Noahide News

Part 331

November 17 , 2005 AD of Our LORD Jesus the Christ the Creator

Talmudic Dragon Moon Calendar  Cheshvan 15, 5766 ,   their Babylonian times of their  Babylonian Sumerian Doctrine and laws 5766

 The FINISH 

of Iniquity unto desolation for them who Deny the Christ, Jesus the Lord.

mason seal

Extra Extra

http://www.shmais.com/picofdayall.cfm

E-mail from Dov Stein  @ Sanhedrin

From: Southern American Marketing, Inc. [mailto:robert@samliquidation.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:26 AM
To: ?? ?????
Subject: Re:

Watch your Nasi in the USA, he may very well be the KEY to the Finished spirit of ALL Prophecy.
 
But God Forbid if any man attempts to do the WILL of GOD without his Authority.

His reply

You speak with no rationality like MUSLEMS

 

second e-mail, his response in red

From: Southern American Marketing, Inc. [mailto:robert@samliquidation.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:01 AM
To: ?? ?????
Subject: Re:

Hahahahhahaha.....The Talmud Bavli Tractate Sanhedrin, makes it Clear that it was them who Crucified their GODWrong! where? He is not G-D
 
There is no difference in jew or greek, who are in faith in Christ Jesus the LORD GOD Almighty
 
as for as it is nothing : WRONG
 
Mt:27:25: Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Until you Repent of this curse and REPENT to the LIVING WORD  

The stupidity of Nt. 

 
It is SOMETHING, it is the PIT
 
The ONLY way, is to say "Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the LORD, Until then your and your house is left desolate.  

No lord yes Idol

 
Matthew 23:
 
30: And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31: Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32: Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33: Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34: Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36: Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation
 
and there you have it Wisdom is Justified in her Children, for you admit that you know that the Talmud Bavli of the dragon claims responsibility, and they by False witness Called the SON of GOD a false Prophet and Idol workers and Crucified him.
 
But I tell you DOV, Unless you REPENT in the Mighty Name of Jesus who is the only Christ, you are destined for the pit along with your false king

________

So as you can see, the very same Hassidic Pharisees, who Crucified the LORD Jesus are under the authority of satan, their father the murderer from the beginning, and they lust to slay the LORD's servants, who STAND FIRM and Testify of that same Creator KING from the Beginning whom they have replaced with their Talmudic doctrine of devils.

But in Jesus Christ Mighty Name, they are defeated from the foundation of the world, sealed at Calvary forever.

Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus

_______

Dov Stein, anti-Christ son of the Shema-GOG of satan, the Sanhedrin

http://pinchas.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_pinchas_archive.html

The recently elected secretary of the new body, Rabbi Dov Stein, told the Forward that the process of re-establishing the Sanhedrin has taken 20 years. He said the current mix of rabbis has garnered the support of "a quarter of the traditional Jewish community living in Israel."

Stein said the new body hopes to "unify the religious parties" and become the primary governing power in Israel. The members are still debating whether it would be best to maintain a democratic system or re-establish a monarchy ruled by a scion of King David (for which they are currently vetting candidates).

In the meantime, Stein said, the Sanhedrin is focused mostly on increasing its influence, through enjoining other leading rabbis to sign off on it and by developing religious courts to serve Jews as well as non-Jews.
Speaking of Steinsaltz, Stein declared, "My personal view is that he is the biggest rabbi all over the world now, in spite of the fact that the supreme-Orthodox rabbis" would disagree with that assertion.

"He has several advantages that other rabbis do not," including his familiarity with "multiple languages" and "secular knowledge" — both requirements for a Sanhedrin leader laid out by medieval Jewish philosopher and legal authority Rabbi Moses Maimonides, 

Mammon eyes of the Mammonizers

Stein said. In addition to his religious credentials, Steinsaltz holds a mathematics degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

An Arutz Sheva article this week asserted that "due to concerns that external pressure would be brought to bear upon individuals not to take part in the establishment of a Sanhedrin, the names of most participants have been withheld up to this point, upon the request of the Sanhedrin’s spokesmen." However, the article made a statement regarding the addition of its seven elected leading members: "It was concluded that the Sanhedrin has become strong enough for its members to be able to withstand criticism."

Gauging the new body’s influence among the Israeli Orthodox is difficult. The Forward was unable to obtain comment from any Israeli Orthodox leaders. The constituencies of the member rabbis themselves — especially Steinsaltz — are sizable. But in the month since the new body was created, it has been more liable to draw snickers than praise.

Yaakov Katz, who has reported on the Sanhedrin project for the Jerusalem Post, told the Forward that generally the initiative has been dismissed as the efforts of "right-wing extremists." 

Hassidim of Chabad Lubavitch whose WORLD Headquarters is in New Babylon, New York

The election of Steinsaltz, he acknowledged, "gives the Sanhedrin some legitimacy" because "he’s known around the world, and he’s apolitical."

Katz noted that leading rabbis such as Ovadia Yosef, former Sephardic chief rabbi, and Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the most respected ultra-Orthodox religious authority, have not endorsed the endeavor; but, Stein said, organizers take the fact that these rabbis have not discounted the effort to be proof of its legitimacy.

Its authority is given by satan, see Ezekiel 8 and Revelation 13

Katz said that the Sanhedrin’s political goals are unlikely to occur, as "the religious parties don’t want to be associated with extremism" and "the secular public is not interested." Even give support from the body’s most likely constituents — religious nationalists —the new Sanhedrin’s influence "would be marginal."

Orthodox leaders in America said they were mostly unaware of the Sanhedrin’s doings.

Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, told the Forward that "in general terms, I think that a Sanhedrin is a body that really has to reflect — I’m talking just in realpolitik terms, not religious terms — a broad spectrum of Orthodox Jews."

"From what I know, this does not," Weinreb said. He acknowledged that Steinsaltz’s involvement "puts it in a different picture," but said this development simply means that the new body is "something to find out more about."

_________

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=83438

Rabbi Dov Stein - A pioneer in the Sanhedrin's renewal for the last 20 years, he has been secretary of the Sanhedrin since its inception, dealing with logistical aspects as well as interacting with recognized Torah scholars and inviting rabbis to join the body. He manages the beith-din.com web site.

_______

http://www.netivot-shalom.org.il/parshaeng/bo2.php

Dov Stein, Jerusalem

Apropos the quote from the late Prof. Yeshayahu Leibovich (Vayigash edition), from whom I learned a great deal during his lifetime, and continue to learn from his writings after his death, I permit myself to remark that:Leibovich adopts R. Akiva's position that "the ten tribes will not return", and adds: "He knew they were lost." But, it can't be helped, there are those in the Talmud who disagree with him (Sanhedrin 110b); in the Mishnah, R. Eliezer, and in the Beraitha, and later, R. Shimon son of R. Yehuda Ish Kfar Acco, and others - indeed, a long line of sages whose esteem for R. Akiva did not diminish their wish to present their contrary opinion, and even to justify it on a painful note: "R. Akiva has abandoned his kindliness," in similar fashion to the dispute in the Talmud over whether the generation of the wilderness does or does not have a place in the world to come.

Yohanan Dicastro, Sde Eliahu

______

 

George W. Bush

"We are Against YOU"

 and your Chabad Lubavitch lackies of Sanhedrin

________

http://www.jta.org/index.asp

Germany arrests Holocaust denier

An accused Holocaust denier was arrested on arrival at Frankfurt airport Tuesday.

Germar Rudolf, 41, was deported from the United States this week. He will serve a 14-month prison sentence in Baden-Wurttemberg for a 1995 conviction on charges of slander and incitement to hatred. He also faces further charges of publishing right-wing propaganda on the Internet.

Rudolf, a chemist, published an article in 1991 claiming that Zyklon B poison gas was never used in Auschwitz. He fled to the United States to avoid serving time in German prisons.

