|
Text
of fax broadcast:
A REPUBLICAN MEAN STREAK
NEW YORK, NEW YORK * 24 August 2005
Republican religious leader Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez is immoral, illegal
and outrageous. I join with my fellow Americans in repudiating Robertson's criminality. I call on President George
W. Bush not only to condemn Robertson for what he said, but to order his arrest and prosecution. American law is clear
about the nature of such a crime, which 2nd Circuit Federal Appellate Judges Newman, Leval and Parker spelled out in the case
of the blind Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman et al.: "Words of this nature - ones that instruct, solicit or persuade
others to commit crimes of violence - violate the law and may be properly prosecuted regardless of whether they are uttered
in private, or in a public speech, or in administering the duties of a religious ministry." But as my 4 November
1999 article [see attached] about the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin demonstrates, Republicans have a certain way of living
above and beyond the law. I call it a Republican Mean Streak. It brings shame upon our nation. To the people
of Venezuela, my apologies.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. St. John
metatron.metatron@verizon.net
******************************************************************************
OP-ED EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES
4 November 1999
(This unsolicited manuscript was not published.)
Four years after
the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin the full story of what really happened remains to be told.
The body of the warrior-turned-peacemaker was still warm when a number of rabbis came under suspicion for having cited religious
law necessitating the removal by violent force of a person such as Rabin who would give away under any circumstances land
that is "inalienably Jewish." And lately, an Israeli dirty tricks security officer, said to have been tasked
by the Rabin government to create embarrassing situations attributable to the right wing opposition, is now on trial for failing
to act to rein in one of his charges, the young man now in prison for Rabin's murder.
Here at home a missing piece to the assassination puzzle continues to be ignored by the proper authorities for political reasons.
An article in THE JEWISH PRESS (3 November 1995, page 10) by Paul Eidelberg, which was on newsstands in New York City and
Jerusalem on the Wednesday before the Saturday when Rabin died, called for revolution and overthrow of the Rabin government.
A bit more subtle than the cursing rabbis who became the focus of immediate attention, Eidelberg cited the Torah and the American
Declaration of Independence as well as the musings of unnamed "respectable Israeli citizens" as references for his
justification of revolution by violent force "when the laws of the state violate the laws of G-d."
Six weeks before the assassination and publication of this actionable article, THE JEWISH PRESS editors removed the usual
reference to Professor Eidelberg's association with Bar Ilan University from the headline of his weekly column.
Inasmuch as Eidelberg was on sabbatical in the USA in November 1995, why would the editors erase his connection to this university?
Rabin's murderer, we soon learned, once attended Bar Ilan.
Why do the proper authorities
hold back? 2nd Circuit Federal Appellate Judges Newman, Leval and Parker, in the case of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman et
al, spelled out the applicable law clearly: "Words of this nature - ones that instruct, solicit or persuade others
to commit crimes of violence - violate the law and may be properly prosecuted regardless of whether they are uttered in private,
or in a public speech, or in administering the duties of a religious ministry."
What,
then, prevents Eidelberg's arrest? It may well be a desire to save New York State Governor George Pataki and New York
City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani deep embarrassment; Pataki was a regular contributor to THE JEWISH PRESS at the time of Rabin's
death and Giuliani, whose regular weekly contributions would at times appear on the same page with articles written by members
of the extemist Kach party, was riding a wave of editorial adulation in THE JEWISH PRESS for having ejected Yasir Arafat from
a Lincoln Center concert just weeks before.
For the Governor and the Mayor to go down
in history as prominent Republicans linked to an individual who incited for the death of Yitzak Rabin is simply too outrageous.
What other explanation is there for the deep chill that has obviously been put on an investigation and prosecution of Eidelberg?
