Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Wear a Condom for World Peace

Glenn Greenwald went on for paragraph after paragraph on Salon about why he still deserves to live even though he's considering voting for a pro-life Republican, namely Dr. Ron Paul, for president.

It is stunning to me how many people would rather have an abortion than have world peace. It seems pretty selfish to me. But I guess that's what having an abortion is all about. Men who don't want to take responsibility for their offspring. It has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights if you ask me, and I have always been female. It has to do with the assumption that women must earn a living or else they are a drain on society.

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

"There's no question that abortion -- whatever one's views on it are -- is a vital, even central issue of individual rights... But abortion isn't the only important issue... of Paul's candidacy."

There are actually a lot of questions about what are the most vital issues concerning the individual rights of women, and how abortion fits into that picture. If you ask me, abortion is a distraction from the three fundamental rights of sexually active women.

Marriage - the promise of a man to provide for his potential offspring and fulfill the needs of his woman.

Dowry - a gift given from the man to the woman to legitimize his interest in her.

Maintenance - all expenses paid (food, clothing, shelter, medical care) for life.

In the ideal world, every woman should and would demand this from any man seeking to enjoy her. Abortion "on demand and without apology" destroys this ancient security net for women.

"If people who support a candidate with the wrong position on abortion (or gay rights) can be accused of being indifferent to the rights of women or gay people, then -- by the same exact "reasoning" -- those who end up supporting candidates who affirm America's right to act as an imperial power or who want to continue many of Bush's executive power abuses [as Hillary Clinton certainly does and as even Barack Obama and (to a lesser extent) John Edwards do] should be accused of being indifferent to constitutional liberties, the rule of law, and the lives of millions of innocent Muslims," continues Greenwald.

I do not presume to know what the "right" position is on abortion. Neither does Ron Paul. He doesn't let his personal feelings get in the way of the Constitution. He says leave it up to the state. There is no way New York Jews are ever going to criminalize abortion. So it's a non-issue.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

CNN shafts Ron Paul despite crowds of supporters

Orlando, Florida--November 28, 2007--Entering the CNN Republican “debate” Giuliani reportedly commented to Ron Paul, "Gee, you have a lot of supporters."

Ron Paul replied, "This is only the beginning."

Outside Ron Paul supporters filled several blocks. The supporters were described as a mix of "classy rich-looking people and hippy-looking people and people from all walks of life."

The police commented that the Ron Paul people were the best crowd they ever dealt with. People were constantly thanking them for their service. The 160 anti-war protesters who came to protest the Republicans found ONLY fellow anti-war Ron Paul activists.

Dr. Paul commented, "The freedom message brings people together."

Dr. Paul’s Abraham Lincoln persona has drawn hundreds of energetic volunteers to leave it all behind to become traveling vagabonds working for the Ron Paul presidential campaign across America, sleeping on the floors of people they met over the Internet.

The Florida Ron Paul meetup groups rented a park next to the debate hall as well as the Paladium Theatre, where 800 Ron Paul supporters watched the televised debate.

New York Times blogger, Marc Santora writes, "By land, by air and by sea, the disciples of Ron Paul converged on the debate hall here in St. Petersburg, Fla., in the hours before the debate here tonight. There were two planes circling overhead, one flying a Ron Paul banner another with lights spelling out his name Goodyear Blimp-style. A ship circling in the bay just outside the hall was festooned with Ron Paul paraphernalia blaring martial music. In the park, just beyond the security fences erected around The Mahaffey Theater, the Paulites outfitted a group that was decidedly young and decidedly loyal with shirts and stickers and other assorted Paul gear."

Bloggers reported that no other candidates even had people holding signs.

Ron Paul wasn't planning to run for president, but the American people pushed him to run and spontaneously organized behind him. Ron Paul said to his loyal fans at the Paladium Theatre following the debate, "You've cured my skepticism."

But make no mistake about it. CNN crucified Ron Paul on live television.

A Zionist provocateur referred to Dr. Paul’s supporters as “Paulestinians,” but that is exactly what I was thinking when I was watching CNN. They gave Ron Paul the Palestinian treatment. The moderator was even calling him “Ron” instead of by his title.

After CNN's online poll before the debate with Ron Paul getting 95% on the online votes, they managed to avoid asking him a question for 35 minutes. The only time Dr. Paul was addressed personally was with leading questions designed to trip him up or else a personal attack. He was never given more than 90 seconds to talk at a time even though he was the only candidate with anything of substance to say.

A commentator noted, “It was painful to watch CNN give the questions Paul is strongest on (taxes, monetary policy, saving Social Security) to everyone else … Meanwhile, they asked Paul if he believes in conspiracies and what he’ll do when he loses."

Another commentator wrote, "I thought it was really entertaining to hear McCain trying to say the troops were panting “Let us win” in front of the man whose call to bring the troops home has raised him more money from the military than any of the other candidates. Ron Paul is very much top-tier with his fundraising and astounding support and yet he got very little attention. It was cute seeing the other candidates trying to ape his policies, though. "

"It is private property and they have the right to be biased," replied Congressman Ron Paul.

Salon is one of the few media outlets that did not downplay the significance of Ron Paul's mass popularity. "With his millions raised in online fund-raising and devoted base, we expect greater attention to be paid to what he has to say here tonight."

Ron Paul debate highlights

This ad was shown during the CNN Republican debate, towards the end.

Monday, November 19, 2007

The day I became a Republican

I just registered Republican for the first time in my life. I suppose it had to happen. I gave up on the Democrats in 1985 after I heard a rally in Ann Arbor where the woman at the mike blamed the Republicans for warmongering, said there would be money for decent public schools if the money wasn't being wasted for war and "interventions" all over ther world, and claimed that her reason for doing so was that so, at the end of the day, she could tell her children, "I tried."

I tried? That's all the Democrats have to offer? I was fourteen.

"That's terrifying," I admitted to myself.

Not to forget the 1.2 million people, the majority children under the age of five, who died because of Clinton's "sanctions regime" denying Iraq the right to chlorine to purify their water.

I shake my head, I fight back the tears. I can't think of anything to say about the Clintons.

I knew a woman who personally tried to talk to Hillary Clinton about the people dying in Iraq dying because of our foreign policy. Hillary gave her the "500,000 children's deaths are worth it for the sake of the US" type blather. The relief worker actually said to me she had to restrain herself from strangling Hillary Clinton. She had been to Iraq. With her own arms, she had picked up dying children from the side of the road. How many more children did you kill, Hillary Clinton? With your style of "permissiveness" towards your husband???

I heard a very loud thunderbolt the night the US first bombed Iraq, and I sat up in bed. I thought, "My country is going to hell." There must be some reason they are killing those people. They must know something that Bush doesn't want us to know. It must be Islam. Clearly Bush is with the anti-Christ. Whatever he is trying to destroy is probably what we need to study. So here I am suddenly a Muslim and I can't have sex unless I can get a guy to marry me. Shit!

Well that was a long time ago but the children in Iraq have not stopped dying by the thousands every month. The Bush administration has stopped charitable donations from being allowed to reach the children in Iraq due to pressure from Jewish special interest groups that somehow feel "safer" with the maximum of orphan starvation deaths in the Middle East.

OK so now I'm a Republican. I always knew I was a Republican. I have to admit I could never stomach late term abortion and the idea that anyone could defend it made me give up on Marxism and the Democrats. I have to admit it was too much for me.

And let me tell you why Americans should realize that Muslims are their natural allies.

I felt so betrayed by the Democrats. When I was fourteen years old, I told my parents I was sleeping over at my friend's house, and I hitched a ride to DC for my first peace march, with my friend's mother who had gone to peace marches in the 60s. My friend Susan told me she never realized her mother was cool before then. I was awed by the billowing leg hair and the contact lenses in rest stations. It totally changed my life.

But, somehow Susan, someone whom I smoked pot in my car with in our high school parking lot, became a Zionist. An ethnic nationalist. Trying to find some reason to live?? She betrayed everything I thought I knew about peace activists. I turned my back on the Democratic Party.

Growing up in Ann Arbor, Michigan, there was always peer pressure to adhere to the Democratic Party. The Klugers across the street were voting Democrat and my best friend Sharon told me that it was because the Democratic Party was concerned for minorities and the poor. My parents were voting for Reagan. I felt sick with shame. It was a weird childhood.

OK so now I'm a Republican like my father before me. People always assume I'm a Republican anyway. My husband and I had the weirdest experience at the Al-Awda convention in New York when we first met. No one under 65 would even greet us. I couldn't figure it out. Was my skirt too long? Did I look too heterosexual? I'm just here to support the Palestinians! We tried to engage with "End the Occupation," asking them what did they mean by that - the 1969 border or the 1948 border...well never mind, I got a pile of Rachel Corrie posters for free.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Muslims discover Ron Paul

After the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term “Islamic fascism.”

“It’s a false term to make people think we’re fighting Hitler,” Paul responded. “It’s war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread.”

The call has gone out to all the Muslim Americans to hurry up and register to vote Republican so that they can vote in the Republican Primary to support Ron Paul, the anti-interventionist, non-isolationist candidate for President of the United States. Muslims are opening their wallets and joining as well.

An anonymous Ron Paul supporter posted the following message on the internet: "Muslims and Americans have an unique window of opportunity for the 2008 election. There is a candidate running as a Republican that would work to completely cut off the funding to Israel, remove ALL US troops from Arab lands, and repeal the Patriot Act. He's a Republican with Libertarian views named Ron Paul. Ron Paul's policies ranging from monetary to foreign are top notch.

"Till now Muslims and Americans have not had an American Presidential candidate that really suited their best interests. This election is unique in that we have a man running as a Republican that speaks the truth. Much of the our foreign policy in the Middle East has been influenced heavily by AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby, to the detriment of Muslims in the Middle East. As American Muslims, we are blessed to live in the US where we have the freedom to let our policymakers know how we feel about foreign policy; we may not have the power of an influential lobby but we do have the right to vote and every single vote counts. We know the current policies in the Middle East are failing, not only making it less safe in the world but hurting and killing innocent Muslims, which our media callously calls collateral damage. It is our duty as Muslims to follow the truth regardless of how futile it may seem. Ron Paul is the only candidate that does not seem to be swayed by the influential lobbies that the other candidates are catering to."

Unlike the Green Party, Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.

Ron Paul: "Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does."

Ron Paul has already sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act, which, as originally proposed, sanctions the unregulated use of wiretaps and random searches sans warrants, the monitoring of private internet usage, and many other civil liberty infringements. He is one of the few members of Congress from either of the major houses that is speaking rationally about these issues.

There are so many passionate activists in America who are anti-neocon. They are generally very cynical about working within the system (like voting) but they do a lot of courageous work and even get themselves arrested protesting. Anti-Zionist protesters, like the Zionists, are having problem increasing their number to become effective, because their slogans do not resonate with most Americans. It's not that people don't care about the issues. Peace activists' hearts are for the most part in the right place but they are doing a very bad job of marketing their ideas because they are stuck in this outdated leftist rut. How can we help them be more effective and how can we get them to join the Ron Paul voter sign-up campaign?

Although I am getting more positive comments, I am also getting a lot of negative comments on general frustration with politicians and the unwillingness to believe that supporting a particular candidate will make a difference. But whether Ron Paul wins or loses, is a great way to meet your neighbors who are against the war and organize the community on a grassroots level. If something like Katrina ever happened to us, knowing our neighbors could mean the difference between life and death to our families.

The common thread I've been reading lately about leftists and Jews is that they are having trouble getting more than a dozen people to come to their stuff (whether anti-Zionist or Zionist). It's not happening with the anti-Israel movement because "protest Zionist imperialism" is not a catchy slogan. By contrast, there are over 400 RP activists against war taxes in Boston alone. Every day the list of passionate anti-war activists grows. Very few of them agree with every single RP position, they just want to get the Lobby out of the way and pull the troops out of Iraq.

One reason it's working is because of the software. They made the site almost like a dating site, where you can make friends with people in or near your zip code. They made it very easy to get together with new people to join the activism. You can't beat technology, may as well use it. Or at least copy their tactics. If it's really important to you to use leftist slogans to protest the war, then create your own page to recruit more protesters. But I think in terms of creating a grassroots movement it's better to work with the mainstream sentiment rather than against it. If you could end US funding of Israel simply by changing slogans, it would be worth it.

I really think the divestment movement was stupid for focusing on anti-Zionist arguments and thus losing the ballot vote. If they had made a pro-America argument against investing city funds in any foreign country they would have won by a landslide. And Somerville would be divesting from Israel. Stupid stupid stupid! All these morally superior types believed it was more important to educate people than to win. We don't have time. Even if you got 90% of Americans to agree that Zionism is wrong, that is not a program. Making "belief" statements about how we would "prefer" the world to be is not going to result in change. Only community organizing will. That means working with people on their level, even if it's kindergarten level.

In the event that RP actually won the election and got the Hamas treatment, his supporters are fully in support of the Right to Bear Arms. It would be interesting to see what followed.

If anti-war protesters want to continue to focus on the genocidal machinations of the global zionist-imperialist military, industrial, financial, political, neoliberal, media complex, they have to be willing to meet with anyone any time to hear what ideas people have to address this, which is our primary responsibility - even if they are Republicans.

If you ever saw RP in an interview it cannot be said that he avoids discussing vital issues. He is someone who is willing to make a statement and stick by it even when no one agrees with him. I don't "believe" in electoral politics but it's not that much sweat off my brow to go and vote to end war. I think it is selfish and dangerous for anti-war activists to be so arrogant and so narrow-minded as to not be able to work with their own neighbors to end the war in whatever way they can, just because it involves using American Liberty arguments instead of their personal pet slogans. Use the arguments that work with Americans, or else you just condemned America to fight wars for the next century. You can still keep going to protests. You could probably get a bunch of Libertarians to start coming to your protests if you would just be "nice."

watch this CNN clip -

I think the fact that NO Jewish group will let Ron Paul speak at their convention, not even peace Jews, is evidence enough that he is the only person to put in charge as commander-in-chief. And, even if he loses, making all these contacts with local anti-interventionists is priceless. If you want to expand the peace movement so that it overlaps with the freedom movement like ripples in a pond, you have to respect the fact that people might agree with you, but for different reasons.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Why not Ron Paul?

Does America have a future? At this point, there is nothing more important than pulling our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of choices here. You want Rudy Giuliani, who dressed up as a woman and marched in the gay pride parade, and who has been profiteering off 9/11, or you want Hillary, who strongly supported the genocidal sanctions against Iraqi children while she was First Lady? Both of them have promised AIPAC to bomb Iran. Also, Obama is influenced by AIPAC. Cynthia McKinney might run as a Green, but her chances of winning are slim because the Green Party has no money and has very few active volunteers. Ron Paul actually has a fighting chance to stop the wars because he has a strong base of support among the Young Republicans who are very enthusiastic, friendly, and remarkably sane. He wins every debate because he makes a "self-interest" argument for ending the wars which works with Americans. Even Jay Leno respected him.

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and a non-interventionist. Everybody disagrees with him about something. The leftists hate him because he's anti-abortion. But again, we have to put aside our personal opinions and stop the war immediately or lose our democracy. We only have one chance. The only thing that can unite Americans is the Constitution (as flawed a document as it is - but it's better than the lawlessness of Bush). Not a single Jewish organization supports Ron Paul for president.

Ron Paul approaches the Constitution almost like an Islamic jurist. He did not say he didn't think universal health care might be a good idea. He said it's not in the Constitution that the US government has the role of providing health care. If you want to do it, then you have to amend the Constitution. If you allow Congress to do things that the Constitution doesn't allow, then we no longer have a constitutional democracy. They can declare war without an act of Congress, they can cancel your currency value, they can put you in jail without evidence, etc.

I have never come across him saying anything racist. He did say, "I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

That is certainly true. Boston's bizarre busing system destroyed neighborhoods which had closely knit communities that worked together on a local level to organize social programs like Boy Scouts, now we have a welfare state where you have to enter a lottery to get your kids into a decent school, and they waste a lot of gas busing kids across town when there is a school walking distance from their house. Nobody attends Boy Scouts anymore, and neighborhood crime is rampant. The situation for blacks and whites has worsened since the 1960s because our economy is going down the drain due to our foreign policy. He has a rational argument for his views.

The current drug policy in the United States is completely irrational. The CIA invades a country, forces them to grow drugs, then the CIA brings it into the country and sells it to the police, who then sell it to the drug mafia, and then we spend billions of dollars putting people in jail for non-violent crimes. By decriminalizing drugs, and dismantling the CIA, as Paul proposes, you will have far fewer social problems created by criminal mafias and gangs because something like cocaine would no longer be profitable. And our tax money would no longer pay for these drug wars. That was also the approach in the early days of Islam. Because there was nothing specifically in the Quran outlawing any plant, there was no criminal offense for hashish, qat, or opium, and often they were prescribed by doctors as medicines. Avincenna talks a lot about the medieval Muslim uses of what we now consider to be "illegal" drugs. The drug wars have cost US taxpayers billions of dollars and have not improved anything. So it's useful to look at how America used to deal with these issues. Did you know that George Washington grew marijuana on the White House lawn? Farmers used to pay their taxes with hemp. The laws changed in the 1940s due to pressure from special interest groups. The herbicide (genocide of plant species) led to great dust storms, the ruination of farmers, and the Great Depression.

I am aware of "states rights" connection with the American history of slavery, however in this day and age, states rights gives you protection from Bush. And it also protects people. Because as long as, for example, gay marriage is a states issue, then every state can decide if it does or doesn't want to have gay marriage. If you gave the Feds the authority to make that decision, a special interest lobby could convince the federal government to legalize or outlaw gay marriage for the entire country. So there are pros and cons to Ron Paul's positions.

Affirmative action has not succeeded in addressing inequalities in society. What most average black and white people want is more money to live. Ron Paul would decrease the individual burden on average people to sustain an empire with their taxes and we'd have less poverty. Dr. Paul is a moral person so I'm sure that minorities could work with him to end poverty in ways that conform to the Constitution. In Roxbury here, the black community has been having a lot of meetings to figure out what to do because even though they succeeded in getting federal funding for all kinds of stuff, the crime in the neighborhood is just getting worse and worse. So, the socialist approach isn't working and Ron Paul's approach - locally based government, is what the black community is doing anyway, out of necessity. The #1 concern for black youth right now is not wanting to get killed in Iraq. Paul has a young black following.

Bottom line, we have to stop the war. Ron Paul is approachable. He is neither a criminal nor insane. As long as you can make an argument from the point of view of the Constitution you can get by. Sort of like when you are dealing with the Taliban, you have to make your argument based on Quran/Hadith and they will listen.

About immigration, I think it's a non-issue for those who immigrated here legally. I suspect that the anti-Mexican rhetoric is playing to popular sentiment, yet with his "small government" proposal, we'd have less of a police state working night and day to bust into the homes of the Mexicans, so they still might be better off with Ron Paul, and also, fewer Mexicans would join the US military and kill Muslims in order to get a green card, if there was no war. Ideally, the US should have a less predatorial relationship with Mexico so that their country would not be so impoverished that their young people would all have to leave home.

Some people feel that they don't want to support Ron Paul because they disagree with this or that. However, what we have right now is Bush and a government that has descended into lawlessness. In fact, the US is bankrupt. So either we give in to complete tyranny, or we stick to the Constitution. I don't see any other choice. There is no other candidate who has indicated willingness to uphold the Constitution when it comes to declaring wars, detainee rights, and our personal freedoms.

To learn more about Ron Paul, watch this CNN clip
To help Ron Paul, visit - -

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Cornering the Jewish Lobby

W&M's worst fault is giving too much power to AIPAC. The real problem is the micro-management of American society by local Jewish groups that are coordinated under an umbrella organization, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations. This is how they get liberal Jews and conservative Jews, who despise each other, to work together to divert American tax money towards Israel, get Homeland Security money diverted to their synagogue, get people who disagree with them imprisoned without charges, etc. They are united by their disloyalty to the United States, their contempt for the Constitution, and their disregard for the human rights of others.

Some groups and individuals to watch include: - David Horowitz
Jihad Watch - Robert Spencer
The David Project/The Israel Project - Charles Jacobs - psycho-gossip newsfeed
Debbie Schlussel

Benador Associates
JCRC - Nancy Kaufman
Israel on Campus Coalition
Investors Business Daily
SITE Institute - Rita Katz
Investigative Project - Steve Emerson
Terror Free Oil - Joe Kaufman

The stuff brewed up by these freaks ends up in the press releases that feed most US news sources, including NPR.

Some tips for how to track/confront them:

Go to media updates given by any of the above groups and report on their discussions. That will give you a source to quote for the fake news articles that will appear in various newspapers based on the media update, often given in a synagogue.

Participate in interfaith events, especially Christian/Jewish. They often turn into Muslim-bashing events.

Target their guys - reply with counter-accusation

Start your own Quran-Bible study group

Nakba commemorations (Deir Yassin Day)

Attend holocaust services and mention the Nakba

Talk to target friendly audiences like Ukranians, Armenians, Greeks, Cubans, Native Americans, and the Irish about Palestine, Zionist colonizers, and our tax money.

It is essential for more people in particular, I think, to start attending Hillel meetings, where connections between students and neocon subversives are made through enticing them with internships and lucrative futures in lobbying.

for more info visit - Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel

Sunday, October 21, 2007

David Horowitz unites the Ummah

I was surprised and delighted to find that David Horowitz managed to do what no one else could ever do - get every major Islamic and Arab association and every personal opinion of every Muslim as well as anyone even remotely progressive on the same page as each other - united against "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week," united against his Judeo-Supremacist hate campaign.

David Horowitz has moved the boundary of rational discourse on Islam and Arabic politics so far to the right that previously unacceptable Islamophobia and Arabophobia became acceptable or even moderate positions in American public discourse. Juan Cole has identified Horowitz as a pioneer of the "google-smear" method of discrediting a political opponent where lies "can be passed around to journalists and politicians as though they were actual information."

I have to disagree with the mainstream Muslim organizations that "dawah" or "explaining Islam" is the best method of counter-attack against the liar pundits who are using Muslims as scapegoats to distract from the wars the neo-conservatives are forcing America to wage, pay for and die for. For every lying sentence someone like Dershowitz or Horowitz might say, it would take an hour to unravel all the falsehoods and racist misconceptions. This is the neo-con method of argumentation. They are not trying to understand Muslims or help Muslims, they are trying to defeat Muslims politically and socially. It is therefore necessary to use normal political debate tactics to gain the upper hand. There is no evidence that dawah will likely solve the problem of the David Horowitz's of the world. They have more money and more media connections and they can do what they want. A more useful approach is to work on discrediting them by talking about THEM. Not by insisting we don't support terrorists. They are trying to wedge you into a corner and force you to say that you support Israel's right to murder Palestinians and take their property and sell it for subsidized rates to American Jews at discounts funded by our tax dollars.

The important thing to point out is that pro-Israel fanatics are disloyal to America and that they are traitors. David Horowitz in his FrontPage newsletter openly supported putting Prof. Sami Al-Arian in prison on secret evidence (read: no charges) and he wants all Muslims deported. He also wants Muslims to be imprisoned. He uses the very 1980's topic of "female circumcision" as a debate tactic when the real question is why are innocent women giving birth to babies on floors covered in shit and why are they being raped and sodomized by US soldiers in Guantanamo? Whose idea was that?

David Horowitz, like most pro-Israel Jews in America, wanted very much for the US to invade Iraq and imprison its population and murder the children. He is also strongly supportive of bombing Iran for no good reason except for his seething hatred against the United States. The neo-cons want to end the era of the American Constitution. David Horowitz supports trials without evidence, without charges, Muslims being locked up for life and tortured like Jose Padilla, who was given so much LSD he lost his mind and was unable to speak for himself at his own trial.

David Horowitz is part of a network of well-funded Jewish think tanks whose goal is to enslave the American population so that we will eternally subsidize the Israeli economy, send our children to die fighting Israel's enemies both real and imagined, and to give up our sovereignty.

I think it's really great that the Muslims and Arabs have united against David Horowitz's hate campaign. But what people still don't understand is that the anti-Islam speech is just a circus show. What this clown is advocating is the end of the United States Constitution. The end of civil liberties. The end of human rights. He advocates everything that Israel stands for. He wills the destruction of the American economy and our very moral fabric. Look at what wrote about Prof. Sami-Al Arian, about mosques around the country. He wants every person who is loyal to the ideals of the United States to rot in prison.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

After forgiveness, celebration in Roxbury

Boston--June 9--The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) decided to settle
with the David Project, with both parties agreeing to drop all
lawsuits including the suit filed by James Policastro to attempt to
get the Roxbury mosque torn down. No future litigation can be brought
against the mosque.

Interfaith director Jessica Masse said, "The ISB has made its point,
which was never about monetary gain, and was always about standing up for the right of its community to worship freely. We will now focus on strengthening our ties with the broader community, and in particular, the interfaith community."

Masse thanked the interfaith community for having the courage to the
stand with the ISB when no one else would.

ISB Director, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban stated, "We have achieved
multiple victories in court… The decisions of the Massachusetts judges
who issued rulings in these cases affirming our rights should be read
by all citizens. But now we want to move forward."

The ISB held a press conference on Wednesday, May 30 at the mosque
site in Roxbury and on June 9 held a "Faith and Unity March" and
"Minaret Capping Festival" attended by over 2000 visitors, including
James Policastro!

Policastro said it was a beautiful ceremony, reported the Boston Globe.

A copper cap, affixed with an American flag, was lifted by crane and
attached by workmen to the top of the minaret in front of the crowd as a symbol for the Muslim community's addition to the American melting pot.

Imam Basyouny Nehala called the adhan from the minaret for the first time.

The 70,000-square-foot mosque, which has taken two decades to
complete, plans to open this Ramadan.

Muslim American Society Boston's executive director Bilal Kaleem
expressed his joy.

"The settlement was achieved a couple weeks ago," Kaleem said, "but it
didn't hit home until I saw the 5,000-pound cap of the minaret coming
down slowly with thousands of people praying and crying. It was
beautiful, emotional, and a time of great thankfulness."

Sufia Hassan, whose husband heads Masjid Alhamdulillah in Roxbury,
said their mosque was not originally built as a house of worship.

"This is the first built from the ground up," Hassan said
enthusiastically. "What's nice is that it will bring Muslims from this
country and other countries together."

The New England community has achieved a great milestone in their
dream to build the largest Islamic Center in Greater Boston.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Boston Muslims Forgive Israel Advocates

Many celebrated the construction of New England’s largest mosque as proof of “the Muslim community coming into its own." Yet not everyone celebrated. In 2004, the City of Boston was sued for selling the land to Muslims. Racist commentators whipped up public hysteria against the mosque.

“Muslims are very upset," said Mushtaque Mirza, who has lived in Boston for 30 years. “The mosque is always depicted as [supporting] terrorism."

The lawsuit against the City was dismissed in 2007, but irreparable damage had already been done. Donations slowed to a trickle, the mosque only half built.

When in 2005, mosque directors Dr. Yousef Abou Allaban and Ossama Kandil sued Fox News and the Boston Herald for defamation, analysis of discovery materials exposed a professionally coordinated network of pro-Israel organizations, mass media, Islamophobic academics, and real estate developers. The directors accused a growing list of defendants, including Steven Emerson, the David Project, and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance (CPT), whose president is Dennis Hale, of "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive ... members of the Boston Muslim community of their basic right of free association and the free exercise of their religion."

The Jewish community

Some Jewish groups kindly distanced themselves from this conspiracy to deprive Muslim Americans of their constitutional rights, which is a federal crime, but Nancy Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, whose stated mission includes minimizing the political influence of groups feared hostile to Israel, stated, "None of those organizations [who signed statements supporting the mosque] are members of the organizations of the JCRC. We don't consider them to be a part of the mainstream Jewish community."

Who is Charles Jacobs?

In 2006, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban, chairman of the board of the Islamic Society of Boston, addressed Charles Jacobs, president of the David Project, in an open letter that was quoted in the Boston Globe.

"We would like to know why you and others at the David Project appear to be so intent on inflaming relations between our communities," Abou-Allaban wrote. "Do you really hate us that much?"

Charles Jacobs, like Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle, earns his living through a speakers' bureau called Benador Associates, which specializes in pro-Israel campus events focusing on Islam and terrorism. Fareeha Iqbal, a student at MIT, attended one of his lectures.

"Dr. Jacobs’ talk expressed blatantly racist and anti-Islamic views. In fact, I have never seen Islamophobia exuded so blatantly at a public forum at MIT, nor such racist views aired at a panel discussion on human rights.”

A pioneer in the technological aspects of mass-marketing hate, CAMERA, which Jacobs co-founded in 1982 to enforce pro-Israel bias in the news, email blasts tailored “action alerts” to huge databases of specific target groups.

This Polish immigrant, armed with only a BA from Rutgers and a Masters in Education from Harvard has proven exceptionally effective in manipulating the US government and major American institutions into following policy blueprints created by his Israel advocacy organization, the David Project.

The David Project

The David Project is an affiliate member of the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), a network of national Jewish organizations, founded in partnership with the Jewish student organization Hillel and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. (The three organizations share a building in Washington.) It is essentially an Islamophobia franchisor complete with manuals and training videos.

In October 2003, the David Project funded a film, produced by Ralph Avi Goldwasser, to slander professors Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, Hamid Dabashi, and Georges Saliba of Columbia University's Department of Middle East studies. Joseph Massad became known as one of the most dangerous intellectuals on campus. Calls for the professor’s dismissal were issued by Congressman Weiner and by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, and the propaganda film was shown in Israel before a government minister at an anti-Semitism conference.

The David Project regularly places racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speakers on Harvard campus, but its first major accomplishment was blocking a $2 million donation from the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, for a chair in Islamic Studies at the Harvard Divinity School. The Project's 2003 smear campaign, coordinated with the ADL, sought to exclude Arabs and Muslims from developments at Harvard University.

Sheikh Zayed

Charles Jacobs smeared Shaykh Zaid’s donation to Harvard.

Anti-Sudan Campaigns

Jacobs' pro-Israel advocacy organization spearheaded the campaign to vilify the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and provided huge quantities of lurid, both popular and pseudo-academic material, in which Sudan is described as a "terrorist, genocidal" state engaged in a "holy war." Charles Jacobs’ carefully designed "PR puff pieces" about "slavery" in Sudan have managed to secure national media coverage.

While pro-Palestine activists have long struggled to halt public funding of Israel, the dishonest “Save Darfur!” campaign, put together by DP friends and trainees, is the quickest divestment success in history. Sudan divestment resolutions have become law in Iowa and are in the process of approval in 12 states. The JCRC coordinating with the David Project has further poisoned human rights discourse with this effort to turn Arab and African Americans against each other.

ISB Settles Lawsuit

The furor over the Roxbury mosque has exposed the ways Israel advocacy groups pollute discourse on US foreign and domestic policy, which have until now remained mostly invisible to American political scientists.

Two lawyers that were originally helping the David Project, Jonathon Leffel and Jacob Feinberg, apparently had a change of heart and handed over to the Islamic Society of Boston damning evidence against the David Project.

The ISB had always made clear that they would settle if the David Project stopped challenging their right to build the mosque. On May 29, 2007 the David Project offered to withdraw Policastro’s appeal, and on May 30, 2007, the Muslim American Society announced that Kandil and Abou Allaban agreed to dismiss their defamation lawsuits.

Every time Jacobs, Kaufman, or Goldwasser look out of the top floor window of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies in downtown Boston, they will see the dome and minaret despite their best efforts to prevent its completion.

Karin Friedemann is editor of World View News Service in Boston, focusing on the Islamic world. Please visit

Friday, May 18, 2007

Evidence: Lawsuit aimed at racial intimidation of Muslim community

Court documents reveal that on May 28, 2004, David Project directors and several attorneys were developing strategies to cast doubt on the Roxbury Mosque's status as a non-profit organization.

One attorney suggested, "How about simply appealing the building permit and tying things up?"

The group decided to investigate several plans to halt construction, but on July 22, 2007 David Project director Anna Kolodner started panicking.

"The steel is going up on the Mosque," she wrote to the group. “We need to have a plaintiff. This is a priority. Please contact any individuals that would consider this role and let us know.”

Using the lawsuit, Kolodner demanded records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to use for negative publicity.

Realizing that few Americans could care less where the Islamic Society of Boston obtained their mortgage, real estate developer Steve Cohen discussed creating suspicion by using vague language to question the mosque’s non-criminal foreign “connections.”

"However, the First Amendment will bar any governmental action against the mosque based on these connections - not in the absence of incitement that might lead to ‘imminent action.’ So all we are left with is a public relations campaign.”

This admission betrays a premeditated decision to incite hate by using “terrorist” as an ethnic slur to manipulate public sentiment, while their plaintiff sued the city for selling to Muslims.

“The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections,” Cohen continued. “However, the pr campaign surrounding the suit can strike a different chord: i.e. that the city of Boston should not be subsidizing a mosque or any organization with terrorist connections.”

“We will be much more effective if we let others ask this question than if we do so ourselves," Cohen admitted. “The suit itself will have to stick to the narrow constitutional issues, which have nothing to do with the terrorist connections.”

On September 2, 2004, Anna Kolodner wrote, "Filing the lawsuit will serve to trip the switch on the larger agenda of exposing the radical fundamentalist underpinnings of the Mosque and its leaders…We need to develop a media campaign and identify who will be the public spokesperson for the group…We need an expert in power point to develop a presentation that can be used with the media, politicians, and community groups."

That power point expert would turn out to be the notorious Robert Spencer.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Muslims involved in mosque plot

Muslims involved in mosque plot
Karin Friedemann
May 13, 2007

View the evidence for yourself at

Boston--May 12, 2007--New evidence has surfaced, which indicates efforts to enlist professional critics of Islam, including Muslim collaborators, in the conspiracy against the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). Attorney Jack Fainberg, who previously helped construct a legal case against their mosque, volunteered discovery materials to the ISB.A June 1, 2004 opposition email refers to an unnamed “pro-Jewish Muslim ally in Boston," who used Roxbury Community College connections to help conspirators investigate parking infractions the mosque might have committed inadvertently, that could be used in a legal attack.

Khaleel Mohammed, an academic who advocates “Islamic reform” to right wing audiences was also mentioned in the anti-mosque correspondence.An October 1993 Boston Herald article linked a quotation from Mohammed about mosque financing with two succeeding anonymous quotations so that he would appear to accuse the ISB of links to "fundamentalist Islamist politics." In discovery emails, Mohammed discusses with professional Israel advocates the allegedly “Wahhabi” content of library materials at the ISB. Mohammed was invited to comment about his involvement with the anti-mosque group.

“I am sad to find out that organizations are now using government funds to combat the building of mosques.” Mohammed began.“I have imparted no ‘secret’ information to anyone…I don't know any of the people in the Boston Mosque. I would at most say that if they are into radical Islam, I would be against their building a mosque.”Mohammed claimed that he verified “some translations [of statements by] someone on the mosque board” for a good friend at the Anti-Defamation League.According to the ISB, Islamic scholar Dr. Jamal Badawi claimed under oath that the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) misrepresented a political comment made in Arabic by ISB Board of Trustee member Dr. Walid Fitaihi.

In April 2007, Dr. Walid Fitaihi returned from Saudi Arabia to offer “an apology without condition” to Jewish leaders in Brookline, Massachusetts for his words, which “he recognized were offensive to Jews.” Fataihi was on a list of twenty Muslims compiled by the David Project, the ADL and Steve Emerson.Their broad and unsubstantiated allegations were summarized by Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in a power point presentation on February 3, 2005 at a synagogue in Massachusetts under the title “The Boston Mosque: Do Tolerance and Diversity go both ways?”

Original emails:

Monday, May 07, 2007

Damning Evidence Against Boston Israel Advocates

Islamic Society of Boston releases Opposition Emails:
Damning Evidence against The David Project

Summary: The David Project conspired with real estate agents, lawyers and politicians to organize a campaign to deny the Boston Muslim community their 1st amendment rights to worship freely.

World View News Service
May 7, 2007

Read the original emails at:
This week, Jessica Masse, interfaith coordinator of the Islamic Society of Boston, publicly released recent discovery materials obtained as part of the ISB's conspiracy lawsuit, which reveal that an Israel advocacy organization, which specializes in creating malicious anti-Arab, anti-African and Islamophobic propaganda, met with real estate investors, attorneys, and Republican activists at their office at 210 South Street in Boston to discuss an action plan "to present a legal challenge" to the Roxbury Mosque project.
On May 28, 2004, Anna Kolodner, executive director of the David Project, sent an email congratulating the group for their successful meeting.
"Discussion of issues and individuals involved in the Mosque led to some preliminary steps as we continue to gather information and develop an action plan."
Three days later, Kolodner circulated an idea.
"Given that they may not have parking, Josh [Katzen] suggested we might thwart them through the building permit process for the intended parking."
Joshua Katzen is a member of the team of aggressive real estate developers that wanted to unravel the land deal between the City of Boston and the ISB. Another anti-ISB activist, Jonathan Leffell, who develops property in the Boston area, is chairman of the New England "Friends of the Israel Defense Forces" while William Sapers, who instigated the anti-Mosque campaign and who owns an insurance agency in Cambridge, has invested in real estate under the corporate name Hemisphere Inc. Sapers is a director of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, which is an umbrella organization for mainstream Jewish communal organizations in Greater Boston. Steve Cohen, owner of CEA Group, another Boston area real estate agency, took the operational lead in the conspiracy against the ISB.
Steve Cohen suggested to Anna Kolodner that the group recruit a Jewish law student from Harvard to assist their attorneys, Evan Slavitt, who is also a Massachusetts Republican Party leader, and Jack Fainberg, who is a business litigator.
Other participants in this on-going private discussion were Avi Goldwasser, a hi-tech financier and movie producer, who makes malicious anti-Arab propaganda movies like "Columbia Unbecoming," Larry DiCara, who is a Republican politician, and Harvard undergrad Mickey Segal, who is a David Project intern, and Monty Gold, who is Anna Kolodner's husband. Steve Cohen, who is originally from New York, also consulted with Rabbi Melman, a New York-based Israel advocate, who opposes ceding an inch of land to the Palestinians.
Initial attempts to whip up public sentiment against the Muslim community received lukewarm reactions. Reporter Jonathan Wells had complained that he was "pissed that none of the other local media had picked up his story."
"Filing the lawsuit would be the initial lead/newsworthy component of the media angles," Anna Kolodner advised him. This would give the David Project a soapbox.
Anna Kolodner put David Project co-founder Charles Jacobs in charge of "enlisting support of the Black Church community in the suit as a possible plaintiff," but commendably, no one in the Black community would participate in their racist plot.
The David Project had to make do with an Italian American who lives in Mission Hill, nowhere near the Roxbury Mosque.
Policastro's suit was dismissed in 2007 by a judge as being "without merit," but the conspirators were not worried about winning the frivolous lawsuit. It had been a ploy to create negative publicity. Real estate investor Steve Cohen gloated over "the fact that a governmental action was taken in Boston may make this mosque more vulnerable to legal, political or media attack."
In this same email, entitled "Conversation with Jon Wells," Cohen mentioned reporter Jonathan Well's divorce and estrangement from his children like a weakness to exploit.
"After I come up with something to report, he and I will have lunch," Cohen bragged.
He also reported more of what he had learned from Wells.
"[T]he ADL is much more concerned and knowledgeable about this matter than their public statements would indicate. But, being associated with various ecumenical [read: interfaith] efforts, they are reluctant to be the lightning rod on this issue. Jon speculates that they would welcome the assistance and initiative of a bunch of independent guys (like us) who are not afraid of getting some bad press."
Steve Cohen described how he had specifically instructed the Fox TV news reporter Jonathan Wells to use language associating the mosque with terrorism.
According to his May 20, 2004 email, Cohen wanted to seek out information about the ISB's source of donations in the Middle East. Depending on the country of origin, the group would create a sensational news story saying the mosque was financed either by "the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia or by the Moslem Brotherhood," which, they would fraudulently claim "advocate the violent victory of Islam over the west [sic]."
Cohen went on about his conversation with Wells. "We both agreed that it would be very powerful if it could be proven that this is the source of the funding for the Mosque."
Cohen repeatedly contacted the executive producer of the Investigative Reporting unit at Fox25 News in Boston to pressure him and in one conversation instructed Jonathan Wells how to use the Freedom of Information act to obtain records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority about the City's sale of land to the Muslim community.
Cohen further explained his strategy to Anna Kolodner of the David Project:
"Aside from our 1st Amendment claims and the various other strategies to attack the mosque, ultimately our interest is based on the premise that some of the senior people in the ISB are supporters of terrorism and sworn enemies of America and Jews, and that the construction of the mosque may be funded by Wahhabis… If we are going to convince others to support our cause, especially in the media, we will need reasonably well-supported allegations."
The David Project collaborated with
Robert Leikind, the executive director of the ADL;
Steve Emerson, an infamous Islamophobe, who founded the Investigative Project,
Rita Katz, a discredited former FBI informant, who co-founded of the SITE Institute; and
Ilana Freedman, a Republican politician, who is a managing partner of Gerard Group of "counter-terrorism experts" in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts,
to create a "comprehensive document regarding the individuals/organizations/history etc. of the Mosque, which will be the backbone of the media campaign."
This fabrication, labeled "Mosque Characters.doc," lists over twenty Muslim leaders including Dr. Yusef al-Qaradawi, Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder of the American Muslim Council, and various ISB directors with bogus and bizarre links to "the Moslem Brotherhood," Hamas, Hezbollah and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba.
The email discussion shows that the conspirators wanted to enlist Jeff Jacoby in the anti-ISB campaign. Ever since Jacoby first wrote about the Roxbury Mosque in a January 1, 2006 op-ed column, the Globe has been the chief media source of charges, insinuations and accusatory questions directed at the ISB both in the news pages and in Jeff Jacoby's op-ed columns. The news articles often look like minor variants of David Project talking points or press releases while Jacoby's writing follows the recommendations that Charles Jacobs published on the David Project website in an essay entitled "Questions as Weapons" and January 12, 2007.

This David Project document shows how to use irrelevant and false accusations as an Israel advocacy technique based in the demonization of Arabs and Muslims. Following this principle Jacoby repeats the same charges and insinuating questions in his syndicated column no matter how many times the ISB provides refutations or explanations. The ISB has offered to meet with him and has sent him documentation, which he ignores. In a debate the David Project technique is unethical, and its use by Jacoby in lieu of serious journalism is disgraceful.
In 2004, the David Project, a 501c3 charitable organization, appears to have received half a million dollars in tax-payer funded government grants while at the same time planning this amazingly well organized campaign to deny the Boston Muslim community their 1st amendment rights to worship freely, according to ISB interfaith director Jessica Masse.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Who is Charles Jacobs?

Who is Charles Jacobs?
by Karin Friedemann, Boston

A Polish immigrant armed with only a BA from Rutgers and a Masters in Education from Harvard has proven exceptionally effective in manipulating the US government and major American institutions into following policy blueprints created by his Israel advocacy organization, the David Project. Charles Jacobs, like Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle, obtains speaking engagements through a PR firm called Benador Associates, which specializes in pro-Israel campus events focusing on Islam and terrorism. Like Alan Dershowitz, Charles Jacobs considers himself a progressive liberal. Fareeha Iqbal, a student at MIT, disagrees.

"Dr. Jacobs’ talk expressed blatantly racist and anti-Islamic views. In fact, I have never seen Islamophobia exuded so blatantly at a public forum at MIT, nor such racist views aired at a panel discussion on human rights.”


CAMERA, co-founded by Jacobs in 1982, is a media-monitoring organization dedicated to enforcing pro-Israel, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bias in the news. It was a pioneer in the technological aspects of mass-marketing hate. One of the first media pressure groups to invest in the software necessary to create database capabilities for email blasting tailored messages to specific target groups, CAMERA sends out action alerts instructing its members to overwhelm newspaper and politicians’ offices with hundreds of emails and threatening phone calls to complain and argue about any media coverage critical to Israel or friendly to Islam.

Columbia Unbecoming

In 2002, a network of national Jewish organizations met to evaluate what they saw as an alarming rise in anti-Israel activity on campus. From those meetings emerged the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), which is founded in partnership with Hillel and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. (The three organizations share a building in Washington.) The David Project is an affiliate member of the ICC. In October 2003, the David Project agreed to provide funding for a film, produced by Ralph Avi Goldwasser, to slander professors Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, Hamid Dabashi, and Georges Saliba of Columbia University's Department of Middle East studies. Joseph Massad became known as "one of the most dangerous intellectuals” on campus. Calls for the professor’s dismissal were issued by Congressman Weiner and by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, and the propaganda film was shown in Israel before a government minister at an anti-Semitism conference.

Sheikh Zayed/Harvard

The David Project regularly placed racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim speakers on Harvard campus, but its first major accomplishment was blocking a $2 million donation from the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, for a chair in Islamic Studies at the Harvard Divinity School. The Project's 2003 smear campaign was coordinated with the ADL. By preventing Zayed from contributing to Harvard, Jacobs sought to minimize future input from Arabs and Muslims into discussions of developments at Harvard University.

American Anti-Slavery Group
The American Anti-Slavery Group grew directly out of Jacobs' pro-Israel advocacy. The group supports the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), which has been employed by the US in order to destabilize the Islamic Republic of Sudan and is believed to have trained along with Israeli forces at Otis Air Force base in Massachusetts.

The American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) is based in Boston and works with Christian Solidarity International. The organization has been closely involved in filming fraudulent "slave redemptions." Jacobs was presenting the issue as one of northern Arab "slavers" and African Christian southerners. In addition to claims of slavery, Jacobs has also described Sudan as a "terrorist, genocidal" state engaged in a "holy war." Charles Jacobs and his American Anti-Slavery Group's carefully designed "PR puff pieces" have managed to secure national media coverage. This campaign to vilify Arabs and Muslims is a multimedia effort that supplies huge quantities of lurid, both popular and pseudo-academic hate material.

Save Darfur

JCRC sponsored organizations that are staffed by Israel advocates trained by the David Project have further poisoned human rights discourse with the dishonest Save Darfur campaign aimed at divesting from Sudan as well as from any country which does business with Sudan. The David Project has proven uncommonly effective at changing US policy in a matter of months to listing Sudan as a terrorist nation and barring all trade with the country. While pro-Palestine activists have struggled for years to slow the stream of US public funds to Israel, Jacob’s anti-Sudan campaign is probably the quickest divestment success in US history. Thanks to the ongoing efforts of JCRCs and affiliated groups, Sudan divestment resolutions have become law in Iowa and are in the process of approval in 12 states. Although US involvement in Sudanese politics can only be a disaster for the Sudanese and for America, this sort of propaganda serves the purpose of turning Arab and African Americans against each other in order to prevent them from mounting any jointly organized political efforts. The David Project and the JCRC, who have had more than one director in common, work hand in hand to minimize the potential political influence of groups who might oppose continuing US funding of Israel.

Muslims Sue the David Project

In 2006, after the David Project was found instigating a lawsuit against the City over the construction of a new mosque, Dr. Yousef Abou-Allaban, chairman of the board of the Islamic Society of Boston, addressed Charles Jacobs in an open letter that was quoted in the Boston Globe.

"We would like to know why you and others at the David Project appear to be so intent on inflaming relations between our communities," Abou-Allaban wrote. "Do you really hate us that much?"

In a landmark defamation suit, the ISB detailed "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive ... members of the Boston Muslim community of their basic right of free association and the free exercise of their religion." Discovery materials from the ISB lawsuit have exposed a network of Neocons in the establishment, pro-Israel organizations, the mass media, and Islamophobic academics, working together to make the public fear the Muslim community.

The list of defendants in the lawsuit include Steven Emerson, a self-proclaimed 'expert' on radical Islam whose documentary, “Jihad in America," has been widely discredited, William Sapers, a director of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Boston Herald, Boston's FOX TV station, the David Project, and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance (CPT), whose president is Dennis Hale, a speaker for the David Project.

Some Jewish groups have distanced themselves from the conspiracy to deprive Muslim Americans of their constitutional rights, which is a federal crime, but Nancy Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston stated, "None of those organizations [who signed statements supporting the mosque] are members of the organizations of the JCRC. We don't consider them to be a part of the mainstream Jewish community."


Much of the mainstream media’s negative coverage of Muslims arises from the continuous stream of poisonous accusations and racist insinuations distributed as press releases by the David Project and its affiliates. Until recently, Israel advocacy organizations, which have been heavily engaged in subverting US foreign and domestic policy, have remained mostly invisible to American political scientists, who focused on traditional political lobbies like AIPAC.

Karin Friedemann is editor of World View News Service in Boston, focusing on the Islamic world. Please visit

Friday, April 27, 2007

Save Sudan

The Zionist Lobby and Coordinated Media have caused quite some concern about the civilian population of Western Sudan. Since the suffering in Sudan is at core an effect of Global Warming, the Zionists' attempts to hold the relatively penniless Sudanese government responsibile for all human tragedies in the region is just another defamation campaign against Muslims.

It appears that certain peace activists have borrowed the punishing language filtered down from the press releases connected to Bill Kristol and the neocons. They are calling for "non-violent means of action" - meaning starvation - to topple the Sudanese government.

I beg the reader to think deeply and not to jump too fast with this "humanitarian isolation" tactic, remembering that some well-meaning leftists engaged with neocons inadvertently not too long ago and pushed our nation to war against another country that did not threaten us, Afghanistan. America's leftists, steeped in anti-Muslim Marxist propaganda, were quick to assume the truth in the fraudulent press releases which originated in the Boston Jewish community, regarding the Taliban forcing Hindus to wear yellow armbands. There were reports spreading via the media that Afghan women were not being allowed to work outside the home, and that we must get rid of the evil Taliban.

