Sunday, February 26, 2012

The Puppet Show- 2012

As a full preterist, I believe Jesus returned in judgment of  (the 12 tribes of) Israel in AD70. Please refer to Matthew 19:28, 16:28 and 24:34, amongst MANY other verses, to see why this is so.

Therefore, I believe that the Israel we have today in the M.E. is not the TRUE ISRAEL. The True Israel is comprised of those of the FAITH (and NOT of the adherents of Talmudic Judaism).

The TRUE ISRAEL is the "Israel of God" Paul speaks of in Galatians 6:

Galatians 6:15  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16  And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

We have a "Zionist Occupied" Government AND Main Stream Media in the United States.

Our politicians and "news" broadcasters and "commentators" are "owned". They all (save a few) are owned by their masters who own our government and our main stream media. They dare not speak against their masters, who pay them, nor their favorite country, Israel, that they use to manipulate this country with.

"Zionist-Christians", aka, "Judeo-hristians", are the easiest ones for the masters and their slaves (their politicians and news organizations), to manipulate BECAUSE they believe that the Israel in the M.E. and the Jews who live there are God's promised land and God's chosen people. Christians to them, are of secondary importance. To them, Israel and the Jew is more important to God than the Christians are.

"Christiandom" has been brainwashed by the Zionist movement into believing Zionist lies and deceit and believe the "commandments of men" as the doctrine of God...

Matthew 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:7  Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Here's some proof (and is in no way an exhaustive list):

  • <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a>
    O'Reilly is a stupid, lying neocon "Zionist-Christian"....
    Maybe I should have included O'reilly (and Hannity) in the show.
    Our politicians ALL are PUPPETS... except for Ron Paul who is not a "Zionist-Christian", but just a plain old Christian.
    "Zionist-Christians" like Oreilly are OXY-MORONS...
  • Quote: The Arabs see that Israel is subsidized by huge, tax-free donations by American-Jewish citizens and by United States grants far larger than our economic aid to the Arab States, which, in spite of Israel’s small population, have made her militarily the most powerful State in the Middle East. This leads the Arabs to the false suppositions that America controls Israel, and that we are thus responsible for what she does. [Zionists control America, UK, NATO]-----
  • Original Message-----
    Subject: Zionist Propaganda: Put Israel First, support the war or else you're a racist and anti-Semitic: Well, infact, it is the Zionists who are racist and anti-Semitic!
  • Putting Israel First: The War Party’s Achilles’ heel.  Today’s war propagandists have figured out a way to make the issue of American interests, as opposed to Israeli interests, go away, and that is by policing the language of the debate.
  • by Justin Raimondo / Antiwar
  • The campaign to lure the US into attacking Iran has one big problem to overcome before the War Party can taste success: the rather obvious fact that such a war would benefit Israel, and not the United States. This is why Israel’s partisans in the US constitute the spearhead of the pro-war agitation, why AIPAC has made this a consistent theme for the past few years, and why the billionaire Sheldon Adelson, aside from funding the Newtster, has poured untold millions into the same project. Hardly a day goes by without some Israeli government official reiterating, once again, that Iran represents an “existential threat” to the Jewish state, and threatening to strike the first blow if Uncle Sam fails to wake up in time, while Israel’s amen corner dutifully echoes the same line. 
  • Israel and its more vehement partisans in this country have demanded the US attack Iran, even going so far as to raise the specter of another Holocaust if America fails to act.  However, one argument they have failed to make is significant by its absence – they have failed to show how it is in America’s interest to launch a military strike.
  • Indeed, they have neglected this part of the equation rather ostentatiously, and yet one can hardly blame them for this oversight for the simple reason that such a case would be impossible to make.
  • An attack on Iran would deprive the world economy of a significant portion of its energy needs, and would likely result in an economic catastrophe in this country – to say nothing of the costs of the war, in blood and treasure.
  • War-weary Americans are not in the mood for another invasion and occupation in search of nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction.” This is the War Party’s Achilles’ heel.
  • How to get around this is the problem at the heart of the War Party’s current project, and in order to do so they are employing the deadliest weapon in their well-stocked arsenal: the accusation of “racism,” the most toxic accusation anyone can make about someone in the current political climate.
  • Specifically, they are accusing war opponents of “anti-Semitism.”
  • After all, if Israel is the Jewish state, and that state’s very existence is threatened by the specter of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program (which US intelligence has stubbornly failed to detect), then opposition to US military action is “anti-Semitism,” pure and simple.
  • Today’s war propagandists have figured out a way to make the issue of American interests, as opposed to Israeli interests, go away, and that is by policing the language of the debate.
  • Are you calling someone who wants to pursue Israeli interests over and above those of his or her own country an “Israel firster”?
  • Well, then, you are “anti-Semitic,” you are employing the oldest “anti-Semitic tropes” and echoing “neo-Nazis,” who – James Kirchick assures us – are the originators of the phrase. This is the argument made by “progressive” Spencer Ackerman in a recent issue of the Tablet, in which he joins the neoconservative assault on Glenn Greenwald, M.J. Rosenberg, and four bloggers over at the Center for American Progress who got slapped down for daring to wield (or imply) this supposedly “toxic” phrase.
  • There’s just one problem with this argument: it isn’t true.
  • Ackerman cites Kirchick as the authority in this matter, but as a researcher the man Time columnist Joe Klein called a “dishonest prick” and a cheap “propagandist” leaves much to be desired.
  • Kirchick claims the phrase originated with Willis Carto’s Spotlight newspaper, a cesspool of anti-Semitism, but this is false: it originated, as one can see here, with Alfred M. Lilienthal, an anti-Zionist Jew who wrote several books in the early 1950s and 1960s, notably What Price Israel?
  • Lilienthal’s 1953 book was brought out by Henry Regnery, the noted conservative publicist and pioneer publisher, whose press also printed a number of other anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian works, including Freda Utley’s Will the Middle East Go West? – which presciently argued American support for Israel would alienate the Arab world – Road to Beersheba, a novel by Ethel Mannin which dramatized the plight of a conquered people imprisoned in their own land, and a collection of photographs and text by the Swedish photographer Per-Orlow Anderson, They Are Human Too, which, in Regnery’s words, “brought us face to face with the tragedy of the Arab refugees, whom he photographed crowded into the inhospitable Gaza strip.”
  • Which brings to mind the old saw about “the more things change.”
  • Yet another example of the changeless nature of our politics was described by Regnery, who reported in his Memoirs of a Dissident Publisher:
  • “One unexpected consequence of the book’s publication was the visit from an agent of the FBI, who had been sent to make some inquiries about its author.”
  • “This was,” continues Regnery, “one of the less serious calls by government agents of one kind or another that frequently followed the publication of a book that displeased some group or individual of influence.”
  • Our witch-hunters will surely characterize Regnery’s sardonic remark as evidence that he, too, was another one of those awful “anti-Semites” – after all, he was implying the Zionist lobby had enough influence to call out the dogs of the FBI and sic them on a mere photographer.
