NEW STANDARDS IN TERRORISM
In 1944 the Roosevelt administration staged a gigantic sedition trial in which approximately 35 defendants were prosecuted because of views which resembled, in certain respects, those of the German Nazis. The trial collapsed after many months because none of the defendants could be proved to have committed an overt act against American forces at war with the Germans. However, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that aid to terrorism need not involve an overt act, such as money or buying weapons, but merely moral and intellectual support, then anyone who says a kind word for Palestinians, doubts the reality of the “War on Terror”, espouses conspiracy theories or does historical research undermining media, ethnic or government myths can be labeled an “accomplice of terrorism”. The chilling effect on dissent is obvious.
Of course, all this is purely hypocritical. The same Zionist controlled judiciary that comes up with this nonsense is well acquainted with the history of the state of Israel. Justices Kagan and Ginsberg know that both Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, future Prime Ministers of the state of Israel, were wanted by the British Palestine Police Force for terrorist attacks against English soldiers and officials. And, speaking of lending “moral assistance” to terrorists, they undoubtedly remember Mr. Ben Hecht’s famous letter to the New York Herald Tribune in May 1947 in which he boasted that “every time a terrorist blows up a British train or building, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts”. Ben Hecht’s famous play “A Flag Is Born” might have been construed as promoting terrorism, if an English judge were hearing the case. And then, the vast Zionist smuggling of arms and munitions to Palestine would qualify as aiding and abetting terrorism even under more old fashioned definitions. The Supreme Court shall ignore these precedents for “aiding and abetting terrorism” because concocted jurisprudence is merely a cover for more sinister objectives.
The Supreme Court does not practice Constitutional jurisprudence; it practices “ethnic-specific” jurisprudence. Terrorism is to be condoned and tolerated when it promotes Zionist-Jewish objectives; it is to be condemned when it can be used as a scapegoat for wider designs. “Is terrorism good (or bad) for the Jews” is the test.
