http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/b59fd41bc0908c09
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
BREAKING NEWS: NEW WIKILEAKS DOCS RELEASED
From: James Damon <jamesmdamon@yahoo.com>
Date: November 28, 2010 1:56:47 PM EST
To: Jamesmdamon@yahoo.com
Subject: The "Holo" Inquisition Loses A Round
The "Holocaust" Inquisition Loses Another Round Written By Kevin Käther
Translated by J M Damon
The original is posted at
http://globalfire.tv/nj/10de/verfolgungen/kevin_verfahrenseinstellung.htm
The German "Holocaust" Inquisition has dropped my trial in order to avoid my questioning the official "Holocaust" expert Prof. Wolfgang Benz!
For seven years now I have been occupied almost exclusively with the so-called "Holocaust" and the findings of Revisionism.
At first I was highly skeptical of the Revisionist movement and so I examined it very closely.
(In the view of my government, this close examination turned out to be my "fatal error!")
It was not long before I realized that guilt neurosis has been induced in the German nation by the "Holocaust" narrative.
I learned that this neurosis, like the entire "Holocaust Industry" that Prof. Norman Finkelstein so accurately describes (both his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the Second World War) has little to do with historical truth and forensic facts.
This insight led me to take a strong interest in "Holocaust" Trials such as those of Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf.
I soon realized that these legalistic proceedings had little to do with truth and legal guidelines but a great deal to do with the predetermined politically correct outcome that characterizes show trials.
All these trials have one thing in common, namely that the courts disallow all the defendants' evidentiary motions pertaining to "Holocaust."
Following the lead of prosecutors in the infamous Nuremberg show trials, collaborationist German courts decree that the factuality of "Holocaust" is "manifestly obvious."
Consequently, forensic evidence that would prove that crimes were committed as alleged is not required of the prosecution; and evidence proving such crimes were not committed is not allowed for the defense.
[In real courts of law, prosecutors have to prove that alleged crimes were actually committed.]
The "Holocaust" Inquisition has grown so brazen that Sylvia Stolz, the defense attorney for Ernst Zündel, was charged by the District Attorney of Mannheim, Andreas Großman, with "Incitement of the Masses" because she insisted on fulfilling her duty as defense attorney.
She defied the German court by submitting motions to introduce forensic evidence that would have proven the innocence of her client, and for this she was sentenced by the phony Mannheim "judges" to three years in prison.
Three years for a German attorney with no prior convictions - for submitting evidentiary motions on behalf of a client who had been hauled before a German court for the crime of questioning the absurd official version of "Holocaust?"
What a crime!
That was just too much for me.
In November 2007 I decided to join Horst Mahler, Dirk Zimmermann and Reinhold Leidenfrost in officially filing charges against ourselves in the attempt to protest present injustice and compel justice from the German courts.
I mailed letters containing CDs of Germar Rudolf's LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST to the following four persons: the District Attorney; Lea Rosh, (the driving force behind construction of the massive "Holocaust" memorial in Berlin); Prof. Wolfgang Benz, instructor emeritus at the Technical University in Berlin and head of the Center for Investigation of Antisemitism; and historian Prof. Ernst Nolte, whose theses launched the great HISTORIKERSTREIT (Historians' Debate) in 1986.
As I reported in my article in the National Journal issue of 14 September 2010, my additional appeal trials took place on 25 October and 1 November 2010.
The second round of my appeal trial came about because the KAMMERGERICHT (Superior Court) of Berlin overturned the first appeal verdict in my self-accusation trial and referred it back to District Court for retrial.
The Superior Court instructed the District Court to call as witnesses all three recipients of Rudolf's LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST.
In its decision to void my verdict, the Superior Court argued as follows:
"Merely passing on to one or a few individuals does not meet the definition of 'dissemination' unless it is determined that these persons in turn passed on the proscribed materials to others...
The contested verdict does not establish such distribution.