THE JEWISH PRESS is a right wing weekly newspaper that champions the idea of a purely Jewish
state over an integrated and democratic one. Writers, including Kach party members, have called for revival of the pre-Hitler
Zionist policy of "transfer" of Arabs to the east of the Jordan river. Correspondents have called Israeli
elections and Knesset votes fraudulent when Arab votes help decide the outcome. A contributing rabbi once declared
informers against other Jews anathema to the Jewish community, which is inconsistent with the adversarial process on which
our legal system is founded. For Pataki and Giuliani to lend the prestige of their high offices to such extremism is
not only shameful but also dangerous for democracy.
Indeed, New York City Police Commissioner
Howard Safir recently elevated the editorial board of THE JEWISH PRESS to the status of a Pre-Grand Jury in the unfortunate
death of a deranged person at the hands of the NYPD. Safir can hardly be expected to be objective in holding one of
its contributing writers accountable for his poisonous ink.
Surely some ad hoc schmoozing
did occur right after the assassination of Yitzak Rabin; shortly thereafter, the editors of THE JEWISH PRESS showed some damage
control sensitivity by adding an extra caveat on top of the page where Eidelberg's regular weekly column still appears:
"Views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of the publisher." But this does not wash away the
innocent blood!
Stephen M. St.John, POB 449, NYC, NY 10185, Telefax: 212 534 5024
Author, An Eight Part Peace
Proposal for Greater Jerusalem
******************************************************************************************************************************************** Text of fax broadcast:
TOP TEN TALKING POINTS
FOR FILIBUSTER OF JOHN BOLTON NOMINATION
NEW YORK, NEW YORK * 19 JUNE 2005
10) You cannot have your Yellow Cake and eat it too, even if it's your party!
09) Has our entangling
alliance with the Zionist state caused our Congress to relinquish its duty "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies
committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations" (Article I, Section 8) with respect to the USS Liberty?
In the face of such dereliction of duty, the USS Liberty survivors made a formal presentation of war crimes against the Zionist
state at the Pentagon on 8 June 2005, the 38th anniversary of the attack on their ship.
08) Given the Bush
Administration's policy of force and fraud, will the Iranians just sit back and wait for a heavy dose of "shock and awe"
or will they, with their array of supersonic cruise missiles, take preemptive measures in self defense? Would such defensive
measures lead to the decisive defeat of our public and private forces in Iraq?
07) Has United States foreign
policy evolved from the Monroe Doctrine to the Giancanna Doctrine to, finally, the Rudyard-in-a-Box Doctrine, or the Last
Ultimatum?
06) What would the intercourse have been like had John Bolton and Rudyard Kipling ever met?
05) Is it true that President Bush will snub the United Nations on the occasion of its 60th anniversary on 26
June 2005? If so, are the sentiments behind such deplorable behavior consistent with those that prompted the nomination
of John Bolton to represent the USA at the UN? Do we want the UN to work? What does the Constitution say about
our treaty obligations? (Article VI)
04) Someone please answer Udday Hussein's question, even if the
answer comes from Hell: "Why destroy Iraqi water treatment facilities?"
03) Let's have a video
presentation of the Indian Navy's test-firing of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile on 15 April 2005. The target
- a decommissioned Indian Navy ship - was pulverized. I repeat: Pulverized! You cannot see the missile itself
as it goes three times the speed of sound. Our young men in the Arabian Gulf would have small consolation if they knew
the Iranian missiles travel at only twice the speed of sound.
02) Why can't we see those 9/11 video surveillance
tapes of all the passengers boarding those ill-fated flights of 9/11 at Boston's Logan International Airport and at Newark's
Liberty International Airport? Why can't we see them? Why can't our journalists ask, Why can't we see them?
01) With the testimonies of former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and of former UN weapons inspector
Scott Ritter (among others) as well as the recently disclosed "Downing Street Memo" which reveals that US intelligence
was being fixed to suit the policy of the Bush Administration, don't we already have enough evidence to charge President Bush
and his advisers with waging an unjustified, immoral, illegal, unnecessary and ill-advised war against Iraq? Should
Bush be impeached, or should he await his turn to use the pay phone to talk to his lawyer from the Hague?
