Why I cannot support McCain
Category: News and Politics

Well for me the top issues are National Sovereignty(which I will include immigration as part of) were McCain is quick to sell out our nation to the biggest bidder. besides his policy on issues such as immigration and NAFTA the greatest threat to our Nation is the North American Union, which based on McCain's record, his membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg, and his affiliations with the Rothschilds(which includes an illegal foreign raiser). On fiscal issues McCain is much stronger than Obama and has stood up to George Bush and his part on the defecit. Unlike a lot of Republicans I respect his position on not cutting taxes without cutting spending, however he does seem to ignore the importance of a sound currency policy and even scoffed at Ron Paul when he mentioned that in the debates. I do think Obama's plan for massive spending and taxes increases could damage our economy but would likely cost him his 1st term and booster the conservative cause the way Jimmy Carter did for Reagan. On the issue of Iraq I personally was opposed to it from the beginning and consider it a major blunder and tragedy considering the lives of American Soldiers lost as well as Iraqi citizens lost. I can however respect McCain for standing up to Bush for his failed policy and rightfully calling Rumsfeld the Worst Secretary of Denfense. Even though I was skeptical of it at first I do believe the surge has proven sucessful and both American and Iraqi causualties have decreased. I don't trust Obama on foreign policy but it did really creap me out when McCain said he would be ok if we are in Iraq for 100 years and his joke "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran". He needs to make it clear that he will win the war and get us out of Iraq within his first term, just as Nixon did with the Vietnam War after LBJ's failure. the Last issues that bothers me on McCain is his antagonization of Russia which could head us toward another cold war and his talk about potentially going to war with Iran.

12:42 AM - 4 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

A Tale of Two Rights
Category: News and Politics

MARCH 12, 2008

William F. Buckley and the damage done
A Tale of Two Rights

BY JACK HUNTER

The recent death of conservative commentator William F. Buckley reminded me of when I lived in Boston in the mid-1990s, when, for lack of a better term, I became a "born-again" conservative.

Although I already considered myself a conservative, one day I came across The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk. I had never heard of the book or the author, but I thought it might be worth a look. It changed my life.

Kirk outlined a conservative tradition steeped in the philosophy of everyone from English statesman Edmund Burke to poet T.S. Eliot; he even devoted an entire chapter to Southern conservatism with an emphasis on John C. Calhoun. Kirk emphasized caution and prudence over systematic ideology, tradition and custom over radical change, and the particularity of family and community over abstract concepts like "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat."

The conservatism of which Kirk wrote is now called the "Old Right." Its followers stressed the root notion of conservatism — conservation.

The Old Right believed that big government would have a corrosive effect on constitutional liberties and would hurt communities by erasing local custom and culture through federal dictates. The followers of this political philosophy also believed that big business would displace local economies and that collaborations between big business and big government would lead to the militarization of society and a war industry more concerned with profit than the national interest. The Old Right also stressed environmental stewardship and "agrarian" values, believing that the bottom line should never take precedent over the most conservative of material goods — the land itself.

Today, many of these concerns would place the Old Right on the contemporary left. The modern mainstream right no longer poses any serious challenge to big government — in fact, it often aids the expansion of big government. It also considers the advancement of corporate capitalism to be more important than protecting the community or the environment and sees war and never-ending military expansion as the greatest of American ideals.

President Woodrow Wilson's mission to make the world safe for democracy through foreign intervention was considered by the Old Right to be a utopian fantasy, which betrayed the Founding Fathers' intentions and radically altered American life forever. Today, the descendants of the Old Right, the paleoconservatives, continue to fight against the Democrat Wilson's grand scheme of "global democracy" as it's carried on by President George W. Bush and the GOP.

The Old Right also viewed Franklin Roosevelt as a villain. But now right-wingers like William Bennett and Newt Gingrich openly praise FDR and the New Deal and denounce those who dare to question the conservative credentials of America's biggest big government president.


The prominence of the Old Right continued until about the mid-1950s with the founding of National Review by William F. Buckley. While Old Right thinkers like Kirk, Richard Weaver, Ludwig Von Mises, and others dominated the fast-rising conservative journal, with success came corruption. In 1956, Buckley declared in a famous commentary that conservatives should accept big government, military expansion, and the modern state inherited from Roosevelt and others in order to defeat the Soviet Empire. Once that objective was accomplished, conservatives could return to the business of dismantling government, promoting and preserving American culture, and fidelity to the Constitution.

This was not a hard sell to make to the Beltway and Manhattan-based conservatives hungry for respectability, and many were quick to follow Buckley's lead as they happily embraced what Old Right libertarian Murray Rothbard called the "welfare-warfare" state.

Today, prominent paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul often seem like odd men out on the right, simply because they have kept the faith and insist on pursuing conservatism's original mission. Buckley, a man with Old Right roots who should have known better, allowed the movement that he changed more than anyone to change him. Today, the old liberalism of Wilson and FDR masquerades as conservatism, while full-blown socialism is allowed to flourish under the more marketable banner of liberalism. The "new" Old Right, paleoconservatism, is alive and well in journals like Buchanan's The American Conservative, Chronicles magazine, and popular websites like LewRockwell.com, but you would never know of their existence by reading magazines like National Review or neoconservative journals like The Weekly Standard, or by watching their media cohorts on FOX News.

Despite any positive contributions, this is the true legacy of William F. Buckley. By moving the conservative movement to the left, Buckley moved the whole of American politics to the left. He did not elevate conservatism. He repackaged liberalism and sold it as conservatism. And far from making conservatism respectable, Buckley did his best to make it invisible.

Catch Southern Avenger commentaries every Tuesday and Friday at 7:50 a.m. on the "Morning Buzz with Richard Todd" on 1250 AM WTMA.

