent, Le Pen complains that village mayors have been subjected to telephone campaigns from “fake journalists” who warn of “reprisals” if they lend support to Le Pen.

Others say that they were harassed following their support for Le Pen in 2002, when he went on to come second in the presidential election.

As the Indie notes, there may be a simpler reason for the shortfall. This year, both Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP and Ségolène Royal’s Socialist Party have instructed their members to refrain from sponsoring small party candidates.

Le Pen, however, argues that he was assured of over 500 sponsors, and a mysterious, well-orchestrated campaign of harassment could ruin his chances of causes an upset in April.

Is this why his National Front (FN) appears to have resorted to bribery, then? The Telegraph reports that the mayor of the Normandie village of Saint-Pierre-d’Arthéglise had been offered 700 quid by the FN. Roger Lechevalier said the money was for renovating war memorials in the village, but has responded by tearing up Le Pen’s sponsorship form.

M Lechevalier sponsored Le Pen in 2002 “in the name of democracy” but says he has faced harassment since then.

So, who’s behind the mysterious harassment? The names of Le Pen’s sponsors in 2002 were released, and judging by the levels of anti-FN sentiment in France, even in small villages, it is not difficult to imagine local youths or campaigners deciding to give a hard time to whoever had the nerve to support “the fascist” for president. A national campaign could easily be orchestrated; print the list, their addresses, suggest opponents make their feelings known. It’s a familiar tactic, both for the anti-fascist movement and, more usually, for the hard right.

Combined with two major parties determined to keep upsets in this election to a minimum and one doesn’t need to look for conspiracy theories.

However, excluding Le Pen would be an upset. He has 12-14 percent of the vote, at least (often Le Pen’s supporters tell pollsters they are voting for someone else). Were would those 10-15 percent of votes go? Sarkozy, who the far right and left accuse of trying to steal Le Pen’s clothes? Sarko is said to believe that at least 50 percent of Le Pen’s voters can be redeemed and persuaded to vote for a plausible candidate on the centre right. Ségolène, who is trying to present herself as a break with tradition – though she too is contemplating authoritarian responses to youth crime? The assorted loons of the far left, usually a repository for the grudge-bearing, anti-liberal protest vote? But as far-left activists are likely behind the campaign to harass Le Pen’s sponsors, will his voters transfer their support to these parties?

Or, as the Indie suggests, would Le Pen’s votes go to François Bayrou, running as a “third man” and attracting support from voters fed up with the mainstream candidates, but not as yet prepared to cast their vote for one of France’s extremists?

The Independent reckons that the fear of Bayrou might persuade Sarkozy’s UMP to nudge its rural mayors to sponsor Le Pen after all. Now that would be interesting – and yet another reason for the left to accuse Sarkozy of extremism.

Le Pen warns of foreign threats

  • Charles Bremner, Paris
  • February 27, 2007

JEAN-MARIE Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, cast himself as the only presidential candidate who could save the country from destruction under a tide of Asian immigrants, “Anglo-Saxon” pension funds and other foreign threats.

Struggling for momentum in his sixth bid for the Elysee Palace, Mr Le Pen, 78, stuck to his old, acrid rhetoric to castigate foreigners and the French establishment as he set out his manifesto in Lille.

The discourse, full of racist innuendo, won him second place to Jacques Chirac in the 2002 elections but opinion polls show him losing ground ahead of the April 22 first round thisyear.

“France faces catastrophe,” Mr Le Pen told cheering supporters. “The political class has taken us to this point. They are all guilty – left-wing and right-wing. France wants a president with a sense of destiny, not a governor of a European Union province.”

If the frontiers were not closed, France would be “submerged by illegal immigrants – Mongols, Tamils, Chinese,” Mr Le Pen said.

The National Front leader is in fourth place, with 11 per cent of voting intentions, in a poll published yesterday, behind Nicolas Sarkozy of the centre-right UMP party and Segolene Royal, the Socialist, who are at 28 per cent.

Francois Bayrou of the centrist Union for French Democracy, has climbed to 17 per cent, taking over Mr Le Pen’s old role of “third man” in the presidential race.

Mr Le Pen consigned “her Royal highness” and the two male contenders to the same basket of “derelict politicians”.

“Sarkozy, Royal, Bayrou are a cartel of former ministers from parties which have been responsible for the disaster of the past 30 years,” he said.

Under the direction of his daughter Marine Le Pen, the National Front manifesto repeats its traditional pledge to give priority to French nationals and close frontiers to immigrants. But it puts new emphasis on strengthening the welfare state.

Funds will come from ending benefits for foreigners. It includes measures to end the “pillaging” of the French economy by foreign capitalists, whom Mr Le Pen identified in his speech as Anglo-Saxon pension funds and Chinese entrepreneurs.

The old bogeyman of French politics showed little of the new emollient National Front that is being projected by his daughter.

Last week, he stirred outrage by dismissing the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, as a mere “incident”, saying that the death toll of 3000 was equal to the number of people killed in Iraq in a month.

There is still a chance that Mr Le Pen will not collect the 500 endorsements from elected officials required to contest the election.

Ms Royal, by drawing level with Mr Sarkozy in yesterday’s poll, confirmed that she had turned around her campaign over a week in which nine million viewers watched her in a television broadcast and former Socalist adversaries joined her campaign team.

She reinforced the mood of revival at a rally near Rouen on Saturday where Laurent Fabius, her fomer rival, urged the party to rally behind her.

Her turnaround has prompted Mr Sarkozy to abandon overtures to centrist voters and return to his old themes of law and order.

Soros buys Halliburton

Home » blogs » Mike Boyer

Tue, 02/27/2007 – 3:22pm.

 

Normally, I’m willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the liberal elite. If Al Gore and his Hollywood cronies want to fly around on gas-guzzling, atmosphere-polluting private jets while railing against global climate change, I’m willing to overlook it.

But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of … hold your breath … Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros’ total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.

Soros, of course, is the dean of Democratic money giving. And Halliburton, of course, is the company that embodies everything the Democrats see as evil. Dick Cheney is its former chief, for goodness’ sake. But Soros is also a man of contradictions. He supported campaign finance reform for years, only to declare that defeating President George W. Bush was the “central focus” of his life. To prove it, he sunk $24 million of his own “soft” money into the 2004 campaign, helping make that election one of the most divisive in modern history.

Soros’ position in Halliburton is reported to be his first, which means he bought it with a full understanding of Halliburton’s reputation. Soros may not see a problem with profiting from a company that has been accused of everything from sweatheart deals to cooking the books to serving U.S. troops lousy food in Iraq. The real question, however, is whether MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and other organizations that have benefitted from Soros’ charity will see a problem with accepting money earned off Halliburton shares?

Bill would mandate nicer term for illegals

 
 

TALLAHASSEE — A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term “illegal alien” from the state’s official documents.

“I personally find the word ‘alien’ offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children,” said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. “An alien to me is someone from out of space.”

She has introduced a bill providing that: “A state agency or official may not use the term ‘illegal alien’ in an official document of the state.” There would be no penalty for using the words.

In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, “we don’t say ‘alien,’ we say ‘immigrant.'”

She said she encountered the situation when trying to pass a bill allowing children of foreigners to get in-state tuition at colleges and universities. Wilson, who directs a dropout prevention and education program in Miami, said she politely asks witnesses at public hearings on such issues not to use the term.

“There are students in our schools whose parents are trying to become citizens and we shouldn’t label them,” she said. “They are immigrants, through no fault of their own, not aliens.”

Wilson said the first word isn’t as bad as the second.

“‘Illegal,’ I can live with, but I like ‘undocumented’ better,” she said.

Asked if her bill (SB 2154) might run afoul of Gov. Charlie Crist’s “plain speaking” mandate for government agencies, Wilson said, “I think getting rid of ‘alien’ would be plain speaking.”

Kennewick Man

In July of 1996, near Kennewick, Washington State, an inadvertent discovery of a human skull and partially fragmented skeleton scattered along a shallow bank of the Columbia River was made by two college students. This was a discovery which would subsequently turn popularly held historical beliefs upside down. The result was intervention, corruption and controversy involving the U.S. Federal courts, the U.S. Government, and the scientific community.

The first to examine the bones were the county coroner and forensic archeologist, James Chatters, who was called in by the coroner for his expertise and assistance. Together they assembled the bones.

Once they were assembled, Chatters immediately recognized the skeletal structure to be that of a Caucasian male. He was quoted as commenting, “He looked immediately like a white European settler, except for the prehistoric stone spearhead embedded in his hip.”

Radio carbon dating put the age of the skeleton, called Kennewick Man, between 9,320 and 9,510 years old. Facial reconstruction revealed Kennewick Man to look remarkably similar to the British actor Patrick Stewart.

According to Mr. Chatters, Kennewick Man “is one of the oldest human skeletons ever found in North America, a scientific treasure.” The find was “terribly significant” said Doug Owsley of the Smithsonian Institute.

But this find did not fit the popular historical teachings concerning the American Indians, not to mention it threatened their “sovereign nation” status, as well as other legal goodies.

Since control of the area where Kennewick Man was discovered was in the hands of the Army Engineer Corps, they made it clear that their intention was to turn the bones over for burial to the Umatilla “Indian” tribe, so-called “descendents” of which resided in the area.

But this attempt to succinctly get rid of the evidence was thwarted by anthropology scientist Doug Owsley, mentioned earlier in this article. Owsley filed a lawsuit to prevent the bones from being foolishly handed over to the Umatill. A federal judge thereafter ordered the bones locked up in a vault.

