Christ preached Love and Truth above all. In contrast, Judaism, Masonry, Socialism, Zionism, Islam and similar ideologies put Power above everything else.
Why do Christians give out free bibles all over the globe — even risking death, imprisonment, torture — but Communists, Masons, Jews, and Muslims constantly try to keep people from reading their scriptures? Why did the ADL pressure Random House (one of the few big publishing companies not run by Jews) from publishing a complete 21-volume Tamud? Because it might cause “anti-Semitism” or because goyim are supposed to be killed for reading the “Torah”?
Judaic anti-Christian bigotry culminated in the Talmud (The American Heritage Dictionary: “the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.”).When Christian scholars periodically obtained copies of the Talmud, Talmudic scribes practiced Taqiyya, and censored their own “Holy Books” by using the name Balaam to denote Jesus, and by changing “goyim/goy/gentile/Christian” to “Egyptian, heathen, Cuthean, idolater, min, minim”. In The Jewish Encyclopedia, under “Balaam”: “The pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.” The Soncino edition of the Talmud is full of footnotes like, “Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy…”:
Only Jews are human. Gentiles are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a-114b.)
A Gentile who pries into the Torah is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not theirs. (Sanhedrin 59a)
For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty. (Sanhedrin 57a)
Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed. (Babylonian Talmud)
Balaam [Jesus] is raised from the dead and being punished in boiling hot semen. Those who mock the words of the Jewish sages and sin against Israel are boiled in hot excrement. (57a Gittin)
If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)
Gentiles’ flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
If a Gentile hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is hitting God. (Sanhedrin 58b.)
If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full. (Baba Kamma 37b.)
If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen it does not have to be returned. (Baba Mezia 24a; Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b.)
God will not spare a Jew who ‘marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean … (Sanhedrin 76a.)
What a Jew obtains by theft from a Gentile he may keep. (Sanhedrin 57a.)
Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has ‘exposed their money to Israel.’ (Baba Kamma 37b.)
Jews may use lies (’subterfuges’) to circumvent a Gentile. (Baba Kamma 113a.)
All Gentile children are animals. (Yebamoth 98a.)
Gentile girls raped by Jews must be executed, 3 year-olds are fuckable and marriagable, baby girls can be fucked without damaging their virginity. [See below]
Gentiles prefer sex with cows. (Abodah Zarah 22a-22b.)
The vessels of Gentiles, do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them? (Abodah Zarah 67b.)
Please note that R. Simon ben Yochai did not say “Tob shebe goyyim harog” “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed” because he was persecuted. He wrote it in the context of: “Even the best of snakes should have its head crushed; even the best of women is a sorceress; even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.”
All of this is what Jesus Christ referred to when he said (believe it or not, while we still live in a somewhat free country) that the Pharisees “nullified the law”, hate God, and lead the Jews to Hell.
As I said, it seems to me that most Jews (in general) respect power above all. I believe this is because Jews don’t understand the Torah.
They seem to think that the record of Joseph in Egypt, the story of Jacob and Esau, and so on, are records of how clever and powerful and undefeatable Jews are. In fact the Bible is mostly a record of how the Israelites first knew God but constantly rejected him.
In other words Genesis is not intended as a “plan for living”. It’s more like a record of crimes/errors “to be avoided in future”. I believe that the likes of the Rothschilds (and their illegitimate brother Schiff) took the following as a plan-of-action in Britain, Germany, America, Palestine, Russia, etc:
Genesis 47
[Refuge requested, granted; subterfuge; betrayal; profiteering from misery; exploitation; fiscal enslavement of host folk on behalf of monarchy, idolators and oligarchy.]
Then Joseph went and told Pharaoh, and said, “My father and my brothers, their flocks and their herds and all that they possess, have come from the land of Canaan; and indeed they are in the land of Goshen.” And he took five men from among his brothers and presented them to Pharaoh. Then Pharaoh said to his brothers, “What is your occupation?”
And they said to Pharaoh, “Your servants are shepherds, both we and also our fathers.” And they said to Pharaoh, “We have come to dwell in the land, because your servants have no pasture for their flocks, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. Now therefore, please let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen.”
Then Pharaoh spoke to Joseph, saying, “Your father and your brothers have come to you. The land of Egypt is before you. Have your father and brothers dwell in the best of the land; let them dwell in the land of Goshen. And if you know any competent men among them, then make them chief herdsmen over my livestock.”
Then Joseph brought in his father Jacob and set him before Pharaoh; and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. Pharaoh said to Jacob, “How old are
And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The days of the years of my pilgrimage are one hundred and thirty years; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.” So Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from before Pharaoh.
And Joseph situated his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded. Then Joseph provided his father, his brothers, and all his father’s household with bread, according to the number in their families.
Now there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very severe, so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished because of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.
So when the money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence? For the money has failed.”
Then Joseph said, “Give your livestock, and I will give you bread for your livestock, if the money [that we took] is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses, the flocks, the cattle of the herds, and for the donkeys. Thus he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock that year. When that year had ended, they came to him the next year and said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is gone; my lord also has our herds of livestock. There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our lands. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be slaves of Pharaoh; give us seed, that we may live and not die, that the land may not be desolate.”
Then Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. So the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he moved them into the cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt to the other end. Only the land of the priests he did not buy; for the priests had rations allotted to them by Pharaoh, and they ate their rations which Pharaoh gave them; therefore they did not sell their lands.
Then Joseph said to the people, “Indeed I have bought you and your land this day for Pharaoh. Look, here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land [that you formerly owned. And it shall come to pass in the harvest that you shall give one-fifth to Pharaoh. Four-fifths shall be your own, as seed for the field and for your food, for those of your households and as food for your little ones.”
So they said, “You have saved our lives; let us find favor in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s slaves.” And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth, except for the land of the priests only, which did not become Pharaoh’s.
So Israel dwelt [and exploited] in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions there and grew and multiplied exceedingly.
+ + +
Genesis 25:
Jacob cooked a stew; and Esau came in from the field, and he was weary. And Esau said to Jacob, “Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am weary.” Therefore his name was called Edom. But Jacob said [like a greedy bastard], “Sell me your birthright as of this day.”
And Esau said, “Look, I am about to die; so what is this birthright to me?”
Then Jacob said, “Swear to me as of this day.”
So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. And Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils; then he ate and drank, arose, and went his way [the arrogant, greedy, uncharitable, smug bastard.]. Thus Esau despised his birthright. [and Jacob despised his brother]
+ + +
Genesis 27:
Jacob said [lied] to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn [in fact, I'm a lying bastard]; I have done just as you told me; please arise, sit and eat of my game, that your soul may bless me.” … Then he said, “ Are you really my son Esau?”
He said, “I am [a lying bastard].”
… Isaac said to him, “Who are you?”
So he said, “I am your son, your firstborn, Esau.” Then Isaac trembled exceedingly, and said, “Who? Where is the one who hunted game and brought it to me? I ate all of it before you came, and I have blessed him—and indeed he shall be blessed.” [For the spirit of Truth giveth life and the letter of the Law doth kill.]
When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said to his father, “Bless me—me also, O my father!”
But he said, “Your brother came with deceit and has taken away your blessing.” [So tough luck!] And Esau said, “Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright, and now look, he has taken away my blessing!” And he said, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?”
Then Isaac answered and said to Esau, “Indeed I have made him your master, and all his brethren I have given to him as servants; with grain and wine I have sustained him. What shall I do now for you, my son?”
And Esau said to his father, “Have you only one blessing, my father? Bless me—me also, O my father!” And Esau lifted up his voice and wept.
Then Isaac his father answered and said to him:
“ Behold, your dwelling shall be of the fatness of the earth, And of the dew of heaven from above.
“By your sword you shall live, And you shall serve your brother; And it shall come to pass, when you become restless, That you shall break his yoke from your neck.” [Esau's blessing? Wow! Is Genesis "anti-Semitic"?]
Fr Adrian, at age 95, has been a witness to the last century’s masonic culls, the anti-Christ Communist and Fascist movements sponsored by the Satanic Western elites to wreak havoc on the world, to then attempt to bring about “ordo ab chao”. Recognizing that their bloodlust is only beginning, the Father predicts even more trouble to come:
Are American Black people the most manipulated people on Earth?
Owned by the anti-Christ media; slaves to Masons; slaves to New World Order (”order out of chaos”),used to promote genocide, murder, rape, doping; calling themselves “niggers”; promoting masonic ideas:
Cull, kill, abort, rape, and manipulate the inferiors.
Worship money, power, immoral sex, drugging.
Curse God, spit on Christ, blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Worship Satan, Lucifer, the Devil.
The New Slavery is in a way worse than the Old Slavery, because this time the soul is enslaved, willingly of course. Satan can only work through invitation.
You know Satan must rule America now, with infanticidal bastards like Obama praised as a messiah. Black people have been targeted by Satan, and the one’s who have sold their souls are promoted by Babylon. Arrogant black porch masons think they’re against the KKK, when the KKK is just another masonic front. They think they’re “fighting Babylon” in The Nation of Islam, which is just another Masonic front, like B’nai B’rith. They think they have choices between Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright, Obama … “which way shall we go?” … Guess what. The Rockefellers and the Freemasons have got every base covered! East Coast or west Coast? Guess what. Gangsta Rap or Quincy Jazzonez? Guess what. 50 Cent or Michael Jackson? Guess what. Democrat or Republican? (Okay, I know that’s a silly question, I know the Dems own that plantation, for now.) Guess what. Gen. Colin Powell or the Gangs? Guess what. All bought and paid for.
From one of the comments on that video on YouTube:
“Satan doesn’t discriminate. He hates ALL human beings. Equally.
So Satan will use WHOMEVER he can, WHATEVER he can, HOWEVER he can & WHENEVER he can to seperate us from God. Male or female. Black, white, Jewish, Chinese…
We better get this “white man is the debil” stuff out of us (for those who think like that.)
Do people *really* think that Satan’s going to approach us in red holding a pitchfork?
Satan is smooth, intelligent and VERY careful in his attempts to prey on us.”
See how smart and decent these kids are, and imagine what they’ll all be doing in ten years, how they’ll be thinking, and where they’ll be [it couldn't be embedded]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYqTvRixDkU
Chappelle’s talking to the wrong witch. She’s like “Don’t say it! Don’t say it!”
Rhihanna’s Possession:
Hip Hop & Freemasonry: Culture Creation & The Shape of Things to Come
1. Culture Creation and The Grand Master’s Flash
2. From Family-Life to Thug-life, From G-Unit to Army-Unit
3. Tupac Shakur: Human Values & Losing Sight of What’s Important
4. Empty People & Their Secret Societies: A New Age for a New Order
5. The Shape of Things to Come I – Sailing Your Soul for Holly – Weird – O’s
6. The Shape of Things to Come II – Predictive Programming Explained
7. The Shape of Things to Come III – The Electric Man
“Who is in prison now, me or the Israelis? I am free.”
Mordechai’s father was a rabbi, and Mordechai was raised to believe that only Jews are made “in the image and likeness of God”, and that Jews are in every way superior to all non-Jews, who are only put on Earth to serve the Jews.
However, Mordechai rejected these Talmudic teachings of Jewish supremacism, and was baptized as a Christian in Australia in 1986.
As a scientist, Mordechai had worked on Israel’s then secret production of nuclear missiles. Realizing that these missiles were being produced with the collusion of France, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and with the aid of Jewish spies throughout the world; and discovering that their targets included Rome and other European capitals, and realizing that the response to an attack on Israel from any one enemy would be the slaughter of most of the population of the Middle East (Cairo, Tehran, Damascus, Beirut, etc) as well as much of the population of Europe; Mordechai decided to blow the whistle on this Satanic scheme, and spoke to British newspapers.
Israeli agents abducted Mordechai in Italy, smuggled him to Israel, where he was held in solitary confinement after a secret trial.
Vanunu revealed details of his detention by writing on his hand: “Vanunu M was hijacked in Rome. ITL. 30.9.86, 21:00. Came to Rome by fly BA504.”
From Wikipedia:
Abduction
While in Sydney, he met Peter Hounam, a journalist from The Sunday Times in London. In early September 1986, Vanunu flew to London with Hounam, and in violation of his non-disclosure agreement, revealed to the Sunday Times his knowledge of the Israeli nuclear programme, including photographs he had secretly taken at the Dimona site.
The Sunday Times insisted on verifying Vanunu’s story with leading nuclear weapon experts, including former U.S. nuclear weapons designer Theodore Taylor and former British designer Frank Barnaby, who agreed that Vanunu’s story was factual and correct. Vanunu gave detailed descriptions of lithium-6 separation required for the production of tritium, an essential ingredient of fusion-boosted fission bombs. While both experts concluded that Israel might be making such single-stage boosted bombs, Vanunu, whose work experience was limited to material (not component) production, gave no specific evidence that Israel was making two-stage thermonuclear bombs, such as neutron bombs. Vanunu described the plutonium processing used, giving a production rate of about 30 kg per year, and stated that Israel used about 4 kg per weapon. From this information it was possible to estimate that Israel had sufficient plutonium for about 150 nuclear weapons.
Vanunu states in his letters that he intended to share the money received from the newspaper (for the information) with the Anglican Church of Australia. Apparently, frustrated by the delay while Hounam was completing his research, Vanunu approached a rival newspaper, the tabloid Sunday Mirror, whose owner was Robert Maxwell. In 1991, a self-described former Mossad officer or government translator named Ari Ben-Menashe alleged that Maxwell had tipped off the Mossad, possibly through British secret services, about Vanunu. It is also possible that they were alerted by enquiries made to Israelis or to the Israeli Embassy in London by Sunday Mirror journalists.
The Israeli government decided to detain Vanunu, but determined that to avoid harming its good relationship with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and not to risk confrontation with British Intelligence, Vanunu should be persuaded to leave UK territory under his own volition. Masquerading as an American tourist called “Cindy”, Israeli Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov befriended Vanunu, and on 30 September persuaded him to fly to Rome with her on a holiday. Once in Rome, Mossad agents illegally drugged and carried him to Israel on a freighter, beginning what was to be more than a decade of solitary confinement in Israeli prisons.
On 5 October, the Sunday Times published the information it had revealed, and estimated that Israel had produced more than 100 nuclear warheads.
Imprisonment
Vanunu was put on trial in Israel on charges of treason and espionage. The trial, held in secret, took place in the District Court in Jerusalem before Chief Justice Eliahu Noam and judges Zvi Tal and Shalom Brener. He was not permitted contact with the media but he wrote the details of his abduction (or “hijacking” as he put it) on the palm of his hand, and while being transported he held his hand against the van’s window so that waiting journalists could get the information.
