Call anytime: 917-974-6367
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
Standing Up for the Right to Sit Down
ACLU | February 23, 2010
GERMANTOWN, MD – Despite free speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights, state law, and in the Montgomery County School System's student guide, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland (ACLU) has had to take action on behalf of a middle school student who was harassed and humiliated by a teacher for declining to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In a letter sent February 5 to Khadija F. Barkley, Acting Principal of Roberto Clemente Middle School, the ACLU details why what was done to the traumatized student was wrong and humiliating, and seeks an apology and education on the meaning and importance of the First Amendment.
"The law is crystal clear that a public school cannot embarrass or harass a student for maintaining a respectful silence during the Pledge of Allegiance," said Ajmel Quereshi, an attorney for the ACLU of Maryland. "While expression of patriotism in unsettling times is a worthy and admirable emotion, the Supreme Court says that patriotism is best honored by venerating the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution and not by punishing or ridiculing those whose views might differ from our own."
On January 27, a thirteen-year-
However, the right of a student to refrain from participating during the Pledge has been settled law since 1943, when the Supreme Court held that students could not be forced to salute the flag. As the Court put it then, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Here in Maryland, the State Court of Appeals, in 1871, struck down as unconstitutional a state law that required students to salute the flag. Maryland law now explicitly exempts from the Pledge of Allegiance "any student or teacher who wishes to be excused."
In addition, the Montgomery County school system explicitly acknowledges the student's right to act as she did in the student handbook provision concerning "Patriotic Exercises":
"You will have the opportunity to participate in and/or watch patriotic exercises in school.
You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate."
The young girl was so traumatized by her teacher's humiliating and inappropriate reaction, that the she has not felt comfortable returning to school until the situation is addressed. Faced with the school's unwillingness to acknowledge that the teacher had acted improperly, the mother contacted the ACLU for assistance. Even more shockingly, following the ACLU's letter to the acting principal pointing out the law, and seeking an apology and explanation to the class to ease the girl's return, the school system's lawyer responded that school officials would not meet with the mother if she brought an ACLU lawyer to the meeting.
Quereshi noted that "every other school system has moved quickly to resolve Pledge of Allegiance issues when the ACLU has contacted them on behalf of students. It is appalling that, in this case, the school is refusing to meet to resolve the issue, and thus keeping the traumatized victim out of school even longer than necessary."
The ACLU of Maryland's letter asks that the teacher personally apologize to the student, and promise to respect her right to respectfully dissent in the future. We further request that the assistant principal and teacher review with the class that witnessed this incident the county school policy on patriotic exercise, and explain that trying to force a student to salute the flag is wrong, and it should never have occurred. It is our hope that this incident can be used as an educational opportunity for both students and teachers – as has been done in other Maryland schools when Pledge issues have arisen.
CONTACT: Meredith Curtis, ACLU of Maryland, 410-889-8555; media@aclu-md.
From: Richard Silverstein <richards1052@
For those who followed my posts about Martin Kramer's extraordinary talk (watch video) at the Herzliya conference, in which he claimed that overpopulation fueled Islamic radicalism and that the way to control Palestinian terror was through putting Gaza on a "diet" that discouraged having children–I've shied away until now from calling this statement genocide (though Ali Abunimah and M.J. Rosenberg have done so).
Here is what Kramer said in part:
Aging populations reject radical agendas, and the Middle East is no different. Now eventually, this will happen among the Palestinians too, but it will happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status. Those subsidies are one reason why, in the ten years from 1997 to 2007, Gaza's population grew by an astonishing 40 percent. At that rate, Gaza's population will double by 2030, to three million. Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim undermine the Hamas regime but if they alsobreak Gaza's runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have that might begin to crack the culture of martyrdom which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men. That is rising to the real challenge of radical indoctrination, and treating it at its root.