Mass distribution is not present here because only three copies of the proscribed literature for three specific recipients are at issue.
Thus the "critical degree" of required number of recipients is clearly not present..."
My new trial began on 25 October with my attorney, Wolfram Nahrath, reading my opening statement.
He stated in my name that I had sent Rudolf's book to the three recipients knowing that the recipients would not publicly display the book.
He also stated that, after sending the proscribed book, I had filed a complaint against myself in order to compel an official resolution of the matter in court.
I gave no answers to the Court concerning other questions, since this explanation represented my opening statement.
Following this statement I had my attorney read a motion calling on the Court to set aside the trial proceedings and submit the trial records to the BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT ("Constitutional" Court) under provisions of Article 100 of Basic Law so that that court could determine whether or in how far Section 130 Paragraph 3 of Penal Code (Punishment for Disputing "Holocaust") is compatible with Basic Law.
The motion was made with reference to the ruling of the First Senate of the "Constitutional" Court dated 4 November 2009, concerning Section 130 of Penal Code (1 BvR2150-08).
I reported on the findings of the First Senate in my article of 14 September 2010. [FOOTNOTE
1: globalfire.tv/nj/10en/persecution/kevins_appeal.htm]
The Court shelved decision on this motion even though the motion concerned a key point in this trial and should have been decided immediately.
Immediately after submission of this motion, the Court called the head of the FÖRDERKREIS DENKMAL FÜR DIE ERMORDETEN JUDEN EUROPAS E.V. (Society to Create A Monument to the Murdered Jews of Europe) Lea Rosh (aka Edith Renate Ursula Rosh) as witness. [FOOTNOTE 2: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lea_Rosh#cite_note-1]
It should be noted that the witness Rosh did not want to appear or make a statement in court.
When summoned to appear, she wrote the following to Berlin District Court:
Dear Mr. Nowak,
I just now learned from the Internet who Kevin Käther is.
I had never heard or read of him before.
Now I learn from the Internet that he allegedly sent me a book.
I never received such a book, therefore I have never read it and can add nothing to clarification of this matter.
Under these circumstances please inquire as to whether I am required to comply with this summons.
Yours truly,
Lea Rosh
She was of course lying before the Court when she said she had not received Rudolf's book – I had sent it to her by registered mail and I have her receipt.
She was clearly afraid of being questioned.
Even under oath, she still maintained that she had not received the book.
Not until the presiding judge pointed out to her that court documents showed she had received the CD and given it along with a note to Berlin Police did she recollect having received it.
Needless to say, she was not punished on account of her false statement, although for anyone else this would have entailed legal consequences.
Frau Rosh denied having disseminated Germar Rudolf's work and I dispensed with further questions, since on basis of what had transpired, it was clear that I could not expect truthful or objective statements from her, and the Court would not punish her false statements.
After that, Professor Ernst Nolte appeared as witness.
Following the usual questions concerning personal information, the Court asked Prof. Nolte whether he had received Rudolf's CD along with my note.
He replied in the affirmative, adding that he lacks computer skills and thus had been unable to read the CD at first.
He said it had not seemed important, since he was already familiar with Rudolf's work GRUNDLAGEN ZUR ZEITGESCHICHTE and had assumed that the book I sent contained roughly the same contents.
After the summons to appear as witness, however, he had printed out the book and read some of it.
Asked whether he had disseminated the proscribed book he added that, in view of its contents, he had most certainly not passed it on.
Prof. Nolte had mostly positive things to say about Germar.
In the context of his works, he characterized Germar not as a negativist but rather a scientist and revisionist, someone who does not strictly deny "Holocaust" but rather examines it from the standpoint of the natural sciences.
Prof. Nolte added that he had never been able to seriously discuss the subject of "Holocaust" with his German colleagues.
He said that the only scientists with whom he had been able to candidly and objectively exchange opinions were foreign historians.
The judge allowed me to ask him only two questions, and so I
I asked the following:
1) "Is the following quotation from your book STREITPUNKTE applicable here?"