______

Big Brother Nasi is listening to you Moma

http://cryptome.org/fcc101305.txt

14 October 2005 Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Federal Register: October 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 197)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 59664-59675] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13oc05-20] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [ET Docket No. 04-295; RM-10865; FCC 05-153] Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts a rule establishing that providers of facilities- based broadband Internet access services and providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services--meaning VoIP service that allows a user generally to receive calls originating from and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN)--must comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). This new rule will enhance public safety and ensure that the surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies continue to be met as Internet-based communications technologies proliferate. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 14, 2005. Compliance Date: Newly covered entities and providers of newly covered services must comply with CALEA within 18 months of November 14, 2005. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Simpson, Attorney-Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418- 2391. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First Report and Order (1st R&O) in ET Docket No. 04-295, FCC 05-153, adopted August 5, 2005, and released September 23, 2005. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail at http://www.bcpiweb.com It is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov. Synopsis of the First Report and Order 1. Background. In response to concerns that emerging technologies such as digital and wireless communications were making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies to execute authorized surveillance, Congress enacted CALEA on October 25, 1994. CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities. The Commission began its implementation of CALEA with the release of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 1997 (62 FR 63302, November 27, 1997). Since that time, the Commission has taken several actions and released numerous orders implementing CALEA's requirements. 2. On March 10, 2004, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (collectively, DOJ) filed a petition asking the Commission to declare that broadband Internet access services and VoIP services are covered by CALEA. The Petition also requested that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to resolve, on an expedited basis, various outstanding issues associated with the implementation of CALEA. The Commission declined to issue a declaratory ruling, finding instead that it was necessary to compile a more complete record on the factual and legal issues surrounding the applicability of CALEA to broadband Internet access services and VoIP services, and thus issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (69 FR 56976, September 23, 2004). 3. The Commission initiated this proceeding both to undertake a comprehensive and thorough examination of the appropriate legal and policy framework of CALEA, and to respond to DOJ's Petition asking the Commission to seek comment on the various outstanding issues associated with the implementation of CALEA, including the potential applicability of CALEA to broadband Internet access services and VoIP services. The NPRM indicated that the Commission would analyze the applicability of CALEA to broadband Internet access services and VoIP services under section 102(8)(B)(ii), a provision of CALEA upon which the Commission had never before relied. That provision--the Substantial Replacement Provision (SRP)--requires the Commission to deem certain service providers to be telecommunications carriers for CALEA purposes even when those providers are not telecommunications carriers under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act). The NPRM indicated that the Commission had never before exercised its section 102(8)(B)(ii) authority to identify additional entities that fall within CALEA's definition of ``telecommunications carrier,'' and had never before solicited comment on the discrete components of that subsection. 4. The NPRM sought comment, among other things, on the Commission's tentative conclusions that: (1) Congress intended the scope of CALEA's definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' to be more inclusive than that of the Communications Act; (2) facilities-based providers of any type of broadband Internet access service are subject to CALEA; (3) ``managed'' VoIP services are subject to CALEA; and (4) the phrase ``a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service'' in section [[Page 59665]] 102 of CALEA calls for assessing the replacement of any portion of an individual subscriber's functionality previously provided via ``plain old telephone service'' (POTS). 5. Discussion. In this 1st R&O, we interpret the SRP to cover facilities-based broadband Internet access and interconnected VoIP. Our analysis first interprets the SRP to establish a legal framework for assessing services under CALEA, explaining the basis for all statutory interpretations that inform this framework. Next, we apply this framework to providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access services and interconnected VoIP services. In each case, we find that these providers are subject to CALEA under the SRP. We then discuss the scope of our actions today and the relationship of these actions to the Commission's efforts to resolve a number of outstanding issues related to CALEA, such as assistance capability requirements, compliance, enforcement, identification of future services and entities subject to CALEA, and cost-related matters. 6. Legal Framework. In this section, we explain how CALEA's SRP requires us to determine that some providers are subject to CALEA even if they are not telecommunications carriers as defined in the Communications Act. We further explain the relationship between the SRP and CALEA's exclusion for information services. Because the text of CALEA does not provide unambiguous direction, we consider the structure and history of the relevant provisions, including Congress's stated purposes, and interpret the statute in a manner that most faithfully implements Congress's intent. We conclude, as we indicated in the NPRM, that the terms ``telecommunications carrier'' and ``information services'' in CALEA cannot be interpreted identically to the way those terms have been interpreted under the Communications Act in light of the statutory text as well as Congress's intent and purpose in enacting CALEA. 7. CALEA Definition of ``Telecommunications Carrier.'' We affirm our tentative conclusion that Congress intended the scope of CALEA's definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' to be more inclusive than the similar definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' in the Communications Act. Critically, while certain portions of the definition are the same in both statutes, CALEA's SRP ``has no analogue'' in the Communications Act, thus rendering CALEA's definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' broader than that found in the Communications Act. The SRP directs the Commission to deem certain providers to be telecommunications carriers for CALEA purposes, whether or not they satisfy the definition of telecommunications carrier in sections 102(8)(A) and 102(8)(B)(i). The SRP reflects Congress's intent to ``preserve the government's ability to * * * intercept communications that use advanced technologies such as digital or wireless transmission.'' Under the SRP, a telecommunications carrier is ``a person or entity engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service to the extent that the Commission finds that such service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service and that it is in the public interest to deem such a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of [CALEA].'' 8. The SRP contains three components, each of which must be satisfied before the Commission can deem a person or entity a telecommunications carrier for purposes of CALEA. We address each of these components in turn. First, the SRP requires that an entity be ``engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service.'' In the NPRM, we interpreted the term ``switching'' in this phrase to include ``routers, softswitches, and other equipment that may provide addressing and intelligence functions for packet-based communications to manage and direct the communications along to their intended destinations.'' We affirm this reading of the statute, which has support in the record. We disagree with commenters who claim that the term ``switching'' as used by Congress in 1994 did not contemplate routers and softswitches, and thus suggest that the interpretation of this term must forever be limited to the function as it was commonly understood in 1994, namely circuit switching in the narrowband PSTN. Our decision today is reinforced by judicial precedent that has found CALEA to apply to certain packet-switched services. Moreover, limiting the interpretation of ``switching'' to circuit- switched technology would effectively eliminate any ability the Commission may have to extend CALEA obligations under the SRP to service providers using advanced digital technologies, in direct contravention of CALEA's stated purpose. 9. Second, the SRP requires that the service provided be ``a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service.'' We conclude that this requirement is satisfied if a service replaces any significant part of an individual subscriber's functionality previously provided via circuit-switched local telephone exchange service. This interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision is most consistent with the language of section 102(8)(B)(ii), the express purpose of CALEA, and its legislative history. Congress did not enact language consistent with an interpretation offered by some commenters that would require the widespread use of a service before the SRP may be triggered. Instead, the SRP's phrase ``substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service'' indicates that the appropriate test is a functional one. It is triggered when a service replaces a portion of traditional telephone service, i.e., all or some of the components, or functions, of the service. Because the statutory phrase includes the word ``substantial,'' we will require the functions being replaced to be a significant or substantial function of traditional telephone service. 10. As we explained in the NPRM, the legacy local telephone exchange network served two distinct purposes at the time CALEA was enacted: it provided POTS, which enabled customers to make telephone calls to other customers within a defined local service area; and it was the primary, if not the only, conduit (i.e., transmission facility) used to access many non-local exchange services such as long distance services, enhanced services, and the Internet. The legislative history indicates that Congress intended CALEA to cover both the ability to ``make, receive and direct calls'' (i.e., the POTS functionality) and the transmission facilities that provide access to other services (i.e., the access conduit functionality). In 1994, this transmission function was commonly provided by dial-up Internet access, which shows that Congress did not mean to limit CALEA's scope to voice service alone. We therefore agree with DOJ that the language ``substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service'' includes both the POTS service and the transmission conduit functionality provided by local telephone exchange service in 1994. Commenters have not persuaded us otherwise. 11. The SRP's third component requires that the Commission find that ``it is in the public interest to deem * * * a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of [CALEA]'' once that entity has met the first and second components of the SRP. We sought comment in the NPRM [[Page 59666]] on how to define the ``public interest'' for purposes of CALEA, as the statute does not explicitly define the term. We noted that the House Report specifically identified three factors for the Commission to consider, at a minimum, in making its public interest determination under the SRP: whether deeming an entity a telecommunications carrier would ``promote competition, encourage the development of new technologies, and protect public safety and national security.'' Based on the record before us, we conclude that it is appropriate to rely primarily on these three factors when making our public interest determination for purposes of the SRP. We find that consideration of these three factors balances the goals of competition and innovation with the needs of law enforcement. 12. CALEA Definition of ``Information Services.'' As we explained in the NPRM, the treatment of information services under CALEA is different from the treatment such services have been afforded under the Communications Act. In keeping with the legislative history of the Communications Act, the Commission interprets that Act's definitions of ``telecommunications service'' and ``information service'' to be mutually exclusive. Moreover, because the definition of ``telecommunications service'' focuses on the character of a provider's ``offering * * * to the public,'' the Commission has concluded that the classification of a particular service as a telecommunications service or an information services ``turns on the nature of the functions that the end user is offered.'' Additionally, the Communications Act's definition of ``telecommunications'' ``only includes transmissions that do not alter the form or content of the information sent,'' a definition that the Commission has found to exclude Internet access services, which ``alter the format of information through computer processing applications.'' For these reasons, the Commission has concluded that a single entity offering an integrated service combining basic telecommunications transmission with certain enhancements, specifically ``capabilities for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information,'' offers only an information service, and not a telecommunications service, for purposes of the Communications Act if the telecommunications and information services are sufficiently intertwined. In other words, the Commission does not recognize the telecommunications component of an information service as a telecommunications service under the Communications Act. 13. In contrast with the Communications Act, CALEA does not define or utilize the term ``telecommunications service,'' it does not adopt the Communications Act's narrow definition of ``telecommunications,'' and it does not construct a definitional framework in which the regulatory treatment of an integrated service depends on its classification into one of two mutually exclusive categories, i.e., telecommunications service or information service. As a result, structural and definitional features of the Communications Act that play a critical role in drawing the Act's regulatory dividing line between telecommunications service and information service, and that undergird the Commission's resulting classification of integrated broadband Internet access service as solely an information service for purposes of the Communications Act, are absent from CALEA. Unlike the Communications Act, CALEA's ``overall statutory scheme'' does not require the Commission to classify an integrated service offering as solely a telecommunications service or solely an information service depending on ``the nature of the functions that the end user is offered,'' and thus the classification of broadband Internet access services under the Communications Act is not controlling under CALEA. 14. The text of the ``information services'' definition is entirely consistent with this interpretive approach. CALEA defines ``information services'' as the offering of a capability for manipulating and storing information ``via telecommunications,'' but the statutory definition does not resolve the question whether the telecommunications functionality used to access that capability itself falls within the information service category. Under the Communications Act's similar definition of information service, we have resolved that ambiguity by concluding that the telecommunications component of an integrated information service offering falls within the information service category, but that result is not compelled by the text of CALEA, and thus the Act leaves the Commission free to resolve the definitional ambiguity as appropriate in light of CALEA's purposes and the public interest, without being bound by the approach followed under the Communications Act. 15. We also reach that same conclusion by a separate, and independent, route. CALEA excludes from its definition of telecommunications carrier ``persons or entities insofar as they are engaged in providing information services,'' and the definition of information services in CALEA is similar to the definition in the Communications Act. The SRP, however, adds a third category of services to the mix. A provider of communication switching or transmission service that is not a telecommunications service under the Communications Act is nonetheless deemed to be a telecommunications carrier under CALEA if the Commission finds that the service replaces a substantial portion of local telephone exchange service and it is in the public interest to treat the provider as a telecommunications carrier. To give significance to the SRP, this new category of services must include some aspects of services that may be ``information services'' under the Communications Act. An ``irreconcilable tension'' would occur if the Commission rendered Congress's deliberate extension of CALEA's requirements to providers satisfying the SRP insignificant by simply applying its Communications Act interpretation of ``information services'' to CALEA. Consequently, to resolve that tension in a manner that the Commission determines best reflects Congressional intent under CALEA as well as the text of the statute, a service classified as an ``information service'' under the Communications Act may not, in all respects, be classified as an ``information service'' under CALEA. 16. In addition to constituting the most reasonable construction of the statutory text, this conclusion is further bolstered by an examination of the legislative history. The House Report's discussion of information services and information service providers for CALEA purposes pertains only to the enhancements to the transmission capability underlying the service, that is, the computing capabilities that transform the service from a ``telecommunications service'' under the Communications Act and the corresponding Commission rules into an ``information service.'' For example, in discussing privacy concerns and the scope of CALEA, the House Report indicates that ``electronic mail providers, on-line service providers, and Internet service providers are not subject to CALEA.'' The House Report goes on to indicate, however, that while the storage of an e-mail message falls within CALEA's Information Services Exclusion, the transmission of an e-mail [[Page 59667]] message is subject to CALEA. Similarly, the House Report indicates that a portion of voice mail service is also covered by CALEA: ``the `redirection' of a voice mail message is covered by CALEA, while the storage of the message is not.'' If an information service for purposes of CALEA mirrored the definition and treatment of an information service under the Communications Act, CALEA would never have been able to reach the transmission of all e-mails or voice mails even when CALEA was enacted. 17. That conclusion is further supported by CALEA's structure. CALEA establishes a general rule that telecommunications carriers (including those covered by the SRP) are subject to CALEA's assistance capability requirements. Information services are an exception to that general rule. It is a well recognized principle of statutory construction that ``[w]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exceptions.'' Accordingly, it is appropriate to give the Information Services Exclusion a narrow construction in order to give full effect to CALEA's general rule. 18. We thus find that the classification of a service as an information service under the Communications Act does not necessarily compel a finding that the service falls within CALEA's Information Service Exclusion. Decisions about the applicability of CALEA must be based on CALEA's definitions alone, not on the definitions in the Communications Act. Equally important, the classification of a service provider as a telecommunications carrier under CALEA's SRP does not limit the Commission's options for classifying that provider or service under the Communications Act. In the sections below, we apply this legal framework to providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access and interconnected VoIP services. 19. Applicability of CALEA to Broadband Internet Access Services. In this section, we find that facilities-based providers of any type of broadband Internet access service, including but not limited to wireline, cable modem, satellite, wireless, fixed wireless, and broadband access via powerline are subject to CALEA. In finding these providers to be subject to CALEA under the SRP, we reiterate that we do not disturb the Commission's prior decisions that CALEA unambiguously applies to all ``common carriers offering telecommunications services for sale to the public,'' as so classified under the Communications Act. Thus, to the extent that any facilities-based broadband Internet access service provider chooses to offer such service on a common carrier basis, that provider is subject to CALEA pursuant to section 102(8)(A), the Common Carrier Provision. 20. Applying the legal framework set forth above, we determine that facilities-based broadband Internet access providers satisfy each of the three prongs of the SRP: (1) They are providing a switching or transmission functionality; (2) this functionality is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service, specifically, the portion used for dial-up Internet access; and (3) public interest factors weigh in favor of subjecting broadband Internet access services to CALEA. 21. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers Are ``Telecommunications Carriers'' Under CALEA: Broadband Internet Access Service Includes Switching or Transmission. We find that facilities- based broadband Internet access service providers are ``engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service'' and therefore meet the first prong of the SRP. As discussed above, we interpret the ``switching or transmission'' component of the SRP broadly to capture not only transmission or transport capabilities, but also new packet-based equipment and functionalities that direct communications to their intended destinations. No commenter suggests that facilities-based broadband Internet access providers do not provide a transmission or transport function. Indeed, commenters providing broadband Internet access service today describe the underlying transport component of their service as ``switching and forwarding data.'' 22. Broadband Internet Access Service Replaces a Substantial Portion of the Local Telephone Exchange Service. We next conclude that facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers provide a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service, specifically, the portion of local telephone exchange service that provides subscribers with dial-up Internet access capability. Broadband Internet access service unquestionably ``replaces'' a portion of the functionality that the traditional local telephone exchange service provides--namely, the ability to access the Internet. CALEA's legislative history supports our conclusion that broadband Internet access service was intended to be covered by CALEA, as are both dial-up and common carrier DSL transport services. That history explains the distinction between the portion of e-mail service that was subject to CALEA (a service that was accessible only over the Internet) and the portion that was not. The only way that the ``transmission of an E-mail message'' could have been captured under CALEA in 1994 was through the dial-up facilities and capabilities of narrowband local telephone exchange service. Thus, to the extent that dial-up capabilities are ``replaced'' today by broadband Internet access service, we ensure that the ``transmission of an E-mail message'' continues to be subject to CALEA by finding that the SRP covers the transmission component of broadband Internet access service. 23. Public Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Subjecting Broadband Internet Access Service to CALEA. We further find that it is in the public interest to deem facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers to be ``telecommunications carriers'' for purposes of CALEA under the SRP. The public interest factors that we consider in reaching this determination--the effect on competition, the development and provision of new technologies and services, and public safety and national security--on balance, support this finding. 24. One of the cornerstones of the Commission's broadband policy is achieving the goal of developing a consistent regulatory framework across all broadband platforms by treating providers in the same manner with respect to broadband services providing similar functionality. Because all facilities-based providers of broadband Internet access services will be covered by CALEA, our finding today will have no skewing effect on competition. In addition, covering all broadband Internet access service providers prevents migration of criminal activity onto less regulated platforms. 25. We further determine that our actions today will not hinder the development of new services and technologies. While our action today brings much needed certainty to the application of CALEA to the development of new services and technologies, it does not favor any particular technology over another. Furthermore, nothing in this item will substantially change the deployment incentives currently faced by providers. Broadband Internet access service providers today are already subject to a number of electronic surveillance statutes that compel their cooperation with law enforcement agencies. In [[Page 59668]] addition, it has been over a year since the Commission issued its tentative conclusion that broadband Internet access service providers would be covered by CALEA. During that time, we have seen an increase in broadband build-out, undermining any arguments that development of these systems would be stifled. In contrast, many commenters have indicated they are currently cooperating with law enforcement agencies to provide CALEA-like capabilities today. 26. The overwhelming importance of CALEA's assistance capability requirements to law enforcement efforts to safeguard homeland security and combat crime weighs heavily in favor of the application of CALEA obligations to all facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers. It is clearly not in the public interest to allow terrorists and criminals to avoid lawful surveillance by law enforcement agencies by using broadband Internet access services as a substitute for dial-up service. 27. Finally, in finding CALEA's SRP to cover facilities-based providers of broadband Internet access service, we conclude that establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are not considered facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers subject to CALEA under the SRP. We note, however, that the provider of underlying facilities to such an establishment would be subject to CALEA, as discussed above. Furthermore, providers of Personal Area Networks (e.g., cordless phones, PDAs, home gateways) are not intended to be covered by our actions today. We find that these services are akin to private networks, which are excluded from CALEA requirements. 28. CALEA's Information Services Exclusion Does Not Apply to Broadband Internet Access Providers. We find that providers of broadband Internet access service are not relieved of CALEA obligations as a result of CALEA's Information Services Exclusion. As we have noted, our interpretation of the term information services in CALEA differs from our interpretation of that term in the Communications Act. Thus, the fact that broadband Internet access service may be classified as an information service under the Communications Act does not determine its classification for CALEA purposes. The appropriate focus of our analysis must be on the meaning of the term in CALEA, and for that, as we have explained, we look to the text of CALEA and its legislative history for guidance. As noted above, the legislative history indicates that under CALEA, telecommunications components are separable for regulatory purposes from information service components within a single service. 29. Our interpretation of the relationship between information services under the Communications Act and the Information Services Exclusion under CALEA does not eviscerate the Information Services Exclusion, as certain commenters claim. Rather, this approach gives meaning to the Information Services Exclusion, as intended by Congress, while reconciling the fact that Congress included the SRP specifically to empower the Commission to bring services such as broadband Internet access within CALEA's reach if appropriate. A facilities-based broadband Internet access service provider continues to have no CALEA obligations with respect to, for example, the storage functions of its e-mail service, its web-hosting and DNS lookup functions or any other ISP functionality of its Internet access service. It is only the ``switching and transmission'' component of its service that is subject to CALEA under our finding today. 30. Applicability of CALEA to VoIP Services. We conclude that CALEA applies to providers of ``interconnected VoIP services,'' which include those VoIP services that: (1) Enable real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) require a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) require IP-compatible customer premises equipment; and (4) permit users to receive calls from and terminate calls to the PSTN. We find that providers of interconnected VoIP services satisfy CALEA's definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' under the SRP and that CALEA's Information Services Exclusion does not apply to interconnected VoIP services. To be clear, a service offering is ``interconnected VoIP'' if it offers the capability for users to receive calls from and terminate calls to the PSTN; the offering is covered by CALEA for all VoIP communications, even those that do not involve the PSTN. Furthermore, the offering is covered regardless of how the interconnected VoIP provider facilitates access to and from the PSTN, whether directly or by making arrangements with a third party. 31. In reaching our conclusion, we abandon the distinction the NPRM drew between ``managed'' and ``non-managed'' VoIP services as the dividing line between VoIP services that are covered by CALEA and those that are not. The record has overwhelmingly convinced us that this distinction is unadministrable; even DOJ expressed an openness to a different way of identifying those VoIP services that CALEA covers. We find that using ``interconnected VoIP services'' to define the category of VoIP services that are covered by CALEA provides a clearer, more easily identifiable distinction that is consistent with recent Commission orders addressing the appropriate regulatory treatment of IP-enabled services. Interconnected VoIP services today include many of the types of VoIP offerings that DOJ's Petition indicates should be covered by CALEA, and is thus responsive to DOJ's needs at this time. 32. Interconnected VoIP Providers Are ``Telecommunications Carriers'' Under CALEA: Interconnected VoIP Includes Switching or Transmission. We find that providers of interconnected VoIP satisfy the three prongs of the SRP under CALEA's definition of ``telecommunications carrier.'' First, these providers are ``engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission services.'' As we have explained, we interpret the term ``switching'' in the CALEA definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' to include ``routers, softswitches, and other equipment that may provide addressing and intelligence functions for packet-based communications to manage and direct the communications along to their intended destinations.'' Interconnected VoIP service providers use these technologies to enable their subscribers to make, receive, and direct calls. The record reflects that any VoIP provider that is interconnected to the PSTN ``must necessarily'' use a router or other server to do so. Thus, even VoIP providers that do not own their own underlying transmission facilities nonetheless are engaged in providing ``switching'' services to their customers. 33. Interconnected VoIP Replaces a Substantial Portion of the Local Telephone Exchange Service. Second, interconnected VoIP satisfies the ``replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service'' prong of the SRP because it replaces the legacy POTS service functionality of traditional local telephone exchange service. As we explained in our recent VoIP E911 Order (70 FR 37273, June 29, 2005), customers who purchase interconnected VoIP service receive a service that ``enables a customer to do everything (or nearly everything) the customer could do using an analog telephone.'' We determine that a service [[Page 59669]] that is increasingly used to replace analog voice service is exactly the type of service that Congress intended the SRP to reach. 34. Public Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Subjecting Interconnected VoIP Providers to CALEA. Finally, we find that it is in the public interest to deem an interconnected VoIP service provider a telecommunications carrier for purposes of CALEA. In reaching this conclusion, we examine the three prongs of the public interest analysis that the NPRM proposed to consider: promotion of competition, encouragement of the development of new technologies, and protection of public safety and national security. These three factors compel a finding that CALEA should apply to interconnected VoIP. First, our finding today will not have a deleterious effect on competition because all providers of interconnected VoIP will be covered by CALEA. Singling out certain technologies or categories of interconnected VoIP providers would be more harmful to competition than applying CALEA requirements to all providers of interconnected VoIP services, as we do today. Second, we are confident that our decision today will not discourage the development of new technologies and services. Interconnected VoIP providers are already obligated to cooperate with law enforcement agencies under separate electronic surveillance laws. We have seen no evidence that these requirements have deterred the development of new VoIP technologies and services in the period of time since the Commission issued its tentative conclusion that some types of VoIP service are covered by CALEA. Instead, we have seen an increasing effort on the part of many interconnected VoIP providers to develop CALEA capabilities, and the record indicates that VoIP providers are already modifying their operations to ensure that they are able to comply with CALEA. Industry solutions appear to be readily available. Finally, the protection of public safety and national security compels us to apply CALEA to interconnected VoIP service providers. Excluding interconnected VoIP from CALEA coverage could significantly undermine law enforcement's surveillance efforts. Further, broadband Internet access providers alone might not have reasonable access to all of the information that law enforcement needs. Specifically, call management information (such as call forwarding and conference call features) and call set-up information (such as real-time speed dialing information and post-dial digit extraction information) are unlikely to be reasonably available to a broadband Internet access provider. The record thus indicates that the broadband Internet access provider and the interconnected VoIP provider must both be covered by CALEA in order to ensure that law enforcement agencies' surveillance needs are met. 35. CALEA's Information Services Exclusion Does Not Apply to Interconnected VoIP. We find that interconnected VoIP service is not subject to the Information Services Exclusion in CALEA. The regulatory classification of interconnected VoIP under the Communications Act is not determinative with regard to this inquiry. Indeed, the Commission has yet to determine the statutory classification of providers of interconnected VoIP for purposes of the Communications Act, but nowhere does CALEA require such a determination before analyzing a service provider under the SRP. Instead, the appropriate focus is on the meaning of the term in CALEA. As we have explained, CALEA's legislative history contains much discussion of ``information services,'' but not once did Congress contemplate that any type of voice service would fall into that category. Most significantly, Congress explicitly distinguished between ``information services'' that are not covered by CALEA and ``services or facilities that enable the subscriber to make, receive or direct calls,'' which are covered. Congress intended the capability to make what appear to the consumer to be ordinary voice calls--regardless of the technology involved--to fall outside the category of excluded information services under CALEA. 36. Scope of Commission Action. Our action in this 1st R&O is limited to establishing that CALEA applies to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and interconnected VoIP service providers. The NPRM raised important questions regarding the ability of broadband Internet access providers and VoIP providers to provide all of the capabilities that are required by section 103 of CALEA, including what those capability requirements mean in a broadband environment. The NPRM also sought comment on a variety of issues relating to identification of future services and entities subject to CALEA, compliance extensions, cost recovery, and enforcement. We will address all of these matters in a future order. Because we acknowledge that providers need a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance with all relevant CALEA requirements, we establish a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of this 1st R&O, by which time newly covered entities and providers of newly covered services must be in full compliance. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 37. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification (FRFC) is limited to the matters raised in the NPRM relating to the applicability of CALEA to providers of broadband Internet access services and VoIP services. The present FRFC addresses comments on the IRFA concerning only those issues and conforms to the RFA. 1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules 39. Advances in technology, most notably the introduction of digital transmission and processing techniques and the proliferation of wireless and Internet services such as broadband Internet access services and VoIP, have challenged the ability of the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to conduct lawful surveillance. In light of these difficulties, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (collectively, DOJ) filed a joint petition for expedited rulemaking in March 2004. In its petition, DOJ asked the Commission immediately to declare that broadband Internet access services and VoIP services are covered by CALEA. 40. In this 1st R&O, we conclude that facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected VoIP service are subject to CALEA as telecommunications carriers under CALEA's Substantial Replacement Provision (SRP). Because we acknowledge that providers need a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance with all relevant CALEA [[Page 59670]] requirements, we establish a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of the 1st R&O, by which time newly covered entities and providers of newly covered services must be in full compliance. This 1st R&O is the first critical step needed to apply CALEA obligations to new technologies and services that are increasingly relied upon by the American public to meet their communications needs. 2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 41. In this section, we respond to commenters who filed directly in response to the IRFA. To the extent we received comments raising general small business concerns during this proceeding, those comments are discussed throughout the 1st R&O and are also summarized in part E, below. 42. The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) filed comments directly in response to the IRFA. We note that both commenters raise various concerns about issues that were raised in the NPRM in this proceeding but are not addressed in this 1st R&O. In this FRFC, we address their comments only to the extent that they relate to the applicability of CALEA's SRP to broadband Internet access and VoIP service, as all other concerns will be addressed in the subsequent order. 43. We reject SBA's argument that the Commission failed to analyze the compliance requirements and impacts on small carriers in the IRFA. The SBA argues that this failure made it difficult for small entities to comment on possible ways to minimize any impact. Although the Commission did not list the exact costs, in the NPRM we identified all the potential carriers that may be required to be CALEA compliant under the SRP, described in great detail what these carriers would be required to do if they were subject to CALEA, and requested comment on how the Commission could address the needs of small businesses. Indeed, far from discouraging small entities from participating, the NPRM elicited extensive comment on issues affecting small businesses. Therefore, we believe that small entities received sufficient notice of the implications of CALEA compliance addressed in today's 1st R&O, and a revised IRFA is not necessary. 44. We also reject NTCA and SBA's contention that the Commission failed to include in the IRFA significant alternatives to minimize burdens on small entities. First, NTCA argues that the Commission failed to identify in the IRFA that small entities may be exempted under the SRP's public interest clause. In the NPRM, however, we asked for comment as to whether there are discrete groups of entities for which the public interest may not be served by including them under the SRP. We noted that small businesses that provide wireless broadband Internet access to rural areas may be one example of such a discrete group. In response to the NPRM, several small carriers filed comments claiming that the public interest would not be served by subjecting these providers to CALEA under the SRP. Second, SBA claims the Commission failed to identify in the IRFA the option of granting an extended transition period for small carriers. In the NPRM, however, we specifically invited comment from all entities on the appropriate amount of time to give newly covered entities to comply with CALEA. While we recognize that we did not specifically list in the IRFA the potential exclusion of small businesses under the SRP's public interest clause or the option of extending the time period for small carriers, the IRFA in this proceeding combined with the NPRM appropriately identified all the ways in which the Commission could lessen the regulatory burdens on small businesses in compliance with our RFA obligations. 3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply 45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present FRFC is limited to the matters raised in the NPRM relating to the applicability of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to providers of broadband Internet access services and VoIP services. The present FRFC addresses comments on the IRFA concerning only those issues and conforms to the RFA. a. Telecommunications Service Entities 46. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 47. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 48. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service Providers.'' Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are ``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the [[Page 59671]] Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service Providers'' are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 49. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 654 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 652 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 50. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 316 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 292 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 51. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 52. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 89 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, 88 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. 53. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 54. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of paging providers decreased approximately 51 percent from 1997 to 2002. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of cellular and other wireless telecommunications carriers increased approximately 321 percent from 1997 to 2002. 55. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. We have estimated that 260 of these are small, under the SBA small business size standard. 56. Common Carrier Paging. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category, ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of [[Page 59672]] firms can be considered small. In the Paging Third Report and Order, we developed a small business size standard for ``small businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. Also, according to Commission data, 375 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging services. Of those, we estimate that 370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size standard. 57. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the Wireless Communications Services (WCS) auction. A ``small business'' is an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that qualified as a ``small business'' entity. 58. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, Personal Communications Services (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications'' services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. We have estimated that 260 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 59. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small entity'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.'' These standards defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. b. Cable Operators 60. Cable and Other Program Distribution. This category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category, which includes all such companies generating $12.5 million or less in revenue annually. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 61. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 62. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer, totals 1,450. The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore are unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. c. Internet Service Providers 63. Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs ``provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and [[Page 59673]] hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity.'' Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $21 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,751 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,659 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 67 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of Internet service providers increased approximately five percent from 1997 to 2002. 4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 64. The 1st R&O requires all facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected VoIP service to be CALEA compliant. Our decision today does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements that would be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to CALEA both small and large carriers must design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the required surveillance capabilities. We note that a subsequent order will address other important issues under CALEA, such as compliance extensions and exemptions, cost recovery, identification of future services and entities subject to CALEA, and enforcement. 5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 65. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 66. In the 1st R&O, we conclude that facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected VoIP service are ``telecommunications carriers'' under CALEA's SRP. In arriving at these conclusions, the Commission first interprets the SRP to establish a legal framework for assessing services under CALEA, explaining the basis for all statutory interpretations that inform this framework. We then apply this framework to providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access services and interconnected VoIP services. The Commission considered various alternatives, which it rejected or accepted for the reasons set forth in the body of the 1st R&O. The significant alternatives that commenters discussed and that we considered in determining that these providers are ``telecommunications carriers'' under CALEA's SRP are as follows. 67. Legal Framework. In the 1st R&O, we affirm our tentative conclusion that Congress intended the scope of CALEA's definition of telecommunications carrier to be more inclusive than the similar definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' in the Communications Act. In reaching this conclusion, we rejected arguments that the definition of ``telecommunications carriers'' in CALEA is functionally identical to the definition of that term in the Communications Act. While we recognize that a broader interpretation may include small entities under the definition, CALEA contains several differences that support this broader interpretation of the term ``telecommunications carrier'' under CALEA. As noted above, the most significant difference is the SRP, which ``has no analogue'' in the Communications Act. 68. The SRP applies only to entities ``engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service.'' We conclude that the term ``switching'' in this phrase includes ``routers, softswitches, and other equipment that may provide addressing and intelligence functions for packet-based communications to manage and direct the communications along to their intended destinations.'' We considered but rejected arguments that the term ``switching'' as used by Congress in 1994 did not contemplate routers and softswitches. For instance, some commenters argued that this term must forever be limited to that function as it was commonly understood in 1994, namely circuit switching in the narrowband PSTN. We believe that interpreting CALEA's inclusion of the word ``switching'' to describe a function that Congress intended to be covered--regardless of the specific technology employed to perform that function--is the interpretation most consistent with the purpose of the statute. The alternative approach would effectively eliminate any ability the Commission may have to extend CALEA obligations under the SRP to service providers using advanced digital technologies, in direct contravention of CALEA's stated purpose. 69. The SRP requires that the service provided be ``a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service.'' We affirmed our tentative conclusion that this requirement is satisfied if a service replaces any significant part of an individual subscriber's functionality previously provided via circuit-switched local telephone exchange service. We considered various interpretations. For example, we considered, but declined to adopt, an interpretation that would require the service to be capable of replacing all of the functionalities of local exchange service. Instead, we agree with DOJ that the language ``substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service'' includes both the POTS service and the transmission conduit functionality provided by local telephone exchange service in 1994. While our interpretation will most likely cover small entities, commenters have not persuaded us to adopt a different interpretation. 70. The SRP also requires that the Commission find that ``it is in the public interest to deem * * * a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of [CALEA].'' We conclude that the Commission will consider three factors in its public interest analysis: (1) Promotion of competition; (2) encouragement of the development of new technologies; and (3) protection of public safety and national security. We declined to identify any other specific public interest considerations, which we recognize might benefit small telecommunications carriers. 71. We conclude, as we indicated in the NPRM, that the terms ``telecommunications carrier'' and ``information services'' in CALEA cannot be interpreted identically to the way those terms have been interpreted under the Communications Act in light of Congress's intent and purpose in enacting CALEA. As explained above, we disagree with commenters who argue that we should interpret the statute to narrow the scope of services that are covered today to a more narrow group of services than those covered when CALEA was enacted, particularly in light of CALEA's stated purpose to ``preserve the government's ability to * * * intercept communications that use advanced technologies such as digital or wireless transmission.'' While [[Page 59674]] we recognize that small entities might benefit by an interpretation that would narrow the scope of services subject to CALEA, we believe that decisions about the applicability of CALEA must be based on CALEA's definitions alone, not on the definitions in the Communications Act. 72. Facilities-Based Broadband Internet Access Service Providers. We apply our conclusions concerning the legal framework to providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access services and find that these providers are subject to CALEA under the SRP. In reaching this decision, we considered the comments by small carriers, which generally claimed that the public interest would not be served by subjecting these providers to CALEA under the SRP. Based on our analysis here, we decline to exclude any facilities-based broadband Internet access providers from CALEA requirements at this time. We agree with DOJ that these commenters have not provided sufficient evidence, identified the particular carriers that should be exempted from CALEA's SRP, or addressed law enforcement's needs. These telecommunications carriers have several options under CALEA. We believe that these CALEA provisions will safeguard small entities from any significant adverse economic impacts of CALEA compliance. 73. Additionally, based on comments from these small carriers, we adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), published elsewhere in this issue, that seeks comment on what procedures the Commission should adopt to implement CALEA's exemption provision, as well as the appropriateness of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for certain classes or categories of providers, such as small or rural entities. We also seek comment on the best way to impose different compliance standards. We believe that the FNPRM will assist the Commission in adopting streamlined exemption procedures, which will ultimately benefit both large and small entities alike. The FNPRM is also a concerted effort by the Commission to adopt any other rules that will reduce CALEA burdens on small entities. We believe our approach represents a reasonable accommodation for small carriers, and we encourage these entities to file comments on the FNPRM to assist the Commission in these efforts. 74. Interconnected VoIP Service. We apply our conclusions concerning the legal framework to providers of interconnected VoIP services and find that these providers are subject to CALEA under the SRP. We considered but abandoned the distinction the NPRM drew between ``managed'' and ``non-managed'' VoIP services as the dividing line between VoIP services that are covered by CALEA and those that are not. The record convinced us that this distinction is unadministrable; even DOJ expressed an openness to a different way of identifying those VoIP services that CALEA covers. We believe that the alternative approach, using ``interconnected VoIP services'' to define the category of VoIP services that are covered by CALEA, provides a clearer, more easily identifiable distinction that is consistent with recent Commission orders addressing the appropriate regulatory treatment of IP-enabled services. 75. As a result, certain VoIP service providers are not subject to CALEA obligations imposed in today's 1st R&O. Specifically, the 1st R&O does not apply to those entities not fully interconnected with the PSTN. Because interconnecting with the PSTN can impose substantial costs, we anticipate that many of the entities that elect not to interconnect with the PSTN, and which therefore are not subject to the rules adopted in today's 1st R&O, are small entities. Small entities that provide VoIP services therefore also have some control over whether they will have to be CALEA compliant. Small businesses may still offer VoIP service without being subject to the rules adopted in today's 1st R&O by electing not to provide an interconnected VoIP service. 76. Scope of 1st R&O. Our action in the 1st R&O is limited to establishing that CALEA applies to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and interconnected VoIP service providers. As noted above, we will address in a subsequent order other important outstanding issues under CALEA, such as compliance extensions and exemptions, cost recovery, identification of future services and entities subject to CALEA, and enforcement. The 1st R&O establishes a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of the Order, by which time newly covered entities and providers of newly covered services must be in full compliance with CALEA. We considered various comments advocating, for example, effective dates ranging from 12 months to 24 months. We also considered whether the Commission should grant additional time for small carriers to become CALEA compliant. However, as explained above, we find that 18 months is a reasonable time period to expect all providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access service and interconnected VoIP service to comply with CALEA. This alternative represents a reasonable accommodation for small entities and others, as these newly covered entities can begin planning to incorporate CALEA compliance into their operations. Furthermore, this approach will ensure that the appropriate parties become involved in ongoing discussions among the Commission, law enforcement, and industry representatives to develop standards for CALEA capabilities and compliance. 77. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 1st R&O, including this FRFC, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the 1st R&O, including this FRFC, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. Ordering Clauses 78. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 229, 301, 303, 332, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 102 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001, the Report and Order in ET Docket No. 04-295 is adopted. 79. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 Broadband Internet access services, Interconnected voice over Internet protocol services, Telecommunications, Telephone. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules 0 For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 to read as follows: PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 0 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted. [[Page 59675]] 0 2. Section 64.2102 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 64.2102 Definitions. * * * * * (d) Telecommunications Carrier. The term Telecommunications Carrier includes: (1) A person or entity engaged in the transmission or switching of wire or electronic communications as a common carrier for hire; (2) A person or entity engaged in providing commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)); or (3) A person or entity that the Commission has found is engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service such that the service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service and that it is in the public interest to deem such a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of CALEA. [FR Doc. 05-20606 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Federal Register: October 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 197)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 59704-59710] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13oc05-37] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [ET Docket No. 04-295; RM-10865; FCC 05-153] Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) initiates this rulemaking to explore whether the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) should apply to providers of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services that are not interconnected, meaning VoIP services that do not allow users generally to receive calls originating from and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN). This rulemaking will also explore the appropriateness of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for certain classes or categories of providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access services. This rulemaking will enhance public safety and ensure that the surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies continue to be met as Internet-based communications technologies proliferate. DATES: Comments are due on or before November 14, 2005, and reply comments are due on or before December 12, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 04-295, by any of the following methods: [[Page 59705]] Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Agency Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov Follow the instructions for submitting comments on http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Hand Delivery/Courier: 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Simpson, Attorney-Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418- 2391. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket No. 04-295, FCC 05- 153, adopted August 5, 2005, and released September 23, 2005. The complete text of this FNPRM is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863- 2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov. Public Participation Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties should also send a copy of their filings to Janice Myles, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-C140, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to janice.myles@fcc.gov. Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com. Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek comment on two aspects of the conclusions reached in the Order accompanying this FNPRM, which is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. In the Order, we conclude that providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access services and providers of interconnected VoIP services--meaning VoIP service that allows a user generally to receive calls originating from and to terminate calls to the PSTN--must comply with CALEA. In the FNPRM, we first ask, with respect to interconnected VoIP, whether we should extend CALEA obligations to providers of other types of VoIP services. Specifically, are there any types of ``managed'' VoIP service that are not covered by today's Order, but that should be subject to CALEA? 2. Second, some commenters in this proceeding have argued that certain classes or categories of facilities-based broadband Internet access providers--notably small and rural providers and providers of broadband networks for educational and research institutions--should be exempt from CALEA. We reach no conclusions in the Order accompanying this FNPRM about the merits of these arguments, as we believe that additional information is necessary before reaching a decision. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on what procedures, if any, the Commission should adopt to implement CALEA's exemption provision. In addition, we seek comment on the appropriateness of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for certain classes or categories of providers, as well as the best way to impose different compliance standards. 3. Section 102(8)(C)(ii) of CALEA provides the Commission with authority to grant exemptions from CALEA for entities that would otherwise fall within the definition of ``telecommunications carrier'' under section 102(8)(A) or (B). Specifically, section 102(8)(C)(ii) excludes from CALEA's definition of [[Page 59706]] telecommunications carrier ``any class or category of telecommunications carriers that the Commission exempts by rule after consultation with the Attorney General.'' The Commission has never exempted telecommunications carriers under this provision, nor has it adopted specific procedures for doing so. We therefore seek comment on what procedures, if any, the Commission should adopt for exempting entities under section 102(8)(C)(ii). In particular, we seek comment on how the phrase ``by rule'' should be interpreted. In addition, CALEA's exemption provision requires ``consultation with the Attorney General.'' The Commission has implemented other statutory provisions requiring consultation with the Attorney General and we ask commenters to consider whether we should interpret ``consultation'' for purposes of CALEA in a similar manner considering the unique expertise of the Attorney General's office in combating crime, supporting homeland security, and conducting electronic surveillance. 4. To the extent that the Commission determines that a class or category of providers is exempt under section 102(8)(C)(ii), does that mean the class or category of telecommunications carriers is exempted indefinitely from CALEA compliance? Can or should the Commission limit the exemption for a certain period of time, requiring exempted entities to demonstrate that continued exemption is warranted at some future time? Commenters should consider these and any other issues that may be relevant to granting an exemption request. 5. Commenters addressing exemptions from CALEA understandably focused on section 102(8) of CALEA, which authorizes the Commission to exclude providers from the definition of telecommunications carrier. But our examination of the record has made us curious about the possibility of taking a different approach to this issue. Specifically, we seek comment on whether it might be preferable to define the requirements of CALEA differently for certain classes of providers, rather than exempting those providers from CALEA entirely. Does the Commission have authority to create different compliance requirements for different types of providers? Would this approach be consistent with the language of the statute? Would it satisfy the needs of law enforcement, as well as the classes of providers seeking exemptions? What advantages and disadvantages would this approach have compared to granting exemptions under section 102(8)(C)? Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 6. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities that might result from today's FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 8. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on two aspects of the conclusions reached in the Order accompanying this FNPRM. First, with respect to interconnected VoIP, we seek comment on whether we should extend CALEA obligations to providers of other types of VoIP services. Specifically, we ask whether there any types of ``managed'' VoIP service that are not covered by today's Order, but that should be subject to CALEA. Second, some commenters in this proceeding have argued that certain classes or categories of facilities-based broadband Internet access providers-- notably small and rural providers and providers of broadband networks for educational and research institutions--should be exempt from CALEA. We reach no conclusions in today's Order about the merits of these arguments, as we believe that additional information is necessary before reaching a decision. However, the Commission seeks comment on what procedures, if any, the Commission should adopt to implement CALEA's exemption provision. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriateness of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for certain classes or categories of providers, as well as the best way to impose different compliance standards. Our objective is to adopt streamlined exemption procedures, which will ultimately benefit both large and small entities alike and is also a concerted effort by the Commission to adopt any other rules that will reduce CALEA burdens on small entities or other categories of telecommunications carriers. 2. Legal Basis 9. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 229, 301, 303, 332, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 102 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001. 3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules May Apply 10. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). This FNPRM might, in theory, reach a variety of industries; out of an abundance of caution, we have attempted to cast a wide net in describing categories of potentially affected small entities. We would appreciate any comment on the extent to which the various entities might be directly affected by our action. a. Telecommunications Service Entities 11. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small [[Page 59707]] incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 12. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 13. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service Providers.'' Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are ``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service Providers'' are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 14. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 654 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 652 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 15. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 316 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 292 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 16. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002. 17. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 89 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, 88 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. 18. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 19. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional [[Page 59708]] 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of paging providers decreased approximately 51 percent from 1997 to 2002. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of cellular and other wireless telecommunications carriers increased approximately 321 percent from 1997 to 2002. 20. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. We have estimated that 260 of these are small, under the SBA small business size standard. 21. Common Carrier Paging. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category, ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In the Paging Third Report and Order, we developed a small business size standard for ``small businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. Also, according to Commission data, 375 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging services. Of those, we estimate that 370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size standard. 22. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A ``small business'' is an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that qualified as a ``small business'' entity. 23. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR) telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications'' services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. We have estimated that 260 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 24. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small entity'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.'' These standards defining ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. b. Cable Operators 25. Cable and Other Program Distribution. This category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category, which includes all such companies generating $12.5 million or less in revenue annually. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 26. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under [[Page 59709]] the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 27. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer, totals 1,450. The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore are unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. c. Internet Service Providers 28. Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs ``provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity.'' Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $21 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,751 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,659 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 67 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of Internet service providers increased approximately five percent from 1997 to 2002. 4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 29. In the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should extend CALEA obligations to providers of other types of VoIP services. We also seek comment on what procedures, if any, the Commission should adopt to implement CALEA's exemption provision. In addition, we seek comment on the appropriateness of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for certain classes or categories of providers, as well as the best way to impose different compliance standards. These proposals do not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements that would be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, we have not attempted here to provide an estimate in terms of burden hours. Rather, we are asking commenters to provide the Commission with reliable information and comments on any costs and burdens on small entities. 5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 30. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 31. In the FNPRM, with respect to interconnected VoIP, we seek comment on whether we should extend CALEA obligations to providers of other types of VoIP services. Specifically, we invite comment as to whether there are any types of ``managed'' VoIP service that are not covered by today's Order, but that should be subject to CALEA. For purposes of this IRFA, we specifically seek comment from small entities on these issues, in particular, on the extent to which any ``managed'' VoIP service that the Commission may find subject to CALEA could impact them economically. 32. In the FNPRM, the Commission also considers and asks questions about two alternative approaches to requiring full CALEA compliance to address the impact of CALEA applicability on small entities. First, it addresses an exemption process. Next, it addresses the possibility of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for small entities. Finally, it asks commenters to propose any other alternatives that have not been considered or identified. 33. The FNPRM seeks comment on what procedures, if any, the Commission should adopt to implement CALEA's exemption provision. Section 102(8)(C)(ii) excludes from CALEA's definition of telecommunications carrier ``any class or category of telecommunications carriers that the Commission exempts by rule after consultation with the Attorney General.'' In addition, we seek comment on the appropriateness of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for certain classes or categories of providers, as well as the best way to impose different compliance standards. Our goal is to adopt streamlined exemption procedures or any other rules that will ultimately assist the Commission in reducing burdens on small entities or other categories of telecommunications carriers. 34. With respect to the exemption provision, the Commission has never exempted telecommunications carriers under this provision, nor has it adopted specific procedures for doing so. We seek comment on what procedures, if any, the Commission should adopt for exempting entities under section 102(8)(C)(ii). In the FNPRM, the Commission evaluates how to properly interpret the provision. We seek comment, for example, on how the phrase ``by rule'' should be interpreted, as we recognize that the Commission's interpretation of this phrase could create burdens for small entities. 35. In addition, we seek comment on the appropriateness of requiring something less than full CALEA compliance for certain classes or categories of providers, as well as the best way to impose different compliance standards. The Commission seeks comment on significant alternatives and recommends that small entities file comments in response to the FNPRM. We anticipate that the record will be developed concerning alternative ways [[Page 59710]] in which the Commission could lesson the burden on classes of carrier or entities and will most likely benefit small entities more, relative to large entities. 6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 36. None. Ordering Clauses 37. It is ordered that that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 229, 301, 303, 332, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 102 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket No. 04-295 is adopted. 38. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-20607 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

