Translate

Sep 20, 2010

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Dear friend,

I remember on Ted Koppel's ABC Night Line, sometime in the 1990s, when Pollard was on record for saying:

"I spied for Israel to help maintain racial purity for the Jewish people."

The entire panel was Jewish with Pollard's father and Prof. Dershowitz on the news program and there was stone silence for a long while, with no one addressing the remark attributed to Jonathan Pollard.

And no one did.

Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367

What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

The issue of his imprisonment has sometimes arisen amidst Israeli domestic politics.[50]Benjamin Netanyahu has been particularly vocal in lobbying for Pollard's release, at one point even visiting Pollard in prison.[51] Netanyahu raised the issue with President Bill Clinton during the Wye River peace talks in 1998.[52] In his autobiography, Clinton writes that he was inclined to release Pollard, but the objections of American intelligence officials proved too tenacious:

For all the sympathy Pollard generated in Israel, he was a hard case to push in America; he had sold our country's secrets for money, not conviction, and for years had not shown any remorse. When I talked to Sandy Berger and George Tenet, they were adamantly opposed to letting Pollard go, as was Madeleine Albright.[53]

Alan Dershowitz has been among Pollard's high-profile supporters, both in the courtroom as a lawyer and in various print media. Characterizing the sentence as "excessive", Dershowitz writes in an article reprinted in his bestselling book Chutzpah!, "As an American, and as a Jew, I hereby express my outrage at Jonathan Pollard's sentence of life imprisonment for the crime to which he pleaded guilty."[54] Dershowitz writes,

[E]veryone seems frightened to speak up on behalf of a convicted spy. This has been especially true of the Jewish leadership in America. The Pollards are Jewish... The Pollards are also Zionists, who--out of a sense of misguided "racial imperative" (to quote Jonathan Pollard)--seem to place their commitment to Israeli survival over the laws of their own country... American Jewish leaders, always sensitive to the canard of dual loyalty, are keeping a low profile in the Pollard matter. Many American Jews at the grass roots are outraged at what they perceive to be an overreaction to the Pollards' crimes and the unusually long sentence imposed on Jonathan Pollard.[54]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


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

.

__,_._,___

Poland lodges Holocaust denial case

 

 

Poland lodges Holocaust denial case

September 21, 2010 - 7:44AM

    AFP

    A Polish group will lodge a case before the courts against controversial British historian David Irving for denying the Holocaust as he reportedly began a much criticised visit to Poland.

    The Otwarta Rzeczpospolita (Open Republic) organisation on its website accused the historian of committing the offence in his 1977 book Hitler's War, which attempts to minimise both Nazi atrocities and Hitler's responsibility and which was published in Poland last year.

    Irving has rejected the label of "Holocaust denier".

    "Let's not wait for the moment when Mr David Irving commits a new crime on in Poland. The evidence indicates clearly that he has already committed this crime," the group said in its complaint addressed to the National Memory Institute responsible for prosecuting Nazi and communist crimes against the Polish.

    The Polish PAP news agency said Irving, who had kept details of his visit secret, was on Monday in Krakow, in southern Poland.

    Polish and British anti-racism groups last week urged their governments to ban a tour by Irving of the Nazi death camp Treblinka, where more than 800,000 people, mostly Jews, were murdered, and other Holocaust sites in Poland.

    Irving, who was jailed in Austria in 2006 for denying the Holocaust, had planned a September 21-29 guided tour of sites in Poland dating back to the World War II Nazi German occupation.

    The historian recently told Britain's Daily Mail newspaper that the trip -- which costs $US2,650 ($A2,825) excluding flights -- was so popular he had to turn people away.

    "There is no question that the Nazis killed millions of people in these camps. When people call me a Holocaust denier I get quite hot under the collar," he told the paper.

    He has also accused the Polish authorities of turning Auschwitz into a "Disney-style" tourist site and a "money-making machine" complete with fake watchtowers.

    At the epicentre of Hitler's plan of genocide against European Jews during World War II, Poland has enacted strict laws against both Holocaust denial and the public propagation of anti-Semitism or fascism.

    According to Poland's Institute of National Remembrance, between 5.47 million and 5.67 million Polish citizens died at the hands of the Nazis.

