INDEX AND SEARCH
US GOV IMPLICATED IN NY/DC TERRORIST ATTACKS
Webmaster Files RICO Class Actions Against Parking Police and Retaliatory Censorship
CENSORSHIP AMERICAN STYLE
President Bush Jr's 3 Arrests: DWI and Drugs? First Lady Bush Jr's DWI Homicide?, First Family's drunken arrests,
VP Dick Cheney's 2 DWIs
Dick Cheney's Top Secrets as Secretary of War
Car Thieves Drive Tow Trucks
Cop Arrested for Murder of Biker Cop
US DEA Hit Man
Jailed Twice by
George Bush Sr's
JAMES BOND SWISSAIR 111 FIRE SALE DODI2DI4 CARMILLA POWMIA
PRINCESS DI IS DEAD: SEIG HEIL TO THE QUEEN!
by John Lee
"London, that great cesspool into which all the loungers of the Empire are irresistibly drained."
Now that Diana is dead and buried, Prince Charles is being reconsidered for the job of King of England, and his public image is being carefully rehabilitated (including the image of his mistress). The press no longer acknowledges that Charles was to be passed over in favor of his son. Even clergy of the British government's Anglican Church teach little children that Diana is roasting in Hell for her sins. Church and state are one and the same there. Coincidence?
What better way to remind the citizens who's boss? Or are the British people merely "subjects?" Imagine the apprehension of those still attempting to take billions of dollars away from the Queen (and her royal court), and topple her House of Windsor. What greater motive for homicide is there? It's practically "self-defense." Every day, people kill each other over the change in their pockets. Like all citizens, an ex-princess and even a billionaire are expendable, too, when a government decides to wield its power.
Who in British law enforcement is truly powerful enough to properly investigate this alleged crime, a crime that occurred on foreign soil? What traffic cop is willing to investigate the top of their chain of command, and thus not only throw away his career, but also risk losing his life and the lives of his family? What would that traffic cop gain, that would be worth his price? How are French investigators to investigate a crime when the perpetrators can leave the country in a matter of minutes? How does one take on the multi-billionaires and win? Checkmate.
The December 22, 1997 issue of right-wing Newsweek magazine ran yet another cover photo of Diana (a very profitable idea), and inside ran the story titled, "Princess of the World. Why did we weep? Diana was not a saint; in fact, she was a sinner. . . . She wasn't the only woman with bad taste and bad luck. . . . Case Very Nearly Closed. Police are looking for that Fiat and the Fayeds hint at conspiracy, but the crash looks like a routine accident. . . . Cops grumble. . . on what now seems to be a plain case of drunken driving."
One week later, Newsweek writes, "Is it churlish to suggest that the thunderous international keening, the clear-cutting of flower beds all over Europe, the launching of a thousand magazines to pay tribute to her was more than a bit overdone? . . . the queen herself is forced to bow her head in homage to someone she had every reason to dislike." Newsweek's headquarters are in New York City, where the Queen of England is the largest landowner.
One the first anniversary of Diana's death, Newsweek whined about "An Endless Investigation." As if murder is unworthy of investigation.
An interviewer for NBC's Dateline show (owned by General Electric, one of the world's most-profitable manufacturers of military hardware used for murdering huge numbers of people, with multiple criminal convictions for Fraud, Waste and Abuse of Pentagon contracts) opined: "What a loony plot that would be if it were assassination. . . . It would take a conspiracy involving [several people]. It takes it to the Nth degree." (As if people are incapable of organizing a crime for profit, or in anything complex, for that matter. Haven't they ever heard of teamwork?)
The American media loves a good fictional detective show, the more complicated a plot, the better. Why doesn't the American media report on the intense speculation of this possible crime of murder? Why is that not an equally fascinating subject? Why does Jane Pauley of Dateline NBC find it hilarious that Prince William had his sadness censored at another royal wedding (who a woman who eerily resembled his dead mother), when the British newscasters digitally morphed his frown into a smile?
Like the Hollywood cliché of the killer pouring a bottle of whiskey over his victim, then rolling the victim's car off a cliff (remember Princess Grace Kelly of Monaco?--"You don't believe everything you read in the papers, do you?," explained one British citizen), it seems Britain's James Bonds have found a slightly more sophisticated method to exercise their national-security "license to kill." No matter how outrageous their mass murders, casting the plausible specter of a shameful DWI allegation is all that is needed to deflect media, and thus public, attention from their crime.
But then again, maybe it really was just another tragic DWI hit-and-run collision. After all, everyone accused of DWI is guilty of DWI, aren't they?
Princess's recorded confessions about her marriage will [allegedly] never be seen - but hunt goes on for the audio 'rape tape'
Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Secret confessional videos made by Diana, Princess of Wales - which would have caused huge embarrassment to the royal family if they had been made public - have been [allegedly] destroyed.
Royal sources say the videos, recorded by a former BBC cameraman, who is now believed to be living abroad, were seized when detectives raided the home of Paul Burrell, Diana's former butler, in Cheshire two years ago.
The videos featured an emotional Diana discussing her life following her divorce from Prince Charles and an allegation that a courtier close to a senior royal raped one of his male colleagues [apparently Princess Charles sodomized one of his male valets].
This is the same allegation that Diana reputedly recorded on the infamous audio tape whose whereabouts is now the subject of a media frenzy.
On the audio tape the princess recorded George Smith, a former aide to Charles, alleging that he was [homosexually] raped [sodomized, "buggered"] by a senior courtier [apparently Princess Charles, who partially admitted the allegation by stating that he was the person named in Diana's diaries, without going so far as confessing his guilt that he perped the crime]. Smith is also recorded saying he has seen the same courtier involved in a sex act with a member of the royal family. [Perhaps this was "consensual" buggery with Princess Charles, which apparently was a "three-way" group sex gangbang, that was viewed by a royal "witness". His royal cousin, Resident George Bush Jr, who visited the British royals the same week in November 2003, was also been named in many homosexual situations, including the annual gay romps in the Californian redwoods with 3,000 nekked friends, and being blackmailed for gay sex photos masturbating in coffins with lifelong family friend Victor Ashe, mayor of webmaster John Lee's hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee, while both were cheerleaders at Yale and Skull and Bones Senior Secret Society, where women where not allowed to attend school, forcing the randy young aristorats to expell their precious bodily fluids elsewhere.]
The audio tape was among a number of items which Diana called her 'crown jewels', kept in a mahogany box that her sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, had asked Burrell to look after.
Until now the whereabouts of the videos, which contained a series of character assassinations of each royal, had remained as mysterious as the location of the audio tape. Now well-placed sources say the videos were handed to a third party and have been destroyed.
The news will intensify speculation on the whereabouts of the audio tape which is still thought to exist and is said by royal sources to constitute a 'ticking time-bomb'. Speculation has focused on whether Burrell has the tape, something that he has always denied.
However, during his trial, a royal protection officer recalled seeing Burrell remove a mahogany box in the early hours of one morning soon after Diana's death. The box itself was eventually returned to McCorquodale, minus its contents.
