Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - EyeBelieve

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
Ammonium nitrate used to be available at most hardware stores & garden centers, it's a concentrated fertilizer.  Was looking for small quantity to kickstart compost heap (OK it's not organic but running a strictly-organic compost pile is a bit difficult; getting right mix of ingredients often not practical).  So local garden center that has mostly experienced knowledgeable staff tried to help; apparently they were unaware ammonium nitrate no longer stocked.  They did mention the terrorism angle after looking thru available stock & finding none on hand.

I noted that the defacto ban on selling small quantities of the stuff was a bit absurd since US farmers use millions of tons annually.  The staff suggested some very expensive "compost starter" junk & were surprised to see the starter had no list of ingredients.  Could be dried chicken manure.

Looked on web, some older articles suggest Southern States co-op but turns out they no longer sell.  Adding to absurdity is that miners often use urea for blasting not ammonium nitrate; plus Boston bombs used black powder (still widely available & used in deadly pipe bombs too).  Ban on retailers selling AN is apparently a stealth move; I see no evidence of outright regulation.

So gov't is trying to put pressure against even farmers using AN though it has superior features vs urea or ammonium sulfate.

EB:  +1 for their students

WaPo:  Commencement speaker protests stir a debate over free speech on campuses

By Paul Farhi,April 11, 2013

    Dr. Benjamin Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, this week reconsidered his invitation from Johns Hopkins after a furor over his remarks lumping together homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality.

College campuses are supposed to be marketplaces of ideas. But some ideas, and some people, are less welcome than others these days. Just ask Robert Zoellick and Ben Carson.

Zoellick, the former World Bank president, and Carson, the world-renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon, have withdrawn as college commencement speakers in the past week following protests from students and professors. Zoellick accepted and then turned down an invitation from Swarthmore College — his alma mater — after students objected to his support of the Iraq war and his record at the World Bank; Carson this week reconsidered his invitation from Johns Hopkins after a furor over his remarks lumping together homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality.

Commencement speaker controversies have become so common that they’re practically a springtime ritual, like the opening of the baseball season or the blossoming of daffodils. Figures as diverse as President Obama and actor James Franco, whom some UCLA students knocked as lacking gravitas, have all been the object of graduation brouhahas in recent years.

“Overall, there seems to be an increased sensitivity to things that in the past we might have let it roll off our backs,” says Josh Wheeler, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, a First Amendment legal policy group at the University of Virginia. “Nowadays, people aren’t afraid to express their objections, which isn’t a bad thing, but people are more willing to censor [speech] to remove the offending speech or language.”

Wheeler refers to this phenomenon as “ the heckler’s veto,” the ability of a small but vocal group to limit the choices of a much larger majority.

“We shouldn’t ignore [protest] but at the same time to allow a minority to determine what we see or hear is very concerning from a free-speech point of view,” Wheeler said. “Too often, it’s easier to eliminate the problem than deal with the controversy.”

Such issues have risen and fallen on college campuses for decades, leading to familiar complaints that the nation’s institutions of higher learning are dens of “political correctness.” The charge is often leveled by conservatives against what they perceive as the liberal orthodoxy of college campuses.

In fact, conservative writer Ann Coulter was forced to cancel an appearance at the University of Ottawa in Canada in 2010 after about 2,000 students crowded the entrance to the hall at which she was scheduled to speak and protested her views. Former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin faced protests from students and controversy over her fees when she was invited to speak at California State University-Stanislaus in 2010, but she went ahead with her appearance.

The recent furors over Carson and Zoellick fit this pattern, too. Carson, a self-described Christian conservative, apologized for remarks he made in a Fox News interview in March in which he said “no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality” had the right to change the traditional definition of marriage.

Students at Hopkins protested his remarks and took up a petition for a new speaker. Despite another apology, Carson decided to withdraw on Wednesday. “My presence is likely to distract from the true celebratory nature of the day,” Carson wrote in an e-mail to the dean of the university’s medical school, Paul Rothman. “Commencement is about the students and their successes, and it is not about me,”

Zoellick, a former George W. Bush administration official, was to have received an honorary degree at Swarthmore, but he also pulled out this week after students mounted a campaign on Facebook calling him an “architect of the Iraq war” and a “war criminal” for his support of the 2003 invasion. Although Zoellick did support the war, he did not plan it; he was Bush’s U.S. trade representative and later worked to resolve the conflict in Darfur as a State Department official. He ran the World Bank from 2007 until last year.

As the attacks on Zoellick mounted last month, Swarthmore’s student newspaper, the Daily Gazette, exercised its own free speech by mocking the controversy. In an April Fool’s Day edition, it wrote that the school “would not be offering degrees to any member of the Class of 2013 who does not intend to found a vegan coffee shop after graduation, calling other professional choices ‘antithetical to Swarthmore values.’ ”

But figures on the left have received similar treatment as well. Weeks of protest by anti-abortion advocates, for example, preceded President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame University in 2010. Also that year, the University of Wyoming canceled a speech by former 1960s radical William Ayers after hundreds objected.

Meanwhile, protests flared this week at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law in New York after it gave its “International Advocate for Peace Award” to former president Jimmy Carter on Wednesday. A group of Cardozo alumni set up a Web site calling on the school’s graduates to withdraw their financial support to protest Carter’s criticism of Israel.

At the least, the current climate of protest strikes former university president Robert O’Neil as reasonably civilized. When O’Neil headed the University of Wisconsin in the early 1980s, a student group invited former Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver to speak. His first appearance was canceled because of security concerns; a second appearance led to violence between rival student groups and eight arrests for disorderly conduct. Cleaver cut his speech short.

“What people see as evidence of political correctness [today] is not what’s going on,” says O’Neil, who also ran Indiana University and the University of Virginia during his academic career. “The harshest thing I see is that we engage more in self-censorship, but that’s a long way from succumbing to political correctness. It’s not P.C. to make a special effort to respect people’s beliefs and to try to accommodate them.”

Rather than viewing the campus climate as evidence of growing censorship, O’Neil sees it as more hospitable to open debate. “The discourse is more orderly,” he says. “There’s more willingness to reason. People don’t always agree, and they can disagree aggressively, but that’s how the marketplace of ideas works.”

Yesterday's Washington Post print/e-replica edition featured a huge photo (front page of local B section, above the fold) of a big "passenger jet" spewing huge amounts of "contrail/vapor trails".  WaPo makes photo uncopyable, sorry.

Caption:  Photo by Michael S. Williamson:  Fluffy streaks form in the sky in the wake of a passenger jet headed west, toward the sun, as it passes over Washington. The long thin artificial clouds, a familiar sight in this area, are called contrails (short for "condensation trails"), or vapor trails.

EB:  Memory-Holing combined with not-too-subtle suggestion for folks to ignore mass # of jet trails.  Chemtrail-debunkers claim that upper-level atmosphere differs highly from ground weather:  ie when sky-watchers note that when chemtrails mysteriously fail to form some weeks but appear in masse other weeks we can't relate that to the weather.  That theory might work but lately I've seen wide variation of local weather but few chemtrails.  Previously (like around Christmas) there were huge # of criss-cross chemtrails.  Weather alone doesn't seem to explain variation in trail appearance.

Link below probably won't work in another couple hours:  WaPo Memory-Holes print edition instantly Memory-Holes their stuff nowadays.

EB: Kazan was an accomplished Jewish filmmaker who named names at House Un-American Activities Committee hearings & was never forgiven by the Jewlywood set.  Kazan had been a Communist Party member for 1-1/2 years & became disillusioned with their arbitrariness, control fetish etc.  DC Dave also points out that MSM conveniently but falsely conflates Hollywood blacklist with McCarthy.  Unfortunately DC Dave does not delve into the bigger issue:  Jews try to whitewash history to remove knowledge that Jews were the core of the communist movement.  Anti-communists such as McCarthy & Nixon have been thoroughly demonized & their anti-commie activities are portrayed by JMSM as craven careerism.

Elia Kazan, American Hero

To participate in a forum on this article go to B’Man’s Revolt.

Ben and Norma Barzman were Hollywood screenwriters and unapologetic members of the Communist Party.  As such, they became victims of the Hollywood blacklist and lived and worked in exile in Europe, mainly in France, from the late 1940s to the late 1970s.  The following passage is from Norma’s 2003 book, The Red and the Blacklist: The Intimate Memoir of a Hollywood Expatriate (p. 442):

In March 1999, ten years after Ben’s death, the Writers Guild restored screenplay credit to Ben for El Cid and solo original screenplay credit (“Written By”) to me for Luxury Girls.  At the same moment, the Academy announced their intention to bestow an honorary Oscar on Elia Kazan.  Along with Abe Polonsky, Bernie Gordon, Jean Butler, Bobbie Lees, and the other surviving blacklistees and their offspring, I was goosed into action.  I’d been comparatively quiet, attending blacklist retrospectives, promoting Tender Comrades at bookstores and universities.  But I was energized once again.  I collected money for ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, picketed outside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion with my grandson, Matthew, Daniel’s son; spoke on radio and TV.  A big demonstration greeted Oscar-goers, most of whom did not stand or applaud Kazan.

And what was it about belatedly honoring perhaps the greatest director the American motion picture industry has ever seen that had Ms. Barzman so exercised?  Here, by way of explanation, is how The New York Times began its March 22, 1999, article entitled “Amid Protests, Elia Kazan Receives His Oscar:”

Elia Kazan said ''thank you'' tonight at the Academy Awards, and then walked off stage slowly to sustained applause.

It was, in some ways, a bittersweet finale to the controversy over the honorary Oscar for the 89-year-old filmmaker, a controversy dating back to 1952 when Kazan, the director of ''On the Waterfront'' and other classics, named names before the House Un-American Activities Committee investigating Communist influences in Hollywood.

After an all-too-sketchy summary of Kazan’s many accomplishments, The Times gave Kazan’s detractors the last word with this conclusion:

But critics of the award to Mr. Kazan said that the director should not be forgiven for the decision he made in 1952. A full-page ad in Daily Variety, signed by some members of the entertainment world as well as lawyers and academics, said that Mr. Kazan ''validated the blacklisting of thousands'' and that ''his action did enormous damage to the motion picture industry.''

Only a handful of the hundreds of signatories were well known, among them the actors Sean Penn, Ed Asner and Theodore Bikel.

CNN, in its coverage before the event, even went so far as to publicize the Kazan attackers by printing the Hollywood Reporter ad in its entirety:

"There is the story in our history of a man who was proclaimed a hero of the American Revolution. In one of the battles against the British he suffered a mutilating leg wound. Sadly, after the revolution he became a traitor. It was ruled that for treason he be hanged. But before they hanged him, the leg that was wounded was amputated so that the better part of him be not dishonored.

"Elia Kazan too was a traitor. Some of those betrayed were his close friends. Their lives and futures were destroyed. He became ally and accomplice to an infamous committee which shamed his country. There is no way for the films of Kazan to be amputated from the rest of him. Yet, if there were any decency left in him he should have refused the award so as not to once again sow discord and bitterness among those whose lives and devotion are given to cinema." Signed, Jules Dassin.

Not to be outdone, in 2003 PBS had this to say about Kazan and his Congressional testimony:

One of Kazan’s defenders is Arthur Miller, much to the disappointment of many on the left. Miller is one of the heroes of the McCarthy Era. He defied the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1956, and refused, unlike Kazan, to name those whom he knew to be “fellow travelers.” For this he was held in contempt of Congress, fined, and sentenced to jail time.

Miller, who struggled at the time so mightily with his personal moral failing, emerged as the exemplar of courage in face of the Red scare. He has even taken on an aura of saintliness over the years. Kazan occupies the other end of the spectrum: a man defined almost entirely by his decision to name names. For many, Kazan’s brilliant career-all that he contributed to the theater, to film, to letters-will be tainted by a single decision he was forced to make some fifty years ago.

The Continuing Communism Whitewash

What in the world is going on here?  At the time that Kazan gave his testimony, we only knew a small part of the evils of Soviet Communism under Joseph Stalin.  Nikita Khrushchev had not yet made his famous speech on the cult of personality and its horrible consequences.  The Soviet historian Roy Medvedev hadn’t published his exposé of Stalin entitled Let History Judge.  Most importantly, The Gulag Archipelago and the other great writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn were still in the distant future.  On the American political scene, the revelations of a number of former Communists had been published in the form of a book entitled The God That Failed three years before, in which the insidiousness of the Communist Party in the United States was put on full display.  Former Communist spies Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers had given their Congressional testimony, and one of the people Chambers accused of being a Soviet spy, Alger Hiss, had been convicted of perjury, but there were still a lot of people who believed that he, Lauchlin Currie, Owen Lattimore, and other high level Communists and Communist sympathizers were just victims of a witch hunt.  Allen Weinstein, previously a Hiss defender, had not yet written Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case, showing to the satisfaction of almost everyone in the history community how right Chambers was about Hiss and the Communist infiltration of the government.

One would think that in 1999, a decade after the collapse of the Soviet empire, Kazan would be the vindicated one and all those long-time promoters of the Soviet Union like Norma Barzman and her friend Polonsky—who, demonstrating his unreconstructed Stalinist tendencies was quoted as saying on the eve of Kazan’s award, “I’ll be watching, hoping someone shoots him. It would no doubt be a thrill in an otherwise dull evening.”—would be the ones slinking away with their tails between their legs.  Rather, it is the contrary, and they are given reinforcement by our national opinion-molding mainstream.  They are now the unvarnished heroes, while Kazan, politically at least, is the villain.

Consider the shallow and contradictory attacks they make on the man.  He “validated the blacklisting of thousands,” they say.  They don’t say that he supported the blacklisting, which he certainly did not, as he showed with his professional assistance of the pro-Communist Zero Mostel:

It was not until 1950 that Mostel again acted in movies, for a role in the Oscar winning film Panic in the Streets, at the request of its director, Elia Kazan. Kazan describes his attitude and feelings during that period, where, according to biographer Arthur Sainer, "MGM blacklisted Zero Mostel way before the days of the blacklist.”

Each director has a favorite in his cast, . . . my favorite this time was Zero Mostel—but not to bully. I thought him an extraordinary artist and a delightful companion, one of the funniest and most original men I'd ever met. . . I constantly sought his company. . . He was one of the three people whom I rescued from the "industry's" blacklist. . . For a long time, Zero had not been able to get work in films, but I got him in my film.

Perhaps by choosing the word “validated” they mean that he confirmed that there were, indeed, members of the Communist Party, which he, himself had been for a short time, working in the entertainment industry in key positions.  He named eight former associates who were also Communists.  One of them, the playwright Clifford Odets, he noted, had left the Party the same time as he did.  All of them, as it happens, were already known by the committee to be Communists.  PBS is simply wrong, then, to call them “fellow travelers,” suggesting that they were just sympathizers with some of the things that the Communists purported to stand for and it is doubly wrong to put the expression in quotes, which implies that it might just be someone else’s characterization of them.  Kazan’s critics can’t have it both ways.  He either validated the hunt for genuine Communist Party members in show business or he did not.

Who Was the Traitor?

Jules Dassin’s use of the word “traitor” to describe him is also quite interesting.  The most common understanding of “traitor” is “one who commits treason,” that is, one who betrays his country.  Could one find a better word to describe those who remained loyal to the American Communist Party throughout the Stalin period than “traitor?”  As Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley has put it so succinctly in his very revealing book Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940s, “…the essence of American Communism was loyalty to Stalin.” (p. 287)  Anyone who was a member of the party for any length of time could see that that was the case, but one hardly had to be a party member to see it.  Just watching how quickly the Communists turned from being the biggest opponents of American involvement in the war in Europe to being the biggest proponents when Hitler turned on his Soviet allies should have been education enough.  In the national loyalty sense of the term, then, the word “traitor” comes a lot closer to describing the people Kazan fingered, with the exception of Odets, who had ended his membership in the Party.

Dassin must mean, then, that Kazan was a traitor in the sense that he betrayed either his cause or his friends and associates.  Since he had long since parted company with the “cause” of the American Communist Party, the charge boils down to his ratting out some of his former comrades, who, unbeknownst to him, had already been effectively ratted out.  For that, the sweeping conclusion is reached that by that deed this great contributor to the film-making art somehow did “enormous damage to the motion picture industry.”

It really is hard to take people seriously who speak in such absurd hyperbole.  Clearly there can be no connection between his confirmation of the Communist Party membership of those few individuals and any damage to the quality of movie making in America.  Maybe it’s somehow just the principle of the thing that they’re talking about.  But when it comes to the question of the principles involved, there is no better authority than Kazan himself.  Here, in the full text of an advertisement he purchased in The New York Times on April 12, 1952:   

In the past weeks intolerable rumors about my political position have been circulating in New York and Hollywood. I want to make my stand clear:

I believe that Communist activities confront the people of this country with an unprecedented and exceptionally tough problem. That is, how to protect ourselves from a dangerous and alien conspiracy and still keep the free, open, healthy way of life that gives us self-respect.

I believe that the American people can solve this problem wisely only if they have the facts about Communism. All the facts.

Now I believe that any American who is in possession of such facts has the obligation to make them known, either to the public or to the appropriate Government agency.

Whatever hysteria exists — and there is some, particularly in Hollywood — is inflamed by mystery, suspicion and secrecy. Hard and exact facts will cool it.

The facts I have are sixteen years out of date, but they supply a small piece of background to the graver picture of communism today.

I have placed these facts before the House Committee on Un-American Activities without reserve and I now place them before the public and before my co-workers in motion pictures and in the theatre.

Seventeen and a half years ago I was a twenty-four-year old stage manager and bit actor, making $40 a week, when I worked.

At that time nearly all of us felt menaced by two things: The depression and the ever growing power of Hitler. The streets were full of unemployed and shaken men. I was taken in by the Hard Times version of what might be called the Communists’ advertising or recruiting technique. They claimed to have a cure for depressions and a cure for Naziism and Fascism.

I joined the Communist Party late in the summer of 1934. I got out a year and a half later.

I have no spy stories to tell, because I saw no spies. Nor did I understand, at that time, any opposition between American and Russian national interest. It was not even clear to me in 1936, that the American Communist Party was abjectly taking its orders from the Kremlin.

What I learned was the minimum that anyone must learn who puts his head into the noose of party “discipline.” The Communists automatically violated the daily practices of democracy to which I was accustomed. They attempted to control thought and to suppress personal opinion. They tried to dictate personal conduct. They habitually distorted and disregarded and violated the truth. All this was crudely opposite of their claims of “democracy” and “the scientific approach.”

To be a member of the Communist Party is to have a taste of the police state. It is a diluted taste but it is bitter and unforgettable. It is diluted because you can walk out.

I got out in the spring of 1936.

The question will be asked why I did not tell this story sooner. I was held back, primarily, by concern for the reputations and employment of people who may, like myself, have left the party many years ago.

I was held back by a piece of specious reasoning which has silenced many liberals. It goes like this: “You may hate the Communists, but you must not attack or expose them, because if you do you are attacking the right to hold unpopular opinions and you are joining the people who attack civil liberties.”

I have thought soberly about this. It is, simply, a lie.

Secrecy serves the Communists. At the other pole, it serves those who are interested in silencing liberal voices. The employment of a lot of good liberals is threatened because they have allowed themselves to become associated with or silenced by the Communists.

Liberals must speak out.

I think it is useful that certain of us had this kind of experience with the Communists, for if we had not we should not know them so well. Today, when all the world fears war and they scream peace, we know how much their professions are worth. We know tomorrow they will have a new slogan.

Firsthand experience of dictatorship and thought control left me with an abiding hatred of these. It left me with an abiding hatred of Communist philosophy and methods and the conviction that these must be resisted always.

It also left me with the passionate conviction that we must never let the Communists get away with the pretense that they stand for the very things which they kill in their own countries.

I am talking about free speech, a free press, the rights of property, the rights of labor, racial equality and, above all, individual rights. I value these things. I take them seriously. I value peace, too, when it is not bought at the price of fundamental decencies.

I believe these things must be fought for wherever they are not fully honored and protected whenever they are threatened.

The motion pictures I have made and the plays I have chosen to direct represent my convictions.

I expect to continue to make the same kinds of pictures and to direct the same kinds of plays.

For anyone who might still believe that Kazan’s attackers hold the moral high ground, I suggest that they just go back and read his statement again, perhaps a little more carefully the second time through.  Who can honestly take issue with a single line in it?  If that doesn’t work, then watch this powerful scene in the Kazan-directed On the Waterfront.  It is hardly noble or admirable, Kazan is telling us, to protect the secrets of murderous, power-lusting thugs in the name of loyalty to one’s associates.  And when it comes to murderousness and power lust, the mobsters who controlled the New York docks in the movie were very small timers compared to the controllers of those he informed on for HUAC.  As he wrote in his autobiography, “On the Waterfront was my own story.  Every day I worked on that film, I was telling the world where I stood and my critics to go **** themselves. (Elia Kazan: A Life, p. 529; quoted in Billingsley, p. 244).

The political climate has changed now so drastically, it is very hard for most Americans to appreciate how powerful and insidious the American Communist Party was in the Red Decade of the 1930s and well into the 1940s.  In his statement Kazan says, “I have no spy stories to tell, because I saw no spies,” but the main reason for that is that spies had no reason to infiltrate his line of work, but subversives certainly did.

“Of all the arts, the cinema is the most important,” is the quote from Vladimir Lenin that Billingsley uses to lead off his Part I.  Consonant with that dictum, burrowing into Hollywood and taking it over was as important to Stalin’s Communist Party as controlling the docks was to the mob in On the Waterfront.  And it was very successful.  Contrary to the popular notion we might have now that one was taking great risks for his ideals to be a Communist, at the height of the party’s influence, it was actually a career advantage in Hollywood:

For the cinema revolutionaries, wrote Eugene Lyons, Communism was “an intoxicated state of mind, a glow of inner virtue, and a sort of comradeship in super-charity,” a way for the wealthy to posture as proletarian wage slaves.  On the other hand, the Party triumphalist mind-set, the notion that they automatically write better screenplays and belonged to the victorious army of the future, led some to use ideology as a substitute for talent or even effort.  According to Louis Berg, longtime Hollywood journalist Max Youngstein of Universal circulated a memo informing all personnel that being a Communist was no longer sufficient reason to be employed there, and that doing a bit of work would also be required.

Former Communist screenwriter Roy Huggins says that there were a number of “awful writers” who wouldn’t have worked without their politics.  For this type of person, Huggins said, becoming a member of the Communist Party “was just another way of being Sammy Glick,” the hero of Budd Schulberg’s novel, What Makes Sammy Run? (Billingsley, pp. 58-59)

Misplaced Indignation

When it comes to the Hollywood blacklist, nothing could be clearer than that no finger of blame should be pointed in the direction of the great director, Elia Kazan.  Contrary to a popular belief that is perpetuated by people who are at odds with the truth, the blacklist had nothing to do with the junior senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy.  The blacklist was begun by the major studio heads in 1947.  That was the year Senator McCarthy took office.  He exhibited no public interest in the Communist subversion issue until he made his famous speech in 1950 in Wheeling, West Virginia, about Communists in the State Department.  Throughout his investigations, his entire focus and that of his committee staff was on Communists in the federal government.  He never had anything to do with Communists in Hollywood.  Inquiries into that subject originated with the House Un-American Activities Committee.  HUAC was formed in 1938, and its original concern was with Nazi subversion.  Under Chairman Martin Dies, Democrat of Texas, it could not help discovering, though, that Communist subversion was a far bigger problem.

As Billingsley in his book makes abundantly clear, HUAC’s interest in Communist infiltration of Hollywood was hardly an idle one.  There was ample reason for their interest.  The Hollywood blacklist began with the denial of film industry employment to the members of the industry, known popularly as the Hollywood Ten, who refused to cooperate with the committee in October of 1947.

It is wrong to point the finger of blame at HUAC, though.  Perhaps it is a novel idea these days that the United States Congress should show public concern over the subversion of American institutions by a foreign country, whether the subversion be of the government or the opinion-molding industry, but that is precisely what the HUAC inquiries were about.  HUAC was not responsible for the Hollywood blacklist, though.  That was entirely the work of the heads of the major studios, who had a vise-like grip on employment in Hollywood at that time. Seeing how the molders of public opinion have come to characterize everything concerning Communists and Hollywood as just the manifestation of paranoia by grandstanding politicians, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Hollywood moguls’ blacklist was nothing but a ploy.

Like the Soviets, who airbrushed Trotsky and other foes of Stalin out of official photographs, the Hollywood Party replaced fact with legend.  The Communist Party and its involvement with Hollywood was simply left out.  The story only begins when the Committee, a group of black-hatted inquisitors, rides into town tarring anything that moves with a red brush, persecuting noble idealists, censoring artists, and launching the “dark epoch” of the blacklist, part of the “McCarthy era.”  That template, plus the appealing plot of [Dalton] Trumbo, [Michael] Wilson, and others who duped the studios by working through fronts, simply overrode the long and complicated story of the Communist Party’s cultural offensive, the front groups, and the studio labor conflicts.

As for “the industry,” it was not up to admitting that it had played the role of what Lenin called “useful idiots,” duped and bilked by militant Communists.  Though it was the industry, not the government, that blacklisted writers and performers, the blacklist legend allowed the studios to pose as victims themselves, a cover-up too intoxicating to pass up. (Billingsley, pp. 272-273)

Had the movie moguls been really sincere in their newfound anti-Communism we would have seen them producing at least an occasional movie that reveals the truth about the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and afterward.  More than half a century has passed and we have not yet seen anything out of Hollywood that might counteract the impression they left with 1940s movies like Mission to Moscow, Song of Russia, and The North Star.  That has certainly not been for lack of good potential dramatic material.  Solzhenitsyn alone, we know, has stories galore, but there have been lots of others like Eugenia Ginzburg’s Journey into the Whirlwind or the sad stories of Americans in the Soviet Union like Thomas Sgovio, Victor Herman,* or Robert Robinson, whom we mention in our recent review of The Forsaken.  While Hollywood never seems to tire of movies that vilify the Nazis and, more recently, the Arabs and the Muslims, it is yet to produce anything about the Soviet bloc that begins to compare to the French movie, Est-Ouest (East-West), or the German movie, Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others).

Rather, Hollywood still seems to prefer to romanticize Communism with movies like The Way We Were and Reds and to save its greatest opprobrium for those who called attention to the Communist subversion and infiltration problem.  The most recent example of the latter that comes to mind is George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck.

This negative focus upon the Hollywood blacklist in the one instance and upon Senator Joe McCarthy in the other suggests that what we are seeing in action here in both cases is nothing less than the thirteenth of the Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.  Our opinion molders have successfully changed the subject by creating a distraction.  So now, just as the story of Hollywood subversion by Communists begins with HUAC, the story that M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein recount with their new book Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, as far as the dominant creators of national opinion are concerned, begins with Senator McCarthy’s presumed overly vigorous inquiries into that highly successful subversion.

There is ample reason to feel a sense of indignation at this whole sorry episode of American history.  If it must be directed at one particular American, it should be at the person responsible for consciously allowing Stalin’s subversion to go as far as it did.  Our previous writings have amply demonstrated who that person is.  His profile can be found on the dime, and he is currently being worshipfully portrayed by Asner in a one-man show.


 *CBS did air a rather poorly done movie version of Herman’s tragic but inspiring epic, Coming out of the Ice, in 1982.

David Martin

March 19, 2013

Media Watch / Google's Warning about "Jew" Search Results
« on: March 16, 2013, 07:49:49 PM »

An explanation of our search results

If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

The Google Team

P.S. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.
©2011 Google

Conspiracy then and now. / James Earl Ray Conspiracy?
« on: March 15, 2013, 01:25:44 AM »
Old MLK gets little attention from FPers which is a shame:  his assassination certainly fits with JFK/RFK killings that many/most agree were sophisticated plots & not "lone nuts".  James Earl Ray, by any stretch, was quite a character.  A drifter, petty criminal, armed robber etc.  Like Charles Manson, Ray had been a guest of the Federal prison system where he might have gained attention from terror networks as a potential patsy.

After MLK killing James Earl Ray scooted to Canada & then to UK; he was arrested at Heathrow airport since UK authorities had received notice from FBI; OTOH he supposedly managed to rob a London bank & get away cleanly.  that wasn't even his first trip to Canada, he went there earlier after escaping from Missouri State Prison & by his account hooked up with "Raoul" who gave him lucrative jobs smuggling drugs.  I won't detail things too much but gives an lengthy account of Ray's amazingly extensive travels to Canada, Mexico, LA, Vegas etc.  For example:  In December 1967 he drove from Los Angeles to New Orleans to meet up with Charles Stein who was involved with George Wallace's American Independent Party, & drove back to LA with Stein & Stein's kids.  Common sense suggests Stein could well be an ADL-type agent assigned to monitor White Power groups. 

MSM suggests that Ray's escape to London was to "seek a new life" supposedly by later going to South Africa or Rhodesia & that he favored Canada/UK simply because they spoke English.  But given "Londonistan's" history of false-flag terrorism & assassinations of US Presidents that explanation is a bit pat.

Ray has the history of extensive travel & occasionally lavish spending:  MSM suggests that he afforded this with a miserly lifestyle coupled with savings from menial jobs & robbery proceeds.  OTOH his escape to London suggests that he was a patsy of MI6-connected networks that gave him up only after they felt sure that Hoover FBI etc would gratefully refrain from indulging in "conspiracy theories".  While life as a Federal/state fugitive is tough, very few abscond to Canada or Britain.  Crossing any international boundary is an obvious risk & most that do so go to Mexico, not Britain with it's very capable police/intel forces.

Note that Martin Luther King's family has consistently claimed that the assassination was a conspiracy though their claims have been soft-pedalled by MSM & the family never seems to have profited from conspiracy claims.

History & Civilization / Barney & Clyde vs Aristotle!
« on: March 11, 2013, 09:56:41 PM »

The strip's irony is that Aristotle has everything to do the Greek financial crisis.  Aristotle = determinism = Malthusian depopulation thru deindustrialization = financial crisis.  We live in the globalist bankster regime where only "comedy" media can hint at the truth.

Hold on to your chairs, it was a Jewish chap!

Arnold Weiss, 86
German-born U.S. soldier found Hitler's last will and testament

Arnold Weiss stands in front of the wreckage of a Nazi plane in Germany in 1945. (Special To The Washington Post)
By T. Rees Shapiro
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 10, 2010

For a half-century, Arnold Weiss was best known as a Washington lawyer and founder of an international investment group. Perhaps it was his desire "to build rather than destroy," to move beyond World War II and the memories it conjured, that kept him silent for so long about his clandestine wartime mission.

Mr. Weiss, who died of pneumonia Dec. 7 at 86 in Rockville, was the man who found Adolf Hitler's last will and political testament.

He grew up in a Jewish orphanage in Germany just as the Nazis were coming to power, then made his way to the United States at 13. Because of his German-language skills, Army counterintelligence officials deployed him back to Europe during World War II.

In the autumn of 1945, after Hitler had committed suicide in a Berlin bunker, Mr. Weiss was dispatched to Munich on a special assignment.

Many Nazi loyalists refused to believe that Hitler had disgraced the Reich by killing himself. No witnesses confirmed the death, and the Soviets, who were the first to find Hitler's body, had refused to hand over his remains. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin told President Harry S. Truman at the Potsdam conference in July 1945 that Hitler might be in Spain or Argentina.

Mr. Weiss and his counterintelligence team were charged with hunting down rogue members of Hitler's inner circle and finding evidence of the German leader's demise.

In a 2005 profile in The Washington Post Magazine, Mr. Weiss described his war service alongside British intelligence officer Maj. Hugh Trevor-Roper, who became a historian and author of "The Last Days of Hitler."

Mr. Weiss sought out Wilhelm Zander, the military aide of Nazi Party secretary Martin Bormann, who was stationed at Hitler's lair during his final days.

Mr. Weiss tracked Zander down in late December 1945 to a stone house near a village on the Czech border, where Zander was arrested during an early-morning raid.

In a 10-hour interrogation, Zander said he'd been arrested under a case of mistaken identity.

"We confronted him with all the facts of his life," Mr. Weiss said of his strategy. He lied and told Zander, "We have your mother and sister."

Shortly afterward, Zander confessed and gave a full account of his military service. Toward the end of their conversation, Mr. Weiss asked Zander why he'd left Hitler's bunker shortly before the leader killed himself.

 Zander said he had been dispatched as a courier with an important envelope and then said, "I suppose you want the documents?"

Not knowing what the papers were, Mr. Weiss answered in the affirmative and escorted Zander to a farm on the outskirts of Munich, where the German soldier had hidden the manila envelope in a suitcase at the bottom of a dry well.

Mr. Weiss opened the package and read the typed heading on the first page: "Mein privates Testament," signed by Hitler on April 29, 1945, at 4 a.m - the day before he died.

In the document, Hitler outlined his succession in the event of his death and said that he would rather commit suicide in impending defeat than be paraded as a prize of the Allied victors.

"Hitler was trying to run Germany from the grave," Mr. Weiss said in 2005. "Talk about chutzpah!"

Mr. Weiss handed the envelope, which also contained Hitler and Eva Braun's marriage certificate, to his superiors. Later, Mr. Weiss's commanders commended him for his achievements and sent him photocopies of Hitler's wills.

He kept them as mementos of his war service. The originals are in possession of the National Archives.

Hitler's will was authenticated by U.S. intelligence officials and used at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, said Peter Black, a senior historian at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

Mr. Weiss was proud of his accomplishments but not boastful. He did say that it was ironic that his Jewish eyes were the first to read Hitler's last words, which implored German leaders to "mercilessly resist the universal poisoner of all nations, international Jewry."

Mr. Weiss was born Hans Arnold Wangersheim on July 25, 1924, in Nuremberg. He was the son of a former World War I German army officer who became a sports columnist for a local newspaper.

His parents divorced when he was a toddler and left him at an orthodox Jewish orphanage. He wore a yarmulke, which made him a target of abuse during the rise of the Nazi Party. He was once hoisted to a lamppost and flogged by a horde of Hitler Youths.

He fled Germany after his bar mitzvah and made his way to the United States with the help of a charitable Quaker group.

 When he arrived with $5 and a cardboard suitcase, Mr. Weiss stowed away on a train bound for Milwaukee. He was eventually taken in by a family from Janesville, Wis.

He reversed his first and middle names and adopted the surname Weiss from a popular University of Wisconsin running back.

After the United States entered World War II, Mr. Weiss served in the Army Air Forces and was assigned to an intelligence unit after officials learned he spoke German.

As an American soldier, Mr. Weiss helped liberate thousands at the Dachau concentration camp and was overwhelmed by the stench of a trainload of decomposing bodies.

He later learned that his father had survived internment at Dachau and that his grandmother had died as a prisoner at Auschwitz.

Mr. Weiss returned to the United States and graduated from the University of Wisconsin and its law school in the early 1950s. He joined the U.S. Treasury Department as general counsel of the Office of International Finance and later was one of the first employees at the Inter-American Development Bank.

From 1977 to 1992, Mr. Weiss was a partner at the Washington law firm Arent Fox, where he specialized in international finance before founding Emerging Markets Partnerships.

At EMP, which handled more than $7 billion worth of investments, Mr. Weiss helped fund international development projects. He retired in 2006.

His wife of 49 years, Artemis Lychos Weiss, died in 2005. Survivors include two sons, Daniel Weiss and Andrew Weiss, both of North Bethesda; a foster sister; and three grandchildren.

Toward the end of World War II, Mr. Weiss interrogated scores of senior Nazi officials who were later put on trial in Nuremberg for crimes against humanity.

In time, Mr. Weiss became frustrated with the slow rate of prosecution for low-ranking personnel.

"The war crimes courts were already backlogged," Mr. Weiss said in 2005. "The jails were full. They were going to slip through the cracks."

In at least a dozen cases, Mr. Weiss said, he and his team left vehemently unremorseful Nazi prison guards at the gates of refugee settlements for "additional debriefing."

Whatever happened to the German soldiers - whose fates were decided by the labor and death camp survivors who lived at the settlements - Mr. Weiss claimed never to know.

"The German people paid dearly for their infatuation with Hitler," Mr. Weiss said in 2005. "But there were times when justice had to be done."

Hitler's Last Will & Testament


My political testament.

More than thirty years have passed since 1914 when I made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the First World War, which was forced upon the Reich.

In these three decades love and loyalty to my people have guided all my thoughts, actions and my life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions ever to confront mortal man. In these three decades I have spent my strength and my health.

It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America. Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen.

Only three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I proposed a solution of the German-Polish problem to the British Ambassador in Berlin - international control as in the case of the Saar. This offer, too, cannot be lied away. It was only rejected because the ruling clique in England wanted war, partly for commercial reasons and partly because it was influenced by the propaganda put out by international Jewry.

I have left no one in doubt that if the people of Europe are once more treated as mere blocks of shares in the hands of these international money and finance conspirators, then the sole responsibility for the massacre must be borne by the true culprits: the Jews. Nor have I left anyone in doubt that this time millions of European children of Aryan descent will starve to death, millions of men will die in battle, and hundreds of thousands of women and children will be burned or bombed to death in our cities without the true culprits being held to account, albeit more humanely.

After six years of war which, despite all setbacks, will one day go down in history as the most glorious and heroic manifestation of the struggle for existence of a nation, I cannot abandon the city which is the capital of this Reich. Since our forces are too meager to withstand the enemy's attack and since our resistance is being debased by creatures who are as blind as they are lacking in character, I wish to share my fate with that which millions of others have also taken upon themselves by remaining in this city. Further, I shall not fall into the hands of the enemy who requires a new spectacle, presented by the Jews, for the diversion of the hysterical masses.

I have therefore decided to stay in Berlin and there to choose death voluntarily when I determine that the position of the Fuhrer and the Chancellery itself can no longer be maintained. I die with a joyful heart in the knowledge of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our peasants and workers and of a contribution unique in the history of our youth which bears my name.

That I am deeply grateful to them all is as self-evident as is my wish that they do not abandon the struggle but that, no matter where, they continue to fight the enemies of the Fatherland, faithful to the ideals of the great Clausewitz. Through the sacrifices of our soldiers and my own fellowship with them unto death, a seed has been sown in German history that will one day grow to usher in the glorious rebirth of the National Socialist movement in a truly united nation.

Many of our bravest men and women have sworn to bind their lives to mine to the end. I have begged, and finally ordered, them not to do so but to play their part in the further struggle of the nation. I ask the leaders of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to strengthen the National Socialist spirit of resistance of our soldiers by all possible means, with special emphasis on the fact that I myself, as the founder and creator of this movement, prefer death to cowardly resignation or even to capitulation.

May it become a point of honor of future German army officers, as it is already in our Navy, that the surrender of a district or town is out of the question and that, above everything else, the commanders must set a shining example of faithful devotion to duty unto death.

Before my death, I expel former Reichs-Marshal Hermann Goring from the party and withdraw from him all the rights that were conferred upon him by the decree of 29 June, 1941 and by my Reichstag statement of 1 September, 1939. In his place I appoint Admiral Donitz as President of the Reich and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.

Before my death, I expel the former Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and the Minister of the Interior Heinrich Himmler from the party and from all his state officers. In his place I appoint Gauleiter Karl Hanke as Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and Head of the German Police, and Gauleiter Paul Giesler as Minister of the Interior.

Apart altogether from their disloyalty to me, Goring and Himmler have brought irreparable shame on the whole nation by secretly negotiating with my enemy without my knowledge and against my will, and also by attempting illegally to seize control of the State.

In order to provide the German people with a government of honorable men who will fulfill the task of continuing the war will all the means at their disposal, I, as Fuhrer of the nation, appoint the following members of the new cabinet:

President of the Reich: Donitz
Chancellor of the Reich: Dr Goebbels
Party Minister: Bormann
Foreign Minister: Seyss-Inquart
Minister of the Interior: Gauleiter Giesler
Minister of War: Donitz
Supreme Commander of the Army: Schorner
Supreme Commander of the Navy: Donitz
Supreme Commander of the Air Force: Greim
Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and Head of the German Police: Gauleiter Hanke
Trade: Funk
Agriculture: Backe
Justice: Thierack
Culture: Dr Scheel
Propaganda: Dr Naumann
Finance: Schwerin-Crossigk
Labor: Dr Hupfauer
Munitions: Saur
Leader of the German Labor Front and Minister without Portfolio: Dr Ley.

Although a number of these men, including Martin Bormann, Dr Goebbels and others together with their wives have joined me of their own free will, not wishing to leave the capital under any circumstances and prepared to die with me, I implore them to grant my request that they place the welfare of the nation above their own feelings. By their work and loyal companionship they will remain as close to me after my death as I hope my spirit will continue to dwell among them and accompany them always. Let them be severe but never unjust and let them never, above all, allow fear to preside over their actions, placing the honor of the nation above everything that exists on earth. May they, finally, always remember that our task, the consolidation of a National Socialist state, represents the work of centuries to come, so that every individual must subordinate his own interest to the common good. I ask of all Germans, of all National Socialists, men and women and all soldiers of the Wehrmacht, that they remain faithful and obedient unto death to the new government and its President.

Above all, I enjoin the government and the people to uphold the race laws to the limit and to resist mercilessly the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry.

Berlin, 29 April, 1945, 4 a.m.

                 Adolf Hitler


Dr Joseph Goebbels        Wilhelm Burgdorf
Martin Bormann            Hans Krebs

Aside from the lucky coincidence of the discovery of the document, is it valid?  Style-wise it seems close enough to Hitler's writings.  Content perhaps a bit less so.  He doesn't mention Bolsheviks or Russians at all in the will, surprising since 1) Soviets were taking over Berlin & 2) anti-Bolshevism was a constant theme of Hitler's writings & speeches. 

OTOH The Will mentions Jews 7 times including the last line.  Granted, Hitler did write & speak much about the Jews but still the Will's content seems a bit lopsided, suggesting it was a Jewish forgery.

Money & Markets / Monty Burns Explains the Fiscal Cliff!
« on: March 04, 2013, 11:08:32 PM »
<a href=";amp;version=3" target="_blank" class="new_win">;amp;version=3</a>

Hilarious epilogue/editorial by Monty Burns, last Sunday's Simpsons had another wild Burns editorial IIRC, not yet available.

Answer:  the Nashville Agrarians!  IE the highly influential neo-feudalist neo-Confederate literary crowd.  Lengthy article for modern short attention spans (sorry) but interesting read describing many of the malign cultural influences in America:

SEDUCED FROM VICTORY:  How the Lost Corpse Subverts the American Intellectual Tradition

How the Lost Corpse
Subverts the American
Intellectual Tradition
by Stanley Ezrol

[PDF version of this article]

    I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.

        —Benjamin Franklin, Sept. 17, 1787 (urging the unanimous endorsement of the draft Constitution of the United States)

    Men at sometime, are Masters of their Fates.
    The fault (deere Brutus) is not in our Starres,
    But in our Selves, that we are underlings.

        —Cassius to Brutus, from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Most of us know, or at least suspect, with good reason, that the nearly stillborn Bush II administration's bungling, yet brutal, attempt at "management" of the onrushing financial, economic, and strategic calamities of 2001, threatens to open this new century with even worse terror than that of the last, devastating, Century of War. The historical features of the last thirty-five years' "Southern Strategy," which imposed the Presidential "choice" between Al "Bore" Gore and "Boy George" Bush on the United States, are readily available,[1] and yet it remains for us, in this report, to explain why we allowed matters to come to this state of affairs. We must discover how we must develop the immunity to any future such pestilence. Just as many millions of us have been eager to gobble down the deadly, but imperceptible E. coli bacteria provided, at no extra cost, with our name-brand hamburgers, we have accepted an organized array of opinions regarding political-economic policy, philosophy, and theology, which are what Vladimir I. Vernadsky would call the "natural products" of an evil intention, an evil intention heretofore unknown to almost all of you, in its essential details.[2]

Our job in this report, is to focus the microscope on a particular variety of what President Franklin Roosevelt identified as the "American Tory" infection. We point to the avowedly "counter-revolutionary," Ku Klux Klan revivalist, pro-fascist, Confederate loyalists known as the Nashville Agrarians.

What you will discover is the extent to which well-known institutions and shapers of culture have, in fact, been, or been trained by, totally open, public, stubborn partisans of bloody treachery against the United States and its mission. These have included poets and novelists including Robert Penn Warren, historians including Ken Burns and Shelby Foote, political leaders including Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and educators including Cleanth Brooks and John Crowe Ransom, all among whom have been promoted as ostensibly benign, almost boring, "thinkers."

Through the microsopic inspection which we conduct in these pages, we will point out the characteristic features of the oligarchical system of ideas which our nation was founded to destroy, and the peculiar variety of this infection which is our main enemy today. Our intention is, that once this class of disease has been identified, you will come to understand how it has poisoned not only much of what you think, but, more important, the way many of you think. You will discover that this occurs, generally, through the mechanism of unconsciously accepted ideas about how the universe functions. These are mechanisms which control your opinion in spite of the popular delusion, that you must accept the opinions you swallow and repeat, because they, like your hamburgers, are made according to your habituated, acquired tastes.

The problem did not begin with the Year 2000 Presidential campaign. To explain how it came to this, we must look back approximately two centuries, with some understanding of the two and a half-millennia which led up to that point.

Our Republic was founded out of the great conflict between two great principles. The first, the Renaissance idea of the Nation-State[3] dedicated to the Common Good, or the General Welfare. The second, the anti-Renaissance, Medieval, or Feudal idea of the Empire composed of feuding warlords, in constant conflict over their property titles to land and to those serfs or slaves who work it, as well as to financial accounts.

The English colonization of America had been launched by friends and followers of the great ecumenical "Tudor Renaissance" leaders, Thomas More, William Shakespeare, William Gilbert, and Thomas Harriott, who sought to preserve the idea of a Nation from that Venetian-manipulated religious sectarian warfare, which had dominated Europe from 1511 on, and was to continue until the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. The immediate impulse for the establishment of an independent nation here, came from the 1688 through 1714 drive to expel the influence of our own intellectual forebear, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, from England, and to establish England as the "Brutish" Empire enforcer, modelled on ancient Rome, for the world's capital of financier power, Venice. This plunged Europe and its American colonies into a new Century of War, culminating in the unstable 1815 Congress of Vienna agreement between the Brutish, Habsburg,[4] and Russian Empires, which has been the basis for the bloody conflicts from 1848 to date.

Out of that conflict, Benjamin Franklin, in direct collaboration with Abraham Kästner, and with the circles of Moses Mendelssohn, Gotthold Lessing, and their allies amongst the champions of Leibniz's tradition throughout Europe, designed what became the United States, to be the cradle of the greatest advance in Civilization in the history of humankind. It worked. The age of combustion-powered technology and electricity, fostered here through the American System policies typified by high-tariff protectionism, technology-vectored internal improvements, and quality public education, has made possible a 150-year explosion of population and living standards, as well as the extension of our reach beyond our home planet Earth.

As you read about how the United States was seduced away from its tradition, apparently by a fairly small, multi-generational clique of traitors, fix in your mind, the image of the learned and proper Professor Rath of the 1930 German film, The Blue Angel, who taught his students from Shakespeare's Hamlet, but only so they could learn to pronounce "the English `th';" who was tempted, outwitted, and degraded to a miserable vaudeville "geek" by his own infatuation with the burlesque tramp, "Lola," portrayed by Marlene Dietrich. Which of the two, Lola or the Professor, was responsible for the calamity?
I. The American Tories and How They Grew

We start with the ideas that forced England's American Colonies to separate forever from the London regime. The Earl of Shaftesbury's 1688, so-called "Glorious Revolution," which placed the Dutch House of Orange on the English throne and launched the 25-year campaign to establish the "Brutish" Empire, included a plan to eliminate the American colonies' status as self-governing "Commonwealths."[5] Shaftesbury's "idea man" in this assault, was his philosopher of law, John Locke, who you were probably taught was a mentor of our own Founders. But, he wasn't. He was one of the creators of the British disaster, culminating in the coronation of the first George I, that made our revolution necessary. Locke's theories of political economy were promoted along with degenerate loon Sir Isaac Newton's mathematics, to replace the philosophy of our real forefather, Leibniz.[6]

By contrast with Leibniz's idea of "Happiness" in the joy of Creation, Locke's theory of government, expounded in his Two Treatises of Government, starts with the lie, that there was a predator versus predator "State of Nature" in which all men are servants and property-slaves; and, that this is the work of God, "made to last during His, not one another's pleasure." In this State, Locke claimed, any man has the right to forcibly seize back property taken by another, or kill a murderer, "as a lion or tiger," or even a thief who seizes property by force. Anyone whom one has the right to kill, Locke reasons further—in accord with the logic of the Roman assassin, Cassius, portrayed in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar—one has the right to enslave, "For, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master to draw on himself the death he desires."

From the State of Nature, Locke derives his own "God," now worshipped by those Yahoos who have arrayed themselves behind President George W. Bush. Locke's god is "Property," sometimes known as "shareholder value." "Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property," he explained. Of course, neither John Locke, nor Boy George and his Yahoos, ever found anything in a state of Nature, and certainly never produced any "labour," but, if you ask them to give back anything they claim as "Property" you'll likely find one of these "wild savage beasts" Locke says you can kill if he gets in your way, baring his fangs in front of you. Since, as you will realize upon considering how things that might be claimed as "property" are actually produced, Locke's theory means nothing, what the Lockeans really believe, and, as we will see, claim as a direct gift from God, is that anything they say is theirs, is; and that they can kill anyone they want to, to keep it—as Bush's family and friends are now doing with their price-gouging takeover of our public energy utilities, their theft of our formerly public health care system, and their "little wars" against nations struggling for sovereignty.

Locke's fable was used to justify the hideous system of absolute property rights in African slaves, removed "out of the State that Nature hath provided" through forcible relocation at the cost of millions who died in the kidnapping raids, the horrid trans-Atlantic shipments, and the other aspects of this removal from the State of Nature. Under Shaftesbury's patronage, Locke helped produce a draft for the Carolina Constitution, which established this principle of "law," which has been the most pernicious internal enemy of this Republic from that time until today.

These Yahoos, Locke then claims, conclude a contract, surrendering their rights of "equality, liberty, and executive power" to "government" for the "great and chief aim" of "preservation of their property." For Locke, as for "Boy George" Bush, who loves the Death Penalty, but just cares too much for "the people's money" to impose a "Death Tax," Property Rights are more important than Life:

    [N]either the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money, nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything and hang for the least disobedience.

Our Founding Fathers rejected Locke's government of, by, and for Property, when they struck the word "Property" from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence and replaced it with Leibniz's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Our own General Welfare principle, in opposition to Locke's, "If you grab it, God wanted you to have it," recognizes the right of all citizens to that which is necessary for the continued productive life of themselves and their progeny. Yet, like malaria, Locke's idea keeps coming back. It is his claimed right to human "Property" and the breaking of the alleged "compact" to defend it, which is the sole cause cited in South Carolina's 1860 Declaration of Secession, and hence, defending the Slavery idea of human worthlessness, and the system of political economy that required it, was ostensibly the sole cause of the founding of the Confederate States of America and its Civil War against our Republic.

Today, that "Critter Company" which backed Richard M. Nixon's 1966-68 "Southern Strategy," claims that the Confederate "States' Rights" principle is a defense against tyrannical "Big Government" theft of your property. The one right denied the States by the Confederate Constitution was the right to outlaw Property in Slaves. The difference today, is that you have become the mere property of those who hold you and this nation to that form of bondage known as "shareholder value."

Like his Property theory of government, Locke's companion fraudulent theory of knowledge, expounded in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was also an attack on Leibniz. Along with the whole genus of oligarchical philosophers, Locke denies that man can come to know Universal Physical Principles. All man is capable of, he claims, are "simple ideas" derived only from "sensation and reflection." Locke claims that complex ideas are no more than the repetition, comparison, and conjunction of simple ideas, and that, "it is not in the power of the most exalted wit or enlarged understanding, by any quickness or variety of thought, to invent or frame one new simple idea in the mind." Locke denies the evidence of all human history, that man actually expands his understanding of the intentions of the Creator and His Creatures. He claims that man is totally incapable "to fashion in his understanding one simple idea, not received by his senses from external objects, or by reflection from the operations of his own mind about them."

He further claims, "This is the reason why it is not possible for any one to imagine any other qualities in bodies, however constituted, whereby they can be taken notice of, besides sounds, tastes, smells, visible and tangible qualities." He then rejects the idea of Man created in God's Image, saying, "God has given us no innate ideas of himself; . . . he has stamped no original characters on our minds," and divides the universe into two distinct types, "cogitative" beings, which are revealed to the senses, and "incogitative" beings. Thus, he rejects the obvious: That our "sense perceptions" are internal to our own minds, and may be triggered by "outside" processes, but are, at best, like Plato's shadows on the wall of a cave, partial and indirect evidence of those processes. In reality, man can verify his understanding of the "intentions" of the Creator, which are in no way revealed through the senses, only by demonstrating, through experiment, that he can make the Universe obey his wishes. That capacity is the source of "happiness" which our Nation was founded to un-Locke.
And, So, Locke Begat Jonathan Edwards

Locke's views were not immediately embraced in America. Our tradition is that of Apostle John's view of Christ, whose last, repeated, request to his apostles, was, "Feed my sheep." We understand this, as did our father, Benjamin Franklin, who wrote, "I believe in one God, creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his providence. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children."[7] Throughout his life, Franklin bubbled over with excitement at the prospect of devising and exhibiting experiments to test his hypotheses about how God had constituted the universe, and devised plans to use electricity and steam, dig canals, organize fire brigades, postal services, universities, philosophical societies, and, finally, our own Great Republic, all for the improvement of man's mastery over nature.

To attack Franklin's idea here in North America, and solidify the institution of absolute property rights in slaves, which was not generally accepted until well into the Eighteenth Century, Locke's sickness was spread by the so-called "Christian" forerunners of President Boy George Bush's Yahoo supporters, like our own racist Attorney General John Ashcroft, who would prefer to feed the Lord's sheep to the lions.

In the time of Benjamin Franklin, the great advocate of Locke's bestial notion of man was Jonathan Edwards, John Locke's student and a contemporary admirer of Locke's Scottish protégé, David Hume. Edwards became the guru of New England's "Great Awakening," and later President of what we now know as Princeton University. His grandson was to be Alexander Hamilton's assassin, the Tory traitor and schismatic intriguer, Aaron Burr.[8] From that time to the present, the Jonathan Edwards version of the Lockean model, is the persisting characteristic of our republic's "American Tory" enemy, as we shall see, time and time again, in the course of this report. Our traitors have always disguised their appeal in the hand-me-down old clothes of the Locke-Edwards-Burr tradition: the idea that mindless greed, ignorant of the world beyond its own desires, rather than what the "American" poet John Keats called "branchèd thoughts, new grown with pleasant pain," paves the way to prosperity.

What Edwards sold here, under the Christian slogan "Born Again," was the cult of Oligarchy, of Mesopotamian despotism, of Rome, the Whore of Babylon, and its Venetian and British successors. His view is the same as that of the Roman Empire and its Persian and Babylonian precursors. It is the view of that ancient Rome which called its people, "populi," which means "predators." According to this oligarchical—or Romantic—cult, the history of humanity is one of constant warfare amongst predators. The Creator, and the joy of Man in participating in Creation, is nowhere to be found. Like Hollywood's Godzilla, Edwards' God is merely the biggest and baddest predator, and his men are mean little predators whose only hope for "salvation," to be "born again," is to outwit Godzilla.

Since Edison had not yet invented the motion picture, Edwards' method was to terrorize audiences, including children, poorly educated laborers and others, under the sweltering hot tents of the "Great Awakening." In his written "sermon," "God's Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men," Edwards explained that God, like Godzilla, may, at whim, with no concern for right or wrong, do as he pleases to anyone:

    God may save any of the children of men without prejudice to the honour of his majesty. God may deny salvation to any natural person without any injury to the honour of his righteousness. God may deny salvation to any unconverted person whatever without any prejudice to the honour of his goodness. God does actually exercise his sovereignty in men's salvation: In calling one people or nation and giving them the means of grace, and leaving others without them. In calling some to salvation, who have been very heinously wicked, and leaving others, who have been moral and religious persons.

He then goes on to claim that God has granted European Americans special privileges over Africans, Native Americans, and even Jews, whom God now has abandoned to the devil, and, by implication, to whatever evil designs men have for them as well:

    The savages, who live in the remote parts of this continent, and are under the grossest heathenish darkness, as well as the inhabitants of Africa, are naturally in exactly similar circumstances towards God with us in this land. They are no more alienated or estranged from God in their natures than we; and God has no more to charge them with. And yet what a vast difference has God made between us and them! In this he has exercised his sovereignty. He did this of old, when he chose but one people, to make them his covenant people, and to give them the means of grace, and left all others, and gave them over to heathenish darkness and the tyranny of the devil, to perish from generation to generation for many hundreds of years. God showed his sovereignty, when Christ came, in rejecting the Jews, and calling the Gentiles. God rejected that nation who were the children of Abraham according to the flesh, and had been his peculiar people for so many ages, and who alone possessed the one true God, and chose idolatrous heathen before them, and called them to be his people. When the Messiah came, who was born of their nation, and whom they so much expected, he rejected them.

In his most famous rant, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," he laid down the fear:

    We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down? Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell. It is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction. So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it . . . neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God. . . . He will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

Finally, Edwards concluded his pitch, no doubt with the huckstering tones of a modern day "One Time Only" department store sale advertisement:

    But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?. . . Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed.

The Battle To Revive Leibniz

The birth of the United States, in 1776, was the culmination of a trans-Atlantic battle for the revival of Leibniz against the Brutish Lockean loan-shark forces. The founding of this Republic was the cutting edge of a movement which also included the development of the great German Classical period in drama, poetry, music, mathematics, and physics. In France, its representatives were the scientific and military geniuses of the École Polytechnique, which helped build our own West Point, and Germany's Göttingen. In Britain itself, this movement sparked a post-Congress of Vienna insurgency including the pro-Franklin poets John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelley and the anti-Newtonian circle of mathematicians led by Charles Babbage. The essential idea, and playful good humor, of this movement is captured in Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn," with its famous concluding "slogan" on Truth and Beauty.[9]

The Romantic opposition to this Renaissance, as it affected the United States, was led by Locke's successor David Hume, the Scottish mentor of the German Romantic, Immanuel Kant. In his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Hume claims to prove that Truth is never Beauty, and Beauty is never Truth. Following the usual procedure of those who place their faith in mere deductive logic, he first claims that what he intends to "prove" by deduction is true: that there is a distinction between "reason" or "truth" on the one hand, and "sentiment" or "taste" on the other. "The harmony of verse, the tenderness of passion, the brilliancy of wit, must give immediate pleasure. No man reasons concerning another's beauty," he claims, without offering any reason why he should be trusted on this. He then endeavors to determine to which realm Morality belongs. He proposes to do this by applying the experimental method of Sir Francis Bacon, claiming—as if Benjamin Franklin, the greatest English-speaking figure of his century, did not exist—"Men are now cured of their passion for hypotheses and systems in natural philosophy, and will hearken to no arguments but those which are derived from experience. It is full time they should attempt a like reformation in all moral disquisitions; and reject every system of ethics, however subtle or ingenious, which is not founded on fact and observation."

Hume concludes that argument, by foreshadowing both the argument of his disciple Adam Smith (The Theory of the Moral Sentiments), and the Pragmatism of William James, claiming Morality is merely a matter of utility:

    Thus, the rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition in which men are placed, and owe their origin and existence to that utility, which results to the public from their strict and regular observance. Reverse, in any considerable circumstance, the condition of men: Produce extreme abundance or extreme necessity: Implant in the human breast perfect moderation and humanity, or perfect rapaciousness and malice: By rendering justice totally useless, you thereby totally destroy its essence and suspend its obligation upon mankind.

Finally, he concludes, "morality is determined by sentiment. It defines virtue to be whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary." In this, of course, he is in agreement with the Romantic Vox Populi, or the Twentieth-Century "Public Opinion," which LaRouche rightly calls, "Vox Pox."

Thus Locke, Edwards, Aaron Burr, and the influence of Hume typify a characteristic feature of that variety of Romantic pathology which the American Tory represents down to the present day.

We, in what is called the American Intellectual Tradition, are passionate about science and passionate about the welfare of our brethren and our posterity. For us, the love for Truth, for Beauty, for our fellow man, and for God are one and the same thing.

Our republic's enemies from within all agree, that there is a strict, uncrossable divide between ideas and "matter," between reason and emotion, and that one realm must not influence the other. Whether these American Tories claim to be devout Christians or otherwise religious, atheists, or Satanists (or any combination thereof), they all agree that God's ways, whether they claim to like them or not, are completely unknowable to man, and therefore indistinguishable from Satan's, or that of any other irrational Godzilla-like force. Man must obey only his own irrational will, or one which proves more powerful. Some fanatics may claim the most powerful Will is God, some make a case for Satan, some for Nature, but they tend to switch back and forth between these views, and be just as immoral whichever "side" they choose for the moment.

The Scottish school tended to downplay the Edwards-style "Godzilla" image, in favor of what Lyndon LaRouche has called the "Little Green Men" under the floorboards, who act invisibly toward the same effect. They all follow the tradition of that post-Elizabethan protégé of the Venetian "guru" Paolo Sarpi, Sir Francis Bacon, the corrupt prosecutor and embezzler who, most of us were taught, was the inventor of the modern scientific experimental method, despite his failure to have ever produced a valid experimental result. "Truth" is cut and dried, and totally divorced from morality. Genius may be good or evil, just like in the comic books. In his Novum Organum, Bacon went so far as to call the opposing Platonic and Christian view, "evil":

    The corruption of philosophy by the mixing of it up with superstition and theology, is of a much wider extent, and is most injurious to it both as a whole and in parts. For the human understanding is no less exposed to the impressions of fancy than to those of vulgar notions. The disputatious and sophistic school entraps the understanding, whilst the fanciful, bombastic, and, as it were, poetical school, rather flatters it. There is a clear example of this among the Greeks, expecially in Pythagoras, but it is more dangerous and refined in Plato and his school. This evil is found also in some branches of other systems of philosophy, where it introduces abstracted forms, final and first causes. Yet some of the moderns who have indulged this, follow [it] with such consummate inconsiderateness, that they have endeavored to build a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, the Book of Job, and other parts of Scripture . . . not only fantastical philosophy, but heretical religion spring from the absurd mixture of matters divine and human. It is therefore most wise soberly to render unto faith the things that are faith's.

What we have identified—Baconism, Romanticism, whatever you call it—is, in fact, Gnosticism. It is the same as the ancient Cult of the Oracle at Delphi which formed the basis of Spartan and later Roman culture; or the so-called "Mystery Religions," the Bogomil cult, or Rosicrucian Freemasonry. That is, man is incapable of knowing anything through his own powers of reason, but must depend on some mysterious authority, which is passed from generation to generation through a cult priesthood, to which "truth" is revealed through visions, signs, and so on, which only the priesthood may interpret for the rest of us. This is the religion of Oligarchism, of Mafias, of Inquisitions.

It is the religion of the Bible preacher who says you must believe every word of the Bible, but then sermonizes for an hour on the interpretation of the meaning of each word which Little Green Men have whispered in his ear. If you want to know something, you gotta get in with the people what know. You play your cards right and don't cross the wrong people, and we might just let you on the inside. You should recognize this, also, as the axiomatic view which underlies the "guru"-riddled cult of the "Information Society."

Bacon's identification of cognition as "evil" is the dirty secret of the Romantics. Despite all of their talk about "Liberty," they—including the Twentieth-Century "anti-Authoritarian Personality" crowd of the Frankfurt School irrationalists Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt—identify as the enemy they are dedicated to exterminate, the idea that truth in any form actually exists to be known. As for Bacon, for Adorno and Arendt, there is only arbitrary opinion.
The Traitor Cuts a Romantic Figure

This Romantic plague infested America, even during the Revolution. Edwards' grandson, Aaron Burr, founded the Bank of Manhattan in 1799, which has now developed into what we know as Chase Manhattan Bank. From that base, he was elected the second Vice President of the Republic, and, while serving in that office, assassinated the father of the American System of political-economy, the Alexander Hamilton who had acted to prevent the treasonous Burr from being chosen President by the Electoral College. There followed some period of disgrace surrounding the assassination of Hamilton and his own trial for Treason, in an intrigue involving the raising of private filibustering forces in the Southwest. Burr went on to found the New York Democratic Party. In this he collaborated with Jeremy Bentham, the chief Lieutenant of Britain's Lord Shelburne in the British attempt to re-group after the 1781 surrender at Yorktown.

The following quote of Burr's opinion from Bentham's The Principles of Morals and Legislation provides us insight into Bentham agent Burr's role as a Romantic opponent of Jefferson and of the American Revolution:

    The pursuit of happiness is a natural right. Here we have a sly allusion to our celebrated Declaration of Independence; a paper which our author examined once paragraph by paragraph, with an acuteness and vigour, which were never exceeded. Take one example—We declare that certain rights [!] are inalienable, among which [rights!] are life; liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! But if they are inalienable, how comes it that our legislators may deprive us of them? How can they exercise the right of confining us—of hindering our pursuit of happiness, of taking away our property, or of putting us to death, unless we give it to them? And how can we give them a right, which we ourselves have not? In other words, how are we to alienate what is inalienable? The pursuit of happiness is certainly a natural inclination; but can we call it a natural right? That depends upon the mode of pursuit. The assassin pursues his happiness by assassination. Has he the right to do so? If he has not, why declare it? What tendency in that declaration is there, to make men happier or wiser?. . .

    I shall finish with a general observation. The language of error is always obscure, feeble, and changeable. A great abundance of words only serves to hide the poverty and falsity of ideas. The more the terms are varied, the more easy it is to lead people astray. The language of truth is uniform and simple: the same ideas, the same terms. All these refer to pleasures and to pains. We avoid all that may hide or intercept that familiar notion. From such or such an act, results such or such an impression of pain or pleasure. Do not trust to me; trust to experience; and above all, to your own. Between two opposite modes of action, would you know to which the preference is due? Calculate the effects, in good and ill, and decide for that which promises the greatest amount of happiness.

Bentham promoted himself as being anti-Locke, by opposing Locke's hoax "Compact," but, as you see, he had a view of man as bad as Locke's, or, perhaps a worse: man as a mere calculating machine, totally devoid of any real cognitive ability. In this, he merely plagiarized the Venetian Giammaria Ortes, whose work, in addition to his essay "Calculation of the Pleasures and Pains of Human Life," had been the (not original) source for Adam Smith's anti-American theory of Economics, and Thomas Malthus' overpopulation theory. Again we see the characteristic of Romanticism: the terror of human cognition. Poke a rabid environmentalist, obsessed with population control, and you will discover their fear that human beings might actually solve the problems they claim are insoluble, thereby eliminating the excuse they've used to justify the state of stupefaction they've chosen to live in.
II. Emerson and the De-Flowering of New England

So, the enemies of Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin de-flowered New England. The battle lines were drawn. The union of Kant and Hume bore fruit in New England, in the soil made fertile by Jonathan Edwards' crap, in the person of Ralph Waldo Emerson and his so-called Transcendentalist School. Emerson grew up in the period of the "Hartford Convention," a group of wealthy war-time traitors to the U.S.A., which threatened to bring about New England's 1814 secession from the young United States. Emerson, like Kant, was an admirer of the Swedish Newtonian scientist turned mystic cult founder, Emanuel Swedenborg. This queer fellow, Emerson, became the paradigm for the American Tory enemy of real cognitive work, whose Twentieth Century Nashville Agrarian and Bohemian varieties will become our main subject. Like our Twentieth Century expatriate "poets," Emerson's affections were in Europe, primarily in England and Scotland, and his life was punctuated by pilgrimages to his spiritual masters in Britain and on the continent, typified by Thomas Carlyle; Jeremy Bentham's protégé and editor, John Stuart Mill; and the apostle of the anti-Renaissance "pre-Raphaelite" movement, John Ruskin.

Emerson's mission, like that of today's Bush-league "Critter Company," was to mask Gnostic degeneracy with an American flavor. So, he promoted his infection as the coming age of "The American Scholar." In his 1837 address of that title to the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Phi Beta Kappa Society, he appealed to American Patriotism, announcing:

    Our day of dependence, our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands, draws to a close. The millions, that around us are rushing into life, cannot always be fed on the sere remains of foreign harvests. Events, actions arise, that must be sung, that will sing themselves. Who can doubt, that poetry will revive and lead in a new age, as the star in the constellation Harp, which now flames in our zenith, astronomers announce, shall one day be the pole-star for a thousand years?

This flourish, with its vague reference to real scientific discovery, is typical of Emerson, and, perhaps you will recognize the stock from which grew our more modern scientasters like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, or Carl Sagan. This sprinkling of his work with the artificial essence of science, was a way of weaning Americans away from the real article, as we knew it in Dr. Franklin. Though claiming to be the high priest of American Philosophy, Emerson bragged, as a student, "I can't multiply seven by twelve with security." In the "American Scholar," he said, "science is nothing but the finding of analogy, identity, in the most remote parts." The secret of Emerson's abiding appeal is plain old laziness of the brain. He uses the scent of scientific language to argue, in effect, that real work isn't necessary, we can chatter all we like because anything we feel is Truth, is:

    That great principle of Undulation in nature, that shows itself in the inspiring and expiring of the breath; in desire and satiety; in the ebb and flow of the sea; in day and night; in heat and cold; and as yet more deeply ingrained in every atom and every fluid, is known to us under the name of Polarity, these "fits of easy transmission and reflection," as Newton called them, are the law of nature because they are the law of spirit. The soul knows only the soul; the web of events is the flowing robe in which she is clothed. After its own law and not by arithmetic is the rate of its progress to be computed. The soul's advances are not made by gradation, such as can be represented by motion in a straight line; but rather by ascension of state, such as can be represented by metamorphosis,—from the egg to the worm, from the worm to the fly. The growths of genius are of a certain total character, that does not advance the elect individual first over John, then Adam, then Richard, and give to each the pain of discovered inferiority, but by every throe of growth the man expands there where he works, passing, at each pulsation, classes, populations, of men. With each divine impulse the mind rends the thin rinds of the visible and finite, and comes out into eternity, and inspires and expires its air. It converses with truths that have always been spoken in the world, and becomes conscious of a closer sympathy with Zeno and Arrian, than with persons in the house.

In this he apes the Leibnizian scientific method, from Nicholas of Cusa's work on the quadrature of the circle, through Leibniz, Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann, who rigorously developed a geometrical method based on the lawful process of generation of successions of incommensurable "geometries." Contradicting his own claims about the inadequacies of arithmetic measure, Emerson has learned and taught precisely zero about how Nature really works. The real scientists know that nature follows no single precise arithmetic law, but they can multiply seven by twelve. In fact, before the development of electronic computers, Kepler, Gauss, and others were notorious for their painstaking arithmetic calculations, and precise physical measurements, to produce the real science which they have bequeathed to us.[10]

Four years after his "American Scholar" address, Emerson promoted his cult of "I know what I know," hostility to real cognitive work, in "The Over-Soul":

    We know truth when we see it, let skeptic and scoffer say what they choose. Foolish people ask you, when you have spoken what they do not wish to hear, "How do you know it is truth, and not an error of your own?" We know truth when we see it, from opinion, as we know when we are awake that we are awake. It was a grand sentence of Emanuel Swedenborg, which would alone indicate the greatness of that man's perception,—"It is no proof of a man's understanding to be able to confirm whatever he pleases; but to be able to discern that what is true is true, and that what is false is false, this is the mark and character of intelligence."

He then, like our modern Hollywood ding-bat spiritualists, attempts to paint this cult of stupidity with the aura of "Revelation":

    We distinguish the announcements of the soul, its manifestations of its own nature, by the term Revelation. These are always attended by the emotion of the sublime. For this communication is an influx of the Divine mind into our mind. It is an ebb of the individual rivulet before the flowing surges of the sea of life. Every distinct apprehension of this central commandment agitates men with awe and delight. A thrill passes through all men at the reception of new truth, or at the performance of a great action, which comes out of the heart of nature. In these communications, the power to see is not separated from the will to do, but the insight proceeds from obedience, and the obedience proceeds from a joyful perception.

