Blog Archives

Illuminati it is your Turn Soon


 

Your kind Contributions are very much appreciated thank you. – Stew Webb

 

 




Sandy Hook Redux: Obama officials confirm that it was a drill and no children died

Sandy_Hook_Redux_Obama_Officials_Confirm_that_it_was_a_Drill_and_no_children_died

By Jim Fetzer (with Paul Preston as interviewed by Sofia Smallstorm)

I have a lot of sources in regards to as to what’s going on with the president and the administration and so on, and every one of my sources said it was a false flag”–Paul Preston

Paul Preston

Sofia Smallstorm, who produced and directed the documentary, “Unraveling Sandy Hook”, which many regard as the best video study of the Sandy Hook event, recently interviewed a Los Angeles school expert, Paul Preston, about Sandy Hook and his knowledge of what had transpired.

Governor Malloy had held a press conference that day, explaining that he and the Lt. Governor had been “spoken to” that something like this might happen, which raised the question, what “something like this” did he mean? Had he been told a school shooting massacre would take place? or a drill that would be presented as a real event, which appears to be what took place?

Remarkably, we now have confirmation from an unexpected source. Paul Preston had obtained information from officials in the U.S. Department of Education of the Barack Obama administration, who confirmed to him on the basis of their own personal knowledge that:

(1) it had been a drill;

(2) no children had been killed; and,

(3) it had been done to promote an anti-gun agenda.

Given his background of 41 years in the California public school system (from custodian to district superintendent) and having served as a teacher, coach, vice-principal and principal before retiring in 2012 as the superintendent of two charter schools, I thought what he had to say about Sandy Hook deserved widespread dissemination.

So when I did a two-hour show on Revolution Radio, “False Flags (9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing)” on 30 May 2014, as the third segment, I included the second 30-minutes of Sofia’s interview with Paul Preston, which is archived on “The Real Deal” and can be heard here:
Because Preston is also highly trained in school safety issues and had himself organized drills of many kinds, including active-shooter drills, what he has to say is especially telling. He has a website of his own at www.Agenda21Radio.com, which he created to alert listeners to the peirls Agenda 21.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Transcript of 30-minute clip of Sofia Smallstorm interviewing Paul Preston

Transcription by Jeannon

S = Sofia Smallstrom

P = Paul Preston

S – Welcome back everyone to the Speed of Light on the Pure Momemtum Network. This is Sofia Smallstorm and we’re listening to a very interesting discussion – Paul Preston, school principal, school safety consultant, teacher, coach, and superintendent. He has been in the California system for 41 years. He is now retired.

So Paul, let’s continue. Can we get a little bit into Sandy Hook now and what set off your antenna about it?

P – Well, you know I’ve been involved in many many situations at schools that have been, you know, emergency type situations and was involved even to some degree with the Columbine situation in that we had an individual who as trying to blow up the school, our school, at the time. In a similar fashion to what was a predicted bomb threat that occurred at Columbine thee days before the Columbine shooting, and that’s how we kind of got in touch with the Columbine people. They got in touch with us because it turned out to be a similar neo-Nazi group that was related to the Trench Coat Mafia, of all people.

And so learning and watching ad seeing all these incidences play out, all these school shootings, I took an enormous interest in because we were doing a study trying to determine because the neo-Nazis we had been working with in our school along the same time of the Columbine incident were telling us that there was going to be some big event take place. And so our staff, myself, we all wanted to sit down and figure where this was all going to and we studied a lot of the Nazi websites and so on, and we figured out that yes, something big was going to happen.

Well then Caolumbine happened. So we watched with a lot of intensity and under with my own circumstances and also with watching the videos and replays of the other active shooter situations, I became sort of a specialist in that and applied it to my own active-shooter training that I was doing and conducting with my own people.

S – Right. And now can we get in to Sandy Hook?

P – Well yes. Of all the hundreds of hours that I spent watching these scenarios and investigating and reporting on them on my radio show, the first thing I noticed when I heard about Sandy Hook when I turned on the TV like everybody else – now I have always told everybody when you’re seeing these things play out in real time, the best news reporting is what’s happening in real time – that day of, you know, the moments that are around the incident. But document for yourself what’s going on because you’ll never see it again.

And the first thing that caught my eye as I was watching everything play out was the lack of intensity with which people were moving and that really disturbed me. It hit me within the first few minutes, watching the video, the helicopters flying around and so on. Things just didn’t seem to be right, like I would always understand in an incident command system. People weren’t rushing around. People weren’t panicking. They ran that one guy off into the woods and then they arrested him. They took him away and there was no connectedness to that.

I was also wondering why all the emergency equipment wasn’t around the school. And I didn’t see any students either and that really bothered me.

S – So, it was almost like too slow motion for a real event. Not enough panic. Not enough chaos. You had mentioned chaos earlier being a part of these real situations. And a lot of support people rushing around like press and police but not running fast enough, not running with intensity and alarm and panic and concern, I think.

P – None of that was there.

S – Yes. So all right, and then what did you start thinking?

P – Well, just within the first 10 or 15 minutes, it just all looked too staged to me, and I know about staging these things since I’ve staged a number of them. And, like I said, then you stage something there’s a complete lack of intensity as you would have in a real scenario when there’s panic really taking hold of people and they’re really afraid and they’re screaming and yelling and so on.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

But the one thing that really bothered me was where were the kids. You know they had how many hundreds of kids there at the school. I didn’t see them.

S – Right

P – And there was lack of accounting for them.

And right away – and I’ll juxtaposition this with the situation that happened in Pennsylvania. You saw the kids right away. I know it’s a high school, but you know, you saw the kids right away and you saw their plan of evacuation of the school unfolding.

Now this is where it really falls apart with Sandy Hook for me. I saw… I saw no evidence of a real plan of student evacuation taking place. And that stuck to my head like crazy when I was in the moments watching this whole thing play out in real time.

S – That’s very interesting. No evidence of a real plan. Because only someone… I mean everybody had their own response to it. Some of us were already clued in from previous kinds of situations. All this has got to be not what they’re telling us it is. But you come from the industry, the business, and you felt that there is… I would say you knew… It probably was not even a feeling. It was like, you know, set in stone in your head. Where’s the plan? I don’t see the plan playing itself out. Right?

P – I saw same of your evacuation centers and I saw some of your colored tarps on the ground, the colored taps and so on, but even that pretty odd because normally if you have the tarps out there…in every active shooter situation you have ever see, there’s somebody on the tarp or there’s been some help that’s been given to somebody when somebody has been wounded, but none of that was even evident. And I don’t see anybody trying to rush to anybody’s help at all in a mass casualty situation.

See, when you don’t see that…I mean…I’ll go back to the example that I have before about the 13 who overdosed. We had people everywhere, and we had people everywhere until everybody was safe, which was 35, 40 minutes, almost an hour. And that was never happening there at Sandy Hook. You didn’t see the mass of people doing that.

S – Yes, it’s more like the press filled in for that missing element. The press sounded more concerned and panicked on TV as they reported but the actual participants were not so… And we got, you know, long after the fact we got the supposed 911 calls, we got various people giving their versions of it on television as they got interviewed. But we didn’t see it on the ground. And so how long did you watch it for? Over a period of days, weeks? And what were your thoughts?

YouTube – Veterans Today –

P – You know, I make it a study. I study these things intensely, and what really, what really put me over the top was the next morning with Robbie Parker going out there, and I saw that clip as it happened. And I said there’s something really wrong here.

And that’s when I started thinking about the… the actors. You can actually rent these actors out. In fact that put these things up for training all the time.

And I just said ‘this is not… first of all, his demeanor was terrible. I would never go out…and I know sometimes this happens but… to send a parent out to talk to the press in that fashion about the daughter that he just lost. None of that seemed to be appropriate. None of it seemed to fit. And his behavior with the smiling laughing thing and getting into character that you could see. I said ‘ hmmm, I’m not buying this. I’m just not buying it.’

S – Yes, I know. Very few other people did. So, did you contact anyone? Did you speak to anyone? I don’t mean officially but in your own network of friends.

P – Yes.

S – And what were their thoughts.

P – Almost everybody was unanimous that it was a false flag.

S – And when did you start looking it up on the Internet – because I think people started posting immediately. You know, they were making YouTubes. The community began to express online. So when did you start looking into all of that?

P – We – a side note to this is that I have a lot of sources in and around and in that area. I have a lot of sources in regards to as to what’s going on with the president and the administration and so on, and every one of my sources said it was a false flag.

S – Now these are quasi-official… what kind of sources are these?

P – Let me say that there are the sources that are very close to this administration who knows what’s going on.

S – Really. So they are really like almost insiders then?

P – Oh yes.

S – And they all… they say it was a false flag because they figured it out like you did, or they had actually factual knowledge of such..

P – They had factual knowledge of such. That’s part of the plan.

S – I see. And so how much were they willing to tell you, and what else were they willing to tell you? Anything?

P – Oh, they told me quite a bit, and some of it I can’t reveal to you, but it fits the narrative of the anti-gun movement and the disarmament of America and that’s what the focus was.

S – And you realized that that’s part of the broader picture? That’s the Agenda 21 society?

P – Absolutely.

S – So do you want to tell us a little but about that or do you want to stick with the Sandy Hook material? I’ll let you decide.

P – Well, let’s go ahead with the Sandy Hook material and then we can jump into that.

S – OK, so we’re past Robbie Parker now, and what about the funerals? You must have known then that … Did you have any concept about victims or no victims, et cetera?

P – Well, that whole thing was pretty shaky. What was really starting to filter in in the system and was just confirming what I was already being told about these charity sites that had been developed. By the way, they were put up the day before the shooting. And I had gotten some screen shots, and I had confirmed with my sources. Some of them were thinking that it was a very sloppy operation actually.

But there were reassurances to me that there really were no victims and that everything’s being staged.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

And of course the funerals to me… you go and look at the whole funeral process. It looked like they were all staged, from the Robbie Parker one in Utah, or the Sarah Parker one with the Parker family.

And then I started getting information from people that actually had attended that funeral who lived in Utah and said that was something very funny about it.

