Trending Topics:

Fingerhut boycotted J Street because ‘millions of dollars’ were on the line

on 30 Comments

Last month, Eric Fingerhut, the director of Hillel International, backed out of an appearance at the liberal Zionist group J Street’s conference in Washington because he said that the Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who was also speaking there, had made “highly inflammatory statements against the Jewish state”– for instance comparing it to the Islamic State. Five hundred members of J Street’s campus organization then marched on Fingerhut’s office in protest.

Well now, an anonymous Hillel director reached out to Derek Kwait of New Voices to say that Fingerhut wanted to go, but he was under pressure from big donors:

“Eric Fingerhut wanted to go to J Street, but he couldn’t because he knew that millions of dollars or his job would be on the line.”

This Hillel director said he or she had been on a conference call with Fingerhut in which Fingerhut urged others to attend the conference. But J Street is regarded as outside the pale for many in the establishment Jewish community, so Fingerhut couldn’t go himself. The anonymous director then described the insurgent position inside the Jewish community:

There are a lot of Jews in America who understand what’s at stake in the need for two-states, just not enough of them are on the board at Hillel. As was mentioned at the conference, this is a problem across the Jewish world, but Hillel is bearing the brunt of it.

The story raises an important question: How conservative is the big Jewish money that everyone seems to want a piece of?

When the New York Times writes about all the Republicans supporting Israel and its colonies on the West Bank because of pro-Israel donors; or when the Times reports that Sen. Robert Menendez, even under indictment, has maintained a deep reservoir of backing from “the expansive pro-Israel community, including prominent Jewish Democrats concerned about the direction of White House negotiations with Iran;” or when we learned yesterday that Senator Chuck Schumer, the most powerful Democratic senator, is bucking the White House on the Iran negotiations by backing legislation to give Congress a say over the matter– it raises the same question.

How much of Democratic Party giving comes from older Jews who don’t want a word of criticism of the occupation? In a word, the AIPAC crowd, as opposed to the J Street crowd. “Between now & June 30th, AIPAC will be letting Congressional supporters of #IranDeal know that there subsidies could be cut off,” MJ Rosenberg says. Don’t forget, Bill Clinton ran to incumbent President Bush’s right on settlements in 1992, and he won.

Salon today has a piece by David Palumbo-Liu deploring the “radical appropriation of the political process” by big donors who support Netanyahu and oppose BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions). The piece quotes Emma Rubin of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network saying that these rightwing givers have influence at liberal institutions:

“Even foundations which purport to represent the whole Jewish community are deeply implicated in practices many Jews find reprehensible.”

Fingerhut’s craven stance reflects the power of those contributions in our politics.

I realize that I cannot stay away from the issue of Jewish donors. But I think the power the Jewish community grants these donors is something we must overcome if the Jewish community is going to regain its sanity. Let me relate an incident from my recent trip to Jerusalem that explains what I mean.

In the old city I met a Palestinian merchant who had been expelled from his house in Baka, West Jerusalem as a boy in 1948—the kind of Arab home that is advertised as such in the real estate columns when Israeli Jewish owners are trying to get top dollar. I asked him if his family had ever been compensated for the theft in any way? No. Well, you should be compensated I said. He got angry. He said, I will never take any money for that house. Why not? I don’t want the money; I want my house back, he said. Besides, I cannot take anything so long as there are Palestinian refugees still living in the camps in Syria and Jordan and Nablus and Bethlehem.

I related this conversation later to a Jewish friend, who also got angry at me. Don’t you see, it’s not about money! he said. But you are playing into the very worst Jewish stereotype: oh, let’s just give them money, and take care of it.

I recommend this lesson to Hillel International. Some things are a lot more important than money. Like the principle of open discussion, and questioning the effect of Zionism on the Jewish community.

P.S. And speaking of liberating yourself from the donors, Eli Clifton reports that Gary Samore, the neoconnish director of United Against Nuclear Iran, received $500,000 from Sheldon Adelson and yet has come out in favor of the Iran deal. Samore says that the real danger to Israel is the occupation:

Samore ended [an Israel Policy Forum] call warning that “in terms of Israel’s isolation with other countries, I think the Palestinian issue and settlements is a far more dangerous concern to Israel’s legitimacy than the Iran nuclear issue.”…

Sheldon Adelson may be wondering what exactly his $500,000 contribution to UANI went to support.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

30 Responses

  1. pabelmont on April 7, 2015, 11:40 am

    My rant (in this subject anyhow) is that the AIPAC, The Lobby ™ consists of very, very few very, very rich Jews (I believe that the pro-Israel Evangelicals don’t do the money thing) and thus is as unrepresentative of (what might be called) Jews in America as the CEOs of all the big banks might be, as an example of another set of oligarchs in America’s oligarchy. Doesn’t matter if they are Jewish (except to antisemites). Only matters that they are Likudniks.

    However, these bozos have evidently captured not only the Congress (or most of it) but also all the so-called major American Jewish organizations, and most synagogues, etc. Follow the money. Who pays the piper calls the tune.

    So you have a bunch of arch-Likudniks with enormous disposable wealth — some Americans, some who-knows-what, does it really matter? — calling ALL the MSM-visible shots for Jewish America. A religion (to the extent that Jewish America is religious) wholly-owned by these bozos.

    Think of American Jews as field-hands on a plantation owned by a big boss, AIPAC.

    And Phil asks, I think, what it will take for them to break free. Well, if your Hillel offends you, cut it off (Open Hillel). If your synagogue lies down and pants before the big Likudnik donors, quit the synagogue. If your Jewish charity gives to support things you don’t like, don’t contribute to it. Cut your ties.

    But be noisy about it. Join SJP, JVP, Not In My Name, , etc., and write 1000 letters saying so to NYT et al.

    Dear Editor, just so you know, I am a Jew who has cut all ties to organized Jewish institutions in America because I am disgusted with their Likudist stance on Israel. I want Israel to withdraw all its settlers and dismantle all the wall and the settlements, and I want it now, and I’d support any politician who called for this. I’m sending a copy of this letter to all the Jewish organizations I can think of. cheers!

    • Krauss on April 7, 2015, 11:49 am

      Good rant.

      I’d just add that although progress may seem glacial for those of us who want to see immediate progress, you have stories these days in mainstream left-leaning publications on the issue of (reactionary/racist) Jewish money.

      I think Phil is right when he says that these stories wouldn’t be possible before, because the Israel lobby has split and because it isn’t so uniform today, you don’t implicate The Jews as opposed to right-wing Jewish donors(with helpful quotes from left-leaning Jews).

      In some sense, it’s the same reflex that caused the editors of the NYT to tell Judt to publicly identify himself as Jewish when he wrote his infamous piece in the Times over a decade ago now which caused so much drama.

      I think it’s important to show sensitivity to a community that has been historically marginalized, but I also think it’s damaging if the principle is taken in one direction unilaterally without considering the changed historical circumstances.

      Sensitivity to Jewish concerns can sometimes be – and have been – used as a pretext not to discuss the occupation and the underlying Apartheid because it makes some Jews feel uncomfortable.

      It’s the same reflex which causes Ben-Ami to say that he welcomes discussion – so long as no Palestinians are at the table. And it is the same reflex which is responsible for the fact that we can’t still discuss these issues without Jewish alibis.

      Did we need white South African alibis? The comparison is halting, of course, there are many white-majority states and white Europeans haven’t exactly been a persecuted minority in the past few centuries.

      But the reality is that this reflex hinders solidarity work. Because if the Jewish community doesn’t evolve fast enough? Are we then stuck because I can’t have a serious discussion about my sedar family table? (I can’t, btw).

    • RockyMissouri on April 8, 2015, 11:06 am

      Thank you for your most wonderful comment.. You honor yourself.

  2. Mikesailor on April 7, 2015, 11:43 am

    Although it is laudable that some take Adelson’s money and then “bite the hand that feeds them”, those are too few to really matter. The more interesting things that are happening include this strange idea that merely by passing a statute, Congress can somehow tie the hands of the president. Corker’s idea, which Shumer has all too eagerly approved, is a constitutional non-starter. Obama can safely ignore it unless Shumer and his new Republican best friends wish to impeach Obama. Instructive would be the impeachment case against Andrew Johnson where the Congress also tried to impeach and convict a president for ignoring a trespass on his rightful constitutional powers. If Shumer wishes to foment a constitutional crisis then one wonders why he would even want to be the Democratic leader and I would think it would be a disqualifying act in and of itself. You can either be Israel’s senator or the Democratic leader, I doubt the party would accept him being “both”. Obama only needs Congress to lift statutorily imposed sanctions, otherwise he could tell them to suck eggs. And I would submit, if he laid it out like I have, the majority of Americans would overwhelmingly support him.

    • JWalters on April 7, 2015, 6:49 pm

      Thank you for this rational and extremely heartening analysis. I’d love to see a prime time debate on this between Obama and any selected spokesperson (ideally Netanyahu or Boehner). I recall Obama wiping the floor with the entire Republican caucus, so badly that Fox Noise cut the coverage in the middle! It would rival the Super Bowl, I’m sure.

  3. Mikesailor on April 7, 2015, 12:01 pm

    In addition, this agreement is not a treaty therefore Congress has absolutely no say in the matter. Although Obama can hold out the specter of diplomatically recognizing the Iranian regime, something he hasn’t done until now. Frankly, that threat would frost all those Zionist supporters for it would definitely place Iran on a par with other countries, instead of maintaining the diplomatic farce, like non-recognition of Cuba, which has continued far too long. It still wouldn’t be a “treaty” but it would hold out the intriguing possibility of Congress actively advocating diplomatic recognition so they could become involved. Bring that idea up to Shumer and his ilk.
    This “negotiation” is, in reality, a UN agreement wherein the US is merely one negotiator among many, and not the most important negotiator either. Funny how we refuse to go back to basics and think about the reality of both the policy and the politics. Instead, we argue about the garbage analysis promoted by the MSM and some brain-dead ill-educated members of Congress.

  4. W.Jones on April 7, 2015, 12:57 pm

    You can’t let the plebs know about this stuff, Phil.

  5. JLewisDickerson on April 7, 2015, 1:22 pm

    RE: “Fingerhut boycotted J Street because ‘millions of dollars’ were on the line”

    MY COMMENT: That may be, bit I still think Fingerhut’s furniture is really classy! ! !

  6. annie on April 7, 2015, 1:24 pm

    wow, that update is a great link. i’m surprised, pleasantly.

  7. just on April 7, 2015, 1:44 pm

    Chris Hedges made it clear who controls the NYT, etc. (2011)

    “The Myth of The New York Times, in Documentary Form

    …The Times, like Harvard University, where I attended graduate school, is one of the country’s most elite and exclusive institutions. Its ethos can be best summed up with the phrase “You are lucky to be here.” That huge numbers of people at The Times, as at Harvard, buy into this institutional hubris makes the paper, where I spent 15 years—nearly all of them, thankfully, as a foreign correspondent a few thousand miles from the newsroom—a fear-ridden and oppressive place to work. The Times newsroom, like most corporate nerve centers, is a labyrinth of intrigue, gossip, back-biting, rumor, false piety, rampant ambition, betrayal and deception. Those who play this game well are repugnant. They are also usually the people who run the place.

    …When you allow an institution to provide you with your identity and sense of self-worth you become an obsequious pawn, no matter how much talent you possess. You live in perpetual fear of what those in authority think of you and might do to you. This mechanism of internalized control—for you always need them more than they need you—is effective. The rules of advancement at the paper are never clearly defined or written down. Careerists pay lip service to the stated ideals of the institution, which are couched in lofty rhetoric about balance, impartiality and neutrality, but astutely grasp the actual guiding principle of the paper, which is: Do not significantly alienate the corporate and political power elite on whom the institution depends for access and money. Those who master this duplicitous game do well. Those who cling tenaciously to a desire to tell the truth, even at a cost to themselves and the institution, become a management problem. This creates tremendous friction within the paper. I knew reporters with a conscience who would arrive at the paper and vomit in the restroom from nervous tension before starting work. …”

    He reiterated his important point in his latest talk and conversation @ Princeton on April 1st:

    Max Blumenthal is fearless, but there are many who wish that his many truths were silenced. Dan Cohen is fearless. Chris Hedges is fearless. Ronnie Barkan is fearless. MW is fearless. People are listening to them without fear.

    Fingerhut is not fearless, and he remains part of the denial of truth industry.

    • JWalters on April 7, 2015, 6:54 pm

      Wow! Thanks for those quotes from Hedges! THAT is the kind of reporting we need. In fact, are starved for. And thanks again to MW on all this.

      The masks are coming off!

    • CigarGod on April 8, 2015, 8:57 am

      Great post, Just.
      You could make a few changes and you’d be describing how the democratic party works…and how you make a career…or not. I watch good people give themelves away bit by bit…until the machine takes the last bite…and licks its lips.

  8. JLewisDickerson on April 7, 2015, 2:24 pm

    RE: “The story raises an important question: How conservative is the big Jewish money that everyone seems to want a piece of?” ~ Weiss

    ANSWER: Considerably to the right of Attila the Hun! ! !


    RE: “And speaking of liberating yourself from the donors, Eli Clifton reports that Gary Samore, the neoconnish director of United Against Nuclear Iran, received $500,000 from Sheldon Adelson and yet has come out in favor of the Iran deal.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Unless I’m wrong about inferiority complexes and the resulting “despotic control”, look for the fur/feathers to really fly! ! !

    “Israel’s sugar daddy, Sheldon Adelson”, by Brad A. Greenberg,, June 27, 2008

    [EXCERPT] . . . But what really shocked me was a portion a little closer to home for Adelson, whose non-union Venetian was in 1999 being picketed by the Culinary Union:

    Las Vegas’s Temple Beth Sholom was holding a dinner to fête the new mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman. Adelson, a member of Beth Sholom, had recently pledged two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the temple’s new-building fund. The dinner was to be held at the Venetian, but Mayor Goodman said that he would not cross the picket line, and synagogue officials decided to go elsewhere. Adelson excoriated Beth Sholom’s rabbi, Felipe Goodman. Rabbi Goodman told the Review-Journal that Adelson had been “so verbally abusive. I was very upset because no one had ever talked to me like he talked to me.” After the dinner took place at the Four Seasons, Adelson withdrew his pledge to Beth Sholom. He gave large sums to the local Chabad, a branch of the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitchers, for the construction of a new center. . .


    • JLewisDickerson on April 7, 2015, 2:27 pm

      “G.O.P. Hawks Upset With Bush After Baker Speech on Israel”, by Nicholas Confessore and Maggie Haberman,, March 28, 2015

      [EXCERPT] The warnings trickled in soon after an announcement began circulating last month that James A. Baker III, the former diplomat who is now a foreign policy adviser to Jeb Bush, would be a featured speaker at a conference hosted by J Street, the liberal pro-Israel advocacy organization.

      It could be problematic, conservative donors and Israel hawks told Mr. Bush’s team, if Mr. Baker spoke at the event, according to three people briefed on the discussions.

      But Mr. Bush’s team ultimately concluded that Mr. Baker, a former secretary of state and a longtime Bush family friend, was not someone they could pressure. And in the days since Mr. Baker’s speech — in which he criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for failing to work harder for Mideast peace — the criticism from Republicans has only intensified.

      The perceived breach presents a new and potentially significant obstacle for Mr. Bush as he seeks to lock up prohibitive support of the Republican donor class for his presidential campaign.

      Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul and a powerful donor to Republican “super PACs,” is among those who have expressed concerns to Mr. Bush’s friends and allies, several of them said. Mr. Adelson is said to be incensed over Mr. Baker’s comments and the lack of pressure put on him by the Bush team before his address — a significant concern, given that Mr. Adelson has the resources to pour tens of millions of dollars into the Republican presidential primary.

      But the flare-up could thrust Mr. Bush into conflict with some of the most hawkish voices in his party, including some leading Republican donors, and a constituency determined to demonstrate its strength in the primary.

      “A few months ago, people I speak to thought Jeb Bush was the guy. That’s changed,” said Morton A. Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, a conservative pro-Israel organization. . .

      SOURCE –

    • JLewisDickerson on April 7, 2015, 2:47 pm

      “Ross Rosenberg: Narcissism and the Human Magnet Syndrome”, Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show Podcast,, Jan 18, 2015
      Ross helps people who are stuck in relationships with narcissists. He explains how people get to that situation, how to get out, and more about narcissists and narcissism.
      LINK TO AUDIO (approx. 60 minutes) –

  9. Interested Bystander on April 7, 2015, 2:30 pm

    About that house in West Jerusalem: It is about the money… and why shouldn’t there be compensation? From the Israeli POV (I suppose) because “it’s ours and there is no need to compensate?”, and the Palestinian POV (I suppose) because “the day will come when, with gun in hand, I’ll take it back?” Those are both bullshit positions.

    About UANI: They are not biting the hand that feeds them. Their mission is to prevent a nuclear Iran and they are buying Obama’s argument (correctly) that the Lausanne deal is the best way at this time to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. Instead of theorizing about how this is “betraying” Adelson, perhaps Clifton should entertain the possibility of marking his beliefs about Adelson to market? What the $500,000 pays for is a think tank that works on keeping Iran nuclear free–and that’s what they are doing by supporting the deal. Netanyahu is being counter-productve to this mission and they are correctly calling B.S. on him.

    • annie on April 7, 2015, 2:37 pm

      why shouldn’t there be compensation?

      because once you accept compensation there’s an implied acceptance one has lost ones right to return. think about it. put a price on jerusalem jews would accept to leave it. you can’t can you? so what’s the difference for a palestinian?

      it’s not about there shouldn’t be, it’s about the very idea as being distasteful and unrealistic. like, why shouldn’t there be a financial compensation for selling your wife? it makes sense if you want to get rid of her. but if you don’t no price will compensate your broken heart.

      • just on April 7, 2015, 2:50 pm

        Exactly right, Annie.

        IB, you wrote: “From the Israeli POV (I suppose) because “it’s ours and there is no need to compensate?””

        It’s not “theirs”!

        Then you wrote “Palestinian POV (I suppose) because “the day will come when, with gun in hand, I’ll take it back?”

        I think you “suppose” wrong. There was no threat of violence in anything that Phil related.

        “He got angry. He said, I will never take any money for that house. Why not? I don’t want the money; I want my house back, he said. Besides, I cannot take anything so long as there are Palestinian refugees still living in the camps in Syria and Jordan and Nablus and Bethlehem.

        I related this conversation later to a Jewish friend, who also got angry at me. Don’t you see, it’s not about money! he said. But you are playing into the very worst Jewish stereotype: oh, let’s just give them money, and take care of it.”

        There’s something very visceral about it. It goes back to the Nakba.

        There is another way. It’s called 1S1P1V and for the Occupier to return the house and allow for the return of those that were ethnically cleansed from their homes and land.

      • Interested Bystander on April 7, 2015, 2:51 pm

        This is all true, of course. But compensation brings symbolic closure. One of the aspects of Sharia law (in the old days) was mediation and compensation. Someone kills a loved one, the families get together and the Imam convinces the victim’s family to accept blood money. The sum is paid and people go on with their lives. It brings closure, like a public trial and judgment can bring closure. The alternative is to harbor the grudge for 500 years and let the pent up anger and resentment boil up in a Bosnian style civil war.

      • JWalters on April 7, 2015, 7:07 pm

        Compensation can be offered. But if it’s part of an “offer you can’t refuse”, mafia style, it’s not legitimate “compensation”. A dead loved one cannot be revived, but a stolen house can be returned.

        It seems to me the story of this man and his house represents the whole conflict in one human situation. It was learning about just this type of situation that woke me up to the reality going on there. His feelings about the Nakba are his natural, visceral feelings about his own situation, multiplied manyfold.

    • echinococcus on April 7, 2015, 4:51 pm

      “the day will come when, with gun in hand, I’ll take it back”
      Is certainly no bullshit position. In fact, it seems to be the only logical, appropriate solution.
      What was used to take it from its owner, who wasn’t selling? Sweet words?
      Where is Jerusalem? In international territory. Meisterrasse-Israelis there are illegal, except those who were legally there before the Zionist invasion.
      So please be so good as to give me one good reason why, given the illegal occupier’s refusal to obey the law, one shouldn’t take back one’s home by force. One.

      • echinococcus on April 7, 2015, 8:14 pm

        IB, what if the only acceptable “closure” were the return of house, land and sovereignty? You had to drag in the Sharia too, didn’t you? What if they said an eye for an eye?

    • michelle on April 7, 2015, 6:57 pm

      by your measure what would be a just amount of blood money
      it isn’t all about the family home/property people suffered people died
      and after all these years they still are homeless suffering and dying
      how much for all the crimes past present and future
      if these were Jewish people how much would be enough
      history dictates that the Jewish people will/would accept no less than
      a nonstop world wide search for each criminal
      full prosecution of each criminal
      even if their crime was just being at the scene of the crime
      full return of all property plus usury compensation
      personal suffering/damages compensation for all the Jewish people
      billions upon billions every year forever(?) paid by the world
      world wide laws that give special rights only to Jewish people
      throughout history so many groups were subjected to termination by others
      none were given a tenth as much afterward
      but lets let the Jewish people set the standard
      by this measure the Palestine people may very well have claim to all the property and wealth of this world
      there has never in written history been a complete group of people that has suffered so much for so long while the whole world watched and while the whole world for the most part does/did more to allow it than to stop it
      as long as this continues i am shamed
      G-d Bless

      • just on April 7, 2015, 7:19 pm

        You’ve said it well, michelle.

        And what of the other millions that were exterminated in the Holocaust? What did they ‘get’?

        Dead, and hardly a whisper is said about them.

        It’s been ‘bugging’ me since I made my reply.

        As for: ” The alternative is to harbor the grudge for 500 years and let the pent up anger and resentment boil up in a Bosnian style civil war.”

        Both the Serbs and the Croats were guilty of genocide, and I’m not sure that it was the result of a ” grudge for 500 years”.

        I think it’s remarkable that the Palestinians have showed such enormous restraint and forbearance in the face of such injustice and cruelty.

      • michelle on April 7, 2015, 10:22 pm

        Hello Just,
        i hope your day was Blessed
        i’m glad you ‘liked’ my post
        i feel like i’m being very harsh
        i’m so very far from perfect myself
        i feel sad for both the oppressed and the oppressors
        such is life
        Palestine is oppressed and loves
        Israel oppresses and hates
        G-d Bless

      • just on April 7, 2015, 10:44 pm

        Thank you, michelle.

  10. surewin on April 7, 2015, 2:42 pm

    Apparently the Israeli military and security elites say that Iran is a distraction and the Palestinian Arabs are the real danger to Israel. The distraction, however, is very valuable. So valuable that Netanyahu and the whole Israeli and global network that supports him are doing everything they can to derail the agreement. The agreement is not solely about removing the distraction from the Palestinian issue, but the globalists who are pushing the agreement, and who have very substantial Jewish membership, are aware that a resolution of the Iranian issue will shine a bright light on the Palestinian issue. Those globalists want a two-state solution, which is why the U.S. administration pushed for it after Obama was re-elected. It’s also why Hillary stated rather bluntly that she supports the Iran deal and she wants a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine. The globalists control the Democratic Party, and they will block her from becoming President, as they did in 2008, if she bucks their agenda. Hillary is much more concerned about her relations with them than with, for example, Haim Saban. Netanyahu might well be in power for four more years, and the globalists will presumably use economic and financial pressure to steer Israel toward cooperation with them. They would like for Israel to have a cooperative Prime Minister and government. For them, Netanyahu is a big problem.

  11. echinococcus on April 7, 2015, 5:07 pm

    I think the power the Jewish community grants these donors is something we must overcome if the Jewish community is going to regain its sanity.

    Wrong. Seriously wrong. First, there are way more important things to recover before coming down the list to Jewish sanity. Second, Jewish sanity is not that much different than general sanity except it will take longer to recover. Third, recovering sanity needs more exposure of the naked, beastly, fascistic nastiness of Zionist power in our country, not less. Exposure will be accelerated by its own transgressions.
    Only Zionists themselves wish for their “left” or “moderate” variety to prevail. And they are right. As demonstrated again by the Yahoo Congress speech incident.

    • pabelmont on April 7, 2015, 9:16 pm

      echinococcus — You are right. If a tree falls in a forest and no-one hears it, did it make a sound? Can anyone even know that it fell?

      If the USA’s politicians and mainstream media refuse to tell the American public what’s going on today and what has been going on since 1947 in I/P, then how will anyone know enough to get properly teed off?

      Hedges in that (wonderful for many reasons) VIDEO above and the accompanying text tells how the NYT prevents various stories from coming out. And NYT is not the only one. How about Fox Noise (lovely name!).

      • michelle on April 7, 2015, 10:41 pm

        some might notice the change in air quality
        if it were just the nyt and fox there wouldn’t be this mess
        before the internet there was a trickle of truth
        now it’s truly a small world
        and people are finding out
        they care and they count
        G-d Bless

Leave a Reply