21st Century Strange Fruit

If racist Jewish Zionists like Daniel Pipes, Pam Geller, Joe Kaufman, Roz Rothstein, Charles Jacobs, Matthew Levitt, Jonathan Schanzer, Marty Peretz, Larry Summers, Bob Kowell, et. al. had their wishes come true, the strange fruit hanging from from the trees would be the bodies of Arab and Muslim Americans.
Sphere: Related Content

[Ali Abunimah] וְזִרְמַ֥ת סוּסִ֖ים זִרְמָתָֽם

The Zionists have revived the German Nazi Nuremberg Laws with the obvious substitution of Jewish Zionist for Aryan Übermensch and of Palestinian for Jewish Untermensch.

Man convicted of rape for consensual sex with woman but told her he was Jewish (English)

The following is translated, courtesy of Dena Shunra, from this source: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/134/635.html

Jail time for Arab who impersonated a Jew and raped through fraud

A court sentenced a resident of East Jerusalem who lied to a young woman and told her that he was Jewish in order to have sexual relations with her to a year in a half of prison time. “Protect the public from such criminals.”

By Shmuel Mittelman, 19 July 2010 14:38

Sabar Kashour, a young man from East Jerusalem, was sentenced today (Monday) to 18 months in prison after having defrauded and thereby raped and committed indecent acts upon a Jewish young woman, who only yielded to him because she thought he was a Jew. Additionally, the judges – Deputy Presiding Justice Zvi Segal, Moshe Dror, and Yoram Noam required Kashour to pay the complainant financial compensation amounting to NIS 10,000.

The prosecution representative, Adv. Daniel Vittman, argued that Kashour had indeed carried out his plot without the use of force, but that he had dissipated her ability to object to his actions by means of the false representation about his personal situation – [claiming that he was] a Jewish bachelor interested in a significant romantic relationship. In this way he abused her desire for a deep emotional relationship, which was the only reason that she agreed to have sexual relations with him.

According to the indictment, to which Kashour (30) entered a guilty plea, he presented himself to a young woman whom he met in the center of Jerusalem in 2008 as a Jewish bachelor interested in a significant romantic relationship, despite the fact that he is married.

He invited her to accompany him to a building on Hillel Street. When they came to the top floor, Kashour undressed the young woman and had intercourse with her, with her consent, that had been fraudulently achieved, as stated above. After having carried out his scheme, he departed from the building and left her naked, on the top floor of that building.

“Not a ‘classic’ act of rape”

The prosecution first claimed that the complainant actively and significantly objected to the events, but in the course of the trial the young woman testified that she had agreed to the action because she had thought that the person in question was a Jew. In light of that the indictment was amended, and the defendant was accused of rape and indecent actions by way of fraud.

Kashour accepted partial responsibility for the crimes of rape and indecent actions, but claimed that the deeds were carried out with the full consent of the complainant. The Probation Service was of the impression that in the course of his detention the defendant underwent “a process of soul-searching,” and that he was investing effort in living a normative lifestyle. For this reason the Service recommended that a short term of imprisonment, to be served in community service, be deemed sufficient.

Defense Counsel Adv. Adnan Aladin asked that the positive report by the Probation Service be taken into account. He said that this report indicated his client’s “high potential for rehabilitation.”

He asked that “appropriate proportions be maintained” between the actions and the mete penalty, and stressed that Kashour had no criminal record, admitted to the actions ascribed to him and took responsibility for his actions. For this reason he asked that a sentence of six months of community service be deemed sufficient.

Justice Segal stated that there was no dispute about the fact that the defendant had committed the crime of rape upon the complainant. He had admitted to doing so, and this was why he had been convicted, by force of law. “Indeed,” he stressed, “we do not have before us a ‘class’ case of rape – by force – and the indictment initially filed, which had indicated significant objection by the complainant to the actions by the defendant, had been amended further in the proceedings, after hearing her testimony, when it became clear that the actions were indeed carried out with her consent, but that it had been fraudulently obtained, relying on false representation. Has she not been of the opinion that he was a Jewish bachelor interested in a significant

“Basic human obtuseness”

Segal added that the rehabilitation of the defendant did indeed seem accessible and possible, but “with all possible goodwill and intention to meet him part of the way and reduce his punishment inasmuch as possible, I do not believe that this is the case where a prison term can be served in the form of community service.” Moreover, in his opinion serving a prison term does not cancel out existing rehabilitation achievements nor negate possible future achievements.

The judge stated that “the Court must protect the public interest against sophisticated criminals with a smooth tongue and sweet talking, who can lead astray innocent victims at the unbearable price of the sanctity of their bodies and souls.”

He stated that “when the foundation of trust between people falls away, especially in matters so sensitive, intimate, and fateful, the Court must stand firm on the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their well-being. Otherwise they will be abused, manipulated, cheated, and the cost will be a tolerable, token penalty.”

Segal further added that: “one cannot know or fully understand what the complainant felt after the defendant left the building, leaving her behind – naked, at the top floor. The realization of the truth after such a deceit cannot be easy; it requires a sturdy spirit and faith in the good things that are still in store, in the future. Having done what he did the defendant displayed basic human obtuseness toward his victim, as if she were only the means to satisfy his desires, and nothing more.”

Sphere: Related Content

Jessica Stern's Real Psychopathic Denial

Did Stanley Levitt Rape Matthew Levitt at Brookline's Maimonides School?

Harvard Kennedy School lecturer Jessica Stern made a big splash recently

• by going public with the story of a rape that she suffered as a teenager and
• by linking terrorism to sexual violence.

Here are an article and an NPR interview addressing the subject:

• Terrorism Expert No Longer In 'Denial' About Her Rape
• Jessica Stern on Terror, Trauma, and Memory.

I have listened to enough of Stern's lectures and spoken with her sufficiently to be fairly certain that she is a dope and a great example of yet another Jew in academia, who could not possibly have obtained her position without immense assistance from corrupt Jewish social networking.

As a racist Jew, Stern has consistently skewed her data tremendously by mostly ignoring the most important 19th, 20th, and 21st century example of terrorism: that of often disproportionately female Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazi terrorists in Eastern Europe, the Czarist Empire, the Soviet Union, and Palestine. (See Jewish Peril 1933 Versus 2009.) It is almost needless to mention that the FBI has been so impressed by Stern's distorted racist Jewish Zionist scholarship that the Bureau has recognized her efforts against international terrorism.

Not only is Stern's new thesis "that many religious extremists had been sexually traumatized" so silly that it hardly bares refutation, but she has never investigated the role ethnic Ashkenazi rape fantasies directed at non-Jewish women have played and continue to play in Jewish terrorism even though such dark thoughts would seem highly relevant to her theory. (See The Magnes Zionist: Kristol and the Shikse.)

Did John Brown have living slavers hacked to pieces in Bleeding Kansas because he suffered sexual trauma as a child? No biography of Brown has made such a suggestion. American slavers constitute the 19th century ethical equivalent of modern Jewish Zionists. Thus by American precedent and history blowing up or otherwise killing Zionists in the struggle against violent state-sponsored racism is completely legitimate, heroic, and admirable. The issue of sexual trauma is completely irrelevant.

Yet there is a form of terrorism that may connect with sexual trauma. Boston-bred Matthew Levitt, who has made a career of terrorizing the American Muslim community, attended Brookline's Maimonides School while sexual predator Stanley Levitt was active. (See Sex Abuse Case Against Rabbi Raises Larger Issues.)

 Because Maimonides is a very twisted extremist racist Zionist yeshiva (Jewish madrasa), Levitt's sick Islamophobia could perhaps be explained by osmotic absorption of the fanatic hateful ideals that permeate the intellectual culture of the school, but the almost sexual glee that Levitt has taken in putting innocent American Muslims into jail and in destroying their families does have the appearance of overcompensation for having been corn-holed by a sexual predator like Stanley Levitt (possibly a relative?)

More investigation of the component of sexual perversity in Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish Zionism is desperately needed. Because Jewish Zionists dominate US policy-making with regard to the ME and SW Asia, the topic seems far more important than the ongoing microscopic media examination of 10-20 year old allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. One has to wonder whether Jewish media facilitators and gatekeepers have made a conscious decision to focus on the Catholic Church to distract from the far more serious issue of Jewish sexual predation.

Sphere: Related Content

[Window Into Palestine] Muslims need to tackle Jewish Islamophobia

Finally, someone else is arguing that confronting Jewish Islamophobic incitement is a duty for all Palestine supporters and for all Muslims.

Muslims need to tackle Jewish Islamophobia

Khalid Amayreh

From Sydney to California , Zionist Jews are spreading venomous hatred against Islam. A few years ago, we were witnessing mere instances and isolated occurrences of Jewish hatred and/or fear of Islam and Muslims. Now, it is very much morbid mass hysteria sustained by rampant and unrelenting incitement and distortion of facts.

In New York , for example, fanatical Zionist Jews don't stop invoking the 9/11 events to generate hatred against Muslims as if Islam and its estimated 1.6 billion followers condoned the diabolical terrorist acts.

In recent weeks, the sick supremacists have been at the forefront of a maliciously racist campaign aimed at inciting local politicians and officials to outlaw the planned construction of a Muslim house of worship in the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural melting-pot city of eight million people.

The Jewish supremacists' message is as hateful as it is brazen: Islam is terror and Muslims are terrorists. This is the same message the Third Reich disseminated against European Jewry prior and during the Second World War.

[To read the entire article, click here.]

Sphere: Related Content

[The Baseline Scenario] Tim Geithner’s Ninth Political Life

Did Tim Geithner receive his appointment as Secretary of the Treasury because he could serve as the culpable goy or because he is Jewish by marriage? In theory treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey works for Geithner but seems to take marching orders from the American Jewish Committee.

Tim Geithner’s Ninth Political Life

By Simon Johnson

In modern American life, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stands out as amazingly resilient and remarkably lucky – despite presiding over or being deeply involved in a series of political debacles, he has gone from strength to strength.  After at least eight improbably bounce backs, he might seem unassailable.  But his latest mistake – blocking Elizabeth Warren from heading the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – may well prove politically fatal.

Geithner was a junior but key member of the US Treasury team that badly mishandled the early days of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and received widespread criticism (Life #1).  He was promoted as a result and thereafter enjoyed a meteoric rise.

[To read the entire article, click here.]

Sphere: Related Content

Palestinian Director Muthaffar Recommends Miral

Enas al-Muthaffar's website can be found at http://web.me.com/jerusalemfirstfilms.

Sphere: Related Content

[Menachem Mendel] Rabbinic Haircuts

I am sure that many people reacted with scorn to the “Islamic” haircuts that are now permitted in Iran. Well I have news for you, many rabbis would feel right at home with such a decree. In a text that was appended to the Sifra that listed actions that were prohibited in order that Jews not follow the “Ways of the Nations” (see Lev. 18:3-5), is found the following:

ר’ יהודה בן בתירה או’ שלא תינחור ושלא תגדל ציצית ושלא תספר קמי

R. Judah ben Baterah says: That you should not dress extravagantly (?), and that you should not grow the fringe, and that you should not cut the hair.
(trans. by Beth Berkowitz)

Beth Berkowitz has discussed this source and related ones extensively in her article, “The Limits of “Their Laws”: Ancient Rabbinic Controversies About Jewishness (and Non-Jewishness).” Jewish Quarterly Review 99, 1 (2009): 121-57. Beth suggested that “the irritant for R. Judah ben Baterah is not pagan worship practice but pagan elite cultural practice.”

The other well-known hairstyle from rabbinic literature is the בלורית, which is mentioned in numerous places (see M AZ 1:3; T AZ 3:6; T Shabbat 6 (7):1) The blorit occupied an importantplace in the image of the new Sabra. See this article for some discussion of the word.

Rabbinic discussion of haircuts can be found in most of the major halakhic codes, see e.g. Tur, BY, and ShAr YD 178.

Trying not to blend in too much, and keeping some distance from the majority culture, was no small concern for rabbis.

Sphere: Related Content

Fourfold Campaign Against Islamophobic Prosecutions

The Gesamtkunstwerk

Zionist subversion is a Gesamtkunstwerk (synaesthetic effort). It permeates American society from the 2nd grade in the Boston public schools through the arts, academia, and the highest levels of government.

There is no magic bullet lawsuit that will wipe out the Zionist plague.

Muslim defense organizations must think of fighting Zionism as their own Gesamtkunstwerk that involves lots of little lawsuits, political mobilization, careful investment, and lots of PR. The composition will reach its climax when the first Zionist leaders are incarcerated, but there will still be a lot of work to get to the finale.

Any lesser goal means Muslims will probably lose because Zionists like Pipes are without doubt trying to put as many Muslims in jail as possible.

Ending the political show trials of Muslims is one battle in struggle against Zionism. It is a four track effort:

1. to change the general social political legal atmosphere,
2. to free those unjustly imprisoned,
3. to defend those unjustly accused, and
4. to stop FBI entrapment operations.

Changing the General Atmosphere

Muslim and Arab Americans need to increase public awareness of the web of control that Zionists are trying to exert.

Zionist organizations have targeted rising Muslim and Arab academics for denial of tenure and have tried to prevent any sort of rational education about Arabs and Islam at the secondary level.

If the numerous professionals, who like Joe Massad, Hatem Bazian, Nadia Abu el-Haj, Debbi Almontaser are under Jewish Zionist attack, are willing to band together in a legal proceeding against the conspiracy attempting to prevent them from working, they would probably have the best shot at pursuing a class action law suit to victory.

Because Zionist machinations are hardly confined to the non-governmental sector, Muslim defense organizations must look carefully at the role of Jewish Zionist conspiracy within the federal government.

Jewish Zionists and their lackeys at the IRS have long misused their offices to attempt to deny the granting of 501(c)(3) tax-deductible contribution status to organizations critical of Zionism. For example, the Council for the National Interest, which lobbies for a non-Zionist ME foreign policy, had tremendous difficulty in obtaining 501(c)(3) contribution status while the rabidly Islamophobic Investigative Project of Steven Emerson had no problems whatsoever.

Zionist machinations have enmeshed both Harvard and also Yale as well as probably many other universities in activities and programs like the Harvard Wexner-Israel Fellowship that are problematic under the tax code and other federal regulations.

If the same standards were applied to anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism as were applied to anti-Black racism in Bob Jones versus USA to strip Bob Jones University of its tax-deductible contribution status, Harvard and probably Yale would have lost their tax-deductible contribution status over two decades ago, but Zionist US government officials and their lackeys can never find the wherewithal to enforce the law as zealously against Zionists as they would against anti-Zionists or non-Jews in general.

Not only is the IRS thoroughly penetrated, but the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Treasury, the DOJ, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC), and associated US government agencies often make fare greater efforts to undertake the Zionist policies of organizations like the American Jewish Committee (AJC) than those of the US government. Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey is a particularly blatant example of a US government official, who acts like an AJC employee on loan to the federal government.

Muslim defense organizations must use the whole range of available legal, regulatory or political means to undermine the Zionist web of control.

The right of rabidly Islamophobic channels like Fox Boston to broadcast spectrum must be challenged. Just as Charles Jacobs and Jewish Zionist groups tried to prevent al-Jazeera's honest reports of the ME from being carried by the Newton cable provider, Muslim groups should run pressure campaigns to drive racist anti-Muslim content-providers like Fox off of every cable network whenever possible.

Muslim defense organizations must file a notice of claim (SF95) to indicate intent to take legal action against any government agency, whose improper or unequal application of US law and regulations is harming Muslim American citizens and residents. Such notice should be accompanied by the identification of US government officials, who like Stuart Levey have incurred Bevins liability through the misuse or perversion of office on behalf Zionism in order to harm Muslims. The Bevins precedent addresses the question of compensating persons, who have suffered torts via unjust deprivation of Constitutional rights.

Freeing those unjustly imprisoned

Because the implications of Bevins precedent belong to the cutting edge of US legal theory, a lawyer using arguments based on Bevins must be ready for close and difficult questioning from judges. Yet Bevins in combination with equal protection arguments (Yick Wo 1886) provides a means to attack the belief

• that far too many judges and jurors have in the government's good faith and
• that has been used so successfully in producing unjust convictions like those of Aref and Hossain in Albany.

While the Supreme Court in theory does not adjust its decisions with political vicissitudes, in practice it does.

With increasing public discussion of Jewish Zionist subversion of the US legal process, an opening may be created for Muslim political prisoners to win appeals against unjust conviction. This outcome would become more likely if Muslim Defense Organizations can link the release to US strategic foreign policy goals and better relations with the Islamic world.

Obviously no Muslim country should trust the US as long as the US wrongfully incarcerates decent patriotic Muslim American citizens.

Defending the unjustly accused

While challenging US government good faith is the key to successful defense in preemptive prosecution cases, some lawyers worry that aggressively throwing rocks at the US government during a trial can backfire on their client. The judge may get angry and increase the sentence in case of conviction. Some judges will retaliate against a defendant during the trial for an aggressive defense campaign against the government.

To win in such a situation, the defense must view themselves not merely as lawyers or as advocates but as the last line of defense for the American way of life. They must act as if they form a highly coordinated special forces unit. Every step of the trial must be carefully choreographed from the jury selection through closing arguments.

During the jury selection, the defense has to look for potential jurors that are less likely to obey an authority perceived as legitimate. In the Aref-Hossain case, Judge McAvoy told the jury that the government had good reason to be suspicious of Aref. He implicitly recommended that the jurors should convict. Such a statement in the mouth of the judge hardly differs from the request of a Milgram's authority figure to raise the electroshock stimulation to harmful or fatal levels.

The defense lawyer must use peremptory challenges to favor jury candidates,

• who come out extremely low on the Milgram authoritarianism profile and
• who would react to such judicial claims by wondering whether there is a good reason to be suspicious of the government.

Because terms like Islamonazi or Islamofascist pervade public discourse and because philo-Semitism highly correlates with Islamophobia, the defense lawyer must use peremptory challenge to exclue any prospective juror

• that believes Muslim groups are prone to Nazion or
• that considers it inflammatory to accuse a Jew of Nazism.

The defense must make every effort to exclude all Jews from the jury except for those that are extremely anti-Zionist.

As soon as possible after the trial starts, the defense team must attack the judicial inclination to defer to the federal government with regard either to issues of foreign policy or to claims of national security.

In 2006 and 2007 creating suspicion of US government duplicity may have been rather difficult, but in 2010 an increasing number of Americans are becoming aware that US ME foreign policy has no connection to US national interest but is created in order to maximize political contributions from hyperwealthy Jewish Zionist subversives like Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson (or – in Obama's case – from Jewish Zionist subversives like Penny Pritzker or Lester Crown).

While it is understandable that US judges would try to avoid making decisions to harm US national interest, there is no reason for them to help corrupt Democratic and Republican leaders to get their hands on Jewish Zionist money.

The argument may be more relevant to the closing of the trial, but Ii the defense lawyer manages to get this far, he should try to undermine any belief in the righteousness of the US government by emphasizing that if the president has to choose between Saban's or Adelson's political contributions and thousands of Muslim or of American lives, the president, whether Obama or Bush, will not hesitate to sacrifice American citizens of any religion (except perhaps Jews) along with non-citizen Muslims.

The defense team may find it strengthens defense arguments to to differentiate those law enforcement officials truly interested in protecting US security from Zionist lobby agents that have infiltrated the US government on every level and in every branch.

In some sense Muslims are fortunate that Zionist subversives overreached after 9/11 to manipulate Congress into enacting tough anti-terrorist legislation. After the Gaza Rampage and the Flotilla Massacre no one can rationally deny that Israel is a terrorist state and that American supporters of Zionism should be arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for materially aiding Zionist terrorism.

Stopping FBI Entrapment Operations

Herein likes the key to stopping the entrapment operations and political show trials. Once American Jewish Zionist leaders realize that they are vulnerable to terrorism prosecutions, they will suddenly discover a new attachment to the US Constitution and use all their clout to stop terrorism show trials as antithetical to fundamental Constitutional principles.

If Muslim organizations can persuade foreign governments like Turkey to demand the prosecution of Zionist terrorism supporters in the USA, the non-Jewish non-Zionist segment of the US foreign policy establishment may use what little remains of its political clout to work to stop FBI stings and the Islamophobic show trials.

The Caveat

One attorney, who volunteered to aid the victims of Zionist-orchestrated show trials, has a major reservation about the about the above legal strategy.

“It is impossible to mount a defense that the prosecution was generated through improper influences without proof that this is so. As defense lawyers we may feel that improper influences are behind a prosecution but the judge will not allow speculation about it. It requires proof, and given the nature of the challenge it would be very very difficult, expensive and costly for an individual lawyer in an individual case to make any headway in obtain such proof for an individual case. What is really needed is some money and effort to be spent uncovering all of the hidden influences that are working on our prosecution system right now which could be used in all preemptive prosecution cases. Who has enough money and time right now to do it?”

Unless Muslim and American civil liberties defense organizations start working double time to raise money to defend the American constitutional system and to put as many Zionists in jail as possible, the American way of life will be lost as the USA becomes a slave state where non-Jews and non-Zionists languish under the whip of Zionist masters.

Sphere: Related Content

Reframing Post-9/11 Islamophobic Frame-Ups

Since 9/11 the US government has been avidly recreating Yale Professor Stanley Milgram's studies of authoritarianism. The renowned social psychologist demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of people in a properly contrived situation would commit atrocities, i.e, administer harmful or fatal electroshocks, under the command of an authority figure perceived as legitimate. Even though Milgram's research proved not to be useful in entrapment defense, it has strong relevance to the plethora of show trials that the FBI and the DOJ have produced to pleasure of Zionists and to the disgust of those concerned with civil liberties and with the rule of law. 

In the past prosecutors neutralized Milgram's analysis by claiming there was a world of difference between Milgram's legitimate authority scenario and a sting in which a government agent poses as a would-be criminal in order to persuade criminally-minded individuals to take part in a conspiracy to break the law.

The prosecutors' argument is less effective when the government agent poses as respectable businessman or religious authority,

• who is seeking aid from fellow Muslims for an operation to transfer weapons to Lashkar-i-Tayyiba to battle the Indian military, which oppresses Kashmiri Muslims or
• who wants to mount an attack on a synagogue whose members are providing material support to the Zionist state, which routinely commits terrorist acts like the Gaza Rampage or the Flotilla Massacre.

While the application of Milgram's work is helpful to understanding the dynamics of Islamophobic sting operations, the Islamophobic courtroom drama much more faithfully reproduces the Milgram experiments, for the US government in the person of prosecutors, FBI agents, and other government officials posing as legitimate authorities persuade the judge and the jury to commit legal atrocities that destroy good and decent men and women as well as their families. 

Such manipulation is particularly easy for three reasons:

1. American judges tend to defer to the government in matters of foreign policy,
2. Americans generally believe that the US government pursues a rational foreign policy in the best interests of the USA, and
3. far too many Americans believe that US is blameless in its dealings with Arab and Muslim states or people.

As a result, judges tend to accept US attorney assertions related to national security while Arab and Muslim defendants face a jury already with two strikes against them in the minds of the jurors.

 Thus in Islamophobic show trials prosecutors and the US government are well-positioned to commit great wrongs and to undermine the constitutional legal system of the USA as happened in the earliest cases like that of Hemant Lakhani and as has consistently taken place in more recent trials like the Aref-Hossain case.

To win in such a situation, the defendants' legal team must view itself not merely as a group of collaborating lawyers or as advocates but as the last line of defense for the American way of life. The attorneys for the accused must act as if they belong to highly coordinated special forces unit. Every step of the trial must be carefully choreographed from the jury selection through closing arguments.

During the jury selection, the defense has to look for potential jurors that are less likely to obey an authority perceived as legitimate. In the Aref case, Judge McAvoy told the jury that the government had good reason to be suspicious of Aref. He implicitly recommended that the jurors should convict. Such a statement in the mouth of the judge hardly differs from the request of Milgram's authority figure to raise the electroshock stimulation to harmful or fatal levels.

The defense lawyer must use peremptory challenges to favor jury candidates, who come out extremely low on the Milgram authoritarianism profile and who would react to such judicial claims by wondering whether there is a good reason to be suspicious of the government.

Because of post-9/11 atmosphere where terms like Islamonazi or Islamofascist pervade political discourse, the defense lawyer must ask the prospective juror whether he believe Muslims could be Nazis and whether he believe it was inflammatory to accuse a Jew of Nazism. If philo-Semitism is the front side of a coin, Islamophobia is the reverse.

The defense must make every effort to exclude any Jews from jury except for those that are extremely anti-Zionist.

As soon as possible after the trial starts, the defense team must attack the inclination to foreign policy deference and claims of national security. In 2006 and 2007 the argument may have been more difficult, but in 2010 an increasing number of Americans are becoming aware that US ME foreign policy has no connection to US national interest but is created in order to maximize political contributions from hyperwealthy Jewish Zionists like Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson (or in the case of Obama from Penny Pritzker and Lester Crown).

While it is understandable that US judges would try to avoid making decisions to harm US national interest, there is no reason for them to help Democratic and Republican leaders to get their hands on Jewish Zionist money. 

The argument may be more relevant to the closing of the trial, but If the defense lawyer manages to get this far, he should try to undermine any belief in the righteousness of the US government by emphasizing that if the president has to choose between Saban's or Adelson's political contributions and thousands of Muslim or of American lives, the president, whether Obama or Bush, will not hesitate to sacrifice American citizens of any religion (except perhaps Jews) along with non-citizen Muslims. 

If the defense can manage it, it might try to look at the connections between the trial participants and high ranking Jewish Zionist government officials. In the Aref-Hossain case these links may have been particularly important because Shamshad Ahmad, Ph.D., reported in his personal account of the proceedings (Rounded Up, Artificial Terrorists and Muslim Entrapment after 9/11) that the highest levels in the White House were following the trial. 

Here is a link chart of an important portion of the web of corrupt Zionist influence:

Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, and Charles Jacobs are three prominent American Jewish Zionist Islamophobes. Jacobs and Pipes often work together while Jacobs hired Emerson and his Investigative Project organization to fabricate evidence against the Islamic Society of Boston when the David Project tried to halt construction of the Roxbury Mosque. 

In an act of pure cynicism or perhaps as a sick joke, George W. Bush appointed Daniel Pipes as a director of the US National Institute of Peace. Jewish Zionists Stuart Levey, Jonathan Schanzer, and Matthew Levitt all worked at the upper levels of the Treasury Department in theory to stop terrorist cash flows but in reality to staunch the increasing political clout of wealthy Muslims and Muslim countries. Stuart Levey has continued in the same role under the Obama administration.

Jewish Zionist Evan Kohlmann, who seems to have become acquainted with Matthew Levitt while they worked on FBI terrorism projects, served as a prosecution expert witness during the Aref-Hossain trial and many other Islamophobic political prosecutions.

As Dr. Ahmad points out, Kohlmann spoke none of the languages in Bangla-Desh, Pakistan, or Iraq and was completely clueless with regard to the politics. He seems to have regurgitated a theory that Schanzer and Levitt had put together to justify the attack on Iraq. These two Jewish racists fantasized an impossible collaboration between the Islamic Movement for Kurdistan, Ansar al-Islam, al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussain. Within the framework of this ridiculous idea, Jewish Neocons could argue that Aref-Hossain sting operation demonstrated the existence of a combined Saddam Hussein al-Qaeda threat within the borders of the continental USA.

When Judge McAvoy prevented Aref's and Hossain's attorneys from challenging Kohlmann's credentials, the defense should have aggressively concentrated on Kohlmann's agenda.

Now that the Department of Homeland Security, unlike the FBI, has ceased to collaborate with the ADL because of this Jewish organization's obvious ethnopolitical agenda, there is no reason for the defense to be diffident about discussing the ethnopolitical agenda of Jewish Zionist officials or expert witnesses like Kohlmann or Levitt (in the Holy Land Foundation trial).

After introducing the Jewish Zionist subtext of the Islamophobic show trials, the defense can address issues relating to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and the 1886 Yick Wo precedent, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was just as unconstitutional to enforce federal law in a discriminatory way as it was for a law to be discriminatory.

After the Gaza Rampage and the Flotilla Massacre, no one rational can doubt that Israel is a terrorist state and that Jewish Zionists provide material support for terrorism. Yet the Federal government has yet to arrest one Jewish Zionist on terrorism charges.

During summation, after having completely delegitimized the authority of the FBI and the Department of Justice because of deep penetration Jewish Zionist subversion, the defense should ask the jurors whether they will act as the stooges of a cabal that sacrifices American blood and treasure "because it is good for the Jews."

In conclusion the defense should demand that the jury find the accused innocent for the good of the USA.

If this strategy proves effective, it could enter mainstream politics as a demand that US laws be enforced uniformly for Jews and non-Jews. If it gets traction internationally, foreign governments like Pakistan pressured by the US government to suppress Islamist groups might be motivated to demand reciprocal crack-downs on American Jewish Zionist groups. At that point Zionists inside and outside of government will have lost any shred of legitimate authority in Milgram's sense. As a result grass roots national and international political activists might have a shot at convincing (non-Jewish non-Zionist) US foreign policy makers that the US will only be able to keep any moral standing on human rights issues if the president pardons all the Muslim political prisoners incarcerated after Islamophobic political show trials and then apologizes to the Islamic world for participating in Zionist crimes for the last 63 years. 

Arresting, trying, convicting and incarcerating leading Zionists (like Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Penny Pritzker, Lester Crown, the Bronfmans, Martin Peretz, Stuart Levey, Matthew Levitt, Charles Jacobs, et al.) for materially aiding Zionist terrorism, Conspiracy Against Rights, and Seditious Conspiracy would help restore American credibility.

Sphere: Related Content

Fighting Islamophobic Political Prosecutions

In the aftermath of 9/11 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have had a policy of rooting out a phantasmagorical world-wide anti-USA Islamic terrorist conspiracy by arresting and by prosecuting Muslim American leaders on ridiculous charges. Concomitant sting operations against poor, ill-educated, or recent immigrant Muslims have effectively forestalled criticism of private and governmental action to demonize and marginalize American Muslims even when though the FBI has included among its actions the extra-judicial execution of Detroit Imam Luqman.^*

Developing tactics and strategies to fight such US governmental abuses of human rights requires honest documentation, understanding and discussion of the actions, origins, tactics, and strategy of the Islamophobic conspiracy that has moved from the Israel Lobby and the organized Jewish community to the highest levels of the US government.

The ridiculousness of the charges in federal Islamophobic show trials has been obvious from the start as This American Life demonstrated in its August 7, 2009 analysis of the very early Hemant Lakhani case prosecuted by US Attorney Chris Christie, who is now the governor of New Jersey.

The February 2007 conviction of Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain and subsequent denial of all appeals and legal motions shows that nothing has changed from the Lakhani trial to the present day.

In his forward to Rounded Up: Artificial Terrorists and Muslim Entrapment After 9/11 by Shamshad Ahmad, Ph. D., attorney Stephen Downs explains a lot of the logic behind the political prosecution of American Muslims:

Eventually I came to understand that Aref was targeted by the government because he was “suspicious” – he might present a danger in the post-9/11 atmosphere. In the Bush Administration, which insisted that the FBI and the Justice Department follow a new paradigm of preventing terrorist attacks before they occurred, any Muslim who was “suspicious” needed to be targeted and incarcerated. It was a sort of “preventive conviction,” in which the “suspicious” person would be convicted of a crime before he would have an opportunity to commit the crime. (The government justified this new paradigm by saying, in effect, “What would you have us do – sit on our hands until the next 9/11?” without explaining how, under American law, someone could legally be convicted without having committed a crime.) In Aref's case, the vehicle for the conviction was a sting operation ostensibly designed to entrap him in a fake terrorist plot run by the government – but in fact, so little information was given to Aref that it would have been impossible for him to understand that anything illegal was intended. It was a frame-up designed to eliminate a “suspicious” person while at the same time [it would] send a warning to the Muslim community – and a reassuring message to the rest of the country – that the government was hard at work [in] rooting out terrorists.

At a November 9^th 2006 Harvard talk shortly after the release of her book entitled Mecca and Main Street, Lebanese American reporter Genevieve Abdo provided critical background information related to Islamophobic prosecutions. She explained that American Muslims are like and unlike other immigrant groups to the USA. American Catholic immigrants often faced similar prejudices in the past, but American Muslims confront well-organized extremely wealthy or well-funded and politically powerful American Jewish Zionists willing to do practically anything to prevent the participation of Muslim citizens in American politics, academics, and business.

Jewish Zionist Islamophobe Daniel Pipes summarizes the underlying Jewish Zionist beliefs about Muslims in “A Slick Islamist Heads to Jail” (NY Sun, August 3, 2004):

Alamoudi is hardly the only high-profile, seemingly non-violent leader of an Islamist organization to associate with terrorists. At the Council on American-Islamic Relations, five staffers and board members have been accused or convicted of terrorism-related charges and the same has happened with leaders of the Islamic Center of Greater Cleveland, Holy Land Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation, and the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom.

The Alamoudi story points to the urgent need that the FBI, White House, Congress, State Department, Pentagon, and Homeland Security – as well as other institutions, public and private, throughout the West – not continue guilelessly to assume that smooth-talking Islamists are free of criminal, extremist, or terrorist ties. Or, as I put it in late 2001: "Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers."

Militant Islam is the enemy; even its slickest adherents need to be viewed as such.

Since the early 1980s at least Pipes has been elaborating a fantasy of world-wide Islamic conspiracy. On May 6, 2008, the Harvard Objectivist Club, which frequently engages in Muslim-baiting, hosted a panel discussion on Totalitarian Islam. Daniel Pipes was one of the two panelists and explained that

stealth Islamists voluntarily obey Islamic law (Sharia) and will attempt to introduce Islam into the societies where they live by discussion and by persuasion.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wish You Weren't Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Perhaps they will try to convert non-Muslims to Islam, and then if they have sufficient numbers they may try to legislate Sharia or Islamic morality into the law code.

Despite Pipes's efforts at demonizing Islam, for all intents and purposes stealth Islamists are simply Muslims that sincerely try to practice their religion. They do not differ much from orthodox Jews that voluntarily obey Jewish law (Halakhah), and they seem a lot like sincere Christians. Just as far too many Jews have prejudices against believing Christians, Jewish Zionist Neocons have problems with believing Muslims and are making an effort to incorporate anti-Muslim prejudices structurally into American society in order to limit the democratic rights of Muslim citizens of the USA for the purpose of preventing any open discussion of US ME policy and the US-Israel alliance.

In Pipes's understanding of ME politics, the Iranians are the force of direct confrontation with the USA while the Saudis use the power of their wealth both to subvert the Islamic world and also to corrupt the USA by using American Muslims as a fifth column. For Pipes, the Saudis seem to be the more serious enemy because the male members of the Saudi royal family have created something like the Soviet nomenklatura (номенклату́ра) by marrying multiple wives and by fathering lots of children.

Pipes's depiction of an Islamic world dominated by the Saudi version of the Soviet ruling class is simultaneously laughable and reminiscent of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Pipes may be both projecting his experience within the Neocon or Jabotinskian Zionist intelligentsia onto Muslims and also making consciously or unconsciously a false equation of a ruling class with the mobilized or mobilizing intellectuals that comprise an intelligentsia.

In her July 23, 2009 Khaleej Times column entitled “Of Conspiracies and Plots,” Karin Friedemann briefly mentioned that Jewish Zionist Neocon officials of Bush administration had infected the US government bureaucracy with the Islamophobia endemic to the racist anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim culture of Jewish Zionists:

Although the presence of extremist Zionists like Rahm Emanuel or Dennis Ross near the president is disturbing, lower rank staffers like Treasury Department official Stuart Levey or pro-Israel propagandist Matthew Levitt [formerly deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury (2005–07), previously FBI anti-terrorism consultant] are far more threatening to US democracy. While serving the government, Boston-bred Levitt constructed a vast terrorist conspiracy out of paranoid Zionist fantasies trying to explain the refusal of Muslims to acknowledge that it was just to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

In Levitt’s delusions, to which other lesser ranking government officials like Daniel Pipes [formerly board member of the US Institute for Peace] and Rachel Ehrenfeld [formely a consultant for U.S. Defense Department's Threat Reduction Agency] contributed, Islamic finance and Islamic charity serve as a many-headed hydra of evil. Roots of the conspiracy involving Pipes, Levitt, and Levey lead back to the Boston area, where the Israel lobby is deeply embedded in the region’s educational institutions.

Levey, Levitt, and Pipes have closely worked with Jewish Neocon Zionist Islamophobics Jonathan Schanzer and Evan Kohlmann, who both purport to have the expertise to discourse authoritatively on Islamic movements.

At least as far back as April 2004 Schanzer served as an intelligence analyst for the Department of the Treasury while Evan Kohlmann with no qualifications whatsoever (Rounded Up, pp. 145-150) served as an expert witness on Islamic radicalism for the Aref-Hossein and several other anti-Muslim political prosecutions including the trial against Care International.

In order to depict Aref as a terrorist because he was once employed by the Islamic Movement for Kurdistan (IMK), which the US government does not consider to be a terrorist organization, Kohlmann testified to an all but impossible collaborative connection between the IMK, the militant Kurdish Ansar al-Islam organization, al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.

Schanzer seems to have been the main proponent and possibly the original fabricator of this fiction of collaboration.^$

It is unlikely but hardly impossible that these Jewish Zionists Bush administration officials actively looked for an Iraqi Kurd resident in the USA for the FBI to target in order to prove the existence of a direct domestic threat to America from al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but they were strategically placed to make opportunistic use of FBI Islamophobic hotdogging.

While Levey, Levitt, Pipes, Ehrenfeld, Schanzer, and Kohlmann have at times played key roles in Jewish Zionist subversion within the US government, the Jewish Zionist Islamophobic conspiracy is hardly confined to this tiny group.

In addition, Jewish Zionist subversion goes well beyond legal persecution of Muslims and Islam.

As Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Levey is for all intents and purposes an American Jewish Committee employee lent to the US government to make sure that US foreign policy remains subordinate to Jewish Zionist goals (David Harris presents Public Service Award to Stuart Levey from the AJC website, AJC 2008 Annual Report Impact from the AJC website).

From the Zionist standpoint Levey has a particularly important strategic role to make sure (apparently with the assistance of Jewish Zionist Obama administration officials Lawrence Summers and Martin Feldstein) to make sure that wealthy Muslims and Muslim states remain impotent in the face of the power of Jewish wealth (Steven R. Weisman, Overseas Funds Resist Calls for a Code of Conduct - New York Times, February 9, 2008).

Other members of the Jewish Zionist cabal within the US government have tremendous impact nationally and world-wide – not only thanks to their own organizations that are well-funded by the international Jewish Zionist plutocracy but because as individuals they take part in highly effective Jewish Zionist social networks in order to collaborate with overt and covert extremist and racist Jewish Zionist organizations like The Investigative Project of Steven Emerson, The David Project, the Israel on Campus Coalition, the International Hillel Society, etc. (The list is practically endless.)

Extremist Zionist plutocrat and media mogul Haim Saban has explained why Jewish Zionist subversion is so effective in N. America and Europe (“The Influencer” by Connie Bruck, The New Yorker, June 27, 2010):

His greatest concern, he says, is to protect Israel, by strengthening the United States-Israel relationship. At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His “three ways to be influential in American politics,” he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party. That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times.

Such Jewish techniques of media and opinion manipulation often predate Zionism. We now know that the alleged anti-Semitic canard of conspiratorial Jewish media manipulation as expressed by German, French, and English anti-Semites in the late 19th century and early 20th century was simply true as the French Jewish Historian Simcha Epstein reported at Hebrew University on February 23, 2003 during the proceedings of the Sassoon Conference on Antisemitism & Prejudice in the Contemporary Media:

“The pre-war anti-Semites said that the Jews of France organized a syndicate secretly bankrolling and subverting the press. And what did the Jews say at that time? They said: ‘Of course not! No, it’s a lie, of course not! We are not engaged in conspiracies!’ And what did the historians and the Jewish historiography coming afterwards say? ‘Of course not! It is anti-Semitic drivel!’ But we know now from Jewish sources that before the WWII the Jews of France secretly financed the press.

“Since the end of 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreyfus because they received Jewish subsidies. New papers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de l'Homme, the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L’Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority Jewish sources of course.

“And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press.”

In general the more honest historians study the issues, the more obvious it becomes that traditional anti-Semitic allegations against Jews had a lot of truth and that Jews have cheated in order to achieve dominance American politics, economics, finance and academia.^**

Not only have Jewish Zionist political economic intellectual oligarchs established themselves as the new American elite that has displaced upper-class White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS), but they have imposed a pervasive web of control that makes the realities of the Soviet and German Nazi systems as well as the fantasies of George Orwell in 1984 seem penny-ante by comparison.

Such perfidy requires response, and Muslims must form the avaunt-garde of the resistance because of the attack Jewish Zionist subversives have made on Islam, on Muslim leaders and on ordinary Muslims in the USA and throughout the world – often via funding local proxies like Geert Wilders.^***

In some sense Muslims are fortunate that Zionist subversives overreached after 9/11 to manipulate Congress into enacting tough anti-terrorism legislation, for after the the IDF Gaza Rampage and Flotilla Massacre no one can rationally deny that Israel is a terrorist state and that American supporters of Zionism materially aid Zionist terrorism.