8:33 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Moneychangers Destroying America—And Christians Don’t See It
Category: News and Politics

February 26, 2008

Moneychangers Destroying America—And Christians Don't See It
By Chuck Baldwin

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables." John 2:13-15 (KJV)

The moneychangers of Jesus' day were the equivalent of the international bankers of our day. With the consent and approbation of the Jewish leaders, these bankers set up shop in the Temple. Their purpose was to exchange whatever currency the Jewish worshipper brought with him or her into Jewish currency, which would then be used to purchase whatever sacrifice the worshipper required. Of course, the exchange rates benefited only the bankers and Jewish leaders (and Caesar, who collected a tax on the exchange, of course). For everyone else, the system was nothing more than legalized extortion.

When Jesus saw what the bankers were doing, He was incensed. And throughout the Gospel narratives, this is the only occasion where Jesus is recorded as resorting to violence. He made a scourge (or whip) and drove the bankers out of the Temple by force and destroyed their tables, along with their records, receipts, etc.

It is too bad that today's pastors and Christians do not share Jesus' disdain for the current generation of moneychangers, because it is the moneychangers who are in the process of destroying these United States of America—and our pastors and Christians either do not see it, or, if they do see it, do not seem to care.

It is modern moneychangers who bully and bribe our spineless and greedy politicians (from both parties) into passing so-called "free trade" deals such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, which have all but destroyed America's manufacturing base and have put millions of American workers out of their jobs. It is the moneychangers who are the driving force behind the burgeoning North American Union, which sacrifices America's national sovereignty and independence.

Over the weekend, Dr. Jerry Corsi reported that a new North American Army has been created, without the approval of Congress or any mention by the American media. In World Net Daily, Corsi reports,

"In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

"The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

"In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest."[North American Army created without OK by Congress, February 24, 2008]

Corsi further writes,

 "The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

"The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command."

For the most part, the American media is blind, mute, and dumb regarding any of the issues relating to the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The only notable media personality to give this matter any significant attention is CNN's Lou Dobbs. Obviously, the same moneychangers who control Congress also largely control the mainstream media.

The last three American Presidents, too, have been willing pawns in the hands of the moneychangers. Remember, it was Bill Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole who collaborated to shove NAFTA down our throats. It was Bush 41 who first publicly promoted a "New World Order." But it has been George W. Bush who has done more to appease the globalist plans of the moneychangers than any President since Woodrow Wilson.

G.W. Bush has used the rubric of "the war on terrorism" to dismantle not only the personal liberties of the American people (most notably with his Gestapo-like Patriot Act), but also the constitutional principles of national sovereignty and independence. For example, back in 2006, G.W. Bush eviscerated one of America's most sacred doctrines protecting liberty and independence: the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which disallowed U.S. military troops from being used against U.S. citizens. (Of course, this did not stop Bill Clinton and Janet Reno from using U.S. troops against U.S. citizens at Waco, Texas. And thanks to G.W. Bush, the crime was permanently covered up.)

The expunging of Posse Comitatus becomes even more jeopardous when one considers the current merger of U.S. and Canadian military forces. Dr. Corsi explains:

"In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.

"In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so."

Are readers getting this? George W. Bush, on his own signature, with no approval from Congress and no input from the American people, has seized unlimited power for the Presidency; he has dismantled the constitutional protections of the American people; he has ignored the courts; he has begun creating the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, including the merger of the U.S. and Canadian militaries; and he has refused to enforce U.S. immigration laws, thus facilitating a borderless North America. And all of this has been done at the behest of David Rockefeller and his cabal of moneychangers at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

When Jesus saw the moneychangers in the Temple, He drove them off with violence. Yet, today's pastors and Christians cannot even seem to see what these same moneychangers are doing to America. They support candidates simply because they have an "R" behind their names, vainly imagining that these candidates are somehow better than the ones with a "D" behind their names. The truth is, however, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are as beholden to the moneychangers as are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Why can't Christians see this? Why are they so blind?

The one man who made it through the Republican Presidential primaries who was not only not beholden to the moneychangers, but who was vehemently opposed to them, was Congressman Ron Paul. But most pastors and leaders of the Religious Right, not seeing or understanding the evil being done by the moneychangers, not only did not support Ron Paul, but they actively supported (and continue to support) the moneychangers' puppet candidates.

I'm sure if Jesus had taken time to sit down and dialogue with those First Century moneychangers, they could have come up with very nice, flowery speeches as to how they were doing the Jewish people a service; how they were patriotic Romans and/or pious Hebrews. But Jesus did not need to dialogue with them: He knew what they were. And He knew what He needed to do; and He did it.

What Jesus did is exactly what every pastor, Christian, conservative, and every other real American should do: rise up against these moneychangers and drive them out of power! But we cannot accomplish this until we see them for what they really are: power-mad extortionists who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of America's freedom and independence. Do you think our fellow pastors and Christians will ever see it?

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.

9:46 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The truth about the Anti-Defamation League
Category: News and Politics

Behind the Mask of Respectability:
The truth about the Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai B'rith

1 - Introduction

The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, or ADL for short, presents itself as an organization against ethnic, racial or religious intolerance. It's very name suggests that it opposes "defamation."

In reality, the Anti-Defamation League is an organization that supports Jewish ethnic and religious supremacy, and relentlessly "defames" anyone who dares to point out its own hypocrisy. While supposedly opposing ethnic segregation and ethnic superiority, the ADL supports Israel and international Zionism which promotes not a vision of a "multi-cultural," "multi-ethnic" Israel, but of a "Jewish state." That state is openly dedicated to the advancement of the Jewish religion, culture, and even the genetic preservation of the Jewish people. This is, of course, the very opposite of the policies it proposes for our American nation.

Consider the following:

The ADL supports forced integration of schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes, clubs, churches and communities in America.

Yet it supports Israel which has a policy of segregated schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes and even whole towns for Jews and Gentiles.

The ADL has been instrumental in changing America's immigration policies in a manner that would result in European Americans becoming a minority in America and countrie in Europe by the middle of this century unless Whites unite to stop this dispossession from our own homelands.

Of course, the ADL supports Israel, which has a "Jews only" immigration policy. In fact, it even keeps out Palestinians who were born there and then forced out during the Zionist takeover in 1948.

The ADL has condemned European Americans, such as the administrators of Bob Jones University, who oppose racial intermarriage. Yet the ADL supports Israel, a nation that does not even recognize as a legal union marriage between a Jew and Gentile. The ADL has also never condemned the extensive Jewish opposition to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. Every major Jewish organization around the world has openly stated policies opposing intermarriage.

The ADL has condemned Sadam Hussein and any of his supporters around the world for his invasion of Kuwait, production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and for violating United Nations resolutions.

But the ADL did not condemn Israel for the brutal invasion of neighboring Lebanon, resulting in at least 30,000 civilians dead, and lasting almost twenty years in violation of U.N. resolutions. Nor has the ADL condemned Israel for its extensive development of biological and chemical weapons.

The ADL has repeatedly condemned scientists who show that there are significant genetic differences in intelligence between Whites and Blacks, and they have condemned me for simply pointing out that scientific truth.

Yet, the ADL has not condemned the founder of Israel, David Ben Gurion, for his statement that he believed in the "intellectual and moral superiority" of the Jewish people.

The ADL is by its own definition a racist, supremacist organization, and recognizing that fact should not make someone deserve the label of "anti-Semite." The truth is that the ADL is anti-Gentile! They are not about anti-defamation, but their whole modus operandi is concerned with defaming anyone of any nationality who wants for their own people what the Jewish ADL leaders want for theirs. In other words, they are opposed to every other ethnic nationalism but their own! The whole organization is based on attacking, intimidating and defaming anyone who opposes their Jewish supremacism.

In fact, anyone who criticizes their hypocrisy and that of Israel, whether or not the critics are "racially aware" or "anti-racist," will be condemned by the ADL. For their real mission is simply to advance the Jewish Supremacist agenda in America and around the world.

The following article on the ADL by our research staff should be enlightening to all readers of the David Duke Report Online.

2 - ADL of B'nai B'rith

The ADL was founded in 1913 as an adjunct to the international Jewish fraternal order and secret society, the "B'nai B'rith," whose name, translated literally from Hebrew means "sons of the cut" - referring to circumcision.

The ADL operates 28 offices domestically and 3 offices abroad. They bring in nearly $60 million a year.

Current ADL National Director is Abraham Foxman.

3 - Links to Organized Crime

For years, the ADL has been linked to Jewish organized crime.

The ADL gave Las Vegas Jewish gangster, Moe Dalitz, their "Torch of Freedom" award in 1985 for his donating millions of dollars to the state of Israel. Donations from Dalitz, who headed the Cleveland mob known as the Mayfield Road Gang, allegedly came from his ownership of Las Vegas casinos such as the Desert Inn.

Las Vegas Review-Journal article "The Double Life of Moe Dalitz" by John L. Smith, explains Dalitz' background in their series "The First 100 Persons Who Shaped Southern Nevada" (at http://www.1st100.com/part2/dalitz.html).

"Early in his life, Dalitz was a bootlegger and racketeer mentioned in the same breath as (Jewish) Meyer Lansky and (Jewish) Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel. In Cleveland, one longtime member of law enforcement would tell the Kefauver Commission, 'Ruthless beatings, unsolved murders and shakedowns, threats and bribery came to this community as a result of gangsters' rise to power.' Dalitz was considered part of that rise."

Theodore Silbert worked simultaneously for the ADL and the Sterling National Bank (a mafia operation controlled by the Lansky syndicate).

Mira Lansky Boland, the granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, was described in a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of May 11th, 1993, as the ADL's top 'fact-finder' in Washington.

4 - Spy Ring and Murder Squads?

An Article in the Los Angeles Times of 9th April, 1993, by Richard C. Paddock, detailed a police raid on ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles where the police seized evidence of a nationwide intelligence network accused of keeping files on more than 950 political groups, newspapers, and labor unions and as many as 12,000 people.

Describing the spy ring in detail, San Francisco authorities simultaneously released voluminous documents telling how operatives of the Anti-Defamation League searched through trash and infiltrated organizations to gather intelligence on Arab-American, right-wing, and what they called "pinko" organizations.

Police alleged that the organization maintains undercover operatives to gather political intelligence in at least seven cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to police officials, groups that were the focus of the spy operation span the political spectrum, including such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, Greenpeace, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the United Farm Workers, and the Jewish Defense League. Also on the list were Mills College, the board of directors of San Francisco public television station KQED, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper.

In addition to allegations of obtaining confidential information from police, the Anti-Defamation League could face a total of 48 felony counts for not properly reporting the employment of its chief West Coast spy, Roy Bullock, according to the affidavit filed to justify the search warrant.

The Anti-Defamation League disguised payments to Bullock for more than 25 years by funneling $550 a week to Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I. Hochman, who then paid Bullock, according to the documents released in San Francisco. Hochman, a former president of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles is one of the state's leading tax attorneys.

"Until 1990, Hochman, a former U.S. prosecutor, also was a member of a panel appointed by then-Senator Pete Wilson to secretly make initial recommendations on new federal judges in California."

Hochman is a former regional president of the Anti-Defamation League.

A second article from the Los Angeles Times, 13th April, 1993, also by Richard C. Paddock, details ADL spy Roy Bullock's possible role in death squads, torture and kidnapping.

The article introduces another ADL spy, Tom Gerard, a former CIA agent and San Francisco police officer who was accused of providing confidential material from police files to the Anti-Defamation League.

Gerard fled to the Philippines after the FBI interviewed him, but left behind a briefcase in his police locker. Its contents, according to the Los Angeles Times, included passports, driver's licenses, and identification cards in 10 different names; identification cards in his own name for four different embassies in Central America; and a collection of blank birth certificates, Army discharge papers, and official stationery from various agencies.

Also in Tom Gerard's briefcase was extensive information on death squads, a black hood, apparently for use in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.

Investigators suspect that Gerard and other police sources gave the ADL confidential driver's license or vehicle registration information on a vast number of people, including as many as 4,500 members of just one target group of interest to the ADL, the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

5 - Service of a Foreign Government?

While posing as a community oriented group of American Jews working to combat bigotry, the ADL has been alleged to have used its spy network to illegally provide the government of Israel with information.

In an article entitled "Spies for Zion," in the San Francisco Weekly for 28th April, 1993, police officials exposed an illegal spy ring working for Israel: "For decades the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has gathered secret files on critics of Israel. As the San Francisco District Attorney prepares criminal charges against the group, will pressure from prominent Jewish leaders derail the prosecution?"

The San Francisco Weekly described how the ADL spy network passed information to the Israeli government about a professor who made a negative remark about Israel in his class:

"Professor Dwight Simpson and the consul general of Israel stood in a corner at the Fairmont Hotel discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid a bright tinkling of glasses and soft murmuring of voices. Halfway through the conversation at the cocktail party, the Israeli diplomat, Harry Kney-Tal, said: 'By the way, that was a very funny joke you told your class the other day.'

"The San Francisco State University international relations professor didn't think much of the comment at first. But later that night, he asked himself: 'How in the hell does the Israeli consul general know the jokes I tell in my class?"

"As a critic of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Simpson had been targeted by Jewish students in the past. They picketed his class on several occasions, handing out leaflets charging that he's anti-Semitic and opposes a Jewish homeland.

"So the professor didn't have to wrestle with the consul general's statement for long. He quickly surmised that Kney-Tal got his information from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith [or ADL for short] by way of Jewish students who do political surveillance work on campus for them. 'It's always confused me why they have to spy on me,' Simpson said, 'My work isn't secret. My whole life is an open book.'

"After a heated demonstration in 1989 that disrupted Simpson's class, the Jewish Student Action committee was expelled from campus for violating academic freedom. 'This is a serious problem in academia,' Simpson added. 'Whenever you have monitoring and surveillance, it stifles the free discussion of ideas…'

"Simpson is just one of thousands of people whose lives have been affected by the far-ranging spy activities of the ADL. An 80-year-old nonprofit, whose professed mission is to fight anti-Semitism, the ADL uses a less controversial term - 'fact-finding' - for its spying…"

The article expressed concern that the ADL was above the law:

"Mark my words, this is going to be obfuscated, obliterated, and desecrated,' said one veteran police inspector. 'It's going to be a classic study in how things get covered up. You don't do Jewish people in San Francisco. It's not PC. Especially when you have two U.S. Senators who are Jewish (Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein) and the city's chief of protocol is Dick Goldman (a prominent fundraiser in the Jewish community)."

Did Jewish interest work to protect the ADL? The San Francisco Weekly explains how:

"Last week, Goldman called Police Chief Tony Ribera about the police department's own internal investigation. After the call, the police decided to exclude the ADL and Bullock from the probe…

"In a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of 11th May, 1993, the ADL's top 'fact-finder' in Washington and granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss Meyer Lansky, Mira Lansky Boland, arranged a trip to Israel for Mr. Tom Gerard, the same man in who's briefcase was found information on death squads, a black hood, used in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.

"According to this same article Boland admitted at a 1990 criminal trial that she had, in typical ADL Newspeak, "shared information" with members of the CIA at an invitation-only ADL conference."

The same article pointed to an ADL connection to the Jonathan Pollard spy affair:

"In 1987, the ADL came under FBI scrutiny in the wake of the Pollard spy scandal. While assigned to the Navy's Anti-Terrorist Alert Center, where he had access to the most closely-guarded U.S. secrets, Jonathan Pollard stole thousands of pages of classified documents for Israel, which, according to Federal prosecutors, 'could fill a room the size of a large closet … ten feet by six feet by six feet.' Pollard's handler was Avi Sella, an Israeli air force colonel whose wife worked for the New York ADL as a lawyer. Pollard later wrote to friends that a prominent ADL leader was deeply involved in the Israeli spy operation."

Additional evidence of ADL cooperation with Israeli intelligence comes from a letter written by then National Director of the ADL Benjamin Epstein on July 7, 1961. Epstein was writing to Saul Joftes who was at the time the Executive Secretary of the International Council of B'nai B'rith, the ADL's parent organization, requesting additional funds:

"Our information", wrote Epstein, "in addition to being essential for our own operations, has been of great value and service to both the United States State Department and the Israeli government. All data have been made available to both countries with full knowledge that we are the source."

6 - Promotion of Thought Crime

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- Bill of Rights, Amendment I

The Anti-Defamation League has been leading the fight for thought crime legislation. It was through their efforts that the FBI began tracking "hate crimes" and it was the ADL that has lobbied hardest for state and federal hate crime laws. Under the Orwellian-sounding "hate crimes" laws, American citizens would receive different sentences for the same crime, depending on whether or not their thoughts are politically correct on issues relating to homosexuality, race, nationality, and politics. Ultimately, having certain politically incorrect opinions would become a crime in itself. These new laws would make it a crime to say or publish any fact or opinion that could "incite racial hatred and bigotry".

The promotion of "hate crime" legislation, which would designate Jews and other minorities as special classes of citizens, is of primary concern to the ADL. Top on the list in 1999 was the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" that would have given federal prosecutors new authority to prosecute crimes against minorities and circumvent the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy. Though the measure failed the ADL vowed to fight on. A Jewish Telegraphic Agency story titled "Jewish groups did not get all they wanted in Congress" dated November 20, 1999 explains:

"But on their other top priorities, Jewish groups were not as successful."

"Tougher hate crimes legislation was dropped during the final days of negotiations over the budget bill."

"Michael Lieberman, the Anti-Defamation League's Washington counsel, said his group will push for the measure again when Congress comes back in January."

The ADL has pioneered Thought Crime and what they call "Hate Crime" legislation. The ADL web site proudly admits to the ADL's leading role in the introduction to their 1999 Hate Crime Laws article:

"ADL has long been in the forefront of national and state efforts to deter and counteract hate-motivated criminal activity."

"In June 1993, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin hate crime statute that was based on model legislation originally drafted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1981."

7 - Role in Internet Censorship

In an attempt to limit access to unapproved web sites on the world wide web, the ADL pioneered what they call their "Hate Filter". The ADL has promoted their Hate Filter to parents who want to limit what the ADL considers objectionable content. More insidious are efforts by the ADL to provide their Hate Filter to public institutions such as public libraries, schools and colleges. The ADL has also worked with major Internet carries like America Online (AOL) to create "Terms of Service" which would prohibit any speech the ADL finds offensive.

The ADL web site proudly claims that their Hate Filter:

".protects children by blocking access to World Wide Web sites of individuals or groups that, in the judgment of the Anti-Defamation League, advocate hatred, bigotry or even violence towards Jews or other groups on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other immutable characteristics."

Limiting facts or opinions the ADL finds objectionable is not limited to their Hate Filter. ADL operatives now work with major Internet providers such as AOL to limit access to objectionable web sites. Subscribers to these services whq post opinions that the ADL doesn't like on their web pages or on Usenet are notified that their accounts are cancelled.

The ADL works to ensure that commercial ISPs create terms of service that limit what their users can read or say. By lobbying commercial carriers to censor their users, the ADL acheives their aim of outlawing free speech and expression without the contraints of the First Amendment's protections.

An ADL press release from October 21, 1996 titled "New ADL Report Documents Increased Use of Internet By Haters; ADL and AOL Explore Ways To Set Standards Against Hate Online," ADL National Director, Abe Foxman, explains in typical ADL double-talk how they are working with AOL to set policies against politically incorrect speech. These policies, known as "Terms of Service" (TOS), can then be used by commercial carriers to enforce speech regulations without concern for Constitutional Rights.

"We are working with America Online to create an atmosphere of responsibility on-line, to set standards within the framework of the First Amendment that will give assurances to parents, educators and communities that there is no tolerance for hate on-line."

In a follow-up press release from April 7, 1997 titled "ADL Calls On America Online To Adhere To Own Guidelines Regarding Hate Material" the ADL explains their relationship with AOL and what "standards within the framework of the First Amendment" means.

"In the past, the League has been gratified by the responsiveness of AOL to complaints about racism and bigotry but now calls on AOL to adhere to their terms of service regarding hate material with equal vigilance as those regarding pornography."

"While we strongly believe in freedom of speech and do not advocate censorship on the Internet," said Mr. Foxman, " we expect those companies which have created guidelines to adhere to them."

"AOL's terms of service state that AOL, Inc., its affiliates and ICPs have the right to remove content they deem, in their discretion, "harmful" or "offensive." The League calls on AOL to live up to its own commitments."

In the ADL article "Responding to Extemist Speech Online: 10 Frequently Asked Questions", the ADL explains how they work around the Constitution to stifle free speech. In this article, the ADL suggests the following:

"Commercial ISPs, such as America Online (AOL), may voluntarily agree to prohibit users from sending racist or bigoted messages over their services. Such prohibitions do not implicate First Amendment rights because they are entered into through private contracts and do not involve government action in any way.

"Once an ISP promulgates such regulations, it must monitor the use of its service to ensure that the regulations are followed. If a violation does occur, the ISP should, as a contractual matter, take action to prevent it from happening again. For example, if a participant in a chat room engages in racist speech in violation of the "terms of service" of the ISP, his account could be cancelled, or he could be forbidden from using the chat room in the future. ISPs should encourage users to report suspected violations to company representatives."

The ADL suggests in the same article that universities limit the use of their computer systems to prevent students from promoting or reading objectionable material.

"Because private universities are not agents of the government, they may forbid users from engaging in offensive speech using university equipment or university services."

"Nonetheless, public universities may promulgate content-neutral regulations that effectively prevent the use of school facilities or services by extremists. For example, a university may limit use of its computers and server to academic activities only. This would likely prevent a student from creating a racist Web site for propaganda purposes or from sending racist E-mail from his student E-mail account. One such policy — at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana — stipulates that its computer services are 'provided in support of the educational, research and public service missions of the University and its use must be limited to those purposes.'"

8 - Conclusions

Behind this mask of humanitarian public service hides an organization with links to organized crime, murder squads, a domestic spying ring used to "monitor��? tens of thousands of Americans, and the Mossad, the secret police and assassination service of the Israeli government. With the help of a friendly media, the ADL has become the premier lobby for Jewish interests in America, and the source of hate crime legislation and curtailment of First Amendment freedom of speech through their attempted censorship of the Internet.

