The New American
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy held recently, Pope Francis advocated a policy of decreased national sovereignty and increased global unity. A shift toward globalism is necessary, he said, in order to fight climate change and other worldwide “threats.”
"When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,” his holiness told those gathered to discuss “Nation, State, and Nation-State,” the conference theme.
Pope Francis meeting members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences on May 2, 2019. (ANSA)
Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by “an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.”
He moved on to immigration, declaring that nationalism is too easily twisted into a doctrine repugnant to the welcoming of immigrants. “The Church observes with concern the reemergence, in many parts of the world, of currents that are aggressive towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as a growing nationalism that neglects the common good,” Pope Francis said.
Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations, he stated.
Speaking of the United Nations, Pope Francis announced his ardent support for the sine qua non of all globalists: “sustainable development.”
He declared that if we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create "a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect," and must stop what "hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations."
And the hits just keep on coming.
Pope Francis warned attendees that sovereign nations attempting to govern themselves will find they are unable to protect their populations from the myriad menaces abroad in the world. "The nation-state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit," Francis said.
For our own benefit? Who benefits from the global government? Ask yourself this question: In the nearly 75 years of the United Nations' existence, have wars ceased? Has the number of wars decreased? Are the signatories to the UN Charter moved toward greater prosperity or toward deeper economic depression?
Of course, there is no need to argue whether or not the United Nations has been a blessing to the nations of the Earth. It has undoubtedly been the source of bloodshed, violence, oppression, and Marxism.
His Holiness suggested that governments around the globe should "strengthen their cooperation by connecting certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests."
The Senate Finance Committee is probing meetings reportedly held in 2015 between two of former President Barack Obama’s top economic officials and Maria Butina, a Russian national who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to covertly influence U.S. foreign policy, the panel said Friday.
Committee leadership published letters sent to the current heads of the U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve raising concerns over reports that Ms. Butina, a 30-year-old gun-rights activist, met with officials from the agencies during the Obama administration.
“The Senate Finance Committee has a constitutional responsibility to engage in vigilant oversight of entities and government agencies within its jurisdiction,” wrote Senators Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, the committee’s chairman, and ranking member, respectively. “A critical issue facing the Committee and the country is the extent to which the Russian government engaged in efforts designed to undermine our political system and governmental policy through obfuscation and manipulation.”
Reuters first reported last year that Ms. Butina and Alexander Torshin, a former top official for the Russian Central Bank, met in 2015 with Stanley Fischer, then-Federal Reserve vice chairman, and Nathan Sheets, then-Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, to discuss “U.S.-Russian economic relations during Democratic former President Barack Obama’s administration.”
Butina (Pictured on right)
Mr. Torshin was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in April 2018, and Butina was arrested three months later and charged with acting as an unregistered agent of the foreign government. She subsequently pleaded guilty to a related count of conspiracy and is awaiting sentencing.
“Given what is now known about them from public court filings, it is concerning that Ms. Butina and Mr. Torshin were able to gain access to high-level administration officials to reportedly discuss U.S. Russian economic relations,” Mr. Grassley and Mr. Wyden wrote in letters seeking details about the meetings.
“Furthermore, it is imperative to understand the substance and extent to which Ms. Butina and Mr. Torshin lobbied other administration officials in an effort to change U.S. policy toward Russia or other countries and whether decisions were made as a result of these meetings,” the senators wrote.
The letters were sent Thursday to Steven Mnuchin, the secretary of the Treasury, and Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Messages seeking comment from both agencies were not immediately answered over the weekend.
A third letter was sent to Dimitri K. Simes, the president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest, a nonprofit group Reuters credited with organizing the meetings. A representative for the center did not immediately respond to a similar inquiry.
Butina attempted to infiltrate groups including the National Rifle Association as part of a secret effort to “establish unofficial lines of communications” between D.C. and Moscow, according to prosecutors. She pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an unregistered foreign agent but has denied acting as a spy for the Russian government.
Moscow leaders have condemned the case and labeled Butina a “political prisoner.”
A former politician, Mr. Torshin, 65, served as deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia from 2015 through 2018. Federal prosecutors allege he effectively served as Butina’s handler prior to her arrest.
Ten Lost Tribes of Israel
By Gerald Flurry
Nov. 11, 2018, marked the 100-year anniversary of the end of World War I. United States President Donald Trump visited Paris, France, to commemorate the roughly 115,000 U.S. military personnel who died in that war.
The United States helped France mightily in that war. American troops gave their lives to protect and support the French Army and people. In both World Wars I and II, British and American forces delivered France from captivity; all totaled, almost 2 million British and American soldiers gave their lives to defend France and other European nations.
Today the brotherhood that once existed between the United States and France is in trouble. We need to understand the prophetic significance of what is happening.
Not coincidentally, Macron has chillingly characterized himself by way of coming into power as the Roman God Jupiter better known as the Greek God Zeus, moreover, the connections only branch out from there...
On the eve of President Trump’s European visit, French President Emmanuel Macron made some bold remarks that reveal a lot about how he feels about the U.S. today. In a radio interview on November 6, President Macron called for a “true European army.” That is a dramatic statement in its own right, but he added: “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America“(emphasis mine throughout).
Even the United States? It is one thing for France to say it must defend against Communist China and dictatorial Russia. But what a deeply insulting thing to say about the democracy that crossed the Atlantic twice last century to rescue France from defeat!
Mr. Macron’s remarks didn’t really catch the attention of most people. Many perceived them as simply an attempt by Macron to get more from nato. But that is not the case!
We must grasp the significance of President Macron’s comments. When you understand Bible prophecy, you can recognize that this is part of a momentous trend that will change the world!
The Bible clearly tells us the identity of the American and British peoples. In his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Herbert W. Armstrong explained in detail how America and Britain are descended from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph.
Order your free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy or read online.
And France, Mr. Armstrong explained, is descended from Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob and another of those “lost” Israelite tribes. Many of the modern French have descended from this Israelite patriarch, and Reuben is the name for France in biblical prophecy.
Genesis 37 documents Reuben betraying his younger brother Joseph. Mr. Armstrong taught, and the Bible clearly reveals, that this ancient betrayal is also an end-time prophecy that France (Reuben) would betray the U.S. (Manasseh, son of Joseph).
Notice this critical passage regarding America and Britain: “And he [Jacob, renamed Israel] blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, … bless the lads, and let my name be named on them … and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:15-16). As The United States and Britain in Prophecy proves, God answered this prayer. Manasseh and Ephraim did grow into a multitude. In fact, as God promised in Genesis 35:11, they became “a nation and a company of nations”—Manasseh a single “great” nation, and Ephraim “a multitude of nations” (see also Genesis 48:19). And the name “Israel” was named on these nations. They are the birthright nations, blessed above all others on Earth. How specific are these prophecies about the nations of Israel!
In all history, no other peoples match these descriptions better than America and the British Empire. That means prophetic Israel in this end time specifically refers to America and Britain.
But God didn’t prophesy only of what would happen to America and Britain.
Genesis 49 is an astounding chapter that contains important prophecies for today: “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days” (verse 1). We are reading from the first book of the Bible, and it is talking about the last days—the times we are living in now!
If you don’t know the modern identity of the sons of Jacob, you cannot understand Bible prophecy! And one-third of the Bible is devoted to prophesy.
The first son Jacob addressed in Genesis 49 is Reuben (verse 3). God clearly tells us that Reuben will play a role in events that occur in the last days. So we must know who Reuben is.
Why was Reuben addressed first? Because he was the firstborn. The blessings that God promised to Abraham, and that were conferred upon Abraham’s son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, were supposed to transfer to Jacob’s firstborn son, Reuben. But Reuben lost his birthright. Why? Jacob tells us: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch” (verse 4). Reuben had sexual relations with his father’s concubine. Isn’t it interesting that even today, Paris is called the “city of love” and France is renowned for its libertine approach to sex? Because of Reuben’s great sexual sin, the birthright blessings went instead to Joseph, the firstborn son of Jacob’s other wife, Rachel.
“Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright” (1 Chronicles 5:1). Chronicles is the last book of the Old Testament as it was originally compiled and points us directly to the New Testament. Ezra gathered information from the former prophets and wrote that book. That means it is prophecy for today. Ezra wrote about the state of the birthright promise in these last days.
Read the history of Joseph and Reuben yourself in Genesis 37 through 46. Jacob favored Joseph above his other sons, and that provoked a lot of sibling rivalry. Making matters worse, Joseph told his brothers about dreams he had indicating that his descendants would “reign over” those of his brothers. This inspired such hatred in them that they conspired to murder Joseph! They planned to kill him and tell their father that Joseph had been slain by a wild animal. Reuben intervened. He convinced them to just leave him in a pit to die, and he planned to save him by coming back later to fetch him. But before he could do that, the brothers sold Joseph into slavery.
Reuben, the firstborn, wouldn’t boldly stand up to his brothers. He tried to “rescue” Joseph in a weak, evasive way. It was a betrayal that ended up enslaving his younger brother!
Your Bible says Reuben’s modern descendants will again betray the latter-day descendants of Joseph—America, and Britain!
The Bible prophesies of a European superpower led by Germany. France will meekly submit to and participate in this German-dominated “beast” of Revelation 13. In so doing, France will cruelly betray the allies it fought alongside in two world wars against Germany! Yes, Reuben’s descendants will play a treacherous role in “selling” their brother into captivity and slavery, just as their ancestor did more than 3,700 years ago!
We are seeing the beginning of that betrayal today!
Remember, the sons of Jacob are brothers. This is about a family. And Reuben, this prophecy tells us, is “unstable as water.” You never know exactly how he is going to behave, even toward his own brother.
This instability is exactly what we are seeing in the French-American relationship today. When President Trump visited France in July 2017, he was treated like royalty! Now the French leadership is sending a brash, treacherous message of opposition.
President Macron’s words were not part of a minor spat, as some in the media characterized it. This strikes at the very heart and core of end-time Bible prophecy! Bible prophecy makes clear exactly what is happening.
Just four days before the World War I commemorations, President Macron made other provocative comments we need to think about. Touring a battlefield of the Great War, Macron praised Marshal Philippe Pétain, who was to be honored at a ceremony at Napoleon’s Tomb that weekend. Pétain was a French general during World War i. But he was more than that: In June 1940, he was appointed the prime minister of France and immediately surrendered France to Adolf Hitler.
Between 1940 and 1944, Pétain collaborated with Hitler while presiding over Vichy France. British historian Andrew Roberts wrote that Pétain “participated enthusiastically in sending non-French Jews to the death camps—principally Auschwitz—in a way that the Germans simply did not have the manpower or local knowledge to achieve.”
President Macron apparently rejects this history. He told reporters that Pétain was a “great soldier—this is a reality.”
Then, at the World War i centenary ceremony in Paris, Macron took the opportunity to publicly rebuke President Trump for recently saying he was a nationalist who puts America first.
Standing before a host of world leaders, Macron lectured America’s president on the difference between nationalism and patriotism. “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” he said. “By saying ‘our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential—its moral values.” President Macron’s speech was heard around the world, and everyone understood exactly who he was addressing!
It was in the midst of this important anniversary week that the French president called for a European army. “We will not protect Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army,” he said. The Times called it “his strongest language yet” for a military union. Europe is striving for a united military—and has been for quite some time.
And what will Europeans do with that army? Macron explicitly said it was needed to protect Europe “with respect to China, Russia, and even the United States.”Does that sound like a stable brotherhood, like the one in World Wars I and ii?
Macron wants to push America out of Europe! The way he views it, France and Europe don’t need America anymore! As recently as World War ii, America lost hundreds of thousands of men saving Europe and France! How can anyone simply forget all that—unless they are unstable as water?
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Anthony J. Tata wrote about those comments: “Macron could not have levied a greater insult at America and its veterans on this 100th anniversary of the armistice signed between the Allies and Germany on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 to end World War I and, ironically, save Europe” (Fox News, Nov. 10, 2018). It’s as if Macron was spitting on the graves of those men...