But I was entirely convinced by this definition of the term offered by M.J. in the Geneva Convention:
The Convention on Genocide bans "bans killing of members of any racial, ethnic, national or religious group because of their membership in that group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting on members of the group conditions of life intended to destroy them, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and taking group members' children away from them and giving them to members of another group."
And it is that – withholding aid to prevent births within the group – that Kramer advocates. He even calls the birth of Palestinian babies "extreme demographic armament."
Cutting off food (Kramer uses the disguised term "pro-natal subsidy") and other essential humanitarian aid from Gaza in order to lower the brith rate, fits this definition. So Kramer is without doubt a genocidaire. Congratulations, Harvard, you've got a genuine advocate of ethnic genocide on your faculty.
"How many Jews are there in the USSR?" Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev asks the head of the KGB.
"Two-and-a-half million," the KGB head replies. "But if we let them leave, there will be 6 million."
By Anna Rudnitskaya · February 23, 2010
MOSCOW (JTA) -- This spring, Howard Flower and his assistants plan to go to Russia's westernmost region, Kaliningrad, on a fishing expedition: They're fishing for Jews.
Flower, the aliyah director of the Russian office of the International Christian Embassy, a pro-Israel evangelical group, plans to look through telephone directories for Jewish-sounding names and meet with local leaders in an attempt to find far-flung Jews -- some of whom might not even realize they're Jewish -- and talk to them about moving to Israel.
As elsewhere in the world, determining who is Jewish in Russia is more an art than a science.
In the 2002 Russian census, the country's most recent, 233,000 Russians self-identified as Jews. Jewish leaders here and abroad consider the figure an underestimate, but they can't agree on the actual figure or how to determine it.
"Anyone who works in Jewish organizations knows that the real number of Jews is higher than records show because many people do not receive any services and thus are not registered anywhere," said Rabbi Yosef Hersonski, head of the Khamovniki community in Moscow. "Probably they are not interested. But if their mother was Jewish, we consider them Jews."
One of Russia's chief rabbis, Berel Lazar, estimates the number of Jews in Russia at 1 million to 2 million; he considers as Jews all those with a Jewish mother. NCSJ, a U.S.-based advocacy group for Russian-speaking Jews, estimates that Russia has 400,000 to 700,000 Jews, and 1 million to 1.5 million in the former Soviet Union as a whole.
A representative for the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, the largest Jewish aid group active in Russia, declined to speculate on a figure.
"We have not yet found reliable data based on sound methodology about the number of Jews in Russia," JDC representative Rina Edelshtein said.
Across Russia, approximately 100,000 Jews are registered with their local Jewish community organizations. To be registered, one has to prove Jewishness.
It's often not a simple thing.
Official records tend to be a mess. In the Soviet era, ethnicity was delineated on adults' internal passports. Those with two Jewish parents were registered as Jewish, but the children of mixed marriages could choose the ethnicity of either parent. Since Jews suffered discrimination in the Soviet Union, the products of intermarriages usually did not register as Jewish.
The situation was captured best perhaps in a joke popular at the height of the Soviet Jews' struggle for immigration to Israel.
"How many Jews are there in the USSR?" Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev asks the head of the KGB.
"Two-and-a-half million," the KGB head replies. "But if we let them leave, there will be 6 million."
By the time the Iron Curtain fell and Soviet Jews obtained the right to emigrate, there were 1.8 million Jews in the Soviet Union, including 570,000 in Russia, according to 1989 census data. Most have left since then, moving to Israel, the United States and Germany.
The Israeli Embassy in Moscow says it knows only about those who qualify for aliyah, or immigration to Israel, under Israel's Law of Return. Under those criteria, anyone with a Jewish grandparent is eligible.
The Nativ organization, which deals with aliyah in the former Soviet Union, estimated that 530,000 Russians meet the criteria for aliyah, according to embassy spokesman Alex Goldman-Shaiman. How many are legitimately Jewish is unknown, he said.
Mark Tolts, a demographer at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the author of the "Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe," estimates that only about 255,000 Jews live in Russia. He bases his figures on census data.
"If you speak of a million Jews, show me the method with which you counted them," Tolts said. "Given the proliferation of mixed marriages among the Jews of the former Soviet Union in the last generations, it is very difficult to empirically determine the number of Jews, according to halachah. Demographers base their figures on the statistic data they have. These are mainly census results, vital and migration statistics."
Tolts says that 1.5 million people did not state their nationality during the 2002 census; he guesses that at least 20,000 were Jews.
However, Tolts' figure of 255,000 refers only to the so-called "core Jewish population" -- the aggregate of those who, when asked, identify themselves as Jews or, in the case of children, are identified as such by their parents. It does not include those of Jewish origin who report another ethnicity in the census. Russian passports dropped the ethnicity field in 1994.
To complicate matters, some Russians of Jewish lineage are baptized yet still identify as Jews when asked about ethnicity.
"The main dilemma is who should be called Jews," said Mark Levin, the executive director of NSCJ.
Flowers, of the International Christian Embassy, called counting Russia's Jews "one of the trickiest questions facing man."
His organization recently provided the Jewish Agency for Israel with a list of 1.2 million people in Russia whose names sound Jewish, all of whom were found in online and print telephone directories.
In 2004, a similar list of 30,000 names among St. Petersburg residents was examined. The Jewish Agency chose 10,000 that seemed Jewish and called them. More than 2,000 expressed some interest either in immigrating n to Israel or in Jewish community events, according to Flowers.
Along with halachic and ethnic standards, he said the methodology introduced a new way of counting Jews: "phonetically."
That is an excellent analogy comparing Israel to a small or limp penis, always in need of war and violence as an aphrodisiac. Nonetheless, I have to admit to a tendency to associate Israel and its nationals with the word prick.
However, I think this video is not aimed as much at "young North American Jews" as to non-Jews. The light-skinned black male and half-oriental female on the commercial to promote tourism to Israel do not bring to mind your typical flabby young Jew. Besides, your typical Jew, young or old, regardless what country's ID or passport he/she happens to carry, will already be quite familiar with the legal and factual size of their nation.
That said, it is obvious that the masters of the universe, conscious of their exalted station on planet Earth know that whatever they make is ipso-facto a work of genius, beyond examination or analysis. You are talking Spielberg here.
All in all, a great posting
by PAUL WOODWARD on FEBRUARY 22, 2010
Having thought a lot about Israel, I’ll confess I’ve never pictured it as a penis – of any particular size.
But on second thoughts, that’s not actually true. The wars on Lebanon and Gaza did evoke a sense that the Jewish state regards war as a type of Viagra, so I guess if war is Viagra that does indeed make Israel a penis — one that has difficulty maintaining an erection.
With that in mind the new Size Doesn’t Matter campaign aimed at promoting Israel (h/ts to Richard Silverstein andDimi Reider) could be seen as an effort to convince young North American Jews that Israel is not suffering from erectile dysfunction. A trip to Israel — well that’s like giving or receiving a blow job, though the metaphor gets a little confusing at this point.
What the hell am I talking about?
Watch this video sponsored by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy:
I have little doubt that when the makers of this video debated its merits, someone said that it would be sure to go viral.
Indeed, I along with many others are now making that happen. But even though “going viral” is supposed to be an online marketing success, it’s worth remembering where the metaphor comes from. In this case, did the promoters of Israel really want an image of their beloved state to spread like a contagious disease?
And one small footnote — the “size doesn’t matter” claim turns out to be a little disingenuous: the map of Israel in the video includes Gaza and the West Bank as part of Greater Israel. Apparently size really does matter.
