Mar 31, 2010

Will the Washington Crew Ever Notice the Housing Bubble?


Will the Washington Crew Ever Notice the Housing Bubble?

aletho | March 31, 2010 at 2:03 pm | Categories: Corruption, Deception, Economics | URL:

By Dean Baker | The Guardian Unlimited | March 29, 2010

Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and the rest of the crew running economic policy somehow could not see the housing bubble as it grew to more than $8 trillion. It really should have been hard to miss. Nationwide house prices had just tracked overall inflation for 100 years from 1895 to 1995. Suddenly in 1995, coinciding with the stock bubble, house prices began to hugely outpace the overall rate of inflation.

There was no explanation for this run-up in house prices on either the supply or demand side of the housing market. Furthermore, there was no unusual increase in rents, providing further confirmation that fundamentals were not behind the increase in house prices. Finally, in contrast to a story of housing shortages driving up house prices, vacancy rates were at record levels.

But the super-sleuths at the Fed, Treasury and other centers of decision-making just could not see the bubble. They couldn't even see the flood of bogus mortgages being spit out by the millions and packaged into mortgage-backed securities and more complex instruments.

As a result of this astounding incompetence, we are now living through the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Because Greenspan and Bernanke and the rest messed up, tens of millions of workers are out of work. Close to one in four mortgages are underwater and the baby boom cohort has seen much of its wealth destroyed as they reach the edge of retirement. In short, as Joe Biden would say, this was a f***ing big mistake.

Remarkably, the folks in charge seem to have learned zip. They still have no clue about the housing bubble. How else can anyone explain the Obama Administration's latest proposal for helping out underwater homeowners?

If the point is to help homeowners then there are two incredibly simple questions that must be asked:

  1. Are homeowners paying less under the plan than they would to rent the same place?
  2. Are homeowners going to end up with equity in their home?

These are the key questions, because if we can't answer "yes" to at least one of them, then we are not helping homeowners. If we can't answer "yes" to at least one of these questions, then taxpayer dollars being put into the program are helping banks, not homeowners.

Unfortunately, it seems no one in the Obama Administration has yet been told about the housing bubble. There is no evidence that they ever considered these questions in designing the latest policy to "help" homeowners.

The program will potentially pay banks and loan servicers up to $12 billion to write off principle on mortgages. In exchange, the government will guarantee new mortgages through the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). Those familiar with the housing market will note that house prices are still falling and must fall by close to 15 percent to get back to their long-term trend. If house prices continue to fall, then the vast majority of the homeowners that take part in this program are likely to never accrue any equity in their home.

Furthermore, the FHA is likely to incur substantial losses on these loan guarantees, as homeowners will again find themselves underwater and many will be unable to pay off their mortgages when they sell their home. Because the FHA hugely expanded its role in the housing market in the last two years, without paying attention to falling prices, it now is below its minimum capital requirement. It will suffer additional losses and fall further below its capital requirements as a result of this program. By the way, the losses to the FHA and the taxpayers are money in the pockets of the banks, but no reason to mention that detail.

For anyone who can see an $8 trillion housing bubble, this is all as clear as day. There is nothing complex about a story in which the government buys banks out of bad mortgages. But the Washington policymakers could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble before it wrecked the economy and apparently still haven't noticed it even after the fact.

It's great to know that there are good-paying jobs for people with no discernible skills. But do those jobs have to involve running the economy?

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy. See article on original website.

Add a comment to this post



Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Recent Activity:

Do More for Dogs Group. Connect with other dog owners who do more.

Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.



From Chip Smith about L.A. Rollins


March 31, 2010

If your readers would like to weigh Mr. Hardesty's commentary against L.A. Rollins own words, The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays is currently on sale for $5.00 postpaid through There are only a few copies left.
Chip Smith, Publisher
Nine-Banded Books
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:29 AM, ReporterNotebook <> wrote:

From: Fredrick Toben <>
Date: Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:22 AM
Subject: Think on these things ...

'Rollins is obviously no supporter of holocaust revisionism and that

he is put on the board of a new internet revisionist publication

is as mystifying as Mark Weber remaining head of IHR. With friends like

this we don't need enemies.'



By Michael Hardesty -


This is the updated version of Mr. Rollins earlier work.

While I briefly debunked Rollins' debunking of natural rights on

Amazon, my focus here is on his attack on holocaust revisionism.


I don't think that Rollins' much milder criticism of the conventional

holocaust view adds anything to what revisionists from Rassinier to

Faurisson to Rudolf have already made so I will ignore it in this review.


Rollins asserts that the compilation of revisionist pioneer Paul

Rassinier's work in Debunking The Genocide Myth, published

by IHR in 1978, "contains enough falsehoods to choke a correspondent

for The National Enquirer." As John Edwards and others can vouch,

the National Enquirer is often right on the money. But for all of Rollins

hyperbole, he is only able to list three "serious errors," two of which are

utterly trivial.  Rassiner wrote that Hannah Arendt wrote that three million

Polish Jews were massacred on the first day of the war when Arendt actually

wrote that those three million were massacred in the first days

of the war. Note the wording here, "days," not weeks. So she was claiming

that in the first days after the war begun this crime took place.

One to seven days. Arendt's claim is absurd but this hardly constitutes

a "serious error" on Rassiner's part.


Rassinier claimed that Raul Hilberg wrote that 1.4 million Jews were

exterminated by the Einsatzgruppen when you added up the totals

per Hilberg's reasoning. On this "serious error" Rollins ends up agreeing

with Rassinier. Hilberg based the dubious 900,000 figure on alleged

Einsatzgruppen reports and then added 250,000 more persons for "gaps

in sources," which Rollins acknowledges Rassiner correctly states.


The remaining 250,000 persons Rassiner claimed Hilberg added for

"omissions," while Hilberg wrote were based on "other fragmentary

reports." As Hilberg's work was debunked at length by Rassinier

and later by Jurgen Graf, this is a meaningless distinction. These are

not serious errors.


The only valid criticism of Rassinier thyat Rollins makes is Rassinier's

misquote of Sal Baron's statement of April 24, 1961 that "700,000"

Polish Jews remained in 1945 when the actual figure was 73, 955.

Apparently Rassiner gave Baron's first name as Shalom and the date

as April 4, two relatively trivial points that Rollins jumps on.


Rollins implies that IHR was trying to put something over on all of

us by publishing Rassinier's works. In the 1978 IHR edition I own,

titled The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, Mark Weber has

an afterword acknowledging the error on Baron as well as a few other

much more minor errors. Weber notes that Rassinier would be the first to

correct them if he were alive.  It could be that Rassinier made a typo

of rounding off the 73,000 figure to 700,000 instead of 70,000.


Maybe he deliberately falsified it or maybe due to failing health in

old age he was not as careful as he should have been. The reader

can judge for himself. But based on the great preponderance of

valuable information that Rassinier provides we can agree with

Robert Faurisson that he indeed made a great original contribution

to our understanding of the Shoah business. Something that Rollins

will never be accused of.


Austin App's monograph was not a helpful addition to holocaust

revisionism because of its emotional tone alone but even here Rollins

focuses on petty nonessentials. App quoted Hanson Baldwin of The

New York Times writing in 1948 that there were 18 and 19 million

Jews in the world. Rollins asserts that Baldwin wrote of the world,

not in the world. Wow ! What a scoop !  Baldwin wrote that the Jewish world

population was estimated to be 15-18 million. An error on App's part

but not a substantive one.


Verrall is similarly criticized for misquoting

Baldwin's figures as 15,600.000 to 18, 700,00. Any error is wrong but

again this is trivial. Finally App is criticized for attributing to the extreme

Zionist writer Ben Hecht a statement actually made by one of Hecht's

fictional characters. An error to be sure but being familiar with Hecht's

views I can well believe that the sentiment alleged by App accurately

reflects Hecht's own views. Rollins quotes the old Communist Morris

Kominsky's disapproval of App here. Kominsky's The Hoaxers is an

unrelenting apologia for the many tens of millions murdered by the

Soviets and Mao as well as an attack on any questioning of the Shoah

tale. Rollins never mentions Kominsky's Communism and total apologia

for same, a rather serious omission.


I'm not familiar with the Udo Walendy booklet that Rollins quotes though

I have read one book by him on WW2 and was favorably impressed.

But he indicts Walendy en toto on one word on page 7 of his booklet.

Walendy quoting a wartime UK propagandist changed the word "subversive"

into "atrocity." I agree he shouldn't have done this but

this casts in doubt everyting Walendy writes ? So writes Rollins.

Rollins total credibility by HIS standards is in doubt because of the

Kominsky omission alone.


On page 169 of his book, Rollins dismisses the great historian,

David L. Hoggan, with an obscenity. Hoggan authored probably the greatest

diplomatic revisionist account of the origins of WW2, reprinted by IHR as

The Forced War.  In this massive tribute to scholarship based on his

1948 Ph.D thesis under William Langer there are some errors but a great

many more truths as I can testify from reading both the thesis and the book.

The Myth Of The Six Million was a private manuscript that Hoggan

did not intend for publication and it was done without his permission.


There are errors which Butz noted but also much valuable material therein.

It was the first introduction to holocaust revisionism for many of us.

As usual Rollins dismisses Hoggan's work en toto without even a semblance

of balance. He doesn't even discuss in detail the monograph's faults but

dismisses Hoggan himself with an obscenity and this is surely what the

shrinks call projection. Hoggan knew that Reitlinger was not a revisionist

and that Reitlinger regarded key parts of Hoss's testimony as hopelessly



In a lengthy discussion I had with David Hoggan on the

Stanford campus in January, 1973 he made it very plain that his monograph

was a rough first draft only and was not to be published until he could provide

full documentation as he did for The Forced War.


On Dr. James J. Martin, I need to state for the record that Jim and I were

yery good friends and correspondents for almost twenty years, 1971-1990.

We never had a falling out but I became preoccupied with other things and

let our friendship lapse, which I very much regret. A few years ago I reread

all of his letters which was an absorbing educational experience unto itself.


Then I reread American Liberalism and World Politics, 1931-1941, two

massive, very well written volumes. Rollins starts with a factual error in

his writing on Martin. The IHR revisionist conference was held on the

Labor Day weekend of 1979, not 1974 as Rollins. For a guy who upbraids

Rassinier for being 20 days off (see above) he is five years off here !


Rollins quotes Martin writing in an obscure libertarian publication that

the Communists played a major role in the whole holocaust legend.

This is on its face absolutely correct as the gas chamber stories had been

discredited as regards Germany by the 1960s. I distinctly remember a Turk

on the Joe Payne TV show in 1966 claiming that he had seen gas chambers

in a German camp and a representative of the Jewish Agency called him a

liar. I also recall hearing many people over the years claim there were both

six million Jews and six million non-Jews exterminated in Poland where all

the alleged extermination was taking place.


I don't know who started this

but that the Communists were the main beneficiaries of it in Europe cannot

be doubted. The booklet that Martin quotes seems ambiguous enough as to

leave room for honest doubt. Rollins doesn't appear interested in nuance or

giving any benefit of the doubt to people who have done immense intellectual

such as Martin, Hoggan and Rassinier. Considering what these folks have

done as compared with Rollins' rather modest efforts ought to inspire more

caution in him.


It was only after the fall of the Soviet Bloc that revised figures appeared at

the Auschwitz camp. It had been four million for decades, even J. Edgar Hoover

in 1958 wrote of four million Jews exterminated at Auschwitz in his Masters Of

Deceit. I understand the Polish Historical Society now gives a figure of 750,000 while the

camp sign states over a million.


As far Martin citing Dr. Broszat as a source on the German camps there's nothing

with that precisely because Broszat made an admission against interest there.

You can say that even he partially recognizes the truth. Rollins presents a false all or nothing

dichotomy here. You have to believe everything Broszat said or nothing at all.

As far as Martin slighting the confessions of Gerstein, Kramer, et al,

that would be difficult because they have been exposed as flagrant perjurers

by Rassinier initially and then others.