As laid out in our popular article, The Daniel Project:
Biblical Prediction # 18~ The Kings of the East cross the Euphrates River for a great war
“The Bible foretells in Revelation that the kings of the East, who many believe is the nation of China and or Russia along with her ancillary nations, will cross the Euphrates in an invasion of the Mideast and in preparation for war against Israel and perhaps Israel’s western allies.
The scriptures, in anticipation of this event, speak to the “angels bound at the River Euphrates” to lead 2oo million men in battle. The remarkable thing here is the fact that going back through ancient history, at no time was there ever a population capable of producing, arming, and supporting such a massive army of men. Yet, in the modern day, the Chinese army currently lists an active duty capacity of about 318 million men fit for military service, which is about the size of the current US population, if we include illegals.
Interestingly, and at the time of this prophecy of over 1,900 years ago, the population of planet Earth has been estimated at about 100 million people. So, how could an ancient prophet understand that the Earth would be heavily populated [enough] to support this massive of an army?”
~ Refocus Notes
By Tyler Durden
Days after U.S. warships made a provocative passage through the Taiwan Strait on Monday, further making already strained tensions between the Washington and Beijing — currently in the midst of a trade war — even hotter, the former top commander of the US Army in Europe has predicted the United States and China will likely be at war in 15 years.
Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges made the bombshell and alarming comments at a Warsaw security forum on Wednesday where he urged European allies to do more in preparing their own defenses against Russia while Americans focus more on the Pacific.
Gen. Hodges said, according to the Military Times:
I think in 15 years — it’s not inevitable, but it is a very strong likelihood — that we will be at war with China. The United States does not have the capacity to do everything it has to do in Europe and in the Pacific to deal with the Chinese threat.
This statement is hugely remarkable in that it signifies the thesis has just left the domain of academic international relations theoreticians and has now become a guiding assumption of military commanders with years of experience on the ground.
Hodges served as US Army commander in Europe during 2014-17, which makes his warning especially noteworthy, and he’s now an analyst with the Center for European Policy Analysis.
He addressed an ongoing policy debate among policy and defense official circles over whether it’s a mistake for Washington to focus its defensive efforts on “threats” like Russian and Iran.
Meanwhile, international relations theorist John Mearsheimer recently drew controversy by expressing publicly at a policy conference that the United States should cool its rhetoric on Russian and Iran — and even work with the two countries — in order to focus on curtailing the true long-term threat of China.
And interestingly, Steve LeVine writing at Axios early this week posed the question long on the Western public’s mind: what are the chances of a US-China war?
While both Gen. Hodges and John Mearsheimer shocked audiences by saying war is almost inevitable on the current trajectory of soaring US-China tensions, Harvard professor and the author agrees with them, and further explains just how this scenario would come about.
LeVine recently crossed paths with Graham Allison, who published his explosive “Destined For War: Can America And China Escape Thucydides Trap?” a year ago which detailed the reasons for a coming major war is all but inevitable, sparking a global debate about the Harvard professor’s controversial thesis. LeVine followed up with Allison in relation to the recent uptick in tensions in the region of the South China Sea:
He said, if history holds, the U.S. and China appeared headed toward war.
Over the weekend, I asked him for an update — specifically whether the danger of the two going to war seems to have risen.
“Yes,” he responded. The chance of war is still less than 50%, but “is real — and much more likely than is generally recognized.”
LeVine comments of Graham Allison’s central thesis, “Glued to a 2,400-year-old script, the U.S. and China seem to be on the same war-bound path that great powers have taken since Sparta fought upstart Athens.”
LeVine summarizes, based on Allison’s latest comments, that now more than ever the two great powers are inching toward that trap in their brinkmanship based on an “inexorable, invisible force prodding them to almost inevitable war”. Per the Axios report:
The U.S. has slapped increasing tariffs on Beijing, cordoned off U.S. tech, and jailed a Chinese spy, while Beijing has continued to build its military footprint in the disputed South China Sea, demanded tech secrets from Western companies, and more.
But would the current trade war alone or even wide scale tech theft and a few encounters on the open seas be enough to trigger escalation and actual war?
Likely not, says Allison, but instead a WWI type scenario of an unintended domino effect of one-upmanship in which, for example, the simple assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered massive escalation leading to world war. By a similar scenario, writes LeVine of Allison’s comments, “the two countries will be pulled into conflict by miscalculation involving a third party, such as Taiwan.”
Says Professor Graham Allison:
“What happens is that a third-party provocation, an accident, becomes a trigger to which one of the two feels obliged to respond. and they find themselves in a war that neither wanted.”
We saw precisely this almost happen between the US and Russia over Syria on multiple occasions over the past two years — especially with the September accidental downing of the Russian IL-20 surveillance plane with 15 crew members on board after US ally Israel launched a wide scale missile assault on Syrian government facilities.
But with the former commander of US Army forces in Europe now saying “in 15 years we will be at war with China” the thesis has just left the domain of academic international relations theoreticians and has now become a guiding assumption of top military commanders.
A simple eye-opening conclusion containing the ring of truth to a mystery that's often complex & very difficult to explain.... ~ Refocus Notes
It's probably important to preface any conversation on morality by noting that humans often struggle—mightily—to agree on what morality is. While it’s a thorny topic to define and explain, it would, of course, be foolish to avoid the pursuit of moral truths for this reason.
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who has researched morality and culture for nearly 30 years, apparently agrees.
Haidt has spent the better part of his career attempting to understand and explain the underpinnings of human morality.
During a TED talk a number of years ago, Haidt shared his discovery that contrary to the idea that humans begin as a blank slate—“the worst idea in all psychology,” he says—humans are born with a “first draft” of moral knowledge. Essentially, Haidt argues, humans possess innate but malleable sets of values “organized in advance of experience.”
So if the slate is not blank, what’s on it?
To find out, Haidt and a colleague read the most current literature on anthropology, cultural variations, and evolutionary psychology to identify cross-cultural matches. They found five primary categories that serve as our moral foundation:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives.]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
What Haidt found is that both conservatives and liberals recognize the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity values. Liberal-minded people, however, tend to reject the three remaining foundational values—Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation—while conservatives accept them.
It’s an extraordinary difference, and it helps explain why many liberals and conservatives in America think “the other side” is bonkers.
Liberals might contend, of course, that these values are not proper morals at all but base human traits responsible for xenophobia, religious oppression, etc. Haidt rejects this thesis. And through a series of historical illustrations, psychological studies, and cross-cultural references, he explains that many liberals often fail to appreciate a timeless truth that conservatives usually accept: order tends to decay. (A truth, I’ll add, buttressed by the second law of thermodynamics.)
Now, Haidt is not suggesting conservatives are superior to liberals. He points out that conservatives tend to value order even at the cost of those at the bottom of society, which can result in morally dubious social implications. Liberals, however, often desire change even at the risk of anarchy.
Many people, of course, will refuse to accept Haidt’s explanation of moral reality. This is not surprising. The human inclination is to believe in one’s own understanding of morality, and many people will live their entire lives without seriously attempting to understand their ideological counterparts.
These people, Haidt says, reside on both sides of the ideological spectrum. They exist in what he calls a “moral matrix.”
People will have a difficult time agreeing on anything if they view the moral underpinnings of society through vastly divergent lenses.
“If you think that half of America votes Republican because they’re blinded… then my message to you is you’re trapped in a moral matrix,” Haidt said. “You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions. Or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology, and step outside your moral matrix.”
So what to make of all this? I must say, I found Haidt’s explanations pretty insightful. It certainly helps explain our contentious culture. Even many intelligent and reasonable people, after all, will have a difficult time agreeing on anything if they view the moral underpinnings of society through vastly divergent lenses.
It doesn’t seem a stretch to contend that liberals in America have largely abandoned the latter three values (with some exceptions, of course), or that conservatives are highly influenced by them.
I’ll be interested to hear what readers think of Haidt’s thesis. But remember, this is a bit of a catch-22: if one reflexively smashes Haidt’s theory, it may only be evidence that this person is living in a moral matrix himself.
This article has been reprinted with permission from Intellectual Takeout.
More From the FEE
Here's an excellent & concise explanation from Rush on who Khashoggi was and what he was actually up to..which is a very far cry from what the media's been trying to sell to America...