    Polish Jews represented around half of the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust.

    © 2010 AFP

    __._,_.__
    --

    Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

    An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

    Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish.
    Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is "nothing more than a screen to present chosen views." The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually "think outside of the (Jewish) box." --Michael Santomauro

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
    .

    __,_._,___

    [HolocaustLiesExposed] BOOK REVIEW: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides

     


    REVIEW

    Sept. 2010

    Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides 

    by Thomas Dalton, Theses & Dissertations Press, 280 pages, 2009.

    Martin Gunnels

    Debating the Holocaust by Thomas Dalton

    Thomas Dalton's Debating the Holcoaust. 
    Cover photo published with permission from the author.

    As we all know, Holocaust books tend to be pretty boring. Graphs, charts, numbers, rambling footnotes—when thrown together, page after page, the literature can be exhausting. Whereas most histories are driven by their narratives, by their tales of life, Holocaust scholarship follows a different path. Because reputable Holocaust histories can't really frame a coherent narrative out of such a mysterious and strangely undocumented event, Holocaust historiography constitutes a unique genre within contemporary history. Of course, Holocaust fans can also get their kicks by reading tales like The Diary of Anne Frank or Elie Wiesel's latest blockbuster. But as we all know, these texts aren't exactly "history": they tell us very little about what really happened to the Jews in the Reich.

    Because orthodox Holocaustiography masquerades as both history and hard science, it has to take itself very seriously. Believing its own myths about unique evil and unprecedented criminality, Holocaust historiography operates in an unironic, funereal atmosphere where alternative possibilities simply don't exist. Yet Holocaust revisionism, on the other hand, does something completely different. It is disputatious, dialogical, and aggressive. Without the traditional Holocaust narrative, it couldn't exist. Dissent is revisionism's raison d'etre. It is an exercise in intellectual commensalism; it latches onto the gills of mainstream Holocaust scholarship, where it passes basically unnoticed as its gnarly host devours everything in sight.

    The key word here, of course, is unnoticed. If the Holocausters paid attention to their little revisionist fellow traveler, the Holocaust, like all other historical events, would then be open to legitimate historical debate. And that's the last thing establishment Holocaust historians want. So we're not fooled when Thomas Dalton swears that he is not a revisionist, that he's merely a neutral observer trying to objectively present a scholarly debate. As far as the true blue Holocausters are concerned, there is no debate. By simply positing that a dialog exists—and by refusing to subtitle his book with some overblown, sensational reference to "assassinated" or "assaulted" memory—Dalton is throwing in his lot with the dark side. He is, alas, one of us.

    Nonetheless, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides is a new kind of revisionism. Because he is careful to appear nonpartisan, Dalton doesn't make any new discoveries or devise any new theories. What he does, however, is synthesize a wide range of mainstream and revisionist scholarship in an attempt to patch together the most important challenges that revisionism has posed to conventional Holocaust opinion. But because his work is a synthesis, he has to do more than recite the strongest work of Graf, Mattogno, Rudolf, and Faurisson (his favorite revisionists); he must also present the cases of Pressac, van Pelt, and Hilberg (his favorite Holocausters). Fortunately, Dalton knows both sides well, and so his text is especially valuable to non-experts who are interested in a straightforward presentation of how mainstream Holocaustiography measures up to its revisionist response. 
    Dalton begins by reminding us why the Holocaust is so important to re-vise. "Why not let the Jews have their ol' Holocaust?," he poses to himself rhetorically. After giving the obligatory reply that we have to dedicate ourselves to historical truth, he quickly proceeds to the good stuff. He describes why we can't just move on and forget about the Holocaust debate:

    "We are not allowed to forget about it, even if we wanted to. Coverage of the Holocaust is standard fare in every school curriculum. Children the world over read The Diary of Anne FrankNumber the StarsWaiting for AnyaButterfly. Students learn about the gas chambers and the six million, about the Nazi atrocities. We watch Holocaust miniseries on television,Schindler's List, and Night and Fog. We celebrate 'Holocaust Education Week,' and we acknowledge January 27 each year as the 'International Day of Commemoration' of Holocaust victims, as declared by the UN in 2005. School children collect six million pencils, or six million paperclips. We visit Holocaust museums. We take college courses (for full credit) from endowed chairs in Holocaust studies. This is not by accident. It is a deliberate plan, to make sure we 'never forget.' And if we can never forget, then we should at least get the story straight."