  • Yet Regnery’s views, and those of his attendant authors, were hardly considered “subversive” back then: indeed, theirs was the standard conservative position on the state of Israel, which, back in the day, was an ally of the Soviet Union and a proudly socialist state.
  • It is inconceivable, of course, that the Regnery Publishing Co. of today would put out anything remotely resembling Lilienthal’s work: not with the conservative movement of 2012 dominated by warmongering neoconservatives and nutty Christian Zionists who see support for Israel as divinely ordained.
  • In 1949, however, when Lilienthal wrote “Israel’s Flag is Not Mine” for Readers Digest, his critique of Zionist propaganda was shared by mainstream conservatives as a matter of course:
  • “Today we see Zionists boasting of ‘Jewish’ political strength, Zionist picket lines around British consulates, Zionists demonstrating against Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin when he arrives here to sign the Atlantic Pact, New York stores plastered with posters screaming ‘Do Not Buy British Made Goods.’
  • “Are these people acting as Americans? Europe’s recovery through the Marshall Plan is the keystone of our bipartisan foreign policy, which the Communists are trying to sabotage. Any boycott of British goods, organized or unorganized, helps this destruction.”
  • It wasn’t any neo-Nazis, but Lilienthal, a political conservative and a devout Jew, who was the first to raise the question of “dual loyalty.” The “Israel Firster” meme originated, not with the neo-Nazi fringe, but with conservative Jews who, like Lilienthal, objected that:
  • “My one and only homeland is America. I am proud of my belief in the age-old Judaic concept of one God in Heaven and one Humanity here below.
  • But my faith does not pull me into a feeling of narrowly tribal kinship with all others who worship God in this way.
  • Whenever I read of Americans singing the Hatikvah, Israel’s national anthem, or see youth groups raising Israel’s flag beside the Stars and Stripes. I am outraged. For Israel’s flag and anthem are symbols of a foreign state; they are not mine.”
  • The Kirchicks, the Ackermans, the Goldbergs – and also the Cartos – want us to forget this heritage, which has been buried under the landslide of pro-Israel propaganda, because it challenges the premises of both the Israel-Firsters and the anti-Semites.
  • Lilienthal was no fringe character: a diplomat who worked in the State Department during the war, he served in the US Army in the Middle East, and was later a consultant at the founding conference of the United Nations.
  • His opposition to Zionism as a political movement was initially shared by many if not most American Jews: see Jack Ross’s new book, Rabbi Outcast, for a biography of the most well-known figure in this movement, Rabbi Elmer Berger, which also serves as a detailed history of the American Council for Judaism, the organizational expression of this tendency.
  • These Jews did not think it extraordinary that they would oppose the claims of a foreign government on their loyalties, and they warned – presciently, as it turned out – that American Jews would face charges of harboring dual loyalties because of the Zionists’ insistence that all Jews somehow owed allegiance to Tel Aviv.
  • In short, the “neo-Nazi” origins of the “Israel Firster” meme is a myth that depends on ignorance of the real history of American Jewish opposition to Israeli nationalism. Like all war propaganda, it is based on blanking out whole portions of the historical record in favor of a black-and-white version of events.
  • So don’t worry, Glenn – you can still use “Israel Firster” without being tainted by the stain of anti-Semitism.
  • Yet why use the term at all? Isn’t it just a nasty epithet, one that doesn’t illuminate any valid point about our impending war with Iran?
  • In a word: no.
  • The advocates of war with Iran are finagling to set up the debate in terms of whether or not we will act to prevent another Holocaust – in which case opposition to bombing Tehran will be characterized as enabling mass genocide.
  • Here is where the neoconservatives and the “responsibility to protect” “progressives” on the left will meet and merge.
  • That this “argument” is based on fantasy – the fantasy that Iran is indeed busy cooking up nukes, and is determined to wipe Israel off the map – is being obscured in a barrage of lies and phony “intelligence” similar to that which dragged us into attacking Iraq.
  • But war propaganda and facts don’t mix: indeed, they are mutually exclusive.
  • The idea behind any effective campaign designed to push us into war is to whip up an emotional storm, and a key part of this hysteria is smearing antiwar writers and politicians as “anti-emites.”
  • In the America of 2012, where political correctness is the Iron Rule, even the accusation – no matter how unfounded – of racial or religious bigotry is toxic, and the War Party hopes to poison the debate over Iran by injecting it into the discourse.
  • They must not be allowed to get away with it: the Language Police don’t have a warrant when it comes to “Israel Firster,” and appeasing them can only constrict the debate so that the essential motive of the pro-war forces is obscured.
  • And, no, it won’t do to argue that Israel’s interests are not served by a US war with Iran: after all, if we aren’t allowed to argue in terms of what’s in America’s interests, and the interests of its people, then we are hogtied from the word go.
  • I note that Freda Utley, mentioned above, who died in 1978, was the mother of writer and conservative activist Jon Basil Utley. Here is a passage from Will the East Go West?:
  • “It would seem only too obvious that we are in danger of alienating not only the Arabs but also the far larger Islamic world, because our most-favored-nation treatment of Israel does give grounds for the accusation that she is ‘the spearhead of Western imperialism which still endeavors to divide and rule.’
  • The Arabs see that Israel is subsidized by huge, tax-free donations by American-Jewish citizens and by United States grants far larger than our economic aid to the Arab States, which, in spite of Israel’s small population, have made her militarily the most powerful State in the Middle East.
  • This leads the Arabs to the false suppositions that America controls Israel, and that we are thus responsible for what she does.
  • As I found during my brief visit to the Middle East, it was difficult to convince the Arabs that, although we pay the piper, we do not call the tune. Americans for sentimental reasons may like to hear music that evokes memories of King Solomon’s temple; but the tune that Israel plays with our permission, if not at our bidding, so grates on the nerves of Israel’s neighbors that they are tempted to call in a Soviet ‘policeman’ to throw both the piper and the sentimental visitor out.”
<a href="" rel="nofollow"></a>  ....

On and on it goes....


  1. 70 AD Futurism !

    Preterists claim that the "Antichrist" and the "great tribulation" were fulfilled during the 70 AD period.
    If so, why do we find that the arrival of the Antichrist was still expected by writers who lived during and after 70 AD?
    Polycarp (70-167) wrote that "He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead."
    Justin Martyr (100-168) said that "[Antichrist] shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians...."
    Irenaeus (140-202) wrote that the ten kings (Rev. 17)"shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the church to flight."
    It's not true that Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) "revived" futurism because it was never lost during the Middle Ages or prior to that period of time.
    Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) stated: "There remains only one thing - that the demon of noonday [Antichrist] should appear."
    Roger Bacon (1214-1274) spoke of "future perils [for the Church] in the times of Antichrist...."
    John Wycliffe (1320-1384) referred to "the hour of temptation, which is coming upon all the world, Rev. iii."
    Martin Luther (1483-1546): "[The book of Revelation] is intended as a revelation of things that are to happen in the future...."
    (Google or Yahoo "Famous Rapture Watchers" to see quotes from many Christian leaders throughout the Church Age which prove that they expected a future Antichrist and a future great tribulation.)
    Preterists use Matt. 24:34 ("This generation will not pass....") to try to prove a 70 AD fulfillment of "Antichrist." Since many of them see "these" (Matt. 25:46) fulfilled in the future in Rev. 20, why can't they apply futurism as easily to Matt. 24:34? After all, the word "this" is the singular form of "these"!
    Church history is fascinating, right?

    [Hello 101. Saw above on net. Any comment?]

    1. The early church "Fathers" were deceived into believing the antichristians' (the JEWS') lies as truth.

      Johann Eisenmenger's "The Traditions of the Jews" reveals that the Jews, at the time the book was published, which was in 1704, believed that their Messiah was born when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70.

      Eisenmenger also points out that the Jews believed an imposter Messiah in AD122 who claimed that he would exact revenge on the Romans for what they did to Jerusalem and the temple there in AD70. The Romans found out about him and had him and 40,000 of his followers killed. The Jews realized then that he was NOT the messiah they had hoped for. And, it is obvious that the Jews were furious about what happened to them in AD70. They failed to realize then and still refuse to admit that it WAS THEIR FAULT- THEY REBELLED AGAINST ROME STARTING AROUND 66AD. THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD TAKE ON THE ROMAN EMPIRE. THEY FOUND OUT DIFFERENTLY NOW DIDN'T THEY?

      The canonization of the N.T. was held in Rome in the mid-4th century, ~300 years AFTER the events of AD70.

      Since the Jews couldn't defeat Rome, what better way to defeat them but by INFILTRATING INTO THE CHURCH IN ROME and JUDAIZING IT?

      All one has to do is fast forward now to 2012 and one readily sees that the JEWS OWN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The RCC has now replaced Calvary with the ZIONIST'S "Holocaust". And, the Jews have managed to overrule Paul's words of 1 Thess 2:14-16 during the 2nd Vatican Council of the 1960's. (You cannot argue with me on this because IT IS FACT.)

      And what about Martin Luther's enlightenment on the Jews? And how they killed him after he found out what they truly were and how they had deceitfully misguided him and the rest in the Church? Please explain THAT.>

      And How Calvin was in actuality a "cryto-Jew" who purposely divided the Christian Church even further.

      Hey Rocky- You're not "Doug" are you? (If you are- I don't expect you to be truthful because you can't handle the truth so you make up your own faith as you go along. You especially like reinventing the meaning of Scripture in order to cuddle up to the women now don't you....)

    2. I think you're "Doug". And "Doug" always likes to deny that the phrase "this generation" means "that generation" Jesus was speaking to in Mt 24:34 in support of his futurist view that he obtained from reading other futurists' attacks using the same "this generation" argument.

      You say "isn't Church history fun..." right, Doug?

      You're actually relying on history 300 years from the source. Those early Church "fathers" you rely on were 300 years removed from when Christ uttered the words "this generation". Alot of time had elapsed and alot of deception had taken place in Rome by the time of the canonization of the New Testament. Those early Church "fathers" (a term that should not have been used because Jesus said that no one should allow themselves to be called "father") were open targets for the antichristian Judaics who were well accustomed to and had a burning memory and vengefulness about Christianity. They were naive and the Jews were not.

      But I doubt that my presentation will convince you because no one like me can convince the well-read Doug now, can he?

      So, "Doug", since you still are not convinced about "this generation", how about Jesus telling them that some of them would still be alive when He would be coming in His Kingdom (in the clouds in judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel)?

      Matthew 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

      Matthew 19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

      The most reliable history book regarding the Church is the Bible and the words uttered by Jesus and His Apostles. Not the words and beliefs of the early Church "fathers" that you rely on, "Doug".

      If you insist on arguing with me "Doug", I'll believe all the more that it is a simple matter of pride on your part that won't admit to being beat. All you have is your pride and the backing of like-minded mental weaklings when it comes to admitting you are wrong.

      And you probably still won't admit that Jesus said that He would return in judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel, right? You, along with all your mental-midget futurist friends are going to believe the antichristians' lies before you believe a person like me, right, "Doug"?