http://www.angelfire.com/fang/ww2_leaders_mideast/

_________

Apostate and sick perverted "Amaraka" May your Judeo-Non Gawd, Bliss you for your wretchedness and Blasphemy and MURDER

http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm

ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Public Comment Period Closes
December 12, 2005

Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

  1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.  

For the sake of satan whom they have made their god of this sick perverted nation

2.Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.

3.Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

Send a letter to EPA here!

OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF --- HTML):

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53865 26.408(c) "If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements..."

are you locked up in the lowestroom yap yap yapping, in fear to STAND FIRM against these Sick workers of Iniquity? Are you secretly worshipping a beast who comes out of the bottomless pit? I assure you, If you do not REPENT and become a candle that is not Hid under the bed, you will surely burn in that Lowest pit "Amaraka"

(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) "To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under § 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53857 "EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPA’s fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed § 26.221 or § 26.421--i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct "ethically deficient" studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is "necessary." This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)

 

Dan:2:43: And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

God will, and has, Damned you in your murders, Amaraka, land of the Cowardly anti-Christ Judeo-Churchinsanity brave

________

Hahahahahahahahhaheeeeeeeeeeeeeee

whoooooooooooooooeeeeeey

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C3-1874793%2C00.html

World News


Times Online

November 16, 2005


Bush tells China to open the door to freedom

President Bush today pressed China to allow more religious and political freedoms to its people and held up Taiwan as the model of a free and democratic society in Asia.

Noahide Freedom in the Marist Talmudic State?

 

Speaking in Japan ahead of his visit to China on Saturday, (Where he meets up with Arnie?) Mr Bush said the world's most populous nation was an example of a society that had started but "not yet completed the journey" towards freedom.

hahahahha Communitarianism of the dragon

"As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that once the door to freedom is opened even a crack, it cannot be closed. As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well," said Mr Bush in a speech in Kyoto.

Thus ITSREALHELL is quickly making their Global Noahide friends

The President went on to eulogise Taiwan, the autonomous island that has enjoyed de facto independence from China for more than 50 years, largely because of American support. Until 1979, Washington recognised Taipei as the capital of China.

"Modern Taiwan is free and democratic and prosperous. By embracing freedom at all levels, Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society," said Mr Bush, who also praised Japan as "a pillar of stability and security for the region".

Bush making new enemies for Amaraka

Mr Bush coupled his demand for a greater personal freedoms in China with a call for the country to open its economy to foreign competition. "China needs to provide a level playing field for American businesses seeking access to China’s market," said Mr Bush. China currently enjoys a $170 billion trade surplus with the United States.

For both are controlled now by the dragon and are on equal footing...Talmudic Communism of Noahidism unto the beast

Asked by reporters later whether he was suggesting that China emulate Taiwan, Mr Bush said his message was "universal" and he was "not necessarily trying to compare one system to another".

Universal Seven laws known as the Noahide Laws of satan

"What I say to the Chinese, as well as others, is that a free society is in your interests," said Mr Bush, who answered questions at a joint news conference with Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese Prime Minister.

Mr Bush arrives in Beijing on Saturday and is expected to underline his call for broader religious freedoms by worshipping at one of the five officially recognised Protestant churches in the city.

Hahhahahahhahahah BUsh is to worship at an anti-Christ Talmudic Controlled whore-church

Today he said that "the people of China want more freedom to express themselves to worship without state control, to print Bibles and other sacred texts without fear of punishment."

What Bushitler refers to is satanic text which is no sacred text 

On November 8, the US State Department published its annual International Religious Freedom Report, which listed China, along with Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam as "countries of particular concern" for severe violations of religious freedom. The same seven countries made up the list in 2004.

hahahahahahaha all the WHILE destroying Christianity in apostate "Amaraka"

The Chinese Foreign Minister brushed off Mr Bush’s comments: "We have to work hard and not pay attention to those people who talk about this or that, upsetting our sense of self, especially when it comes to our love of the motherland," Li Zhaoxing told reporters.

Japan was Mr Bush’s first stop on a week-long, nation-hopping visit to Asia that will be dominated by US trade relations with China trade and the threat of avian flu.

The President, who is beset by low approval ratings and domestic difficulties, flew to South Korea today to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Pusan

They are not wanted in the US, so they go to communist China

_______  

While you are sitting in your Yoel Olstein Judeo-Churchian MaMMONITE houses of Blasphemy

Shake And Bake -
Who Would Jesus Burn?
By Dave Lindorff
11-17-5
 
What kind of country is this?
 
Not only does America use grotesque chemical weapons in its "War of Liberation"--in this case white phosphorus bombs that are as nasty as anything Saddam Hussein could have dreamt up, with the ability to eat their way into a body and liquefy flesh--but our shameless leaders, when caught in the act, try to lie their way out of their own atrocious behavior.
 
When an Italian documentary producer released a film exposing this war crime committed in the course of the destruction of Fallujah, the honchos at the Pentagon and the White House lied through their teeth, claiming that the scenes of cascading phosphorus bombs blanketing the city, incinerating fighters and civilians alike, which were depicted clearly in the film, were just flares being used for night lighting.
 
But the Italian journalists, who had done their homework, rebutted those lies with Pentagon after-action reports that detailed the deliberate use of the phosphorus weapons--both bombs and mortars, all clearly manufactured for the purpose of incineration, not illumination.
 
Now the fall-back limited hang-out excuse from the Pentagon is that okay, the military did use phosphorus bombs, but only on military targets, not civilians. Check out the photos of raining phosphorus when you read the word "target".
 
This latest war crime dwarfs the earlier reports of officially sanctioned torture.
 
Countless civilians--including women and children--were cruelly burned to death (whether incidentally or in a deliberate attempt to terrorize scarcely matters) in the most agonizing of ways. Enemy fighters were killed through the use of weapons that have been outlawed by the civilized world--a world that America can not claim to be a part of.
 
American troops even have a term for the barbaric technique -- "Shake and Bake"
--clear evidence that this was no one-off affair.
 
No wonder journalists have been barred from Fallujah, except when safely embedded and under the control of U.S. military units. No wonder there were reports of whole blocks being bulldozed clear of soil and hosed down after the fighting ended. No wonder the U.S. took control of hospitals in the area and barred the media. No wonder the U.S. military avoided doing body counts.
 
The U.S. now stands unequivocally condemned as an outlaw terror nation.
 
The only bright spot in this horror show is that President Bush, our strutting, god-communing commander-in-chief, will now end his career (hopefully sooner than anticipated) confined to the U.S., lest he be arrested and tried in a cage like Saddam for the crime of using chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq.
 
What a grand irony that would be.
 
Breaking Update: More Pathetic Excuses
 
Still squirming at the exposure of its WMD war crime in Fallujah, the Pentagon late Wednesday came up with two more rationales for its use of phosphorus bombs. The first: it's just another part of the "conventional" arsenal. The second: armies have all used this weapon for a century.
 
Let's examine these excuses. First of all, phosphorus is no conventional weapon. It is a chemical weapon that kills slowly and painfully by burning its way into the body, making it as insidious as any poison gas weapon (precisely why the Pentagon initially denied its use in Fallujah). Second, there are lots of horrible weapons that have been used routinely by armies over the past century. Phosphorus is one. Others are mustard gas, chlorine gas, and various germ weapons. Common usage in the past is no justification for continued use of such barbaric weaponry. Heck, killing POWs was accepted practice long ago, too, as well as rape and pillage following conquest. Now those are war crimes.
 
Let's just face it. If a terrorist were to unleash a phosphorus bomb in a U.S. city, our president and defense secretary would be calling it a WMD, and that is exactly what phosphorus is.
 
One other point: When phosphorus was used in the 20th century, it was for the most part used on battlefields against soldiers. This is a case where phosphorus was used in an urban setting full of civilians. The gruesome and criminal results were predictable.
 
Incidentally, the Pentagon and State Department should get their stories straight. Rumsfeld's guys are saying phosphorus bombs are just part of the standard arsenal of "conventional" weapons, but only a day before, on Nov. 15, US Ambassador to Britain Robert H Tuttle told the UK paper The Independent, "US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful, conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."
 
we do not torture.....GWB
 
Uh-huh. Let's tell it to the judge...
 
DON'T BE DEPRESSED ABOUT 2005--FIGHT BACK! Get yourself and friends a copy of "This Can't Be Happening!" Order online (see store links below), or go direct to the publisher (at a discount) by clicking on the cover image directly following.
 
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

______

Shut them up cries satan's shemmy-GoG, who has snared mankind

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4446646.stm

Austria holds 'Holocaust denier'
David Irving
Irving maintains his conclusions come from serious research
UK revisionist historian David Irving has been arrested in Austria under laws against denying the Holocaust.

Mr Irving was detained after a routine check on a motorway last Friday by police acting on a 1989 arrest warrant issued by a Vienna court, police said.

He told a libel hearing in London in 2000 that the Nazi gas chambers had never existed - that they were "completely fictitious".

He told a libel hearing in London in 2000 that the Nazi gas chambers had never existed - that they were "completely fictitious".

He lost the case and the judge branded him "an active Holocaust denier". 

Noahide Freemason Judge of Dan

Mr Irving was arrested in the southern province of Styria.

The historian was apparently on his way to address a students' club in Vienna when he was stopped.

He came into the spotlight in 2000 when he sued American academic Deborah Lipstadt for having described him as a "Holocaust denier" in her 1994 work Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.

of the assaulters of Mankind, who by their own hand had to manage the "Lessser Brethren"

Giving his verdict, the British judge said Mr Irving was "an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism".

hahahahhaha poor yid-iot Judge

Mr Irving - author of Hitler's War - said then that he had never claimed that the Holocaust did not occur, but did question the number of Jewish dead and denied their systematic extermination in concentration camp gas chambers.

If one human is murdered, it is at the hands of the murderer from the beginning, not matter what master race they "Say" they are of

_________

Don't you just "Hate" me Judeo-Churchinsanity?

________

 

_______

Jesus held by Sanhedrin for the TRUTH, to be tried. If convicted could be "Crucified" at Calvary. Year 2005 TRUTH Sayers persecuted World Wide.

God Bliss Amaraka, the Land of the enslaved free and the cowardly brave, the "fallen Away"

______________

 

Treason, Blasphemy  and HELLaburton

http://villagevoice.com/news/0547,ridgeway,70176,2.html

Mondo Washington
And Another Thing, You Donkey Heads
Cheney falls way down the rabbit hole over Democrats' dissent

by James Ridgeway
November 17th, 2005 11:54 AM
  • Lies My Fodder Told Me: Cheney Explodes at Critics, in Ward Harkavy's Bush Beat
  • Dick Cheney's 'Dark Arts', by Nat Hentoff
  • WASHINGTON, D.C.--Cheney’s temper tantrum against the Democrats at a Republican dinner Wednesday night reflects the growing pressure both he and Bush are coming under for the war in Iraq. The latest developments--allegations that Shiites tortured Sunni prisoners in a secret jail as Americans stood by--is sure to raise charges that far from trying to quell hints of civil war and hold Iraq together, Bush-Cheney are now embarked on another devilish twist, this one aimed at breaking the country apart, by sparking a civil war that can only end in a partition.

    The BBC captured Cheney’s fit this way:

    The vice-president called the Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while US soldiers died in Iraq.
    "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone--but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," he said.

    Instead of marshalling support for the Bush administration, Cheney’s remarks resulted in a stinging demand by a conservative-minded Democrat to get the troops out of Iraq.

    “The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a senior Democrat on the subcommittee that oversees military spending, ABC reported this morning.

    Meanwhile, Cheney’s world is continuing to crack. Not only is he widely viewed as the administration official who launched the campaign to out Valerie Plame and almost certainly will be the focus of a struggle in court with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald seeking his sworn testimony, but there are suspicions Washington Post star Bob Woodward’s source was Cheney. Woodard has dismissed the Plame affair as a trivial matter. He has acknowledged learning of the outing early on from some unnamed official, but kept it to himself. Meanwhile, his paper’s reporters struggled to find out who was leaking and to whom--little knowing their celebrity byline knew all along.

    The Senate is demanding that executives from Big Oil return to testify about a secret meeting with Cheney on energy policy that took place soon after Bush came to office. The Big Oil men denied knowledge of the gathering in earlier testimony. But that testimony was not under oath so they cannot be charged with perjury. Cheney has been vigorously trying to keep secret what happened at this meeting. It is suspected the vice president and the oil companies hammered out an aggressive energy policy, and possibly discussed the administration’s plans to go to war in Iraq, well before 9-11. Cutting up Iraqi oil and the future of OPEC would certainly have been on the table. The new administration would certainly have needed the acquiescence of the oil industry in waging war in an area where the companies are so deeply involved. Oil has always been the bottom-line issue in the Iraq war—although in public Bush eschewed any interest in the subject, arguing instead he was just pushing the spread of democracy.

    Exactly....Noahide Demon-crazy for Eretz ITSREALHELL of the Chabad Lubavitch shemborg collective, who say in their laws of Talmud Bavli they are gods

    Now Democratic senator Frank Lautenberg demanded a full investigation. According to the Las Vegas Sun:

    "I want to be certain that this gets an appropriate review, so I've written to the attorney general asking him to investigate whether any of these oil company CEOs broke the law by making false statements to the Congress," Lautenberg said. "Gas prices, everyone knows, are more than double what were at the end of 2001, and in September we all saw the average price of gas go above three dollars," he said.
    "Whatever was discussed at that White House energy task force meeting, it seems to turn out very well for the big oil companies, but it's been disastrous, daily disastrous for the American public."

    Still wearing that "W" Baseball cap?

    _______

    "If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched."   President George H.W. Bush, quoted by Sarah McClendon
    (White House Reporter) in her June 1992 Newsletter.

    ______

    Aholibah fights back at Dan Hassidim Judeo-Churchinsanity Aholah

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/17/opinion/main1053538_page2.shtml

    Saving Jews ... From Christians?

    Nov. 17, 2005


    Abraham Foxman, national Director of the Anti-Defamation League, speaks to reporters at ADL's office in New York. (AP)

    Quote

    For the needlessly heightened state of Jewish concern about evangelicals, the ADL itself is at least partly to blame. The group has done much to exacerbate Jewish concerns.


    (National Review Online) This column was written by David Klinghoffer.
    The Anti-Defamation League, devoted to fighting anti-Jewish bigotry, is America's most influential Jewish group. So what are we to make of the weird air of unreality in the ADL's public statements about Christians? Consider the recent address by national director Abraham Foxman to the group's annual meeting in which he called for a community-wide response to a growing threat.

    Foxman spoke on November 3 in New York during a week when disturbing news stories were unfolding around the world. The riots across France by immigrant Muslim youths were building to a climax. These were the same youths who have been terrorizing French Jews for the past five years — assaulting individuals, firebombing synagogues, and desecrating Jewish cemeteries.

    The same week, Iran's president was refusing to back down from his call to fellow Muslims to "wipe Israel off the map." Meanwhile in Egypt, TV viewers had just spent Ramadan enjoying a new drama series based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the notorious anti-Semitic hoax.

    hahahaha a hoax manufactured by satan's hoaxsters of hell

    If there is one religion that poses a danger to Jewish interests, clearly it's radical Islam. How strange, then, that in his speech Abraham Foxman held up the terrifying specter of, um, American Christianity.

    which is no Christianity but the fallen away leavens bread of the Liar AND HIS TELLY TUBBY TELEVANGELIST of the TBN Network, "The Babylonian Network" of the Mammonites of Lucifer

    "Today," said Foxman, "we face a better financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized, and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before. Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To save us!"

    hahaha see Talmudic Noahide Laws HJR 104-PL 102-14

    Foxman warned that mainstream evangelical groups have "built infrastructures throughout the country... intend[ing] to 'Christianize' all aspects of American life, from the halls of government to the libraries, to the movies, to recording studios, to the playing fields and locker rooms of professional, collegiate and amateur sports, from the military to SpongeBob SquarePants."

    Noahide shemborgs

    "'Christianize' all aspects of American life," he says? This must mean that evangelical leaders want to Christianize us either by legal coercion, or by inspiration and moral example.

    Noahide to Dan hasatan

    If Foxman means by legal coercion, his accusation is ludicrous. To take a controversial illustration that's in the news, Intelligent Design has drawn support from Christians (as well as others) and condemnation from the ADL. One may disapprove of letting teachers acquaint public-school students with a scientific critique of Darwinism. But I.D. in the biology classroom is an entirely different thing from "Christianizing" American life — a phrase that conjures the Spanish Inquisition.

    their so called cowardly "Intelligent Design ruse denies the Creator is Jesus the Christ TRUTH, for they are anti-Christ evangelicals of satan

    (National Review Online) If Foxman means that evangelicals would "Christianize" (Noahidize double speak) by inspiration and example, he's right. But so what? By definition, to be an evangelical means to wish to influence the culture in what Christians regard as a spiritually healthful direction. Good for them.

    To be an Judeo-Churchinsanity TBN'r means to be anti-Christ

    Broadly speaking, that direction is one that we Jews likewise have traditionally regarded as healthy and positive. Many classical Jewish sources — the Talmud, Midrash, Maimonides, and other authorities — speak of the need to bring humanity closer to the values of the One God.

    The One non God angel of darkness who has been transformed into an angel of light, their Shekinah plural polytheistic shemgods of Male/and female genders, who in no GOD the Father in Heaven but is Satan the dragon they worship whom they call their Illuminated tetragrammaton

    SATAN

     There is nothing exclusively "Christian" about favoring traditional marriage, lamenting the abortion culture, or defending a helpless woman like Terri Schiavo. Christians are only doing what we Jews ought to do.

    Even satan loves his own

    So why vilify them? Historical anti-Semitic persecution cannot fully explain modern Jewish worries about Christian intentions. 

     

     

    Surely Jews are rational enough to appreciate that we don't live in medieval Europe, but rather in a time of unprecedented Christian philo-Semitism, especially among conservative Christians. 

    agapi ani of hell's all tolerance for satan worship

     

    For the needlessly heightened state of Jewish concern about evangelicals, the ADL itself is at least partly to blame. The group has done much to exacerbate Jewish concerns. But what is it that drives the ADL to stoke our fears?

    Money, perhaps? Let's be realistic. Naturally, a crusading nonprofit organization needs a bad guy to give a sense of urgency to its fundraising campaigns. And make no mistake: This particular organization's fundraising needs are substantial. The Anti-Defamation League has more than $52 million in yearly expenses, including Foxman's impressive $412,000 in salary and other compensation (according to publicly available 2003 tax information). That's a lot of expenses. The pressure to find the money to feed such a budget must be intense.

    See TBN and Hagee and all telly tubby televangelist mammonites of satan

    For whatever reason, hyperventilating about Christians makes Jews open their wallets

    The anti-defamation professionals of the Jewish community are no dummies. Nor, I believe, are they paranoid. Or cynical. True, if these well-meaning folks are directing so much attention to the wildly exaggerated menace of Christian evangelicals, I don't see an alternative explanation to a financial one. However, this doesn't mean the ADL leadership is corrupt.