    Dalton gets it. Instead of repeating the orthodox garbage about "never forget" and "never again," he reminds us that, if we're going to canonize a historical event in state and popular culture, and if we're going to let this historical event dominate our foreign policy rhetoric and guide the actions of our empire, we better keep an open mind about what really happened. By reminding us of the ubiquity of the Holocaust in our lives—and in the lives of the other 6 billion people residing under the jurisdiction of the United Nations—Dalton points out that, despite his earlier claims about needing to set the record straight for mere historical truth, the Holocaust really needs to be revised because of the tyranny it imposes upon the world's publics. Because of the Holocaust campaign, the old protest refrain we hear so often is as true for us as it is for anyone: "We are all Palestinians now." We have all been thoroughly colonized by the Holocaust, and to decolonize, we must first revise. As Dalton himself points out, by indicting one of the central myths of the postwar liberal order, "Revisionists challenge not only orthodoxy; they challenge the power of the State."

    After describing what's at stake in the debate, Dalton moves onto the basic complaints of the revisionists: the unreliability of the eye-witnesses, the dubiousness of the six million figure, the strange dematerialization of most of the death camps (along with their millions of victims), the impracticality of the murder weapons, the wartime photos' failure to corroborate the mainstream narrative, the lack of any explicit order from Hitler or the Nazi bureaucracy, and the preponderance of "survivors" who somehow managed to live through the omnipotent, satanic Nazi death machine. After reciting a thorough list of standard revisionist "concessions"—among them the regrettable and atrocious persecution of Europe's Jews, at least hundreds of thousands of whom died—Dalton debunks several "myths" about revisionism. He trashes the clich├ęs that circulate about revisionists: that they are all neo-Nazis, for example, or that they all believe that the Holocaust was some sort of "hoax," the unfortunate vocabulary of which evokes images of tinfoil hats and Luftwaffe exoduses to the moon.

    Dalton breaks down the six "death" camps one-by-one, presenting the traditionalist narrative before detailing revisionists' critiques. What we get are not dry, feeble regurgitations of revisionist research; instead we find well-analyzed summaries of the work conducted by contemporary revisionism's strongest researchers. Further, Dalton's information is up-to-date, as he relies much more upon Rudolf, Mattogno, and Graf than he does the groundbreaking work of Arthur Butz. The work's strongest feature, indeed, is its scope: never before has an author written such an accessible yet comprehensive and critical synthesis of revisionist and traditionalist sources.

    That's not to say that the book doesn't make some pretty weird choices. The cover, to my utter confusion, is adorned with a giant Star of David and an even more giant Swastika, as if those are the two "sides" of the Holocaust debate. Since Dalton spends so much time emphasizing that revisionists are not just Nazis, and that traditionalists aren't just Zionist Jews, this is a most bizarre, dissonant flaw; and because these images are emblazoned on the book's front cover, they're difficult to sweep under the rug. But despite this minor yet conspicuous mistake, I think Debating the Holocaust is an important contribution to the current state of revisionist scholarship, and I can only hope that, in future editions (this successful book is already in its third printing), the book's menacing, misleading cover will be replaced by something more befitting its reasonable and inoffensive content.

    In closing, I want to address why this book is so important and timely. To put it bluntly, we needed a valuable addition to the revisionist literature. With Germar Rudolf out of commission, book-length revisionism has lost its most energetic contributor. It is heartening to see Theses and Dissertations Press alive and well, and we should commend them for continuing to bring us the kind of vital scholarship that keeps historical revisionism dynamic and alive. Along with the recent appearance of Inconvenient History, I'm hopeful that Dalton's new volume signals a reawakening of serious revisionist work. After all, the book is a very potent effort at setting the record straight about revisionist claims, and it's done in such a reasonable, straightforward way that you could give the book to your mom without apology. It is the kind of book that resists drowning its reader in statistics, opting instead for a concise, memorable, camp-by-camp analysis of what Dalton calls "the great debate." In Debating the Holocaust, the revisionist community now has the closest thing yet to an encyclopedic handbook of revisionist arguments. This is the work's most remarkable achievement, and I hope it will only mark the very beginning of Thomas Dalton's promising new career in the fight for historical truth.




