Socio-Economics History Blog

Socio-Economics & History Commentary

Former Intelligence Officers Warn Israel May Attack Iran This Month And Drag US Into Another War! An Open Letter To The President of the United States!

Revelation 2:9 - .... and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

  • The Illuminists ruling Zionist Israel are dying to kick-start World War 3 with an attack on Iran. This is, of course, the fulfilment of the Satanic World War 3 plan ‘prophesied’ by Satanist Albert Pike. Zionist Israel is not the Israel of the bible. It is a Satanic counterfeit. The chosen people are Christians not Jews!
     
    1 Peter 2:9-10 (New King James Version)
    9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
     
  • I urge all Christians not to get involve in this coming war engineered by the Illuminists. The real purpose of this war is to get the Jewish/Christian sheeple to kill Muslim sheeple and vice versa. Its intention is to spread wars, chaos, collapse throughout the world. Its purpose is depopulation, destruction of society, culture, national sovereignties… to set the stage for the coming of the white horseman, the Anti-Christ of Revelation 6:1-2. These Illuminists want to bomb the sheeple until they cry out for someone who can bring them world peace!
     
  • The instruction of Jesus Christ, Son of God, is very clear: express God’s love to your fellowmen by preaching the Gospel and making disciples. There are no instructions to join the military, pick up arms and goto war. This myth, which the Illuminists are propagating, about protecting the chosen people is a deception to further the Illuminist’s agenda for conquest of the Middle East.
     
  • Do you believe that the God of the bible will use the Satanic ‘666’ Star of David as his emblem? When a country flies a ‘666’ flag, the country is clearly not of God. When an army goes to war flying a ‘666’ flag, are they going out as an Army of God or Satan? Clearly Satan! When an army conquers a piece of land and plant a ‘666’ flag, are they conquering for God or Satan? Clearly Satan. Do not be deceived, open your eyes, awaken from the sorcery of Satan! Zionist Israel is a Satanic counterfeit. It was founded by generational Satanists using genocide and ethnic cleansing!
     
  • Put down your arms, resign from the military and go home. Play with your children, watch them grow up, go fishing, play basketball with your kids, take care of your family….most of all preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of peace and love towards God and our fellowmen! Have a nice life.
       
    Former Intelligence Officers warn Israel may attack Iran this month and drag US into another war; discuss ways to stop it
     
    Ray McGovern – Warning to the President
    MEMORANDUM FOR: The President 
    FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
    SUBJECT: War With Iran
     

    We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war. Israel’s leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to preempt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens.
     
    We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much “room” to give to the diplomatic effort. On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically … as opposed to changing them militarily.”
     
    Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders. “Neither of us try to surprise each other,” you said, “and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.” You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel.
     
    Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories. We had long since concluded that Israel had been exaggerating the Arab “threat” – well before 1982 when former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed:
     
    “In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
     
    Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders.
     
    Given this record, one would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may have given you that Israel would not surprise you with an attack on Iran. 
     
    Netanyahu’s Calculations
    Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your reluctance even to mention in controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship. During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene. 
     
    This prime minister learned well from Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu’s attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them. The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward – and wonderment at – an America so easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:
     
    “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. … They won’t get in our way. … Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”
     
    Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be “a con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes,” adding that such behavior “does not change over the years.” As mentioned above, Netanyahu has had instructive role models.
     
    None other than Gen. Brent Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized,” that “Sharon just has him “wrapped around his little finger.” (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and told never again to darken the White House doorstep.)
     
    If further proof of American political support for Netanyahu were needed, it was manifest when Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham visited Israel during the second week of July. Lieberman asserted that there is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including “through military actions if we must.” Graham was equally explicit: “The Congress has Israel’s back,” he said. More recently, 47 House Republicans have signed onto H.R. 1553 declaring “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran … including the use of military force.” 
     