On 27 February, 1988, the court sentenced him to 18 years’ imprisonment from the date of his capture. The Israeli government refused to release the transcript of the court case until, after the threat of legal action, it agreed to let censored extracts be published in Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli newspaper, in late 1999.
The death penalty in Israel is restricted to special circumstances. In 2004, former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit told Reuters that the option of extrajudicial execution was considered in 1986, but rejected because “Jews don’t do that to other Jews.”
The Israeli government kept him in near total isolation for more than 11 years, allegedly out of concern that he might reveal more Israeli nuclear secrets and because he was still bound by the contract that swore him to secrecy on the subject. While in prison, he refused psychiatric treatment.
Many critics argue that Vanunu had no additional information that would pose a real security threat to Israel, and that the Israeli government’s real motivation is a desire to avoid political embarrassment and financial complications for itself and allies such as the United States. By not acknowledging possession of nuclear weapons, Israel avoids a US legal prohibition on funding countries which proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Such an admission would prevent Israel from receiving, as it does now, more than $3 billion each year in military and other aid from Washington.
Ray Kidder, then a senior American nuclear scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has said:
“On the basis of this research and my own professional experience, I am ready to challenge any official assertion that Mr. Vanunu possesses any technical nuclear information not already made public.”
His last appeal against his conviction, to the Supreme Court of Israel in 1990, failed.
While in prison, Vanunu says, he took part in small acts of rebellion, such as refusing to talk with the guards, reading only English-language newspapers, and watching only BBC television. “He is the most stubborn, principled, and tough person I have ever met,” said his lawyer, Avigdor Feldman.
Release and asylum applications
In 2004, shortly before his scheduled release, Vanunu remained defiant under interrogation by the security service, Shin Bet. In recordings of the interview made public after his release, he is heard saying “I am neither a traitor nor a spy, I only wanted the world to know what was happening.” He also said, “We don’t need a Jewish state. There needs to be a Palestinian state. Jews can, and have lived anywhere, so a Jewish State is not necessary.”
Vanunu was released from prison on 21 April 2004. He indicated a desire to completely dissociate himself from Israel, initially refusing to speak in Hebrew, and planning to move to Europe or the US as soon as the Israeli government would permit him to do so.
A number of restrictions were placed upon Vanunu by Israeli authorities, who stated their reason was fear of him spreading further state secrets and that he is still bound by his non-disclosure agreement. These stipulate that he must inform the authorities of his place of residence and his movements between cities, and may not leave the country. These restrictions were extended to April 2006,[24] and then April 2007, due to his violations of court rulings. While a court found in 2005 that he should be free to go to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, the 2006 restrictions explicitly forbade him to visit either, reversing the court’s initial decision. In addition, Vanunu is not allowed to meet with foreigners or contact them by phone or e-mail, enter or approach any embassy, visit any port of entry, or come within 500 metres of any international border crossing.
Vanunu says that his knowledge is now outdated and he has nothing more he could possibly reveal that is not already widely known. Despite the stated restrictions, since his release Vanunu has freely given interviews to the foreign press, including a live phone interview to BBC Radio Scotland.
On 22 April 2004, Vanunu asked the Norwegian government for a Norwegian passport and asylum in Norway for “humanitarian reasons,” according to Norwegian news agencies. He also sent applications to other countries, and stated that he would accept asylum in any country because he fears for his life. Former conservative Norwegian Prime Minister Kåre Willoch asked the conservative government to give Vanunu asylum, and the University of Tromsø offered him a job. On 9 April, 2008, it was revealed that Vanunu’s request for asylum in Norway was rejected in 2004 by Erna Solberg, Minister of Local Government in the coalition government lead by then Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. While the Norwegian foreigner directorate (State Department) (UDI) had been prepared to grant Vanunu asylum, it was suddenly decided that the application could not be accepted because Vanunu had applied for it from outside of the borders of Norway. An unclassified document revealed that Solberg and the government considered that extracting Vanunu from Israel might be seen as an action against Israel and thereby unfitting the Norwegian government’s tradition role as a friend of Israel and as a political player in the Middle East. Since the information has been revealed, Solberg has rejected criticism and defended her decision.
Vanunu’s application for asylum in Sweden has also been rejected on the grounds that Sweden, like Norway does not accept absentee asylum applications. He also unsuccessfully requested asylum in the Republic of Ireland, which would require him to first be allowed to leave Israel. He has not applied for asylum in his native Morocco.
In 2006, Amnesty International’s British branch chief, Keith Allen, wrote that Microsoft handed over the details of Vanunu’s Hotmail email account by alluding that he was being investigated for espionage. This happened before a court order had been obtained.
International calls for his freedom of movement and freedom of speech made by organizations supporting Vanunu have been either ignored or rejected by Israel.
On 15 May 2008, the Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition for Vanunu was released. It calls on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law and allow Vanunu to travel to, live and work in Norway.
Arrests and hearings
Vanunu was denied parole at a hearing in May 1998. Five years later, parole was again refused. At this parole hearing, Vanunu’s lawyer Avigdor Feldman maintained that his client had no more secrets and should be freed. But the prosecution argued that the imminent war with Iraq would preclude his release. After the hearing Mr Feldman said:
“The prosecutor said that if Vanunu were released, the Americans would probably leave Iraq and go after Israel and Israel’s nuclear weapons – which I found extremely ridiculous.”
The real force blocking Vanunu’s release who had been known only as “Y” was exposed in 2001 as Yehiyel Horev, the head of Mossad’s nuclear and military secrets branch. Following his release in 2004, Vanunu appeared in Israeli courts on numerous occasions on charges of having violated the terms of his release. He was arrested and detained for attempting to go to Bethlehem, on at least one occasion his room in St. George’s Cathedral was raided by policemen and his belongings were confiscated.
On 11 November 2004, Vanunu was arrested by the International Investigations Unit of the Israeli police at around 9am while eating breakfast. The arrest stemmed from an ongoing probe examining suspicions of leaking national secrets and violating legal rulings since his release from prison. Police officers wearing bulletproof vests and carrying machine guns entered into the walled compound of St. George’s Anglican Church in East Jerusalem, where Vanunu had been renting a room since his release. Police removed papers and a computer from his room. After a few hours’ detention, Vanunu was put under house arrest, which was to last seven days.
On 24 December 2004 in a vehicle marked as belonging to the foreign press, Vanunu was apprehended by Israeli Police while he was attempting to enter the West Bank in violation of his release restrictions (see above), allegedly to attend mass at the Church of the Nativity. After posting bail of 50,000 NIS, he was released into five-day house arrest.
On 26 January 2005 the BBC reported that its Jerusalem deputy bureau chief, Simon Wilson, was banned from Israel after he refused to submit interview material made with Vanunu to Israeli censors. Vanunu gave the interview in violation of court orders. Wilson was allowed to return to Israel on 12 March 2005 after signing an apology letter acknowledging that he defied the law.
On 17 March 2005 Vanunu was charged with 21 counts of “contravening a lawful direction” (maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment per count) and one count of “attempting to contravene a lawful direction.”
On 18 November 2005 Vanunu was arrested at the al-Ram checkpoint north of Jerusalem as he was returning by bus from the West Bank. The Israeli authorities say Vanunu’s travel ban includes visits to the Palestinian territories.
On 13 April 2007 Vanunu was informed that the Israeli government has continued his house arrest in Jerusalem and has renewed all the restrictions against him, for the fourth time and third year of detention in east Jerusalem.
On 30 April 2007 Vanunu was convicted of violating the order barring foreign contacts and traveling outside Jerusalem.
In July 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to a further six months imprisonment for speaking to foreigners and traveling to Bethlehem. The court’s sentence was unexpected, and even the prosecution expected the court to hand down a suspended sentence, meant solely as a deterrent. Following his sentence, Vanunu commented that his conviction proved that Israel was still ruled, in effect, by the British Mandate because the law under which he was convicted is from that era. “Maybe I need to turn to the Queen or to Tony Blair in order to grant me justice,” he said.
While having dinner at the American Colony in East Jerusalem with a foreigner, Vanunu was arrested for the second time on a Christmas Eve.
On 7 January 2008, the day before his appeal against the above sentence was to begin, Israel instead re-sentenced him to six months of community service.
On 19 February 2008 Vanunu wrote: “The court hearing today Feb. 19 was again postponed, because of a small snow here. We are waiting for the next hearing date” which would be “soon.” Vanunu’s appeal hearing was scheduled to resume on 23 March 2008 but on that date he learned that it was rescheduled to 13 May 2008.
On 7 April 2008 Vanunu learned that Israel had renewed the restrictions against him for the fifth year. On 9 April 2008 it was reported that Norway had joined Sweden, Canada and Denmark in refusing asylum to Vanunu. [That's strange; they all have no problem granting asylum to Muslim terrorists.]
On 9 April 2008 unclassified documents revealed that the former Norwegian coalition government led by former prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik denied Vanunu asylum in 2004 as a supportive action to the Israeli government.
On 13 May 2008 Vanunu wrote that although three judges attempted to convince the Government Lawyer to offer community service in East Jerusalem, it was denied. Vanunu’s appeal against his six months jail sentence was set to resume on 8 July 2008.
On 15 May 2008 the Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called upon the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.
On 8 July 2008 Israeli judges announced that they would delay their decision until September.
On 23 September 2008 the Jerusalem District Court announced: “In light of (Vanunu’s) ailing health and the absence of claims that his actions put the country’s security in jeopardy, we believe his sentence should be reduced.” Vanunu said his health is fine and that, “The issue is about my right to be free, my right to speak and my right to leave the state.”
In October 2008, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond called for Vanunu’s release, saying:
“The Scottish Government is well aware of the campaign by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and supports the lifting of all restrictions imposed on Mr Mordechai Vanunu.”
November 26, 2008:
“Vanunu’s Supreme Court appeal fighting a three month jail sentence [reduced from six] for speaking to foreigners — who happened to be media — in 2004, is scheduled to be heard in the New Year.”
Support, awards and honours
Amnesty International described his treatment as constituting “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment [...] such as is prohibited by international law.”
Vanunu received the Right Livelihood Award in 1987, and was given an honorary doctorate by the University of Tromsø in 2001. He was nominated by Joseph Rotblat for the Nobel Peace Prize every year from 1988 to 2004.
In March 2009 Vanunu wrote to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Oslo:
“I am asking the committee to remove my name from the list for this year’s list of nominations. I cannot be part of a list of laureates that includes Simon Peres [the President of Israel].”
Israeli Nuclear Whistleblower Risks Arrest, Again
Mordechai Vanunu interview 2004.08.18
By AMY GOODMAN
Mordechai Vanunu worked as a nuclear technician at Dimona, Israel’s secret nuclear installation from 1976 to 1985. He worked there at a time when Israel was insisting it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. What Vanunu discovered is that Israel had secretly developed an extensive nuclear program, hiding its existence from the Israeli people and parliament, and the world.
Vanunu leaked information and photos of Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the Sunday Times in London. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli spy agency Mossad in Italy and then jailed. He would go on to spend 18 years behind bars including 11 in solitary confinement.
He was released on April 21 under strict government restrictions.
Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman reached Vanunu on his cell phone in East Jerusalem where he has been staying since his release in April. He defied the Israeli government’s restriction on speaking with foreigners to talk with us.
Democracy Now! aired the first part of its interview with Vanunu on its Aug. 18th broadcast. (The remaining portions of the interview will be aired on Aug. 19th)
Below is a transcript of the first part of the interview.
AMY GOODMAN: Hello? Is this Mordechai Vanunu?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Hi. This is Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! And I would like to be able to talk to you. We are a public radio and television program in the United States.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Good evening.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to be with you.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: How does it feel to be free? How does it feel to be out of prison?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Well it is wonderful to be free. But I am not allowed to speak to foreigners and I am not allowed to leave the country. So I’m not so happy. But on the other side I am very glad that I can at least enjoy some freedom.
AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli government has called you a traitor. What is your response to that?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Well, I answer this. When I get out of the prison, I am saying many, many times that I am very glad, happy and proud to reveal its nuclear secrets to all the world and to let all the world to see the stupidity of Israel’s nuclear weapons policy and the danger of a nuclear weapons policy in secret by Israel. And I was not a traitor. The real traitors are Israel’s government who was behind this nuclear weapons policy for 40 years, and continues. They are betraying the Israeli citizens, and betraying the Arab community, and betraying all of humanity and the world, the human beings of all the world. They are the real traitors.
AMY GOODMAN: What are the secrets that you reveal that you think were most significant?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Excuse me, but I could not understand, hear you.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain, Mordechai Vanunu, the secrets you feel were most significant for the world to know? You were imprisoned 18 years ago. Can you say what you were trying to reveal to the world?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Well, it was very open and very clear: the secrets that were published by the Sunday Times in 1986. The main points were: one, the amount of Israel’s nuclear weapons, how many Israel had, that no one could predict or know, including the CIA. They were thinking about a number like 10 or 15. But I came out with a number between 150 to 200. Second point is no one here could predict or know that Israel was involved or started producing the hydrogen bomb — the most advanced and powerful atomic bomb that can kill millions of people. And that has no justification — no need for Israel’s existence. They don’t need hydrogen bomb. That was my revelation that was proved, with photos, to all of the world. That was the very important news that I brought to the world.
