(Florida) - When I was a novice reporter six years ago, I learned that it was at the end of the interview that you heard the beginning of the story and I learned it again the other day. Case in point: I was writing my first work of fiction in 2005 when I stumbled into becoming a reporter and that lead to becoming the only reporter in the world who bothered to document Mordechai Vanunu’s Freedom of Speech trial in Israel.
Because I love America enough to stand up and speak the hard truths I had no choice but to persist to report what Vanunu told me in June 2005:
- Did you know that President Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building atomic weapons? In 1963, he forced Prime Minister Ben Guirion to admit the Dimona was not a textile plant, as the sign outside proclaimed, but a nuclear plant. The Prime Minister said, ‘The nuclear reactor is only for peace.’
- Kennedy insisted on an open internal inspection. He wrote letters demanding that Ben Guirion open up the Dimona for inspection.
- The French were responsible for the actual building of the Dimona. The Germans gave the money; they were feeling guilty for the Holocaust, and tried to pay their way out. Everything inside was written in French, when I was there, almost twenty years ago. Back then, the Dimona descended seven floors underground.
- In 1955, Perez and Guirion met with the French to agree they would get a nuclear reactor if they fought against Egypt to control the Sinai and Suez Canal. That was the war of 1956. Eisenhower demanded that Israel leave the Sinai, but the reactor plant deal continued on.
- When Johnson became president, he made an agreement with Israel that two senators would come every year to inspect. Before the senators would visit, the Israelis would build a wall to block the underground elevators and stairways. From 1963 to ’69, the senators came, but they never knew about the wall that hid the rest of the Dimona from them.
- Nixon stopped the inspections and agreed to ignore the situation. As a result, Israel increased production. In 1986, there were over two hundred bombs. Today, they may have enough plutonium for ten bombs a year.”
Nobody but Israel knows how many more stories underground the Dimona may go, and because nobody in the USA Government is talking about that-that is ONE reason why I have become a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives for 2012.
As Marcus Gardner, the creator of “Cindy’s Secret” (see image to right) an rendering that Vanunu hung in his room at St. Georges Cathedral from 2004-2007, wrote “The world’s apathy/indifference to Vanunu is fuel to press on… it’s rather difficult to explain how it feels when you create an image by some one’s actions/injustice and for them to go and hang it up on their wall. I guess that must be the ‘essence’ of knowing you are onto something.”
Knowing one is onto something is exactly how I felt after stumbling into being the only reporter in the world to document Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial in Israel as it unfolded, beginning on the day Hamas was democratically elected in January 2006.
Just a few weeks after his trial began, Vanunu sent this message to Hilary Clinton and US Christians regarding the “real Wailing Wall”:
Before this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is up to people of Conscience to agitate their governments to help FREE Vanunu Now:
Another reason I am running for House of Representatives is to agitate for “we the people” with hope to inspire others to run themselves.
BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010 is my only fundraising vehicle. The WWW is the Media that allows me voice and I am most grateful for that as I am to the Constitution which established the qualifications for members of the House of Representatives.
All that is required is that a Representative must be 25 years of age, a citizen of the U.S. for at least seven years, and a legal resident of the state in which his/her district resides.
As I searched for a District to serve in the US House of Representatives for 2012, I planned the first in what I hoped to be a series of stories from small towns and big cities throughout Florida. Through this proceess I once again learned the beginning of a story is often found at the end.
I learned at the end that non-profit organizations may not be affiliated with anything political and so The Political Message Removed from “To Oprah and Friends RSVP: Ideal Women’s Club” was cut from To Oprah and Friends RSVP: Ideal Women’s Club, Winter Park, Florida which had been made in honor of Mary Lee DePugh and in her spirit concluded with an invitation to Oprah Winfrey, all of her friends and every visitor to Central Florida.
The Political Message Removed from “To Oprah and Friends RSVP: Ideal Women’s Club” serves as my invitation to any group or organization in Florida who want to share their Florida story and send a message to D.C., to please contact this reporter @ email@example.com
My purpose for writing this article is not to discredit, scold or embarrass the Christian Right (CR) for their part in helping to advance the bizarre beliefs of a renegade movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). My words are intended to be loving but firm. (Eph 4:15) I believe the CR’s intentions are good and that they are honorable men and women who believe they are faithfully serving our Lord. What they fail to understand is that the NAR is a Christian sect!
So with this in mind I am calling for spiritual discernment from CR leaders. Prominent Christians are not exempt from doing as the Bible instructs: “Prove [test] all things; hold fast to that which is good [true].” (1 Thes 5:21) My hope is that CR leaders will scrutinize NAR’s theology and doctrines by the light of God’s Word. If they will do this, what they will discover is that the NAR’s message has little to do with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ – and this should be cause for alarm.
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
The words the Son of God spoke while He was among us are found in the pages of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the four Gospels to correctly record what they heard from the lips of Jesus. One of the essential doctrines of Christianity—a non-negotiable– is the inerrancy of Scripture. In other words, everything in the Bible is true, thus God’s people must believe what the scriptures say. This is Christianity 101, my friends.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that we can expect “new revelation” from God. Those who teach this are in error. Moreover, our feelings and experiences are not to be trusted. I mean, seriously. Can you really trust your emotions?
Many Christians, especially Charismatic Christians, are open to receiving a “prophetic word from the Lord” through a so-called prophet. Some have even bought into the notion that they actually hear God speaking to them in a sort of whisper. Apologist Greg Koukl offers this warning:
This teaching that God will whisper in your ear all kind of particulars that pertain to you and His will for your life is very appealing to Christians. Even though when you look at the Scriptures, the specialized directions are rare. They are unusual. They are usually unsought. And they are always crystal clear. None of this “I think the Lord is telling me” business. People are still gravitating to the suggestion that we can develop a sixth sense that can tie us into a hotline to God so that we can have certitude about the things of life and the decisions we ought to make. Why is this appealing? Because it’s easy. (1)
It is vitally important that we understand that God has chosen to speak to us through His Word:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17).
The Bible makes it clear that God’s people are to live righteous lives. The Bible says thou shalt not lie, cheat, steal, have sex outside of marriage, laze around, dress like a slut, get occult tattoos, drink like a fish, view pornography, and so on and so forth. Living righteously means not being involved in immoral behavior. (I find it ironic that Christians knowingly participate in all sorts of activities that displease God, yet they sit around fretting over whether or not it’s God’s will for them to take that job offer, or marry Harry, or go on a mission trip to Timbuktu.)
Simply because someone believes they hear God whisper things that pertain to them—or His will for them–does not mean the “voice” is God’s. (Read Greg Koukl’s article Does God Whisper?)
Christians must be careful of such things as voices, visions, dreams, revelations, strong impressions, angel visitations and drawing on their experiences. None of these things should be given equal or greater authority than what is contained in Scripture. The Bible is the believer’s final authority. Everything we need to know has already been written. “If we do not base our understanding of Christ on the Word of God,” says Justin Edwards, “then all we are left with are opinions based on the figment of our imagination, the consequences of which are fatally hazardous to the soul.”
SEVEN MOUNTAINS TO CONQUER?
Conquering The Seven Mountains for Christ is the brainchild of the Dominionist movement. Over the years Dominionists have gone by many names including Latter Rain/Kingdom Now /Joel’s Army/Manifest Sons of God and most recently the NAR. The so-called Apostles and Prophets have a plan to aggressively “retake the reins of our country” for Christ. Dominionist Johnny Enlow wrote The Seven Mountain Prophecy where he shares his expertise on the subject. Enlow proclaims:
You are called to impact your culture! The coming Elijah Revolution will affect the entire world and will prepare the way of the Lord before His return.
What is the Elijah Revolution? ER’s website explains:
Elijah Revolution is a new ministry working in partnership with TheCall, Luke18 Project, and IHOP–KC, launching teen conferences and high school campus initiatives, calling teenagers to a life of wholehearted devotion to Jesus and radical commitment to God, in the spirit of a Nazirite.
There are seven nations “greater and mightier than we” – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These nations correspond to seven “mountains” of global society – Media, Government, Education, Economy, Religion, Celebration/Arts, and Family. These culture-shaping areas of influence over society are the keys to taking a nation for the kingdom of God.
This is hogwash.
The purpose of Enlow’s book is to:
help each individual determine his or her specific assignment in this mission; and then to offer insight into the nature of the battles involved in this spiritual confrontation.
Enlow then adds:
With divine power and favor, revolutionaries will take these mountains for Christ!
Revolutionaries? Does he mean Christian young people must stand together and organize a far-left type revolution to take mountains for Christ? Yes, this is exactly what Enlow is purporting.
I don’t have a problem with Christians standing together to try to shape the culture using biblical morality as a guideline. Nor do I have a problem with Christians becoming social activists, especially when it comes to protecting the unborn and traditional marriage. But here’s what I do have a problem with. It is a fact that the NAR is awash in heresy — and this is easily proven – and yet these men and women, who teach doctrines of demons, are being taken seriously by the CR.
Something else I find troubling is that many professing Christians no longer share the Gospel of Jesus Christ – ever! Christians of all people should know that real change will not come until hearts and minds are changed. Why? Because the unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins. In other words, the unsaved man is spiritually dead. (Eph 2:1) When he accepts Christ, he is “born again” or regenerate. Thereafter he will see things through a spiritual lens. In time his worldview will change. Which leads to this question: Why are Christians not sharing the good news?
Listen to what Jesus commanded His followers to do:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (Mat. 28:19-20)
This is a far cry from what the NAR is doing. They think God has given Christians a mandate to stem the tide of evil in this world. In order to accomplish this they must take the Seven Mountains of influence. These mountains of influence are:
(1) Arts and Entertainment; (2) Business/Economy; (3) Education; (4) Family; (5) Government; (6) Media; (7) Religion.
They believe that as they accomplish ridding the world of evil, things will get better and better and then Jesus Christ will return to set up His kingdom. And this is in the Bible?
One disgruntled left-wing blogger wrote:
I’ve been writing a lot about the steadily increasing influence that 7 Mountains/Dominion theology has been having on the Religious Right recently, though mostly as it has relates to Janet Porter.
But it is important to note that Porter is not alone in embracing this theology and partnering with activists who espouse it. For instance, Lou Engle played a central role in last year’s Family Research Council “prayercast” against health care reform and has developed ties to many other Religious Right leaders as well. Others, like Cindy Jacobs of Generals International, have likewise been making similar connections and several of these groups have also become members of the right-wing supergroup known as the Freedom Federation.
And even Newt Gingrich is cultivating his own ties to 7 Mountains advocates. Last year, Gingrich appeared alongside Engle at a “Rediscovering God In America” conference where Engle laid hands upon Gingrich and prayed for God’s protection for him. Not long thereafter, Gingrich formed a group called Renewing American Leadership and tapped Engle-associate and Prop 8 leader Jim Garlow to serve as Chairman of the organization. (2)
So what is going on here? It is obvious—even to the far-left–that the CR has united with the NAR. If this is untrue then why, for example, is the American Family Association (AFA) part of the leadership group promoting Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s “apolitical prayer meeting” The Response: August 6 1011? Is AFA not aware that the group includes several NAR leaders? Look at the list! In the leadership are such notables as:
Luis & Jill Cataldo—Mike Bickle’s International House of Prayer (IHOP)
Randy & Kelly Bohlander—IHOP &Lou Engle’s The Call
Dave Sliker—The Call & The Elijah Revolution
Doug Stringer—NAR Apostle
I can only assume Gov. Perry’s heart is in the right place and his purpose for this event is honorable, but without question the aim of many of those in leadership is to advance the NAR’s Seven Mountain agenda to take over society and government for Christ.
Sarah Leslie of Discernment Ministries has written extensively on the NAR. In an email to me Sarah explained the depths of the NAR leader’s depravity:
They believe that the modern-day apostles are gifted with the same gifts as the New Testament era Apostles (with a capital “A”). We know from Scripture that the first Apostles in the New Testament era were given a unique job by Christ Himself, which was to write the books that we have in the Canon of Scripture. These 12 men gave us the Foundation (Rev. 21:14) of the DOCTRINE of the Gospel of Salvation. It was the APOSTLE’S DOCTRINE which built the church.
The NAR believes that the modern-day apostles are being given new words (both rhema and logos) from God and are able to re-write that doctrine with “new understandings.” We have many articles posted about this on Herescope, including some key quotes from C. Peter Wagner and Hector Torres.
The NAR teaches the heresy that the modern-day apostles are the “foundation” of the church in a reverse hierarchical pyramid structure where they will rule the world (the 7 mountains) from a top-down networking structure. Their rule is said to be absolute and requires obedience from their downline. See the series that we ran on Herescope, for example. (3)
I’ll end part 2 with a quote from 2 Thes. 2:13-15:
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Stay tuned for part 3
Read part 1
 Hearing God’s Voice—By Gregory Koukl
 The Dominionist Agenda Driving Gingrich’s New Organization—RightWingWatch.com
 The quote was taken from an email sent to me by Sarah Leslie, used by permission.
The Death of Truth—By Greg Koukl
My 7 years working for the Elijah List—By KevinKleint
Morningstar Ministries and the End-Time Army– they are referring to Joel’s Army/Joshua Generation, and they are targeting our children!
I first came to Mexico in the early seventies. Straining at the confines of the small midwestern liberal arts college where I was in my second year, I responded decisively to a small ad in a progressive magazine, advertising a free university in Cuernavaca, Morelos.
The founder of this project, Ivan Illych, had been gaining some notoriety for his concept of “De-schooling America,” and his institute, CIDOC, featured an array of radical thinksters of the post-flower power era.–most notably, Paul Goodman and John Holt.
I finished up my semester, bade farewell to Iowa, and took off for Mexico. I was nineteen.
CIDOC was perched on a hill overlooking one of the most beautiful cities in Mexico. I quickly found a room in a house –no, a mansion, whose ten bedrooms were rented out to a mish-mosh of Americans and Canadians, in Cuernavaca for varying periods of time to attend CIDOC or CALE, an intensive Spanish language training institute. A self professed Weatherman, on the lam from the law, also lived in the mansion, which had a smaller two story house (for the maid and gardener) as well as a large swimming pool in the overgrown and labyrinthine backyard. It was the height of radical chic.
Every day, I would walk to the busstop to take the ride up the hill, usually accompanied by my housemate Debbie, a drop- out from Reed College, in Portland. Every day, we would walk by a construction zone, where the workers were busy erecting a new office building. Every day, we would be subjected to catcalls and hoots. Gringas in Mexico, I learned, were reputed to be “putas” and were fair game for the most outrageous propositions and insults.
CIDOC was predominantly occasioned by gringos. Up on the hill, the culture that I was accustomed to reasserted itself and women were treated according to the general standards of America in the seventies.
Every evening, I would ride back down the hill into a world which treated Norteamericanas as exquisitely scorned whores.
When I left Cuernavaca a few months later and took off on the road, the questionable status of a gringa travelling alone became even more salient. On more than one occasion, I would check into a small hotel, to find the concierge following me up the stairs and propositioning me as I slammed the door on him, locking myself in.
Why was this, I wondered. I began to examine my appearance. I wore jeans, t-shirts and sometimes short skirts. Mexican women, on the other hand, appeared far more demure. Were the clothes then a flag, an invitation?
American movies were beginning to be widely distributed in Mexico. The sexual revolution was in full swing in the States, and the big screen showed women picking up and enjoying men, at will. Did the Mexicans then get their perception of American women through the media?
After several months travelling through Mexico, I returned to college. My horizons had expanded and I chose to transfer to U.C. Berkeley.
While I returned to Mexico on a number of short excursions, it was not until I returned in 2010 that I began to appreciate the degree to which American culture has continued to impact Mexico. Gone are the days of the catcalls and the loudly hooted invitations. Mexican women now adopt the same streetwear persona as American women—tight tank tops with black bra straps clearly visible, skin tight jeans with rips riding high on the thighs, pierced nostrils and tattoos. Other cultural indicators also support the perception that morality, ala Americana, has deeply infiltrated the Mexican psyche. The local paper here, PESO, features a centerfold of scantily clad young women, while the personal ads clearly advertise those offering sex for money. Some are underage.
At the local hangout for gringos in this Yucatan beachtown, Bill is now known to have two young Mayan mistresses living with him. Bill, a businessman who worked in Mexico for years, is in his early seventies and is reputed to have lost millions in the peso crash. He now lives off his social security check and regularly runs a tab waiting for that monthly check to be deposited in the bank. The two beautiful young girls now hanging on his arm, I am told (by those attempting to mitigate my concern that he may be preying on their innocence), are having a far better life than they would if they were only dependent on their incomes as shop clerks. “They are the smart ones,” I am told. “They know how to get the butter for their bread.”
Other economic issues appear to have subtly altered, as well. I remember well the friendly bartering that accompanied purchases where a fixed price was not clearly marked. Now, I have to guard constantly against waiters returning the wrong change as the bill is negotiated. On one occasion, as I was paying for groceries in the check-out line, the young clerk grabbed significantly more out of my palm than the bill called for, and glared angrily and defiantly at me as I tried to explain to her that she needed to return some of the coins. I reflected ruefully on the behavior of stateside “professionals”–attorneys and trustees—padding their expenses and using their clients’ monies as their own. The scale may be different but the mind set -is the same–”You got it, but if I can get a hold of it –it’s mine!”
The globalization of the economy has resulted in the spread of the values which piggyback on an ethic of financial gain, at all costs. The secrets of the Mayans have all but disappeared. The Mayan prophecies, focussing on the apocalyptic date of 2012, are nearly all that have survived. Written in the Mayan book Chilam Bilam is the warning from the fifth prophecy:
“There will be general loss of prestige of politics, politicians, political parties, and religious leaders; ineffectiveness and inefficiency in the administration of public and private resources of the State and of the companies, institutions, and national and world governments; as well as at the family and community level; product of the greed and ambition, generating corruption.”
Side by side with this warning of overriding corruption and self-interest resides the undeniable reality that the world-as-they-knew-it has disappeared. In the place of the mysteries of time and dimensional travel, is the face of Mexico today– sexy, money-driven –and a host for the American meme.
In the following clip, Obama tells the National Prayer Breakfast: “My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years.”
So there you have it. Obama talked about his Christian faith. It must make him a Christian. Why he might even be almost as great a Christian as his predecessor, Bush Almighty.
Whether or not Obama is a Christian is not my call. That is between him and God. And that is not what this is about. Rather, it is about the gullibility of the American people.
In 2000, when he was running for president, Gubna Dubya was asked what philosopher influenced his thinking the most. He responded: “Well, it’s Jesus Christ because he touched my heart.” That was all that millions of professing Christians needed. Even though he almost never talked about Jesus after that, they made him the object of endless adulation and adoration. Not only was he, like, the most totally awesomest Christian ever, but also, to paraphrase Sting, every little thing he did was Christian.
As Chuck Baldwin once put it, “they (wanted) to add Bush to the Holy Trinity.”
Jesus told His followers to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing and to know people by their fruits – Matthew 7:15-20. The fruit on Bush’s tree included unprovoked war (1) and the wholesale mass murder of innocents, torture, warrantless searches and spying, guilt without trial and doing nothing to stop the abortion holocaust. (2) He told the media that we all worship the same God, even though John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 say otherwise. He celebrated Ramadan at the White House.
The last thing these Bush groupies wanted was to be confused with the facts about Our Great Christian President. He said one thing about Jesus one time on the campaign trail and that negated absolutely everything else.
Now that Obama has openly professed his Christian faith, will these same Bush groupies now stop seething with hatred toward Obama and prostrate themselves before him like they did Bush?
When I ponder the fact that so many Christians were so infatuated with Bush and so unconditionally supportive of everything he did, I know exactly why God has allowed an Obama presidency – Daniel 2:21.
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:”
– Amos 8:11
This is exactly what has happened in America. Only in a land of rampant biblical illiteracy could so many people who call themselves Christians be so hopelessly deceived by a man like Dubya. Only in such a land could so many people who say that they worship the Prince of Peace be such bloodthirsty warmongers.
When the Disciples asked Jesus what will be the sign of His Coming and of the end of the world, Jesus replied: “Take heed that no man deceive you.” – Matthew 24:3-4.
By “no man”, Jesus meant just that: NO MAN! Not even Bush. Not even Obama.
Revelation 13:3 tells us that the whole world will one day idolize a political ruler. The personality cults surrounding Bush and Obama are part of what I call the Big Ramp-Up to the fulfillment of this prophecy.
(1) The proper, moral, constitutional response to things like 9/11 is a “Letter of Marque and Reprisal.” This is a sort of warrant to pursue the specific perpetrators.
(2) And, no, he wasn’t a “conservative” at all. He outspent Kommunist Klinton by $1 trillion per year.
The War – Did We Sacrifice a Million Lives and a $Trillion Cash Just to Hand Our Jobs to China? Part Two
While the Tea Partiers and the liberals squabble over important domestic issues, America’s corporate and military titans, at the expense of America’s workers and taxpayers and with the blessing of Congress and the President, are creating China’s economic miracle. The military, at a cost of over $1 trillion, has paved the way for China to acquire and the U.S. to lose access to vast mineral and petroleum resources. The oil industry, with U.S. government assistance, is building a safe haven in East Asia from the imminent crash of oil everywhere else, by cornering the whole supply. And foreign investment, largely American, is giving China on average nearly one million new jobs a month while American unemployment soars.
This is a four-part series. Part One discusses why and how the oil industry could create a safe haven from its own collapse, and why it might choose China for the project. Part Two discusses how East Asia became “the right market” for the world’s remaining oil reserves, endangering everyone else. Part Three discusses how the US military has turned Afghanistan and Iraq into China’s good buddies. Part Four takes a broader view of what has happened and what if anything can be done about it. Enjoy.
Part Two of Four. The US and Europe Aren’t “the Right Markets.”
Does “Big Oil” have the resources to carry out your plan?
For starters, is it right to assume that the oil industry has an enormous amount of money to invest somewhere else at this time and in the short-term future? Apparently, yes. As oil becomes depleted, exploratory drilling drops because it is futile, additional tankers are largely unnecessary if there isn’t additional oil, and as the industry approaches peak production there is less reason to expand refinery capacity. The industry isn’t about to announce its investment strategy, but to the extent available, statistics bear this out. When oil was a growth industry, it was necessary steadily to increase refinery capacity. But it is uneconomical to build refineries that will be unnecessary long before their useful life is over. Global refinery capacity has hardly grown at all since the early eighties, and the excess of refinery capacity over production/demand dropped from 15 mbpd (close to enough to meet the entire US demand) to zero between 1980 and the peak in production of conventional oil,1 increasingly recognized as having occurred in or around 2005. (Refineries are again being built, but overall, e.g. with several being built in China while five of Britain’s eight have “for sale” signs, “the world needs fewer oil refineries.”)2 Additionally, exploratory drilling for conventional oil dropped from 11,000 wells to 3000 wells in the same period.3 . Similarly, oil tanker construction (92% of which takes place in South Korea, China and Japan) is slowing.4 These changes began three decades ago, which suggests, notwithstanding a stance of public denial that continued until this year, the industry has been aware for that long of the coming peak.5
And then, of course, is the industry’s coming “free ride” from price escalation. It has been calculated that a 4% drop in supply could result in a 177% increase in gasoline prices(i.e. from $3/gal to $8.31/gal) and that a 15% drop in supply could result in a 550% increase in prices, (i.e. from $3/gal to $19.50/gal.),6 that peak oil could “soon”, according to Robert Hirsch,7 result in $12-15/gal gasoline, and according to the former Shell President that gas will rise to $5/gal in 2012..8 None of this should be too surprising, because the prices will have to cut consumption of oil generally by perhaps 20% by 2020. 9
While oil is sitting pretty relative to the rest of us, such figures might present almost as scary a prospect to the industry as they do to you and me. How can the oil industry get away from the oil shortages to which everyone else is about to fall victim? Well, China is increasing its demand by 10%/yr, doubling its consumption in 7 years, and (if it can keep up the frenetic pace) quadrupling consumption in 14 years. That would run the rest of the world down to zero. ZERO petroleum by 2025. Of course doubling your consumption twice in fourteen years is a pretty good trick, but then you might get fire sale prices because the oil industry is rooting for you, and buying the oil and leaving it in the ground where no one else could touch it would work as well to take the oil away from everyone else. As we shall see, China is well on its way with the potential to increase its consumption by 50% just from its overwhelming success at the 2009 Iraq oil auction. In fifteen years, all the world could be destitute except for China and its chosen few neighbors, with a population arguably not too many for a permanent global steady state, and with half a trillion barrels of oil left all to itself to tide it over to sustainability, assuming it does not pollute the world to death..
China sitting by itself with its population is far from sustainable, notably because of a massive groundwater deficit for agriculture on the North China Plain.10 The country has long prided itself as being self-supportive for food, but has more recently been considering importation of grain as an alternative to extremely expensive water importation to the North China Plain, but neither alternative should be out of reach of a nation holding most all the oil. China, after all, performs a trick that looks inconceivable: being the world’s greatest grain producer with farms averaging under an acre in size.11 And were China to corner the world oil supply with enough to keep it going for a century or so, the rest of the world would be virtually defenseless to any attempts it makes to pick the plums of the remaining world’s resources. It will be said by anyone who survives,
“The sun never sets on the Chinese empire.”12
Is “Big Oil”moving into China as if it’s planning to stay?
Is the oil industry in fact putting down roots in the Chinese economy? Glad you asked. Yes. International oil companies have been “pumping money into China,” with BP, Shell and Exxon-Mobil “leading the surge.” They are making the sort of investment that suggests they intend to stay awhile and think their industry will, too. They’ve been building 100 gas stations per month for years, the Kuwaiti Oil Company is building one refinery in China,13 and Shell is building another.14 And China itself is building refineries in Nigeria and Brazil.15 This isn’t how they’d behave it they thought China was going to run out of oil in a hurry. It’s more as if they think China is cornering the market. And they should know.
Of course, there are the five billion or so people who would rather not see ALL the remaining oil going to China and its neighbors, and if it appears that’s what’s happening, may wish to intervene. Fifteen years is not much time, and while the scenario, like China’s “astonishing” January 2009 to January, 2010 28% demand increase, seems improbable on its face, there is surprisingly little to stop it. A partnership between the oil industry and China is a pretty formidable one.
What we might expect is that the United States, with the most to lose, the most military might, and endless lip service to the importance of “energy independence,” would step in to create some balance.. But consistent with Congress’ long-established subservience to oil (the industry, not the commodity), the reverse is in fact happening.
Getting the oil to the “right market”
The oil industry has long had the ability to use the US Government to steer oil resources away from the US itself. Maybe you remember the fight over construction of the pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope. This was just after peak US oil, and concerns about American oil “security,” and American “oil independence” were as strong as they are today. There were two alternative pipeline routes: up the Mackenzie River Valley in Canada, ending in the US Midwest (the environmentally preferred alternative), and down through the completely undeveloped Alaskan interior to Valdez, the oil-industry preferred alternative. To be fair, “completely undeveloped” is hardly an accurate phrase. There were native Alaskan villages in the way, the rights of which Congress swept away in favor of the oil industry with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.16 The oil industry maintained that it was important for the sake of “security” and “oil independence” that the route be entirely “on American soil.” All of that made sense until Charles Cicchetti, then an economist at John Hopkins, pointed out that from an economic point of view it made no sense to build the pipeline to Valdez rather than to the Midwest if the oil were to remain in the US, because there was a surplus of low-priced oil on the West Coast but a short supply of high-priced oil in the Midwest. . The only way the oil industry would prefer the Alaskan route, he said, was if it intended to sell to Japan rather than to the US.17 So much for American oil “independence.” The Alaskan route was chosen by Congress anyway. A restriction was placed in the bill that said the oil could not be shipped directly from Valdez to Japan, but that did not change Cicchetti’s calculus – that we needed the oil in the Midwest, and didn’t need it on the West coast. Thus the US Government was willing as long ago as 1972 to assist oil companies in reducing the supply of American oil to American citizens, all in the name of oil independence.
Since at least 1998, there has been an odd dichotomy between the perceived strategic aims of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the actual beneficiaries of our intevention.. Almost immediately after 9/11, there arose a cottage industry of “It’s about oil” writing,18 and it probably is. This writer recalls being part of the fan club and an occasional contributor .That is not the focus of this article. What is odd is the dichotomy – a confusion between a war for oil and a war for oil companies.
Columnist George Monbiot said it all on October 23, 2001, in a column titled “America’s pipe dream. A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the US an Afghan route for Caspian oil.” He argued,
If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia.19
But what was the “Afghan route for Caspian oil” that a “pro-western regime in Kabul should give the US”? John Maresca. Unocal Vice President and former US diplomat,20 described it in testimony on invitation from Congress in February, 1998,21 in which he discussed the need to remove the Taliban so as to make way for pipelines to carry Caspian crude and natural gas across Afghanistan to the coast of Pakistan, where it could be shipped to India and China. Maresca’s testimony is a fount of information for conspiracy buffs, but it stands on its own as an indicator of US policy with regard to energy for China. Maresca said that the Caspian oil was likely “enough to service Europe’s oil needs for 11 years” if exported through a pipeline to the Mediterranean, and that the Caspian could be producing 4.5 mbpd by 2010. In 1998 China, by comparison, consumed 4.1 mbpd.22 Nonetheless, Maresca recommended against reliance on the pipeline to the Mediterranean and in favor of a pipeline across Afghanistan that would service India and China. Unocal presumably was aware that peak oil would occur in the interim, so giving oil to China was taking it from the rest of the world.
While Maresca’s testimony later proved optimistic and the oil pipeline across Afghanistan for Caspian crude, specifically endorsed by Robert W. Gee, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy at the time of Maresca’s testimony,23 is apparently no longer on the table, it is nonetheless indicative of what Congress was willing to give away to China. Why was this Maresca”s recommendation?
He explained that a western route, out through the Mediterranean, would not have the capability to move it to the “right markets.” The Mediterranean route was designed for export of Caspian oil to the United States and Europe,24 implicitly the “wrong markets.” Predictably, he mentioned Europe but not the United States in this testimony invited by the US Department of Energy. East Asia, he predicted, was “a different story altogether” and could be expected to more than double its demand before 2010. That in fact happened.
Such predictions, of course, always have an element of self-fulfilling prophecy. As discussed below, investment rather than exports is the primary driver of GDP growth in China, and foreign investments in China multiplied by ten in the six years prior to Maresca’s testimony, to a level that has been approximately 10% of the GDP ever since.25 So in modern China, if one must ask “Which came first, the chicken (foreign investment) or the egg (economic growth)?” the answer appears to be, “The chicken.” Promoting oil for China, promoted foreign investment.
Next, Maresca told his listeners, twice for emphasis, that
“The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company..”
Maresca was asking Congress to intervene in Afghanistan in a manner that would shift oil, and ultimately jobs, to China.
1. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/chp1pdf/fig1_21.pdf ; “Conventional” oil means that which is pumped from fields on the land or under shallow water, is not under deep sea and does not come from “tar sands,” shales, etc. See Campbell, below.The “unconventional” oils exist in staggeringly high amounts, but are often useless as energy sources because the energy recovered over the energy in (“EROEI”) is numerically less than one. Even to the extent practically recoverable, none of these sources can be developed quickly enough to eliminate shortfalls in the near future.
2. Martin Quinlan,”Refining: short-term improvement, long-term problems.” Petroleum Economist June 2010, http://www.petroleum-economist.com/default.asp?page=14&PubID=46&ISS=25678&SID=726819
3. Colin Campbell, “Peak Oil: an Outlook on Crude Oil Depletion,” http://www.greatchange.org/ov-campbell,outlook.html .
5. 1980 was when Ronald Reagan was elected President. His environmental policies demonstrated a strong allegiance to the oil industry, and his support for massive public and private debt and large-scale development of unsustainable oil-guzzling suburbia, set the stage for much of America’s present predicament. Did his policies reflect what the oil industry knew would come three decades later? That’s a question for historians, if history survives the next few decades.
6. Stanton, “Is the UK ready for an oil shortage?” http://www.roadtransport.com/Articles/2008/01/30/129667/Is-the-UK-ready-for-an-oil-shortage.htm
7. speaking on CNBC, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWGsnW_NnxE
8. Cleanmpg.com http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/index.php
9. See graph in Nicholas C. Arguimbau, “Imminent Crash of the Oil Supply. . .” www.countercurrents.org/arguimbau230410.htm
10. “Water Policy Briefing: Choosing Appropriate Responses to Groundwater Depletion,” International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka Email: firstname.lastname@example.org, http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/waterpolicybriefing/index.asp. This report is exclusively on the North China Plain problem. IWMI in Sri Lanka is an excellent source of materials on global water problems.
11. UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Agricultural Outlook 2010-2019 (2010)
12. Credits to John Wilson, who is said to be the originator of “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” Answers.com, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_’The_sun_never_sets_on_the_British_Empire‘
13. China: Foreign Oil Companies Boosting Investments ,” Energy Tribune January 27, 2007, http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=365&idli=1
14. “Shell, CNOOC Parent in Talks on Refinery Deal, China Daily Says,” Bloomberg News, Jan 10, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/shell-cnooc-parent-in-talks-on-refinery-deal-china-daily-says.html
16. (43 USC 1601-1624) — Public Law 92-203, approved December 18, 1971 (85 Stat. 688)
17. Cicchetti, C.J. 1972. Alaskan Oil: Alternative Routes and Markets. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Congress placed a provision in the bill limiting direct shipment from Valdz to Japan; whether it alleviated thesituation, this writer does not know. But it could not change the fact that from an American standpoint, the oil was needed in the Midwest but not on the West Coast..
18. Cvf. Ted Rall, It’s About Oil. The San Francisco Chronicle: November 2, 2001: http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-11-02/opinion/17625946_1_kazak-caspian-sea-black-sea
21. Mr. Maresca’s testimony, made on invitation of the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, may be read at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wsap212982.htm
22. US Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis, International Petroleum (Oil) Consumption http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentPetroleumConsumptionBarrelsperDay.xls Researchers will find the EIA data bank invaluable
23. House Committee transcript at 17, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM
24. Leyla Tabasaranskaya (Senior Supply Chain Officer, Supply Chain Management Department, BP Azerbaijan Business Unit) “Baku – Tbilisi-Yhan Pipeline Project Underway,” UK Trade and Investment, http://www.touchoilandgas.com/baku-tbilisi-yhan-pipeline-a102-1.html
25. FDI inflows into China 1984-2009,The rise of foreign direct investment (FDI) , Chinability, http://www.chinability.com/FDI.htm
An Interview with Richard Forer and the Arab Awakening…
Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, was born in 1957 in Beit Sahour, a suburb of Bethlehem. He became a Professor of Genetics and taught at Yale University School of Medicine and Duke University. He is currently teaching at Birzeit Universities in occupied Palestine and his main interests are media activism and public education, human rights and international law. In a 30 January 2011, email he wrote:
“Arabs everywhere (yes even here in occupied Palestine) are talking about a transformation and about revolution. But all such transformations carry pain. Over 200 Egyptians were killed, thousands injured, and there is much destruction. Yet in a nation of 85 million people this is still a relatively peaceful transformation…I know most politicians like to feel 100% safe (mostly for their position of power) and are afraid of any change. But I wish they would realize that daring politicians make the history books and those who hang around trying to protect their seats will be forgotten. Cowardice is never a virtue…Clearly, the era of ignoring the masses is gone.”
Richard Forer, was born in New Jersey in 1948 and attended Sunday school at his reform synagogue from the ages of five through fourteen. In 2006, Forer zealously supported of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. At about the same time, he became a member of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S. When a Jewish friend challenged him on the ‘facts’ he used to justify his support for the invasion, he began an intensive study of the history of Israel Palestine. That led to a crisis of identity as he discovered that his attachment to the State of Israel had blinded him to the heart of Judaism and to the universal truth that lies beyond all labels and beliefs: there is no exclusive or separate self. We are all connected.
Regarding Islam, Richard said, “Many who’ve been influenced into forming enemy images of Islam will find the fact that all but one of the Koran’s 114 chapters mentions compassion infuriating because their identities require an attachment to a belief that Islam is evil. In my book, Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion – A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict I describe my awakening to True Compassion.
“Briefly, True Compassion only arises when one gives up his/her core identity. Once that relinquishment occurs the world is no longer seen as a realm of Us against Them. That is because the attachment to a separate/individual identity requires the creation of the ‘other.’
“The other is a person, society, religion, idea that does not fit within the boundaries of how an individual, consciously and unconsciously, defines his/her identity. Thus, the other is a threat to the ‘reality’ of one’s self-image or identity. Additionally, I assert that Clarity always accompanies True Compassion. True Compassion, unbounded by labels or definitions and the influence exerted upon one’s belief structure by a presumed identity, can see from a 360 degree perspective and, therefore, understand or be willing to understand all points of view. Thus, I can also say that although I find the brutal violence carried out by extremists abhorrent I understand that deep in their hearts even these extremists want the same things we all want – self-determination, freedom and peace.”
Regarding particular Christians, Richard wrote: “Christians who ignore the suffering of human beings by using the same justification as the more fundamentalist of Jews – that ‘God gave the land to the Jewish [or chosen] people’– need to take a closer look at the teachings of Christ. Did Christ single out some for his blessing while ostracizing others? Did he teach hatred or did he teach love and compassion? And they need to look more deeply into their own hearts. Then they will discover that in denying the humanity of some they deny their own humanity…Separative thinking is never divinely inspired. It is always narcissistically inspired; it is, in fact, the very antithesis of the unifying and all-encompassing nature of the divine.” 
Regarding the fundamentalist fire and brimstone preacher, John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel/CUFI cult, Richard said:
“Hagee raises millions of dollars annually for Israel’s settlement enterprise on Palestinian land. He believes that the boundaries of Israel are set by God, that Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank, are within these God-given boundaries and that these lands must be inhabited by Jews. This, of course, would require the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. One can argue that this viewpoint obstructs the chances for peace but it certainly doesn’t qualify as anti-Semitism.
“Unfortunately, though, Hagee is an exponent of the ‘End of Days’ when Jesus will return to Earth and non-believers, Jews included, will have to either convert to Christianity or fall into a lake of fire (Hell). Hagee further believes that the Jewish people are guilty of deicide – the murder of Christ – the one unpardonable sin. This belief has been at the heart of anti-Semitism for nearly two thousand years. Without this belief, Adolf Hitler might not have been able to rely on both the hatred and the silence of those who supported or closed their eyes to the evils of the Holocaust. But most perniciously, Hagee has stated that the Nazis had operated on God’s behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and ‘shepherd’ them to Palestine. And, Hagee continues, Hitler was a ‘hunter’ sent by God to expedite His will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.”
I was born in Greenwich Village, New York in 1954 and up until that day we call 9/11, I never gave a thought beyond my family, friends and local community. That day transformed me and I began to research about the Middle East and traveled seven times to Israel Palestine beginning in 2005.
On 6 November 2007, I attended a John Hagee cult event in Miami and was astounded by his mastery of manipulating the fears of Christian Zionists and south Florida’s right wing Jewish community.
As the shofars blew in the packed to the rafters James L. Knight Center, Hagee blew idiot wind that brought the crowd to their feet, “Israel was re-born by an act of God and Israel lives! God Jehovah will bury Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran! The flag of Israel will fly over the undivided Jerusalem and be the praise of all the earth! It’s 1938 again and the new Hitler is Ahmadinejad! Radical Islamists are threatening to develop nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel and then the USA! But we are indivisible and we are both here forever!”
The oft repeated comment ascribed to President Ahmadinejad, that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” was addressed by Virginia Tilley, Professor of political science who wrote:
“In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word “map” or the term “wiped off”. According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was “this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
“In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah’s regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the ‘occupying regime’ in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, ‘This too shall pass.’”
Tikkun is Hebrew for mend, repair and transform the world.
Tikkun is also an American Jewish progressive political and spiritual community and organization, that researched and discovered that there are three distinct elements energizing the Christian Zionists:
- A strong commitment to conservative and ultra-nationalist American politics (so strong, I believe, that if the U.S. were to decide to break with Israel, this part of the Christian Zionist leadership would go along with that and drop its defense of Israeli policies).
- Dispensationalist religious commitments that lead many of the Christian Zionists to yearn for a cataclysmic “end of history” eschatological war in the Middle East that will precipitate the second coming of Jesus and the Rapture in which
- A widespread understanding among many Christians that atonement and repentance is needed for 1700 years of murder, rape, and oppression of Jews that was frequently generated by the Church (though, of course, the Evangelicals do not recognize that church as their church). In this category are many Christian Zionists who genuinely feel terrible about what has happened to the Jews and genuinely want to help the Jewish people. Their philo-Semitism is real and sincere. 
all true Christians will go to heaven and all Jews who have not yet converted to Christianity will burn in hell for eternity.
But in Miami that night, I witnessed multitudes of misled and misinformed Christian’s celebrating military occupation, violence, power and control but they ignored the gospel/good news that Jesus promised, “It is the peacemakers who shall be called the children of God.” –Matthew 5:9
Hagee repeatedly cited that all worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but neglected to mention that the first mention of Israel is in Genesis 32:22, when Jacob was renamed Israel for having wrestled and struggled with the Divine. This Christian Anarchist [meaning I take Jesus very seriously but all the rest is commentary for me] contends that anyone who wrestles and struggles with the Ultimate Mystery of the Universe is also Israel, for Israel is not just a State but a state of mind, spirit and soul.
Hagee threw out the names of Hebrew prophets, but neglected the fact that God raised up prophets to speak truth to power, to confront arrogance and to remind the people, “What does God require? He has told you o’man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord.” -Micah 6:8
God also raised up prophets to remind the people that they cannot know the mind of God for “His thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.”- Isaiah 55:8
God also raised up prophets to admonish the “stiff necked people” [Exodus 34:9, Proverbs 29:1] and warned them that, “My people are fools, they do not know me! They are skilled in doing evil, they know not how to do good.”-Jeremiah 4:22
Hagee also invoked the “Torah Way” but the Torah commands:
“From Moses to Jeremiah and Isaiah, the Prophets taught…that the Jewish claim on the land of Israel was totally contingent on the moral and spiritual life of the Jews who lived there, and that the land would, as the Torah tells us, ‘vomit you out’ if people did not live according to the highest moral vision of Torah. Over and over again, the Torah repeated its most frequently stated mitzvah [command]: When you enter your land, do not oppress the stranger; the other, the one who is an outsider of your society, the powerless one and then not only ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself’ but also ‘you shall love the other.’” 
A Brief History of Christian Zionism:
In 1891, Christian fundamentalist and lay-preacher, William Blackstone appealed to President Benjamin Harrison to help establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Blackstone was a disciple of Dwight L. Moody and the father of premillenial dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, influenced them both.
Darby had great success in connecting with the post-Civil War survivors and was able to transmit his new heretical theology into the heartland of America. Despite the horrifying news of Czarist pogroms that could have been the catalyst to establishing a Jewish state before the Holocaust, the Christian fundamentalists moved onto the Scopes Trial and forgot about the Jews-for a while.
Fifty years later and after millions of Jews and other innocents who had been deemed outcasts by the Third Reich were tortured and murdered and the British Mandate ran out, the land we call Holy was partitioned by the United Nations to make a home for Jewish immigrants.
Most evangelicals interpreted the establishment of the state of Israel to be the fulfillment of -how they understood and interpreted- certain prophetic scriptures. They interpreted the Israeli victory in the 1967 War and the capture of Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights to be an act of God but neglected to consider the fact of Israeli superior military might.
The American Bi-Centennial in 1976 was a watershed year for the religious right. While mainline churches declined, evangelical and fundamentalist churches became the fastest growing sector of American Christianity. TIME magazine named 1976 as The Year of The Evangelical and suddenly they became a political force.
Following the War of 1967, Israel gained an increased portion of USA foreign aid and military budgets, becoming the ‘western pillar’ of the USA strategic alliance against Soviet incursion into the Middle East.
During this period AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobby agencies began their ascent to power in shaping USA foreign policy. The Roman Catholic Church and mainline Protestant denominations began to develop a more balanced approach to the Middle East, bringing them closer to the international consensus on the Palestinian question but Pro-Israel organizations interpreted this shift as being Anti-Israel and in turn began to court conservative and fundamentalist Christians.
In 1977, when President Carter stated “The Palestinians deserve a right to their homeland,” Christian fundamentalists and the Israeli lobby responded with full page ads stating: “The time has come for evangelical Christians to affirm their belief in biblical prophecy and Israel’s divine right to the land…and affirm our belief in the Promised Land to the Jewish people.”
The Reagan White House hosted a series of seminars from the Israeli lobby and Christian right. This was when Hal Lindsay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the Moral majority infiltrated the West Wing.
Falwell received a Lear Jet from the Israeli government for his personal travel. When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981, Prime Minister Begin called Jerry Falwell -before he called Reagan- to ask him to explain to the Christian public the reasons for the bombings!
In 1996, Netanyahu and Likud ideology dominated Israeli policy and 17 evangelical USA pastors pledged their support of the illegal colonies in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and full support for a Jerusalem under sovereignty of Israel.
The Christian Zionists launched a PR campaign under the banner: “Christians Call for a United Jerusalem.”
They ignored the fact that they were in conflict with American policy and the Oslo process as well as a direct attack on Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant unity with the Churches for Middle East Peace that called for a Shared Jerusalem.
In 2006, Hagee wrote for the Pentecostal magazine Charisma, “The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. Israel and America must confront Iran’s nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide.”
With the publication of the fictional Left Behind series many more Christians were mislead and a major reason I wrote KEEP HOPE ALIVE was to challenge its escapist heretical theology.
274 years ago on 29 January, Thomas Paine was born a man before his time; but his wisdom and spirit speak to the NOW:
“Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion…The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”
Thomas Jefferson penned The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth which weeded out the miracle stories as it illuminated what Jesus’ was about:
Always work for PEACEFUL resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with COMPASSION.
Consider valuable the things that have no material value.
Do not judge others and do not bear grudges.
Give out of true generosity; not because you expect to be repaid.
Being true to your self is more important than being loyal to ones family/tribe.
Those who think they know the most are the most ignorant.
Jesus said that his mother, sisters and brothers were those that did the will of the Father and again, the Hebrew prophet Micah summed it up best: “What does the Lord require? He has already told you o’man: Be Just, Be Merciful and walk humbly with your God.”
To be just is to be fair and reasonable.
To be merciful means to treat all people the way we want to be treated.
To be humble is knowing oneself; and good and evil cut through every human heart.
Jesus taught that the only way to resist evil is with good. Jesus was a nonviolent Palestinian devout Jew who was mocked, whipped and nailed to a cross and his final prayer was, “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”
Education is the way to compassion and compassion will bring in the change we all really want to see in this world for we all desire this same trinity; self-determination, freedom and peace.
When the people Rise Up/Intifada to seize their RIGHTS governments had better get out of their way and let them have them.
Hear Richard’s latest interview here:
3. Rabbi Lerner, Tikkun Magazine page 9, Nov/Dec. 2007
4. Rabbi Lerner, Tikkun Magazine page 35, Sept./Oct. 2007
Given the severity and uncertainty of the economic crisis we are all experiencing, I suggest we look once more at the work of Milton Friedman, the leading economist and a staunch advocate of hard capitalism.
During the 1960s -80s Friedman was regarded by many academics, politicians and world leaders as the most important post- World War Two economist. Friedman was chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Menachem Begin. He also went on record advising the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.
It is far from surprising to note that more and more commentators have realised in recent years that it was Friedman’s ideology and advocacy of free enterprise, zero governmental intervention and privatisation that has led to the current financial turmoil. It was Milton Friedman’s philosophy that also contributed to the transformation of the West into a service economy.
But Friedman wasn’t just an economist: he was also a devout Zionist and a very proud Jew. Friedman was interested in the role of the Jews in world finance and politics. He also attempted to analyse and understand the attitude of Jews towards wealth. In 1972 Friedman spoke to The Mont Pelerin Society about “Capitalism and the Jews”. In 1978 he repeated the same talk, addressing Jewish students at the Chicago University’s Hillel institute.
I’d suggest that Friedman deserves our immediate attention, since he contributed to the rise of an ideology and school of thought that bears some responsibility for the rearrangement (some might say dismantling ) of the West’s economy.
The Jewish Paradox
Friedman was, no doubt, a sharp intellect, and could offer sharp and succinct criticism. Yet, Friedman was not entirely ‘a cosmopolitan’ in every sense of that word, since he was deeply involved in Jewish concerns and Zionist affairs, and he was deliberately open and transparent about being so.
In the talks he gave in 1972 and 1978, Friedman examined a unique Jewish paradox : “Here are two propositions,” he said. “Each of them are validated by evidence yet they are both incompatible one with the other.”
The first proposition is that “there are few peoples if any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews.“
The second proposition is that “there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.”
How do we reconcile these two contradictory propositions?
As one may gather by now, Friedman, the free enterprise advocate, was clearly convinced that monopoly and government intervention were bad news in general; but, more crucially for him, they were also very bad for the Jews.
“Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts.”
Friedman, clearly prefers competition. According to him “the market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks.”
Friedman’s elaborates further: “Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”
“Jews” Friedman continues, “have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.”
According to Friedman, it is also no accident that Jews suffered the most in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, for these countries clearly defied free market ideology.
One may suggest at this point, that though it is undoubtedly true that Jews suffered in Soviet Russia and in Nazi Germany, and though it is also true that these countries defied free market ideology – Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.
However, the message Friedman conveys is clear – Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.
Yet, Friedman is also genuinely intrigued by Jewish intellectuals’ affinity with anti-Capitalism : “Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews.”
How could that be, Friedman wonders? Why is it that, despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews; despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in much liberal literature from at least Adam Smith onwards, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-capitalist?
Friedman considers some answers –
Rather often we hear from Jews on the left that their affinity to humanitarian issues is driven by their ‘Jewish humanist heritage’. More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and ‘Jewish ideology’ are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.
Friedman, however, offered a further take on the subject: In direct reference to Lawrence Fuchs who argues that the anti-capitalism of the Jews is a “direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture,” Friedman wonders – if Jewish culture is, indeed, inherently anti capitalist (as Fuchs suggests) how is it then, that Jews failed to successfully combat Capitalism and free markets throughout their history? Friedman analyses that whilst “Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, is at the most, less than two centuries.”
Being a sharp intellect then, Friedman managed to dismantle Fuchs’s argument. He managed to counter the argument that Jewish culture is inherently socialist or humanist. If Judaism is, indeed, inherently and innately bound to such ethics, how is it that this humanism failed to become dominant throughout Jewish history?
Friedman also reflects in a surprisingly respectful manner, on the writing of alleged anti Semite Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Sombart identifies Jewish ideology at the heart of capitalism. “Throughout the centuries, the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in economic activity against the dominating view of the time. The individual was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort. I think that the Jewish religion has the same leading ideas as capitalism . . . “(1)
Though Jewish intellectuals at the time were largely unhappy with Sombart’s book, Milton Friedman is brave enough to admit that there is nothing in Sombart’s book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism (though, he argues, there certainly is in Sombart’s later work). Friedman, a proud capitalist, tends actually to interpret Sombart’s book as “philo-Semitic”.
“If, like me”, says Friedman, “you regard competitive capitalism as the economic system that is most favorable to individual freedom, to creative accomplishments in technology and the arts, and to the widest possible opportunities for the ordinary man, then you will regard Sombart’s assignment to the Jews of a key role in the development of capitalism as high praise. You will, as I do, regard his book as philo-Semitic. “
Milton Friedman may even agree with early Marx, that Capitalism is Jewish ‘by nature’. Yet, while Marx believed that in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews (3), for Friedman capitalism is of profound value and to be respected, and Jews should be praised for their inherent bond with this philosophy and its diverse ramifications. As far as Friedman is concerned, for Capitalism to prevail, Jews should continue to do what they are good at: and that is to trade freely in an open and competitive market.
Friedman seems to dismiss the presumed ‘intellectual honesty’ behind Jewish affiliation with the left and anti capitalism: He tends to argue that the Jewish intellectual inclination towards the left is a direct outcome of some political and historical circumstances, rather than ethical or ideological choice. He explains that, in his view, Jewish affiliation with the left is the product of a particular occurrence in Europe in the nineteenth century.
“Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a “Left” and a “Right” along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the left (democratic, liberal, radical) held that there can be no Church at all . . . .”
It was only natural, then, for the Jews to join the left – in fact Jews could only join the left.
“The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the left that could see a place for the Jews in public life.”
Such a reasoning, then, views Jewish affiliation with the left as a politically opportunistic move instead of a form of ‘moral awakening’.
Such a reading of the ‘Jewish left’ reaffirms my own critical assessment. It also explains why some Jews join the left – they support cosmopolitanism, solidarity, an international working class; and yet, they themselves often seem to prefer to operate within ‘Jews only’ racially orientated cells such as the Bund, Jewish Socialists or even Jews For Boycott of Israeli Goods. Friedman’s reasoning might also explain why so many Jews who had their roots in the so- called ‘left’, ended up preaching moral interventionism and Neo Conservatism.(4)
Friedman argues also, that Jewish affiliation with the left might be better understood as an attempt to disown some anti Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as being “a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values.”
According to Friedman, the Jewish anti capitalist is there to prove that, far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. “How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?”
And yet, in Friedman’s logic then, it is not a ‘moral awakening’ that moves the Jew to the left; it is neither humanism, nor solidarity and nor is it kindness, but, instead, it seems to be a desperate attempt to replace or amend the Jewish image.
Surprisingly enough, I find myself in total agreement with Friedman, though I would phrase it differently. I do differentiate between ‘the leftist who happen to be Jewish’- an innocent category inspired by humanism, and ‘the Jewish leftist- which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, for the left aims to universally transcends itself beyond ethnicity, religion or race. Clearly ‘Jewish left’ is there to maintain a Jewish tribal ethno-centric identity at the heart of working class philosophy. ‘Jewish left’ is there to primarily serve Jewish interests
I noticed that Richard Kuper, the European Jewish activist behind the recent Jewish Boat to Gaza, was quoted as saying that their goal was to show that “not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians.”
It seems to me that the message Kuper conveyed was pretty clear: Rather than being driven entirely by a genuine care for the Palestinians in Gaza, the Jewish boat was also engaged in a symbolic exchange. It was also there to save the image of the Jews rather than solely providing humanitarian support. This fact alone may explain why the Jewish boat hardly carried any humanitarian aid for the Gazans. Rather than a ‘humanitarian aid mission for the Palestinians,’ it was probably also an ‘image rescue for the Jews’.
Seemingly then, Friedman managed to resolve the paradox between his two initial propositions (Jews being the benefactors capitalism vs. Jews being profoundly anti-capitalist) by offering an historical and political explanation: Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism; it was just the “special circumstances of nineteenth-century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype.” It was neither ideology nor ethics.
This interpretation explains why left Zionism was doomed to disappear. During his talks, Friedman reviewed the right/left political division in Israel. He noticed that two opposing traditions were at work in the Jewish State: “an ancient one–going back nearly two thousand years– of finding ways around governmental restrictions (and) a modern one– going back a century– of belief in “democratic socialism” and “central planning.” Friedman was clever enough to gather already in 1972 that it is the “Jewish tradition”, rather than ‘socialism’, that would prevail. Friedman noticed already in the 1970’s that Israel was capitalist to the bone. He predicted that the short phase of Zionist ‘pseudo socialism’ was foreign to Jewish culture.
Yet. It isn’t just Israeli left that was doomed to die. Friedman’s reading of Jewish culture also explains why the Bund (5) died; it didn’t really spread to the West; it also explains why the legendary Mazpen and other Jewish tribal anti Zionist revolutionary groups have never attracted the Jewish masses.
Friedman is not free of fault. In spite of his succinct reading of the Jewish left/right divide there are a few crucial points that have to be made about Friedman’s reading of Jewish culture, and his reading of capitalism.
Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that Government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti Semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry. If Friedman’s model is valid, then Jews in the West had better brace themselves, for Western Governments are currently intervening in the markets in a desperate attempt to slowdown the inevitable collapse of what is left of our economy and relative wealth.
If Friedman’s model is correct, and intervention is indeed bad for the Jews, then anti Jewish bigotry could be immanent, especially considering the gigantic bailout intervention schemes put up by states in an attempt to save what remains of the Western economy.
But it goes further – it is also plainly clear that the bailout schemes are there to amend a colossal disaster caused by the endorsement of Friedman’s own ideology. We are all paying a very heavy price for free enterprise, hard capitalism, or, in general, the ideologies Friedman was so enthusiastic about.
There is something Friedman didn’t tell his listeners in the 1970s – He himself probably did not realise the full meaning of his economic model. He himself did not realise that the adoption of his philosophy by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would eventually bring the West to its knees. He himself did not realise that it was his own advocacy of hard capitalism that would lead Western continents to poverty and deprivation. He perhaps did not realise back in the 1970s that it was his model that would eventually eliminate productivity, and every positive aspect of the welfare state. Milton Friedman did not realise at the time that service economy that suited some ethnic minorities for two millennia wouldn’t necessarily be a successful model once adopted into a macro model. As Friedman had gathered, throughout their history Jews and other ethnic minorities were very effective operating as service economy within competitive and productive markets. However, Jews and other ethnic or religious minorities did well because others were there to work around them. The transforming of the West into a service economy driven by relentless greed, a process that followed Friedman’s economic precepts, is now proving to be a disaster. It means poverty and global depression. It is translated into alienation from labour and productivity.
Friedman may have been correct when he predicted that governmental intervention may lead to anti Semitism – yet, he probably failed to realise that it was largely his own intellectual heritage that would be responsible for the current financial disaster. It is in fact his own economic model and prophecy that could also introduce Jews to far more suffering.
(3)“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Karl MarxOn The Jewish Question, 1844
(4)David Miliband, David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are all good examples of the above.
(5) East European Jewish Socialist Party was formed in 1897 as the tthe General Jewish Labour Bund of Lithuania, Poland and Russia.
As surely as William Barret Travis drew a line in the sand at the Alamo, a line is being drawn in the hearts of men today. By the time it is over, every man and woman in America will have to choose which side of the line they are on. Neutrality will not be an option. Furthermore, this line is separating, not only political and cultural adversaries, it is dividing friends and families as well. In fact, it is no hyperbole to say that the enemy is not only AT the gates; the enemy is WITHIN the gates. Then again, I suppose that during any momentous turning point of history, it has always been this way. And make no mistake about it: we are at a momentous turning point of history.
Consider what our Lord told us: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36 KJV)
It’s happened before in America. It happened during our War for Independence. It happened again during the War for Southern Independence: father against son and brother against brother. And so it is now.
The enemy has always done its best and most efficient work from within. At this point, I am reminded of what America’s most celebrated jurist, Daniel Webster, once said, “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter: from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing.”
I am often asked, “From whence comes our greatest threat: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Russia, China, etc.?” And my response is the same as Webster’s: our greatest threat is within the gates of our own country. Our greatest threat is Washington, D.C. I will even go further than that. Many times, our greatest threat is within the gates of our own churches, and within the walls of our own homes!
Remember, the Lord Jesus was betrayed by one of his own apostles. King David was betrayed by his own son. Samson was betrayed by a lover. Noah was betrayed by a grandson. Joseph was betrayed by his own brothers. Moses was betrayed by the ten trusted scouts. The list is endless.
I remind you that during our War for Independence, the colonial army had far more to fear from Benedict Arnold than it did from King George! And so it is today. The enemy at the gates at least looks like the enemy. It dresses like the enemy; it talks like the enemy; it acts like the enemy. But the enemy within the gates looks like a friend. It dresses like a friend; it talks like a friend; it acts like a friend. But it is still the enemy!
The enemies of freedom are ubiquitous today. They are in our State legislatures; they sit on the benches of our judiciary; they teach in our colleges and universities; they preach in our pulpits; they teach in our Sunday School classrooms; they sit across our dining room tables; they even sleep in our own beds! And, for the most part, they are in charge of most things going on in Washington, D.C.
These enemies of whom I speak are those who would rather protect government (even illegitimate government) than protect freedom; they would rather please the powers that be than please the Power that is; and they would rather promote their own success and prosperity than the success and prosperity of their country. They are self-aggrandizing statists who suck at the teat of Big Government. They might be Democrats or Republicans: at the national level, both have a large welfare-addicted constituency. They might be Christians or unbelievers. In fact, many of today’s Christians, churches, and pastors are proving themselves to be the enemies of freedom to an even greater extent than many unbelievers.
For the last several years, the absence of Christians (and especially pastors) from the freedom fight is glaring! The vast majority of them show little interest in whether or not their State defends itself from ever-increasing federal encroachments; they show little attention to the exponential growth of a Fascist-style police state that is taking shape in front of their very eyes; and they seem little concerned over the demise of constitutional government.
Beyond that, I have discovered firsthand that not only do many Christians seem to revel in apathy and indifference to the aforementioned attacks against our liberties, they will often unleash vehement resistance and hatred to the brother that stands in opposition to these attacks. It is no wonder Jesus said, “A man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
Some of these enemies and false brethren are motivated by jealousy. Some are motivated by greed or ambition. Still, others suffer from extreme character deficiencies, such as egomania, pride, laziness, or intense feelings of insecurity. Regardless of the motivation, they set their sights and whet their arrows against those who would dare take a bold and courageous stand for liberty.
My fellow patriots, watch your back, because your greatest enemy is probably behind you! Remember, Jesus “came unto his own, and his own received him not.” (John 1:11) And of Christ does the prophet not say, “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends”? (Zechariah 13:6 KJV)
I can personally identify with Zechariah’s prophecy. The wounds my wife and I (and our entire family) carry today were inflicted “in the house of my friends.”
Perhaps the patriot’s courage convicts the statist of his own laziness or greed. Perhaps the statist truly despises liberty in his own heart, because, in his soul, he is either a tyrant or slave–or even both. In fact, when the discussion of liberty is broached in today’s Churchianity, I fear this is a major part of the problem.
I have witnessed firsthand the effects that legalism, denominationalism, and corporatism have caused within the Church. Many Christians are so enslaved by legalistic churches and institutions that they wouldn’t know freedom if it came up and bit them on their blessed assurance! They are told what kind of music to listen to, how to wear their hair, what kind of clothes to put on, who can and can’t be their friends–even how husbands and wives should express their love to each other. Their entire lives are lived as subjects and servants to the all-powerful institution (read: church, school, college, etc.). What, pray tell, does the subject of liberty mean to them? They are already enslaved!
Likewise, many professing pastors and Christians are as enslaved to a denomination as any political subject in Russia or China. To them, there is no truth worth defending but the truth proclaimed by the almighty denomination. There is no battle worth fighting unless it is sanctioned by the all-wise denomination. And there is no enemy worth resisting who is not identified by the all-knowing denomination. What, pray tell, does the subject of liberty mean to them? Are they not slaves already?
Then there is the corporate slave! This is the so-called Christian statist who recognizes no church that the IRS does not recognize–or approve. This is the Christian, who, if he lived in communist China, would attend the state-approved church, with a state-approved minister, preaching state-approved sermons to state-enslaved subjects. But as almost anyone knows, the real Church in oppressed countries is never the one you see in state-sponsored “we-have-freedom-of-religion-here” propaganda photo ops.
The real Church in oppressed countries meets in private living rooms, back rooms, barns, sheds, or even in the backwoods. In all likelihood, their gatherings are illegal, their ministers unlicensed, and their worship politically incorrect. This has been the history of the real Church since the Book of Acts. And it is fast becoming the experience of the real Church in America!
Yes, a line is being drawn in the sand in this country. One will either be a statist, who is devoted to the supremacy of the State, or he or she will be a freedomist, who is devoted to the spirit and principles of liberty. And just like at Travis’ Alamo, there can be no neutrality.
I personally believe that God Himself is drawing this line in the sand. I also believe that many professing Christians are quickly lining up on the wrong side of that line and have made themselves the enemies of truth and freedom (and those who love them). I further believe that because so many Christians are holding their peace, the “stones” are crying out for truth and liberty (Luke 19:40), meaning God is often using strangers of the covenant to advance His truth.
I also believe that God is preparing a robust and righteous remnant from among those who love liberty (and are willing to guard and defend it), while the traditional church (read: organized, incorporated, state-sanctioned) is being given over to servitude and judgment. And as I’ve also learned (and said before), patriots must watch their backs, because the enemy is not AT the gates, it is WITHIN them!
“The Shin Bet is like the FBI and the Mossad is like the CIA.” - Mordechai Vanunu
Mossad was established by Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, “For our state which since its creation has been under siege by its enemies. Intelligence constitutes the first line of defence…we must learn well how to recognize what is going on around us.” 
Mossad engages in covert actions with a focus on Arab nations and organizations and its agents are active in the former communist countries, in the West, and at the UN.
In December 2010, Tamir Pardo took over as Mossad chief and promised “that Israeli agents will never again be allowed to use fake British documents during operations abroad.” 
Last March, Britain expelled Mossad’s station chief in London, after an investigation exposed “Israel’s secret service for cloning 12 British passports that were found among 26 forged identity documents used by the hit squad that murdered Mahmoud al Mabhouh in January.” [Ibid]
The Telegraph reported that Pardo, [who had been the deputy director of Mossad] argued against using British, Irish and Australian passports for the hit team that murdered al Mabhouh in his hotel room.
After the Dubai debacle, a source stated that Pardo warned Meir Dagan [the then chief of Mossad] that the “whole business will come home to haunt us”.
Indeed it has.
On 27 December 2010, Mordechai Vanunu ‘leaked’ on his Facebook and Youtube Channels:
“Maybe the New Mossad chief will also apologize to Rome, Italy, for the kidnapping of Vanunu from Rome, by the Mossad in Sep’ 30 1986… Mossad chief need also to apologize to Germany, for another 6 fake passports left in phone booth in Berlin, 1986 few days after Vanunu kidnapped in Rome…”
Professor James Petras noted, “The Mossad’s acquisition and alteration of official British, French, German and Irish passports of dual Israeli citizen’s underscores the cynical and sinister nature of Israel’s exploitation of its dual citizens in the pursuit of its own bloody foreign policy goals.” 
Mossad also has had no qualms about exploiting one’s very own family in “the pursuit of its own bloody foreign policy goals.”
In 1986, Cheryl Hanin was a 26-year-old Mossad agent who traveled under her sister-in-laws name and posed as an American tourist in London.
In March 2006-during but not included- in the taping of “30 Minutes with Vanunu” I asked him what he was thinking when he took off with Cindy. Vanunu maintained eye contact as he replied, “It wasn’t like THAT-when Maxwell’s paper published my photo without ever talking to me and some of the stolen Dimona photos with a very bad story against me, I knew the Mossad was after me. Cindy said she had a sister in Rome and I thought I would be safe there until I could return to London. We went to movies and art galleries, I trusted her. But, as soon as I got into the apartment, I was hit on the head and drugged. When I woke up and they took me for interrogation, they threw the Times article on the table and said, ‘Look, what you did.’ I was so relieved they had published it and that I had done what I did.”
The London Sunday Times published a front-page photo of the Dimona reactor and a story that spread over three pages revealing Israel’s arsenal of upwards of 200 nuclear warheads on Oct. 5, 1986, five days after the Mossad kidnapped Vanunu.
In 2009, I paid $20.00 to obtain Cheryl Hanin Ben Tov’s home address and phone number and snail mailed Mrs. Ben Tov twice hoping she had a conscience and would intervene for Vanunu’s freedom if I updated her, because I do not want to see Vanunu’s prophecy be self-fulfilling:
Cheryl has not sent me a reply, but two days after posting my letters- with my return address on the envelope- the visits to my website increased dramatically. Same thing happens within twenty-four hours after I depart Ben Gurion Airport, for I always tell SECURITY that I am an activist reporter who is published first at WeAreWideAwake.org.
A short drive from my sanctuary, Cindy/Cheryl Hanin Ben Tov has been living the good life in an exclusive gated community golf course home- purchased in Hanin’s name in 1998 at $528,000.00.
See photo here:
On April 6, 1996, in an investigative report, The St. Petersburg Times located Cheryl Ben Tov and reported that she continues to work for the Mossad.
It is illegal under American-Israeli diplomatic protocols for the Mossad to operate in America.
In 1986, Hanin was a 26 year old Mossad agent posing as an American tourist in London. She grew up in Pennsylvania and Orlando in a Jewish family that owed its affluence to tires.
I moved to Orlando from New York in the mid 1970′s and still can recall her father, Stanley Hanin, founder and pitchman for the Allied Discount Tires chain stores, shrill refrain in his self-produced cheesy TV commercials, “Tahrs ain’t pretty, but you gotta have them!”
As her parents went through an acrimonious divorce, Hanin embarked upon a long love affair with the Jewish State. In 1977, she spent a semester in Israel, studied Hebrew and Jewish history and threw herself into her academic and religious studies in a three-month residential course funded by the World Zionist Organization.
Upon graduation in 1978, she joined the Israeli army and married Ofer Ben Tov and then was recruited by the Mossad. See Photos of Ofer and Cheryl here: http://www.danheller.com/hungary-grp-bentov.html
In 1986, “She left Israel to flee the media and the people who burrowed into her life,” a friend in Florida told the Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth.
“This bothered her a lot. She was terrified. She felt the need to run. Since this affair Cheryl only wants one thing: a normal quiet life.” 
Ever since Vanunu emerged from 18 years in a windowless tomb sized cell on 21 April 2004, all he has been saying that he wants is:
“FREEDOM AND ONLY FREEDOM I NEED NOW.” 
Many of us grew up in Sunday School and church. We have heard the great Bible stories over and over. We heard about the story of how Moses’ mother defied Pharaoh and hid her little baby boy in bulrushes. We heard the story of how Moses killed the Egyptian taskmaster defending a Hebrew slave and later became the great deliverer of God’s people. We heard the story of young David going out alone against the Philistines’ greatest warrior, Goliath. We heard the story of how Saul’s servants refused to carry out the king’s order to murder the priest Ahimelech. We know well the story of Daniel who defied his government’s order to refrain from praying. The names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are very familiar to us. We heard our teachers and preachers extol their courage in defying the government’s order to bow to the image of their emperor. We remember that John the Baptist went to prison (and was eventually beheaded), not for preaching the Gospel, but for criticizing the king for his immoral behavior. We certainly recall the story of Simon Peter who bluntly told his civil magistrates, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” We know that the Apostle Paul wrote many of his epistles from inside government prisons. We certainly recall that before John penned the Revelation, he had been banished to an island-prison by his civil authorities.
I challenge Christians to objectively look at the great stories of Bible heroes (in both testaments) and observe how many times they are noted for either being martyred for defying a civil authority, or, perhaps, for being delivered from death for defying a civil authority. The stories of defiance to civil government (in one form or another) comprise a great percentage of all the stories contained in the Bible–perhaps even a majority of them.
So, how has it happened that a majority of today’s Christians, it seems, have become such sheepish slaves of government? How has it happened that, for the most part, the concept of courage in the face of government oppression has been totally lost to the average Christian, pastor, and church? For all intents and purposes, it is time for many Christians to shred their Bibles, because the lessons and principles of God’s Word have absolutely no influence over their attitudes and conduct.
For example, if the story of Peter in prison were being experienced today, instead of the church rallying behind their pastor and conducting an all-night prayer meeting for him, most church members would be excoriating him in the name of Romans chapter 13. Instead of Paul being let down the wall in a basket to escape the civil authorities trying to apprehend him, the average Christian today would be the first one to turn him over to the authorities.
In the mind of the average Christian, God is not God; government is God! For instance, when one well-known Christian attorney was recently confronted by the teaching of Scripture relative to the church’s independence from government (meaning, no church should allow itself to be subject to the government’s tyrannical 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt status), he said, “That might be Biblically correct, but it is not legally correct.” In other words, the “Christian” attorney would rather a church be legal than Biblical. And, unfortunately, that seems to be the attitude of the vast majority of professing Christians today. They would rather please the government than please God; they would rather obey the government than obey God; they would rather be at peace with the government than be at peace with God.
And when it comes to the courage of risking anything of value in order to do right, forget it!
Think of what Abram risked when he obeyed God and left his country and kin and struck out for a land that God had not even told him of. Think of what Moses risked when he killed that Egyptian; think of what Joshua and Caleb risked when they defied the entire nation that was following the evil counsel of the ten spies; think of what David risked when he faced the giant; think of what Elijah risked when he confronted 850 false prophets all by himself; think of what the Old Testament prophets risked when they rebuked or challenged the kings of Israel and Judah; think of what the disciples risked when they “left all” and followed Jesus; think of what the early church risked when it embraced the Gospel and defied the wishes of Rome and Jewry (not to mention their own families and friends). But these stories are more like fairy tales to the average Christian today. They serve no practical benefit whatsoever!
Let a church deacon, trustee, or elder be told by some government-backed attorney that he is really a corporate officer, subject to the laws and punishments of IRS tax codes, and that church leader will say anything, sign anything, or do anything to save his own financial security. In order to not jeopardize his own standing with the IRS, that same church leader would turn his back on his best friend, or gladly join with the government in prosecuting a fellow believer.
I personally know of more than one case where professing Christians either lied against a beloved brother in order to protect themselves against threatened government (read: IRS) penalties, or actually testified for the prosecution (read: IRS) under oath in a court of law against a Christian brother. In each case, these “brothers” actually felt it was their “Christian duty” to betray their friends and brothers and help the government.
I am reminded of the verse where Jesus said, “Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2 KJV)
I am also reminded of the warning from the prophet Jeremiah when he cautioned, “Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders. And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.” (Jeremiah 9:4,5 KJV)
Jeremiah’s prophecy is spot-on! Christians today cannot be trusted to be faithful to the truth; they cannot be trusted to not betray and turn against their brethren; they cannot be trusted to not be party with slander and libel. If it means saving their own skin, or keeping their bread buttered, or staying in the good graces of the IRS, they would sell out their best friend–maybe even their own mother! And it is no coincidence that Jeremiah, himself, experienced firsthand that which he had spoken. It is no wonder he said, “Trust ye not any brother.”
When will Christians get it through their heads (and in their hearts) that oftentimes government is the enemy of God? When will they understand that they have only one Sovereign: King Jesus? When will they come to comprehend that helping government perpetrate unjust action against fellow believers is a crime against Heaven? When will they stop talking about the Bible and actually start internalizing its teachings, examples, and principles?
It has gotten to the point today many unbelievers are far more trustworthy than today’s Christians–especially when it comes to the subject of resisting unjust government. It grieves me say that many “Christian” attorneys, politicians, pastors, and church leaders are merely shills and toadies for a government that has often become both oppressive and illegitimate!
May God help us! He will have to, because we won’t get much help from the vast majority of today’s professing Christians. That is for sure!
Those who mastermind the U.S.-directed psychological operation against Iran have obliviously forgotten that we’re now accustomed to seeing the uninteresting, exhausting charade of “will attack Iran”; you put the subject for it, either the United States or Israel.
Over the past five years, Iran has been recurrently under the threat of an imminent war which the mainstream media have overwhelmingly talked of; a war against Tehran to overthrow the Islamic Republic and bring to power a “democratic” regime which the “international community” favors.
Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed office in 2005 as the Iranian head of state, he made attempts to reverse the passive, submissive stance of Iran towards the Eastern and Western superpowers and proposed new theories for an innovative international order. He accelerated Iran’s nuclear program and made remarkable advancements in nationalizing the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Iran. He put forward insightful and astute questions: “why should Israel possess nuclear weapons in violation of the international law”, “why should Israel occupy the lands which don’t belong to it”, “why should Israel repeatedly threaten its neighbors and wage wars against them”, “why should Holocaust be used as a pretext to suppress the Palestinian nation?”, “why should Iran be deprived of the peaceful uses of nuclear power while the United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China have thousands of nuclear weapons?”
These questions were not digestible for the United States and its stalwart allies around the world; therefore, some measures should be adopted to suffocate this man and the people he represents internationally. The reason was simple. Ahmadinejad and Iran would not make concessions and thus should be silenced at any cost. So, who is going to pay the price for silencing Iran? Are the military options plausible?
The answer is simply “no”. Iran is different from Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the countries which Israel attacked during its period of existence in the Middle East. The people of Iran have demonstrated that they react to the aggressive powers categorically. So, the best option would be to stage an all-out psychological operation in which the means of coercion, falsification, distortion, fabrication and intimidation might be used.
The project was set off almost five years ago, when the U.S. and European mainstream media gradually began trumpeting for an imaginative war against Iran. The first man to set in motion the project was Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He told the media on February 19, 2005 that George Bush is laying the groundwork for an all-out attack against Iran: “President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons.” With what was described as Ritter’s “greatest skepticism”, he also talked of the possibility of a regime change in Iran, pushed by the neoconservatives who were trying to persuade the ex-President Bush to broaden the extents of war to topple the Islamic Republic.
The primary threats looked so realistic and actual that even deceived the veteran investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, who wrote in a January 24, 2005 article in the New Yorker that U.S. is getting prepared to launch a military strike against Iran. He quoted a high-ranking intelligence official as telling him: Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”
In 2006, the gossips were strongly suggesting that there’ll be an attack against Iran, either by Israel or the United States. In August 2006, the former chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Major General Hamid Gul emphatically proclaimed that Iran will be attacked by the United States. Interestingly, he also specified the exact time of the attack. Talking to the Pakistani Parliament, he predicted that “America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October.”
Along with the previous predictions, however, General Gul’s prediction about an imminent assault on Iran transpired to be futile.
The same events continued to happen in 2007; futile predictions and empty threats, either by those who were involved in the conflict with Iran or those who did not have a role.
On January 24, 2007, the Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum that there’s a possibility of U.S. attacking Iran: “It’s a 50/50 proposition, and we hope that it won’t happen. Attacking Iran would be counterproductive.”
The atmosphere created by the United States and its allies was so imposing and impressive that had influenced everyone, from the most pragmatic, down-to-earth journalists to the most adventurous, overconfident politicians. Quoting the Kuwaiti paper Arab Times, John Pilger wrote in a “New Statesman” article dated February 5, 2007 that Bush will attack Iran, and also gave the military details of the attack according to the statements of a Russian military official: “The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia’s most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the U.S. will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean.”
Untruthfulness and falsehood had pervaded the mainstream media and they had simply failed to take seriously the possibility of losing their reputation as a result of proposing unrealistic, improbable and pointless predictions. They were only after serving the interests of their governmental owners and trumpeting for a non-existing war which was about to be waged against Iran.
On March 5, 2007, the Reuters AlterNet quoted analysts that there could be a chance for a possible military strike against Iran. This time, the attacker was destined to remain unspecified: “Risk analysts say there could be an up to one-in-three chance that the United States or Israel will attack Iran by the end of this year, and markets may not be doing enough to hedge against the impact.” This employment of the “United States or Israel” was the newest psychological operation tactic; spreading uncertainty and ambiguity to overawe and subdue Iran.
In 2008, the most entertaining charade of the game was initiated by John Bolton, a politician who seemed to be enormously interested in playing the role of a new Nostradamus. His prophecy was that Israel would attack Iran before the new U.S. President swears in. The magnificent foretelling by Mr. Bolton was grandiloquently featured by the Daily Telegraph in a report titled: “Israel ‘will attack Iran’ before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts”.
Anyway, the new U.S. President swore in and nobody attacked Iran.
The war threats against Iran have been renewed several times since John Bolton publicized his prediction. The famous “proverb” of “all options are on the table” was uttered by the successor of George W. Bush; the same man whom we trusted in once for good and deceived all of us with his promise of change. Mr. Bolton’s newest forecast has been released recently: Israel has until week’s end to strike Iran’s nuclear facility. The psychological warfare machinery is being activated again as each newspaper and website represents one arsenal. Jeffrey Goldberg is taking steps to become the Judith Miller of war against Iran and the world once again watches the funny advertisement of human rights by those who are terrifically massacring “humans” in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, getting prepared for a new bloodshed in Iran. The thing is not that Israel will attack Iran. The thing is that Israel won’t dare attack Iran, but its unremitting propaganda won’t cease. The thing is that we should hear these sentences incessantly: “Israel will attack Iran… will Israel attack Iran?”
A few weeks ago the Jewish Chronicle published a list of Jewish MPs in the UK parliament. It named 24 in total, encompassing 12 Conservatives, 10 Labour, and two Liberal Democrats. Author and peace activist Stuart Littlewood elaborated on these figures and presented the following analysis:
“The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats. The conclusion is pretty obvious. With 24 seats, Jews are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims…If Muslims, for instance, were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats. All hell would break loose.”
A question must be raised here. Why are Jews overwhelmingly over-represented in the British parliament, in British and American political pressure groups, in political fundraising and in the media?
Haim Saban, the Israeli-American, multibillionaire media mogul offers the answer. The New Yorker reported this week that at a conference last fall, Saban described his pro-Israeli formula, outlining “three ways to be influential in American politics…make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.”
As I have mentioned many times before, there is no such a thing as Jewish conspiracy. It is all done in the open. In front of TV cameras from all over the world, listed Israeli Propaganda Author as well as British Foreign Secretary David Miliband gave the Israelis a green light to operation Cast Lead, suggesting in Sderot that “Israel should, above all, seek to protect its own citizens.” Miliband, in practice, made us all complicit in a colossal war crime committed by Israel. Staunch Zionist Lord Levy funded the Labour party when this party launched a criminal war that intended to erase the last pocket of Arabic resistance to Zionism. He also wasn’t at all shy about it. In the media, shameless Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen enthusiastically advocated the same criminal war in the name of ‘moral interventionism’. Nick Cohen also founded the Euston Manifesto ‘think tank’ to support dubious Neocon ideologies on this side of the pond.
Levy, Cohen, Aaronovitch, Miliband are all in line with Saban’s formula: influence, donations, think tanks, media. Yet they don’t necessarily know Saban, and may never even have heard about the Zionist media mogul. It isn’t necessary. The fact is, Saban didn’t invent anything himself. His formula is deeply brewed in the Judaic religious tradition, Jewish culture and ideology.
United Against Purim
The Book of Esther is a biblical story that is the basis for the celebration of Purim, the most joyous Jewish festival. The book tells the story of an attempted Judeocide, but it also tells a story in which Jews manage to change their fate by means of political influence. In the story, the Jews do manage to rescue themselves and even to mete revenge, all through an infiltration into the corridors of power.
It is set in the third year of Ahasuerus, and the ruler is a king of Persia usually identified with Xerxes I. It is the story of a palace, a conspiracy, an attempted Judeocide and a brave and beautiful Jewish queen (Esther) who manages to save the Jewish people at the very last minute.
In the story, King Ahasuerus is married to Vashti, whom he repudiates after she rejects his offer to ‘visit’ him during a feast. Esther was selected from the candidates to be Ahasuerus’s new wife. As the story progresses, Ahasuerus‘s Prime Minister Haman plots to have the king kill all the Jews without knowing that Esther is actually Jewish. Esther, together with her cousin Mordechai saves the day for their people. Esther warns Ahasuerus of Haman‘s murderous anti-Jewish plot. Haman and his sons are hanged on the fifty cubit gallows he had originally built for cousin Mordechai. As it happens, Mordechai takes Haman‘s place, becoming the Prime Minister. Ahasuerus’s edict decreeing the murder of the Jews cannot be rescinded, so he issues another edict allowing the Jews to take up arms and kill their enemies, which they obviously do.
The moral of the Biblical story is rather clear. If Jews want to survive, they had better make their way into the corridors of power. They had better bond to the rulers of the world. With Esther, Mordechai and Purim in mind, AIPAC, Levy, ADL, David Milliband, Saban and the notion of ‘Jewish power’ all appear to be an embodiment of a deep Biblical, tribal and cultural ideology.
However, here is the interesting twist. Although the story is presented as an historic tale, the historical accuracy of the Book of Esther is largely disputed by most modern Bible acholars and historians. The lack of any clear corroboration of between any of the details of the story with what is known of Persian History from classical sources is what has led scholars to come to the conclusion that the story is mostly, or even totally fictional.
In other words, though the Jewish moral is clear, the attempted genocide is fictional. Seemingly, the Book of Esther sets its (Jewish) followers into a collective Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It transforms a fictional fantasy of ‘destruction’ into a vivid ‘ideology of survival’. And indeed, some read the story as an allegory of quintessentially assimilated Jews who discover that they are targets of anti-Semitism, but are also in a position to save themselves and their fellow Jews.
The Book of Esther exists to form a coherent exilic tribal identity. It is there to plant an existential stress. It introduces the Holocaust mentality. Furthermore, it fixes the conditions which turn the Holocaust into reality. In hermeneutic terms, the text shapes the reality. In practice, it is the fearful mind the sets itself into a tragic trap of self-fulfilling prophecy. The Shoa ideology matures into a real event.
Interestingly enough, the Book of Esther (in the Hebrew version) is one of only two books of the Bible that do not directly mention God (the other is Song of Songs). As in the case of Zionist secular ideology and the Holocaust religion, in the Book of Esther it is the Jews who believe in themselves, in their own power, in their uniqueness, in their sophistication, in their ability to influence, in their ability to take over kingdoms, and in their ability to save themselves. The Book of Esther is all about empowerment. It conveys the essence and metaphysics of Jewish power, as described by Haim Saban and performed by AIPAC.
Zionism and Democracy
Zionists seem to love democracy. The Jewish state outrageously claims to be ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. Israel’s supporters around the world also advocate conflicts in the name of ‘democracy’. Why do they love democracy so much? I guess that the answer is devastatingly simple. Democracy is the ideal political platform for the Zionist influence merchant.
Democracy in its current state, especially within the English-Speaking world, is a political system that specializes in positioning inadequate, unqualified and dubious characters in leading positions. Two democratically elected leaders launched the illegal war in Iraq. Two democratically elected leaders marched the west into a financial disaster.
Running a state is not an easy task. It surely takes some talent and training. In the past, our elected political leaders were experienced politicians who had achieved something in their lives, whether in academia, industry, military or the financial world. In the past, our candidates for premiership had a curriculum vitae to share with us. Apparently this is not the case anymore. Time after time we are left with a ‘democratic choice’ to give our vote to one or another laughable young failure. Time after time we see rising political ‘stars’, people have really achieved nothing in their lives, and who are unqualified to run even a corner shop, let alone a state.
You may want to ask yourself what qualification Blair or Bush possessed before they took the wheel in their hands. What experience does David Cameron have at his disposal in order to rescue Britain from total disaster on every possible front (financial, Iraq, Afghanistan, education, NHS and so on)? What kind of experience does David Miliband bring with him in the bid for the Labour premiership? The answer is none. Our lives, our future and the future of our children are in the hands of ludicrous, clueless characters. This may explain why Britain ended up with a hung Parliament. Not a single leader in this country could convince the public that he had the talent, the integrity or even just a seed of true leadership.
But here is the news. As much as our elected leaders are totally clueless, the Sabans, the Lord Levys and the Wolfowitzes know exactly what to do. The Jewish religion, culture and ideology provides its followers with a narrative that saves us of the democratic limbo. The Sabans of this world are far from being amateurs or clueless; they know exactly what to do. They have been doing it for three thousand years. They are the followers of Mordechai and Esther. The Sabans of the world know how to translate the moral of Purim into British and American practice.
Stuart Littlewood seems to wonder why Jews are over-represented. With Purim in mind, we may be able to suggest an answer. We are dealing here with an exilic cultural setting that preaches for lobbing, influence and control. Shaping politics, media and thoughts is the true meaning of the Book of Esther. Saban was either just genuine or foolish enough to admit it in public. However, the absence of a Book of Esther within the heart of Muslim or Hindu culture may explain why other marginal migrant groups in Britain are adequately and proportionally represented in British politics and media. Moreover, it is unlikely that this will change soon. As opposed to most minorities and marginal identities in the West, Judaism is an exilic national religion and the Jewish identity is a product of tribal indoctrination. This may explain why emancipated Jews who live in Britain for generations as seculars still operate within Jewish political and social settings, and under Jewish political banners.
It is not a secret that a few Jews out there are very gifted. It is also rather obvious that some Jews are amongst the leading contributors to the humanist and universal discourse. However, this is not something we can say about Haim Saban, who openly desires to influence American foreign policy by means of donations, think tanks and media control. Similarly, David Milliband, who struggled to amend British universal Jurisdiction to make it easy for Israeli war criminal visit his kingdom, should not be regarded as a great humanist either. Nick Cohen, who founded the Euston Manifesto, a think tank that promotes Zionist interests within British intellectual culture, cannot be regarded as an ethical icon. Amazingly enough, they all did it in the open.
If we care about peace and about our future generations, we must be brave enough to connect the dots. The Mordechais and Esthers within our media, intellectual and political life must be confronted. We must unite against Purim. If the Labour party still carries any ethical responsibility, it should put David Milliband in his place. If our parties want us to believe in their agendas, they had better learn to say “NO” to Zionist money and Jewish proxy donators. If our media outlets want us to believe in their ‘impartiality’, they had better identify the enemy within. How many Iraqis will need to die before the penny drops? How many peace activist should die in high seas before we all say ‘NO more’? How many British workers will need to lose their jobs, homes and hopes before we can allow ourselves to say “NO” to Zionist wars and their advocates in our midst?
Panic is detected in Israel. Strategic affairs minister, Moshe Boogi Ya’alon who served as acting PM during last week’s massacre in the high seas said yesterday that “someone failed to prepare a standard operating procedure.” A senior IDF official was quick to respond “If there wasn’t a standard operating procedure, why didn’t he make sure there was one. He was the acting prime minister and it was his responsibility.” War criminal Tzipi Livni is also unhappy with the Government for failing to take responsibility. Two days ago she led a no confidence vote in the Israeli Knesset.
Seemingly the Israelis are starting to blame each other. This may look like a positive move, however, not a single Israeli is yet to ask for forgiveness. Seemingly no one in Israel grasps the scale of the atrocity in the high seas. No one in Israel comprehends the level of outrage amongst the nations. Israelis, are instead concerned with their Hasbara failure, their military operational mistakes and so on. Up until now, they fail to see that in the high seas, they have managed to kill Christ again.
Killing Christ is realised symbolically as an assault on goodness, a crime against kindness and innocence. The cold blooded slaughter of peace activists in international waters has a very similar effect. It is an assault on compassion, righteousness and humanism. It is an attack on everything Christianity and Islam happen to value. As much as Israelis, Zionists and Neocons are insisting on spreading the deceptive myth of a Judeo-Christian alliance, it is this last Israeli crime that made it clear that the Jewish State shares nothing with humanism, Christianity or Islam. Israel in fact stands against any recognised Western value.
Though the contemporary Israeli has no ethnic or biological lineage to the ancient Israelites, the merciless ideology repeats itself. Since, the Zionist project defines itself as a revival of the Biblical Israelite nation, it shouldn’t take us by surprise that the lethal Biblical ideology also comes to life. It is implemented daily against Palestinian women, children, elders and now against an international humanitarian convoy.
If we want to understand what happened to the Palestinian solidarity movement last week, we could start by elaborating on a mass shift of consciousness. This goes beyond politics, psychology or sociology, it is actually a spiritual metaphysical shift. As I have been predicting for many years, we now start to see hope and liberation through the Palestinians and their righteous struggle. We understand that the Palestinians are at the forefront of the battle against evil. And we obviously stand behind them as one person. Interestingly enough, politicians are way behind. They still fail to notice the rapidly emerging worldwide public awareness that something is deeply sick in the Israeli society and its lobbies around the world. Our politicians will probably join us later, when their Zionist money runs out.
By equating Christ’s murder with last week’s massacre in the high seas, we can then understand the total failure of the Israeli Hasbara machine. Instead of standing up and admitting that something went horribly wrong at sea, Israeli officials reverted to the usual spin. The Turkish activists had become ‘Jew haters’, ‘Al-Qaeda terrorists’, and the Mavi Marmara had become a ‘Boat of Hate’. This tactic is unfortunately too familiar. It has been employed by Rabbinical Judaism for two thousand years, especially against the memory of Christ.
I guess that Christians and Muslims will be shocked and outraged to find out that Yesh’u (יש”ו), the Hebrew name for Jesus, is an abbreviation that corresponds to the “May his name and memory be blotted out”*, an expression used for deceased enemies of the Jewish people like Hitler and Stalin. In the Hebraic culture, Jesus, the kindest of all people, the son of God, is regarded as the ultimate enemy. If Jesus is cornered with Hitler, it shouldn’t surprise us that Hasbara officials insist to stick Peace activists with Al-Qaeda. Seemingly, in the modern Israelite philosophy one becomes a Yesh’u hate figure once hit by an Israeli bullet.
The Judaic hatred towards Jesus, as reflected by the Hebraic abbreviation Yesh’u is pretty revealing in the context of the latest Israeli massacre. Rather than accepting its crime and genuinely repenting, Israel attempted to portray the Turkish martyrs as the ultimate Jewish enemies. Seemingly, this attempt failed completely. The Free Gaza flotilla is now making it into a symbol of hope and compassion. Israel, on the other hand shoved itself into a corner. This is a tragic prophecy that fulfilled itself. Israel will never recover, it simply can’t.
This Islamic preacher is “out there.” No doubt about it. So is Christian preacher John Hagee.
Hagee promises his flock a Rapture that will beam them up to Heaven. But not just yet. First God’s Chosen People must recover Jerusalem.
Remind me: isn’t the status of Jerusalem THE most contentious and volatile issue in the entire Middle East?
Hagee is much loved by the Likud Party wing nuts that have never shown any desire for peace with an indigenous population that has been ethnically cleansed, imprisoned and provoked with impunity for six-plus decades.
Isn’t Hagee’s preaching an incitement to violence? Yet members of his flock can claim a tax deduction to support his inspired preaching. We call this freedom of religion
If the recovery of Jerusalem for The Chosen requires an Armageddon, so be it. That too is part of God’s plan. Hagee should know. He claims a direct line to Yahweh. Just ask him.
Even a nuclear holocaust would fit God’s Plan. Why? An Apocalypse would assure the reappearance of a long-dead prophet.
This End Days prophecy is routinely foretold on the public airwaves by this tax-subsidized televangelist. For The Faithful, he offers an inspiration that has a twisted logic behind it.
When The Chosen recover their God-Given real estate, God will smite all those who refuse to join Hagee’s flock. Or some Christian affiliate thereof.
And, yes, that includes The Chosen. Convert or die. That’s the Hagee-inspired, tax-subsidized version of Christianity.
Such smiting does not qualify as a Holocaust. Why? Because those smitten are only The Chosen who refuse to choose a conversion to this version of a Loving God.
By then Hagee’s True Believers will be safely enfolded in the post-Rapture embrace of a God that prefers Christians Above All.
What about The Smitten? It was their Choice as The Chosen not to Choose. That’s their problem in this Biblical version of Blue State vs. Red State politics in a post-Apocalypse world.
Democracy-meets-theocracy supported by freedom-of-religion tax subsidies that inspire both The Saved and The Smitten.
Light Unto the Darkness
This blend of Star Trek and the Old Testament lacks any basis in either fact or faith. But Never Mind. That’s the burden that befalls those inspired by such a vision.
Just keep on keeping on, faithfully secure that you will be on the side of The Chosen in the post-Apocalyptic era. Provided, of course, that you choose wisely.
For that, consult Reverend Hagee. And keep those tax-deductible donations flowing.
Why do U.S. taxpayers subsidize such preaching? Why are we now using our tax dollars to hunt down and kill Muslim preachers in faraway lands?
Were there not a consensus that Hagee’s preaching merits protectiion as religion, he would be consigned to a padded cell. Or described as a terrorist and a Christian Evil Doer.
But the immediate issue here is neither about sanity nor the freedom to inspire.
The issue is what conduct you inspire. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a no-no. Unless, of course, there’s a fire. Yell “Apocalypse” and you may find yourself in one of those cells.
What about taxpayer subsidies for televangelists who preach a nuclear Apocalypse? Why subsidize such “inspiration” in the world’s most volatile region?
Is Hagee’s inspiration subsidized because it fits into a “Judeo-Christian” narrative? What if he were calling for an Apocalypse here instead of the faraway Middle East?
What is it about a U.S.-born Islamic cleric living in Yemen, the poorest Arab nation, that makes him such a danger to Americans’ interests in the Middle East?
Who benefits from his death? Why is he so problematic?
A Contract on the New Mexican
Barack Obama, a political product of the Chicago Outfit, reportedly approved this hit.
Who persuaded this former professor of Constitutional law that this was a good idea?
What is the rationale for this contract? All we know is what’s been reported to date.
But we also know this: FBI agents were actively monitoring at least three “incidents” by Muslim Evil Doers with whom this New Mexico native was in contact:
- The two San Diego hijackers who flew jets into the World Trade Center on 911.
- The Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable, and The Christmas Day Crotch Bomber
And now we discover that he also “inspired” The Times Square Fizzler. Who knew?
Akin to an online Billy Graham for evangelical Muslims offering inspirational DVDs to his faithful flock, Mr. Awlaki appears uniquely capable of inspiring serial acts of “terrorism.”
But wait a minute. The facts confirm he advised and/or “inspired” four such incidents, including at least three incidents undertaken during FBI oversight of Awlaki.
How did the Times Square Fizzler make 16 trips to and from Pakistan with impunity? How did he show up in Manhattan to launch a high profile “incident” just as the United Nations began debate on a treaty to create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons? See: Israel Defense Official Defends Nuclear Ambiguity.
Imagine yourself seated in a darkened theater focused on a mystery thriller featuring a complex plot with several intricate subplots.
Then someone in your peripheral vision lights a fireworks sparkler. What happens to your attention? Then someone lights another. What then happens to your focus?
That’s why, in national security parlance, well-timed incidents are called “sparkle.”
Is it coincidence that Awlaki is found on the periphery of so many well-timed incidents? Why are federal law enforcement agents also found on the periphery?
Who benefits from having a Muslim cleric killed in a Muslim country by U.S. forces instead of apprehending him for questioning?
Kill him and watch this evidentiary trail vanish like the “dancing Israelis” who were spotted filming and celebrating the mass murder of 911.
For game theory war planners, a provocation is only the appetizer. The main course is the cascade of reactions that advance a narrative in support of a geopolitical agenda.
Provoked by 911, prodded by phony intelligence and duped yet again by a trusted ally, the U.S. reacted by invading Iraq, a nation now known to have no hand in that event. At last count, 1.3 million Iraqis are reportedly dead of war-related causes.
Rather than a nuclear-free Middle East, we’re now urged to invade Iran, the latest nuclear Evil Doer. Or is the next target now the Evil Doer Pakistan? How about Syria?
What’s been the reaction to our reaction to 911 among Muslims worldwide? Was our reaction modeled by game theory war planners? Are we that easily profiled? How much of the ongoing cascade of reactions-on-reactions-on-reactions could be modeled such that today’s outcomes became foreseeable—in the sense of being probable?
As Israeli war planners aptly say: “When the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”
What if the anticipated reactions fail to emerge on a timely basis? Are these Awlaki-inspired incidents “sparkle?”
Were they meant to distract attention and diffuse the focus required to press for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestine—including Jerusalem? Did the Times Square Fizzler further delay U.N. treaty—first proposed in 1995—that would force Israel to abandon its nuclear arsenal?
If we experience a nuclear “incident,” does it now appear more “plausibly” the work of Muslim Evil Doers? Iranians? Pakistanis? Syrians?
Or will it be the work of Israeli provocateurs?
Advancing the Narrative
Anwar al-Awlaki has the gift of gab. There’s no dispute about that. Raised in New Mexico and steeped in the Koran, his fiery rhetoric combines fluency in both pop culture and theology.
What radicalized him? What personal experiences transformed him from a glib Islamic cleric to a U.S.-bashing Muslim Evil Doer?
How about 18 months in a Yemeni prison, most of that sentence served in solitary confinement?
That alone might not suffice to turn him against his native country—unless his confinement was traceable to an American official.
Remember John Negroponte? He first emerged on the global scene as an overseer of death squads in Central America during the mid-1980s as part of the Reagan administration.
Regarded as a mass murderer by those knowledgeable in that volatile region, he reemerged in February 2005 when Secretary of State Colin Powell was dispatched to the United Nations. With Negroponte seated behind him, Powell’s credibility as a former general was associated with intelligence falsely alleging Iraq’s possession of mobile biological weapons.
Such “associative” psy-ops are business-as-usual for those skilled at displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe. Displacement is an essential component when waging Information Age warfare. See: Guilt By Association.
When watching Powell’s performance (he now concedes he was duped), television viewers saw over his right shoulder CIA Director George Tenet. The intelligence operative that no one could see behind Tenet was Paul Joyal, his chief of staff who boasts of being a Khazar.
Over Powell’s other shoulder peered John Negroponte, then director of national intelligence with oversight of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies. None of those agencies now support Powell’s Power Point presentation of “facts” proving those biological weapons.
Negroponte was the U.S. official who did not object when Yemen imprisoned a U.S. citizen and held him in solitary confinement—where Awlaki immersed himself in the Koran for 18 months.
The U.S. approval of his release in 2007 suggests that he could have been released much earlier.
Try to imagine a better formula for radicalization. Who better than an outraged articulate American cleric to inspire Muslim-American Evil Doers? Or Pakistani-American patsies such as the Times Square Fizzler.
Why was Awlaki imprisoned? Equally important, why was he released? Capture him alive and we may find out. Kill him and the trail goes cold. Could that be the point?
Why has his death been ordered by a U.S. commander-in-chief? Why do Barack Obama’s advisers not want him brought in alive?
Who is the real enemy in this hall of mirrors? Faced with yet another well-timed “incident,” how do we sort out the source of this evil doing?
Do we protect U.S. national security by killing a U.S. citizen?
Think about it.
Army Report A Precursor To Christian Persecution?
Last Friday, I told readers of this column that I had come across a very disturbing government report and that I would be exposing that report during my Sunday address this past Sunday morning. I did exactly that, and anyone wishing to see an archived video of that address can do so by using this link (the video should be uploaded by this weekend)
The report’s header reads, “Strategic Implications of American Millennialism, A Monograph by MAJOR Brian L. Stuckert, U.S. Army. This monograph was defended by the degree candidate on 01 May 2008 and approved by the monograph director and reader named below. Approved by: Timothy Challans, Ph.D., Monograph Director; Robert Taylor, COL, MI, Monograph Reader; Stefan J. Banach, COL, IN, Director, School of Advanced Military Studies; Robert F. Baumann, Ph.D., Director, Graduate Degree Programs.” The School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, produced the report.
Here is the TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Why Millennialism Matters
The Role of Civil Religion and Culture
Millennial Theologies in America
Post-Millennialism and the Founding of America
Civil War, World War and the Rise of Pre-Millennialism
Israel, Nuclear War and the Last Days
Contemporary Pre-Millennialism in the American Electorate
Contemporary Pre-Millennialism and American Culture
The Holy Land and Armageddon: U.S. Policy in the Middle East
Anti-Christ, Gog, Magog, and Armies From the East
Conclusions and Recommendations
Remember, this is not a Christian university report or even a secular university’s religion department report, but rather a report written by an active duty Army major (who is now stationed in Afghanistan, I am told) for one of America’s war colleges. Before analyzing this report, here are some questions to ponder. Whose brainchild was this report? Did the major select the topic himself or did a superior assign it to him? To whom exactly was the report distributed? How was the report used? What are the interconnections between this report and the MIAC and Department of Homeland Security reports that draw similar conclusions? And perhaps the biggest question is, What does this report portend for government action in the future?
When Major Stuckert speaks of millennialism, he is referring to the Biblical doctrine of Eschatology–specifically, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to the earth to institute a 1,000-year (millennial) reign. He recognizes some of the nuances of this doctrine in his study, most notably post-millennialism and pre-millennialism. His report is heavily focused on pre-millennialism, however.
At this point, I feel it is necessary to make this observation: whether one is a post-millennialist or a pre-millennialist, the fact that we Christians believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ to the earth to establish His Kingdom puts us in the same boat, as far as the ramifications of Major Stuckert’s report–and similar reports–are concerned. We Christians need to recognize that, as far as the Stuckerts of this world are concerned, because we believe the Bible and we believe in the literal return of Christ, we are considered an enemy. We can disagree with one another all we want to about whether there is a Rapture (and if there is one, when it will occur), whether Christ will return before or after a millennial kingdom takes place, and scores of other theological differences, but none of that is important to the events at hand: there is a growing sense among many governmental and military leaders in America that Bible-believing Christians are an enemy that must be marginalized, warned about, watched, and even controlled. And it does not matter to a tinker’s dam to these Machiavellians whether one is a post-millennialist or a pre-millennialist. If we believe the Bible and believe that Jesus is coming again, they consider us “dangerous.” And we Christians better wake up to this stark reality, stop fighting each other, and focus on working together to preserve our liberties!
And one more early observation: there is an eerie and uncanny connection between the verbiage and spirit of Stuckert’s report and the now-infamous MIAC and Homeland Security reports. The timing, too, is significant. The MIAC and Homeland Security reports were produced shortly after Major Stuckert’s report was produced. A coincidence? Not on your life!
Here are some excerpts from Stuckert’s report:
“Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit.” (Abstract, page iii.)
“These factors [results of millennial belief] can be problematic for any military leader or planner attempting to achieve U.S. Government policy objectives through strategy, operations and programs.” (Abstract, page iv.)
Notice that from the very outset of this report, Stuckert asserts that Christians who believe in the Second Coming create circumstances or conditions that might be “problematic” for America’s military leaders. We Christians also create “potential vulnerabilities” that America’s enemies may “exploit,” according to Stuckert. Furthermore, Stuckert laments that we Christians may even interfere with “U.S. Government policy objectives.”
Pray tell, exactly what are those “U.S. Government policy objectives” that Christians might prove to be “problematic” for? And is Major Stuckert suggesting that those Christian military officers currently serving in the US armed forces are somehow “problematic” to “U.S. Government policy objectives”? And do these same Christian officers make America “vulnerable” to our enemies? Is he suggesting that military officers in the US armed forces who believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ be expunged from military service, because of their beliefs?
As one will observe when reading the 61-page treatise, Major Stuckert, with a broad brush, paints millennialist Christians as being serious problems for America’s foreign policy and for “U.S. Government policy objectives,” and that we must be dealt with; but he offers no details on what, exactly, should be done. Or if he did, that part of his treatise is not a matter of public record.
“The impact of American millennial religious ideas on U.S. Government policy will add to strategic hubris, compel increasingly reckless international action, and continue to over-commit the military in ways the Nation cannot afford.” (Page 1)
Again, notice that Christians who believe in Christ’s return add to pride, recklessness, and war. Good grief! I suppose that we Christians are also responsible for the escalating price of gas and oil too–and maybe even global warming!
“First, millennial thought and its policy implications may create strategic transparency that affords adversaries an advantage in decision-making. Second, an understanding of American millennial thinking may provide adversaries with the means to manipulate American policy and subsequent action. Third, the enemy may exploit American millennialism to increase the fragility of and even disrupt coalitions. Fourth, adversaries may exploit American millennialism to demoralize or TERRORIZE joint forces and the American people. By recognizing these potential vulnerabilities, military leaders and planners may TAKE ACTION NOW to mitigate the effects.” (Page 2. Emphasis added.)
Dear reader, is the hair standing up on the back of your neck yet? If not, it should be!
According to Major Stuckert, the belief in Christ’s Second Coming makes us vulnerable to America’s adversaries. In fact, these adversaries (are they foreign or domestic? He doesn’t specify) might even exploit this belief to “TERRORIZE . . . the American people.” (Emphasis added.)
There’s that “T” word again! Do you now see the connection to the MIAC and Homeland Security reports? Is it all starting to make sense now? Because we believe in the literal return of Christ to the earth, do people such as Major Stuckert consider us to be potential terrorists?
And just what does Stuckert mean by the statement, “Military leaders and planners may take action now to mitigate the effects”? Does he propose that we Christians be rounded up and put in all these FEMA camps (that don’t exist)? Just how does he plan for the US military to “mitigate” the effects of us Christians? This statement is downright chilling!
In this report, Major Stuckert specifically mentions the holiness and Pentecostal churches; as well as the Assemblies of God; non-denominational churches; and Independent and Southern Baptists. Again, anyone who believes in the Second Coming of Christ is targeted in this report. According to Stuckert, “Millennialism actually refers to any system of belief or interpretation that employs a literal thousand years, or chiliad, in reading and applying Revelation 20:1-7.” (Page 9)
Stuckert even went so far as to say that Christian “mission work, especially overseas, [has] significant implications for U.S. foreign policy.” (Page 27)
I bet that when you folks make that financial donation to your church’s foreign missions program you have no idea that you are causing significant (negative) implications for US foreign policy. Well, Stuckert thinks you are.
Stuckert also berates Millennialists for “[driving] the U.S. further from the U.N. in the near future since many pre-millennialists have to come to view that body as a platform for the Anti-Christ.” He went on to say, “American pre-millennialists will also feel increasingly threatened by the E.U. in coming years.” And, “Pre-millennial interpretations of biblical prophecy that predict the emergence of a one-world government led by an anti-Christ causes distrust and even antagonism toward organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the European Union, NAFTA and OPEC.” (Page 52)
In other words, folks, Stuckert is greatly chagrined that we Christians do not, and will not, accept the push toward global government being orchestrated by institutions such as the UN, the EU, et al. He feels that because we oppose NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the FTAA, and the overall NEW WORLD ORDER agenda, we are “problematic” and must be “mitigated.”
Stuckert goes on to blame Christians for “problems for relations between the U.S. and Russia” (Page 53), problems in the Middle East and China (Page 56), as well as coming “global disaster.” (Page 55)
Major Stuckert then makes an incredible admission on page 58. He said, “War is primarily about politics. While geography and technology play a role, in order to be successful military leaders must be able to see the political goals as clearly as possible. Because of the influence of pre-millennialism, it can be difficult for military leaders to see themselves and their government accurately and state policy goals objectively.”
What did he say? “War is primarily about politics”? I thought war was about defending the people and territory of the United States. I thought war was about protecting freedom and liberty. War is about politics? So that’s why our young men are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? It’s all about politics? If so, whose politics? Major Stuckert’s? Barack Obama’s? George W. Bush’s? The CFR’s? The UN’s? Exactly whose politics is sending our sons and daughters to fight and die? The good major doesn’t say.
But did you catch that last sentence? “Because of the influence of pre-millennialism [and he could just as easily have said post-millennialism], it can be difficult for military leaders to see themselves and their government accurately and state policy goals objectively.”
Holy cow! Belief in the Second Coming blinds military leaders? They cannot see themselves or their government accurately? What the heck does this mean? Is Stuckert saying that because a military officer believes the Bible–believes in the return of Christ to the earth–he or she cannot see themselves and cannot “see” their government properly? Exactly what is it about his or her government that cannot be accurately seen? Maybe Stuckert means that because a Christian military officer believes in God, he or she cannot recognize government to be his or her god. Is that it, Major Stuckert? You want us all to see the US federal government as god?
On page 59, Stuckert accuses belief in millennialism of producing “pessimism and paranoia.” On the same page, he accuses people who believe in millennialism of causing a “predisposition toward pessimism in world affairs and a general worsening of international relations.”
Yeah! That’s right, Major! You devote 61 pages (and untold hours producing them) accusing Christians of bringing “global disaster” to the world, but we are the ones who are paranoid? If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.
On page 60, Stuckert blames Christians for having a “proclivity for clear differentiations between good, evil, right, and wrong [which] do not always serve us well in foreign relations or security policy.” Oh! Really?
Is Stuckert saying that there is no right and wrong in regard to America’s policies with foreign nations? Is he saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong in regard to security policies? Is Stuckert saying the US government should be able to do whatever it likes, regardless of right and wrong? Is he saying that anything done in the name of “security” is right, regardless of what it is? Is it right to lie to the American people, Mr. Stuckert? Is it right to violate the US Constitution? Is it right to murder? If there is no such thing as right and wrong, moral and immoral, in regard to the waging of war and other security matters, pray tell, what were those Nuremberg trials all about?
In researching this column, I found a WorldNetDaily report written by Bob Unruh on December 19, 2009. In his report, Unruh said that an Army spokesman “could not say whether any other writings ever had attacked a religious belief as Stuckert’s work.” That’s a good point. Where is the Army report that singles out people who embrace Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, or liberal Protestantism as being “problematic” to America’s foreign policy? Why is it that only people who embrace conservative Christianity, or fundamentalism/millennialism were singled out?
Unruh’s report also notes that “no study or article refuting” Stuckert’s report has been discovered. Therefore, absent a counterpoint, it might be accurate to conclude that Stuckert’s report has become de facto US government policy. It certainly does appear that the particulars of Stuckert’s report made their way to both the MIAC and DHS reports.
See Bob Unruh’s report here.
See Major Stuckert’s report here.
My Sunday address exposing Major Stuckert’s report will be uploaded to my web site later this week. When it is posted, it will be available to download and distribute. It will be titled, “Seeds of Christian Persecution Growing in the US.” Watch for it here.
The Theology of Wishful Thinking…
A blog entitled “Palestine End Game” begins with these sentences: “If this means anything, it is that the situation continues to fester. I am always hesitant to comment on the conflict centered in the historic Levant, if only because so many have strong feelings and no end of a historic sense of grievance”. “Historic Levant” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant is a non-specific term referred to land bordering the Eastern Mediterranean which includes Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Palestinian territories, Jordan, Sinai, and possibly Cyprus and Iraq.
Claiming objectivity the writer says, “I personally feel none of that and can attempt to be somewhat objective if such is even a practical possibility. Let me rephrase this then. I personally feel a sense of sadness in the face of such an ongoing out pouring of hatred and animosity on all the sides involved.”
The author of “Palestine End Game”
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2010/03/palestine-end-game.html is a humanist (See his notion of “What is God?” http://arclein-paradigmsshift.blogspot.com/ ) who writes under the pen name of Arclein and lives in Vancouver, B. C.
Arclein maintains that peace in the Middle East is close to fruition with Egypt, Jordon, and Syria ready to capitulate and Palestine the only remaining impediment. He deplores the “hate Israel” education of Palestinian children and acknowledges a generational facet to the conflict. He believes peace could be secured if the “hot heads” in Palestine can be contained, “The moment that occurs, men of good will can easily resolve the rest. Everyone realizes that the Israelis are not going anywhere, anymore than the whites in North America are returning to Europe or the blacks are going back to Africa. They also can see that peace will benefit everyone. The Levant can hold a population equal to that of Japan and be just as rich.”
Ancient artifacts, some several thousand years old, have been found in the Levant. Its history is part of the Biblical narrative. Since the Diaspora, Palestine has had periods of stability interspersed with several changes of ownership. For more than 500 years the Romans endured. With the exception of the Kingdom of Jerusalem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Jerusalem established at the beginning of the Twelfth Century and spanning almost 200 years, the area has been ruled by Arabs and Egyptians from such diverse locations as Constantinople, Damascus, Iraq, Egypt, and finally Istanbul.
In the late 1800s Jewish settlers began to arrive and in 1882 Baron Edmond de Rothschild of Paris began financing Jewish settlements. In the late Nineteenth Century there was support in England and Switzerland for a Zionist Homeland. In 1891 the World Zionist Organization was established in Switzerland. British Hegemony was declared following WWI and in 1917 the Balfour Declaration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 brought official British support for a Jewish Palestinian Homeland. The Declaration was confirmed by letter to British Baron Walter Rothschild.
Jewish immigration into Palestine continued through the early decades of the Twentieth Century. A substantial influx was feared and there were formal protestations and an occasional skirmish during the 1920s. The creation of a Jewish homeland on Palestinian soil was never acceptable to the indigenous population and the massive influx of Jewish refugees followed Hitler’s atrocities during WWII set the stage for an ongoing conflict.
The Zionist mantra “A Land without a people for a people without a land” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_land_without_a_people_for_a_people_without_a_land is statistically bogus and contested by Palestinians. A British census taken in October,1921, pegged the population of Palestine at three quarters of a million with 78 percent Muslim Arab, 11 percent Jewish, and 9.6 percent Christian Arab.
Ben Gurion acknowledged the indigenous Palestinian population and the need to preserve their rights. http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story414.html As world powers worked at the tyrannical establishment of neo-Israel there was considerable concern for the welfare of it citizens. This smattering of righteous worry got buried in the mad rush to reclaim land that many Jews believed God had given them in perpetuity. This assumption was exacerbated by the subliminal idea that Palestinians were an ancient enemy expendable by a superior power. http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/16supe.htm Severe atrocities were committed and have continued.
There are many similarities between the European occupation of North America and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Arclein believes that the Jewish settlement of Palestine will not be reversed “anymore than the whites in North America are returning to Europe or the blacks are going back to Africa.” Zionist defenders of the rape of Palestine often use the European rape of North America as justification. Like many Americans, Arclein is a pragmatist who believes power provides its own justification.
The term “manifest destiny” was used and believed by many American colonists. Its meaning was not necessarily related to the Will of God as was the prevalent idea among Christian colonists that America was a promised land occupied by sinful savages who were destined to succumb to European Christian righteousness. Similar influences are behind the Jewish rape of Palestine. Many Jewish immigrants believe they are retaking God given terrain. A massive but largely unnoticed propaganda campaign has created an extensive sentiment that Jews deserve Palestinian land as a result of previous persecutions – a sort of “manifest destiny”.
When individuals and their governments loose the anchor of God’s immutable Law they revert to a theology of wishful thinking that centers righteousness on their personal ambitions. When God sent His chosen people into the Promised Land with genocidal instructions His intention was the creation of an obedient people who could live in peaceful abundance. Disobedience extended the conflict.
Christians often fail to properly understand God’s abhorrence for war. King David, highly favored by God, was prevented from building the Temple because he had been stained by the horrors of war. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of peace. When His order to annihilate indigenous men, women, and children in the Promised Land was disobeyed the seeds of conflict were planted and future peace was destroyed.
Arclein’s contention that peace in the Holy Land is close to being realized is wishful thinking. Justice is a prerequisite to peace. When property is stolen from its owners the theft remains in the memory of the injured parties; injustice does not go away. People will comply with the tyranny of the powerful but passive resistance will remain. A century and a half and several generations have gone by but Southerners still remember the Northern injustice of the Civil War. The few American Indians that survived the genocide still remember the cruel fate of their ancestors; illegal Mexican immigrants are quick to reclaim land conquered by superior U. S. armed forces. Palestinians will not forget the atrocities forced on them by superior Zionist troops; they will not forget that rocks were not effective against bullets and the illegal confiscation of their property was an unrequited injustice.
The blessing of our Christian God has always been contingent on obedience to His Commandments. When His Commandments are disobeyed nations and individuals cannot expect His blessing. Zionist Israel could not have reached its present state of power and influence without the help of the United States. But both nations are humanistic; neither nation is obedient.
Jews were once God’s chosen people. He chose Abram, made a covenant with him and his descendents promising to create from his progeny kings and many nations. The covenant required circumcision; the uncircumcised could not share in the covenant. Following a miraculous exodus from captivity in Egypt God gave Moses the Law and set His chosen people on a course to the Promised Land. Under this Covenant His blessing was contingent on obedience to His Law and the Biblical narrative documents the mercy of a loving God in the face of continual disobedience. In a final act of mercy God sent His Son as a perpetual atonement for the sins of His chosen people. The propitiation of His Son would erase the sins of His chosen people and restore them to His favor. When His Son was rejected and crucified God enlarged His covenant to include Gentiles and as punishment rejected and dispersed His initial choice. Henceforth the only access to God is through His Son, Jesus, The Christ.
Two powerful and uncircumcised nations, both once intimately connected to the One True God but now scoffing at Him and His Laws, are seeking to recover the land God promised and once gave to His chosen people by forcible theft with genocidal intent. The result of this effort has been constant death, destruction, and turmoil.
Neither the Torah nor the Bible contains a promise that the miraculous invasion of the Promised Land will be repeated or conducted in other venues. There are several promises that God will again gather His Chosen people and many theories regarding these passages. Some Pretarists http://www.preterist.org/articles/doctrinal_implications.asp contend that by the time of the Jewish Diaspora all prophecy had been fulfilled. Zionist Christians believe the return of Christ is imminent; others contend He will tarry until after the tribulation. Christians in the era of Paul, the Apostle, believed Christ would return in their generation. Jews expect the soon return of a Messiah different from The Christ. There is a theoretical reverence for the Law and the Exodus in Judaism but little emphasis on the curses of disobedience or on the dispersion God threatened and finally consummated. The dire need for repentance is missing in the majority of those who claim to worship the One True God. Prophecy is the quicksand of the Christian religion. Jesus’ claim that only the Father knows the time should be heeded and all this mission robbing conjecture should cease.
It is difficult for anyone who understands the God of the Bible to endorse neo-Israel. If the Diaspora was a result of disobedience and failure to endorse the propitiation of Christ, the basis for the destruction of the nation God had created must be remedied before a resurrection can occur. If neo-Israel is no more than a humanistic attempt to recreate what God destroyed, efforts to achieve peace will continue to be frustrated as they have been for nearly three-quarters of a century.
Aclein ends his essay with this statement, “The US or NATO presence becomes the honest broker and provides cover for moderate Palestinian leaders to arise while the hotheads are finally neutralized. It could be done. After all, we ended the hatred machine of Nazism in less than five years after the war.”
Arclein is wrong on two counts. First, Nazism has not ended; it is alive and well and flourishes under the surface in Europe and to some extent in America and elsewhere. Jewish power has succeeded in suppressing it but it has not been eradicated. Second, the reasoning itself is flawed. Injustice produces lasting strife that has only two remedies: One, correcting the injustice; two, repenting from it and never repeating it.
Following are excerpts from an essay written by an Israeli youth who studied at Berkley before returning to Israel. http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jaffa/al-Mas’udiyya/Story7867.html “We all lease the land on which the house was built. Who do we lease it from? – From the Jewish National Fund. Everyone does, either from them or from the State. Almost no one in Israel owns the land their houses are built on. ‘And where did the Jewish National Fund get it from?’ I ask myself. My parents have moved on to more comfortable topics. But I can guess the answer: I know the houses of a Palestinian village, Sumeil, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jaffa/al-Mas’udiyya/index.html were just a few blocks south of my parents house, until 1948 and while I always liked to tell myself that ‘that’s where the village was’, in fact that’s just where the houses were. The villagers had land. All the land in the country was divided, none of it was empty. And this land that my parent’s house is built on must have belonged to them… It was around then I met with some students from Nablus…. The organizers asked us to split into groups to discuss some of the biggest issues… We Israelis came up with an especially tolerant proposal: we would allow a hundred thousand Palestinians to return! This was much to the left of the Israeli consensus and we felt very generous…. To our surprise, the Palestinians weren’t taken aback by our liberality. They even seemed offended by our discussing the issue in terms of allowing them to enter our country! ….Five years have passed since then. I learned a lot, and I was lucky enough to study at UC Berkeley. As a famous Israeli song goes, things that you see from here, you don’t see from there. It seems much simpler to me now: Palestine/Israel isn’t mine to give; Palestinians have as much of a right to it as I do. The former inhabitants of Sumeil don’t need my big-hearted generosity: they need my recognition of the injustice committed towards them when they were expelled from their homes in 1948. They need me to remind people that most of Israel is built upon land that belonged to Palestinians. They need me to invite them and their children to come and live with us.”
Today, Benjamin Netanyahu announced that in spite of United States opposition he will continue to allow settlements on Palestinian land. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
In our New York Times owned local newspaper Rabbi Ephraim Rubinger writes: “Columnist Pat Buchanan once again proves that anti-Semitism is the very unholy and vile cathedral where the fascist right and the Stalinist left wed, mate and conceive their two rather identical twins: anti-Americanism and racism. Both extremist dung piles cannot be divorced from the hatred they spew. First, they hate and abhor America and the values America stands for. That is why they bemoan the alliance between the U. S. and the state of Israel. This alliance is based first and foremost, not on matters of policy or agreement, but rather on shared values, such as democracy, freedom of religion, the struggles against terrorism, the sacred worth of each and every individual, as well the right of each individual to create and produce without undue intrusion of the state.”
In the American Conservative Pat Buchanan writes http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/ “Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.”
This is the dilemma: A small, highly intelligent, racially conscious, alien agenda oriented, conspiratorial minority has garnered enough financial leverage in the United States to enforce their agenda on our policies to the detriment of our best interests.
The Israeli student is correct in his tendency to repent but he is wrong in assuming he or his family has any right to Palestinian land.
Manipulation and oppression are punishments from God for recalcitrant sin that has festered.