Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence March 24, 1762 page 315-316 of 641 “a tax equal to half or third of their substance.”

Thursday. March. 24. 1763
page 315-316 of 641

I have now considered this 2nd question with regard to public law pretty nearly with all the precision it can admit of.—The sovereign power is in all governments absolute, and as soon as the govt. is firmly established becomes liable to be controlled by no regular force. In the state of hunters and shepherds it is far otherwise; but now the summa potestas [supreme power] is not liable to be controlled by any regular power. For if what we called the summa potestas [supreme power] was liable to be called to account by any man, any body of the people or the whole people, this person or body would be the summa potestas [supreme power], and if this again was under the authority of another, this would be the summa potestas [supreme power]. So that we must always end in some body who have a power liable to no control from a regular power. The whole is trusted to them without any restriction with regard to legislative, judicial, or executive power. We are not indeed to expect that these will always be exercised with the greatest propriety. Many foolish laws have no doubt been made exercised with the greatest propriety. Many foolish laws have no doubt been made which | have been repealed the next session; many improper taxes have been imposed, the inconveniency of which was soon felt, as the hearth–money and the poll– tax; many imprudent wars have been entered into and many foolish peaces have been made by the king and his council, as that of Utrecht [a city in the central Netherlands].86 Now many such things may be done without entitling the people to rise in arms. A gross, flagrant, and palpable abuse no doubt will do it, as if they should be required to pay a tax equal to half or third of their substance. But how far the sovereign power may go with safety can not be said. We see that they may in this respect raise much higher taxes and supplys at one time than at an other. When the sovereign power is divided amongst different hands, tho it is impossible to say how far the whole sovereign power conjoind may go, it is easy to ascertain when any of those amongst whom it is divided go beyond their lawfull bounds; for this is the case whenever any one of them attempts to exercise the power which belongs to another, as if the Parliament or king should act in the legislative way without the consent of the other, if the Parliament should make war or the king endeavour to raise taxes. The king can indeed remedy any unjust proceedings | of the Parliament by proroguing them.—The very definition of a perfect right opposed to the offices of humanity, etc., which are by some called imperfect rights, is one which we may compell others to perform to us by violenc.—If therefore the severall parts of the governmen have a perfect right to their severall provinces, it must be supposed that they are intitled to defend themselves in them by force.—If therefore the king levies taxes which are not imposed by Parliament, he breaks the rules of the government. This was what James 2d did, and as I said above87 without any necessity, with regard to the customs, as an easy method could have been taken to prevent all inconveniencies of a sudden importation. There was not even this excuse with regard to the excise, as it was raised chiefly from beer which the brewer could not have overstocked in any s[h]ort. It was raised in the 1st place by a [ ]sof law with regard to the meaning of the Act.88 The case was precisely the same as if one should get a lease of a farm for 30 years with a power of subsetting as we call it for 3 years, and in the 30th year should subset part of it; that could not intitle the subtenent to any advantage after the 30th year. The date was also falsified, which | is not a whit more excusable than a fogery, and subscribed by the commissioners as if in Charles time. All this was done expressly conterary to the Petition of Right,89 which secured the Parliament in the right of levying taxes (which had been encroached on by Charles 1st.) in a very particular manner.—Another thing which was at first little attended to was the breach of the tests. The nation, seeing that Charles 2nd was likely to have no children, became extremely jealous of the bigotry, violence, and improvidence of James, of which they had had many instances. There were therefore two tests enacted,90 the one against papists, which was brought about by all the Whig and republican party, particularly the Protes. clergy, and the other against dissenters, by the established church. These secured that no one should be admitted to any office 

by the established church. These secured that no one should be admitted to any office in the government who did not take the sacramen according to the Church of England form. This was expressly levelled against the designs of James and his party as well as the dissenters; and also that no one who was a papist could serve in the army for a longer time than three months unless he took the oaths of supremacy and | abjuration. James however employed in the rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth severall Roman Catholick officers, as they could serve for 3 months. Finding them very serviceable he resolved to continue them; of this he acquainted thet Parliament; and altho it was well known that he done it without making any mention of it, they would [have] thro their great servility have overlooked it; yet as he plainly told them that he was resolved to break thro the rules of the government they thought themselves bound to remonstrate against it.91 He was also extremely cruel in punishing many of the state criminals. Jeffreys in one circuit executed six hundred persons after Monmouths rebellion, many of whom also, tho they had very good excuses, were compelled by force to plead guilty. In the last rebellion,92 which threatend the government with much greater danger, there only about 60 civil executions (tho’ there were severall other military ones not altogether so justifiable) notwithstanding that there were many men of character concerned in it, and not above one or 2 in Monmouth’s, which lasted only about three weeks.—By dispensing with the test, he introduced many Roman Catholicks into offices; he brough | four into the Privy Council, put one at the head of theu Treasury, an other at that of the exchequer, etc; appointed a Roman Catholick clergy man to be Dean of Christchurch;93 and ordered the fellows of Magdalen College to elect a Roman Catholick94 for the master, which they refusing, as the person was not only a R. Cath. but also of a character improper for that office, he turned them out of their places, which was as evident an encroachment on property as any other action he could have been guilty of. He assumed this dispensing power not only with regard to the tests but also with regard to the penall laws. This power had been granted formerly to Charles with regard to some things of no importance, as the shape of carts and waggons, and these he quoted as precedents. The penall laws had originally been made to strengthen the kings authority in the punishing of crimes, and therefore he might be allowed to dispense with them whenever he could do without them. But that he should dispense with an Act of Parliament made plainly to restrict his power and to suppress a religion conterary to the interests of the nation could never be granted. This he did not only by dispensation to particular persons but alsov in the progress of his government suspended the laws altogether, which as it was for | an unlimited time amounted to the same thing as the abrogating them.—Another step which as much as any thing tended to bring about the Revolution was the order he issued out, which was ordered to be read by all the clergy men in the kingdom, containing a declaration of the suspension of all the penall laws. He thought they would have come the more easily into it as they had read one in the time of Charles 1st to the same effect; it however had the sanction of Parliament, which this wanted. Accordingly not above 200 clergy 

had the sanction of Parliament, which this wanted. Accordingly not above 200 clergy men in all England read it. The Archbishop of Canterbury95 and 6 or 7 others went and presented a remonstrance and petition drawn up in the most gentle terms, requesting he would recall the order; but instead of listening to them, he sent them all to the Tower. Nothing could be more alarming to the nation than this of sending to prison 6 or 8 of the most respectable men in the kingdom, not only for their character as clergy men but as lords of Parliament, for doing what every subject has a right to do; and they more especially, as they can at any time demand a private audience. Some time after one Sharp preached a sermon against popery, which being the kings religion was construed as an affront against him. He therefore | ordered the Bishop of London to suspend him. This he told him he could not do without bringing to a fair trial; but offered at the same time to advise him to desist, which he accordingly did. James, not satisfied with this, instituted a court of commissioners of ecclesiasticall affairs, which he thought he could do with safety by altering the name of the High Commission Court which had been dissolved in the time of Charles 1st, which court immediately sent the Bishop and Sharp to the Tower as being guilty of an affront in dissobeying the kings authority.96 Besides this,w when he saw that the whole nation was disgusted at the encouragement he gave to popery, he published a declaration granting liberty of concience to people of all religions, which he had no power to do, and promising at the same time that he would notx use irresistible necessity to oblige any one to change his religion.97 It was well known that he would oblidge no one to become Protestant, so that this was no more than declaring that he would not treat the Protestants with the very greatest severity; | a declaration which none but a mad man would have thought of making in a Protestant country. Fancying also that one great objection of the nobility against popery was that the abbey lands which had been given to the nobility in the time of Henry the 8th would be restored, he declared that every one should be allowd to possess his lands as he did at that time, which plainly signified his intention of introducing popery into the kingdom.—He then applied himself to the army and asked them if they approved or not of his abolishing the test oaths. This he began to do in a single regiment, desiring that if they were of a contrary opinion they should lay down their arms; and was surprised to find that excepting 6 or 7 men and one or two Roman Catholick officers they all grounded their arms. This incenced him greatly and he ordered them to take them up again, telling them that he should never afterwards consult them on any such matters.98 From all this we need not wonder that the whole nation deserted him and called over William in his stead. They might no doubt have passed over the whole Stuart family and chosen any one they pleased for king; for as | the children of one who is guilty of treason against the government are for ever incapable of succeding to any estate, so when the sovereign is guilty of any breach of duty to his people he might well be supposed to forfeit for ever all title to the crown. But this they generously dispensed with, and passing over his son who was also a Roman Catholick and suspected as to his legitimacy, theny called in his daughter Mary; and in her reign99 the kingdom was settled on Anne, and 

called in his daughter Mary; and in her reign99 the kingdom was settled on Anne, and failing he issue on the family of Hanover, the nearest Protestant heirs, and a maxim established that no one of a different religion from the established one could ever fill the British throne. End of Volume Five of MS.

The Parable of Pizza on the Train via Stu & Pat, 4th Hour 8-29-12

• Stu: A friend of mine, Shawn, [& I] we were out, it was a late night out, one of those a late drinking night I believe. And leaving New York City, he departed, it was, I dunno it hadda be one or two in the morning at this point & the whole group broke up...
• Pat: and you don't really drink that much do you?
• Stu: No, but uh this particular evening
• Pat: You had?
• Stu: I had many drinks I'd say at that point. And Shawn decided to take the train home, as he had to, I think he lives in New Jersey somewhere, and he was on the train and before he got on the train he was going to buy some pizza, and he wanted a couple of slices and as a capitalist he decided to look at the pricing mechanisms and make an important decision, which was not to buy two slices of pizza or three slices of pizza but to buy a large pizza. And Shawn the brilliant business man that he is, got on the train and started eating his pizza which he you know, he bought it for like fifteen dollars or something like that, and bought the pizza, ate three slices of pizza as he was planning, sold four slices of pizza to individual people on the train for five dollars a slice, because they were also comming home from a late night of drinking,
• Pat: genius
• Stu: and then to make a point to the other people for criticizing him for selling it to them at such a high price, he gave one of the slices away to another person who didn't have the money, and said, 'this is what a capitalist does I've made a profit and now I'm giving some to charity.' and he actually made that announcement drunkenly on the train.
• Pat: Awesome
• Stu: That's a solid evening right there. He paid for his train ticket he paid for the pizza, pocketed a little bit of money for himself and gave something away to charity, That's America.

Sarah Palin

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?sk=notes&s=20____________________________________________________________________________________

What Palin Really Did To the Oil Industry
By JAMES P. LUCIER JR. SEPTEMBER 5, 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057543526201877.html

____________________________________________________________________________________

Setting the Record Straight on State’s Film Production Tax Credit
by Sarah Palin on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 at 9:22am

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150142191023435

George Whitefield

 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC6887D56F2282868


http://issuu.com/keyboardmilitia/docs/18_sermons_george_whitefield/4


  

The Boston Tea Party

 in the 2006 Encyclopedia of the New American Nation.

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 occurred in response to the rising financial crisis of the British East India Company, but more importantly, it was in protest to the “taxation without representation” by the Parliament on the British American colonies.

Parliament passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767 in hopes of offsetting the revenue lost due to the ongoing smuggling of Dutch tea. The act levied a new tax on several commodities, British tea included, but instead of the tea tax solving the smuggling problem, it renewed a controversy about Parliament’s right to tax the colonies.

Whig colonists began to boycott the goods and protest against the taxes. Parliament was forced to repeal the Townshend taxes in 1770, but it kept the tax on tea. In 1772, Parliament passed the Tea Act that actually lowered the tax on tea that was imported into Britain, however it kept the tea taxes that were imported into the colonies the same.

In 1773, four ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to Boston, and one ship each were bound for New York, Philadelphia and Charleston. Opposition to the Tea Act began to mobilize the Americans colonists. Protestors of every colony except Massachusetts, where Gov. Thomas Hutchinson had convinced the tea consignees not to back down, were able to successfully turn the ships back to England.

After the tea ship Dartmouth arrived in the Boston Harbor, Samuel Adams called for a meeting on Nov. 29, 1773, in which thousands of colonists arrived. Where British law required the ship to unload and pay its taxes within 20 days, the mass meeting passed a resolution urging the captain of the Dartmouth to send the ship back without paying the taxes.

Gov. Hutchinson shot down the resolution, and two more tea ships, the Eleanorand the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor. On the last day of the Dartmouth’sdeadline, roughly 5,000 people gathered around the Old South Meeting House where it had met before. After receiving a report that Gov. Hutchinson had again refused to let the ships leave, people poured out of the meeting house and headed to the harbor. That evening, a group of as little as 30 or as many as 200 men, some dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded the vessels and dumped all 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor.

A common misconception about the original Boston Tea Party is that it was a protest of high taxes, but the price of tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. The Boston Tea Party was instead a response to the extent of Parliament’s authority on the colonies, including the right to tax on goods, without giving the colonies any representation in the legislature.

Noah Webster

The "Father of American Scholarship and Education." the father of cultural independence, philosopher, author, essayist, orator, political leader, public official, and crusading editor.

Wikipedia

American Exceptionalism

The Long Journey of Noah Webster (1980) by Richard Rollins pg 24

"America sees the absurdities--she sees the kingdoms of Europe, disturbed by wrangling sectaries, or their commerce, population and improvements of every kind cramped and retarded, because the human mind like the body is fettered 'and bound fast by the chords of policy and superstition': She laughs at their folly and shuns their errors: She founds her empire upon the idea of universal toleration: She admits all religions into her bosom; She secures the sacred rights of every individual; and (astonishing absurdity to Europeans!) she sees a thousand discordant opinions live in the strictest harmony ... it will finally raise her to a pitch of greatness and lustre, before which the glory of ancient Greece and Rome shall dwindle to a point, and the splendor of modern Empires fade into obscurity."

___________________________________________________________________________________

Webster's "Speller"

Writes historian Rosalie J. Slater:
 
The publication of Noah Webster’s “Speller” in 1783 was followed with a “Grammar” in 1784, and a “Reader” in 1785. These were Parts I, II, and III of A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, whose title was suggested by President Ezra Stiles of Yale College. These volumes republished again and again became the basis of an American system of education and their influence grew with the history of the young republic. Indeed, Noah Webster’s The American Spelling book, the famous “blue-backed speller,” set a publishing record unlikely to be equaled by any school text in America. Over a period of one hundred years more than one hundred million copies were worn out by Americans as they learned their letters, their morality and their patriotism, from north to south, from east to west. Noah Webster’s “Speller” was compatible with the hearthside of a log cabin in the wilderness, it travelled on the flatboats of the Ohio, churned down the Mississippi and creaked across the prairies of the far west as pioneer mothers taught their children from covered wagons. Wherever an individual wished to challenge his own ignorance or quench his thirst for knowledge, there, along with the Holy Bible and Shakespeare, were Noah Webster’s slim and inexpensive Spellers, Grammars, Readers, and his Elements of Useful Knowledge containing the history and geography of the United States.

Education/Qualification
 Writes historian Rosalie J. Slater:

Noah Webster, who once stated that his political philosophy had been learned “in the school of Washington and of the great and worthy men who assisted in obtaining Independence, and in the formation and organization of the government,” was eminently qualified to teach the principles of the American Constitution.

The Constitutional Convention

Writes historian Rosalie J. Slater:

It was he who had first publicly promoted the idea of a constitutional convention as he travelled from New Hampshire to North Carolina during the years 1785-1787. His 48-page pamphlet entitled Sketches of American Policy, was carried to Mount Vernon in 1785 for George Washington’s perusal. During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia the 29-year old school master was visited by many of the most outstanding delegates.

Webster’s Diary records visits with George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Rufus King, Abraham Baldwin, Edmund Randolph, William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman, William Livingston and John Marshall. 

Two days before the Convention adjourned Thomas Fitzsimmons, a delegate from Pennsylvania, wrote Noah Webster requesting him to prepare an essay in support of the now completed document [entitled An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal ConstitutionProposed by the Late Convention Held at Philadelphia]. The request came on September 1st, it was written on October 9th and published October 17th. Containing 55 pages it was dedicated to Benjamin Franklin. Dr. David Ramsay wrote from Charlestown: “I have read it with pleasure, and it is now in brisk circulation among my friends. I have heard every person who has read it express his high approbation of its contents. It will doubtless be of singular service in recommending the adoption of the new Constitution.”
___________________________________________________________________________________

An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention Held at Philadelphia

[Read Online via The Potowmack Institute: http://www.potowmack.org/2noahweb.html]

a pamphlet in support of the proposed constitution published originally under the pen-name 'An American Citizen', second in influence only to the Federalist Papers.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United State"

___________________________________________________________________________________
 
Sketches of American Policy.

[Read Online via The Potowmack Institute:http://www.potowmack.org/1noahweb.html]

Webster describes the unacceptable circumstance that a legislature becomes a "council of advice" rather than a law making body if the laws have no powers of enforcement. This concept resembles the libertarian fantasy's "code of ethics" where positive law becomes simply a matter of advice. We hang the Ten Commandments on wall: Thou shall; Thou shall not. The Ten Commandments is not a frame of government with powers of enforcement.
Webster also describes a nation at the mercy of an individual who can defeat any legislation. His individual is a monarch who can veto any bill coming out of a parliament for any reason at all and without accountability. ___________________________________________________________________________________

Quotes

"Language, as well as the faculty of speech was the immediate gift of God."

--
  
"The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men."  Noah Webster.

"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God.  [Exodus 18:21] The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. Intriguing men can never be safely trusted." -Noah Webster The history of the United States pg 336
http://books.google.com/books?id=omcAAAAAYAAJ&lpg=RA1-PR4&ots=wBCaRUWZRx&dq=Noah%20Webster%2C%20The%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States&pg=RA1-PR4#v=onepage&q=Noah%20Webster,%20The%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States&f=false

"All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]
"The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields." [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

"Education is useless without the Bible" [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5 ]

"The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer." Noah Webster (original source document not yet found)

"There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet. Noah Webster "(original source document not yet found)

"Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the christian religion." Noah Webster, Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.

"[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles." Noah Webster, Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.

"This is genuine christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." Noah Webster, Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.
He declared government was responsible to: "Discipline our youth in early life in sound maxims of moral, political, and religious duties." Noah Webster

"Education is useless without the Bible." Noah Webster
"The Bible was America's basic text book in all fields." Noah Webster
"God's Word, contained in the Bible, has furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct." Noah Webster

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." -1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language
  
"The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government. Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

"If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes; Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

"Corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded." Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

"If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws." Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

"Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty from government. And...the Chief Magistrate of the United States should be the last man to accelerate its progress." Noah Webster, 1832, History of the United States

http://www.seekfind.net/NoahWebster.html

___________________________________________________________________________________

ISRAEL

     

  http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/02/freedom-centers-ad-in-todays-new-york-times/
________________________________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

Benjamin Netanyahu’s epic speech before Congress
Posted by The Right Scoop on May 24, 2011
http://www.therightscoop.com/benjamin-netanyahus-epic-speech-before-congress/

In Blog Transcript - http://dauthazbeechphagein.blogspot.com/2012/01/israeli-pm-benjamin-netanyahus-speech.html

http://youtu.be/0BaMLlnb_KI




 ________________________________________________________________________________
http://newsblaze.com/story/20070926113427tsop.nb/topstory.html

http://asderathos.tumblr.com/post/6949030361/khaibar-khaibar-o-jews-the-army-of-muhammad

Hoax of Hate: Protocols of The Elders of Zion -

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/hoax.html
_______________________________________________________________________________

MODERN ISRAEL TIMELINE

The British Palestinian Mandate 1922-1923 [The Avalon Project] [WikiSource]

[Wikipedia]

A legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948. With the League of Nations' consent on 16 September 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Trans-jordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz in present-day Saudi Arabia, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915. Following the 1922 Trans-jordan memorandum, the area east of the Jordan river became exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home.

War of Independence (November 1947 - July 1949) - Started as 6 months of civil war between Jewish and Arab militias at the end of the British Mandate of Palestine and turned into a regular war after the declaration of independence of Israel and the intervention of several Arab armies. In its conclusion, a set of agreements were signed between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, called the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established the armistice lines between Israel and its neighbours, also known as the Green Line.

Sinai War (October 1956) - A military attack on Egypt by Britain, France and Israel, beginning on 29 October 1956, with the intention to occupy the Sinai Peninsula and to take over the Suez Canal. The attack followed Egypt's decision of July 26, 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam. Although the Israeli invasion of the Sinai was successful, the US and USSR forced it to retreat. Even so, Israel managed to re-open the Straits of Tiran and pacified its southern border.

Six-Day War (June 1967) - Fought between Israel and Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The nations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria and others also contributed troops and arms to the Arab forces. Following the war, the territory held by Israel expanded significantly ("The Purple Line") : The West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Golan Heights, Sinai and Gaza were occupied from Jordan, Syria and Egypt, respectively.

War of Attrition (1968-1970) - A limited war fought between the Israeli military and forces of the Egyptian Republic, the USSR, Jordan, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization from 1967 to 1970. It was initiated by the Egyptians as a way of recapturing the Sinai from the Israelis, who had been in control of the territory since the mid-1967 Six-Day War. The hostilities ended with a ceasefire signed between the countries in 1970 with frontiers remaining in the same place as when the war began.

Yom Kippur War (October 1973) - Fought from October 6 to October 26, 1973 by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel as a way of recapturing part of the territories which they lost to the Israelis back in the Six-Day War. The war began with a surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Egypt and Syria crossed the cease-fire lines in the Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively. Eventually Arab forces were defeated by Israel and there were no significant territorial changes.

First Lebanon War (1982) - Began in 6 June 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon to expel the PLO from the territory. The Government of Israel ordered the invasion as a response to the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov, by the Abu Nidal Organization and due to the constant terror attacks on northern Israel made by the Palestinian guerilla organizations which resided in Lebanon (See also Operation Litani). The war resulted in the expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon and created an Israeli Security Zone in southern Lebanon.

The Oslo Accords September, 1993

Toxic Taqiyya, Posted by David Meir-Levi

On May 10^th, 1994, just a few months after signing the Oslo Accords(September, 1993), Yasir Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims in a Johannesburg mosque  where he justified his actions by explaining: “This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh.”  And he concluded by calling on the worshipers “to come and to fight and to start the jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

Second Lebanon War (summer 2006) - Began as a military operation in response to the abduction of two Israeli reserve soldiers by the Hezbollah. The operation gradually strengthened, to become a wider confrontation. The principal participants were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military. The conflict started on 12 July 2006 and continued until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect on 14 August 2006, though it formally ended on 8 September 2006, when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. The war resulted in the pacification of southern Lebanon and in the weakness of the Hezbollah (which suffered serious casualties but managed to survive the Israeli onslaught). Conflict Years Combatant 1 Combatant 2 Israeli commanders Losses on the Israeli side Results Israeli Prime Minister Defense Minister of Israel Chief of Staff of the IDF IDF forces Civilians _________________________________________________________________________________

QUOTES

 _________________________________________________________________________________

Glenn Beck

"We love the Jewish people as they are" said at 8-21 restoring Love rally, in reference to Christian's need to love Jews without trying to convert them.

Jack Berger, vice president of the Zionist Organization of Chicago
"It should be remembered that in 1918, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were handed 5,000,000 square miles to divvy up and 99% was given to the Arabs to create countries that did not exist previously. 1% was given as a Mandate for the re-establishment of a state for the Jews on both banks of the Jordan River. In 1921, to once again appease the Arabs, another three quarters of that 1% was given to a fictitious state called Trans-Jordan." -May 31, 2004.

LETTER TO AN ANTI-ZIONIST FRIEND
 Author Unknown

. . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews; you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- this is God's own Truth.
Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of Mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: 'anti-Zionist' is inherently Antisemitic, and ever will be so.
Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, . . . Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the Globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.
The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested -- DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.
How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all Mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish people to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of God's Promise, that His People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered Land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.
And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is Antisemitism.
The Antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the Antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate Antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled -- as others have been -- into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share. Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about it.
 www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

www.rosenblit.com/MLK.htm

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”- Martin Luther King, responding to an anti-zionist remark by a student at Harvard University in Boston, 1968.

"I cannot stand idly by, even though I happen to live in the United States and even though I happen to be an American Negro and not be concerned about what happens to the Jews in Soviet Russia. For what happens to them happens to me and you, and we must be concerned."

"Israel's right to exist as a state in security is uncontestable."

"Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality." - Martin Luther King, on March 25, 1968, less than 2 weeks before his death.

"I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews -- because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all."
_________________________________________________________________________________


"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
— Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw_________________________________________________________________________________
History of Jewish Persecution - http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf21.html#aa

_________________________________________________________________________________