The Most Talmudic Talmud-Vision?

Which TV shows are the most Judaic?

Please consider: Subject matter, dialogue, directors, creators, purpose, actors, Yiddishkeit, characters, writers, schtickiness, producers, studio, etc.

Of course, all American Talmud-Vision produce is Judaic, in the sense that Jews own and run Talmud-Vision, but which shows are thoroughly Jewish? Which would rate at least an 8 out of 10 Kabbalistic Stars?

This can be quite a challenge. For example, any show involving someone like Jeff Foxworthy is naturally useful to the Jewish media overlords, but is it actually Jewish at its core? That's where writers and directors would come into play.

Consider the greater context too. Consider for example, Three's Company: a dirty old Jew lusts after the dumb busty blonde "shiksa" whore played by a struggling actress who converted to Judaism and made a mint. Such interplay between fact and fiction is the essence of Talmudism.

Some considerations:

  • NCIS

  • House

  • M*A*S*H

  • Cheers

  • Frasier

  • All In The Family

  • Rhoda

  • Golden Girls

  • Saturday Night Live

  • Seinfeld

  • Friends

  • Three's Company

  • Married With Kids

  • The Sopranos

  • LOST

  • Sally Jessie Raphael

  • Maury

  • The Jerry Springer Show

  • The Larry King Show

  • Arrested Development

  • Curb Your Enthusiasm

  • The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer

  • The Twilight Zone

  • Sesame Street

  • Roseanne

  • The Larry Sanders Show

  • The Odd Couple

  • Soap

  • Taxi

  • Sanford and Son

  • Alice

  • The Jeffersons

  • The O.C.

  • Good Times

  • Maude

  • The New Adventures of Old Christine

  • The Office [US]

  • One Day at a Time

  • Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman

  • CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

  • CSI: Miami

  • CSI: NY

  • Without a Trace

  • Cold Case

  • The Amazing Race

  • Dark Blue

  • NYPD Blue

  • Hill Street Blues

  • Columbo

  • L.A. Law

  • Deal or no Deal

  • Northern Exposure

  • 60 Minutes

  • Ally McBeal

  • American Idol

  • The Andy Dick Show

  • Beverly Hills, 90210

  • Big Brother

  • Judge Judy

  • Mad About You

  • Boston Legal

  • Brothers & Sisters

  • Californication

  • Campbell Brown

  • Ricki Lake

  • Criminal Minds

  • MADtv

  • The Daily Show with John Stewart

  • Dharma & Greg

  • Hannity & Colmes

  • The Sean Hannity Show

  • Gene Simmons Family Jewels

  • Geraldo at Large

  • Gilmore Girls

  • Glenn Beck

  • Hollywood Squares

  • Huckabee

  • Judge Wapner

  • Kudlow & Cramer

  • Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist

  • Law & Order

  • Law & Order: Criminal Intent

  • Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

  • Law & Order: Trial by Jury

  • Nip/Tuck

  • Numb3rs

  • The O'Reilly Factor

  • The King of Queens

  • Big Brother

  • The Osbournes

  • Full House

  • America's Funniest Home Videos

  • Monk

  • State of Grace

  • The Sarah Silverman Program

  • JAG

  • The Wonder Years

  • Gideon's Crossing

  • Loonie Toons

  • The Tudors

  • The Unit

  • The West Wing

  • Welcome Back Cotter

  • Barney Miller

  • The Beverly Hillbillies

  • The Gong Show

  • Hogan's Heroes

  • The Mod Squad

  • The Paper Chase

  • Quincy, M.E.

  • The Ropers

  • The Tony Randall Show

  • Barney Miller

  • The Dick Cavett Show

  • Diff'rent Strokes

  • The L Word

  • Larry King Live

Talmud-Vision Report 2010.02.27 15:00 hrs

US Talmud-Vision Offerings, at 15:00 today:

White Oleander

Movie based on Janet Firch's novel (Oprah's Book Club selection). Great acting, cinematography, dialogue, etc., but the real appeal of it to the Jewish media overlords is that the Christians in it are stupid, slutty, hypocritical, and murderous "Bible-thumping Trailer Trash!".

More lines to warm a Jew's heart: "Those people are The Enemy!" "Fuck redemption!" "If God did exist, he wouldn't deserve to be prayed to."

One interesting point of difference between the book and the movie: In the book, Astrid ends up in Berlin; in the movie she ends up in the Jewish capital, New York.

Astrid Magnussen (Alison Lohman) and her murdering mother Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer) are presented as two "Viking" goddesses, surrounded by savage Blacks and Latinas, deluded "White Trash", neurotic, vaguely Jewish types (actor Noah Wylie, Jew), and greedy Russians (actually played by actress Svetlana Efremova, Jew). But Astrid's mother is clearly Judaic in everything but name and hair-colour.

Quite an "Aryan" production in general (Irish screenwriter, Swiss Renee Zellwigger, Robin Wright Penn (who's married to the Jew Sean Penn), etc.), but, of course, the director is a Jew -- Peter Kosminsky (director of the Talmud-Vision series "Homeland", an co-produced of the Zionist Entity and the UK).

Movie distributed by Jewish Warner Brothers. Book published by Little, Brown, which is owned by Hachette, which is owned by Lagardère Group. Lagardère CEO: Arnaud Lagardère, who was accused in 2007 of insider trading in EADS. Le Monde quoted a close adviser of Arnaud Lagardère as saying that "whatever happens he will be protected by (his friend) Nicolas Sarkozy (Anus Hebrew]." Lagardère Chairman: Raymond Lévy, Jew.

Elmer Gantry

About hypocrital, lying, cheating Christians.

Jew Dalton Trumbo's script. Directed by Jew Ruben Sax [Richard Brooks]. Music: Jew Andreas Priwin [André Previn].