    The power of the Likud Lobby, especially in an election year, facilitates Netanyahu’s attempts to convince those few of his colleagues who need convincing that there may never be a more auspicious time to bring about “regime change” in Tehran. And, as we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern.
     
    If Israel’s professed fear that one or two nuclear weapons in Iran’s arsenal would be a game changer, one would have expected Israeli leaders to jump with up and down with glee at the possibility of seeing half of Iran’s low enriched uranium shipped abroad. Instead, they dismissed as a “trick” the tripartite deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil with your personal encouragement, that would ship half of Iran’s low enriched uranium outside Tehran’s control.
     
    The National Intelligence Estimate 
    The Israelis have been looking on intently as the U.S. intelligence community attempts to update, in a “Memorandum to Holders” of the NIE of November 2007 on Iran’s nuclear program. It is worth recalling a couple of that Estimate’s key judgments:
     
    “We judge with high confidence that in fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. … We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons….”
      
    Earlier this year, public congressional testimony by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (February 1 and 2) and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Ronald Burgess with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright (April 14) did not alter those key judgments. Blair and others continued to underscore the intelligence community’s agnosticism on one key point: as Blair put it earlier this year, “We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build a nuclear weapon.” 
     
    The media have reported off-the-cuff comments by Panetta and by you, with a darker appraisal – with you telling Israeli TV, “all indicators are that they [the Iranians] are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon,” and Panetta telling ABC, “I think they continue to work on designs in that area [of weaponization].” Panetta hastened to add, though, that in Tehran, “There is a continuing debate right now as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb.”
     
    Israel probably believes it must give more weight to the official testimony of Blair, Burgess, and Cartwright, which dovetail with the earlier NIE, and the Israelis are afraid that the long-delayed Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE will essentially affirm that Estimate’s key judgments. Our sources tell us that an honest Memorandum to Holders is likely to do precisely that, and that they suspect that the several-months-long delay means intelligence judgments are being “fixed” around the policy – as was the case before the attack on Iraq. 
     
    One War Prevented 
    The key judgments of the November 2007 NIE shoved an iron rod into the wheel spokes of the Dick Cheney-led juggernaut rolling toward war on Iran. The NIE infuriated Israel leaders eager to attack before President Bush and Cheney left office. This time, Netanyahu fears that issuance of an honest Memorandum might have a similar effect.
     
    Bottom line: more incentive for Israel to preempt such an Estimate by striking Iran sooner rather than later. 
     
    Last week’s announcement that U.S. officials will meet next month with Iranian counterparts to resume talks on ways to arrange higher enrichment of Iranian low-enriched uranium (LEU) for Tehran’s medical research reactor was welcome news to all but the Israeli leaders. In addition, Iran reportedly has said it would be prepared to halt enrichment to 20 percent (the level needed for the medical research reactor) and has made it clear that it looks forward to the resumption of talks. 
     
    Again, an agreement that would send a large portion of Iran’s LEU abroad would, at a minimum, hinder progress toward nuclear weapons, should Iran decide to develop them. But it would also greatly weaken Israel’s scariest rationale for an attack on Iran. Bottom line: with the talks on what Israel’s leaders earlier labeled a “trick” now scheduled to resume in September, incentive builds in Tel Aviv for the Israelis to attack before any such agreement can be reached. We’ll say it again: the objective is regime change. Creating synthetic fear of Iranian nuclear weapons is simply the best way to “justify” bringing about regime change. Worked well for Iraq, no? 
     
    Another War in Need of Prevention 
    A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran, would most probably head off such an Israeli move. Follow-up might include dispatching Adm. Mullen to Tel Aviv with military-to-military instructions to Israel: Don’t even think of it.
     
    In the wake of the 2007 NIE, President Bush overruled Vice President Cheney and sent Adm. Mullen to Israel to impart that hard message. A much-relieved Mullen arrived home that spring sure of step and grateful that he had dodged the likelihood of being on the end of a Cheney-inspired order for him to send U.S. forces into war with Iran.
     
    This time around, Mullen returned with sweaty palms from a visit to Israel in February 2010. Ever since, he has been worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran, while adding the obligatory assurance that the Pentagon does have an attack plan for Iran, if needed. In contrast to his experience in 2008, though, Mullen seemed troubled that Israel’s leaders did not take his warnings seriously.
     
    While in Israel, Mullen insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be “a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences.”
     
    After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22 Mullen drove home the same point. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being “on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization” and its “desire to dominate its neighbors,” he included the following in his prepared remarks:
     
    “For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.”
     
    Unlike younger generals – David Petraeus, for example – Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. That experience is probably what prompts asides like this: “I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It’s messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful….” Although the immediate context for that remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic, and economic equities at stake know he is right.
     
    Other Steps
    In 2008, after Mullen read the Israelis the riot act, they put their preemptive plans for Iran aside. With that mission accomplished, Mullen gave serious thought to ways to prevent any unintended (or, for that matter, deliberately provoked) incidents in the crowded Persian Gulf that could lead to wider hostilities.
     
    Mullen sent up an interesting trial balloon at a July 2, 2008, press conference, when he indicated that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran. But nothing more was heard of this overture, probably because Cheney ordered him to drop it.
     
    It was a good idea – still is. The danger of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation in the crowded Persian Gulf has not been addressed, and should be. Establishment of a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran would reduce the danger of an accident, miscalculation, or covert, false-flag attack. 
     
    In our view, that should be done immediately – particularly since recently introduced sanctions assert a right to inspect Iranian ships. The naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards reportedly has threatened “a response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz” if anyone tries to inspect Iranian ships in international waters.
     
    Another safety valve would result from successful negotiation of the kind of bilateral “incidents-at-sea” protocol that was concluded with the Russians in 1972 during a period of relatively high tension.
     
    With only interim nobodies at the helm of the intelligence community, you may wish to consider knocking some heads together yourself and insisting that it finish an honest Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE by mid-August – recording any dissents, as necessary. Sadly, our former colleagues tell us that politicization of intelligence analysis did not end with the departure of Bush and Cheney… and that the problem is acute even at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which in the past has done some of the best professional, objective, tell-it-like-it-is analysis.
     
    Pundits, Think-Tanks: Missing the Point 
    As you may have noticed, most of page one of Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook section was given to an article titled, “A Nuclear Iran: Would America Strike to Prevent It?  –  Imagining Obama’s Response to an Iranian Missile Crisis.” Page five was dominated by the rest of the article, under the title “Who will blink first when Iran is on the brink?” A page-wide photo of a missile rolling past Iranian dignitaries on a reviewing stand (reminiscent of the familiar parades on Red Square) is aimed at the centerfold of the Outlook section, as if poised to blow it to smithereens.
     
    Typically, the authors address the Iranian “threat” as though it endangers the U.S., even though Secretary Clinton has stated publicly that this is not the case. They write that one option for the U.S. is “the lonely, unpopular path of taking military action lacking allied consensus.” O Tempora, O Mores! In less than a decade, wars of aggression have become nothing more than lonely, unpopular paths.
     
    What is perhaps most remarkable, though, is that the word Israel is nowhere to be found in this very long article. Similar think pieces, including some from relatively progressive think-tanks, also address these issues as though they were simply bilateral U.S.-Iranian problems, with little or no attention to Israel.
     
    Guns of August? 
    The stakes could hardly be higher. Letting slip the dogs of war would have immense repercussions. Again, we hope that Adm. Mullen and others have given you comprehensive briefings on them. Netanyahu would be taking a fateful gamble by attacking Iran, with high risk to everyone involved. The worst, but conceivable case, has Netanyahu playing – unintentionally – Dr. Kevorkian to the state of Israel.
     
    Even if the U.S. were to be sucked into a war provoked by Israel, there is absolutely no guarantee that the war would come out well. Were the U.S. to suffer significant casualties, and were Americans to become aware that such losses came about because of exaggerated Israeli claims of a nuclear threat from Iran, Israel could lose much of its high standing in the United States. There could even be a surge in anti-Semitism, as Americans conclude that officials with dual loyalties in Congress and the executive branch threw our troops into a war provoked, on false pretenses, by Likudniks for their own narrow purposes. We do not have a sense that major players in Tel Aviv or in Washington are sufficiently sensitive to these critical factors. 
     
    You are in position to prevent this unfortunate but likely chain reaction. We allow for the possibility that Israeli military action might not lead to a major regional war, but we consider the chances of that much less than even.
     
    Footnote: VIPS Experience 
    We VIPS have found ourselves in this position before. We prepared our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s speech at the UN. We had been watching how our profession was being corrupted into serving up faux intelligence that was later criticized (correctly) as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and nonexistent” – adjectives used by former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller after a five-year investigation by his committee.
     
    As Powell spoke, we decided collectively that the responsible thing to do was to try to warn the president before he acted on misguided advice to attack Iraq. Unlike Powell, we did not claim that our analysis was “irrefutable and undeniable.” We did conclude with this
    warning [.pdf]:
     
    “After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” 
     
    We take no satisfaction at having gotten it right on Iraq. Others with claim to more immediate expertise on Iraq were issuing similar warnings. But we were kept well away from the wagons circled by Bush and Cheney. Sadly, your own vice president, who was then chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the most assiduous in blocking opportunities for dissenting voices to be heard. This is part of what brought on the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation’s history. 
     
    We now believe that we may also be right on (and right on the cusp of) another impending catastrophe of even wider scope – Iran – on which another president, you, are not getting good advice from your closed circle of advisers.
     
    They are probably telling you that, since you have privately counseled Prime Minister Netanyahu against attacking Iran, he will not do it. This could simply be the familiar syndrome of telling the president what they believe he wants to hear. Quiz them; tell them others believe them to be dead wrong on Netanyahu. The only positive here is that you – only you – can prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.
     
    Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
     
    Phil Giraldi, directorate of operations, CIA (20 years) 
     
    Larry Johnson, directorate of intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years) 
     
    W. Patrick Lang, colonel, USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: defense intelligence officer for Middle East/South Asia; director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years) 
     
    Ray McGovern, U.S. Army intelligence officer; directorate of intelligence, CIA (30 years)
     
    Coleen Rowley, special agent and Minneapolis division counsel, FBI (24 years)
     
    Ann Wright, colonel, U.S. Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service officer, Department of State (16 years)

end

August 5, 2010 Posted by | GeoPolitics | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Former Intelligence Officers Warn Israel May Attack Iran This Month And Drag US Into Another War! An Open Letter To The President of the United States!

Steve Quayle: Preparations For War? (28 July 2010)

Vodpod videos no longer available.

August 5, 2010 Posted by | GeoPolitics, Medicine & Health, Social Trends | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Rev. Ted Pike: How ADL Wants To Outlaw Christians!

  • Both the Christian and Jewish world need to wake up. There are traitors in our midst who are masquerading as Christians and Jews. These are members of the Synagogue of Satan, snakes with their deceptive lies. The Illuminists have been executing their plan to destroy Christianity in America for many decades. Dr John Coleman:
     
    3. To engineer and bring about the destruction of religion, and more especially, the Christian Religion, with the one exception, their own creation, …
     
     
  • Yes, they want to take down Christian America. The sad fact is, too few people are speaking up against such false brethren. Jews need to speak up against this evil ruling class who is manipulating them, abusing them psychologically, brainwashing them with lies and using them to do their dirty work. The simple fact is, amongst all the countries in the world, America treats the Jewish people the best. This will not end well for all Americans!
     
    HOW ADL WANTS TO OUTLAW CHRISTIANS By Rev. Ted Pike
    Few familiar with the 97 year history of the Anti-Defamation League would deny its ambition to destroy the Christian/conservative right. ADL’s first great step was passing its federal hate crimes law last fall. The next stage was indicated last week by national director Abe Foxman. He said 80 million Americans are “anti-Semitic”—40 million “seriously infected” and 40 million “mildly” so.
     
    What is Foxman’s reason for ensnaring so many in such a preposterously wide net? He is spinning a mythology that anti-Semitism in America is a “serious national problem”—one, like the “epidemic” of hate crimes, to be met with federal legislation. Foxman is moving us toward a federal “anti-Semitism” law – probably under the expanded jurisdiction of ADL’s Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. If Foxman has his way, it could become a federal hate crime to engage in speech he considers anti-Semitic: alleging Jews have too much power in government, finance, or media, as well as voicing “strong” criticism of Israel. It would also include the New Testament claim that Jews killed Christ.
     
    To understand the future, know the past. Over the last 25 years, ADL has persuaded liberals that hate crimes had indeed escalated to the point of crisis—a crisis that only a federal hate law could cope with. ADL thinks big—the bigger the lie, the bolder ADL states it as fact. But ADL does more than distort facts. It turns upside down the most fundamental terms and values that govern civilization.
     
    In 1988, ADL sponsored a national competition to create a model anti-hate law for America. At the time, few outside Canada and Sweden had ever heard of a “hate crime.” From the beginning, ADL lassoed its conceptual hate crimes noose around the largest number of people. It redefined a characteristic we all possess for good or bad: “bias.” ADL blackened the reputation of all bias (except bias against Christian/conservative values). ADL made bias equivalent to “hate.” It then relentlessly conditioned police, educators, the media, etc., that prejudice and intolerance (i.e., hate) were so evil, especially when motivating a crime, that a biased criminal act should be punished with at least triple penalties.
     
    Quantifying “Hate”
    But did hate crimes of the magnitude ADL claims really exist? No. ADL had to create its own hate crime reality. In 1990, it persuaded Congress to enact its Hate Crimes Statistic Act, empowering the federal government to require annual reporting of hate crimes from the states. ADL also instructed police in America on its twisted definitions, permitting them to report to the FBI as a “hate crime” any altercation, name-calling, or accusation which police believed was motivated by bias. As a result, ADL was able to “document” about 7500 hate crimes annually. At least 95 percent were never determined to be an actual crime in a court of law. Even when so ludicrously inflated, such “crimes” constitute 1/15 th of 1 percent of actual, documented annual crime in America.
     
    Yet the sleight of hand worked. After sensitizing America to the threat of “hate,” and stacking up an annual 7500 “hate crimes,” ADL was able to dramatize the “epidemic” of hate enough to put President Obama’s signature on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2010.
      ….
    …Nevertheless, ADL’s federal law pulsates in its potential to persecute Christians and conservatives as soon as the time is favorable.
       
    ADL doesn’t want to wait. Ever proactive, ADL now wants the public to believe that the potential hate crime of anti-Semitism pervades America especially among Christians and conservatives. To this end, Foxman began his latest video with the biggest lie he could muster: that 45 years ago, one of three Americans was “seriously infected” with anti-Semitism. That’s nearly 65 million people! This incredibly audacious lie is to confirm ADL’s constant assertion that America has a long and stubborn history of Jew hatred residing in the “extremist” right – bigotry which ADL and its 45 state hate laws helped subdue. Foxman implies that with 80 million anti-Semites in America today, we must more than ever depend on ADL.
      
    In 1965, when a third of Americans were supposedly anti-Semitic, I was a freshman in college. In my entire life to that time, outside of our family, I cannot remember hearing Israel or Jews criticized. Forty-five years ago, Israel was riding a titanic wave of popularity—practically the whole western world unconditionally cheered its “miraculous” rebirth. Israel was not criticized for its terrorist expropriation of 800,000 Palestinians in 1948 or any of its actions in the 1967 or 1973 wars against the Arabs. Except for its participation in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon, there was almost no worldwide criticism of Israel’s saturation bombing of 19,500 innocent refugees in southern Lebanon. Not until Sharon’s brutal invasion of the West Bank in 2002 did world opinion significantly rise against Israel. It has especially escalated since the 2009 siege of Gaza, and recently, its terrorist raid on the “Free Gaza” flotilla, killing nine activists.
      ….
    With great forethought, he thus defines in his latest video that anti-Semitism is belief in the New Testament account that the Jews had Christ killed —implicating as anti-Semites all Bible-believing Christians worldwide. Foxman claims that, from the time of the church fathers, the charge that Jews were “Christ-killers” has been a homicidally destructive feature of Christianity. It, more than anything else, has provided fuel for the ovens of Dachau and Auschwitz. In his book, Never Again: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, Foxman says of European Christians what he largely still believes about many Bible-believing Christians today: “…the political and social atmosphere in which the persecution and killing of millions of Jews could be seen as broadly acceptable could not have existed without the tacit acceptance of the Christian churches, as well as the ingrained anti-Semitism of 20 centuries of dogma, doctrine and preaching that demonized Jews.” He quotes Eli Wiesel, “…the killings could not have happened without the sins of millions of Christians, sins of commission as well as sins of omission.” (pg. 94)
     
    Foxman contends that Christianity’s anti-Semitism is so intrinsic that belief in a literal interpretation of the New Testament remains a potent threat to the Jewish people. Thus, Christianity’s capacity to create more Holocausts won’t end until laws in every nation proscribe public proclamation of New Testament teaching, especially concerning the Jews. Such “anti-Semitism” includes Christian evangelism of Jews, which Foxman in his book says, “is inherently anti-Semitic in that it implicitly denigrates the value of Jewish belief.” (pg. 138)
     
    … to continue reading click here!

Revelation 2:9 - .... and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

end

August 5, 2010 Posted by | GeoPolitics, Social Trends | , , | Comments Off on Rev. Ted Pike: How ADL Wants To Outlaw Christians!

Climate Weapons: More Than Just a Conspiracy Theory?!

end

August 5, 2010 Posted by | Disaster, Science & Technology | | 8 Comments

Heat Wave and Drought Shrivel Harvests Across Europe! Food Prices Set To Soar After ‘Perfect Storm’ Set Of Figures Released !

A woman digs out potatoes Tuesday in her former garden, ravaged by wildfires that also burned her house, in Verkhnyaya Vereya village, Russia. Source: European Pressphoto Agency

  • Famine brewing worldwide? It could be the case. Pork bellies are at  record high. Corn, wheat and soy bean are all trading significantly higher!
     
    Heat Wave and Drought Shrivel Harvests Across Europe
    The scorching temperatures and dry skies threatening Russia’s wheat harvests have also been beating down on Western Europe, which is forecasting lower output of crops from French wheat to Italian tomatoes. Russia’s Agriculture Ministry Tuesday cut its forecast for the country’s 2010 grain output to between 70 million and 75 million metric tons, down from earlier estimates of as much as 90 million tons.
     
    Weather forecasts don’t see any imminent relief from record Russian temperatures of up to 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit). The weather has prompted wildfires that so far have claimed 40 lives, authorities say.
     
    Western Europeans also expect their own markedly dry summer to cut a swath through the production of grain, fruit and vegetables this year. Economists forecast a boost in seasonal food prices, with the German government reporting a 12% to 15% rise in July.
      ….
    The impact on foodstuffs stretches beyond grain. An Italian farmers association expects Italy’s tomato crop to come up 10% to 15% short this year because of the intense heat. Dutch growers of tulip bulbs could see production fall by 10% or more, and Belgian potato growers forecast a drop in yields.
     
    German brewers are likely to face stiffer barley prices, with output of the key beer ingredient expected to drop by as much as 20%, according to agriculture consultants Alfred C. Toepfer International. Corn output also could drop 15%. Polish orchards expect this year’s fruit harvest to be down by nearly a fifth from 2009, with cereals and vegetables forecast to fall off by 10%.

     
    Food prices set to soar after ‘perfect storm’ set of figures released
    The British food industry is preparing for a massive jump in food inflation in the wake of soaring animal feed prices, a shortage of silage and poor harvests. These key points could present ‘perfect storm’ conditions for sky-high food prices according to a new report. Experts predict food prices could be at least ten per cent higher by early next year as cost hikes in animal feed – the first link in the food chain – sent shockwaves through the industry, The Grocer reported.
     
    BOCM Pauls, the UK’s biggest animal feed supplier, reported a 20 per cent increase in the price of raw material feed on last year, following a 30 per cent spike in feed wheat costs. The company warned selling prices to dairy, poultry, beef and pig farmers would have to increase by the same amount over the next three months. The National Farmers’ Union said the dry weather had added to problems for farmers by decimating yields of silage for winter feed by up to 50 per cent.
     
    Food producers are already reeling from the soaring cost of commodities such as palm oil, cocoa and soya oil, which have leapt 39 per cent, 23 per cent and 14 per cent respectively since last year, according to Mintec figures. Commodity experts from Russia have also announced that the country’s wheat exports could plummet by almost 50 per cent because of a drought, raising fears of a Russian export ban which would have a significant impact on UK food inflation.

     
    Now Russia Is Being Told To Ban All Grain Exports As Crisis Worsens
    Russia is being told by a trader at the world’s biggest commodity trading company, Glencore, to halt the export of grain out of its country, according to the Financial Times. The move comes as a result of rising wheat prices world wide, triggered by a series of environmental incidents including forest fires in Russia and an overly wet season in Canada. Those fires have left clouds of smoke billowing over Russia’s far east, Siberia.
     
    Argentine wheat joins list plagued by dry weather
    Argentina has emerged as the latest country to face potential setbacks over wheat, with adverse weather threatening its recovery from a century-low in plantings. “A new concern is bubbling up in Argentina. It is dry,” US broker US Commodities said, noting that 79% of the South American country’s intended wheat acreage had been planted as of last week. Typically, farmers have all but finished sowings by now.
     
    The concerns were echoed by Rabobank analysts, who warned of a “great deal of uncertainty” regarding Argentina’s wheat crop, South America’s biggest, and one typically drawn on by regional importers such as Brazil. “Dry conditions in some areas of the country, especially in the south and west of the wheat region, might prevent planting intentions from being fully realised,” the bank said.
     
    Dry weather has already cut hopes for crops in the European Union, Western Australia and, in particular, Kazakhstan and Russia, sending wheat prices jumping on international markets.

end

August 5, 2010 Posted by | Medicine & Health, Social Trends | | Comments Off on Heat Wave and Drought Shrivel Harvests Across Europe! Food Prices Set To Soar After ‘Perfect Storm’ Set Of Figures Released !

Australia TV Airs Fluoride-Truth Program! Fluoride Is A POISON !

August 5, 2010 Posted by | Medicine & Health | 3 Comments

New IMF Strategy Document Charts Launch Of “Bancor” Global Currency!

  • I have highlighted a trillion times that the snakes intend to move towards a supranational Global Central Bank and a One World Currency. This is their stated plan in documents from Illuminist organizations. This is not conspiracy theory, it is fact! (See: Joan Veon: When Central Banks Rule the World ! The Illuminist Money Power!)
     