Most notably, the US will most likely (soon) be adding the Muslim Brotherhood, a root terror organization that Obama, by the way, adored, to the official list of known terrorist organizations of which many other countries have already recognized & published.
Khashoggi was a Trump critic and stalwart advocate/member of the Muslim Brotherhood terror organization, having joined with them all the way back in the seventies.
~ Refocus Notes
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Transcript From Rush Limbaugh
I think Jamal Khashoggi was much more than a journalist.
Yeah, he wrote opinion pieces for the Washington Post, and so they’re running around saying he was an American citizen, an American journalist. But I don’t think that’s who the Saudis saw when they saw Jamal Khashoggi.
I think they saw an enemy of the regime. I think they saw a guy who’s tight with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, the agents of change in the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis do not get along in any way, shape, manner, or form.
No, no. Do not misunderstand me. I’m not advocating or trying to excuse whatever they did to Khashoggi.
I’m just trying to tell you that he’s not an innocent, minding-his-own-business journalist going about his life gunned down. He was an enemy of the regime, and he once held a position in the Saudi government ” I’m telling you, the Drive-Bys have been dying to tie Trump to this murder.
I think that they would love to undermine Trump’s relationship with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudis in general, and so would the Democrats. It’s just the latest in a never-ending parade of events that the left thinks they can use to destroy and get rid of Trump.
Khashoggi was a friend of Osama Bin Laden.
They went to high school together. But that’s not what you need to know about Khashoggi. Khashoggi’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are what’s really relevant here. I think… They’re trying to tell us that Khashoggi was murdered by Mohammed bin Salman because Khashoggi was being critical of the regime and you just don’t do that. And while that’s true, I think there’s a lot more to this than just he got killed because of stuff he was writing in the Washington Post.
I found a piece on him by John R. Bradley at Spectator.us, and Bradley has been following Saudi politics, Middle East politics, Muslim Brotherhood expertise for many, many moons. And his story ran three days ago, and you haven’t seen a thing about this anywhere in the Drive-By Media like Missourians are not seeing a word about Project Veritas exposing Claire McCaskill.
The piece is entitled, “What the Media Are Not Telling You About Jamal Khashoggi — The dissident’s fate says a lot about Saudi Arabia and the rise of the mobster state.” Now, here are just some biographical things. The fate of Khashoggi has at least provoked global outrage, but it’s for all the wrong reasons. We are told he was a liberal, Saudi progressive voice fighting for freedom and democracy, and a martyr who paid the ultimate price for telling the truth to power.
John R. Bradley
“This is not just wrong but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable.” So the point this piece is gonna make is that Khashoggi’s not a distant and removed commentator/journalist writing about the Saudi kingdom from afar.
He used to be part of it.
He’s not… Well, the Khashoggis… Adnan Khashoggi was very, very tight with the royal family. I don’t know about bloodlines, but he was… You’re not allowed to become Adnan Khashoggi and acquire that much wealth — particularly running guns and arms — without being tight with the royal family. Jamal Khashoggi is a cousin of Adnan Khashoggi. This piece makes it clear (as you’ll hear in a moment) that Jamal Khashoggi — at one time in his life, at one point — was very, very tight with the ruling family, the royal family, was in the regime.
“This is not just wrong but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable. In truth, Khashoggi never had much time for Western-style pluralistic democracy.
“In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” Now, that right there will provide all of us the first source of serious conflict between Khashoggi and the current Saudi ruling royal family. “[T]he Muslim Brotherhood … exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” What’s Mohammed bin Salman doing? He’s trying to westernize the country! He’s a Millennial.
He’s trying to reform it in certain ways, letting women vote and letting women drive, but not much else. He wants the world to think that there’s massive reform happening in the kingdom. So he does something very visible, like letting women drive. But not much more. They’re still very subjugated. He’s meeting with all of the tech people in Silicon Valley and the Hollywood people. He wants to build a brand-new city from scratch — a huge, dynamic, brand-new city — that incorporates money from Silicon Valley and Hollywood and involves all of those people as developers and investors.