S – Now I would like to ask you whether your sense is that these are real families even, or are they patched together?

P – Well, you know, that’s a good question because, you know, the thing that rolls around in my head, you know, the actors type of thing, you know. You know because you can put families together and these acting programs will do that under certain training scenarios. And so, it’s a good question. It really is a fair question to ask whether or not they were real families.

S – And then of course because they continue to speak and organize and be called upon to comment, they have to be formed into these family groupings over time. And remain grouped like that whether they are truly married or not.

You know, here’s one thing that I noticed. When you see a couple, if they seem really like an odd couple, then that kind of strikes you as weird. And I saw that. I saw a very odd coupled-ness with lots of these Sandy Hook families. It seemed to me, why would this person marry this person and live with them? They’re so totally different. That happens sometimes but in this content it really jumped out at me… myself anyway. I didn’t know if you noticed that…

P – It’ different to say, you know, when you saw them together whether they are natural families or not. That’s… I’m suspicious of that. And like I say, I’m suspicious because I know that you can put these families together, you know, with some of these acting companies out there. And that just kind of blends in with what I was already being suspicious about.

And so, there’s a lot of things that would go into the details of examining this. And I’ve see a lot of the pictures and so on, and some of the pictures don’t match up, especially the one of the Parkers in the White House. And it looks like to me that’s Sarah Parker sitting there that’s, you know, supposed to be a victim.

S – There’s no Sarah Parker…

P – Which one is it… maybe it’s not the Parker…

S – Oh, you mean with Obama…

P – Yes, right.

S – Emilie or Madeline …those are the two order sisters, and a lot of people felt that that was Emilie Parker leaning on Obama.

P – Yes, that was Emilie Parker…

YouTube – Veterans Today –

S – Have you seen the Super Bowl video?

P – Yes, I have seen that.

S – Well, there is a girl who looks a lot like an older Emilie Parker in that video. So if that was Emilie at the White House, or actually I think… I don’t know if it was at the White House… but with Obama, she couldn’t be six in one picture and then just a month or two later, twelve or thirteen.

P – Right.

S – That’s where we have to make a decision.

But what did you think of all the photographs of the children? Did you notice anything – the portraits that we were shown that these were the victims? Did you notice anything about those portraits?

P – No, other than some of the malformations of different parts of their bodies – seemed to be a pretty obvious thing.

The whole thing… when you take a look at the totality of this, in my opinion, it’s very sloppily done.

S – Why would it have been sloppily done though?

P – Well, you know, when… and again, it’s kind of like sometimes there’s order that comes out of chaos. And when you have these chaotic situations, people want to put things back together as best they possibly can to feel more comfortable or to recover from it. And I didn’t see any of that. I don’t know if that makes any sense to anybody. People don’t want to have that chaos. They want to heal. They want to come back together. They want to solve a problem so that they can move forward.

And that’s part of what happens when you do these drills is that you take a day or so and you talk about what happened so that you can improve upon and make it better. People do that naturally even when there’s chaos and there’s an emergency situation because they want to seek normalcy again.

I didn’t see the same kind of emotions, if you will, or the same kind of communications between parents, kids, that you would normally see in these situations. It just didn’t look…it looked phony to me.

S – So you mean the community itself, they did not try to repair in the organic way…?

P – I would say that is true, from the parents to the kids, to the entire community.

S – What do you think of this privacy issue that has been bandied about by the authorities, that all the privacy needs to be respected, and you can’t reveal this or that…?

P – That to me just adds more fuel to the fire because that’s not what you do in the normal situation of an incident command system. You get the facts out because you know oftentimes when you get the facts out, you’re also looking for criminal behavior, and the more information that you can get out that that’s way, the better.

And I’m certainly not buying the notion that the parents weren’t allowed to see the kids.

S – The bodies, identifying the…

P – I just…that to me… that should be a red flag to anybody who has looked in to Sandy Hook. The parents weren’t allowed to do that. What’s up with that?

YouTube – Veterans Today –

S – And what did you think of the coroner’s behavior at his press conference?

P – Well there’s many things about him. I just… I… first of all, I didn’t understand why all of a sudden there’s 26 bodies and then there’s no coroner or doctor who’s looked at the bodies and they’re declared dead. And then all of a sudden the coroner comes out and everybody says that there was an automatic gun or a handgun that was used, and the coroner, on his own, comes out and says ‘Oh no, that was an AR-15 that was used.’

So there’s a lot of confusion, you know, about that coroner, his report, his reporting out. Nothing seems very clear and concise to me. And you know I would argue that, you know, as I looked at him and watched what was going on, he seemed to be just answering question on the fly without a lot of knowledge behind the questions.

S – And this suggested to you that this was a sloppily created event?

P – Absolutely.

S – And would you say that that was because of the portent of the whole thing that they… there were people involved in this… let’s say Dr. Carver, the coroner, who had some idea, if it was a scripted event, it was going to go big, and really big? So do you think that the sloppiness of it was because in being organized, it’s very difficult to juggle how people are going to perform given that they know how big this thing could get?

P – Well, you know, what happens is that you… if you’re going to do these things and carry it through with the lie, everybody’s got to be telling the same lie at the same time all the time.

And I think with my judgments about the parents and the kids, and seeing them lie, I was seeing a big lie being perpetrated right in front of me because nothing seemed to be consistent. And like you said, which I thought was interesting, is that oftentimes the media would fill in a lot of the blanks for you.

A classic example of the blanks comes up when you talk about where are the kids that are evacuating the school. There were helicopters that were circling overhead. They certainly would have been able to show, you know, hundreds of kids exiting the school.
That was never shown. But you did see a picture out in a parking lot, which by the way if you take a long look at this picture of all these kids being led out, about 15 or 20 kids being led out by teachers and adults from this parking lot, if you take a look at the parking lot from the aerial views, you can see that there are different cars in the parking lot in that area. So obviously that was done during some sort of drill. That’s my opinion. And it didn’t match with what was going on at the time. So nothing is matching in real time for me. That’s just another thing.

But where are the kids? Where were the kids? They weren’t present. They just weren’t there. So that’s the kind of stuff that wasn’t worked out and, you know, they were doing things on the fly. That’s why I say… I would say it was very amateur, very amateurish as to what was going on.

S – Which is surprising because in the powers that would have designed this thing – that it would be so amateur – but…

You are familiar with the character, Gene Rosen?

P – Gene Rosen – which one was …?

YouTube – Veterans Today –

S – Gene Rosen was the man who was very close to the school and he took the kids in and offered them juice and cookies, and he gave many different… he recounted his rescuing or fielding these kids differently in many interviews. So can you comment on that?

P – I can comment on this because this points to this proves my point that these kids… did they get off a bus? Where did they go? OK, I think that one of the stories was that the kids got off the bus and they made their way to his house, and there was all this panic or whatever was going on. OK, there’s something really wrong with that picture to begin with.

First of all, when you’re doing these scenarios and this school had to have been trained for this because FEMA requires these trainings, and if you’re getting safety monies from the federal government, which every school does, they have to follow the proper protocols and that’s the proper release of the students to their parents.

S – Right. He said, that children showed up on his lawn and they were with a bus driver, in one story. In another story, they were just there by themselves and they were repeating babbling that there teacher was dead. So what…would the protocol be that the children…the children, according to the story, left the school on their own.

P – Well, that to me, that’s very suspicious in and of itself.

S – Right, I mean the cops had not gotten there in the first five minutes. Apparently some of them could still hear shooting going on, and how did the kids get out and just run down the road, you know?

P – All that seems to be… and again, I want to go into the thing about the incident command system, evacuation, walk-outs and so on. None of that fits that protocol. None of it.

The story of Gene Rosen or any of that stuff – None of that fits. That to me is just more evidence that there were no students other than the actor students that were there.

S – Then what was the purpose of having the Gene Rosen player?

P – Diversion.

S – From what?

P – A diversion from the other realities going on and to add more hype about the story. It’s the same thing about the guy that was chased through the woods. You know, they had a couple of guys that were chased through the woods. What were they all about?

YouTube – Veterans Today –

And there were no answers about any of that, about where they came from and even my people couldn’t come up with an answer about that. Some of my people say it was very sloppily done.

S – These are your insider people, right?

P – Right.

S – Now did you see any of the videos of the people circling through the firehouse?

P – Yes.

S – And did that strike you… what did you think of that?

P – Well, I had already come to my conclusion that this was a drill, and again, being very suspicious of the Obama administration, Diane Feinstein, Second Amendment issues, using Agenda 21 in particular, I had not see that for quite some time afterwards, maybe a couple of weeks after.

We were engaged in our own things that we were doing in terms of investigations and stuff like that. We’re pretty intense about what we’re doing here on Agenda 21 Radio, and we have some very highly placed sources of information that comes to us and which we’re very grateful for.

I, for one reason or another, hadn’t seen that video maybe two or three weeks until after the incident.

There’s more evidence right there because what in the world were all those people doing there to begin with? You see, if you’re doing an incident command situation, there’s a place for those people and those people can be moved on rather than seeing that circus that was going on, which is what that was. That was all staged.

S – Right. And these were far too many adults, no children whatsoever, no panic. And to me the people that were there-–they weren’t dressed for December. So some people have suggested that that particular drill, the circling in and out of the firehouse, took place a lot earlier, and it matches the time frame and the clothing of the children evacuated from the school. They did not have their coats.

And I was going to ask you, is it normal when there’s an emergency for the teacher to evacuate the children without letting them get their coats, or would they take the extra time and say ‘Children go put your coats on as fast as you can.’ How does that work?

P – Well no. If there’s a signal to get them out of the building – and there’s always a signal of some sort to get them out of the building safely – they go directly out. Period. End of subject

And if they can get their coat, that’s great, but the safety thing is to get them away from where there potentially is a threat and that would be the key thing. And again, you pointed to something else and I brought this up earlier about the drill that we used to run and people would always, you know, screw up the drill because they would knock on the door in an active shooter situation and the teacher would open the door.

Well, you know, how does that all play out? I was looking at things pretty much in real time within minutes of news being broadcast as it was happening from a helicopter. Now I am a real-time kind of guy. So I’m looking at maybe 15 minutes into the shooter, maybe 20 minutes into the shooter situation. I’m looking at clear video of the campus and so on. I’m not seeing anything happening.

Where are the kids? The kids aren’t there.

S – Right.

P – And they should be released or what’s going on with them?

S – And there were some people said that they were in closets for up to four hours. That doesn’t make any sense either.

P – That does not many any sense to me because what happens, and again it goes back to the police, and back to Columbine, they will go in and check every nook and cranny. And quite frankly, I know how that’s done. We used to do that. We always used to look and check to see where people were.

S – Right. And you would not miss large adults hiding in small closets.

And the idea of Katelyn Boyd and some of these teachers bundling up all their kids into the bathroom and having a few sit on the toilet… I even heard the toilet roll holder, my god, that’s pretty tough to do even for a six year old. But what do you think of that? That doesn’t make sense to me.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Sofia Smallstorm, “Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 dimensions”

P – Well, you know, we tell people in an active shooter situation to seek… to hide or… if there is a shooter there to take the challenge. We used to do these things where we had these dummy books and we’d bring in an active shooter as the stage person and throw books at them, you know, because that really throws them off. You’re taught those kinds of little techniques to throw the active shooter off.

But I can imagine some people getting holed up in a closet or something like that if they haven’t been able to lock the door. And that’s one of the things we tell our people all of the time. Lock the door. And we made sure in all schools, and all schools should have the, the doors should have the inside key on them, you know, so you can use an inside key on them also as we could on the outside.

S – So we have a couple of minutes left at this first hour. Do you have anything to say about Adam Lanza – fiction, non-fiction, real?

P – Well, just on the surface of it – and again I would throw out I’m highly specialized trained in drugs and alcohol recognition – obviously looks like he has some meds onboard just by the look. But you know if you couch that along the same lines that that this may be a fictional event, that he’s a fictional character, which fits his description of what I see there.

And of course if you’re doing a fictionalized event like this, you want to have the most crazed individual that you can have looking at you through the picture there, and that’s exactly what you have. That’s my speculation. I think that’s what they wanted. That’s what they did.

And he has a history and what is the history? We’re not real clear on the history. You know, first of all, they found out that he’s got his brother’s driver’s license. Then there’s some confusion. And you know it one of these kind of scenarios that just didn’t quite fit.

And as a school person that to me was one of the big pieces of evidence. Why does he have his brother’s license? And then they made contact his brother that I guess was in Jersey some place, wherever he was, and there was an investigation. That all seemed to be tracking with me as a distraction about what was really happening at the school.
Click here: “Conspiracy Analyst: Does Adam Lanza even exist?”

See, the more they under this situation… this is just my speculation – the more they could distract from the actual Sandy Hook school site itself and stage things away from there, the more they could sell the story of Sandy Hook on the whole.

S – That’s a very very good point, Paul. Excellent. And we should add that the mug shot that they gave us of Adam Lanza was very painterly. It wasn’t even a photo, and it did have that, you know, ghoulish expression on it to make us think this is a real lunatic.

But we are now at the end of our first hour and I really really thank you, Paul Preston, for being with us. And we will take up a second hour discussion in the Members Section. So this is Sofia Smallstorm thanking everyone for listening to this first hour and please do come to PureMomemtum.net and join us for the second hour in the Members Section with Paul Preston, 41 years in the public schools and someone who has been through a lot of staging of drills and has a lot of drill understanding and experience.

Read More: Click here to Read Full Article and watch videos




Seattle TV Will Wilson interviews JB Campbell and Stew Webb

Seattle_TV_Call_4_Investigations

Seattle Television Will Wilson interviews J.B. Campbell and Stew Webb (1 hour)

JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved

http://www.americandefenseparty.com

http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/campbell/

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist

http://www.stewwebb.com

Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today

http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/swebb/

Stew Webb Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/stewwebb1

To those Truth tellers I am carrying my load are you?

Would you consider a small donation to help support the cause?

http://www.stewwebb.com

January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:

Stew Webb Founder

Recall Your Congress and Senate

http://www.recallpetitions.com

The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/12/the-recall-sword-used-against-those-that-violate-the-u-s-constitution/

JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved

http://www.americandefenseparty.com

http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/campbell/

 




Seattle TV interviews Dr Jim Fetzer and Stew Webb Jan 23 2014

Seattle_Community_Television_JimFetzer_StewWebb

 

 

http://youtu.be/k-2cbM4XWxA

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
http://www.stewwebb.com
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/swebb/
Stew Webb Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/stewwebb1
Would you consider a small donation to help support the cause?
http://www.stewwebb.com
January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:
Stew Webb Founder
Recall Your Congress and Senate
http://www.recallpetitions.com
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/12/the-recall-sword-used-against-those-that-violate-the-u-s-constitution/
JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved
http://www.americandefenseparty.com
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/campbell/




Rafik Hariri Murder Trial

Rafik_Hariri_Murder_Trial

by Stephen Lendman

On January 16, the UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) convened. It did so in the Hague.

Nine years after Hariri’s assassination, show trial proceedings began. Hezbollah members were wrongfully accused. More on this below.

A crime scene courtroom mockup was displayed. Hariri’s killing took place on Beirut’s waterfront. On February 14, 2005, his motorcade was targeted.

A powerful car bomb killed him. Around 20 others perished. Over 100 were injured. The blast left a 30-foot-wide/six-foot-deep crater.

On arrival at Beirut’s American University Hospital, Hariri was pronounced dead. Fingers straightaway pointed the wrong way. Guilty parties were absolved. Innocent ones were accused.

Washington blamed Syria. Bellicose Bush administration threats followed. Media scoundrels regurgitated White House lies.

Washington Post editors said “(t)he despicable murder of Mr. Hariri benefits no one outside the rogue regime in Damascus – and the world should respond accordingly.”

Killing Hariri was “the panicked act of a cornered tyrant,” they claimed. Washington took full advantage. Its ambassador was recalled. Media reports suggested Bush officials had compelling.

Not so. Hezbollah was later blamed. WaPo editors accused its leaders of “homicidal terrorism.” They “threat(en) Lebanon, Israel and the broader Middle East,” they claimed.

At the same time, they called governments in Syria and Iran “dictatorships.” They ignored the real cause of regional violence and instability. Washington and Israel bear full responsibility.

A so-called Lebanese Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch investigation lied. It claimed compelling evidence of Hezbollah’s involvement.

A UN International Independent Investigation Commission alleged “a network of individuals acted in concert to carry out the assassination of Rafik Hariri and that this criminal network – the ‘Hariri Network’ – or parts thereof are linked to some of the other cases within the Commission’s mandate.”

In February 2006, the UN and Lebanese government proposed establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). The Netherlands agreed to host hearings.

On March 1, 2009, STL convened. In June 2011, four Hezbollah members were wrongfully indicted. Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Assad Hassan Sabra were named.

Court-ordered arrest warrants followed. None were detained. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah refused to do so. He denounced the tribunal.

He justifiably called it a sham. Washington and Israel manipulate things. They divert attention from their own involvement.

“The text in our hands now is based on analysis and not clear evidence,” said Nasrallah. It has no credibility whatever. No legitimate court would accept it.

“Those who were indicted should not be called ‘charged’ but unjustly treated,” Nasrallah stressed.

Earlier he said Washington “pushed” for indictment. Americans controlled (its) form and content.” Israel had its say.

“We will not allow our reputation and our honor to be touched,” Nasrallah stressed.

STL lied saying Badreddine was in charge of killing Hariri. Ayyash headed the hit team, it added. No evidence whatever suggests Hezbollah’s involvement.

Plenty indicts Israel. Targeted killings are an Israeli specialty. Eliminating opponents predated Israel’s creation.

Future prime ministers were involved. They headed Jewish terrorist groups. Menachem Begin led Irgun. Yitzhak Shamir was a Lehi (Stern Gang) leader.

Before and after May 1948, thousands of targeted killings occurred or were attempted. Most aren’t remembered today. Others won’t be forgotten.

In November 1944, Lehi murdered Lord Moyne. He was Britain’s Middle East minister of state. He was killed near his Cairo home.

In September 1948, Lehi assassins killed UN mediator Folke Bernadotte. They did so in Jerusalem. Yitzhak Shamir personally approved his murder.

In July 1946, Irgun bombed Jerusalem’s King David Hotel. Ninety-two Brits, Arabs and Jews were massacred. Another 58 were wounded.

Future prime minister David Ben-Gurion approved the bombing. He led the Jewish Agency at the time.

Israel’s entire history is blood-drenched. It reflects crimes of war, against humanity, genocide, and numerous targeted assassinations.

It includes massacres like Deir Yassin. On April 9, 1948, Irgun and Lehi killers slaughtered over 120 defenseless Palestinian men, women and children.

Houses were machine-gunned randomly. Villagers were killed in cold blood. Survivors were assembled outside. They were shot at point blank range.

Children and infants were murdered like adults. So were elderly and infirm Palestinians. No mercy was shown.

It was typical Israeli viciousness. Ensuing fighting killed dozens more. Many other villages were attacked the same way.

Ethnic cleansing involves mass slaughter and displacement. Leaders are targeted for elimination. Death squads kill without mercy.

Mossad credentials are notorious. Its record is indisputable. Its expertise is acknowledged.

Its rap sheet includes targeted assassinations, satellite, drone and other type spying, hacking and espionage, computer viruses, other cyber attacks, bombings, sabotage, and other lawless practices.

Hariri’s assassination was classic Mossad. Hezbollah obtained compelling video and audio evidence.

It intercepted Israeli aerial surveillance footage. It did so of routes Hariri used on his assassination day. At the time, Nasrallah said:

“We have definite information on the aerial movements of the Israeli enemy the day Hariri was murdered.”

“(A)n Israeli drone was (observed) surveying the Sidon-Beirut-Junieh coastline as warplanes were flying over Beirut.”