12:16 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The Truth behind James Byrd’s Murder
Category: News and Politics

BECOMING A DEVIL

by Joseph Sobran

.. -->END_TITLE-->.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->WASHINGTON -- John William King has been sentenced to death for the cruel murder of James Byrd Jr., a black man whom King and his friends dragged behind their truck until his body was torn to pieces. Most murders are cruel, but in this case the cruelty was the whole point.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->Far from repenting, King, a white supremacist, still gloats over his act. After his death sentence was handed down, he addressed an obscenity to Byrd's family. Such vicious hatred is almost unfathomable.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->The entire town of Jasper, Texas, is ashamed of the crime. King's family is mortified and apologetic. But like many diabolical acts, this one has summoned grace: It has united the town in the desire for justice for the victim and mercy toward King's family.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->But a perverse moral has been drawn. Liberal pundits are citing this bizarre murder as evidence of persistent white racism in America. King is being turned into a symbol of general white guilt.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->The truth is more specific. A clue to the real explanation lies in King's personal history.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->King served a two-year prison sentence for burglary, which suggests a predisposition to violate other people's rights. While in prison, he joined a white supremacist group and covered his body with Nazi and Klan tattoos. One psychiatrist at his trial suggested that this may have been a way to deter attacks by black inmates. Time magazine quotes another witness as saying King became part of a group known as "peckerwoods," described as "whites who would not yield money or sexual favors to blacks."

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->Just a few details mentioned in passing. But they are worth dwelling on. White convicts complain, unavailingly, of a particularly ugly fact of life in prisons: racial attacks on whites by non-whites. Assault, robbery and homosexual rape are commonplace. The fact that there was a special slang term among inmates in King's prison for "whites who would not yield money or sexual favors to blacks" is grim evidence of this condition. Apparently there was no need for a term for blacks who wouldn't yield money or sexual favors to whites.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->There could hardly be a better recipe for racial hatred. Young whites like King, a minority in prison, are thrown to the wolves, and they know they can expect no protection or sympathy from prison officials, liberal opinion or society in general when they are bullied and raped. The fear and humiliation they suffer is almost unimaginable, and it goes unreported.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->In such snake pits, their only safety may lie in joining racial gangs. It should be no surprise when they emerge from prison not only hating blacks, but despising all conventional standards of morality.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->This doesn't excuse them when they commit crimes like King's. No "root cause" can relieve them of responsibility for their acts. But it does explain their race-hatred as something other than the residual racial prejudice of the larger society. That hatred is the natural result of the specific experience they are subjected to.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->Few men want to talk about having been raped. It has the same horror for them as for women, with the added disgrace of feeling one's manhood annihilated in a setting where one can least afford to lose it. To be raped in prison is to become a target for frequent rape. When the rapes also have a racial motive, the victim can be expected to respond by going to irrational extremes -- murder, suicide or generalized hatred against the whole race he feels violated by. In a twisted way, he may try to reclaim his lost dignity by adopting racial supremacism, posing as racial victor instead of racial victim.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->So King may have come out of prison with a lot more race-hatred than he took in with him. James Byrd did nothing to deserve to be the one to pay for it. But neither do other whites deserve to be blamed for his fate.

.. -->BEGIN_TEXT-->If society in general can be blamed for anything, it's for making a prison sentence a sentence to hell, where becoming a devil may be a survival strategy -- for men of any race.

3:01 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

New Election Quiz
Category: News and Politics

..TR> ..TABLE> ..end vm_button_head.inc: VoteMatch pretty graphic button heading -->..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ Start of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- -->.. --> ------------ Show the results ----------------------- -->

