BT shuts down ‘anti-Semitic’ Catholic website
BT HAS banned a religious website critical of extremist Jews that it has hosted for four years following a campaign from a group of MPs claimed it was anti-Semitic.

The website, http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk, takes an inflammatory stance over extreme sections of Judaism that reject non-Jewish races.
http://ads.newsquest.co.uk/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2495567.0.bt_shuts_down_antisemitic_catholic_website.php/45935076/Frame2/default/empty.gif/64333164363733613433303636306230 http://ads.newsquest.co.uk/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2495567.0.bt_shuts_down_antisemitic_catholic_website.php/45935076/Frame2/default/empty.gif/64333164363733613433303636306230
The website editor, Timothy Johnson from Sheffield, a radical Catholic, told the Sunday Herald last night he was the subject of a "smear" campaign. He and his supporters say the action highlights a growing campaign against critics of the actions of extremist Jews and is a breach of free debate in a free society.

More at Sunday Herald

The Zionist ideal of a Jewish state is keeping Israelis and Palestinians from living in peace.
By Ben Ehrenreich
March 15, 2009

It's hard to imagine now, but in 1944, six years after Kristallnacht, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, felt comfortable equating the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with "the concept of a racial state -- the Hitlerian concept." For most of the last century, a principled opposition to Zionism was a mainstream stance within American Judaism.

Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to "push the hand of God"; and Marxist Jews -- my grandparents among them -- tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.

To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.

For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.

Yet it is no longer possible to believe with an honest conscience that the deplorable conditions in which Palestinians live and die in Gaza and the West Bank come as the result of specific policies, leaders or parties on either side of the impasse. The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.

It has been argued that Zionism is an anachronism, a leftover ideology from the era of 19th century romantic nationalisms wedged uncomfortably into 21st century geopolitics. But Zionism is not merely outdated. Even before 1948, one of its basic oversights was readily apparent: the presence of Palestinians in Palestine. That led some of the most prominent Jewish thinkers of the last century, many of them Zionists, to balk at the idea of Jewish statehood. The Brit Shalom movement -- founded in 1925 and supported at various times by Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem -- argued for a secular, binational state in Palestine in which Jews and Arabs would be accorded equal status. Their concerns were both moral and pragmatic. The establishment of a Jewish state, Buber feared, would mean "premeditated national suicide."

The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable. The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.

Israeli policies have rendered the once apparently inevitable two-state solution less and less feasible. Years of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have methodically diminished the viability of a Palestinian state. Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has even refused to endorse the idea of an independent Palestinian state, which suggests an immediate future of more of the same: more settlements, more punitive assaults.

All of this has led to a revival of the Brit Shalom idea of a single, secular binational state in which Jews and Arabs have equal political rights. The obstacles are, of course, enormous. They include not just a powerful Israeli attachment to the idea of an exclusively Jewish state, but its Palestinian analogue: Hamas' ideal of Islamic rule. Both sides would have to find assurance that their security was guaranteed. What precise shape such a state would take -- a strict, vote-by-vote democracy or a more complex federalist system -- would involve years of painful negotiation, wiser leaders than now exist and an uncompromising commitment from the rest of the world, particularly from the United States.

Meanwhile, the characterization of anti-Zionism as an "epidemic" more dangerous than anti-Semitism reveals only the unsustainability of the position into which Israel's apologists have been forced. Faced with international condemnation, they seek to limit the discourse, to erect walls that delineate what can and can't be said.

It's not working. Opposing Zionism is neither anti-Semitic nor particularly radical. It requires only that we take our own values seriously and no longer, as the book of Amos has it, "turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteousness to the ground."

Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice that date back to Jeremiah.

Ben Ehrenreich is the author of the novel "The Suitors."

 

Chelene Nightingale
  

However after entering the employment world, I quickly abhorred the amount of taxes deducted from my paychecks.  Yet with a mortgage tax, sales tax, federal and state tax, the underdog, victim, and poverty stricken still existed.  Wasn’t a portion of my hard earned money being taken to help the government welfare programs?  

Although in my early 20’s, I paid very little attention to politics, with the exception of ABC Nightly News and an occasional Time magazine, I still realized that the welfare system was not successful.  In my humble opinion, it enslaved citizens and kept them in the never ending cycle of victim.   

I felt betrayed by democrats, so joined the ranks of the Reagan Party aka the Republicans.  Especially after discovering a new faith in Christ, the party represented my conservative values better with the pro-life and pro-family stance.  And I did what any party faithful follows….voting party only.  Their background nor their beliefs mattered as long as the candidate had an ( R ) by their name. 

Yes, I voted for George W. Bush and even Arnold Schwarzenegger (it did not matter that he was married into the democrat Kennedy family, because he had an ( R ) by his name.  I trusted anyone in the ‘conservative’ party. 

While party faithful, I still did not pay attention to politics as education taught me to just trust our government.  By trusting, I could just go about my life and enjoy.   

But along came the tragic day on 9/11.  Like millions around the world, I watched the news in horror, yet something did not seem truthful.  I am no rocket scientist or engineer, but the way the buildings collapsed did not seem right.  And how did everyone escape the Pentagon?  Why did that scene look not so tragic?  I could not put the pieces together, but questions were raised and it forced me to pay some attention to politics. 