    -- 

    Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

    An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

    Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish.
    Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is "nothing more than a screen to present chosen views." The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually "think outside of the (Jewish) box." --Michael Santomauro

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
    .

    __,_._,___

    GORDON DUFF: THE GRUDGE, AN INVERTED HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND AMERICA (submission)

     


    From: <gpduf@aol.com>
    Date: Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 7:21 PM
    Subject: GORDON DUFF: THE GRUDGE, AN INVERTED HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND AMERICA (submission)
    To: gpduf@aol.com


    GORDON DUFF: THE GRUDGE, AN INVERTED HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND AMERICA




    --

    Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

    An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

    Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish.
    Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is "nothing more than a screen to present chosen views." The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually "think outside of the (Jewish) box." --Michael Santomauro

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
    MARKETPLACE

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


    Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


    Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

    .

    __,_._,___

    Sept. 20, 2010: "60 Minutes" Recap

     


    View online  | Become a fan of 60 Minutes on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter

    If you missed Sunday's "60 Minutes," here's a recap of our broadcast:

    The Swindler
    To understand how Bernard Madoff could have done what he did, listen to so-called "mini-Madoff" Ponzi schemer Marc Dreier tell Steve Kroft in his first television interview how he scammed $400 million.

    Watch it now.

    Jimmy Carter
    Lesley Stahl speaks to the former president about his new book, "White House Diary," in which he admits mistakes and blames Ted Kennedy for delaying comprehensive health care.

    Watch it now.

    Football Island
    "60 Minutes" goes to American Samoa to find out how a territory with a population less than the capacity of a pro-football stadium sends more players to the NFL than any similarly populated place in America. Scott Pelley reports.

    Watch it now.

    "60 Minutes," every Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT!

    Become a fan of "60 Minutes" on Facebook.






    CBSNews.com



    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
    MARKETPLACE

    Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


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


    Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

    .

    __,_._,___

    Israel seeks release of spy in exchange for extending settlement freeze

     


    From: Manuel
    Date: September 20, 2010 7:10:45 PM EDT
    To: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@gmail.com>
    Subject: Israel seeks release of spy in exchange for extending settlement freeze

    This piece of crap, Jonathan Pollard, is so important to the jews that  they have turned him into a regular bargaining chip.


    It goes like this: "Return to us our man and we will suspend our criminal activities for a few days". 


    It is too bad he was not executed. Pollard did more damage to US intelligence than the Rosenbergs clumsy efforts for the Soviets, multiplied one million times.


    =============================================================


    Binyamin Netanyahu hopes release of spy will appease right wing but US intelligence likely to oppose the deal

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/20/israel-spy-release-settlement-freeze

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
    MARKETPLACE

    Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


    Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


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

    .

    __,_._,___

    Joe Webb Re : Gilad Atzmon: On Jewish Loyalty

     

    The term "demand loyalty" requires a little refinement.

    The first question is, loyalty to what? To the Constitution (The US Constitution), to the President of the US?
    What if the President orders actions that are clearly unlawful or of dubious legality and clearly unconstitutional?
    The second question is, when the President of the US acts against the interest of the United States and in favor of the interest of another power, are the citizens bound to be loyal to that president?
    What about when the President of the US clearly orders actions aimed at destroying, killing, terminating US Armed Services personnel? Translated, when the President of the US orders not to come to the aid of US Navy personnel who, at that moment, are being massacred (murdered) by a foreign power? Who merits the loyalty, the treasonous US President or the sailors?
    Is loyalty to the US Government required when that government sends the US Secretary of State to the United Nations to brandish a 35mm film canister and declare that the US is 45 minutes away from a devastating bio-warfare attack or when another Secretary of State declares that the next smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud?
    Some clarification to these issues would be helpful.
    Manuel Sotil

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity:
    .

    __,_._,___