Studio: United Artists; founded by two non-Jews (D.W. "KKK" Griffith & Mary Pickford), one perhaps-Jew (Charlie Chaplin), and one Jew (Douglas ben Hezekiah Ullman [Douglas Fairbanks]). In 1951, Arthur Krim (Jew, advisor to LBJ) and Robert Benjamin (Jew) took over United Artists. Pickford agreed. Chaplin was against the deal, but changed his mind in late 1952 when the US government revoked his re-entry visa while he was in London. He sold his remaining shares of UA several years later. Krim and Benjamin's productions involved Sam Spiegel (Jew), Stanley Kramer (Jew), Otto Preminger (Jew), Ernest Borgnine (Jew), the Mirisch brothers (Jews), Billy Wilder (Jew), Joseph E. Levine (Jew), Leonard Bernstein (Jew), Stephen Sondheim (Jew), etc. Their studio head (executive vice president) was Arnold Picker (Jew), whose father had been a Columbia Pictures executive. Puppet LBJ named Picker to the International Commission on Education and Cultural Affairs. He was the finance chairman of Senator Edmund S. Muskie's Presidential campaign [Ed Marciszewski, allegedly RC] and in 1976 he worked as a top fundraiser for "Scoop" Jackson's campaign [Jackson criticized the war criminal Dwight "Terrible Swedish Jew" Eisenhower for not spending enough on the military, and called for an increase in the production of more nuclear ICBMs]. Picker was singled out as the top target of a list of 20 people on Nixon's Enemies List. Picker was mayor of Golden Beach from 1979. He helped establish the Washington based American Film Institute. He was chairman of the board of Brandeis University's National Center for Jewish Film, which is dedicated to restoring Yiddish classics. He also helped found the Holocaust Documentation and Education Center based at Florida International University.

[Elmer Gantry followed by The Nun's Story. Director: Jew Fred Zinneman. Producer: Jew? Henry Blanke. Music: Jew Franz Wachsmann/Waxman. Studio: Jewish Warner Brothers.]


Jewish Disney movie.

Steven Spielberg Presents

Might as well be called, "The Elders of Zion Present."


A Western directed by Jew Lawrence Kasdan. Written by Kasdan and his brother Mark. Larry Kasdan is a supporter of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism Rabbinic Program. Star: Jew Kevin Kline.


Jewish. Jewish attitude, writers, producers, etc. Based on the Jewish MAD Magazine.


Talmudic movie directed by Jew Bryan Singer, based on comic book from Jewish Marvel. Created by Jew Stan Lieber/Lee and Jew Jacob Kurtzberg/Kirby.

Mighty Aphrodite

Jewish movie. Written and directed by mega-Jew Woody Allen, starring Jews Allen, Helena Bonham-Carter, and Michael Rappaport. Rappaport plays a big dumb "goy" farmer. Mira Sorvino is the inevitable "shiksa" lust-interest.

Miss Marple: Innocence

Starring the Jewess Jane Seymour.

How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days

Starring the Jews Kate Hudson, Adam Goldberg and Bebe Neuwirth.


Starring the Jews' gubernatorial puppet, and the Jew James Caan. Written by Walon Green.

Road House

Produced by Jew Joel Silver.

[Almost all of these movies have soundtracks composed by Jews.]

Degrassi: The Next Generation

Why does this appeal to the Jewish media overlords? It's designed to encourage the "goyim" to admire depravity and "shiksas" to be whores. The Canadian Degrassi series dealt with AIDS, abortion, abuse, alcoholism, cheating, sex, death, suicide, dating, depression, bullying, queer "rights", "homophobia", racism, the environment, drugs, and eating disorders -- all from a very Judaic perspective. U.S. viewers saw a toned-down version of the original Degrassi series in 1993, which did not feature the profanity Canadian viewers heard.

Created by Linda Schuyler [a thoroughly Judaized Protestant?: "What I saw when I hit my first junior high class in Toronto was something I had never seen in Paris or even in London, and that was the amazing multicultural diversity. I was teaching at Earl Grey, at Pape and Danforth, and there were tons of Greek kids, black kids, oriental kids, Macedonians -- a mixture I had never seen growing up in small-town southern Ontario. My parents were appalled when I dated a Roman Catholic."] and Kit Hood. DG:TNG created by Schuyler and her husband Stephen Sohn.

Character Tobias "Toby Isaacs Calls The Shots” Isaacs'  grandparents died in something called "The Holocaust". [Actor: Jake Goldsbie.] His dad split with his mom and shacked up with a "shiksa". He's one of the smart kids, of course. Toby bought condoms in case he had the chance to screw his own "shiksa" gf, Kendra, but when she found out, she broke up with him, citing the fact that she's only 12 years old. Toby desparately tries to act cool, but was cast out as a misfit after blackmailing his friend, J.T.. J.T. later demanded that Toby lend him some cash (for an abortion) and then insulted him, but Toby was there for him after J.T. overdosed and landed in the hospital. Toby was beat up by Lakehurst thugs and had to wear a cast and a neck brace. Later, J.T. got stabbed in the back, after vowing to avenge Toby, and died. Toby then screwed J.T.'s gf/baby-momma, Liberty. Johnny DiMarco asked Toby for a truce, in vain. Liberty urged Toby to end the cycle of violence. He went to seek peace, but DiMarco informed him that the truce wasn't up for grabs anymore. Toby began tutoring Holly (a dumb "shiksa" who was failing math) in exchange for Dance Dance Revolution lessons. Holly told Toby that she was willing to lower her standards enough to date him, but he rejects her. He ended up as the host of Robot Wars, with lots of "shiksas" surrounding him.

Jewish rapper Aubrey "Drake" Graham played a "Half-Black Half-Jewish" kid. "His parents represented two different sides of life," said Schuyler.

In DG:TNG, Stacey Farber, Jew [also stars in Life with Derek], plays Ellie Nash, a young girl who has problems with depression and cutting herself.

Jake Epstein plays Craig Manning. Epstein's mother, Kathy Kacer, is a Norma Fleck Award-winning writer of children's stories about "The Holocaust".

DG:TNG director Anais Granofsky [Black Jew] played Lucy Fernandez in the original Degrassi series.

"American History X" as "History" Channel propaganda

American History X is a boring, confused, and heavily contrived piece of propaganda from 1998.

For some strange reason, it was just shown on something called, euphemistically, "The History Channel", which has the nickname "The Hitler Channel" due to its bizarre obsession with Adolf Hitler, a former chancellor of Germany. It also airs "documentary" series such as "Nostradamus Effect", which relates a tale of "The Third Antichrist" and a "Da Vinci Armageddon."

Masonic "History" is owned by Arts & Entertainment Television Networks (A&E Television Networks, or AETN), which is a joint-venture of the Jew-run Hearst Corporation (42.5%), the Jewish Disney-ABC Television Group (42.5%), and Jewish NBC Universal (15%).

AETN includes: A&E Network, The Biography Channel, Crime & Investigation Network, History, History en Español, History International, Lifetime, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women, and Military History Channel.

Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) and Danny Vinyard (Edward Furlong) are two good-looking and intelligent White brothers growing up in Venice Beach, Los Angeles, California.

Their father is murdered by a black dope dealer. The father appears to deserve his fate because he was opposed to the idea of setting standards lower for Black people in education and employment. After his murder, the family falls apart, and challenging black teens to play basketball, in order to gain control of the basketball court.

One night, while Derek is with his girlfriend (Fairuza Balk, a Jewish witch), he discovers three black gentlemen robbing his truck. He shoots two of them. One dies from the shooting, and the other is beaten to death.

Derek is convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced to serve three years at the California Institution for Men in Chino. While there, he joins the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. His fellow gang-members rape him.

While in the prison hospital, Derek weeps, and seeks help from his younger brother Danny's Black school principle, Dr. Sweeney (Avery Brooks). Sweeney helps Derek get released on parole, and he survives ion jail until his release thanks to the protection he receives from a Black thief.

The plot revolves around an essay that Sweeney assigned to Danny. Danny got in trouble at school for having dared to write an essay sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's classic political text, Mein Kampf. His history teacher reported his offence to the Sweeney, then demanded that Danny write a paper about Derek, or be expelled from Venice Beach High School.

Derek is released on parole, and convinces Danny to abandon "National Socialism", which in this movie is presented as having something to do with Black people and White people. No mention is made of the Jewish Money Power, corruption, the Anglo-American-Soviet Alliance for world domination, the British or French empires, Gulags, Judaic tyranny and genocide in the USSR and Communist Hungary, etc. One uninformed about historical facts would get the impression that the reason the British and French invaded Germany was in order to defend the rights of non-White people, even though both the British and the French at that time ruled over numerous colonized populations in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. One would get the impression that America was also deeply concerned about protecting the equality of Black people in the United States against the cruel attentions of Adolf Hitler.

In a touching moment, Derek and Danny remove all German Nazi paraphernalia from their shared bedroom wall.

The two brothers are now resolved to be good citizens of the Zionist States of America. Unfortunately, the Black principal comes with the Law, demanding that Derek engage in community outreach, to resolve racial problems. Then Danny is murdered by a Black schoolmate. The moral of the story seems to be: "Even though Black people are stupid, thieving, and murderous, racism is bad."

The film ends with Danny narrating the conclusion to the essay about his brother. Both the essay and the movie end with the words of Abraham Lincoln, an American tyrant:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

The quote is from Lincoln's first inaugural speech. Not in the movie, nor in the essay, is this earlier section of Lincoln's speech:

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that: 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

"Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: 'Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.'

"I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration."

Joseph Stack's Suicide Note ('Manifesto')

Joseph Stack crashed his plane into an IRS building, killing Vernon Hunter.

He was particularly angry about the "vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church" getting tax exemptions, even though all religious institutions are granted the same privileges. He was also upset about certain cuts to government military spending. He believed that violence is "the only solution" to combat corruption and greed. He hoped that his action would cause the regime to strengthen draconian measures against civil liberties. And he quotes, apparently with approval, a Communist propaganda line. Stack completely failed to identify the source of America's corruption, or take any effective measures to combat it. If he was not a Rosenbaumer himself, he was at least thoroughly affected by Fraulein Rosenbaum's ideology of selfishness.

Neil Katz, reporting for the Jew-Stream Media's CBS faction, and sensing a threat to the Jewish Money Power, reported on the "Sick Suicide Note" [sic, redundantly] that, "he [Stack] was pissed [sic] at politicians of all stripes and outraged at the IRS, which he believed unfairly gave tax loopholes to big corporations and the Catholic Church..." [CBS was founded by the Jew William S. Paley, who operated in the psychological warfare branch in the Office of War Information, under the "Terrible Swedish Jew" (as we was called in his West Point yearbook, 1915) Dwight Eisenhower; and is now owned by the Elder of Zion Murray Rothstein. By-the-way, speaking of psychological warfare, the Jew Eisenhower, in Crusade in Europe, his book on their Second World War, failed to mention any sort of “gas chambers”, “‘genocide”, “six million”, or “Holocaust”.]

Joseph Andrew Stack's last "testament":

If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You've got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having 'tax code' readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren't steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I'm sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.

The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.

In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn't quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.

For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report ( regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (


(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.


· "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.

· "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.

· "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.

Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it's not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can't believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don't forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn't bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren't going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn't need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.

By this time, I'm thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I've never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn't give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.

To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl's unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn't have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn't that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I'm hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn't limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won't continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn't so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

Christian faces jail for taking his daughter to church in Chicago

Joseph Reyes, a Roman Catholic, is accused of violating a Jewish court order that forbids him to "expose" his three-year-old Roman Catholic daughter Ela to any other "faith" than Judaism.

The 35-year-old Chicagoan could face jail for having blessed his child with the sacrament of baptism, and for taking the Christian girl to a Roman Catholic cathedral. Local JSM television crews even have evidence of Mr Reyes taking his own child into the Christian temple. When Mr Reyes married his ex-wife, he denied Christ and converted to her Pharisaic cult, which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ condemned in the strongest possible terms. Fortunately, Mr Reyes returned to the Light and the Truth.

The couple separated in 2004, and their child was born after the separation. He claims that they had made no agreement to raise their daughter in the Judaic cult.
Mr Reyes, an unemployed veteran of the Zionists' war in Afghanistan, told a Chicago television station that the couple did not keep kosher, did not observe "Shabbat" and rarely attended synagogue, but said that they had held a baby blessing for Ela at their synagogue shortly after she was born.

In November 2009, Mr Reyes sent Ms Reyes pictures of their daughter being baptised at Queen of Martyrs Roman Catholic Church.

In December 2009 Mrs Reyes obtained a restraining order from a Talmudist occupying an Illinois court, banning her estranged husband from "exposing" little Ela to the love of Christ. Mr Reyes argued that this contravened the American Constitution.

Mr Reyes is now charged with contempt of court at Cook County Circuit Court. If convicted, he could face six months in jail and a $500 fine.

