Conspirators of 9/11 and Mad Hatter’s Tea Party

Conspirators of 9/11 and Mad Hatter’s Tea Party

I am sick and tired of 9/11! Do you blame the Muslims for these anomalies?

What’s happened to twin tower gold bars?

What was the result of 9/11 Text messages received by to Jews?

Dancing Israelis Videotaping 9/11

A Timeline: Israel connection to 9/11

Media Manipulation - Palestinians Dancing on 9/11 Videos

Who Are the Beneficiaries of 9/11?

International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11

The Arabs and Muslims Gained Nothing from 9/11

A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and Evil of Sharia Law

For more: A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and Evil of Sharia Law

Burn the Wife Alive was discouraged by Islam. Islam also openly and strongly discouraged the barbaric process of burying baby daughter alive!

Judaism and Christianity got at least 18 provisions allowing stone to death.

Non Muslim St. Stephen was stoned to death!

The other reporting of Sunkara Srinivas, 32, belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC), and 22-year-old Swapna Reddy, belonging to an upper caste, had eloped and married six months ago was in HYDERABAD, India and both of them were NOT Muslims.

The only other story I found is Stoning of Du'a Khalil Aswad. She is not a Muslim!! In fact she belongs to Yazidi faith!!!

Men stoned to death for adultery, murder in Iran is one case only and I am conducting more investigation about it. Adulterer Stoned to Death: Extreme Islamic Punishment in Somalia is another case in point one. Since 1980, thanks to US government, Somalia is lacking of a proper government and the case is very questionable.

The most disturbing reported cases of stone to death are:

1. Pakistani man stoned to death and

2. Man and woman stoned to death in Afghanistan!

Amongst 1.5 billion Muslims not even a handful of Muslims faced stone to death! Sudden three reporting in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are seriously disturbing.

I hope they are not like Hill & Knowlton trained Nurse Nayirah and Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder from totally misguided American mercenaries who are stupid enough to send their own children to die for the mistress called Israel.

A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and Lies about 9/11

For more: A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and Lies about 9/11

USA Must Quit Afghanistan Now

(Who Invented) Osama bin Laden to Slaughter the Arabs and Muslims?

Osama bin Laden! Guilty or Innocent?

By the way who was behind 9/11 and benefited from this tragedy?

Who are the beneficiaries of 9/11?

1. Israel?

2. USA?

3. Defense Industrial Complexes?

4. Afghanistan?

5. Iraq?

6. Iran?

7. Pakistan?

8. India?

Who are the losers of 9/11?

A. Notion of Justice?

B. Democracy?

C. Human Rights?

D. Civil Rights and Industrial Rights?

E. Muslims?

F. Arabs?

G. Humanity in general?

A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and Lies about a Mosque

For more: A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and Lies about a Mosque

Further to Mad Haters Party of USA (No Mosque near Ground Zero) and Beyond A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party? , a variety of proposed scenarios have been reported by various media outlets. These speak of a

1. Mosque at Ground Zero,

2. Mosque near Ground Zero,

3. Or a Mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero.

It makes one wonder which of these descriptions is correct, and what is an acceptable distance for a Mosque from the Ground Zero?

Beyond A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party?

For more: Beyond A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party?

Further to Mad Haters Party of USA (No Mosque near Ground Zero) Islam and Muslim bashing is the most spectacular sport in USA!

The Muslims did not conspire to kill Jesus and that’s why the term Islamo-Christian Culture does not exist!!

The Muslims respect Jesus and mother Marry and the Jews do not. Yet, they are revered as Judeo-Christian Culture!!!

One must wonder, “why is it so”?

Mad Haters Party of USA (No Mosque near Ground Zero)

Mad Haters Party of USA is mad indeed. They are also Islamophobic! It is cheap and popular.

No Mosque at Ground Zero

Robert Spencer praises Newt's intellectual leadership in identifying threat of radical Islam

Video: America at Risk: Camus, National Security, and Afghanistan

Newt Gingrich Praises Anti-Defamation League for Opposing Proposed Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero

Newt says WTC mosque construction is a "political act" on NY1 News

Newt Gingrich Statement on Proposed Mosque/Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren't

RAND report: Threat of homegrown jihadism exaggerated, Zero U.S. civilians killed since 9/11

All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren't

The crusade for a Christian military

The Good Soldiers of David Finkel

Julia Gillard is John Howard in Drag and More

Julia Gillard is John Howard in Drag and More

Further to Julia Gillard is John Howard in Drag may I ask Who wants to see Gillard as pro-Israel and anti-Islam?

A regular reader of this site sent this on, exact source unknown, but certainly speaks for itself.

The ALP and Israel is like a disease that no medicine can cure

Australian unionist Paul Howes loves Israel. He supports its criminality, murder of opponents, defends it from everybody and would ideally like to make love to the Jewish state. He's also one of the key figures behind the recent coup of Julia Gillard when overthrowing Kevin Rudd.

Welcome to the modern Australian Labor Party, where Israel is a state religion.

