Sexy Hot Photos

KANYE WEST WAS NOT THE FIRST TO INTERRUPT A MAJOR AWARDS PRESENTATION- I'LL GIVE THAT HONOR TO 'OLD DIRTY BASTARD [don't you just love these creative names that entertainers come up with so they can take your money?]

The evening following the traffic accident, Jones rushed on-stage unexpectedly as Shawn Colvin took the stage to give her acceptance speech for "Song of the Year" at the Grammy Awards, and began complaining that he had recently purchased expensive clothes in anticipation of winning the "Best Rap Album" award that he lost to Puff Daddy. As Colvin took the stage to a round of applause, he implored the audience, "Please calm down, the music and everything. It's nice that I went and bought me an outfit today that costed a lot of money today, you know what I mean? 'Cause I figured that Wu-Tang was gonna win. I don't know how you all see it, but when it comes to the children, Wu-Tang is for the children. We teach the children. You know what I mean? Puffy is good, but Wu-Tang is the best, Okay? I want you all to know that this is ODB, and I love you all. Peace!" His bizarre on-stage antics were widely reported in the mainstream media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ol'_Dirty_Bastard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-5GSjZvW8


Cognac-swigging Kanye West storms MTV stage and grabs microphone during Taylor Swift's acceptance speech
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1213280/Kanye-West-ruins-Taylor-Swifts-big-MTV-acceptance-speech-storms-stage.html#ixzz0R8NX5kU0

Kanye West gave a performance that will never be forgotten at the MTV Video Music Awards, but unfortunately for him, it had nothing to do with his music.

The rapper stormed on stage to unleash an astonishing rant during an acceptance speech by country starlet Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards last night.

The 19-year-old singer, who was collecting Best Female Video for You Belong To Me, was left humiliated as West snatched the microphone from her hands.

He turned to the audience and shouted that the gong should have gone to his big friend Beyonce, for Single Ladies.

The hip hop star, who had been swigging Hennessy cognac on the red carpet earlier in the night, was booed roundly by the celebrity-packed audience of thousands.

And it was only the first category of the night.

Swift had breathlessly began her speech with the words, 'I always wondered what it would be like to maybe win one of these some day, but never actually thought it would happen'.

But before she could continue any further, West leaped from his seat in the audience, ran onto the stage and rushed to grab the microphone as a bemused Swfit struggled to take in what was happening.

West told the stunned star: 'Yo Taylor. I'm really happy for you, I'm going to let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time.'

Cameras cut to Beyonce in the crowd who looked shocked and mortified.

As West shrugged his shoulders and handed back the microphone, a shell-shocked Swift stood in the centre of the stage seemingly unable to continue.

However, she was given another chance to say her piece when Beyonce did win an award for Single Ladies, in the Best Video category.

First she told the audience about her first VMA win as a 17-year-old with Destiny's Child and how much it meant to her and then she sportingly brought the teen singer back on stage to huge applause.

The pair, both dressed in bright red, embraced before Beyonce passed the microphone to Swift.

Wes was ejected from the awards show at Radio City Music Hall in New York.

He apologised for his outburst on his blog later.

He wrote: 'I'm sooooo sorry to Taylor Swift and her fans and her mom.

Taylor Swift Goes Gangsta!

America's teen country darling Taylor Swift is shedding her angelic, virginal image and co-opting something a little more street. The 19-year-old wannabe hardcore rapper rehearsed with T-Pain in Nashville on Tuesday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Pain

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/10/taylor-swift-goes-gangsta/#ixzz0R8PLp94G

Aug. 30, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry

Stop the childish bullying
This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We've seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn't stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We're still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.

On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.

If he thinks he can push the state's largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.

We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.

That's a promise, not a threat.

And it's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.



Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Why Henry? WHY?!

Posted By Justin Raimondo On September 10, 2009 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized | 30 Comments

On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers, wielding nothing more lethal than box-cutters, commandeered four airliners, and turned them into lethal missiles, three of which managed to hit their targets – the World Trade Center and the Pentagon – while a fourth crashed in a field before it could strike its intended target — the White House. One of the hijackers had been in the United States since the mid-1990s, and the others, according to subsequent investigations, entered, exited, and re-entered the United States regularly starting in 2000.


In the years and months prior to 9/11, the terrorists remained undetected: there was not a hint, and certainly no warning, that we were about to experience the worst terrorist attack in our history. In spite of all the billions spent on "anti-terrorism" programs during the Clinton years, and the combined efforts of our intelligence community and those of our allies’, Mohammed Atta and his cohorts managed to evade detection until the day they emblazoned their vengeance across the sky and pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in US history.