The news of hundreds of thousands of people eating grass as there was no food because of the drought was conveniently omitted from the propaganda. Starving families left their farms and walked towards Kabul. The Taliban asked the UN for help to save these people's lives. The UN replied that they would not lift the sanctions against Afghanistan, but they would like to so some reparation work on one of Afghanistan's ancient Buddhist statues, carve out a piece of land around the statue and install UN troops to protect the tourists. We made a decision to let 100,000 innocent Afghans die of exposure. But that was not enough. Feminists and Democrats, led by Hilary Clinton and Oprah, and oddly enough, peace activists, pushed for war on Afghanistan to punish the Afghans for their barbaric tribal culture.

Now it's the same thing, people are saying the Islamic Sudanese government is so evil and barbaric that we must take it upon ourselves to get rid of them. The Afghan women are not better off without their husbands, as chauvenistic as they might have been. There are tens of thousands of homeless orphans eating garbage, sleeping in the streets of Kabul right now thanks to us. The druglords we employed to get rid of the Taliban piled thousands of men - these children's fathers - into containers, suffocating them to death as they were trucked hundreds of miles into the desert, so that by the time they arrived they were all dead, and then dumped in a mass grave, for the crime of declaring their country an Islamic Emirate. Now the leftists want us to punish Sudan for the crime of declaring their country an Islamic Republic.

We are not going to end dehydration and malaria in Sudan by depriving their country of much needed economic investments to provide jobs and infrastructure. This is the real genocide going on. Why does the US government want to oppose the development of Sudan? Don't forget Clinton bombed their malaria medicine plant and never paid for damages and never apologized. We committed an act of war against them. We purposely caused millions of Africans to die of malaria because they had no medicine. How is further depriving them of resources going to help the Sudanese people? We used Food for Oil to steal Iraqi resources. We gave the Iraqis two tablespoons of lentils a day as rations and refused to let them purify their water. Hundreds of thousands of children under the age of five died of hunger and diarrhea. Sanctions on Sudan would amount to the same thing but on a much larger scale. It's not going to help anyone. Do you think that putting sanctions on America would end inner city violence?

The idea that divestment or even a military invasion would be good for Sudan seems irrational. Zionists are urging "non-violent action" to end the violence in Sudan/Darfur. There is nothing non-violent about inflicting economic crisis on an already poor country, and economic sanctions with the intent to destabilize the government will certainly not promote law and order in Sudan. This sort of propaganda crafted and pioneered by Charles Jacobs with the American Anti-Slavery Group, a wing of the David Project, consciously serves the purpose of turning Arab and African Americans against each other in order to prevent them from mounting any jointly organized political efforts.

Perhaps the Sudanese government is capable of doing much more than it is doing to protect the well-being of all its citizens. The same could be said of our government. But Khartoum is not a government like in Europe or America. Other than in the capital city, Sudan has no paved roads, no water system, no electricity. It is vast open space filled with various tribes with conflicting interests and very little water.

The government of Sudan is not very effective at governing Sudan. Saddam Hussein had a lot of problems with his Shiite citizens. That does NOT imply that America had any business forcing Iraqis to be dependent on UN handouts or going in there to police. Right now the environmental crisis facing Sudan should be dealt with. The Sudanese government is allowing Muslim Americans to contribute funds to reforest Sudan. If the Jewish groups make it illegal for Muslim charities to help Sudan, like they did with Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, it is unlikely to make the Sudanese government any more effective at governing or at feeding their people. So far, the Sudanese government has allowed American charities to dig a well, open a clinic, or provide shelter to refugees. They are not standing in anyone's way that genuinely wants to help the people of Sudan. They just said "NO" to foreign troops.

It's not our business what's wrong with the Sudanese government. Other African countries are even worse. If we want to help the needy, we are free to donate some money to some humanitarian aid organization. There are similar relief efforts in the Congo and Sierre Leone. I think we all agree that Africans' lives could use a lot of improvement. However, the Zionist demonization campaign has NOTHING to do with improving the lives of Africans and EVERYTHING to do with controlling human rights discourse in America. They want to create a "good guys" vs "bad guys" narration which simply does not work. Divestment from Sudan is not going to eliminate hunger in Africa. We need to start looking at local Zionist control over our politics as well as world hunger.

Anything we do to stop global warming will help Sudan indirectly. I strongly believe that humanitarian efforts in Sudan are very worthwhile, especially because, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, the humanitarian aid is pretty sure to get there, because, contrary to neocon press releases, neither the government nor the rebels are opposed to Americans coming in and drilling wells for the people. The people who live in the camps are relatively safe from violence, fed one meal a day, and the kids receive elementary schooling. The money we donate actually gets to the people, and because of the exchange rate, very little money can help a great deal. [See for a non-interventionist relief and development organization helping Sudan.]

"Divesting" from Sudan is nothing more than a code for stealing the oil from an African country in need because we can. If America wants Sudanese oil, let them pay the Sudanese government for the oil so that the Sudanese government can hire the police force they need to prevent crime. There is no excuse for us to occupy another country to steal its resources, especially since it is far cheaper to buy the oil than to invade the country and steal the oil. The oil revenue would create the means to build homes and businesses and create jobs for the Sudanese population. It's not our business who is president of Sudan, Bashir or Turabi. It's not our business. If we want business in Sudan, we should pay with our dollars and work with the government of Sudan, whoever is in power, to invest in the machinery needed to drill for oil.


To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email for instructions.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Polite Discussion on Zionism: Is it Possible?

The Zionist philosophizes that the Palestinian is not a human (Israel was a land without a people). The Anti-Zionist argues that the Palestinian is a human being. So what is the moderate viewpoint? The Palestinian is a quasi-human? Is this the American Progressive Jewish position?

Polite Discussion on Zionism: Is it Possible?
Karin Friedemann
April 25, 2007
World View News Service

I have dedicated my life to the study of our people's repressed racism. For this reason, I found the website very interesting. Usually when confronted, we just get indignant and refuse to speak to you for a few months. I always wondered how a person could think that Israel has a "right"to "security" and shrug off this amazing assumption with the accusation that anyone who has questions about his definitions is accusing him of being an evil murderer. Why would any sane person think that he has the right to live unharrassed on someone else's stolen property? Even the cute kids waving Israeli flags are participating in a criminally insane political ideology.

Progressive Jews want to make the bottom line "Jews are nice people." But that is not the bottom line. As Hillel mentioned, the bottom line is that you don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. What would we expect if our neighbor, with or without warning, bulldozed our house?

First, we would call the police. If the man with the bulldozer failed to stop bulldozing the house, the police officer would have the duty to disable the vehicle and he might even shoot him. I'm talking about American law. The primary concept of civil rights is that you and your neighbor are sharing the same set of laws and punishments. The bulldozer man would be stopped. Hewould be considered a criminal. He would be put on trial. He would go to prison. If he had killed people in the process of bulldozing the house, he might even be executed. The owner of the house that was bulldozed would be entitled to damages plus extra for pain and suffering. The law requires that his property be restored to the original state that it was in. That includes replanting the trees and fixing the pavement around the house.

The emotional defensiveness of Jews is actually quite amusing, where they want to argue that the bulldozer man was not evil, he was not a murderer. The family that moved into the stolen property are just innocent idealists. They may be misguided, or mistaken, but for some reason Jews want to argue that they are not evil. What they are really saying is that they don't want Jews to be held legally accountable for their actions. They want to enjoy the privilege of being "protected" from the laws that apply to other people.

A law does not cover the "evilness" of a criminal. It covers actions and consequences.

If international law were followed, the Israeli "government' would never have kicked out any Palestinians. The entire existence of Israel is based on the condition made by the UN that Palestinians would remain in their homes and receive equal citizenship in the new nation state. That condition was not followed. Therefore, there is no legal basis for any assumption that Israel has a right to exist according to the UN. In fact, Israel does not really exist. It is a figment of imagination, the defensive mechanism of the neurotic Jewish collective consciousness. I agree that we need to stop arguing about isms but the next step is to solve the problems. Don't wait for the world community to force Israel to do it. Why don't we, as Jews, just do it? Why are Progressive Jews wasting their time feeling emotionally threatened by a one state solution? The real problem is that we are feeling emotionally threatened by any solution. Because a solution means that Jews need to be prosecuted.

The refugees must be given back their property with extra for damages. Even if they fled their homes because Arab leaders told them to get out of the fighting zone in 1948, they have the legal right to return to their homes as soon as the fighting stops. Small wonder why Israel continues to attack people day after day. The refugees must be given full civil rights. Full water rights, full road rights, and the full right to prosecute every Jewish family in America that has any property in the Holy Land as part of an organized crime network. Especially if both the Palestinian and the Jewish persons are American citizens. For example one friend of mine, after her family was forced off their land by gunpoint, New York Jews bought the land, bulldozed everything, and planted orange trees. She knows where they live. She knows their names. Anyone who buys or sells stolen property is a criminal who needs to be prosecuted. Any Jew who owns Palestinian property in the Holy Land should have his property seized, including their US assets, just like we did to the rum smugglers who funded Jewish terrorism in the 1920s, and Progressive Jews should insist on it instead of doing these mental "I'm not evil" gymnastics.