Rebecca Reyes' father is Howard Shapiro, a millionaire Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the smut-merchants at Playboy, a company owned by a pathetic dirty old man.

Mr Reyes has not sought any order from the court denying his wife her right to take their daughter to any synagogue; or to expose their child to Judaic cult propaganda, or pseudo-Buddhism or pseudo-Samkhyaism or any other trendy cult popular with Jew; or to attempt to raise her to become an atheist, as is the common Judaic practice. Furthermore, no Illinois judge would ever issue an order forbidding the mother from exposing the daughter to any other faith than Christianity.

Mr Re
yes is asking for contributions to his Christian Father Defense Fund.

Mr Reyes is theologically confused, but he is a good father, trying to save his daughter's immortal soul.

"The British Empire was not wrecked by Jews! It was just wrecked by stealing land for Jews, allying with a Jewish state, and fighting the Jews' enemy..."

Of course it was also to a large extent a Jewish creation...

Here's a funny quote from a Zionist article about Britain being at the heart of 'Global Antisemitism":
"Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary in the Labour government of Clement Attlee, was convinced that a Jewish conspiracy existed, supposedly in alliance with the Soviet Union. A commonly held view, both in London and Washington at that time, was that ‘the Jews' were determined to bring down the British Empire. The empire did indeed crumble, though it was not due to any Jewish conspiracy but to more mundane economic and political factors. The war against Hitler had sapped British strength."

Yes, and of course Jews had nothing to do with the USSR, or British or international economics or politics, or the British declaration of war against Germany.

The European Union's definition of "Antisemitism"

E.U. Definition of "Antisemitism"

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.

Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

  • Making mendacious [so fact-based allegations are okay?] dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective -- such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions [such as, for example, the E.U.].

  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. [fictitious] gas chambers) or [fictitious] intentionality of the [non-]genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocauso$t). [Surely then E.U. law must define exactly this fact, scope, mechanisms and intentionality of this alleged genocide, in order that people can be sure not to violate these dogmatic rulings.]

  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. [Even though this is the case.]

  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. [Even when this is the case? Anyway, note the Talmudic distraction: "their own nations"? Is it not a tenet of Judaism and of Zionism than the Jews' nation is the Jewish Nation?]

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination [is living like a parasite off the USA, on Arab land, "self-determination"?], e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor [is it not?].

  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism [tautology: 'Antisemitism is Antisemitism] (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus [the Jews, in the Talmud, boast that they killed Jesus,  -- i.e. Jesus Christ -- so is Jews antisemitic?], or blood libel [no definition?]) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. [Gaza ghetto/konzentrazionlager? Racial/ethnic-purity laws?]

  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law [tautology: 'Antisemitism is a crime when it is a crime'](for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

The Black Pope's Fourth Reich behind Dubai Killing and the framing of poor, innocent Jews?


It is permissible to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation,” he wrote, adding: “If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments – because we care about the commandments — there is nothing wrong with the murder.

– Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, King’s Torah

I started out making an absurd post about how poor Mossad has been framed for the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai. Then I realized that of course that must be the spin that Zionists are putting on things right now.

Sure enough, two JSM accounts:

Red-faced in Tel Aviv

By Isabel Kershner, TOI Crest [via NYT News Service], 2010.02.20

The initial nods,winks and pats on the back here [in Jerusalem] over the assassination last month of a senior Hamas official in Dubai are turning to puzzlement and concern as mounting evidence, including extensive surveillance videos, points to a remarkably clumsy operation many Israelis deem unworthy of their intelligence service, Mossad.  Officially, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the case, as is customary in delicate matters of intelligence and national security. But since the news of the assassination broke last month, Israel has unofficially made the story its own, with newspapers blaring congratulatory headlines and government ministers praising Mossad's director.

However, then the Dubai police released images showing some of the 17 people suspected of being in the hit squad bumbling about in poor disguises, and Britain became infuriated by the use of faked British travel documents. Now Israelis are wondering whether their once-famed spy service could have been behind such a sloppy job or, in a John Le Carré-like twist, if Israel could have been framed.

On Wednesday, a commentator for the newspaper Haaretz, Amir Oren,wrote a front-page column about the case, calling for the Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, to step down. "What must have seemed to its perpetrators as a huge success," he wrote,"is now being overshadowed by enormous question marks."

Israel wanted the Hamas official, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, 50, for the capture and killing of two Israeli soldiers in 1989 and for smuggling weapons to Hamas in Gaza. On January 19, he was killed in a Dubai hotel room.  On Monday, the Dubai police named 11 of the 17 people they suspect in the case. Among the names were those of three Irish citizens -- of whom the Irish authorities have no record -- and six British citizens living in Israel who appear to be victims of identity theft. The police also showed images culled from the ubiquitous closed-circuit TV system showing some of them in false beards, wigs and glasses, in almost comical attempts at disguise.

With the agents' passport pictures now splashed across newspapers and television screens around the world, Israeli commentators said the agents, whoever they may really be, have been burned.  Eitan Haber, a columnist in the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot and a close aide to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s, wrote Wednesday, "They cannot even go to the grocery store."

In a first official reaction,the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman,said Wednesday that Israel's policy of "ambiguity" in such cases was "correct".  "I don't know why we are assuming that Israel, or the Mossad, used those passports," Lieberman told Army Radio." Israel never responds, never confirms and never denies." Three former senior Mossad officials contacted by a reporter on Wednesday refused to comment at all.

The British authorities said they believed the British passports the Dubai police had collected were "fraudulent." British prime minister Gordon Brown called for a full investigation.

The six British citizens living in Israel -- who woke up on Tuesday to find their names linked with the assassination - do not resemble the agents' photographs from the passports bearing their names.  Among the Britons was a physiotherapist, a technical writer and a repairman who lives on a kibbutz.

The name of an American-born Israeli was used by another of the suspects, who carried a German passport. That person studies in a religious seminary near Tel Aviv. Three of the British citizens gave interviews to the news media on Tuesday, expressing their shock and some fear.By Wednesday they appeared to have gone incommunicado and did not answer or return a reporter's calls.

Oren, in his front-page column in Haaretz, anticipated a diplomatic crisis over the suspicions that Mossad had counterfeited British passports. "It is as if Israeli governments had never apologised to London for using British documentation," he wrote," as if they had not promised solemnly, when passports of Her Majesty's subjects were found in a certain phone booth, that this would never happen again."