Emerson doesn't write about splattering your blood, the way Jonathan Edwards did, but he's just as dangerous for your mind. He proceeds to anticipate the ideas later presented by his famous protégé, William James, in his Varieties of Religious Experience. Emerson wrote as follows:

    A certain tendency to insanity has always attended the opening of the religious sense in men, as if they had been "blasted with excess of light." The trances of Socrates, the "union" of Plotinus, the vision of Porphyry, the conversion of Paul, the aurora of Behmen, the convulsions of George Fox and his Quakers, the illumination of Swedenborg, are of this kind. What was in the case of these remarkable persons a ravishment has, in innumerable instances in common life, been exhibited in less striking manner. Everywhere the history of religion betrays a tendency to enthusiasm. The rapture of the Moravian and Quietist; the opening of the internal sense of the Word, in the language of the New Jerusalem Church; the "revival" of the Calvinistic churches; the experiences of the Methodists, are varying forms of that shudder of awe and delight with which the individual soul always mingles with the universal soul.

Is it surprising that this New England abolitionist, Emerson, called his longtime correspondent, "Prince" Achille Murat, the spawn of Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Metternich deployed to Florida after Napoleon's defeat to agitate for what was to become the Confederacy, "an ardent lover of truth, a type of heroic manners and sweet-tempered ability?" He praised the anti-slavery terrorist, John Brown, in almost the same way.

While patriotic Americans—John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Henry Carey, and Abraham Lincoln—fought for Franklin-style "internal improvements," tariff protection for domestic industrial development, and the withering away of the horrid slave system, the Confederacy bubbled up out of our Southern cauldron, fuelled by an alliance between Emerson's New England and the lords of Dixieland. The latter was an alliance in the slave, sugar, and opium trades. Emerson and his circle laid the groundwork for the rot that would virtually disarm the United States morally, as well as militarily, and that would open the fortress gates to the post-Civil War, romantic's cultural revival of the notion of the Confederacy as a Lost Cause.

The Transcendentalist periodicals, The Dial, The Atlantic Monthly, and Harpers, allied with the British Blackwood to spread Emerson's fake American cult of hostility to cognition. This is what Franklin's admirers John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelley fought against, in England and from exile in Italy, and what Edgar Allan Poe fought against through the Southern Literary Messenger and other venues, here in the United States. No American's education is complete unless he understands this war against the Transcendentalist Romantics through, amongst other things, reading Poe's stories: such as, "The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.," "How to Write a Blackwood Article," "A Predicament," "X-ing a Paragrab," "Never Bet the Devil Your Head," "Eureka," or "Mellonta Tauta"; or his famous plea to Nathaniel Hawthorne, whom he praised as the most talented of the Transcendentalists in his review of Hawthorne's Twice Told Tales, to leave "The Old Manse" (the Emerson family seat) and start writing with "visible ink."

And so, it came to War, beginning really, not in 1861, but with "Bleeding Kansas" in the 1850s. Despite Lincoln's heroic efforts to, somehow, maneuver a peace between enemies smoldering with blood fever, he took the oath of office and assumed the Presidency of a nation already, in reality, at War. Although Emerson, too old to be expected to serve in the military, remained a vocal supporter of the Union, his disciples leaned toward the views of Aaron Burr's anti-War Democrats, as typified by General George McClellan, who, after Lincoln cashiered him for his refusal to lead a serious threat to the Confederacy, confirmed Lincoln's judgment by running for President against Lincoln as a Democrat on a platform of surrender to the inferior Confederate forces. A sampling of Emerson's youthful protégés gives an idea of the Transcendentalist contribution to the cause.

The Swedenborgian William James—who went on to found the Harvard University Psychology department, and its tradition as a dispensary of psychotropic drugs, and the philosophy he called "Pragmatism"—failed to enlist.

James' lifelong friend, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.—who went on to be appointed to the Supreme Court by Theodore Roosevelt—enlisted, but resigned his commission in support of McClellan's 1864 surrender campaign, explaining to his father, the famous Poetaster, who excelled his son in patriotism, that he thought Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had "politicized" the war, thus relieving him of any responsibility to fight further. In the Twentieth Century, he served as a sort of "uncle" to some of H.G. Wells' New Republic collaborators.

The Swedenborgian William Dean Howells, was named by the Transcendentalist clique at the outset of the War to inherit the editorship of The Atlantic, from which position he was to serve as the patron of two generations of writers. They, therefore, arranged to have him appointed Assistant Consul to Venice to avoid danger.
The Lost Cause: The Dead That Walk and Talk

After the military defeat of the Confederacy, the battlefront shifted to financial and cultural warfare. The alliance among New England and New York financial interests and Southern drug-running and slave-trading interests, promoted a pro-Confederate counteroffensive, which has been more dangerous than the shooting war itself.

Within days of the close of the War, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Despite this, the program of "internal improvements," notably railroad building and the development of the Agricultural and Mining schools, launched by Lincoln and his economic adviser, the world's greatest economist of that time, Henry C. Carey, continued. As a result, by the time of the famous 1876 Exposition, the United States was clearly the dominant industrial, and economic force in the world, and had developed the base from which much of the world would be "electrified" in the course of the succeeding half-century. In the same period, an American current of Classical musical composition, based on the "Negro" Spiritual, was fostered here, by the work of such artists as the Fisk Jubilee Singers, and the later help of Antonin Dvorák.

The American Tory opposition to these developments was fierce. The events of the next thirty-six years, including the assassination of Republican President James Garfield in 1881, and ending with the assassination of Republican President William McKinley in 1901, delivered the White House to a pro-Confederate, Wall Street, British Empire fanatic, Theodore Roosevelt. This had its effect, much as has the recent period since the assassination of President Kennedy, through the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, and other Civil Rights leaders. Then, two generations of War, and the assassination of three Presidents in 36 years, left many Americans vulnerable to the idea that not the hard, but joyful work of discovery, but rather, the raw, unthinking lust for wealth and power, was the surest means of Progress.

Increasingly, the American System of Economics, based on Leibniz and Franklin, was replaced, even within the slain Lincoln's Republican Party, with the Lockean ideas of "Property," rapacious profiteering, or today's "shareholder values." This, like the replacement of Leibnizian science with empiricist claptrap, was done under the authority of Herbert Spencer's and Charles Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" hoax. Emerson's "Kindergarten" was instrumental in the cultural degradation which opened the door for Roosevelt's coup, and they played a prominent role in his Junta and its aftermath. Theodore Roosevelt himself, was one of William James' psychology students. John Hay, one of the Transcendentalist-backed "western" writers, who shared a Washington residence with James' intimate, Henry Adams, was Roosevelt's Secretary of State, and in 1902, James' lifelong friend, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was appointed by Roosevelt to the Supreme Court.

Now, focus on the cultural aspects of this post-Civil War campaign for the Lost Cause.

In Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866, Confederate Generals and Scottish Rite Freemasons, Albert Pike and Nathan Bedford Forrest, along with other "Templars of Tennessee," founded the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan's founders and defenders describe it as a secret fraternal organization, modelled on ancient cult practices, intended simply as a way for idled former Confederate soldiers to amuse themselves, which developed into a force of vigilantes, or "regulators" dedicated to terrorizing freed slaves who didn't know their place, and any whites who might defend them. Their costumes, symbols, ranks, and precepts were an infantile mimicry of an ancient mystical warrior cult. This wonder of imbecility, with its Grand Dragons, Wizards, Giants, Cyclops, Magi, Monk, Exchequer, Turk, Scribe, Sentinel, Ensign, Centaurs, Yahoos, and Ghouls, who organized themselves to lord it over the Realms and Dominions comprising the Invisible Empire, became a major terrorist force throughout the nation.[11] The incongruity between the Klan's own self-description and their bloody work, reminds one of Shakespeare's Hamlet's famous quip, "No, no, they do but jest, poison in jest; no offence i' the world."

Founder Albert Pike was the Sovereign Grand Commander, and intellectual—as well as gastronomical—giant of the Scottish Rite order. He became the principal author of the Scottish Rite "Bible," Morals and Dogma,[12] and is now honored with a bust and crypt in the nether regions of the order's Mother Temple in Washington, D.C., as well as a prominent statue provided for by an Act of the United States Congress, in the Capital's Judiciary Square. Pike identified Masonry's roots in the same occult traditions (Rosicrucianism, Zoroastrism, Theosophy) as Emerson's Swedenborgianism. The fundamental idea being that there are no knowable ideas, only mysteries which some people have been given the key to and others haven't. God likes some and doesn't like others, and that's all there is to it, and we know who we are, and we know who you are.

In this climate of terror against Lincoln's legacy, Emerson's "Kindergarten" rose to dominate cultural life in America. His literary disciples, led by William Dean Howells, who returned from Venice once the war was safely over, promoted sectional literature, and the literature of soap opera-like personal feelings. Industrial and economic progress were often portrayed in this literature, to appeal to American taste, but with the heart and brain removed. Ambition, lust, and greed, rather than passion for Truth and Beauty, were what made the world go round. The paradigm of this movement was the Transcendentalists' Country and Western "superstar," Mark Twain.[13] Meanwhile, the immensely wealthy, lazy, and virtually unemployable Swedenborgian draft dodger, William James, launched an attack on the very idea of Truth through his promotion of what many today believe is the American Intellectual (or anti-Intellectual) Tradition, the philosophy he called "Pragmatism."

James, like his mentor Emerson, was an intimate of the British political and cultural elite. After the assassination of Lincoln, accomplished by Confederate spies with connections to the British and the Habsburgs, Emerson's circle set out to do what Lincoln had declared couldn't be done, namely, to "fool all of the people all of the time." James became an unofficial member of the British elite "Cambridge Apostles," participating in groups including the "Scratch 8," and the "Metaphysical Society," led by the Apostles.

Personally, James and his lifelong "soulmate," Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., were directed by Sir Frederick Pollock, a leader of British Freemasonry, who, during the First World War, was to head the Royal Colonial Institute Lodge, with special responsibility for maintaining Masonic influence in the colonies—including the United States. Pollock owed his title to his Grandfather, who had sat as a judge, who violated British neutrality during the Civil War by ordering the release of the British-built warship, the Alabama, to the Confederate Navy.

As the founding head of Harvard's Psychology Department, James became the father of American psychology, and also, in concert with John Dewey and others, one of the molders of Twentieth-Century American educational policy. The period in which he came to dominate American psychology and philosophy, was the period in which, with the assassination of McKinley, the Lincoln current in the Republican Party was murdered and replaced with the British Empire chauvinism of Theodore Roosevelt. With such a precedent, no one has a right to be surprised by the more recent case of Harvard LSD guru, Dr. Timothy Leary. For James, Emerson's mere talk against cognition wasn't adequate; he used drugs and promoted a cult of drug-induced insanity to chemically castrate the brain. I quote from his most famous work, based on lectures delivered in Edinburgh, Scotland, The Varieties of Religious Experience:

    Borderland insanity, crankiness, insane temperament, loss of mental balance, psychopathic degeneration (to use a few of the many synonyms by which it has been called), has certain peculiarities and liabilities which, when combined with a superior quality of intellect in an individual, make it more probable that he will make his mark and affect his age, than if his temperament were less neurotic. . . .

He then offers his prescription:

    The next step into mystical states carries us into a realm that public opinion and ethical philosophy have long since branded as pathological, though private practice and certain lyric strains of poetry seem still to bear witness to its ideality. I refer to the consciousness produced by intoxicants and anaesthetics, especially by alcohol. The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature, usually crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober hour. Sobriety diminishes, discriminates, and says no; drunkenness expands, unites, and says yes. It is in fact the great exciter of the Yes function in man. It brings its votary from the chill periphery of things to the radiant core. It makes him for the moment one with truth. Not through mere perversity do men run after it. To the poor and the unlettered it stands in the place of symphony concerts and of literature; and it is part of the deeper mystery and tragedy of life that whiffs and gleams of something that we immediately recognize as excellent should be vouchsafed to so many of us only in the fleeting earlier phases of what in its totality is so degrading a poisoning. The drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness, and our total opinion of it must find its place in our opinion of that larger whole.

    Nitrous oxide and ether, especially nitrous oxide, when sufficiently diluted with air, stimulate the mystical consciousness in an extraordinary degree. Depth beyond depth of truth seems revealed to the inhaler. This truth fades out, however, or escapes, at the moment of coming to; and if any words remain over in which it seemed to clothe itself, they prove to be the veriest nonsense. Nevertheless, the sense of a profound meaning having been there persists; and I know more than one person who is persuaded that in the nitrous oxide trance we have a genuine metaphysical revelation.

    Some years ago I myself made some observations on this aspect of nitrous oxide intoxication. . . .

Some years later, James published Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, dedicated to Emerson's friend and Jeremy Bentham's editor, John Stuart Mill, in which Harvard dope-freak William James smeared Leibniz, without mustering an argument, saying, "Leibniz's feeble grasp at reality is too obvious to need comment from me." Those of you who think that "Pragmatic" means practical, hard-headed, getting the job done, American, or something like that, remember, it is the philosophy not of a man, but of his dope:

    [T]he days are over when it could be said that for Science herself the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Our solar system, with its harmonies, is seen now as but one passing case of a certain sort of moving equilibrium in the heavens, realized by a local accident in an appalling wilderness of worlds where no life can exist. In a span of time which as a cosmic interval will count but as an hour, it will have ceased to be. The Darwinian notion of chance production, and subsequent destruction, speedy or deferred, applies to the largest as well as to the smallest facts.

    [W]e ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right. If you follow the pragmatic method. You must bring out of each word its practical cash-value. Theories become instruments, not answers. Against rationalism as a pretension and a method, pragmatism is fully aroused and militant.

    Now truth is always a go-between, a smoother-over of transitions. It marries old opinion to new fact so as ever to show a minimum of jolt, a maximum of continuity.

    The reason why we call things true is the reason why they are true, for `to be true' means only to perform this marriage-function.

    Old fashioned theism was bad enough, with its notion of God as an exalted monad . . . but, so long as it held strongly by the argument from design, it had kept some touch with concrete realities. Since, however, Darwinism has once for all displaced design from the minds of the `scientific,' theism has

The Economist is apoplectic about Italians rejecting Jew-bankster "German" austerity:

Send in the Clowns

the people of Italy have decided to avoid reality...almost 30% endorsed Silvio Berlusconi, whose ruinous policies as a clownish prime minister are a main cause of Italy’s economic woes. And a further 25% voted for the Five Star Movement, which is led by a genuine comedian, Beppe Grillo. By contrast, Mario Monti, the reform-minded technocrat who has led Italy for the past 15 months and restored much of its battered credibility, got a measly 10%.

Italian GDP per head has actually shrunk during the euro’s first 13 years of existence. This performance has little to do with a lack of demand caused by excessive fiscal austerity, as some euro critics loudly claim...If Italy’s government cannot regain lost competitiveness and reignite growth through greater liberalisation of its labour and product markets and reforms to the country’s legal and welfare systems...But without growth, Italy will not be able to service its debts.

The Economist fails to mention that they've campaigned against Berlusconi for many years, far before the austerity business.

Berlusconi targeted, overthrown by CIA?

Third place with almost 20% is likely to belong to a new and unorthodox political formation, the Five Star Movement (5SM), where the dominant personality is the former Genoese comedian Beppe Grillo, a colorful and talented demagogue. The 5SM is anti-politician, anti-euro, anti-infrastructure, anti-tax, and anti-mainstream media. Like the GOP, they want to reduce the public debt, meaning they want deflation. Grillo proposes a guaranteed annual income for all Italians, a 30-hour work week, and a drastic reduction of energy consumption and of production. He demands free Wi-Fi for all. Without modern production, how can these benefits be provided?

Grillo wants to abort the infrastructure projects - like the new high-speed train tunnel between Turin and France and the bridge between Calabria and Sicily - upon which Italy’s economic future depends. He is long on petty bourgeois process reforms like term limits, media reform, corporate governance, and banning convicted felons from parliament, but short on defending the standard of living for working people. On a bizarre note, he has praised the British response to the 2008 banking crisis. As many as 100 members of the 5SM, many of them total political novices, and more than a few adventurers who have jumped on board Grillo’s bandwagon, may now enter parliament, with predictably destabilizing consequences. Grillo could be the vehicle for an Italian color revolution along the lines of Ukraine or Georgia.

During the Obama years, the first goal of the US intelligence community has been to destroy the Berlusconi government, for geopolitical reasons. Based on Berlusconi’s close personal relationship with Putin, he had secured for Italy an important role in the construction of the Nordstream pipeline, and an even more important participation in the Southstream pipeline -- both projects which Washington wanted to sabotage.

Grillo is a controlled-opposition spoiler tool like traitor Teddy Roosevelt.  Thus quasi-democratic UK Independent cheers:

Beppe Grillo's success in the Italian election is a victory for clean hands. We should learn from it

Haredi Schools Reap Millions In Federal Tech Funds

How does a community that rails against the Web pull in $30 million in one year for its schools from the E-rate program?

Julie Wiener and Hella Winston

This past summer, the fervently Orthodox filled two stadiums to rally against the Internet. Getty Images

At Yeshivat Avir Yakov, an all-boys school in the chasidic enclave of New Square in New York’s Rockland County, students spend the vast majority of their long school days studying religious texts in spartan classrooms furnished only with battered wooden benches and desks. Unlike their counterparts in public or private schools outside the chasidic community, the boys at Avir Yakov do not have access to the Internet or computers in their school because chasidic leaders view the Internet as a corrupting force capable of undermining their way of life.

Indeed, recent graduates report never having seen — let alone used — a computer in their classrooms, and video of the inside of the Avir Yakov building shot within the past two weeks and obtained by The Jewish Week seems to support their accounts: not one of the yeshiva’s classrooms, public areas or designated resource rooms seen on the video contains a computer, or even a telephone.

So it comes as a surprise that the approximately 3,000-student school has, since 1998, been allotted more than $3.3 million in government funds earmarked for Internet and other telecommunications technology.

In 2011 alone, the yeshiva collected $817,065 through E-rate, a 15-year-old federal program that subsidizes telecommunications services and infrastructure for schools and libraries, giving larger discounts to those serving low-income populations.

In 2012, Avir Yakov got $209,423 the vast majority of that money for telecommunications service provided by a Brooklyn company called Discount Cellular Plus.

Avir Yakov is just one of many fervently Orthodox Jewish schools in New York State that, despite publicly eschewing Internet use and despite offering their students minimal, if any, access to computers, have spent large sums of E-rate money.

Disbursed to service providers — often small businesses, like Discount Cellular Plus, which appear to serve an exclusively Orthodox clientele — E-rate funds distributed to 285 New York State Jewish schools totaled more than $30 million in 2011, although not all that money ended up being disbursed.

This means that while Jewish schools enrolled approximately 4 percent of the state’s K-12 students, they were awarded 22 percent of the state’s total E-rate allocations to schools and libraries that year. In addition, in recent years, a number of fervently Orthodox organizations — including and Torah Umesorah (The National Association for Hebrew Day Schools) — have classified themselves as libraries in E-rate applications and collectively received millions of dollars, a trend first reported in the Forward.

E-rate, which disbursed $2.2 billion in 2011 and is designed to directly benefit students, is one of several programs operated by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) for the Federal Communications Commission with money collected from fees on long-distance phone service.

While many have lauded E-rate for helping to give large numbers of schools and libraries access to the Internet, the program has also been criticized for its inadequate safeguards against fraud and waste.

In a four-month investigation, The Jewish Week reviewed E-rate data along with numerous filings submitted by Jewish schools and their service providers. The newspaper conducted an extensive analysis of 2011 E-rate awards, reviewed the funding history of the Jewish schools and service providers receiving the largest sums of money, examined “470” forms detailing schools’ technology requests, and looked at various audit reports and FCC rulings. With the exception of the 470s, all of this information is publicly available on the website of E-rate Central, a Long Island-based E-rate consulting firm.

The Jewish Week also made repeated attempts to interview administrators at several of the Jewish schools receiving the largest sums of money, as well as officials at companies that have billed E-rate for services reportedly provided to these schools. With the exception of an E-rate consultant, whom one school suggested The Jewish Week contact, none of these people returned calls or agreed to be interviewed.

What The Investigation Found

Perhaps not surprisingly, the investigation revealed that of the almost 300 Jewish schools benefiting from E-rate, large ones serving predominantly low-income populations got the lion’s share of the money: 10 schools — all but one chasidic — collectively were approved for nearly $9 million in E-rate-funded services in 2011, almost one-third of the Jewish total.

While E-rate does cover certain non-Internet-related expenses, such as PBX business phone systems and wiring for internal networks, and while most fervently Orthodox schools do have at least basic Internet service for office administrators, it is unclear why schools like Avir Yakov that offer their students minimal, if any, access to computers and the Internet are consistently among the program’s largest beneficiaries.

This is a segment of the Jewish community deeply concerned about the perceived social threat posed by the Internet. Indeed, last May, 60,000 fervently Orthodox Jews filled the Citi Field and Arthur Ashe stadiums in Queens for a rally about the dangers of the Internet, and the community’s schools routinely require parents to sign documents at the beginning of each school year committing to not having Web access in their homes as a precondition for enrollment.

Setting aside questions of how these schools are using technology, it is also unclear why, given the financial constraints of E-rate, which had $2.3 billion to allocate last year yet received over $5 billion in requests, the program continues to dole out disproportionately large sums to a small sector of the population.

Among The Jewish Week’s Findings:

Yeshivat Avir Yakov submitted requests in 2012 seeking, among other things: 65 direct connections to the Internet, wiring that would provide 25 classrooms, as well as 40 computers or other devices, with Internet access; phone service for 95 classrooms; more than 260 cell phone lines with data plans; various PBX (phone) equipment and wire and cable upgrades.

One recent Avir Yakov graduate told The Jewish Week that during the time he was a student there, the school installed “phone systems and data cables in each classroom, but no computer or Internet connection was ever installed.”

“There were phone jacks and data jacks, but nothing more,” the graduate continued.

The Jewish Week was unable to confirm this with Avir Yakov, as the school did not return three detailed voice-mail messages, including one notifying the school that it would be a subject of this story.

Notably, Avir Yakov’s primary service provider, Williamsburg-based Discount Cellular Plus, is being sued in federal court by Sprint/Nextel. The suit alleges that Discount Cellular Plus, along with its owner Yoel Stossel and two other men, targeted yeshivas to steal their special discounts and rate plans and that the defendants then fraudulently acquired large quantities of “new high-end Sprint phones,” including iPhones, which they illegally unlocked and resold for a substantial profit overseas. (Avir Yakov is not mentioned in the suit).

Bais Ruchel D’Satmar, an all-girls Satmar school in Williamsburg with over 3,000 students, received more than $1.5 million in 2011, the largest E-rate haul by any Jewish school that year. The following year, it requested, among other things: high-speed T1 lines with dedicated Internet access for eight locations; 250 cell phones; local and long-distance service for more than 100 lines in eight buildings; 100 pagers and eight locations for a video conferencing system. Over the years, the school — which, former students and employees told The Jewish Week, offers students some training on office software like QuickBooks but no Internet access — has spent more than $4 million in E-rate money. In 2012 it spent $45,000 just on Internet access provided by one supplier, Jet Wave.

Bais Ruchel D’Satmar, also known as Beth Rachel, has been involved in fraud in the past. In 1999, Rabbi Hertz Frankel, then principal of Bais Ruchel D’Satmar’s elementary school, pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiring for nearly two decades with Brooklyn Community School District 14 to place dozens of chasidic women on the district payroll in no-show teaching jobs as a part of a plot to funnel more than $6 million to the school and its parent organization, United Talmudical Academy.

According to the April 1999 report submitted by the special commissioner for investigation of the New York City School District, the women typically turned over their paychecks to Frankel — who in turn handed the money over to the school — but, through the scheme, were able to get heath benefits for their families. Investigators were unable to fully account for how all the funds were used, but Frankel was sentenced to three years' probation and ordered to pay $1 million in restitution (the school was allowed to pay the money on his behalf as the 6 year investigation had found no evidence that Frankel, who currently serves as Bais Ruchel’s English division principal, had benefitted personally from the scheme.

United Talmudical Academy (UTA), a Satmar boys’ school in Williamsburg that has approximately 2,800 students (there are also UTA’s in Borough Park and Rockland County that apply separately for E-rate), spent $831,603 in 2011, and has spent almost $8.2 million in E-rate funds since 1998. In 2012 it requested, among other things: wireless Internet and e-mail on 100 cellular lines, 160 cell phones, 100 landlines, Internet access on two dedicated lines and 75 pagers. In 2012, Dynalink Communications received $81,600 just to supply Internet access to UTA.

Dynalink, Birns Telecommunications, Hashomer and First Class Computers, Inc. have received the lion’s share of UTA’s E-rate business, and UTA has consistently been approved for E-rate reimbursements, even though a 2004 audit by the FCC’s inspector general concluded that in 1999, the focus of the audit, UTA was “not compliant with the program regulations.” (The FCC later overruled the resulting recommendation that the Satmar school return $934,300.)

Congregation Machne Shalva, also going by the name Talmud Bnei Zion Bobov, a K-12 boys’ school in Borough Park with 1,675 students, has been approved for over $100,000 each year in E-rate services since it first got involved with the program in 2006. In 2012, Machne Shalva, requested nine T1 lines, 150 cell phones, 20 BlackBerry devices, text-messaging service for 150 users, 75 pagers and nine cable/DSL Internet access points. It received $660,865.43 in 2012 and $709,489.38 in 2011. Its primary service providers are Dynalink and Birns.

Yeshiva Beth Hillel D’Krasna, a 421-student boys’ school in Borough Park, spent more than $1.5 million between 1998 and 2012. One of its recent major service providers is an entity called Mekach Tov Enterprises, Inc., which has done about $850,000 worth of E-rate business in the two years it has participated in the program.

Catholic schools and public schools in New York, even ones serving high-poverty populations, do not seem to reap as much money from E-rate as do their ultra-Orthodox counterparts.

Our Lady of Sorrows in Queens, a pre-K through eighth grade Catholic school serving 235 students and also eligible for a 90-percent discount, spent $6,102 in 2012 and $21,105 in 2011. Since 1998, the school has received approximately $530,000 — averaging about $35,000 per year — spending just under $9,000 on Internet access in 2012.

Catherine McAuley High School, an all-girls Catholic school in East Flatbush serving 250 students and also eligible for a 90-percent discount, spent only $4,137 in 2011. From 1998-2012, the school spent less than $700,00 — averaging less than $50,000 per year. Unlike UTA, Bais Ruchel D’Satmar, Yeshiva Beth Hillel of Krasna, Machne Shalva and Avir Yakov,

McAuley has a website, which enables students and parents to access private content and information about the classes in which students are enrolled.

Meanwhile, the New York City public schools, which enroll close to 1 million students, almost half of them eligible for free/reduced lunches, has spent about $1.3 billion in E-rate funds, or the equivalent of 158 UTA’s. Looked at another way, E-rate has spent approximately $1,300 for each public school student, compared to almost $3,000 for each UTA student, even though the yeshiva is part of a community whose ideology rejects the Internet and discourages computer use except in very limited ways.

Asked in an e-mail why New York’s fervently Orthodox Jewish schools appear to disproportionately benefit from E-rate, Eric Iversen, USAC’s director of external affairs, replied that “program rules do not address diversity or proportionality of enrollments in the way you seem to be asking. They require only that a school be eligible, as per federal laws. … The amount of funding that goes to certain kinds of school — public, private, religious, etc. — is a function of how individual applications from schools in these categories add up. It’s just an accident of addition, not anything that is part of [how] our funding decisions are made.”

In an e-mail interview, Tehyuan Wan, coordinator of education and technology programs and initiatives at the New York State Department of Education, speculated about disproportionate representation of Jewish schools in E-rate, noting that, “Some schools have been more aggressive in maximizing the opportunity while others calculate their actual usage and needs and budget accordingly.”

He also noted that because of USAC’s “Two In Five” rule whereby schools can only be reimbursed for certain expenses twice every five years, “Eligible schools may choose to deploy their technology upgrades or expansion in a particular year or two within the five-year funding cycle. So the total spending and reimbursement for each of the schools may vary from one to another, depending on when they use Priority II funding resources. Therefore, it is important to take the five-year funding usage cycle into consideration in your computation and comparison.”

Responses From Schools

The Jewish Week phoned representatives of seven of the Jewish schools that have received some of the largest E-rate awards in the program’s history, leaving two voicemail messages at each school: UTA Williamsburg, Yeshivat Avir Yakov, Bais Ruchel d’Satmar, Congregation Machne Shalva, Yeshiva Beth Hillel d’Krasna, Bobover Yeshiva B’nai Zion and Talmud Torah Tzoin Yosef Pupa. The messages requested information on what technology the school makes available to students and how it has spent its E-rate dollars. The reporter noted that an article would appear this week. None of these calls was returned. A third call, placed to Avir Yakov and its E-rate consultant Robert Sniecinski and detailing some of the allegations against it, also was not returned.

Indeed, the only fervently Orthodox leader contacted who agreed to speak was Rabbi David Niederman, executive director and president of  the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg.

He emphasized that he has “no oversight over any schools whatsoever” and said that he has “no idea of E-rate, what that means, I don’t know the details of the program.”

“Let the schools talk about it themselves, let me not go into it,” he added.

Officials at Yeshiva Beis Chaya Mushka, a Chabad girls’ school in Crown Heights approved for $878,506 in 2011, referred interview requests to Richard Bernstein, the school’s E-rate consultant.

In a phone interview, Bernstein, who is founder of E-Rate Consulting LLC in Woodmere, L.I., and has been involved with E-rate since its inception, came to the defense not only of Beis Chaya Mushka, but also of fervently Orthodox E-rate beneficiaries in general. (While Bernstein has a variety of clients, both Jewish and non, he said that he has not worked with the other schools cited in this article.)

He offered a number of potential explanations why the schools in question benefited disproportionately from E-rate:

New York State as a whole has historically been one of the states receiving the most E-rate dollars (as much as 17.4 percent in 2002), something he attributes to the state’s department of education promoting the program and encouraging schools to apply.

Jewish groups are better organized and better at sharing information among themselves than other groups.

Many fervently Orthodox schools are large and serve large numbers of low-income students, a population given preferential treatment by E-rate.

Because E-rate’s application process is labor-intensive and “difficult to navigate,” many schools that might be eligible do not bother to apply.

Regarding the fact that most fervently Orthodox schools, with the possible exception of Chabad ones like Chaya Mushka (which is using its E-rate money, in part, to wire the two new floors of classrooms it is building), don’t give students access to the Internet, he said, “There are innovations out there and it’s creeping in,” adding that some schools not currently using the Internet may be “positioning themselves for when it’s going to happen.”

“No one knows how long [E-rate] is going to last, because it’s running out of money,” he said. “If you don’t take advantage of it now, you may not be able to later.”

In addition, he said, wiring is required for phone lines and voicemail systems, as well as Internet, and even schools that don’t use Internet still need advanced computer systems to track attendance, grades and other administrative details.

“You can no longer manage a school with paper and pencil, it just doesn’t work,” he emphasized.
Asked why fervently Orthodox schools average dramatically larger E-rate expenditures per pupil than the New York City public schools, which also serve large numbers of low-income students, Bernstein speculated that the public schools “have different resources available to them,” such as funds through its buildings department, and may not need E-rate as much.

So Many Pagers?

Just what are fervently Orthodox schools doing with pagers, Smartphones and expensive Internet connections?

In a December interview with The Jewish Week, Rabbi Martin Schloss and Sara Seligson of the Jewish Education Project’s day schools and yeshivot department, said they were unaware of fervently Orthodox schools, with the possible exception of those affiliated with Chabad, providing their students with access to the Internet.

JEP stopped dealing with the E-rate program several years ago, in larger part because of its reputation for problems related to fraud, Seligson and Schloss said.

Schloss, the department’s director of government relations and general studies, said: “[E-rate] had a lot of problems in past, and the last thing we need to do is get stuck in the middle of that. That would destroy our own credibility and ability to work with schools. We in general try to steer clear of questionable practices or practices that could lead us all into trouble.”

Seligson noted that computers and software are provided by the government for use in Title 1, programs for low-income children, and that the Gruss Foundation also provides Orthodox schools with some equipment and software, such as a program called SuccessMaker that drills basic academic skills.

Asked if they thought such schools would be willing to budget any of their own money for technology, something E-rate requires of even its poorest schools, Seligson and Schloss said no.

“The population you’re talking about is hurting” financially, Schloss said. “So they’d have a tough time justifying that kind of money.”

While the ardent opposition to the Internet is gradually weakening in “yeshivish and Bais Yakov” communities and schools, Schloss observed, it is still strong in chasidic ones, with the exception of Chabad.

Asked if she is aware of non-Chabad chasidic schools providing Internet access to students, or using it for Skype or other video-conferencing, Seligson said, “No. Definitely not.”

As for chasidic boys schools giving students access to computers, other than ones provided through Title 1 specifically for Title 1 programs, Seligson said, “I would be shocked to find out that anyone actually does.”

The two Jewish schools with by far the largest E-rate allocations in 2011 — collectively approved for $2.8 million — are both non-Chabad chasidic.

Told about large numbers of fervently Orthodox schools benefiting from E-rate services they do not make available to their students, Naftuli Moster, founder of Yaffed, an advocacy group that seeks to improve the secular education in ultra-Orthodox schools, said, “This problem is only the tip of the iceberg. … In my quest to make sense of which yeshivas provide what level of education, I ask people [who went through the haredi yeshiva system] if they’ve received computer lessons in yeshiva,” said Moster, himself a graduate of a fervently Orthodox school. “Typically we stare at each other for two seconds and then laugh really hard.”

 From the outside, Computer Corner does not look like a technology business handling million-dollar technology contracts.

On a recent Tuesday afternoon, a graffiti-marred metal gate covers the window, and the doorway, in need of a paint job, has no sign.

The only indication that a computer store lies inside this four-story red-brick building with rusty fire escapes on a modest residential block of Brooklyn’s South Williamsburg is a discarded Dell computer carton lying next to the garbage cans.

Nonetheless, the company recently sought $1.2 million from E-rate, a federal program subsidizing technology costs for schools and libraries, to equip its neighbor, Bais Ruchel D’Satmar, with “internal connections” and provide “internal connections maintenance.”

Universal Service Administration Company (USAC), the nonprofit that runs E-rate and other programs for the Federal Communications Commission, appears to have denied that particular request. However, it did pay Computer Corner more than $500,000 in 2011 for services provided to the Satmar girls’ school, a school that 12 years earlier was implicated for colluding with the local community school district. The 1999 scheme involved placing dozens of chasidic women on the public schools’ payroll in no-show teaching jobs in order to funnel more than $6 million to the school and its parent organization, United Talmudical Academy.

How did Computer Corner — along with numerous other little-known companies, most of them located in fervently Orthodox neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Rockland County — get to be among the largest service providers in the E-rate program, earning millions of dollars providing Internet and other tech services to yeshivas whose leaders publicly rail against what they call the “evils” of the Internet?

Some of these companies, many of which, like Computer Corner, don’t have a website, have even appeared on E-rate’s top 10 list of funding approvals and funding denials nationwide.

E-rate, which disbursed $2.2 billion nationally in 2011, was created under President Bill Clinton, part of the
sweeping Telecommunications Act of 1996. That legislation established the Universal Service Fund, a pool of money collected through a fee on long-distance phone service and then used to “help communities across the country secure access to affordable telecommunications services,” according to the USAC website.

But the E-rate money is not distributed evenly. In 2011, 285 Jewish schools in New York State, which enroll approximately 4 percent of the state’s K-12 students, were approved for more than $30 million, more than 20 percent of the state’s total E-rate allocations.

In a four-month investigation, The Jewish Week reviewed E-rate data along with numerous filings submitted by Jewish schools and their service providers. The paper conducted an extensive analysis of 2011 E-rate awards, reviewed the funding history of the Jewish schools and service providers receiving the largest sums of money, examined “470” forms detailing schools’ technology requests, and looked at various audit reports and FCC rulings. With the exception of the 470s, all of this information is publicly available on the website of E-rate Central, a Long Island-based E-rate consulting firm.

The Jewish Week also made repeated attempts to interview administrators at several of the yeshivas receiving the largest sums of money, as well as officials at companies that have billed E-rate for services reportedly provided to these schools. With the exception of an E-rate consultant, whom one school suggested The Jewish Week contact, none of these people returned calls or agreed to be interviewed.

It is not hard to become an E-rate service provider.

More than 4,000 companies nationwide collect payments through E-rate; becoming an official provider simply requires calling USAC to obtain a Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) and providing basic information, like the company’s name and street address. Beyond that, USAC and the FCC do not vet service providers, requiring them only to submit an annual certification form containing basic company contact information and certifying that they will abide by the rules of the program. (Companies that provide telecommunications services responsible for contributing to the Universal Services Fund, which funds E-rate, must register with the FCC, however).

Many of the providers that haredi schools rely on for the bulk of their E-rate-subsidized purchases seem, like Computer Corner, to be small businesses that appear to serve an exclusively Jewish clientele.

These businesses include:

Williamsburg-based Discount Cellular Plus (DCP), which became an E-rate service provider only in 2010, has been allotted about $1.5 million through E-rate in New York between 2010 and 2012. It appears to provide E-rate services exclusively to fervently Orthodox schools, and has so far requested more than $500,000 in E-rate reimbursements for fiscal year 2013.

DCP is currently being sued in federal court by Sprint/Nextel. The suit alleges that DCP, along with its owner Yoel Stossel and two other men, Chaim Weiss and Yanky Katz, targeted yeshivas to steal their special discounts and rate plans and that the defendants then fraudulently acquired large quantities of “new high-end Sprint phones,” including iPhones, which they illegally unlocked and resold for a substantial profit. When a Jewish Week reporter called DCP to talk about E-rate and the Sprint case, she was referred to the company’s attorney. A message left with the attorney was not returned by press time.

Mekach Tov Enterprises, Inc. has done about $850,000 worth of E-rate business in the three years it has participated in the program. The company, which has an address in Brooklyn and is sometimes listed as Tov Mekach, is categorized in Manta, an online database, as a “Burglar and Security Systems store.” However, a company by the same name at the same Borough Park address (which appears to be a storefront mailbox rental establishment) appears previously to have been an importer of religious books and articles. A call to the phone number listed for the company was answered by a fax machine.

Not all of the providers serving haredi schools are exclusively local or small, however and several, it seems, are run by the same or related people.

Dynalink and Birns are both located in the same building on West 17th Street in Manhattan and both list Mendel Birnbaum as the contact person on E-rate forms. Birns, a large telecom company that was established in 1973 and has participated in E-rate since 1998, has received over $9 million serving Orthodox schools in New York through the program. It landed at No. 7 on a list of E-rate’s top 10 funding commitments nationally in 2011.

Dynalink, which appears in New York State to serve almost exclusively haredi or chasidic E-rate clients (it also does E-rate business in other states, including New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Tennessee) got into the E-rate business in 2006. But it has already been awarded over $6 million in New York alone, the majority of that for telecom services followed by internet access.

In 2009, XO Holdings — a Delaware-based company with revenues of $1.4 billion in 2007 and whose subsidiary, XO Communications, has participated in the E-rate program with all types of schools nationwide (it has been awarded close to $90 million since 2005) — filed a federal lawsuit against Lawrence Fishelson, a former XO employee, and Solomon Birnbaum (who co-founded Birns), Mendel Birnbaum, Dynalink and Voice Data Technology Consultants. Upon Fishelson’s termination from XO in 2005, he formed Dynalink with the Birnbaums. The complaint alleges that together they conspired to intentionally interfere with XO’s business relationships with yet another company, Choice Tel Communications, which Birnbaum acquired from his father-in-law, Moshe Birnbaum and daughter, Chaya Freund.

Other big E-rate providers in the Jewish community include: Communications Data & Security, Inc., in Rockland County ($10.2 million); Hashomer Alarm Systems in Rockland County ($8.9 million); Smart Telecom in Far Rockaway ($8.2 million); ID-Tech, which has offices in Borough Park and in Lakewood, N.J. ($7.5 million); and LightHouse Equity, Inc., a Borough Park company that, according to state records became inactive 2010 but still seems to be operating ($4 million).

Given the amount of E-rate business it has done over the years, one would expect there would be more public information available about LightHouse (which found its way onto a top 10 list of both funding commitments and denials in 2011). The contact address for the company, in care of an entity called My Advisor LLC., appears to be a residential building in Borough Park, the back of which practically abuts Bnai Zion, a Bobover yeshiva on 15th Avenue (to which the company has provided service, among other Bobover yeshivas and other haredi schools). The contact for LightHouse’s E-rate program is Thomas Monahan, however a call to the number listed for him on E-rate forms was answered by a woman who indicated that she was not at the company’s physical location but worked for an answering service. A message left for Monahan was not returned by press time.

In 2011, Hashomer and Birns Telecommunications each collected more E-rate money for services provided to Jewish schools than did Verizon, Sprint or Nextel. In fact, Hashomer, which received close to $3.5 million in E-rate work for Jewish schools in 2011, did more E-rate business in the Jewish sector that year than Verizon, Sprint and Nextel combined.

The Jewish Week called Hashomer, which has addresses in both Spring Valley and Monsey, but was told by the man who answered the phone — who did not give his name but said he was with the “Security Division”— that nobody was in the office as they were all out in the schools, making estimates for upcoming E-rate application deadlines; he told The Jewish Week to call back “in a few weeks.”

Reached by phone at Dynalink, Hirsch Birnbaum (this name also appears on Birns’ documents as vice president of sales for that company) told The Jewish Week that he didn’t have time to talk about E-rate unless the reporter wanted to buy a contract or was willing to pay him $200 an hour. A call to Birns was answered by someone who told The Jewish Week he was in “service” and didn’t even know “what an E-rate is” and had “no idea” what the reporter seeking information was talking about.

When The Jewish Week called Communications Data & Security, the reporter was put on hold by the woman who answered and then put through to a number that rang more than 20 times, with no answer and no voicemail.

In 2007, Bais Ruchel D’Satmar — the school that was the top Jewish E-rate recipient in 2011 and has been awarded about $3 million since E-rate’s inception — is also identified in public data as a service provider, with two service-provider identification numbers associated with its name. One is the same number Hashomer has today, while the other now belongs to All Care Communications Inc. Asked why this may have been the case, an E-rate consultant who requested anonymity so as not to jeopardize client relationships, told The Jewish Week that it could have been some kind of typo. However, the consultant added that schools registered as service providers should raise red flags because of the possibility of self-dealing.

Between 2007-2010, All Care was approved for close to $1 million in E-rate funds. Since 2009, it has been registered with the FCC as headquartered at 320 Roebling St., a low-rise apartment building with a mailbox rental establishment on the first floor. Several calls to the listed contact person, Joel Polatsek, were answered by the sound of a beep. A call to a Brooklyn-based company called All Care Management yielded a message that the number had been disconnected.

Asked if he finds it odd that the yeshivas rely largely on small businesses that serve only other Orthodox institutions, Richard Bernstein, a Woodmere, L.I., E-rate consultant whose clients include Jewish and non-Jewish schools, said no.

“That’s the way [they] do business in general, with people they know,” he said. “Other groups are the same, they want to work with someone who knows and understands them. … It comes down to service. You want to know if there’s a problem you can make a call and someone will come fix it. You don’t want to call Dell and get someone in India. Schools can’t afford to [have their computer system go] down or to not have their phones work.”

 Nine years ago, Thomas Cline traveled from Washington, D.C., to Brooklyn to tour seven buildings occupied by the United Talmudical Academy.

As the assistant inspector general for audit at the Federal Communications Commission’s Office of Inspector General, Cline — whose Southern drawl must have stood out amid the Yiddish accents of Williamsburg — was there to look at the large Satmar school system’s more than $1 million in technology purchases, in 1999, subsidized by the FCC’s E-rate program.

His team found a number of major violations and ultimately recommended that the FCC make UTA return over $900,000. But in the end, the school — which did not return calls from The Jewish Week seeking an interview — paid nothing. In the years that have followed, it and the numerous institutions within its sprawling system of boys and girls’ schools in Brooklyn and Rockland County, each of which now files separately for E-rate, have been awarded tens of millions of E-rate dollars. In 2012, one of UTA’s service providers billed the program $81,600, just on Internet access for the Williamsburg boys’ divisions.

That is despite the fact that UTA students are not allowed access to the Internet.

E-rate, created as part of the sweeping Telecommunications Act of 1996, enables schools and libraries to get telecommunications and other tech infrastructure at a discount — as much as 90 percent for schools, like UTA, in which at least 75 percent of the students are eligible for reduced or free lunches.

Drawing from funds collected through a fee on long-distance phone service, the E-rate program, administered by the nonprofit Universal Service Administration Company (USAC), disburses $2.25 billion a year to more than 4,000 service providers working in over 100,000 schools.

But the money is not distributed evenly, as The Jewish Week learned in a four-month investigation. In 2011, 285 Jewish schools in New York State, which enroll approximately 4 percent of the state’s K-12 students, were approved for over $30 million, more than 20 percent of the state’s total E-rate allocations. The largest of these Jewish institutional recipients are, like UTA and Avir Yakov, a yeshiva in Rockland County, haredi (or, fervently Orthodox and/or chasidic) — the same community that, last May, filled Citi Field and Arthur Ashe Stadium for a rally denouncing the evils of the Internet. Meanwhile, the program, citing a scarcity of funds, has in recent years annually denied over $2 billion in requests from other schools nationwide.

Haredi schools are not the only Jewish ones participating in the E-rate program. A number of Modern Orthodox and liberal schools, including Ramaz, Solomon Schechter of Westchester and the Abraham Joshua Heschel School also benefit from E-rate, but, in part because their student bodies are more affluent,  the amounts they have received pale in comparison to the money lavished on the haredi schools. In addition, the Modern Orthodox and liberal day schools routinely make computers and the Internet accessible to their students.

History Of Problems

E-rate has long been criticized for inadequate safeguards against fraud and waste, and there have been several high-profile cases over the years involving service providers, E-rate consultants and schools filing millions of dollars in claims for services and equipment that were never provided.

Just a few years after E-rate began, Puerto Rico’s secretary of education was caught mismanaging over $100 million in E-rate funds. High-profile fraud cases, some involving big-name companies like IBM and NEC and entailing tens of millions of dollars, have been exposed in Texas and California, with the FCC maintaining a list of people and companies that have been “debarred” from participating in the program. Two General Accounting Office reports (most recently in 2010) have cited problems with USAC’s “internal controls,” and in 2005, the program was the subject of a congressional investigation.

Yet, despite some red flags raised in audits, like the one in 2004 of UTA, no Jewish schools or their service providers appear to have been barred from E-rate or deemed guilty of anything more serious than “noncompliance.”

Nonetheless, the program’s reputation for being susceptible to fraud is the reason why staff at the Jewish Education Project, formerly the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, say they have steered clear of E-rate in recent years, even as they help Jewish schools access a wide array of other government funds and services.

And, while few people are willing to accuse the Jewish schools of outright deception, their large E-rate awards are raising some eyebrows.

One E-rate expert who asked not to be identified said the large sums for schools that use minimal technology do look suspicious.

The question, he said, is, “Are you dealing with unsophisticated consumers being taken advantage of or are they in on it. … Who knows if this is legitimate of if it’s illegitimate and who’s at fault?”

Asked if it is currently investigating any potential improprieties in E-rate use among haredi institutions, Cline, the FCC auditor involved in the 2004 visit to UTA, declined to share specifics but said, “It’s come to our attention, and we are looking into it.”

In response to a follow-up e-mail from The Jewish Week, sent after the first two installments of an investigative series were published and seeking comment on some of the institutions the articles addressed, Cline said, via e-mail: “I can’t confirm, deny or discuss any investigative activity currently in progress by our staff.”

However, he added, his staff has “found the articles very interesting.”

Steve White, a Rockland County community activist who in 2011 successfully appealed to New York State to block the East Ramapo Central School District’s below-market-price sale of a school building to Avir Yakov, told The Jewish Week that it looks like Avir Yakov, if not others, has been deceptive in its dealings with E-rate.

“To me, it seems obvious that they’re trying to game the system,” he said. “If they expressly forbid their students from using the Internet, then what do they need Internet connections for?”

He noted that the blocked real estate deal between Avir Yakov and the school district, whose board is composed mostly of fervently Orthodox Jews and is currently being sued, involved “appraisal fraud. The exact same place that’s in trouble over real estate fraud is also listed as strangely getting all these monies. There is a pattern.”

`We Pulled Back’

Interviewed in December, Sara Seligson, associate director of the Jewish Education Project’s day schools and yeshivot department, told The Jewish Week that while her department was initially involved with E-rate, “it is a very complex application, and there were some challenges in terms of what the schools were using it for and what they were allowed to use it for. Not just our schools, but schools all over the country were cited for using it inappropriately, and we kind of just pulled back.

She said her department has not had any involvement with the program “for many years.”

In particular, Seligson said she had heard of vendors cutting deals with schools, permitting them to skip paying their 10 percent share.

While acknowledging that E-rate Central and the New York State Department of Education occasionally contact her office when there is a problem processing an E-rate application, she said: “We’re relatively hands-off.”

Rabbi Marty Schloss, the department’s director of government relations and general studies, commented: “[E-rate] had a lot of problems in past, and the last thing we need to do is get stuck in the middle of that. That would destroy our own credibility and ability to work with schools. We in general try to steer clear of questionable practices or practices that could lead us all into trouble.”

Despite its problems in the past, Eric Iversen, USAC’s director of external relations, insisted to The Jewish Week that USAC has “zero tolerance” for fraud and has “a pretty robust audit program.”

In a follow-up e-mail, he wrote that USAC has conducted over 800 audits of E-rate beneficiaries since 2006. “None of these audits has revealed fraud in the program,” he wrote.

The Department of Justice and the FCC’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) also audit E-rate. Thomas Cline, who audited UTA in 2004 and is now deputy inspector general in the OIG, told The Jewish Week that his department has closed about 30 investigations of E-rate recipients and service providers since 2002, and has a number of ongoing ones.

Asked during last week’s interview if he agrees with Iversen’s assessment that E-rate audits rarely find evidence of fraud, Cline said audits more commonly uncover “inconsistencies and noncompliance with certain requirements.

“Overpayments are many times the result of an honest error, rather than an attempt to defraud the federal government,” he said. “The end result of audits is more frequently to catch noncompliance and tell participants how to clean up procedures.”

He emphasized that “the need to recover funds is not in itself necessarily evidence of fraud.”

No Deadline For Payment

In his 2004 audit of UTA, Cline’s team discovered a number of problems:

UTA had not paid its required 10 percent portion of the bill;

Communications Data and Security, Inc. (still an approved E-rate service provider) had billed and received payment for services it had not provided;

There was no evidence of a competitive bidding process;

When auditors attempted to visit various UTA locations to determine the physical existence of the E-rate equipment, they found the school had, without obtaining approval, made numerous equipment substitutions, did not maintain asset records and lacked proof that all E-rate funded services had been received and installed.

Cline’s team recommended that USAC recover $934,300 from the school. UTA appealed the audit decision and in 2008, Jennifer K. McKee, the acting chief of Wireline Competition Bureau’s Telecommunications Access Policy Division, the FCC division responsible for E-rate, granted the appeal.

“Based on the record before us, it appears that this matter can be resolved through USAC’s review of additional documentation UTA provided to the Commission in its appeal, which it had not previously provided to USAC,” she wrote. In other words, the bureau determined that it was acceptable for UTA and its service provider, who had been unable to provide appropriate documentation when they were audited, to submit receipts years after the fact.

Interviewed last week about the overruling of his audit recommendations concerning UTA, Cline said the UTA audit, like many audits of that time, revealed that “in the early years of the program there were significant problems with weaknesses in the rules designed to protect the program. As a result, FCC has issued orders doing away with the loopholes and tightening the rules.”

Asked if was not suspicious for a company to produce a receipt after the audit was complete, and for the FCC to accept it, Cline noted that “the issue was there was no requirement of time in which you had to pay. That was the problem. So if you pay years later, there was nothing in the rules saying that was a problem.”

Rules specifying deadlines for payment have been implemented.

As for the UTA’s other findings, Cline said he no longer recalls the details. “We do the audits and make recommendations, but we’re not the administrators,” he said. “We have things we can do if we’re not satisfied, but how far you elevate things like that depends on the circumstance.”

Various Jewish schools have been cited for noncompliance in USAC-commissioned audits, yet, like UTA, they seem not to have been penalized.

In 2009, KPMG carried out an audit of Bais Ruchel D’Satmar, which in the early years of the program filed for E-rate together with UTA,  and found “material noncompliance with technology plan certification and service substitution requirements” during the fiscal year 2008. Notably, the functionality of the requested services on the original application was for T-1 services, while the functionality of the substituted services was for wireless phone services. While USAC decided to seek recovery for the monetary effect of this finding, nowhere in the audit, however, were the reasons for this substitution questioned or made clear.

Meanwhile other FCC rulings of Jewish schools — and other schools’ — appeals seem to have been similarly lenient. In May 2006, FCC Secretary Marlene Dortch granted 30 appeals on behalf of 96 participants, many of them haredi Jewish schools, accused of violating competitive bidding rules. USAC had flagged the schools because the language on their technology plans was very similar; however Dortch argued that considerably more evidence was needed before making the schools and their service providers return their funding.

Money & Markets / Obama's Free Trade Traitors
« on: March 02, 2013, 01:33:12 AM »
The Obama economic team continues to push free trade against a tidal wave of evidence that it's a disaster.  Obama put a Republican as Secretary of Defense but doesn't even have a token protectionist on board.  All must bow to London/Wall St/Jew banksters' globalisation.

Obama's Free Trade Traitors

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

I will argue that one possible response to the dislocations that may result from trade--a retreat into protectionism and isolationism--would be self-defeating and, in the long run, probably not even feasible

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner

“We are not going to go down that path,” promised Mr Geithner. “We know that it would make us weaker, not stronger.”

Director National Economic Council Gene Sperling

The "outsourcing" debate has helped demonstrate how unresponsive the old debate between protectionism and "hands off" free trade is to our current economic challenges. ... We have no choice but to embrace the dynamism of the global economy and stop pretending we can shut it off or slow it down.

Secretary of State John Kerry

I support free trade

BERLIN (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pushed Tuesday for a free-trade agreement between the United States and Europe

Head of President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness Jeffrey Immelt

GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, The Head Of Obama’s Jobs Council, Is Moving Jobs And Economic Infrastructure To China At A Blistering Pace

principal deputy director of the National Economic Council Jason Furman

Furman can best be described as a free trader who supports a robust social insurance safety net for displaced American workers...Furman wrote a 2005 paper arguing that Wal-Mart's low prices and other policies benefit low-income consumers

former chairman of Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee

Mr. Goolsbee was at the center of a controversy during the Democratic race for the presidential nomination when it was reported that he had told a Canadian official in Chicago that Mr. Obama’s protectionist campaign talk was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy” he would support as president. While Mr. Goolsbee denied the account, as an economist he does espouse a free trade philosophy.

former director National Economic Council Lawrence Summers

a "Clintonian neoliberal, a strong believer in free trade and free markets,"

Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive.

Hilarious black comedy produced by genius Mike Judge.  Much low comedy without being, err, stupid.  The unlikely hero Bauers gets his first inkling of a seriously messed-up future when he goes to the hospital & the receptionist listens to his strange tale & sullenly attempts to choose from the little pictograms on the touch-screen (à la McDonalds cash registers).  Turns out everything is a mess with crumbling buildings, trash everywhere, food supplies nearing famine levels etc.  Newscasters are all pro wrestlers...a Gatorade-type corporation has bought up half the country & folks have no memory of drinking actual water (they think it's only suitable for flushing toilets).  Idiocracy slightly reminiscent of Beavis & Butthead:  B & B hardly sophisticated but had the (mostly unrecognized) subtext of what would happen to kids educated entirely by television.

Jewish Studies / Jew MSM Hates on Oscar Host Seth MacFarlane
« on: February 26, 2013, 01:47:05 AM »
Forget the ratings boost Seth gave, forget that his presentation was not uber-edgy, forget that his shows often feature pro-Jewish, pro-gay or anti-Christian themes...JMSM is loath to praise Seth's hosting performance.  MacFarlane suffers from being a white Gentile & a relative Hollywood outsider.  'Orthodox' Holly-Jews can't let go of their gold-standard ideal host Billy Crystal who kept things safely predictable with a record nine appearances as the old-timey Borscht-Belt-type host.

Declining box-office forces Jewlywood to seek new avenues for promotion so they're forced to turn to animation genius Seth MacFarlane, yet they're not happy about it.  Their bitching about MacFarlane is a convenient distraction from the overwhelming Jew-propaganda nature of 2012 nominees such as Argo (anti-Iran) & Zero Dark Thirty (Bin Ladin-hunt fiction).

Jewish Forward:  Oscars Host Seth MacFarlane Crossed Line To Bigotry and Anti-Semitism: Talking Bear Skit Was Offensive — and Not Funny, Either

USA Toady:  Oscar ratings rise despite Seth MacFarlane's reviews

The USA Today article actually had muted praise despite the condemning headline.

ADL angry about MacFarlane joke re Jews controlling Hollywood

During the segment, Ted (voiced by MacFarlane) joked that Jews controlled Hollywood and that fealty to the religion was required to work in the industry. "I was born Theodore Shapiro, and I would like to donate to Israel and continue to work in Hollywood forever," he said, to audience laughter -- and Wahlberg's feigned displeasure.

"While we have come to expect inappropriate 'Jews control Hollywood' jokes from Seth MacFarlane, what he did at the Oscars was offensive and not remotely funny," the ADL wrote in its statement. "It only reinforces stereotypes which legitimize anti-Semitism. It is sad and disheartening that the Oscars awards show sought to use anti-Jewish stereotypes for laughs."

The missive continued, noting that the international audience for the show might not have known it was a joke.

Look at past 20 years' hosts:

Uber-Joo Billy Crystal hosted 6 times

Black ultra-liberal faux-Jew Whoopi Goldberg 4 times

Middle-of-the-road white Gentile (?) David Letterman once

MOR white Gentile (?) Steve Martin 2-1/2 times

Gentile black Chris rock once

Lesbian Gentile (?) Ellen DeGeneres once

"Our most important Jew" propaganda-news-comedian Jon Stewart twice

Indeterminates Hugh Jackman once, Alec Baldwin 1/2 time (co-host), James Franco 1/2 while co-hosting with Jewess Anne Hathaway.

Jewish Studies / Report on NatGeo's "Human Lampshade: A Holocaust Mystery"
« on: February 25, 2013, 10:26:53 PM »
Human Lampshade: A Holocaust Mystery

Your intrepid reporter EB sat through this hour-long show:  we thought the lampshade hoax had long been laid to rest but wow, a major network is featuring a show on it so yes, I was intrigued.  A dealer, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, offers to sell a lampshade purportedly made from Jewish skin.  Jewish Holocaust researchers get interested & send the lampshade to a variety of laboratories in Cleveland, Chicago, Germany etc.  One scientist examines the metal-work & claims it bears signs of mid-20th Century technology.  Producers visit a German researcher who plays along with most of the Holohoax schtick but admirably refuses, in couched language, to endorse the whole lampshade scheme. 

The show notes the German villagers from Buchenwald area forced to witness atrocity souvenirs such as human lampshades:  supposedly (IIRC) the Germans were dismissive & some even laughed.  The show emphasizes Ilse Koch "Bitch of Buchenwald" story.

Well the show wanders hither & yon giving basically zero attention to Revisionist arguments; ie general lampshade story is considered to be true & the only question is the provenance of the post-Katrina lampshade.  Finally in the closing minutes the show reveals the results of a DNA lab test:  the lampshade skin is definitely non-human!  The fat Jews are disappointed & whine that this will be 'twisted' by Revisionist "haters".

Conspiracy then and now. / Jews Mobilize Against 3-D Printer Guns
« on: February 19, 2013, 10:25:47 PM »
EB:  US gov't/MSM used to criticize Russia for requiring that print presses be registered.  Of course in US 2-D printers already registered, they leave ID marks.  3-D & cad/cam is interesting but anyone who downloads templates is tracked. 

Weapons made with 3-D printers could test gun-control efforts

(Jahi Chikwendiu/ The Washington Post ) - Travis Lerol holds an AR-15 assault rifle that contains a bullet clip made of ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) plastic that was constructed by his 3D printer at his home on Feb. 12.

Washington Post

By Michael S. Rosenwald, Published: February 18

Twenty minutes into his State of the Union address last week, President Obama entered the realm of uber-geekery — three-dimensional printing. The magical devices capable of printing prosthetics, violins and even aircraft parts have the potential, the president said, “to revolutionize the way we make almost everything.”

Forty miles away from the Capitol, in Glen Burnie, Md., Travis Lerol is proving Obama’s point — with guns.

In a spare bedroom, where an AR-15 rifle leans against the wall, Lerol is using a 3-D printer no larger than an espresso machine to make plastic rifle parts and ammunition magazines in between tea sets and chess pieces. The parts print, layer over layer, creating objects like an ink-jet printer etches words.

The 30-year-old software engineer said he has no plans to print anything outlawed by the government. But like many other gun owners, he is nervous that the push for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre will infringe on his Second Amendment rights.

Three-dimensional printers offer a potentially easy way around restrictions and registrations — a source of growing consternation among gun-control advocates and some allies in Congress.

“There’s really no one controlling what you do in your own home,” Lerol said.

Though printing guns is a craft still in its infancy — Lerol hasn’t tested his parts yet at a gun range — technology experts, gun rights proponents and gun safety advocates say the specter of printable firearms and ammunition magazines poses a challenge for Obama and lawmakers as they craft sweeping gun-control legislation.

One controversial idea, pushed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is to outlaw high-capacity magazines. But some proponents of 3-D printed guns have already made high-grade plastic replicas.

“Obviously, that has to be one of her nightmares,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a lobbying group opposed to additional restrictions. “If her ban was to pass and this technology moves beyond its infancy, Dianne Feinstein is going to have a bit of a challenge.”

Feinstein’s proposed legislation, which would also ban AR-15s, restricts manufacturing of such items by anyone in the country, said a spokesman for the senator.

But 3D-printing experts say that logic is dated and misses the point of the technology. Making guns for personal use has been legal for decades, but doing so has required machining know-how and a variety of parts. With 3-D printers, users download blueprints from the Internet, feed them into the machine, wait several hours and voila.

“Restrictions are difficult to enforce in a world where anybody can make anything,” said Hod Lipson, a 3-D printing expert at Cornell University and co-author of the new book, “Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing.” “Talking about old-fashioned control will be very ineffective.”

It is unclear how many people are trying to print their own gun parts and magazines. But Cody Wilson, a University of Texas law student who is leading the ideological and technical campaign for 3-D printed guns through an organization called Defense Distributed, said blueprints have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times from his group’s Web site.

“People all over the world are downloading this stuff all the time — way more people than actually have 3-D printers,” he said. “This is hot stuff on the Internet now.”

Wilson and a friend founded Defense Distributed last February while looking for a “post-political” project to challenge governmental scrutiny and regulations. He speaks of “prohibitionist regimes” and anarchistic urges and challenging “democratic control.” Though he shot guns as a Boy Scout, Wilson doesn’t consider himself a gun person. He doesn’t consider himself a tech geek either. His motivations, he said, are ideological and go way beyond the Second Amendment.
“This is a symbolic challenge to a system that says we can see everything, regulate everything,” he said. “I say, ‘Oh really?’ My challenge is: Regulate this. I hope with that challenge we create such an insurmountable problem that the mere effort of trying to regulate this explodes any regulatory regime.”

Wilson’s group has posted several videos to YouTube of AR-15s firing rounds with 3-D printed high-capacity magazines and lower receivers, the part that includes the firing mechanism and is the only regulated portion of the gun if it’s bought over the counter. Wilson’s parts are made from high-grade polymer and retrofitted to the bodies of existing weapons. The receivers are made able to fire by adding over-the-counter springs, pins and a trigger.

In one recent video, Wilson fires dozens of rounds from an M-16 using a 3-D printed high-capacity magazine. “How’s that national conversation going?” he asks.

Defense Distributed also runs a Web site called Defcad, where anyone can download gun designs and trade tips. The other day, a user posted this question to a discussion board on the site: “I know nothing of 3d printers. I can tell there are a few different types of materials to print and some appear to be easier to break than others. What printer and material is the best for printing a receiver and mags?”

Lerol, working in his spare bedroom, is using a $1,300 machine called the Cube, which is made by a division of 3D Systems, a large publicly traded manufacturer of consumer and industrial 3-D printing machines. The cheaper, consumer versions of 3-D printers like the one Lerol uses are only capable of printing with plastics, while more expensive, industrial-scale machines can print sturdier materials such as high-grade polymers.

Experts expect printer prices to fall as part of the normal technology curve. (Think about the price of flat screen TVs five years ago. Or a computer two decades ago.)

And that makes Lipson, the Cornell expert, nervous because cheaper machines could help people make cheap guns for one-time use.

“The threat is not of 3-D printing military-grade weapon components from standard blueprints on industrial 3-D printers,” Lipson said. “The challenge is that [do-it-yourself] 3D printers can be used by anyone to print rogue, disposable and shoddy guns that could be used to fire a few rounds, then be recycled into a flower vase.”

Though Lerol acknowledges how easy these machines make it to get around regulations, his motivations, he said, are benign. He is a tinkerer, he likes guns and he likes messing around the house. He insists he has no interest in flouting whatever restrictions might win approval, but gun-control advocates and some legislators worry that not everyone’s motivations will be so pure.

“It’s not necessarily the technology, it’s the ideology,” said Joshua Horwitz, the executive director of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “If this insurrectionist philosophy was to gain traction, people will normalize this behavior.”

Legislators pushing for additional gun control say that 3-D printing is on their radars, but it’s unclear whether they can do anything about it.

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), a member of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said in a statement that he has “raised concerns” about 3-D printing to task force representatives but that “more information is necessary to properly address this complex, yet still nascent issue.” He adds that he would “explore appropriate policy solutions to ensure it is not utilized in a manner that poses a threat to public safety.”

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) wants to renew a law he thinks could protect the country from the threat of 3-D printed guns: the Undetectable Firearms Act. Passed in 1988, the law prohibits manufacturing or possessing a gun that can’t be detected by airport security scanners. The law expires at the end of the year. Israel also wants to update it to include plastic ammunition magazines.

“I believe that 3-D printers can change the world for the better,” Israel said. “What I am concerned with is the proliferation of weapons and weapons components made by 3-D printers which can be easily brought onto airplanes and other high-security environments and do grave damage.”

Israel thinks 3-D printed guns haven’t received the scrutiny they deserve.

“The technology is proceeding so rapidly that when I talk about three-dimensional guns, people think I’m talking about a ‘Star Trek’ plot,” he said. “When I show them how easy it is to make, most people are shocked. When I tell them the law that would stop these plastic guns from getting onto planes is expiring in just a few months, people are appalled.”

Three-dimensional printer companies are also worried. After the Sandy Hook shooting in December, MakerBot removed gun designs from a Web site of downloadable blueprints it maintains for users of its 3-D printers. Stratasys, another major 3-D printing company, leased a machine to Wilson last year, but company officials confiscated it after learning of Wilson’s plans.

“We believe Mr. Wilson intended to use Stratasys property to produce a weapon that is illegal according to the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988,” the company said in a statement. “It is the legal responsibility of Stratasys not to knowingly allow its property to be used for illegal purposes.”

3D Systems, the company that makes Lerol’s machine, has also closely been monitoring the gun developments. Abe N. Reichental, the company’s chief executive, said he is open to working with members of the industry and legislators to restrict certain shapes from being printed.

“We don’t want to prevent printing anything that is legal and proper,” he said. “But we want to be responsible. We want to do good. We want to be a force that helps shape the goodness of this technology and its use.”

But even if companies somehow restricted printing certain shapes from their machines, Lipson, the 3-D printing expert from Cornell, said that wouldn’t do much good because there are open-source, self-built printers on the market that aren’t connected to the mainstream printing community.

He suggests one way to prevent dangerous, illegal usage of 3-D printers is to better control gunpowder, an idea that has come up in gun control in the past.

“What we really need is different solutions,” he said. “Weapons will be difficult to control.”

Murder-Jew-Pervert Pikul got Judicial Favors, Escaped Sentence

Joseph Pikul as depicted in Behind Mansion Walls true-crime show:

Wife Diane:

Real-life Pikul:

Joseph Pikul was a millionaire Wall St stock anaylst who beat & strangled his wife Diane & dumped her body into a ditch next to the thruway.

Joseph & Diane's marriage was on the rocks, she couldn't stand his cold controlling manner.  She found boxes in their attic which contained astonishing evidence (clothes, photos, tapes) that Pikul was a long-time transvestite & homosexual.  Pikul's transvestite obsession was so strong that he even rented a separate city apartment for dress-up fun.  Diane confronted Joseph with her find which threw him into a panic:  not only would the news be bad for his career it would mean certain loss of childrens' custody.  Pikul killed her on the spot & later drove up north to dispose of the body (in a surprisingly stupid & amateurish fashion).

Pikul even asked his first wife Sandra Jarvinen if he could bury something in her yard:  she said no but didn't mention the request when police investigated (tribal togerthness).

When Pikul was arrested & booked, he was rather embarassed when found to be wearing a bra & panties!  Pikul confessed to the murder in the face of strong evidence but the legal fun was just beginning.

Judges showed astonishing favoritism to Pikul:  granted $350K bail despite him being a flight risk.  After being charged for murder Joe actually married for the third time just to help in the custody battle.  Diane's relatives sued for custody & the Family Court judge actually awarded it to Joe on the grounds that he hadn't been judged guilty yet!

The murder trial judge gave a huge boost to Pikul's defense when he ruled photos/tapes of Joe in transvestite clothes were prejudicial.  Pikul, nonetheless was convicted of murder.  While awaiting sentencing his lawyer filed an appeal--Joseph went to a hospital & died a week later (!)  Hospital refused to discuss his 'illness' & treatment, rumored to have been AIDS.

The judge actually vacated Pikul's conviction in accordance with NY state law requiring such if the defendant dies while appealing.

BTW, as the Pikul-transvestite scandal became widely known, twin Jewess advice columnists (syndicated in virtually every US newspaper) "Ann Landers" & "Dear Abby" did their Sayanim duty by defending transvestism as a harmless normal guy thing.

Heaven Above / What Does Snow Look Like?/Is Warming Real?
« on: February 14, 2013, 10:09:06 PM »
DC area used to get significant if not frequent snowfalls.  We're heading into 2nd year of semi-drought & 3rd winter of near-zero snow.  April 15 used to be avg date of last freeze, now it's more like late March.  Now very frequent to have occasional warm sunny days throughout winter where one can actually sun-bathe.

Perhaps buying an AWD car & planning a local ski trip is a guarantee of no snow?  Yeah some Mid-Atlantic ski spots have snow but who wants to ski in slush at 10o C?  Perhaps anthro-warming is a lie but general warming is not?  IE a temporary natural trend that could reverse at any time.

Area warming is a PITA at minimum, dangerous for others.  Cold winters, for example, help apple crops & also help stop weeds & bugs.  Now we rarely have hard freezes let alone former conditions of soil frozen for days at a time.


Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

Court order reveals how approval of Queen and Prince Charles is sought on range of bills

The Queen was asked for consent on a range of bills, including those affecting her estates. There is growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals’ role in lawmaking. Photograph: Sergeant Dan Harmer

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

Charles has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation and this power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.

The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information case to access the papers.

The release of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been consented to by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.

The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.

The Queen uses revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster's 19,000 hectares of land and 10 castles to pay for the upkeep of her private homes at Sandringham and Balmoral, while the prince earns £18m-a-year from the Duchy of Cornwall.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

A spokesman for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."

Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal consent has been refused.

"The suggestion in these documents that the Queen withheld consent for a private member's bill on such an important issue as going to war beggars belief," he said. "We need to know whether laws have been changed as the result of a private threat to withhold that consent."

The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.

It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
Royal influence

Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales. It is not exhaustive and in only one case does it show whether any changes were made. It is drawn from data gleaned from two Freedom of Information requests.

The Queen

Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962

Housing Act 1996

Rating (Valuation Act) 1999

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)

High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03

European Union bill 2004

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004

Identity cards bill 2004-06

Work and families bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Charities Act 2006

Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)

Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

Prince Charles

Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970

Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979

Pilotage bill 1987

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

House of Lords Act 1999

Gambling bill 2004-05

Road Safety bill 2004-05

Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06

London Olympics bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Charities Act 2006

Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08

Energy bill 2007-08

Planning bill 2007-08

Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09

Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09

Coroners and justice bill 2008-09

Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12

• This article was amended on Tuesday 15 January 2013 because it stated that Prince Charles has used the veto on more than a dozen occasions when it should have said that he has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20