Hoss was captured by the Brits but then in a nasty bit of double dealing was

turned over to the Soviets in Poland where he was coerced, tortured and executed.

Martin never claimed that the Communists were the only beneficiaries of what

later came to be called the holocaust but that they were great beneficiaries of same for 45

years after the year and were the main promoters of the legend in Europe.


The people who created the Gulag in the USSR and helped install Mao's

murderous regime in China invented the holocaust. This does not preclude

other liars in the so-called western democracies, the organized Jewish community

and others across the political spectrum who have their axes

to grind here.


Martin was skeptical of the value of much government documentation but preferred

it to perjuring witnesses and hysterical testimony which was common at all the trials

in 1945 as well as Frankfurt in 1963-64, Eichmann in 1961, Demjanjuk in the late 80s, etc.

The Nation critic who accused Rassinier of documentitis was sore because he

couldn't refute what Rassinier wrote. It reminds me of Tom Wicker's criticism

of Noam Chomsky that his media books were too well documented !


On the Majdanek concentration camp, the reader is referred to the book,

Concentration Camp Majdanek by Jurgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno,

which demolishes the idea of mass exterminations via gas or shootings.


Rollins believes a good case can be made for mass exterminations at

Majdanek but Graf and Mattogno put the lie to this.


Rollins ignores the fact that  the testimony of Hoss, Stangl, Kramer,

Gerstein, Broad, Kremer, Hoettl, Wislicency, Ohlendorf and others

have been thoroughly challenged and discredited by revisionists.


Contrary to Rollins assertion there is a heavy monopoly of falsehood on

the conventional side, which is not to say that there have not been unsavory

characters in the revisionist ranks such as David McCalden. Revisionists such

as myself were libeled in his newsletter to which I responded vigorously.


But Rollins agnostic position is as untenable here as it is in the religious

area. Just as proponents of the existence of a God have to prove their

positive assertion so do proponents of the holocaust. We atheists in both

areas don't have to prove anything and are entitled to remain atheists

as long the positive claims are unproved.


Even David Hume admitted that his epistemological agnosticism would

to insanity or suicide if practiced consistently (see History of Western

Philosophy by Bertrand Russell.)


There is a brief, rather juvenile letter to Allah sprinkled with the profanity

that is part of Mr. Rollins persona. It's supposed to take some great courage

to attack Islam ?


Rollins in his Lucifer's Lexicon describes Holocaust Revisionism as a

"Historic pornography. A thought crime against humanity", and Holocaust

Revisionist as "One who denies that he is a denier."


Rollins is obviously no supporter of holocaust revisionism and that

he is put on the board of a new internet revisionist publication

is as mystifying as Mark Weber remaining head of IHR. With friends like

this we don't need enemies.


A final comment on the central premise of Rollins book where he selectively

quotes Ayn Rand. In The Objectivist Ethics (reprinted in The Virtue of

Selfishness) Rand states: "The source of man's rights is not divine law

or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A and Man is Man.

Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper

survival." At length Rand refutes Rollins anti-natural rights position almost

half a century ago.


Rollins takes the fanatically statist position that rights don't exist unless

the state recognizes them and since states often don't, then they can't exist.


As Rand correctly points out where a gun begins, morality ends. That is

why physical force should be restricted to retaliatory force against those

initiate force or fraud (an indirect form of force.)


I'm tempted to go on at great length here but this may not be the right venue.

I'm glad Mr. Rollins has left the revisionist ranks and I trust others of

like mind will follow him.


I'd have to characterize Mr. Rollins' work here in the same manner that

William F. Buckley, Jr., characterized a 1961 Papal Encyclical:

"A venture in triviality."






Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

Recent Activity:

Do More for Dogs Group. Connect with other dog owners who do more.

Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.



Why there is no mainstream investigative journalism about the Israel lobby


Why there is no mainstream investigative journalism about the Israel lobby

aletho | March 31, 2010 at 3:47 pm | Categories: Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | URL:
By Philip Weiss on March 30, 2010

Today on my drive back to NY from PA I listened to some fine journalism about religion and politics, and it highlighted everything that is wrong with our coverage of Israel/Palestine.