As a furore blew up around the publication of Burrell's book, A Royal Duty, the former butler hinted last week that he had more material that could damage the royal family, again triggering speculation about where the tape is.
Detective Chief Inspector Maxine de Brunner who was among the police who raided Burrell's home, recalls a meeting on 17 May 2001 with Fiona Shackleton, Charles's lawyer, and McCorquodale, during which the tape's whereabouts were discussed.
De Brunner recalled that Shackleton said: 'I know all about the rape [tape]. I was asked to make it go away - it was one of the lowest points in my professional career.'
When Shackleton then asked who had the tape, McCorquodale replied: 'Paul Burrell has it.' De Brunner was concerned about Shackleton's comments that she had been asked to 'make it go away' and told her superiors there might have been an attempt to suppress Smith's rape allegation - a claim he later retracted.
However Smith, who now works in a hospital in South Wales, repeated his story in the Mail on Sunday a year ago. Last week Smith told the paper he hoped the contents of the tape would not be made public. 'It would have terrible consequences,' he said.
In a sign that Clarence House is determined to put the matter behind it once and for all, Princes William and Harry issued an unprecedented joint appeal to Burrell not to make further revelations. William is to meet his mother's former aide soon in what palace insiders say represents an attempt to establish the whereabouts of the tape, the last remaining link to the rape allegation now that the videos have been [allegedly] destroyed and Smith has taken a vow of silence.
Smith's original allegation - ridiculed by senior courtiers - nevertheless presented Charles's aides with a serious dilemma. As Shackleton observed in a letter on 14 November 1996, setting out Smith's generous redundancy package: 'I suspect the bottom line in all this is that the [royal] household is caught over a barrel. Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of George's allegations it would not presumably want those allegations to appear in print.'
The seeds of the current furore, which has caused acute consternation at Clarence House, were sown on 7 October 1996 when Smith walked into Hounslow police station in west London and said a man had threatened him with a gun as he made his way home.
Distressed and at times rambling incoherently, Smith cut a sorry figure to the officers who heard his claim. A former Army corporal, he had served in the Falklands and was traumatised by seeing friends burnt on HMS Sir Galahad, on which 50 guardsmen died as it was attacked by Argentine jets in June 1982. He became a heavy drinker and suffered mental illness.
Despite doubts about the veracity of his claim, police officers visited Smith's home and studied local closed-circuit TV footage. The footage revealed nothing to substantiate Smith's claim.
Here Smith's story might have been consigned to a yellowing file in the police station if he hadn't then told the officers he had been raped by a senior courtier. He recalled how one afternoon he had Sunday lunch at the courtier's house and had quaffed gin and tonics and champagne before falling asleep on a sofa. He awoke to find that his trousers had been pulled down and he had been sexually assaulted.
Smith later retracted this allegation, saying his alleged attacker was 'too powerful' for him to pursue it, but he repeated it to Diana on tape a few months later.
Whether the story is fact or fiction, the tape's existence continues to haunt the monarchy. One well-placed source, familiar with its contents, said: 'The royal family has to make a decision. If Burrell has the tape, do they try to buy him off or manage the explosion themselves?
'I am reminded of what Kissinger said: "If it's going to come out at the end, it may as well come out at the beginning."' [Heinz "Henry" Kissinger was a homosexual rapist of US soldiers in "Vietnam" War, as are all US intelligence officers "initiated" above colonel rank and most USMC special forces - "It's a man-thing. They're under SOOOO much pressure." (see Kay Griggs video interview).]
Jon Henley in Paris
Under the mildly disbelieving headline "Prince Charles: European press censored", Le Monde said yesterday that all 7,000 copies of its Monday edition meant for sale in Britain had been pulped because of fears that a story on the royal scandal could lead to prosecution.
It was the front-page lead in the French daily, and inside it attempted to explain the scandal, the contortions of the British press as it tried to "speak but not say," and the peculiar paradoxes of the UK's privacy laws.
It also said that 16 major European newspapers - French, Spanish, Italian, German, Turkish, Belgian and Dutch - were unavailable in British newsagents on Saturday, but back on sale again on Monday.
The Financial Times, which distributes the French daily in Britain, "considered that it risked falling under the injunction. It preferred... to prevent [Le Monde's] distribution in Britain."
Le Monde's story on Monday was a model of responsible reporting. It named the two former royal servants, related the saga of the unpublished Mail on Sunday "scoop" and the injunction and named the parties. It was the explicit linking of all the main players that appeared to concern the FT.
Yesterday Le Monde quoted at length from the email it received from the FT expressing its "frustration" at the decision when the story was all over the internet, but adding that British law was "very difficult" and that "no other realistic course of action" was possible.
Questioned last night about the absurdity of the situation, Le Monde declined to comment further. "The fact that it's our front page lead should tell you what we think," one senior journalist said. "It's all in the story: people in Britain should just read it. If they can."
LE MONDE | 11.11.03 • MIS A JOUR LE 12.11.03
From our correspondent London
The 11 November issue of Le Monde did not appear Tuesday in the United Kingdom following a decision by the newspaper's British distributor to pull the edition, which contained a report about a growing crisis that has rocked royal family and mobilised the British press for the past ten days.
On Monday afternoon, the Financial Times, the London-based daily that handles distribution of Le Monde in the UK, informed Le Monde's foreign distribution service by phone and email that it would not distribute the 11 November issue, which was published 10 November in Paris. Le Monde is normally distributed in the UK on the day following its publication in Paris.
The Financial Times said it was withdrawing the issue as a result of the report, which summarised allegations affecting the royal family and the resulting media reaction in the UK. The scandal erupted following an announcement by the Mail on Sunday newspaper that it would publish an explosive,3,000-word article on 2 November. The article, which was not published, was said to contain an exclusive interview with George Smith, 43, a valet for the Windsor family for 11 years. Smith reportedly alleged that a sexual 'incident' had taken place between "an important member of the royal family" and another former royal servant, , 40. Smith also alleged that he had been raped by the same servant in the 1980's.
Lawyers for Fawcett, claiming their client had been defamed, obtained a last-minute injunction to prevent the Mail on Sunday from publishing the article. On the following day, the Mail on Sunday headlined its edition with the story of the injunction. The injunction forbids the media — including the written press and TV news in England and Wales, but not in Scotland — from providing details about the incident, which supposedly involves Prince Charles. The ban is still in effect.
The court also imposed a black out on the name of the servant linked to the allegations.
The day after the article failed to appear in the Mail on Sunday, the Guardian newspaper said it would reveal the servant's name, resulting in another gag order issued via mobile phone from a judge stuck in central London traffic.
On 6 November, the High Court ruled in favour of the Guardian, allowing it to publish Michael Fawcett's name in relation to the injunction, although the newspaper may not reveal the details of what the former servant was alleged to have done. The scandal took on a new twist after Prince Charles, who was on a royal visit to Oman, denied the claims in a surprise announcement. The denial was issued through his personal secretary in London, who described Smith's allegations against "an important member of the royal family" as "ludicrous" and "risible".
The Le Monde article essentially retraced the various episodes of this affair, but the Financial Times' legal department felt the article ran the risk of falling under the radar of the Michael Fawcett libel injunction. The Financial Times therefore decided to withdraw the 11 November issue of Le Monde from circulation as a precautionary measure. In the email to Le Monde confirming its decision, the Financial Times wrote : "We have been formally advised by our lawyers that the article on the 'Prince Charles affair' should not be distributed in the UK and we therefore should not distribute Le Monde dated 11th November. The problem is in the linking of two names of royal servants, which appear in the article. Although these names have already been mentioned in the press here, the connection between these names, the alleged incident, and the injunction that has been obtained by one of the servants has not been made explicit and we have been strongly advised not to do so."
"As a result of this, we are notifying customers that the issue is being withdrawn. We will collect the copies from Eurostar as normal, but will then have to destroy them." The Financial Times apologised and expressed its "frustration" at having to take such action, particularly "over a story which is apparently widely disseminated on the Internet". But the email underscored that "British law is very difficult in this matter and we do not feel that there is any other realistic course of action".
The Financial Times, which has been handling the distribution of Le Monde in the UK for several months, distributes 7000 copies of the newspaper on a daily basis. Asked about the move, Olivier Fleurot, the managing director of the Financial Times, said it was taken to protect both the distributor and Le Monde from any possible legal action, which could result in heavy financial penalties if the article was ruled to be libellous. On Saturday, 8 November, fifteen major foreign newspapers were withdrawn from circulation in the UK. The newspapers were mostly European, notably Le Figaro, Liberation, El Pais, and La Stampa, which are distributed through other channels than Le Monde's. Newsstands warned that the newspapers would arrive late, although none appeared. The following day, distribution returned to normal, with Monday editions appearing.
Translated from the French by dbV Scop, Paris.
British royal dogged by sexed-up allegations made by sexed-up manservant
LONDON — Britain?s future king, Prince Charles, on Monday ruled out making a special television appearance to deny allegations made by a former servant that his aides have derided as absurd. The British media are prohibited from disclosing the details due to a court injunction.
HOWEVER, SPECULATION ABOUT an address to the nation had grown as newspapers in Scotland and Ireland published details of the rumor over the weekend, bringing to Britain's doorstep an allegation that has already been aired in continental newspapers.
So far, English newspapers have obeyed a legal injunction not to reveal the rumor.
The prince, who returned from a two-week overseas trip on Sunday, is spending two days at his country estate in the west of England, conferring with his advisers about how to counter an allegation.
On Monday, his office said he was not planning either to take legal action or to go on television to add to a stern rebuttal of the rumor issued in his absence last week.
"The Prince has no plans to make a television appearance. The statement we made on Thursday still very much stands," said a spokeswoman. "There are no plans to take any legal action."
FIRST ENGAGEMENT WEDNESDAY
Charles was spending Monday and Tuesday privately at his Highgrove estate, with his first public engagement due on Wednesday at a Remembrance service at the Royal Hospital in Chelsea, she added.
The latest scandal to rock the House of Windsor began 10 days ago when Charles' former personal aide Michael Fawcett was granted a legal injunction preventing the Mail on Sunday publishing the charges by former palace servant George Smith.
Initial speculation involved very vaguely a palace aide and a senior royal in an unspecified incident, but in a bizarre twist last Thursday Charles identified himself as the royal.
"I just want to make it entirely clear, even though I can't refer to the specifics of the allegation, that it's totally untrue and without a shred of substance," his private secretary Sir Michael Peat said.
ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) -- A former royal servant has come to the defense of Prince Charles, supporting his denial of rumors that have created mounting controversy in Britain even though they cannot be reported.
More than a week after the rumors became the subject of a legal case, few in Britain know details of the allegations made by former royal valet George Smith. A court order forbids reporting on the alleged incident involving Charles and a royal servant.
But in any case, it "simply could not have happened," says another former servant Simon Solari.
"I have never spoken publicly about my service before but I feel compelled to speak out now as I feel the Prince of Wales is being unfairly maligned," the Evening Standard newspaper quoted Solari as saying.
Solari insisted that Smith would never have been in a position to witness the alleged incident. In defending Charles -- who has firmly denied the alleged incident ever happened -- Solari also put more details into the public domain, but with little explanation.
The royal household, Solari said, "operates a very strict system on military lines, with specific servants having specific roles. It would not have been in George's remit to attend the prince or serve him tea in his bedroom, that was a job for the senior valet," Solari was quoted as saying.
"The prince of Wales does not have breakfast in bed. It did not happen in my day, anyway," he said.
"More importantly, George Smith as an orderly and then an assistant to the valet would not have access to the prince's bedroom. He would not be asked to take tea to the prince, that would be a job for the senior valet. That is how the system works," Solari was quoted as saying.
The Mail on Sunday had intended to print a story Nov. 2 about allegations by Smith, but former royal aide Michael Fawcett obtained an injunction to block publication of the allegedly libelous story.
On Sunday, the newspaper reported Smith claimed he had been raped by another royal servant, who had also been involved in "an incident" with Charles.
Charles' decision to deny allegations that are not public knowledge has heightened speculation about what is alleged to have occurred rather than defusing the situation.
Charles' statement described the man making the allegations as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and alcoholism following military service in the Falklands War.
"He has, in the past, made other unrelated allegations, which the police have fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated," said the statement, which did not use Smith's name.
Smith, 43, worked for Charles for 11 years until 1997.
Princess Diana's former butler, Paul Burrell, told CNN on Monday that Smith "is a very good man. I like George. The princess liked George, too, and she tried to help him with all his problems."
Details of the rumors have been published on Internet sites and in some foreign newspapers.
W.H. Smith, a major retailer of newspapers and magazines, confirmed Monday that 14 foreign newspapers -- including titles from Italy, France, Spain and the Netherlands -- were not available for sale in Britain over the weekend, because of a decision by the distributor, which supplies newspapers to the company.
The distributor, IPN, did not respond to calls from The Associated Press seeking comment.
The butler may be off the hook but a new wave of scandals targets Charles and even the Queen. Barbara Kantrowitz reports.
The Bulletin with Newsweek
Amid the tsunami unleashed by Fleet Street last week, one tidbit is worth pondering: apparently, there is someone whose job includes squeezing Prince Charles's toothpaste onto the royal toothbrush. That someone is Michael Fawcett, the prince's personal valet. Since Fawcett is, according to various news reports, the only person Charles trusts with this awesome responsibility, one must presume that the heir to the throne's dental hygiene declines precipitously whenever the valet goes on vacation.
Fawcett's duties came to light in a series of lurid tabloid stories about some of the other tasks he is said to undertake for his boss. These reportedly include selling unwanted royal gifts for cash to the tune of about $US150,000 a year, with Fawcett getting a commission and Charles getting the rest. That was actually among the tamer allegations flung at the royals. The most serious charge was made by one of Charles's footmen, who claimed he was raped by a senior aide. There were also reports of a palace "gay mafia" covering up the crime.
And if there's any doubt that the ghost of Diana continues to haunt the royals, consider these revelations from Paul Burrell, her former butler, who sold his story in Britain for $US450,000 and is now hitting talk shows on this side of the pond. Burrell claims that Diana once left home to meet her lover clad only in a fur coat and pearls. Other beaus were smuggled into Kensington Palace in the trunks of cars. Burrell says that when Diana was feeling especially magnanimous, she drove around and handed out money to prostitutes, urging them to "go home." On at least one occasion, she dispatched Burrell to buy soft-core porn for her son William because she knew that it might be just a little difficult for the prince to buy the stuff himself (only a mother would think of these things). Despite this behavior, it does seem a tad rude of Prince Philip, her ex-father-in-law, to have written Diana letters in which he described her, Burrell claims, as a "trollop" and a "harlot."
All these revelations are providing a dismal end to what had been a triumphant year for the royals. It was the queen's jubilee, a celebration of her 50 years on the throne that peaked with two widely televised concerts this summer. The good PR ended when Burrell went on trial last month for stealing more than 300 items from Diana's home. Just as the butler was set to testify, the queen announced via her courtiers that Burrell had told her he was taking Diana's stuff for safekeeping. That put an end to the case, since the prosecution was based on the claim that Burrell had told no one what he was doing.
Once he was freed, Burrell sold his story to the Daily Mirror, which sparked a ferocious tabloid war and pushed other papers to ferret out the dirt about Charles's household. Late last week Charles assigned his private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, to investigate the allegations "without fear or favor." Opponents of the monarchy are also calling for an inquiry into the queen's last-minute intervention in the Burrell trial. A poll last week suggested that two thirds of the British public believe that she spoke out only to halt further embarrassing revelations. Don't the Windsors know by now that no servant in the world can put the toothpaste back in the tube?
With Ginanne Brownell and William Underhill in London.
© 2002 Newsweek, Inc.
Tantalisingly, the lead story for the Mail on Sunday is the story of the story it cannot print.
It says a former royal servant has been granted an injunction preventing it from publishing the details which, it insists, are of the utmost importance and concern matters of the deepest public interest.
The paper also says there was a written demand from an un-named senior member of the Royal Family that the story should not appear.
The People has a much more straightforward tale about secrecy and royalty.
The Queen has apparently ordered every servant and aide to sign contracts under which they risk hefty financial penalties if they write revealing memoirs about royal life - as Paul Burrell has.
The main item in the Sunday Express is a claim that the French authorities want the body of Princess Diana to be exhumed, for post mortem tests.
The paper says French officials have, in effect, accused the Royal Family and the British Government of ordering a cover up.
The Express says that unpleasant though the prospect is, new tests could help end what it calls a "conspiracy industry" that has damaged the monarchy.
The Sunday papers also turn the spotlight on the woman set to become shadow first lady.
The Mail enlists Sandra Howard's second husband, who says the former model will make the lifestyle and mannerisms of Cherie Blair seem increasingly out of place and unattractive.
And Linda McDougall, the wife of a Labour MP, tells the Sunday Times that Cherie must be shivering in her designer shoes.
[Timing is everything: Bait-and-Switch propagandist swaps assassination and mass murder of Princess Di for homorape by Princess Charles]
The problem with royal households, says the public relations man employed by the Prince of Wales to ease his mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, into official life, is that they are such vast edifices, so top heavy with courtiers with fiefdoms of self- interest that it is hard for the people at their centre to know who to trust.
In its handling of the latest scandal saga, over allegations of sexual shenanigans involving Prince Charles, the royals have blundered again, according to Mark Bolland. But Bolland, described variously as "silver tongued", "My Lord Blackadder" and "The Attack Dog of St James Palace", typifies the the problem he identifies. Bolland was credited with engineering Charles' rehabilitation in the court of British public opinion.
But it has not been Bolland pulling the strings in the latest row. It was not without significance that Sir Michael Peat was the man before the cameras trying to remove the fizzing fuse from the latest firework.
He was the courtier chosen to read out the statement denying that the Prince of Wales had been involved in a compromising "incident" with a palace servant. Sir Michael is private secretary to Prince Charles.
The ascetic-looking, egg-headed, immaculately turned-out senior courtier was for 12 years a close servant of the Queen before, last year, she offered him to her eldest son to sort out the Prince's sometimes chaotic office. Some suspected that Sir Michael's brief was also to keep the Queen informed about Charles' wayward entourage and to end the internecine squabbling between the two courts.
The background of Sir Michael, 53, is as appropriate as his appearance. He went to Eton and Trinity College, Oxford, before doing an MBA at Europe's top-notch business school at Fontainebleau in France. He spent 20 years in the family accountancy firm KPMG (formerly Peat Marwick). Who better for the palace to approach in 1990 with an invitation to join the royal household as Keeper of the Privy Purse in charge of the Queen's £20 million ($53 million) domestic annual budget?
He embarked on a formidable campaign to put the finances in order. Within five years he had halved royal spending with a raft of measures which ranged from double-glazing the windows (to cut heating bills), renewing royal dishwashers (to break less crockery), replacing white marquees at garden parties (green ones are half the cost) and closing the subsidised staff bar (but cleverly giving staff a pay rise to lessen the pain).
He was the man who axed the royal train after learning that it cost £35,000 ($93,000) for every outing. He replaced 100th birthday telegrams with congratulation cards, saving £19,000 ($50,000) a year. He cut the royal staff, many of whom thought they had jobs for life.
He forced the Duke of Edinburgh to start switching off lights when he left rooms. (Philip was heard to complain that Peat would have him using cheap OAP tickets next.)
And a report by him concluded that Prince Edward's film company, Ardent Productions, was a dead loss, forcing the Prince to pull out. More significantly it was Sir Michael who, just three years after his arrival, persuaded the Queen to start paying income tax on her private wealth. [So now we are supposed to love the royal scam? What about backpaying taxes (plus interest and penalties), and sending the lot to prison until it is paid-in-full, plus 10 years, same as everyone else? Or, are income taxes voluntary for everyone else, too, just like in USA?]
It was with mixed feelings that the Queen agreed to transfer him to the payroll of Prince Charles. Before that happened he had first to pass "the Camilla test". Invited by the Prince to a dinner at Holyrood House, he found himself seated next to Charles' long-standing companion.
"Michael was charm itself," one of the Prince's circle said. "He is the only senior member of the Queen's household to properly acknowledge Mrs Parker Bowles, and that means a lot to her and the Prince."
But Peat's loyalties lie to the institution, not the person. Peat was on hand when Charles' office became embroiled in unseemly allegations involving self-indulgent princely extravagance, favouritism among courtiers, the sale of royal gifts, and the original claims of male rape and cover-up which have now resurfaced so spectacularly.
He decided on an internal investigation under his own chairmanship and out went the Prince's "favourite" servant, Michael Fawcett. Fawcett, the servant who famously held a urine bottle for Charles to provide a sample, was the man who successfully took out the injunction against the latest Mail on Sunday story.
Fawcett was not the only casualty. Bolland, a flamboyant gay from a comprehensive school, went, too. He and Sir Michael had a fundamental disagreement over media strategy. In the years following the Prince's divorce Bolland successfully begun to reburnish Charles' tarnished image. But the Bolland strategy involved feeding the media "Charles good, all other royals bad" stories, particularly at the expense of Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex. Sir Michael disapproved. Six months later the Prince's senior press secretary Colleen Harris, who had agreed with the Bolland strategy, also quit after what the press reported as "nuclear showdowns" with Peat.
But Charles, who seems to be weathering the latest storm with a policy of silence, has not completely abandoned his old circle. He instinctively seeks comfort from his most constant companions, his household servants, rather than civil service types such as Peat.
In the way that Jeeves, as played with that perfect touch of supercilious humility by Stephen Fry, nurtures and controls Hugh Laurie's Wooster, so the likes of Fawcett, a clever, ambitious man, albeit born into the lower social orders, nurtured Charles for 20 years. He is now blossoming as a successful businessman, with the backing of the Prince. He still has an office inside the Prince's household, Clarence House.
He may no longer lay out the royal wardrobe each day, but his shadow is present. He remains close to Charles and Camilla. She, indeed, is reported to have been distraught at the thought of losing his services, since Fawcett is more skilled than most at calming Charles when he gets into the plate-throwing tantrums that have become the breakfast gossip of homes across Britain, courtesy of that other royal ex-servant, Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's former butler.
Hard as it is for most of us to imagine life with someone else putting the toothpaste on the brush, for someone like Charles, to whom it has been normal for 54 years, it must develop levels of interdependence.
If you live with someone day and night - and Fawcett travelled the world with Charles - you have few secrets. For the courtiers, the most natural and most stupid mistake over the years has been to underestimate the influence of men like Fawcett. It is almost an inbred fault of the class into which Sir Michael Peat was born to underestimate servants.
Repeatedly, in Northern Ireland, the British Government wondered how the IRA had such accurate intelligence, apparently oblivious to the fact that in the restaurants where the British officials dined and gossiped, the servants were Catholics from the Falls Rd, the sisters and cousins of the IRA bombers.
Nobody seems to have even thought to throw a soporific bone to Burrell or any of the other ranks of disaffected servants queuing up with an eye to what the Burrell case is showing can be a nice little earner.
Paul Burrell keeps repeating it. Nobody from Charles' entourage thought to offer a friendly hand to Burrell once the court had cleared him after the Queen remembered he had told her he was storing stuff of Diana's.
The tapes that were part of the store and of the evidence in that case - and there are said perhaps to be as many as 20 - are still in police custody while a battle rages over who owns them. They were made in bizarre circumstances, by the voice trainer who was working with Diana during the break-up of her marriage. He taped her talking about her emotional turmoil and about the forces that were pulling the marriage apart.
Also on the loose somewhere is another tape made by Diana of allegations made by the former butler, George Smith, whose claims sparked the spate of royal stories. Unlike Burrell, Smith left royal service under a cloud. He is a former soldier, a Falklands veteran, with a drink problem and a history of mental ill health, some of it attributed to post traumatic stress disorder.
He has rattled around the fringes of royal gossip for years, having told Diana and many others that he had been victim of a gay rape by another royal servant.
Prince Charles, from his young adulthood, has sought out as wide a circle of advisers as he can attract. His liking for off beat characters - the Spike Milligans and Laurens van der Posts - is well known.
But he has also invited into his circle an eclectic mix of politicians, educators, journalists, businesspeople and charity workers, in search of the sort of contact with the ordinary world that his upbringing denied him.
The Prince of Wales' Trust, now a huge enterprise involved with a startling range of vital support networks in the most deprived areas, has allowed him at least to meet people in the most extraordinary places.
Through it, some of his complexities as a person are probably best known. He appears at meetings often looking comic as a servant walks behind him carrying the cushion he needs to make his constantly painful back bearable. But those who work with the trust are universal in their praise for his industry and interest.
Which may be another reason the likes of Peat fail to come to grips with him. Unlike his father, Prince Philip, whose Duke of Edinburgh Trust does notable work for deprived children but on the margins, Charles wins credit for trying to understand some of the nastier bits of British life.
But while Charles has friends and admirers, most of the public derive their opinions of him from the newspapers and, for the court, the role of the British papers is hard to pin down. There is, of course, money and readership in royal stories.
The acres of space being given to this saga in all Britain's papers can glut the appetite for even the most assiduous royal reader. What is being written has something for everybody, from the dyed-in-the-wool Republican to the fondest royalist, who can mutter anything from "bring back the Queen Mum" to "It'll be better when William is King. He won't carry on like that".
Leading the furore are three papers, the Mail on Sunday and its sister, the Daily Mail, counting as one, the Guardian and the Daily Mirror.
They are an odd mix. The Mail papers are right-wing, middle-class tabloids. Nothing is published that doesn't follow the papers' political agenda. The papers are unquestionably royalist. Which makes it odd they have bought the story of George Smith, the dubious, ex-butler with the seediest of stories to tell.
The Guardian, broadsheet, left of centre, is in on the act because it increasingly seeks out populist stories to balance the sort of heavy investigative coverage that this week includes a series on miscarriages of justice.
When the Mail on Sunday tried to print allegations by Smith about Fawcett and Charles, Fawcett obtained a High Court injunction that forbade papers to publish his name even as the litigant. The Guardian spotted a civil rights outrage and ended in court itself, banned from publishing his name.
When that injunction was lifted Peat stepped in with his curious statement which talked of allegations but revealed no details, and the can of worms was open.
The Mirror, a left-wing tabloid with a decent track record for serious reporting, has bought Paul Burrell's story, has serialised parts of his book and carries a column by him.
Even though it is Burrell's vehicle and therefore much in the Princess Diana camp, its role has been to chastise the royals for their failure to treat their servants decently, encouraging disloyal tittle-tattle but then to take Charles' side. They have declared, enough is enough. A man has a right to some privacy.
The oddity of the Mail papers' position, dyed-in-the-wool royalist but carrying smut certain to besmirch the royals, reflects that aspect of all the stories that still relates back to the Charles and Diana marriage. Then, the tabloid papers formed into rival camps, with more favouring the apparently slighted Diana. The great readership appeal lies with the Diana myth.
There are, of course, Charles' allies in the press. Right-wing columnist Bruce Anderson described Charles as a "noble, complex and embattled figure who has made only one serious mistake in his life: the proposal of marriage to Lady Diana."
"If we are not careful, the monarchy will be overwhelmed by a tide of sleaze from newspapers who care more for circulation than for the future of the country," the Daily Telegraph said in an editorial, talking of a "sense of crisis".
The Sun, a right-wing tabloid fighting the Mirror for working-class readers [er, slaves, to see which can expose the most distraction with its Page 3 babes], outsmarted this time, is struggling to know how to pitch the story. It has tucked it away inside in far-from-typical fashion.
The theory is that perhaps it has done a deal of its own - maybe with Clarence House, maybe with the palace, maybe with yet another butler with baggage - and that the avid British public can look its way for the next outbreak of purple prurience.
[NOTICE THERE WAS ZERO MENTION OF THE PREVIOUS WEEK'S MASSIVE BOMBSHELL OF DIANA MURDERED BY GREEDY ROYAL GANSTERS , THEIR ARMY OF ELITE SERIAL KILLERS AND PROFESSIONAL MASS MURDERERS AND THEIR SATANIC JEWISH BANKSTERS.]
LARRY KING, CNN: It is already a runaway bestseller in the United States and in Great Britain. Not surprising. It is A Royal Duty is the title. It's being talked about everywhere. The author is Paul Burrell, the former butler to Princess Di, previous guest on this program. What do you make of the reaction to the book?
LARRY KING (CNN): "Tonight: a shocking report that Princess Diana predicted someone plotted to kill her 10 months before her tragic death in a car crash. Her butler, Paul Burrell, now says Diana made that chilling forecast in a handwritten letter she sent to him. We'll check in with our royal watchers in London -- Robert Lacey, the best-selling biographer, author of Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II; Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to the queen; and Harold Brooks-Baker, director of Burke's Peerage."
LARRY KING, CNN: What do you make of the Diana letter?
AS FAR as exposés go, it lacks the intrigue and sensationalism of what the butler saw, but the news that the Duke of Edinburgh is to take charge of the Queen’s Christmas broadcast in an effort to bolster its appeal wins my vote for royal revelation of the year. Should the monarchy fail to survive the latest round of jaw-dropping, eye-popping tittle-tattle, there will always be a role for Prince Philip as a deckchair attendant on the Titanic.
If the duke has any sense, he will dispense with the monarch’s rather stilted monologue this Christmas and replace it with a homely broadcast of that great staple of Royal Family life - a game of charades. The Windsor version of King Lear or Hamlet would be a guaranteed ratings winner - a royal knockout if ever there was one.
The problem for those who believe in the concept of constitutional monarchy is that the Royal Family appears to have been playing charades for years. When it comes to self-destruction through vanity, folly, petulance and petty immorality, the present incumbents could teach Shakespeare a thing or two. Even the Bard would have balked at a plotline as far-fetched as the future king of England throwing himself on the mercy of his mother’s butler.
The latest instalment of the tragi-comedy which is the House of Windsor has the two royal princes making personal entreaties to Paul Burrell. William and Harry are said by the Palace to be so distraught that they cannot take any more. But more of the same is the only certainty in the whole shabby affair- not because Burrell claims his revelations are merely the "tip of the iceberg", but because sordid royal disclosures have been a constant feature of British public life for almost 20 years.
The two people who have done more than all the embittered servants, tabloid hacks and Machiavellian courtiers put together to bring the monarchy to its current state of disrepute are the Prince of Wales and his late wife. There is absolutely no point squealing about the butler’s indiscretion if you have spent the past decade spilling more beans than a rampaging elephant in a Heinz factory.
That is not to let the money-grubbing Burrell, with his Orwellian double-speak, off the hook. But if your first consideration is the future wellbeing of your sons, you don’t suggest that their father’s family is capable of murder in a letter to your servant. Nor do you allow your friends to go about telling anybody who cares to listen that their mother was mad.
Of far greater portent than Burrell’s story are the interviews given in the last few days by Mark Bolland, the former deputy private secretary of the Prince of Wales and a man perceived to be batting so firmly on the prince’s behalf that even when he left the crease he was still chalking up points for him. Before last week, Bolland was generally considered to have done an excellent job in rehabilitating the prince’s reputation.
The picture he now paints is of a Royal Family teeming with hangers-on but lacking basic manners, empathy or insight; a family which expects utter loyalty from those who serve it, but which gives none in return, and an heir to the throne who is "very, very weak". No doubt Bolland has scores to settle and frustrations to vent, but it is unnerving that so many people who work closely with our future king appear to end up despising him.
Yet the monarchy has survived weaker personalities than that of Prince Charles. It has withstood the madness of George III, the profligacy of George IV, the humourlessness of Victoria, the philandering of Edward VII, the abdication of Edward VIII and the shyness of George VI. "It has been said," wrote Walter Bagehot in The English Constitution, "that in 1802 every hereditary monarch was insane." Eleven years after Charles I was beheaded, Charles II was restored to the throne amid public jubilation.
The discretion and demeanour of Queen Elizabeth II make it easy to forget just how much the British are prepared to put up with in a monarch. Much is written about the symbolism, myth and collective memory of monarchy, but actually our acceptance of it is much more pragmatic than that. The British have always had an ability to separate the institution from the personalities. Even when the personalities are at their least attractive, the institution provides a model which helps to unite an increasingly fragmented society.
Nor is our relationship with mon-archy merely one of passive tolerance. When Princess Diana died, the British public spent £23 million on floral tributes to her. When Diana’s adversary, the Queen Mother, died, one million people lined the route of the funeral cortège. Those queuing for hours to sign the books of condolences were paying homage as much to a system which has helped shape and define the nation for over 1,000 years, as to an elderly lady with a penchant for Dubonnet. Which is why the idea that Prince William is the great hope for the monarchy is so flawed. The monarchy survives despite its monarchs, not because of them.
That it needs substantial reform is not in doubt, but monarchy has added hugely to the gaiety of the nation. What a drab country Britain would be without the legacy of the Tudors, Stuarts and Plantagenets. We would be culturally bereft; our literary and artistic heritage would be denuded. Our history would be deprived of its most colourful characters.
Abolishing the monarchy would not bring us greater democracy, as republicans claim, just more politicians. The more we see of the inner workings of Westminster, Holyrood and Brussels, the more benign constitutional monarchy appears. The battle to be elected president of a British republic is hardly likely to be more edifying or honourable than the current battle to lead the Conservative Party.
Beyond the pages of the Guardian and the offices of the Scottish Socialist Party, there is no deep undercurrent of republicanism in Britain. Even in an iconoclastic age, most of us can see the folly in allowing the defects of individual personalities to undermine the stability our country has derived from the institution of monarchy.
At its best, monarchy allows a rapidly changing society to retain its connection with the past and maintain historical continuities. These are ethereal qualities, only valued once they have disappeared - as many nations less secure than our own have discovered.
The British monarchy has many friends both here and abroad. Why is it, then, that its biggest enemies appear to come from within? It is hard to argue indefinitely for an institution which is being systematically debased by those who enjoy its privileges. Just because the British public is prepared to tolerate royal bad behaviour in order to benefit from a greater good, doesn’t mean it should have to.
The Prince of Wales’s first duty is to put his house in order. We may be prepared to accept a flawed King Charles III, but we draw the line at King Canute.
Jewish general gives free Babylonian oil pipeline to Satanic Freemasons in Israel
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado. [Read the bootleg copy of Franks' interview at Cigar Officianado.]
In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that "the worst thing that could happen" is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, "... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy."
Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."
Franks didn't speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.
But Franks' scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.
The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.
Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a "soldier's general," Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.'s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.
Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:
President Bush: "As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he's not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he's very, very bright. And I suspect that he'll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we'll think of him in years to come as an American hero."
On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president's decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
"I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.
"If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?"
The Pentagon's deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, "it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, 'Aha, this will be the ace of spades.'"
Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.
"The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won't say that'll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable."
Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. "It's not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace."
Pastor Texe Marrs, PhD, USAF (retired)
"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."
If I asked you what group of people embrace a set of doctrines like this, what would your answer be? Most of you would probably answer, "The Nazis." Today, in fact, it is Jews who make all these poisonous claims to racial superiority. No, not all the Jews. But, as I will document, a huge number of leaders among the Jews ascribe to these wicked and dangerous theories of racial and blood superiority. No Basis for Peace
In his memoirs of his years in the White House, former President Jimmy Carter wrote that there could have been peace between the Arabs and the Israelis had it not been for the bigoted, Nazi-like racial views of Israeli's Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Begin, Carter recalled, believed the Jews were a Master Race, a holy people superior to Egyptians and Arabs. Begin also believed that God wanted the Jews to own the land, so there was absolutely no basis for peace. The Jews lusted after the land and intended to have it. Period.
Jews a Totally Different Species?
Rabbi Mendel Schneerson, the late Jewish Lubavitcher and friend of the senior George Bush, also believed the Jews are a superior Master Race. Many Jews today agree with the late Rabbi. Some even believe that Schneerson will himself someday be resurrected and return as the Jewish World Messiah. Schneerson once explained his theory of Jewish racial superiority this way. He said, "We have a case of the Jew...a totally different species."
"The body of a Jewish person," Schneerson bragged, "is of a totally different quality from the body of members of all other nations of the world. Bodies of the Gentiles are in vain. An even greater difference is in regard to the soul...A non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness."
Holocaust activist Elie Wiesel, whose lies about his holocaust experiences seem to be legion, also claims that Jews are a superior race. "Everything about us is different," Wiesel boasts. "Jews are ontologically exceptional." No Mixed Marriages for the Superior Race
This poisonous theory of the Jews impacts their relations with all other nations and peoples. Because they are convinced they are the Master Race, superior, god souls living amongst inferior beasts, Israel does not sanction or allow mixed marriages (The Jerusalem Report, October 20, 1994, p.26). In the U.S.A., liberal Jews scream out for more mixed marriages, but only among Gentiles! Jewish leaders fund civil rights organizations and are in favor of increased immigration of foreign races. But back home in Israel, the Sharon government is now building a Berlin-style wall creating an apartheid nation, to keep "inferior" Arabs in their segregated ghettos.
Ze'ev Chafeto, the courageous Jewish editor of The Jerusalem Report magazine, notes that Israeli laws harshly prohibit people of non-Jewish races from immigrating to Israel. The Jews are determined to keep their race "pure" and unblemished, just as the Nazis sought for the Aryans. Christians are especially not welcome, and Israelis frequently use words similar to the condescending slang word "nigger" to describe Christians and Gentiles—vulgar, Yiddish slur words like "shiksa," "schwartze," and "shegetsz."
Since the Jews are claimed to be the Master Race, whose souls are said by the Talmud to be on a far higher plane than the animalistic, "satanic souls" of Gentiles, it is common for Jewish authorities to brand all Gentiles by the derogatory Yiddish term "goy," a term akin to a curse word. Meanwhile, Arabs are deemed so inferior they are even lower than the goy.
Jewish Blood vs. Inferior Blood
When several of his students were accused of murdering a teenage Arab girl, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg insisted: "Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a (Gentile) goy." In other words, if a god-like Jew kills an inferior goy, how can that be murder?
Israeli Yeshiva (school) students often demonstrate and chant, "Death to the Arabs." Defending their extreme behavior, Rabbi Ido Elba explains, "According to the Talmud (Jewish book of traditions), one may kill any Gentile." Rabbi Schlomo Aviner adds that normal human codes and laws of justice and righteousness do not apply to the Jews.
The widely studied Gush Emunim holds that, "Jews are not and cannot be a normal people...The Covenant made between God and the Jewish people effectively nullifies moral laws that bind normal nations." "Jesus a Bastard," says Jewish Talmud
Even the leaders of Israel My Glory, a fanatically pro-Zionist, supposedly Christian ministry, have made note of the bizarre views of the Jews as found in their own book of laws and traditions, the Jewish Talmud. The organization's magazine (Dec./Jan. 1995/1996) published a revealing article detailing many of the hate-filled Talmudic beliefs of the Rabbis and their Zionist followers.
These beliefs include the teaching that Jesus was born a bastard and his mother, Mary, was a harlot (Mishna Yebamoth 4,13); that Jesus practiced black arts of magic (Sanhedrin 1076), and that Jesus is now suffering eternal punishment in a boiling vat of filthy excrement (Mishna Sanhedrin X, 2). These references come from the English translation of the Talmud known as The Soncino Talmud.
Indeed, the hate-filled, anti-Christian movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, produced by Universal Studios and its Chairman, the Jew, Lewis Wasserman, was an accurate, if disgusting, reflection of what the Jews' most holy book, the Talmud, teaches. And yet the Rabbis and leaders of the Jewish-led Simon Wiesenthal Center, The ADL, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have the audacity to blast and criticize Mel Gibson's upcoming movie merely because it recounts the gospel truth about the trial and death of Jesus. What hypocrites!
Memory of Jesus to be Blotted Out
The Talmud is full of language that portrays the Jews as God's Master Race and depicts all other races as trash and garbage. It warns Jews to stay away from Christians because Christians are said to be "unclean" and "murderers."
On the other hand, a Jew is pictured as one of God's Chosen People. The Jew is said to possess so great a dignity that no one, not even an angel, can share equality with him. In fact, the Jew is said to be the equal of God. Rabbi Chanina says that, "He who strikes an Israelite acts as if he slaps the face of God's Divine Majesty."
Because the Christian is considered unclean, a murderer, and an idolater, he must be exterminated, slaughtered without pity, squashed like a bug. "The memory of that man (Jesus) should be forever blotted out."
"Kill All Christians"—Talmud
The famous Jewish rabbi, Maimonides, acclaimed by Christian apologists and defenders of Zionism as "a great man of God," encouraged Jews to kill all Christians. In the Talmud (Hilkoth Akrum, X, 1), Maimonides says, "Do not have pity for them. Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see one in difficulty of drowning, do not go to his help... it is right to kill him by your own hand by shoving him into a well or in some other way."
The monstrous and barbaric treatment Israel gives to Palestinians and other Arabs taken prisoner is easily understood when we realize that the Jews' own holy book, the Talmud, commands that heretics and traitors be killed without delay (Abhodah Zarah, 266) and that a Gentile taken prisoner may be killed, "even before he confesses...the sooner the better" (Choschen Hammischpat, 388, 10).
Murder of Gentiles Praised as a "Holy Sacrifice"
Moreover, the murder of Gentiles by Jews is said by the Talmud to be a "holy sacrifice" to God (Zohar, III, 2276 and I, 38b and 39a). Death of Gentiles by beheading is especially recommended (Pesachim, 49b).
The award-winning Jewish propaganda movie, Schindler's List, depicts Schindler lamenting how few Jews he has been able to save from a Nazi labor camp. But a little, old Jewish man says to him, "In our holy book, the Talmud, it says that if you save just one life, it is as if you have saved the entire world." Actually, the exact wording in the Talmud says that if you save just one Jewish life, it is as if you have saved the entire world. According to the Talmud, Gentile lives, of course, have no value at all.
It is important to remember that, to the Jews, the Talmud is not an obsolete and crusty document. The rabbis teach that it is a living and breathing instructional document, a modern-day, indispensable holy book. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ardent Jewish believer, was quoted in The New York Times as giving credit to the Talmud for her success on the bench. "The Talmud," said Ginsburg, "is my sacred guide for daily living." Children Raped and Murdered
In Rome, Italy, in 2000, Italian police broke up a ring of eleven top Jewish gangsters. It was discovered that they had been kidnapping Gentile (non-Jewish) children between the ages of two and five from orphanages, raping them, and then murdering the children. These despicable crimes were recorded live on film and sold throughout the infamous global "snuff film" industry. Over 1,700 customers had paid as much as $20,000 per film to view little children being raped and murdered.
Both the Associated Press and Reuters agencies reported this heinous crime on September 27, 2000 (Also see The Rome Observer, October 1, 2000). But few U.S. newspapers and none of America's TV news networks carried this shocking news story. Why?
When Italian TV broadcast scenes of the arrests of the snuff film perverts at prime time to more than eleven million viewers, Jewish officials went berserk. Claiming "blood libel," they demanded that the Jewish elite who sat on the board of directors of the Italian TV network punish those responsible for allowing this news to surface. It was done. The TV executives were fired.
One cannot help but wonder: Was it Judaism's most holy book, the Talmud, that put it in the hearts of those monsters to commit such brutish and evil crimes against children? After all, their Talmud says that if a grown man rapes a young girl under three years of age, "it is nothing." And Gentiles, according to the Talmud, may be killed practically without restriction. The Master Race—Beyond Good and Evil
In any event, the Jewish Master Race cannot be held to normal standards of righteousness and morality. They are said to be "beyond good and evil." That is what Adolf Hitler believed about the Aryans. It is what Ariel Sharon and hundreds of Jewish rabbis and Illuminists believe about the Jews.
When questioned about his earlier role in the genocidal massacre by Israeli defense forces of thousands of unarmed Egyptian POWs during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin snapped, "I'm not going to discuss that. That's ancient history." An odd and telling comment, indeed, since the Jews insist there is no statute of limitations that prevents the capture, trial, and execution of Germans accused of war crimes that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s, over six decades ago. "Ye Shall Die Like Men"
God is not a racist. He has no use for haters. In the Holy Bible, our Saviour totally refutes and condemns the heinous and unconscionable Master Race theory, confirming to us that there is nothing holy in men's flesh and blood: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 15:50).
In the Bible, King David flatly told the unrighteous Jews that even though by tradition they claimed they were gods, "ye shall die like men" (Psalm 82:1-8).
The Jews fervently believe their blood is divine, and that only the Jews comprise a Holy Nation. They view themselves as "God's Chosen," a special Master Race. Their Zionist leaders smugly view other peoples as vermin, as inferior and of little value. The Jews and their leaders are sadly mistaken. They are in dire need of instruction and repentance.
Moreover, our God is preparing for them a great surprise. Unless they repent of their racism and sins and turn to Jesus Christ, these elitist Jews are going to a place where there is a lot of room. Indeed, Proverbs 27:20 and Isaiah 5:14 assure us that Hell is never full, and is always being enlarged. Thus, there is plenty of room amidst the flames for the ungodly Jews whose arrogance and pride cause them to esteem themselves the Master Race.
JOKES OF THE DAY
"Isn't it weird for Prince Charles to have his valet put toothpaste on his toothbrush every day?"
"This week Prince Charles and his press agents violated the traditional rules of royal engagement: 'Never complain, never explain.'"
ANNOUNCEMENT: "Due to a court injunction, our coverage of the Prince Charles allegations is not available online. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: Currently sweeping America, the gay makeover show which sees a bunch of hip queens transform some dyed-in-the-wool macho man/terminal slob, could work very well here. Likely candidates are..."
"'Straight Eye for the Queer Guy,' a new TV show in spring 2004, on which straight men will tutor a gay man about watching football, decorating a garage and keeping emotions bottled up."
"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."
"I said that 'the Jews control the world.' Well, the reaction of the world shows they do control the world."
"During her 50-year-reign, Queen Elizabeth II has developed an 'uncanny nose for survival,' according to this affectionate look at the British monarchy and how it has survived. When her back is to the wall, she uses 'ruthless common sense' to turn disaster into triumph. Lacey cites the queen's reaction to the death of Princess Diana in 1997Until Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837, British subjects had little affection for their monarchs. But with the introduction of mass media and photography, Victoria was transformed into a royal figurehead who inspired communal affection and love. The rise of monarch as media star ended in disaster in 1936, however, when Edward VIII abdicated his throne to marry the woman he loved, twice-divorced Wallis Simpson. The monarchy rebounded after Edward's brother George VI assumed the throne. When Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952, television and the tabloids were in their infancy. Both had remarkable effects on the monarchy, but it was a Faustian pact."
"Such complexities and contingencies are completely lost on Kitty Kelley, whose concern is merely to expose the royal family's 'secrets of alcoholism, drug addiction, epilepsy, insanity, homosexuality, bisexuality, adultery, infidelity and illegitimacy' over the years since George V changed the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha into the House of Windsor in 1917. Her method, already perfected in her unauthorised and unflattering biographies of Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan, is to write bestsellers that take what she describes as 'an unblinking look' at their subjects. In telling this story she parades a cast of cardboard characters: the Queen Mother with her gin bottle and liking for gambling; Princess Margaret, the house guest from hell; the Queen, who is better with horses and corgis than with people; Prince Philip, a boorish bloke, with a preference for quarter-deck language; Prince Charles, by turns opinionated and indecisive, defender of faith yet a faithless husband; the Duchess of York, part national laughing stock, part global embarrassment; and the Princess of Wales, spending a fortune on clothes and colonic irrigation. And she gives cameo parts to the royal entourage and its hangers on: Lord Snowdon, Raine Spencer, Major Ronald Ferguson, Koo Stark, James Hewitt, Madam Vasso and the rest. How in practice would the House of Windsor be ended? One means would be parliamentary legislation abolishing the monarchy: this is not a realistic possibility. Another is that the crowds rise up, storm Buckingham Palace, and bear its occupants off to the gillotine. Scandal, it bears repeating, undermines monarchies, but rarely ends them. It may be true that, according to a recent editorial in the New York Times, the British monarchy now exists primarily 'for our amusement'. But as long as people find it amusing, and want to be amused by it, they will be happy to see it undermined but uneager to kill it off. The recent controversies over the fire at Windsor Castle, the Queen's forced and belated decision to pay income tax, and the future replacement of the royal yacht may best be understood in this context."
"Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed."
John Lee and Winners Web Design
This page is distributed without profit for
research and educational purposes under 17 USC 107
Remember to bookmark this site
And Drive Safe