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
By MICHAEL NEUMANN
In the last few years, both Zionism and the occupation have been criticized, if not to death, as fully as possible. America's pro-Israel loudmouths should deceive no one: most of the world has taken the criticisms to heart. Even Israel's supposed undying allies know the occupation has to end; so do a majority of Israelis.Though some of the preachier critics love to think otherwise, the US government - meaning the executive branch - has known this for some time. Its official position has always been that the occupation has to end. As for the massive aid accorded to Israel, two points should be borne in mind. First, the US gives at least as much aid, including military aid, to the Arab states and Pakistan - and sells advanced weapons to the Gulf States. Second, the aid is largely part of a pathetic attempt to bribe Israel into something like a reasonable accommodation with the Arab world.
Some suppose that the attempt is pathetic because it is insincere. This view is wildly optimistic, and presupposes an article of faith curiously popular on the left: that America is a colossus which can, with the beckoning of a finger, bring to heel the pygmies that surround it. Whatever the truth about American power in general, this certainly does not hold in the case of Israel. The power of the entire Western world may not suffice to bring that country to heel.
Israel is not only a nuclear power, but one of the world's leading nuclear powers. What's more, it is the only nuclear power that has openly toyed with the idea of using nuclear weapons even when that would be suicidal. Israeli strategists, perhaps assured of divine approval, call this the Samson option. With a bit of ingenuity and luck, Israel could manage a very credible first strike against any power on earth. It won't do so, of course, but the 'of course' relies on our assurance that not even the other leading nuclear powers would use military force to compel Israel to do anything at all. So push come to shove, in the case of Israel, there is no push, and no shove.
What then, if the US 'turned off the aid spigot'? Israel's critics, not excluding some Israelis, are increasingly indignant in their demands for this to happen. Again, they are wildly optimistic. No doubt Israel finds US aid a great convenience. But the US also finds Israeli aid a great convenience. Israel's defense establishment not only produces but develops many capabilities of vital importance to the US, among them anti-missile systems, drones, and cyberwarfare solutions. And this is why economic sanctions wouldn't work. Israel has an abundance of technology and even military hardware that much of the world would line up to buy, at almost any price. Not only would Israel be able to sustain itself financially and economically; it would do so through commerce that the West could only consider catastrophic.
This doesn't mean the Israel/Palestine conflict is insoluble. It means that any solution is out of 'our' hands - of the critics, certainly, and even of the Western powers. The solution, if there is one, will have to be built on a true balance of power in the Middle East. The prospects for such a balance are not entirely dim, but they involve realities that few are willing to face.
At best (!), the prospects of peace, of an end to Israeli/Palestinian 'terror', lie in the hands of those alleged terrorists, Hizbollah, and their sponsors, including Iran. Perhaps Hizbollah is just powerful enough so that Israelis will, like white South Africa, see the writing on the wall, and settle with their conquered people. Until the next war with Lebanon, the chances of this are anyone's guess.
There is, however, a more frightening possibility. It can be rendered less frightening only if the West bows to the inevitable.
The 'Arab' world, like Iran, certainly realizes the crushing and dangerous advantage represented by Israeli nuclear weapons. Yet these countries lack the capacity to confront Israel and the political clout to make others do so. What if the means to acquire this clout became available?
In fact the means are already at hand.
By now, the world, and therefore the 'Arab' world, knows that the West will never, ever, act against Israel: the very opportunity to do so has slipped away. Sooner or later, this will drive Israel's neighbors to their only alternative. It is cost-effective, not only in dollars but very likely in lives.
Arab nations, and Iran, would be quite within their rights to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation agreements. (These in any case are scandalous in their net effect, which is to protect Israel from military competition while securing Israel's carte blanche in the nuclear arena.) The Arab world, likely with the cooperation of other nations, could then pursue a collective program of nuclear development and research, with the declared and explicit purpose of securing military as well as civilian nuclear capacity.
The mere announcement of these plans - with their effects on Israeli morale and Western resolve - might produce considerable results at no real cost to anyone. Should Israel persist in its obstinacy, development would proceed, increasing the pressure to find - impose - a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. One might think this very idea a piece of wild-eyed extremism. But what is extreme is to let Israel first develop and then brandish nuclear weapons, while tying the hands of all its potential victims. To untie their hands is simply to return to the balance-of-power politics that, for centuries, has been seen as the best guarantor of peace.
Today, this is mere fantasy. But the Arab world, with support from the non-Arab Muslim world, will change enough to put this strategy within the realm of the possible. Collectively, those nations have ample wealth and technical abilities. They are increasingly aware of the need to put aside old animosities. And presumably they will eventually tire of being treated with contempt.
And what is the role of the West in this? Only to stay out of the way; it is capable of no more. Instead, there will be hand-wringing, hysteria, moral epilepsy. Perhaps the fits will pass, and the West will find the resolve to do what it has done so well for so long: nothing.
Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at a Canadian university. He is the author of What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche and The Case Against Israel. He also contributed the essay, "What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at mneumann@live.
By Kevin MacDonald
Published: Monday, February 22, 2010
For nearly four years the Cal State Long Beach community has seen repeated attacks on me. Powerful activist organizations — the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League — have come to campus to condemn me. Several departments at the university have issued public denunciations, and I have been harassed and condemned by individual professors on faculty e-mail lists. Beginning with the current semester, several students have disrupted my classes; they have campaigned to get me fired and have written inflammatory articles in the Daily 49er.
Why all this hostility? Fundamentally, I am attacked because I advocate ideas that fly in the face of the conventional wisdom as seen by the academic left that has come to dominate the university.
First and foremost, I am an evolutionary psychologist. On the basis of my understanding of the theory and research in this field, my view is that everyone has ethnic interests — including people of European descent. A great many other identifiable groups in multicultural America have a strong sense of ethnic identity and interest. Quite a few departments on this campus are devoted to strengthening the ethnic identity of non-whites and articulating their interests. But explicit expressions of white European-American identity and interests are condemned as indicating moral turpitude or even psychiatric impairment.
This is a completely unnatural state of affairs — the result of a prolonged assault on the legitimacy of these concepts by politically and ethnically motivated elites that have dominated public discourse on issues of race and ethnicity since before World War II and especially since the 1960s.
I reject labels such as "white supremacist" or "racist" that are routinely bestowed on assertions of white identity and interests as a means of muzzling their expression. Non-Western peoples throughout the world continue to seek political power, and they attempt to control their borders, establish their own cultures and defend their perceived interests. No one would claim that Korea, say, has a moral obligation to import millions of non-Koreans or to change their culture so that the traditional people and culture are pushed aside. Many countries, including Mexico, have excluded immigrants and dealt with them harshly. Israel not only has an identity as a Jewish state, it also rigorously enforces a biological conception of Jewishness as the basis of its immigration policy. Israel has erected an apartheid society on the West Bank and has discriminatory policies against its Palestinian minority within Israel.
Nevertheless, as Joel Kotkin points out in his recent book "The Next Hundred Million", the U.S. stands poised to add 100 million non-whites by 2050, making the current white majority into a minority and implying a dramatic decline in their political and cultural influence.
Whether explicitly or implicitly, ethnostates are the norm throughout the world. Societies in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand that have been controlled by whites for hundreds of years are the only ones to accept the idea that the ethnic majority has a moral imperative to cede power and become a minority. I view this outcome as the result of competition over the construction of culture in which the legitimate interests of Whites have been compromised. My scholarly book, "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements" (1998), and much of my subsequent writing, are an attempt to determine how this unnatural state of affairs came about.
The big picture is that the left championed the interests of the working and middle classes of pre-1965 America. Since that time, the left has been strongly identified with massive non-white immigration and multiculturalism — policies that have compromised the interests of the working and middle classes of traditional America, black and white alike.
My main concern is that this upheaval opposes the legitimate interests of the European-descended peoples of the U.S. It's not about hatred. It's about seeing legitimate conflicts of interest among different ethnic groups. I was a staunch leftist as a young person. But it's obvious that the left now stands for policies that are radically opposed to the interests of people like me.
As part of this revolution against pre-1965 America, the left has erected a culture of political correctness in which expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans are proscribed. Organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL seek to stifle free speech by condemning any hint of ethnocentrism by Europeans — and only Europeans.
Because their point of view is intellectually bankrupt and cannot be rationally defended, the left has repeatedly resorted to force to accomplish its goals. Many European countries and Canada have savage legal penalties that enforce intellectual conformity on these issues. In America the sanctions are more informal — but nevertheless similarly effective. The condemnations of my writing and my affiliations by academic departments, professors and students at Cal State Long Beach are a part of this campaign to shut down free speech on these issues and to make my life as difficult as possible.
America and other Western societies stand to lose much as a result of these transformations. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has shown that increasing ethnic diversity lowers the willingness to contribute to charity or to public goods such as, apropos the current national debate, public health care. Ethnic diversity also increases social isolation and lowers trust both within and between races; it also lowers political participation and lessens confidence in political leaders.
Throughout the world, ethnically diverse societies are marked by ethnic conflict. The bottom line is that no one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. My vision of the future of Western societies is that they are well on the road to becoming cauldrons of competing ethnic groups, with chronic divisions over issues like affirmative action, redistribution of wealth and the establishment of public goods like health care — any issue that may be seen as benefiting one ethnic group more than another. In the long run, democratic forms of government and the rule of law are threatened.
An early sign of this dystopian future is that American politics have become increasingly racialized. The Republican Party routinely receives roughly 90 percent of its votes from whites, while overwhelming majorities of non-whites identify with the Democratic Party. There is a palpable rage building in America among the tea partiers and working and middle-class white Americans who want something like the America they grew up in. These people are being pushed out economically and politically. They are less able to avoid the costs of multiculturalism: They can't move to gated communities or send their children to all-white private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.
Despite what some of my critics have claimed, I have never advocated violence as a solution to the rapidly diminishing prospects of non-elite white Americans. But we are clearly headed into very dangerous times.
Kevin MacDonald is a psychology professor at CSULB and a member of the American Third Option party.
By Thomas C. Mountain | Online Journal | February 24, 2010
ASMARA, Eritrea -- The "richest man in the world," Microsoft's Bill Gates, recently announced that he was making a $10 billion donation towards finding vaccines to prevent some of the world's worst diseases.
Malaria is the number one killer in Africa. From what I'm hearing about $1 billion of BIll Gates donation/tax write-off is for research to find a vaccine to prevent malaria.
The African country of Eritrea, where I live, has reduced malaria mortality by 85 percent in the last seven years. How? By using basic public health methods. By distributing pesticide treated mosquito nets and organizing the pesticide retreatment every three months of mosquito nets. By habitat eradication. And by community medical clinics for immediate treatment.
Malaria is a parasite-based disease noted for its variety and quick development of resistance to medication. Any "vaccine," if even a billion dollars is able to produce such, would have a limited lifetime and new, patented medications would have to be bought by Africa's poor every few years.
So "donating" a billion dollars to develop a malaria "vaccine" could turn into tens of billions of dollars in drug sales in Africa alone, and Bill Gates, through his drug company investments, will quietly pocket more African blood money.
All the while a very successful malaria mortality reduction program is operating, effectively, safely and affordably, in Eritrea.
Why isn't this being publicized internationally? Could it be that such a program is not going to put billions into the pockets of the drug lords of Western finance?
Bill Gates and other assorted financial terrorists through their control of the Western media and "aid" organizations are suppressing implementation of a successful malaria mortality program while investing in a malaria drug addiction for Africa's people.
These financial terrorists are perfectly willing to see millions die in Africa while they search for their next highly profitable "wonder drug" to cure malaria, all the while deliberately ignoring, worse, engineering a white out/cover up of what could prevent millions of deaths, let alone uncounted suffering.
And HIV/AIDS, Africa's N0.2 killer? Bill Gates is said to be providing over a billion dollars for research into developing an AIDS vaccine. AIDS, a virus based disease, has already shown to have varieties and to have developed resistance to the medications developed to treat it. Like the flu vaccine, a new AIDS vaccine would most likely have to be developed every few years to combat the latest strain of the AIDS virus; another gold mine of new, patented medications for sale to Africa's sick.
Eritrea has reduced HIV/AIDS infection rates by 40 percent, according to Physicians for Peace, and is the only country in Africa to reduce HIV/AIDS. How? By using public health education promoting condom use everywhere in the country. Over a billion for a "vaccine" that may never work while an effective program that can reduce HIV/AIDS infection by 40 percent, safely and affordably can be immediately implemented?
Remember, Western billionaires didn't get that way by being out to really help anyone. Millions die in Africa as the Western drug lords and their financial terrorist stockholders reap their billions in blood money. All the while real heroes in the Eritrean public health service struggle to save people's lives.
So don't believe that BIll Gates is up to any good when he donates $10 billion to vaccine research, just the opposite. And don't forget that as far at the USA is concerned in Africa, no good deed goes unpunished, and, once again, Eritrea is subject to UN Security Council sanctions.
Stay tuned to Online Journal for more news from Africa's Horn that the so called free press in the west refuses to cover.
Thomas C. Mountain was, in a former life, an educator, activist and alternative medicine practitioner in the USA. Email thomascmountain at yahoo.com.
You can heckle whoever you like
Take care my American friends. It seems that you are starting to face the wrath of the Zionist entity and soon, you may find yourselves branded as "terrorists" for daring to criticize criminal Israeli policy. Increasingly, Americans seem threatened by the Zionist lobby in order not to able to exercise their right to free speech within their own country! Israelis know very well how to milk Americans dry for money..., but allowing Americans to have a non-Zionist- controlled independent opinion is another matter. Scroll down and contact UCI in order to determine how it would be best for the Israeli embassy and lobby in the US to punish American students for practicing their rights of freedom of speech.
Scroll down for a reminder of why US students protested the hypocritical words of Israeli ambassador Michael Oren...
tionalnews. com/News/ News.aspx/ 136048
Campaign to Prosecute Oren's Hecklers at UCal Irvine
by Hana Levi Julian
(IsraelNN.com) A campaign to prosecute hecklers who disrupted a recent address by Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, at the University of California at Irvine, is making its way across the Internet. The movement is being promoted by the media watchdog Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA), which monitors media, polls, coverage and events related to Israel.
The message forwarded by the group, a simple email urging readers to support prosecution of UCI students who attempted to disrupt Oren's address, also thanks "the leftist enemies of free speech [only they have the right to speak]" for providing contact information for UC Irvine officials.
The message quotes an email from "ActLeft, action list in Israel-Palestine" which excused those students who tried to prevent Oren from speaking, saying they "chose to protest by making clear and organized statements." The ActLeft message complained that by punishing the students, the school was "aiming to send a political message by selective enforcement of university policies."
During his speech on U.S.-Israel relations, Oren was shouted down at least ten times by the protestors, who succeeded in sabotaging the program of the Ambassador's presentation, which ended without a question-and-
answer session. Although some 500 participants attended the event, Oren commented from the podium that he was most disappointed by those who were forced to leave, saying that it was the leftist protestors who most needed to hear what he had to say. The university's Muslim Student Union had been actively involved in the protest, having conducted a vigorous email campaign against Oren's appearance prior to the event.
IMRA noted that it was important for "people who support freedom of speech rather than the 'freedom' to shout down and silence [to] see what enemies of free speech are arguing [about]."
Readers can contact UCI Chancellor Michael Drake to express an opinion, at (949) 824-5011, or email him at chancellor@uci.
edu. Readers can also speak with the Office of the Dean of Students, which is tasked with determining the punishment for the hecklers, at (949) 824-5181, or contact by email at deanstu@uci. edu.