Shortly thereafter, the birth of my son caused me to be very introspective and evaluate the current affairs of our nation and world.   Meanwhile, one of my co-workers was a member of the fairly new organization Save Our State founded by Joseph Turner.  My co-worker, a dear friend, tried to introduce me to www.saveourstate.org , however at the time I could not believe that illegal immigration and open borders existed; especially after 9/11. 

After a couple months of  my friends persistence, I joined Save Our State in the spring of 2005.  In no time I was organizing events for the organization with a passionate belief that elected officials had betrayed we the American people. 

These past 4 years have been a journey of political awakening.  Open borders, a mass criminal invasion,  the unjust prosecutions of border patrol agents Ramos & Compean, Gary Brugman, Noe Aleman, and Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez, the erosion of our United States Constitution, the bailouts and stimulus packages, a serving president without a birth certificate, and voter fraud are just a few examples that caused me to stop being loyal to the two party system.   

In 2006, I not only voted for my first third party candidate, I also served as this candidates campaign manager.  The candidate was Art Olivier for California Governor.  It was during Art’s campaign that I learned about the other third party choices.  Unfortunately I also learned the giant obstacles a third party must overcome – lack of donations, unrepresented in the media, ignored in the big debates, and the ol’ “voting for lesser of two evils, because a third party can never win” propaganda. 

Although Art did not win the gubernatorial race due to the normal third party challenges, the outcome caused me to be even more determined to save our country from the corrupt two party system.   

At first I remained in the GOP to change the party back to the party of Reagan and Lincoln.  I was encouraged with the Ron Paul Revolution!  In fact, I was invited to join Dr.Paul for a private meeting with other pro legal immigration/pro secure border organization leaders.  After the meeting I enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul for President.  I was excited to join the Revolution with a renewed hope our nation could be saved and restored to our Founding Fathers’ original vision.  

Unfortunately Ron Paul was treated like a third party candidate even by his own GOP peers.  With a huge faithful following and historic donations somehow CFR member McCain became the Republican candidate.  Like most politically aware Americans,  I sensed corruption.  The George Soros crowd knew McCain would lose to Obama and feared Ron Paul would actually win preventing their New World Order Agenda. 

At last, I was fully awake to the political two-party system nightmare and knew there was no chance of bringing the GOP back to its glory days.  With Ron Paul out of the race, I proudly voted for third party candidate, Pastor Chuck Baldwin!  Besides Dr. Paul. Chuck Baldwin was the only candidate who truly represented me.  I looked forward to every Chuck Baldwin email since he spoke with such truth, honor, conviction, and patriotism. 

Best Regards,

 “This land is your land, this land is my land

From California, to the New York Island

From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters

This land was made for you and me.”

   Woody Guthrie

Does this land belong to each American property owner individually as private property? Does this land belong to all Americans collectively as some sort of communitarian concept? Does it belong to the United States Government which then dictates when and under what circumstances it can be used? This is one of the most important issues of our day. The historic right of the ownership of private property is at stake.

The Founding Fathers left no doubt about where they stood on the question. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution concludes with these words, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”   John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

Today, the American economy is staggering under a debt load of some 12 trillion dollars of public debt and an estimated 2009 deficit of 1.75 trillion dollars. Regulations, taxes, falling revenue streams, high costs of imported energy, rising unemployment, and falling stock prices are concerns as Congress struggles to deal with these problems. One can’t help but wonder why the Congress chose as its first order of business in 2009, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This bill passed the Senate January 15, 2009 with twenty Republicans joining the Democrat majority. It now awaits only the House’s consideration of the Senate’s version, and the President’s signature, to become law.

This bill would give control of about 26 million acres of forest land along the northern parts of the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and others to be designated as National Park, wilderness, or heritage areas. According to the Bureau of Land Management, it would also remove about 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 million barrels of oil from potential production in Wyoming.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) one of the most outspoken opponents of the bill, pointed out that this bill would remove almost as much energy from potential future production as is currently produced in our two most productive energy states of Alaska and Texas.

In order to put the questions raised by this bill into proper perspective, one should consider the following scenarios:

Suppose a man had a small tract of land in northern Vermont with 10 acres of timber and

10 acres of pasture fields. His family has lived on this land for generations. His father taught him to hunt and fish there and then left it to him to do the same with his children. One day a letter from the federal government arrives that tells him his land is now part of a new National Park system.  Even if he is allowed to continue living on it he can’t harvest its timber or use it in the other ways he might desire to use it. The letter tells him that the government’s action does not trigger the takings provision of the Fifth Amendment because he still owns it and therefore is not entitled to just compensation.  Despite the fact that he may not use it as he wishes, he must continue to pay taxes on it.

Suppose a land owner in Wyoming has ten thousand acres of ranch land and under that land is one million feet of natural gas and a lot of oil. How is he to get proper use of that land’s resources after the federal government sets it aside under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009?

Suppose a man owns a small amount of land in Maine and the federal government “discovers” some tiny species of animal that fits under the Endangered Species Act so he is prohibited from any use of his land.

These scenarios could all be argued to be takings, only in a regulatory sense, and therefore the owner is not entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Even if compensation is offered, the value is far lower than actual appraised value because the land cannot be used.

The owner could always raise a court challenge to these regulatory takings if he had a few hundred thousand dollars for legal fees.  Perhaps he would lose anyway as did the plaintiffs in Kelo v. City of New London in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property for private use. Kelo was an owner of a small business and his property was taken under eminent domain and given to a private developer.