  • Who owns the World Bank and IMF? The Illuminist western central bank cartel. Both organizations are tools for international conquests via debt enslavement. (See: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – John Perkins)
     
  • Clearly stated in the documentation, hinted very loudly, is ‘ideas discussed are unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future absent a dramatic shift in appetite for international cooperation’. What sort of catalyst/crisis can we expect? It is coming: global monetary collapse, financial system crisis, economic collapse –>war! You must understand how snakes work. They create the crisis for their pre-planned, ready-made solution.
     
  • I do not believe that the SDR will work. It is just another piece of fiat currency toilet paper with a dollar sign on it. The SDR will at best be a 6-12 months interim solution. They will come out with this global currency and back it with assets like gold, oil… basket of commodities. Once accepted, the snakes will own all financial systems in the world. Microchipping with ‘666’ is next.
     
  • This is not about getting the whole world to accept a new fiat world currency. This is about world conquest via financial conquest. Countries that do not accept this World Central Bank hegemony will undoubtedly be the new Axis of Evil in this coming world war. They have the computer system, software, ‘Bancor’ in place… It is now a matter of the art of ‘gentle persuasion’ via world war! (They are already getting the sheeple to fill in their personal particulars in their global database via FaceBook, Google….)
     
    New IMF Strategy Document Charts Launch Of “Bancor” Global Currency
    Highlights “potential resistance” on road from “voluntary multilateral framework” to full blown global currency
    A newly published IMF strategy document calls for the implementation of a global currency, called the “bancor”, to stabilise the international monetary system, while acknowledging that only a monumental shift toward acceptance of globalism will make it possible in the short term.
     
    The IMF blueprint, authored by Reza Moghadam, director of the IMF’s strategy, policy and review department, has stayed under the radar for three months. However, an article on the Financial Times blog alphaville, entitled
    IMF blueprint for a global currency – yes really, today highlights the document and the clear strategy of the global financial body.
      
    “…in the eyes of the IMF at least, the best way to ensure the stability of the international monetary system (post crisis) is actually by launching a global currency.” Izabella Kaminska notes. “And that, the IMF says, is largely because sovereigns — as they stand — cannot be trusted to redistribute surplus reserves, or battle their deficits, themselves.”
     
    A chart within the document, innocuously titled
    Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability (PDF link), presents a stepping stone system toward a fully fledged global currency(top of post).
      ….
    The IMF’s road to a global currency hinges on a wider use of and eventual implementation of an international monetary system based on special drawing rights (SDR), the IMF’s synthetic paper currency. Once an SDR-based system is in place, the IMF envisages just one final step to the launch of a new global currency. The document even gives the global currency a name, the “bancor” after John Maynard Keynes’ proposed, but never implemented, World Currency Unit of clearing.
     
    The following section of the IMF document highlights this:
     
    48. From SDR to bancor. A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not a currency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions.
     
    And though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant national currency, the SDR’s value remains heavily linked to the conditions and performance of the major component countries. A more ambitious reform option would be to build on the previous ideas and develop, over time, a global currency. Called, for example, bancor in honor of Keynes, such a currency could be used as a medium of exchange—an “outside money” in contrast to the SDR which remains an “inside money”.
     
    The document concludes that without a catalyst to create a sudden clamour for globalism, the implementation of a global currency will take time:
     
    It is understood that some of the ideas discussed are unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future absent a dramatic shift in appetite for international cooperation.
      …..
    The head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, has
    repeated the call for a global currency via SDR multiple times. The introduction of a new global currency and taxation system, with an overarching regulatory body, is a key cornerstone in the move towards global government, centralized control and more power being concentrated into fewer unaccountable hands.
     
    The IMF’s push toward this kind of system is part of the ongoing movement to empower a group of unelected central bankers with the authority to usurp state sovereignty by overseeing benchmarks for national financial governance and setting regulations for financial institutions all over the globe.

end

August 5, 2010 Posted by | Economics, EndTimes, Social Trends | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New IMF Strategy Document Charts Launch Of “Bancor” Global Currency!