"The widely held opinion that any doubt about prevailing concepts of 'Holocaust' with its six million victims is indicative of maliciousness and a contempt for mankind and must therefore be vigorously repressed, is simply unacceptable within the scientiic community.
This is because of the fundamental scientific maxim 'DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM EST' (Everything must be doubted.)
This opinion in support of suppression should be opposed as an attack on scientific freedom."
[FOOTNOTE 3: Ernst Nolte, STREITPUNKTE, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main Berlin 1993, S. 308.
Prof. Nolte then characterized Germar Rudolf as a serious scientist, stated to the Court that criminal enforcement of official historiography is an attack on scientific freedom, and answered my question as follows: "Yes, that is a quotation of mine."
2) I then asked him the following question:
"Do you consider the conviction of Germar Rudolf by Mannheim District Court to be an attack on scientific freedom?"
Prof. Nolte's response: "Yes, I see the conviction of Germar Rudolf as an attack on scientific freedom."
After this I was allowed to ask Prof. Nolte no further questions and I was warned that I could ask only questions having to do with mailing Germar's book.
I pointed out that this was an unreasonable limitation since I had been accused of "Denying Holocaust" and so had a right to defend myself by questioning a renowned historian as witness before the Court.
The Court insisted on limiting my right to question Prof. Nolte and he was then released from testifying under oath.
(I have learned that the National Journal intends to publish the additional questions that I was not allowed to ask Prof. Nolte.)
The presiding judge then read excerpts from my police record as well as previous verdicts, then adjourned the trial with the announcement that Prof. Benz would appear at the next session.
He had been unable to attend this day because of illness.
On the next trial day I had intended to submit my questions as evidentiary motions following testimony from Prof. Benz.
At that time, however, the "Holocaust" Court capitulated, to our great surprise.
When the trial resumed we were informed that the Court had decided that "uncertainties" existed and called the trial off.
The district attorney concurred in this recommendation.
Furthermore Witness Benz had not appeared, which led us to conclude that the dismissal had been decided several days before.
We argued against dismissal of the case, since we wanted an acquittal.
Prof. Wolfgang Benz "chickened out!"
He submitted apologies and the Court dropped the case, obviously in order to protect the "Establishment's" prime "Holocaust" expert from being questioned by Kevin Käther!
Why caused this change of heart on the part of the "Holocaust" Inquisition, in my fourth trial?
The reason is quite clear, actually.
They felt they had to avoid my submitting evidentiary motions and asking their "Holocaust" expert embarassing questions about his "research."
The crux of the matter was that they had to avoid acquittal at all costs, because acquittal would have had the result that Germar Rudolf's book LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST could be legally mailed to scientists throughout Germany.
Given the discontent within the "System," acquittal might have started a chain reaction.
[As Sylvia Stolz remarked during her trial, "Nicht all Richter sind Schurken!" (Not all judges are scoundrels.)]
Furthermore we have to consider that Horst Mahler and Dirk Zimmermann were sentenced to prison on the same charges - Munich District Court sentenced Horst to six years, and Heilbronn Court recently sentenced Dirk Zimmermann to nine months without probation.
The "Holo Inquisition" was clearly aware that they had little to gain and much to lose by continuing my trial; and so, instead of establishing the facts and allowing justice to prevail, they called off the trial.
Needless to say, I am not going to allow this dismissal to stand uncontested.
I will file a Sonderbeschwerde (special complaint) against the decision, since I am insisting on acquittal.
We should take note that, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the "liberation" of Auschwitz, the SÜHNEAKROBAT (penance acrobat) and former president of Federal Republic Horst Koehler announced before the Israeli Parliament:
"Responsibility for Shoal is part of the German identity."
[FOOTNOTE 4: Speech in Israeli Parliament, according to ARD TAGESSCHAU, 2 Feb 2005, 8 pm.]
On the same occasion, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was hawking the same message: "The memory of Shoa is belongs to our national identity." [FOOTNOTE 5: WELT AM SONNTAG, 30 Jan 2005, p. 2.]
If "Shoa Business" (Abba Iban's timeless expression) is to be part of our national identity, we have a right to know the basis of our identity, its intrinsic authenticity.
In conclusion I would like to express my sincere thanks to all who have supported me over the years, stood by my side or simply expressed moral support.
I hope that we can continue to work together, because I will not rest until we have all achieved our common goal, which is freedom and human rights for all nations.
I send regards to friend and foe alike and I end with a quotation from our last great German statesman:
"WIDERSTÄNDE SIND NICHT DA, DAß MAN VOR IHNEN KAPITULIERT, SONDERN DAß MAN SIE BRICHT."
(Obstacles are not placed in our path so that we can capitulate to them, but so that we can overcome them.)
[FOOTNOTE6: Adolf Hitler, MEIN KAMPF", Chapter 2, "Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna," p. 19
Kevin Käther
Berlin, 9th November 2010
****************
The translator is a Germanophilic Germanist who makes German articles about the German plight accessible to those who do not read German.
Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)
1. Israel admits to stealing organs from dead Palestinians (video)
Old story but video seems to be new..4. Gaza Photo Exhibition Attacked by the Jewish Defense League in Paris (video+article)
Members of "The Jewish Defense League" attacked earlier this week a photo exhibition of the German photojournalist Kai Wiedenhöfer "depicting the massacres in the Gaza strip during the Israeli Operation Cast Lead" offensive. The exhibit is being held at the the Modern Art Museum of Paris.
5. The Tide has Turned by Richard Jones
http://a-fistful-of-poetry.blogspot.com/
Tyrants fear the sea,
watch its silent swell with dread,
scan the horizon for the smallest sails,
boats laden only, it is said, with hope.
Tyrants fear the sky, cannot cope
with thoughts of birds' free flight,
keep their eyes wide open,
long into a blacked out night,
knowing that come the dawn,
wings will stretch out for the light.
Tyrants fear the land.
The toe-curling sand is not theirs
to hold. The deepest roots mature,
hidden from sight of their towers,
safe from the assassin's blade,
nurtured by our own blood,
an infinite future of flowers.
This message was sent from Gilad Atzmon
From: "Butz Arthur R."
Date: November 27, 2010 5:36:06 PM EST
To: "Michael Santomauro," <reporternotebook@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: 3326. Derniers développements de l'aff. Williamson
Developments in the Williamson appeal matter during the past week.32 minutes after lawyer Nahrath, a member of the rightist NPD, informed judge Eisvogel that he had been added to Bishop Williamson's legal team, Nahrath received a phone call from Der Spiegel. It is speculated that Der Spiegel's source of news on the new development had to be its friend lawyer Krah, an associate of the lawyer Lossman who resigned when Nahrath was added to the legal team. In order to placate the SSPX, Williamson said he will drop his lawyer Nahrath, and his appeal, and asked that the SSPX pay his fine. SSPX Superior Fellay agreed but the next day Fellay publicly denounced Williamson and repeated his order to Williamson to drop Nahrath or be ejected from the SSPX. Then Williamson told Fellay that he would continue his appeal but drop Nahrath, reasoning that "A willow will bend whereas an oak will snap and break." Through all of this Williamson never actually spoke to Fellay. Williamson retained a new lawyer on Nov. 26, politically neutral and with a good professional reputation, but thus far not publicly identified.Begin forwarded message:From: Bocage <bocage@club-internet.fr>Date: November 27, 2010 1:55:36 PM CSTTo: Bocage <bocage@club-internet.fr>Subject: 3326. Derniers développements de l'aff. WilliamsonVoici les derniers développements de l'affaire Williamson-Nahrath, que nous
recevons ce jour d'une source entièrement fiable. Nous invitons nos
correspondants à se reporter à notre dernier message concernant Mgr Richard
Williamson (n° 3320 du 25/11):
<START>
Affaire Williamson- Nahrath
Vendredi 26 novembre
Une forte personnalité du révisionnisme avait assisté au procès du jeune
Kevin Käther en Allemagne où elle avait pu voir l'avocat Me Nahrath en
pleine action. A son retour, cette personne informe Mgr Williamson, lui
décrit l'excellente performance de cet avocat et lui conseille de l'engager:
"That is the man for you!" [C'est l'homme qu'il vous faut!] L'évêque
contacte Me Nahrath qui accepte le mandat. Mgr Williamson, qui ignore
totalement les engagements politiques passés et présents de l'avocat, ne
s'attend absolument pas à la réaction de la presse et à la campagne de
diabolisation qui va se déclencher sous peu.