    Rather, don't dismiss the Marxist insight that money can shape consciousness. Very possibly, a dynamic inherent in the nonprofit business molds the attitudes of those who work in this curious industry. Not cynics at all, they sincerely come to believe those things they must say to raise money.

    Money, I would add, that could be far more usefully spent on other communal needs. Let's say, on religious education, which for Jews is the best assurance of a flourishing communal life. Consider how many Jewish kids could receive a Jewish education with that $52 million, how many Jewish souls could be saved from the oblivion of assimilation. In more ways than one, the ADL's success is our loss.

    Jesus Success is your Loss

    _____
    The Sickness of the Noahide shemsham Courts is now Global. Another take on Irving

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700583_pf.html

    Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

    The Associated Press
    Thursday, November 17, 2005; 10:49 AM

    VIENNA, Austria -- British historian David Irving was arrested last week in southern Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust, the Interior Ministry said Thursday. Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in Styria province, said police Maj. Rudolf Golia, an Interior Ministry spokesman. He was transferred to a prison in Graz.

    Irving was detained on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws that make Holocaust denial a crime, Golia said. The accusation stemmed from speeches Irving delivered that year in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben.

    They were waiting for him to snare him, probably in the middle of the night

    Irving in the past has faced allegations of spreading anti-Semitic and racist ideas. He is the author of nearly 30 books, including "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

    He remained in custody Thursday, the Austria Press Agency said. Calls to the Graz court went unanswered.

    If formally charged, tried and convicted on the charge, Irving could face up to 20 years in prison, said Otto Schneider of the public prosecutor's office.

    But he said it was unclear whether there were sufficient legal grounds to continue holding Irving on such a charge so many years after the alleged offense was committed. A decision was expected by the end of next week on how to proceed, Schneider said.

    You can bet they are now beginning to roundup all who oppose the reign of their shemborg Nasi terror

    ______

    Hey, apostate Judeo-Churchamaraka, where are your chinese dimestore Patriotic automobile flags now?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/16/ap/world/mainD8DTQLLO0.shtml

    Six More U.S. Service Members Die in Iraq

    BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 16, 2005


    (AP)


    (AP) Five U.S. Marines were killed in fighting with al-Qaida-led insurgents near the Syrian border and an Army soldier died of wounds suffered in Baghdad, making Wednesday the second deadliest day for American forces in Iraq this month.

    Eleven other Marines were wounded Wednesday in Obeidi, 185 miles northwest of Baghdad, according to a New York Times reporter traveling with U.S. forces.

    A U.S. Marine statement confirmed the five deaths but made no mention of wounded. The statement also said 16 insurgents were confirmed killed in the fighting.

    Elsewhere, a soldier from the Army's Task Force Baghdad died Wednesday of wounds suffered the day before when a roadside bomb exploded northwest of the capital on the previous day, the U.S. command said. Three other soldiers were killed Tuesday in a roadside bombing in the same area. But it was unclear if the soldier who died Wednesday was injured in the same attack.

    President Bush addresses the nation from aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1 with the banner in the background.

    Hurray...."Mission Accopmlished" for the shemborg collective punishment of Bush's ha saddam la Purim party...Uh....2003

    The six deaths made Wednesday the deadliest day for American forces in Iraq since Nov. 2, when seven service members died in four separate attacks. At least 51 U.S. service members have already died in Iraq this month.

    Mission accomplished

    For the Marines, it was the worst single-day loss since they launched an offensive Nov. 5 to push al-Qaida-led insurgents from a series of towns along the Euphrates River used by foreign fighters to slip into the country from Syria.

    All HELL Bush

    A Marine statement did not give any details of the Wednesday losses, and names of the victims were withheld pending notification of their families. They were assigned to Regimental Combat Team 2 of the 2nd Marine Division.

    I Do not support Troops who support the Bushitler Ad-Menstruation of bloodlust TREASON and Blasphemy

    However, the Times' embedded reporter said an explosion occurred as a squad entered a farm house in Obeidi. Insurgents then racked survivors and rescuers with small arms and grenade fire before other Marines could recover the dead and wounded and kill the attackers, the newspaper said.

    A Marines statement confirmed that U.S. and Iraqi forces were meeting "strong resistance" in Obeidi _ the third town attacked during the Operation Steel Curtain offensive _ because insurgents there "believe they are trapped and have nowhere else to go."

    The latest deaths brought to at least 2,077 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

    hahaha the Talmudic jewish news agency

    U.S. officials say the offensive near the Syrian border is aimed in part at encouraging Sunni Arabs to vote in the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections without fear of insurgent reprisals. The Bush administration hopes a successful election will encourage many in the Sunni community to abandon the insurgency.

    Kill em all who will not vote Bush style

    However, Sunni Arab anger welled up Wednesday following revelations by the Shiite prime minister that 173 detainees, malnourished and some showing signs of torture, had been found in an Interior Ministry building seized by U.S. troops in Baghdad last weekend. Most were believed to be Sunni Arabs.

    Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari promised a full investigation and punishment for anyone guilty of torture. But Sunni leaders claimed the Shiite-led security forces were trying to intimidate Sunnis from voting and demanded an international investigation.

    Most insurgents are Sunnis, while Shiites and Kurds dominate the U.S.-backed security services.

    The shiits and turdish kurds war against the sunny's, and they all serve satan

    Meanwhile, U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, met in Baghdad with al-Jaafari, but neither spoke to the media.

    Intelligent yiddiot

    It was believed that Negroponte's visit was in connection with the arrest in neighboring Jordan of an Iraqi woman who was part of last week's deadly suicide attacks against three hotels in the capital, Amman.

    where the ceiling was blown inward, in their "terror" hoax of Jor-DAN

    Three Iraqi men carried out the attacks, but Sajida Mubarak al-Rishawi, the wife of one of the bombers, was unable to detonate her explosives belt, Jordanian police said. Al-Rishawi, from Anbar province, could yield key information on the al-Qaida wing in Iraq, led by Jordanian-born terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    In Berlin, German prosecutors announced Wednesday they have charged three Iraqis with plotting to kill then-Prime Minister Ayad Allawi during a visit to Germany last December. The three were believed to be members of Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamic group linked to al-Qaida.

    France's counterterrorism chief Pierre de Bousquet said in an interview released Wednesday that French authorities have arrested about 15 people for allegedly planning to travel to Iraq to join an insurgency.

    Seven French citizens have been killed in Iraq, including two suicide bombers, and about 10 are still here _ two of them in U.S. custody, Bousquet told the weekly magazine Valeurs Actuelles.

    _____

    A Whore's Whore of Treason and Blasphemy, she learned well from her Adulterous husband

    http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11685

    Hillary: 'I Had A Lot To Prove'

    In Jerusalem interview, Clinton says her record on Israel in Senate has won over critics who opposed her in 2000.

    Adam Dickter - Staff Writer

    Jerusalem — As she kicks off her re-election campaign, with a likely eye toward a 2008 presidential run, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton believes she has won over critics who questioned her support for Israel, she said Monday in an interview here.

    She "Kicks off" in that spiritual Sodom and Egypt that great city, where the LORD was Crucified, but not in Judeo-Apostate "Amaraka"

    “I feel very welcome now in New York,” Clinton told The Jewish Week during a break from a busy day of appearances in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. “I had a lot to prove when I ran, and I thought it was perfectly legitimate for people to express their feelings about whether I should run and whether they should support me.”

    Nearly five years after taking office, she said “I am gratified that a lot of people who have come up to me and said I didn’t support you the first time but I am going to support you now seemed to have watched very closely what I’ve done. … They may not agree with me on everything, but they’ve come around to supporting me.”

    in a foreign nation, for the goy toys of apostate "Amaraka" are easily manipulated by he jewish media

    During her 2000 campaign, Clinton came under fire from many Israel supporters and Republican opponents and operatives for taking money, later returned, from a radical Muslim group whose leader called for violence against Israelis; for her meetings with anti-Israel groups in the White House as first lady; and for kissing the wife of Yasir Arafat in the West Bank during a 1999 visit after she had accused Israel of poisoning Arab children. Clinton waited a day to condemn the remarks by Suha Arafat.

    For fear of the jews she is become one of them, a two fold child of hell proselyte of Blasphemy and treason

    Clinton handily defeated Republican Rick Lazio in the Senate race, but received only 54 percent of the Jewish vote, unusually low for a Democrat.

    “I knew that people took a chance on me when I was elected,” she said. “All I could do is try to do is give people enough information to make a decision based on who I really am and what I really believe as opposed to what someone told them.”

    Dr. Mandell Ganchrow, a past president of the Orthodox Union, said Wednesday in New York that he agreed with Clinton’s assessment that her perception has changed in the pro-Israel community.

    “I was quite critical when she ran last time,” said Ganchrow, a physician in Rockland County. “Since that time it has not only been a question of voting properly [in the Senate]. She has become a leader who understands the nuances.

    “When you meet with her you see she has mastered the really complex issues. She has interacted with the Jewish community on a different level, and I think this has opened her eyes.”

    Clinton said her campaign next year would highlight her role in building stronger ties between the United States and Israel, seeking tougher sanctions against Syria and her opposition to the International Court of Justice’s ruling on Israel’s security barrier, as well as her role in the fight to help Magen David Adom, Israel’s emergency medical service, gain admission to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

    “There are lots of efforts that I’ve undertaken that I think are good for Israel and good for America,” she said. “I’ve tried to help Americans and particularly New Yorkers understand more personally what Israelis have been up against all of these years.”

    Clinton was in Israel with former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, for three days packed with events.

    Who would get in a trench with a Gun and die for ITSREALHELL

    She spoke to The Jewish Week while taking a break to sip cappuccino at a cafeteria in the Jerusalem headquarters of Magen David Adom prior to a meeting with medics and agency officials.

    Asked to grade the Bush administration’s handling of the peace process, Clinton credited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her frequent presence in the region — including a trip this week — but said “mismanagement” by the Republican White House had taken a toll.

    “The mismanagement of the military action in Iraq has had all kinds of consequences,” she said. “It doesn’t put us in as strong a position as we should be in to be the guarantor that we have always been. We’re obviously always going to be there for Israel, but we’d be in a stronger position had we managed that situation better.”

    Openly admitting that she knows that the Congress sent your sons and daughters to die only for ITSREALHELL

    Her comments came only one day before Rice achieved a major step forward in American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by brokering a deal to open the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

    Clinton said the administration had yet to sufficiently encourage and strengthen Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to crack down on terror and take concrete steps forward.

    Noahide enslavement

    “Certainly [Rice] is trying to provide more attention to the situation, but we have so many problems because of the administration’s mismanagement of a number of related issues,” said Clinton. “There has to be more support at least offered to Abbas and his government. He holds the key, and right now he has not demonstrated the kind of leadership that you would want.”

    This, she said, was preventing international investors from participating in the redevelopment of Gaza after the Israeli pullout last summer because of the perception of lawlessness there.

    “For heavens sake, establish order in Gaza! You’ve got millions of dollars waiting offshore to come in to help people develop their businesses, build housing and create the kind of potential for better life,” she said.

    Later, Clinton added, “If we don’t have an economic track that begins to show benefits, anything else you try to do is much harder.”

    She said her views on Israel in the Middle East had evolved over the years as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    “You have to keep learning,” Clinton said. “I think my fundamental view and values are the same, but my depth of understanding and experience have of course changed because I’ve been part of so many challenges we’ve faced in the last four-and-a-half years.”

    Asked if she remained optimistic about the prospect of progress in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Clinton said, “It depends upon the day. ... I view this as most Israeli leaders came to view it no matter where they started — that a peace process in and of itself is a sensible strategy even if you can’t be optimistic about the eventual outcome.

    For naught, for they shall say Peace, Peace and there will be no peace

    “It’s a point my husband has made again and again. …

    I have said it over and over 'I did not have sex with that woman"

     During an active engagement around the difficult issues separating the Israelis and the Palestinians, you are more likely to see a decrease in terrorism and therefore a loss of life and injury.

    Clinton went to say, “Hopefulness is something you have to live by, and a succession of Israeli governments have in their own way acted on that and reached the kind of conclusion that former Prime Minister Rabin reached — that we have to have some kind of process and create the conditions, insofar as possible, to create peace.” 

    and like Rabin, Peace is assassinated


    _____

    Pure Treason and Blasphemy

    http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/9605/edition_id/183/format/html/displaystory.html

    Lubavitch rabbi leads prayer in Senate

    WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Alluding to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and partisan conflicts in Congress, a Lubavitch rabbi has asked sena
    Rabbi Levi Shemtov, director of the Washington office of the American Friends of Lubavitch, led the Senate in its opening prayer

    Oh great satan we beseech you here in this RED Sofiet Talmudic Communitarian...US CONGRESS

    Shemtov quoted the late Lubavitcher rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, as saying, "The only way to soothe the differences between two sides is to seek how we are all ultimately on the same side."

    I have seen the enemy and it is us...POGO

    Americans are facing issues of healing and judging, Shemtov said.

    "American society finds itself now in an unusually decisive time. People who have differences need to keep in mind the unifying factors among us."

    at the cross road to worship satan

    Two guest chaplains are invited to lead opening prayers each month. Shemtov is active on Capitol Hill with Jewish staffers and as the host of holiday parties.

    Shemtov said he was pleased to lead the Senate in prayer and said it is a magnificent thing for a Jew to be able to pray in the name of God in front of Congress.

    His god the dragon who your TREASONOUS Blasphemous Congress has sold out to in their murders and thefts

    "This is an opportunity people before me dreamed about," he said.

    ____

    http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/20947/edition_id/431/format/html/displaystory.html

    Friday June 9, 1995

    Jews on Hill digging into religious roots

    JAMES D. BESSER
    Baltimore Jewish Times

    Rabbi Levi Shemtov wouldn't draw a second glance in Crown Heights, but he cuts a distinctive figure on Capitol Hill: portly, relentlessly energetic and Chassidic down to his socks.

    In the past two years, the Washington, D.C., director of American Friends of Lubavitch has become a familiar sight in the House and Senate office buildings, and his home on the Hill has become a magnet for congressional aides and the occasional legislator looking for something deeper than just the convenient, ephemeral answers of politics.

    A pensive member of Congress wandered over one recent afternoon for a chat about how he could express his Jewishness in a more meaningful way while pursuing his legislative duties.

    "My advice was that he should understand that to other members, he may represent their first and only interaction with a Jewish person," Shemtov said recently. "So he has many opportunities to allow people to see what a Jew is all about.

    "A Jew represents the Jewish people to the rest of the world; if a Jew is ethical, it's good for the Jews."

    They do not Represent the "Goyim cattle"

    Shemtov is part of a quiet revolution in Washington. More Jews in public affairs are tapping their religious roots for ways to ground their daily duties in something more solid than the often-sordid business of politics.

    One sign of the trend is a proliferation of classes and other events for Jewish staffers and legislators. Shemtov's recent Purim party at the Rayburn House Office Building turned into a happy mob scene, with hundreds of staffers packed into a caucus room, a handful of Jewish members stopping by for appearances that offered no political gain.

    Jews on Capitol Hill, in a sense, are coming out of the closet.

    As Sodomites do

    "Fifteen years ago, there were many fewer Jews on the Hill -- and they were much less visible," said Doug Bloomfield, the former top lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

    "Congress didn't worry about scheduling votes on important Jewish holidays; that's not true today," he added. "There's a growing sensitivity clear across the political spectrum to the needs of Jewish members and staffers. Jews feel much more comfortable being openly and actively Jewish."

    Despite a lack of statistics, there is no doubt Jews are disproportionately represented in House and Senate offices. Some 20 to 30 percent of the professional-level workforce is Jewish, according to some estimates.

    Many younger staffers are seeking ways to use Jewish law and tradition to gain perspective on issues that seem resistant to strictly political solutions.

    "Many of us feel a need to examine the moral component of issues, especially today, when we're re-evaluating all these government programs," said a Jewish staffer who works for a non-Jewish congressman.

    The Lubavitchers, with their strong outreach to unaffiliated Jews, have been major players in this Jewish renaissance.

    "I'm not a Jewish missionary on the Hill," Shemtov said. "I'm very sensitive to that. And I'm not a spiritual leader in a traditional sense. I do all this informally; I don't want to make a big deal out of it."

    Shemtov's work mainly involves outreach to hundreds of Jewish staffers and Jewish employees of an alphabet soup of federal agencies around the Capitol, most of whom have only limited experience with Judaism.

    "I think that people coming to Washington, especially those working on the Hill, are involved in a very intense phase of their careers," he said.

    "Their religious identity and affiliation are basically on the back burner. I try to keep that back burner at least on warm, so when they come back to that identity, it just has to be reheated, not defrosted."

    But the holiday parties are just one part of Chabad's work. Shemtov runs regular informal Torah study lunches and periodic formal lunches that feature well-known speakers from the religious world.

    Many of the sessions take place in his home, adding to the informal atmosphere.

    Though his primary targets are Jewish staffers, Shemtov said Jewish members of Congress have expressed an interest in their own sessions.

    "My involvement with them is more one-on-one," he said. "It's not necessarily religious; they don't ask me what butcher to buy from. They have basic questions about the things they see in their lives and their careers, and I'm the closest rabbi."

    Many observers see the growth of Jewish activity in the halls of Congress as part of a broader trend.

    Rabbi Sidney Schwarz, president of the Washington Institute for Jewish Leadership and Values, said the growing interest is related to frustration with a brand of Judaism that substitutes social action for spirituality and observance.

    Besides running Washington's Panim el Panim High School, which brings Jewish students to Washington for an intensive exposure to the intersection of Judaism and political action, Schwarz teaches classes in Jewish spirituality at the local JCC.

    "Some of the people are coming to the class and saying, `don't give that social-action Judaism stuff,'" he said. "Part of my personal and professional agenda is to make people realize that they can fulfill much of their Judaism in the public realm. But it has to be connected to something rooted in history and tradition. They want something that's not just political."

    Rabbi Jay Marcus is a pioneer in the rise of Jewish life on Capitol Hill, holding lively, wide-ranging discussions with members of Congress.

    "We've been meeting for lunch and studying issues from Maimonides and the Book of Psalms to the Torah itself," Marcus said. "And we have been using that study as a way of looking at many different current affairs topics."

    His outreach is sponsored by the Genesis Foundation, which was created to bring traditional Jewish teaching to the working world. Most sessions draw six to 10 legislators and top staffers; there is a hard core of about 20 who attend on a fairly regular basis.

    "They do not always have a good basic Jewish education," he said of the participants. "But the discussion is very sophisticated, at a very high level."

    Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a senior member of the Jewish delegation in Congress, is one of the rabbi's admirers.

    "Rabbi Marcus is an incredible individual who has the ability to bring contemporary meaning to our sessions," Cardin said. "One day you're talking about the Megillah, the next day you're talking about term limits. You never know what's going to come up."

    Killing the saints of Jesus the Christ and Purim Iraq?

    The studying "helps me turn the focus away from the minute details of legislation and look at a long-term, historical perspective,"he added. "It doesn't tell me how to vote, but it gives me an additional, broader framework for analyzing issues."

    Other Jewish teachers on Capitol Hill report a growing demand for their services.