Dubai Assassination: Has Mossad Been Framed?

Dominic Waghorn, Middle East correspondent, Sky News, 2010.02.17

Could Mossad have been framed for the killing of a Hamas commander in Dubai?

A Hamas commander known to trade weapons with Iran, killed in Dubai in a hit that leaves a trail of forged passports back to Israel.

It has to be the work of Mossad, the country's infamous spy agency. Or does it?

The Mossad theory is the working assumption in much of the media, both here in Israel and around the world. But for some it is just too obvious.

"It was so stupid, it couldn't be Israel. You don't go over the speeding line in a place where there are going to be cameras because you are going to be photographed," said Rami Igra who once worked for Mossad.

Killing a high level target in a hotel infested with CCTV cameras, using fake passports with the names of people, including British nationals, who live in Israel?

"You have got to be kidding," goes Igra's argument. It is just not Mossad's style.

Ex Mossad Agent: ‘Whoever Did It Wasn’t Professional’

"The whole thing shows that whoever did it was very unprofessional and took so many risks that no Western country would take."

Igra believes there are plenty of other suspects who wanted Mabhouh dead.

"Mr Mabhouh was the chief arms buyer for Hamas.

"As such we can assume there was a lot of money around him, a lot of black money and a lot of people who wanted more of it.

"You could imagine he didn't pay everyone and owed money."

Among the list of possible alternative assassins? Palestinian rivals, double crossed Iranians, organised crime chasing some of Hamas' arms money, perhaps.

We have got to carry out a full investigation into this. The British passport is an important document that has got to be held with care.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised an investigation

If someone else was behind the killing, they have certainly made it look like Israel did it.

Has Mossad been framed?

It would be the plot of a rather unbelievable spy or crime thriller.

An audacious scheme to impersonate the Middle East's most feared spy agency and getting away with it.

Or was it one level of deception further? A sort of faux naïf double bluff, as suggested on Sky News by ex-CIA agent Bob Ayers.

"If it was Mossad, by using passports that could have been copied in Israel, they're putting a thought for example in your mind that Mossad would never be so obvious to use passports that could be traced back to Israel.

"So you would think it's not Mossad, when it really was. It's a very, very interesting game of mirrors."

John le Carré, eat your heart out.

Note the 'argument' that "It couldn't have been Mossad, because they never make mistakes! Jews are so clever."

Another line of spin is that Mossad must have been working for Hamas and/or the Palestinian Authority.

For example:

Hamas official: PA deeply involved in Mabhouh hit

Senior figure in organization tells Ynet that Anwar Shheibar and Ahmad Hasnain are two Palestinians extradited from Jordan to Dubai following Mabhouh slaying. Mohammad Dahlan's rivals claim two were members of 'death cells' who engaged in violent suppression of Hamas members

Ali Waked, Ynet, 2010.02.18.10

A senior Hamas official told Ynet on Thursday that Anwar Shheibar and Ahmad Hasnain, two officers in the Palestinian General Security Services suspected of being involved in the assassination of Hamas' Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, fled the Gaza Strip after Hamas took power. The suspects were arrested in Jordan and handed over to the Dubai police following the hit.

Shheibar is a resident of the Sabra neighborhood, west of Gaza City, and Hasnain is a member of one of the large families in the Sajaiya neighborhood. The two, both in their 30s, were members in what was known until a few years ago as "the death cells" led by Nabil Tamus, who claimed he was an associate of senior Fatah member Mohammad Dahlan.

Hamas Threat

Hamas politburo chief says 'talks about revenge are over, execution time is here.' He calls on world to add Israel to list of terror organizations.

These cells, according to Fatah rivals and Dahlan's rivals, regularly suppressed Palestinian Authority opponents, especially among Hamas members.

Tamus, who led the cells, also left the Gaza Strip around the time Hamas took power. According to Palestinian reports and according to the senior Hamas official, the three were employed by Mohammad Dahlan's real estate and investment firms in Dubai.

In the pat, Dahlan, for his part, vehemently denied conducting any such activities in the United Arab Emirates. "I don't have the towers people say I have in Dubai," he used to say in interviews with the media.

Both Shheibar and Hasnain recently received their salaries from the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Hamas claims that their arrest proves beyond any doubt that the PA had direct collaboration and deep operational involvement in every detail of the assassination.

Hamas also claims that the Mossad enjoyed logistical support from the two men, who lived in Dubai in recent years, and thus were deeply familiar with the UAE. Hamas said publicly in the past few days that the two are associated with Dahlan's camp.

PA denies claims

Spokesperson for the PA security forces, Adnan Demeiri, flatly denied the claims.

It should be noted that four of Hasnain's family members were killed after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip during an operation Hamas claimed targeted "anarchy hubs" that dealt in illegally weapons possession and a broad-range of illegal activity.

In addition, a source in Fatah denied in a conversation with Ynet that the two are tied to the organization or to Dahlan. The source reported that Shheibar was expelled in 2002 from the defense forces led by Dahlan.

Furthermore, the sources said that Shheibar returned to the Gaza Strip two month after the Hamas take-over and remained there for about two years. After he made arrangements in Dubai, Shheibar purportedly left for the UAE from the Gaza Strip, and not from Ramallah as claimed by Hamas.

The source also reported that Hasnain was never in Ramallah and that he was detained in Israel for four months after trying to escape the Gaza Strip via Erez Crossing. However, following his release, the source said, he lived in Gaza.

"Neither Shheibar and Hasnain were arrested in any of the arrest waves carried out by Hamas, even though they are former Palestinian security officials. This raises a lot of question marks regarding the Hamas' reasons for pardoning them and not arresting them," the source said.


Did Britain know about Mossad hit? Israeli agent claims MI6 was tipped off

Daily Mail Foreign Service, 2010.02.19

MI6 was tipped off that Israeli agents were going to carry out an 'overseas operation' using fake British passports, it was claimed last night.

A member of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, said the Foreign Office was also told hours before a Hamas terrorist chief was assassinated in Dubai.

The tip-off did not say who the target would be or even where the hit squad would be in action.

But the claim from a credible source that the Government had some prior knowledge of the abuse of UK passports will strengthen calls for ministers to come clean about what they knew and when.