Il contacte alors Me Matthias Lossman pour le mettre au courant de son
choix. Celui-ci refuse de travailler avec un avocat de droite. Mgr
Williamson le remercie donc et lui retire son mandat.
Me Nahrath informe la juge, Mme Eisvogel, le jeudi 18 novembre, sur son
fax privé, que Me Lossman dépose son mandat et que lui le prend. La juge
comprend le changement et accepte de reporter le procès pour que Me Nahrath
puisse se familiariser avec le dossier.
Trente-deux minutes exactement après l'échange de faxes entre la juge,
Mme Eisvogel et Me Nahrath, ce dernier reçoit un coup de téléphone du
"Spiegel" qui lui demande ce qu'il en est. Qui donc pouvait savoir que Me
Nahrath venait d'être engagé sinon Me Lossman ainsi que son collègue Me Krah
dont les bonnes relations avec le "Spiegel" ne sont pas un secret? La presse
se saisit de l'affaire et lance une campagne médiatique de diabolisation.
Dès que la nouvelle de l'engagement du nouvel avocat explose dans la
presse, Mgr Fellay, de Rome où il se trouve, contacte un prêtre en Irlande
le jeudi soir même: "Il (Mgr Williamson) a engagé un avocat néo-nazi, je
vais devoir le renvoyer!" Le prêtre propose de se rendre dès le lendemain
matin, vendredi 19 novembre, auprès de Mgr Williamson pour tenter d'arranger
la situation. L'évêque déjeune avec le prêtre et envoie à Mgr Fellay au
début de l'après-midi de ce vendredi un courriel dans lequel il déclare que,
pour le bien de la Fraternité et rien d'autre, il renonce à poursuivre son
appel devant les tribunaux allemands, et qu'il renonce donc à employer Me
Nahrath devant la menace d'exclusion. Il ajoute que si Menzigen [siège de la
Fraternité] voulait payer l'amende ce serait une gentillesse. Réponse
immédiate de Mgr Fellay: "Deo gratias! On paiera l'amende."
Le lendemain, samedi 20 novembre, malgré cet échange de courriels dans
lesquels Mgr Williamson avait renoncé à la fois à son appel et à son avocat
le vendredi 19 novembre, Mgr Fellay fulmine en public, humilie l'évêque
devant le monde entier avec la publication sur Internet du fameux Communiqué
de la Maison Généralice, signé par l'abbé Thouvenot, secrétaire général de
la FSSPX, sur DICI, l'organe public et officiel de la FSSPX: "Mgr Fellay a
intimé l'ordre formel à Mgr Williamson de revenir sur cette décision (de se
laisser défendre par un avocat ouvertement lié à la mouvance dite néo-nazie
en Allemagne) (...) La désobéissance à cet ordre ferait encourir à Mgr
Williamson l'exclusion de la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie X", signé:
Abbé Christian Thouvenot, secrétaire général, Menzingen, le 20 novembre 2010
[voy. n/message du 21/11 intitulé "La Fraternité SSPX menace Mgr
Williamson"]. Mgr Williamson contacte alors à nouveau Mgr Fellay par
courriel pour lui dire qu'il renonce à l'avocat mais qu'il continue avec
l'appel; ces décisions sont acceptées par courriel par le supérieur qui
reconnaît à l'évêque le droit de se défendre.
Le lundi 22 novembre, Mgr Williamson essaie en vain de téléphoner par
trois fois à Mgr Fellay pour obtenir des explications concernant le
Communiqué de l'abbé Thouvenot. Un autre communiqué de la FSSPX lui apprend
que Mgr Fellay a fait ces déclarations publiques pour que le monde sache que
la FSSPX n'aime pas les néo-nazis! Dans toute cette affaire Mgr Williamson
n'est jamais parvenu à parler à Mgr Fellay.
Suite à l'intervention du prêtre envoyé d'Irlande le vendredi, puis à
l'ultimatum brutal et inattendu de l'abbé Thouvenot le lendemain, Mgr
Williamson se sépare donc de Me Nahrath à l'amiable. Bien que ces décisions
puissent apparaître comme une démission, le proverbe suivant
n'exprimerait-il pas la philosophie de l'évêque: "A willow will bent whereas
an oak will snap and break"? [Le chêne casse, alors que le roseau plie]. Il
faut entendre par là que Mgr Williamson s'est soumis parce qu'il refuse de
se faire expulser de la FSSPX: en effet, il pense qu'il peut faire plus de
bien à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur. Bien que la question du révisionnisme
soit très importante, rester dans la Fraternité est primordial. Il avait
choisi Me Nahrath en toute bonne foi, la personne qui l'avait conseillé
étant persuadée que c'était l'avocat qui convenait grâce à sa valeur
professionnelle et à son expérience. Il était à cent lieues de se douter des
réactions violentes et immédiates de la presse.
Cet après-midi, vendredi 26 novembre 2010, Mgr Williamson a confié son
mandat à un nouvel avocat. Celui-ci est politiquement neutre et sa présence
ne devrait "offenser" personne. Il a en outre une excellente réputation
professionnelle. Ayant accepté le mandat, il doit maintenant prendre
connaissance du dossier et puis contacter la juge. Une nouvelle date pour le
procès en appel sera alors fixée.
<END>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8165004/Berlusconi-babes-fight-as-coalition-looks-shaky.htmlItalyBerlusconi babes fight as coalition looks shakyAs Italians wonder if the era of Silvio Berlusconi is coming to an end, the women he promoted fight between themselvesAlessandra Mussolini (left) and Mara Carfagna have been trading insults through the press Photo: REUTERSBy Nick Squires in Rome 6:14PM GMT 27 Nov 2010He famously once declared that Left-wing Italian women were less attractive than their Right-wing counterparts. But having proved his point by packing his government with ex-beauty queens and showgirls, Silvio Berlusconi is discovering that good looks do not necessarily go with good tempers.In the latest crisis to hit the scandal-ridden prime minister, his tottering centre-right coalition is under threat after a vicious catfight between two of his most glamourous female allies. In one corner is Mara Carfagna, 34, a former topless model who Mr Berlusconi - without any apparent sense of irony - appointed equal opportunities minister two years ago. And in the other is the fiery Alessandra Mussolini, 47, an MP who is not only the grand-daughter of the fascist dictator but also the niece of Sophia Loren.The trouble started when Miss Mussolini, herself a former actress and two-time Playboy cover girl, took a photo on her mobile phone of Miss Carfagna talking in parliament to Italo Bocchino, a member of a group of rebel MPs who have split from Mr Berlusconi's coalition.Miss Mussolini then distributed it to Italian newspapers, accusing Miss Carfagna of being a "traitor" to the government and of flirting with the rebels, who are loyal to Mr Berlusconi's main rival, Gianfranco Fini.However, Miss Carfagna, who comes from the Campania region near Naples, gave as good as she got. Drawing on Naple's rich and earthy street dialect, which is so impenetrable to other Italians that it almost ranks as a different language, she hurled a choice insult, calling Miss Mussolini una vajassa.The slur had Italians running to their dictionaries, where they found that it loosely translates as "screeching fishwife" - the kind of strident, pugnacious woman who hails from Naples' notoriously rundown, Mafia-ridden Spanish Quarter.Miss Mussolini, a former MEP, was so offeneded that she has now threatened to boycott a crucial confidence vote in parliament next month, on which Mr Berlusconi's future depends, unless she receives a public apology from Miss Carfagna."I'm amazed that this comes from the minister for equal opportunities, it's really the pot calling the kettle black," the grand-daughter of Il Duce said.Not content with that, she then rubbed salt into the wound by making a very public show of kissing a senior member of the government with whom Miss Carfagna has quarrelled – an implicit dig at the minister's alleged disloyalty. "It was only a political kiss, not a real smacker. There were no tongues," she added.The unedifying spectacle, which has dominated Italian newspaper headlines all week, seems more worthy of a pair of bitchy schoolgirls in a playground scrap than a pair of adult parliamentarians. But it has underlined the escalating tensions within the camp of Mr Berlusconi, who was quoted in 2008 as saying that when he looked round parliament, he found that female politicians from the right were "more beautiful".Aside from the spirited exchange of insults, Miss Carfagna made a couple of valid political points. She criticised the government's lacklustre response to the rubbish crisis in her home region of Campania, which has choked Naples with thousands of tons of festering filth and become an international embarrassment for Italy.She also complained about the lack of debate within the government, accusing Mr Berlusconi of governing with "dictatorial methods" – a criticism that has been made before by several dissidents, who say the 73-year-old premier tries to run Italy like part of his multi-billion pound business empire.Such was Miss Carfagna's dissatisfaction that early this week she announced her resignation as both a minister and an MP, amid rumours that she wanted to put herself forward as a future mayor of Naples.After days of behind-the-scenes negotiations, Mr Berlusconi appeared to have sweet-talked her into staying. "It's all sorted out with Mara," he said on Thursday. "I spoke to her for two hours, she understood and she's not quitting,"But making up with his former protégée is the least of the prime minister's worries. On Monday another one of his ministers faces a confidence vote which will be seen as a barometer of support for the coalition.Opposition parties say Sandro Bondi, the minister for culture, should be held responsible for the parlous state of Pompeii, the ancient Roman city where the famed House of the Gladiators crumbled into dust earlier this month, in a further humiliation for Italy's international image.As the government descends into chaos after the resignation of four ministers this month, the economy is stuck in the doldrums, the public debt burden has reached 120 per cent of GDP and the prime minister's approval ratings have slumped to 35 per cent – the lowest level since he was re-elected in May 2008. In the past last month Mr Berlusconi has also been accused of sleeping with an escort girl and of intervening with police on behalf of a Moroccan-born teenage belly-dancer who goes by the stage name of Ruby the Heart Stealer.Students protesting against funding cuts have also clashed with police around the country, occupying the Colosseum in Rome and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.There is a feeling that Mr Berlusconi is fiddling while not just Rome, but the whole country, is metaphorically engulfed by flames, and that Italy could be witnessing the emperor's last days.Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, th[p0-e head of Ferrari and one of Italy's most respected businessmen, said on Wednesday: "The one-man show is over."The strain is beginning to tell on Mr Berlusconi – he looks physically drawn, and earlier this week phoned in to a live current affairs programme, ranting about his government's supposed achievements and attacking perceived bias by RAI, the state broadcaster.The real crunch for the media baron will come on December 14, when the government faces votes of no confidence in both houses of parliament.Defeat could trigger Mr Berlusconi's resignation and new elections – more than two years before his mandate is supposed to expire in 2013.But his past as a salesman and entrepreneur makes him a formidable political campaigner, and few would rule out his chances of bouncing back into power against all the odds.
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131424878/how-much-does-birth-order-shape-our-lives&sc=nl&cc=es-20101128
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
