Final_Judgment

717 Final Word?
stalked from the meeting, smug and satisfied, although he never stayed
around to defend his premise or to debate my thesis.
It turns out that the ADL had already contacted the Schaumburg Police
Department to "brief" them about me. In response to the ADL briefing,
Schaumburg's police chief, Richard Casler, sent out word that one of the top
Nazis in America was coming to town and that this Nazi bigwig had
invited "his followers" to come to his rally. To preserve the peace, Chief
Casler ordered five extra police officers on duty to prevent me from
disrupting little Schaumburg and perhaps instigating another Holocaust.
When I learned of this tough cop's toadying to the ADL, I called his
office and asked to speak to him, but Casler wouldn't come to the phone.
Instead, he send his deputy, Capt. Thomas Ostermann, who refused to either
admit or deny that their office had been in touch with the ADL, saying that I
was "just a voice on the phone." But, I pointed out, "Richard Hirshhaut of
the ADL was just a voice on the phone, too, and you listened to everything
that he had to say about me."
No doubt accustomed to ordering around the jaywalkers of
Schaumburg and being called "sir," by those miscreants, Ostermann was a
little surprised and exasperated with the way I was dealing with him and
finally said that he was "just a hard-working cop."
I told him that I had no doubt that he was, but that he would do the
people of Schaumburg a much better service by watching out for rapists and
murderers rather than chasing down "a fat guy with glasses whose only
crime was to write a book." The officer said nothing in response and I can
understand why.
When (and by whom) was it determined that the ADL is not only the
final arbiter of who is allowed to speak anywhere on any given topic but
also the official liaison to police authorities for the purpose of deciding what
tactics the police should use to protect the communities they are responsible
for? If anyone has the answer to that question, I'd like to hear it now.
In any event, speaking at the library I drove home the following points:
The review by the librarians had indeed been the most energetic effort
yet to attempt to demolish the thesis of Final Judgment but it fell
pathetically flat, with the librarians resorting to transparent and flimsy lies
and deceptions.
Schaumburg taxpayers should question why their librarians were so
enthusiastically and so clearly doing the bidding of the ADL.
The ADL itself refuses to debate me, but they relied on the librarians
to try to refute the book, but the trio bungled the job.
I also pointed out that—despite my refutation of the librarian's
review—that you can be sure the ADL will cite this malicious review in the
future as "evidence" that "responsible librarians" at one of the nation's most
prestigious libraries found the book to be "questionable," "misleading" and
"distasteful" and "of little merit"—some of the choice terms used.
The STDL librarians evidently recognized (quite correctly I might add)
that the issue of JFK's conflict with Ben-Gurion over Israel's nuclear
ambitions was a very sensitive issue indeed, and therefore in their review