(V)ideo (evidence) can be acquired by any investigative commission to ensure it is correct. We are sure of this evidence, or else we would not risk showing it.”

Israeli spies infest Lebanon. Captured ones admitted Israel’s responsibility for killing Hariri.

At the time, criminal law expert/Professor Hasan Jouni called Hezbollah’s evidence compelling.

“Logically and legally…any new finding should be investigated by the general prosecutor,” he said.

“Nasrallah submitted tangible evidence of the Israeli potential role in Hariri’s assassination.”

It appears incriminating. “Furthermore, the previous investigations which were circulated here and there should be revised.”

North Lebanon Bar Association head Antoine Airout agreed, saying:

“Nasrallah’s revelations are very serious and objective.” Washington/Israeli manipulated proceedings ignored it.

Cui bono is key. Syria had nothing to gain. Nor did Hezbollah. They had plenty to lose. Israel, of course, benefits hugely. So does Washington.

Middle East expert Sam Hamod said earlier:

“We must do as they do in other criminal cases, look at who had the most to gain. The Lebanese (and Hezbollah) had a lot to lose, as did the Syrians.

“No matter where else you look, no one else had anything to gain except Israel and the US.”

“America quickly (distanced itself) as did Israel, which was tantamount to convicting themselves because they are the only two countries that would gain by creating unrest in Lebanon.”

At the time, Middle East journalist Patrick Seale agreed, saying:

“If Syria (or Hezbollah) killed (Hariri), it must be judged an act of political suicide.” Doing so would “hand (their) enemies a weapon with which to deliver (a destabilizing) blow.”

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
http://www.stewwebb.com
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/swebb/
Stew Webb working 24/7 for you
Donations always welcome
The match is HOT and NOW is the time to strike!
http://www.stewwebb.com/2013/09/15/the-match-is-hot-and-now-is-the-time-to-strike/
January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:
Stew Webb Founder Solutions for America Get involved
Recall Your Congress and Senate
http://www.recallpetitions.com
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/12/the-recall-sword-used-against-those-that-violate-the-u-s-constitution/
Stew Webb Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/stewwebb1
JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved
http://www.americandefenseparty.com

 




Let’s shine a light into the ICC’s dusty corners…

Lets_Shine_Light_into_the_ICC-Dusty_Corners

When will the Palestinians clear the decks for action?

by  Stuart Littlewood

I watched the Palestinian ambassador, Prof Manuel Hassassian’s performance before a session of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee enquiring into ‘Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: prospects for 2014′.

 

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14617 .

He was asked by MP Rory Stewart: “Why did you come back to the negotiating table?” Hassassian replied: “The PLO since 1988 has committed itself to the recognition of the state of Israel and to a two-state solution. And in 1993 we reiterated our commitment believing that the only way out of this conflict is by negotiation.”

This belief, he seemed to be saying, persists despite Israel not complying with agreements that had been signed and despite the Palestinian government not knowing what the future holds if Israel continues with its expansionist policies – and especially its illegal ‘settlement’ programme – which it clearly will do unless firmly checked.

Throughout he was careful not to mention the international law option, nor did he utter the dreaded “J” word (Justice), as far as I recall.

Given the decades of painful failure trying to find a way through the ‘peace process’ cul-de-sac, switching focus to the International Criminal Court, as suggested in the ‘Sabeel’ letter, makes sense (see recent article Help prod the ICC into action over Israel’s illegal settlements – The Palestinian leadership won’t do it – will you?’). The letter campaign urges the ICC to investigate the many charges of war crimes relating to Israel’s ‘settlements’ on territory under its “belligerent occupation” and the transfer of large numbers of the Israeli population into them.

The letter arrived in my inbox out of the blue with an invitation to copy, sign and post it to the ICC. Efforts to trace its origin have failed, although it seems to have come from Sabeel’s autumn conference in Jerusalem. No matter, it adds up, makes sense and hits the nail on the head.

The authors are evidently tired of waiting while Israel’s encroachments and brutality continue. The thrust is to persuade the ICC, in the absence of any positive move by the PA/PLO, to take the lead using the mountain of evidence assembled by various UN bodies and, of course, Goldstone.

Abbas

Abbas

Granted, there may be only a slim chance of such a thing happening, but it is important to explore the possibility in the hope that those with a stake will join together and make “public expressions”, as someone put it. It would at least unite the different strands of sympathy and support in a purposeful way.

But not everyone agrees with the ‘Sabeel’ initiative. A law professor wrote to say that the Office of the Prosecutor will not consider investigating Israeli crimes “until  the new Palestinian leadership either files another ad hoc declaration or ratifies the Rome Statute”. Letters therefore would be better addressed to the Palestinians themselves. “The Office of the Prosecutor will simply ignore them.”

He did not explain what he meant by a “new Palestinian leadership” or whether this was something we could look forward to in the near future.

I imagine everyone concerned is aware that the Palestinians have to do more paperwork and ratify the Rome Treaty. What angers activists is that the leadership, having been out-smarted and humiliated so many times, still don’t appear to have cleared the decks for action.

And is it not a waste of time writing to the likes of President Abbas with his record and threadbare legitimacy? The never-ending deadlock cannot remain the private playground of stooges and quislings. Many campaigners therefore feel that engaging international law should have been done from the start, and publicising such a move now will highlight the absurdity of the current situation and set the ball rolling in a more productive direction.

Nothing else has succeeded in 66 years. And if the Office of the Prosecutor does, in the end, ignore the concerns of civil society, that will make headline news which should serve as an springboard if handled properly.

Another critic says that according to his reading of the Rome Statute the ICC has no legal powers to undertake legal actions against Israel, and Palestine cannot approach the ICC for crimes committed before 29 November 2012, the date the UN General Assembly upgraded Palestine’s status to “non-member observer state”.

Even if the scope is limited to crimes since November 2012, isn’t the effort worth it

Time the law kicked in

A third critic has suggested that the proper course would be to bring pressure on all governments to demand that Israel abide by already agreed principles. Ending the Occupation and removing the settlements must come first. “To demand that a defenceless occupied people negotiate, under fearful duress, with their oppressor flies in the face of natural justice.”

That might be the ideal course, but is civil society sufficiently organised and orchestrated to apply the necessary pressure on world governments? Yet another argued that nothing should be done until the present round of talks has finished, in case we undermine them.

Aside from the fact that the Israelis have utterly destroyed any credibility the talks might have had, the process is due to end in April, which is not far off, and chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has sworn it will not be extended by even one minute.

In the meantime the PA must prepare if they are to be  ready to file claims at the ICC in May. There is no sign that a start has been made, so we might as well give them a gentle poke. And campaigners might as well notify the ICC that it’s time the law kicked in.

‘No authoritative explanation of ICC passivity…’

Critics might like to read what another law professor, UN special rapporteur Richard Falk, recently said in an interview with me……

Q – How acceptable is it for a weak, demoralized and captive people like the Palestinians to be forced to the negotiation table with their brutal occupier under the auspices of a US administration seen by many people as too dishonest to play the part of peace broker?

Richard Falk – Even if the United States was acting in good faith, for which there is no evidence, its dual role as Israel’s unconditional ally and as intermediary would subvert the credibility of a negotiating process. In fact, the US Government signals its partisanship by White House appointments of individuals overtly associated with the AIPAC lobbying group as Special Envoys to oversee the negotiations such as Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk…  The unsatisfactory nature of the current framework of negotiations is further flawed by weighting the process in favor of Israel, which enjoys a position of hard power dominance.

Q – There can be no peace without justice, so is it right for final status ‘negotiations’ to be held before competing claims are tested in the courts and the many outstanding rulings under international law and UN resolutions are implemented? In any case, shouldn’t a neutral UN peace commission be supervising the final settlement of this long struggle, rather than the US or the Quartet?

Richard Falk – Yes, if the priority were to attain a just and sustainable peace, a framework would be developed that had two characteristics: neutral as between the two sides and sensitive to the relevance of rights under international law. Such sensitivity would favor the Palestinians as their main grievances are all reinforced by an objective interpretation of international law, including in relation to settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, borders, water.

Q –  Turning to the role of the International Criminal Court, this is an organ of the UN. So why doesn’t the ICC initiate its own prosecution of Israeli crimes based on UN reports and the mountain of evidence available to it, especially in view of Palestine’s upgraded status?

Richard Falk – There is no authoritative explanation of ICC passivity in face of the Israeli criminal violation of fundamental Palestinian rights. As a matter of speculation it is plausible to assume an absence of political will on the part of the prosecutor’s office to initiate an investigation that would be deeply opposed by Israel and the United States.

In the long struggle for justice more leverage must be found…. BDS is successful but slow, and not enough on its own. The ICC is the correct way to go if it’s justice you want, and the spotlight surely ought to shine into its dusty corners. But does anyone know for sure if the Court could take action on its own initiative?

Our politicians, however, are still happy for Kerry, Netanyahu and Abbas to ponce around the international stage indefinitely, achieving nothing except buying more time for still more injustice… and for Israel to establish the irreversible facts on the ground it needs to make the Zionist occupation permanent. The British Government especially has its head in the sand. Foreign Office minister Hugh Robertson says:

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
http://www.stewwebb.com
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/swebb/
Stew Webb working 24/7 for you
Donations always welcome
The match is HOT and NOW is the time to strike!
http://www.stewwebb.com/2013/09/15/the-match-is-hot-and-now-is-the-time-to-strike/
January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:
Stew Webb Founder Solutions for America Get involved
Recall Your Congress and Senate
http://www.recallpetitions.com
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/12/the-recall-sword-used-against-those-that-violate-the-u-s-constitution/
Stew Webb Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/stewwebb1
JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved
http://www.americandefenseparty.com

 




A Brief History and Theology of Christian Zionism (Part I)

A_Brief_History_Theology_Chrstian_Zionism_1

 

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

 

 

Martin Luther

Martin Luther

 

Martin Luther, the leading light in the Protestant Reformation, challenged “papal authority over Christendom”[1] by dropping his 95 theses in 1517. But, as we shall see, that was not what the Protestant Reformation was all about and it was not why Luther was excommunicated.

 

Pope Leo longed for an amicable solution, but Luther was too far gone.[2] Not only that, the fire which Luther had lit started to spread across Germany, even among humanists.

 

German scholar and poet Ulrich von Hutten began to take up arms, denouncing the Catholic Church as a “gigantic bloodsucking worm” and the pope as “a bandit chief…Rome is a sea of impurity, a mire of filth, a bottomless sink of iniquity. Should we not flock from all quarters to compass the destruction of this common curse of humanity?”[3]

 

Hutten also declared of the German clergy,

 

“Begone, ye unclean swine! Depart from the sanctuary, ye infamous traffickers! Touch not the altars with your desecrated hands!…How dare you spend the money intended for pious uses in luxury, dissipation, and pomp, while honest men are suffering hunger?”

 

Luther, of course, stayed away from Hutten’s violent tirade. But many of Luther’s statements were vague enough that many could interpret or apply them in a negative light. Luther declared,

 

“Above all, we should drive out from German lands the papal legates with their ‘powers’—which they sell us for large sums of money—to legalize unjust gains, dissolve oaths, vows, and agreements, saying that the pope has authority to do this.”[4]

 

Luther added theological error upon error by identifying the pope as “the true Antichrist” and Rome as “the Synagogue of Satan”[5] (yet if one follows Luther’s sola scriptura, there is no mention of a specific individual as the “true Antichrist,” an issue that will be covered later.)

 

The word “antichrist” itself is mentioned only four times in the New Testament, and it is talking about a metaphysical and categorical rejection of Christ and his deity. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

 

It was only a matter of time before Luther was accused of spreading the “‘Bohemian poison’ (the heresies of Huss) and subverting all ecclesiastical order.”[6]

 

Over time, a number of professors at the University of Wittenberg began to declare that Luther was right. At the same time, other individuals began to denounce Luther as a heretic.

 

In the summer of 1520, Leo X ordered some of Luther’s writings to be burned and admonished Luther once again to recant.[7] In the meantime, Luther’s movement began to spread like wildfire in places like Mainz, Louvain, Cologne, and Ingolstadt.[8] Yet in places like Erfurt, students “threw all available copies” of the bull “into the river.”[9]

 

Luther finally appeared before the Diet of Worms in 1521 to be questioned about his theological activity. As soon as he landed in Erfurt, a large crowd, among them forty professors, gave him a standing ovation.[10]

 

Ulrich von Hutten

Ulrich von Hutten

 

When he was asked the question, “Do you recant, or do you not?” Luther asked for, and received, a day to seriously reconsider the repercussions of his decision. During that same day, Hutten sent him a letter asking him to stand firm and unmovable. Other sympathetic friends came to comfort him.[11] That was surely a cataclysmic moment in Luther’s life.

 

Although Luther initially rejected indulgences on the basis of his reading of Scripture, Luther later began rejecting Scripture on the basis of his theology. This became quite clear when he stated:

 

“Whatever does not preach Christ is not Apostolic, even though it be written by St. Peter or St. Paul…Whatever does preach Christ would be Apostolic even if it proceeded from Judas, Pilate, or Herod.”[12]

 

Many of Luther’s own doctrines would certainly fail this incoherent test. Luther rejected the book of James because it was inconsistent with Luther’s view of justification by faith alone, calling it an “epistle of straw.”[13]

 

Luther, to his dying day, despised the book of James and wrote in Table Talk that

 

“We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [meaning Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning…

“He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other.”[14]

 

In another work, Luther even talked about “throwing Jimmy in the stove”[15] because “Jimmy” did not agree with Luther.

 

In other words, Luther theologically appealed to sola scriptura, but practically was content to pick and choose what agreed with his views—a consistent pattern that has died out over the centuries among Reformed and Protestant theologians, most specifically among Christian Zionists.

 

James 2:26 unequivocally declares, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

 

Luther made things even more complicated when it comes to Romans 3:28, which reads, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

 

Luther, right after faith, added the word “alone” in his translation. When asked for an exegetical explanation, Luther responded,

 

“If your Papist makes much useless fuss about the word solaallein, tell him at once: ‘Doctor Martin Luther will have it so,’ and says ‘Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papist, but their masters and judges.”[16]

 

Luther was simply shooting himself in the toes, and it is pretty clear here that he was indirectly and subtly postulating infallibility or categorical axioms without which his own theology—sola scriptura—would fall.

 

Yet for Luther, papal infallibility was like a red flag to a bull. He was so carnally blinded that he didn’t seem to understand what the Church meant by infallibility, a misconception that lingers on to this very day.

 

Sinclair B. Ferguson

Sinclair B. Ferguson

 

Luther did not seem to make a distinction between the Pope as a sinner and the Pope defending infallible truth—two paradoxical yet compatible tendencies. Even Reformed scholars such as Sinclair B. Ferguson agree that “the genius of Rome, unlike Wittenberg [Luther] and Geneva [Calvin], has always been its ability to hold opposite tendencies together.”[17]This is a huge issue and it serves no purpose to expand on it here.

 

It must be said that Rome proved to be much more rational than the father of the Protestant Reformation because ontological truth, by its very nature, is “infallible.” Any truth claim has to have some form of “infallibility,” otherwise the claim makes no sense whatsoever. This is fundamental in epistemological pursuit and Luther should have known this.

 

As a corollary and as G. K. Chesterton rightly put it, “all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind.”[18] In other words, the denial of any truth claim is another truth claim.

 

Luther’s own statement that “Doctor Martin Luther will have it so” is a classic example. And since Luther knocked out Rome’s infallibility, Luther had to implicitly establish a new infallibility, which was Luther himself.

 

More importantly, Luther would have had a hard time refuting people like John Hagee and the whole Christian Zionist movement. If Luther objects to their extreme Zionist worldview, they could easily say, “Dr. John Hagee would have it so.”

 

And when you reach that circular matrix, you can be sure that reason or rational inquiry is out of the equation and ideology or preconceived notion will take precedence. It is like reasoning with people who keep postulating that the “Jewish question” is genetic.

 

You’ve got people like Charles Murray and other AEI writers saying that Jews are basically smarter than everyone else, that they are “God’s chosen people” and that this is one reason they are hated;[19] and then you have others who keep positing the extraordinary assertion (with no serious evidence) that Jewish behaviors (such as how to cheat the goyim) are ingrained in their DNA.

 

How does that work? Which one is actually DNA—the elevated IQ which Murray proposes, or the bad behaviors which much of the world does not like? Certainly those biological determinists cannot have it both ways.

 

John Hagee

John Hagee

 

What’s so funny is that when Jewish scientists themselves argue that much of the evidence for biological determinism has been forged, biological determinists continue to marshal the same intellectually boring and incoherent view that the “Jewish question” is genetic.

 

What those people do not seem to grasp is that what happens genetically happens mechanically and automatically, a notion that is compatible with Newtonian physics.

 

If it happens according to the laws of physics and chemistry—like gravity—why would a biological determinist want to persuade the Jew to act morally? Wouldn’t the Jew be rational in saying, “My genes made me do it?”

 

I just cannot hold my laughter when those biological determinists write raving responses because the Jew acts this or that way and that they need to change their way, but that bad behavior is in his genes! Not only that, we have to hold them responsible!

 

If biological determinists cannot see this intellectual logjam, then rational discussion is of no use. The Enlightenment thinkers, were they alive today, would probably have raised their hands in adulation telling biological determinists, “Amen, brothers! Preach it! Thanks for making our metaphysical view comprehensible to modernity!”

 

If Christ did not accept the doctrine of the Pharisees who kept saying that they are the children of Abraham—implying super DNA—then the idea as articulated by biological determinists must be resisted precisely because it lacks scientific integrity and intellectual honesty. The issue is essentially theological and moral. As E. Michael Jones pointed out,

 

“The culture wars are simply not understandable in racial terms [or genetic terms]. The different sides in the culture wars may have used race as a pretext, but the identity of the antagonists was ethnic not racial in the sense commonly portrayed in the media.”[20]

 

This is the central issue, and if people want to understand the “Jewish question,” they must get a grip of the theological underpinning. The first institution to understand this is the Church. Jewish revolutionaries are aware of this.

 

Leo Pfeffer

Leo Pfeffer

 

For example, Leo Pfeffer, a Jewish revolutionary who “advised, planned and argued more church-state cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than anyone else in American history,” wrote,

 

“whenever I felt that my daughter should not have something she wanted, she threatened to marry a Catholic army officer from Alabama.

 

“The truth of the matter was that I did not like the Catholic Church as I did not like the military and the South and for pretty much the same reasons. In the first place, it stood for what I opposed, and opposed . . . what I stood for.”[21]

 

Biological determinists, because of their superficial knowledge of the conflict, categorize the “Jewish question” in essentially racial terms when in fact the issue always revolves theology and morality. If they doubt the seriousness of this statement, they need to go back to the Elizabethan Age and see how the issue played out.

 

If that is too hard to do, they need to go back to ancient Rome, where the theatrical spectacle of the gladiatorial games almost destroyed the moral life of one of Augustine’s closest friends, Alypius.[22]

 

More precisely, biological determinists need to go back to ancient Greece, where all the major players were essentially “white,” and where the cult of Dionysus was essentially terrorizing young people—most particularly women.[23]

 

————————————————–

 

After comparing himself to Paul, Luther called all of those who disagreed with his insertion “donkeys” and boasted that regardless of what they said, “the word allein shall remain in my New Testament.”[24]

 

It is no surprise that the Protestant Reformation was bound to spark a detour in the Christian West. Whether he liked it or not, with statements like that, Luther opened the door for people to apply their own presuppositions onto Christianity.

 

And it would not be an irrational argument to say that the Dispensational movement that grew out of the nineteenth century had it proto-basis in the Protestant Reformation, although Luther would almost disagree strongly with the movement.