That, at least, is the official story. As to what the real story is – well, we’re not allowed to ask.


President Obama’s "green czar," one Van Jones, was recently pressured into resigning. His crime? He had once signed a letter originating with one of the "9/11 Truth" organizations calling for a new investigation of the terrorist attacks. No, he hadn’t declared that 9/11 was an "inside job," as some of the more flamboyant "truthers" assert: indeed, he hadn’t challenged any one specific aspect of the official story. All he had asked for was a new investigation – and once this got out (thanks to Fox News nut-job Glenn Beck), he was shown the door.


This is the way our society deals with uncomfortable questions about "official" explanations for the inexplicable – by purging all dissenters, and even anybody who asks a question without necessarily having a ready-made answer. To the stake with them! Burn the heretics! Move along, nothing to see here – and don’t ask questions unless you want to completely marginalize yourself, lose your job, and be subjected to an intensive hate campaign.


We are asked to believe that 19 men, armed with the most basic weapons, somehow managed to elude the biggest, most expensively-accoutered intelligence apparatus in the world — and the intelligence agencies of our allies, to boot. Utilizing nothing but box-cutters and the knowledge gleaned from a few weeks at flight school, these supermen somehow managed to steer those planes into two of the most visible potential terrorist targets in the US, one of which had been successfully targeted by terrorists before. They did this with no help from any foreign intelligence agency, no nation-state in on the plot, and they did it for less than $100,000.


Really?


The more distance in time from the actual event, the odder such an assertion seems. Eight years to the day, the official account of 9/11 seems more anemic –and inadequate – than ever. Yet anyone who questions the official story – the narrative of 19 Arab dudes going on what would seem to be a rather quixotic jihad, haphazardly making their way through a strange foreign country on their own, all the while readying themselves for The Day That Changed History – is denounced as a "conspiracy theorist," a crackpot, and worse.


Of course, some of the people who challenge the official story are, indeed, crackpots: they think some kind of "controlled demolition" took place inside the World Trade Center, and that no plane hit the Pentagon.


This is very convenient for enforcers of the Official Truth: it’s easy to write these people off as nutso, and even easier to tar everyone who questions crucial aspects of the approved narrative with the same broad brush.


More critical minds, however, will not be deterred, and will certainly home in on the many discrepancies and holes in the official version of events, as well as the central implausibility of the whole affair, which is this: those nineteen hijackers simply could not have pulled it off without outside assistance of some sort, by which I mean to say help from a foreign power acting covertly in this country. The sheer complexity of the operation would no doubt have been enough to deter anyone, even al-Qaeda, from launching it in the first place: the sheer odds against it succeeding were simply too great. There had to have been some form of outside assistance – outside al-Qaeda, that is – for the plot to have gone as far as it did right up until zero hour: and I believe there was, because there is plenty of evidence that strongly suggests it.


A few weeks after 9/11, I was the first – and, as far as I know, only – writer to draw attention to the fact that, along with the thousand or so Muslims rounded up in the wake of the attacks, as many as 200 Israelis were also taken into custody by then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the feds. The subhead in the Washington Post story was quite explicit that these guys weren’t picked up for ordinary visa violations: "Government calls Several Cases ‘of Special Interest,’ Meaning Related to Post-Attacks Investigation."


What, I wondered, was the Israeli connection to 9/11? In any case, from that point on it was a legitimate question to ask, and, indeed, unknown to me, the news department over at Fox News was asking it — and, a few weeks after my column appeared, they answered it.


In an astonishing four-part series on Israeli spying in the US, top Fox News reporter Carl Cameron detailed how Israeli agents on American soil had tracked the hijackers, as they moved amongst us, and, in addition, had launched what appeared to be a wide-ranging and quite aggressive intelligence-collection operation directed at US government offices across the country. The allegations contained in his report were denied – and the story (which soon disappeared from the Fox News web site) was never followed up, but Cameron’s reportage haunts us today, and mocks us from the archives where it has been gathering dust for eight years. "Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations," reported Cameron:


"A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are ‘tie-ins.’ But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’"


Over the next three nights, Cameron detailed the existence of an underground Israeli army in the US armed with a dazzling array of hi-tech spying devices and techniques that enabled them to penetrate our vital communications, including those utilized by law enforcement. His reports also described the consequences for any law enforcement officials who dared raise questions about this: their careers, Cameron told us, would be effectively over.


Cameron’s reporting was viewed by millions. Of course, the Israelis and our own government denied everything. Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli government, scoffed: Israel, spying on the United States? Why, who ever heard of such a thing?! The US government, for its part, disdained all such reports as "an urban myth." The Israel lobby moved quickly to make sure the Cameron reports were thrown down the Memory Hole, and Cameron was accused of – you guessed it! – "anti-Semitism," on account of having spent time in the Middle East in his youth.


