Jimmy Carter Apologizes for Telling the Truth

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/250107carter.htm
by Kurt Nimmo

Jimmy Carter, who caused himself a world of hurt by writing truthfully about the "Israeli-Palestinian issue," that is to say more than a half century of Israeli brutality against Palestinians, was almost dis-invited from a speaking engagement at Brandeis University. You'd think his status as a former president would trump the political correctness of the ADL and the "American Jewish community," many of them frankly sayanim. Carter made it by the skin of his teeth.

"Despite two months of a highly publicized campus debate over whether Carter would or would not be invited to campus, sparks did not fly at Tuesday's event," reports the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Carter used the event to backtrack one of his main claims. "In response to a question criticizing a section of his book that appears to justify the use of terrorism, Carter admitted it was a mistake…. Calling the wording 'stupid,' Carter said, ‘I apologize to you personally and to everyone here.' He said he has asked his publishers to change the wording in future editions."

And what exactly is the egregious wording?

On page 213 of his book, Carter wrote: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

In other words, the Palestinians will stop resisting occupation--condemned as illegal under international law--when the Israelis agree to stop slaughtering Palestinian school kids, plowing under century-old orchards, dividing up historic Arab land into squalid Bantustans, stealing tax money, siphoning off precious water, throwing kids in medieval torture dungeons, and converting Gaza and the West Bank into the largest open-air prison on the planet.

Fingernail pulling apologist Alan Dershowitz wasted little time exploiting Carter's reticence. "If Carter had written a book more like his comments, I do not believe there would have been so much controversy," said the Dersh, an indefatigable stalwart for clusterbombing small Arab nations and DIME bombing teenagers. "You heard the Brandeis Jimmy Carter today and he was terrific. I support almost everything he said. But if you listen to the Al Jazeera Jimmy Carter, you'll hear a very different perspective."

"In his speech, Carter said he was accustomed to being stigmatized in political campaigns, but he confessed that he has been hurt by some of his critics," the JTA continues. "This is the first time I've ever been called a liar and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist," Carter said.

Get used to it, Jimmy. Many of us who dare to criticize Israel have weathered these insults for years. A few of us endure death threats for the crime of speaking our minds. Of course, Carter, as a former president, does not have to worry about death threats, as he is surrounded 24-7 by the Secret Service. It's a bit dicier for the rest of us, mere commoners.

Of course, all of this may soon be water under the bridge, as Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, introduced H.R. 254, also known as the hate crime bill, earlier this month.

"Criminalizing speech that expresses 'hate' or 'bias' would require us to outlaw history's most valuable speech, especially the political and religious speech that threatens social stasis and ignites progress," writes Harmony Grant. "Americans are so used to our mudslinging, no-holds-barred political discourse that we find it hard to envision the way freedom of speech could disappear. But the freedom we enjoy is extremely rare in history, and quickly lost. Free expression for intellectuals is the first thing to go when tyrants rise to power... Hate law advocates including the ADL argue that hateful speech incites violence, and appeal to the government's interest in reducing violent crime."

Even Jimmy Carter is beginning to realize that telling the truth about Israel's brutality against the Palestinians is considered "hateful speech" with consequences.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Support the Troops

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Andy Griffith: Father, Sheriff, and TERRORIST

Watch this short video from The Andy Griffith Show and find out why Andy Griffith is a TERRORIST!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CvoC551i2E

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Ed Brown - Tax Resistor and American Hero

Like most patriots and freedom-loving types, I've been following the Ed Brown family situation since the news broke a week or two ago. The gist of it is this:

Ed Brown (aged 65) and his wife Elaine were brought up on charges of tax evasion by the IRS. They have not filed or paid taxes since 1997 and owe an "estimated" $625,000. That is an IRS estimate, of course, and may or may not have a basis in reality. Nevermind the facts.

So...seeing that he was going to lose the kangaroo court case, Brown retreated to his "fortress-like home" and announced that he would not go quietly.

So far, the Federal Marshalls (who are now in charge since this is a federal case and since Brown now has a warrant for his arrest) have not surrounded the home or forcibly invaded. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the publicity surrounding it and memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

So now it's a waiting game.

A friend sent me a great group of links regarding this story. Here's the good stuff:

http://www.archive.org/details/Ed_Brown_Interview_IRS_Standoff video interviews with Mr. Brown by the only media allowed into his house so far.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=What+the+IRS+says&articleId=b1a9d7e3-f0ff-430c-93e8-d0cb0003c878 The IRS' public response to Mr. Brown's statements.

Of course, anyone who has seen Aaron Russo's awesome documentary video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOYP6sbhE4o&mode=related&search=) about the income tax will see that these are the standard-fare, circular arguments the IRS always uses. Those court cases they cite, by the way, were from LOWER COURTS and directly contradict US Supreme Court decisions...

There are numerous perspectives, story details, etc. all over the Net that can be found with a simple Google search or via the above links. Even if you dismiss things like this as "tax evasion kooks" or "militia nutjobs," I'd suggest you look at this story. In fact, if that's your thoughts on the subject, then I frikkin BEG you to look at the evidence, since you're one of the ones who probably needs the alternate perspective.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

US Attorney General: "No Habeas Corpus in Constitution"

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/

Gonzales: 'There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution'
Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the
U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about
whether the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited
the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did
not cite such a right, then added, "There is no express grant of habeas in
the Constitution."

Specter pushed back. "Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it
away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you
have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?"
Specter told Gonzales, "You may be treading on your interdiction and
violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General." Watch it:


As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section
9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it."

Digg It!