    Rabbi Barry Freundel has been holding regular classes on government ethics from the Jewish perspective for congressional staffers for about five years; before that, another rabbi from his synagogue, Kesher Israel, conducted Capitol Hill classes.

    Recent sessions have faced issues like privacy, family values, poverty and welfare and health-care reform.

    Talmudic teachings and thefts

    The American Jewish Committee has started a study group for staffers on "God, Judaism and politics," too; at a recent session, the topic was "the problem of evil," using the Book of Job for text.

    hahahah axis of evil, their main Character theme is satan

    Although the capitol's religious revival often seems largely an Orthodox phenomenon, it has touched the Conservative and Reform worlds.

    The Conservative movement is considering a permanent Hill presence, said Rabbi Jerome M. Epstein, executive vice-president and chief operating officer of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.

    "We've found a great deal of receptivity from congressmen and their staffs," he said.

    Part of the Conservative effort, he admitted, is a response to the Orthodox cast to most current Capitol Hill Jewish study.

    "We want people to understand that there are nuances in the Jewish community," he said.

    We know...we know....we know

    Through the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Reform movement is also finding new ways to bring religious teaching into training sessions for young political activists.

    The RAC, an outpost of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, once had a virtual lock on Jewish activism in Washington from a religious perspective. Now, Orthodox groups are increasingly active, and the RAC is enriching its political activism with traditional Jewish study.

    "All our sessions start with a text study," said Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, associate director of the RAC. "This is something we started a few years ago because we wanted to show people the rootedness of social action. That's why we call this the Religious Action Center, not the Social Action Center."

    Other Jewish groups are asking the RAC for workshops and speeches on the religious foundation of social and political activism as well.

    "All over the country, people are asking the question: Why do we do what we do as Jews?" she said. "That's happening in Washington, as well."

     

    Because your god is not the GOD of heaven, that's why, thus you do the lust of your father who is the murderer from the beginning

     

    _____
    http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/archives/002158.php

    —September 22, 2005—


    Shemtov Scores

    Chabad's Washington guy, Rabbi Levi Shemtov, likely is kvelling over the following mention of Chabad in President Bush's speech yesterday before the Republican Jewish Coalition:

    'At Tulane University, the Director of the Chabad, Rabbi Rivkin, brought teams of students to New Orleans, and southern Mississippi, and other communities hit by the storm. He called in folks to help. He didn't say, head away from the storm; he said, let's take it right to the middle of the storm area to help people. They helped rescue stranded people; they distributed bottled water and self-heating kosher meals; they cleaned up and helped salvage homes; they provided spiritual support for those who lost loved ones. And one of those rescued from New Orleans put it this way: In the days after Katrina hit, Chabad saved lives.'

    Bush also cited another rabbi in the Katrina-related part of his speech:

    'Rabbi Stanton Zamek of the Temple Beth Shalom Synagogue in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, helped an African American couple displaced by the storm track down their daughter in Maryland. When Rabbi Zamek called the daughter, he told her, "We have your parents." She screamed out, "Thank you, Jesus!" (Laughter.) He didn't have the heart to tell her she was thanking the wrong rabbi.'

    The joke came off as pretty funny, but maybe you had to be there.

    _____

    http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=314591

    President Bush Singles Out Chabad-Lubavitch Emissaries for Saving Lives

    September 21, 2005
    President Bush gestures at the Republican Jewish Coalition's 20th Anniversary Celebration. Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2005
    President Bush gestures at the Republican Jewish Coalition's 20th Anniversary Celebration. Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2005

    In a televised speech today about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush singled out Lubavitch's emissary at Tulane University for his efforts on behalf of the victims. The President delivered his speech at the occasion of the Republican Jewish Coalition's 20th anniversary and was preceded by an invocation delivered by Rabbi Levi Shemtov, director of the Washington Office of American Friends of Lubavitch.

     

    ____

    http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:r5Wl0wrG_lwJ:www.chabadsa.com/+Rabbi+Levi+Shemtov&hl=en

     
       
     
    President Bush Praises Chabad's Hurricane Aid
    President Bush Salutes Chabad's Rescue Efforts
    WASHINGTON, DC — Wednesday, September 21, 2005

    Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition's 20th Anniversary Celebration on Wednesday, President George Bush applauded the Jewish community's participation in Hurricane Katrina's relief efforts. The President's speech, which addressed in particular, the work of Chabad-Lubavitch, followed the invocation by Rabbi Levi Shemtov, director of American Friends of Lubavitch in Washington

    ____

    http://www.doi.gov/news/05_News_Releases/041207_menorah

    Remarks Prepared for Delivery
    By The Honorable Gale Norton
    Secretary of the Interior
    Lighting of the National Menorah
    December 7, 2004
    AS DELIVERED

    [Introduced by Rabbi Levi Shemtov: Director, Washington Office of the American Friends of Lubavitch]

    Thank you for the opportunity to join with you in this annual celebration of this Festival of Lights. As the landlord, it is great to see happy users of our lands.

    I am especially pleased to be here on this silver anniversary of lighting the National Hanukkah Menorah. For the last two-and-a-half decades, the golden flames of this menorah have lit the lands of our Capital City.

    The Capital is so often a place where our differences and disagreements occupy our attention. During this season of peace and joy, it is time to put our differences aside, and to reflect on where we as human beings fit in God's creation.

    You don't, Not until you say Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD

    Hanukkah reminds us of the power of a single act to illuminate the world. Twenty-five years ago, this national tradition was struck by a spark set by the American Friends of Lubavitch.

    Old sparky's sparks

    But tonight's light was actually kindled more than two thousand years ago, as our young essay winners described so well.

    When they celebrated the Crucifixion of GOD

    The Maccabees seemed far too small to conquer a great army. But the flames they kindled leaped across the land, bringing hope and winning freedom.

    A lamp, which only had enough oil for a single day, lit the temple for eight. Other days of darkness have come to the Jewish people. But each year, the eight candles of Hanukkah are relit. They have outshone the darkness of persecution; they have outlasted the darkness of tyranny. They continue to light the world today.

    and the World will soon burn in these sparks

    The candles shine with the message of hope, with the promise of freedom. They remind us of those who are even now defending our freedoms - all the brave people who fight violence and terror. They are truly our candles against the darkness.

    of the shemsham of shame shemborg Illuminated collective

    All across our nation, families will gather - mothers, fathers and children - to enjoy the warmth and love of this holiday season. We will give thanks that we are blessed with religious freedom, to openly observe religious traditions. That freedom is spreading around the world.

    Via Noahide Enforcement of the "Goyim" unto the dragon

    Eight nights from now, the lights of Hanukkah will again be extinguished. But they will take with them the hope of renewal, the promise of a single spark.

    On behalf of the President, the Vice President and the administration, I wish you a very happy Hanukkah.

    Thank you.

    http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/012005/wldrice.html

    Rice vows more involvement in Mideast peace process

    The United States’ Middle East policy during the second Bush administration will be even more focused on the White House, with a new secretary of state who will be more directly involved in implementing the presidents policies.

    That was one message Condoleezza Rice, the president’s choice to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state, offered to members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the opening round of her confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Jan. 18.

    Rice was expected to win confirmation and be sworn in by the end of the week.

    Rice, the current national security adviser, defended the administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq and promised a “conversation, not a monologue” with allies angered over U.S. unilateralism.

    She said she would be personally involved in Middle East peace efforts, and that the administration is not opposed “in principle” to the appointment of a special Middle East peace envoy, but she said timing was a concern.

    “It is a question over whether that is appropriate” at this time, she said.

    Pressure has been mounting from Middle East peace groups for a special envoy; last week, a group of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious leaders called for a “special presidential envoy with a full-time commitment to the Mideast.”

    Rice also chided Arab states, saying they cannot “incite violence against Israel on the one hand and call for peace and the two-state solution on the other.”

    She promised to continue President George W. Bush’s push for democracy around the region and alluded to Knesset member Natan Sharansky, whose book arguing that peace with dictatorial states is all but impossible has become required reading at the Bush White House.

    Sharansky's Noahide demonicrazy of the Sanhedrin unto the dragon

    “In the Middle East, President Bush has broken with six decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the hope of purchasing stability at the price of liberty,” she said in her opening statement. “As long as the broader Middle East remains a region of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce extremists and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends.”

    She expressed guarded optimism about prospects for progress on the Middle East peace front.

    “We have reached a moment of opportunity, and we must seize it,” she said. “I look forward to personally working with Palestinian and Israeli leaders, and bringing American diplomacy to bear on this difficult but crucial issue.”

    Edward Walker, a former State Department official and ambassador to Israel who now heads the Middle East Institute, said he takes Rice’s promise of personal involvement seriously.

    “I think she does intend to spend more time on the issue and that she will do more traveling in the region than Powell,” he said. “She expects to be a more hands-on secretary of state, and she’s building the staff she needs to help her do that.”

    But Rice, known for her close relationship with the president, is a loyalist, Walker added. “While the State Department will be stronger under her leadership, we will all be making a big mistake if we don’t believe it’s George W. Bush’s policy that will prevail.”

    Inauguration nuggets
    Jewish Republicans made the exodus to Washington this week for the second inauguration of the man who seems to be leading the GOP to the promised land of electoral dominance: President George W. Bush.

    There were few events on the schedule specifically targeting Jewish celebrants, although the Republican Jewish Coalition, basking in the glow of the GOP victory on Nov. 2, was planning a cocktail reception for top leaders.

    “Second inaugurals are always a little lower key,” said an ebullient Matthew Brooks, the longtime RJC director.

    One Jewish leader was scheduled to play a high-profile role in the festivities: Rabbi Levi Shemtov, Washington director for American Friends of Lubavitch, was scheduled to give the invocation at one of three “candlelight dinners” attended by Bush and his family.

    ____

    http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=5555

    Rabbi Marvin Bash, clergy for the Pentagon Chaplain`s office, offered a blessing, which was followed by greetings from Rabbi Levi Shemtov, Chabad`s representative in Washington, and from Lloyd S. Rubin, president of the Aleph Institute.

     

    and but of course

    it is Aleph who sponsors NASI

    http://www.steinsaltz.org/

    and apostate Amaraka you are sold to satan

    ______

    Yes indeed the Talmudic Sofiet REDS of Sanhedrins pit runs Washington DC and the Bloody Bushitler ad-menstruation

    http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=10136

    11/19/2004) Send this article

    World Of Chabad Comes Home

    Emissaries from five continents return to New York with tales to tell.

    Jonathan Mark - Associate Editor
    Rabbi Yosef Chaim Kantor, right, has strengthened Jewish Thais at the Chabad
of Bangkok.

    Chabad isn’t as messianic as it used to be, but perhaps it’s more angelic, as upwards of 2,500 emissaries of the Lubavitcher rebbe returned to New York last weekend with tales of self-sacrifice and serendipity from Thai rainforests, the Siberian tundra, Texas plains, Congo jungles, Nepalese mountains, Moroccan casbahs, back alleys in Paraguay and American college quadrangles.

    The rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, died in 1994, and was paralyzed and speechless for some time before that, so calling these shluchim his emissaries is increasingly more poetry than fact. Many of the 260 shluchim that have gone out in the past two years are in their early 20s, and the Chabad they know is an international movement on five continents, not a handful of Holocaust remnants that could fit into one Brooklyn shul when the rebbe took the helm in 1951.

    The growth of the movement is such that the dinner for 3,000 emissaries, part of the annual Conference of Shluchim, including some lay associates, had to be held in the cavernous 69th Regiment Armory at 25th Street and Lexington Avenue, having outgrown the social halls and later the hotel ballrooms where these dinners once were held.

    There was no talk at the dinner of the rebbe being the messiah.

    There was no talk at the dinner of the rebbe being alive.

    There was no talk at the dinner that would contradict any of the Thirteen Principles of Faith at the core of Orthodox dogma.

    of their beloved son of perdition Moshiach of the bottomless pit

    What would be shocking to some mainstream rabbis, however, is that not one of these thousands of emissaries asked their congregations for “lifetime contracts” and free living quarters, but instead they each pledged to remain at their pulpits until death do they part, no matter the obstacles, no matter how obscure or remote their posts.

    Three years ago Rabbi Shimon Freundlich, 32, asked to be sent — for a lifetime — to the People’s Republic of China. Asked in the armory whether he wouldn’t prefer a place with more demographic and financial possibilities, he said the rebbe inspired him to do precisely the opposite.

    “My dream was to go to a place and start from scratch; a place where there was no school, no kashrut, no mikveh, no nothing,” Rabbi Freundlich said.

    He estimated that there are 1,000 Jews in Beijing — employees of embassies, academics, international businessmen working for IBM, Nokia and others, and even some Satmar businessmen trading in “gifts, shmattes and shoes.” Those Satmars support him, too, the rabbi said.

    “I landed in Beijing 10 days before Rosh HaShanah in 2001 and didn’t know a soul,” Rabbi Freundlich said. “I went to the Beijing Starbucks for 10 days, a few hours a day, with the same cup of coffee.”

    A few Jews, who couldn’t help but recognize a chasid, started conversations.

    “That Rosh HaShanah I didn’t have a minyan,” Rabbi Freundlich recalled. “By the end of that first Yom Kippur we had 27. This Yom Kippur we had 250.”

    Chabad headquarters back in Brooklyn gave Rabbi Freundlich enough money for three years only. By 2004 he was financially self-sufficient, raising $280,000 to cover his family’s expenses and the budget of Beijing Chabad, now including a second emissary family, as well as two young Chabad women from Israel who teach in the day school he started.

    Rabbi Freundlich, who does hospital visitations, hosts Shabbat dinners and built a mikveh, said he speaks “relatively decent Chinese. My wife’s Chinese is now fluent. My children speak a fluent Chinese, too.”

    Many of the children of Chabad emissaries, including Rabbi Freundlich’s, came to New York for the conference. Aside from the rare chance to socialize with other chasidic children, they were given weeklong programs to help them navigate their cultural isolation and understand their role as “little” emissaries wherever they may be.

    Rabbi Freundlich said he gets along just fine with the Beijing government, as long as his activities are for foreigners only “and I don’t proselytize.” But in 2002, the government called on Rabbi Freundlich. Israel’s president, Moshe Katzav, was visiting China and the government asked the Beijing Chabad to kosher the kitchen of the Great Hall of the People and the house where Katzav was staying adjacent to the Forbidden City.

    At nearby tables, other emissaries to the Far East compared notes on such things as obtaining kosher food where it is rarely available. Rabbi Yosef Chaim Kantor, a 13-year veteran of Thailand, said he gets about 1,000 Jews — locals, Israeli backpackers and businessmen — every Shabbat at three Chabad houses in Bangkok, in the northern city of Chiang Mai and on the island of Ko Samui.

    Rabbi David Eliezrie, 53, brings news from the Chabad of Yorba Linda, Calif., that “Richard Nixon is still in his kever [grave].” Rabbi Eliezrie said he always looks forward to the Shluchim Conference because “I like spending a week with the boys.”

    “It’s a hard business. Sometimes it’s a lonely business,” he said. “This is a chance to get back together with your friends. On an emotional and spiritual level, I get inspiration. There’s a great exchange of ideas.”

    His son, Rabbi Shuey Eliezrie, 25, is now the emissary to Tustin, Calif., seven miles away from his father’s turf. It’s part of an effort, said the elder Eliezrie, to place the second generation of shluchim near their families.

    “We paid the price of loneliness,” the elder Rabbi Eliezrie said. “The least we can do is play with our grandchildren.”

    Today’s Chabad, he said, “is much more consensus driven that it ever was.”

    There were moments of solemnity, as the roomful of chasidim sang a gentle chasidic tune to “Anim Zmiros,” with its tender imagery of “illuminated dew drops” and a heart yearning for love.

    And there were moments of raucous exhilaration when Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky, director of the conference, called the roll call of each Chabad delegation, from the Congo to “the Lone Star State of Texas.”

    Various delegations were greeted with loud and raucous music. When the roll call reached France, beleaguered more than most countries, the band played “La Marseillaise” and hundreds of defiant chasidim rose and stuck out their chests and clapped to the beat as if this armory was Rick’s Place in Casablanca.

    After a roll call by country, the shluchim were asked to rise by their decades of service. Shluchim from the 1940s stood slowly, eyes watery, beards white. Shluchim dispatched in 2004 stood with cheeks still ruddy and sparse.

    Then all 3,000 shluchim stomped in circle dances that grew ever more wild, feet lifting off the floor.

    “This is a chasidic mosh pit,” laughed Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the rebbe’s emissary to Washington and the federal government.

    Dancers were stomping, hugging old friends, triumphant and confident that Jewish history would indeed have the happy ending that the Rebbe promised, and no one in that armory ever imagined otherwise. 

    ______

     

    and but of course..........

    you can be terminated if you oppose their shemborg Collective

     

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=9531

    Wellstone — One of the ‘Frozen Chosen’

     

    by James D. Besser

    As Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) began campaigning for a third term, some pro-Israel activists tried to generate support for his opponent by whispering that the two-term incumbent was insufficiently supportive of Israel. But in almost every respect Wellstone, who died in the crash of his campaign plane in remote northern Minnesota last week en route to a funeral, was more representative of the Jewish political tradition than almost anyone else in political life.

    Wellstone, the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, was a bleeding-heart liberal (Aholibah the enemy of the Hassidic Aholah Hassidim) in the best sense of the phrase. He genuinely cared about the nation’s most vulnerable citizens; he put social justice and civil rights ahead of almost every other consideration during his 12 years in the Senate.

    Defying the anti-government mood that has even crept into Democratic circles, he made the case for active, creative, compassionate government intervention to elevate the poor, treat the sick and protect the vulnerable. Many Democratic colleagues had come to fear the taint of the liberal label; Wellstone wore it as a badge of honor. He did it with humor and grace and a lack of the humbug that seems to infect even politicians who come to Washington as self-proclaimed populists.

    He often appeared at public events in a dark T-shirt, not the camera-ready jacket-and-tie ensembles chosen with the TV lights in mind. He was forever rumpled, forever looking like an energetic-but-distracted college professor who had consumed too much caffeine and too many ideas.

    He looked — there’s no other way to put this — totally Jewish. Wellstone looked like a guy at the corner deli in Brooklyn, arguing politics with a thoroughly Jewish zest. 

    But he never wore the customary Black and their fedora of the Chabad Lubavitchers of Aholah

    His unabashed ethnicity was all the more amazing because he represented the land of Garrison Keillor’s Norwegian bachelor farmers — an overwhelmingly Lutheran state where the Jewish population is a measly .4 percent and the favored political style is Scandinavian deadpan.

    a self hater

    He used to refer to himself as one of the "Frozen Chosen."

    and angered the Hassidic Chabad Lubavitchers

    He was one of the most regular attendees of the Capitol Hill events sponsored by American Friends of Lubavitch.

    "Disagreement never led to disrespect with Paul," said Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the group’s Washington director. "He and I agreed on very little, politically, but he was always extremely polite, courteous and respectful. He had a real respect for Jewish things. He was a real mensch."

    Wellstone’s office even looked like the office of a quirky, widely read college professor — which is what he was before his quixotic Senate victory in 1990. His inner office looked like a used bookstore; it smelled of musty pages, not political testosterone.

    Wellstone did not wear his religion on his sleeve, but he made it clear to friends over the years that his Judaism was an essential element in his compassionate liberalism.

    "He was motivated by fundamental values and was a brilliant advocate for his beliefs, " said Hannah Rosenthal, executive vice-chair of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. As a Midwest political activist and then an official of the Clinton administration, Rosenthal worked with Wellstone throughout his Senate career. "He was proud that those beliefs were motivated by the prophetic values of Judaism. As the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, he believed in the strength and beauty of American democracy."

    Clinton of Aholibah

    When he came back to Washington more than a decade ago — he was raised in suburban Arlington, Va., just across the Potomac — he sometimes seemed more interested in being a liberal gadfly than in leaving his imprint on legislation, a process that requires compromise and ability to forge bipartisan coalitions.

    But even political detractors say Wellstone quickly shifted gears, reaching out across partisan and ideological lines to make a difference on the issues he cared about: health care, the environment, abortion, gay and civil rights.

    His consistency was impressive in a city where deeply held views often last only until the next public opinion survey. He voted against the 1991 Gulf War resolution, and he voted against a similar resolution a few weeks ago, despite predictions that it would hurt his re-election bid against former St. Paul Mayor Norman Coleman — another Jew.

    It didn’t; polls showed that his stand was part of the reason he had reclaimed the lead in the tight race. But that didn’t seem to matter to Wellstone; he was against a preemptive, unilateral war, case closed.

    so he was killed

    He remained a reliable supporter of Israel, but he didn’t vote the straight party line — just as he didn’t vote the straight party line when it came to domestic matters. He strongly supported an active U.S. role in Mideast peacemaking, something that didn’t always endear him to pro-Israel lobbyists, but was consistent with mainstream Jewish thinking. He supported a congressional resolution of solidarity with Israel earlier this year but insisted that, "I don’t think it should be viewed as an open-ended endorsement of the policies of the Sharon government."

    He was passionate about the issues that drove him into politics, and he was passionate about his job — so much so that he violated his promise to seek only two terms.

    Wellstone was buried as a Jew this week; he will be remembered for living a life that reflected the best in Jewish political activism.

    just another "Lesser Brethren"sacrifice for the shemborg collective

    ______

    Did they mourn the Dead?

    NO !

    For they had to have the ALL engulfing Terror to usher in the shemborg Hoodlum haha of Hell and their beloved false King Moshiach ben satan

    http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=11027&intcategoryid=4

    LNS
    Rabbi Levi Shemtov, director of Lubavitch´s Washington office, addresses a memorial service at the Pentagon on Monday.

     

    Lubavitch rabbis mark Sept. 11
    as they celebrate late rebbe´s birth

    March 11, 2002

    WASHINGTON, March 11 (JTA) — Lubavitch rabbis from across the United States and 40 countries launched their 100th birthday commemoration of their spiritual leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, by marking the six- month anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    Standing Monday in the cold wind and bright sunshine across from the crash site at the Pentagon, 

    Where there was no Plane

     

    the rabbis sang "Oseh Shalom" and "God Bless America" at 9:38 AM, the time that the hijacked passenger plane hit the center of the American defense establishment.

    to Celebrate their Schneerson of their House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14 to enslave mankind under their Treasonous Laws of their Nasi in the white house of hell

     

    Schneerson, who died in 1994, both supported the armed services of the United States and taught that the response to evil must not be fear, but faith and optimism, said Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the director of the Washington office of American Friends of Lubavitch.

    But they did not mention even one of the MURDERED

    Dov Zakheim, the U.S. undersecretary of defense and reportedly the leading candidate to become the next president of New York´s Yeshiva University, quoted from the Torah and said that to "tie the freedom of the country to the memory of the rebbe is a marvelous thing."

    Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, an internationally renowned talmudic scholar, said the event demonstrates that the Lubavitch movement is connected with the rest of the United States.

    The head Nasi of the Sanhedrin !!!!!!!!!!

    "Lubavitch is not cut off," he said. "It is part of the American people."

    who worship the beast

    Steinsaltz later lectured on Schneerson´s approaches to learning and the importance of looking to the future and not to the past.

    The many testimonials to Schneerson taking place here this week are testament to the power and influence of the Lubavitch movement.

    and they cry who can do battle against the beast....BUT I TELL you Jesus the Christ the LORD of LORDS and the KING of KINGS has done battle against the beast and the beast is DEFEATED and the battle sealed at Calvary, and the LORD will destroy the beast forever, very soon and cast the beast into the PIT with death nad hell the Covenant they have made unto themselves 

    The dignitaries who came to talk about "the rebbe," as they called him, included Israel´s ambassador to the United States, David Ivry; Israel´s chief Ashkenazic rabbi, Yisrael Meir Lau; and Hadassah Lieberman, the wife of the Connecticut senator.

    But did not speak of one of the MURDERED Victims

    Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat spoke not only of his involvement with Lubavitch, but exhorted diplomatic officials to be involved with Lubavitch representatives.

    "It is critically important that you accept Lubavitch as full partners," he said.

    Lubavitch emissaries attending the conference traveled from such far-flung reaches as Bangkok, Athens and Beijing.

    Other conference events include a Chasidic musical tribute by the Washington Symphony Orchestra at the Kennedy Center and a diplomatic luncheon.

    Gawd bliss apostate satan worshipping Amaraka

    Rabbi Mendy Chitrik said the sense of unity is what is important to pass on to his community of 25,000 back in Istanbul, Turkey.

    "It warms us, we are candles and then we can pass the flame," he said.

    Following Sept. 11, many people began soul searching and attendance in houses of worship went up, rabbis from around the world attested.

    There were some voices within the movement who believe that the messianic age is approaching (Moshiach ben satan and the fallen away) but there is tension within Chabad-Lubavitch about the issue of messianism.

    "It was not the rebbe´s goal to be Mashiach," the messiah, "but it was his goal to bring Mashiach" by making the world a better place, Shemtov told JTA.

    Bring him by MURDER and Blasphemy and theft and sorcery and war and hatred fro mankind

    That sense of making things better is what conference participants are working on, Shemtov said.

    Schneerson´s real legacy has to do with education and Jewish life, said Rabbi Avraham Berkowitz, the executive director of the Federation of Jewish Communities in the former Soviet Union.

    of The RED Sofiet Talmudic dragon, Education and Sharing Day USA....BUT all for the Talmudic sons of the shemmyGOG of Satan

    Schneerson was born in the village of Nikolaev, Ukraine, where today Jewish life has been rebuilt, Berkowitz said.

    Berkowitz also stressed how Schneerson affected the whole Jewish world, not just Chabad.

    Outreach is one of the cornerstones of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, which serves both religious and non-observant, and affiliated and non-affiliated Jews.

    Last week, a student came to see Malka Werde, who represents Chabad at the Rockland, N.Y., Community College. The student said she was reevaluating her life following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and was turning to Judaism.

    "Whoever will welcome them in, that is Chabad, that´s who will provide them with the opportunity to return to Judaism," Werde said.

    TREASON TREASON TREASON TREASON

    BLASPHEMY

    _______

    http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/011305/wldpolicy.html

    Policy appointee raises few eyebrows

    Jewish groups are keeping a very low profile on the appointment of Claude Allen as chief White House domestic adviser.

    Allen, currently deputy secretary of health and human services, is an ardent social conservative with strong views on abortion rights and abstinence-only education. He also angered gay rights groups with his comment about “queers” when he served as an aide to former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC).

    Those views made him anathema to Senate Democrats, and he was expected to be one of the judicial nominees filibustered by opposition forces.

    But Allen’s nomination never came up for a Senate vote, and when President George W. Bush reappointed 20 of the filibustered judges as the start of the current congressional session, Allen was not among them.

    The reason: The federal appeals court slot in Richmond, Va., is traditionally held by a Marylander — and Maryland’s two Democratic senators raised a ruckus about the nomination of Allen, who lives in Virginia.

    But the domestic policy adviser position is a modest consolation prize.

    “If anybody had any doubts about this administration’s commitment to pursuing a strongly conservative domestic agenda, this should put it to rest,” said an official with one Jewish organization that is not taking a position on the nomination.

    Sammie Moshenberg, Washington director for the National Council of Jewish Women, said, “We’re very troubled by this appointment. His extremism led us to actively oppose his lifetime appointment to the appellate court; it’s troubling that he’ll now be providing top-level advice to the president.”

    NCJW opposed Allen’s court appointment because of his views on abortion rights, privacy, and gay rights.

    Mark Pelavin, associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, found something positive to say about the nomination.

    “I do have to say he makes more sense as a White House staff person than he did as an appointee for a federal judgeship,” he said. “But on a whole array of issues, he is distinctly at odds with most of the Jewish community.”

    Promoting Bush’s plan
    Some Jewish groups are waiting nervously for the details of President Bush’s plan to revamp Social Security and divert some of the program into private investment accounts — a change that critics worry will force big cuts in benefits to future retirees and end the concept of Social Security as an entitlement.

    But one group has no qualms: the Republican Jewish Coalition, the partisan group for Jewish Republicans, is taking its show on the road when it comes to Social Security.

    Next week the group, which ran an extensive advertising campaign on behalf of Bush’s reelection in the fall, will go back to Jewish newspapers in key markets with ads supporting Bush’s Social Security plan — the details of which will be revealed at the end of the month.

    “We will be running ads to try to build support in the Jewish community on many of his key issues,” said RJC director Matthew Brooks. “Right now, it’s going to be Social Security reform; we want to have a conversation with the Jewish community about this issue, which will be so high-profile this year.”

    He said he expects Jews will be responsive to the Republican message, despite the community’s long enthusiasm for the New Deal-era program.

    “The president’s proposal does nothing to undermine the existing structure of Social Security,” he said. “What it does is preserve the program for today’s seniors and ensure it’s around to help the next generation.”

    But Jewish Democrats say they couldn’t be happier with the RJC campaign.

    “I hope they spend a lot of money on this project, because the more they spend, the more new members it will generate for the Jewish Democrats,” said Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

    But a prominent Republican insisted the issue would be a political plus for the GOP.

    “This is aimed at a younger demographic; these are people who don’t really expect the current system to be around when they retire, and really want to see a change,” this activist said.

    But the Bush administration is running into unexpected opposition from some Republican lawmakers fearful of a voter backlash if benefits are cut as part of the overhaul.

    Group’s relief work cited
    Nongovernmental organizations that have raised and distributed record amounts of money for tsunami relief in Asia were honored at the White House on Monday, Jan. 10, and urged to shift their focus from recovery to reconstruction.

    The Jewish community was represented by the American Jewish World Service, which has raised more than $4.5 million for the recovery effort — a record take for the Jewish service group.

    AJWS president Ruth Messinger said that the series of meetings, which included NGOs and representatives of government agencies involved in the relief effort, was an “opportunity for the president to thank everybody for everything that was going on in the region.”

    In the meeting with 19 NGOs — AJWS was the only Jewish group involved — Bush “talked thoughtfully, asking individual groups to talk briefly about the work they were doing,” Messinger said. “The president clearly listened, commented, and made connections. He touched on most of the themes these groups think are critical, including the careful use of donations and the idea that emergency giving is really important, but that it shouldn’t stop people from giving for the rest of our work.”

    Bush, she said, took up a persistent AJWS theme — “the need to move from relief to reconstruction. He made it clear it is important for everyone to understand that we’re going to be here for the long haul.”

    And Messinger said he praised efforts like a AJWS program to provide funds for the purchase or repair of fishing boats “so people can get back to work” in several small villages, she said.

    Accountability in using philanthropic funds was another topic, said Messinger, whose group is passing on 95 percent of donated money directly to relief efforts.

    The tsunami response is “the biggest relief effort we’ve done so far,” she said. “That’s true for most of the groups involved.”

    She pointed to a “huge outpouring from the Jewish community” as rabbis and community leaders get the word out.

    Political notebook
    Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a second-term lawmaker who served in the Clinton administration, has been tapped to head the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the group charged with electing more Democrats to a House of Representatives that seems to be sliding further into Republican hands.

    Emanuel, who is Jewish, was appointed by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House minority leader. He will replace the late Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.), who died Jan. 1.

    The appointment adds to Emanuel’s reputation as a real comer in the party.

    Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), widely known for his advocacy on behalf of Israel and against anti-Semitism, is now taking on North Korea.

    This week the veteran lawmaker was in the “Axis of Evil” nation, trying to get its leaders to return to talks on its controversial nuclear program.

    “They indicated that they view their nuclear program as important, but I had the very strong impression that they are ready to discuss the matter because they understand that we are determined to do so,” Lantos said while in Pyongyang, according to wire service reports.

    Lantos also said that if North Korea cooperates with the anti-nuclear effort, he could support lifting sanctions and establishing normal diplomatic relations with the rogue state.

    Closer to home, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) has promised to buy copy of the Old Testament for the speaker of the House.

    The Bible became an issue during the recent swearing-in ceremony in the offices of Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a freshman Democrat from Florida who is Jewish, declined to take the oath of office with her hand on a New Testament — the only Bible handy.

    “They called the Library of Congress, but couldn’t find an Old Testament,” Ackerman said. “So they came to us, and we lent them one.”

    Two years ago, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) went through a similar scramble — but was provided one by American Friends for Lubavitch at the last minute.

    Ackerman promised to give a copy to the Speaker to avoid future mishaps. And Rabbi Levi Shemtov, director of Americans Friends of Lubavitch, said “we will provide every Jewish member of the House and Senate with Humash so there will be enough for the next swearing in. It’s a good thing for them to have in the office for a point of reference, in any case.”

    TREASON anti-Christ in Washington

    _____

    How they tricked Dick

    http://www.jta.org/index.asp

    Nixon feared Israeli nuclear weapons

    The Nixon administration feared Israel would try to acquire nuclear weapons, recently released documents show.

    A memo from 1969, released Wednesday by the National Archives, reported intelligence that Israel was developing the capacity to produce and deploy nuclear weapons, and suggested it could start a Middle East arms race and lead other states to align themselves with Russia.

    The memo, authored by Joseph Sisco, an assistant U.S. secretary of state, was sent to William Rogers, Nixon’s secretary of state. Israel has never officially confirmed that it has nuclear weapons.

     _____

    Papers Please !!!

    http://www.jta.org/index.asp

    Lie detector offered for air security

    An Israeli firm has successfully tested a lie detector designed to spot terrorists or drug smugglers at airports.

    Netanya-based Nemesysco said Thursday that its walk-through voice analyzer, GK-1, had aced a trial in Moscow’s Domodyedevo Airport, and was likely to be marketed soon at $10,000-$30,000 a unit. The system requires that passengers answer several yes/no questions designed to determine if they are potential threats. Roughly 12 percent fail this first stage, and are taken aside for further questioning.

    every one is Guilty until proven Noahide

    ______

     

    Sanhedrin 57

    1) TANA D'VEI MENASHEH

    (a) Question: If Tana d'vei Menasheh expounds the verse "Va'Ytzav", he should include Dinim and blasphemy; if he does not expound it, how does he know the other five (which were derived from the verse)?
    (b) Answer: He does not expound it; all seven Mitzvos are written elsewhere:
    1. Idolatry and Arayos - "Va'Tishaches ha'Aretz Lifnei ha'Elokim".
    i. (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Hashchasah" always refers to Arayos and idolatry:
    ii. Arayos - as it says "Ki Hishchis Kol Basar Es Darko";
    iii. Idolatry - "Pen Tashchisun va'Asisem Pesel".
    iv. The Tana who learns from "Va'Ytzav Hash-m..." says that the Torah merely discusses the generation of the flood, these are not commandments.
    2. Murder - "Shofech Dam ha'Adam...";
    i. The other Tana says that this comes to teach about the punishment - the verse continues "...Ba'Adam Damo Yishafech";
    3. Theft - "K'Yerek Esev Nosati Lachem Es Kol";
    i. (R. Levi): This permits what is like Yerek Esev (that grows by itself, i.e. Hefker), not what grows in gardens.
    ii. The other Tana says that this comes to permit eating meat (which was forbidden before this).
    4. A limb of a living animal - "Ach Basar b'Nafsho Damo Lo Sochelu";
    i. The other Tana says that this comes to permit Sheratzim (rodents, even before they die).
    5. Castration - "Shirtzu va'Aretz u'Rvu Vah";
    i. The other Tana says that this is a blessing, not a Mitzvah.
    6. Kilayim - "Meha'Of l'Minehu";
    i. The other Tana says that the birds (and animals) in the ark were according to their species, for this is the best companionship, we may not derive a prohibition of mating diverse species.
    2) WHAT ARE BENEI NO'ACH KILLED FOR?
    (a) (Rav Yosef): A Ben No'ach has three Chayavei Misah - Arayos, murder and blasphemy.
    (b) Objection (Rav Sheshes): Granted, we learn murder from "Shofech Dam ha'Adam ba'Adam Damo Yishafech" - what is the source for the other two?
    1. If you learn from murder, he should be liable for all his Mitzvos!
    2. If they are included because it says "Ish Ish" - it also says this regarding idolatry!
    (c) (Rav Sheshes): Rather, he has four Chayavei Misah - these and idolatry.
    (d) Question: He is not killed for idolatry!
    1. (Beraisa): Regarding idolatry, a Nochri is commanded only about things which a Yisrael is killed for.
    2. Inference: He is *commanded*, he is not killed for it!
    (e) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Anything a Ben No'ach is commanded, he is Chayav Misah if he transgresses it.
    (f) (Rav Huna and all Rav's Talmidim): He is Chayav Misah for any of his seven Mitzvos - the Torah taught about one of them, the same applies to all of them.
    (g) Question: He is not killed for theft!
    1. (Beraisa): Regarding robbery, theft, taking a Yafes To'ar (another man's wife in war, this also resembles theft) and everything like this:
    i. If a Nochri takes from a Nochri or from a Yisrael, it is forbidden; a Yisrael is permitted to take from a Nochri.
    2. If a Nochri is Chayav Misah for this, it should say so (and not just that he is forbidden)!
    (h) Answer: He is Chayav Misah - it says 'forbidden' on account of the next clause, a Yisrael is *permitted*.
    (i) Question: Whenever he is liable, the Tana says so!
    1. (Beginning of the Beraisa): If a Nochri kills a Nochri or a Yisrael, he is liable;
    i. If a Yisrael kills a Nochri, he is exempt.
    (j) Answer: There, there was no other way to teach!
    1. Suggestion: Perhaps it could say 'a Nochri is forbidden, a Yisrael is permitted'.
    2. Rejection (Beraisa): Nochrim and people that graze (their own) small animals (they constantly steal by grazing on others' property): we do not throw them into a pit (to actively kill them), nor do we raise them from a pit to save them.
    (k) Question: The Beraisa alludes to a similar case regarding robbery - what is it?
    (l) Answer #1 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): This teaches about a worker (eating) in a vineyard.
    1. Question: When is he eating?
    i. If when the fruit is finished - he is permitted to eat!
    ii. If the fruit is not finished - this is fully-fledged theft!
    2. Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, he eats less than the value of a Perutah.
    3. Question: If so, why is it forbidden for a Nochri to eat from a Yisrael - a Yisrael pardons less than the value of a Perutah!
    4. Answer: Later, he pardons; initially, it bothers him.
    5. Objection: When a Nochri eats from a Nochri, since Nochrim do not pardon less than the value of a Perutah, this is fully-fledged theft!
    (m) Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, he withheld wages:
    1. If a Nochri withheld wages from a Nochri or from a Yisrael, it is forbidden; a Yisrael is permitted to withhold wages from a Nochri.
    (n) Question: What is the case similar to a Yafes To'ar?
    (o) Answer (Rav Dimi): If a Nochri had relations with a female slave designated for a male slave, he is killed (for this is like stealing).
    (p) Observation: The Tana did not say that there is a similar case regarding murder.
    (q) (Abaye): If one finds a Beraisa teaching such a case, it is R. Yonason ben Sha'ul.
    1. (Beraisa - R. Yonason ben Sha'ul): If Reuven was chasing Shimon (to kill him), and Shimon could have stopped him by maiming one of his limbs, but he instead killed him, Shimon is (Rambam - worthy of being) killed for this.
    57b---------------------------------------57b

    3) CONDEMNING A BEN NO'ACH

    (a) (R. Yakov bar Acha - Sefer Agadata): A Ben No'ach can be sentenced to death by one judge, based on one witness, without warning;
    1. The judge (or witness) cannot be a woman; he can be a relative.
    (b) (R. Yishmael): A Ben No'ach is killed for killing a fetus.
    (c) Question: What is the source of R. Yakov's law?
    (d) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "Ach Es Dimchem l'Nafshoseichem *Edrosh* (singular)" - even through one judge; "Mi'Yad Kol Chayah" - without warning; "Edreshenu umi'Yad ha'Adam" - through one witness; "Mi'Yad Ish" - not through a woman; "Achiv" - even through a relative.
    (e) Question: What is the source of R. Yishmael's law?
    (f) Answer: "Shofech Dam *ha'Adam ba'Adam* Damo Yishafech" - the case of a person in a person is a fetus.
    (g) The first Tana holds like Tana d'vei Menasheh, who says that a Ben No'ach is always choked;
    1. He expounds "Ba'Adam Damo Yishafech" - he blood will remain inside his body, i.e. he will be choked.
    (h) Question (Rav Hamnuna): Is it really true that the Mitzvos do not apply to a Bas No'ach?!
    1. But it says "(Avraham)...Yetzaveh (Es Banav v'Es Beiso, his sons and daughters)"!
    (i) Answer (Rav Hamnuna): He will command his sons about laws, and his daughters about Tzedakah.
    (j) Question (Rav Avya Sava): "Mi'Yad Ish" - not a woman - if a Bas No'ach killed, is she exempt?!
    (k) Answer (Rav Papa): "Shofech Dam ha'Adam..." - in any case (male or female), the murderer will be killed.
    (l) Question (Rav Avya Sava): "Al Ken Ya'azov *Ish* (...v'Davak b'Ishto)" - if a Bas No'ach was Mezanah, is she exempt?!
    (m) Answer (Rav Papa): "Ve'Hayu l'Basar Echad" - the Torah equates men and women.
    4) WHICH ARAYOS APPLY TO NOCHRIM?
    (a) (Beraisa): "Ish Ish (...Lo Sikrevu Legalos Ervah)" - this includes Nochrim (they are commanded about Arayos).
    (b) Question: We expounded "Leimor" to teach (that Nochrim are commanded) about Arayos!
    (c) Answer: This teaches about their Arayos, "Ish Ish" teaches about ours.
    (d) (End of the Beraisa): If a Nochri had relations with Arayos of Yisrael, he is judged according to laws of Yisrael.
    (e) Question: How does this make a difference?
    (f) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Twenty-three judges, two witnesses and warning are needed to convict him.
    (g) Objection: It is unreasonable to say that it is harder to convict him for our Arayos than for theirs!
    (h) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): This teaches about a Mekudeshes Na'arah, which does not apply to them (therefore, he is stoned, according to our law).
    (i) Question (Beraisa): If a Nochri had relations with a Mekudeshes Na'arah, he is stoned; if he had relations with a married woman (Nesu'ah), he is choked.
    1. Since Nesu'ah applies to Nochrim, he should receive his usual death, beheading!
    (j) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): When the Beraisa discusses a married woman, it refers to a woman that had Chupah but did not yet have relations with her husband;
    1. Since this does not apply to Nochrim, he receives the law of Yisrael, choking.
    2. (R. Chanina): Be'ulas Ba'al (a Nochris who had relations with her husband) applies to Nochrim, a Nochris who had Chupah but did not yet have relations with her husband is still considered single.
    (k) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa - R. Meir): A Nochri is only commanded about Arayos that a Yisrael is killed for;
    (l) Chachamim say, he is commanded about many Arayos (Gra's text - an Ervah) that Yisraelim are not killed for;
    1. If he had relations with Arayos of (i.e. only apply to) Yisrael, he is judged by laws of Yisrael; if he had relations with Arayos of Nochrim, he is judged by laws of Nochrim.
    2. The only case (of Arayos of Yisrael) is a Mekudeshes Na'arah.
    3. Question: Why doesn't it also list a woman who had Chupah but did not yet have relations with her husband?
    4. Answer: The Tana holds like Tana d'vei Menasheh, who says that a Ben No'ach is always choked - it makes no difference whether he is judged by our law or theirs.

    ________

     

    Noahide News Part 332

     

     

     

    The Last Deception

    Section 2

      section 3   

    section 4 

      section 5  

    section 6  

    section 7 

      section 8 

    section  9     

    section 10  

    section 11  

    section 12  

    section 13 

    section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

      section 15 

          section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

     section 16-B

     section 17  

      section 17-B  

      section 17-C   

    section 17-D

      section 18    

    section 18-B

    section 19    

    section 19-B

    section 20  

     section 20-B 

      section 20-C 

      section 20-D 

      section 20-E

    section 21 

      section 22  

    section 23

    section 24

    section 25

    Daniel's Seventy Weeks

    Was Peter a Jew?

    The Two Witnesses

    "The Whore of Babylon"

    Mystery Babylon

     Are the " Ael-ians coming"

    Ael-ians II

    Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

    Wall Street II

    Wall Street III

    It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

    Declared section Part II

    "Questions"

    "All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

    Qabalah Part II

    Qabalah Part III

    National Identification Card

     ADDED Material 3-25-2004 Prophecy Unfolding

    A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

    "Seventh Trumpet"

    Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

    Homeland Security, "The Police State"

    "The Fourth Beast"

    The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

    The Scribes of Baal

    How will they do it- " The false-christ"

    False Christ Part II

    The Word

    Baal's food Tax

    "The Changing of the Guards"

    "Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

    "Moshiach ben Lucifer"

    Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

    "Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

    I Witch, New One World Order Seal

    Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

    Satan's Enforcers Part 2

    Satan's Enforcers Part 3

    Satan's Enforcers Part 4

    The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

    Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

    I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

    King of the Noachides

    "Beware the Mark"

    "Beware the Mark" part two

    "Beware the Mark" Part 3

    "Beware the Mark" Part Four

    "Beware the Mark" Part Five

     Harvest of Fear

    "Harvest of Fear" Part Two

    "Harvest of Fear" Part Three

    National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

    Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

    The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

    The "Lessor Jew"

    Temporary Coup d' Etat

    The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

    The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

    Protocols Today Part Two

    Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

    Identity of the Illuminati

    The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

    Chabad Satan Part 1A

    Chabad Satan Part 2

    Chabad Satan Part 2A

    Chabad Satan Part 2B

    Chabad Satan Part 3

    Chabad Satan Part 3A

    Chabad Satan Part 4

    Chabad Satan Part 4A

    Chabad Satan Part 4B

    Chabad Satan Part 4C

    Chabad Satan Part 5

    Chabad satan Part 5A

    Chabad Satan Part 5B

    Chabad Satan Part 5C

    Chabad Satan Part 6

    Chabad Satan Part 6B

    Chabad Satan Part 6C

    Chabad Satan Part 6D

    Chabad Satan Part 7

    Chabad Satan Part 7A

    Chabad Satan Part 7B

    Chabad Satan Part 7C

    Chabad Satan Part 8

    Chabad Satan Part 8A

    Chabad Satan Part 8B

    Chabad Satan Part 8C

    Chabad Satan Part 8D

    Chabad Satan Part 9

    Chabad Satan Part 9A

    Chabad Satan Part 9B

    Chabad Satan Part 9C

    Chabad Satan Part 9D

    Chabad Satan Part 10

    Chabad Satan Part 10A

    Chabad Satan Part 10B

    Chabad Satan Part 10C

    Chabad Satan Part 10D

    Chabad Satan Part 11

    The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

    Chabad Wall Part 2

    Chabad Wall Part 3

    Chabad Wall Part 4

    The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

    Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

    Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

    The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

    Satan's One World Religion

    OWR Part 2

    OWR Part 3

    OWR Part 4

    One World Religion Part 5

    One World Religion Part 6

    One World Religion Part 7 Religion Part 7

    Re the god of Talmud Bavli

    Perpetual Purim

    "The Raiser of Taxes"

    Jewish Persecution

    Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

    The Final Nazi

    Nazi Part 2

    Nazi Part 3

    Nazi Part 4

    The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

    Changing the Time and the Laws

    The Leaven of the Chabad Lubavitch Chassidim Pharisees

    Exod-U.S the coming Geula 

    anti-semitism?

    Who murdered Jesus the Christ

    "Replacement Theology" of Judaic Talmudism

    Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

    the gods

    "The Two Whores"

    Noahide News

    Noahide News 2

    Noahide News Part 3

    Noahide News Part 4

    Noahide News Part 5

    Noahide News Part 6

    Noahide News Part 7

    Noahide News Part 8

    Noahide News Part 9

    Noahide News Part 10

    Noahide News Part 11

    Noahide News Part 12

    Noahide News Part 13

    Noahide News Part 14

    Noahide News Part 15

    Noahide News Part 16

    Noahide News Part 17

    Noahide News Part 18

    Noahide News Part 19

    Noahide News Part 20

    Noahide News Part 21

    Noahide News part 22

    Noahide News Part 23

    Noahide News part 24

    Noahide News Part 25

    Noahide News Part 26

    Noahide News part 27

    Noahide News Part 28

    Noahide News Part 29

    Noahide News Part 30

    Noahide News Part 31

    Noahide News Part 32

    Noahide News Part 33

    Noahide News Part 34

    Noahide News Part 35

    Noahide News Part 36

    Noahide News Part 37

    Noahide News Part 38

    Noahide News Part 39

    Noahide News Part 40

    Noahide News Part 41

    Noahide News Part 42

    Noahide News Part 43

    Noahide News Part 44

    Noahide News Part 45

    Noahide News Part 46

    Noahide News Part 47

    Noahide News Part 48

    Noahide News Part 49

    Noahide News Part 50

    Noahide News Part 51

    Noahide News Part 52

    Noahide News Part 53

    Noahide News Part 54

    Noahide News Part 55

    Noahide NewsPart 56

    Noahide News Part 57

    Noahide News Part 58

    Noahide News Part 59

    Noahide News Part 60

    Noahide News Part 61

    Noahide News Part 62

    Noahide News Part 63

    Noahide News Part 64 

    Noahide News Part 65

    Noahide News Part 66

    Noahide News Part 67

    Noahide News Part 68

    Noahide News Part 69

    Letter to Bob Jones and President Bush and all televangelist

    Noahide News Part 70

    Noahide News Part 71

    Noahide News Part 72

    Noahide News Part 73

    Noahide News Part 74

    Noahide News Part 75

    Noahide News Part 76

    Noahide News Part 77

    Noahide News Part 78

    Noahide News Part 79

    Noahide News Part 80

    Noahide News Part 81

    Noahide News Part 82

    Noahide News Part 83 ALERT ALERT ALERT

    Noahide News Part 84

    Noahide News Part 85

    Noahide News Part 86

    Noahide News Part 87

    Noahide News Part 88

    Noahide News Part 89

    Noahide News part 90

    Noahide News Part 91

    Noahide News Part 92

    Noahide News Part 93

    Noahide News Part 94

    Noahide News Part 95

    Noahide News Part 96

    Noahide News Part 97

    Noahide News Part 98

    Noahide News Part 99

    Noahide News Part 100

    Noahide News Part 101

    Noahide News Part 102

    Noahide News Part 103

    Noahide News Part 104

    Noahide News Part 105

    Noahide News Part 106

    Noahide News Part 107

    Noahide News Part 108

    Noahide News Part 109

    Noahide News Part 110

    Noahide News Part 111

    Noahide News Part 112

    Noahide News Part 113

    Noahide News Part 114

    Noahide Naws Part 115

    Noahide News Part 116

    Noahide News Part 117

    Noahide News Part 118

    Noahide News Part 119

    Noahide News Part 120

    Noahide News Part 121

    Noahide News Part 122

    Noahide News Part 123

    Noahide News Part 124

    Noahide News part 125

    Noahide News Part 126

    Noahide News Part 127

    Noahide News Part 128

    Noahide News Part 129

    The Revelation of Jesus the Christ the LORD God and His Father

    Noahide News Part 130

    Noahide news Part 131

    Noahide News Part 132

    Noahide News Part 133

    Noahide News Part 134

    Noahide News Part 135

    Noahide news Part 136

    Noahide News Part 137

    Noahide News Part 138

    Noahide News Part 139

    Noahide News Part 140

    Noahide News Part 141

    Noahide News Part 142

    Noahide News Part 143 THE JEWISH RELIGION Its InfluenceToday

    Noahide News Part 144

    Noahide News Part 145

    Noahide News Part 146

    Noahide news Part 147

    Noahide News Part 148

    Noahide News Part 149

    Noahide News Part 150

    Noahide News Part 151

    Noahide News Part 152

    Noahide News Part 153

    Noahide News Part 154

    NoahideNews Part 155

    Noahide News Part 156

    Noahide News Part 157

    Noahide News Part 158

    Noahide News Part 159

    Noahide News Part 160

    Noahide News Part 161

    Noahide News Part 162

    Noahide News Part 163

    Noahide News Part 164

    Noahide News Part 165

    Noahide News part 166

    Noahide News Part 167

    Noahide News Part 168

    Alert ! Noahide News Part 169 Alert ! Alert ! false Elijah cometh?

    Noahide News Part 170

    Noahide News Part 171

    Noahide News Part 172

    Noahide News Part 173

    Noahide News Part 174 

    Noahide News Part 175

    Noahide News Part 176

    Noahide News Part 177

    Noahide News Part 178

    Noahide News Part 179

    Noahide News Part 180

    Noahide News Part 181

    Noahide News Part 182

    Noahide News Part 183

    Noahide News Part 184

    Noahide News Part 185

    Noahide News part 186

    Noahide News Part 187

    Noahide News Part 188

    Noahide News Part 189

    Noahide News Part 190 Alert ! Alert! Alert!

    Noahide News part 191

    Noahide News part 192

    Noahide News Part 193

    Noahide News Part 194

    Noahide News Part 195

    Noahide News Part 196

    Noahide News Part 197 Alert Alert Alert !

    Noahide News part 198

    Noahide News Part 199

    Noahide News Part 200

    Noahide News Part 201

    Noahide News Part 202

    Noahide News Part 203Alert Alert Alert !

    Noahide News Part 204 Alert ! Alert ! Alert!

    Noahide News Part 205

    Noahide news Part 206

    Noahide News Part 207

    Noahide News Part 208

    Noahide News Part 209

    Noahide News Part 210

    Noahide News Part 211

    Noahide News Part 212

    Noahide News Part 213

    Noahide News Part 214

    Noahide News Part 215

    Noahide News Part 216

    Noahide News Part 217

    Noahide News Part 218

    Noahide News Part 219

    Noahide News Part 220 Alert ! Alert!

    Noahide News Part 221

    Noahide News Part 222 Alert ! Alert!

    Noahide News Part 223

    Noahide News Part 224 Alert! Alert!

    Noahide News part 225

    Noahide News Part 226

    Noahide News Part 227

    Noahide News Part 228 Alert! Alert! Alert!

    Noahide News Part 229

    Noahide News Part 230 Alert ! Alert!

    Noahide News Part 231

    Noahide News Part 232

    Noahide News Part 233

    Noahide News Part 234

    Noahide News part 235

    Noahide News Part 236

    Noahide News part 237

    Noahide News Part 238

    Noahide News Part 239

    Noahide News Part 240

    Noahide News Part 241 Alert ! Alert ! Alert!

    Noahide News Part 242

    Noahide News Part 243

    Noahide News Part 244

    Noahide News Part 245

    Noahide News Part 246

    Noahide News Part 247

    Noahide News Part 248

    Noahide News Part 249

    "Left Behind"

    Noahide News Part 250

    Noahide News Part 251

    Noahide News Part 252

    Noahide News Part 253

    Noahide News Part 254

    Noahide News Part 255

    Noahide News Part 256

    Noahide News part 257

    Noahide News Part 258

    Noahide News Part 259

    Noahide News Part 260

    Noahide News Part 261

    Noahide News Part 262

    Noahide News Part 263

    Noahide News Part 264

    Noahide News Part 265

    Noahide News Part 266

    Noahide News Part 267

    Noahide News Part 268

    Noahide News Part 269

    Noahide News Part 270

    Noahide News Part 271

    Noahide News Part 272

    Noahide News Part 273

    Noahide News Part 274

    Noahide News Part 275

    Noahide News Part 276

    Noahide News Part 277

    Noahide News Part 278

    Noahide News Part 279

    Noahide News Part 280

    Noahide News Part 281

    Noahide News Part 282

    Noahide News Part 283

    Noahide News Part 284

    Noahide News Part 285

    Saints of the Living God

    Noahide News Part 286

    Noahhide News Part 287

    Noahide News Part 288

    Noahide News Part 289

    Goon squad part II

    Noahide News Part 290

    Noahide News Part 291

    Noahide News Part 292

    Noahide News Part 293

    Noahide News Part 294

    Noahide News Part 295 Alert ! Alert!

    Noahide News Part 296

    Noahide News Part 297

    Noahide News Part 298

    Noahide News Part 299

    Noahide News Part 300

    Noahide News Part 301

    Noahide News Part 302

    Noahide News Part 303 yap yap yap

    Noahide News Part 304

    Noahide News Part 305

    Noahide News Part 306

    Noahide News Part 307

    Noahide News Part 308

    Noahide News Part 309

    Noahide News Part 310

    Noahide News Part 311

    Noahide News Part 312

    The Revelation of Jesus the Christ the LORD God and His Father

    Noahide News part 313

    Noahide News Part 314

    Noahide News part 315

    Noahide News Part 316

    Noahide News Part 317

    Noahide News Part 318

    Noahide News Part 319

    Noahide News Part 320

    Noahide News Part 321 Sanhedrin Alert !

    Noahide News Part 322

    Noahide News Part 323

    Noahide News Part 324

    Noahide News Part 325

    Noahide News Part 326

    Noahide News Part 327

    Noahide News Part 328

    Noahide News Part 329

    Noahide News Part 330

    Noahide News Part 331

    Noahide News Part 332