But nevertheless he’s the first of the ruling royal family to ever talk this way, to ever travel the world and set something up like this, and this is anathema to the Muslim Brotherhood! They can’t stand this! There’s something else that the royal family’s doing, and I mentioned this when I was talking about who Khashoggi was and Mohammed bin Salman last week. That is this: Up to 9/11 and even many years after 9/11, the ruling religious dominance in Saudi Arabia was Wahhabism.
All of the clerics, all of the imams were Wahhabi Islamists, and these are the terrorist-inspiring Islamists.
These are the imams, the educators at all the universities which teach and recruit and inspire the Osama Bin Laden-type terrorism. Mohammed bin Salman wants to rid Saudi Arabia of the influence of Wahhabism. Well, that’s not gonna sit well with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is not particularly tied to Wahhabism.
They have their own version of terrorist Islam.
But the fact that the Saudi rile family, which, by definition, and by corporate structure, is in charge of Islam. Mecca and Medina are… Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family is Islam. It’s their charge with maintaining it, protecting it, defining it, the mosques, particularly in Mecca. And for Mohammed bin Salman to come along and try to eliminate the influences of Wahhabism, while at the same time importing such corporate scum as Hollywood and American technology?
This is considered to be an absolute affront to people like the Muslim Brotherhood, which wants to get rid of any Western influence in Islam or in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Islamic world! So Mohammed bin Salman has made himself a huge, huge target. Khashoggi, as a Muslim Brotherhood member, would be diametrically opposed to everything Mohammed bin Salman is doing. And that has been well established and has been documented.
Again here, according to Mr. Bradley, “Khashoggi never had much time for Western-style pluralistic democracy.
In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” Well, here comes Mohammed bin Salman incorporating Western influence in Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi “was a political Islamist until the end, recently praising the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post.
“He championed the ‘moderate’ Islamist opposition in Syria, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of record. Khashoggi frequently sugarcoated his Islamist beliefs with constant references to freedom and democracy. But he never hid that he was in favor of a Muslim Brotherhood arc throughout the Middle East.
His recurring plea to bin Salman in his columns was to embrace not a western-style democracy, but the rise of political Islam which the Arab Spring had inadvertently given rise to. For Khashoggi, secularism was the enemy.”
He was not an Americanized Islamist.
He was not pro-democracy.
This was a Muslim Brotherhood advocate and member, and he is righteously indignant over the reforms of Mohammed bin Salman and wrote about them. But he threw in the words “democracy” and “freedom” and “liberty,” and this was all designed to cow Western readers and Western journalists into thinking that he was something that he’s not.
Much like liberals have to mask who they are, that’s what Khashoggi was doing. “He had been a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s, but then became more of a player than a spectator. Before working with a succession of Saudi princes, he edited Saudi newspapers. The exclusive remit a Saudi government-appointed newspaper editor has is to ensure nothing remotely resembling honest journalism” makes it into the papers. So when the Saudi ruling family hired him to run journalism, it was to be PR. It was to be propaganda.
Khashoggi did it. He took the money, he “put the money in the bank,” and he did what the royal family wanted him to do. He made “a handsome living,” which, according to Mr. Bradley here, has “always [been] his top priority. … Khashoggi had this undeserved status in the West” that our caller is talking about “because of the publicity surrounding his sacking as editor of the Saudi daily Al Watan back in 2003. … He was dismissed because he allowed a columnist to criticize an Islamist thinker considered to be the founding father of Wahhabism.
“Thus, overnight, Khashoggi became known as a liberal progressive” in the Saudi Kingdom and outside. And that’s another reason why the left in this country champions him because that’s who he was. “The Muslim Brotherhood, though, has always been at odds with the Wahhabi movement. Khashoggi and his fellow travelers believe in imposing Islamic rule by engaging in the democratic process".....
Talk about a rendition op that went wrong...
It's about the only excuse that might actually work...meanwhile, a number of special Saudi Operatives will eventually be "taking one for the Kingdom"...Don't lose your heads, guys!
Gee, come to think of it, I wonder if they might've consulted with Killary Clinton for the best overall of feasible internationally acceptable explanations?
~ Refocus Notes
By Clarissa Ward and Tim Lister, CNN
Ankara, Turkey (CNN)
The Saudis are preparing a report that will acknowledge that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's death was the result of an interrogation that went wrong, one that was intended to lead to his abduction from Turkey, according to two sources.
“And it shall come to pass in that day that living waters shall go out from Yerushalayim: half of them toward the eastern sea and half of them toward the western sea; in summer and in winter shall it be.”~ Zechariah 14:8 (The Israel Bible™)
By Barry Secrest
Multiple stories have been recently surfacing regarding new observations of sea-life reappearing in the Dead Sea.
The latest story, from the UK Daily Star, details how environmentalists are now documenting the return of fish to the Biblically historical body of water, where, since ancient times, the sea had remained completely bereft of life due to the extraordinary amount of salt that can be found in the water.
According to the Daily Star:
"Ezekiel is a key figure in the Bible and in his end-of-days prophecy, he foresees the Dead Sea flourishing into life – something that is considered to be impossible due to its high salt content.
Israeli photojournalist Noam Bedein has reported sightings of marine life in small sinkholes around the Dead Sea, as well as vegetation growing.
Photos released by the Dead Sea Revival Project show tiny fish swimming in water that is reportedly from the highly-salinated body of water.
Bedein, who works on the Dead Sea Revival Project, which works to preserve the Sea and other Israeli “water treasures”, said the fish prove the water is “anything but dead”
But, is this evidence of a Biblical miracle described in the End Times actually coming true?
The operative verse, of several, dealing with the age-old prophecy destined to occur in the end times, states the following:
Then said he unto me: ‘These waters issue forth toward the eastern region and shall go down into the Arabah, and when they shall enter into the sea into the sea of the putrid waters the waters shall be healed. And it shall come to pass that every living creature wherewith it swarmeth whithersoever the rivers shall come shall live, and there shall be a very great multitude of fish; for these waters are come thither that all things be healed and may live whithersoever the river cometh. Ezekiel 47:8-9 (The Israel Bible)
According to Breaking Israel News, "Fulfillment of the Dead Sea Prophecy Has Begun," however, that's not the end of the prophecy.
The next verse, this one from Genesis, pertaining to these events, states the following:
"And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before Hashem destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of Hashem. Genesis 13:10 (The Israel Bible)
Now, back to the Daily Star, story:
"The Bible states that after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the land was turned into a barren wasteland – the same area the Dead Sea is now.
But it was prophesied that life would once again return to the land, with fish in abundance in the water.
“Coming to the Dead Sea, the lowest point on earth, you see prophecy coming true,” Bedein told Breaking News Israel.
“A place that was once cursed in Biblical times, now you can come here to the Dead Sea, explore the sinkholes and see fish where the water has receded – fulfilling prophecies from Ezekiel who talked about the land flourishing and blooming when the Jews return.”
He continued: “The curse is over, and this place and its minerals are now bringing life to people around the world.”
Mr. Bedein and his team have been documenting changes in the Dead Sea over the last two years.
Due to environmental changes, around 600 Olympic pool’s worth of water is being lost from the sea every year – something being described as an “environmental catastrophe.”
Back in 2013, our popular article, titled, Signs: The Apocalyptic Vision of The Daniel Project pertaining to the sequence of events in end times prophecies, lays out the following facts concerning the end times and a new appearance of life in the deserts surrounding Israel and the Dead Sea:
"With modern technology, we know already that a tectonic fissure exists which runs along the center of the Mount of Olives. According to scriptures, the Messiah's return will herald a great earthquake which both splits and moves the Mountain of ancient history apart. This will also cause fresh water to flow from underneath the Mount and towards the Dead Sea changing the entire environment."
In addition to this, we also know of the fresh streams of waters as verified by archeologists indeed flowing underneath both the city of Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives.
But, how could an ancient prophet of over 2,500 years ago know of this tectonic fissure and a subterranean aquifer in the middle of what was a desert? Even better? The Biblical prediction that the Dead Sea will teem with sea life after this event unfolds."
So, do these events show signs, effectively as a precursor, to an event which will cause an explosion of marine life in the Dead Sea?
It was predicted thousands of years ago, and now it does appear to be happening.