Anti-Semitic graffiti was found in three places in Dallas, including two along Interstate 35.
A Dallas organization that tracks hate crimes is calling it an assault on the Jewish community.
Southbound Interstate 35 drivers see the graffiti just before the Commonwealth exit.
The words spray painted on the cement, “Zionist Occupied USA”.
Felicia Akop was one of those drivers who saw it.
"It's hate graffiti,” said Akop. “Whoever sees something like that, especially in such a public place."
Disturbed by what she saw, Akop called the Anti Defamation League, which looks into acts of prejudice.
“It's basically an inference that the Jews control everything,” said Mark Briskman, Director of the Anti Defamation League. “The Jews control the world. The Jews control the media, and so forth."
Briskman said his organization has not seen graffiti like this in years.
He said finding it in three locations in one month is alarming and cause for concern.
“So that's what concerns me, is the unknown,” Briskman said. “I don't know if this is a big nothing or if this is the beginning of something we need to be concerned about. I just don't know at this juncture.”
The Anti-Defamation League reported the three graffiti attacks to Dallas Police.
So far, there are no leads.
For Akop, who is Jewish, it evokes nightmarish images her father endured as a holocaust survivor.
"It's a terrifying feeling, that you're such a small minority and you're being pin-pointed in a hate crime," she said.
Source:://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/135360118.html
Well all I can say is...."Oy vey!"
1 Crippling Iran: Questions for the Zionist UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague
By Stuart Littlewood
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, December 8, 2011
Stuart Littlewood asks British Foreign Secretary William Hague pertinent questions about his inexplicable hostility to Iran, and argues that if Hague's aim “is to help preserve the balance of power in the Middle East so that a lawless, racist regime – Israel – remains the dominant threatening military force, he must be called to explain the wisdom of it”.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague has written a widely acclaimed 576-page biography of William Pitt the Younger, who became prime minister in 1783 at the tender age of 24. Pitt was the war leader during Britain’s running battles with Napoleon, but it is said that he was uncomfortable in such a role and considered war got in the way of trade and prosperity.
It is a pity that Pitt’s abhorrence of war and preference for trade has not, apparently, rubbed off on Hague. We see our foreign secretary rushing around the international stage drumming up support for sanctions intended to cripple another country – a country that could and should have been a strong trading partner and valuable ally – on the mere suspicion of some nuclear skullduggery. And he does this without adequate debate, sensible explanation or popular mandate.
“… the incident [the attack on the UK embassy in Tehran] was clearly in retaliation for Britain's leading part in orchestrating sanctions that will damage the Iranian economy and collectively punish the country's civilian population.”
Hague said last week’s ransacking of the embassy in Tehran was carried out “with regime consent”. But I read that US Vice-President Joe Biden told Reuters that he had no indication the attack was orchestrated by the Iranian authorities.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the incident was clearly in retaliation for Britain's leading part in orchestrating sanctions that will damage the Iranian economy and collectively punish the country's civilian population. To this is added a burning resentment of Britain’s past sins.
Questions for Hague
Perhaps Hague should pause to reflect and answer a few questions:
(1) Have we so easily forgotten the cruel and devastating effect of sanctions on civil society, especially children, before we reduced Iraq to rubble?
(2) Would the foreign secretary kindly explain the reasons for his hostility towards Iran?
(3) What concrete proof is there of Iran's military application of nuclear technology?
(4) Why is he not more concerned about Israel's nuclear arsenal, the threat it poses to the region and beyond, and the mental attitude of the Israeli regime?
(5) Why is he not seeking sanctions against Israel for its refusal to sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programmes, not to mention its repeated defiance of international and humanitarian laws in the Holy Land?
(6) How many times has a British foreign secretary visited Tehran in the 32 years since the Islamic Revolution?
“By pulling our people out of Tehran and kicking Iran's people out of London Hague has shut the door on diplomacy. How can he now communicate effectively and build bridges with a nation he seems determined to goad into becoming an implacable enemy?”
(7) Did Hague make the effort before embarking on his punitive programme?
(8) Britain's abominable conduct towards the Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed out Iran's democracy and reinstated a cruel dictator, the Shah, was largely responsible for bringing about the Islamic Revolution and setting the pattern of future relationships. Is it not shameful that this Conservative government is spoiling for another fight? Shouldn’t the Foreign Office focus on exerting influence through trade and cooperation?
(9) Iran's administration, like many others, may not be to our liking but nor was Dr Mohammad Mossadeq’s democracy 60 years ago. In any event, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why is Hague leading the charge?
(10) By pulling our people out of Tehran and kicking Iran's people out of London Hague has shut the door on diplomacy. How can he now communicate effectively and build bridges with a nation he seems determined to goad into becoming an implacable enemy?
It is difficult to understand how this escalation against Iran is in the British national interest. Do the British people want it? If Hague's purpose is to help preserve the balance of power in the Middle East so that a lawless, racist regime – Israel – remains the dominant threatening military force, he must be called to explain the wisdom of it.
Hague and Prime Minister David Cameron both voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war, a supremely irresponsible decision based on neo-con lies. It has cost well over a million lives and caused utter ruination for the survivors and the destruction of much of their heritage. What possessed us to go to war on shoddy intelligence and inflict shock and awe on good people?
We want no repetition.
William Hague, according to the Jewish Chronicle, told Cameron when he became Conservative party leader in 2005 that a deep understanding of the Middle East would be crucial if he wished to be taken seriously as a statesman. "We have to be steeped in the Middle East, way back to historical matters. Because you can't understand it without the history. That's been one of the failings sometimes with the Western governments."
In which case the pair of them ought to know better.
A reminder to the foreign secretary seems appropriate. Most people realize that Westminster’s neo-con friends in Washington have war with Iran on their agenda. But Hague’s job is to make friends for Britain not enemies. Genuine friends in the Middle East are becoming scarce, millions more innocent people may die and the cost of oil is likely to rocket if the West’s aggressive tactics and double standards continue.
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, December 8, 2011
Stuart Littlewood asks British Foreign Secretary William Hague pertinent questions about his inexplicable hostility to Iran, and argues that if Hague's aim “is to help preserve the balance of power in the Middle East so that a lawless, racist regime – Israel – remains the dominant threatening military force, he must be called to explain the wisdom of it”.
It is a pity that Pitt’s abhorrence of war and preference for trade has not, apparently, rubbed off on Hague. We see our foreign secretary rushing around the international stage drumming up support for sanctions intended to cripple another country – a country that could and should have been a strong trading partner and valuable ally – on the mere suspicion of some nuclear skullduggery. And he does this without adequate debate, sensible explanation or popular mandate.
“… the incident [the attack on the UK embassy in Tehran] was clearly in retaliation for Britain's leading part in orchestrating sanctions that will damage the Iranian economy and collectively punish the country's civilian population.”
Hague said last week’s ransacking of the embassy in Tehran was carried out “with regime consent”. But I read that US Vice-President Joe Biden told Reuters that he had no indication the attack was orchestrated by the Iranian authorities.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the incident was clearly in retaliation for Britain's leading part in orchestrating sanctions that will damage the Iranian economy and collectively punish the country's civilian population. To this is added a burning resentment of Britain’s past sins.
Questions for Hague
Perhaps Hague should pause to reflect and answer a few questions:
(1) Have we so easily forgotten the cruel and devastating effect of sanctions on civil society, especially children, before we reduced Iraq to rubble?
(2) Would the foreign secretary kindly explain the reasons for his hostility towards Iran?
(3) What concrete proof is there of Iran's military application of nuclear technology?
(4) Why is he not more concerned about Israel's nuclear arsenal, the threat it poses to the region and beyond, and the mental attitude of the Israeli regime?
(6) How many times has a British foreign secretary visited Tehran in the 32 years since the Islamic Revolution?
“By pulling our people out of Tehran and kicking Iran's people out of London Hague has shut the door on diplomacy. How can he now communicate effectively and build bridges with a nation he seems determined to goad into becoming an implacable enemy?”
(7) Did Hague make the effort before embarking on his punitive programme?
(8) Britain's abominable conduct towards the Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed out Iran's democracy and reinstated a cruel dictator, the Shah, was largely responsible for bringing about the Islamic Revolution and setting the pattern of future relationships. Is it not shameful that this Conservative government is spoiling for another fight? Shouldn’t the Foreign Office focus on exerting influence through trade and cooperation?
(9) Iran's administration, like many others, may not be to our liking but nor was Dr Mohammad Mossadeq’s democracy 60 years ago. In any event, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why is Hague leading the charge?
(10) By pulling our people out of Tehran and kicking Iran's people out of London Hague has shut the door on diplomacy. How can he now communicate effectively and build bridges with a nation he seems determined to goad into becoming an implacable enemy?
It is difficult to understand how this escalation against Iran is in the British national interest. Do the British people want it? If Hague's purpose is to help preserve the balance of power in the Middle East so that a lawless, racist regime – Israel – remains the dominant threatening military force, he must be called to explain the wisdom of it.
Hague and Prime Minister David Cameron both voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war, a supremely irresponsible decision based on neo-con lies. It has cost well over a million lives and caused utter ruination for the survivors and the destruction of much of their heritage. What possessed us to go to war on shoddy intelligence and inflict shock and awe on good people?
We want no repetition.
William Hague, according to the Jewish Chronicle, told Cameron when he became Conservative party leader in 2005 that a deep understanding of the Middle East would be crucial if he wished to be taken seriously as a statesman. "We have to be steeped in the Middle East, way back to historical matters. Because you can't understand it without the history. That's been one of the failings sometimes with the Western governments."
In which case the pair of them ought to know better.
A reminder to the foreign secretary seems appropriate. Most people realize that Westminster’s neo-con friends in Washington have war with Iran on their agenda. But Hague’s job is to make friends for Britain not enemies. Genuine friends in the Middle East are becoming scarce, millions more innocent people may die and the cost of oil is likely to rocket if the West’s aggressive tactics and double standards continue.
0 THRIVE - 2011 - documentary
THRIVE is an unconventional documentary that lifts the veil on what's REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream -- uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future.
INTERVIEWS in THRIVE :
Duane Elgin, Nassim Haramein, Steven Greer, Jack Kasher, Daniel Sheehan, Adam Trombly, Brian O'Leary, Vandana Shiva, John Gatto, John Robbins, Deepak Chopra, David Icke, Catherine Austin Fitts, G. Edward Griffin, Bill Still, John Perkins, Paul Hawken, Aqeela Sherrills, Evon Peter, Angel Kyodo Williams, Elisabet Sahtouris, Amy Goodman, and Barbara Marx Hubbard.
http://thrivemovement.com
torrent download available here:http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6834486/THRIVE-2011-documentary
0 China wants US to explain military plans in Australia
As high-ranking military officers from China and the United States meet in Beijing on Wednesday for their annual defense consultative talks (DCT), Chinese experts said Beijing is likely to ask Washington to explain its plans to base US forces in Australia.
The meeting will also serve as a barometer to show how bilateral military ties have recovered since the US decision to sell arms to Taiwan in October cast a shadow over exchanges between the two armed forces, said US analysts.
"The US has always asked China to be transparent about its strategy. It is the US who should make its intentions clear," said Major General Luo Yuan, from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Academy of Military Science.
He was referring to frequent US military activities around China this year, including joint military exercises with countries having territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea.
Among the most recent moves, US President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced in mid-November in Canberra that up to 2,500 US Marines would be deployed in the northern Australian port of Darwin from mid-2012. Obama said the plan showed Washington's "commitment to the entire Asia-Pacific region", during his nine-day trip to the region that ended on Nov 19.
The move, however, drew concern from neighboring countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
"Australia is just a pawn in this arrangement, while the US is really controlling the situation behind the scenes," said Liu Qing, director of the Department for American Studies of the China Institute of International Studies.
"China is closely following these events, and the US should explain them to the Chinese side," Liu said.
0 Ron Paul, A True Zionist.....wtf?
- Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting. Author of the book Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, Goldberg also writes the magazine's advice column.
More
More
In the New York Sun, Seth Lipsky makes the case that Ron Paul should be included in tomorrow's Republican Jewish Coalition beauty contest:
I've also covered Congressman Paul for years and have come to have a great deal of respect for him, even when we disagree. Which we do in respect of granting foreign aid to Israel. At least we disagree in part. I support giving to our allies, particularly Israel, military aid, which is what we are mainly now giving to Israel. It strikes me as important, especially in a time of war, and I would back Israel to the hilt. Foreign economic aid, however, has long struck me as a dangerous course for recipient countries.
There are good reason to include Ron Paul. He is, in one sense, a true Zionist, a believer in two core values of the Jewish liberation movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance. Independence is self-explanatory; self-reliance, in the context of national defense, holds that the Jewish state shouldn't seek the help of foreign soldiers to defend it.
I was struck in the foreign policy debate by something Rick Perry said, when asked about a looming confrontation between Iran and Israel: "(I)f we're going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran, and we better get serious right now."
"Saving Israel" should ideally be Israel's job. This is what Israelis tend to think. And it is also what Ron Paul tends to think. Here is some of what he said in the foreign policy debate on this subject: "Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles. And they can take care of themselves. Why should we commit -- we don't even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves." (emphasis mine.)
He went on to say that in the event of an attack, "(W)hy does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way. I mean, we interfere with them. We interfere with them when they deal with their borders. When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us."
I understand that this does not make Ron Paul a Zionist in the traditional American conception of the word. But in some ways, he understands Zionism in much the same way the original Zionists understood the term.
I was struck in the foreign policy debate by something Rick Perry said, when asked about a looming confrontation between Iran and Israel: "(I)f we're going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran, and we better get serious right now."
"Saving Israel" should ideally be Israel's job. This is what Israelis tend to think. And it is also what Ron Paul tends to think. Here is some of what he said in the foreign policy debate on this subject: "Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles. And they can take care of themselves. Why should we commit -- we don't even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves." (emphasis mine.)
He went on to say that in the event of an attack, "(W)hy does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way. I mean, we interfere with them. We interfere with them when they deal with their borders. When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us."
I understand that this does not make Ron Paul a Zionist in the traditional American conception of the word. But in some ways, he understands Zionism in much the same way the original Zionists understood the term.
And this guy gets paid for this bullcrap??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)