******************************************************************************************************************************************** Text of fax broadcast commencing 22 February
2005
Stephen M. St. John
Post Office Box 449
New York, NY 10185
212 534 5024
917 519 2905
metatron.metatron@verizon.net
31 January 2005
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street,
N. E.
Washington, DC 20543
Dear Chief Justice Rehnquist,
I
write to you as a concerned citizen of the United States who is a Federal employee under oath to protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States. I am asking you to focus on a very grave matter fraught with serious implications touching
on the conduct of former President George Herbert Walker Bush. Primary documentary evidence, as set forth below and
in attachments to this letter, shows that George H. W. Bush was in Dallas, Texas on the day of the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy and that on the next day he served as a conduit of disinformation so as to promote a misleading public perception
of the person accused of the crime, Lee Harvey Oswald.
My doubts about former President
Bush emanate from careful consideration of two memos of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one written by the Director John
Edgar Hoover and dated 29 November 1963, and the other by Special Agent Graham W. Kitchel and dated 22 November 1963, the
very day of the JFK assassination. (I became aware of the Hoover memo in 1990 and obtained a copy of it directly from
FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC on a visit there in June of 1991. This Hoover memo was published the same year in
Mark Lane's Plausible Denial and a year later in Robert Morrow's Firsthand Knowledge. I became aware of the Kitchel
memo in 2003 and that same year obtained a copy of it by mail from the National Archives. The Kitchel memo is not as
well known to researchers as the Hoover memo and as far as I know it has never been published.)
As I will explain below, the Hoover and Kitchel memos help interpret each other. Perhaps by coincidence only and certainly
unbeknownst to me at the time, the Kitchel memo was declassified on 15 October 1993, exactly two days after I had hand-delivered
complaints of judicial misconduct (93-8533 and 93-8534), which are relevant to the topic of this letter, to the Clerk of the
United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, according to provisions set forth in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act
of 1980 (28 U.S.C.372(c)). Whatever the case, the Kitchel memo establishes George H. W. Bush's whereabouts in Dallas
the day Kennedy died and the next day, 23 November 1963, the day before the assassination of the accused, Lee Harvey Oswald.
After perusal of the Kitchel memo (see attached) obvious questions arise, which I believe
explain why this memo remained hidden from certain investigators for three decades and from me for four decades. Why
did George H. W. Bush wait until after JFK was pronounced dead to inform on a Houston resident who allegedly was making threats
against the president? Why did Bush wait a day, until after JFK had visited Houston on 21 November, to pass this information
to the FBI? Why did Bush withhold potentially useful information known to him for weeks before JFK's trip to Texas and
then reveal it to the FBI when it was too late to act upon? Why did Bush fail to give a timely warning? Will George
H. W. Bush take the answers to these questions to the grave? I hope not!
Bearing
in mind that the Kitchel memo reveals Bush's need for confidentiality with respect to his untimely reporting of hearsay from
a "source unknown" as well as his advice to the FBI to contact his colleagues at the Harris County Republican Party
Headquarters for further information, I have concluded that Bush was establishing in his telephone contact with Kitchel a
pretext for being in Dallas on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1963 so as to disguise a purpose entirely different than simply
giving what we now know with benefit of hindsight to be useless information. That entirely different purpose is revealed
in the Hoover memo (see attached).
Written on 29 November 1963, one week after the JFK
assassination and on the very day of the establishment of the Warren Commission by executive order, the Hoover memo ostensibly
concerns itself with the reaction of the Cuban community in south Florida to the events of the previous week in Dallas.
Implicit in Hoover's words is the understanding that Oswald's pro-Castro public persona could potentially cause dangerous
international ramifications with Cuba or Cuba's sponsor, the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
But let us delve into the matter of Oswald's pro-Castro public persona, which had the potential of not only setting off a
nuclear war of mutually assured destruction, but also, as an inviting alternative according to the logic that prevailed at
the time, of letting one man, taken from prison and from judgment, die so that others may live. This pro-Castro public
persona of Oswald was established at a press conference inside the Dallas Police Headquarters on the night of 22 November
when Jack Ruby, who later shot and killed Oswald on 24 November, corrected Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade's assertion
that Oswald was with the anti-Castro "Free Cuba" movement by telling him before assembled reporters from around
the world that Oswald was with the pro-Castro "Fair Play for Cuba" movement, which Wade instantly accepted as though
in deference to a higher authority. (Ruby's correction of Wade's statement was recorded by news organizations
and Ruby later recollected the event under direct questioning by Chief Justice Earl Warren on 7 June 1964 during a deposition
taken in Dallas as per The Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 5, page 189.) Thus this supposed "two bit gangster
and minor trafficker in women and narcotics" established Oswald's pro-Castro public persona as accepted fact even though
official investigations were barely under way that night and the mandate of the Warren Commission was still six days into
the future. Such is the provenance of Oswald's pro-Castro public persona.
Later,
in 1968, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison established that Oswald worked with anti-Castro groups within the intelligence
community in New Orleans where he was "sheep-dipped" to take on the guise of a pro-Castro agitator. Hence
the false and misleading characterization of Oswald as pro-Castro, which was all too readily made available to the news media
soon after his arrest. Oswald insisted all along that he was a "patsy"; i.e., a person who is easily manipulated
or victimized. Oswald said "I never killed anybody" but never exercised his basic civil right to defend himself
against false accusations in a court of law.
And so the day before Jack Ruby killed Oswald,
when the airwaves were pulsing with Jack Ruby's pro-Castro spin on Oswald, United States Government officials had already
essentially ratified Oswald's pro-Castro public persona by monitoring the Cuban exile community in south Florida for possible
untoward reactions in the aftermath of the JFK assassination and reporting back their somewhat reassuring findings, which
are memorialized in Hoover's memo, which concludes: "The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished
to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November
23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau." George H. W. Bush, not by his phone in his Houston office on 23
November 1963, was nevertheless readily available by phone or by personal visit because he had told Graham Kitchel that he
would be staying at the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel on 22 and 23 November. As the Hoover memo demonstrates, not only did the
FBI know how to contact George H. W. Bush on the road, but the exchange of information between Mr. W. T. Forsyth and George
H. W. Bush certainly had nothing to do with the ostensible reason for Bush's contact with the FBI the previous day; namely,
a college student in Houston who according to sources unknown was shooting off his mouth about JFK in the weeks prior to JFK's
visit to Texas. This exchange of information was all about everybody getting the story straight. Hoover, it seems,
wanted everybody reading in unison from the same page; namely, the pro-Castro portrayal of Oswald as spun by Jack Ruby.
But did Hoover treat George H. W. Bush as a person with a need to know, or was it the other way around?
Chief Justice Rehnquist, at the start of this letter I asked you to focus on a very grave matter touching on the conduct of
former president George H. W. Bush. I thank you for having read thus far. But now I would like to ask you to use
your power as the highest judicial officer in these United States to investigate this matter with a view toward the administration
of justice, the confirmation of historical truth, and the exercise of accountability on the part of a public servant.
To conclude, I also wish to go briefly into two areas of the JFK assassination which are not common
knowledge but are nevertheless necessary to consider in order to reach sound conclusions.
In this day and age when weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are a big concern, a reopening of the JFK assassination
investigation would be quite apt for the times. Let me explain. Elected in 1960, by 1961 JFK was locked in a bitter
behind-the-scenes struggle with the Zionist state's Prime Minister David Ben Gurion over the Zionist state's nuclear weapons
program that had been started at Dimona in the Negev in 1956. This fact was brought to light more than three decades
later, in 1991, with the publication of Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option, in chapter eight, "A Presidential Struggle."
JFK wanted to end the Zionist state's nuclear weapons program because he foresaw that such a program would only result in
a regional arms race for countervailing weapons of mass destruction. This very wise policy ended with his assassination,
which enabled the Zionists to prevail in their determination to maintain the threat of nuclear weapons capability. However,
the cui bono? test has never been applied to the Zionist state in any official investigation of the JFK assassination.
But a highly intelligent and patriotically motivated researcher by the name of Michael Collins Piper has applied the cui bono?
test to the Zionist state and the international web of conspiracy which he describes in detail in his book, Final Judgment:
The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, is indeed quite startling. Michael Collins Piper has shined a
light in some rather dark places. In the name of peace and justice, I implore you, Chief Justice Rehnquist, to look
at his work which I believe you will find compelling, for it may well be that deeply rooted treason and corruption have prevented
a truly just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a region from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers free from
the threat of weapons of mass destruction. (Piper's Final Judgment may be obtained at 888 699 6397.)
Finally, I note that the Talmudic law of the moser, or the law of the Jewish informer, is essentially a covenant prohibiting
a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew, which is diametrically opposed to the adversarial process of our own legal
system and therefore conducive toward obstruction of justice. Furthermore, among employees at all levels in our intelligence
and law enforcement communities, the law of the moser constitutes an impediment to frank and uninhibited exchanges of information
in the discharge of their duties and therefore poses a threat to our national security. I cannot overemphasize the great
importance of this very real issue of the law of the moser, or law of the Jewish informer, the history of which you can read
online at www.JewishEncyclopedia.com. In my complaint of judicial misconduct docketed under Miscellaneous Number 01-0030
on 1 June 2001 by the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, I cite a living rabbi's more recent (1997)
published article promulgating the law of the moser or law of the Jewish informer. Again, this is a very real issue,
not unlike the Mafioso code of omerta. The Warren Commission was oblivious to it. So was the 9/11 Commission.
We continue to ignore this issue at our national peril. Let us address in a forthright manner this issue of the Talmudic
law of the moser or law of the Jewish informer and its legal, national security and foreign policy implications.
Very truly yours,
Stephen M. St. John
Copy to: Associate Justice
John Paul Stevens
Associate Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor
Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy
Associate Justice
David Hackett Souter
Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice
Stephen G. Breyer
Michael Collins
Piper
Et al.
The following two sections A & B show verbatim reproductions of the texts of the 29 November 1963 Hoover memo and the
22 November 1963 Kitchel memo. Any reader may obtain free copies of the originals by requesting them with either a stamped
self-addressed envelope (postage sufficient for carrying three pages) or a fax number for anywhere in the USA, Mexico or Canada.
Direct requests to: Stephen M. St. John, Post Office Box 449, New York, NY, 10185 or by phone or fax to 212 534 5024
or by e-mail to metatron.metatron@verizon.net. The original copies show time stamps, routing designations, declassification
stamps, signatures, handwritten initials and the like, whereas the verbatim reproductions that follow show only the
text. [Copies of the originals were attached to letter mailed to Chief Justice Rehnquist.]
A
***Verbatim Reproduction of 29 November 1963 Hoover FBI Memo***
Date:
November 29, 1963
To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: ASSASSINATION
OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised
that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake
an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in
U. S. policy, which is not true.
Our sources and informants
familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of
stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling
is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources
know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.
An
informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised
that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken
against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.
The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and
Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.
B ***Verbatim Reproduction of 22 November 1963 Kitchel FBI Memo***
TO:
SAC, HOUSTON
DATE: 11-22-63
FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL
SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY
At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH,
President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished
the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.
BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks,
the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes
to Houston.
BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student
at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone
number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be
able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.
BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence
on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.
******************************************************************************************************************************************** Text of fax broadcast 26 June 2003: STEPHEN M. ST. JOHN
POST OFFICE BOX 449 ROCKEFELLER CENTER NEW YORK, NY 10185 Tele/Fax 212 534 5024
Mobile: 917 519 2905 E-Mail: metatron.metatron@verizon.net It is not too late
for President Bush to reconsider last year’s April Fool’s Day announcement of his commitment to return Governors
Island to New York. There exists a much better option for the future use of this island in New York harbor - one that is more
in keeping with the rich history and military tradition of this national treasure that has been - and can continue to be -
a vibrant symbol of our nation’s evolutionary growth and remarkable destiny. Governors Island
is where the colonial Dutch governors - hence its name - once lived long before there was any lively sentiment among settlers
to cut ties with European monarchs. Later, of course, a whole line of English governors took occupancy after a land swap that
resulted in the establishment of Dutch Guyana in South America - now the free and independent state of Suriname. Then came
the birth of our nation, when Governors Island attained strategic importance in the defense of New York harbor and, later,
in Abraham Lincoln’s marshaling of northern forces so as to preserve the Union, a military course of action which paralleled
a diplomacy that was a precursor of some of the purposes and principles enumerated in the first chapter of the Charter
of the United Nations. And now, a century after the emergence of the USA as a world power, Governors Island is a closed
down US Coast Guard installation the disposition of which is hopefully still open to debate. As the USA seeks to maintain its
leadership role among the nations of the earth in this post Cold War period and as our nation’s leaders try to anticipate
the challenges ahead in a truly global economy, the Bush Administration should give serious thought to making Governors Island
available to the United Nations for dual use as the Headquarters of the Military Staff Committee and as a campus for an International
Military Academy, both of which will be devoted to the study, formulation and promulgation of protocols and procedures in
support of decisions taken by the Security Council and requiring international enforcement action per Chapter 7 of
the Charter of the United Nations. Such an arrangement, which can easily coexist with the Fort Jay and Castle William
national monuments, will not only be an important demonstration of a renewed commitment by the United States to its most important
treaty obligation ever undertaken, but also a sorely needed way to coordinate the war on terrorism and the general practice
of peacekeeping and to distribute the burdens thereof among all of the states members of the United Nations.
Governors
Island is quite like a university campus on summer vacation. The infrastructure is already there; one just needs to turn on
the electricity and water and operations could commence. Clearly, herein lies a unique opportunity for the Bush Administration
to leave a lasting legacy consistent with our nation’s historic destiny as well as with our constitutionally mandated
treaty obligation to support to the best of our ability a cherished institution dedicated to the maintenance and furtherance
of world peace and prosperity - the United Nations. Raising the profile, the prestige and yes, the power of the Military Staff
Committee of the United Nations will reflect true leadership on the part of the United States. Let us not witness the United
Nations go the way of the League of Nations! Let us have the confidence to lead as a sovereign equal among sovereign equals.
It is the honorable thing to do and accords well with the vision and the solemn pledges of the United Nations Conference of
26 June 1945 in San Francisco. ******************************************************************************************************************************************** Text of fax broadcast 23 January 2002: LESSONS LEARNED BY THE EVIL UMPIRE? The
GOLDEN RULE states that we should do unto others
as we would have them do unto us; whereas its PLATINUM COROLLARY goes: we know what they have done to us; what have we been doing to them? Few in
the USA stop to consider the latter. Think on this: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 has been on record from
just before the excavation for the foundation of the World Trade Center. Resolution 242 predates and now outlasts this erstwhile
landmark but even so this important expression of international law, which calls the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem
and Gaza occupied territories that are not parts of the Jewish state, has yet to be implemented! A President of the USA ought
to be very concerned by this because the Constitution of the United States, which provides that “all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” requires
compliance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, including Article 25, which states: “The
Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present
Charter.” The problem is with the Zionists who simply reject Resolution 242 or else pay lip-service to it from time
to time in bad-faith negotiations for public relations’ sake. The problem is also with the United States Congress whose
members have been so well stroked by Zionist supporters that after 35 years of building “facts on the ground”
the Jewish state’s illegal settlements are no longer considered illegal and the much-aggrieved Palestinians are accordingly
expected to have “reasonable expectations” and hope for another “startlingly generous offer” of their
illegally occupied land so that the Jewish state can put them on reservations just like the American Indians. But most importantly
the problem is with every president of the USA after JFK; none has had the moral strength to tell the Zionists that their
chronic flouting of Resolution 242 discredits not only the Charter of the United Nations but the Constitution
of the United States as well. Hence, circumvention of Resolution 242 remains much, much more costly than the horrible
events of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent war on terrorism. “Whoso rewardeth evil instead of good, evil shall not
depart from his house.” (Proverbs 17:13) It is better to lead in the quest for peace than to engage in a downward
spiral of violent reaction. Credible negotiations will quell the violence but peace talks cannot be credible if the necessary
compromises do not begin with accepted international law. A truly just and lasting and comprehensive peace on all fronts of
the Arab-Israeli dispute will also provide a regional solution for a truly regional problem. The successful blueprint for
peace in the Middle East will take the United Nations’ significant Iraqi arms reduction (achieved in the Gulf War and
subsequent years of arms disposal programs) to the next logical step: a regional arms reduction, limitation and verification
agreement among all nations from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers, thereby making this a region entirely free of weapons of
mass destruction. Stephen M. St. John, Post Office Box 449, New York,
New York 10185 Tel/Fax: 212 534 5024, E-Mail: metatron.metatron@verizon.net Sole Author of An Eight Part Peace Proposal
for Greater Jerusalem ******************************************************************************************************************************************** STEPHEN
M. ST. JOHN
POST OFFICE BOX 449
ROCKEFELLER
CENTER
NEW YORK, NY 10185
TEL/FAX: 212 534 5024
19 October 1997
AN APPEAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY TO REDOUBLE EFFORTS TO COMBAT TERRORISM IN ALL OF ITS FORMS
Last week’s news reports about Mossad assassins posing as Canadian tourists
in Amman, Jordan, revive memories of journalist Steve K. Walz’s mysterious reference to some kind of connection between
the 1988 murder of Khalil Al Wazir in Tunis and a series of explosions at Jewish institutions in Argentina years later.
If the Amman incident is any indication of a regular modus operandi, then it is only fair to suggest the possibility that
the Wazir “hit team” took the guise of Argentineans on tour.
Mr. Walz, a friend and supporter of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, writes a regularly featured column,
“Informed Sources,” for the Brooklyn-based weekly newspaper, The Jewish Press. Other featured columnists
include New York City Mayor Rudolf Guiliani, New York State Governor George Pataki and Bar Ilan University Professor Paul
Eidelberg, whose call for revolution, as justified by Torah “when the laws of the state violate the laws of G-d,”
was on the newsstands in the United States and Israel three days before the Rabin assassination by a former Bar Ilan University
student. The maximum sentence meted out in this instance is a disclaimer: “Views expressed on this page
are not necessarily those of the publisher.”
When such clearly expressed incitement to violence against a Prime Minister whose policies the writer found objectionable
not only goes unpunished but does not even elicit comment anywhere in the news media, it is unfortunate indeed for democracy.
One also wonders to what extent the news media encourages extremists.
Take for example the assassination of Alex Odeh on 11 October 1985 in Santa Ana, California. Alex was a displaced
Palestinian who became an outspoken advocate of his people’s cause. Circumstances led to his appearance on a local
Los Angeles TV station where he had the unenviable task of explaining what people did not want to hear: the PLO was
not behind the Achille Lauro hijacking but instead helped to end it. The next morning a bomb exploded as Alex opened
the door to his office; his secretary, a Syrian national named Hind Baki, was usually the first to arrive each morning, but
an errand saved her life. Strangely, only a week before, the name “Baki” appeared in an ominous and surreptitious
manner in the Hearst Corporation’s now defunct Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, in an editorial page cartoon whose provenance certainly deserves rigorous investigation. The proper authorities appear to be uninterested.
|