AMY GOODMAN: And how did you know this?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I knew that because I worked in the place, in the building where my job was producing the materials for nuclear weapons. My job was to produce plutonium that was used for atomic bomb. I knew how much they produced every day, every year. So I could make out the amount and see exactly how many bombs can they do. I also was producing, working on other materials for the hydrogen bomb. They call it lithium-6 and tritium. I was working on these and the only use for lithium-6 is the hydrogen bomb. And I also take photos of hydrogen bomb, from another part of the building. It was not part of my job, but I succeeded to go and take photos of the hydrogen bomb. My revelation was Israel [had] started producing a neutron bomb. I succeed to take photograph of the model of the neutron bomb. This means Israel was ready to use nuclear weapons in the next war, in 1986 if it had war with Iraq, or Iran or Syria. It could use them against armies. That means the beginning by Israel using atomic bomb…. That was the most dangerous point in the Middle East: Israel, they could have used nuclear weapons like no other state there…
AMY GOODMAN: So, Mordechai Vanunu, you say that they had 150 to 200 atomic bombs, that they had developed them. That they were building a hydrogen bomb, and a neutron bomb?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And have they done that at this point? It’s 18 years later.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I don’t know what they did in 18 years. We can just assume they have much more and powerful, more advanced technology, all the new computers, everything could be much more easier and help them to build much more and many more nuclear weapons. I just assume. I don’t have any new information, what happened in 18 years.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you describe what you did at that point? You took photographs, you wanted to get the information out. How did you end up doing that? And how did you end up being captured?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: When I worked in Dimona in 1980’s, I decided I was going to bring this information to the world. Because they were lying, cheating and no one predicted or knew what exactly was happening. So, all the information was in my brain. In my mind. I worked every day there, so I knew all the details. But I needed only some proof. So the proof was photos. I smuggled the camera, it was no problem to smuggle the camera there. And I took 60 photos, two films, during the time when there was no one in the control room, in the building. Night shift or Saturday shift there are less people. After that I didn’t develop the films. I keep them closed because I knew that if I develop them, someone can report me to the Shin Bet. So I decided the only place I can speak to the world is from outside Israel. So decided immediately to leave Israel as soon as possible. And with the two films went on my way towards the United States. But I decided then to take them to the far east because I knew with speaking these secrets there would be danger to my life and could end my freedom. So that was then. And I also did not have much experience with the media. But on the way, I met someone who brought me to the Sunday Times. And the Sunday Times made the story. And I gave them the films, the photos. And that’s how we had the Sunday Times article.
AMY GOODMAN: And how, Mordechai Vanunu, were you ultimately captured?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: When they heard, when they receive the information about what I am doing in London. Even before London they come, two agents of the Mossad come to Sydney, Australia, when I first meet Peter Hounam, the Sunday Times journalist, they started to follow me. They continued to follow me in London and tried to stop the article by all they could do. So, what they decide to do is to kidnap me. The way is to send someone to bring me to Rome, because they did not want to kidnap me in England. They sent an agent, a woman and American citizen working for some US secret organization. They used her. They convinced her to bring me to Rome. I decided that I should leave London because I knew that they followed me in London. I said I should run away from London. So after the Sunday Times published the article I decided to go with her to Rome. When we arrived to Rome, they were waiting for me in her home, and immediately they jump on me and drug me and took me by car from that home to an abandoned ditch — where there was a yacht waiting in the sea. From the sea came a boat with some Israeli commando soldiers who took me by the commando boat to the yacht and put me on the yacht. In the yacht I asked people, who are you. And they said we are Israelis, French and British. I saw French men who speak only French, I saw Israeli men who speak English, I never saw any British. But they say there are British. There are much more involved. Many more countries involved in the kidnapping. Like, the Italian driver who drove us from the airport, the American woman, Cindy. She is not Jewish. She is not an Israeli woman. She is an American woman from Philadelphia. All these, this cartel of spies who kidnapped me was the same group also involved in the nuclear proliferation during the Cold War. They tried to [inaudible] the man who tried to reveal their nuclear proliferation to Israel and to try and stop this nuclear proliferation. So they kidnapped me and sent me back to Israel. Israel silenced me for 18 years.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you know Cindy’s full name?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: No. She just used the name Cindy. But if there is any real investigation, they can go to the British airport and find the files they filled in 1986 in October. The airplane is British Airways Flight 405 to Rome. There are files that can reveal her own identity. I have the airplane ticket from London to Rome with her signature. But Israel’s Shin Bet, the Mossad do not want to give it to me. They are holding it [inaudible] at the moment.
AMY GOODMAN: So you weren’t suspicious of her from the beginning? Are you saying that she lured you with a physical relationship?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I wasn’t suspecting her, because I thought what they can do in Rome they can do anywhere. They should not bring me to Rome. But her task was to lure me to Rome. And I went with her to Rome.
AMY GOODMAN: So, when they captured you, you contend that they drugged you, they brought you to Israel. Talk about the famous photograph of you in the back of an Israeli vehicle with your hand up. You’d written a number on it.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: When I arrived to Israel, they told me you are not allowed to speak about the kidnapping, just secret. I was very angry. I don’t accept such rule. I said the kidnapping is a crime. I have the right to speak about the crime done against me. They didn’t like me to speak about this crime. So I decided to reveal it to the public. I also was worried that they are spreading lies. They tried to say that I wasn’t kidnapped. I’d come back. It means if I’d come back to Israel, it means I was a spy, a Mossad spy who had revealed some secret and come back. So the kidnapping is the proof that what I said was true… So I decided to let the world know this truth. So when I had the opportunity to come to talk to public after 7 weeks in the ShinBet jail, I wrote on my palm hand, Vanunu Mordechai kidnapped in Rome. So I used the word hijacked, not kidnapping, because I didn’t know English very well at the time. And then we now added to the press, I put my palm on the ground, and they saw the message. And that message destroyed another conspiracy to cheat the CIA and many [others] who didn’t know the truth about how I ended up in Israel. And those spies who kidnapped me tried to save their face or their game, their spy game, by cheating the world telling them the men who kidnapped you would return. So I destroyed another cheating by the palm hand destroyed by a very big game.
AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Mordechai Vanunu, who is speaking out for the first time on a national broadcast in the United States on Democracy Now!, the largest public media collaboration in the country. You were imprisoned for 18 years. Can you talk about your treatment in jail.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Well, the Shabak Mossad, ShinBet Mossad were very very angry upset with my revelations. After making a mockery [of them] to all the world… They were very angry and they tried to destroy this man who made them zero in all the world. The spy organization who was respected in all the world find themselves naked. So they decided to get him to give themselves the chance to change this man to destroy him to make him … to prove that they are still strong, this spy organization. So from the beginning they put me in total isolation for seven weeks after my kidnapping they even didn’t admit I am in an Israeli prison. No one knows where I am. Only by my standing against the judge and all the Israelis who wanted to keep me in administrative arrest. I demanded I should be in trial-no administrative arrest– so that forced them to admit I am in an Israeli prison.
Next they decided to put me in total isolation. The first two years, they keep me in a small room, filled with light 24 hours and camera inside. I couldn’t sleep for two years, they tried to break my nerves. They used a lot of psychology to brainwash. I demanded to meet a priest. They give me a priest, but without able to speak to him or him speak to me, only through notes. A ShinBet man sitting near the priest, reading the notes. I’m sending him notes, they’re reading them. We couldn’t meet as a human being. A woman came to Israel from U.S. I had a girlfriend. She came to see me. And again they did not let us meet, they said only by notes, you cannot speak to her, touch her nothing, so I refused to this condition.
During the 11 and half years I was in total isolation alone in a cell, only for two hours everyday to go to walk in a courtyard also alone. The cell was also isolated from all the prison. I was allowed to meet my family every two weeks for a half hour. I wasn’t allowed to use the phone. My mail was delayed for three months and censored. Some of it disappeared, some destroyed. The Ashkelon prison was controlled by Shabak Mossad, because they have a section inside the prison. Could you believe Shabak Mossad are sitting inside the prison hiding themselves from the people. They used the guards to control the prison so the real people who control the prison is the Shavak Mossad
AMY GOODMAN: Where is the Ashkelon Prison?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Ashkelon prison is… about 40 miles from Tel Aviv or 20 miles from Dalia .
AMY GOODMAN: How did you maintain your sanity? You were completely isolated for how many years in solitary confinement?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: 11 years in total isolation. I decided from the first weeks that it’s going to be a big war between me and the Shabak-Mossad who are now my enemy, and they will do all they can to destroy me, and I shall do all I can to survive. So I use my simple brain, and my initiative. Like if they say I cannot speak to anyone, I decided I can speak, I spoke by reading in a loud voice from the New Testament in English… I used to do a lot of psychology exercises or physical exercise, I did Yoga. I hear the BBC World Service, I hear the Voice of America. I read books, and I used to follow anything that happened to me there, anything that come by food, by letter, anything I knew. The Shabak Mossad psychologic spy are fighting me and I should follow them. That was my way, and I also use the music after five years, I started hearing opera, opera, it was very good instrument to keep the spirit very strong because you feel like you are yourself singing opera, and I used to hear a lot of opera, they send me tapes. I used to hear the opera Fidelio. That was similar to my story. I used a lot of psychology for my initiative.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Mordechai Vanunu. He is now out of jail after 18 years. Are you allowed to speak on the telephone?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I’m allowed to use the phone, but I’m not allowed to speak to foreigners. Now when I am speaking is contrary to the restriction. But I think because I have given interview to the BBC and the day passed, nothing happened and I think – what I’m talking is about my humanity, my human rights and I think it’s the government, or either a spy, who looks very stupid to fight someone who is speaking about his freedom of speech, freedom of movement, his human being, human rights. So I don’t think they will be stupid [enough] to arrest me or to question. But if they can do anything – it is Israel. Israel, all of the world knows, they’re [able] to do anything.
AMY GOODMAN: Mordechai Vanunu can you talk about the restrictions on you right now since you have left prison. First of all where are you?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Since I left the prison April 21st, I took straight car from the prison to Saint George Cathedral in East Jerusalem, so I’m staying now in the Saint George Cathedral guest house. The Bishop accepted me and is expecting me to stay here, and since that day until now I’m sitting here, and the restriction is not to speak to foreigners for 6 months, that is a very stupid restriction. I can speak to any Israeli citizen about anything, but not to foreigners. And I rejected this restriction by speaking English to everyone. The other restriction is if I want to move from Jerusalem to another city, I should [notify] the police. Anywhere I want to move, I should [notify] the police. If I want to sleep in other home, I should [notify] the police. I am not allowed to go to any embassy, because they are afraid I will go ask for asylum. Another important, very danger- or important restriction is not to leave the country for one year, I’m not allowed to leave Israel for one year, they are not giving me a passport. So, those are the restrictions. We appealed to the Supreme Court. The leader of the Supreme Court followed the Shabak Mossad demand in fact they just give them another stamp. The Supreme Court again proved to be injustice, and not respecting the basics of democracy, the basics of human rights – to have the right of movement and the right of movement and the right of freedom of speech.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you like to leave Israel?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Absolutely. I want to leave Israel after suffering seventeen and a half years in total isolation and very cruel , barbaric treatment by the Mossad Shabac inside the prison. Also because Israeli media damaged my image in all of Israel amongst the Jewish people, and some of them hate me, some of them threatened my life when I was released. Some of them are anti-Vanunu because I became a Christian, so I am not free and I am not safe in Israel. And I am demanding to leave Israel to be free… It could only happen in a free state, the United States or Europe.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you like to move to the United States?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Yes. I would like to move to the United States. I have adopted parents in Minnesota. I have many, many friends in the United States, who used to write to me and send me letters and cards for many years during eighteen years. I read a lot of your history of United States and am very appreciative of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. freedom.
AMY GOODMAN: What date were you released from prison, Mordechai Vanunu?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: April 21.
AMY GOODMAN: So it’s April 21, and now we’re coming on the end of August. May, June, July, August. Four months later, why have you decided to speak out at this point? Which could well risk your having access to a telephone or – well, it’s not clear what will happen now that you are violating the restrictions that have been placed upon you.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: When I came out of prison, I was ready to speak. But what happened is we met a very large riot of rightwing people, religious Jewish people who threatened my life. Then my brother was staying with me, and others say “Don’t speak. Stay in the center. Don’t get out. Don’t have any access to the media.” But I am now, since my two months of work start speaking after the BBC interview, I am ready to speak. Why does the media didn’t come to me? I was ready to speak. Then I start giving my phone number and meeting people… So I am ready to speak because I used all my fight and want in seventeen and a half years in prison was the demand for freedom of speech. I believe the human being have the right to freedom of speech. I don’t have any secrets. All what I’m speaking about is my view. My political view as a human has a right to express his view in any subject. That is my risk speaking again and again, as I am not speaking about secrets, because all the secrets have been published by the Sunday Times. And all what I have to say is my political view. And I have the right to speak them if Israel is a real democracy. And I hope you in the United States will support me, and support my right to freedom of speech. It does not damage Israel. I have a right to say my view, and anyone want to hear me, it’s OK. If any one doesn’t want to hear, they have the right to not to hear.
AMY GOODMAN: The foreign affairs and defense committee chair Yuval Steinitz of Likud party, said that you should be returned to prison or placed in administrative detention or house arrest to prevent you from revealing more of Israel’s nuclear secrets. He said that you broke the law by giving an interview to the Arabic newspaper al Hayat and should be prosecuted for it. He said that it’s unfortunate that the defense establishment doesn’t take the committee’s recommendation to place you under house arrest as was done with Marcus Klingberg who was convicted of espionage. And then you have the member of Knesset, Ophir Pines-Paz of Labor, who said you are playing with fire and continuing to hurt Israel’s security, saying I don’t know why this phenomenon is being treated with equanimity. He said this is a professional provocateur who’s making a joke of the legal system. Your response.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: My view, there is people who make jokes is they – those who put the stupid restriction not to speak to foreigners, that I am allowed to speak to Israel, but then not allowed to speak to foreigners. If they had said I have secrets, then they should say you are not allowed to speak to anyone, not only to the foreigners. If there is danger, they should say from the beginning, “Don’t speak to anyone.” So they make joke from themselves, not me. Second point, Marcus Klingberg, the spy, was released from freedom before ending his sentence, so he was under restriction because he was freed five years before the end of his sentence, so they gave him this privilege to get out and to live in freedom. If they had want me, they should have done the same with me, take me out of prison five years ago. But in my case I am after seventeen and a half years in prison, served all my sentence, and I should be free and should be allowed to leave the country. And the main point is I have the right to speak my views. I’m speaking my political view, my analysis. I have not revealed any new secrets. I do not have any secrets. All that I’m saying it was repeating what have been published at least eighteen years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: You said that Israel had 100 to 200 atomic bombs and was developing a neutron and hydrogen bomb but at that point didn’t have it.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: The hydrogen bomb was started to be built in 1986 or 1985. I took the photo of part of the real hydrogen bomb which was published by the Sunday Times.
AMY GOODMAN: [And Israel] had already made 100 to 200 atomic bombs?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Yes. They used to produce about 40 kilograms of plutonium each year which is enough for 10 atomic bombs.
AMY GOODMAN: And what was your job at the Dimona plant?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: At the Dimona plant my job was producing plutonium, producing lithium-6, tritium and I also worked part-time in the nuclear waste area where they are dealing with nuclear waste. But my main job was to produce this material: plutonium, lithium, tritium.
AMY GOODMAN: And how long did you work there?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Nine years.
AMY GOODMAN: When you spoke with your co-workers, did other people share your feelings?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: No. No one. Maybe some of them were concerned that Israel was producing nuclear weapons. But no one there doubted what was the policy. Maybe some of them in their hearts they were worried what was going on. But no one would dare to go and speak. That is the difference.
AMY GOODMAN: And who did you see at that plant? Did you see people from other countries coming through — visitors or even working there? Or government officials, perhaps from the United States?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: No. I have no information about foreigners working there… When I worked there they brought the prime minister Shimon Peres in September 1985. In 1984 I saw… the Defense Minister. Every new prime minister and new defense minister came, the head of Mossad, the head of Shabak came to visit to see Israel’s nuclear power, not foreigners. Maybe there were but I didn’t know about it.
AMY GOODMAN: And how do you think Israel being a nuclear power effects the Middle East?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: My view: the nuclear weapons Israel built make it very aggressive and powerful. In 1962 Israel was ready to deal to make real peace with the Arab world after the independence war in 1948… But then I believe some people had the idea to get Israel nuclear weapons, to build the French reactor in Dimona. That power made Israel free not to make real peace with the Arabs; made Israel free not to solve the Palestinian refugee problem. … they [took] the West Bank, Golan Heights and Sinai and keep them until now. Now Israel is much more aggressive, not to give anything to the Palestinians or to make real peace with Syria or Lebanon or Jordan or the Palestinians. So the nuclear weapon is used as a political power. Without even using nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons help Israel do what it wants without respecting international law or respecting the Middle East states… But my view is that my revelation in 1986 it prevented Israel from using nuclear weapons. Otherwise it is my view that they were ready to use nuclear weapons in their next war, it could have happened in the Cold War. My revelation let the world see what they had and made it impossible for Israel to use nuclear weapons.
AMY GOODMAN: Has Israel ever admitted that it had nuclear weapons?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: You and others can find out. I am like you, reading the newspaper, hearing the media. You and others can see what they said. Everyone in fact thinks they have, but they are playing games. My view is that they are cheating themselves. Israel continues to cheat themselves and with the United States play this cheating game — to play like no one is watching them. The king is naked but no one wants to see the king is naked. That is the truth. And Israel is succeeding to impose on the United States and all the world to play this game.
AMY GOODMAN: Did they ever tell you at the Dimona plant not to speak about what you saw inside? AV: I signed a secret document not to speak about anything. More than that no one at Dimona were telling you that you are producing nuclear weapons. No one mentioned the word ‘atomic bomb.’ Some of them there don’t know what they are doing –they are producing materials without knowing exactly what those materials are used for. Everything you are watching there you are not allowed to speak about.
AMY GOODMAN: if they do end up putting you back in detention, if they jailed you again, how do you feel about that?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I would feel very bad but I will continue to demand to be a human being, to believe and to behave as a human being; to have the right to speak; the right to have freedom of speech. And I will continue to demand my total freedom to leave Israel. I hope they will not do not do such a mistake and someone — possibly from abroad, from the United States or Europe — will tell them that they should respect the human rights of this man. And to end this game of tricking the world by claiming there is no atomic bombs when all the world knowing exactly what they do and exactly what they saw when I gave photos to all of the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Mordechai Vanunu, do you have any regrets about what you have done?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Well, what do you expect, if I am strong enough to survive all that they have done to me, it means that I have never regret. And much more, I all the time always was convinced and convinced that I did the right thing. That I was following my conscience and the right of the people in all the world to know such teaching and the most danger atomic bomb subject. And also when I saw the cold war ended and Russia collapse and South Africa become free and the nuclear race ended and the United States and Russia started destroying nuclear weapons from 100,000 nuclear weapons to twenty nuclear weapons, all this only was encouraging me that I did the right thing. And also I think what Israel spy Shabak did to me in prison fighting me that make it very clear that I did the right thing. I’m very happy and glad that I revealed the true face of Israel and let all the world and the Israeli people see the true face of Israel who used to remind the world “holocaust, holocaust” every hour, every day, but in fact Israel have a holocaust factory. This Jewish state was producing holocaust weapons and they have no right to speak about holocaust so I was very happy to reveal this truth.
AMY GOODMAN: Mordechai Vanunu now your life every day, are you confined to the house you are in? How do you spend your days?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Now I’m staying in St. George Cathedral guest house in East Jerusalem, I decided not to visit the West Jerusalem, not to visit any Israel state because if I’m not allowed to leave Israel, I’m not allowed to speak to foreigners, so I too will not go see Israel. So I’m staying in East Jerusalem, walking around, going to restaurants outside, going to the old city, meeting a lot of Palestinians. Many Palestinians are happy to see me, and very – appreciate what I did, they saw me as a hero. I’m staying in St. George, doing emails, trying to learn computer, trying to read newspaper, watching TV and this summer also enjoy to go to swim – it’s very good psychological treatment to swim everyday. And very happy and glad to meet human beings, I like to meet human beings, to speak and to eat with them and to be among the people. And point – the issue I want to remind you why the Shabak-Mossad will not do anything because if I am staying here in East Jerusalem among the Palestinians, those Palestinians who are recognized by Israel as the enemy, so if I have any secrets I could have passed to this enemy. So if I am staying among Palestinians for three months, four months, the Shabak-Mossad give up, they cannot expect from me anything – so what they can do? So I am staying here in East Jerusalem among Palestinians.
AMY GOODMAN: Mordechai Vanunu, you said that after six months they would lift the restriction on you speaking on the cell phone to foreigners and after a year you could travel. So you’re only two months away from that restriction being lifted and yet you are risking a lot now by speaking on the cell phone to a foreigner. Why take that risk now?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I don’t know if they will lift the restriction after another two months, they have the right to extend them or to end them, I don’t know what they will do on October 21st. Especially after the supreme court rejected my appeal now they can do anything they want, no one can say anything, they can extend them. The Supreme Court give them a blank check to do what they want so I don’t know. Again, I am not risking anything because what I am telling you, I told to many Israeli people here from the left who come to see me. I said the same to the BBC that was broadcast in Israel TV. So all what I am telling you is repeating what I already said and what I already published 18 years ago. So that was the way to see it and I will not see it as risking anything. I’m only trying to bring my case to the United States to raise the awareness to my case in the United States because I have no chance here in Israel that someone will help me to get out or to receive my rights. I would like that someone in the United States to do for me – to demand my human rights. Imagine if a man like me was in another state. Imagine, or remember what the United States – when Sharansky was in Moscow. What you do, what the Congress in Washington – Senate did – to Russia for nine years when Sharansky was in prison. But when it comes to a man like me in Israel, all the Congress, Senate in Washington is ignoring me and not doing [anything] for my release, or [fighting] for my human rights. So I hope you and others can bring my case and raise the awareness to these situations and demand my human rights.
Comparison with Natan Sharansky:
After being denied an exit visa to Israel from the USSR on the grounds of national security in 1973, he became an activist in the human rights movement led by prominent physicist and dissident Andrei Sakharov, and became internationally known as the spokesperson for the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group. Sharansky was one of the founders of, and spokesmen for, the Jewish and Refusenik movements in Moscow.
In March 1977, he was arrested, and in July 1978 convicted on charges of treason and spying for the United States, and sentenced to 13 years of forced labor. After 16 months of incarceration in Lefortovo prison, he was sent to Perm 35, a Siberian labor camp, where he served for nine years. The fate of Sharansky and other political prisoners in the USSR, repeatedly brought to international attention by Western human rights groups and diplomats, was a cause of embarrassment and irritation for the Soviet authorities. As a result of increasing pressure of a mounting international campaign led by his wife, Avital Sharansky, in 1986, he was released to East Germany and led across the Glienicke Bridge to West Berlin where he was exchanged for a pair of Soviet spies: Karl Koecher and his wife, Hana Koecher. Sharansky then emigrated to Israel.
In 1986, the U.S. Congress granted Sharansky the Congressional Gold Medal for his work in exposing Soviet secrets.
In 2006 US President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
On 17 September 2008, Sharansky was awarded the 2008 Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, by former U.S. first lady Nancy Reagan. Those present at the ceremony included Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Cindy McCain.
“Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”
“President” Dunham-Marshall-Soetero-Obama:
“Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal ’supermax’ prisons”
As in most things, Lord Obama is an ignorant sock-puppet.
Timothy McVeigh escaped.
Timothy James McVeigh, Fall Guy, Loyal to the End
Susan Carlson, WLS Chicago:
“He appeared to be still breathing or what appeared to be shallow breathing, even after being pronounced dead and his eyes remained open.”
Of course these places are very useful, in that one can’t be sure such and such an alleged inmate is even where he is supposed to be. McVeigh, wherever he was, or is, has been loyal to the cult.
Bill Bean to Congressman Rohrabacher on the film he shot at Camp Grafton on 1993.08.03:
“I did not realize how significant what I had was, for many years. It was not until McVeigh’s trial that I realized it was McVeigh in the tank. Even then the larger point escaped me. That point is, McVeigh was not supposed to be in the military at that time. His military record shows him enlisting in 1988, being honorably discharged from the Army, on Dec. 31, 1991. His records then show he was in the Army reserve in Buffalo New York, from January 1992 until May 1992, he was then honorably discharged from the Army reserve. After May of 1992 he was never again in uniform on any base anywhere, never again part of the military. He was totally out of military service. The FBI states the only time they lose track of McVeigh, in his entire life, is the late summer of 93. They think he was somewhere between Kingman Arizona and Decker Michigan. Probably at gun shows, meeting antigovernment rightwing militia types. But he wasn’t, he was at Camp Grafton, in uniform, learning explosives and demolition.”
In 1991, at Fort Bragg, N.C., McVeigh was allegedly an “unsuccessful” candidate for the Special Forces. Army records show that Mr. McVeigh dropped out of the program after saying he could not meet the physical demands.
Timothy McVeigh to Jennifer McVeigh, 1993.10.20, referring to himself in the third person:
”Why would Tim, (characteristically non-drinker), super-successful in the Army (Private to Sergeant in 2 yrs.) (Top Gun) (Bronze Star) (accepted into Special Forces), all of a sudden come home, party HARD, and, just like that, announce he was not only ‘disillusioned’ by SF, but was, in fact, leaving the service?’
New York Times, 1998.07.01:
[McVeigh wrote to his sister that] he and the nine others were told they might be ordered to help the Central Intelligence Agency ”fly drugs into the U.S. to fund many covert operations” and to ”work hand-in-hand with civilian police agencies” as ”government-paid assassins.” He wrote, ”Do not spread this info, Jennifer, as you could (very honestly, seriously) endanger my life.”
Timothy McVeigh, prior to sentencing, 1997.08.14:
“If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, ‘Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.’ That’s all I have.”
Lee Harvey Oswald, Patriot, Loyal to the End
Marina Oswald:
“The danger of the truth not being known will destroy this nation, actually. You maybe don’t believe me, but that’s the fact.”
Innocent
Sacrificed
+ + +
BRANDEIS, J., Dissenting Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
277 U.S. 438
Olmstead v. United States
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued: February 20, 21, 1928 — Decided: June 4, 1928
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, dissenting.
The defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act. Before any of the persons now charged had been arrested or indicted, the telephones by means of which they habitually communicated with one another and with others had been tapped by federal officers. To this end, a lineman of long experience in wiretapping was employed on behalf of the Government and at its expense. He tapped eight telephones, some in the homes of the persons charged, some in their offices. Acting on behalf of the Government and in their official capacity, at least six other prohibition agents listened over the tapped wires and reported the messages taken. Their operations extended over a period of nearly five months. The typewritten record of the notes of conversations overheard occupies 775 typewritten pages. By objections seasonably made and persistently renewed, the defendants objected to the admission of the evidence obtained by wiretapping on the ground that the Government’s wiretapping constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the use as evidence of the conversations overheard compelled the defendants to be witnesses against themselves in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Government makes no attempt to defend the methods employed by its officers. Indeed, it concedes that, if wiretapping can be deemed a search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment, such wiretapping as was practiced in the case at bar was an unreasonable search and seizure, and that the evidence thus obtained was inadmissible. But it relies on the language of the Amendment, and it claims that the protection given thereby cannot properly be held to include a telephone conversation.
“We must never forget,” said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407, “that it is a constitution we are expounding.” Since then, this Court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of that instrument, over objects of which the Fathers could not have dreamed. See Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.,96 U.S. 1, 9; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota,250 U.S. 135; Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota,250 U.S. 163; Brooks v. United States,267 U.S. 432. We have likewise held that general limitations on the powers of Government, like those embodied in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, do not forbid the United States or the States from meeting modern conditions by regulations which, “a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.” Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S. 365, 387; Buck v. Bell,274 U.S. 200. Clauses guaranteeing to the individual protection against specific abuses of power must have a similar capacity of adaptation to a changing world. It was with reference to such a clause that this Court said, in Weems v. United States,217 U.S. 349, 373:
Legislation, both statutory and constitutional, is enacted, it is true, from an experience of evils, but its general language should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore, a principle, to be vital, must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall “designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.” The future is their care, and provision for events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophecy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be. Under any other rule, a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have little value, and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas. Rights declared in words might be lost in reality.
When the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were adopted, “the form that evil had theretofore taken” had been necessarily simple. Force and violence were then the only means known to man by which a Government could directly effect self-incrimination. It could compel the individual to testify — a compulsion effected, if need be, by torture. It could secure possession of his papers and other articles incident to his private life — a seizure effected, if need be, by breaking and entry. Protection against such invasion of “the sanctities of a man’s home and the privacies of life” was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language. Boyd v. United States,116 U.S. 616, 630. But “time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.” Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the Government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.
Moreover, “in the application of a constitution, our contemplation cannot be only of what has, been but of what may be.” The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. “That places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer” was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these. To Lord Camden, a far slighter intrusion seemed “subversive of all the comforts of society.” Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?
A sufficient answer is found in Boyd v. United States,116 U.S. 616, 627-630, a case that will be remembered as long as civil liberty lives in the United States. This Court there reviewed the history that lay behind the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. We said with reference to Lord Camden’s judgment in Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell’s State Trials 1030:
The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case there before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the Government and its employes of the sanctities of a man’s home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence — it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden’s judgment. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man’s own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence of a crime or to forfeit his goods is within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other.
In Ex parte Jackson,96 U.S. 727, it was held that a sealed letter entrusted to the mail is protected by the Amendments. The mail is a public service furnished by the Government. The telephone is a public service furnished by its authority. There is, in essence, no difference between the sealed letter and the private telephone message. As Judge Rudkin said below:
True, the one is visible, the other invisible; the one is tangible, the other intangible; the one is sealed, and the other unsealed, but these are distinctions without a difference.