 

Luther also “questioned the Epistle of Hebrews” and even declared that the book of Revelation is “neither Apostolic nor Prophetic.”[25] He also stated that “Solomon’s proverbs were not the work of Solomon.”[26]

 

bondageBy doing this picking and choosing, Luther proved that his critics were right all along: Luther did not really believe in sola scriptura. Even Luther’s widely read treatise, On the Bondage of the Will, published in 1525, could not find explicit and strong support from sola scriptura or reason. It is that book that is the quintessential definition of the Reformation. Luther himself declared,

 

“Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us.”[27]

 

Calvinist writer J. I. Packer writes that the book is “the greatest piece of writing that came from Luther’s pen.” Prior to Luther, the Catholic Church maintains that man’s will is a gift from God and a person cannot even use this gift to earn his salvation. Canon 4 of the Council of Orange, which was written in 529 A.D.,  states:

 

“If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself…”

 

Moreover, since man’s free will is a gift from God, it therefore cannot contradict God’s overarching purpose in salvation. Luther changed that by making man’s free will irrelevant and unimportant in salvation, and this is why Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

 

————————————————–

 

calvinIn his preface to the German Bible written in 1522, Luther made it clear that the book of Revelation is “neither apostolic or prophetic” and therefore stated,

 

“I can in nothing detect that it was provided by the Holy Spirit.”

 

Luther denounced the pope as being dogmatic, but Luther is making dogmatic statements that obviously contradict his own theological premise, namely sola scriptura. Luther continued:

 

“Moreover, he [John] seems to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly—more than any other of the sacred books do, though they are much more important…

 

Let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into the book. There is one sufficient reason for me to think highly of it—Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle above all else is bound to do.”[28]

 

Right here Luther was digging his own theological grave and was disqualifying himself as an exegete. The first two verses open the book as follows:

 

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Revelation 1:1-2).

 

Luther would have saved himself some trouble had he just made an honest confession that he did not understand the book.

 

Yet to say that it is not apostolic or prophetic, or that Christ is not taught in the book, means that Luther to a large extent applied sola scriptura where it fit his theology.

 

In his new preface written in 1546, Luther was somewhat more optimistic declaring that the book could be examined in light of historical accounts.[29]

 

In a nutshell, Luther was not consistent on his appeal to sola scriptura, and he was already a flesh-and-blood Judaizer by the time he wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, a book we shall discuss in the next article. It is the same thing with John Calvin, who ended up disagreeing with Luther on soteriology.

 

Luther’s

 

“defiance at Worms, and his survival, had given his followers a heady elation. At Erfurt students, artisans, and peasants attacked and demolished forty parish houses, destroyed libraries and rent rolls, and killed a humanist (June 1521).”[30]

 

In December of the same year, “some students and townsfolk, armed with knives, entered the parish church of Wittenberg, drove the priests from the altars, and stoned some worshipers who were praying before a statue of the Virgin.”

 

reformationThe next day, “forty students demolished the altars of the Franciscan monastery in Wittenberg.”[31] That same year, “Gabriel Zwilling, a leader of the Augustinian Congregation, invited his hearers to burn religious pictures and demolish altars wherever found. On December 27 oil was poured upon the fire by ‘prophets’ arriving from Zwickau.”[32]

 

Luther of course did not approve any of this violence. He later wroteEarnest Exhortation for All Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion. Yet in the very same work, Luther could not fully make his point clear that violence is against Christ and the gospel. Instead he wrote:

 

“It seems probable that there is danger of an uprising, and that priests, monks, bishops and the entire spiritual estate may be murdered or driven into exile, unless they seriously and thoroughly reform themselves.

 

“For the common man has been brooding over the injury he has suffered in property, in body, and in soul, and has become provoked. They have tried him too far, and have most unscrupulously burdened him beyond measure.

 

“He is neither able nor willing to endure it longer, and could indeed have good reason to lay about him with flails and cudgels, as the peasants are threatening to do. Now I am not at all displeased to hear that the clergy are brought to such a state of fear and anxiety. Perhaps they will come to their senses and moderate their mad tyranny…I will go further.

 

“If I had ten bodies, and could acquire so much favor with God that he would chasten them [the clergy] by the gentle means of bodily death or insurrection, I would most gladly give all my ten bodies to death in behalf of the poor peasants.”[33]

 

Luther, however, included other statements, saying things such as

 

“insurrection is unreasoning, and generally hurts the innocent more than the guilty. Hence no insurrection is ever right, no matter how good the cause in whose interest it is made.

 

“The harm resulting from it always exceeds the amount of reformation accomplished…My sympathies are and always will be with those against whom insurrection is made.”[34]

 

It appeared that Luther was talking out of both sides of his mouth, and there is no doubt that those people who were eager for revolution found in Luther’s writings things that would ignite the revolutionary fire.

 

Preaching against indulgences is one thing, but making statements contradicting the Cross of Christ is quite another. In fact, the Jews, who had no interest in the person of Jesus Christ, not only applauded Luther but aligned with him.

 

durantNumerous Jews were elated when they heard of the Reformation, not because they wanted to embrace Christianity to its full, but because it was a chance to ally themselves with a revolutionary theological movement. For this reason, Luther’s effort to challenge the papacy was praised by many Jews.[35]

 

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, who became a Protestant, was Luther’s contemporary and friend. When Luther was in exile, Karlstadt and a number of Luther’s followers began to take action by “tearing down images of saints in churches,” but “Luther recommended moderation.”[36]

 

By way of mocking monks who did not get married, Karlstadt demanded that both secular priests and monks “should marry and procreate. Karlstadt set a pace by marrying, at forty, a girl of fifteen (January 19, 1522).”

 

Luther approved of this marriage, but he wrote: “‘Good Heavens! Will our Wittenbergers give wives to monks?’”[37] Luther himself “had forced [the revolutionary Thomas] Muntzer out of Saxony, for he feared the consequences of his teachings.”[38]

 

Muntzer pushed the envelope even further by agitating the workers in Bohemia, close to the place where the Hussites started their revolution. An ardent supporter of the Reformation, Muntzer thought that he and his associates, Nicholas Storch and Marcus Stubner, should be the arbiters of interpretation and exegesis.[39]

 

Luther dropped the bomb of sola scriptura, and Muntzer electrified it and turned it into a revolutionary act. Luther, then, began to see that sola scriptura had been challenged by Muntzer.[40]

 

In 1521, these three—Muntzer, Storch, and Stubner—tried to start an insurrection, but as soon as it was demolished, they fled. Muntzer ended up being a pastor in Allstedt, while Storch and Stubner landed in Wittenberg.[41]

 

But Karlstadt still had some work to do. “When the agents of the council proved dilatory in removing images, Karlstadt led his followers into the churches; pictures and crucifixes were torn from the walls, and resisting priests were pelted with stones.”[42]

 

By this time, Luther realized that he was the one who had released the revolutionaries to commit violence. Luther therefore “called on the princes to suppress” it.[43]

 

Durant declares, “Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; the causes were the just grievances of the peasantry. But it could be argued that the gospel of Luther and his more radical followers ‘poured oil on the flames,’ and turned the resentment of the oppressed into utopian delusions, uncalculated violence, and passionate revenge.”[44]

 

By 1522, Luther seemed to have foreseen that the battle was going to turn into bloody acts of violence, and he began to formulate a series of sermons denouncing violent acts, saying things like “the sun, the moon, the stars, have been worshipped; shall we then pluck them out of the sky?”[45] Durant declares that Luther ‘was at his best and most Christian in those eight sermons in eight days.”[46]

 

At other times, Luther would preach that the peasants should not raise up arms. He wrote in part,

 

“For no matter how right you are, it is not for a Christian to appeal to law, or to fight, but to suffer wrong and endure evil; there is no other way…Christians fight for themselves not with sword and gun, but with the cross and suffering, just as Christ, our leader, does not bear a sword, but hangs upon the cross.”[47]

 

It seemed that this admonition was too late. Muntzer, Karlstadt, and others were already putting more oil in the flames by postulating that “farmers, miners, and cornthreshers understand the Gospel better, and can teach it better, than a whole village…of abbots and priests…or doctors of divinity.” Karlstadt even declared that they can do it “better than Luther.”[48]

 

Muntzer meant it when he said that “the godless,” meaning the priests and monks, “have no right to live except in so far as they are permitted to do so by the elect.”[49]

 

Not only that, Muntzer called upon the princes to march against the clergy. The princes declined. Then Muntzer called upon the people—mainly the peasants—to march against both the princes and the clergy to establish what later proved to be their own heaven on earth.[50]

 

Muntzer of course was implicitly reformulating the principles of the Old Testament. For example, it was right to take the life of a witch in the Old Testament. Muntzer, in a similar fashion, argued that godless people should not suffer to live, most particularly when they are in conflict with Christians.[51]

 

These radical turns were a challenge for Luther and the Reformation.[52]

 

Luther expelled Muntzer from his pulpit in 1524 and even called him the “Satan of Allstedt.”[53] Muntzer, for Luther, was a minister for the devil who was on his way to hell—he believed that heresy and acts of violence ran through Muntzer’s veins.[54]

 

Muntzer in turn started calling Luther names such as Dr. Liar, Father Pyssyfoot, a carrion crow, the Wittenberg Pope, and the archdevil.[55] Muntzer ended up wandering in various towns, “announcing the deliverance of ‘Israel,’ and the imminent Kingdom of Heaven on earth.”[56]

 

Muntzer’s message was so radical in Prague in 1521 that he convinced the Bohemians that should they fail to defend God’s word they will be invaded by the Turks the following year.[57]

 

Eventually he won the ears of many, and in 1525 he and Pfeiffer and their followers “drove out the monks, and appropriated all the property of the Church.”[58]

 

Muntzer again lusted after more blood, telling his followers, “Forward while the fire is hot! Let your swords be ever warm with blood!”[59]

 

————————————————–

 

mcgrathBy August 1524, Muntzer’s army was gathering momentum, and with the help of Hans Muller, 30,000 peasants refused to pay taxes. By April of the following year, Muntzer was still preaching revolution, telling his disciples things like

 

“show no pity…Pay no attention to the cries of the godless…Alert the villages and towns and especially the mineworkers and other good fellows who will be of use. We cannot slumber any longer…Don’t let your sword grow cold, don’t let it hang down limply! Hammer away ding-dong on the anvils of Nimrod [meaning the princes], cast their tower to the ground!

 

“As long as they live it is impossible for you to rid yourselves of the fear of men. One cannot say anything to you about God as long as they rule over you. Go to it, go to it, while it is day! God goes before you; follow, follow!”[60]

 

References to the Old Testament with respect to dealing with the “godless” were rampant in many of Muntzer’s sermons.

 

Certainly things were not going well for Luther. The peasant leaders sent Luther twelve articles in which they disagreed with many of the teachings and practices of the clergy. Luther did not approve their articles, but he had been given a chance to completely dissociate himself from the revolutionaries. Instead, he wrote:

 

“We have no one on earth to thank for this mischievous rebellion except you, princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened against the Holy Gospel, though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it.”[61]

 

Finally, in an attempt to encourage peace, Luther gave this address, which the peasants failed to follow:

 

“Choose among the nobles certain counts and lords, and from the cities certain councilmen, and have these matters dealt with and settled in a friendly way. You lords, let down your stubbornness…and give up a little of your tyranny and oppression, so that poor people get air and room to live.

 

“The peasants for their part should let themselves be instructed, and give over and let go some of the Articles that grasp too far and too high.”[62]

 

The peasants, believing that Luther had betrayed them, moved along with the violent revolution anyway.[63] It was inevitable, then, that many would put some blame on Luther for the peasants’ revolt and the rebellious and violent nature of it. A large number of peasants, in turn, believed that Luther had deserted them.[64]

 

By the spring of 1525, the fire was already ignited in many major places such as Heilbronn, Rothenburg, and Wurzburg.[65] In March in Rothenburg,

 

“the priests were driven from the cathedral, religious images were demolished, a chapel was smashed to the ground, and clerical wine cellars were emptied with triumphant gaiety.”[66]

 

The following month, under the lead of Jakob Wehe,

 

“3,000 peasants captured the town [of Leipheim on the Danube near Ulm] drank all discoverable wine, pillaged the church, smashed the organ, made themselves leggings from sacerdotal vestments, and paid mock homage to one of their number seated on the altar and robed as a priest.”[67]

 

protestantleadersDurant declares that

 

“in nearly every section of Germany peasant bands were running riot. Monasteries were sacked, or were compelled to pay high ransoms…On April 11 the townsfolk of Bamberg renounced the bishop’s feudal sovereignty, pillaged and burned his castle, and plundered the houses of the orthodox.

 

“In Alsace the revolt spread so rapidly that by April’s end every Catholic or rich landlord in the province was in terror of his life. On April 28 an army of 20,000 peasants attacked Zabern, seat of the bishop of Strasbourg, and despoiled his monastery.”[68]

 

These violent acts happened in almost every major city. For example, former Episcopal secretary Michael Gasmaier incited an attack on all orthodox clergymen and even “sacked the local monastery, and remained rampant and unsubdued for a year.”[69]

 

We see similar results at Freiburgim-Breisgau, where “the peasants looted castles and monasteries, and forced the city to join the ‘Evangelical Brotherhood.’ In the same month a peasant band drove the bishop of Wurzburg out of his palace, and feasted on his stores. In June the powerful and warlike Archbishop Matthias Lang was chased from his palace in Salzburg into his castle fortress overlooking the city.”[70]

 

————————————————–

 

Now that the revolution had turned into a bloodbath, Luther forthrightly rejected it. He declared,

 

“In the former book I did not venture to judge the peasants, since they had offered to be set right and be instructed…But before I look around they, forgetting their offer, betake themselves to violence, and particular it is the work of the archdevil [Munzer] who rules at Mulhausen…

 

“Any man against whom sedition can be proved is outside the law of God and the Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well…

 

“Therefore let everyone who can smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him he will strike you, and a whole land with you.”[71]

 

Here again Luther was regurgitating what he had learned from the Old Testament, not from what he had learned at the foot of the Cross and from the doctrines of Christ. Moreover, as Protestant scholar Alister McGrath himself argues, Luther and the other Reformers were pragmatists in that on many occasions they were ready to allow secular government to be involved in the movement, so long as it advanced the cause.[72]

 

If that is the case, then Luther once again was largely inconsistent, for we all know that secular authorities have no say in theological disputes.

 

It is clear that the Reformation was much more complex and it cannot be reduced to just the motto of sola scriptura, for “a secondary hermeneutic of political character was at least on occasion instrumental in [its] propagation.”[73]

 

McGrath agrees, stating that it is “evident that the question of how the early Reformed theological communities interpreted Scripture was more problematic than is sometimes appreciated.”[74]

 

The peasant revolt was eventually crushed. In May 1525, Duke Henry and Philip Landgrave marched against Muntzer’s untrained and disordered peasant army and massacred thousands outside Frankenhausen.[75]

 

When Henry and Landgrave’s army reached the town, they pleaded to the rebels to surrender. Muntzer told the peasants that God would deliver them in the nick of time, using the sign of a halo around the sun.

 

Muntzer could not have been more excited, and incited the rebels even more to stand still and meet the enemy head on.[76]

 

In the end, thousands were killed, while Henry and Landgrave only lost six men. Durant says only 5,000 rebels were killed,[77] but Carter Lindberg says over 6,000 lost their lives.[78] Three hundred others were captured and condemned to death.

 

“Their women pleaded mercy for them; it was granted, on condition that the women should beat out the brains of two priests who had encouraged the revolt; it was done, while the triumphant dukes looked on.

 

“Muntzer hid, was captured, was tortured into confessing the error of his ways, and was beheaded before the headquarters of the princes.

 

“Pfeiffer and his 1,200 soldiers defended Muhlhausen; they were overcome; Pfeiffer and other leaders were put to death, but the citizens were spared on paying a total ransom of 40,000 guilders,” nearly $1 million at the time.[79]

 

Other rebellions were also crushed. Truchsess led his army to Boblingen, where he tricked the peasants and burned the place to the ground, while he

 

“slowly roasted Jacklein Rohrbach, who had directed the ‘Massacre of Weinsberg.’”[80]

 

Truchsess continued to march to other places such as Konigshofen and Ingolstadt, where he “beheaded eighty-one chosen rebels as a memento for the rest.”[81]

 

One after another, each city or town that the peasants had taken by force was eventually retaken by massacring almost every one that came their way.

 

Twenty thousand peasants lost their lives in Alsace, while others ended up surrendering to the opposing army, many of whom were hanged or beheaded, or had their hands chopped off and their eyes gouged out.

 

Durant declares that “the air of the towns was fetid with the stench of the dead.”[82] In the face of such cruel punishment, the princes eventually had to intervene in order to diminish the level of torture that was being done.[83]

 

The following year, 1526, Michael Gasmaier again flared up the revolutionary spirit. He started by calling anyone who was not a protestant “godless” and claiming that they needed to be put to death. He marched into churches and tore down their pictures and shrines.

 

Although Gasmaier defeated many of the troops that were sent against him, in the end he had to flee to Italy.

 

“The Archduke Ferdinand set a price on his head, and two Spanish cutthroats earned the sum by assassinating him in his room in Padua (1528).”[84]

 

Once again rebellions like these caused huge loss of life.

 

“Over 50,000 homeless peasants roamed the highways or hid in the woods. Widows and orphans were legion…

 

“The rebels had in many instances burned the charters that recorded their feudal dues; new charters were now drawn up, renewing the obligations, sometimes more leniently, sometimes more rigorously, than before…elsewhere serfdom was strengthened, and would continue, east of the Elbe, till the nineteenth century.”[85]

 

Durant, a philo-Semitic historian, declares,

 

“The Reformation itself almost perished in the Peasants’ War. Despite Luther’s disclaimers and denunciations, the rebellion had flaunted Protestant colors and ideas: economic aspirations were dressed in phrases that Luther had sanctified.”[86]

 

Luther declared,

 

“My opinion is that it is better that all peasants be killed than that the princes and magistrates perish, because the rustics took the sword without divine authority.”[87]

 

He moved on to say in An Open Letter Concerning the Hard Book against the Peasants that

 

“The rulers ought to seize these people by the cap and make them hold their tongues. If they think this answer is too hard, and that this is talking violence and only shutting men’s mouths, I reply that this is right. A rebel is not worth answering with arguments, for he does not accept them. The answer for such mouth is a fist that brings blood from the nose. The peasants would not listen…

 

“Their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. Such pupils need such a rod. He who will not hear God’s Word when it is spoken with kindness must listen to the headsman when comes with his axe…

 

“Of mercy I will neither hear nor know anything, but give heed to God’s will in His Word…If He will have wrath and not mercy, what have you to do with mercy? Did not Saul sin by showing mercy upon Amalek when he failed to execute God’s wrath as he had been commanded?

 

“You who are praising mercy so highly because the peasants are beaten, why did you not praise it when the peasants were raging, smiting, robbing, burning, and plundering, until they were terrible to men’s eyes and ears? Why were they not merciful to the princes and lords, whom they wanted to wipe out entirely?”[88]

 

It is clear by now those teachings did not come from Christ but from the Old Testament. Luther cannot have it both ways—he cannot argue for sola scriptura and still be inconsistent when it comes to following Christ all the way. Protestant scholar Justo L. Gonzalez declares that Luther “urged the victorious princes to be merciful.”[89]

 

If that is the case, then Luther was once again inconsistent in his writings. How can the princes be merciful when Luther himself wrote that the peasants’ ears should be unbuttoned with bullets?

 

Surely Luther must have been aware of this contradiction. Perhaps his theology did not allow him to see the obvious. Throughout much of his discourse on the peasants, Luther’s sola scriptura was the Old Testament, not Christ.

 

Because of the devastating effect of the revolt, Luther stayed in Wittenberg for many years in solitude, not even attending at his father’s deathbed. He wrote during that time,

 

“All is forgotten that God has done for the world through me, now lords, priests, and peasants are all against me, and threaten my death.”[90]

 

————————————————–

 

Jewish revolutionaries during the Reformation period were more than happy to seize the moment. As Jewish historian Louis I. Newman declared,

 

“The Jews of the Reformation era took great interest in Protestant literature; Luther’s works were distributed and bought even in Jerusalem.”

 

Long before Luther and the Jews parted company, they previously

 

“looked upon the Reformation as the first indication of the advent of the Messianic age…

 

“One of the remarkable testimonies to the role of Jews in the spread of religious reform movements in Europe is evident in the fact that the Marranos of Amsterdam sought to disseminate Luther’s writings in Spain with a view to break the sway of the Catholicism which had brought them so much suffering.”[91]

 

The revolutionary acts

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
http://www.stewwebb.com
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/swebb/
Stew Webb working 24/7 for you
Donations always welcome
The match is HOT and NOW is the time to strike!
http://www.stewwebb.com/2013/09/15/the-match-is-hot-and-now-is-the-time-to-strike/
January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:
Stew Webb Founder Solutions for America Get involved
Recall Your Congress and Senate
http://www.recallpetitions.com
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/12/the-recall-sword-used-against-those-that-violate-the-u-s-constitution/
Stew Webb Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/stewwebb1
JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved
http://www.americandefenseparty.com

 




Lying Zionists cover up Sharon’s horrific words, deeds

Lying_Zionists_Cover_Up_Sharons_Words_Deeds

… by  Kevin Barrett, VT Editor     … with  Press TV

Ariel Sharon embodied the pure, unmitigated evil of Zionism. He was a war criminal, a terrorist, a mass murderer, a torturer, a rapist. The French term “genocidaire” also applies.

But Sharon did have one redeeming quality: He occasionally told the awful truth about himself and his country.

During the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Sharon vented his real feelings in public.

In a Hebrew-language interview with Israeli writer Amos Oz, Sharon said:

“Even today I volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug out from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up a few synagogues, I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal… What your kind doesn’t understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it.”

 

The interview was published in Hebrew in the Israeli newspaper Davar on December 17th, 1982, later reprinted in a book. The Sharon quotes were attributed to “Z,” a high-level, heavy-set, 50-year-old Israeli officer “with a certain history” who was also a prosperous farmer. Israeli readers knew that “Z” was obviously Ariel Sharon, who perfectly fit the description, and whose real feelings about the subjects discussed in the interview were not exactly a state secret.

At the time, Sharon had just been fired as Defense Minister due to the international outcry over the Sabra and Shatila massacres. This was obviously the “certain history” referred to. No Israeli reader or journalist at the time had the slightest doubt that “Z” was Sharon.

 

Why did Sharon risk venting his real feelings under such a transparent veil?

Because he thought he had nothing to lose. At the time, everyone assumed Sharon’s political and military career was finished. He had, after all, just orchestrated and supervised one of the ugliest and most brutal massacres in human history – and been caught red-handed and disgraced. It seemed likely that he would either be executed, imprisoned for life, or at least live out the rest of his life hiding from Interpol.

 

In the Oz interview, Sharon lashed out at the liberal Zionists who were throwing him to the dogs. He felt these liberal Zionists were hypocrites who were just as guilty of genocide as he was, but too cowardly to admit it. In this he was right.

 

Sharon actually bragged about being evil:

 

“Tell me, do the evil men of this world have a bad time? They hunt and catch whatever they feel like eating. They don’t suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear us instead of feeling sorry. Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear our madness instead of admiring our nobility.

Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a savage country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go wild, that we might start World War Three just like that, or that we might one day go crazy and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East. Personally, I don’t want to be any better than Harry Truman who snuffed out half a million Japanese with two fine bombs.”

 

" Isn't that special! " - from Saturday Night Live

” Isn’t that special! ” – from Saturday Night Live

 

Paradoxically, Sharon’s interview with Oz may have helped save his political career. Many Israelis identified with Sharon’s sentiments and admired his bluntness. As Israel turned to the right, Sharon and his ideas became increasingly mainstream.

 

By the 1990s, Sharon had returned to center-stage in the Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

Though his brutal words in the Oz interview had helped pave the way for his comeback – and were a net asset in domestic politics, given the genocidal sentiments of the average Israeli – they were a huge liability for someone who wanted to be Prime Minister and appear on the international stage.

 

Pressure was applied to Amos Oz. When an American journalist named Holger Jensen accurately reproduced the Sharon “Z” quotes in an article published in 2002, the Zionist Liars Lobby went into action. Suddenly, Oz (a dedicated Zionist himself) quite absurdly denied that “Z” was – as everyone in Israel knew and still knows – the butcher of Sabra and Shatila, Ariel Sharon.

 

That didn’t prevent the truth-teller from being punished. Holger Jensen was subjected to the Zionist equivalent of a journalistic lynching. To save his skin, he was forced to half-sincerely recant his attribution of the quote to Sharon, even though he obviously doubts the veracity of Oz’s disingenuous denial.

 

Here is another revealing quote attributed to Sharon :

 

“I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child that will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child are more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on…”

 

This quote, from an interview by Ouze Merham, has been disputed by the Zionists… which speaks for its likely authenticity! In any case, it accurately describes Sharon’s policies and actions. Under Sharon, the Israeli Defense Forces had a de facto official policy of “enticing Palestinian children like mice into a trap to murder them for sport,” as journalist Chris Hedges described it in his 2001 article “Gaza Diary.”

 

The sport-shootings of children that Hedges witnessed are official Israeli policy; a British Medical Journal study a few years later confirmed more than 600 sniper murders of Palestinian children by the Israeli military.

 

The Zionist propaganda machine, which dominates Western media, works overtime to “scrub” such facts from public consciousness, just as it works to scrub the public record clean of Ariel Sharon’s too-revealing words. An apparent Mossad spin-off called CAMERA does much of the dirty work.

 

CAMERA has published outrageous lies about Sharon’s “Z” interview with Amos Oz. Now it is offering an even more ridiculous lie about Sharon’s notorious post-9/11 “We Jews control America” outburst.

 

In early October of 2001, three weeks after 9/11, Shimon Peres had been pressuring Ariel Sharon to respect American calls for a ceasefire, lest the Americans turn against Israel. According to a BBC News report, a furious Sharon turned toward Peres, saying:

 

“Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”

 

The report was picked up by

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
http://www.stewwebb.com
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/swebb/
Stew Webb working 24/7 for you
Donations always welcome
The match is HOT and NOW is the time to strike!
http://www.stewwebb.com/2013/09/15/the-match-is-hot-and-now-is-the-time-to-strike/
January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:
Stew Webb Founder Solutions for America Get involved
Recall Your Congress and Senate
http://www.recallpetitions.com
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/12/the-recall-sword-used-against-those-that-violate-the-u-s-constitution/
Stew Webb Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/stewwebb1
JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved
http://www.americandefenseparty.com

 




Seattle TV all day live interviews Dr Preston James and Stew Webb

Seattle_TV_Call_4_Investigations

January 16, 2014 Will Wilson interviews Dr. Preston James and Stew Webb subject the Alien agenda.

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
http://www.stewwebb.com
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/swebb/
Stew Webb working 24/7 for you
Donations always welcome
The match is HOT and NOW is the time to strike!
http://www.stewwebb.com/2013/09/15/the-match-is-hot-and-now-is-the-time-to-strike/
January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:
Stew Webb Founder Solutions for America Get involved
Recall Your Congress and Senate
http://www.recallpetitions.com
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/12/the-recall-sword-used-against-those-that-violate-the-u-s-constitution/
Stew Webb Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/stewwebb1
JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved
http://www.americandefenseparty.com

 








flagususmcflag france_flag
stewwebbradionetwork-com-2015-09-24

You can Mute the Audio

AudioNow

StewWebb-RadioNetwork-Store
Stew Webb Radio Network Store

President Donald Trump, Drain the Swamp and Lock them Up Sir.

Stew Webb Whistle blower Grand Jury Demand Still Active against Hillary Clinton aka "HildaBeast".
Obama-admits-US-trains-ISIS-july-2015-stewwebb
Bush, Obama, Clinton Founders of ISIS, ISIL, See Obama Video July 2015
George-W-Bush-Arrest
George W. Bush Faces War Crimes December 12 2016 In U.S. Federal Court

(C) Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) Organized Crime Boss Hog Larry Mizel

911 World Trade Center Bush Guilty

Stew Webb


Spot Dog is on the loose he loves to eat Illuminati, Zionist, Satanists and Lying Media Political Whores.
Stew Webb 32 Years a Federal Whistle blower
Stew Webb served in the United States Marine Corps and was Honorable Discharge. Stew was a General Contractor-Home Builder until 3 car crashes in one year and is now disabled. Stew turned Federal Whistle blower-Activist of 31 years and has been a guest on over 3,000 Radio and TV Programs since September 18, 1991 and now has his own Radio and TV Network http://www.stewwebbradionetwork.com Stew was responsible for the Congressional Investigations and hearings that lead to the Appointment of Independent Prosecutor Arlin Adams in the 1989 HUD Hearings, the Silverado Savings and Loan Hearings, the Denver International Airport Frauds hearings, the MDC Holdings, Inc. (MDC-NYSE) Illegal Political Campaign Money Laundering Colorado’s biggest case aka Keating 5 hearings and the information provided that lead to the 2008 Illegal Bank Bailout.
Stew was held as a Political Prisoner from 1992-1993 to silence his exposure by Leonard Millman his former in law with illegal charges of threatening harassing telephone calls charges which were dismissed with prejudice. Leonard Millman, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Larry Mizel, Phil Winn, Norman Brownstein, John McCain and Mitt Romney to name a few are all partners in what is known as the Bush-Millman-Clinton Organized Crime Syndicate. Leonard Millman (Deceased 2004) was member of the "Illuminati Council of 13".

Stew Webb Breaking News

Breaking News

Contributions are much appreciated

The below picture of the attempted murder of Stew Webb October 25, 2010 by two of Hillary Clinton's Assassins. There were two more crashed and attempts one year later.
Contributions are much appreciated Thank You.-- Stew Webb





Archives