The Jews need to give back what they stole. I am not sure why that is so confusing to people. There needs to be a world tribunal like the Nuremburg trials to determine what was done and who was responsible, and to put an end to this nonsense. But failing that, the US legal system could solve the problem within a year if we just prosecuted this obnoxious real estate mafia. Why are Progressive Jews not lobbying for criminal penalties on Jews who invest in property that was cleared of its original owners by force in the Holy Land? There is enough room in Bush's new prisons for all these shady real estate agents. This is a simple matter of holding people legally accountable for the harm they cause others and for undermining the security of the United States in the process. It is exactly the same issue with dispute over the Roxbury Mosque in Boston. Some shady white (Jewish) real estate dealers were furious that the black community benefited from this piece of land next to the subway station that they wanted to develop, so now they are engaging in extra-legal trickery and character assassination to try to get that piece of real estate away from the people who own it. Once the Palestinians get their land back and all the Zionist organizations' assets are confiscated to repair the damage they have done, then we can talk about whether or not "the Jewish People" have the right to "self-determination" in the form of an ethnocentric nation state.

I learned when I was a kid that the way to get self-determination - i.e., the ability to do what you want when you want how you want - is to behave yourself. The Jews are not behaving themselves, and there is nothing okay about it. When a Progressive Jew avoids discussion by whining, "You think I'm evil!!" he or she breaks the heart of the human being who is trying to have peace with this person. It ends all rational discussion. It ends all hope for peace.

Sometimes Palestinians find it easier to deal with right wing Zionists than left wing because at least they are honest. A Palestinian can say to a right wing Jew, "You stole my property." The right wing Jew will say, "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? My religion says I can steal your property." Then the Muslim can with dignity say, "Well my religion says that God curses the man who puts another man out of his home, and that I have the right to fight you." That actually can be done in the context of a polite dialogue. A peace plan is even potentially possible. Because then the Jew can say, "Well, I don't want you to kill me and I can see why you would think that I deserved it, because if you did the same thing to me I would certainly kill you. So let's make a deal. I'll let you live in the garage." This is still insulting behavior, but it's in the process of becoming less sadistic.

On the other hand, if a Palestinian says to a Progressive Jew, "You stole my property!" the Progressive Jew will usually shut down entirely. I have seen a fifty year old man start crying and insisting he's not evil. This is the behavior of someone who is guilty as sin. Like when you accuse your husband of adultery and he starts guilt-tripping you about how you don't believe in him (hypothetical but common scenario).

The other reaction is to get maliciously angry and start doing character assassination via gossip so that none of the other Progressive Jews will greet that person who brought up the "touchy" subject. They will be told that this person is an "enemy of peace" - so that it will be politically correct to shun them the same way that we avoid eye contact with skinheads and Bible thumpers. Progressive Jews are the most amazingly idealistic people on the planet. They want to be able to continue to sit on someone else's stolen property (or at least vacation on it) and not only do they think they have a "right" to travel around unharmed, ride the buses, shop and eat pizza while the people they made homeless have no water or food - but they want their victims to LIKE them. The Jews are the only conquerors in the history of the planet that expected the conquered people to LIKE them! If they don't like us, we feel offended and outraged. And what Jews consider as "liking behavior" is never mentioning the property they stole.

I've discussed some of this with Avigail Abarbanel, an ex-Israeli psychiatrist in Australia. She views Zionism as a mental illness that can be treated. But Zionism is just a symptom of a deeper problem, the delusional belief that you have "rights" which do not exist. Like a kid thinking he has the right to hit his sister. It's a failure to apply the Golden Rule to one's personal sense of responsibility in certain situations. The inner conflict that arises from these "situational ethics" certainly does create a clinically diagnosable mental inability to process certain types of information that trigger the neurotic or sometimes even psychotic defensive reaction.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Israel, Jews are defensive in the sense that they cannot process the type of information that is necessary to create peaceful behaviors. For example, if a Jew and Palestinian live next door to each other in New Jersey, the Jew being the "owner" of a condo built on the Palestinian person's property, don't you think the Jew should offer to give it back, if he expects the other's friendship? If the Palestinian, as is normal, invites the Jew over for tea and politely doesn't bring up the subject, does the Jew feel that this means it's OK what he did? That he can forgive himself? That is what Jews want after all. We want to be forgiven without apology for everything we have done AND everything we are about to do.

Is this a rational approach to peace? Is it working?



To subscribe to this group, send an email


Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?Please consider donating to WVNS today.Email for instructions.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email

Friday, February 16, 2007

Sugarman Steals 'Sexy' Election from Hamas

The World Chooses Sexiest Anti-Zionists on the Planet

Sugarman Steals 'Sexy' Election from Hamas:
Charlotte Kates Emerges as Female Champion
World View News Exclusive!!!
by Umm Yakoub

Well, the votes are in for the World View News Service's "Sexiest
Anti-Zionist on the Planet." The female winner is Palestine Solidarity
activist Charlotte Kates. Leila Khaled came in as runner-up - see for her
photo, but in truth she didn't even come close because no one could
top this gushing nomination from Charlotte's very shy admirer -

"I have to say that she reminds me of a very young Bette Davis
(complete with her bewitching eyes!), and her smile could melt the
heart of any sentient human. But, I guess it's her voice that really
stands out; it has a character, a limerance, a sort of joyful
resonance that is -- well -- "captivating" is the word that comes to
mind. She is also perhaps the most graceful and engaging human being I
know of." See Charlotte Kates' photo and read about her passion at

The male winner looked like it was going to be the manly Palestinian
prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh - -
but a last-minute, coordinated campaign by Chaim Sugarman to subvert
the election resulted in the landslide victory of this previously
unknown candidate. View the heart-stopping Chaim Sugarman campaign
poster at

Warmest Congratulations to Charlotte Kates, Sexiest Female
Anti-Zionist on the Planet! Hats off to Chaim Sugarman the Sexiest
Anti-Zionist Man on the Planet! See him without his shirt at

Other Nominations:

Roger Tucker in North Carolina (I can provide his phone number ladies)
Elaine Antonia in Florida
Judy Andreas in New York
Shams in Kuwait (we don't know if she's actually an anti-Zionist but
we like her video:
and of course, Karin Friedemann and Joachim Martillo in Massachussetts



To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Local college and university alumni decided to contribute something to our city. Do they have the right to erect a place of worship in Boston? They are American citizens. Does it matter if they got a good deal on the purchase of land, similar to the breaks given to area churches and synagogues? The corner where the Roxbury mosque is located used to be a trash-littered area in a dangerous neighborhood. Now, it’s a place through which people drive the long way home just so they can glimpse the mosque-in-progress. Roxbury’s new mosque is an appropriate edifice for the major world intellectual and cultural center that Boston is. This glamorous combination of red brick and gold expresses the sincere desire of Boston’s Muslims to give back to the community of which they are a part.

Roxbury’s mega-mosque is the last work of the late Hasan Fathi, who is one of the great architects of the 20th century. The Egyptian architect, known for his environmentally appropriate buildings, created a Bostonian “look” for this premiere mosque that sparkles yet blends into its surroundings harmoniously. It complements the nearby churches, some of which are 100-175 years old. When the Roxbury Mosque is completed, it will attract tourists from all over the world to a section of Boston that desperately needs tourist dollars.

There are some who feel threatened by the inclusion of Muslims in the melting pot of American society. The Roxbury mosque project has been subject to intense scrutiny because of empty, malicious accusations in the media against the Islamic Development Bank, probably the world’s most respected Sharia-compliant financial institution. Simple fairness requires exposure of an Islamophobic agenda, which incites religious and race hatred to marginalize American Muslims.

Conspiracy to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights is unethical. The media’s vigilante effort to defame the Islamic Society of Boston, its leadership and its membership deprives us, the American public, of the ability to hear important points of view, and it is probably illegal. Demonizing Islamic finance closes the USA to financial investments from the Arab world.

Venture capital can flow away from our region in the blink of an eye if international investors see that fanatic racists and Islamophobes dominate Boston politics. This campaign against the Roxbury mosque will probably cost the Massachusetts economy tens of billions of dollars of investment capital.