His column in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph is a typical rant that conveniently forgets to mention that one of Australia's leading Zionist lobbyists, Albert Dadon, is actually an Israeli lobbyist. He wields influence but of course we can't mention this. Furthermore, Howes doesn't want to see that there is a profound conflict of influence with the Prime Minister's partner working for a Zionist lobbyist who is trying to affect government policy towards the Middle East. But of course for some, anything related to the Jewish state is beyond criticism. Fat chance:

It hasn't taken long for the double standards to emerge, in the week since our first female Prime Minister took office.

While it's significant that Julia Gillard is our first female PM, what's really significant is how long it took us to get there.

I'm writing this column in the Sydney CBD, where we have a female Lord Mayor and State member, and female federal MP, a female Premier and a female Governor.

In Canberra, there's a female Governor General and – at last – a female PM. With the exception of the dual-Lord Mayor/Member for Bligh, all these women are, or were appointed by, Labor.

The Liberal Party, on the other hand, is so bereft of female talent that they've recycled Julie Bishop as deputy leader three times for different leaders, despite the fact that she's not considered competent enough to hold the shadow Treasury portfolio.

But the progressive side of politics has always championed women. In my own role as a union official, we have had female leaders of the Australian Council of Trade Unions since 1996, with the newest president, Ged Kearney, taking office in the past week.

She replaces Sharan Burrow, who has been elected as the head of the global trade union movement.

Yet we've already seen double standards being applied to our new PM with significant media coverage of Prime Minister Gillard's hair, clothes, voice and domestic arrangements.

The Melbourne Age carried a front-page story last week about the employment status of the Prime Minister's partner, Tim Mathieson.

He works as a salesman for a Melbourne property company, chaired by Albert Dadon, prominent in the local Jewish community.

The article implied that, somehow, because Mr Mathieson works for a company associated with a Jewish community member, this would somehow impact on the PM's stance on foreign policy, particularly in relation to her views on Israel.

It was one of the crassest examples of shoddy journalism I've seen. The implication was, firstly, that because Mr Mathieson is a man and the PM a woman, whatever he thinks about the world or who he works for will impact on what Ms Gillard thinks.

The second implication was that, simply because Mr Mathieson works for a company owned by a prominent Jew, his personal views on policy matters will be skewed by his job.

One Canberra press gallery journalist summed it up best on Twitter when he said: "I can't ever recall a male politician being the subject of claims his wife's job would influence his views on the Middle East."

He was spot on, summing up in one sentence the appalling double standards applied to Prime Minister Gillard in the article. In fact, outrage over the article was so intense that even former Age editor Michael Gawenda labelled it "bizarre".

Mr Mathieson's employer, apart from being Jewish, is a well-known jazz musician and was chairman of the Melbourne Jazz Festival.

Following the logic of The Age's article, one could presume that our nation's leader will redirect the Government's arts funding solely towards the Australian jazz industry.

Ludicrous, isn't it? Just as ludicrous as saying that the PM is going to toe some pro-Israel line simply because of who her partner works for. It's the type of double standards and sexist reporting that belongs in the past.

Julia Gillard has shown she is her own person. It doesn't matter what her hair looks like. I don't think anyone is really interested in how she dresses. It doesn't matter who her partner works for or what their living arrangements are.

What matters is that she's the best person for the job and light years ahead of Tony Abbott when it comes to understanding the needs of ordinary Australians. Yes, she's different from her predecessors, but just like Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, she is her own person.

Any suggestion that her partner's views, or her hairstyle, has any bearing on how she runs the country is laughable at best, sexist at worst.

Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union

Julia Gillard is John Howard in Drag

Dissident writer and academic Scott Burchill on the dead heart at the centre of the ruling Labor party in Australia (and the Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard):

Caved in to miners within hours of becoming PM – not prepared to stand up to corporate power in the West, or defend the population's resources equity

Gushed to Obama – an "honour and privilege" just to speak to him, though we are allies in a (futile) war we are losing

Sucked up to Israel - expressed no concerns about the Dubai passport & identity theft or the flotilla massacre while deputy PM, and will not stand up to Israel lobby as PM

Backed the Afghan war unconditionally – without asking Obama any questions about McChrystal's dismissal, how long we need to have troops in occupation, what the exit strategy, etc,

Opposed same sex marriage – apparently the state decides which consenting adults can marry, not the adults, though her choice not to marry is hers alone

Copied Howard's Pacific solution on asylum seekers – substituting East Timor for Nauru, then abandoning it a few days later because the Timorese hadn't been properly consulted and opposed the idea when they eventually were

Endorsed a government imposed internet filter - then abandoned it a day later because the population opposes it and thinks they should decide what they can and cannot access, not the government

Lost the Government's two most competent ministers – Tanner can't stand her and what she did to Rudd, Faulkner opposes the Afghanistan commitment he was charged with implementing

It's not disappointing because only the naive believed she actually stood for something – principles or good policy, for example. If she did, she would have bailed on Rudd months ago. Concerns that someone from the left had risen to power were always risible – she is hated by her colleagues on the left more than she is by those on the right. She was only on the left of the party for the purposes of factional horse-trading and pre-selection.

What's more difficult to understand is that like Rudd, she will be rightly criticised for not standing for, or believing in, anything. Sadly, she is actually getting credit for "clearing the decks" before an early election, as if policies are dispensable as long as it is possible to hold on to power. This tells us more about modern Labor than anything. If she is re-elected, what will she do? Manage for the sake or managing? Every other idea and principle has been, or is being, trashed.