The evil incident to invasion of the privacy of the telephone is far greater than that involved in tampering with the mails. Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded and all conversations between them upon any subject, and, although proper, confidential and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man’s telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wiretapping.
Time and again, this Court in giving effect to the principle underlying the Fourth Amendment, has refused to place an unduly literal construction upon it. This was notably illustrated in the Boyd case itself. Taking language in its ordinary meaning, there is no “search” or “seizure” when a defendant is required to produce a document in the orderly process of a court’s procedure. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” would not be violated, under any ordinary construction of language, by compelling obedience to a subpoena. But this Court holds the evidence inadmissible simply because the information leading to the issue of the subpoena has been unlawfully secured. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,251 U.S. 385. Literally, there is no “search” or “seizure” when a friendly visitor abstracts papers from an office; yet we held in Gouled v. United States,255 U.S. 298, that evidence so obtained could not be used. No court which looked at the words of the Amendment, rather than at its underlying purpose, would hold, as this Court did in Ex parte Jackson,96 U.S. 727, 733, that its protection extended to letters in the mails. The provision against self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment has been given an equally broad construction. The language is: “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Yet we have held not only that the protection of the Amendment extends to a witness before a grand jury, although he has not been charged with crime, Counselman v. Hitchcock,142 U.S. 547, 562, 586, but that:
[i]t applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.
McCarthy v. Arndsten,266 U.S. 34, 40. The narrow language of the Amendment has been consistently construed in the light of its object,
to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime. The privilege is limited to criminal matters, but it is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.
Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra, p. 562.
Decisions of this Court applying the principle of the Boyd case have settled these things. Unjustified search and seizure violates the Fourth Amendment, whatever the character of the paper; whether the paper when taken by the federal officers was in the home, in an office, or elsewhere; whether the taking was effected by force, by fraud, or in the orderly process of a court’s procedure. From these decisions, it follows necessarily that the Amendment is violated by the officer’s reading the paper without a physical seizure, without his even touching it, and that use, in any criminal proceeding, of the contents of the paper so examined — as where they are testified to by a federal officer who thus saw the document, or where, through knowledge so obtained, a copy has been procured elsewhere – any such use constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The protection guaranteed by the Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.
Applying to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments the established rule of construction, the defendants’ objections to the evidence obtained by wiretapping must, in my opinion, be sustained. It is, of course, immaterial where the physical connection with the telephone wires leading into the defendants’ premises was made. And it is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
Independently of the constitutional question, I am of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. By the laws of Washington, wiretapping is a crime. Pierce’s Code, 1921, § 8976(18). To prove its case, the Government was obliged to lay bare the crimes committed by its officers on its behalf. A federal court should not permit such a prosecution to continue. Compare Harkin v. Brundage,276 U.S. 36, id., 604.
The situation in the case at bar differs widely from that presented in Burdeau v. McDowell,256 U.S. 465. There, only a single lot of papers was involved. They had been obtained by a private detective while acting on behalf of a private party; without the knowledge of any federal official; long before anyone had thought of instituting a federal prosecution. Here, the evidence obtained by crime was obtained at the Government’s expense, by its officers, while acting on its behalf; the officers who committed these crimes are the same officers who were charged with the enforcement of the Prohibition Act; the crimes of these officers were committed for the purpose of securing evidence with which to obtain an indictment and to secure a conviction. The evidence so obtained constitutes the warp and woof of the Government’s case. The aggregate of the Government evidence occupies 306 pages of the printed record. More than 210 of them are filled by recitals of the details of the wiretapping and of facts ascertained thereby. There is literally no other evidence of guilt on the part of some of the defendants except that illegally obtained by these officers. As to nearly all the defendants (except those who admitted guilt), the evidence relied upon to secure a conviction consisted mainly of that which these officers had so obtained by violating the state law.
As Judge Rudkin said below:
Here we are concerned with neither eavesdroppers nor thieves. Nor are we concerned with the acts of private individuals. . . . We are concerned only with the acts of federal agents whose powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution of the United States.
The Eighteenth Amendment has not, in terms, empowered Congress to authorize anyone to violate the criminal laws of a State. And Congress has never purported to do so. Compare Maryland v. Soper,270 U.S. 9. The terms of appointment of federal prohibition agents do not purport to confer upon them authority to violate any criminal law. Their superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury, has not instructed them to commit crime on behalf of the United States. It may be assumed that the Attorney General of the United States did not give any such instruction.
When these unlawful acts were committed, they were crimes only of the officers individually. The Government was innocent, in legal contemplation, for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the Government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers’ crimes. Compare The Paquete Habana,189 U.S. 453, 465; O’Reilly deCamara v. Brooke,209 U.S. 45, 52; Dodge v. United States,272 U.S. 530, 532; Gambino v. United States,275 U.S. 310. And if this Court should permit the Government, by means of its officers’ crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification. If so, the Government itself would become a lawbreaker.
Will this Court, by sustaining the judgment below, sanction such conduct on the part of the Executive? The governing principle has long been settled. It is that a court will not redress a wrong when he who invokes its aid has unclean hands. The maxim of unclean hands comes from courts of equity. But the principle prevails also in courts of law. Its common application is in civil actions between private parties. Where the Government is the actor, the reasons for applying it are even more persuasive. Where the remedies invoked are those of the criminal law, the reasons are compelling.
The door of a court is not barred because the plaintiff has committed a crime. The confirmed criminal is as much entitled to redress as his most virtuous fellow citizen; no record of crime, however long, makes one an outlaw. The court’s aid is denied only when he who seeks it has violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress. Then aid is denied despite the defendant’s wrong. It is denied in order to maintain respect for law; in order to promote confidence in the administration of justice; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination. The rule is one, not of action, but of inaction. It is sometimes spoken of as a rule of substantive law. But it extends to matters of procedure, as well. A defense may be waived. It is waived when not pleaded. But the objection that the plaintiff comes with unclean hands will be taken by the court itself. It will be taken despite the wish to the contrary of all the parties to the litigation. The court protects itself.
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
Otis’ Argument against Writs of Assistance. See Tudor, James Otis, p. 66; John Adams, Works, Vol. II, p. 524; Minot, Continuation of the History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. II, p 95.
Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell’s State Trials, 1030, 1066.
In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479, the statement made in the Boyd case was repeated, and the Court quoted the statement of Mr. Justice Field in In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250:
Of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers, from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.
The Boyd case has been recently reaffirmed in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,251 U.S. 385, in Gouled v. United States,255 U.S. 298, and in Byars v. United States,273 U.S. 28.
Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383; Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313; Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20; Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 70; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298; Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192.
Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156; Gambino v. United States, 275 U.S. 310.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385; Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156; Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20; Gambino v. United States, 275 U.S. 310.
Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 70. See Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298; Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28; Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385. Compare Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 307. In Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, and Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, the letter and articles admitted were not obtained by unlawful search and seizure. They were voluntary disclosures by the defendant. Compare Smith v. United States, 2 F.2d 715; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559.
The point is thus stated by counsel for the telephone companies, who have filed a brief as amici curiae:
Criminals will not escape detection and conviction merely because evidence obtained by tapping wires of a public telephone system is inadmissible, if it should be so held; but, in any event, it is better that a few criminals escape than that the privacies of life of all the people be exposed to the agents of the government, who will act at their own discretion, the honest and the dishonest, unauthorized and unrestrained by the courts. Legislation making wiretapping a crime will not suffice if the courts nevertheless hold the evidence to be lawful.
In the following states, it is a criminal offense to intercept a message sent by telegraph and/or telephone: Alabama, Code, 1923, § 5256; Arizona, Revised Statutes, 1913, Penal Code, § 692; Arkansas, Crawford & Moses Digest, 1921, § 10246; California, Deering’s Penal Code, 1927, § 640; Colorado, Compiled Laws, 1921, § 6969; Connecticut, General Statutes, 1918, § 6292; Idaho, Compiled Statutes, 1919, §§ 8574, 8586; Illinois, Revised Statutes, 1927, c. 134, § 21; Iowa, Code, 1927, § 13121; Kansas, Revised Statutes, 1923, c. 17, § 1908; Michigan Compiled Laws, 1915, § 15403; Montana, Penal Code, 1921, § 11518; Nebraska, Compiled Statutes, 1922, § 7115; Nevada, Revised Laws, 1912, §§ 4608, 6572(18); New York, Consolidated Laws, c. 40, § 1423(6); North Dakota, Compiled Laws, 1913, § 10231; Ohio, Page’s General Code, 1926, § 13402; Oklahoma, Session Laws, 1923, c. 46; Oregon, Olson’s Laws, 1920, § 2265; South Dakota, Revised Code, 1919, § 4312; Tennessee, Shannon’s Code, 1919, §§ 1839, 1840; Utah, Compiled Laws, 1917, § 8433; Virginia, Code, 1924, § 4477(2), (3); Washington, Pierce’s Code, 1921, § 8976(18); Wisconsin, Statutes, 1927, § 348.37; Wyoming, Compiled Statutes, 1920, § 7148. Compare State v. Behringer, 19 Ariz. 502; State v. Norsko, 76 Wash. 472.
In the following states. it is a criminal offense for a company engaged in the transmission of messages by telegraph and/or telephone, or its employees, or, in many instances, persons conniving with them, to disclose or to assist in the disclosure of any message: Alabama, Code, 1923, §§ 5543, 5545; Arizona, Revised Statutes, 1913, Penal Code, §§ 621, 623, 691; Arkansas, Crawford & Moses Digest, 1921, § 10250; California, Deering’s Penal Code, 1927, §§ 619, 621, 639, 641; Colorado, Compiled Laws, 1921, §§ 6966, 6968, 6970; Connecticut, General Statutes, 1918, § 6292; Florida, Revised General Statutes, 1920, §§ 5754, 5755; Idaho, Compiled Statutes, 1919, §§ 8568, 8570; Illinois, Revised Statutes, 1927, c. 134, §§ 7, 7a; Indiana, Burns’ Revised Statutes, 1926, § 2862; Iowa, Code, 1924, § 8305; Louisiana, Acts, 1918, c. 134, p. 228; Maine, Revised Statutes, 1916, c. 60, § 24; Maryland, Bagby’s Code, 1926, § 489; Michigan, Compiled Statutes, 1915, § 15104; Minnesota, General Statutes, 1923, §§ 10423, 10424; Mississippi, Hemingway’s Code, 1927, § 1174; Missouri, Revised Statutes, 1919, § 3605; Montana, Penal Code, 1921, § 11494; Nebraska, Compiled Statutes, 1922, § 7088; Nevada, Revised Laws, 1912, §§ 4603, 4605, 4609, 4631; New Jersey, Compiled Statutes, 1910, p. 5319; New York, Consolidated Laws, c. 40, §§ 552, 553; North Carolina, Consolidated Statutes, 1919, §§ 4497, 4498, 4499; North Dakota, Compiled Laws, 1913, § 10078; Ohio, Page’s General Code, 1926, §§ 13388, 13419; Oklahoma, Session Laws, 1923, c. 46; Oregon, Olson’s Laws, 1920, §§ 2260, 2262, 2266; Pennsylvania, Statutes, 1920, §§ 6306, 6308, 6309; Rhode Island, General Laws, 1923, § 6104; South Dakota, Revised Code, 1919, §§ 4346, 9801; Tennessee, Shannon’s Code, 1919, §§ 1837, 1838; Utah, Compiled Laws, 1917, §§ 8403, 8405, 8434; Washington, Pierce’s Code, 1921, §§ 8982, 8983, Wisconsin, Statutes, 1927, § 348.36.
The Alaskan Penal Code, Act of March 3, 1899, c. 429, 30 Stat. 1253, 1278, provides that,
if any officer, agent, operator, clerk, or employee of any telegraph company, or any other person, shall willfully divulge to any other person than the party from whom the same was received, or to whom the same was addressed, or his agent or attorney, any message received or sent, or intended to be sent, over any telegraph line, or the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such message, or any part thereof, . . . the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or imprisonment not to exceed one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
The Act of October 29, 1918, c.197, 40 Stat. 1017, provided:
That whoever, during the period of governmental operation of the telephone and telegraph systems of the United States . . . , shall, without authority and without the knowledge and consent of the other users thereof, except as may be necessary for operation of the service, tap any telegraph or telephone line, or willfully interfere with the operation of such telephone and telegraph systems or with the transmission of any telephone or telegraph message, or with the delivery of any such message, or whoever being employed in any such telephone or telegraph service, shall divulge the contents of any such telephone or telegraph message to any person not duly authorized to receive the same, shall be fined not exceeding $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
The Radio Act, February 23, 1927, c. 169, § 27, 44 Stat. 1162, 1172, provides that
no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any message and divulge or publish the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted message to any person.
The above figures relate to Case No. 493. In Nos. 532-533, the Government evidence fills 278 pages, of which 140 are recitals of the evidence obtained by wiretapping.
According to the Government’s brief, p. 41, “The Prohibition Unit of the Treasury disclaims it [wiretapping], and the Department of Justice has frowned on it.” See also “Prohibition Enforcement,” 69th Congress,2d Session, Senate Doc. No.198, pp. IV, V, 13, 15, referred to Committee, January 25, 1927; also same, Part 2.
See Hannay v. Eve, 3 Cranch 242, 247; Bank of the United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 538; Bartle v. Coleman, 4 Pet. 184, 188; Kennett v. Chambers, 14 How. 38, 52; Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 16 How. 314, 334; Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall 45, 54; The Ouachita Cotton, 6 Wall. 521, 532; Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wall. 542; Forsyth v. Woods, 11 Wall. 484, 486; Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342, 349; Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 448; Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U.S. 108, 111; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261; Irwin v. Williar, 110 U.S. 499, 510; Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & Danville Extension Co., 129 U.S. 643; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U.S. 396, 411; Embrey v. Jemison, 131 U.S. 336, 348; West v. Camden, 135 U.S. 507, 521; McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U.S. 639, 654; Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U.S. 71; Crocker v. United States, 240 U.S. 74, 78. Compare Holman v. Johnson, 1 Cowp. 341.
See Creath’s Administrator v. Sims, 5 How. 192, 204; Kennett v. Chambers, 14 How. 38, 49; Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, 586; Wheeler v. Sage, 1 Wall. 518, 530; Dent v. Ferguson, 132 U.S. 50, 64; Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully, 144 U.S. 224, 236; Miller v. Ammon, 145 U.S. 421, 425; Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U.S. 71, 79. Compare International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 245.
Compare State v. Simmons, 39 Kan. 262, 264-265; State v. Miller, 44 Mo.App. 159, 163-164; In re Robinson, 29 Neb. 135; Harris v. State, 15 Tex.App. 629, 634-635, 639.
See Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall 70; Planters’ Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 499-500; Houston & Texas Central R.R. Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 66, 99; Bothwell v. Buckbee, Mears Co., 275 U.S. 274.
See Lutton v. Benin, 11 Mod. 50; Barlow v. Hall, 2 Anst. 461; Wells v. Gurney, 8 Barn. & Cress. 769; Ilsley v. Nichols, 12 Pick. 270; Carpenter v. Spooner, 2 Sandf. 717; Metcalf v. Clark, 41 Barb. 45; Williams ads. Reed, 29 N.J.L. 385; Hill v. Goodrich, 32 Conn. 588; Townsend v. Smith, 47 Wis. 623; Blandin v. Ostrander, 239 Fed. 700; Harkin v. Brundage, 276 U.S. 36, id., 604.
Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wall. 542, 558; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261, 267; Higgins v. McCrea, 116 U.S. 671, 685. Compare Evans v. Richardson, 3 Mer. 469; Norman v. Cole, 3 Esp. 253; Northwestern Salt Co. v. Electrolytic Alkali Co., [1913] 3 K.B. 422.
How the Secret Government of the formerly United States of America will lead the world into a Luciferian Age of universal tyranny and slavery.
The United States is run by an elite Satanic cult, that has infiltrated the banking racket, industry, politics, the judiciary, the presidency, the congress, academia, the media, the press, and both branches of the reigning duopoly. Control is maintained by force, brainwashing, threats, blackmail, political prostitution, corruption, and other forms of exploitation.The cult, its adepts its initiates, its agents, and those who have come under its thrall have no loyalty to the state.
This shadow government is not secretive these days, partly because of the internet, which they plan to control more, and partly because they have sufficiently corrupted the populace (via propaganda, manipulation and drugging; and by promoting apathy and relativism and fatalism) that they feel more confident in openly discussing their objectives.
The cult despises the Lord God, the creator of this world.
The cult worships, in a sense, Lucifer/Satan, whom they regard as Man’s saviour from a tyrannical and cruel God.
More precisely they worship symbols and numbers, believing that the knowledge of such “mysteries” proves their superiority to God (who, of course, also created all symbols, and everything knowable and unknowable in the eternity before the creation of humankind).
They may be called gnostics, in the sense that they worship what they understand as “knowledge”, foolishly believing it to be something separate from creation. However, when one speaks of gnostic “knowing”, one should keep in mind that this “knowing” is not related to Christian Truth or any sense of an objective reality, and is in fact the expression of a very and complex and incestuous pagan cosmology.
Hopefully it will be understood that beyond all of the cult’s delusions, obfuscations, lies and distortions, ultimately they worship “Man”, which is the lowest form of idolatry.
Their goal, in communion with fellow Satanists around the world, is to
Overthrow Christ as God
Subvert all moral law
Destroy the family
Especially destroy Christian civilization
Pervert humanity
Abolish nations
Initiate World Government under their own oligarchic tyranny
Invent and impose a syncretic cosmotheistic (ultimately pagan and pantheistic in this realm, disguised as Unitarianism, with actual monotheistic reverence for Satan as the ruler of this world), state-sanctioned and state-supporting religion upon the world; with themselves monopolizing the High Priesthood.
Employ mass-murder and ruthless eugenics measures to create a slave race – the “barbarians” and “savages” and “profane”, as they call them — dedicated to the service of the elite Masters.
Their hoped-for World Religion is essentially a gnostic, Freemasonic regurgitation of Babylonian and Egyptian mystery cults, served up with liberal New Age doses of Theosophy, Mandeaenism, Alevism, Sufiism, Bahai’ism, Wicca, Communism, Humanism, Mormonism, “Christian Science”, Queerism, Yoga, Ecumenism, Sabbateanism, Scientism, Ghandiism, Lamaism, Environmentalism, Feminism, Frankism, Druidism, Cabbalism, Psychotherapy, Jubuism, Viennese Voodoo, and whatever flotsam and jetsam of similar syncretic religious cults and pseudo-sciences and anti-God ideologies and occult rites that may be drawn into service.
This New World Order is therefore in fact the most ancient world order of Lucifer. This scheme of anti-Christ involves power, money, the material world, the obliteration of free will, fatalism, an assault on the soul.
Immediate plans include the destruction of Russia and Iran and Pakistan, and the subjugation of China. They hope to initiating war on them, get others to do the fighting, or get them to go to war against each other. This was their technique in destroying the Russian, Austrian, German, and Ottoman Empires. In the course of this objective, the world was immersed in a century of blood.
NATO will then form the basis of what they hope will become the World Police.
In the formerly United States of America (the basis of material — especially military — power; the other key locus of power is the City of London, which remains the banking capital of the world in spite of the increasing emiseration of the British “citizenry” who are subjected to increasing austerity measures as their overlords expand totalitarian domination), the immediate objective is to weaken and eventually abrogate the prerogatives of the separate states, to draw all power to Washington, gathered in the office of one branch of government — the Imperial Presidency. This will be greatly achieved by the looting of the treasury (which proceeds apace), the continuing drugging of the populace, the continuing abandonment of U.S. border sovereignty, the continuing infiltration of their foreign agents (Mexican gangs, Mafiosi of various stripes, Columbian narco-terrorists, Saudi Wahabbi missionaries, Arab assassins, Afghan narco-warlords, King (actually zlachta) Zbigniew Brzezinski, Queen Heinz Kissinger, High Prince Rahm Emanuel, etc), and the establishment of a national state of emergency after further terror attacks, which they will have coordinated.
They will suspend the constitution, attempt to disarm the populace, declare dissenters to be “terrorists”, perpetrate further Shock and Awe terror attacks (most likely also involving the elimination of President Obama) that they will blame on patriots and dissenters, whom they will then proceed to eliminate. “Human rights” “laws” and media control through politically correct propaganda will also be employed to further enslave the American people.
Previous attempts, foreshadowings, trial runs, and preparations for this scheme have included: The Kennedy Sacrifice (Mafia, CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, Secret Service), the Gulf of Tonkin (Military Intelligence), USS Liberty (Military Intelligence), Jonestown (CIA), Ruby Ridge (ATF, FBI), Waco (ATF, FBI), Oklahoma (Military Intelligence, ATF, FBI), WTC 93 (CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence), and 911 (Military Intelligence, CIA, FBI, the White House, Congress, The Democratic Party, The Republican Party).
For one brief moment, a group of Patriots attempted to prevent this conspiracy from achieving its objectives. The Party they formed introduced a number of democratic innovations to the American political process, and ran on the main platform of opposing the treasonous secret societies that have run the Federal government since it’s inception. They were soon infiltrated by conspirators and only ended up having some state successes. Nevertheless, their manifesto is very revealing.
The Anti-Masonic Party
The Lion’s Grip of the Order
In 1828, hoping to avert the total subversion of the democratic process; the Anti-Masonic Party was formed to counterbalance the threat of secret societies to both Church and State; this through the most peaceful and practical means at our disposal, the ballot. But what happened to Capt. Morgan more than 150 years ago was not only revisited in 1963, but grievously exceeded in cruelty and depravity; as the execution was carried out not in secret, as was the case with Morgan’s murder; but before the world in Dallas, before women and children.
The Proceedings of the United States Anti-Masonic Convention; Address to the People of the United States
Held in Philadelphia, September 11, 1830.
“In this alarming emergency, the agents of government seemed paralyzed. Our public institutions and provisions for the preservation of tranquility, and the repression of crime, seemed nugatory. And without the use of other means than the law, and its official ministers, the most daring and brutal inroads, upon our dearest rights, would have passed off, without effort to understand their origin, punish their instruments, or provide against their recurrence. No arts were left untried by freemasons to baffle the pursuit of truth, and defeat the administration of justice.
“The lion’s grip of the order was upon our courts, and loyalty to that, displaced fealty to the state. If freemasonry ought to be abolished, it should certainly be so abolished as to prevent its restoration. No means of doing this can be conceived so competent as those furnished by the ballot boxes.
“These means are commended to our adoption, by the most urgent considerations, by their mildness, their safety, their sufficiency, and the tested insufficiency of all others. They are the means provided, by the most venerated of our political fathers. Who shall disparage them? Whoever is opposed to freemasonry and really desires its extinction, must use them, or confess himself a slave or tyrant. To extinguish it, by violence, would be tyranny, if it were possible. To extinguish it, by the expression of honest convictions against it, would not be tyranny, but it cannot be accomplished, unless a majority unite in such expression; and whether they do or not, cannot be ascertained, without a general vote. To desire its [freemasonry's] extinction, and do nothing to effect it, must proceed from indolence, fear, or the imagined force of assumed obligations in its favour, either of which amounts to a degrading slavery. To such slavery who is willing to submit? In truth none, who are not opposed to using every other means against it, are opposed to using our elective rights against it; and those who are opposed to using our elective rights against it, uniformly use their elective rights in its favour. The higher freemasons are expressly sworn to do it. Thus they adopt a conduct, which they stigmatize in us, as oppressive and persecuting, and which is so, when adopted secretly, by virtue of unlawful obligations, and in favour of a class of citizens, who associate for securing to themselves unequal privileges.
“Anti-masons would defend their rights, the laws of their country, and the most sacred treasures of liberty, from a fearful assault. Seeking to preserve and perpetuate all the blessings intended to be secured, by our government, they would proceed, in the spirit of strict conformity with its provisions. And they invite all, who appreciate these blessings, to join them. They have no secret purposes to accomplish– no selfish objects to promote– no time, nor means to cast away, in idle ostentation, or for useless notoriety. They know the country is in danger; and they come forth, from their retirements, to shield it. On their farms, in their shops, at their counters, in their offices, and at their desks, they have heard the wail of the bereaved widow and orphans, and, feeling the sympathies of humanity, they have inquired how they became so…
“Murder and treason they cannot help regarding with abhorrence, however disguised; and will resist, whoever may perpetrate or abet them. Their chosen weapon of resistance is the right of suffrage– a weapon of equal power in every freeman’s hand, and which is so tempered, as they trust, in the armory of patriotism, that neither the keen nor solid of freemasonry may resist its edge.
“Fellow citizens, are we called to be anti-masons by the best feelings of our nature? Are our objects the highest that can effect the civil character? Are our means the most approved and indispensable? Unite with us– not for our sakes, but your own– Aid us in working out the redemption of our country from freemasonry. We are misrepresented and calumniated, as the chief public means of defeating the cause we have espoused. Examine by whom, and inquire into their motives. Be not deceived. If individuals among us are in fault, through ignorance, or passion, or interest, or profligacy, refuse them your confidence. But do not, therefore, betray your rights, and those of your country; nor let those beguile you into their support, who prefer secrecy to publicity, and freemasonry to republicanism. We are for practical, peaceable, and most necessary reform– not for the destruction, but the establishment of right. Freedom, in every beneficial sense, is the soul of anti-masonry.
“The first and most prominent injunction of freemasonry is secrecy. Any violation of this it punishes with infamy and death. Secrecy is the shutting up of the mind from communion with other minds. And so far as it prevails, in relation to any social good, it is selfish, sour, ignorant, and restless….
“But there are other members of very different character, who adhere to it, with a tenacity exactly proportioned to their estimate of its adaptation to their evil designs. [George] Washington represented it as capable of being employed for the basest purposes, and never visited a lodge, but once or twice, in the last thirty years of his life.
“To this government freemasonry is wholly opposed. It requires unresisting submission to its own authority in contempt of public opinion– the claims of conscience– and the rights of private judgment. It would dam up the majestic current of improving thoughts, among all its subjects throughout the earth, by restricting beneficial communication. In attempting to do this, it has stained our country with a brother’s blood, tempted many of our influential citizens into the most degrading forms of falsehood, and burst away, with its powers undiminished, its vengeance provoked, and its pollution manifest, from the strong arm of distributive justice…
“It is one of the striking evidences of the wisdom of the framers of our constitution, and a bright presage of its perpetuity, that it is fit for all emergencies. It [the Constitution] contains provisions, which are abundantly adequate to the subversion of freemasonry. Perfectly convinced, that such a subversion must be effected or our liberties wrested from us, let us inquire, what are these provisions?
“They consist in the just exercise of the rights reserved by the people to themselves, as the great constituent, supervising proprietors of the republic…
“The abuses of which we complain involve the highest crimes, of which man can be guilty, because they indicate the deepest malice, and the most fatal aim. They bespeak the most imminent danger, because they have proceeded from a conspiracy more numerous and better organized for mischief, than any other detailed in the records of man, and yet, though exposed, maintaining itself, in all its monstrous power. That murder has been committed, is now acknowledged by all. That it has been so committed, and the malefactors have acted under such authority, and have been so aided and comforted, as to carry the guilt of treason, cannot be doubted. Protection from these crimes, is the first duty of government, and the object for which it is invested with its highest powers. But protection cannot be secured, by the ordinary means. Shall it therefore be abandoned? Shall we forego, in behalf of’ freemasonry, or through fear of it, the primary purpose of civil organization? If we are true to ourselves it is certain we need not forego it; we can practically enforce it: for the rights of election remain. In these may be found full means– not of punishing the criminals– but of precluding any repetition of their crimes– of giving us that security against them, which is better than punishment; which is, indeed, the only proper object of all human punishment. The use of these means we advocate. Our adversaries reprobate it, and represent it as oppressive and persecuting.
“The exercise of the elective franchise is as much a function of our government as any one performed, by legislatures, executive magistrates, or judges. And the honest, intelligent, and fearless use of it, by all to whom it pertains, is as much a duty, in every case, as a similar use of other functions is, in any case, by those to whom they pertain. Such a use of the elective function is the duty most imperious, because it is the great corrective, in the last resort, of all other functions.
“To say that the powers of government should not be applied to the masonic outrages at all, would be so preposterous, as justly to excite suspicion of being implicated in them. Besides, it is now too late for any persons to say this with consistency; for since the inadequacy of all judicial application to them has been apparent, even adhering freemasons say it was not improper to appeal to the courts: “punish the guilty.” But if it was proper to appeal to the courts, in the first place, and that appeal has been rendered nugatory by the criminal interference of freemasonry, the reason for appealing to the powers of government against the outrages is immeasurably strengthened, not diminished. There is, therefore, no impropriety in resorting to the elective franchise to correct the evils of freemasonry. It invades no man’s rights. It gives no man reason to complain. It is no more disreputable than it is to resort to a legislature, or a court of law, for the correction of an evil, which they were instituted to redress. Would it be tolerated, for a moment, to stigmatize as oppression and persecution a resort to our legislators for the passage of a law to promote the public security; or to our judicial tribunals, for the punishment of crime? Neither can it be, thus to stigmatize a resort to the elective franchise, for the abolishing of freemasonry, which is fatal to all security, and the very charnal house of crime…”
An Account of the Savage Treatment of Captain William Morgan, in Fort Niagara
Who was subsequently murdered by the masons, and sunk in Lake Ontario, for publishing the SECRETS OF MASONRY.
by Edward Giddins, formerly keeper of the fort and a Royal Arch Mason.
