The Biblical Rape of Palestine

[UPDATE Below]

The Jew lie: "The war is with the terrorist Hamas and their tunnels." You do not kill women and children, bomb refuge camps and level whole towns when fighting a military so-called terrorist organization. The Jew war is with all Palestinian people. But, the Jew is not satisfied with simply defeating the Palestinians. The want to humiliate them and prove to the world that the Palestinian man has no manhood - no power to protect his women and children cowering at the feet of the mighty Jew. It is the only way the Jew can justify the legitimate taking Palestinian land for their Jew State. That is why they have repeatedly raped the Palestinian people for 66 years. The question for all Palestinian people this time is will they continue to fight the rape and justify their legitimate right to continue their existence as a people and condemn to death their rapist executioner Jew or capitulate and screw in the hope the Jew will let them live and perhaps get pregnant and survive by a bastard son?

---

The difference between a domesticated dog and a wild coyote.

If you listen to the news about the Middle East you would believe Israel is defending itself from some radical terrorist that's attacking them. But, if you look at the pictures you soon realize that the terrorists are the Jews who are attacking and killing innocent women and children. The only way Americans know how to fight. Is it any wonder, then, that the Americans support the Jews?

A few people have the fortitude and courage to speak out on what they know to be true. A good example of this was Yonatan Shapira, a former Israeli captain and Air Force pilot speaking on Democracy Now this morning, Thursday, July 24, 2014. His perspective lends some rather interesting observations. He starts the interview by trying to get Amy Goodman's cameraman to show that in Tel Aviv, City Center, that the Kirya, the headquarter of the army is just few meters from the biggest hospital in Tel Aviv, Ichilov and  is surrounded by civilians, women and children. So, who is hiding behind civilians to prosecute their wars? Do you see the hypocrisy?

He says, in part:

But overall, overall, there is a disease in my country, and the disease is spreading very fast, and it’s called fascism and racism. Fascism and racism is now the biggest threat of the Jewish people in the Middle East. And I can just cry and shout and ask everyone that hear us now to join the BDS movement, to join the boycott, divestment and sanction movement, and to try to put enormous pressure on your leaders, wherever they are, that they, in turn, will help us here stop this massacre, stop this ongoing slaughter of innocent people. I have friends in Gaza now that yesterday called and told us that their house in Shejaiya was leveled. Now the only thing they have is the cellphone, and a family of nine people are hiding in the Shifa Hospital. This is a war crime. This is an ongoing slaughter of innocent people. And that’s the discussion. That’s what we have to talk about, how to stop it. [Read: "Israeli shell hits UN-run school used to shelter hundreds of Palestinian refugees in Gaza, killing 15 and injuring at least 200"]

The festering disease he's talking about, "fascism and racism" originates in America - in that, there is a common purpose, backed up by the radical, conservative religions both Jew and Christian, to justify the massacre and slaughter of innocent people to perpetuate Jew existence. He concluded:

And I think that if I have to give one allegory to this whole thing, and this need of Israel and me, myself, of self-protection—legitimate thing, by the way; I want to be safe, I don’t want anyone to bomb me and to kill me and my baby—I would imagine it as gang rape. And forgive me for using this hard language, but when you have a group of people raping someone, and this person that is being raped starting to scratch, the first thing you want to do in order to stop the scratches is to stop the rape. And what Israel, official Israel, is trying to do is to continue the rape and deal with the scratches. And I say, stop the rape, stop the occupation, stop the apartheid, stop this inhumane ghettoization of Palestinians, and then—then—we can start talking, and we can reach peace agreements and all these beautiful words that now don’t mean anything for us. [Emphasis mine]

I learned when living in coyote country to protect our dog and cat at all times. When a domesticated dog goes after a cat, usually all it takes is for one scratch on the dog's nose and it runs off and leaves the cat alone. So, cats generally survive a belligerent encounter with a dog. Dogs don't like cat scratches. With coyotes, dogs, specially smaller dogs and cat's scratches don't bother them. Why is that? They don't pay any attention to defensive dog bite and cat scratches. When coyotes attack, they go straight for the kill. 

That is exactly what Israel and the Jews are doing with the Palestinian people. If they can't get them to agree to the rape, participate in it or respond to it, then they are going to kill them. To the Jew, the Hamas are nothing more than Palestinian fingernails.

Read: "Israel's security cabinet rejects cease-fire proposal" and "Kerry Pledges to Continue Mideast Cease-Fire Effort Over Weekend -- U.S., U.N. and Egypt Seek Temporary Pause in Fighting"

The voracious bestiality of the abhorrent Jew is more than most people, in good conscience, can stomach. Remember, coyotes do not just kill for food. Once they get a smell and taste of blood they have been observed to kill just for the pure pleasure of the blood letting. And that, I'm afraid, is exactly what's going on with the Jews - they're killing Palestinians because they can, with impunity and for the pleasure of doing so. So if you are not a coyote, it is time to make sure people know that.

Live like a coyote, die like a coyote.

---

UPDATE: Sunday, July 28, 2014

The cruel cease-fire charade
 'Only stones remain': Gaza in ruins
Israel Has Chosen to be a "Racist Apartheid State" with U.S. Support

--Joe

"what makes us exceptional"

"That’s what makes America different."

--President Obama in a national address from the White House Tuesday night, September 10, 2013.

American's are exceptionally different alright, but not in the way Obama wants to say.  You can believe President Barack Obama's pack of uncontested lies or you can stick to the facts.

Naom Chomsky sets forth seventy years worth of facts in his latest conversation on Democracy Now.

Here's an excerpt as he comments on the Presidential address of September 10, 2013, regarding his plans to go to war with Syria.  If you want to know how the whole world sees America you need to read his complete commentary.  At some point decent, God-fearing people always put down the rogue bully.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the Russian plan is a godsend for Obama. It saves him from what would look like a very serious political defeat. He has not been able to obtain virtually any international support for this—the action he’s contemplating. Even Britain wouldn’t support it. And it looked as though Congress wasn’t going to support it either, which would leave him completely out on a limb. This leaves him a way out. 

He can maintain the threat of force, which incidentally is a crime under international law, that we should bear in mind that the core principle of the United Nations Charter bars the threat or use of force, threat or use of force. So all of this is criminal, to begin with, but he’ll continue with that. The United States is a rogue state. It doesn’t pay any attention to international law. 

He—it was kind of interesting what he didn’t say. This would be a perfect opportunity to ban chemical weapons, to impose the chemical weapons convention on the Middle East. The convention, contrary to what Obama said, does not specifically refer just to use of chemical weapons; it refers to production, storage or use of chemical weapons. That’s banned by the international norm that Obama likes to preach about. Well, there is a country which happens to be—happens to have illegally annexed part of Syrian territory, which has chemical weapons and is in violation of the chemical weapons convention and has refused even to ratify it—namely, Israel. So here’s an opportunity to eliminate chemical weapons from the region, to impose the chemical weapons convention as it’s actually formulated. But Obama was very careful not to say that he—for reasons which are too obvious to go into—he—and that gap is highly significant. Of course, chemical weapons should be eliminated everywhere, but certainly in that region. 

The other things that he said were not unusual, but nevertheless kind of shocking to anyone not familiar with U.S. political discourse, at least. So he described the United—he said that for seven decades the United States has been "the anchor of global security." Really? Seven decades? That includes, for example, just 40 years ago today, when the United States played a major role in overthrowing the parliamentary democracy of Chile and imposing a brutal dictatorship, called "the first 9/11" in Latin America. Go back earlier years, overthrowing the parliamentary system in Iran, imposing a dictatorship; same in Guatemala a year later; attacking Indochina, the worst crime in the postwar period, killing millions of people; attacking Central America; killing—involved in killing—in imposing a dictatorship in the Congo; and invading Iraq—on and on. That’s stability? I mean, that a Harvard Law School graduate can pronounce those words is pretty amazing, as is the fact that they’re accepted without comment. 

So what he said is I’m going to lie like a trooper about history; I’m going to suppress the U.S. role, the actual U.S. role, for the last seven decades; I’m going to maintain the threat of force, which is of course illegal; and I’m going to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is not imposed on the region, because our ally, Israel, would be subjected to it. And I think those are some of the main points of his address.

It always comes back to protecting Israel, doesn't it?  Ever wonder why Israel is so important to America? Both Israel and the United States a violent military states.  A historical reality that decries their legitimacy as a sovereign country.

Read the first part of th interview here on Democracy Now.
and 
The second part of the interview (Chomsky on 9/11, Syria’s "Bloody Partition" and Why U.S. Role Ensures Failure of Mideast Talks) here.
and
The third and final part of the interview (Noam Chomsky: U.S. Has Been "Torturing" Iran for 60 Years, Since 1953 CIA-Led Coup).

-Joe

Brutality Versus Terrorism

Time for the Occupy Movement to wake up to reality.

The question, until now remained unanswered: Why did city governments and their police officers respond so violently and with so much brutality against peaceful people threatening no one, simply asking for a little consideration?

Today, at least for Eureka, California, we got a partial answer – PARANOIA.

The Times-Standard reveals in their “County emails outragemembers of Occupy Eureka” the existence of “nefarious” “emails” “that led to police action against the Occupy Eureka encampment on the Humboldt County Courthouse lawn.” Why? Read the condemnatory words of the leading police official and law enforcement officer, District Attorney Paul Gallegos:

“While I do not suspect that any of those tents contain any explosives or otherwise dangerous materials, I cannot confirm that they do or do not and I do not believe that we can allow the risk of such an occurrence to continue.” [Emphasis added] 

No fact-based reality contained in anything Gallegos says, only his paranoid, fantasy-based vilifying accusations of “terrorism” that demonstrates his true attitude regarding the people of the Occupy Movement – inept, incompetent, gullible, and stupid terrorist.

Grant Scott-Goforth of the Times-Standard puts it this way: “Gallegos said he worried it was possible for people not directly associated with Occupy Eureka to guise the group as cover for illegal activity.”
The hypocrisy of Gallegos is mind-blowing, if nothing else. He says: “Candidly I support the movement. Unfortunately here it has been somewhat co-opted locally by our local protesters.”

In what way? What could these local protesters possibly want the the movement doesn't want when dealing with the dregs of society; homeless people and a “leaderless nature” that obviously couldn't know what it wants other than issue “hyperbole.” Notice how unreasonable these “Occupy People” are according to Gallegos and why he refuses to recognize and engage them: “If people want to sit down reasonably, they're going to find complete cooperation.” Then immediately contradicts that propagandist assertion by saying: “Occupy Eureka doesn't have a monopoly on concerns about the county and the community.” Why? Because in his mind they do not represent the 99% of Americans. He and his supporters do. That's why he and his police deal with them for the “terrorists” that they really are.

A good lesson on what “terrorism” and what makes “terrorist” – how the wanton accusatory use of the word automatically vilifies, condemns and justifies the extreme forms of sanctioned brutality and criminal conduct – is explained and defined by Glenn Greenwald in his Salon.com article, “Iranand the Terrorism game” - to quote from his:

UPDATE: There’s one point that should be added about why this matters so much: the fact that Terrorism has no fixed meaning does not mean it is inconsequential. The opposite is true. Terrorism is one of the most consequential words in our political lexicon. The term designates Supreme, Unmitigated Evil. Once someone is successfully branded a Terrorist, it means that anything and everything can and should be done to them without constraints.

And concludes with:

As I’ve said before, Terrorism is simultaneously the term that means nothing and justifies everything. That’s why such strong emotions are evoked when it is used in a way that deviates from mandated orthodoxies. It’s a meaningless term, but incredibly (perhaps incomparably) significant in governing how power and violence can be wielded and against whom.

So now you know why Gallegos painted the local Occupy People and their “peaceful protests” as “terrorist” - stupid people that believe they have some God-given or Constitutional right to be recognized for who and what they “think” or “believe” they are. He wants to be, as he claims here, to be the man of the people, but he's co-opted by his own attitude, actions and hypocrisy as defined and established by the Occupy Eureka people.

Whether or not it was the newspaper Editor or their writer's intention or not, they did expose the truth about Paul Gallegos' hypocrisy. The issue, as applied to these people peacefully protesting, went far beyond simply “taking down a few tents” to branding the local people as potential terrorists and their protest actions as terrorism. It went to the very heart of why the local so-called representative government went so far to renounce and denounce the legitimacy of a courageous people willing to Occupy their rightful space on this Earth equal to all others.

The citizens of Humboldt County and particularly Eureka are quite capable of deciding for themselves what is and what is not “public safety.” Despite the arrogance of the one percent, we're not a bunch of dogs that need to be told when to “sit” and when and how to “speak.”
(Credit Times-Standard and AP-Salon.com)

--Joe

Conspiracy of Silence

On Sunday, May 31, 2009 Dave Stancliff wrote in the Times-Standard newspaper in his column called “As It Stands” the article titled: “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” Like everything in life, not everything is as it seems. Dave Stancliff has a presence on Internet Blogs and over time we've observed his commentary. Did he have an ulterior motive in writing that article? Who knew. How about the Times-Standard staff, did they agree with his premise? Who knew?

Well, we wrote about our observations here on this Blog. The tendency to vilify the writer, attack the messenger, when the subject being discussed touches a little too close to the truth, has led to some serious conditions, not only in America, and subject right here in Humboldt County, but around the World. We pointed out that Stancliff's approach to this subject was rather simplistic and in its totality largely responsible for causing the loss of media credibility and factual reporting. In that, we alluded, one person's efforts to illicit thought or thoughtful consideration was another person's “troll.”

Dave Stancliff's assault in his column was upon the person he tagged or simply claimed was a “troll.” In that, he assaulted their personal credibility, and suggested that they be starved to death -- ignored. In that he assaulted their legitimate right to exist in whatever manner they chose to present themselves. We witnessed a good example of this form of discrimination and bigotry with the active assault some months back by a gang of local blogger thugs on Steve Lewis. This is same tactic the United States in league and complicit with the United Nations has done to North Korea for more than 50 years simply because they refuse to recognize the North Korean people's right to sustain a totalitarian government. What's our point? Dave Stancliff didn't assault “trolls” he assaulted people, people he merely accused of being “trolls.” His definition of "trolls" detailed nearly everyone that posts and comments online and allowed him and his kind the freedom to accuse just about anyone at any time. What made this matter doubly serious is that he is published by the newspaper and writes under the same title: “AS IT STANDS.” As It Stands could just as easily be written, “As It IS.” Why is that important? The name itself speaks to a permanent, factual and truthful reality based upon his personal credibility and legitimacy to do so propagated by the Times-Standard newspaper. He's somebody in this community! And the Times-Standard backs that up by publishing him under his brand, “As It Stands.”

If there ever was some question about the Report's integrity regarding our observations, Dave Stancliff by his unsolicited demagogic tirade on our blog and his slanderous hate speech posting on his blog, “As It Stands” removed all doubt. As bad as that is, that fact that the Times-Standard continues to run his columns makes this issue far more serious. Whatever he writes under the name “As It Stands” is sanctioned and approved by the Staff and Management of the Times-Standard newspaper. Therefore the bigotry, prejudice and hate speech written by Dave Stancliff is legitimized by the Times-Standard. Consequently, we sent, in behalf of the Joe Blow Report, the following email to three people at the Times-Standard, Dave Kuta Publisher, Kimberly Wear Managing Editor and James Faulk City Editor:

Dear Mr. Kuta,

I would like to bring to your attention the latest blog commentary about me and my online blog, the Joe Blow Report, by Dave Stancliff. As far the the Report is concerned normal blog commentary and article postings are laissez-faire. They bring with them limited legitimacy and credibility as compared to published media. Whatever Mr. Stancliff writes for your newspaper, you approve. You can relegate what he says to "opinion," yet I contend ultimately you or someone representing your newspaper approves, therefore you stand behind what he says as if you said it yourself.

The Joe Blow Reports were designed to avoid the kind of personal diatribe and hate mongering that comes from assaulting the writer. Unfortunately, Mr. Stancliff was personally affronted by my observations regarding his Sunday, May 31, 2009 "As It Stands" article and the part that he played in writing it. He came into by blog and expressed that effrontery in graphic terms by formulating a false accusation to revile the integrity of me, backed up by days of ever more egregious personal accusations. The ensuing conversation, if that's what you want to call it, over the next days speaks for itself. What he wrote is easily erased and bears no ultimate threat as a consequence of some of the accusations he makes. That all changed, however, when he posted on his blog, As It Stands, accusations against me of operating a "hate-filled blog" and of being "paranoid," among other things, but more importantly of personally "threatening him." This goes way beyond the pale.

What was their response? They ran Dave Stancliff's column in the Sunday, June 14, 2009, issue of the Times-Standard. Anyone familiar with what's been going on here knows exactly what the staff and management of the Times-Standard thinks of the Joe Blow Report and everyone associated with it. Well, read what Dave Stancliff accuses us of being here. In that same Sunday newspaper on page A4 is the article, "'Lone Wolf' terrorists are harder to defeat." Who are these "terrorists"? They define three people as "an elderly man" in a museum, "a young man in Arkansas" and "another man opens fire in a Kansas church." -- All Americans! The article goes on to say:

"Each apparently was driven to act by beliefs considered by some as extreme." "It could be anyone. It could be the guy next door, living in the basement of his mother's place, on the Internet just building himself up with hate, building himself up to a boiling point and finally using what he's learned."

Now tell me that this is exactly what Dave Stancliff with all his published authority is saying about anyone associated with the Joe Blow Report?

--Joe

Psycho Terrorists

(UPDATE BELOW - Update II)

The World and its people are facing an ever expanding and never ending War on Terrorism. That War is fought, according to some, against ideological, religious extremists, sometimes these are governments or regimes, but mostly against people. All it takes to be guilty of being a terrorist is for someone to make the accusation. These people are held in a cage indefinitely, some for nearly a decade, psychologically, emotionally and physically tortured. Even when ordered by the Courts they continue to hold them. Most astounding in all of this is that these lawless criminals do all of this with impunity.

There are many forms of terrorism. To name a few, there are Civil Disorders, Political Terrorism, Non-Political Terrorism, Quasi-Terrorism, Limited Political Terrorism, Official or State Terrorism, and Structural Terrorism. There is Democratic and domestic terrorism, Islamic Terrorism. Add to this: Christian Terrorism, Communist Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, Domestic terrorist (United States), Eco-terrorism, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism Jewish Terrorism, Narcoterrorism, the Patriot Act and that's just from Wikipedia.

Add to this list the latest from the Huffington Post: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism -- Shanny Moore concludes her article by saying:

The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.

You can add to that list Socio and Psycho Terrorism.

It's time for people to recognized terrorism for what it is in all of its insidious forms. Terrorists, by their very nature, exist in the dark. They hide behind good and decent people and appear normal, average and common. They talk the good talk, they put on a good facade. In truth, however, they are the worst of the worst; they are traitors in the fullest meaning of the word. They are deviant, lying, murderous cowards. They butcher innocent women and children to get at the men. They attack people where they live without remorse or conscience.

A good definition of Social Terrorism by Louis Komzsik in his book of the same name is:

Social terrorism is a subversive activity in which a small segment of the society, in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society, while completely disregarding the good of the society as a whole.

Socio Terrorists are a new breed. They attack society at its most fundamental framework and legitimate reasons for existence. They preach freedom, but practice discrimination, prejudice, bigotry and terrorize by lies, false accusations, slander and all kinds of innuendo. They demand the right to protection of law, but at heart they are lawless anarchists that assault the law in every way possible.

In many ways Socio Terrorism is like Psycho Terrorism and Psycho Terrorism is like Psychological Warfare.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as: "The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."

During World War II the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff defined psychological warfare more broadly stating "Psychological warfare employs any weapon to influence the mind of the enemy. The weapons are psychological only in the effect they produce and not because of the weapons themselves." (Emphasis added) [Wikipedia]

Frankly, this article on Psycho Terrorists is mandated by what resulted from the Report article titled, “Trolls and the Thought Police” based upon the Time-Standard newspaper article written by Dave Stancliff in his Sunday, May 31, 2009, “As It Stands” column. When he was unsuccessful bullying us into doing what he wanted, he personally attacked and vilified us on his Blog. You can read what he accused us of being and of doing here. It seems there is a certain class of people in this country that have the right to say these kinds of things and worse in public, on the TV, in Internet Blogs, Newspapers and magazines whereas if this was someone from the Ku Klux Klan, some Nazi militia talking about the Jews or one of any other radical extremist Believer they'd be arrested and thrown in jail in a heartbeat for hate crimes under old laws and terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Yet, they are not. The question is, why not?

That very question was asked by Dr. Warren Hern in his Democracy Now interview today. In fact, he makes the very point of our observations discussed in the Report about “Trolls and the Thought Police.” This is just one of his comments:

But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards. [Emphasis added]

Louis Komzsik says these terrorists, "in order to gain or retain control, arrogates its philosophy onto the majority of the society." Arrogate is an interesting word. It means, "to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right" the authority to make one's worthless opinions fact. This is done by repeating the same lies over and over until everyone accepts it as truth. In other words just "BS" propaganda. While Blog articles and commentary are a dime-a-dozen, the problem is when posted, they become or have the potential to become volatile.

Real terrorism is a lot closer to home in America than most of us would want to believe. Our article on the Thought Police touched a real nerve. As, perhaps, it should.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 11, 2009
A good article by Joan Walsh, "Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?"
Some think it already has.

UPDATE: Monday, June 22, 2009
Racism, Hate Speech, Extremism, bigotry, worthless opinions and lies are self-defining. Whether or not the person or persons making these statements are racist, hate mongers, bigots, or worthless liars is probably a personal judgment. Or is it? When you see a duck do you say, "there goes a turkey"?

Dave Stancliff has posted two "As It Stands" blogs accusing me of "spewing hate" in my May 31, 2009, "Troll's versus Thought Police" article about one of his Time-Standard, "As It Stands" columns. You can read that article and make up your own mind. When you find that "hate" I'd like someone to point it out. Or you can read what he said and tell me if it's a turkey?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on

Posted by Dave Stancliff at 3:37 PM

--Joe

Organic Food Growers Get the Marijuana Treatment

You won’t believe how far some authorities will go to stifle your right to make healthy choices for your family.

Unconscionable Police Raid on Family's Home and Organic Food Co-Op

Violating Constitutional Rights in the Name of… What?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution, guarantees the right of peaceful citizens to be free from paramilitary police raids, searches and seizures.

The price we pay for freedom!

--Joe

The Jew Agenda Comes Clear

Finally, we begin to see the Zionist Jew's true intentions regarding Israel. They made their move in 1948, but were unable to sustain their intent to completely eradicate the Palestinian people from their lands. As noted in previous posts, the Zionist Jew began to wage war on the civilian people to force the Palestinians to submit to or go along with the Jew's right to take their land by force or without any compensation. The so-called decades old "peace process" was nothing more than a ruse to allow the Jews time to take more Palestinian land by build illegal settlements. The two-state solution merely furthered that ruse for another decade. Neither Israel nor the United States ever intended to recognize Palestinian legitimacy that comes with statehood.

Another Update :: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Israel's targeting of civilian resistance to the separation wall proves the two-state solution is now just a meaningless slogan - The Report has maintained this from the beginning. Nice to have some confirmation.

Update :: Saturday, February 21, 2009

Israeli Zionists have no intention of peace, only expansion of Eretz Yisrael

Addendum :: Monday, February 16, 2009

If the Jews truly wanted peace they would NOT continue to do this:
Israel seizes land for settlement expansion

Jews begin to feel the bite of Gaza assault:
Jews in Muslim lands anxious over Gaza war
By AMY TEIBEL – 6 hours ago

Addendum :: Thursday, February 11, 2009
Fraud in the Holy Land - Independent versus Sovereign State

"Writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israeli journalist Gideon Levy says: “Netanyahu’s election is likely to bring the curtain down on the great fraud… the lie of “negotiations” and the injustice of the “peace process.” Israel consistently claimed these acts proved the nation was focused on peace and the end of the occupation. All the while, it did everything it could to further entrench the occupation and distance any chance of a potential agreement.

For 16 years, we have been enamored with the peace process. We talk and talk, babble and prattle, and generally feel great about ourselves; meanwhile the settlements expand endlessly and Israel turns to the use of force at every possible opportunity, aside from a unilateral disengagement which did nothing to advance the cause of peace.”

The truth defines itself - 61 years of undisputed history speaks.

---

It's become quite obvious today that with the election and continued support by a majority of Palestinian people for a Hamas government, or at least a national unity government that includes Hamas, that these people will not totally go along with Israel's right to their 61 years of visceral rape. The only solution for the Jew is to finally cut the Palestinian throat. Right at this moment the knife is already moving with the starvation of 1.5 million Gaza refugees. Fata and Abbas think they've cut a deal with Israel to survive, but all they've done is expose their treason. Israel will deal with them equally, regardless.

In the aftermath of Israeli elections, one way or another, Israel's latest vote count puts the Right Wing, neo-fascist in control. According to Neve Gordon, a professor of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University and the author of Israel’s Occupation, as reported on Democracy Now, this is the trend even with the younger generation.

What we see in—before the elections, that in all the high schools in Israel, Lieberman was the leading party in [inaudible] votes. So we see that the younger generation is supporting these neo-fascist tendencies. And we cannot blame the schools from it, but we have to blame the whole atmosphere in Israel, which is indeed a racist atmosphere, an anti-Arab atmosphere, anti-Palestinian Arab atmosphere. And Lieberman, what he has learned to do well is to feed on the hatred and the fear of the Arabs, to use a xenophobic method. And this is extremely dangerous. And to tell you the truth, I fear for Israel. I fear for the citizenry in Israel. And I think we are in a watershed moment in Israeli politics.

Mustafa Barghouti, independent Palestinian lawmaker and democracy activist lays out a far worse situation.

This is a very serious shift, but not only to the right; this is a shift to racism. In my opinion, in these elections, Israel has completed the transformation into an apartheid state with an apartheid racist political system.

And this is the outcome of two processes. One is the implantation of fear and hatred in the Israeli society by the Israeli establishment. The army is a big part of that establishment, and the military-industrial complex is a second big part. And the second factor has been the complicity of the international community. The United States administration, previous administration, the European governments, the whole official international community has been complicit with Israeli crimes, war crimes in Gaza and in other places, and silent about forty-one years of occupation. So, basically, people in Israel think they can do what they want. If they violate human rights in such a terrible manner and nobody is objecting, I think they think they can move forward towards racism and an apartheid system, and that is unfortunately the case today.

In addition to what was said about practically the Likud racist approach dominating the whole scene, with Livni and Netanyahu—and here I would agree that there aren’t much differences between the two. Maybe you can say that both of them are racist. Only, Netanyahu is a blunt racist, and Livni is a racist with some makeup. But they both represent the same. [ ... ]

In my opinion, we have reached a very critical moment, and that’s why these elections are of great importance, because the bringing in of racist tendency in Israel and this whole extreme coalition into the Israeli government, which would be the case, is happening exactly at a moment when we are about to lose the last opportunity of two-state solution, because of the growth of settlements, because of the fragmentation of the West Bank, because of the consolidation of a situation where Palestinians practically live now in bantustans and ghettos. And they’re in a situation where, after fifteen years of the creation of the Palestinian Authority, the only road open for it by Israel is to become only a security sub-agent for occupation and something like Vichy government in a bantustan entity. That is the risk. And that’s why this is dangerous, not only because it is against peace, but also it is like the last hit in the direction of killing the final or the last opportunity of two-day solution. [ ... ]

I would like to emphasize here that I believe that the last war on Gaza, plus other things that the Israeli government did jointly with the Bush administration, was nothing but an effort to create a preemptive strike against the Barack Obama administration. That was clear in the Resolution 1850, which tried to restrict the peace process only to the failing Annapolis process. And that was clear in the war and intensification of tension in the region, to prevent, in my opinion, peaceful dialogue with Syria and Iran that Barack Obama wants to have and to obstruct a fast and quick withdrawal from Iraq. But finally, that agreement that was concluded between Livni and Rice, in the very last hours before Rice left her position, was also a preemptive strike against this administration. [ ... ]

That agreement was that the United States and NATO will be providing guarantees to Israel and provide protection to the occupying force, being Israel, and to prevent the resistance of the Palestinian people who are under occupation. So this is the first time in human history where, from one side, the people under occupation in West Bank are supposed, through this huge security apparatus, which is consuming 34 percent of our budget, depriving us from healthcare and education—the Palestinian Authority is supposed to provide protection to its occupiers, and the world community has to provide protection to the occupying force of Gaza, in this case the Israeli occupying force. [ ... ]

And maybe these results of elections in Israel will show everybody the time has come for a real change in the American policy. Every value that President Obama spoke about—values of respect of human rights, of democracy, of respect for Geneva Convention, avoiding torture, justice, equality, equal opportunity—every value of those are violated by Israel.

So, there you have it. The picture, the truth about Zionist Israel's legitimate right to exist, is getting clearer and clearer. President Barack Obama will not do what is necessary to preserve the Jewish state or try to protect his or America's integrity, what little bit that's left. Certainly, now when he's bombing innocent civilian people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Zionist Israel is revealing itself to be exactly what it is. No civilized people wages war on defenseless and innocent women and children, for any reason. The Universe has wiped out whole civilizations for such crimes. Perhaps they should have seriously tried to make peace with the Palestinian people, recognize their legitimate right to exist along with everyone else, when they had the chance.

--Joe

When Self-Defense is No Defense

What is so difficult to understand about self-defense? America's legitimate right to exist was formulated and argued to the world in the original document, The Declaration of Independence. None of those arguments apply to the Zionist Jew. After 61 years the whole world sees Israel exactly for what it is. There is always hope for a just and sane world when a few are able to see what is and have the courage to speak up. Here's an example.

Israeli-Palestinian problem can destroy the world peace
Letter to the editor
Posted: 02/03/2009 01:16:28 AM PST

J. Porsley's “My Word” and Donald Edwards' letter bring out the dilemma Americans are facing. Like Mr. Edward, I am neither a Jew nor an Arab; but a Muslim of a type whose community feels much safer and freer in Israel than in many Muslim countries.

However, as an American, there is a reason for me, and for all of us, to analyze this conflict dispassionately. It has potential of starting an Armageddon the pain from which will be felt by everyone. A just solution is needed.

Hamas has no right to fire rockets and Israel has no right to continue to occupy the Palestinian lands. The assumption that Israel left Gaza is not genuine. Gaza is a high security prison with its borders, land, air and sea controlled by Israel. It is a human cage.

Israel has the right to defend itself and so have the Palestinians. If one can import planes, tanks, phosphorous bombs, and even possess nuclear weapons it is unjust to deny the same to the other party.

When Israel blocks the free inflow of food and medicines and the world stands by in awe of Israeli might, then the Palestinians have no alternative to digging tunnels to reach those necessities of life.

It is time to bring peace to both the sides and help the weak obtain justice. History shows that irrespective of religion unjust people and the connivers thereof are sooner or later seized by a terrible divine punishment.

Abdul Aziz

Self-Defense is No Defense when you're accused being either evil, a criminal, or a terrorist. That would be when you are an enemy of the state. Enemy's of the state are anyone that doesn't go along with or objects to the states' right to enforce their will upon you in any way they see fit.

A good example of this are Zionist Jews deciding that they wanted legitimate recognition as a people to slow down their extermination, so they (a considerable number of them) all moved to Palestine to get the land they needed to become a nation and by force of arms imposed their will upon the Palestinian people. When the Palestinian people refused to submit or surrender their land they were accused of being a form of life that wasn't fit to occupy that sacred land anyway. We have 61 years of history to prove who is and is not fit to own or occupy that land.

An ancient Jew spoke about his people today, a people that wanted the same thing then as the Zionist Jews want today, when he said:

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

--Joe

Eat This Eric Kirk - SoHum Parlance

Latest Addendum :: Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Joe Blow Calls Eric Kirk Names BAD! BAD!

Click the link and it will take you to his blog thread. Then you tell me who was doing the name-calling. Everything he said in response to my posts were derogatory, excoriating, insulting and abusive. Here you will find the classic example of what Jesus Christ was talking about when he said to NOT cast pearls before pigs or holy to dogs. “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.”

I call his blog a WHOREHOUSE because that's just what it is. (Of course, you know what that makes him.) He invites you in to share in his communion and the next thing you know you've been communing with a sick whore. In other words they've enticed you into making an agreement with them that they have the right to say anything they want about you, to denigrate, abuse, and tell you what kind of a human being they think you are and expect you to go along with their judgments. Then, if you should try to defend yourself from these kinds of people, people Jesus Christ calls "pigs" and "dogs" you're accused of calling them "names." "Hypocrites" and "liars" is something Jesus Christ called the same kind of whoremongers. If it was good enough for Jesus Christ is certainly is good enough for me.

You know why Jesus called these kinds of people "pigs" and "dogs" don't you? Because pigs wallow in their own crappy sewer and dogs return to eat their own vomit. Jesus identified these kinds of people as carnal, non-humans because that is their manifest personality; they think and act like rabid, vicious animal. The Dictionary defines vicious as:

1. addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral.
2. given or readily disposed to evil.
3. reprehensible; blameworthy; wrong.
4. spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip; a vicious attack.
5. unpleasantly severe.
6. characterized or marred by faults or defects; faulty; unsound: vicious reasoning.
7. savage; ferocious.
8. (of an animal) having bad habits or a cruel or fierce disposition.

All in all, Joe figures he keeps good company. Jesus Christ wasn't popular with these same kinds of people either. He certainly wasn't averse to telling people or calling them for what they were when they were arrogant, self-righteous hypocrites, vipers, blind guides, liars, or whitewashed graves .

That's what you'll find on Eric Kirk's SoHum Parlance II. Do beware!

--Joe

---

“When leaders of competing Palestinian factions make maximalist claims to appeal to hardline constituencies, it’s extremism. But when Israeli leaders do it, it’s politics. If the goal of the U.S. and Israel is to strengthen Palestinian moderates like Abu Mazen against Hamas — and people keep telling me that’s the goal — it’s hard to see how this helps.”
Livni Promises To ‘Maintain Maximum Settlers’»

---

Israeli Foreign Minister Backtracks On Commitment To Force Jewish Settlers Out Of The West Bank»

President Obama has said that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is going to be a top priority for his administration. During an interview with Al-Arabiya last week, Obama said the Israel-Palestine issue is “interrelated” with “what’s happening” throughout the region. He also offered support for the so-called two-state solution. “I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state,” Obama said, adding, “But it is not going to be easy.”

No it will not be easy. As CBS reporter Bob Simon noted on 60 Minutes last week, “hundreds of thousands” of Jewish settlers would have to withdraw from the West Bank for it, along with the Gaza Strip, to be part of a Palestinian state. But also during Simon’s report, this two-state

solution may have received a small boost. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in the running to become the country’s next prime minister, told Simon — bluntly — that in order to achieve peace and advance a Palestinian state, the Israeli government would force the settlers to leave the West Bank:

SIMON: Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?

LIVNI: It’s not going to be easy, but this is the only solution.

SIMON: But you know that there are settlers who say, “We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight.”

LIVNI: So this is the responsibility of the government, of the police to stop them, as simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order.

This is the end . . .

Addendum to the peace viper :: Monday, February 2, 2009

Israel rules out Hamas contacts, threatens force

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer

If you want to know why there is no prospect for peace, just read what this guy has to say. The root cause of the problem is right there for anyone to see that cares to look. The problem has absolutely nothing to do with a difference of opinions. It has everything to do with that woman and this guy, Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu and all their kind.

ADDENDUM :: Thursday, February 5, 2009

The corrupt continue to pervert as the noose tightens around the collaborators.

Olmert approves transfer of NIS 170 million to Gaza Strip

Just hours after a top Hamas official was caught by Egyptian authorities trying to smuggle millions of dollars and euros into the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave permission for the Palestinian Authority to transfer NIS 170 million from the West Bank to Gaza to pay government officials there.

The Prime Minister's Office said it agreed to transfer the funds in accordance with a request by PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad.

The officials to be paid are mostly Fatah members.

Israel agrees to let $43 mln into Gaza for Abbas

---

Israel seizes Gaza freighter

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora condemned the action.

"Those who commit massacres against innocent civilians in Lebanon and Gaza will not stop themselves from assaulting, in front of the world, a ship carrying humanitarian supplies," he said. "I express my utmost condemnation for this blatant attack."

--Joe

The Roots of War

Mr. Bronner lays out a very revealing commentary about the disparaging ways of thinking that justifies Zionist Israel's right to exist and defend that existence in any way they so choose. Mr. Bronner and The Joe Blow Report share a common reality; life's experiences speak to the truth. Judgmental, worthless opinions expounded as false, lying accusations used to establish one's illegitimate right to exist by controlling, compromising and occupying their neighbor's space, can only produce war. Mr. Bronner defines these "roots" this way: "...because their belief in their own view is so overpowering that anything that contradicts it becomes a minor detail."

---

Gaza Notebook - Bullets in my In-Box
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: January 24, 2009 by the New York Times

GAZA — Faisal Husseini, a Palestinian leader who died at the start of this decade, used to tell a story about his first visit to Israel. The 1967 war had just ended, borders were suddenly opened and he took a drive to Tel Aviv, where at some point he found himself detained by an Israeli policeman. Questions and answers ensued. At one point the policeman said to him, “As a proud Zionist, I must tell you ....” At which Mr. Husseini burst out laughing.

What’s so funny? the policeman asked. “I have never in my life,” Mr. Husseini replied, “heard anyone refer to Zionism with anything but contempt. I had no idea you could be a proud Zionist.”

I have written about the Arab-Israeli conflict on and off for more than a quarter-century and have spent the past four weeks covering Israel’s war in Gaza. For me, Mr. Husseini’s story sums up how the two sides speak in two distinct tongues, how the very words they use mean opposite things to each other, and how the war of language can confound a reporter’s attempts to narrate — or a new president’s attempts to mediate — this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair.

Among Israel’s Jews, there is almost no higher value than Zionism. The word is bathed in a celestial glow, suggesting selflessness and nobility. But go anywhere else in the Middle East and Zionism stands for theft, oppression, racist exclusionism.

No place, date or event in this conflicted land is spoken of in a common language. The barrier snaking across and inside the West Bank is a wall to Palestinians, a fence to Israelis. The holiest site in Jerusalem is the Temple Mount to Jews, the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims. The 1948 conflict that created Israel is one side’s War of Independence, the Catastrophe for the other.

After Israel’s three-week air, sea and land assault in Gaza, aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire, it is worth pausing to note how difficult it has been to narrate this war in a fashion others view as neutral, and to contemplate what that means for any attempt by the new Obama administration to try to end it.

It turns out that both narration and mediation require common ground. But trying to tell the story so that both sides can hear it in the same way feels more and more to me like a Greek tragedy in which I play the despised chorus. It feels like I am only fanning the flames, adding to the misunderstandings and mutual antagonism with every word I write because the fervent inner voice of each side is so loud that it drowns everything else out.

George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader who is Mr. Obama’s new special envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, could find something similar when he arrives here.

Even though an understanding crystallized a decade ago over the outline of an eventual solution here — Israel returning essentially to its 1967 borders and a Palestinian state forming in the West Bank and Gaza — the two sides’ narratives have actually hardened since attempts to reach a peace foundered.

So Mr. Mitchell, who once led a commission tasked with finding a solution to the conflict, will begin this latest effort grappling with two separate wars fought here, based on two very different sets of assumptions.

Opponents of Israel feel the Gaza fighting has demonstrated (again) everything they have always believed — that Israel is a kind of Sparta that dehumanizes the Palestinians and will do anything to prevent their dignified self-determination. The ways in which Israel attacked — the overwhelming force, the racist graffiti left on walls — are what one has come to expect of that state, they say; those Hamas rockets were no challenge to the Israeli military behemoth, and, after all, who could blame the resistance fighters for launching them to protest the blockade and everything else about Israel’s longstanding occupation?

Those for whom Israel is the victim and never the aggressor likewise saw in this war a reaffirmation of their beliefs — that Hamas, an Islamist terror group, hides its fighters behind women and children; that Israel’s army was an exemplar of restraint and respect, holding its fire when civilians were in sight, allowing tons of humanitarian aid in even while at war (what other army would be so decent?).

Abroad, people care deeply about this conflict. That should make it easier for a reporter to cover, because the actors and place names and history are familiar. But it turns out that like the actors themselves, the audiences have utterly distinct and contrasting sets of assumptions. Every time I fail to tell the story each side tells itself, I have failed in its eyes to do my job. That adds up to a lot of failure.

What’s more, the competing war narratives are part of a larger narrative disconnect.

One side says that after thousands of years of oppression, the Jewish nation has returned to its rightful home. It came in peace and offered its hand to its neighbors numerous times only to be met with a sword. Opposition to Israel, this side argues, stems from Muslim intolerance, nationalist fervor and rank anti-Semitism, all fed by envy at the young state’s success. Every time I write an article about the conflict that does not mirror this story line — if, for example, I focus on Palestinian suffering or alleged Israeli misdeeds or quote a human rights group like Amnesty International — I have proven myself to be a secret sharer with the views of the enemy.

As one recent complainer wrote, “To read your paper, all the questions and criticism are directed at Israel, and it is all based on a collection of anti-Semitic organizations masquerading as humanitarians.”

The other side tells a different story: There is no Jewish nation, only followers of a religion. A group of European colonialists came here, stole and pillaged, throwing hundreds of thousands off their land and destroying their villages and homes. A country born in sin, Israel has built up an aggressive military with help from Washington in the grips of a powerful Jewish lobby.

Every time I fail to allude to that story — when, for example, I examine Israel’s goals in its Gaza war without implicitly condemning it as a massacre, or write about Israel in ways that do not call into question its legitimacy — I have revealed my affiliation and can no longer be trusted as a reporter.

Since the war started on Dec. 27, I have received hundreds of messages about my coverage. They are generally not offering congratulations on a job well done.

“Thanks to you and other scum like yourself,” said one, “Israel can now kill hundreds and you can report the whole thing like it was some random train wreck.”

“Bronner ,” said another, “you’re back to your usual drivel about only the poor filthy Arabs — who voted for the Hamas people who got them into this predicament — with incessant indiscriminate rocket fire on innocent Israelis.”

There are also blogs and chat sites on both sides that spend time accusing all the journalists here of having agendas because our articles mention facts or trends that they consider a diversion from the real story.

Because Israel barred foreign journalists from entering Gaza until the war ended, The New York Times relied on my Palestinian colleague here, Taghreed el-Khodary, for on-the-ground coverage of the fighting.

We would speak several times a day as she cautiously went out. Her first stop was usually Shifa Hospital to get a sense of civilian casualties. Early in the war, at the hospital, she witnessed the murder of an alleged Israeli collaborator by Hamas gunmen. They shot him in the skull more or less in front of her. One of the gunmen told Taghreed that she should never mention what she saw to anyone. She told him there was not a chance she would stay silent, then made some calls to find out about other such events and sent me the information, which we published the next day.

A couple of Arab bloggers went after Taghreed with the worst insult they could come up with — Zionist. She was a Palestinian Uncle Tom doing the bidding of her white-man bosses at a newspaper that, as one reader said in an e-mail message, “is fully complicit in the atrocities that Israel commits against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. You make it sound guiltless and reasonable. That’s your assignment.”

At the same time, Israeli officials and their backers declared that keeping reporters out of Gaza was the right move because no independent journalism could possibly occur in an area run by Hamas, which controls every utterance here. Have any of these people ever read Taghreed’s work? Or any of our work out of here?

Many have but it doesn’t matter because their belief in their own view is so overpowering that anything that contradicts it becomes a minor detail. As another reader put it, “Basically, you are aiding terrorists and causing the increase in bloodshed while telling one-sided stories, totally ignoring the whole picture.”

He did say one thing I agree with: “You should not be a reporter if you are not telling the whole story, not just the parts that sell.”

I would offer a mediator the same advice.

A Serious Gem From Israel on Manhood

Is this the picture of real manhood?

---

Israel accused of using illegal white phosphorus shells in Gaza

By Damien McElroy in Jerusalem
Jan. 11, 2009

White phosphorus is an incendiary material that causes severe burns when it comes in contact with human skin and its use in conflict zones is restricted inside civilian areas. Syria called on the UN to investigate the claim.

Human Rights Watch said its researchers witnessed the use of the materiel on Saturday and Sunday in Gaza City and Jabalia refugee camps, both built-up areas.

The Israeli military, which refuses to comment on the types of munitions it is using in the conflict, rejected the accusations. "There is no use of white phosphorus," a spokeswoman said. "Everything we use is according to international law," Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch said: "Israel should not use it in Gaza's densely populated areas."

source: Telegraph UK

Manhood I learned from my father:

My father, a World War Two combat veteran fighting in Europe, told this story to my brother and me one day when we were just teenagers. He never talked about his experiences, with the rare exception of when he was talking to fellow combat veterans. That is when my brother and I would sneak in and listen. Occasionally, as we grew older he would talk to us about the atrocities of war. He never got real specific, but he always got his point across.

This time he was talking about the day he and his platoon were nearly destroyed. He said that everyone carried, as standard gear, two grenades hanging from their suspenders on their chests. One was a fragmentation grenade the other a phosphorus grenade. He said the phosphorus grenade was the most lethal because it would burn through anything; it would not stop burning until it was burned out. Well, this day they were on the march and the guy walking right next to him, my Dad said collapsed later from "battle fatigue" - he said the last time he "saw him he was sitting beside the road bawling like a babe." My Dad said he happened to look and see that the pin that hold the trigger to the phosphorus grenade was hanging only by a thread. He said he was able to grab the grenade and get the pin put fully back in place. He said when the platoon realized what was going on they all ran like hell; screw the Germans, they'd take their chances.

My father was rather vague when we asked him what they used those grenades on. However, he did mention an occasion when he and another soldier were searching a home when they heard a noise from the basement. My father said all the houses had basements, with internal doors and and stairs leading down into the basement. He said those basements were always black as pitch and they never ventured down into them. He said the German people would hide there to get away from the bombardment coming in before the American soldiers moved in to search the towns building by building. The problem, he said, was that you never knew if it was civilians or German soldiers hiding down there, or both. He said his partner hollered down the stairwell in both English and German for whoever was down there to come out. When nothing happened, the customary response was to toss in a grenade and move on. This time my father noticed that his partner had pulled the pin on a phosphorus grenade and was about to toss it into the basement when all of a sudden people began to come pouring up the stairs. He said the basement was full of dozens of old men, women and children. He said he can still see the look in their eyes and shakes in his boots every time he thinks about how close they came to incinerating all those poor people.

Real men, men whose manhood is secure, do not wage war on the innocent civilian population with impunity even if there might be an enemy soldier hiding among them amid their family and friends.

DISCLAIMER:
It has come to our attention that some are accusing The Joe Blow Report of being anti-Jew and anti-Semantic. These people carry their own load or responsibility for what they do and do not do. Making observations of their attitudes, actions, behavior and conduct does not speak to the writer's, in this case Joe Blow, motivations or intentions. The facts speak for themselves!

Joe Blow is constantly addressing and exemplifying the works, writings and heroic works of Jewish people. Not all people in Israel or Jews around the world are cowardly war-mongers. Right now the majority are and their crimes are before the world.

If it is wrong to say anything negative, regardless the obvious truth, about a Jew or Israeli, their government or religions without being branded a racist then it is wrong to say anything negative about the Palestinians, Arabs, or their religions. Those that live by the double-standard, because they presume to be unique among mankind, shall also die by it.

An ancient Jewish Bible scholar wrote about the "lawless" people when he said: "So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness." The truth is revealed when they are judged because they act in harmony with their beliefs or opinions that are lies. Assaulting the messenger never changes the truth.

--Joe

Jungle Law Rules Supreme In Eurekaville

Democracy, as an instrument of government, is worthless when people become the law, and that, without any accountability. The Law of the Jungle becomes the defacto government. Those that rule are those with the POWER. Read for yourself who has the power in Humboldt County.

Judge tosses Douglas, Zanotti manslaughter charges
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 08/27/2008 01:30:57 AM PDT

Judge throws out involuntary manslaughter case
By KAREN WILKINSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Aug 26 2008, 11:03 PM · Updated: Aug 27 2008, 12:06 AM

Everyone that sees "DISMISSED" knows in his or her heart that Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney legally granted every police officer in Humboldt County the licence to kill with impunity.

When "Feeney began Tuesday's hearing by saying he believed the grand jury indicted without sufficient probable cause to establish that the defendants had committed an illegal act or a lawful act in a criminally negligent manner" he superimposed his judgments over the findings of the people. He made the Grand Jury system a mockery. He also put this community on notice, you are all on your own when you can be gunned down on a mere "belief."

The most disgusting and disingenuous statement observed to date that defines the "police" attitude justifying this whole tragedy was a quote by "William Rapoport, who was representing Zanotti in the matter. '(This case has) destroyed a huge part of these men's lives for the last nine months, and it's time they go some relief. ... They've had a cloud hanging over their heads for no good reason other than someone's political aspirations.'" The report goes on to say: "Douglas and Zanotti were not immediately available for comment." I would guess not!

Not when this clown, Rapoport can dismiss life and law with such casual and calloused disregard.

ADDENDUM: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 :: Comments in The Eureka Reporter as reported by Karen Wilkinson. Note: "Attorney William Bragg, who along with William Rapaport and Greg Rael, represented Douglas and Zanotti, said he expected the dismissal, adding the case shouldn’t have been one in the first place. He cited overwhelming case evidence on the defense’s side and said Feeney made the decision based on the law." HOWEVER, Mr Greenson for The Times Standard quotes the Judge to say, "The court's sympathies are extended to the friends and family of Ms. Moore for her tragic death, but the court cannot find evidence of any criminal conduct by Chief Douglas or Lt. Zanotti." The Judge didn't quote "law." He acted on his opinion. Judges are NOT the law.

Karen Wilkenson continues: "The defense attorneys filed motions starting in June seeking to have the case dismissed. The motions stated Gallegos misrepresented the law to the grand jury and didn’t provide evidence that would have helped justify the men’s decisions in the standoff." Joe contends that if Mr. Gallegos "misrepresented the law to the grand jury and didn’t provide evidence" he did so deliberately; he's hardly that stupid, incompetent or politically motivated.

His concluding statement in The Eureka Reporter indicates that he has his priorities or legal responsibilities a bit sqewed. Note: "While he understands the support the former EPD leaders received from others in law enforcement, Gallegos said there’s also an obligation to Moore’s family. He hopes the judicial determination will bring closure to her family, the community and those involved." If his sworn Oath of Office means anything, his first priority is to the Law and then to the community. While it is a tragedy for the Moore family it is a bigger tragedy for the community. No "judicial determination" in and of itself "brings closure." JUSTICE brings closure!

--Joe