American Muslims can use US anti-terrorism laws as key elements of a comprehensive strategy to eradicate the international Jewish Zionist conspiracy in the context of working for the liberation of Muslim political prisoners and of supporting Muslim defendants in the continuing sequence of show trials resulting from FBI entrapment tactics.

First Muslim organizations and individuals have to admit that everything they have done so far has been a failure.

It seems to make no difference whatsoever how stupid the indictment or the outrageous the behavior of the FBI is -- what has been done so far in the case of Imam Luqman?

Instead of arguing legal technicalities, these cases must become national and international political hot potatoes that the Obama administration will try to terminate by any means possible including pardons.

Muslims need to create a rapid reaction strategy.

 When the FBI and the US Attorney move to arrest and to indict, Muslim defense organizations need to make as much noise as possible about yet another US violation of Muslim or Arab American civil and human rights.

The key words should be fairness, equal protection, and reciprocity.

Why do the FBI and the US attorneys only pursue alleged Muslim extremism and material support of terrorism when Jewish Zionist extremism and material support of terrorism are open and blatant?

Yick Wo v. Hopkins is as important today as it was in 1886 when the Supreme Court's decision established that it was just as unfair to enforce laws unequally as it was to write racial inequality into laws.

Muslims must protest against media outlets that refuse to cover the issue of unequal enforcement of anti-terrorism laws.

Muslim American leaders will have to start demanding that NPR and other news outlets provide objective and honest coverage of Jewish Zionist racism, extremism, and subversion.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) seems to be open to Muslim concerns in these matters. Kenneth Roth of HRW is willing to criticize Zionists and hates Harvard Professor/Zionist propagandist Alan Dershowitz. Are Muslim leaders talking with Roth about the most effective way to aid Muslim political prisoners in the USA?

Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, and Iranian PressTV are willing to cover these stories. Are Muslim leaders trying to get international coverage via Press Releases, phone calls and emails?

Maria Balinska, who is international bureau chief at the BBC, answers her email. Are Muslim leaders approaching her? Obviously Guantanamo represents blatantly obvious misbehavior on the part of the US, but with effort it should be possible to drive the BBC and other sections of the British press to cover American Islamophobic show trials and political arrests.

Muslim Americans will have to start reaching out to Muslim countries that are being pressured by the USA to take action against alleged Islamic terrorist organizations. For example, Turkey should be encouraged by American Muslims to demand that the US arrest Jewish Zionists that have supported the IDF in its murder of US and Turkish citizens during the Gaza Flotilla Massacre.

Some important international Catholic figures like Cardinal Joachim Meisner could probably be encouraged to speak out on the topic, for he himself has been subjected to a Zionist trial by public slander (the entartete Kunst issue). He has also shown awareness that whenever Catholic leaders speak out on Palestine, Jewish gatekeepers in the media trot out the articles on priestly sex abuse that took place 10 years or more in the past.

There certainly sees to be a possibility of using national and international interfaith activities to bring up the issue of Islamophobic show trials and political prosecutions.

Muslim must start asking why Jews fail to take a stand against Jewish Zionist terrorism and have yet to demand the arrest of Jewish Zionist leaders like Sheldon Adelson and Irving Moskowitz, who blatantly send material aid to IDF terrorists.

US government officials talk about winning the hearts and minds of Muslims both nationally and internationally. If such government officials are serious, they should stop the political prosecutions of Muslims and start taking action against American Jewish Zionists that blatantly aid and abet Zionist terrorism.

Creating negative international reaction to US human rights abuse might seem like a round-about way to thwart political prosecutions, but civil rights became an important issue to US foreign policy makers when they realized that the Soviet Union was using Jim Crow to depict the USA as a racist hypocritical nation. Paul Nitze discussed the issue (obliquely) in NSC-68 which was the fundamental strategy document of fighting the cold war:

Compulsion is the negation of freedom, except when it is used to enforce the rights common to all. The resort to force, internally or externally, is therefore a last resort for a free society. The act is permissible only when one individual or groups of individuals within it threaten the basic rights of other individuals or when another society seeks to impose its will upon it. The free society cherishes and protects as fundamental the rights of the minority against the will of a majority, because these rights are the inalienable rights of each and every individual.

In addition Muslim activists must target key Zionist operatives.

As long as arch-Jewish Zionist subversive Stuart Levey holds his post in the Treasury despite prima facie violation of Federal Seditious Conspiracy law, which makes preventing enforcement of the US criminal code in time of war a crime almost equivalent to treason, legal persecution of Muslims will continue while Yassin Aref and many other good and decent Muslims rot in jail.

Not only must Muslims be willing to battle the Zionist politics, ideology, and mobilization, on which the Islamophobic prosecutions Americans have been based, but Muslim activists must have the ultimate goal of putting Jewish Zionist criminals into jail before any more Muslims are imprisoned for praciticing Islam or for refusing to grovel and to lick Jewish Zionist feet..

*The organized Jewish community is no stranger to involvement in extra-judicial executions by the FBI. See Karin Friedemann Threatened by SPLC.

$See Ansar al-Islam: Iraq's al-Qaeda Connection, PolicyWatch January 15, 2003, The Al Qaeda Connection New York Post February 6, 2003, Ansar al-Islam: Postmortem or Prelude to More Attacks? , Policy Review, April 3, 2003, Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq Middle East Quarterly Winter 2004, Saddam's Ambassador to al Qaeda, Weekly Standard March 1, 2004.

** Jews aren’t smarter -- I lift my curse, and yours by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss Blog, February 10, 2010, the meritocracy and Jewish kinship networks by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss Blog, January 13, 2010, Kagan appointment shows, Jews are the new WASPs by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss Blog, May 10, 2010.

*** See “Wilders gaat steeds een stapje verder” van Janny Groen, Annieke Kranenberg in de Volkskrant op 21 juni '09, 11:21, bijgewerkt 22 juni '09, 08:25.

Sphere: Related Content