Boston, 1829
INTRODUCTION
CAPTAIN WILLIAM MORGAN, of New York, an intelligent man, and an inflexible republican, convinced of the dangers of Secret Societies, in a free Government, resolved to use his best endeavors for their suppression. Being a Royal Arch Mason, he had witnessed the corruption of the Institution. He saw it was an engine of personal advantage and political aggrandizement; that it gave to its members unfair advantages and extra privileges over the unsuspecting community; that its insidious influence extended to every transaction in society, raising as it were the Masonic combination unto a PRIVILEGED ORDER, who, under the Royal Names of GRAND KINGS, Grand Sovereigns, and Grand High Priests, in darkness and secrecy, ruled and plundered the people.
CAPTAIN MORGAN was a soldier and a brave man. He saw this detestable conspiracy and he dared to risk his life by bursting its shackles and warning an injured people! He was seized by a gang of Masonic desperadoes, who came 60 miles after him, in the morning about sunrise, Sept. 11, 1826, under a pretended process of law, (in the manner Mr. Jacob Allen was taken by Masons at Reading) and carried 60 miles, and placed for safe keeping in a county jail, in the care of a masonic jailer. Thence he was taken in stillness of the night, crying murder! murder! and transported one hundred miles further, and placed in a U.S. fortress, also in the keeping of a Mason. Here Mr. Giddin’s account commences. Thus it appears that our county jails and our national fortresses are all at the service of the Masons, to carry their bloody schemes of kidnapping and murder into execution.
Will a free and patriotic people submit to these things in silence? Fellow citizens! Read this pamphlet, and answer the question, ought a secret society to exist amongst us whose members can commit murder and yet escape punishment? MASONS HAVE done this, and their brethren, as may be seen by the oaths on our last page, are sworn to protect them.
Fellow citizens, are men bound by such Obligations and possessing such principals, FIT to be rulers of a FREE PEOPLE?
Read this and lend it to your neighbor.
A Statement of the facts
Relative to the confinement of WILLIAM MORGAN in Fort Niagara, and such parts of that conspiracy as fell within the knowledge of the writer
In presenting the following statement of facts, I beg leave to observe that I have no other excuse to make for the part I took in this foul transaction, than that I was a Royal Arch Mason, and did at that time consider my masonic obligations binding upon my conscience; and now, since these obligations are before the public, I am willing to abide by their decision, how much I was actuated by principles and how much by fear; one thing, however, is certain, that although nothing could have been more repugnant to my natural feelings, yet a sense of duty, and the horrid consequences of refusal, outweighed every other consideration.
In justice to those who took part in this transaction, I would observe, that as far as I am acquainted with them, I feel warranted in saying, that they were urged to those excesses by a strong sense of duty, they blindly thought themselves bound by the most horrid penalties, to perform; and it is to be hoped that the world will be charitable to them by commiserating their misfortunes and extenuating their faults, should they renounce this iniquitous combination, and honestly and fearlessly disclose the parts they acted in this conspiracy, and the causes which urged them to it; but, should they still persist in their obstinate silence, they must not expect that lenity which they otherwise might be entitled to from an indulgent public.
It is to be hoped that an institution whose very principles lead directly to such horrid outrages, and which is entirely made up of dissimulation and fraud, will be completely suppressed in this country and throughout the world, and that a barrier be instituted to prevent it from ever again polluting the earth with its insidious influence. But the public must not expect to accomplish this desirable object without unwanted pains and incessant vigilance; their task is but commencing, and, should they lack in circumspection or perseverance, the monster will yet flourish with more power and commit greater enormities than ever.
Masonic Cull
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”
John Quincy Adams
From Letters on the Masonic Intitution, 1847:
The Institution of Masonry was introduced into the British Colonies of North America more than a hundred years ago. It went on slowly at first, but from the time of the Revolution it spread more rapidly, until in the first quarter of the present century it had succeeded in winding itself through all the departments of the body politic in the United States, and in claiming the sanction of many of the country’s most distinguished men. Up to the year 1826 nothing occurred to mar its progress or to interpose the smallest obstacle to its triumphant success. So great had then become the confidence of the members in its power, as to prompt the loud tone of gratulation in which some of its orators then indulged at their pubic festivals, and among these none spoke more boldly than Mr. Brainard, in the passage which will be found * quoted in the present volume. He announced that Masonry was exercising its influence in the sacred desk, in the legislative hall and on the bench of justice, but so little had the public attention been directed to the truth he uttered, that the declaration passed off, and was set down by the uninitiated rather as a flower of rhetoric with which young speakers will sometimes magnify their topic, than as entitled to any particularly serious notice. Neither would these memorable words have been rescued from oblivion, if it had not happened that the very next year after they were uttered was destined to furnish a most extraordinary illustration of their significance.
In a small town situated in the western part of the State of New York, an event occurred in the autumn of the year 1826, which roused the suspicions first of the people living in the immediate neighborhood, and afterwards of a very wide circle of persons throughout the United States. A citizen of Batavia suddenly disappeared from his family, without giving the slightest warning. Rumors were immediately circulated that he had run away; but there were circumstances attending the act which favored the idea that personal violence had been resorted to, although the precise authors of it could not be distinctly traced. The name of the citizen who thus vanished as if the earth had opened and swallowed him from sight, was William Morgan. He had been a man of little consideration in the place, in which he had been but a short time resident. Without wealth, for he was compelled to labor for the support of a young wife and two infant children, and without influence of any kind, it seemed as if there could be nothing in the history or the pursuits of the individual to make him a shining mark of persecution, on any account. So unreasonable, if not absurd, did the notion of the forcible abduction of such a man appear, that it was at first met with a cold smile of utter incredulity. Among the floating population of a newly settled country, the single fact of the departure of persons having few ties to bind them to any particular spot, would scarcely cause remark or lead to inquiry. Numbers, when first called to express an opinion in the ease of Morgan, at once jumped to the conclusion that he voluntarily fled to parts unknown. So natural was the inference that even to this day, many who have never taken any trouble to look into the evidence, are impressed with a vague notion that it is the proper solution of the difficulty. In ordinary circumstances the thing might have passed off as a nine days’ wonder, and in a month’s time the name of Morgan might have been forgotten in Batavia, had it not been for a single clue which was left behind him, and which, at first followed up from curiosity, soon excited wonder, and from this led to astonishment at the nature of the discoveries that ensued.
The single clue which ultimately unwound the tangled skein of evidence was this. The sole act of Morgan, whilst dwelling in Batavia, which formed any exception to the ordinary habits of men in his walk of life, was an undertaking into which he entered, in partnership with another person, to print and publish a book. This book promised to contain a true account of certain ceremonies and secret obligations taken by those who joined the society of Freemasons. The simple announcement of the intention to print this work was known to have been received by many of the persons in the vicinity, acknowledged brethren of the Order, with signs of the most lively indignation. And as the thing went on to execution, so many efforts were made to interrupt and to prevent it, even at the hazard of much violence, that soon after the disappearance of the prime mover of the plan, doubts began to spread in the community, whether there was not some connection, in the way of cause and effect, between the proposed publication and that event. Circumstances rapidly confirmed suspicion into belief, and belief into certainty. At first the attention was concentrated upon the individuals of the fraternity discovered to have been concerned in the taking off. It afterwards spread itself so far as to embrace the action of the Lodges of the region in which the deed was done. But such was the amount of resistance experienced to efforts made to ferret out the perpetrators and bring them to justice, that ultimately the whole organization of the Order became involved in responsibility for the misdeeds of its members. The opposition made to investigation only stimulated the passion to investigate. Unexampled efforts were made to enlist the whole power of the social system in the pursuit of the kidnappers, which were as steadily baffled by the superior activity of the Masonic power. In time, it became plain, that the only effectual course would be, to go if possible to the root of the evil, and to attack Masonry in its very citadel of secret obligations.
The labor expended in the endeavor to suppress the publication of Morgan’s book, proved to have been lost. It came out just at the moment when the disappearance of its author was most calculated to rouse the public curiosity to its contents. On examination, it was found to contain what purported to be the forms of Oaths taken by those who were admitted to the first three degrees of Masonry,-the Entered Apprentice’s, the Fellow Craft’s and the Master Mason’s. If they really were what they pretended to be, then indeed was supplied a full explanation of the motives that might have led to Morgan’s disappearance. But here was the first difficulty. Doubts were sedulously spread of their genuineness. Morgan’s want of social character was used with effect to bring the whole volume into discredit. Neither is it perfectly certain that its revelations would have been ultimately established as true, had not a considerable number of the fraternity, stimulated by the consciousness of the error which they had committed, voluntarily assembled at Leroy, a town in the neighborhood of Batavia, and then and there, besides attesting the veracity of Morgan’s book, renounced all further connection with the society. One or two of these persons subsequently made far more extended publications, in which they opened all the mysteries of the Royal Arch, and of the Knight Templar’s libation, besides exposing in a clear light the whole complicated organization of the Institution. Upon these disclosures the popular excitement spread over a large part of the northern section of the Union. It crept into the political divisions of the time. A party sprung up almost with the celerity of magic, the end of whose exertions was to be the overthrow of Masonry. It soon carried before it all the power of Western New York. It spread into the neighboring States. It made its appearance in legislative assemblies, and there demanded full and earnest investigations, not merely of the circumstances attending the event which originated the excitement, but also of the nature of the obligations which Masons had been in the habit of assuming. Great as was the effort to resist this movement, and manifold the devices to escape the searching operation proposed, it was found impossible directly to stem the tide of popular opinion. Masons, who stubbornly adhered to the Order, were yet compelled under oath to give their reluctant testimony to the truth of the disclosures that had been made. The oaths of Masonry and the strange rites practiced simultaneously with the assumption of them, were then found to be in substance what they had been affirmed to be. The veil that hid the mystery was rent in twain, and there stood the idol before the gaze of the multitude, in all the nakedness of its natural deformity.
Strange though it may seem, it is nevertheless equally certain, that the most revolting features of the obligation, the pledges subversive of all moral distinctions, and the penalties for violating those pledges, were not those things which roused the most general popular disapprobation. Here, as often before, the shield of private character, earned by a life and conversation without reproach, was interposed with effect to screen from censure men who protested that when they swore to keep secret the crimes which their brethren might have committed, provided they were revealed to them under the Masonic sign, they did nothing which they deemed inconsistent with their duties as Christians and as members of society. It is the tendency of mankind to mix with all abstract reasoning, however pure and perfect, a great deal of the alloy of human authority, to harden its nature. Multitudes preferred to believe the Masonic oaths and penalties to be ceremonies, childish, ridiculous and unmeaning, rather than to suppose them intrinsically and incurably vicious. They refused to credit the fact that men whom they respected as citizens could have made themselves parties to any promise whatsoever to do acts illegal, unjust and wicked. Rather than go so far, they preferred to throw themselves into a state of resolute unbelief of all that could be said against them. Hence the extraordinary resistance to all projects of examination, that great wall of brass which the conservative temper of society erects around acknowledged and time-hallowed abuses. Hence the determination to credit the assurances of interested witnesses, who seemed to have a character for veracity to support, rather than by pressing investigation, to undermine the established edifice constructed by the world’s opinion.
Neither is there at bottom any want of good sense in this sluggish mode of viewing all movements of reform. Agitation always portends more or less of risk to society, and tends to bring mere authority into contempt. It is therefore not without reason that those who value the security which they enjoy under existing institutions, hesitate at adopting any rule of conduct which may materially diminish it. Such hesitation is visible under all forms of government, but it is no where more marked than in the United States, where the popular nature of the institutions makes the tendency to change at all times imminent. The misfortune attending this natural and pardonable conservative instinct is, that it clings with indiscriminate tenacity to all that has been long established the evil as well as the good, the abuses that have crept in equally with the useful and the true. It was just so in the case of Masonry. A large number of the most active and respected members of society had allowed themselves to become involved in its obligations, and rather than voluntarily to confess the error they had committed, and to sanction the overthrow of the Institution by a decided act of surrender, they preferred to support it upon the strength of their present character, and upon the combination of themselves and the friends whom they could influence to resist the assaults of a reforming and purifying power. Great as was the strength of this resistance, it could only partially succeed in accomplishing the object at which it aimed. The opposition made to the admission of a palpable moral truth, had its usual and natural effect to stimulate the efforts of those who were pressing it upon the public attention. Admitting in the fullest extent every thing that could be said in behalf of many of the individuals, who as Masons became subjected to the vehemence of the denunciations directed against the fraternity, it was yet a fact not a little startling, that even they should deem themselves so far bound by unlawful obligations as at no time to be ready to signify the smallest disapprobation of their character, not even after the fact was proved how much of evil they had caused. After the disclosures of the Morgan history, it was no longer possible to pretend that the pledges were not actually construed in the sense which the language plainly conveyed. That after admitting the possibility of such a construction, the association which for one moment longer should give it countenance, made itself responsible for all the crime which might become the fruit of it, cannot be denied. Yet this reasoning did not appear to have the weight to which it was fairly entitled, in deterring the respectable members of the society from giving it their aid and countenance. DeWitt Clinton still remained Grand Master of the Order after he had reason to know the extent to which it had made itself accessory to the Morgan murder. Edward Livingston was not ashamed publicly to declare his acceptance of the same office, although the chain of evidence which traced that crime to the Masonic oath had then been made completely visible to all. When the authority of such names as these was invoked with success, to shelter the association from the effect of its own system, it seemed to become an imperative duty on the part of those whose attention had been aroused to the subject, to look beyond the barrier of authority so sedulously erected in order to keep them out, to probe by a searching analytic process the moral elements upon which the Institution claimed to rest, and to concentrate the rays of truth and right reason upon those corrupt principles, which if not effectively counteracted, seemed to threaten the very foundations of justice in the social and moral system of America.
“Zionists beat Rabbis who were protecting graves from desecration.”
