Small Business Owner Appreciates Support
It was such an amazing experience to have met Karilyn Prisco, who immediately supported my small business at a local street bazaar on Bleecker and Carmine off 6th Avenue that has been running for over ten years. Most small businesses are struggling during this very intense pandemic and these opportunities really encourage us all not to give up. Businesses all around town have closed their shop’s doors, and it makes me feel so blessed and humbled to still be pushing through, amidst the odds in New York City 2020.
As a small business owner, with a staff of talented women, I want to send holiday cheer from all of us at MaisonLuxeBeaute.
We are a beauty brand that features very special handmade products that are relatable, realistic and reusable over time.
My niece Hermonie, who is my VP Sales & Marketing, is a future medical student who received a full scholarship to college. This was also very exciting news for her as well.
It feels so grand to go to the newsstand and be able to pick up some copies to share with my family and friends over the 2020 holiday season.
Again, thank you Karilyn for noticing my work! Special thanks to the publisher, editors, and designers—thank you! thank you! thank you… Happy holidays. Please be safe and thank you all once again for this opportunity…
MaisonLuxeBeaute Staff—Shonna Hawes, Hermonie Ricks, Alasia Ricks, Lopah Jocelyn
Ramsey Clark on the LaRouche Case
I’d like to thank Bruce Poli for his short article about one of the pillars of the Village, Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States. He quoted Clark as saying “no one is listening.” I would like to encourage the readers of WestView News to listen to the words of Ramsey Clark about the case of the American political figure Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away in 2019 at the age of 96.
LaRouche campaigned for the U.S. Presidency eight times, starting in 1976, when he ran as a U.S. Labor Party candidate, and subsequently for the Democratic Party nomination. In 1980, LaRouche was advocating the development of laser defense against nuclear missiles, and had a conversation with Ronald Reagan at a debate, which ultimately resulted in President Reagan’s March 1983 speech in which he announced the “Strategic Defense Initiative” to make nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.”
This commitment by Reagan, and the fact that LaRouche associates were winning major Democratic Primary election victories around the nation (like in Illinois in 1986) led to the targeting of LaRouche by a combination of Bush Family operators in the Department of Justice like William Weld, major news media, like NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, and Wall Street weapons dealers like John Train, who hosted a meeting with major media representatives to create a narrative based on the phrase “political extremist Lyndon LaRouche.”
Finally, in 1989, LaRouche was convicted on phony charges of “mail fraud,” and “conspiracy” and sentenced to 15 years in prison. About a dozen of his associates were also railroaded into prison, with exemplary draconian sentences (77 years for Michael Billington, 86 years for Rochelle Ascher) in order to terrify others into pleading guilty and destroying LaRouche’s movement.
Enter Ramsey Clark
It turned out that this political witch hunt had been noticed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who became LaRouche’s attorney on the appeal. Clark wrote in a 1995 letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno, about the LaRouche case, “I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge.”
In a hearing of the Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, also in 1995 in Virginia, Clark said, “But in what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focussed on destroying an enemy, this [LaRouche] case must be number one. There are some, where the government itself may have done more and more wrongfully over a period of time; but the very networking and combination of federal, state, and local agencies, of Executive and even some Legislative and Judicial branches, of major media and minor local media, and of influential lobbyist types, the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] pre-eminently, this case takes the prize.
“The purpose can only be seen as destroying—more than a political movement, more than a political figure—it is those two; but it’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the status quo, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost. . . .
“In the LaRouche case, they’re book people…They had publishing houses going on. Important publications. Non-profit stuff. This is what they were about: ideas, information, social change. Meeting the needs of human people all over the world, humanity all over the world. We’re going to have a billion more people before the end of this millennium, century, decade, and the vast majority, 80%, are going to have beautiful, darker skin. And they’re going to live short lives, short lives of sickness, hunger, pain, ignorance, and violence, unless we act radically. And these books have ideas. Some will work, some won’t work, but they’re ideas. They can be “tested in the marketplace,” as we used to say.
“And the government came in with a false bankruptcy claim, against a non-profit publishing house, and shut ’em down! What’s the First Amendment worth? “We’ll silence you, you’ll have no books out there.”
Ramsey Clark also warned that if the LaRouche case were allowed to stand, that it would set a precedent of injustice which would haunt the United States for generations to come. That is now clear with the cases of whistle-blowers and journalists like Ed Snowden and Julian Assange, who may die in a British prison for his “crime” of telling the truth about war crimes committed by Anglo-American governments..
If the American people would like to be allowed the simple right of making our own decisions, and not herded into wild conspiracy theories about Russia and China hacking elections and everything else, in pre-war propaganda, and if we like to stop being spied on and targeted by social media manipulators, LaRouche must be finally exonerated. I know Ramsey Clark would agree.
—Diane Sare
Praise for WestView Contributor Carol Yost
WestView’s Carol Yost frequently writes to the Daily News’ Voice of the People Page. A recent exchange offered praise for Carol’s writing. Congratulations Carol!
Voicer John Colella wrote a response to the op-ed by Isaac Zaur (“Is 40 years in prison enough?” Nov. 23) with the brutal demand for the inmate, Tommy Nelson, to “rot and die in prison” for his part in a robbery during which a fellow criminal shot off-duty police office Anthony Abruzzo to death.
He calls Isaac Zaur a “shyster lawyer” because he appeals for mercy to be shown to this inmate. Perhaps Colella knew Anthony Abruzzo. Nothing can bring back this murdered officer—man, person, father, husband—even if Nelson could be jailed for 1,000 years.
But the purpose of prison is to be a deterrent for crime and to try to serve the greater good. Nelson could now do the world a whole lot more good if he could live a useful life outside of prison after 40 years of agonizing over the crime. It could seem insensitive, but under the circumstances, I think 40 years is already too long. Nelson is repentant. The purpose of his sentence has been more than accomplished. We gain nothing by destroying another human being.
What is the best way to pay for a terrible crime? How do we best celebrate the qualities Anthony Abruzzo was cherished for? I don’t think I can teach Colella about forgiveness, mercy or compassion. These are held up to us as qualities of the highest order. He is hard and cold as stone. The way he wrote that letter, especially calling the lawyer a shyster and saying the op-ed was abhorrent, doesn’t do any of us any good. It is to continue the cruelty of the crime.
I could quote the Bible, but that might not make any difference. In God’s name, I ask that Tommy Nelson be freed.
—Carol F. Yost
From the Daily News, December 9, 2020 Voice of the People Page
I write to praise Voicer Carol F. Yost for her recent letter and to praise the Daily News for leading with it. Ms. Yost, if you are not a professional writer, you should be. Unlike many of those The News awards a platform, Yost never resorts to name-calling or vitriol. Instead, she relies on reason and passionate persuasion. Perhaps, as we prepare for a new president, this letter can augur a new age of decency in how we debate our strongly held views, both in the nation and on the Voice of the People page. What do you say, Daily News?
—Craig Gordon
Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center?
We at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth wish to respond to two letters from Barry Benepe regarding 9/11, one in your October issue (“Advertorial Issues”) and the second in November (“Goodbye Conspiracies!”).
First, we applaud WestView News publisher George Capsis for his courage and commitment to free speech in allowing this exchange of ideas to take place. We understand that the subject is a difficult one for many, particularly those who live in New York and who may have lost friends or family members in the terrible destruction of the World Trade Center 19 years ago. And we understand that the hostility some express about the evidence we present is more emotional than scientific. We’d like to direct Mr. Benepe’s attention to what the evidence actually shows:
The U.S. government claims that airplane impacts and fires brought down the Twin Towers and that ordinary office fires brought down the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by an airplane. In fact, the scientific evidence clearly and overwhelmingly invalidates this claim, which is primarily contained in reports issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Let’s look at the evidence, starting with the Twin Towers. NIST’s report claims that fires ignited by plane impacts weakened the steel in the towers, leading to a catastrophic collapse. But a fire-induced gravitational collapse cannot explain the lateral ejection of a 95 percent of the structural steel far outside of the buildings’ footprints at speeds up to 80 miles per hour. Sections of metal columns weighing several tons each were hurled up and out, as far as 600 feet from each tower’s base. A gravitational collapse initiated by fire cannot generate this lateral force.
Nor can a gravitational collapse account for the near-total pulverization of 110 separate acre-size concrete floors—dispersed across Lower Manhattan in a thick blanket of dust—or the near-total dismemberment of 90,000 tons of streel framing in each structure. Such pulverization and dismemberment requires the use of explosives and/or nano-thermite, a high-tech incendiary with explosive properties for which there is abundant and irrefutable evidence.
For instance, nano-thermite, but not fire, can explain the presence in the WTC dust of billions of previously molten iron microspheres. Nano-thermite, but not fire, can explain the molten metal present in the debris of all three towers, which was acknowledged by Leslie Robertson, one of the chief structural engineers in the design of the Twin Towers, New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo, and many others. Molten metal, evidently iron, also poured from WTC 2 for seven minutes prior to the building’s destruction, as captured in numerous videos and photographs.
Explosives and nano-thermite — but not fire followed by a gravitational collapse — also explain the many isolated ejections of debris from each of the towers as many as 60 floors below the “collapse” front as well as reports of explosions from 118 firefighters who were on the scene that day.
The destruction of Building 7, which we repeat was not hit by an airplane, is even more difficult for the official account to explain. Building 7 came down in absolute free fall for approximately 2.5 seconds, falling a distance of about eight stories unimpeded, meaning that the 40,000 tons of steel structure offered no resistance whatsoever.
NIST admitted that free fall occurred yet it claims the building suffered a progressive collapse. This violates the laws of physics. Each of the building’s 81 support columns would have had to fail at virtually the same instant to precipitate the symmetrical collapse we saw. This was confirmed by a four-year study published earlier this year by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who concluded that fire could not have brought down Building 7.
Unfortunately, Mr. Benepe repeats the unfair charge that questioning the official account of the WTC destruction is disrespectful of the victims. In fact, many 9/11 families don’t believe we’ve been told the truth, and they continue to demand justice for their lost loved ones nearly two decades later. Do these families not deserve our respect?
What is needed is a rational evaluation of the evidence in the form of a new and independent investigation. We know that the government account is false. We know that NIST has produced reports that are fraudulent. If we value truth at all, we must be willing to learn what really happened, even if that truth is painful.
—Richard Gage, AIA, and Craig McKee
