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="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m76BOQ_2Hs&feature=related" rel="nofollow">www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m76BOQ_2Hs&feature=related</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-----
    From:
    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.
  • NOTES IN THE MARGIN
  • I note that Freda Utley, mentioned above, who died in 1978, was the mother of Antiwar.com 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="http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/israellobby/item/1411-firsthand-account-israeli-plot-to-murder-former-us-senator" rel="nofollow">www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/israellobby/it...</a>  ....

On and on it goes....
at 3 comments:

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Dr. Joseph Klausner


Young Dr. Joseph Klausner

2 John 1:9-11  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Joseph Gedaliah Klausner (20 August 1874 – 27 October 1958), (Hebrew: יוסף גדליה קלוזנר‎), was a Jewish historian and professor of Hebrew Literature. He was the chief redactor of The Hebrew Encyclopedia. He was an ardent Zionist polemicist, supportive of Revisionist and religious ideologies, and a candidate for President in the first Israeli presidential election in 1949, losing to Chaim Weizmann by 83 votes to 15.[citation needed]

Klausner was born in Olkeniki, Lithuania in 1874. At the turn of the 20th century, his family left Lithuania due to growing antisemitism (Amos Oz tells that the reason for leaving was his grandmother's health)and settled in Odessa where her closest family lived)], where Klausner was educated. He frequented scientific, literary, and Zionist circles. Klausner was a committed Zionist, and knew Theodore Herzl personally.

In 1912, he visited Palestine for the first time, and moved there in 1919. In 1925, he became a professor of Hebrew literature at the University of Jerusalem. He embarked upon research on the history of the Second Temple period. Although not an Orthodox Jew, he observed Sabbath and the dietary laws. He had a wide grasp of the Talmud and Midrashic literature.

Joseph Klausner was a member of the circle of Russian Zionist political activists from Odessa, which included Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Ussishkin, and although 'not a party man' he was a fellow traveler with Revisionist Zionism. Klausner contributed significantly to the 'Zionist education' of the Revisionist youth movement, Betar, and nationalist youth movements in general. With his background as an academic with expertise in the Jewish history, he was also and unusually an activist in Zionist polemics, and rarely stood on the side of majority Zionist leadership; this eventually brought him to the forefront of Jewish anger at the failure of the Zionist establishment in Palestine. In July 1929, Klausner established the Pro-Wailing Wall Committee to defend Jewish rights, and resolve problems over access and arrangements for worship at the Western Wall.[1] Demonstrations by Revisionist youth stemming for the committee's work were later identified as the proximal cause of the 1929 Palestine riots by the Shaw Commission.[2] Also as a result of the ensuing riots, his house in Talpiot was virtually destroyed.

Amos Oz wrote about his great uncle in his autobiography, "A Tale of Love and Darkness" (ch.9-11).

Klausner earned his Ph.D. in Germany. One of his most influential books was about Jesus. The book Jesus of Nazareth, and its sequel, From Jesus to Paul, gained him some celebrity. In it, Klausner described how Jesus was best understood as a Jew and Israelite who was trying to reform the religion, and he died as a devout Jew. He was attacked about this issue as much by Christians as by Jews. The book was considered to be so informative by Herbert Danby, an Anglican priest, that he translated the work from Hebrew into English so that English scholars might avail themselves of the information contained within this book. A number of clergymen were so incensed at Danby for translating this controversial work that they demanded his recall from Jerusalem.[citation needed] Later in his career, he was given a chair in Jewish history.

He was an ardent Zionist, but had numerous disagreements with Chaim Weizmann. The two were candidates in the presidential election of 1949; Weizmann was declared the first President of Israel.

In both 1941 and 1949, Klausner was awarded the Bialik Prize for Jewish thought.[3]
In 1958, he was awarded the Israel Prize in Jewish studies.[4]
In 1982, in recognition of his scholarly achievements, the State of Israel issued a stamp with his picture on it.

"...the Anglican bishops in Jerusalem demanded that the archbishop dismiss Dr. Danby, the missionary who had translated Jesus Of Nazareth into English, as it was a book that was 'tainted with heresy, in that it portrays our Saviour as a kind of Reform rabbi, as a mortal, and as a Jew who has nothing at all to do with the Church.' " quoted in Amos Os's memoir, A Tale Of Love And Darkness, Harcourt, 2003, p. 60.

From John Noe, 'Dead In Their Tracks, Stopping the Liberal/Skeptic[antiChristian] Attack on the Bible' (Published August 2001),1-8,:

"In America over the past 50 to 100 years, seminary after seminary, church after church, and believer after believer have fallen victim to the liberal/skeptic[antiChristian] attack on the Bible.  They have departed from the conservative faith.  It's called the "battle for the Bible."  How or why has this happened?  Critics have hit Christianity at its weeakest point. Read it for yourself:

"Jewish skeptics contend that Jesus didn't complete the whole mission of the Messiah within the time frame their prophets had predicted.  They allege that Christians invented the idea of a "second coming" off in the future to cover up Jesus' failure to return as promised.  This is the Jews' primary excuse for rejecting Jesus and belittling Christianity.  Prominent orthodox rabbis and Jewish scholars have written:

"This two-fold misapprehension of Jesus- the nearness of the kingdom of heaven and his Messiahship- perpetuated his memory and created Christianity.  Had not the disciples expected his second coming Christianity could never have come into being: even as a Jewish sect.... The Jews as a whole could not, however, follow after a belief based on so slight a foundation.... Yet again, through the preaching of his messianic claims, after he had failed to manifest himself to the world again, in his power and glory, he became, in spite of himself, a "sacrifice," a "ransom for many."*... Joseph Klausner ([Zionist and]scholar), 'Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (New York: Macmillen, 1925), 405.

"Do you [as a Christian] hear what [this Zionist and other Jewish critics ("Rabbis" Kaplan and  Stolper and "educator and debater" Samuel Levine), including even Christian C.S. Lewis] are saying?  They are saying Jesus was literally wrong when He made numerous time-restrictive predictions and statements regarding his coming, his return [in judgment- not on the entire "world" that conditioned-to-believe Christians believe, but on the twelve tribes of Israel Mt 19:28)]. As we shall see, the embarrassment [that Lewis referred to regarding Mt 24:34 being "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible"] belongs to [Bertrand Russell], C.S. Lewis, et al [including Albert Schweitzer, Jewish skeptics Aryeh Kaplan, Pinchas Stolper, Joseph Klausner, and Samuel Levine, Muslim skeptics Badru D. Kateregga, Wendy Murry Zoba and Arabiane Barzaar].  But this perceived weakness was, and still is, the crack that led the liberals in the door to begin their systematic criticism and dismanteling of Scripture with its inevitable bankrupting of the faith."

I may add that "Zionist" scholar Joseph Klausner's, along with "Rabbi" Kaplan's and "Rabbi" Stolper's and "Jewish educator and debater" Samuel Levine's, description of Jesus' purpose as Messiah is wrong. Jesus claimed "... I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt 15:24) and that His return in the clouds was going to be in judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel and not on the entire globe: "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." (Mat 19:28). 

One must also consider the words of Athanasius, ca AD350, regarding the Jews' rejection of the Messiah and their denial "with impunity" the events of AD70:

"For when He that was signified was come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? When the truth was there, what need any more of the shadow? For this was the reason of their prophesying at all – namely, till the true Righteousness should come, and He that was to ransom the sins of all. And this was why Jerusalem stood till then – namely, that there they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality. ...the Saviour also Himself cried aloud and said: ‘The law and the prophets prophesied until John.’ If then there is now among the Jews king or prophet or vision, they do well to deny the Christ that is come. But if there is neither king nor vision, but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and temple taken, why are they so irreligious and so perverse as to see what has happened, and yet to deny Christ, Who has brought it all to pass? ...What then has not come to pass, that the Christ must do? What is left unfulfilled, that the Jews should now disbelieve with impunity?” (Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 40 Verses 1-8)

Here is one of the "fathers" of modern-day Zionism.  He wanted to be the first president of Israel after it was raised from the ashes by the Zionist-inspired United Nations. Zionism has crept into the Christian Church.

It has been able to form a "new and better Christian"- the "Judeo-Christian" and or the "Zionist Christian" within the Church and now has the majority of Christians believing that they should not be just Christians-  but be "Judeo Christians" or "Zionist Christians".

Jesus was born a Jew BUT He condemned Judaism.

What we have today is the "commandments of men"- Talmudic Judaism, being taught as doctrine in the Christian Churches.

We Christians have been tricked into believing as truth the lies of wolves in sheeps' clothing.
at No comments:

Monday, February 6, 2012

Ron Paul Makes Moderator Look Stupid on Military Spending - South Caroli...

at No comments: