Noahide News

Part 54

September 8, 2004

Day 419-426 of 490 

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

mason seal

Extra Extra

read all about it !



High Treason

who need be HANGED in Washington DC, before all the American people. Before they began decapitating their opposition.


By: Ted Lang

Our entire government is controlled by Israel! Through a small, rich and powerful Jewish supported pro-Israeli tax-exempt lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or simply AIPAC, virtually all American domestic and foreign policy is now being controlled by a foreign government entanglement. This is done by targeting American politicians: those who are pro-Israel receive campaign funding and favorable publicity through a myriad of Jewish organizations, magnified by the liberal and Democratic Party-leaning American press; those politicians not favoring policies benefiting Israel are targeted by Jews all over America who send money to help finance that politician’s opponent.

Former Georgia Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, who was critical of the dominance Israel enjoyed controlling our government, was defeated in this way by Jewish contributions coming in from all over the United States. Those contributions had to be requested en masse, funneled to a finance manager, and then distributed to all the right places to both the opposing candidate and key media outlets to generate the necessary opposing campaign propaganda.

At the Republican Party’s highly expensive convention bash being orchestrated smack in the middle of New York City this week, reports: "About 1,500 supporters of Israel attended the posh event hosted by United Jewish Communities, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the American-Israel Political Action Committee. The event, held at Pier 60 in Manhattan, was attended by dozens of congressional members, governors and administration officials, and featured Bloomberg, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman."

Posting on his website Informed Commentary, and carried on’s as well, Professor Juan Cole, who teaches history at the University of Michigan, writes in his August 28, 2004 piece entitled, "AIPAC’s Overt and Covert Ops.": "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group that used to support whatever government was in power in Israel, and used to give money even-handedly inside the US. My perception is that during the past decade AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the political Right in the United States. In the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. WINEP has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions, even though its director, Dennis Ross, is more moderate. He is a figurehead, however, serving to disguise the far right character of most of the position papers produced by long-term WINEP staff and by extremist visitors and ‘associates’ (Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are among the latter)."

Professor Cole continues: "WINEP, being a wing of AIPAC, is enormously influential in Washington. State Department and military personnel are actually detailed there to ‘learn’ about ‘the Middle East’! They would get a far more balanced ‘education’ about the region in any Israeli university, since most Israeli academics are professionals, whereas WINEP is a ‘think tank’ that hires by ideology."

There are many ways AIPAC magnifies its influence over American government, and targeting politicians during elections is only one of them. In this presidential election, reflect on how both Senator John Kerry and President George Bush are one in their support for Israel. Note also how former frontrunner Dr. Howard Dean became toast after he merely suggested a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which was created and continues to be exacerbated by Israel’s imperialism and ethnocide.

Cole explains, "Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the US and deserves our support in ensuring its security. The Likudniks like to pretend that they represent American Jewry, but they do not. And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's former dictator Pinochet, you are bigotted against Latinos."

This explanation is consistent with all that I have read on the subject. Jewish Zionists and their more numerically powerful and vocal Christian Zionists, will support any and all Israeli policies, and then smear opponents as being "anti-Semitic." Perhaps a better term to describe these war-mongering Jewish and Christian Zionists is to identify them as being "Likudniks," indicative of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s war-mongering and genocidal Likud Party. And it would be entirely safe to say that a majority of Jews living in Israel also oppose Sharon’s atrocities against the Palestinians, which is the ongoing basis for anti-Israeli terrorism there responsible for the horrible deaths and maiming of so many of Israel’s citizens.

AIPAC and the neoconservative Likudniks in the Pentagon and in the Bush administration today represent the greatest threat to world peace. They are plotting to ignite hostilities that could ratchet up to World War III. This would fit in nicely with martial law control over the American populace as General Tommy Franks envisioned, and could lead to US rule by a one government international New World Order seemingly so desired by both Bush and Kerry. And separate from a world engulfed in nuclear war, we have the constant threat of terrorism by Muslim militants looking to hurt the people of "The Great Satan" as protector of the most dangerous regime in the world: Sharon and his Likud Party.

The "outbreak" of anti-Semitism all over the world is unmitigated pap and nonsensical propaganda. Muslims are not out to destroy US because of our wealth, or our freedom, or even because of our ties to, and origins as, a Judeo-Christian nation; they foment terrorism against US because of our military might as the world’s greatest super power enabling Israeli ethnocidal imperialism. It is Israel that is the trigger; we are the big gun.

Commenting further on the dominance of Israel’s Likud Party over American politics, Cole continues: "It should be admitted that the American Likud could not make US policy on its own. Its members had to make convincing arguments to Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush himself. But they were able to make those arguments, by distorting intelligence, channeling Ahmad Chalabi junk, and presenting Big Ideas to men above them that signally lacked such ideas. (Like the idea that the road to peace in Jerusalem ran through Baghdad. Ha!)"

Cole’s observations confirm the source of Muslim terrorism: "The Likud policies of reversing Oslo and stealing people’s land and making their lives hell has produced enormous amounts of terrorism against Israel, and the Likudniks have cleverly turned that to their political advantage. Aggression and annexation is necessary, they argue, because there is terrorism. Some of them now openly speak of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, using the same argument. But when the Oslo peace process looked like it would go somewhere, terrorism tapered off (it did not end, but then peace had not been achieved).

The drawback for the US in all this is that US government backing for Sharon's odious policies makes it hated in the Muslim world. (Note that Muslims who oppose Israeli aggression are often tagged as ‘terrorists’ by the US government, but rightwing Jews who go to Palestine to colonize it, walking around with Uzi machine guns and sometimes shooting down civilians, are not ‘terrorists.’) This lack of balance is one big reason that Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri hit the US on September 11. [Emphasis added.] In fact, Bin Laden wanted to move up the operation to punish the US for supporting Sharon's crackdown on the Second Intifada."

The FBI investigation now rapidly disappearing from the American media’s radar screen seems as some kind of fluke. Considering the extensive control Israel maintains over virtually all branches of American government through AIPAC and their Pentagon and White House neocon plants, why would an espionage agenda even be necessary?

Again Cole: "So, passing a few confidential documents over is a minor affair. Pro-Likud intellectuals established networks linking Defense and the national security advisers of Vice President Dick Cheney, gaining enormous influence over policy by cherry-picking and distorting intelligence so as to make a case for war on Saddam Hussein. And their ulterior motive was to remove the most powerful Arab military from the scene, not because it was an active threat to Israel (it wasn't) but because it was a possible deterrent to Likud plans for aggressive expansion (at the least, they want half of the West Bank, permanently)."

Here’s why AIPAC is an extremely dangerous and subversive group as offered by Cole: "All this can happen because there is a vacuum in US political discourse. A handful of special interests in the United States virtually dictate congressional policy on some issues. With regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a few allies have succeeded in imposing complete censorship on both houses of Congress. No senator or congress member dares make a speech on the floor of his or her institution critical of Israeli policy, even though the Israeli government often violates international law and UN Security Council resolutions (it would violate more such resolutions, except that the resolutions never got passed because only one NSC member, the US, routinely vetoes them on behalf of Tel Aviv.) As the Labor Party in Israel has been eclipsed by the Likud coalition, which includes many proto-fascist groups, this subservience has yoked Washington to foreign politicians who privately favor ethnic cleansing and/or agressive warfare for the purpose of annexing the territory of neighbors. On the rare occasion when a brave member of congress dares stand up to this unrelenting AIPAC tyranny, that person is targeted for unelection in the next congressional campaign, with big money directed by AIPAC and/or its analogues into the coffers of the senator or congressman's opponent. Over and over again, AIPAC has shaped the US congress in this way, so successfully that no one even dares speak out any more."

Cole points out that this is precisely the type of tyrannical takeover of America our Founding Fathers feared. This is precisely what President George Washington warned US about advising strongly to avoid entangling alliances. Our sinful alliance with tiny Israel, run by mass murderers and war-mongers, has infested virtually all levels of our own government. And they are a long way from being through with US, but we may be only a few short years away from becoming a brutal dictatorship forged from the terrorism created by tiny Israel’s Likud Party.

AIPAC picks, elects and stacks both houses of our Congress. AIPAC has eliminated the Democratic Party’s former frontrunner. AIPAC accomplishes this by targeting politicians, and magnifying their small numbers by enlisting the support of a much greater number of Americans: the Christian Zionists. Cole explains this magnification of power employing non-Jews: "AIPAC is not all that rich or powerful, but politics in the US is often evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Because many races are very close, any little extra support can help change the outcome. AIPAC can provide that little bit. Moreover, most Americans couldn't care less about the Middle East or its intractable problems, whereas the staffers at AIPAC are fanatics. [Emphasis added.]

If some congressman from southern Indiana knows he can pick up even a few thousand dollars and some good will from AIPAC, he may as well, since his constituents don't care anyway. That there is no countervailing force to AIPAC allows it to be effective. (That is one reason that pro-Likud American activists often express concern about the rise of the Muslim-American community and the possibility that it may develop an effective lobby.) Moreover, AIPAC leverages its power by an alliance with the Christian Right, which has adopted a bizarre ideology of "Christian Zionism." It holds that the sooner the Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, the sooner Christ will come back. Without millions of these Christian Zionist allies, AIPAC would be much less influential and effective." [Emphasis added.]

The etremely dangerous power that AIPAC, a lobby of about 60,000, "representing" five to six million Jews in Israel, wields over the government and military of the United States, a nation of almost 300 million, can easily lead to a totally nuclear World War III. Terrorism is a tactic employed by the weak and oppressed. It is a tool that can be used to symbolically retaliate against a repressive government that is enslaving a people. But it can also be used to turn the people of a repressive nation against its own government. When the people of such a repressive nation realize that it is their own government that is responsible for generating such terrorism from external sources, the perpetrators hope that internal political pressure will lead to the abolition of that nation’s oppressive policies. This is the motivation of the PLO in conducting terroristic suicide bus and public place bombings against Israel.

The stubborn pigheadedness of the Bush administration and its Zionist PNAC cabal that engineered the war against Iraq in accordance with the "Clean Break" policy, is what must now be propped up and supported by a series of increasingly draconian Patriot Acts. Terrorism against the United States will grow, and will grow more seriously. During American expansionism characterized as "the wild West," the Colt "Peacemaker" revolver was termed "The Equalizer." In the "wild" Mid East, terrorism is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to oppressed Muslims and Palestinians. The new "equalizer" is nuclear weaponry. The threat to America is that nuclear devices will be employed shortly in terrorist acts against the United States.

This is precisely why we are becoming a police state. Bush had it right when he said that we couldn’t win a war against terrorism. But we can take a positive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We can unauthorize AIPAC to lobby and take away its tax-exempt status. We can recognize that both of our major political parties are totally under the thumb of a serious foreign entanglement, and one that not only dictates down to US, but is also impervious to the death, harm and destruction that the weak and oppressed will use against US as the actions of our government blur the distinction between a just and honest people and our increasingly savage and corrupt government.

This is the major issue in this election. Either our government is with US, or with Israel. Which way is it Mr. Bush? Which way is it Mr. Kerry? Is there a third party that will step forward and save our nation? Obviously, saving US from World War III and nuclear attack aren’t of any importance to either major political party. We are, instead, focusing on another unjust war we lost thirty years ago. But just like the Germans after World War I, we cannot accept either that the war is over, or the fact that we lost it. The blessed opportunity of a "peaceful revolution" by a truly honest and open election is rapidly slipping away, and may well be replaced by a nuclear terrorist attack launching World War III. It will be the first major rebellion against "The Evil Empire," a rebellion against the Emperor of the Dark Side. Star Wars is US, and the great clock of history is about to strike the hour.

"Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."


god the jews, Noahide news and rainbow stew

Bush, Hitler & God
Gott mit uns: On Bush and Hitler's Rhetoric
By Bob Fitrakis
Editor of the Free Press
President Bush told Texas evangelist James Robinson that "I feel like God wants me to run for President. (godschneerson) I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen . . . I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."
With 49.3% of New York City residents in a recent Zogby poll believing that some people in our government knew of the 911 attack in advance and allowed it to happen, the President as right-wing evangelical prophet is under siege in his Madison Square Garden bunker. Convention watchers should take careful note of the theocratic nationalist rhetoric at the Republican convention this week.
When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side?
If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're correct. Nothing can be more misleading than to categorize Hitler as a barbaric pagan or Godless totalitarian, like Stalin.
Both Bush and Hitler believe that they were chosen by God to lead their nations. With Hitler boldly proclaiming, before launching his doctrine of preventive war against all of Europe, that "I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany."
"I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker," Hitler said.
Hitler stated in February 1940, "But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years." After the Iraqi invasion, Bush announced, "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . . . ." Neither the similarity between Hitler and Bush's religious rhetoric nor the fact that the current President's grandfather was called "Hitler's Angel" by the New York Tribune for his financing of the Fuher's rise to power is lost on Europeans.
Pat Robertson called Bush "a prophet" and Ralph Reed claimed, after the 9/11 attack, God picked the President because "he knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way." Hitler told the German people in March 1936, "Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learn to pray. . . . The mercy of the Lord slowly returns to us again. And in this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our almighty God that he may bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people. So help us God."
 Behold shemgodschneerson


The Rebbe’s Revolution In 5762

Ten years passed. On the one hand, world-wide terror increased. On the other hand, the world continued to progress towards the time of the Rebbe Mendel Menachem Schneerson's revelation. Somehow, the Rebbe arranged it so that Bush’s son would become president too and complete what his father left unfinished.

By Rabbi Naftali Estulin

At the beginning of Hitler's crusade on April 12, 1922, he spelled out his version of the warmongering Jesus: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." Randall Balmer in The Nation, noted that "Bush's God is the eye-for-an-eye God of the Hebrew prophets and the Book of Revelation, the God of vengeance and retribution."
 Bush's god is that Tetragrammaton of Talmud Bavli of the rabad chabad
As Bush has invoked the cross of Jesus to simultaneously attack the Islamic and Arab world, Hitler also saw the value of exalting the cross while waging endless war: "To be sure, our Christian Cross should be the most exalted symbol of the struggle against the Jewish-Marxist-Bolshevik spirit."
Like Bush-ites, Hitler was fond of invoking the Ten Commandments as the foundation of Nazi Germany: "The Ten Commandments are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul."
Not the case since the Coup.....Seven Universal Noahide Laws of Satan 
But if you ever wondered where Bush got his idea for so-called "faith-based initiatives" you need only consult Hitler's January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag. The Fuhrer begins, "Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so-called democracy is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion."
The same Lubavitchers hired Hitler to create the "TERROR" for their flesh zion. ROOT them out NOW AMERICA !
Hitler goes on to document how much "public monies derived from taxation through the organs of the State have been placed at the disposal of both churches [Protestant and Catholic]." Hitler gave nearly 1.8 billion Reichsmarks between 1933-1938 directly to the Christian churches. In 1938 alone, he bragged that the Nazis gave half a billion Reichsmarks from the national government and an additional 92 million Reichsmarks from the Nazi-controlled German states and parish associations.
 No Child left behind....from satan
Hitler made the intent of his faith-based initiative clear when he noted, "With a tenth of our budget for religion, we would thus have a Church devoted to the State and of unshakable loyalty. . . . the little sects, which receive only a few hundred thousand marks, are devoted to us body and soul."
Bush's assertion that "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job" brings to mind God as a dull-witted, cognitively-impaired nationalist unable to utter a simple declarative sentence who spends his time preaching "blessed are the warmongers and profit-makers."
 So they go on....the bring in the Kohen Gadol, Johan Peretz Kohen
Bob Fitrakis is the Editor of the Free Press (, a political science professor, attorney and co-author with Harvey Wasserman of George W. Bush vs. the Superpower of Peace.


Talk about the Most favored "Chosen" with your heads......

'Hate Crime' Law Passes
Senate - On To House
Greivous Constitutional Destruction
The End Of Free Speech Nears

By Ted Twietmeyer
Recently, within a defense bill on Capitol Hill another bill was hidden. This hidden attachment pertains to so-called "hate crimes." The bill is Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 933), a pro-homosexual hate crimes bill.
The Defense bill with the 'hate crime' attachment passed the senate 65 to 33, and will now be going to the house.
What does this mean?
Simply put, it permits the GOVERNMENT to decide what is a hate crime. The measure also extends into our freedom of speech.
EVERYONE should be aware, that almost anything you do or say can be construed as a 'hate crime'
by someone, somewhere if that person or group chooses to silence the views and thoughts you
are discussing.
We've already seen the Patriot Act abused during the RNC, as over 1000 Americans have been arrested merely for expressing their rights of free speech and dissent as AMERICANS.
Now, if the DOJ couples this new bill with the Patriot Act, we are in grave trouble. Remember that most all acts are named after WHO THE 'ACT' IS AGAINST:
Riot Act - Against riots in public
RICO Act - Racketeering and organized crime
Patriot Act - Against patriots, and those that refuse to believe it you can read the act online at
sites like
An example of a "hate crime" under this new legislation would be to simply mention the word homosexual in any any CHURCH...and that could be grounds to be arrested.
Everyone who knows about this act of madness which has NO BOUNDS OF INTERPRETATION UNDER THE LAW MUST CALL THEIR CONGRESSMAN
IMMEDIATELY. Neo-con lord bush will sign it, as he signs EVERY law that helps to promote a police
Just in the "Nick" of time


The Coming Global "Purim" of the shemgods and their false Messiah, Moshiach ben Satan

Human Personality
By Avi Polak


In this week’s Torah portion we read about the rape and abduction of Dina and the consequences suffered by the people of Shekhem. Rabbi Y. Nachshoni’s commen-tary (Studies in the Weekly Portions), 

Fabrication of satan's "Illuminated "Masters"


can illuminate for us some events at home and around the world and the psychological reasons behind them. “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore (from the circumci-sion), that the two sons of Ya’acov, Shimon and Levi, Dina’s brothers, took each man his sword, and came upon the city (Shekhem) with confidence, and slew all the males”. (1) Why should all of society be punished for one man’s wrongdoing? Wasn’t the House of Ya’acov brought up as a house of mercy and compassion? What did the people of Shekhem do to deserve the death penalty?Let us analyze this story to understand what happened to cause such an abrupt and fatal ending.

Satanic Deception

Malbim on our passage gives three reasons justifying Shimon and Levi’s action.a) The community was jealous of Ya’acov’s wealth and planned to kill him and his family in order to acquire their wealth. (The action was defensive.)

preeminent strikes

b) Shekhem (the leader) committed a publicized abduction and rape of Dina. The people of Shekhem completely disregarded what he did and did not punish him. (The action was offensive.)

see george W. Bushkevik and the Chabad Lubavitch

c) The community actually defended the perpetrators when Yaacov’s sons de-manded Dina’s Return. (The action was both defensive and offensive.)


Rambam gives a halakhik explanation for what happened to the people of Shekhem. The world is divided in to two separate populaces, the Jews and B’nei Noach, the rest of the world. 

the shemgods and their obedient prosleytes the shabbos goy Noahides and  - the "rest' of the world, or the opposition  


The B’nei Noach have only seven obligatory commandments, the Noahide Laws, compared to 613 commandments that the Jews have to observe. Al-though the Noahide Laws consist of only seven commandments, they are of such 
significance that
any violation of them is punishable by death

(2)After Shekhem kidnapped Dina, according to the Noahide Laws, he was liable for the death penalty. The rest of his community deserved the same punishment due to the fact that they had no judicial system. These offenses are two separate command-ments of the Noahide Laws.

the "terror" of the shems will continue until the goyim obey

Ramban disagrees with Rambam. 


The judiciary systems were meant for settling business disputes. Furthermore, the community of Shekhem could not have been liable for death for this reason. Punishment is only meted out for a prohibitory com-mandment (lo ta’aseh) and not for a positive commandment (‘aseh). Ramban states that they deserved death for a different reason. Their sin was idol worship.

and they say Jesus the Christ is an Idol

 (3)Chatam Sofer points out that a Ben Noach who transgresses a positive command-ment, he deserves the death penalty even though he is not executed for it. (4) His interpretation of Rambam is, that since the people of Shekhem deserved to die, Shimon and Levi were not held accountable for the murders.

after all they were goyim animals


Chemdat Yisrael returns us to the original explanation. Rambam clearly states that the community of Shekhem were not just killed. Shimon and Levi had a legal obliga-tion to administer the death penalty:

So satan's Kohen Gadol will have the shemgod legal "Obligation" to kill the Christ Believers


 It is very good to have a society with laws, but if there is no one to enforce them, the laws themselves are worthless. Even though, theoretically, they accepted upon themselves the Noahide Laws, because of their failure to appoint anyone to enforce them, they all, as a community, deserved the death penalty.

"AMARAKA" accepted the Law by House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14, 102nd congress of the United States, 1991 signed by Bushkevik I


 As we see in the Talmud, establishing a judicial system and ways to enforce it are part of the same commandment. (5) Already Rambam observed: “A person is created such that he is drawn—in his per-sonality traits and his actions—after is fellows and associates.” (6) In the words of 
modern psychologists:“The individual lives in a social setting. From his first breath he is in contact with other individuals. For a while he is dependent on them for the preservation of 
his life. Later he is dependent upon them for the molding of his personality and character - for their ways become his ways and their life his. As we see the individual taking on the ways of his fellows and his eventual conforming to their preferences, we might be able to account for what we see in terms of laws and principles of individual psychology. The group does affect the behavior of the individual. The society functions as an organized entity. As it does so, it has its 
way with the individual. It teaches him, sets standards for him, defines the limits within which his behavior must be contained. But at a more general level of analysis it does this also through the definition and enforcement of social roles. The group, in order to survive and function, defines and enforces standards of proper and improper behavior.” (7)
Last year’s riots in Los Angeles is one such example. The riots began as a result of corruption in the judicial system and continued because of the lack of law enforce-ment. Another example is the recent lynch in Ramallah. As a rule, murder in any so-ciety is not tolerated and looked down upon with disgust. We see today, in various instances around the world, what are the psychological effects when no judiciary system is enforced. A corrupt enforcement agency reinforces an even more corrupt society. It leads to a total disregard for the establishment and whatever is identified with it. 
In memory of all the soldiers who were killed for Clal Yisrael.
1. Genesis 34:25
2. Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14
3. Genesis 35:2
4. Chatam Sofer, Responsa VI 14
5. Tractate Sanhedrin 56 
6. Hilkhot De’ot 6,1
6. Psychology, A Scientific Study of Man, Fillmore H. Sanford, 531-536 

Avi Polak
Jr. Editor - Dvar Torah U’Mada, Jerusalem College of Technology, Machon-Lev



Either become Obedient goyim Palestinian Noahides of the shemgods....or perish


A new campaign has been begun by Chassidai Chabad to convince the Palestinians to observe the seven Noahide Commandments.  A special department called "Mateh Sheva Mitzvot Bne Noach" printed over a half a million (!) prospects in Arabic to be distributed to Palestinian and Israeli Arabs.


This campaign is part of the general Chabad campaign to convince all gentiles, i.e. the entire world, to observe these Seven Commandments and for this purpose a website www .7for70 has been established.  The organizers explained that 7for70 refers to 7 commandments for 70 nations and also to the almost mythological number 770, the address of the home of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Brooklyn.

Like Flight 77 WTC-Pentegon

Rabbi Boaz Kali one of the most active in the field, explained the goal is to follow the directives of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to materialize the words of the Rambam (Maimonides, the greatest of Jewish Codifiers) who determined that the obligation of the Jewish people is "To convince the entire world to observe the commandments given to Noah and his offspring". 

Kali explained that the answer to the intifada 'Al Aksa' is not only with guns but also through education.



The Arabs of G'sar A'zrka, Tirat Shchem and Chevron were surprised this week to see billboards on most of their roads and highways advertising the observance of the Seven Noahide Commandments. On the signs appears a large picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe under the title in Arabic "The World is Not a Jungle" followed by a list of the commandments.  The Chassidim behind this campaign are convinced that these posters will help influence the Arab masses to do G-d's will as it appears in the Torah. (Maariv 27/3/2 and the local newspapers 'Zman HaSharon" and "Zman HaKiryot".)  


Satan saith accept my yoke or die

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

Resources on the Concept of Peace in Judaism - In Memory of Yitzhak Rabin z'l

Lesson: "The Call for Peace" by Dr. Moshe Sokolow

From: The Call for Peace


What constitutes peace?

Assuming that the enemy declines the initial invitation to escape [battle] but evinces interest in the second invitation - to make peace; How is the surrender effected?

RAMBAM's answer is: By renouncing idolatry and accepting the seven Noahide commandments. (Hilkhot Melakhim 8:9)



Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

Likewise, a city which surrenders, we do not make a [peace] treaty with them until they renounce idolatry, destroy all their places [of worship], and accept the remaining [six] Noahide commandments.



Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

The seven Noahide commandments are, essentially, the laws which are fundamental to the operation of any civilized society.



Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

They are so important that a gentile who accepts them, voluntairly (i.e., not in time of war), attains the status of a resident alien, and is entitled to permanent residence in Eretz Yisrael!



Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

 [NOTES: 1. Some authorities require the acceptance of ALL mitzvot except eating. 2. The question of the "resident alien" status of the Palestinian Arabs, and of other non-Jews in Israel, today, is a most serious and sensitive one.]

And elsewhere (Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1), he elaborates:

If they surrender and accept the seven Noahide commandements, not one of them may be killed.


Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

 To wit: "They shall be your tributaries and serve you" (Dt. 20:11). If they agree to pay tribute but refuse service; or if they accept the service but refuse to pay tribute - we do not heed them until they consent to both conditions.

The service to which they are subjected consists of being humbled and degraded, showing no definace of Israel, and remaining subdued in their presence. The tribute consists of their preparedness to serve the [Israelite] king physically and monetarily, such as: building walls, strengthening fortifications, constructing the king's palace, etc.




Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).




Without getting into all the halakhic complications [e.g., comparing RAMBAM's position with that of the TOSAFOT (Gittin 46a, s.v.), etc.] there seem to be three steps in the peace/surrender process leading, gradually, from the cessation of hostilities to alien residency: (1) renunciation of idolatry; (2) acceptance of the seven Noahide comandments; and (3) paying tribute and remaining subservient to Israel.


Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).


Postscript to the Peace Process:

Two further reservations pertain to the peace process, one on each side.

On the Enemy Side, the suit for peace must be genuine, unanimous, and accompanied by peaceful actions. As [our Great Sages] state in their interpretations of Dt. 20:10-13:



Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).


If they respond in peace - implies a verbal response. Therefore Scripture adds: ...and they open up before you - in deed, and not just in word.

If they respond in peace - perhaps even only some of them? Therefore Scripture adds: ...and they open up; it must be unanimous.



Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes death by decapitation: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation" (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).


If it declines to make peace and wages war against you and you besiege it - God will turn it over to you. If you call to it in peace and do everything you're supposed to do, and still they decline - God will eventually turn it over to you.

their god will kill anyone who opposes their godhood status

On Israel's Side, too, the peaceful conclusion of hostilities carries a further moral responsibility:

After they make peace and accept the seven Noahide commandements, it is forbidden to either lie to them or trick them in the conclusion of a treaty.

hahhahahahahahha kol nidre


Get on the back of the bus you animal arabs, saith the shemgods


Now people you may see why the WTC and the Pentegon destruction had to occur........the "Beginning of sorrows


Al Gore   Letter 10   01-Nov-2000   Education Day USA

[Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.  ...  Full support will be given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance offered where necessary.  Jewish courts ... will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts. 

The pre-existing Noachide judges and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha....  ....  And law and order will be fully restored through the establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with Torah law. — Committee for Israeli Victory]


Yep the last Indignation is here, now. Where are you in faith of Jesus the Lord Almighty?


The sickness of the self gods of shem

Rabbis and Self-Restraint

Filed under:

— admin @ 6:22 pm

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

When Jews are murdered by Arab terrorists, (shemgod opposers) as more than 500 have since the
1993 Oslo betrayal of Judaism, it is improper for rabbis, whether elected or
not, to repeatedly call upon Jews to exercise self-restraint after a
terrorist attack. Such rabbis unwittingly incite Arabs to murder more Jews.

When Arabs violate the Seven Noahide Laws by murdering Jews, such murders
constitute a Hillul HaShem - a desecration of God’s Name.

It is only natural for Jews to call for vengeance,(eye for an eye of their god, tetragrammaton)  and the failure of the
Government to revenge Jewish bloodshed cannot be dehumanize many Jews in the
process of encouraging further Arab terrorism.

On the other hand, when the Government, on rare occasions, does exact
vengeance by killing a prominent Arab terrorist, such as Massoud Iyyad on
February 13, the Government triggers the murder of many more Jews, as
happened the day following Iyyad’s killing.

The only way to minimize Jewish bloodshed is for the Government to order the
IDF to destroy Arafat’s army, and in the shortest possible time. 

Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.  ...  Full support will be given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance offered where necessary.  Jewish courts ... will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts. 



If the
Government had any backbone, let alone any faith in God, it would be guided
by these words of King David:: “I have pursued mine enemies and overtaken
them. Neither did I turn back till they were consumed. I have smitten them
through. So that they are not able to rise .” (Psalm 16:38-39).

Judeo-Zionist prop

Returning to our rabbis, instead of calling upon Jews to exercise
self-restraint, they should collectively demonstrate by the hundreds and
thousands against the Government for exercising self-restraint!

Notwithstanding the good our rabbis otherwise perform, they - with notable
exceptions – are very much responsible for Israel’s plight.


Thus the pitting of Ishmael against the apostate demigod Judeo-Churchinsanist continues





young, men and women have been slain in the wars of the shemgods, and "Amaraka" sleepeth



in the name..aha..of hep me gawd..hallelujah 

the shemgods.........

ba'al shem
 Encyclopædia Britannica Article

also spelled  Baalshem, or Balshem (Hebrew: “master of the name”),  plural  Ba'ale Shem, Baaleshem, or Baleshem,   in Judaism, title bestowed upon men who reputedly worked wonders and effected cures through secret knowledge of the ineffable names of God. Benjamin ben Zerah (11th century) was one of several Jewish poets to employ the mystical names of God in his works, thereby demonstrating a belief in the efficacy of the holy name long before certain rabbis and Kabbalists (followers…


This shemgod this Illuminated tetragrammaton who has No Son is Not the Father of the Only Begotten Son, the Savior....Jesus the Lord of Lords, King of Kings


The Jewish Encyclopedia 1901, p. 118:

The quadriliteral name of G-d, yod/hay/vav/hay, which is thus referred to in Josephus, in the Church Fathers, in the magic papyri, and in the Palestinian Talmud {Yoma 40a below}, whence it has passed into the modern languages. Other designations for this name, such as "HaShem," "Shem ha-Meforash," and "Shem ha-Meyuhad," have frequently been discussed by recent scholars {see bibliography in Blau, "Altjudisches Zauberwesen," p. 128, note 1, and, on the terms, pp. 123-128}.

The term "Tetragrammaton" apparently arose in contradistinction to the divine names containing respectively twelve and forty-two letters and formed likewise from the letters Y,H,W,H {ib. pp. 137-146}; for only thus is the designation intelligible, since Adonai likewise has four letters in Hebrew.

According to Dalman {l.c. pp. 66 et seq.}, the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval. The reasons assigned by Lagarde {"Psalterium Hieronymi," p. 155} and Halevy {"Recherches Bibliques," i. 65 et seq.} are untenable, and are refuted by Jacob {l.e. pp. 172, 174}, who believes that the Divine Name was not pronounced lest it should be desecrated by the heathen. The true name of G-d was uttered only during worship in the Temple, in which the people were alone; and in the course of the services on the Day of Atonement the high priest pronounced the Sacred Name ten times {Tosefl, Yoma, ii. 2; Yoma 39b}. This was done as late as the last years of the Temple {Yer. Yoma 40a, 67}. If such was the purpose, the means were ineffectual, since the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was known not only in Jewish, but also in non-Jewish circles centuries after the destruction of the Temple, as is clear from the interdictions against uttering it {Sanh. x. 1; Tosef., Sanh. xii. 9; Sifre Zuta, in Yalk., Gen. 711; 'Ab. Zarah 18a; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xci., end}.

Raba, a Babylonian amora who flourished about 350, wished to make the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton known publicly {Kid. 71b}; and a contemporary Palestinian scholar states that the Samaritans uttered it in taking oaths {Yer. Sanh. 28b}. The members of the Babylonian academy probably knew the pronunciation as late as 1000 C.E. {Blau, l.c. pp. 132 et seq., 138 et seq.}. The physicians, who were half magicians, made special efforts to learn this name, which was believed to possess marvelous powers {of healing, etc.; Yer. Yoma 40a, below}. The cures, or the exorcisms, of demons in the name of Jesus which are mentioned in the New Testament and the Talmud {see Exorcism} imply that Jesus was regarded as a god and that his name was considered as efficacious as the Tetragrammaton itself, for which it was even substituted.

It was in connection with magic that the Tetragrammaton was introduced into the magic papyri and, in all probability, into the writings of the Church Fathers, these two sources
containing the following forms, written in Greek letters: (1) "Iaoouee," "iaoue," "Iabe"; (2) "Iao," "Iaho," "Iae"; (3) "Aia"; (4) "Ia." It is evident that (1) represents yod/hay/vav/hay, (2) yod/hay/vav, (3) aleph/hay/yod/hay, and (4) yod/hay. The three forms quoted under (1) are merely three ways of writing the same word, though "Iabe" is designated as the Samaritan pronunciation. There are external and internal grounds for this assumption; for the very agreement of the Jewish, Christian, heathen, and Gnostic statements proves that they undoubtedly give the actual pronunciation {Stade's "Zeitschrift," iii. 298; Dalman, l.c. p. 41; Deissmann, "Bibelstudien," pp. 1-20; Blau, l.c. p. 133} The "mystic quadriliteral name" {Clement, "Stromata," ed. Dindorf, iii. 25, 27} was well known to the Gnostics, as is shown by the fact that the third of the eight eons of one of their systems of creation was called "the unpronounced," the fourth "the invisible," and the seventh "the unnamed," terms which are merely designations of the Tetragrammaton {Blau, l.c. p. 127}.

Even the Palestinian Jews had inscribed the letters of the Name on amulets {Shab. 115b; Blau, l.c. pp. 93-96}; and, in view of the frequency with which the appellations of foreign deities were employed in magic, it was but natural that heathen magicians should show an especial preference for this "great and holy name," knowing its pronunciation as they knew the names of their own deities. It thus becomes possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty the historical pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the results agreeing with the statement of Ex. iii. 14, in which YHWH terms Himself aleph/hay/yod/hay, "I will be," a phrase which is immediately preceded by the fuller term "I will be that I will be," or, as in the English versions, "I am" and "I am that I am."

NOT The IAM Christ

The name yod/hay/vav/hay is accordingly derived from the root hay/vav/hay{= hay/yod/hay}, and is regarded as an imperfect. This passage is decisive for the pronunciation "Yahweh"; for the etymology was undoubtedly based on the known word. The oldest exegetes, such as Onkelos, and the Targumim of Jerusalem and pseudo-Jonathan regard "Ehyeh" and "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" as the name of the Divinity, and accept the etymology of "hayah" = "to be" {comp. Samuel b. Meir, commentary on Ex. iii.14}.

Modern critics, some of whom, after the lapse of centuries, correct the Hebrew texts without regard to the entire change of point of view and mode of thought, are dissatisfied with this etymology; and their various hypotheses have resulted in offering the following definitions: (1) he who calls into being, or he who gives promises; (2) the creator of life; (3) he who makes events, or history; (4) the falling one, the feller, i.e., the storm-g-d who hurls the lightning; (5) he who sends down the rain {W. R. Smith, "The Old Testament," p. 123}; (6) the hurler; (7) the destroyer; (8) the breather, the weather-g-d {Wellhausen}. All these meanings are obtained by doing violence to the Hebrew text {Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." viii. 536 et seq.}.

Attempts have also been made to explain the Divine Name yod/hay/vav/hay as Hittite, Persian, Egyptian, and even as Greek; but these assumptions are not absolutely set aside, since the name is at all events Semitic. The question remains, however, whether it is Israelitish or was borrowed. Friedrich Delitzsch, in discussing this question, asserts that the Semitic tribes from whom the family of Hammurabi came, and who entered Babylon 2500
B.C., knew and worshiped the g-d Ya've, Ya'u {i.e., YHWH, Yahu; "Babel and Bibel," 5th ed., i. 78 et seq.}; and Zimmern {in 468} reaches the conclusion that "Yahu" or "YHWH" is found in Babylonian only as the name of a foreign deity, a view with which Delitzsch agrees in his third and final lecture on "Babel und Bibel" {pp. 39, 60, Stuttgart, 1905}.

Assyriologists are still divided on this point, however; and no definite conclusions have as yet been reached {comp. the voluminous literature on "Babel und Bibel"}. 
The form corresponding to the Greek "Iao" does not occur alone in
Hebrew, but only as an element in such proper names as Jesaiah
{"Yesha'yahu"}, Zedekiah {"Zidkiyahu"}, and Jehonathan. According to Delitzsch {"Wo Lag das Paradies?" 1881}, this form was the original one, and was expanded into YHVH; but since names of divinities are slow in disappearing, it would be strange if the primitive form had not been retained once in the Bible. The elder Delitzsch thought that "Yahu" was used independently as a name of G-d {Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc." vi. 503}; but, according to Kittel, "this could have been the case only in the vernacular, since no trace of it is found in the literary language" {Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." viii. 26, 533}.

All the critics have failed to perceive that the name "Yao" was derived from the same source as "yaoue," namely, from Gnosticism and magic, in which Jews, Christians, and heathen met. "Yahu" was in fact used in magic, as is clear from the "Sefer Yezirah," which shows many traces of Gnosticism; in the cosmology of this work the permutation of the letters yod/hay/vav furnishes the instruments of the Creation.

With the Tetragrammaton must be included the names of G-d formed of twelve, forty-two, and seventy-two letters respectively, which are important factors in Jewish mysticism {Kid. 71a et passim}. They have, according to tradition, a magical effect; for mysticism and magic are everywhere allied. These great names are closely akin to the long series of vowels in the magic papyri, and are obtained by anagrammatic combinations of the effective elements of the Tetragrammaton. The simplest way of determining these three names is to form a
magic triangle, whose base is a single Tetragrammaton, and its apex the Tetragrammaton repeated thrice.

The four upper lines {12 + 11 + 10 + 9} give the names with forty-two letters; and the entire figure represents the Divine Name of seventy-two letters {Bau,l.c. pp. 144 et seq.}. According to the book of Bahir {ed. Amsterdam, 1651, fol. 7a}, the Sacred Name of twelve letters was a triple YHVH {Dalman, l.c. p. 39; Blau, l.c. p. 144}.

In the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint the Tetragrammaton was given in Hebrew letters, which in Greek circles were suppose to be Greek and were read ----{don't have the Greek font for these letters} {Field, "Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt," i. 90, Oxford, 1875; Herzog-Hauck, l.c. viii. 530; Blau, l.e. p. 131}. See Also Adonai; Aquila; Gnosticism; Jehovah; Names of G-d; Shem Ha-Meforash.


and of course the god of the JAHOVA'S Witness

Originally, the text of the Hebrew Scriptures consisted of consonants without vowels. The divine name is represented in the consonantal text by four consonants, the Tetragrammaton (Greek for "the Four Lettered [Name]"), Y-H-W- H. In later Hebrew this name is termed the Shem HaMeforash, "the Explicit Name." Because of its extreme sanctity, the Tetragrammaton is never pronounced and, in fact, its exact pronunciation is unknown. In English, however, it is popularly pronounced "Jehovah." "Jehovah" is an anglicized misreading and not the correct pronunciation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton Y-H- W-H.

How does the Watchtower Society justify the pronunciation "Jehovah," or how does it dare attempt to vocalize the concealed Tetragrammaton itself? In discussing the divine name The Watchtower asks the questions: "Is it true that 'Jehovah' is not God's name and should not be in the Bible? Is it in the Bible that you use? Should it be there? Do you use a personal name for God?"3 The great importance of the divine name for the Watchtower Society is to be seen in that they have chosen for themselves the name "Jehovah's Witnesses." They shun the use of "Lord" in place of what they consider to be the divine name. The Watchtower states that ". . . Lord is a title, not a personal name. . . ."4 The Watchtower Society criticizes what it calls the Jewish superstition of not pronouncing the divine name.

and now just like Judeo-Churchizionity they all share the god of the jews who has no ONLY Begotten SON the Savior Lord Jesus the Christ


But their god the hashem...ha-shem, tetragrammaton, will make himself a son, the son of perdition the false messiah the Moshiach, whom they already call in his own name ben David...the son of David, who is not the son of David, for Only Jesus has the Keys to David, for HE Alone is the ROOT and the Offspring to the House of David, the Creator who created David



 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Moshiach's Hat

(A Poem To Ponder)

By Anonymous ben Kolonymous (who else?)

'T was the night of the Geulah, -- And in every single Shtiebel
Sounds of Torah could be heard -- Coming from every kind of Yeedel.
This one in English, -- Some in Hebrew, some in Yiddish.
Some saying P'shat -- And some saying a Chiddish.
And up in Shamayim--The Aibishter decreed:
"The time has come -- For My children to be freed.
"Rouse the Moshiach -- From his heavenly berth.
Have him get in his chariot, -- And head down to earth.
"The Moshiach got dressed -- And with a heart full of glee,
Went down to earth and entered -- the first Shtiebel he did see.
"I am the Moshiach! -- Hashem has heard your plea!
Your Geulah has come! -- It's time to go free!
"They all stopped their learning; -- This was quite a surprise.
And they look at him carefully, -- With piercing sharp eyes
"He's not the Moshiach!" -- Said one with a grin,
"Just look at his hat, -- At the pinches and brim!"
"That's right!" cried another -- With a grimace and frown,
"Whoever heard of Moshiach, -- With a brim that's turned down?"
"Well," thought Moshiach, -- "If this is the rule,
I'll turn my brim up -- Before I go to the next shul."
So he walked right on over -- To the next shul in town.
Sure to be accepted, -- Since his brim was no longer down.
"I'm, the Moshiach!" he cried, -- As he began to enter
But the Jews wanted to know first -- If he was Left Right or Center
"Your clothes are so black!" -- They cried out in fright.
"You can't be Moshiach--You're much too far right!"
"If you want to be Moshiach, -- You must be properly outfitted.
"So they replaced his black hat -- With a Kippah that was knitted.
Wearing his new Kippah, -- Moshiach went out and said:
"No difference to me -- What I wear on my head.
"So he went to the next shul, -- For his mission was dear.
But he was getting frustrated -- With the Yidden down hear.
"I'm the Moshiach!" he cried, -- And they all stopped to stare,
And a complete eerie stillness -- Filled up the air.
"You're the Moshiach?! -- Just imagine that!
Whoever heard of Moshiach -- Without a black hat?"
"But I do have a hat!" -- The Moshiach then said.
So he pulled it right out -- And plunked it down on his head.
Then the shul started laughing, -- And one said " Where's your kop?
You can't have Moshiach -- With a brim that's turned up!
If you want to be Moshiach -- And be accepted in this town,
"Put some pinches in your hat -- And turn that brim down!"
Moshiach walked out and said: -- "I guess my time hasn't come.
I'll just return -- To where I came from.
"So he went to his chariot, -- But as he began to enter,
All sorts of Jews appeared -- From the Left, Right, and Center.
"Please wait - do not leave. -- It's all their fault!" they said,
And they pointed to each other -- And to what was on each other's head.
Moshiach just looked sad -- And said, " You don't understand."
And then started up his chariot -- To get out of this land.
"Yes, it's very wonderful -- That you all learn Torah,
But you seem to have forgotten -- A crucial part of our Mesorah.
"What does he mean?" -- "What's he talking about?"
And they all looked bewildered, -- And they all began to shout.
Moshiach looked back and answered, -- "The first place to start,
Is to shut up your mouths -- And open your hearts.
"To each of you, certain Yidden -- Seem too Frum or too Frei,
But all Yidden are beloved -- in the Aibishter's eye."
And on his way up he shouted: -- " If you want me to come,
Try working a little harder -- On some Ahavat Chinam!"


......and Crucified the Lord Jesus the Messiah sent to Jerusalem



In the name of Jaysooose !




Micronuclear Devices Used in OKC Bombing: Explosives Placed by FBI, ATF

Dr. Bill Deagle MD | September 8 2004

Note: This article is presented as it was received, with no editing.

In 1995 I worked at Penrose St. Francis Hospital in Colorado Springs, as an Occupational Physician for CCOM. We had many of the most classified contracts in the Colorado Springs area, including Falcon Air Force Base program employees, NORAD employees and classified ATMEL and Symbios Logic, etc. EMP proof and Supercomputer chip classified manufacturers.

My director, Dr. George Swinder MD, was unavailable when the Military Expert Forensic team was sent from Fort Carson to Oklahoma city and was just returning to the Springs for exit examinations. This duty fell to me to perform exit physicals and testing, for all five members of the team. One of the team requested sperm testing, stating, "I want to have kids." I replied sarcastically, " Go ahead, and have kids." He said, "No, you don't understand." I said, "What do you mean?" "Doc, you really don't know what happened at Oklahoma City do you?" I said, "Well I heard that an ammonium nitrate bomb was reported to have exploded killing 168 people."

He leaned forward, "See this rash on my arms, and chest, and legs. Check me doc. I want all the blood tests and do a sperm test." I was irritated now, "Now just a minute, I'm the doctor. If you don't come clean and tell me what you were exposed to I can't possibly know what type of tests to order. I was a biochemisty major, before going into medicine, and we do toxicology testing when there is suspected industrial exposures that put an employee in danger." He said, "You won't release my name or put this in your report to my superiors, will you. I know about doctor-patient confidentiality." "Well," I said, "I won't release your name, but if affects others, I can't say I won't release the information to the correct authorities."

"Doc, what happened in Oklahoma City wasn't caused by ammonium nitrate bomb in the small truck they say was parked by the building." "What are you saying?", I snapped back. "See this rash, it was caused by radiation. We broke three radiation detectors there. See, we were the same team that was sent to Riyad, Saudi Arabia and the bomb only blew the windows into the building. We estimated the explosion was by our calculations to be seven times more ammonium nitrate in that truck bomb. The whole front of the building was sheared off doc in Oklahoma; cleanest controlled detonation our munitions expert forensic team has seen ever. " "What!!", I blurted. "Yeah, we were examining the building site under Wakenhut armed guard, and told not to take any radioactive debris off the site, or they were ordered to shoot on site to kill. All our bags were searched and put through a detector, to make sure we didn't take any off site, or away from the place where they burried and concrete capped all the debris, again under armed Wakenhut guard." "You are telling me that the building was exploded with a nuclear device?", I said. Shaking with a now very pale and distant face, he grunted, "Yeah!". "Oh my God!, and how did this happen?", I inquired.

"There were micronuclear bombs placed on support pillars in the walls of the Federal Building, by special units of the ATF and FBI. They were paged out not to enter the building on the morning of the detonation, and the Federal Judge was warned to cancel court that day. We removed to undetonated softball sized micronuclear bombs, and one C4 pineapple bomb, attached to the pillars of the remaining building."

"I can't believe this story!", I blurted. "Well, doc are you going to test me?", now sweating and shaking more violently with anguish at these revelations. "I will order some more tests of your blood cells that will rule out radiation effects on your blood cells and bone marrow. As for the sperm count and morphology testing, you need to just go to your primary family doctor's office, and I am sure he will do this for you. Call me with the results, and I can interpret if there are any abnormalities." "Ok" Looking relieved, "thanks for listening to what happened to us doc."

This story dialogue was very disturbing, and I told my wife Michelle that night, placed the information of the 'shelf', and hoped that he was lying, but I had an aching feeling of serious doubt that continued until other events proved to me he was right on with the details of the Oklahoma Murah Building detonation by the NWO.

High Treason of the Luciferians

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson | September 8 2004

For almost three years since 9/11 independent researchers have stockpiled individual smoking guns which prove that the official version of events was not only a lie but operationally impossible.

However, no single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.

Until now. More and more individuals are looking at the facts and highlighting exercise drills that took place on the morning of 9/11.

It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.

The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked. Click here for that article.

The drill scenario also explains a comment made by air traffic control personnel which was featured in a July 2004 BBC television report. Click here for that video clip and article. The controller is told that a hijacked airliner is heading for New York and responds by saying, "is this real world or an exercise?"

Alex Jones was one of the first to highlight the wargames in his documentary film 'Masters of Terror', which was released in August 2002. Click here to watch a video clip. Alex explains why the Associated Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.

What were the drills called and what was their nature?

1) OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast.

2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. As we reported back in January, Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?

3) OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.

4) OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN: The details of this exercise are still scant but it is considered to be part of Vigilant Guardian, relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector.

5) OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR: This was referenced in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies'. It is thought to have been the 'attack' component of the Vigilant Guardian exercise.

Another example of how air defenses were purposefully kept preoccupied so they couldn't protect New York was reported by this website in December of 2003. The Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing, based at Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, were just eight minutes away from New York and could have intercepted both Flight 11 and Flight 175.

Under NORAD procedures that date to the Cold War, two F-16 fighters from the 177th were parked around the clock on the Atlantic City runway. Pilots waited in a nearby building, ready to scramble.

But on the morning of 9/11, the F-16's were performing bombing runs over an empty stretch of the Pine Barrens near Atlantic City after being decommissioned from their usual role of protecting the skies of the east coast.

It was only after both trade towers were hit that the two F-16s landed and were refitted with air-to-air missiles, then sent aloft.

Now that we have established how NORAD were confused, delayed and distracted by the numerous wargames, the next question to ask is who if anyone was aware of which planes were 'real world' and which planes were 'exercise'? The answer to this question will provide us with the name of the individual who ran the operatonal execution of the 9/11 attack.

Dick Cheney.

Cheney was initially taken by the secret service to an underground bunker in the White House called the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

From there, according to CNN, Cheney directed the US government's response to the unfolding attack.

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the 9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

Flight 77 of 770 the Moshiach Era

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane in question hit the Pentagon, what else can we conclude but that the 'order' was not to shoot down the aircraft and to let it find its target.

Mineta stated that he did not know what the 'order' was because he wasn't there when it was made.

After the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was transferred to another bunker in what the Philadelphia Daily News describes as 'the underground Pentagon'.

Site R, a highly secure complex of buildings inside Raven Rock Mountain near Blue Ridge Summit, Pa., close to the Maryland-Pennsylvania state line and about seven miles north of Camp David, is a 53-year-old facility conceived at the start of the Cold War as an alternate command center in the event of nuclear war or an attack on Washington.

The bunker is built into a mountain hillside and is virtually camouflaged to the naked eye. The location betrays itself by the vast gaggle of satellites, microwave towers and antennae that festoon the perimeter. Inside the facility there are computer filled caverns and communication and tracking technology that would put a James Bond movie to shame.

The entire facility is guarded by heavily armed military police.

Within hours of 9/11 unfolding, five choppers had landed on the facility's helipad and top officials such as Paul Wolfowitz were ushered in to join Cheney in the command bunker.

Site R - also known as Raven Rock or the Alternate Joint Communications Center is from where vice-President Dick Cheney ran the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Cheney's command superceded the orders of the Pentagon, the FAA or the White House. He is the number one suspect in the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people.

In May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations. This meant he was solely in charge of the overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted.

The smoking guns of 9/11 are no longer disparate jigsaw pieces that serve to just raise more questions than they answer. We now have a coherent and plausible explanation of how the events unfolded, why there was no air defense response, and a prime suspect as to who executed these actions. The facts fit this version of events.

The 9/11 truth movement has just taken a giant leap towards dismantling the lies of September 11and finally offering justice for those who lost their lives on that terrible day.



The Great "Shutup" of the Era, short term era....of satan



Australia's First Mini Holocaust Trial At Sleepy Launceston, Tasmania

By Fredrick Toben

They used to burn fearless women who spoke out and label them as witches. Are we again entering an age where this

is happening? Judge for yourself.

Retired English teacher, grandmother, widow and fearless Christian, Mrs Olga Scully, 59, has taken on the might of

the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) by disputing in the Federal Court of Australia various aspects of

conventional history. Not only does she deny that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, and

anywhere else in then Nazi-occupied Europe during World War Two, she also vehemently lashes out at Talmudic teachings contained in passages offensive to Christians. Having as a child trekked from Soviet Russia to Germany during the war, Mrs Scully is well-versed with the facts of the Jewish-Bolshevik Holocaust that traditional historians call the 1917 Russian Revolution. She is doing everything in her power to spread the truth of this historical event,

i.e. that most individuals involved in engineering the 1917 social upheaval in Tsarist Russia had a Jewish

background. Mrs Scully's life‚s work began more than 30 years ago when she started to expose historical lies taught in Tasmanian  schools. Ironically, it was only when her school principal husband died that the president of the ECAJ, Mr Jeremy Jones, in 1996 began hounding her into Australia‚s politically correct Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC).Before this tribunal, where truth is no defence, Mrs Scully did not while for long. She

walked out of the hearing because she considered its procedures to be "immoral".

Matters progressed slowly but when, in her absence, the HREOC commissioner handed down his findings, Mrs Scully was found in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The material that she had been letter boxing and selling at her market stall, was judged to be offensive to a few Jewish individuals in Hobart and Launceston. She was asked to stop her activity, and to sign an apology for causing hurt, pain and suffering to Australia's Jewish

community. Mrs Scully ignored the finding and now the matter is being re-litigated de novo‚ in the Federal Court of Australia before Justice Peter Hely. Mrs Scully is conducting her own defence.

Mrs Scully's interests range far and wide, as is reflected in the material she distributes, from exposing the money

trick to fluoridization and related problems, from the evils of sex education in our schools, the problems of

vaccination to the destruction of our family farms .It is interesting that during the cross examination of a witness, Mrs Scully could not get a clear answer as to why a specific leaflet was complained of that dealt with the teaching of

"licking the anus". It appears that informing the community of such things was objected to by Mr Jones, and hence

he appeared to condone such matters.

Mrs Scully is not interested in offending Jews as a group and she stated that she would name the group on her leaflet, be they Jews or Hottentots. She claimed the current crop of snuff movies seems to be controlled by the Russian and Italian Jews.

Mrs Scully is a concerned citizen with a mission: to do what responsible citizens and governments are not doing, to

protest at outrages that are offending our human delicacies, our social environment. She finds it imperative that she

speak out against injustices wherever they may occur. To remain silent is, for her, a sin. For example, she reminded

the court that Talmudic influence is evident in the way the Jews in Israel are torturing Christian and Muslim

Palestinians. When cross-examined by Mrs Scully, witness Mr Goldsteen, claimed it was his Jewish mission to

imbue the world with the seven Noahide Laws. Upon further examination, the witness did not admit that those who

refuse to be thus ministered, should be killed. According to Mrs Scully this is what is the duty of every Jew who

takes this mission seriously.

At one point in the proceedings, counsel for Mr Jones wished to have Mrs Scully's 111-page affidavit dismissed

almost in total on account of it being "irrelevant". Counsel objected to Mrs Scully calling herself a Holocaust

survivor. Justice Hely said that this seemed to him relevant because Mrs Scully was merely putting "a different

point-of-view" across. He continued that this went to the heart of the issue he has to decide, whether Mrs Scully

genuinely holds such a view. The second matter the judge has to consider is whether Mrs Scully‚s statements are on

a matter in the public interest and for a genuine purpose. Counsel for Mr Jones claimed that Mrs Scully did not have

a genuine subjective belief. The story continues...

– 7 –


 Conseils de révisions / juin 2002

30 April 2002, Day Two:

The Holocaust Myth versus the Jewish Conspiracy Myth?

By Fredrick Toben

Justice Peter Hely stressed he had two concerns: 1. That Mrs Scully was not legally represented, and 2. That she be

given a fair go. Mrs Scully welcomed the opportunity that she be given "a fair go and argue my point". Time was

spent on sorting out what permissible evidence Mrs Scully relied on. When she submitted the David Cole video

tape, but counsel objected because, according to him, it does not go to the issue of the Holocaust hoax. While

talking, he flippantly referred to "gas ovens", then corrected himself when Mrs Scully pointed out that the concept

should be "gas chamber".

The judge invited Mrs Scully to tender a list of books and videos to counsel at the end of the day, indicated that Mrs

Scully be examined, then adjourned the court for ten minutes. Upon returning at 11.50 am. There was more talk

about the admissibility of evidence, for example a 2000 Amnesty International report on prostitution in Israel and Sir

Winston Churchill‚s famous newspaper article on the nature of communism.

The judge then asked Mrs Scully to enter the witness stand, and he asked her what "factual matter that you wish to

rely on?" [...]



Prof. Daniel J.H. Greenwood

S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah

Return to Prof. Greenwood's home page


2003 Utah Law Review 533 (2003)

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Restorative Justice


© 2002 Daniel J.H. Greenwood 

I. Introduction

The language of some sectors of the restorative justice movement clearly reflect roots in Christian religious thinking: it is the language of reformation, repentance, and revival. "Crime is an opportunity to prevent greater evils, to confront crime with a grace that transforms human lives to paths of love and giving." [FN1] This Article was prepared for a panel that was asked to reflect on the significance of that religious origin and the strong religious element in many of the actual programs.

Great caution is necessary in using the language and concepts of particular religious traditions in designing a criminal justice program for a pluralist society. An effective criminal law works mainly by teaching. But teaching will be most effective, and perhaps only can be effective, if it is done in a common language. We Americans are heirs to many religions with distinctive and powerful sets of traditions, myths, and imagery. The language of our varying religions is not where we are likely to find the common understandings of right and wrong that must permeate successful and defensible criminal law. Restorative justice will be more effective if it is able to transcend the religious and specifically Christian concepts that have inspired some of its proponents.

The Inculcation of Judaism and State

While the particular languages of our differing religious traditions do not seem to me to be good bases for a public criminal law, they are useful for considering familiar issues in an unfamiliar light. I therefore offer a reading of a set of unfamiliar texts from the Talmud, one of the foundational texts of the Jewish tradition, to make two basic points about criminal law with some applicability to the restorative justice debate. [FN2] At the same time, their language and structure should illustrate how disparate our traditions are.

First, criminal law should have a limited, nontranscendental goal. Torah law, like some of the more religious manifestations of restorative justice, claims divine authority and aims at ultimate justice--but the Jewish texts demonstrate that consistent working out of that view leads to the conclusion that ideal criminal law is impossible for humans to administer. In our democratic state, (Republic)  our goals should be less lofty; but the Jewish law experience suggests, I argue, that we nonetheless ought to be wary of the hubris inherent in any criminal law. Judges necessarily play God (in Biblical Hebrew, the word elohim can mean either one); we should try to arrange matters so that they do so as little as possible. The religious goals of bringing redemption, restoring true justice to the world, or even "transforming human lives to paths of love and giving" are best left to other institutions. The Jewish law texts are thus a warning against the restorative justice movement's more messianic aspirations to "restore" and heal the world. Merely reducing crime is a sufficiently difficult goal.

Second, the Jewish law debate provides an alternative justification for the restorative justice emphasis on mediation and mutual agreement. Criminal law, in the end, must be defended on empirical grounds: primarily that it works to reduce crime and secondarily that it mitigates the pain caused by crime it fails to prevent. While that discussion is largely an empirical one to which law professors are poorly qualified to contribute, I do suggest that the historical experience of Jewish law's attempts to substitute mediation for coercion offer qualified support for the community-based mediation techniques of some versions of restorative justice. Mediation and compromise can be based in the spirit of humility that is appropriate when humans try to judge things that, in an ideal world, would not be judged by those of only human abilities.

In short, this Article attempts to demonstrate the futility of particularist, religious-law based criminal law, using itself the language and traditions of a particular religious law system. If it succeeds, it will simultaneously illustrate the universality of the underlying concerns and the particularity of the language in which we debate them.

II. God and Crime

Some proponents of the restorative justice movement base their claims on the notion that belief in God can or is necessary to solve the problems of the world. Charles Colson, for example, in an article subtitled The Foundations of Restorative Justice, contends that crime is the result of loss of belief in "objective truth," which he seems to equate with belief in God: "As Dostoyevsky noted: If there is no God, everything is permissible. Crime becomes inevitable." [FN3] This strikes me as arrant, and arrogant, nonsense. No human could exist if "everything is permissible"--human life is possible only with the rather extreme cooperation that makes childrearing and food production possible. Plato is more sensible on the subject: "Even a gang of thieves will subscribe to justice among themselves." [FN4]

To be sure, belief in God helps some people act morally, but good and evil are done by religious and nonreligious alike. For every person who acts morally out of their religious beliefs, others act morally with purely secular self- conceptions: the civil rights movement was led (and opposed) by church leaders and fought in the language of the Bible, but it was staffed with secular kids from the colleges far more than with volunteers from white churches; the French Resistance drew its strength from the Enlightenment, not the Church. Not only is belief in God not necessary for moral action, it is not sufficient. For all the individuals who find in their religions the strength to struggle for good and decency, others find in God the explanation that permits them to, for example, defend segregation, burn their neighbors alive, or ram jets into large buildings. Isaiah was not the first or the last to notice that some people find the practice of religious ritual a substitute for, rather than a goad towards, the requirements of justice:

"Is this the fast I have chosen? . . . [R]ather . . . let the oppressed go free, break every yoke, . . . give your bread to the hungry." [FN5]

Religions instead offer languages and sets of stories with which to approach the difficult problems of a decent life. [FN6] It is no accident that the Nazis took as their paradigmatic enemy the "Christ killers" of their traditional religion, or that the Communists built entire movements on hopes for messianic salvation, or, on the other hand, that many of the heroes of the various struggles against evil have used religious imagery or have been religiously inspired. Rather than solving the problems of communal life, our religions simply reflect them. Religions and God-talk generally offer us tools and languages for expressing our ideals, hatreds, aspirations, fears, and feelings: rarely, it seems to me, do they make good people bad or the reverse. [FN7]

My own Jewish tradition is typical in this respect. It is founded not only on a universalist conception of the brotherhood of humankind (One World Order) but also on perhaps the oldest surviving stories, or at least the oldest surviving stories widely read in this country, of tribal massacres mandated by God. [FN8] But in its post-Joshua form it takes a somewhat different view on the relationship of God and morality.

Judaism is defined in relation to a set of norms, rather than a set of beliefs or dogmas. [FN9] In earlier work, I have described a talmudic debate about the role of God in setting the norms by which humans must live: the early Rabbis already understood that law is a problem for humans, not for Heaven. Or, as they put it, quoting Deuteronomy 30:12:

"It is not in Heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to Heaven and bring it to us, so that we can hear it and do it.'"

Rather, the law has been given by God--which means that it is here and ours and for us to make it work. Law, even divine law, is a project for humans. [FN10]

Without Grace and Salvation

This tradition of human responsibility for human actions is most pronounced in the Jewish law of crimes. Early on, the Jewish tradition was deeply suspicious of the very concept of criminal law, not of the notion that there is a difference between right and wrong or that it is fairly easy to tell the difference in most cases. Rather, there was deep skepticism about the possibility and likelihood of human justice. Criminal law, as we shall see, seemed too important and dangerous to be left to humans.

A. Divine Law and the Demands of Absolute Justice: A Law To Live By

To understand the talmudic view, however, we must begin earlier. The Torah (mainly in Leviticus) explicitly includes a significant part of a criminal code, listing several dozen crimes that carry the death penalty, generally specifying which of the accepted methods--principally strangulation or stoning [FN11]--was to be imposed. [FN12] Other crimes are punished more mysteriously--by cutting off, understood later to mean a premature (natural) death. [FN13]

By the time of the Mishnah at the beginning of the Christian era, the biblical code was understood to include at least eighteen crimes punishable by stoning to death, [FN14] as well as others by burning, [FN15] decapitation, [FN16] and strangulation. [FN17] Maimonides, writing a millennium later, counts thirty-six crimes for which the Torah decrees a punishment of death. [FN18] It is a drastic criminal law, then, requiring drastic punishments. [FN19]

As to criminal procedure, however, the Torah is much more elusive. [FN20] The full explanation of biblical criminal procedure appears only in Tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud. For our purposes, the talmudic discussion can be summarized relatively briefly. The Bible states that no one is to be convicted except upon the testimony of two witnesses. [FN21] The Talmud demonstrates that the ordinary background rules require that those witnesses be eyewitnesses, [FN22] that they be reliable (even after testing, they must not contradict themselves in any way), [FN23] and God-fearing (on something like Dostoyevsky's rationale), (Noahides) so they must be Sabbath observant, kosher keeping, adult males. As eyewitnesses they must be able to testify not only to the physical action but the motive--not every homicide, after all, is a murder--and so they must be able to swear that they themselves warned the criminal that what he was about to do was a capital crime and that he responded that he was aware of that and intended to commit the crime precisely because it was a crime. Circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction: the judge instructed,

"Perhaps this is what you saw: that one was running after his fellow into a ruin, you ran after him and found him sword in hand and blood dripping, while the murdered man was writhing. If this is what you saw, you saw nothing." [FN24]

Similarly, confessions were inadmissible (and a fortiori, I suppose, plea bargaining, which involves even more suspect confessions): perhaps the confessor wished to commit suicide or was mentally disturbed. [FN25]

Now, for a human court to consciously decide to kill a human is perilously close to murder. Accordingly, the text restricts the courts that may impose the death penalty. Only a great Sanhedrin, sitting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone at the Temple, [FN26] composed of twenty-three or seventy-one [FN27] ordained [FN28] judges, each of whom spoke seventy languages, had children to teach them sympathy, and was a fine enough lawyer to be able to prove that a seemingly straightforward biblical text enacts a law opposite of what it is known to mean, [FN29] could impose such a penalty.

and their soon to be "Revealed" Moshiach ben Mere man will slay the aints of Jesus Christ, by their law and their vision against the Everlasting Holy Covenant, the LAMB


And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.


Moreover, so as to assure that each judge considered the case fully (and perhaps to limit the effects of incompetent lawyering), each judge (elohim god, shem god)  was required to state his view of the case in turn, starting with the junior-most so as to avoid intimidation or fear of contradicting more senior colleagues. A judge who spoke in favor of the defendant was barred from recanting, however persuasive later speakers were, but anyone who spoke against the defendant and was later persuaded by the arguments of others would so state. Any judge who spoke against the defendant was required to consider the arguments to the contrary overnight before voting. On the next day, a vote was taken, again in reverse order of seniority; conviction required a vote of at least one judge more than a majority. [FN30] As if that were not enough, there was an extra rule that a unanimous vote for conviction resulted in acquittal: seventy-one humans do not agree on anything except when they have not thought hard enough. [FN31]

and they Crucified the LORD Jesus the Messiah, as they will also slay  his saints

There are more requirements that I will spare you. Suffice it to say, first, that the text acknowledges that convictions must have been rare indeed:

A Sanhedrin that kills [i.e., convicts on a capital crime] once a week is called "destructive." R. Eleazar ben Azariah says, "Once in seventy years." R. Tarfon and R. Akiva say, "If we had been on the Sanhedrin, there would never have been a person killed." R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "They would have increased the number of spillers of blood in Israel." [FN32]

Matthew 23:

29: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
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.
37: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would 


And, second, that by the time the Mishnah, the earliest layer of the Talmud, was finalized, neither the Chamber of Hewn Stone [FN33] nor the Sanhedrin existed any longer, and ordination was in terminal decline. [FN34] It follows that under the Mishnah's rules, Rabbi Akiva had won: there would never be a conviction again.

Thus they deceive the masses for they are of their father the father of lies

In short, there is a certain impracticality here. I believe the explanation for this bloodthirsty law that could never lead to a conviction is that the biblical law of crimes was understood to be law that is taught--law to live by--not law that is to be put into practice--law to kill by. Robert Cover taught that law is violence. [FN35] This is a violent law that is attempting to adopt Gandhi, to renounce violence altogether. What right have we, mere humans, to impose the law of God on others? If violence is wrong, can judicial violence be right?

Sick perversion


Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:


A nineteenth century Hassidic rabbi restated the Mishnah's view poetically in a prosaic setting:

"To his coachman, [Rebbe Wolfe of Zbaraj] said 'Please throw away your whip. Even if a horse does deserve punishment, what makes you think it is up to you to inflict it?'" [FN36]

Jewish law often seems to have viewed the biblical system as defining an ideal: terrifying punishments that are never carried out. Perhaps the thought was that terror, education, and socialization meant that carrying them out would never be necessary. But this is implausible. Violent punishments cannot deter once it is known that they will never be carried out--I threaten my children daily with hangings by their thumbs, abandonment in front of the television, and various other horrible fates, but they never seem to take it very seriously. Similarly socialization, even in the tight and oppressive communities of a mythical traditional past, will never work all the time with everyone.

Still, one view is unwilling to punish, even when punishment is warranted. In effect it says, only God can judge, so leave the judging to God:

Rav Eleazar son of R. Shimon met an officer who was arresting thieves. He said to him, How can you [detect] them? . . . Maybe you take the righteous and leave behind the evil? He said, and what can I do? It is the king's command.

He said to him, Come, I will teach you. Go to a tavern at the fourth hour of the day. If you see a man drinking wine, holding a cup in his hand and napping, ask about him. If he is a scholar and is napping, [it is because] he rose early to study; if he is a laborer, he rose early to do his work; if his work is at night he may have been stretching wires. If not, he is a thief: arrest him.

hahahahhahahhahahhaha go......get them all saith the Schneerson-Bushka-Ashkroft traingle of Homelandt "Say" kurity and their AKT of Patriotism to their shemgods 

A report was heard in the House of the King. They said, let the reader of the letter be the messenger.

They brought R. Eleazar son of R. Shimon, and he began arresting thieves.

R. Joshua ben Karhah sent to him: Vinegar son of wine! [FN37] How long will you send (moser) the people of our God for execution? [R. Eleazar] sent him the answer: I am destroying thorns from the vineyard. [R. Joshua] sent to him: Let the Owner of the vineyard come and destroy His thorns. [FN38]

here come come moshiach

R. Eleazar challenges the frankly amoral, perhaps somewhat consequentialist view of the officer with a retributivist challenge: "Perhaps you take the innocent." He then appears to resolve his own criticism with a magical method of distinguishing the guilty from the innocent. Interestingly, the Talmud, which is entirely capable of criticizing magic or pointing out logical fallacies, does not pause to question the efficacy of R. Eleazar's method. On the contrary, the immediately following stories emphasize that R. Eleazar did not make mistakes, even if ordinary mortals following his method might. [FN39] The story then, is an implicit criticism of those who, without R. Eleazar's magical advantage, dare to arrest when they might be condemning the innocent.

But notice how far-ranging R. Joshua's critique becomes if we accept R. Eleazar's claim that his methods are fail-proof: R. Eleazar's complaint was "perhaps you take the innocent," but R. Joshua's is, rather, "how dare you arrest the guilty!" It is for God, not men, to eradicate the thorns that God has placed in the vineyard of Israel. Thorns are also part of God's plan or, in nontheological language, even criminals are members of the community. [FN40]

B. The Failure of Divine Justice: "They would have Increased the Number of Spillers of Blood"

Thus via Noahide Laws Kill them by precog...FIRST

But how can this be? The Mishnah records an immediate response to Akiva's claim that he would never have voted for a conviction--and to its implicit adoption of his position. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "They would have increased the number of spillers of blood in Israel." [FN41] Thus, if Rabbi Akiva sought to make the criminal law a law to live by, to teach rather than apply, Rabban Gamliel makes the obvious rejoinder: Akiva's ineffective criminal law-to-live-by is rather a law that will lead to more crime and thus more death. Criminals may be members of the community, but their behavior is destructive of it.

they are cursed by their laws..and their failure to move them themselve' their own admittance

God does not make us behave; we must make each other behave. A famous saying makes the point dramatically:

"Rabbi Hanina, assistant High Priest, would say, 'Pray for the health/peace (shalom) of the government [the word for "government" (malchut) is the one usually used to refer to the illegitimate Roman occupying power] for without it, people would swallow each other alive.'" [FN42]

In the Middle Ages, it was put this way:

"If everything is left to stand on the law of Torah, as when the Sanhedrin imposes judgment, the world would be desolate." [FN43]

In short, the problem with the law as set out in the Talmud's tractate Sanhedrin is that it would not prevent crime (or more precisely, would not prevent it as effectively as a more punitive law might--even with punitive laws, much of the world has been pretty desolate).

The decapitations are shown almost daily now on the Talmudic Controlled news and on the jewish Television series and movies as well as video games. Soon they will began killing the saints of Jesus the Christ for an example. Many who say Lord, Lord will rush to embrace these shemgods and their laws from fear of these mere men, who can only destroy the flesh, and they will see that Great and terrible day of the Lord, for they did not fear him, and HIM Alone who can destroy both body and the soul and cast it into the abyss with the beast moshiach 


Jewish criminal law, thus, centers around a paradox. On the one hand, as Rabban Gamliel emphasizes, we need fear of punishment to keep people in line. This is a utilitarian, consequentialist defense of criminal law: punishment is justified because otherwise "people would swallow each other alive." [FN44]

On the other hand, Rabbi Akiva takes a deontic, justice-based, retributive view. Punishment is only justified when it is deserved. Ordinary law is applied by people, not by God. The same God who made us need fear of the law to reduce spilling of blood, also made us incapable of the knowledge that is necessary to justly apply the law. 

wrong god...this god has no ONLY begotten Son and is a lust-er of blood


Human beings can never be certain that the law is fully just, that the accused is factually guilty, that the technically guilty deserve punishment, or, as Rabbi Wolfe of Zbaraj points out, even that we are authorized to punish. The only way we can assure that courts will only punish appropriately is by preventing them from doing it at all. [FN45] For who are we--who unlike God cannot know the motivations and intentions of our fellow humans--to decide when punishment is deserved, let alone to arrogate to ourselves the right to impose it. Rabbi Akiva's view not only accepts retributive theory but takes it seriously: we must not punish the innocent, but we cannot know who is guilty, and we cannot retribute without the knowledge we cannot have. Justice demands that we not act unjustly; in the criminal justice system, that means we cannot act at all. Rabbi Akiva, then, demands that the judge who dares to punish others act justly himself; as another famous rabbi of the same period said, "Let he who is without blemish cast the first stone." [FN46] Only God is without blemish. [FN47]

Jesus said Call no man rabbi....sorry blasphemer wrong Jesus and was not a student of Talmud sorcery....but they are now propagating this garbage as are the Judeo-Churchinsanist

Rabban Gamliel retorts that justice which encourages murder is no justice at all. The tension has no resolution, but there are attempts.

and thus they continue with their mass murders of their shemgod wars

One attempted resolution is a deep--and ultimately somewhat implausible-- faith in an individualized providence. This view, contrary to the spirit of the Book of Job, adds wish fulfillment to its description of the divine system of justice. If human justice fails, God will punish instead:

R. Shimon Ben Shetah said, "May I never see comfort, if I did not see one who ran after his comrade into a ruin, and I ran after him, and I saw a sword in his hand and the blood was dripping and the killed man was writhing. And I said to him, Evil one, who killed him? It was either you I! But what can I do--your blood is not given into my hands, for the Torah says, 'By the testimony of two witnesses . . .' May He Who knows thoughts take vengeance on this person who has killed his comrade." They say that they hadn't moved from there when a snake came and bit him and he died.

One witness to convict a Goyim...a false witness.

But was he deserving of a snake[bite]? R. Yosef said, and the Academy of Hizkiyah taught also, that from the day that the Temple was destroyed, even though the Sanhedrin ceased, the four methods of capital punishment didn't cease. They didn't cease? Surely they did cease.

Rather, punishment by the four methods of execution did not cease. One who is liable to stoning either falls from the roof, or is trampled by a wild animal. One who is liable to burning, either falls into a fire or a snake bites him. One who is liable to decapitation, either is handed over to the malchut [foreign government] or bandits come on him. One who is liable to strangulation, either drowns in the river or dies of diphtheria [thought of as a disease of strangulation]. [FN48]

Right the LORD who destroyed their temple of abomination and their Sanhedrin...will carry their bloodlust judgement FOR THEM.....yeah want some ocean front property in the Sahara....Damned these sick chasidic Chabad Lubavith Pharisees in hell for their sorceries and their murders...............and their blasphemies....


Revenge of the perverted sons of satan's synagogues

But sometimes we must wait a long time indeed for Heaven's justice. For those of little faith or patience, snakebites are, I fear, likely to be only slim consolation for the failure of the Sanhedrin system of Torah law ever to achieve a conviction. The system of snakebites and accidents requires a confidence in God's simplicity that any observer of the ways of the world (let alone reader of Torah) should question.

One assumes R. Joshua's retort--"let the Owner of the vineyard weed His thorns"--would not satisfy those who, with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Hanina, and Thomas Hobbes, believe that without laws and civil authorities "people would swallow each other alive." [FN49] On this justification from necessity, Jewish law proceeded to create a second criminal justice system not based on Torah law at all but rather on the need to keep society functioning. [FN50]

God's ideal law failed to preserve human society. So the legal system created a parallel, human, criminal justice system based on human law without divine sanction. Still, R. Joshua's concerns--that even when we know (in a sense not usually possible to humans) that someone is guilty, only God may justly punish--give a framework even for those of little faith who are not willing to leave God's work to God alone.

III. Creating Human Criminal Law: The Justification From Necessity and the Effectiveness Criterion

This reading of Rabbis Joshua and Akiva, thus, makes the dramatic claim that in a system of absolute justice, criminal law can be enforced only by God. Generalized, this same argument applies to religiously based law as a whole, including the version of restorative justice championed by Charles Colson. If the law is divine and its intention is to create a holy people, only the Owner of the vineyard has either the right or the ability weed His thorns.

At the same time, Jewish law acknowledges and accepts Rabban Gamliel's objection that these demands of justice hardly seem practical. We cannot leave punishment to God, because without human justice, humans will commit more crimes. Morever, this concept of justice does not even seem just, to the extent that the absence of a functioning system of criminal law invites more injustice. Presumably, that is why creating a judicial system is one of the seven Noahide laws that Jewish law insists are binding on all humans everywhere. [FN51] What then can we say about human, imperfect, not divine criminal law, criminal law that is motivated by the necessity of preventing people from "swallowing each other alive" ?

So they Must create TERROR in order to justify their god's satanic laws....the god they chose...the Robber, the master of Terror and enslavement


Now they're at it again. As Vice President Dick Cheney put it Tuesday, "it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
Vote for us or die.


First, criminal law is justifiable, if it is justifiable at all, only by reference to the needs of society. It is not to redress the balance of the Universe, cleansing the land of blood guilt as Torah (Talmudic) law demands. Nor is it for the personal salvation or redemption of the criminal.

Not so....for the Talmudic Gemara "rabbinic" scribes say the decapitation of the unobedient Goyim is for their own salvation

 Those are issues of absolute justice that must be left to He-who-knows-thoughts. [FN52] Nor, except in the crudest form, can it be for the assuagement of the pain of the victim. Those goals must be left to time and individual relationships, where hurt feelings can be mended and pain assuaged in ways that are not the province of the courts. For the courts to get involved in the revenge business requires the kind of knowledge and authority that R. Joshua teaches we cannot have.

Coercing apologies or forgiveness, it seems to me, is no less fraught with epistemological difficulty. Criminal and victim may be able to reach a resolution; however, the process seems ill suited to routinization and institutionalization. If judges lack the knowledge necessary to judge, surely they are unequipped to take on the more difficult task of restructuring human relationships.

Rather, punishment is justified only if it reduces the likelihood of crime in the future. [FN53] The purpose of human criminal justice is to prevent people from swallowing each other alive, not to weed the vineyard or purge the land of blood guilt.

Restorative justice rhetoric sometimes makes a distinction between offenses against the majesty of the king and offenses against society: criminal law, we heard in this Symposium, is prosecuted by the state and imposes punishments on behalf of the state because it redresses offenses against the king's peace; restorative justice aims instead to restore society. [FN54] Jewish law, like modern democratic law (one hopes) rejects the alleged goal of protecting the king's majesty. The state has value only to the extent it serves its citizens; one protects the state only in order to protect society. Conversely, when the state intervenes to punish crime it does so as an agent for society's peace, not the king's majesty--all criminal justice, not just the restorative justice variety, must be motivated by the need to preserve society. 

Noahidism, Collective Communitarian

On the Jewish law side, one does not pray for the health of the malchut (the foreign government) [FN55] because of the majesty of the king, but because it alone can keep the peace that society needs. Similarly, modern democratic states do not claim the divine right of kings or to be fascist embodiments of the national spirit. The state has no claim to value in and of itself; it is only a tool for its citizens. Accordingly, the state punishes (or should punish) not to vindicate its own dignity--an absurd concept in any liberal politics--but rather to protect society.

Damned Lies, clever though....they only want the laws to destroy the last remnant of Jesus Christ saints...period

On this view, restorative justice differs in its means but not in its goals from conventional criminal law in a democratic state. The defense of restorative justice must be the same as the defense of any punitive system: restorative justice is valuable if we have reason to believe that it will lower the crime rate at a morally acceptable cost or lessen the costs of unpreventable crime without inducing more. Grander claims--doing justice, restoring moral balance, earning salvation--demand a type of justice (the absolute justice of the Torah system or its equivalent in other systems and other languages) that we cannot make operational any more than could Rabbi Akiva.

Only true faith in Jesus the Christ, restores the Law of GOD . A true Christ believer...TRUE...does none of the crimes and murders. Any man who slays is a murderer..period

Criminal law, then, requires a utilitarian defense of the type Rabban Gamliel is looking for: it must work to reduce crime. We might refer to this as the effectiveness criterion.


A. Distinguishing Punishment From Oppression

The effectiveness criterion generally rules out the most shocking claim of utilitarian punishment theory: that it sometimes may be justifiable to "punish" the innocent in order to generally deter others from crime. It seems to me rather that it mandates something quite close to a requirement of due process and proportionality of the offense to the penalty.

Violence that is not deserved is not punishment, but crime or oppression or terror or war. As Holmes put it, "even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked." [FN56] All human systems of punishment depend on the criminal and the intended-to-be-deterred understanding the difference between punishment and simple violence. Negative reinforcement alone is never enough.

Do you hear that rib-eyes

Punishment may induce repentance and reform. [FN57] But crime, oppression, and terror more typically induce resistance, and the difference between punishment and oppression is only legitimacy in the eyes of the punished and their community. Were that not so, Ariel Sharon's violence would long since have deterred the Palestinians, or vice versa; Al Qaeda's attacks would be bringing us around to their view of the world. Indeed, the difference between crime and punishment itself is based in legitimacy; were that not so, ordinary judges would be liable for assault or worse each time they decided a case.

When state violence is understood as illegitimate, prison becomes a rite of passage, a mark of true patriotism, a school of resistence or leadership, or just a fact of life, as in pre-Revolutionary Russia, the Soviet Gulags, and the prisons of colonial governments everywhere. Martin Luther King, Natan Scharansky, Nelson Mandela, and a host of other national liberation heroes all served time in prison, but instead of deterring their followers it goaded them on. They and their movements classified the state violence not as punishment but as oppression.

Noahidism by force and fear intimidation tactics

Similarly, violence that is random is neither punishment nor oppression: it is just a fact of life, like an earthquake or other disaster. Earthquakes do not teach that one ought to obey social norms any more than does oppression. [FN58] State systems are no different. A criminal "justice" system that randomly imposes violence on the not-guilty is not only unjust but is also unlikely to actually work at reducing crime. Stalinism's legacy includes a society of mass lawlessness.

To be coherent, the very concept of punishment must contain within it a theory of justice, and to be effective, that theory of justice must be accepted by the target population and not merely the enforcers. Naked negative reinforcement is not punishment and will not function as such until the target population accepts it as just or deserved.

with enough terror, they will accept any laws and any mere man who says he has the world's solution by these Noahide Laws of the shemgods

Violence is only likely to be effective punishment if it is viewed as legitimate. Specific deterrence works only if those upon whom it is imposed accept it as legitimate, as punishment to be accepted rather than oppression to be resisted or violence to be avoided. General deterrence requires the same of those who fear its imposition. Thus the vulgar utilitarian claim that since punishment is meant to deter, there is no reason that only the guilty be "punished" can stand only if, implausibly, the targets of utilitarian terror are unable to tell the difference between a fair system and the opposite. But people are notoriously good at detecting unfairness, particularly when they are its victims. Violence that the imposers know is not legitimate is highly unlikely to be perceived as legitimate. (WTC 2001)(see Iraq)  It is far more likely that enforcers will fool themselves into thinking that their system is just (and perceived as just) than that they will fool the target population, particularly if enforcers have a failure of identification with the target, for instance because they see the target group as different from themselves (an underclass, national or racial minority, innate criminal types, and so on). Good faith is not enough, but it is an absolute minimum for legitimacy. [FN59]

Some would argue that the success of totalitarian and absolutist states in reducing crime disproves my claim here. Similarly, one could argue that the success of criminal elements in maintaining their variety of social order in certain neighborhoods at certain times demonstrates that terror alone--without legitimacy--can work. The analogy demonstrates the problem: without legitimacy, there is no difference between crime and justice. Even to claim that terror can reduce crime, we must have some basis for distinguishing terror from crime.

In the name of the Judeo-Gawd...GIVE IT LEGITIMACY.....death by decapitation Sanhedrin 57a.

Even if there were an important difference between illegitimate state violence and illegitimate private violence (and it is not immediately obvious that there is), the violence necessary to eliminate (private) crime without the help of legitimacy is simply so great that it isn't worth it. If the price of ending crime is living in Castro's Cuba, Stalin's USSR, or Saddam's Iraq, the solution is no improvement over the problem.

Castro a jew, Stalin rules by the Talmudic jews, and the US put Saddam in power

But the premise is also highly questionable: at least after the fact, the supposed law abidingness of subjects of the Soviet Union seems to have been an illusion. This seems to me utterly predictable. Absolute states are by definition lawless states; they cannot teach or breed respect for the law but only fear of power. Even if we do not count the crime of the state itself (and I see no reason why we should not), absolute states seem more likely to hide crime than eliminate it.

see Bushkevik and company


 Fear breeds evasion and resistence, covert if not overt. Perhaps the Soviet citizens were not openly criminal or in open rebellion until the very end, but they did become experts at quiet cheating early on.

The argument here is of a rule utilitarian type. It is more likely that we will reach an effective criminal law by avoiding the ultimate issue (effectiveness) and instead thinking about a fair criminal law. In the name of effectiveness or necessity, it is too easy to commit injustices that undermine the very effectiveness we aim for. Just as rule utilitarians are skeptical about the ability of individuals to make utilitarian calculations under pressure of events and therefore recommend instead rules that look remarkably like ordinary morality, so too effective criminal law requires that we put aside images of lone cowboys shooting the villains into submission or charismatic preachers converting the sinners, and instead think about justice. As Maimonides counsels in his discussion of courts that impose punishments on those who are not liable to punishment under Torah law:

"Let not human dignity be light in the court's eyes . . . . The court must be careful not to destroy their honor but rather only to enhance the honor of God . . . [by] acting according to the Torah's laws and regulations." [FN60] Talmud Bavli

Maimonides' argument is similar to a common justification of modern restorative justice practice, and indeed to broader sociological theories of perceived legitimacy such as those associated with Tom Tyler. [FN61] To teach norms, we must follow them. Ultimately, effectiveness--the success of the criminal justice system in reducing crime--depends more on whether we can successfully inculcate values of respect than on deterrence, incapacitation, fear, or revenge.


For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Or, to put the same thing another way, deterrence only deters to the extent that those we hope to deter accept the system as fair--otherwise, rebellion or resistence are likely to seem more appropriate responses. When the courts follow norms that are accepted by society at large (and the subsections to which potential criminals belong), then legal sanctions will be accepted as legitimate punishment for bad acts, and legal norms will be enforced by social sanctions that are far more influential than anything the law alone can provide. When they are not, the law's reach is likely to be limited, and its violence excessive. Effectiveness requires legitimacy and legitimacy requires acting legitimately. Only if the courts respect human dignity can the criminal law teach respect for human dignity.

There are, of course, controversial issues of what legitimacy or fairness require. But the basic requirements of due process--permitting defendants an opportunity to defend themselves with a fair procedure before an unbiased tribunal, requiring a strong showing of factual guilt before imposing punishment--are clear and widely agreed upon. So too are the basic ideals of restitution and restorative justice: if you hurt someone you should apologize, and if you broke something, you should replace it. To the extent that restorative justice focuses the criminal justice system on issues of justice and on making that justice apparent to criminals, victims, and society at large, surely the criminal law will be more effective in reducing crime.

This section began by questioning the restorative justice goal of repairing human relationships. That task is too great for merely human judges. [FN62] But that critique may not apply to a more modest version, in which the human goal of reducing crime and its damages is pursued in part by seeking to help the criminal justice system (through family conferencing and related restorative justice techniques) facilitate--rather than coerce--healing, or provide a framework in which individuals, if they are so inclined, will be supported in rebuilding or restoring relationships.

Holistic Consciousness

The restorative justice foci on mutual dignity, on censuring crime rather than criminals, on inclusiveness and empowerment, all seem fully in keeping with the older insights of the Jewish law tradition: even a sinner is a member of the community. [FN63] And criminals (or potential criminals) who are treated as members of the community are more likely to accept that they are members of the community and therefore more likely to act like members of the community. This congruence is no substitute for real data, but in the absence of convincing empirical results, it may provide some reason to be less skeptical of radical changes in the way we do criminal law than one might be otherwise.

IV. Human Law and Restorative Justice: The Power and Poverty of Mediation

Treason of this new "Amarakan" Government to a foreign power, ISREALHELL

The first message of the Jewish law texts, the primacy of the effectiveness goal, is somewhat at odds with at least the more millenarian versions of faith- based restorative justice: it counsels restricting the state to smaller goals, to seeking peace rather than redemption. The second message is that the community must remain central at all times: it is only the needs of the community that allow judges to play God. This latter theme fits better with the restorative justice project.

The centrality of community suggests that if reconciliation is possible, it must be done first. It is not possible for a criminal to "pay his debt to society" by serving time in prison, any more than it is possible to attain atonement for sins against people by praying at Yom Kippur. Prayer can win forgiveness for sins against God, but sins against people require making peace with the people against whom you sinned. Similarly, even if prison could atone for the abstract crime against the social order (but atonement is one of those things best left to a divine criminal law system in which convictions and punishments come only from Heaven), the hurt to real, individual people must be healed by more personal processes. This, I take it, is a central claim of the restorative justice movement, and it seems reasonable to me.

For a criminal to reform, he must follow the same path as Maimonides sets out for a sinner: first, to make whole the damage he did; second, to ask for forgiveness from both the individual victim and the community; third, to resolve not to do it again and state his resolution to the community in public; and last, to change his life--his friends, his tastes, his usual way of going about life, even his name--so that in fact he does not do it again. [FN64]

A criminal who reforms in this way is, perhaps, a criminal who need not be sequestered, need not be imprisoned or executed. Unfortunately, we have no better way of knowing who has undergone such a genuine reform than we have of knowing who was genuinely guilty in the first place; certainly, the fact that a criminal has accepted this religion or another one is thin evidence on which to change a sanction. To the extent that faith-based restorative justice seeks to cure the criminal, I worry that God-players will overplay their hands. Sudden conversions made under the threat of the regular criminal sanctions smell too much of the bad old days of holy war.

the wars of the shemgods and their god hahashem

But to the extent that restorative justice processes encourage some criminals to reintegrate into society, to apologize to their victims and make them whole to the extent possible, they are moving in the direction of healing society, not merely souls. The message of the effectiveness criterion is, it seems to me, that the test must be empirical: does the community-based discussion, mediation, and plan in fact make victims feel better, reduce recidivism, or reduce crime?

see Bryan Kolby apology

A. Jewish Law and the Problems of Mediation

As we have seen, the Torah (Talmud)  criminal law as explained in the Talmud cannot function as a coercive system of social control. Instead, Torah criminal law, to the best of my limited knowledge, has functioned as an instrument of social control primarily as a teaching tool. It is law to be taught and debated, not law to be implemented; law as a symbol rather than law to direct state violence. If kids spend enough time arguing about right and wrong, they will understand that they should not commit wrongs. In any event, during the most dangerous years, the young men will be locked up in school debating instead of fighting, without time for crime. There is much wisdom in this approach: if we had more young men in school--or at useful and productive jobs, in the Peace Corps or similar volunteer enterprises, in organized sports activities, or the like--we would surely have fewer in prison.

US 2 Million 2004

In the eras when Jewish law also functioned as an instrument of social violence and coercion, it did so as a matter of human law, not divinely commanded Torah. The tradition that the king or the foreign government is permitted (or required) to institute an effective criminal justice system was extended to self-governing Jewish communities, to justify Jewish towns in promulgating and enforcing codes of criminal law with no resemblance to the Torah code. In order to "restrain the current generation" or to "meet the needs of the hour" the authorities were permitted to take any measures necessary to effectively reduce crime. [FN65] By the Middle Ages, it seems to have been generally accepted that communal officials could impose fines and corporal punishment or even--at least in some places and some times--turn accused criminals over to the gentile authorities, without regard to the elaborate rules of Tractate Sanhedrin.

Breaking their laws, always

To my limited knowledge, Jewish communal law often emphasized restitution, fines, and shame. Criminals should feel the social hurt they have caused, and should heal it where they can. The first step, where possible, is restitution: Jewish law does not make our careful distinction between tort and criminal law, so even in criminal cases, the criminal must make the victim whole. And, since Jewish law, again unlike American law, makes little distinction between religious and social obligations, the rabbinic courts will encourage the criminal to genuinely repent--the Jewish word is "return," return to the law and especially to the community. Beyond that, following the model of the Torah, a fine is due, generally paid to the victim rather than the community. 

see victim restitution laws being enforced, as well as civil suits, even when criminal cases are aquitted.

The ban--separation from the society itself--was often the ultimate punishment for the worst of crimes. Imprisonment, which is not mentioned in the Torah system, does not often appear in the texts with which I am familiar, perhaps due to the overwhelming value of maintaining the community. Indeed, ransoming prisoners held by the gentiles was considered one of the most important communal responsibilities,

30 pieces of silver


 sometimes taking priority over even basic communal functions such as feeding the poor or financing the religious and educational institutions. [FN66] On the other hand, turning offenders over to the gentiles (notwithstanding R. Joshua's disapproval) clearly happened, so any standard criminal justice techniques employed by host societies became part of the Jewish law system by incorporation, so to speak. [FN67] The law in practice, however, seems often to have varied from the law in the books. In practice, adjudicators, conscious of the high cost of presuming to take on the God-like role of judge, often seek to act as mediators instead. [FN68] They seek to bring the parties to an amicable agreement, not to impose the will of the community on the criminal.

Not so as the Talmudic Judges are known as gods, elohim

Mediation and reconciliation are among the key goals of the restorative justice movement. But mediation comes with an obvious drawback: mediation necessarily reaches a conclusion that reflects the initial power relations between the parties. Genuine mediation cannot redistribute power, unless the powerful voluntarily agree to give up their advantages. [FN69] This weakness of mediation is a serious problem in criminal law, which is always about redistributing power. On the one hand, criminal law must restrain the socially powerful from abusing their power--King David from killing Uriah in order to conceal his adultery, King Ahab from killing Naboth to seize his vineyard, modern corporate chief executives from evading sales taxes or pollution controls or distorting economic reporting for private profit, the rich from bribing public decision-makers, and so on. [FN70] Mediation can offer no counterweight to the powerful. On the other hand, even the crimes of the underclass are abuses of power, most obviously in the crude physical power of violent street crime. An ancient aphorism says that the presence of elderly moneychangers on the street corners (easy targets for muggings) is the surest sign of a just (and sufficiently powerful) government. Mediation is unlikely to redress these imbalances of power either.

so their is a change needed from US Constitutional Government to the Talmudic satanic laws...........and done 1991 102 Congress, House Joint resolution 104, PL 102-14 disguised as "Education Day, USA".

Jewish law accounts are plagued by the problem of the powerful person who ignores the mandate of the court--the person who uses connections in the gentile world to overturn the court's mandate, or the person who simply refuses to agree voluntarily to the restitution the court sees as necessary. [FN71] At this point the historical system seems to have simply given up: there was nothing to do about the person who ignores social sanctions, but wait for God to send a snake. And sometimes one must wait a long time indeed for God or snakes.

therefore they must now send Guillotines to any who will not submit

The Jewish law experience suggests then that a central theoretical and practical issue for the restorative justice movement should be ensuring that mediation does not become a vehicle for ratifying existing injustices. It is encouraging to note that practitioners and theorists of the movement seem well aware of the issue. [FN72]

In Jewish law, mediation often resulted from a fear of doing injustice even in the name of justice. "Let the Owner of the vineyard remove His thorns" remained a powerful refrain even in the human system designed only to reduce crime.


so they crucified HIM the Owner of the Vinyard, and put a crown of thorns on his head


 The motive of mediation in restorative justice is rather different: an empirically based belief that treating criminals as members of the community, confronting them with the results of their deeds, and incorporating their victims into a resolution will both reintegrate criminals and appease victims, lowering both the crime rate and the pain crime causes.

Critically, restorative justice processes, unlike traditional Jewish law, operate in the strong shadow of conventional criminal law of powerful states. So long as either side may invoke the state procedure in place of the restorative justice one, mediation is unlikely to deviate far from the solutions the state would otherwise impose (more precisely, any such deviations are likely to be Pareto optimal improvements over the state solution, since movement away from the state solution requires consent of all sides).

The shadow of conventional criminal law obviously lessens the problem of mediation ratifying existing power relationships, but conversely creates a real potential that mediation will become, or be perceived as, a mere ritualistic ratification of imposed solutions. Ritualized condemnation, apology, forgiveness, and catharsis always threatens to become an empty masquerade where participants follow the script without the emotional contact necessary to achieve restorative justice's ambitious goals. [FN73]

The two goals are in necessary conflict. If mediation is to result in real catharsis and genuine reconciliation, it must reflect the actual feelings and real values of the participants. On the other hand, if it is to help in imposing society's values, it must reach a more or less predetermined range of results. Success thus requires, first, that the criminal accept in some sense the social values that condemn his act, and second, that the mediators be skilled enough to allow the participants to come to this conclusion on their own. This is a practice that will require skilled and sensitive practitioners; a rule of humans and not merely laws. [FN74]

B. Restitution, Reintegration, and Return

Both the restorative justice idea and Jewish law emphasize restitution. Our American law probably underutilizes restitution--when criminals can make the victim whole, it seems elementary that they should, and artificial to separate the restitution claim into a separate tort action. In particular, tort law, with its emphasis on monetary damages collected by judicial process, may be largely useless in the petty crime arena. A restorative justice conference and agreement could generate effective restitution that would be economically impossible to achieve in a tort action.

Restorative justice advocates also make the somewhat surprising claim that they are able to win genuine apologies from defendants. [FN75] Apologies matter, as any parent (or student of international conflicts) knows. If restorative justice processes win them, they are achieving a powerful form of nonmonetary restitution that rarely happens in court and would never be part of a court order in a litigated criminal or tort case. To be sure, good lawyers for guilty defendants in both civil and criminal cases know that a timely apology will make settlement discussions far easier, but the actual process of preparing to defend in court and defending itself often seems to leave litigants and lawyers in a defensive psychology poorly situated for apology and compromise.

Just as important, restorative justice shares with traditional law an emphasis on affirming the criminal's membership in the community. American imprisonment "upstate" deliberately separates our criminals from society. Presumably, this separation helps create a criminal subculture that can evolve differently and apart from the mainstream one. Successful criminal law, more likely, would bring criminals back into the dominant culture. Reintegration, rather than sequestration, ought to be the goal.

Criminal law is a teaching tool--including for those not directly subject to it--and we seem, in some parts of our country, to have lost control of the lesson we are teaching. It ought to be one of inclusion, mutual respect, demand for civil behavior, and an emphasis on the mutual dependence that people have who live together in a common society. I do not see how that lesson can be taught by excessive violence: one does not educate children to be good parents by beating them, and it seems unlikely that you can socialize the underclass into middle class norms by massive prison sentences for trivial drug offenses, racially skewed decisions about when to apply the death sentence, or, most significantly of all, without genuine middle class employment possibilities. When violations occur, we should be using the powerful sanctions of social pressure more than we do: publicly humiliating those who are still involved enough in society to be humiliated and shamed; offering opportunities to make reparations and even to repent for those who wish to be reaccepted.

Still, though, Jewish history, indeed human history, makes clear the limits of this limited criminal law. There are times when we must stand up in outrage at offenses against our common morality or the norms of society. There are crimes for which no restitution and perhaps no human forgiveness is possible. Then violence in return for violence indeed may be the only answer--but only if it works. The justification for criminal law must be that in fact it reduces crime.

V. Conclusion: The Risks of Religious Language in a Pluralist Society

The effectiveness criterion suggests that restorative justice must be judged, first and foremost, on whether it works. Does it cause criminals who would otherwise reject the legitimacy of their punishment to accept it as educational? Does it lower recidivism rates? Does it make victims feel better? Those are at least in part empirical questions where law professors ought to fear to tread.

I will make one final point, however, about the issues raised by this particular panel, on the use of particular religious traditions in the secular law of a liberal limited state governing a mixed multitude of a people. It is hard for me to imagine the circumstances under which American criminals would accept as legitimate punishment meted out and justified in the language of and according to the standards of religious traditions other than their own.

Talmudic Communitarian Communist Collective -V- Constitutional US LAW

The language of Christian repentance is as foreign to me as, I imagine, the story of weeding the vineyard is to most of you. Generic or specific Protestant rhetoric undoubtably will speak to many others as it spoke to Charles Colson. Nonetheless, we are a many-textured mixed multitude, exiles from many Egypts, not the inheritors of a monolithic autochthonous tradition sprung from the land itself. [FN76] Many of us are de-churched, in many cases for several generations already. Those who are not, hear different resonances from different words: the Old Testament of vengeance is not the Torah that I read. [FN77]

Lying Snake in the grass

Faith-based initiatives draw their power from a specific faith. But in a pluralistic society that same power will be their downfall. If restorative justice were to mean, as Colson would have it, accepting Jesus, repentance, and mutual forgiveness, it would be too close to tent revivalism to speak to many of us. If the words explaining the violence of criminal law are foreign, the violence of the law risks being perceived as merely arbitrary. And the effectiveness criterion guarantees that if criminal law is perceived as illegitimate, it will be. Criminal law must be accepted to work and it must work to be acceptable. Therefore, it must aim for the common denominator in its language and teaching. In short, we must, however regretfully, avoid the intoxicating particularism of revivalist and messianic religion.

For mere man anointed Moshiach is much more preferable, One Despot for all the earth

Beyond this largely linguistic point, there is a larger problem with the religious aspiration.

The liberal tradition has long taught that redemption and atonement, indeed love, are rather higher goals than the state should aspire to. [FN78] When restorative justice advocates contend that they aspire to "justice [that is] administered with love," [FN79] I fear that the relevant text is less likely to be the Sermon on the Mount than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Animal Farm. States that aspire to perfection typically create something rather less than that: the Ayatollah's Iran, the communists' USSR, the Puritans' New England, or Cromwell's civil war. The state should aim lower, not for perfection but just for peace. [FN80]  

Therefore a godless Universal Noahide secular so called justice ruled by Talmudic Chasidic Pharisaic sages, who have no god, but a man made god they make unto themselves


It is the needs of civil peace that justify its use of force, not the desire to bring criminals to a state of grace. In the name of love and redemption, many crimes can be committed that humble mutual respect would have avoided. This is the basic lesson of the liberal tradition of limited government: a state that treats its citizen as a respect-worthy stranger is likely to be more attractive than one that sees the citizen as a beloved child or lover. Lovers take liberties that states should not. [FN81]

Smoothe Tongues

Accordingly, I hear both my traditions--the Jewish law sentiment that punishment is for God, not men, and the liberal suspicion of totalistic states that is both a reading of the biblical prophets' critique of the kings and a rejection of their aspirations to messianic redemption--urging us to tread lightly. Those who wish to have the state play God--by taking life or destroying it--are treading where angels should fear to walk. Those who wish to have the state play church--by forcing reconciliation and reform--may also be passing beyond the limits of a decent democracy.

The basic premise of restorative justice seems completely sound. If the goal is to reduce crime, harsh punishment alone seems unlikely to work. You cannot teach a child to avoid hitting others by hitting him; it is hard to believe that you can teach a people to not kill by killing, or teach criminals to respect the law and rights of others by violating the rights of the accused, or teach them to get a job by making them unemployable. Axes of Evil notwithstanding, most evil is done by people who are enmeshed in a system that invites them to do it; [FN82] one task of thinkers about criminal law is to understand why and how. Bringing criminals and potential criminals back into the web of constraints that is a functioning society is precisely the track that seems likely to work for the legitimate function of criminal law: to reduce crime.


[FN *]. Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. This Article was prepared for the Utah Restorative Justice Conference and made possible by the generous support of the S.J. Quinney College of Law Research Stipend Program. I am deeply grateful for research assistance provided by the College of Law library, for the support of my colleagues, and for the comments of Leslie Francis, Karen Engle, Erik Luna, and conference participants.

[FN1]. John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts, 25 Crime & Just. 1, 2 (1999) (emphasis added). For an account of restorative justice as a specifically Christian movement, see Charles W. Colson, Truth, Justice, Peace: The Foundations of Restorative Justice, 10 Regent U. L. Rev. 1 (1998).

[FN2]. For a concise description of the Jewish legal tradition and the sources it employs, see Suzanne Last Stone, In Pursuit of the Counter-Text: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model in Contemporary American Legal Theory, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 813, 816 n.13 (1993). The ancient Jewish law sources are extremely terse and often ambiguous; as a result, translations often differ radically. My translations of Jewish law sources in this Article reflect my own imperfect understandings; unless otherwise indicated, they rely on but may vary from the cited standard translations where I am emphasizing a different reading.

The Torah, as I use the word in this Article, refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The words are identical to the first five books of the Christian Old Testament (within the vagaries of translation) but is a significantly different book. Cf. Jorge Luis Borges, Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote, in Ficciones (1962) (describing book with same words as, but different meaning and significance than, Don Quixote). The word "torah" can also more generally refer to the entire Hebrew Bible, or to Jewish law in general.

[FN3]. Colson, supra note 1, at 3 (citations omitted). Yes, this is Chuck Colson of Watergate fame. Dostoyevsky, unlike Colson, is quite aware of the complexity of the problem. But I leave a discussion of the theology of Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov to another day.

[FN4]. Plato, Republic 351c, quoted in R. Nissim Gerondi (Ran), Derashot, Sermon 11, translated in 1 The Jewish Political Tradition 156 (Michael Walzer et al. eds., 2000).

[FN5]. Isaiah 58:5-8 (denouncing those who observe ritual requirements of religion rather than justice, read during Yom Kippur services). The trope is so central a part of our culture, via Jesus' denunciation of the fundamentalists of his age, that the very terms "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious" have as their primary referents believers and practitioners of religion who do not follow the basic codes of decent conduct towards humans.

[FN6]. See Robert M. Cover, The Supreme Court, 1982 Term--Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 4-5 (1983).

[FN7]. Bad people (and good people) often seek to wrap themselves in religious imagery, sometimes so successfully that it is hard to separate the one from the other. But it is hard to find an instance where the causality clearly runs from good religion to good people or vice versa. Plenty of people have killed in the name of their religion's ideal of peace and brotherhood.

[FN8]. Compare Genesis 1:27 (teaching basic equality and brotherhood by story of all humankind descended from one set of parents), and Exodus 20:13 (barring murder), with Deuteronomy 25:19 (cursing Amalek, requiring that entire tribe be blotted out), and id. 20:16-17 (requiring that seven nations that inhabited Canaan be exterminated). See generally Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5, translated in Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation 591 (1988) (explaining story of Adam's creation as teaching that whoever kills single human being has committed crime similar to destroying entire world, for if Adam had been killed, so would all his descendants); 2 Maimonides, The Commandments 269 (Charles B. Chavel trans., 1967) [hereinafter Maimonides, Commandments] (listing bar on killing human being as Negative Commandment 289); 1 Maimonides, Commandments, supra, at 200, 202 (listing Positive Commandment 187: to exterminate the seven nations; and 188: to exterminate all seed of Amalek); Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Kings 1:1, translated in The Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah), Book 14: The Book of Judges 207 (Abraham M. Hershman trans., Yale Judaica Series No. 3, 1949) [hereinafter Yale Judaica Series] (stating that commandment to destroy seed of Amalek is one of three to be carried out upon entry into the Land).

[FN9]. "In relation to" because some of the behavioral norms are controversial and others may be observed in the breach or even by breaching them. A High Reform Jewish man who deliberately attends synagogue bareheaded to act out his rejection of halacha (Jewish law) is still acting in relation to the halachic rule that his head must be covered so long as he has not simply forgotten the norm. Similarly, Rabbinic Jewish law often preserves biblical rules by reversing, modifying, criticizing, or interpreting them in ways that seem radically nonobvious. The distinctive demand of the tradition is that it not be forgotten even if it is not observed (or observable) in any simplistic way.

[FN10]. See Daniel J.H. Greenwood, Akhnai, 1997 Utah L. Rev. 309, 309-58 (analyzing "not in Heaven" debate); Daniel J.H. Greenwood, Beyond Dworkin's Dominions: Investments, Memberships, the Tree of Life, and the Abortion Question, 72 Tex. L. Rev. 559, 612-24 (1994) [hereinafter Greenwood, Dworkin's Dominions] (reading biblical account of tree of knowledge to make argument about nature of human responsibility).

[FN11]. See Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:1, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 595-96 (indicating that court ordered execution by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation).

[FN12]. See, e.g., Exodus 21:12, 21:15-17, 21:29, 22:18 (listing crimes-- including murder, enslavement, hitting or cursing parents, allowing known dangerous animal to kill someone, and witchcraft--for which criminal "shall surely die"); id. 22:18 ("[A] witch shall not live."); Leviticus 20:10-16 (indicating same penalty for various sexual acts, including adultery, various types of incest, man who beds another man in manner of woman, and bestiality). Note that the Hebrew original (literally, "die shall die"), unlike the King James translation, does not necessarily suggest that the criminal shall die by human hands. See, e.g., Mishnah, Sanhedrin 9:6, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 604 (describing debate regarding whether particular crime is punished by court-ordered strangling or only by Heaven); cf. Greenwood, Dworkin's Dominions, supra note 10, at 613-14 (discussing Zohar, Bereshith 57 and arguing that when God told Adam that he would die if he ate of tree of knowledge, He meant that Adam would become mortal). In other places the penalty is clearly meant to be carried out by humans. See, e.g., Deuteronomy 17:2 (decreeing death by stoning for proven idolatry); id. 21:18-21 (same, for stubborn and rebellious son); id. 22:21 (same, for bride who had premarital sex); id. 22:23 (same, for rape within city or both parties to adultery).

[FN13]. For examples of crimes punished by cutting off, see Leviticus 18:29 (decreeing cutting off as penalty for committing abominations); id. 19:7 (same, for eating shlemim sacrifice after second day); id. 20:18 (same, for man having sex with woman during her period); Numbers 9:13 (same, for failing to observe Passover).

[FN14]. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 596- 97 (listing eighteen offenses, including saying divine Name, profaning Sabbath, cursing father and mother using divine Name, being stubborn and rebellious son, being sorcerer, idolater, or soothsayer, and various sexual offenses).

[FN15]. Id. 9:1, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 602 (listing two sexual offenses from Leviticus 18:17, 20:14, 21:9).

[FN16]. Id. (listing certain types of murderers as well as townsfolk of apostate town).

[FN17]. Id. 9:6, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 604 (discussing execution by strangulation).

[FN18]. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 15:10, translated in 3 Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 44 (listing eighteen crimes punishable by stoning); id. at Sanhedrin 15:11, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 44 (listing ten crimes punishable by burning); id. at Sanhedrin 15:12, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 44 (listing two crimes punishable by decapitation); id. at Sanhedrin 15:13, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 44 (listing six crimes punishable by strangulation).

[FN19]. There is some evidence that in practice during the biblical period, the families of the victim and the criminal negotiated a settlement in lieu of the Torah law punishment. Thus, Josephus's discussion of the "eye for an eye" rule understands it as a background rule ordinarily not applied. See Flavius Josephus, 4 Antiquities of the Jews 8.35.280, translated in William Whiston, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged 122 (1988) ("He who maims a man shall undergo the same, being deprived of that limb whereof he deprived the other, unless indeed the maimed man be willing to accept money; for the law empowers the victim himself to assess the damage that has befallen him and makes this concession, unless he would show himself too severe."). As discussed below, the Talmud also encourages compromise in lieu of the biblical law but, unlike Josephus, does not seem to accept the possibility of a victim who "would show himself too severe"; an eye for an eye is held only to refer to monetary compensation, and courts are effectively barred from applying the Torah punishments. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 84a-b, translated in The Babylonian Talmud (R. Dr. I. Epstein ed. & trans., 1988) [hereinafter Soncino].

[FN20]. The Torah makes clear that some procedure is necessary prior to human punishment but does not set out the full details. See, e.g., Deuteronomy 13:15 (specifying requirements of diligent inquiry, cross examination, and truth); id. 17:6 (requiring two witnesses).

[FN21]. Id. 17:6, 19:15 (setting out two-witness requirement).

[FN22]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 37b, translated in 17 Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition 69-75 (R. Israel V. Berman ed. & trans., 1999) (barring circumstantial evidence); Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 16:4, 20:1, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 45, 60 (same).

[FN23]. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5, 5:1-4, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 591-93 (describing necessity for extended examination of witnesses and statements that are disqualifying); Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 12:2, 16:4, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 34, 45 (specifying prior warning requirement); see also Tosefta, Sanhedrin 10:11-11:15 (similar).

[FN24]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 37b, translated in 17 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 69-75.

[FN25]. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 18:6, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 52 (providing this justification of rule). The Talmud thus takes a view of confessions opposite that found in classic civil law, which saw confession as the goal of every criminal procedure. Moreover, the talmudic view is quite different from the modern American suspicion of confession set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny. The American rule is based primarily on autonomy notions-- specifically, the fear that law enforcement agents may coerce defendants into confessing. It has not been understood to require searching inquiry into the truth value of confessions that are the result of contract-like bargains even when the government offers quite attractive terms. In contrast, Maimonides's justification for the talmudic rule appears to be based primarily on truth concerns rather than autonomy: the Sanhedrin rule rejects confessions regardless of the circumstances under which they are given for fear not only of governmental coercion but also of psychological disorders, social pressure and expectations, or even simple mistakes of fact or law that might lead defendants to believe either that they ought to confess or that they are in fact guilty.

[FN26]. Deuteronomy 17:10 (requiring capital court to sit in "the place that Adonai chooses," understood to be Chamber of Hewn Stone at Temple); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 52b, translated in 18 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 42-50 (allowing no executions after destruction of Temple and ruling that death penalty could only be decreed while Temple was standing).

[FN27]. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1:4, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 584.

[FN28]. Ordination involved the laying on of hands by an ordained judge in a direct sequence back to the investiture of Joshua in Numbers 27:23. See, e.g., Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 4:1, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 13 (describing requirement).

[FN29]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 17a, translated in 15 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 179-87 (listing qualifications for sitting on Sanhedrin, including height, wisdom, good looks, age, knowledge of magic so as not to be fooled by magicians, knowledge of seventy languages so that no translator is needed, and ability to prove sheretz (swarming creature) pure based on Torah despite Leviticus 11:29-39, which states that it is impure). This listing of seemingly impossible qualifications is punctuated by the boast of one of the leading rabbis of the age, Rav, that he could meet the requirement of proving that a sheretz is clean and the anonymous editor's quick puncturing of the attempt: do not think that this is a trivial requirement. See also Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 2:1, 2:3, 2:6-7, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 7-8 (listing somewhat different set of qualifications, including understanding of major branches of knowledge, not being old or eunuch "because these have cruel streaks," not being childless "so that he may be merciful," humbleness, and enough valor to rescue oppressed from their oppressors).

[FN30]. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:2, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 590 (detailing voting from junior to senior); id. at Sanhedrin 5:5, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 593 (detailing procedure of waiting day after first argument before convicting and of allowing changes of opinion only to acquit); id. at Sanhedrin 1:6, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 584- 85 (requiring majority of two for conviction).

[FN31]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 17a, translated in 15 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 179-87 ("R. Kahana said: A Sanhedrin where each one saw fit to convict, acquits him. Why? Because Gemara teaches us the rule to delay [the sentence overnight] to find [arguments for] his innocence, and these are not looking for it.").

[FN32]. Mishnah, Makkot 1:10, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 612. The Gemara points out but does not resolve the ambiguity in R. Eleazar b. Azariah's statement. Is it to be taken as a moral claim (a Sanhedrin that executes once in seventy years deserves to be called destructive) or an empirical one (executions were so infrequent that once in seventy years was enough to warrant special distinction as a bloodthirsty court)? Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 7a, translated in Soncino, supra note 19. Either interpretation, however, suggests that executions were rare.

[FN33]. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 8b, translated in Soncino, supra note 19 (discussing Sanhedrin's exile from Chamber of Hewn Stone forty years before destruction of Temple "because when they saw that murderers were so prevalent that they could not deal with them properly, they said, better we should be exiled from place to place than find them guilty").

[FN34]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 13b-14a, translated in 15 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 133-46, describes the attempt of the Romans to end ordination in the Mishnaic period. Apparently, ordination continued in some form well into the talmudic period. See Robert M. Cover, The Folktales of Justice, in Narrative, Violence, and the Law 188-95 (Martha Minow et al. eds., 1992) (stating that ordination ended in fifth century and describing sixteenth century attempt to revive it); Robert M. Cover, Bringing the Messiah Through the Law: A Case Study, in Nomos XXX: Religion, Morality, and the Law 201, 201- 04 (J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 1988).

[FN35]. Robert M. Cover, Violence and the Word, in Narrative, Violence, and the Law, supra note 34, at 203, 213; Cover, supra note 6, at 40.

[FN36]. Elie Wiesel, Souls on Fire 51 (Marion Wiesel trans., 1972). Rebbe Wolfe's use of the tradition illustrates that while the classical arguments are in the context of capital punishment, they need not remain there. Thinkers who question the collective right to execute the guilty, let alone the innocent, must also question the right to beat, fine, or (in our system) imprison them.

[FN37]. The reference is to R. Eleazar's father, R. Shimon bar Yohai, and suggests that the son was not following in the father's ways. See Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 116 (containing R. Steinsaltz's commentary on this passage).

[FN38]. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 113-19. For further discussion of this passage, see J. David Bleich, Jewish Law and the State's Authority to Punish Crime, 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 829, 836-37 (1991). A similar story appears in the Jerusalem Talmud:

Ulla bar Koshav was wanted by the authorities for a capital offense and fled to Lydda, the town of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. The authorities came and surrounded the area and threatened to ravage it if Ulla were not handed over. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi then went to Ulla and convinced him to hand himself over.

Up to that time, Elijah the Prophet had made regular visitations to Rabbi Joshua, but then he stopped. Rabbi Joshua fasted repeatedly and Elijah came to him. "Do you think," Elijah asked, "that I would reveal myself to a moser [one who hands Jews over to the authorities]?" Rabbi Joshua replied: "But I acted on the basis of a mishnah [a teaching of the Mishnaic authorities, ordinarily binding on later talmudic rabbis]!" Elijah answered: "But is that a mishnah of the pious?" [thus suggesting that some laws should not be obeyed].

Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot 8:4, translated in 2 The Jewish Political Tradition (Michael Walzer et al. eds. & trans., forthcoming 2003) (manuscript at ch. 16, on file with author).

The issue in both stories may be one of cooperation with the (foreign) authorities as much as hostility to criminal law as such. However, some authorities find the key to the Ulla bar Koshav story to be whether Ulla was in fact (or in Jewish law) worthy of the death penalty the authorities planned for him. If he was, perhaps handing him over would be warranted.

For an example of a reading that clearly makes the issue one of justice to Ulla (and to his victim, if any) rather than of the legitimacy of the authorities, see Ephrayim Oshry, 5 She'elot U'Teshuvot, translated in 2 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra (manuscript at ch. 16, on file with author) (discussing different readings of Ulla story). R. Oshry's responsa concerns whether it is permissible for the Jewish authorities to comply with a Nazi order to select a small group to remain while all others will be deported to their immediate deaths. See id. In that context, the innocence of the "accused" and the illegitimacy of the authorities are unquestionable. The sole issue is whether it is permissible to be complicit in the killing of some people in order to save others--an issue raised by all criminal law where guilt cannot be known with absolute certainty. Although R. Oshry ultimately decides that one must do whatever one can to save whomever one can, he by no means views the issue as simple, and most of the authorities he cites suggest that one may not sacrifice an innocent Ulla even to save a whole town. See id.

[FN39]. The passage immediately following the one quoted, supra text accompanying note 37, describes how R. Eleazar in a fit of pique arrests a laundryman for calling him "vinegar son of wine" to his face; when he calms down and regrets his unjust action, it turns out that the laundryman had committed multiple violations of biblical law punishable by death by stoning followed by hanging. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 113-19. So, R. Eleazar apparently has Heavenly assistance: even when he violates the most basic principles of due process, justice is done. Id.; see also 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 116 (explaining, based on Rashi's commentary, that laundryman and his son had sexual relations with betrothed maiden on Yom Kippur, thus violating at least three different prohibitions). The text then continues with additional miraculous proof of R. Eleazar's merit--his flesh, like the flesh of the perfectly righteous, does not rot even when fat cut out of his body is left out in the sun. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 113-19.

[FN40]. On the significance of membership, see Daniel Greenwood, Beyond the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty: Judicial Decision-Making in a Polynomic World, 53 Rutgers L. Rev. 781, 797-803 (2001) (discussing centrality of membership to understandings of equality).

[FN41]. Mishnah, Makkot 1:10, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 612; see supra note 32 and accompanying text. I do not know of any evidence that capital punishment is necessary or even effective, but supervision and punishment of some variety is clearly essential. Rabban Gamliel's basic point seems incontestable: without a criminal justice system willing to convict, crime would increase. Modern research suggests that cooperation itself--the foundation of society--may depend on the willingness to punish. Thus, experimental evidence suggests that people generally are more likely to act according to fairness norms than as "rational" (exploitative) profit maximizers--except when they can exploit others anonymously. See Richard H. Thaler, The Winner's Curse 11 (1992); infra note 59. Similarly, people seem generally willing to punish free riders and defectors even when "rational" self-interest would suggest free riding themselves. See, e.g., Ernst Fehr & Simon Gachter, Altruistic Punishment in Humans, 415 Nature 137 passim (2002) (providing experimental evidence that humans will "altruistically" punish free riders even at substantial personal cost in order to sustain cooperation).

[FN42]. Mishnah, Avot 3:2, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 678. The saying appears to echo Jeremiah 29:7, where the reference to a foreign (if not necessarily illegitimate) government is clear.

[FN43]. Bleich, supra note 38, at 857; see also Gerondi (Ran), supra note 4, at 156-61 (describing divine purpose of Torah criminal law and noting that "punishing criminals in this way alone [i.e., not punishing them] would completely undermine political order: 'murderers would multiply"'). Jewish law thinkers suggested that the deficiencies of Torah criminal law could be solved by a parallel system of royal law with harsher punishments and more lenient procedures. See, e.g., id. at 157, 159 (arguing that king, unlike Sanhedrin, may depart from Torah law "to perfect the political order and [to meet] the needs of the hour" and may impose any punishment necessary for political association); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 46a, translated in 17 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 191-97 (noting that court may impose punishments not in conformity with T2rah law to make hedge around Torah); 3 The Jewish Political Tradition (Michael Walzer et al. eds. & trans., forthcoming 2004) (manuscript at chs. 23 & 24, on file with author) (translating additional texts on this topic).

The precise relationship between the two criminal justice systems is difficult and controversial. Suzanne Last Stone, for example, argues that the lenient Siniatic system reflects the "special family relationship that exists between God and Israel and not political communities ruled by an earthly sovereign." Suzanne Last Stone, Justice, Mercy, and Gender in Rabbinic Thought, 8 Cardozo Stud. L. & Literature 139, 169 (1996). She contrasts this to the parallel Noahide system binding on all humans which "corresponds with ... conventional justice ... dedicated to the preservation of social order through pragmatic and coercive means. It is exemplified by the attribute of strict justice and is well suited to the violent nature of its subjects [i.e., humans]." Id. Others have read the texts as originally a debate about a single (ideal) system rather than about two parallel ones.

[FN44]. Mishnah, Avot 3:2, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 678.

[FN45]. See supra note 36 and accompanying text.

[FN46]. John 8:7.

[FN47]. And there is no guarantee that God will do justice either. See, e.g., Genesis 18:25 ("Will not the Judge of all the world do justice?").

[FN48]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 37b, translated in 17 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 69-75 (emphasis added). Abravanel offers a similar view:

Nor is a king required in Israel to punish [criminals] ... in accordance with the needs of the hour, because God gave that authority to the Great Court, the Sanhedrin, as I explained [in my commentary above]. Furthermore, God has informed us that if a judge who acts in accordance with just law should acquit a wrongdoer, God Himself will punish the wicked person with His great judgment, as it is written, "Keep far from a false charge; do not charge death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer" (Exodus 23:7). This means, "I will punish him for anything for which you are unable to punish him legally." Thus, it has been explained that these three things--that is, delivering them through war, laying down laws and commandments, and determining occasional punishment outside the law--are all performed by God for His people. Therefore, God is their king, and they have no need for a [human] king for anything.

Isaac Abravanel, Commentary to Deuteronomy, translated in 1 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 4, at 153 (citations omitted).

[FN49]. Supra note 44; see also Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 186 (C.B. MacPherson ed., Pelican Books 1968) (1651) ("[M]en have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a good deal of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them .... And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.").

[FN50]. See, e.g., supra note 43 (citing descriptions of parallel king's justice system).

[FN51]. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Kings 9:1, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 230-31; Suzanne Last Stone, Sinaitic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism in Jewish Law, 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 1157, 1163-71 (1991).

[FN52]. See supra note 47.

[FN53]. The formal structure of Jewish law makes clear, as our First Amendment ought to in the American context, that the secular law must rely entirely on secular justifications. Torah law can be justified as the word of God, but it must follow the word of God all the way--and, as we have seen, that means that convictions are impossible. The law of necessity, or the law of the king (as it is generally referred to in Jewish law sources), must be defended in purely human terms--not because it echoes in some way the Torah law, but because it works to maintain society. For further discussion of the law of the king, see 3 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 43 (manuscript at ch. 23, on file with author); Bleich, supra note 38, at 830-33.

[FN54]. See, e.g., Erik Luna, Punishment Theory, Holism, and the Procedural Conception of Restorative Justice, 2003 Utah L. Rev. 205, 227-29. I am not a criminal law scholar, so perhaps my evidence is suspect, but this supposedly conventional wisdom is news to me. Criminal prosecutions are brought by the state in the United States (although in some other Western legal systems, citizen complainants have the right to force the prosecutor to commence an action or to commence one on their own). But that alone is not enough to infer that the United States or Western legal cultures generally view crimes as "public wrongs" in which the state is the victim or that "[t]raditional approaches ... overlook ... social relationships." Id. at 229. On the contrary, standard liberal notions of the separation of state and society strongly suggest that the state is merely vindicating an injury to society.

Overblown rhetoric aside, the restorative justice point is sound: American political discourse, at least, has often underplayed the importance of social relations in creating effective criminal law.

[FN55]. See supra text accompanying note 42.

[FN56]. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law 3 (1881).

[FN57]. More specifically, the social stigma associated with punishment may deter. See, e.g., Daniel S. Nagin, Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century, 23 Crime & Just. 1, 4 (1998) (reviewing research indicating that punishment deters only to the extent that it creates social stigma). In my terminology, socially-imposed violence without social stigma is not perceived as punishment but as something else--oppression or simply a fact of life.

[FN58]. Unless, of course, natural catastrophes are reinterpreted as punishments, caused by God's judgments about human actions. Compare Jeremiah 4:24 (predicting earthquakes as punishment), with Isaiah 29:6 (interpreting earthquake as reward).

[FN59]. Tom Tyler's work demonstrates the importance of perceived legitimacy in making punishment effective. See Tom R. Tyler, Procedural Fairness and Compliance With the Law, 133 Swiss J. Econ. & Stat. 219, 219-40 (1997). Ultimatum games suggest the same. See, e.g., Thaler, supra note 41, at 11 (reporting research indicating that students, other than economics students, free ride at relatively low rates, especially when free riding is observable); Christine Jolls, A Behavioral Approach to Law & Economics, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 1471, 1490 (1998) (describing Ultimatum game and research indicating that people make offers they perceive as fair even in absence of sanctions); Joseph Henrich et al., "Economic Man" in Cross-cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-scale Societies 13-20 (Santa Fe Inst., Working Paper No. 01-11-063, 2001), available at http:// (describing results of playing Ultimatum and related games in various societies, generally supporting notion that behavior is far more strongly influenced by normative views than by incentives or self-interest).

[FN60]. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 24:10, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 75 (stating that court may take actions it deems necessary for "needs of the hour" if it does so "for the sake of Heaven," and "without the honor of creation being light in its eyes"); cf. id. at Sanhedrin 24:4, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 73 (stating that court is permitted to punish without following Torah law if needed as temporary measure to fence and strengthen law).

[FN61]. See supra note 59.

[FN62]. See supra text accompanying notes 51-53.

[FN63]. See, e.g., Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 44a, translated in 17 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 165-71 ("[E]ven when Israel sins, they are Israel.").

[FN64]. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuva ch. 2.

[FN65]. See, e.g., Rabbi Solomon b. Abraham Adret (Rashba), Responsa 3:393, translated in 1 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 4, at 402-03 (justifying communal regulation by doctrines of "needs of the hour" and "restraining the current generation").

[FN66]. See, e.g., Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 8:10-13, translated in The Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah), Book 7: The Book of Agriculture 82-83 (Isaac Klein trans., Yale Judaica Series No. 21, 1979) (ruling that ransoming captives takes precedence over feeding poor or building synagogue, even if captive is being held for failure to pay debt).

[FN67]. The medieval texts rarely discuss capital punishment in practical terms. However, it is difficult to infer a principled objection from this since in most countries at most times, Jewish communal privileges of self-government did not extend to imposing capital punishment.

[FN68]. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 6b, translated in 15 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 52-59 ("Rabbi Joshua ben Karhah said, 'it is a commandment to compromise."'); Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 22:4, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra note 8, at 66-67 ("The more a court uses arbitration or compromise, the more it is praiseworthy.").

[FN69]. See Greenwood, Counter-Majoritarian, supra note 40, at 827.

[FN70]. II Samuel 11:1-12:23 (describing and condemning David's murder of Uriah); I Kings 15:5 (condemning David for matter of Uriah); id. 21:1-29 (condemning Ahab for his behavior towards Naboth). Jewish law had great difficulty with the problem of restraining the king. See, e.g., Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2:3, translated in 1 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 4, at 139 (stating that "the King neither judges nor is judged"). Note that the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 19a, limits this Mishnaic rule to unjust kings only, describing an incident where the Sanhedrin's fear of Hasmonean King Yannai (ruled 103-76 B.C.E.) led to God striking judges dead. Id. Michael Walzer describes this failure to construct a mechanism for supervising and limiting kings as the "central problem of Jewish political thinking." 1 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 4, at 141.

[FN71]. See, e.g., Jacob Weill, Shu"t Mahari Weill #157, translated in 3 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 43 (manuscript at ch. 23, on file with author) (stating, in fifteenth century ruling of German rabbi, that in light of number of violent people who do not respect law, it is not necessary to risk bodily injury to enforce court rulings).

[FN72]. Braithwaite, supra note 1, at 5 (describing beginnings of restorative justice movement in concern that crimes of powerful went unpunished).

[FN73]. Indeed, Braithwaite reports at least one instance where a restorative justice scheme degenerated into "sham reparation," even including dictated letters of apology. Id. at 21-22 (providing inconclusive evidence about restorative justice programs' ability, in real life, to navigate conflict between need for real mediation and need to reach predetermined just result).

[FN74]. See generally Hanina Ben-Menahem, Judicial Deviation in Talmudic Law: Governed By Men, Not By Rules (Neil S. Hecht ed., 1991) (arguing that Babylonian Talmud, unlike Jerusalem Talmud, subordinates rules to sound judgment of adjudicators).

[FN75]. Braithwaite reports that victims in Canberra received apologies in most cases and apparently accepted them as genuine, since victims reported in similarly large numbers that they left the conferences less angry. Braithwaite, supra note 1, at 24.

[FN76]. Compare Exodus 12:29 (describing mixed multitude that went up from Egypt together with children of Israel), with Plato, Menexenus 237-38 (R.G. Bury trans., 1966) (describing traditional Athenian belief that first Athenians sprang from ground of Athens).

[FN77]. See supra note 2.

[FN78]. See 2 Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies 232-40 (1963).

[FN79]. Braithwaite, supra note 1, at 25.

[FN80]. Hobbes, supra note 49, at 223, 388; Cover, supra note 6, at 60-68.

[FN81]. See Greenwood, Counter-Majoritarian, supra note 40, at 801, 807 n.62 (arguing that equality principles often are inappropriate (inadequate) among friends).

[FN82]. Or, in the case of murder, by people who have simply lost their tempers. Making fatal weapons less readily available would give them time to calm down. This, not some higher quality of humanity, more effective deterrence, or even lower levels of anger or alienation, strikes me as the main reason for Great Britain's lower murder rates (in a society that seems generally less law abiding and more violent than our own, at least if soccer games are any indication).

The homicide rate in England and Wales has almost doubled in the last thirty years and stood at 14.4 homicides per million people as of 2000-01. Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000, at 78 tbl.4.1 [hereinafter England and Wales Statistics], available at http://www.archive.official- (adjusted to exclude fifty-eight Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in lorry en route to Britain). In comparison, the United States murder and non-negligent homicide rate for 2000 was three to four times higher: 55 homicides per million people, dramatically down from 94 per million in 1990. Uniform Crime Reports, Oct. 22, 2001, at 14. The United States definition appears to be somewhat narrower, so the true difference may be greater than the statistics suggest.

In sharp contrast to this dramatic difference in homicide rates, overall violent crime rates in the two countries appear to be fairly similar. England and Wales had overall violent crime rates in the range of 4,940-5,740 per million in the early 1990s until a change in offense coverage raised the rate to 11,600- 13,920 from 1998-99 through 2000-01. England and Wales Statistics, supra, at 40 tbl.2.3. In comparison, the United States rate ranged from 5,247-7,581 per million during that period. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, at 182 tbl.291, available at http:// The dramatic change in the English rate due to a change in collection method suggests that the differences between the United States and England rates of overall violent crime are not meaningful although the trend lines--crime increasing in England and decreasing in the United States--more likely are.


World-Crisis.Com: 11/5/03,133


Meil Mackay

There was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes. Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

Hoodlum hoo ha warriors of the shemgods, ushering in their Universal Noahide Laws of satan's temporary little flesh kingdom

Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for USA-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].” If Israel’s closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the world’s only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the second Intifada dragged on throughout 2001.

The PIMP of the Great whore...unrestrained peace of course

It’s not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She’s insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold. As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here’s her recollection: “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you know … they didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was strange.”

Neither was Bushkevik....schocked as he read about the AKT....the goat...the Baphomet...the ram from the west

Maria jotted down the van’s registration and called the police. The FBI was alerted and soon there was a state-wide all points bulletin put out for the apprehension of the van and its occupants. The cops traced the number, establishing that it belonged to a company called Urban Moving. Police Chief John Schmidig said: “We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down.”

By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jersey’s Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their 20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and handcuffed. In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who’d flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert.

The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” His name was Sivan Kurzberg. The other four passengers were Kurzberg’s brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were dragged off to prison and transferred out of the custody of the FBI’s Criminal Division and into the hands of their Foreign Counterintelligence Section – the bureau’s anti-espionage squad.

High treasonist, who need to be Hanged NOW

A warrant was issued for a search of the Urban Moving premises in Weehawken in New Jersey. Boxes of papers and computers were removed. The FBI questioned the firm’s Israeli owner, Dominik Otto Suter, but when agents returned to re-interview him a few days later, he was gone. An employee of Urban Moving said his co-workers had laughed about the Manhattan attacks the day they happened. “I was in tears,” the man said. “These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, ‘Now America knows what we go through.’”

the beginning of sorrows

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the USA intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists”. This makes it clear that there was no suggestion whatsoever from within American intelligence that the Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers – simply that the possibility remains that they knew the attacks were going to happen, but effectively did nothing to help stop them.

After the owner vanished, the offices of Urban Moving looked as if they’d been closed down in a big hurry. Mobile phones were littered about, the office phones were still connected and the property of at least a dozen clients were stacked up in the warehouse. The owner had cleared out his family home in New Jersey and returned to Israel.

Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months. Some went into solitary confinement, all underwent two polygraph tests and at least one underwent up to seven lie detector sessions before they were eventually deported at the end of November 2001. Paul Kurzberg refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks, but then failed it. His lawyer said he was reluctant to take the test as he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.



Nevertheless, their lawyer, Ram Horvitz, dismissed the allegations as “stupid and ridiculous”. Yet USA government sources still maintained that the Israelis were collecting information on the fundraising activities of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Mark Regev, of the Israeli embassy in Washington, would have none of that and he said the allegations were “simply false”. The men themselves claimed they’d read about the World Trade Centre attacks on the internet, couldn’t see it from their office and went to the parking lot for a better view. Their lawyers and the embassy say their ghoulish and sinister celebrations as the Twin Towers blazed and thousands died were due to youthful foolishness.
Would friends of the USA jump for joy at the murder of thousands of its citizens?


The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002, however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a USA official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what he told The Forward: “The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it.” He added that “the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs”, but the men were released because they “did not know anything about 9/11”.

Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: “The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.” But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?

We are now deep in conspiracy theory territory. But there is more than a little circumstantial evidence to show that Mossad – whose motto is “By way of deception, thou shalt do war” – was spying on Arab extremists in the USA and may have known that September 11 was in the offing, yet decided to withhold vital information from their American counterparts which could have prevented the terror attacks.

3000 deaths and counting daily...into the tens of thousands

Following September 11, 2001, more than 60 Israelis were taken into custody under the Patriot Act and immigration laws. One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were “tie-ins” between the Israelis and September 11; the hint was clearly that they’d gathered intelligence on the planned attacks but kept it to themselves. The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” Fox News is not noted for its condemnation of Israel; it’s a ruggedly patriotic news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and was President Bush’s main cheerleader in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.

Another group of around 140 Israelis were detained prior to September 11, 2001, in the USA as part of a widespread investigation into a suspected espionage ring run by Israel inside the USA. Government documents refer to the spy ring as an “organised intelligence-gathering operation” designed to “penetrate government facilities”. Most of those arrested had served in the Israeli armed forces – but military service is compulsory in Israel. Nevertheless, a number had an intelligence background.

The first glimmerings of an Israeli spying exercise in the USA came to light in spring 2001, when the FBI sent a warning to other federal agencies alerting them to be wary of visitors calling themselves “Israeli art students” and attempting to bypass security at federal buildings in order to sell paintings. A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) report suggested the Israeli calls “may well be an organised intelligence-gathering activity”. Law enforcement documents say that the Israelis “targeted and penetrated military bases” as well as the DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, including secret offices and the unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel.

Murrah Federal Building, Pentegon, Bushkeviks private offices, the Oval Office?

A number of Israelis questioned by the authorities said they were students from Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, but Pnina Calpen, a spokeswoman for the Israeli school, did not recognise the names of any Israelis mentioned as studying there in the past 10 years. A federal report into the so-called art students said many had served in intelligence and electronic signal intercept units during their military service.

According to a 61-page report, drafted after an investigation by the DEA and the USA immigration service, the Israelis were organized into cells of four to six people.

assassination squads?

 The significance of what the Israelis were doing didn’t emerge until after September 11, 2001, when a report by a French intelligence agency noted “according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells”.

The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams. The pair had settled in Hollywood, Florida, along with three other hijackers, after leaving Hamburg – where another Mossad team was operating close by.

Hollywood in Florida is a town of just 25,000 souls. The French intelligence report says the leader of the Mossad cell in Florida rented apartments “right near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi”. More than a third of the Israeli “art students” claimed residence in Florida. Two other Israelis connected to the art ring showed up in Fort Lauderdale. At one time, eight of the hijackers lived just north of the town.

Put together, the facts do appear to indicate that Israel knew that 9/11, or at least a large-scale terror attack, was about to take place on American soil, but did nothing to warn the USA. But that’s not quite true. In August 2001, the Israelis handed over a list of terrorist suspects – on it were the names of four of the September 11 hijackers. Significantly, however, the warning said the terrorists were planning an attack “outside the United States”.

The Israeli embassy in Washington has dismissed claims about the spying ring as “simply untrue”. The same denials have been issued repeatedly by the five Israelis seen high-fiving each other as the World Trade Centre burned in front of them. Their lawyer, Ram Horwitz, insisted his clients were not intelligence officers. Irit Stoffer, the Israeli foreign minister, said the allegations were “completely untrue”. She said the men were arrested because of “visa violations”, adding: “The FBI investigated those cases because of 9/11.”

Jim Margolin, an FBI spokesman in New York, implied that the public would never know the truth, saying: “If we found evidence of unauthorised intelligence operations that would be classified material.” Yet, Israel has long been known, according to USA administration sources, for “conducting the most aggressive espionage operations against the USA of any USA ally”. Seventeen years ago, Jonathan Pollard, a civilian working for the American Navy, was jailed for life for passing secrets to Israel. At first, Israel claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but the government later took responsibility for his work.

It has always been a long-accepted agreement among allies – such as Britain and America or America and Israel – that neither country will jail a “friendly spy” nor shame the allied country for espionage. Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Boston’s Political Research Associates and an expert in intelligence, says: “It’s a backdoor agreement between allies that says that if one of your spies gets caught and didn’t do too much harm, he goes home. It goes on all the time. The official reason is always visa violation.”

What we are left with, then, is fact sullied by innuendo. Certainly, it seems, Israel was spying within the borders of the United States and it is equally certain that the targets were Islamic extremists probably linked to September 11. But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to strike its enemies almost without limit? That’s a conspiracy theory too far, perhaps. But the unpleasant feeling that, in this age of spin and secrets, we do not know the full and unadulterated truth won’t go away. Maybe we can guess, but it’s for the history books to discover and decide.

Wednesday, November 5th, 2003 - 01:26pm GMT

Article courtesy of Scottish-based Herald Newspapers [no url provided]

[This article is followed by hotly argued and LENGTHY commenters’ discussion (with many posts) about Israel and Zionism, US policy on Israel/Palestine, and related topics, that is well worth wading through, to understand the passions and history that have led to war in the Middle East today.]


The Obedient Canadian Ishmaelite Nohides..and their sub Talmudic laws 

Jewish Group Supports
Oppressive "Sharia" Law
On Canadian Muslims

Mariana Jiménez
The Globe and Mail
The debate around the introduction of sharia-based tribunals in Ontario intensified yesterday, with B'nai Brith Canada endorsing the idea and a group of Queen's Park protesters condemning it as a tool to oppress women.
B'nai Brith, a Jewish human-rights organization, argued that Jewish religious courts have worked well under Ontario's 1991 Arbitration Act and Muslim-based courts will too, especially if the act is amended to introduce additional safeguards to ensure participation is voluntary and informed.
"We have tried to reduce the hype around the proposal to implement sharia law tribunals in Ontario. Sharia-based courts will not bring the Taliban to Canada," said John Syrtash, a family lawyer with B'nai Brith.
The organization presented its submission to Marion Boyd, former NDP attorney-general, who is reviewing the use of private arbitration, including religious-based arbitration, at the request of the Ontario government.
Why Arbitration? Why, it reduces Tort, and benefits the money changers, in their exclusive favor. See Abritration sprouting in "AMARAKA". All goyim will become bondservants to the shemgods 
The issue is a divisive one. At least two Muslim groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada and the Muslim Canadian Congress, oppose the idea of sharia-based courts. Yesterday, about 100 protesters called the proposed tribunals "the dark side of multiculturalism."
Universal Noahidism of the Communitarian "Third Wave"
Homa Arjomand, co-ordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, said she has counselled many Muslim women whose rights were abused during informal arbitration by Muslim leaders. In the case of one family who turned to their Markham, Ont., mosque for resolution of a dispute, the results were not positive for the wife and adolescent daughter. The woman, of Pakistani origin, and her 15-year-old daughter were "returned" to Pakistan against their will, Ms. Arjomand said, and the daughter was placed in the custody of an uncle and preparations were made for an arranged marriage.
The father then married a 19-year-old woman and brought her to Canada.
"Was the mother forced to leave the country? We don't know what really happened here," said Ms. Arjomand, a human-rights activist from Iran who has worked in Toronto for several years counselling abused women and children in the Muslim community.
"Many of my clients have been victimized by this arbitration law, and I have helped some to escape abusive relationships, polygamy and child marriages," she said.
Ontario's Arbitration Act provides for voluntary faith-based arbitration, which allows Muslims, Jews and members of other faiths to use the principles of their religion to settle matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody issues outside the court system.
Sharia is based on the Koran, and interpretations of it can vary widely. Under sharia, male heirs receive a greater share of an inheritance than female heirs; husbands, not wives, may initiate divorce proceedings; and in divorce cases, fathers are generally awarded custody of daughters who have reached the age of puberty.
"Women will always get a worse deal under sharia. It is inherently discriminatory and divisive," said Tarek Fatah, with the Muslim Canadian Congress. "It is flea-market justice."
B'nai Brith, however, says that certain amendments to the act could help safeguard the rights of the vulnerable, such as women.
In their brief, the organization recommends that the parties involved in arbitration obtain a certificate of independent legal advice to ensure they are informed of their rights. The Canadian Jewish Congress says it is neither favours nor opposes sharia-based tribunals.
They do however favor Noahide for all complacent apostate mankind
and it is here now.



Either the Goyim become obedient or we will send Shem-eon and Peretz (Pharez) to slay them...saith the son's of satans shemagogues. Noahide Ishmael NOW say the rib-eyes of satan's covenant with death and hell

Israel's daily newsmagazine

Right-wing rabbis urge tougher war on terror, even if civilians get hurt
By Ellis Shuman  September 8, 2004

Either obey or die

"right wing" neocon Chabad Lubavitch...the Illuminated Masters,..aka "Illuminati

Rabbis led by former MK Haim Druckman presented a letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon.

A group of right-wing rabbis, including heads of West Bank yeshivot and members of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, called on the government to wage a tougher war on terror, even if Palestinian civilians get hurt in the process.

The rabbis, led by former MK and Chairman of the popular Bnei Akiva youth movement Haim Druckman (National Religious Party), presented a letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon.

The rabbis' letter came one day after a pinpoint IAF air strike killed 15 Hamas terrorists at a Hamas training camp. The IDF frequently calls off planned attacks if there is a possibility that Palestinian civilians would be harmed.

"In a time of war as in today, we cannot differentiate between [civilian] population to an Army," the letter read. "We cannot continue to use what is known as 'Christian morality,' which prefers the life of our enemies over our own," the letter continued.

"Should the IDF fight the enemy, if civilians [on the other side] will be killed, or should the IDF refrain from fighting, and thus endanger our civilians?" the rabbis asked in their letter. In response to the rhetorical question, the rabbis quoted the sage Rabbi Akiva who said that "Our lives come first."

Rib-eye Akiva of Talmud Bavli the oral tradition of Mishnah Torah the Perversion of mankind to their god satan the tetragrammaton of illumination.

"Christians preaching 'turn the other cheek' will not cause us to panic, and we will not view favorably those who prefer the lives of our enemies over our own lives," the letter said.

Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar told Channel One television that he backs the right-wing rabbis. "We are forced to fight them for as long as they refuse to accept the path of peace,"

Until they bow and accept the shemgods Noahide laws of Satan

 Amar said. "We fight, but our hand must always be ready to offer peace. It is not just a mitzvah, but a duty, to save one's life," Amar said.

"According to Christian law, one must turn the other cheek; 

The Fullness of the ten Commandments LOVE


but according to Jewish law, we must first and foremost protect ourselves.

Eye for an eye of Talmud Bavli

 If 10 civilians are killed so that we can save the life of one IDF soldier - so be it," said Yesha Rabbis' Council secretary Yishai Ba'abad.

The Talmud also states the penalty for disobedience: "One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation. (Sanh. 57A)"

from satan's Talmudic "protocols"

7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - Socialists, Anarchists, Communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our SOCIAL MASONRY. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the KILLING OUT OF THE GOYIM. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

Each victim on our side is worth in the sight of God a thousand goyim.


The rabbis' letter found backing among right-wing Knesset members. "We cannot tie up the hands of our soldiers," said MK Yehiel Hazan (Likud). "If we don't strike at terrorists wherever they may be found, our innocent civilians will be harmed," he said.


Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Left-wing politicians, however, rejected any possible suggestion of intentionally harming innocent civilians. MK Yossi Sarid (Yahad) said that there was little difference between the right-wing rabbis and the ayatollahs of Iran.

MK Roman Bronfman (Yahad) urged Attorney-General Menachem (Meni) Mazuz to "immediately open investigation" against the rabbis who had signed the letter. "They are inciting the murder of innocent civilians," he said.

Groups of right-wing rabbis have previously called on IDF soldiers to refuse any possible orders they receive calling to dismantle Jewish communities, and they have also said it was forbidden for Gaza settlers to accept compensation in exchange for leaving their homes.

 Right Wing Rib-eyes of satan's shemagogues = Chabad Lubavitch of Talmud Bavli satan's little work books

Bush Team Pitch:
Vote For Us Or Die
Enforce the Talmudic Noahide Universal Communitarian Communist laws of the Talmudic Judaic Chabad Lubavitch ......or die

Jay Bookman
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If the Bush campaign has its way, the 2004 presidential election will be decided by fear.
And the AKT...the FEAR...will easily place the Kohen Gadol, High Priest of Satan's Shemagogue  
Strategically speaking, the approach is brilliant. Fear blinds people. It can cause intelligent, thoughtful individuals to turn off their brains and revert to instinct, and that instinct tells them to seek a strong leader who can protect them. When no such leader exists, sufficiently frightened people will even invent one, projecting an imaginary strength onto figures who are in reality mediocre.
And unfortunately, this administration is all too adept at provoking fear. Two years ago, by warning that mushroom clouds might soon rise over American cities and that Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicles might spread smallpox over our neighborhoods, they frightened this nation into a misbegotten and mismanaged invasion of Iraq that has so far cost the lives of more than 1,000 of our finest men and women, and in the process has made us significantly less secure.
Now they're at it again. As Vice President Dick Cheney put it Tuesday, "it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
Vote for us or die.
The claim is particularly charming given the testimony by ex-CIA Director George Tenet that in the late summer and early fall of 2001, "the system was blinking red" with intelligence signs warning of an impending terror attack by Osama bin Laden. Yet the administration that now sells itself as our only salvation against the bloodthirsty hordes did nothing. President Bush didn't even interrupt his vacation.
That doesn't mean that the attacks of Sept. 11 were the fault of the Bush administration. But it ought to be cause for a little humility.
Fear is useful for another reason: It makes people more docile and less tolerant of others who dare to question authority. 
yep, ask me.
If you're the one in authority, that makes fear a valuable commodity. In his keynote address to the Republican National Convention -- a speech in which the key note was fear -- Zell Miller played upon that human foible, bitterly charging that "the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief" was weakening the nation. The Democrats' crime? In an election year, they actually criticize the president.
Maybe it has slipped the senator's mind, but this is still the United States of America. Even in the darkest moments of our republic, when it was rent by civil war and when it was fighting for survival against both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, we still held elections, and loyal Americans still debated and argued about who was best-suited to lead them.
Of course, Miller has never been much for tolerating the opinions of others. A few months ago, he got so angry at a column I had written that I got word back that he wanted to shoot me. At the time I took it as a playful joke, part of the behind-the-scenes banter that sometimes humanizes this business. But after watching an angry Miller all but challenge talk-show host Chris Matthews to a duel, telling Matthews that he yearned to "get a little closer up into your face," I realize he meant it more seriously..
(Despite the senator's professed affection for getting in people's faces, I should note that he did not deliver his angry message to me in person, or even by telephone or letter. He had his press secretary do it for him.)
The truth is, there's little reason to be terrified. The threat that faces us is certainly real, and it must be met with conviction, strength and wisdom. We need to hunt down terrorists and kill them as quickly as possible, while ensuring that we don't create even more terrorists in the process. But in the scale of threats this nation has faced in the past, this one is well within our capacity to handle.
It's the goal of terrorists to make us terrified; we don't need leaders eager to help that process along. If somebody has to frighten you out of your wits to get your vote, it ought to tell you something.


Noahide induction


According to Jewish tradition, the end of the world will see:

  1. the ingathering of the scattered Jewish exiles to geographic Israel,

Jesus gathers his saints to Sion


  1. the defeat of all of Israel's enemies,

The seed of Abraham according to the Promise are they who have the TRUE Faith of Jesus the Christ


  1. the building of the third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of the sacrificial offerings and Temple service,

Jesus the Temple of Sion, God's Holy Mountain in Heaven, the Temple which the chasidic Pharisees thought to tear down, but who was raised on the third day, the ONLY Lamb of God the Father ever, ever needed the Everlasting Holy Covenant, whom these chasidim Chabad Lubavitch rabid rabbi's are seeking to establish their satanic flesh Kingdom against


  1. the Revival of the Dead (techiat hameitim), or the Resurrection,

And the dead in Christ will rise first on that Great and Terrible Day, and they who are alive and remaining  up to the LORD in the twinkling of an eye, at the seventh trump

  1. and, at some point, the Jewish Moshiach who will become the anointed King of Israel.

Jesus the Christ the Lord, the KING of KINGS and LORD of LORDS, the Alpha and the OMEGA the IAM the First and the Last, who has since the beginning inherited everything of the Father, has and forever will be the ONLY KING, and he is not coming to be a king, BUT IS KING to as many as have faith, who no the Lie of the flesh Millennium of deception. For he is forever the KING in SION. Flesh zion he does not covet of the flesh, but man would have it he be in man's image


  1.  He will divide the Jews in Israel into their original tribal portions in the land. During this time Gog, king of Magog, will attack Israel. 

Now understand this people, where is Armegeddon? For their IS No Armegeddon and a flesh...another chance......but is a lie of the sons of satan who slew the Fathers messengers the Prophets, who Crucified the LORD ALMIGHTY, who killed his disciples, and who seek to slay his saints, for they know they worship satan, do not be deceived that the Bible has not been tampered, for they are not in Fear of God the Father, but they know they worship that Illuminated Tetragrammaton....Lucifer

Beware of the scribes and the Chasidic Chabad Lubavitch Pharisees who deceives mankind unto their g-d......who is no god. The WORD and the KINGDOM is in the Heart, and was sealed at Calvary.


  1.  Magog will fight a great battle, in which many will die on both sides, but G-d will intervene and save the Jews

People they are calling GULF I and GULF two Gog and Magog, they are pitting Judeo-Churchinsanity against Ishmael in their created Terrorism and their shemgod wars and very soon...NOVEMBER 2004 to Jan. 2005 they hope to trigger the last war on earth where once again as WWI and WWII their flesh zion benefited by proxy


  1. This is the battle referred to as Armageddon

Did you catch it?


  1. G-d, having vanquished this final enemy once and for all, will accordingly banish all evil from human existence. 

God and His Father, who are ONE will Harvest these who are responsible for all who are slain and cast them into the wine press of his Great and terrible wrath, and destroy all they who are anti-Christ, who hate him and who crucified him....the unbelievers who slew his saints


  1. After the year 6000 (in the Jewish calendar), the seventh millennium will be an era of holiness, tranquility, spiritual life, and worldwide peace, called the Olam Haba ("Future World"), where all people will know God directly.

the Lie of HELL the Covenant with Death and hell which the Father dis-anulled


Their False Prophets of Baal deception which all whose names are not written in the Lambs Book of life will fall for for they denied the truth and went to the fables of the jews....Judeo-Churchizionity and became anti-Jesus the Lord God

The simple meaning of the words of the prophets appears to imply that the war of Gog and Magog [Yechezkal ch. 38] will take place at the beginning of the Messianic age. 

Here is how they created Armageddon and a false flesh 1000 years, and they use the Prophets of God the Father to deceive mankind when they themselves slew them, for their robber god


Before the war of Gog and Magog, a prophet will arise to rectify Israel's conduct and prepare their hearts [for the Redemption], as it is written: [Malachi 3:23] "Behold, I am sending you Eliyah(u) [6] [before the advent of the great and awesome Day of G-d]."

Schneerson their beloved and very dead chasidic Chabad Lubavitch rebbe in which the first Bushkevik regime made the Noahide Laws the Laws of "Amaraka". The second Bushkevik did the great AKT of Evil to Usher in the Kohen Gadol, Johan Peretz Kohen

He will not come [in order] to declare the pure, impure, nor to declare the impure, pure; nor [will he come in order] to disqualify the lineage of those presumed to be of flawless descent, nor to validate lineage which is presumed to be blemished. Rather, [he will come in order] to establish peace in the world; as [the above prophecy] continues [Malachi 3:24], "He will bring back the hearts of the fathers to the children."

He will come in his own name, as the Lord, shewing that he is God, exalting himself above all which is worshipped of GOD

Some of the Sages say that Eliyahu will appear [immediately] before the coming of Mashiach.

Matthew 11:

10: For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11: Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12: And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13: For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14: And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


All these and similar matters cannot be [clearly] known by man until they occur, for they are undefined in the words of the prophets. Even the Sages have no established tradition regarding these matters, beyond what is implied by the verses; hence there is a divergence of opinion among them.

Thus they do lie tremendously


 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

In any case, neither the sequence of these events nor their precise details are among the fundamental principles of the faith. One should not occupy himself at length with the aggadot and midrashim that deal with these and similar matters, nor should he deem them of prime importance, for they bring one to neither the awe nor the love [of G-d].

for they hope to have man ignorant of their deception, but they HAVE FAILED as it is written

Similarly, one should not try to calculate the appointed time [for the coming of Mashiach]. Our Sages declared: [Sanhedrin 97b] "May the spirits of those who attempt to calculate the final time [of Mashiach's coming] expire!" Rather, one should await [his coming] and believe in the general conception of the matter, as we have explained.

And these so called planners these chasidic prophets of Baal are condemned into outer darkness in the PIT with their flesh Moshiach for their whoredom and Blasphemy against the Word of God the Creator

3. During the Era of the King Mashiach, once his kingdom has been established and all of Israel has gathered around him, the entire [nation's] line of descent will be established on the basis of his words, through the prophetic spirit which will rest upon him. As it is written [Loc. cit., v. 3], "He shall sit as a refiner and purifier."

Thus they lose the Kingdom of Heaven Sion and the KING of KINGS who reigns forever

He will purify the lineage of the Levites first, stating that "This one is a priest of defined lineage" and "This one is a Levite of defined lineage."

he will separate his little gods before he consumes them

 Those whose lineage he does not recognize will be relegated to the status of Israelites. This is implied by the following verse: [Ezra 2:63] "The governor said to them, '[They shall not eat of the most holy things] until a priest arises [who will wear] the Urim and Tumim.'" From this verse one can infer that the genealogy of those presumed to be of unquestioned [priestly and levitical] lineage will be traced by means of the prophetic spirit, and those found to be of such lineage will be made known.

Useless Genealogies of flesh when the flesh will indeed profit man nothing on that Great and Terrible Day of the Lord's wrath

He will define the lineage of the Israelites according to their tribe alone; i.e., he will make known each person's tribal origin, stating that "This one is from this tribe" and "This one is from another tribe." However, concerning a person who is presumed to be of unblemished lineage, he will not state that "He is illegitimate," or "He is of slave lineage," for the law rules that once a family has become intermingled [within the entire Jewish people], they may remain intermingled.

There is ONLY One FOLD by Faith whether jew or greek, for they are no longer of any tribe, but the Fold of the Christ.

4. The Sages and prophets did not yearn for the Messianic Era in order that [the Jewish people] rule over the entire world, nor in order that they have dominion over the gentiles, nor that they be exalted by them, nor in order that they eat, drink and celebrate. Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free Ito involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them, and thus be found worthy of life in the World to Come, as we explained in Hilchos Teshuvah.

hahahhahahhahhahheeeeeeeeeehoooooooooooey, the Lord laughs you into derision rib-eyes.

5. In that Era there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition, for good things will flow in abundance and all the delights will be as freely available as dust. The occupation of the entire world will be solely to know G-d. The Jews will therefore be great sages and know the hidden matters, and will attain an understanding of their Creator to the [full] extent of human potential; as it is written [Yeshayahu 11:9], "For the world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d as the waters cover the ocean bed."

and their god, has deceived them with his sons of his synagogues who say they are the seed of Abraham, but who do lie, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be with the LORD and many shall come from the east and the west and sit with them, but these shall be cast into outer darkness forever.


New party urges non-Jews' expulsion
By Khalid Amayreh


The right-wing group wants to expel Christians and Muslims



Dozens of right-wing Israeli leaders have announced the creation of a new political party which founders say will be dedicated to the expulsion of millions of Muslims and Christians from Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

The party was launched in Jerusalem on Saturday night.

One big Chasidic Chabad Lubavitch shemgod party


Martin Lockshin, an orthodox rabbi and director of the Centre for Jewish Studies at York University, organized a protest during a Nov. 20 memorial for Rabbi Meir Kahane, known for his belief that Arabs in Israel should leave the country to preserve the future of the Jewish people, reported the Nov. 26 internet edition of Canadian Jewish News. "We’re not thrilled that a Jewish memorial preaches hatred," said Lockshin. The memorial was held at the Chabad Lubavitch centre in Thornhill Nov. 20. Kahane served as a member of Knesset but was banned by Israel’s Supreme Court, which prohibited openly racist candidates from standing for election. The firebrand rabbi, who founded the militant Jewish Defense League in New York and the far-right Kach political party in Israel, was shot to death by an Egyptian national in New York in November 1990.


Taking part in the ceremony were many leaders of the officially outlawed but effectively tolerated Koch group such as Baruch Marzel and Hen Ben Elyahu.

Kach is a violent Jewish militia made up of Jewish activists who reject democracy and advocate the expulsion or, if necessary, annihilation of Arabs from what they call Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel).

According to some Jewish religious authorities, Eretz Yisrael encompasses mandatory Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, and parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkey.

Since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada or uprising four years ago, Kach terrorists have killed scores of Arab civilians.

Those caught by the Israeli authorities usually received symbolic or light prison sentences. The bulk of the perpetrators are allowed to remain at large.


According to Ben Elyaho, a co-founder of the new party, the expulsion of non-Jews from Israel would "resolve all of Israel's political, economic and social problems".


Muslims were massacred at the
Ibrahimi mosque by extremists 

"Our party calls for cleansing the region extending from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean from the Goyem [derogatory for non-Jews] and thus guaranteeing a Jewish majority of no less than 90% throughout the Land of Israel," he said.

Most of the founders of the new party are affiliated with Kach and other similar groups.

Another prominent co-founder is Baruch Marzel, a colleague of Baruch Goldstein who in 1994 murdered 29 Arab worshipers who were praying at the Ibrahimi mosque in central Hebron.

Killer exalted

Following Goldstein's death at the hands of Arab survivors, Marzel and his fellow Kach activists eulogised him as a great "saint of the Torah". (Talmud Bavli)

Moreover, Marzel and his friends erected a memorial plaque made up of fine marble in the settlement of Kiryat Araba near Hebron "to immortalise" Goldstein's memory.

Eventually, the Israeli government of Ehud Barak, under pressure from the Meretz party, partially erased the structure in Kiryat Araba.

Kach was originally founded in the mid-1970s by Meir Kahana, an American rabbi, who preached that Judaism and democracy were incompatible and that Israel would have to choose either Judaism or democracy, but not both.

Kahana, who eventually became a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, called for the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel.

Right-wing resurgence

Kach itself does not command widespread support in Israel. However, with Israeli society as a whole drifting to the right especially since the election of Ariel Sharon as prime minister more than three years ago, the movement has come to enjoy an influence far exceeding its actual size.

According to Professor Era Sharkansky of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Kach is trying to exploit the growing rightist opposition to the proposed Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to increase its following.

"Those people will not accept anything, they are against any settlement with the Palestinians involving territorial concessions. And they will threaten civil war in order to thwart Sharon's disengagement plan," he said.

Sharkansky suggested to that the current political environment in Israel was increasingly conducive to the growth of Kach, in light of the near takeover of the Likud by right-wing extremists who oppose the planned withdrawal from Gaza, the dismantling of Jewish settlements and the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Sharkansky argued that Sharon might be trying to circumvent or neutralise the rightist opposition to his plan by getting the US to accept his other plan to annex large parts of the West Bank, including such settlements as Ariel, Ma'ali Adomim and Gush Etzion.

This, Sharon hopes, would desensitise right-wing opposition to the Gaza plan, even though the annexation of the West Bank settlements may kill any chance for the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank.



Noahide News Part 55



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


"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 


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