Full transcript:

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that
the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or
invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights
apply to Guantanamo detainees - aliens in Guantanamo - after an elaborate
discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus - when
there's an express constitutional provision that it can't be suspended, and
an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien
detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case
you're referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the
constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you're not right about that. It's plain on its face they are
talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about
habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an
invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta
and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the
constitutional right to habeas doesn't mean that the decision dealt with
that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I'll be happy to - I will go back and
look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution -
again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a
prohibition against taking it away. But it's never been the case, and I'm
not a Supreme -

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't
take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean
you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or
rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every
individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or
assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It simply says the right
of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by -

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common
sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

The "Matrix" Created by Controlled Conflict

by Henry Makow, PhD (http://www.savethemales.ca/)

Recently a feud between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell gave their ratings
a boost. Mel Gibson and Michael Richards also made gratuitous attacks that
helped their bottom line.

What if the world's great conflicts were just as phony? What if Bush and
Chavez; Blair and Putin; Olmert and Ahmadinejad were all part of a giant
Punch and Judy Show?

What if we were riding the roller coaster, cheering and groaning, and biting
our finger nails for nothing? What if it were all staged like professional
wrestling (only thousands of innocent people were dying?)

Many of us consider Ahmadinejad, Putin and Chavez the "good guys" in the
fight against the New World Order. It's possible they are controlled by the
Illuminati as well. Our hidden masters control everything else. Would they
leave war to chance?

I can't prove this grand hypothesis today. However, there is some anecdotal
evidence.

First, take past wars. None of them were anything like inevitable. I have
shown how World War One was made possible by British food subsidies to the
Germans, and ended when this trade stopped. World War Two, which Churchill
called the most "unnecessary war in history" was also engineered through
loans to the Nazis and the policy of "Appeasement." The Masonic bankers
also engineered US entry into WW II.

The war supposedly was fought for the independence of Poland yet at the end,
Eastern Europe was under the heel of the Russians, the 1939-1941 allies of
the Nazis. Instead of Nazis, Polish nationalists were massacred by Soviets.
An improvement? Sounds to me like war for its own sake, or for Communism.

Our War on Terror is the natural successor of the "Cold War"; both as phony
as three-dollar bills. The war on Iraq? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Iran? Do any
of them make any sense? These wars are unwinnable. How do you win a guerilla
war without annihilating everyone? They are not meant to be won.

As Dick Cheney intimated, the Iraq War will last 40 years i.e. as long as
the Cold War. Both sides are subsidized and controlled by the world's
central bankers and their secret societies/intelligence agencies.

War is an end in itself. It concentrates money and power in the hands of our
Satan-loving elites. It provides human sacrifices to their bloodthirsty god
and brutalizes and demoralizes humanity.

It is a waste of energy to discuss the "political reasons" for these
conflicts. They are a ruse.

OUR "MISLEADERS" ( term coined by Jordan Maxwell)
After debating for months whether the US was winning or losing in Iraq,
someone decided it was losing. As the "decider," Bush stoutly accepted
responsibility and even shed a tear at a soldier's funeral.

That didn't prevent the demonizing of poor George. His opponents assailed
his sanity, intelligence, virility and honor. What do they expect of an
admitted satanist?

George is not to blame. Every President in the Twentieth Century has been a
hand puppet of the Rothschild-Rockefeller cartel of cartels. They wouldn't
let George manage a gas station let alone the "Free World." Luckily, Bush
just reads the teleprompter.

Derision only gives him credibility heightening the illusion that the US has
a functioning democracy, mass media and justice system. Remember, the US
government is ultimately responsible for the slaughter of 3000 Americans in
broad daylight Sept. 11. The US ruling class and punditry are complicit in
the ongoing cover-up. The most obvious "controlled conflict" is the two
party system.

CREATING CONFLICT
Let's look at the "opponents" of globalization and the New World Order.
Chavez, Putin and Ahmadinejad were all obscure figures handed power by a
hidden hand. Like Bush, they certainly lack the stature of real "deciders."

Chavez and Ahmadinejad vilify Bush and the USA, but, like Chavez' mentor
Noam Chomsky, cannot pronounce the words "Rothschild" or "central banker."

Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution is Freemasonic in origin, as is his
Communism. Someone claims he met Chavez at a meeting of the Grand Lodge of
Texas in the 1990's. Chaevez led a failed coup but got out of jail after
only 2 years. Wikipedia reports that he later received campaign funds from
large banks.

Now Chavez and Ahmadinejad are busy establishing an Anti-American coalition
in South America: More controlled conflict.

CONTROLLING DEBATE
I suspect that the bankers set up Nationalist and anti-Globalist spokesmen
and groups in order to control both sides. The tip off is if these people
are getting corporate/government support and coverage in the mass media.
Canadian examples are Naomi Klein, Maude Barlow and Mel Hurtig.

On the other hand, you know Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action
Party is legit because she talks about the bankers and consequently gets no
media. In the US, Aaron Russo is legit for the same reason.

It's apparent that political action requires money. The bankers mint it. The
rest of us are too busy making a living to be anything but bystanders and
victims.


CONCLUSION
These days you can't turn on the media without someone (usually Zionists
like Charles Adler or Glenn Beck,) stirring up hostility against Iran and
Muslims in general. They keep talking about how war-like Islam is when we
are invading them! Any future conflict may destroy Israel, but these highly
paid shills don't care. War for its own sake is the goal.

War is considered "revolutionary" because it advances the Masonic bankers'
goal of the New World Order. It "overturns" the natural and divinely
intended development of mankind.

To have a war, the bankers need to create and provision two sides. Thus all
wars are waged against humanity by a small satanic criminal network that
owns 50% of the world's wealth. The mainspring is the world's private
central bankers.

The Hindus have a term for the "Matrix." They say our lives are governed by
"Maya" or "illusion."

We didn't guess anyone would go to so much trouble to create it. Perhaps
liberation lies in recognizing that conflicts are artificially created and
controlled.

-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: