The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

[small Pox]

The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's
population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally
Khazars.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

     The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as
Jews. I don't call them Jews.  I refer to them as so-called Jews,
because I know what they are.  If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew
in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord
and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.

     Now what happened?  The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per
cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves
Jews, were originally Khazars.

     They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia.
And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia
into eastern Europe -- and to reduce this so you don't get too
confused about the history of Eastern Europe -- they set up this big
Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles.  Only, there was no Russia,
there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest
country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other
monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000
soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

      Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy.  I don't
want to go into the details of that now.  It was their religion the
way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere
in the world.

     Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of
his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith --
either  Christianity, Islam -- the Moslem faith -- or what is known
today as Judaism -- really Talmudism.  So, like spinning a top and
calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe,"  he picked out so-called
Judaism.  And that became the state religion.

     He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and
brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened
up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people -- 800,000
thousand square miles -- and maybe ten to twenty million people; and
they became what we call Jews.  There wasn't one of them that had an
ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old
Testament history, but back to the beginning of time.  Not one of
them!  And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support
their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

    "Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's  chosen people
to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland,  It's your Christian
duty.  We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior.  You now
go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're
Jews."

     Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as
the Irish [were converted].  And it's just as ridiculous to call them
"people of the Holy Land," as it would be. . . there are 54 million
Chinese Moslems.  Fifty four million!  And, Mohammed only died in 620
A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their
religious belief.

     Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the
city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the
54 million Chinese called themselves  'Arabs'.  Imagine! Why, you'd
say they're lunatics.  Anyone who believes that those 54 million
Chinese are Arabs must be crazy.  All they did was adopt as a
religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

      The same as the Irish.  When the Irish became Christians, nobody
dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of
inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't different people.  They
were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a
religious faith.

     Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they
were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern
Europe.  They likewise, because their king took the faith -- Talmudic
faith -- they had no choice.  Just the same as in Spain:  If the king
was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic.  If not, you had to get
out of Spain.  So everybody -- they lived on the land just like the
trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their
feudal system -- so they [Khazars] all became what we call today,
Jews!

      Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the
great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our
power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen people to their
ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."

     Now, could there be a bigger lie than that?  Could there be a
bigger lie than that?

     And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the
radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the
ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes
talking the same language . . . so naturally you'd believe black is
white if you heard it often enough.  You wouldn't call black black
anymore -- you'd start to call black white.  And nobody could blame
you.

     Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of
all the misery that has befallen the world.  Because after two wars
fought in Europe -- World War I and World War II -- if it wasn't
possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in
Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were
the two wars fought for?  Did they have to -- like you flush the
toilet -- because they couldn't get along, did they  have to say,
"Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help
us"?

     I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have
been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew
the things that I'm telling you.  But, they naturally bribed them,
shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . .
I don't care whether you know all this or not.  It doesn't make any
difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does
make a difference to me.  I've got, in my family, boys that will have
to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and
die... like they died in Korea.  Like they died in Japan. Like they've
died all over the world.  For what?

     To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people
who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those
homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years?  Is that why the
United States must go to war?  Because the Democratic Party wants New
York State -- the electoral vote?  Illinois, the electoral vote? And
Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?... which are controlled by the
Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?

     In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party,
all Zionists and their co-religionists.  And New York State went for
Kennedy by 400,000 votes.  Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy.  I'm fond
of Mr. Kennedy.  I think he's a great man.  I think he can really pull
us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him.  And I believe he
knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows.  He's
playing with the enemy.  Like when you go fishing, you've got to play
with the fish.  Let 'em out and pull 'em in.  Let 'em out and pull 'em
in.  But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how well informed he is on
this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don't
think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.

     But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal
Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a
sacred right, that they communicate -- not with their congressman, not
with their senator, but with President Kennedy.  And tell him, "I do
not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of
the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here,
our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of
these that which they have stolen".  I think everyone should not alone
write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

     Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to
support what I have just asked you to do.  But I don't think it's
necessary to do that.  You're above the average group in intelligence
and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.

     But. . . I want to tell you one more thing.  You talk about...
"Oh, the Jews.  Why the Jews?  Christianity.  Why, we got Christianity
from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our
religion".  But do you know that on the day of atonement that you
think is so sacred to them, that on that day... and I was one of
them!  This is not hearsay.  I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser.  I'm
here to give you facts.

     When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the
very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only
prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short
prayer. The Kol Nidre.  In that prayer, you enter into an agreement
with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make
during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may
take during the next twelve months  shall be null and void.

     The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the
pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and
so forth and so on.

     And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget --
whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre
prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you
from fulfilling that".

     How much can you depend on their loyalty?  You can depend upon
their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

     And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and
for the same reason.  You can't depend upon something as insecure as
the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge.
Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would
have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get
through with all of this.  Tomorrow's going to be a long day.

     Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to
yourself: "well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he
got mixed up in it."  Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big
pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I'm
telling you.  And one newspaper after another refused the
advertisement.  And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them -- I
paid cash, not credit -- what happened?  My lawyer told me, "There's
an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your
announcement".  So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and
that's how I met him.

     So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son
of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a
little anti-Semitic.  I don't know whether I can get him over here.
So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully,
and have since then.

     Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications.  I say
it without any reservations.  And I say it without any hesitation. . .
if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common
Sense" -- he's been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year
-- if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending those out for
fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has
done what he did to light fires.  Many of the other active persons in
this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common
Sense".

     Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could.  I'm not
as flush as I was.  I cannot go on spending the money. . . I'm not
going to take up a collection.  Don't worry.  I see five people
getting up to leave.  (laughter)

     I haven't got the money that I used to spend.  I used to print a
quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out.
Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and
circulated them locally.  So I said, "With what you know and what I
know, we can really do a good job".  So I started printing in outside
shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for
them.  Well, there's always a bottom to the barrel.  I suppose we've
all reached that at times.

     I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what
worries the Anti-Defamation League.  I can just get by without going
and asking for a job or getting on the bread line.  But Mr. McGinley
is working.  He's sick and he's going at this stronger than ever.  And
all I want to say is that they want to close up "Common Sense" more
than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the
fight Christians are making to survive.

    So I just want to tell you this.  All they do is circulate rumors:
"Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'."
The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United
States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They don't need it.
The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer.  That all has
strategy.  They don't want to advertise me so that people that have
real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just
want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I
do try to help him, but I haven't been able to.  And I will be very
honest. One thing I won't do is lie.  In the last year I've had so
much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.

     How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows.  And
he must be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness
and with his financial troubles, I don't know.  But that press is
working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-
thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message.  And if that
information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could
buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around.  Plow that field.
Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but for God's
sake, this is our last chance.

    [Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing
unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use
the money to keep "Common Sense" going.  He explains that the paper is
going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has
the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the
information to the American public and elected officials.  He then
asks for questions from the audience.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Question inaudible]

Freedman:  All right, I'll comment on that.  This is rather deep, but
you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make
an attempt.  In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area
known as Judea.  Judea was a province of the Roman Empire.  Now, a
person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was
Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius.  Those are the two words, in Greek
and Latin, for a Judean.

     Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the
first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'.  Now, when the
Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic,
Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages.  Never Was the word Jew in any
of them because the word didn't exist.  Judea was the country, and the
people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean.  I've
seen those early... the earliest scripts available.

     In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it
was time to translate the Bible into English.  There was no English
edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read?  It was only
the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac,
Aramaic and the other languages.  Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the
Bible into English.  But in it, he had to look around for some words
for Judaeas and Judaius.

     There was no English word because Judea had passed out of
existence.  There was no Judea.  People had long ago forgotten that.
So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus,
as 'gyu', "jew".  At the time, there was no printing press.

     Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into
use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all
here.  If you want I can read them to you.  I will.  That word 'gyu'
which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ',
then ' giu ',  then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced
like the ' j '.    Julius Caesar is ' Iul '   because there is no 'j'
in Latin) then ' iuw ',   then ' ieuu ',  then ' ieuy ',  then ' iwe
',  then ' iow ',  then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on.  Then
' ieue ',  then ' iue ',  then ' ive ',  and then ' ivw ', and finally
in the 18th century... ' jew '.  Jew.

     All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in
Latin.  Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian --
I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries
in this country, and two in Europe -- there was no such word as Jew.
There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use
of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu'  -- Jew.  A
contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a
laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.

     So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know
how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short
word out of it.   Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm the
Jews, is just ridiculous.  I'd like to know where in the scriptures it
says that.  I'd like to know the text.

    Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews.  What would
you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you
what the so-called Jews -- the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers --
they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you.  They were Eastern
Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism.  There was no such thing
as Judaism.  Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion
known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible].  No Jew or no educated
person ever heard of Judaism.  It didn't exist.   They pulled it out
of the air. . . a meaningless word.

     Just like 'anti-Semitic'.  The Arab is a Semite.  And the
Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and
they call all the Arabs anti-Semites.  The only Semites in the world
are the Arabs.  There isn't one Jew who's a Semite.  They're all
Turkothean Mongoloids.  The Eastern european Jews.  So, they
brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this
reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one
step in the right direction.  I'll go wherever I have to go to meet
him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, ma'am.  Well... I can answer that.  First of all, your first
premise is wrong.  Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to
each other is wrong.  Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all
the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the
Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish nation;  that they are the
Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.

     But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from
all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from
the Day of Atonement religious ceremony.  In Brunswick, Germany, where
that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot.  A
civil war.

     The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell.  We should give up
Kol Nidre?  That gives us our grip on our people.  We give them a
franchise so they can tell the Christians, 'Go to hell.  We'll make
any deal you want', but they don't have to carry it out.  That gives
us our grip on our people".  So, they're not so united, and if you
knew the feeling that exists. . .

    Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man
responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race.  Here is a paper that
we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York
City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who -- on
behalf of the British Cabinet -- negotiated the deal with these
Zionists.

     And in here he says that all the jews in England were against
it.  The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably
Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry...
who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief.  That was
while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart
of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with
them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'?  or a Christian
religion?... or are the Christians united?

     So the same disunity is among the Jews.  And I'll show you in
this same document that when they went to France to try and get the
French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew
in France who was for it.  That was Rothschild, and they did it
because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal

------------------------------------------------

[Question inaudible]  Freedman:  You know why?  Because if they don't,
they're decked up.  They come around and they tell you how much you
must give, and if you don't . . . oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none
of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a
smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.

     In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve
manufacturers in the building.  And when the drive is on to sell
Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with
the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they
put you down for, they put a gold star after the name.  Then, the
buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone
and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from
them until they have the gold star".  BLACKMAIL.  I don't know what
else you can call it.

     Then what do they do?  They tell you it's for 'humanitarian
purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax
exempt, tax deductible.  So if they hadn't sent that eight billion
dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S.
Treasury as income tax.  So what happens? That seven billion dollars
deficit -- that air pocket -- the gullible Christians have to make
up.

     They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax.
Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government.  So
why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to
drive people out of their ancient homeland?  And you say, "Oh, well.
The poor Jews.  They have no place to go and they've been persecuted
all their lives".  They've never been persecuted for their religion.
And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me.  Never once,
in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.

     Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England?  King Edward
the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the
Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds.  For four-
hundred years there wasn't a Jew.  But do you know why they were
driven out?  Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's
a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money.  In other words - what we
call interest [usury] is a sin.

     So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much
interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews]
foreclosed.  And they were creating so much trouble that the king of
England finally made himself their partner, because when they they
came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the
money-lenders.  So the king finally said -- and this is all in
history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the
Jews in England; two books you can find in your library.  When the
king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they
were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money
lenders.  Edward the First.  And for many years, one-third of the
revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest
in money-lending by the Jews.

     But it got worse and worse.  So much worse that when the Lords
and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I
declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders.  If they're killed
you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir".  That made so much
trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an
army, so he told the Jews to get out.  There were 15,000 of them, and
they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how
Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.

     When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to
take Ireland for himself before someone else did.  He sent Robert
Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland.  So, show me
one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his
religion.  It has never happened.  It's always their impact on the
political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community
in which they settle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Yes, sir.  Well, they say most of
those things themselves.  It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to
say it.  Most of those things they say themselves.  But Benjamin
Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in
Europe.

     When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the
Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled
to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you
object and I object and a lot of other people object.  The customs,
the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.

     When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's
the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that
these people who were fleeing from Russia -- who they were -- that
they had practiced this Talmudic faith -- the Christians in Western
Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"

     And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that
-- and he's probably as good an authority on that subject as there
is.  So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he
already saw the results of what these people had done after they left
their homeland.  And every word of it is true... they say it
themselves.  I can give you half a dozen books they've written in
which they say the same thing:  When they have money they become
tyrants.  And when they become defeated, they become ruthless.
They're only barbarians.  They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols
and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.

     What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did?
The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that.  There was no
need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy.
But they didn't want that.  When the constitutional monarchy was to
assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the
Soviet Union.

     There was no need for that.  But they thought, "Now is the time",
and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word
'Bolshevism', you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for
a successful revolution.  One of them is, "Wait for the right time,
and then give them everything you've got".  It would pay you to read
that.

     You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article
for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and
created and cultivated the Communist movement.  And that their energy
made them the spearhead of the movement.  Harold Blacktree wrote it
and no one knew more about Communism than he.  And the Encyclopedia
Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Well, I can't advocate that you do
anything that's criminal, but I can tell you this.  You can start what
I call an endless chain.  If you can get your friends to write,
objectively, here is the statement:  Mr. Kennedy's office gave me this
himself.  Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office
-- was in his office -- and gave me this.  He delivered this on the
25th, and it says here:

     "For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th".
"Israel is here to stay.  It is a national commitment, special
obligation of the Democratic Party.  The White House must take the
lead.  American intervention.  We will act promptly and decisively
against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor.  I
propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our
guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary
to halt any aggression by any nation".

     Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the
Arab Palestinians] aggression?  Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that?
Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six
million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.  Suppose
these Mexicans were slipped in there armed -- the Texans were disarmed
-- and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared
themselves the Republic of the Alamo.  What would the United States
say?

     Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their
homes back from the Mexican thieves?  Suppose the Negroes in Alabama
were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and
drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and
Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the
Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other.  Would we call
it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back
to their homes?

     Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No,
those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!", or "No, those
Mexicans are in Texas.  they declared themselves a sovereign state.
Leave them there.  You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada.  Settle
somewhere else".

     Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans
wanted to go back to their homes?  So now, you've got to write to
President Kennedy and say, "We do not consider it aggression in the
sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their
homes as the United Nations -- fifteen times in the last twelve years
-- called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the
Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms".

[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the
Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's
patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]