Yet the story persisted. Die Zeit, the respected German weekly, ran a piece entitled "Next Door to Mohammed Atta," in which further evidence the Israelis had been tracking the hijackers quite closely was cited as coming from French intelligence sources. This was followed up by a story in Salon – hardly a bastion of anti-Semitic agitation – which gave a long and detailed account of the Israeli spying operation, as outlined by Cameron, and concluded that it was in large part meant as a diversionary tactic. The same author did a comprehensive follow-up in Counterpunch, after The Nation spiked it. Reputable newspapers like the Scottish Sunday Herald reported the known facts.


Yet the 9/11 Commission did not so much as mention this aspect of the 9/11 story. Nor has Fox News ever followed up on Cameron’s reporting: they haven’t disavowed it, either. They, along with the rest of the "news" media in this country, simply pretend it never happened. When Arianna Huffington purged me from blogging on the Huffington Post, she cited my own reporting on this story as the reason: "Oh, come on, Dhaaa-link! You know dat’s anti-Semitic!"


Really? Is Fox News anti-Semitic, too? Is Die Zeit? Salon? Le Monde? How about The Forward?


Of course, Arianna is an airhead, but her instinct for self-preservation at all costs – yes, even at the cost of the truth – is indicative of what’s involved here. I was told, before I undertook to challenge the "official" 9/11 story, that I would pay for it by being cast out of the "mainstream" whilst being mercilessly smeared. In any event, since I was never all that interested in being considered "mainstream" – in part because I knew the whole concept of "mainstream" was very over – and because the prospect of being viciously attacked didn’t faze me in the least, I was undeterred. And I remain so to this day.


What I want to know is this: does Fox News stand by Carl Cameron’s reporting on the question of Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Yes – or no? If so, then what is their loudest mouth – I refer, of course, to Glenn Beck – doing smearing someone as a "Truther" who is asking the same sort of questions asked by Fox News reporter Cameron? If Van Jones must go, because he’s supposedly a "Truther," then Cameron must go, too.


No, I don’t expect an answer to my question any time soon – or, indeed, any time at all. I just want my readers to contemplate the implications of that, and what it says about the veracity of the "official" 9/11 narrative.

Read more by Justin Raimondo

The ABC's Middle East correspondent Anne Barker became caught in violent street protests involving ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem at the weekend. This is her graphic account of her ordeal.

As a journalist I've covered more than my share of protests. Political protests in Canberra. Unions protesting for better conditions. Angry, loud protests against governments, or against perceived abuses of human rights.

I've been at violent rallies in East Timor. I've had rocks and metal darts thrown my way. I've come up against riot police.

But I have to admit no protest - indeed no story in my career - has distressed me in the way I was distressed at a protest in Jerusalem on Saturday involving several hundred ultra-Orthodox Jews.

This particular protest has been going on for weeks.

Orthodox Jews are angry at the local council's decision to open a municipal carpark on Saturdays - or Shabbat, the day of rest for Jews.

It's a day when Jews are not supposed to do anything resembling work, which can include something as simple as flicking a switch, turning on a light or driving.

So even opening a simple carpark to accommodate the increasing number of tourists visiting Jerusalem's Old City is highly offensive to Orthodox Jews because it's seen as a desecration of the Shabbat, by encouraging people to drive.

I was aware that earlier protests had erupted into violence on previous weekends - Orthodox Jews throwing rocks at police, or setting rubbish bins alight, even throwing dirty nappies or rotting rubbish at anyone they perceive to be desecrating the Shabbat.

But I never expected their anger would be directed at me.

I was mindful I would need to dress conservatively and keep out of harm's way. But I made my mistake when I parked the car and started walking towards the protest, not fully sure which street was which.

By the time I realised I'd come up the wrong street it was too late.

I suddenly found myself in the thick of the protest - in the midst of hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews in their long coats and sable-fur hats.

They might be supremely religious, but their behaviour - to me - was far from charitable or benevolent.

As the protest became noisier and the crowd began yelling, I took my recorder and microphone out of my bag to record the sound.

Suddenly the crowd turned on me, screaming in my face. Dozens of angry men began spitting on me.


Spit like rain

I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting - on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms.

It was like rain, coming at me from all directions - hitting my recorder, my bag, my shoes, even my glasses.

Big gobs of spit landed on me like heavy raindrops. I could even smell it as it fell on my face.

Somewhere behind me - I didn't see him - a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me.

I wasn't even sure why the mob was angry with me. Was it because I was a journalist? Or a woman? Because I wasn't Jewish in an Orthodox area? Was I not dressed conservatively enough?

In fact, I was later told, it was because using a tape-recorder is itself a desecration of the Shabbat even though I'm not Jewish and don't observe the Sabbath.

It was lucky that I don't speak Yiddish. At least I was spared the knowledge of whatever filth they were screaming at me.

As I tried to get away I found myself up against the line of riot police blocking the crowd from going any further.


Reassurance

Israeli police in their flak jackets and helmets, with rifles and shields, were yelling just as loudly back at the protesting crowd.

I found them something of a reassurance against the angry, spitting mob.

I was allowed through, away from the main protest, although there were still Orthodox Jews on the other side, some of whom also yelled at me, in English, to take my recorder away.

Normally I should have stayed on the sidelines to watch the protest develop.

But when you've suffered the humiliation and degradation of being spat on so many times - and you're covered in other people's spit - it's not easy to put it to the back of your mind and get on with the job.

I left down a side street and walked the long way back to the car, struggling to hold back the tears.

Editor's note (August 25): This report has been amended to make it clear the protesters were speaking Yiddish rather than Hebrew, as was originally reported.

RELIGIOUS NUTS EMBRACE VIOLENCE AND HATE!

How secret camera in archbishop's 'love nest' silenced vocal Mugabe criticVideo recording of alleged adultery embarrasses nation's Catholic leader
The pictures are as grainy and blurry as you might expect from a tiny camera hidden in the ceiling of what Zimbabwe's government press is calling "the archbishop's love nest". But there is little doubt that the man perched on the edge of the bed is Pius Ncube, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo and furious opponent of Robert Mugabe. Behind the cleric, as he takes his shirt off, is a shape that a worker on Zimbabwe railways, Onesimus Sibanda, says is his wife, Rosemary, a secretary in the cathedral.
The video, showing a full frontal shot of a naked man who appears to be the archbishop as he climbs on to a woman whose breasts are also visible, is the basis of a lawsuit against the archbishop that is ostensibly about Mr Sibanda's honour but which the government has seized on - and almost certainly engineered - to silence one of Mr Mugabe's most persistent and effective critics.

Archbishop Ncube has denounced Zimbabwe's president as a murderer, mobilised the country's Catholic bishops to issue a pastoral letter likening the struggle against the present regime to the liberation war against white rule, and even called on Christians to pray for Mr Mugabe's death.

Now he has gone to ground while the Catholic hierarchy decides what to do as the fires are stoked by repeated broadcasts of the video on Zimbabwe television and a claim by the former secret policeman who planted the camera that Mrs Sibanda was only one of a string of women filmed in the bedroom.

The archbishop has done nothing to quell the furore. He refused to deny the accusations, saying instead that he is feeling "stressed" and praying a great deal.

The government and state-owned press maintain that the alleged affair came to light when Mr Sibanda hired a private investigator, Ernest Tekere, to check on his wife. Mr Tekere planted the camera in the ceiling of the archbishop's bedroom. "That man is a terrible womaniser," he told the state-run Harare Herald. "During the operation we saw several ladies coming to his room, women of all ages. There were old ladies, nuns and some young ones.

"He is not doing his job of sowing the holy seed but womanising. The number of women who visited his house during our investigations were too many."

But suspicions of a government hand at work were raised by the fact that Mr Sibanda has been separated from his wife for some time and lives with another woman, and because his pay is unlikely to have stretched to Mr Tekere's fees. It also emerged that the private detective is a former senior official in the Central Investigation Organisation in Bulawayo.

A fortnight ago, Mr Mugabe made a little-noticed remark about priests that is now being widely interpreted in Zimbabwe as evidence the government was behind the operation. "Some of them claim they swore to celibacy yet they sleep around with countless women," he said.

Mr Sibanda is suing the archbishop for £80,000. Court officials serving the legal papers on Archbishop Ncube were accompanied by television cameras. The state broadcaster said Mrs Sibanda admitted to the affair.

Government-run newspapers splashed the pictures on the front pages and gave detailed accounts of scenes from the video, including what the Herald described as the archbishop having a "nice time" with an unnamed married woman.

"She is believed to be a long-time girlfriend of the archbishop, as seen from the composure and confidence she exuded while in the archbishop's bedroom," the Herald wrote. "As the woman rests on the bed, Archbishop Ncube removes his collar and throws it into one of his drawers. He then proceeds to prepare the bed and places a wrapping towel across the bed."

According to the newspaper, the footage shows that the archbishop gave one sexual partner money and that she then stole jewellery from his room.

Although Archbishop Ncube's lawyers, friends and supporters quickly came out to deny the accusations, their confidence has been shaken by the cleric's refusal to do so himself.

The Solidarity Peace Trust, a church-backed group pressing for political change co-led by Archbishop Ncube, said it stood by him "regardless of the truth or falsity" of the allegations and accused the government of tactics reminiscent of the apartheid-era security police in South Africa.

Five years ago, the government engineered a sting against the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, in which he was filmed allegedly hiring a man who claimed to be a former Israeli intelligence operative to "eliminate" Mr Mugabe. Mr Tsvangirai was acquitted at a treason trial two years later.

But some of the cleric's supporters are aghast at what they describe as his recklessness when he should have assumed that he was a primary target for surveillance. "I think it's safe to say that Pius is in a situation partly of his own making," said one of the archbishop's political supporters. "Initially I thought it wasn't true. Now I have to say the weight of evidence is against him. I'm angry with him because we all know what kind of regime we are dealing with and he has jeopardised so much."

Mr Mugabe, who describes himself as an "ordinary Catholic" and several years ago drew criticism by fathering children with his secretary while still married, said he would call for prayers for the archbishop "so that he can repent and return to morality". "Since you are my archbishop, Pius, and you swore to celibacy, keep your vows," he said. "Snatching other people's wives is not fair play."

Vatican officials had no doubt the archbishop was the victim of a carefully prepared operation to discredit him, but there has been a growing feeling in Rome that he has gone too far in his fight with Mr Mugabe. This month Archbishop Ncube said the president "should be excommunicated at the very least".

SUPPOSED "MORAL LEADER" CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN - AT LEAST THEY WERE'NT ALTAR BOYS! I HATE THESE "SO CALLED" LEADERS OF THE FAITH PARTICIPATING IN BEHAVIOR WHICH CONTRADICTS THEIR SOLEMN VOWS AND MORAL SUPERIORITY!

'If I could, I'd take this fucking ball and shove it down your fucking throat': What Serena Williams REALLY told line judge!


“I swear to God, If I could, I would take this f*****g ball and shove it down your f*****g throat,” Williams furiously screamed as she walked towards the line judge who was sitting just a few feet away. Williams kept coming at her, screaming profanities and began waiving her racket as if she intended to strike her with it.

Jewish Communists Starved Nine Million Christians.
The People Behind The Famine
Stalin
Molotov
Kaganovitch
Yagoda

Where Did It Happen?
Stalin's Famine raged through the Ukraine, and the lower Volga River region in 1932-33. This resulted in the death of between 7 to 10 million people, mainly Ukrainians
Why Did Stalin Kill The People?
The Ukrainian people told the Moscow Jewish communists they wouldn't give them their land, and in fact wanted independence from Russia. The Kremlin used the famine as a political weapon to destroy Ukrainian aspirations for independence
Who Did They Kill?
They killed Ukrainian farmers, villagers, intelligentsia, and anyone that could unite and lead the people.
A wave of persecutions of thousands of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, and leaders took place. Plots for liberating the Ukraine were discovered, not only in the smallest villages, but even in the top ranks of the Ukrainian Communist Party itself.
Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot.
Mass Murder
The Jewish NKVD secret police took the crops and livestock, and were shooting up to 10,000 Ukranians a day. During the bitter winter of 1932-33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or died of starvation and cold. Cannibalism became common
How Did They Do It?
In 1932, the Communists installed a quota, that essentially took all of the peasantry's grain, and stored it in grain elevators. Communists used military troops and NKVD secret police units to collect the grain.
Next, they instigated an internal passport system, and the peasants could not travel in search of food. The grain was stored in elevators, guarded by the NKVD, while Ukrainians were starving in the immediate area.
What Did America Say?
The New York Times' reporter Walter Duranty, British writers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and French Prime Minister Edouard Herriot, toured Ukraine, denied reports of genocide, and applauded what they called Soviet "agrarian reform."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was well aware of the genocide, but closed his eyes, even to the point of blocking aid groups from going to the Ukraine. Roosevelt always referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe".

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/15/1005888/jewish-group-objects-to-holodomor-lawsuit

Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case
June 15, 2009

KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) -- A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the "Great Famine" committed in the 1930s.

The nation's security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.

Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was "a farce" to press the case.

“All organizers of the Great Famine are dead," he said.

Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials -- as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia -- that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.

The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”

Feldman believes there is a danger that the “Holodomor Affair” materials are being used for political purposes.

In late May, security service head Valentin Nalivaychenko claimed at a meeting with representatives of the World Congress of Ukrainians that “Ukraine has collected enough evidence to bring a criminal case regarding the famine, which was artificially created by the Bolshevik regime and caused mass death of citizens.”

Through the World Congress of Ukrainians, Nalivaychenko turned to leading foreign lawyers with a request to help find out the circumstances connected with preparing and committing the genocide.

[edit] Scope and duration
The famine affected the Ukrainian SSR as well as the Moldavian ASSR (a part of the Ukrainian S.S.R. at the time) between 1932 and 1933. However, not every part suffered from the Holodomor for the whole period; the greatest number of victims was recorded in the spring of 1933.

The first reports of mass malnutrition and deaths from starvation emerged from 2 urban area of Uman - by the time Vinnytsya and Kiev oblasts dated by beginning of January 1933. By mid-January 1933 there were reports about mass “difficulties” with food in urban areas that had been undersupplied through the rationing system and deaths from starvation among people who were withdrawn from rationing supply according to Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine Decree December 1932. By the beginning of February 1933, according to received reports from local authorities and Ukrainian GPU, the most affected area was listed as Dnipropetrovsk Oblast which also suffered from epidemics of typhus and malaria. Odessa and Kiev oblasts were second and third respectively. By mid-March, most reports originated from Kiev Oblast.

By mid-April 1933, the Kharkiv Oblast reached the top of the most affected list, while Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa, Vinnytsya, Donetsk oblasts and Moldavian SSR followed it. Last reports about mass deaths from starvation dated mid-May through the beginning of June 1933 originated from raions in Kiev and Kharkiv oblasts. The “less affected” list noted the Chernihiv Oblast and northern parts of Kiev and Vinnytsya oblasts. According to the Central Committee of the CP(b) of Ukraine Decree as of February 8 1933, no hunger cases should have remained untreated, and all local authorities were directly obliged to submit reports about numbers suffering from hunger, the reasons for hunger, number of deaths from hunger, food aid provided from local sources and centrally provided food aid required. Parallel reporting and food assistance were managed by the GPU of the Ukrainian SSR. Many regional reports and most of the central summary reports are available from present-day central and regional Ukrainian archives.[27] There is documentary evidence of widespread cannibalism during the Holodomor.[28] The Soviet regime of the time even printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act."[29]

Denial of the famine by Soviet authorities, including President Mikhail Kalinin and Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, was immediate and continued into the 1980s. The Soviet party line was echoed at the time of the famine by some prominent Western journalists, including Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer. The denial of the famine was a highly successful and well orchestrated disinformation campaign by the Soviet government [58][59][60]. Stalin "had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all the talk of hunger... Millions were dying, but the nation hymned the praises of collectivization", said historian and writer Edvard Radzinsky[60]. That was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion, to be followed by similar campaigns over the Moscow Trials and denial of the Gulag labor camp system, according to Robert Conquest [38]

On November 10, 2003 at the United Nations twenty-five countries including Russia, Ukraine and United States signed a joint statement on the seventieth anniversary of the Holodomor with the following preamble:

In the former Soviet Union millions of men, women and children fell victims to the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. The Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), which took from 7 million to 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people. In this regard we note activities in observance of the seventieth anniversary of this Famine, in particular organized by the Government of Ukraine.

Honouring the seventieth anniversary of the Ukrainian tragedy, we also commemorate the memory of millions of Russians, Kazakhs and representatives of other nationalities who died of starvation in the Volga River region, Northern Caucasus, Kazakhstan and in other parts of the former Soviet Union, as a result of civil war and forced collectivization, leaving deep scars in the consciousness of future generations.[21]

JEWISH INTELLECTUALS AKA, "COMMUNISTS" STARVED TO DEATH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHILE THEY TRIED TO FULFILL LENINS' DREAM BY COLLECTIVIZATION - CHAIRMAN MAO OF CHINA KILLED UNTOLD MILLIONS OF CHINESE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH A UTOPIAN STATE WHERE THE SURVIVAL OF THE STATE MUST BE ASSURED NO MATTER WHAT THE COSTS IN HUMAN LIFE.

Israeli intellectuals still experiment with collectivism;
[edit] Ideology of the kibbutz movement
First Aliyah immigrants were largely religious, but those of the Second Aliyah were mainly secular. A Jewish work ethic thus replaced religious practice. Berl Katznelson, a Labor Zionist leader articulated this when he said "Everywhere the Jewish laborer goes, the divine presence goes with him.".[12]

In addition to redeeming the Jewish nation through work, there was also an element of redeeming Eretz Yisrael - Palestine - in the kibbutz ideology. In the contemporary Yiddish anti-Zionist literature that was circulating around Eastern Europe, Palestine was mocked as dos gepeigerte land, "the country that had died." Kibbutz members found immense gratification in bringing the land back to life by planting trees, draining swamps, and countless other hard-graft activities to make the land (invariably wetlands) productive. In soliciting donations, kibbutzim and other Zionist settlement activities presented themselves as "making the desert bloom."

Most kibbutzim were founded upon disputed land. Like most other Jewish agricultural communities, kibbutzim were founded in three relatively small, flat, low-lying regions of the country, the upper Jordan Valley, the Jezreel Valley and the Sharon coastal plain. The land was marshy and highly fertile, but available for purchase because it was infested with malaria and thus unproductive. Most early kibbutzniks, including David ben Gurion himself, suffered from malaria. In areas of higher elevation without standing water, where mosquitos could not breed—such as the area now called the West Bank—there were few if any kibbutzim.

Members of a kibbutz, or kibbutzniks, like other participants in the Zionist movement, had not considered the possibility of conflict between Jews and Arabs over Palestine. Mainstream Zionists predicted the Arab population would be grateful for the economic benefits that the Jews would bring. The left wing of the kibbutz movement believed that the enemies of the Arab peasants were Arab landowners (called effendis), not fellow Jewish farmers. By the late 1930s as the struggle against world fascism and for a political refuge for persecuted Jews began, kibbutzniks began to assume a military role in the New Yishuv.

The first kibbutzniks hoped to be more than plain farmers in Palestine. They even hoped for more than a Jewish homeland there: they wanted to create a new type of society where all would be equal and free from exploitation. The early kibbutzniks wanted to be both free from working for others and from the guilt of exploiting hired work. Thus was born the idea that Jews would band together, holding their property in common, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Kibbutz members were not classic Marxists though their system partially resembled Communism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both shared a disdain for conventional formulations of the nation-state. Leninists were hostile to Zionism, but nevertheles the two main kibbutz leaders, Tabenkin and Yaari commenced in the late 1930s pushing their movements leftward to reverence of Stalin's dictatorship in order to save their leaderships. They succeeded in 1948, established Mapam party that adored the Soviet Union when supported the establishment of Israeli state, although most Kibbutz Artzi members opposed Yaari's move. Soon Stalin became hostile to Israel as it served Soviet diplomatic and military interests in the Arab world. This caused major crises and mass exit in both Kibbutz Meuchad and Kibbutz Artzi kibbutzim, especially after the 1953 Doctors' Plot in Moscow and the Prague showcase Trials. But even after Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 denouncement of Stalinism in the "secret speech," the two leaders suppressed young leaders and the many members who rejected communism, since it served their rule.[13] However, to this day many kibbutzim remain strongholds of left-wing Israeli politics.

Although kibbutzniks practiced a form of communism themselves, they did not believe that it could work for everyone; for example, the Kibbutz political parties never called for the abolition of private property. Kibbutzniks saw their kibbutzim as collective enterprises within a free market system. Kibbutzim also practise active democracy in organisation: periodic elections are held for Kibbutz functions as well as an active participation in national elections.

Kibbutzim were not the only contemporary communal enterprises: pre-war Palestine also saw the development of communal villages called moshavim (singular moshav). In a moshav, marketing and major farm purchases would be done collectively, but personal lives were entirely private. Although much less famous than kibbutzim, moshavim became more numerous and popular than kibbutzim after the establishment of Israel in 1948.

Kibbutz residents tend to vote left of center. In 2009, most votes from kibbutzim went to Kadima, Labor, and Meretz

ISRAELI's devoted to preservation of the State of Israel at any cost have displaced the indigenous peoples of Palestine, event to the point where it may be called extermination- THE SETTLEMENTS ARE RELIGIOUSLY JUSTIFIED!

Palestinians argue that the policy of settlements constitutes an effort to pre-empt or even sabotage a peace treaty that includes Palestinian sovereignty, and claim that the settlements are built on land that belongs to Palestinians.[40][41]

Israelis supportive of settlement respond that they are religiously justified in owning the land. Furthermore, the Israel Foreign Ministry asserts that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement.[42][43][44] Based on this, they assert the following specific reasons for accepting settlements as legitimate:

Prior to the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, the eruption of the First Intifada in the late eighties, down to the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, Israeli governments on the left and right argued that the settlements were of strategic and tactical importance. The location of the settlements was primarily chosen based on the threat of an attack by the bordering hostile countries of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and possible routes of advance into Israeli population areas[citation needed].These settlements were originally thought of as contributing to the peace and security of the state of Israel at a time when peace treaties had not been signed. Some supporters of the settlements still cite these reasons.[45][46][47][48][49][50]
Many religious Jews assert the biblical Jewish connection to the areas in dispute, arguing that their claim to build is equal to the biblical Jewish connection to the other areas in Israel.
The international consensus on the illegality of Israeli settlements
According to the BBC, the "overwhelming view" of the international community is that the settlements are illegal based upon Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.[65]

The consensus view is largely based on UN Security council resolutions, including resolutions 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 which find the settlements to be illegal.[66] In Resolution 465 the settlements are even described as a "flagrant violation". Separately also the legal arm of the UN, the International Court of Justice, has found the settlements to be illegal under international law.[67]

International human rights groups Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem have denounced the settlements as illegal.[68][69][70]

The European Union considers the settlements to be illegal.[71] The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions declared in 2001 that the settlements are illegal.[72]

The United Nations General Assembly has passed several resolutions denouncing all settlements in the occupied territories as illegal. Below is a summary of voting records concerning such resolutions from 2006-2008

Amnesty International argues that Israel's settlement policy is not only illegal, but is discriminatory and a violation of Palestinian human rights:

'As well as violating international humanitarian law per se, the implementation of Israel's settlement policy in the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights provisions, including the prohibition of discrimination. The seizure and appropriations of land for Israeli settlements, bypass roads and related infrastructure and discriminatory allocation of other vital resources, including water, have had a devastating impact on the fundamental rights of the local Palestinian population, including their rights to an adequate standard of living, housing, health, education, and work, and freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories."[68]

The Israeli human rights centre B'Tselem and other sources have indicated that the road blocks scattered inside the West Bank between Palestinian cities and villages which are designed to "protect the settlers" from Arab snipers firing on Israeli drivers, as well as Arab ambushes of Israelis, have had a significant impact on freedom of movement. While the road blocks are also said to protect Israelis within Israel, according to B'Tselem, the (siege) "imprisons entire populations within their communities or in a small geographic area and limits their access to other parts of the West Bank."[130][131][132]

In Hebron, where 500-600 settlers live among 167,000 Palestinians, B'Tselem argues that there have been "grave violations" of Palestinian human rights because of the "presence of the settlers within the city." The organization cites regular incidents of "almost daily physical violence and property damage by settlers in the city", curfews and restrictions of movement that are "among the harshest in the Occupied Territories", and violence and by Israeli border policemen and the IDF against Palestinians who live in the city's H2 sector.[133][134][135]

Human Rights Watch reports on physical violence against Palestinians by settlers, including, "frequent[ly] stoning and shooting at Palestinian cars. In many cases, settlers abuse Palestinians in front of Israeli soldiers or police with little interference from the authorities."[136]

B'Tselem also documents settler actions against Palestinians that include "blocking roadways, so as to impede Palestinian life and commerce. The settlers also shoot solar panels on roofs of buildings, torch automobiles, shatter windowpanes and windshields, destroy crops, uproot trees, abuse merchants and owners of stalls in the market. Some of these actions are intended to force Palestinians to leave their homes and farmland, and thereby enable the settlers to gain control of them."[137]

According to B'Tselem, more than fifty percent of the land of the West Bank has been expropriated from Palestinian owners "mainly to establish settlements and create reserves of land for the future expansion of the settlements". While the seized lands mainly benefit the settlements, the Palestinian public is prohibited from using them in any way.[138] According to Meron Benvenisti,

'the entire "settlement enterprise" has become a commercial real estate project, which conscripts Zionist rhetoric for profit'.[139]

A series of modern roads have been established by Israel throughout the West Bank which bypass Palestinian areas, some of which are closed to vehicles with Palestinian license-plates in varying degrees, can fluctuate based on arbitrary Israeli security concerns: some roads (mostly leading into Israel) are closed to all Palestinian traffic; many roads are closed to private traffic but allow public and commercial transportation; some roads are fully open to all Palestinian traffic and are shared completely with Israeli motorists. At the same time, Palestinian areas and roads are closed to vehicles with Israeli license-plates, though these roads are often of poorer quality, are less upkept and new roads are rarely built by Palestinians. Israel argues that such a system is needed for security reasons because of many incidents in which Israelis who entered Palestinians areas were endangered or killed, and that the restrictions generally reduce tension between the two populations. B'Tselem has described this system as nevertheless 'discriminatory': "Rather than use the main roads between the cities, most of the population is forced to use long and winding alternate routes. The regime has forced most Palestinians to leave their cars at home and travel by public transportation, in part because private cars are not allowed to cross some of the checkpoints." B'Tselem lists the effects of this separate roads regime, including: Wasted (additional) time to reach destinations, tardiness or inability to reach destinations, exhaustion, increased cost of travel, and increased wear and tear on vehicles resulting from travel on worn down or dirt roads.[140]

The recent construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier routed inside the green line to encompass a variety of settlements has also been cited as an infirengement on Palestinian human and land rights. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 10% of the West Bank will fall on the Israeli side of the barrier.[141][142]