VoteMatch Results

..TR>

Scores & Analysis	Candidate		More Information
Click on 'Social' and 'Economic' for analysis of your answers compared to each candidate's answers.		Click on 'Answers' and 'Stances' for complete details of the sources of each candidate's answers.
..TR> ..TABLE> Total 35%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 31%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 38%   Chuck Baldwin Contitution Party nominee for President Biographical Profile   Chuck Baldwin's answers Chuck Baldwin's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 33%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 19%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 42%   Bob Barr Libertarian nominee for President; Former Republican Representative (GA-7) Biographical Profile   Bob Barr's answers Bob Barr's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 33%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 31%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 33%   Gloria La Riva Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee for President Biographical Profile   Gloria La Riva's answers Gloria La Riva's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 33%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 38%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 29%   Cynthia McKinney Green nominee; Former House member (D, GA) Biographical Profile   Cynthia McKinney's answers Cynthia McKinney's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 28%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 44%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 17%   Hillary Clinton Democratic Jr Senator (NY); former First Lady Biographical Profile   Hillary Clinton's answers Hillary Clinton's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 28%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 31%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 25%   Ralph Nader Indeodendent Candidate for President Biographical Profile   Ralph Nader's answers Ralph Nader's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 25%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 31%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 21%   Brian Moore Socialist nominee for President Biographical Profile   Brian Moore's answers Brian Moore's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 25%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 13%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> Economic 33%   John McCain Republican nominee for President Biographical Profile   John McCain's answers John McCain's stances   ..TR> ..TABLE> Total 18%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE> Social 19%   ..TR> ..TABLE> ..TR> ..TABLE>.. --> ------------ End of Quiz Engine Stuff ----------------------- --> ..TABLE> 6:31 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment Economic 17%   Barack Obama Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator Biographical Profile   Barack Obama's answers Barack Obama's stances   Click on 'Social' and 'Economic' for analysis of your answers compared to each candidate's answers. Click on 'Answers' and 'Stances' for complete details of the sources of each candidate's answers.     http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008 Sunday, May 25, 2008 OPEN BORDERS PROVE "WAR ON TERROR" IS SUPERFICIAL Category: News and Politics OPEN BORDERS PROVE "WAR ON TERROR" IS SUPERFICIAL     By Chuck Baldwin May 23, 2008 NewsWithViews.com The American people were led to believe that America's fine men and women in uniform were sent halfway around the world to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a "war on terror." Of course, everyone now knows that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. I am sure that most everyone also remembers that the vast majority of the terrorists who participated in those attacks were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Yet, Saudi leaders continue to enjoy the coziest of relationships--and, dare I say, friendships--with President George W. Bush. Does anyone besides me remember when Bush said that countries had to decide whether they would be friends with either terrorists or the United States, but that they could not be friends with both? Well, Saudi Arabia has probably financed, supported, and befriended more terrorists in the Middle East than any other nation in the world (except perhaps Red China), yet they continue to be "friends" with the United States. Another glaring inconsistency regarding the "war on terror" is the fact that for some seven years since the 9/11 attacks, our nation's borders and ports are as open and porous as ever. These open borders make the argument that "we are fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here" look absolutely disingenuous--even laughable. If foreign terrorists want to bring the fight to America's streets again, they still have plenty of opportunity to do so. In fact, we have no idea how many potential terrorists have already slipped across our borders and are right now living among us. Furthermore, we have no idea how many potential terrorists continue to pour through these wide open sieves that we call borders. How can this administration look the American people in the eye with a straight face and claim that it is fighting a "war on terror," while it does almost nothing to secure our borders and ports? As Marcellus said in Shakespeare's Act 1 of Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Amen. Something is also rotten in Washington, D.C. Besides, why should al Qaeda attack us now? The U.S. occupation of Iraq is the best recruiting tool they ever had. Do the American people not realize (I think most of them actually do) that, thanks to our protracted occupation of Iraq, al Qaeda might actually be stronger now than it was when we invaded that country in 2003. Advertisement If the Bush administration was serious about fighting a war on terror, it would absolutely, resolutely, and immediately seal our borders and ports. It is nothing short of lunacy to send our National Guard forces to Iraq for the purpose of protecting that country's borders, while leaving America's borders wide open! Not only does the Bush administration not secure our borders and ports, it wants to provide a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. It allows tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, and medical care. It offers birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. And it prosecutes and imprisons Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for shooting (but not seriously enough to prevent his escape back into Mexico) a known illegal alien and drug trafficker. No wonder the flood of illegal aliens has skyrocketed since George W. Bush became President of the United States. And is there anyone who does not understand that a John McCain Presidency will be more of the McSame? A McCain White House promises a 100-year occupation of Iraq along with continued open borders and ports. Plus, McCain will also push forward with his plans to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. In addition, when it comes to illegal immigration, amnesty, etc., there will be no relief from an Obama White House. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are pro-open borders, pro-amnesty twins. Instead of fighting a "war on terror," the Bush administration (and numerous administrations before it) is allowing our troops to be used as the personal militia of the United Nations and for the commercial benefit of international corporations. Remember, soon after our troops invaded Iraq, President Bush explicitly reported that the reason for the invasion was to defend "the credibility of the United Nations." But this has been the pattern of White House behavior ever since the U.N. was created back in 1945. Presidents from both parties have repeatedly injected U.S. troops into copious conflicts and wars, all for the purpose of enforcing and augmenting the policies of the United Nations. In fact, the last constitutional conflict that the U.S. military fought was World War II. Virtually every war since has been a U.N. manufactured and manipulated conflict. The war in Iraq is no different. I ask the reader, If you were President, and you sincerely believed that you were fighting a war on terror, and that you had to take the drastic action of sending other men's sons and daughters to fight and die in order to wage this war (not to mention the prospect of potentially bankrupting the country to fight it), would you be so careless or indifferent as to not close the borders to the threat of terrorists who might actually decide to attack us? I doubt that there is a reader who would not agree that anyone who took such a task seriously would--at the very minimum--do this. So, I repeat: the fact that George W. Bush refuses to seal our borders and ports proves that whatever else he thinks he is accomplishing in Iraq, he is disingenuous when he proclaims that he is fighting a "war on terror." (Again, the country that had the closest connections to the 9/11 terrorists was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If fighting the terrorists was the focus, why did Bush not attack Saudi Arabia?) And that means John McCain is disingenuous when he says he wants U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years so "we won't have to fight the terrorists over here" while, at the same time, promoting amnesty for illegal aliens (which does nothing but promote even more illegal immigration). No, my friends. The real war is not a "war on terror." The real war is a war against constitutional government, personal liberty, and national sovereignty. It is a war against the fundamental principles of America's Founding Fathers, that America should be a friend and trader with all, but engaged in entangling alliances with none. It is a war against the Bill of Rights. It is a war against the Spirit of '76, the spirit that says America is a free and independent country, subservient to no international entity or interest. It is a war against the principle that would put America first. It is a war against the very heart and soul of everything this country has stood for ever since our patriot forebears stood on Lexington Green and Concord Bridge. And this war is not being waged from Baghdad or Tehran. It is being waged from Washington, D.C. *If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link. © 2008 Chuck Baldwin     Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.  Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.   To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state. E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com 11:12 AM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment Friday, May 23, 2008 Hypocracy of our immigration Policy V. our Mideast Policy Category: News and Politics MidEast Policy—Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop? By Kevin MacDonald Almost 3 ½ years ago I published Thinking about Neoconservatism, analyzing the neoconservative movement in the context of my studies of the behavior pattern of Jewish groups in the societies where they live. I concluded neoconservatism was the latest of a long procession of political and intellectual movements dominated and essentially controlled by members of the Jewish community, in effect dedicated to a particular concept of how to promote the interests of that community. I specifically cited foreign policy and immigration as hallmark interests. At the time, and for a couple of years later, this was an unmentionable theory. I am told certain prominent web sites stopped linking to VDARE.com after my essay was published. The malign presence of the SPLC (the "Southern Poverty Law Center", a notorious ethnically-oriented Political Correctness enforcer) was soon felt on the scene, not coincidentally, and it named VDARE.COM a "hate group", a sobriquet more normally associated with groups advocating violence and other forms of illegality. But now public debate has changed considerably. Serious antiwar commentary routinely connects the Iraq/Iran policy problem with the influence of Israel and her friends in America. (See here and here and here.) So I ask now: will the other boot drop? Will this candor next extend to the immigration controversy? The vast majority of Americans live under the comfortable illusion that theirs is a free country. They suppose that issues are openly and honestly debated in the newspapers and on talk shows. In this imaginary world, all issues affecting public policy are on the table and are constantly scrutinized by the best and the brightest. But that is simply not the case. In fact, I would go so far as to argue the opposite—that virtually all of the really critical issues affecting the United States and its role in the world are actually excluded from discussion in the elite media or in the political arena. The classic case: US policy in the Middle East. Despite the obvious fact that US support for Israel has crucial implications for war and peace, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to what is really going on in this region. Most Americans would be appalled to learn the truth about what former President Jimmy Carter terms "the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank." Carter calls attention to the "enormous imprisonment wall … now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers." (Los Angeles Times, December 8 2006). Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and his courageous defense of it, seem finally to be triggering a newly open discussion of Israeli actions and Jewish influence in the U.S. Coming on the heels of the work of the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer and Harvard University's Stephen Walt on the Israel Lobby, it highlights many of the same issues. Indeed, Carter has explicitly endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt's conclusion that American policy in the Middle East does not reflect genuine American interests, but instead those of the Israel Lobby. (Carter Shares Insight On Peace In Mideast, by Marty Rosen, Coastal Post, January 3 2007) This is why it is possible to hope that the role of Jewish influence in promoting the epochal change inaugurated by the 1965 Immigration Act might also now be discussed openly and honestly Carter is quite clear that open discussion of Israel's policies in the U.S. has been suppressed: "This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress … to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians…. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land." In fact, it is not at all difficult to comprehend how this regime of "self-restraint" is maintained. President Carter himself, and Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt, point to pressure by the Israel Lobby on the media, consequent media self-censorship, and the intimidation of dissidents. Carter's book has created the astounding spectacle of a former president of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize winner being called an anti-Semite, being condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and having his offers to give talks at major universities with high Jewish enrollment rejected. The saga of the book's treatment on Amazon has been a farce. The ADL's Abe Foxman is one of many who have used the old canard of anti-Semitism to condemn both President Carter and Mearsheimer and Walt. (My favorite title in this genre is by David Horowitz: "Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar".) I focus on Foxman's comments because he heads a mainstream Jewish activist organization and thus reflects the opinions of at least a major component of the organized Jewish community. (It has long been noticed that there is a gap between the attitudes of the majority of American Jews and the attitudes of the established Jewish leaders. This is especially apparent on issues such as the neoconservative agenda of regime change in the Middle East and support of expansionist right-wing governments in Israel.) The point here is that the Jewish Establishment will strongly resist any discussion of Jewish influence or dual loyalty in any area of public policy, no matter how judicious and factually-based it may be. These Jewish leaders have a strong sense of history. They know that Jews have repeatedly become elites in European societies. But they also realize that Jewish power and influence and dual loyalty have been potent themes of anti-Semitism throughout the ages. And they know that increases in Jewish power and influence have often been followed by the rise of rise of anti-jewish movements spearheaded by people whose interests have been damaged by that Jewish power and influence. The strategy used by the Jewish Establishment is not to condemn the neocons for acting on their strong emotional and ethnic ties to Israel and manipulating the Bush administration into the disaster of Iraq and a looming war with Iran. Nor is it to urge that the Israel Lobby be scaled back in an effort to bring it more in line with a reasonable view of American interests. Rather, they go into the full blown smear and intimidation mode. Hence the fury among Jewish activists when General Wesley Clark blurted our that "New York money people" are gung-ho for bankrolling politicians who will support US involvement in a war against Iran; and that talk of a war with Iran is common in Israel. As Matthew Iglesias, himself Jewish, notes: "Everything Clark said … is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true." (American Prospect, January 23, 2007). But, as we should know by now, truth is irrelevant here. Partly this is because, thus far, these tactics have been tremendously effective. The American Jewish Establishment will not change these tactics until they stop working. After all, it is a long road from widespread discussion on the internet and occasional mentions in the above-ground media to having a real influence on the President and in the halls of Congress. There, change will be much slower. This is especially true given the very large role of Jewish money in funding the newly-resurgent Democrats. On the Republican side, as Scott McConnell has argued, the neocons may be down, but they are far from out. And they are still pushing for war against Iran. I think too that the American Jewish leadership no longer has the flexibility to use any other strategy. The radical expansionists, often motivated by religious and ethnic fanaticism, have long been in control in Israel—since 1967 really. They are the vanguard of the Jewish community, and as usual, they they pull the rest of the Jewish community with them. The moderates (aka "self-hating Jews") have been shoved aside and do not really count any more. Similarly, the organized Jewish community in America is dominated by the expansionists. Jews who do not sign on to Israel's expansionist agenda are relegated to the fringes. Indeed, one of the arguments of Mearsheimer and Walt is that Israel would be far better off if it could not persuade Washington to support its expansionist agenda. And reasonable Jews like Jerome Slater are wondering what it takes to "save Israel from itself": "The real issue is the willed ignorance—the psychological need not to know—of our community. The price—to the Palestinians, to the Israelis, and to American national security—is already unbearable, and it may well soon become apocalyptic." These comments bring to mind historian Albert Lindemann's statement in his book Esau's Tears (P535) "Jews actually do not want to understand their past—or at least those aspects of their past that have to do with the hatred directed at them, since understanding may threaten other elements of their complex and often contradictory identities." Whether it's about the past or the present, the pattern among Jews is self-deception and willful ignorance. As in the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that Jewish organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham in his book Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America "Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas… Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration." (pp. 56–57) In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??). But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that come to the U.S. every year—no discussion of their effect on the economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities; no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really want all of this. (They don't.) The fact that large scale legal immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale illegal inflow is a non-subject. Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are "racist" and "nativist". It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and intimidation via labeling, anathematizing, and ultimately loss of livelihood. Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of "not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the role of genetic influences on intelligence and behavior. But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.) have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to particular policies. My contention is that both policies h