“Zionist police in Synagogue during Passover prayers, Jerusalem, 2005.04.26″
Statement to the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine, July 16, 1947
By Chief Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky
[Note that officially the Chief Zionist Rabbi at that time was the British Isaac Kook, a colonial appointee chosen to serve British interests. Kook argued that goyim (non-Jews) have animalistic souls and only Jews are human.]
Taken from the United Nations Trusteeship Library
1. The ancient right of the People of Israel to the land of Israel.
In approaching what is commonly called the Palestine problem and in trying to find a just and suitable solution it is imperative that the history of the Holy Land and its correlation with the Jewish people be viewed in their proper perspective.
Indeed from the day onwards on which the L-rd said to Abraham: “Arise, walk through the Land, in the length of it and in the breadth, for I will give it unto thee” (Genesis, 13, 17), this country was predestined to be the land of domicile for the People of Israel. However, this predestination, this divine promise, has its basis but in religion, for only loyalty to HIS laws and teachings and fundamental application of that Law in Israel’s public and private life will entitle them to the name “People of Israel” and only then can the term “Land of Israel” apply to this land as it is aid: “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19, 6) and further: “For thou art a holy people under the L-rd, thy G-d.” (Deuteronomy 7, 6). The interrelation between the land of Israel and the people of Israel rise and falls with the degree and intensity with which they fulfill the Holy Law. Past experience proves that Israel fell easy prey to their enemies whenever they deviated from the path prescribed in the Holy Bible, a fact to which the chapters of the Bible bear eloquent evidence.
2. Unbroken settlement by Jews throughout the ages.
Hence, even after the dispersion, when Israel were scattered to the four corners of the world to atone for their sins and prepare themselves for the great task of being a holy nation and of being fit once again to live in the land of their promise, Jews loyal to the tradition of their forefathers have not severed the connection with the land even for short intervals. Though unable to fulfill all the commandments while residing abroad, particularly those relating to the soil of this land, they have constantly directed and arranged their prayers with their faces towards the Holy Land in accordance with I King 8, 48: “And pray unto thee towards their land.”
Some Jews endeavoured to visit the Holy Land at least once in their lives and at later periods, when transport and traffic connections became easier, these loyal Jews began to return to the Holy Land to live permanently therein in holiness and purity and literally applied the verse (Psalms 102, 14): “For thy servants take pleasure in her stones and favour the dust thereof.”
The relation between the people of Israel and the land of Israel being an ancient and permanent religious tie, Providence has seen to it that throughout the long history of this land, Jews were never to abandon it entirely. . . .
3. Good neighbourly relations with other sections of the population.
During no period of the immigration of such orthodox European Jews was any opposition offered by the Arab population. On the contrary, these Jews were welcomed on account of economic benefits and general progress that accrued to the local inhabitants who had no fear whatsoever of being subjugated. It was common knowledge that these Jews came but for the purpose of fulfilling certain religious requirements and they had no difficulty in establishing a mutual trust, and real friendship developed with all sections of the community. That was the time when good neighborly relations existed between Jews and Arabs and in particular Rabbis and eminent scholars who then lead the Jewish Community were greatly esteemed and honoured by all inhabitants.
4. Palestine under the Mandate.
With the occupation of Palestine by His Britannic Majesty’s Forces and after the confirmation of the Mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917 a new era opened in the history of the Holy Land. We Orthodox Jews whose forefathers promoted the development of the Jewish Yishuv throughout the generations, who for many centuries constituted the most important element of the Yishuv in the Holy Land, were always on the very best of terms with all sections of the Community. We had hoped that the real purpose of the Mandate would be the promotion of a “Home” to which Jews who lived in the Diaspora might be able to return as their Home Land in order to live here in accordance with the Commandments of the Almighty. It was upon the first appearance of the Zionist organization as a political entity, created in and by the spirit of reform, a spirit to which Orthodox Jewry is so utterly opposed that the idea of the foundation of a Jewish state in the Holy Land was first advanced.
Much trouble and endless bloodshed might have been avoided if the Mandate were to have been applied in the manner hoped for by Orthodox Jewry.
In addition the various Jewish Communities in the country had been organized along traditional lines of truly Jewish Law, by actively applying the Laws of Moses to the public affairs of the Holy Land, we are convinced that the country would have remained at peace and the dangers inherent in prevailing conditions might never have arisen. Moreover, the colossal massacre of millions of our brethren at the hands of Nazism during the second World War might have been averted to a very substantial degree for many of them might have been able to live peacefully in the Holy Land as there would have been not the slightest justification for the limitations of Jewish immigration as have in fact been enforced during the last decade.
However, it is a regrettable fact that a serious blunder was committed at the time by recognising first the leaders of Zionism and then the Jewish Agency as official representation of the Jewish population and by handing the keys of immigration to that body which consists of zionists and non-zionists who are united in the opposition to the application of religion to public life and they have succeeded in bringing to this country free-thinking people like themselves who blocked the way of immigration to myriads of Orthodox Jews. Only after prolonged and forceful representations supported by the Government of Palestine did they agree to issue small numbers of certificates for immigration also to Orthodox Jews. They have thus succeeded in strengthening their position by bringing in elements of the population who were faithful to their aims and ideals and have founded Jewish Communities throughout the country whose very spirit is contrary to the requirements of Jewish Law and have thereby furthered their hold in the country, by insisting on the creation of a Jewish state therein. This aroused the fear of our Arab neighbors in connection with further Jewish immigration and thus started the determined opposition on the part of the Arabs against Jewish immigration.
5. Palestine as a State.
From the time of King Solomon to our very days the Holy Land was either united with Trans-Jordan or attached to Syria or Turkey. Western Palestine was never a single and independent entity and certainly a part of that cannot possibly constitute an independent state, as envisaged in the various plans that are discussed from time to time.
However, the basic reason for our opposition to an Independent Jewish state as that in prevailing circumstances the officially recognised representation of the Jewish people does not consider the authority of the Holy Law as binding in the public affairs of the Jewish people. … And it is contrary to the wishes of G-d to create a Jewish State. . .
6. Summary of Part I
Orthodox Jewry has not the slightest intention of subjugating any section of the population of the Holy Land. We merely demand that the gates of Palestine be opened to all those Jews who have no home and enable them to live here Jewish lives in accordance with the commandments of the L-rd. However in order to avoid the continuation of the untenable position as set out in the last paragraph of section 4 we suggest that the keys of Jewish immigration be placed into the hands of the Government of this country.
We furthermore wish to express our definite opposition to a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.
+ + +
The responses to an article about Neturei Karta on y-net seem to confirm the Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City) view that Zionists are hateful, twisted, immoral, and ignorant — “Maggots!” “Cockroaches!” “Rats!” “Lock them up until they die!” “Force them to kill!” “Death!” “Dirty Jews!” “Money-Grubbers!” etc:
How do you preform an excommunication? They should be locked up and and have the key destroyed (not just tossed away) with the door welded shut. They are too dangerous to be aloud to run around in public.
Did someone do some “brain washing” to this “spiritual leaders”?Realize that you are living in our country.
Ahmedinijad blamed Jews for the economic mess. These people should be boycotted.
Excommunication would be too good for them. Every single one of these fanatics who live in Israel and meet with Ahmadinejad, should be put on trial for treason. It’s time to remove the kid gloves when dealing with Naturei Karta and similar ultra-religious extremists.
There is a special blessing the the Amida just for this sort of traitors.
I can’t believe these people are Jewish. How can they speak like that?
I can’t believe those people! this is horrible!!! i just can’t believe that there are Jewish people like this! i am shocked! they are so stupid! well all i’ve got to say is Fuck you!
Their so dirty. They could use some hygiene.
These mental cases should be banned from entering Israel.
Neturei Karta should make themselves useful for once anf kill the Iranian Hitler. Mossad should infiltrate them.
These guys should have their heads chopped off.
judenrat. they have bought themselves a little more time until a new more viscious spirit is revealed in a haman jihad .
Deport the bastards!!! They should be locked up (or deported) and key thrown away: any MK that has UnAuthorized relationships with Syria / Hamas ? PA (read arab list) any and all members of Betzelem, any and all members of Neturei Karta living in Israel (we need to create mechanism to deal with the ones living in chutz laaretz) (why only outrage at Neturei Karta … lets be intellectually honest.. lock up the entire loony contingent)
the pictures of jewish men meeting with the iranian leader are sickening.
EVERY RELIGION HAS EXTREMIST CRACK POTS : ALL DANGEROUS. Well what can you say about these weirdos? Its easy to see why they are a minority, but as with extremists of all persuasion , they can be dangerous to the rest of us when attempting to force their stupidity down our throats.
NK is in no way Ultra-Orthodox. or if so, then they’re ultra-orthodox toward a foreign religion. Colluding with our Nation’s enemies makes them utterly unfaithful to our Holy Torah. The Jewish Nation (all its streams including the anti-Zionist Satmar community) has unanimously shunned them and for all effects and purposes has excommunicated them. Ynet… its time you did the same. Please sign this petition of excommunication: http://www.petitiononline.com/Neturei/petition.html Shana Tova and may the Almighty protect us from our enemies from within and without.
Excommunication starts here. A Petition to Excommunicate: http://www.petitiononline.com/Neturei/petition.html
They comprise a few hundred at best living amongst the rednecks of the NY mountains.
The maggots that call themselves netura karte ARE LEFTISTS !!! albeit in tradtional garb …. Most are so called hazerim biteshuva – cursed scum that are proud of their leftist nazi views BUT claim to be religious now AND even dress in religious garb ….. The fake hazerim bitshuva should get their skulls smashed ….
Naturee carta. What an old nomen romanus of this gangster’s,who doesn’t know limit of their yearning for easy earned money .I know this people.I met them in my galuth life.they went to the local jew hating police to denounce us,cionist youth of the town,beeing komunist and in this time wasn’t isral yet. Andi mihakfar.
They are NOT Jewish. They’re just Arabs pretending to be Jews to make Jews look like the bad guys.
Israel is a democracy. I don’t beleive the torah or any other book is the word of god or even people inspired by god. In fact the best book of god is the one that is written. this being said,t he nea carta at least in israel should do IDF duties All the relgious should get the hell into the army and stop perpetuating the weak jew. Now, I want to announce to the arab world that all of olmert’s concessions are null and void and do not represent any starting point for new talks. he is transitional and anything he offers means nothing.
Not surprising, the karta and the satmar, collaborated already with teh nazis during WWII. They arze a outcasted sect, who pretend to be jews but are indeed a maffiosi group.
are they pedophile-w(h)orshippers?
GROUP TIME @ THE ASYLUM?
Zionism=Israel !! Zionism is way to save Judaism and Israel.if Zionism fall down ,then Israel State not be have future. Torah is truth wisdom to Jews
so much hatred… to all those Jewish people venting their anger – why so much hatred for your own people? Talk of excommunication shows that you are weak and incapable of diversity (and therefore democracy).
As a jew I say that Karta & al; who discuss, hug or kiss with the evil iranian ape president are for us to be liked with our enbnemies and are no more worth than nazis collaborators. They should be outcasted and removed from our people like atumor. Nobody want these cockroaches among us !
Israel is safer for Rabbi Weiss and Neturei Karta. Were it not for Neturei Karta, the world would have only the Zionists on the global stage presenting the face of Judaism. Given the propensity of the ancient and modern history of mainstream Jews to be willing to sacrifice non-Jewish innocents for Jewish benefit, it is good there are some Jews Like Rabbi Weiss, who fearlessly stand against Zionist expansion. No people are automatically right or wrong in everything.
to neturei karta. if it wasn’t for the “so called” state of israel, you were all dead by now. stupid slefish pepole. you are not jewish, im sorry to say, maybe you follow the rules of the torah but you have forgotten the meaning of being a jews, and its spirtiual rules. its not all about the way you live,eat kosher, and acting modest, the jewish faith all so is about humanism. something you very lack of. stupid, ignorant pepole with old fashioned point of view. you are just like hammas if not worse. idiots.
What Ahmedinijad said was:
“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.“
Meaning:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
In context, he explained that it would “vanish” just as the USSR and the Shah’s Iran are both now history.
When asked about it, he said that if all residents of Palestine had democratic rights, then Israel would be voted out of existence as a state. Obviously, this is a statement of fact.
Whatever the objectives of the Islamic Republic are, and regardless of the Satanic nature of Islam, when discussing moves to go to war with Iran, which would probably set off a world war, it is important to be objective and stick to facts, not propaganda or exaggeration.
Word for word:
“Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) Qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).”
Police are encouraging the public to report people wearing too much ‘bling’ during the recession.
Watching a tight T-shirt-wearing, cocksure man wearing a gaudy gold chain round his neck strutting down the street is often worth a phone-call to the fashion police.
But one force is taking the idea a step further and encouraging people to shop Mr T-wannabes to Crimestoppers in a novel – some might say barmy – plan to bring down the crime rate.
In the latest example of innovative policing in Britain, the Gloucestershire force is encouraging members of the public to report people wearing too much ‘bling’ during the recession.
They are also urging people to shop anyone who drives flash cars or buys expensive items without the apparent means to afford them during the credit crunch.
The campaign, run with Crimestoppers, was launched by the force today under the title ‘Too Much Bling? Give Us a Ring’ with the aim of cracking down on those who live a lavish lifestyle on the profits of crime.
Gloucestershire’s Chief constable Dr Timothy Brain said: ‘In the current time of financial uncertainty, those who live a lavish lifestyle with no discernable, legitimate income become even more apparent.
‘By flaunting their ill-gotten gains criminals signal contempt for everyone who works hard, and act as very poor role models for the younger members of society.
‘Many criminals, including drug dealers and burglars, prize the trappings they have gained far more than their own liberty, and, having no need to get a legitimate job, are unconcerned by the impact a criminal record will have on their career prospects.’
Gloucestershire’s Chief Crown Prosecutor Adrian Foster, Chief Constable Timothy Brain and Crimestoppers Board Member John Cripps holding the new ‘bling’ posters.
But Tory MP and former Home Secretary Ann Widdecombe expressed disbelief at the move.
She said: ‘Is this a joke? If the police spent half as much time tackling crime and getting out on the beat as they do coming out with this ridiculous stuff, we’d all be better off.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, last year Gloucestershire Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts confiscated nearly £1.8million from convicted criminals and removed £1.4million in ill-gotten gains.
Adrian Foster, from Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service, said: ‘We have had incredible success over the last year in taking the profit out of crime and this campaign marks a call for all members of the public to assist in ensuring that crime really does not pay in Gloucestershire.’
✝
In one God the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
✝
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there shall be no end.
✝
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.
✝
In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.