The skeleton was now under lock and key, but the legal wrangling went on. Acting on orders from the Clinton Administration and over the legitimate objections of Congress and the scientists, the Corps of Engineers buried the archeological site under more than five hundred tons of rock, literally covering up the truth and making further scientific inquiry and investigation a near impossibility. This precious archaeological site was covered-up under the ridiculous guise of “acute erosion danger”.

But it wasn’t quite that easy. Too many facts had already slipped out to the public and the Kennewick Man controversy would not go away. Frantic at the thought of more facts being revealed in the future.

In March of 1998, pieces of Kennewick Man’s femur bones mysteriously disappeared, bones that are extremely valuable in accessing stature, size, age and ancestry.

A subsequent FBI investigation was initiated with the forensic archeologist James Chatters as its target. The government tried to intimidate Mr. Chatters in order to dissuade him from pursuing the matter.

In June of 2001, the bones mysteriously reappeared in the Benton County Sheriff’s Office, supposedly found by a detective cleaning out an evidence vault. Meanwhile, by the year 2000, five “Indian” tribes had been stirred up to demand that the bones be given to them because they were claiming that Kennewick Man was their ancestor! All five of them? U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit, one of the likely instigators, said that the remains were “culturally affiliated” with the five tribes because the bones were found near the tribes alleged aboriginal lands.

Five dishonest tribes, five hundred tons of rock, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Interior were not enough to silence the truth. The bones of Kennewick Man, though some nine thousand years old, demanded that the truth be told. Getting rid of the bones at this juncture would obviously be an admission of Kennewick Man’s white ancestry. Also, this would prove to be difficult with the federal courts and scientific community involved. There were eight prominent anthropologists by this time who had lawsuits pending to do additional research on the bones.

The U.S. Interior Department paid off a “specially selected” group of professors to study the bones. Low and behold – what a surprise – guess what they “concluded”? They “found” that Kennewick Man “appeared to be most strongly connected to the people of Polynesia and Southern Asia”.

DNA could of course prove the invalidity of this claim, so this would have to be taken care of as well. Pieces of the skeleton were sent to three “specially selected” laboratories, but none of them were able to extract DNA for analysis. Well, shucks, imagine that. We are just supposed to think that by being 9,000 plus, that it was just too old to test.

Seems a little remarkable considering that in 1997 the Max Planck Anthropological Institute in Germany isolated the DNA of a Neanderthal that was estimated to be between 35,000 and 100,000 years old. Given their expertise in the field, why not give these guys a crack at it? Not to mention that the headlines back in October of 2000 announced that researchers had revived a 250 million year old bacteria and managed to extract DNA for testing which indicated that the prehistoric germ was related to the present day bacillus! But Kennewick Man’s bones, some eighty percent intact – no DNA could possibly be extracted in any way.

Perry over at liesexposed.net says:

With their stratagem seemingly starting to work, the only thing left for the Jews to “manage” was to change that pesky facial reconstruction done by archeologist Chatters and the art instructor at Columbia Basin College, Tom McClelland, which depicted Kennewick Man’s obvious Caucasian features. So, using the latest computer imaging technology, the facial characteristics of Kennewick Man were manipulated until a politically correct image was achieved.

The representation of this electronically produced mongrel made its debut when it appeared in the December 2000 issue of the National Geographic magazine, along with a lengthy and theoretical article on the significance of certain archeological finds. Facial reconstruction such as this can in no way change the race of that skeleton, but the deception was complete. The face of Kennewick Man was altered to fit the agenda and subterfuge perpetrated by those who constantly seek to mutate the image of the entire world and reality itself into facets of their own twisted imagination, the mirages of the aberrant mongrel Jew.

As a postscript to this article, I am compelled to address and urge my white racial kinsmen to become aware of and realize that our history, heritage, culture, and race are in eminent danger of not only being corrupted and adulterated, but destroyed and made extinct. Kennewick Man is just a single example, only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the magnitude of the diabolical plotting that is poised against us by the stygianistic, infernal Jews. It is almost unfathomable the great lengths to which the Jewish-controlled government and various other agencies have gone to cover-up the identity of one of our white ancestors.

When the European settlers came over to this continent, what did they encounter? Savage mongrels. Take a cue from Kennewick Man, who was here long before them. His ancient bones cry out to us from the grave – their message: Separate, Preserve and Fight for your existence, White Man, otherwise you will cease to exist. Act on these words and live.

Sci / Tech

Blood-red moon for britons

Intarweb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n4fDgmrF3o&eurl=

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov’s work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

“His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,” said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England’s Oxford University.

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that “the idea just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations.”

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

“The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040,” Abdussamatov said. “It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years.”

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Tomorrow Belongs to Us

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: