WHY ARE THE IRISH PEOPLE BURDENED WITH A DEBT THEY DID NOT INCUR?

by Betty Luks
“Why are the Irish people burdened with a debt they did not incur?” is the gist of the questions Vincent Browne of ‘Broadsheet’ recently put to Klaus Masuch, head of EU Countries Division at the European Central Bank – and it is the gist of the question Australians must begin to ask of their politicians. As Mr. Browne noted: “We (i.e., the Irish people) are required to pay, in respect of a defunct bank – that has no bearing on the welfare of the Irish people at all – we are required to pay in respect of this defunct bank, billions on unguaranteed bonds in order to ensure the health of European banks.”

Would to God Australia had just one or two journalists with the moral courage of Vincent Browne. He really ‘nailed’ the mouth-piece for the fraudulent banking/financial system, Klaus Masuch, at a recent press conference.
Watch Mr Browne in action here.

Klaus Masuch replied to Mr. Browne’s insistent questioning: “I can understand that this is a difficult decision to be made by the government and there’s no doubt about it but there are different aspects of the problem to be, to be balanced against each other and I can understand that the government came to, came to the view that, all in all, the costs for the, for Irish people, for the, for the stability of the banking system, for the confidence in the banking system of taking a certain action in this respect which you are mentioning could likely have been much bigger than the benefits for the taxpayer which of course would have been there. So the financial sector would have been affected; the confidence of the financial sector would have been negatively affected, and I can understand that there were, that there was a difficult decision but that the decision was taken in this direction.”[italics added]

“The people’s welfare is not of great concern to us” says Mammon, “but our system is”.
There you have it gentle reader: The system, the institution, the abstraction called money, is more important than the people, (i.e., you, me, mums and dads, kids, grandmas and grandpas - us, considered collectively) it is meant to serve! The corrupt, fraudulent system must survive while the people can, if so be it, go cold in severe winters, dehydrate in scorching summers, go hungry and/or starve when short of purchasing power (money), be homeless, lose their life savings, commit suicide – I am sure the reader can add to the list.

Watch again Professor Keen’s youtube video: He admits banks create credit ‘out of nothing’ and yet the people are expected to believe that not only should banks be legally allowed to claim the credit (a form of money) as their own, but that, we the people, should repay the created-out-of-thin-air credit, but also be charged further interest on it.
Banks give a service, just as does any other service group – they do not create real wealth. Real wealth is created within the economic/production system. Social Credit is a whole new way at looking at the situation. The people of the world desperately need to do this. Gentle reader, you really must get your mind around what we are writing about.

SPREAD THE WORD: Watch Professor Keen here….

Then read accountant Victor Bridger’s Social Credit and National Accounting here….

Read further: The Whole World in Debt Chains…

Listen to Jeremy Lee’s: "New World Order and Global Debt", (1992).

DO WE GET READY FOR AUSTRALIA’S OWN GREEK - AND IRISH – ‘TRAGEDY’?

Heard on radio last evening that the banksters are insisting the terms for Greece’s bailout include the Greek peoples’ wages and pensions be reduced by 20% - will this happen in Australia? Are Australian banks in trouble due to them also having gambled on the Derivatives markets? The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

“There are 12 secret documents judged to be so potentially damaging that releasing their contents would endanger the stability of Australia's whole economic system. Australia's biggest banks, insurers and superannuation funds are named, and some are apparently shamed, in ''risk registers'' kept by the federal government's banking regulator. But in a gaping hole in Australia's defences against the global financial crisis, the Herald can reveal the crucially important registers were only compiled months after the worst of the crisis struck. The regulator warns the risks outlined in the registers are so sensitive that releasing the information ''may affect the stability of Australia's economy''. The registers pinpoint the weakest links in Australia's multibillion-dollar financial services industry, outlining where individual institutions pose systemic risks and the possible remedies by the regulator.

The Herald sought risk registers drafted by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, which is responsible for addressing system-wide risks in Australia's financial system, under freedom-of-information laws. The request sought registers kept during the height of the global financial crisis, which occurred when Lehman Bros collapsed in 2008. (Read further here)

Derivatives Markets:
Readers may remember we quoted from a paper by Mr. Will Peden of Robe, South Australia who explained the derivatives markets. At the time he warned of the exposure of the Australian banks: “The problem is that banks around the world haven't just been hedging (insuring) in this market. They have been gambling… (and now they are pressuring governments the world over to bail them out of their gambling debts!...ed)

The scale of the problem: Australian Banks have a combined exposure of $13,785 Billion (or $13.785 Trillion) to derivatives and other 'off balance sheet’ business as at 30 June 2008. These are the most recent figures publicly available… The source is credited to APRA or the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. At the time he emphasised, this is their exposure, not their turnover." Continue reading here…

RHODESIA REMEMBERED

A correspondent reminded us that we should not forget that brave little nation of Rhodesia, now known as Zimbabwe. The League did its best to expose the western forces that were intent on seeing it destroyed. (www.alor.org/Volume14/Vol14No39.htm and https://alor.org/Volume1/Vol1No38.htm)
Former Rhodesians have placed on the internet, material outlining ‘the Kariba atrocity’. Oct 20, 1978... Rhodesia Viscount atrocity at Kariba, where survivors of the plane crash (the Viscount was shot down) were murdered by Nkomo's terrorists. Here…

But not all are sad memories. Some good jokes are on this one:

THE GREAT GILLARD-RUDD CONSPIRACY

by James Reed
Sooo… it looks like the Mayan predictions about the end of the world in 2012 were correct – if they were referring to Julia Gillard! Ruddy is all oiled up and ready to take her down as PM.
As I see it, the challenge by Gilly was a set-up from the beginning. The Labor Party wanted tough laws such as the carbon tax, so they put in an expendable PM, Julia, to do the dirty work. Then bring back a re-wired Rudd ready to take down Tony Rabbit and win the next election.

The average voter, the Labor elite knows, has a really short memory. And there you have it, the misery goes on and on and on, until we are all equal at the bottom of the river. That is, unless we choose to do something about it.  

SCIENTISTS REJECT THE RELIGION OF CLIMATE CHANGE

by James Reed
A group of leading scientists have signed an article questioning the standard climate change faith. (“Climate Change ‘Heretics’ Refute Carbon Dangers”, The Australian, February 1, 2012, p.14) In general these scientists do not believe that drastic action, such as a carbon tax, is needed to stop global warming. There has been a lack of warming for well over ten years and this was admitted in the 2009 “Climategate” emails, one of which said:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” The heretic scientists believe that computer models may have exaggerated the role of carbon dioxide in warming.

The article mentions the case of an editor of one climate journal who published an article by another scientist arguing that warming was occurring, but it was not unusual given climate changes over the past 1000 years.
The scientific establishment then mounted a campaign to have the editor removed from his editorial role and sacked from his university – the last task of which they failed. This I believe says it all.

The article is a good one but fails to generalise its position: science is generally in service of the establishment and heretics are usually punished. Change occurs largely by heretics keeping their heads and outliving establishment scientists. My guess is that many, if not all, the heretics on the list would have their own politically correct bias, say on race research.  

AMPUTATED JUSTICE

by Peter Ewer
A teacher in the Northern Territory by now, has probably had his legs amputated. (“Teacher to Lose his Leg after assault”, The Australian, February 1, 2012, p.3) The teacher who won a Teacher of the Year Award in 2005 was savagely assaulted by three teenage students who jumped and stomped on his leg. The teacher was in the school’s special education unit. He had allowed one particular student into class early to play on the computer. When the teacher turned his back, the student let in two other students. When the teacher told the three students to leave, they savagely assaulted him.

He then needed nine operations in an attempt to save his leg, but this proved ultimately unsuccessful. The teacher is in dispute with the Education Department over compensation. The school also dealt with the matter internally and did not inform the police. “Inquiries by police have not led to a formal investigation or any charges being laid.” If one thinks about the politics behind this story one finds a concise summary of “the world turned upside down”. Such is justice in our amputated culture.  

TURNING THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN AND INSIDE OUT

by Chris Knight
British journalist Melanie Phillips’ “The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle Over God, Truth and Power” (Encounter Books, London, 2010) consists of 18 essays, many dealing with a theme which has concerned her, the rise of radical Islam. She describes herself as a “traditionally minded Jew” (p.xi) and she believes that the security and survival of the Jewish people and Western civilisation “are symbiotically connected.” (p.xi)

She is deeply alarmed about the situation that “much of public discourse has departed sharply from reality.” (p.ix) and that no debate is permitted on politically correct issues. Thus: “Society seems to be in the grip of mass derangement.” (p.x) She says: “In the West, the forces of ideology are well on the way to unstitching the fabric of society.” Phillips sees the problem with the West’s worship of reason and the inability of dealing with those who follow irrationality and violence.

That, to my mind, is putting the cart before the horse. Arguably it is the widespread lack of critical rationality – not questioning immigration, multiculturalism, multiracialism, feminism and the other contents of Pandora’s Box – which has led to our present plight of the decay of the West. These cancerous ideologies have deracinated us and caused a loss of racial identity. Hence, why not allow hundreds of thousands of unassimilable people to live in the West, as we have no identity? These sorts of questions are not analysable within Phillips’ paradigm. That being said, it is good to be able to cite an establishment journalist who says what none of our Australian de-gassed journalists say.  

SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY AND HISTORIC TOOK PLACE RECENTLY

'Dr. Eowyn', 2 February, 2012: Something extraordinary and historic took place mere days ago in Las Vegas, Nevada.

For three days, from January 29 and 31, 2012, in the Tuscany Hotel & Casino, more than 120 county sheriffs, from across the United States of America, met in a first annual, "Constitutional Sheriffs Convention". This is what Wikipedia says about U.S. sheriffs:
"In the United States, a sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county. Distinctive to law enforcement in the United States, sheriffs are usually elected. The political election of a person to serve as a police leader is an almost uniquely American tradition."

The first Constitutional Sheriffs Convention is the brainchild of the www.CountySheriffProject.org and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association at www.CSPOA.org .
For a video describing the CSPOA, go to www.YouTube.com and type in: Special report: County Sheriffs Push Back Against Feds

The convention's objective is two-fold:
• To increase the understanding and awareness for all sheriffs and peace officers regarding the true power of our constitutional authority and duty to serve and protect the people for whom we work.
• To unite in a concerted effort to uphold and defend the United States Constitution.

Given the importance of the convention, it is curious to say the least that the media have chosen to totally ignore it. Curious, too, is the fact that I scoured the Internet yesterday but could find scant news on the convention, much less a report - not even on the website of the County Sheriff Project.
But I did find an audio of a 1.5 hr Revolution Radio broadcast on the convention, an hour of which consists of phoned-in interviews with several sheriffs who attended the conference, as well as other attendees, mainly Stewart Rhodes, founder of www.OathKeepers.orgTo listen to the audio, Go to google and type in: Revolution Radio: Constitutional Sheriffs Conference.

Stewart Rhodes said the sheriffs "are working on a series of resolutions" at the convention, among which is a "Resolution of the Sheriff Against NDAA 2012", drafted by Rhodes and constitutional attorney Richard Fry, for the sheriffs to sign.

NDAA is the notorious National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights by making it lawful for the U.S. President and the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial. From the Oath Keepers' website, it appears the sheriffs at the convention did not sign the Resolution as a collective body.
Rhodes is asking the sheriffs to sign the Resolution as individual sheriffs. Rhodes opined that political party labels don't mean much anymore, referring in particular to how the NDAA is "a bipartisan assault on our civil liberties," which was spearheaded by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin.

American Constitution has been overthrown:
Rhodes emphasized that a second American Revolution has already taken place under our noses and our Constitution's been overthrown. "We have had people who are determined to destroy our Constitutional Republic to create a tyranny." But this revolution is not fully recognized by the American people, who must be informed and educated.
He calls for Americans, especially the military and the police, to emulate the "peaceful revolution of 1800″ when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rose up against the Anti-Sedition Act to sweep federal oath-breakers out of office.

Rhodes was followed by several sheriffs, who spoke one by one. They included:
Sheriff Dean Wilson of Del Norte County in Northern California,
Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County, Colorado,
Sheriff John Lopey from Northern California's Siskiyou County and
Sheriff Greg Hagwood of Plumas County in Northern California .

An excellent video of these men explaining their problems with Federal agents and how they defeated them can be seen by going to www.YouTube.com and typing in: Constitutional sheriffs.
And for a very good explanation of a Sheriff successfully opposing the Federal Government and protecting the citizens in his county, type in: Sheriff Tony DeMeo….”  

A BIG STINK ABOUT MIGRATION AND MULTICULTURALISM

by James Reed
First off it was Tony Rabbit’s coalition which said that Gillard’s new multiculturalism strategy was failing because it was obsessed with “symbolism” but ignored “the more than half of newly arrived immigrants who aren’t fully integrating.” (“ALP’s Multiculturalism Strategy ‘A Failure’”, The Australian, January 9, 2012, p.5) Then Coalition citizenship spokeswoman Teresa Gambaro put her foot right in it by saying that migrants should be trained in the gentle arts of using deodorants and how to stand in a queue. But then, as quick as a flash Gambaro said: “As someone who has come from a migrant family herself, I am proud of the contribution that generations of migrants have made to Australia and I would not want my reported comments, however inaccurate, to leave the impression that this contribution is not recognised.” (The Australian, January 11, 2012, p.11)

Ok Teresa, all is forgiven, you’ve said the ‘M’ word. However the comments were enough to get all of the professional ethnics, new class academic bleeding hearts etc. etc. to roll out the well known “we/you [Anglos of course] are so, so racist.”
There were the familiar stories of “racism” at school rolled out, with Anglos (or Germans) expressing prejudice about kiddies’ ethnic sandwiches! We were told to watch ourselves because the Asian powers will not take kindly to any show of “racism” (although we need not “bow” to them, perhaps not yet).

All this boot licking when the “Asian powers” have immigration policies today which are racially-based and far more restrictive than the White Australia policy ever was, and where some ethnic minorities learn the real meaning of oppression. Are you tired of being kicked yet?

SURE, WE ARE ALL RACISTS!

by James Reed
Social theorist Frank Furedi (“Racism No Longer an Objective Act of Oppression but an Inherently Subjective Accusation,” The Weekend Australian, January 21-22, 2012, inquirer, p.19, says that in the 19th and early 20th century “many prominent individuals boasted about the superiority of the White race. The idea that some races were superior to others was rarely contested. The sense of racial superiority was so powerful that it served as a source of pride throughout Western societies…Today, the self-professed racist has been consigned to the margins of public life.”

Furedi goes on to discuss the federal government’s comprehensive anti-racism campaign and asks why this should be occurring now: “Racism no longer speaks the confident language of superiority, but expresses the silent anxiety of those who are lost.”

My take on this is that racial pride is a biological natural phenomena, and our type of multiculturalism, multiracialism is unnatural. It can only survive by a massive social structure which deracinates and dispossess the majority. This is done because it suits the financial elite to have a cosmopolitan society.
Societies with vast populations like China cannot be controlled by migration and race-mixing but the lower population density Anglo Nordic countries of the West can. And just to be on the safe side, hit them with the Nordicide of feminism, and every other politically correct “ism”.

Ultimately all will be divided and conquered and crushed. In a nutshell, its all about money, power and global domination by people who make James Bond’s villains look like choir boys. And at the moment it looks like they have well and truly kicked our posteriors.  

IF ONLY THE CONSTITUTION HAD A BIT OF “RACISM”, ANGLO-SAXONS MIGHT SURVIVE!

by James Reed:
Keith Windschuttle (“The Constitution is Anything but Racist”, The Australian, January 24, 2012, p.10) challenges the politically correct rhetoric that there needs to be Constitutional change because Section 25 and Section 51 (xxvi) are “racist”. He points out that Section 25, which deals with persons of a race disqualified from voting, was included to penalise those states such as Queensland and Western Australia which did not allow full blood Aborigines to vote in state elections. The section is thus anti-racist? This historical fact is mentioned in the panel’s report, buried in the depth of it but not in the executive summary.

Yet the politically correct have still squawked about the “racist” Section 25. Section 51 (xxvi), the people of any race section, has only been used to make beneficial laws for Aborigines, and this has been tested by the High Court of Australia, Windschuttle points out:

As I see it, the Australian Constitution is basically an “enabling document” and is unlike other national constitutions, such as that of the United States. The US Constitution establishes basic rights, duties, responsibilities and laws but the Australian Constitution leaves this to parliament and the common law. I know that I am in a minority here for saying this but I feel that a more robust Constitution which included say, the White Australia policy, should have been undertaken.
Some at the Convention wanted this, but fear that India would be upset prevented this idea taking root. It would have slowed things down a little just as the US Second Amendment has slowed down gun grabbing.
The Founding Fathers were too eager to get down to commerce than to think that in less than 100 years traditional Anglo-Australia, and ultimately its Constitution, would be on the road to oblivion.  

CONSTITUTIONAL CULTURAL WARS: TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE PC LAWYERS

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The report co-chaired by leading Jewish lawyer, Mark Leibler and well known Aboriginalist, Patrick Dodson, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in the Constitution, has been released and is available at the You Me Unity website. The lead up to the publication of the report has seen the new class elites using the “racism” and guilt cards, arguing that there is a “racist stain” on the Constitution. Section 25 and Section 51 (xxvi) must be removed, but if they are removed, it is said by the Aboriginalists, the government will not have the power to give Aborigines what we might describe as the billions of dollars of goodies that they are allegedly entitled to. Hence, it is argued, two new sections need to be added:
Section 51A recognising first occupancy of the continent and lands known as Australia by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and Section 116A prohibiting racial discrimination and permitting Aboriginal “advancement”. A new section 127A recognises English and Indigenous languages.

This is the most dangerous set of proposed Constitutional changes ever made in Australia’s history. It will give untold power to the High Court to create a politically correct bill of rights and complete the transformation of Australia into the Multicultural Fascist State (MFS) as James Reed calls it. Looking through the report I have found no solid argument to show that sections 25 and 51 xxvi disadvantage Aborigines. The Committee object to Section 51 (xxvi) because hypothetically it could be used in this way. But that is not a realistic argument. Hypothetically there could be a revolution in Australia with the entire Constitution replaced with one with racial rules with real teeth – but arguing from mere logical possibilities is not good law. The present culture and laws arguably already contributes all that is needed for Aboriginal “advancement”, and it is never shown what else is needed that can’t be provided by the present legal system, which as I see it is already pathetically politically correct.

Further, the prohibition of racial discrimination clause will be used by the lawyers to guarantee open borders and previously unimaginable oppressive anti-White “racist” laws. Conservative organisations such as this one will be closed down and possibly members and/or readers arrested! Sure it won’t happen overnight but given the trend of things it will happen. It is just the nature of things. The Andrew Bolt case indicated that we need to go in exactly the opposite direction.

Phillip Ruddock, the Howard government’s minister who abolished the “corrupt” money-sink of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) said in December last year that it would have been harder to abolish ATSIC if the Constitutional changes now canvassed were in place. Thus corrupt, money-wasting organisations would still be seen as “advancement”. Ruddock said that the idea of putting within the body of the Constitution recognition of the prior occupation of Australia by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and respect for their culture”, gives you more hooks on which you can hang potential litigation.” (The Australian, December 26, 2011, p.1) Even the idea that Parliament should be able to legislate for Aboriginal advancement would be “in effect abdicating” parliamentary power to the High Court (ie. lawyers).

The Northern Territory intervention would be immediately legally challenged. Further, the idea of “advancement” is vague and will lead to massive legal disputes. (The Australian, December 19, 2011, p.1) One of the most important articles published about the proposed race powers is S. Rintoul, “Lawyers Backed New Race Powers”, The Australian, January 4, 2012, p.2. The article discusses the Law Council of Australia submission: “A submission by the council recommended key changes to the Constitution ultimately adopted by the panel in its report.” The Council supported “an approach to constitutional recognition which goes beyond the preamble to the Imperial Act and secures enforceable rights.” The Council had suggested a new Head of Power obliging government to make laws “beneficial” to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (the panel used the term “advancement”). They also recommended “a general guarantee of racial equality and racial non-discrimination.” Now you know where all of this has come from.

It has been reported that the deadline for this referendum has allegedly shifted because the expert panel believes that if things are rushed then it would be defeated. (The Weekend Australian, January 21 – 22, 2012, p.1) Don’t go back to sleep!!! This article reports the opinion of certain elites and not Gillard.
Tony Abbott has said that although he was concerned about the anti-discrimination provisions he would attempt to ensure a successful referendum “was carried”. He is hardly any better than Gillard. As with the republic of the rich back in 1999, it is up to us, the Australian People, to defeat this proposed Constitutional tyranny. My bet is that the referendum will be at the next election, so we have our work set out for us.

SOUTHWEST SYDNEY AND THE ART OF THE “DRIVE-BY”

A drive-by has nothing to do with purchasing a few bottles of grog from your local drive in bottle-o. No. Rather, drive-bys involve thugs driving by some target and spraying bullets, usually by automatic fire rather than aimed fire. The issue is discussed by Tim Priest “Courts Must Back Police in the Fight Against Guns”, The Australian, January 20, 2012, p.10.

Although this sounds like an anti-gun piece, it is not as Priest rather politely is concerned about this: “There is no deterrent to the culture of gun possession that grips many young men of ethnic background in southwest Sydney. And it is a culture. It is not a “spike” or a “peak” in crime statistics. It is a culture that is here to stay. Make no mistake about that.” It makes me laugh after reading the hard-line stuff from former policeman Tim Priest, to then turn to the collar-and-tie article of Scott Morrison, “Rule of Law for All Migrants”, The Australian, January 23, 2012, p.10.

Morrison “celebrates” in his article the Liberal Party’s achievements, which, as I see it, includes: Robert Menzies embracing post-war immigration (which set in motion all the issues we face today), Harold Holt abolishing the White Australia Policy, and Malcolm Fraser allowing in the Indo-Chinese refugees and beginning the Asianisation of Australia and John Howard, embracing Asianisation and establishing a Chinese ruling class in Australia: e.g., “The Howard Legacy”.

Morrison though is aware, vaguely, of the “social dislocation arising from Europe’s failed immigration policies”, and home-grown terrorism. He says that Europe did not follow Australia’s immigration path; on the contrary, we have, and the claim that Australia has avoided the problems of Europe because of some slight statistical advantage of skills is sheer nonsense. The daily stories from the papers, such as the quote given above by Tim Priest, refute this. Morrison needs to get out after dark in rough areas and see the world which the Liberals have helped create.  

THE GENTLE ART OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

by Brian Simpson
Scientific fraud is more common than most of us ordinary folk would believe. (The Australian, January 25, 2012, p.25) The British Medical Journal studied 2700 researchers and found that 13% knew of scientists altering or fabricating data.
Mike Adams in his essay “The Downfall of Science and the Rise of Intellectual Tyranny” (NaturalNews.com, January 21, 2011) gives the reason for this. Science has become intertwined with Big Pharma and the corporate and has become prostituted in the process.
But it is not just “sciencebloggers”, but scientists themselves. One paper on statistics suggested that most recent scientific reports in biomedicine are false. Could this be from the pressure to “cook up” results to continue to get funding and keep the good wine on the table?  

THE “ASSASSINATE-THE-PRESIDENT” STORY NEEDS TO BE READ VERY CAREFULLY

by Peter Ewer
Andrew Adler owner and publisher of Atlanta Jewish Times in his January 13, 2012 column said that the threat of a nuclear Iran left Israel with three options: (1) strike Hezbollah and Hamas; (2) strike Iran or (3) order a “hit” on US President Barack Obama. The third option involved Mossad liquidating a president unfriendly to Israel.
The article led to Adler apologising as well as a mountain of criticism of him by largely Jewish sources. The story appears not to have been touched by the mainstream media, but Adler is widely criticised by the Jewish media. He has since resigned.

Now one needs to read Adler’s comments calmly and think about the facts. As I read it, he did not say that Obama should be liquidated – only that this option may in the future be considered by Mossad. It is clearly a hypothetical statement, and one which is very unrealistic. I agree with conservative Jews who are hostile to Obama, but the opportunity to toss Obama out of office democratically and legally is right before them.
A nuclear armed Iran could turn Europe into a nuclear wasteland and this issue is far greater than our petty disputes. Obama has done little to deal with the Iran threat and Israel should not see him as a “friend”. Indeed, Obama has actively sought “friendship” with Iran, ignoring the grave nuclear threat to Israel and Europe. But Jewry helped put Obama in office and Jewry can now help turf him out, all legally and democratically.  

CHNAGE OF TELEPHONE NUMBER

South Australiab Bookshop Services - Please note in your teledex Doug and Jean Holmes phone number is changed to: 08 8396 1245