The piece I listened to was an hour's conversation on Radio Times (WHYY Philadelphia) about the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church. I don't follow this issue closely, but let me lay out the roles that the different players assumed during the long conversation:

–The two experts on the show were both Catholic writers. Their attitude can be summed up: They want this scandal to come out and be addressed, but they don't want it to hurt the church. At one point one of the writers actually said that Catholic writers have an obligation to respect their "corporate identity" and not to behave like investigative reporters, but to respect the good things that the church does, and to get the full context.

–The host was Marty Moss-Coane. She was extremely professional, but assertive, skeptical of the writers' piety: she  took up the side of our next two players. And I would note that (according to that link) Moss-Coane is not a Catholic, is married to a Jewish guy and is a former lefty.

–Offstage was the New York Times, which has recently done investigative pieces suggesting that Pope Benedict when a bishop or cardinal in Munich was informed of a pedophilia case in the '80s and played some role in its being covered up. The two Catholic writers on this show kept dissing the New York Times coverage, saying that it was zealous and investigative; and in other ways they echoed the Pope's recent warning that Catholics should not be "intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion."

–The final players in the drama were the listeners. Several called. They were all outraged at the Catholic church. One said that life as an altar boy had hurt him in ways he did not want to talk about but is still coming to terms with. Another spoke of the culture of coverup. Another man said that celibacy was the issue.

Now let me get to the central dynamic of the show. The Catholic writers were performing damage control; still, Moss-Coane bored in on them, and whenever a caller went further than she had gone, for instance, about sexuality and celibacy, she promptly echoed the caller's point. She stood up for the Times coverage. She asked, wisely, Is the church treating a crime as a sin? She said, What signal does it send people when a former bishop who played an active role in covering up a sex scandal is awarded a sinecure? (The writers said, Well it's a giant step down for the bishop…) She said, What about what that caller just asked, How is this affecting congregations?

And to every push by Moss-Coane, the Catholic writers pushed back and defended the church. And they would: because they love the church, they see it as a force for good.

Why do I think this was fine journalism? Because the host was behaving as a good broadcast journalist with smart questions, the New York Times was behaving like a good investigative zealous newspaper when it smells a disgraceful scandal, and the listeners were sharp and engaged, pushing the story.

Now I hate the pedophilia scandal, I think it's a good reason for the Catholic hierarchy to collapse, for congregations to implode. I think it's wrapped up in celibacy. When the Catholic writers protested that the memo the Times uncovered from the '80s (describing slap-on-the-knuckles discipline in a pedophilia case, and the future Pope was cc'd) doesn't implicate the Pope, because he was just part of a "culture," I think, Don't b.s. me. This was not a routine memo. And isn't there a problem with an institution that wakes up 30 years after the fact to the idea that it's not good to damage children?

The significance of this piece for me was wholly about the journalism of the Israel lobby. The central problem in that story is that the roles of the Journalist and the New York Times are being played by the Catholic writers! The very parochial attitudes that Moss-Coane found so distasteful in the Catholic story are exhibited by countless journalists when it comes to Israel. Because they are Jews who have an investment in the emotional goodness of the Jewish state. Yes, people like Dan Schorr and Wolf Blitzer and Tom Friedman and Jeffrey Goldberg and Ethan Bronner, but also a lot of fellow travelers whose investment is not as well known to me. And they all get away with their piety all the time!

In the Israel lobby case we have an allegation now several years old that is way more serious than the Catholic scandal: the allegation that the forcible conflation of American and Israeli interests is damaging our country's reputation. It is a form of corruption as deep and "cultural" as the Catholic mess Moss-Coane is investigating, but this time the broker-journalists are implicated in the culture. The former executive editor of the New York Times, Max Frankel, is vetting editorials to protect the Jewish state; my old newspaper the New York Observer is telling me to take a hike because I want to write about the Israel lobby; the Atlantic is killing Walt and Mearsheimer; Wolf Blitzer and Dan Senor used to work for the lobby and are now all over cable; and Jeff Goldberg used to be an Israeli soldier and is interviewed on Meet the Press by David Gregory, who is studying Hebrew. Ethan Bronner's son goes into the IDF, and Bronner is the lead reporter for the New York Times???!! And on it goes, it never stops.