It came as more details emerged of how Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was lured into a trap by Palestinian double agents last month before being smothered with a pillow.

The killers tried to make his death look like an accident.

A British security source who met the Mossad agent, and has a track record of providing reliable information, told the Daily Mail: 'This is a serving member of Israeli intelligence.

'He says the British Government was told very, very briefly before the operation what was going to happen. There was no British involvement and they didn't know the name of the target. But they were told these people were travelling on UK passports.'

The security source said that the tip-off was not a request for permission to use British passports but more a 'courtesy call' to let the security services know 'a situation' might blow up.

The Mossad man said Israeli intelligence chiefs understand British authorities will have to 'slap them on the wrist' and added: 'The British government has to be seen to be going through the motions.'

The Israeli's claims contradict Foreign Office assertions that the UK knew nothing of the affair until shortly before the Dubai authorities went public over the assassination earlier this week.

However officials in the Gulf state have claimed that British ministers may have been alerted by Dubai last month about the use of the passports.

If MI6 received a tip-off from Mossad it is not certain it would have been passed to Foreign Secretary David Miliband, particularly if it was vague.

Intelligence officers may have preferred to wait before alerting ministers. But any suggestion that officials turned a blind eye to an extra-judicial killing will strengthen calls for a public inquiry into the UK's involvement in the war on terrorism.

Judges have already ruled that British spies have been complicit in the torture of terrorist suspects.

It will also fuel suspicions in some Arab countries that Britain was 'complicit' in the killing of al-Mabhouh.

A Foreign Office spokesman insisted last night it was 'not correct' to claim that Britain knew in advance about the passports.

He said: 'We received the details of the British passports a few hours before the press conference [by police in Dubai]. We were able to respond to the Dubai authorities on the authenticity of the passports the next day.'

And a Government spokeswoman today insisted it only found out about the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai last month when details appeared in media reports.

The department insisted it was only told that cloned British passports were involved shortly before authorities in the Gulf state went public with the information.

'Any suggestion that we knew anything about the murder in Dubai before it happened, including about the misuse of British passports, is completely untrue,' the spokeswoman said.

'As we have said already, the Dubai authorities told us about the role of British passports on February 15, several hours before their press conference. We told them the following day that the passports used were fraudulent.

'The head of the Dubai police has also made clear that embassies were not contacted until shortly before the identity of the suspects was revealed.'

The British source told the Mail he has known the Mossad man for more than 20 years and they met as part of a longstanding arrangement.

He said British-Israeli intelligence relations were 'jogging along very nicely when nobody knew - then it all became public'.

The Israeli agent rejected suggestions that intelligence-sharing between the two nations might be damaged.

He said Mossad was handling several sources within the UK Muslim community and added: 'There is no question of jeopardising that information flow.'

The revelation of a 'tip-off' came after Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor was 'invited' to the Foreign Office and asked to co-operate fully with the inquiry into the forged passports by the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Frustrated diplomats said he failed to promise to do so.

A senior government official told the Mail: 'We asked the Israelis toco-operate fully and that's where we left it. We asked some tough questions.'

The official added: 'The Israeli ambassador didn't say a great deal.'

As he left the Foreign Office, a relaxed Mr Prosor denied there was any 'additional information' to give.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband [Jew, as is the U.K.'s Jewish ambassador to his "homeland"] branded the abuse of ID documents 'outrageous' and demanded that Tel Aviv co-operate fully.

His shadow William Hague demanded 'fuller' answers about when the Foreign Office knew of the 'cloned' passports.

The row came as more details of the plot to kill the Hamas leader were disclosed.

Intelligence sources say al-Mabhouh was lured to a meeting in Dubai by two men who had worked with him in Hamas in Gaza.

He did not realise they had defected to the more moderate Fatah, bitter enemies of Hamas, and were secretly working with the Israelis.

Two Palestinian men are in custody in Dubai. The director of the Dubai Police forensic medicine department revealed yesterday that finding the cause of al-Mabhouh's death had been the most difficult post mortem he had ever done.

British-trained Dr Fawzi Benomran said the killers had put his body in bed and covered it, to make it appear he had died in his sleep.

But he and his team established that death was caused by 'suffocation by smothering, most probably with a pillow'.

Even if some Palestinians wanted al-Mabhouh dead, and even if MI6 or the CIA or whoever is involved, that doesn't remove responsibility from the Zionist State for the killing, or for having forged (or fraudulently-obtained) and used British, Irish, French and German passports.

Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs conifirms that they have no record of the three killers who were carrying Irish passport. Gail Folliard, Evan Dennings and Kevin Daveron do not appear in Ireland's records of legitimate passport-holders.

"We are unable to identify any of those three individuals as being genuine Irish citizens. Ireland has issued no passports in those names," the department said in a statement.

The government added that the Irish passport numbers publicized by Dubai authorities also are counterfeits, because they have the wrong number of digits and contain no letters.

British government sources told the Daily Telegraph that the three Irish passport-holders were most likely Mossad agents carrying false documentation.

The Jewish State's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said there is no evidence of Israeli involvement. He added: "Israel never responds, never confirms and never denies." So maybe they need some teeth kicked in until they do talk.

+ + +

If I had the stomach to descend into the world of the disinfo sites, I'm sure I'd find lots of "proof" that the Black Pope and The Fourth Reich are yet again framing the poor Zionists.

+ + +

Talmudic Rationalization for Genocide

For those unfamiliar with Judaism, the primary guide for "Judaic ethics" is the Satanic Talmud, not the Bible. The following citations (Yoma, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, Sefer Yereim, Sefer Mitzvot Katan, Sanhedrin, Sha'arei haLeshem, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, Guide to the Perplexed, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Orah Hayyim, Ya’arot Devash, etc.) are from the real Judaic scriptures.

Rationales Justifying Collective Punishment of Amalek

Prof. Hannah Kasher, Department of Philosophy, Bar-Ilan University, 2000.09.09

[From Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center's lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi.]

The command to wipe out Amalek is explained in the Torah (Deut. 25:17-19) as their punishment for launching an unfair attack on the helpless Israelites:

"Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt—how, undeterred by fear of G-d, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. Therefore, when the Lord your G-d grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your G-d is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"

The general command to “blot out the memory of Amalek” was presented in greater detail by the prophet Samuel in his demand of Saul: “Kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses” (I Sam. 15:3). The call for such severe punishment is indeed given a reason in the Torah, yet even the most egregious sin itself cannot invalidate the moral principle according to which “a person shall be put to death only for his own crime” (Deut. 24:16). Indeed, the Gemara (Yoma 22b) puts into Saul’s mouth an argument about the justice in what he was told to do: “The people may have sinned, but how have the animals sinned? And if the older have sinned, how have the younger sinned?” Little wonder that commentators and thinkers throughout the generations have felt a need to understand why the punishment of Amalek should be exacted from those who were not yet born when the sin for which the punishment was decreed was committed.

Some have tried to resolve the moral difficulty by arguing that the duty of blotting out Amalek has no longer been valid since Sennacherib exiled various peoples from their lands so that these nations could no longer be identified (Yadayim 4.4). This solution raises several difficulties. The statement pertaining to Sennacherib relates to the exile of Amon and Moab alone, and not of Amalek, for the mention of Haman as being an Agagite (assuming this means a descendant of King Agag of Amalek) indicates that the name of Amalek had not passed from the world by the time of Ahasuerus.

Even Maimonides, who assumed that “the seven nations have ceased to exist,” expressed the hope in his time that “the Lord will destroy the seed of Amalek entirely and will wipe him out to the last person as He promised, speedily in our day” (Sefer ha-Mitzvot, affirmative mitzvah 188). In fact, some people view the commandment to blot out Amalek as a ruling for the messianic era, since it requires that there be a king over Israel (Sefer Yereim 299), is conditional on conquering the promised land (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, negative commandment 226) and must await the prophet Elijah, who will clarify exactly who is of the lineage of Amalek, in order to be implemented (Sefer Mitzvot Katan, positive commandment 77). Be that as it may, it follows from the above remarks that the commandment to blot out Amalek has not essentially been nullified.

Moreover, it is also hard to accept the argument that the rabbinic ruling which declares that the duty to blot out Amalek is no longer valid is actually expressing a moral reservation, comparable to the reluctance to actually go through with the execution of a defiant and rebellious son. The Halakhic determination that “there never was and never will be a defiant and rebellious son” (Sanh. 71a) stems from the difficulty in demanding that parents put their son to death for gluttony. This cannot be compared to the situation at hand, for according to Scripture the duty to blot out Amalek did exist (when Saul was punished for not doing so), and some say that it will pertain again in the messianic era. The fact that there is no obligation to blot out Amalek today is only a solution for our time but does not provide a comprehensive resolution of the theological question in principle.

Another suggested resolution of the moral difficulty is based on the possibility of rehabilitation. The descendants of Amalek could rescue themselves from the general edict against them by accepting the seven commandments applying to descendants of Naoh or by becoming proselytes. This solution, as well, is neither comprehensive nor does it address the question in principle. For, its basic assumption is that any person descended of Amalek has a death sentence over his head from the moment of birth, even if he himself has committed no sin. His culpability is innate, and only if he accepts the seven precepts binding on Noah’s descendants, fully giving himself over and submitting to the Jewish way, or if he becomes a proselyte (in the opinion of some posekim), can he save himself from this fate. But his conversion itself is likely to be rejected on the grounds of ulterior motives.

Some people turn to various homiletical interpretations indicating that the command to blot out Amalek means something other than wiping out the historical people of Amalek. It is argued that these homilies answer the moral difficulty of collective punishment. Many homilies identify Amalek with Satan, one’s evil inclination, or offenders from within the Jewish people, or enemies from without. These homilies, however, do not explicitly invalidate the plain sense of the commandment. Thus they fall into the same category as the allegory that does not deny the fundamental meaning of the text.

Some argue that the allegorical interpretation pertains to the Divine promise, “I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven!” (Ex. 17:14); whereas the command to mankind, “you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” (Deut. 25:19), stands as stated. (cf. Ha´amek Davar, of the Netziv of Volozhin on this verse; cf. also Sha´arei haLeshem 2.10, by the kabbalistic rabbi Shelomo Elyashuv). It should also be noted that the view that Amalek also includes those “who act as Amalek” on the one hand adds a measure of justice to the command, but on the other is likely to change the moral difficulty with which we are grappling from a halakhah relevant to the messianic era or to something that has passed from the world and transform it into a war of annihilation against a contemporary foe, in which one does not refrain from killing women and children.

The fundamental responses to the problem which we present below have different points of departure. Some people maintain that the question itself is not to the point, while others assert that a religious command should not be challenged in terms of human morality (1), yet others have claimed that there is no fundamental justification for challenging the command since such a stand stems from an overly righteous posture (2). Other responses try to provide a moral explanation of collective punishment, justifying it on the grounds that the great benefit resulting from such punishment outweighs the suffering it causes (3), or supporting it by the view that the death penalty applies by law to each and every descendant of Amalek in his own right (4).

1. Religious commands as superceding obligations of human morality. One way of coping with the problem is by asserting that religious commands are not to be questioned since they are not subject to the rules of human morality. This is essentially the argument that is hinted at in various homiletical interpretations according to which Saul was told, “Do not be more righteous than your Creator/Maker” (Eccles. Rabbah 7, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 43). Rabbi Isaac Arama enlarged on this subject in his work, Akedat Yitzhak (Ch. 42), claiming that revelation should take precedence over moral intuition when there is a conflict between the two:

"As we wrote in connection with the deeds of Shechem (Ch. 27), godly people who follow the Torah are those every interest and deed are drawn after their divine and lofty origins, and are not drawn in their interests and deeds after natural origins... [Saul] did not have the divine strength to set his ways and take heed in his deeds according to the Torah and divine precepts, but set them aside and turned them into human ways and practices."

Rabbi Isaac Arama, who justified Simeon and Levi’s massacre of the town of Shechem, viewing Simeon and Levi as people who “were raised from the womb on the roots of the true faith,” condemned king Saul because he acted in accordance with his sense of natural morality and “was guided by his human qualities” ®ibid.). According to his view, human rules of morality, even if they stem from the intuition of virtuous people, ought not to challenge divine commands.

2. The call for morality as expressing excessive righteousness. The argument that one should take care and not harm the descendants of Amalek has on occasion been taken as perverting justice, going beyond proper behavior to a posture of excessive righteousness. Apparently in this spirit we are to understand the remark in the Gemara (Yoma 22b) given in response to the question put by King Saul: “A divine voice spoke out to him and said: ‘Do not overdo goodness’ (Eccles. 7:16). When Saul said to Doeg, ‘You, Doeg, go and strike down the priests’ (I Sam. 22:18), a divine voice spoke out to him and said, ‘Do not overdo wickedness’ (Eccles. 7:17).”
This passage contrasts two events in the life of King Saul: his reluctance to obey Samuel’s command to wipe out Amalek -- “Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses!” (I Sam. 15:3) – and in contrast, his attack on the priestly city of Nob – “He put Nob, the town of the priests, to the sword: men and women, children and infants, oxen, asses, and sheep – [all] to the sword” (I Sam. 22:19). According to the Gemara, a divine voice spoke out from Heaven against Saul’s behavior in both cases, citing verses from Ecclesiastes that criticize going to excess (“Do not overdo goodness... Do not overdo wickedness”). Further criticism on this matter is found in Ecclesiastes Rabbah (ch. 7), which generalizes about human behavior inferred from the order of events:

"Whoever becomes merciful instead of cruel, in the end becomes cruel instead of merciful. How do we know that one becomes cruel instead of merciful? As it is said, “He put Nob, the town of the priests, to the sword.” But Nob was not like the seed of Amalek!"

First it is claimed that the tendency to be overly merciful is likely in the course of time to lead to being overly cruel; the mercy that Saul sought to show the seed of Amalek should have guided him, by inference from minor to major, in his treatment of Nob, the town of the priests. The passage at hand seems to be based on the implicit assumption that the affiliation of an individual with a certain group (“Nob, the town of the priests,” or “the seed of Amalek”) is significant in determining how the person should be treated. Perhaps this underlying assumption is like arguing that one would be overdoing goodness to ask that people (elderly, women and children) who belong to the enemy nation be treated mercifully, even if they themselves took no part in hostile action.

3. The moral justification of “great benefit”. One of the arguments used to justify the collective punishment of Amalek is made in the name of the deterrent effect of such punishment. This justification is made by Maimonides in Guide to the Perplexed (3.41). According to him, the precedent of punishing everyone in the entire surrounding is likely to prevent future instances of tribal protection of those committing criminal acts:

"To wipe out the “seed of Amalek” -- for just as the individual would be punished, so one ought to punish the entire tribe or nation, in order to deter all tribes from being party to evil. So that they will say: Lest they do to us what they did to the people of such-and-such. So much so that if an evil and destructive person should be born unto them, a person who does not fear causing evil to his soul and who does not think about the evil he wishes to do, such a person will find none in his tribe to aid and abet him in the malignant things he may wish to do."

Maimonides is aware of tribal brotherhood, “all having one father” (ibid. 49), and argues that therefore the edict to blot out Amalek is applicable only when the line of descent is patrilineal (3.50). Maimonides offers an explanaton for why one should actually wipe out an entire group that has a blood relationship, namely that collective punishment of this type would prevent crimes being covered up because of natural compassion. Maimonides’ takes a basically utilitarian approach to punishment and justifies passing the death sentence on individuals or groups according to the leader’s discretion when “the aim is to derive huge benefit for many persons” (Guide to the Perplexed 1.54).

Various homiletical interpretations have justified the command at hand on different utilitarian grounds: blotting out Amalek as a supreme necessity: “As long as the seed of Amalek exists in the world, neither the Name (of the Lord) nor the Throne are complete. When the seed of Amalek has passed from the world, the Name and the Throne will be complete (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, ch. 3). This approach, widely echoed in kabbalistic writings, explains the obligation to wipe out any trace of Amalek on the grounds of the imaginary power of this tribe to harm the heavenly realms.

4. Wiping out Amalek as just personal retribution. The assertion that all of Amalek’s descendants deserve this punishment by reason of their own fault stems from the assumption that each of them is considered a sinner. Avnei Nezer by Rabbi Abraham Borstein (19th century) provides an example of such an assumption: “It is disclosed and well-known to the Holy One, blessed be He, that hate lies in their hearts. Go and see what Haman the Agagite did” (Orah Hayyim, 508). In other words, for reasons that are not spelled out – perhaps genetic or educational -- the descendants of Amalek persist in the ways of their ancestors, “the root of the Amalekites’ sin being that they are in no way willing to subjugate themselves to Israel. So that an individual descendant of the Amalekites not be doomed to death he must prove that he has renounced the deeds of his ancestors. The proof lies in his expressing willingness to be subjugated to Israel, but not by conversion for that would make him an equal of the Jews.

The solutions presented here have different points of departure. We conclude our survey with the interesting remarks of R. Jonathan Eibshitz, from Ya’arot Devash (Part II, sermon 9):

"Indeed, Solomon taught us a fine virtue (“If your enemy is hungry give him bread to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink (Prov. 25:21): not to be vengeful towards our enemies, rather to treat them well when they are at hand. Therefore the Torah had to warn us about Amalek in numerous places, for without the Torah’s words of caution, even though Amalek did Israel wrong, it would be a virtue not to remember their ancient hostility but only to treat them well. Therefore the Torah admonishes us: Do not treat Amalek thus; these people do not show mercy, for the Throne of the Blessed One is not complete. Therefore the Sages refused to write a scroll [ordering the Jews to kill their enemies in Persia], saying, “It will lead to resentment towards us on the part of other nations, for they will consider us to have bad qualities, being vengeful and harboring hatred”( Megillah 7a). For it is not a good quality to take vengeance on one’s enemies; quite the contrary, virtue and intelligence would dictate that they be treated with mercy, tolerance and compassion, showing the difference between Mordechai and the wicked Haman. Only the Divine Spirit instructed that they be avenged, for there is no compassion in the seed of Amalek... Therefore, my brothers, learn what is good without harboring hatred, but on the contrary, be good to one’s enemy. Such behavior well suits human virtue and the bounds of the Torah. This is the glory of Israel, not to harbor hatred; thus our ways will be straight, by nature not being vengeful. Therefore it is said (Megilla 7b), “It is one’s duty to drink on Purim until one cannot distinguish between ...” so that from much drinking one forgets what the Torah commands and follows the natural virtue; then one will not distinguish between “cursed Haman and ...,” for by nature a person is in no way to take vengeance or curse those who seek one’s harm."




Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.