Representative Press Blog: 4/1/16

UPDATED VIDEO INFO (for the video Don't miss your chance to have an impact! Register by Oct 12):

Ron Paul is NOT a safeguard for world peace. He can't even bring himself to accept international law! Ron Paul can't even commit to adhering to the U.S. Constitution. It explicitly says treaties signed are law of the land yet he has adopted the macho man mentality of bashing the UN and ignoring the obligation to uphold international law. Also his domestic policies are freakishly wrong, he has swallowed propaganda. Claiming Social Security is unconstitutional shows he's a nasty crank.

I don't like his BS economic theories including denying the suffering during the Great Depression. I don't like the neanderthal mentality of hostility towards treaties, he really is just aping greedy businessmen who see them as an impediment to their greed. I don't like him lying about what the government can and can't do as if private business is some sort of savior. He claims the government can't make jobs or "real jobs," he is so fanatical with his economic theories that he says falsehoods about basic fundamental facts. Slick politicians can simply avoid mentioning something but he denies the fact that the government CAN and DOES make money.

Look at the Alaska Permanent Fund. Don't you think Alaskans are happy to get a check from the profits? People in Alaska are GETTING CHECKS from the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Look at the TVA. The government CAN and DOES make money. Corporate dominated public discourse is such that you will probably never hear it but the Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal corporation and the nation's largest public power company and it makes money. Google TVA and look under "About TVA" then "TVA FAQ" "The Tennessee Valley Authority is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving 9 million people in parts of seven southeastern states. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity." For over 70 years the TVA has proving people like Alex Jones wrong. As I pointed out, the economic system doesn't work without Gov. help anyway. why should we allow profits to only flow into private hands?

" http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2008/10/message-to-some-one-who-gave-my-video.html

Look at the Bank of North Dakota. We shouldn't be happy with a select few owning banks and getting a sweetheart deal as they exploit our economy instead of a bank model along the lines of the Bank of North Dakota. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) is a state-owned-run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota and has been working successfully for DECADES. "The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota." What is wrong with that? Instead greedy bankers owning banks so profits go to them for private jets, yachts and mansions why shouldn't the profits be going to the people? Far too many people have been hoodwinked by propaganda if you think private banks are better.

Remember when the Capitalists fell on their faces (again) and had to be bailed out by the government (again)? Capitalism has to keep relying on Socialism to bail it out! : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDPxVy7h38&list=PL74D77C3F57F6314F

The power players insist that THEY should own the means of production. But successful socialism would have socialist firms creating wealth. Why should we be content with fat cats dominating our economy and owning major energy firms instead of having a model where the people own them and the profits then can go to the people? How can anyone ignore the decades of success of the TVA?

The TVA has been working FOR DECADES. And by the way, I just learned of another reason to hate Obama because as I was researching even more about the TVA I leaned that that sone of a bitch was trying to sell it off to privatize it! As I have explained in other videos, Obama is one of the elites and he sells out the average American for the interests of private power! It is amazing how many people were duped by I tried to expose him early on (BEFORE he was elected) see video and what Gravel tried to expose: https://youtu.be/dfe8gxusBUI?t=1m13s

Israel is the aggressor. Overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, kills first.

See Reigniting Violence, How Do Ceasefires End? by Nancy Kanwisher

"Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.

The lessons from these data are clear:

First, Hamas can indeed control the rockets, when it is in their interest. The data shows that ceasefires can work, reducing the violence to nearly zero for months at a time.

Second, if Israel wants to reduce rocket fire from Gaza, it should cherish and preserve the peace when it starts to break out, not be the first to kill." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

Also see The Truth About Cease-fire Violations Between Israel and Gaza by John Glaser

"Israel violates the cease-fires more often, bombs Gaza more times than Gaza rockets Israel, and kills more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis. But these findings are not what is striking. What is striking about this is that almost everybody believes the opposite of the reality. Here’s Munayyer with more on that: …

Of the nearly 120 Israeli cease-fire violations during this period the New York Times reported on 17 of them. Additionally, most of these stories (eleven) came either during the first week of the cease-fire, when the issue was still fresh in readers’ minds, or since the escalation on December 20th. That means for the bulk of this period, during which Israel committed 87 cease-fire violations and causing some 91 Palestinian casualties over nearly a one year period there were only six stories on the topic. This represents a systematic failure to cover Israeli cease-fire violations.

Making matters worse is the way events are covered in the rare instances they are covered. In most cases, Israeli actions are described as a response to Palestinian actions. So while most Israeli cease-fire violations are not covered at all, those that are are explained as justified retaliation. Thus the reader is completely misled about the dynamics of fire, why the cease-fire is threatened and exactly what is going on in and around Gaza." http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/02/06/the-truth-about-cease-fire-violations-between-israel-and-gaza/

http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked#

"Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.

The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more."

NOTE: "After Israeli airstrike -> Hamas fires rockets for first time since 2012 "

https://twitter.com/YousefMunayyer/status/492891521994469376

Read more: Hamas fires rockets for first time since 2012, Israeli officials say | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fired-rockets-for-first-time-since-2012-israeli-officials-say/#ixzz38Y1NwJEa

This pattern was the same in 2008 too: "Chris Hedges points out what Israel has been doing to Gaza, things which are often either not reported or under reported by mainstream media, "the point of this Israeli siege, ostensibly, is to break Hamas, the radical Islamic group that was elected to power in 2007. But Hamas has repeatedly proposed long-term truces with Israel and offered to negotiate a permanent truce. During the last cease-fire, established through Egyptian intermediaries in July, Hamas upheld the truce although Israel refused to ease the blockade. It was Israel* that, on Nov. 4, initiated an armed attack that violated the truce and killed six Palestinians. It was only then that Hamas resumed firing rockets at Israel. Palestinians have launched more than 200 rockets on Israel since the latest round of violence began. There have been no Israeli casualties." - Israel’s 'Crime Against Humanity,' by Chris Hedges, Posted on Dec 15, 2008" Read more of that blog post here: Israel Attacks Gaza Again
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2008/12/israel-attacks-gaza-again.html

Here are some details which may change your mind if you look at them objectively. As I showed, Zionists haven't only been lying about recent history, they have lied about the history. First of all, Israel was declared in May 1948. So do you deny all the Zionist attacks that happened before that? Are you a denier of the Deir Yassin massacre? You don't know that it was perpetrated BEFORE May 1948? Look at the date: "The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948."

And you should take note of the note I included in the following info which explains: "The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State."

As early as 1891, decent Jews were shocked at the actions of Zionist Jews:

"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause. and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." p144 The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East by David Hirst http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/01/hostility-and-cruelty-as-early-as-1891.html

And look at these ACTIONS: Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099

Evidence of early Zionists' murderous refusal of a peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians is perhaps the most dramatic when it involves the killing of Jewish civilians. One of the victims on the list was Jacob de Haan, a Dutch Jew, killed for the "crime" of attempting to work out a peaceful solution between the new settlers and the local Palestinians in 1921. Their own records reveal them saying "another reason for assassinating him was that he was a homosexual."

If you are concerned about Jews then you should respect the history of Jews who actually did stand for justice. Some paid with their lives for insisting that racism is wrong. Zionists killed OTHER JEWS who dared point out what I am saying. The Hagana archives contain the names of 40 JEWS who were killed by Irgun and the Stern Group (Jewish terrorist groups). Look at the example of an anti-Zionist native Jewish inhabitant of Palestine who was assassinated as he left his synagogue in June 1924 by two Haganah agents (Jewish terrorists) As early as 1924 these sick racist Zionists killed Jews because they stood in the way of their racist plan. Even a religious Jew was targeted by Zionists as he left his synagogue.

Zionist terrorist groups killed Jews and non-Jews. From the beginning of the Zionist agenda, terrorist force was planned for and used. "In the single month of July 1938" Zionists killed more Arabs "than Arabs had killed Jews in the whole of that year so far." The terrorist bombing of the Arab Melon Market in Haifa was just one of the Jewish Zionist attacks that inflicted horrific casualties and injuries. The explosion set bodies flying through the air, the bodies "dead, maimed and injured." "Among the blood-spattered human remains were the mangled bodies of three horses, several mules and donkeys which had brought the villager's produce to the crowded market." A Jewish terrorist planted the bomb in the same area where another bomb had been set off just three weeks earlier which had killed 18 Arabs. This bomb killed 53 Arabs and 1 Jew.

The official history of the Irgun makes little pretense that these actions were retaliatory, as is often alleged, referring proudly, for example, to the murder of 27 Arabs to prevent the celebration over the British White Paper limiting Jewish immigration, the murder of more 52 more when an Irgun member was arrested by the British, etc. The record is generally suppressed in the U.S., where cynics refer to terror and intimidation as an invention of the PLO.

You should listen to what HENRY SIEGMAN said in this interview with AMY GOODMAN:

AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli historian, Benny Morris.

HENRY SIEGMAN: The Israeli historian, right, then in the book Righteous Victims, in which he said—I recall, when I read it, I was shocked—in which he—particularly in his most recently updated book, which was based on some new information that the Israel’s Defense—the IDF finally had to open up and publish, that Israeli generals received direct instructions from Ben-Gurion during the War of Independence to kill civilians, or line them up against the wall and shoot them, in order to help to encourage the exodus, that in fact resulted, of 700,000 Palestinians, who were driven out of their—left their homes, and their towns and villages were destroyed. This was terror, even within not just the terrorist groups, the pre-state terrorists, but this is within the military, the Israeli military, that fought the War of Independence. And in this recent book, that has received so much public attention by Ari—you know, My Promised Land.

AMY GOODMAN: Shavit.

HENRY SIEGMAN: Ari Shavit. He describes several such incidents, too. And incidentally, one of the people who—according to Benny Morris, one of the people who received these orders—and they were oral orders, but he, in his book, describes why he believes that these orders were given, were given to none other than Rabin, who was not a general then, but he—and that he executed these orders.

AMY GOODMAN: Meaning?

HENRY SIEGMAN: Meaning?

AMY GOODMAN: What did it mean that he executed these orders, Rabin?

HENRY SIEGMAN: That he executed civilians. And the rationale given for this when Shavit, some years ago, had an interview with Benny Morris and said to him, "My God, you are saying that there was deliberate ethnic cleansing here?" And Morris said, "Yes, there was." And he says, "And you justify it?" And he said, "Yes, because otherwise there would not have been a state."http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_us

What Israel imposed was not the UN RECOMMENDATION. (a crazy recommendation of chopping up Palestine into 7 zones.) Israel is the aggressor. In practice, Zionists did NOT accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine.

NOTE: This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State.

Zionists immediately started seizing land, even land beyond what the UN partition set for the proposed Jewish State. Attacks were from both sides but were instigated by the Zionists seizing land and a reaction to the aggressive ethnic cleansing under way. After the massive ethnic cleansing and expansion beyond the UN suggested boarders, Arab states responded INTO THE AREAS THAT WERE TO BE FOR THE UN PROPOSED PALESTINIAN STATE. Also, Jordan had an agreement with Israel to prevent a Palestinian State so Jordan invaded the West Bank.

The fact that the rights of the majority, 67% of the population, were violated is suppressed in the media. Why in the world would you think it is legitimate for 33% of a population to seize land and carve up the land into 7 parts? Why in the world should 67% of a population ever accept that? These population stats, which highlight just how undemocratic the UN proposal really was, are almost never mentioned in US media. Read more here: http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

Israeli aggression is part of a pattern which started "immediately after the armistice agreements of 1949, Israel began encroachments into the demilitarized zones along with military attacks with many civilian casualties and the expulsion of thousands of Arabs" p. 101 Fateful Triangle, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (Search my blog for links to sources)

The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who were "lucky" to find themselves within Israel were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never retuned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." (see The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg )http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/05/dominant-zionist-plan.html

Apparently you don't know the history and have instead just accepted the Zionist narrative. You need to understand that Israel is the aggressor and the agenda is imposing a racist state on as much of Palestine as they can get away with. Israel's attack in 1967 was part of that agenda. Chomsky points out how Zionists fabricate history: "It is not even controversial that in 1967 Israel attacked Egypt ... to convert it into an Arab invasion is rather audacious -- or would be, if the practice were not routine." -Chomsky, Deterring Democracy Chapter 6 Menachem Begin admitted: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )

If you read Norman Finkelstein's book "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict" you can learn that Israel wanted another war and rejected attempts to prevent it. "U.N. Secretary-General U Thant proposed (with the support of Israel's closest allies, the US and Canada) the repositioning of UNEF on the Israeli side of the border", Israel rejected this.

And the history shows that Israel was rejecting the diplomatic attempts to address the Straits, Egypt accepted but Israel rejected a special mediator to deal with the situation. "Reaching Cairo just after the blockade was announced, U Thant elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special UN representative to mediate the crisis, and a two-week moratorium on all belligerent acts in the Straits. Israel peremptorily rejected both of U Thant's proposals." "Nasser repeatedly expressed willingness to submit the Straits dispute to the World Court" Israel REFUSED.

"Alongside U Thant, the U.S. also tried its hand at mediation in late May and early June. Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement BUT "Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked." Israel wanted war, not mediation, and it used anything it could as an excuse to attack.

What right did Israel have to the Straits of Tiran anyway? They were opened by force when Israel attacked Egypt in 1956. Nasser had every right to close them as Nasser said he did because Israel continued to refuse to honor the UN resolutions calling on it to allow the Palestinians refugees expelled during the 1948 war to return home. (Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees.)

Israel had no right to launch a war of aggression in 1956 and then get rewarded for it by being allowed to use the Straits. "Indeed, President Eisenhower had delivered perhaps the most impassioned defense of the principle that Israel’s withdrawal must be without conditions, asking rhetorically if: ”…a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?” p. 137 Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The UN should not reward aggressors, the UN could not 'condone a change of the status juris resulting from military action contrary to the provisions of the Charter' p. 137 Image And Reality And Israel had continued its aggression against Syria, Egypt was under no obligation to help Israel by allowing it to ship through the Straits. Even a claim of a "right of free passage" doesn't include shipping supplies to facilitate military aggressions. Egypt's case was very strong and Israel knew it stood a real chance of losing its claim of a right of passage had the issue been decided on a legal basis.