I am saying that all the f—ing excuses that the two Catholic writers made for their beloved church are being made all the time for the Jewish state by our journalists; it is in the culture of our journalism; and meanwhile there is no Moss-Coane to jump on them and keep them honest. I wonder if she's ever covered the Israel/Palestine situation with half the honesty she covered the Catholic scandal, let alone the question of how it is corrupting our politics. I bet she hasn't. Has she ever had on Palestinians to talk about the separate roadways in the West Bank, and then asked, why Americans are supporting Jim Crow conditions?

Well you get the point. And again, the New York Times, which should be printing the Pentagon Papers of the Iraq war, which should be interrogating neoconservatives about their crazy theory that invading Baghdad would take the Arabs' minds off Israel/Palestine, which should be asking John Mearsheimer what his evidence is that oil had nothing to do with the disastrous decision to go to war, which should be telling readers why Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban give so much money to the political parties, and asking whether Adelson's $300,000 gift in 2000 had anything to do with the hiring of Douglas "One-Jerusalem" Feith to a big job at the Pentagon where he would pass cooked data to Congress– the Times is doing no investigative journalism about the lobby at all. (In fact the best investigative work is being done by Grant Smith at IRMEP; and he's marginalized…).

And now we have General Petraeus saying that the special relationship is hurting us; and Obama is trying to take Netanyahu on; and still these powerful men are getting no goddamn cover from the mainstream press in the form of investigative journalism that arouses the public about the abuses. If I were the Catholic church, I'd be mad.

Add a comment to this post



Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Recent Activity:

Do More for Dogs Group. Connect with other dog owners who do more.

Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.



Eric Hanussen



Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Recent Activity:

Do More for Dogs Group. Connect with other dog owners who do more.

Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.



Dr Tom Sunic (VoR TSJ) interview with Dr Kevin MacDonald, part 2 (4/6/10)



The Sunic Journal

Interview with Kevin MacDonald, Part 2

Tom's redone image with  mic 2.jpgKevin_MacDonald.jpg


On Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 9 PM Eastern US time, Tom will interview Dr. Kevin MacDonald in the second of a two part discussion. 

How to listen to and/or download the show is listed at the bottom of this page.

Topics for this portion will include:

·        "Hate speech" in the US, the fear of the stigma of racism, and the imagery of Whites in the media

·        Political polarization along racial lines in the US

·        The Jewish reaction to racial changes in Southern California

·        Joe Biden's trip to Israel and the low-point in US/Israeli relations

·        How the Republicans will try to capitalize on the Biden trip and the strained relations among the Israeli government and the Obama administration

·        The possible change in the Israeli lobby power in the US, partly as a result of the book by Mearsheimer and Walt

·        The notion of the US going to war with Iran and the power of AIPAC

Please visit the online magazine, The Occidental Observer, to read Dr. MacDonald's articles and other insightful articles from contributing authors who combine reason with passion to illuminate and define matters in our society which are ignored or distorted by the mainstream outlets for news and information.

Also, be sure to visit the site of the American Third Position, a new political society created for the establishment of communal relations among whites and the furthering of political progress for people of European descent.

Dr. MacDonald can be contacted at

Listening and download instructions:

This interview  will air on the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network.  To tune in to the live feed for this and all VoR programming, click here to use Windows Media Player or here  for Winamp.  For iTunes:  open iTunes, press Ctrl+U on your keyboard, copy/paste into the Open Audio Stream dialog box, then click OK (you will now be able to listen to VoR live on iTunes any time by clicking on 'Voice of Reason Broadcast Network' in your music list).  If you cannot catch it as it airs on Tuesday, the interview will be archived in mp3 format for download on Tom's page at the VoR site soon after the show ends (archived shows are listed on the right side of page).



Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

Recent Activity: