The 89-year-old told a Jewish online news service that Israelis should ‘go home’  to Germany or Poland.

Ms Thomas resigned yesterday after being denounced by the White House and her colleagues.  Her outburst was caught on camera and widely circulated on the internet.

The reporter had been talking to a rabbi on the day of the White House’s official celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month last week.

‘Any comments on Israel?’ she was asked. ‘Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,’ she replied.

When asked to say something positive on the occasion, she said: ‘Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germans’. It’s not Poland’s.’

Yesterday, after a career spanning seven decades and ten presidents, she resigned from Hearst newspaper group and announced her immediate retirement.

It came minutes after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called her remarks ‘offensive and reprehensible’ during his daily briefing with reporters.

Ms Thomas, who has had a front-row seat in the briefing room for many years, was not present.

“…do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you…” (Deuteronomy 20:16)

I am here to announce as loud as I can, there is no need for any ‘International’, ‘impartial’ or ‘independent’ inquiry into the latest Israeli massacre on the high sea. Though the Israeli opposition to such an inquiry is there to suggest that the Israelis have much to hide, the truth of the matter is actually deeper. If you want to grasp what underlies the Israeli deadly barbarism all you have to do is open the Old Testament.

Though it is certain that there is no ethnic or racial continuum between the Biblical Israelites and the Khazarians who lead the Jewish state and its army, the similarities between the murderous enthusiasm described in Deuteronomy and the current string of Israeli lethal actions cannot be denied. Israel is a murderous society not because of any biological or racial lineage with its imaginary ‘forefathers’. Israel is deadly because it is driven by a fanatical tribal Jewish ideology and fueled by a psychotic merciless Biblical poisonous enthusiasm.

The Jewish State is beyond the law. It doesn’t follow any recognised universal value system either. In recent years Israel flattened Lebanon (2006) and left more than 3000 civilians dead, it managed to shell an UNRWA shelter with white phosphorus (2009) and left Gaza with 1500 fatalities most of them women, children and elders, earlier this year it assassinated in Dubai using forged foreign passports, last week we saw the Kosher navy slaughter peace activists in international waters.

One way to explain the rapid moral deterioration of the Jewish State is to point out that Zionists have never really committed to ethics. They were quick to learn that rather than truly internalizing the meaning of humanism, a spin would serve their cause as effectively.

The entire Hasbara (propaganda) project is grounded on a dissemination of lies. For years the Hasbara project, which has been supported by Sayanim all along,  was there to present Israel as a ‘Western’ and ‘democratic’ nation in a ‘sea of Arabs’. All that time the Jewish State was inflicting pain on its neighbours, murdering, starving and  ethnically cleansing the indigenous people of the land.

Enough is enough, it is time to name and shame every Israeli and Zionist infiltrator within political circles, media and academia. This shouldn’t be complicated at all because until very recently those Sayanim and traitors within our midst were doing it all in the open.

Read the rest of the article here.

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.

CALLER – Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI – We are an agency of the government.

CALLER – That’s not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI – It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER – Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI – No, it is owned by the member banks.

CALLER – Are the member banks private corporations?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.

CALLER – Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI – The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.

CALLER – What are these assets composed of?

MR. SUPINSKI – Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

CALLER – What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

CALLER – Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes.

CALLER – Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

MR. SUPINSKI – They are authorized by the Treasury.

CALLER – How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI – Fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER – How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI – The same fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER – To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn’t it?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI – That is probably close.

CALLER – Doesn’t the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, but there is more to it than that.

CALLER – Basically, that is what happens?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, basically you are correct.

CALLER – How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI – $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

CALLER – Where did they go?

MR. SUPINSKI – Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

CALLER – Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.

CALLER – If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

MR. SUPINSKI – No

CALLER – Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

MR. SUPINSKI – About $7.

CALLER – Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were “created out of thin air ” in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI – That is part of the reason.

CALLER – Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation’s money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

MR. SUPINSKI – Basically, yes.

CALLER – I smell a rat, do you?

MR. SUPINSKI – I am sorry, I can’t answer that, I work here.

CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

MR. SUPINSKI – We are audited.

CALLER – Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.

CALLER – Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

CALLER – Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

MR. SUPINSKI – I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER – I can tell you I have read the Constitution.  It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn’t it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t think so, but we were created by Congress.

CALLER – Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

MR. SUPINSKI – I understand what you are saying.

CALLER – Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn’t this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

MR. SUPINSKI – (Declined to answer).

CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

MR. SUPINSKI – I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

CALLER – Have there been Supreme Court Cases?

MR. SUPINSKI – I think so, but I am not sure.

CALLER – Didn’t the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?  ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]

MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know, I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER – Isn’t the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

MR. SUPINSKI – It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

CALLER – What is the solution?

MR. SUPINSKI – The Debit Card.

CALLER – Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn’t that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it’s agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62.  In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn’t that kind of scary?

MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, it makes you wonder.

CALLER – I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren’t we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t call it tribute, it is interest.

CALLER – Haven’t all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn’t the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t say that.

CALLER – Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason.  Isn’t the punishment of treason death?

MR. SUPINSKI – I believe so.

CALLER – Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

MR. SUPINSKI – It doesn’t look good.

CALLER – May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.

MR. SUPINSKI – Unfortunately, it does not look good.

CALLER – Have a good day and thanks for your time.

MR. SUPINSKI – Thanks for calling.

If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won’t find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true.

And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: “Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality’s . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations – federal reserve banks are listed neither as “wholly-owned’ government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846] nor as ‘mixed ownership’ corporations [under 31 USC Section 856] . . . 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671. ‘

Federal agency’ is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentality’s of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . . There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the ‘detailed physical performance’ and ‘day to day operations’ of that entity.

Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities …

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act.

Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 USC Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . .” According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, “When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks.” (“The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears,” published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia).

The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller’s, JP Morgan, Rothschild’s, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEYCHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, “NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE US” *

Monopoly – “A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right [or power] to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service.

‘Monopoly,’ as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, “No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank.” They didn’t want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials.

Since 2003 the war on Pakistan and the war within Pakistan is being gradually intensified in various ways, such as supporting tyrannical regimes, making them invade parts of their own country, helping anti-Pakistan elements establish local Abu Graib and Gruantanamos, training and sending terrorists from Afghanistan, launching attacks on Pakistan army through fake Taliban, supporting local ‘jihad’ against the puppet regime in Islamabad, false flag operations in India and Afghanistan and blaming those on Pakistan and of course the war drums in the media.

The softening up of Pakistan is now reaching the final phases. All one needs to do is look at the history of this war on Pakistan to understand what is coming up and what could be done to peacefully resolve the situation and keep the powers at bay which are bent on balkanizing the region.

The Western people in particular are the victims of a gigantic and deadly hoax. They are told that the war on Afghanistan and Iraq is no more a war for WMD or democracy, or terrorism any more. These were just initial steps towards “a war between radical Islam and America.”

The hoax goes on to make the Western people believe that Islam has two faces: “Islam with a human and progressive face” and an Islam that is “exclusivist and hostile to the world.” The US will be defeated by its own hoax about Islam.

The hoax-mongers are fast moving from the mantra of making democratic models to making Islam fit for democracy. Any opposition to the use of unprecedented levels of killing and terror to impose democracy on selected Muslim countries is considered the “resistance” of a “small fraction” of “exclusivist Muslims” who are “the enemies of democracy.”

Besides the so-considered “progress” made towards democracy in the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq respectively, there are other factors that show that the US will never be able to split Muslims the way it wants in the name of imposing its brand of democracy in the Muslim world.

Impartial analysts need to analyse these facts and guide the US administration and the promoters of terror under the banner of democracy for better understanding of the realities about Islam and Muslims. Together they need to repackage their democracy rather supporting their futile attempts at “rebuilding Islam” for 1.5 billion people.

Democracy is now used as a weapon to achieve the objective of weakening the exaggerated threat of Islam. The reason is that there are some principles of democracy that are compatible with Islam and some are in total contradiction to its core principles. To make Islam compatible to these principle, rather than going the other way round, is an invitation to continuous trouble and an exercise in futility.

It is interesting to note that people who have accepted in the past that democracy need not be secular, now propose to secularise Islam, otherwise democracy will never take roots in the Muslim world.

It is irrational to expect that the fear of never ending massacres will make Muslims reject the basic principles of their faith without any critical scrutiny, just as it is illogical to reject any Western concept only because it is originated in the West.

Some of the principles of democracy such as ‘freedom’, ‘equality’ and ‘election’ are not only compatible with Islam, but it is Islam which has imported to the people their natural rights, equality, freedom and justice. In Islam, although the interest of an individual is subordinated to the community, the individual is given sufficient liberty which is necessary for the development of his personality.

The head of the state in Islam is subject to the same laws like the common man. He is supposed to be elected by the people and should be deposed by the people if he goes contrary to the law. This way, democracy is the most important aspect of Islam as a political ideal.

The origin of state is not force, but free consent of individuals who unite to form a brotherhood, based upon legal equality, in order that each member of the brotherhood may work out the potentialities of his individuality under the law of Islam. Government is an artificial arrangement, and is divine only in the sense that the revealed law of Islam demands peace and security.

The modern Western discourse on liberty and equality can be traced back to Islam, particularly from the time of the Prophet Mohammed and the period of Khulafa-i-Rashideen. It was during this period that the real meaning of liberty and equality was translated into practice. In other words, this principle of democracy-liberty and equality are not new to Islam at all. In fact, it is Islam which has presented these concepts to the world to liberate man from all sorts of man-centred authoritarianism and dominations.

Many aspects such as those mentioned above are compatible to Islam, but many of these principles are not totally free from problems and risks in secular democracies.

Read the rest of the article here..