World Saudi Arabia and 9/11: The Kingdom May Be in for a Nasty Shock


Authority is shifting, and the current king isn’t handling it well.

By Patrick Cockburn / The Independent

April 27, 2016


  • Foreign leaders visiting King Salman of Saudi Arabia have noticed that there is a large flower display positioned just in front of where the 80-year-old monarch sits. On closer investigation, the visitors realised that the purpose of the flowers is to conceal a computer which acts as a teleprompter, enabling the King to appear capable of carrying on a coherent conversation about important issues.
  • One visiting U.S. delegation meeting with King Salman recently observed a different method of convincing visitors—or at least television viewers watching the encounter—that he can deal with the escalating crises facing Saudi Arabia. The king did not look at the group but at a giant television screen hanging from the ceiling of the room on which was appearing prompts. Simon Henderson, the Saudi expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who tells the story, writes that off to one side in the room was an aide who “furiously hammered talking points into a keyboard.”
  • Of course, King Salman is not the only world leader past or present whose inability to cope has been artfully concealed by aides and courtiers. But eyewitness accounts of his incapacity does put in perspective the claim by the White House that President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia and two-hour meeting with the king on April 20 was “cordial” and cleared the air after a troubled period in Saudi-U.S. relations.
  • It is hardly a secret that real authority is shifting to Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef and his son, Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. But the power vacuum does help explain the bizarre and self-destructive nature of present-day Saudi foreign policy that suddenly shifted from cautious use of Saudi Arabia’s vast oil wealth to further its aims, while always keeping its options open, to a militarised and confrontational pursuit of foreign policy objectives.
  • It is not exactly that the Saudi’s priorities have changed, but that the means being used to achieve them are far riskier than in the past. Since King Salman succeeded to the throne, Saudi Arabia has escalated its involvement in the war in Syria and engaged directly in an air war in Yemen. Both ventures have failed: greater support for armed opposition to President Bashar al-Assad in Syria early last year allowed the rebels to advance, but also provoked direct Russian military intervention, making Assad very difficult to displace. Bombing Yemen has not forced the Houthi opposition out of the capital Sanaa and, where the Houthis have retreated, there is chaos which al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has used to set up their own mini-state on the south coast of Yemen.
  • The Saudi leaders are more or less openly saying that they are waiting for the departure of President Obama from the White House to resume their status of most favoured ally of the U.S. The permanently anti-Saudi bias of the present administration, though usually verbal rather than operational, came across clearly in the interviews with Mr Obama and his top officials in the Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg. He says that “in the White House these days, one occasionally hears Obama’s National Security Officials pointedly reminding visitors that the large majority of 9/11 hijackers were not Iranian, but Saudi.”
  • But the Saudis are making a mistake in imagining that hostility to them will dissipate once Mr Obama leaves office. There is renewed pressure for the release of the unpublished 28 pages in the official Congressional 9/11 report on possible Saudi official complicity in the attacks, with CBS’s influential and widely watched 60 Minutesdevoting a segment to it, thereby putting it back on the political agenda. “Saudi Arabia legitimises Islamic extremism and intolerance around the world,” states an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times. “”If you want to stop bombings in Brussels or San Bernardino, then turn off the spigots of incitement from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.” Not only is there a growing anti-Saudi mood in the U.S., but it is one of the few political developments common to both parties.
  • In reality, the missing 28 pages in the 9/11 report on possible high level Saudi involvement may not be as categorical or as damaging to the Kingdom as the fact of their continued non-publication. The secrets that Saudi Arabia has most interest in hiding may be rather different, and relate to allegations that between 1995 and 2001, two senior Saudi princes spent hundreds of millions of state funds paying off Osama bin Laden not to make attacks within Saudi Arabia, but leaving him free to do whatever he wanted in the rest of the world.
  • Patrick Cockburn is a Middle East Correspondent for the Independent. He has written four books on Iraq’s recent history—The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the Sunni Revolution, Muqtada al-Sadr and the Fall of Iraq, The Occupation, and Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession (with Andrew Cockburn)—as well as a memoir, The Broken Boy and, with his son, a book on schizophrenia, Henry’s Demons, which was shortlisted for a Costa Award. 


Muslims Take 250 Women And Butcher All Of Them To Death In Mass Murdering Spree

By Ted on April 20, 2016 in Featured General

By Theodore Shoebat

ISIS terrorists in Iraq butchered 250 women in a mass murdering spree, as we read in one report:

An official for the Kurdistan Democratic Party told Iranian news agency ABNA ISIS has been forcing women into arranged marriages with ISIS fighters — and executing women who refuse.
The official said “at least 250 girls have so far been executed … and sometimes the families of the girls were also executed.”



Faith leaders call on Trudeau gvmt to protect conscience rights in euthanasia bill

Faith leaders

Lianne Laurence

OTTAWA, April 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Liberal government’s euthanasia and assisted suicide bill must include explicit protection for the conscience rights of both individual healthcare workers and healthcare institutions, a group of religious leaders warned at an Ottawa press conference Tuesday.

At the same time, they stated they completely oppose the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada as “morally and ethically wrong,” in the words of Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Catholic Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto, Imam Sikander Hashmi of the Canadian Council of Imams, Commissioner Susan McMillan, Territorial Commander for the Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, and Rabbi Dr. Reuven Bulka of the Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa joined Clemenger at the conference.

Montreal hematologist-oncologist Dr. Caroline Girouard also attended to make a passionate plea for conscience rights.

“From the beginning of this year, along with hundreds of my colleagues, I have felt a threat of possible reprisals if eventually I should not participate in the killing of my patients who might ask for it,” said Girouard, who practises at Hospital du Sacre-Coeur.

“To my knowledge, nowhere else in the world are doctors forced by law to kill their patients or to arrange to have them killed,” she added.

The multi-faith press conference was held in the wake of the Liberals’ April 14 tabling of a draft bill on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Bill C-14 will replace the current laws which were struck down by the Supreme Court’s February 2015 Carter decision as unconstitutional. That ruling takes effect June 6.

Before the Liberals drafted Bill C-14, a Liberal-heavy special joint parliamentary committee, tasked with providing a framework for new legislation, tabled a report in February that recommended a wide-open euthanasia regime.

The committee’s recommendations included compelling doctors who object to euthanasia and assisted suicide to provide “effective” referrals (that is, to a willing doctor), and forcing all publicly funded healthcare institutions to kill patients by medical means.

But in the draft legislation, as Catholic Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto pointed out Tuesday: “We see no reference to conscience rights.”

Faith-based publicly funded institutions are “established havens of hope,” he said.

“We ask, simply, for the same protection that has been provided to these facilities in every foreign jurisdiction in the world that has legalized euthanasia [and] assisted suicide,” Collins said. “That is, never to force hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other care facilities to go against their mission and values, which are their institutional conscience.”

As for individual medical professionals, “To ask, even demand of doctors that they terminate life, or be in any way complicit in terminating life, is to turn the world of medical practice upside down,” noted Rabbi Bulka.

It is “unacceptable” to force a doctor to “actively terminate a life” and also to “force a physician to refer a patient for that purpose,” he said. “This effectively forces a physician to be complicit in murder, and is certainly a breach of human rights.”

Moreover, “such principled objection” by a “physician, nurse, pharmacist, or any other social or healthcare professional” must not lead to any form of  discrimination against the individual, he said.

“Whatever protocols are adopted in the wake of the impending legislation must build in rock solid protections to prevent this from happening,” contended Bulka.

“What I ask of the federal government is that a clause should guarantee the freedom of conscience of each healthcare professional across the country,” said Girouard, an assistant clinical professor at the University of Montreal.

“Do not leave this question up to the provinces; we  already know what is in store at that level of government,” she said.

One of her colleagues was “publicly threatened by Quebec’s minister of health with disciplinary action if he did not submit to the obligation to participate in his own hospital in Montreal.”

Health minister Gaetan Barrette made this threat in September 2015, asLifeSiteNews reported. Quebec’s euthanasia Bill 52 took effect December 10 of that year, and there have as yet been no reports of Barrette making good his threat.

Staff at Quebec’s 29 publicly funded hospices had stated about that time that they would not euthanize their patients.

Since then, “a number of doctors have affirmed that they will leave the practice of medicine if they lose their freedom of conscience and have to take part in homicide against their will,” Girouard said.

“And I am among them.”

Meanwhile, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario ratified a policy in January 2016 that requires an objecting physician to provide an “effective” referral.

The Salvation Army’s McMillan emphasized the need for better palliative care in Canada, noting that only 30 percent of Canadians have access to such care, while Iman Hashmi pointed out that “people suffering from a terminal illness, physical disability, psychiatric illness, or are otherwise isolated or lonely, deserve to be embraced and welcomed as cherished members of society.”

“Once voluntarily choosing death over life becomes acceptable, it will be virtually impossible to protect the vulnerable against indirect encouragement and promotion of this act,” Hashmi warned.

EFC’s Clemenger said Parliament is “better suited” than the Supreme Court “to say what’s the acceptable level of risk we will place vulnerable people at to accede to other people’s claim, through personal autonomy, to assisted death.”

“Canada stands at a threshold,” he said, and he urged parliamentarians especially to consider the implications of crossing that threshold.

The diverse faith communities, added Clemenger, are “determined to work to alleviate human suffering in every form, but never by intentionally eliminating those who suffer.”


Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

A bi-partisan bill has been proposed in Congress that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

Tue, April 19, 2016

The Twin Towers on fire during the September 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City. (Photo: © Reuters)

Saudi Arabia has threatened economic retaliation if the U.S. passes pending legislation that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

The bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, would permit victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudis and other financial partners of terrorism. The Obama administration is vigorously trying to block the bill.

Saudi Arabia warned it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if the bill is passed. Delivering the message personally in Washington, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Congress Saudi Arabia would sell $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets before they would be in jeopardy of being frozen by American courts.

Saudi Arabia denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks, however, the official U.S. government report on the attack contains 28 censored pages on the topic of “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers.” Investigators say these pages confirm the Saudi’s role in the 2001 attacks that claimed the lives of close to 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000.

For years, the Saudis have asked for the release of the censored pages, but the Bush administration said disclosure would damage the U.S.’ ability to gather intelligence on terrorists. The Obama administration also refused to release the redacted pages.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Other evidence of Saudi involvement in the terrorist attacks includes information leaked from the censored pages including the documentation of a series of phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to one of the hijacker’s handlers in San Diego.

Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” who was sent to prison for his role in the attacks said members of the Saudi royal family donated funds to al-Qaeda. He also said he personally met a Saudi diplomat in Washington to plot the assassination of the U.S. president using a surface-to air missile. The two discussed bombing the U.S. Embassy in London as well.

“The Saudis have known what they did in 9/11, and they knew that we knew what they did, at least at the highest levels of the U.S. government,” said former Sen. Bob Graham, co-chair of the 9/11 congressional inquiry commission.

Families tried in the past to sue the Saudi government, but the cases were rejected due to a 1976 law granting foreign nations immunity from lawsuits in the American judicial system.

“I think part of the concern is that somehow this is a thumb in the eye to Saudi Arabia, a valuable ally,” said Senate-sponsor Cornyn. “It’s not open-ended and it’s not targeted at Saudi Arabia.”

Cornyn also dismissed the threats from Saudi Arabia. “It’s seems overly defensive to me and I doubt they can do it,” he said. “I don’t think we should let foreign countries dictate the domestic policy of the United States.”

Other analysts say it is unlikely the Saudis will follow through on their threats.

All of the presidential candidates support the bill, except John Kasich, who has not commented on it to date.




The Satanic Temple believes that the separation of church and state is currently under attack by radical religious conservatives. They also believe there is a silent majority that opposes this agenda, but remains too apathetic to do anything about it.



by Geoffrey Grider                                                                                                                   April 19, 2016


“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.” Ephesians 6:12,13,16 (KJV)

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: As the Laodicean Christian church continues on it’s self-defeating path of preaching the powerless ‘love gospel’, and looking for their ‘blessing’ promised them by charlatans like Joel Osteen, Lou Engle, Rick Warren, and Kenneth Copeland, the Satanic Temple is on the rise. The prophesied darkness is coming as the Church of Jesus Christ continues it’s falling away into apostasy. The war is real, the battle is hot and the time is short, to the fight, Christian!

Robert Eggers’ period horror film “The Witch” has been one of the surprise hits of 2016. It’s even gained a second wind since its February 23 release: the first weekend of April it played on 666 screens around the country, raking in an additional USD$465,000.

The tale of a Puritan family turning on each other as they attempt to root out the supernatural evil plaguing their farm, the film won Eggers the award for best director at Sundance – and even frightened horror master Stephen King.


GRAPHIC WARNING: This is HARD CORE Devil worship, and it took place in Detroit on July 25, 2015 at the unveiling of the Baphomet monument. This is the spirit that is now rising in America as Laodicean Christianity is powerless to stop it. Please be prayed up before viewing this.

But neither of these accolades has generated as much buzz as an endorsement from The Satanic Temple (TST), a satanic political movement that first appeared in 2013.

In December, TST and A24 studios began collaborating on a four-city tour called The Sabbat Cycle, which consisted of screenings of the film followed by politically driven satanic rituals. The stated goal of The Sabbat Cycle was to inspire a “satanic revolution.”

TST believes that the separation of church and state is currently under attack by radical religious conservatives. They also believe there is a silent majority that opposes this agenda, but remains too apathetic to do anything about it.

The Sabbat Cycle was an attempt to raise political awareness by piggybacking on “The Witch”’s appeal. This is part of larger PR model the group has used since its inception, in which the shocking and the frightening are used to lure media attention to their cause.

As a religion scholar, I find TST fascinating. Not only do their campaigns raise serious questions about the First Amendment and religious pluralism, they also challenge the public to think about what counts as a “religion.”

To learn more, I attended the Sabbat Cycle at its Austin stop, and spoke with attendees about their religious and political views.


Since its founding, The Satanic Temple has waged a highly active campaign to demand greater separation between church and state, and to challenge the privileged relationship Christianity has with government.

A cornerstone of their campaign has been tongue-in-cheek “stunts” intended to show how government institutions favor Christianity in ways that would never be tolerated for other religions.


Pay attention, Christians, this is the Christian CRAP being preached to people that think they are going to take on the forces of darkness and win. In a battle between powerless Joel Osteen and his followers against the Satanic Temple and their followers, who do YOU think would win?

TST first made headlines in 2013, when it held a rally in Florida, ostensibly to congratulate Governor Rick Scott for passing a bill that would allow students to read “inspirational messages of their choosing” at assemblies and sporting events.

While Scott probably envisioned the law permitting Christian students to offer public prayers and Bible readings, it could not, constitutionally, specify what sort of “inspirational messsages” were allowed – including satanic messages. And so the rally featured a sign declaring, “Hail Satan! Hail Rick Scott!”

Whether or not TST is a “real” religion has been a subject of debate. But some members insist that while the movement is atheistic, the group, like other religions, has a shared set of values, concerns and symbols (like Satan as a symbol of rebellion).

Religion or not, no one can question TST’s appeal or its sincerity about its political goals.

Today TST has 17 chapters in the United States and Europe and claims an estimated 100,000 members – a figure based on the purchase of membership cards and various forms of online support.


TST chapters across the country have launched campaigns demanding the same religious rights and privileges afforded to Christianity.

These have included the creation of satanic coloring books for distribution in schools in Florida and Colorado; bids to erect satanic “nativity scenes” on government property in FloridaMichigan and Indiana; offering prayers to Satan at a high school football game in Seattle; and demanding that a monument to the Ten Commandments at the Oklahoma State Capitol be accompanied by a monument to Baphomet (a goat-headed idol associated with witches’ sabbaths).

The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) reinforced the religious freedoms outlined in the First Amendment. When the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA applied only to the federal government and could not be applied to the states, many states passed their own versions of RFRA. Several of TST’s campaigns involve using RFRA laws to claim religious accommodations for satanists.

For example, since 2014 TST has invoked state RFRA laws in Michigan and Missouri to demand a religious exemption from laws dictating that those who seek an abortion need to review literature or endure a waiting period.

In January, TST’s Tucson chapter demanded that the Phoenix City Council include them in public prayers offered before their council meetings. The council responded with a new rule that only chaplains from the police and fire departments may offer the prayers before meetings. (TST has threatened to sue.)

Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman has argued that James Madison would have supported the Tucson satanists. Madison was concerned that individual rights could be threatened by a “tyranny of the majority,” and saw laws guaranteeing individual rights as “paper barriers” that offered no real protection. Only a diverse coalition of minorities could effectively check a majority and protect individual freedom.


It was exactly this sort of coalition that TST spokeswoman Jex Blackmore hoped to forge through events like the Sabbat Cycle.

In Austin, Texas, Blackmore took the stage before a screening of “The Witch” at the Alamo Drafthouse and explained that the film was a “microcosm of a patriarchal theocratic society that results in satanic revolution.” In Blackmore’s reading of the film, the titular witch was driven to witchcraft by Puritan oppression.

Afterward I got to chat with Drafthouse employee and film buff Laird Jimenez about this assessment. He noted that “escaping patriarchy” is currently part of a cultural zeitgeist that includes films like Oscar-winner “Mad Max: Fury Road,” which depicts women escaping – and then overthrowing – a patriarchal warlord.

Following the screening, everyone migrated to a bar and music venue called The Sidewinder, where TST held their ritual. Members from the Detroit and San Antonio chapters began setting up and handing out satanic American flags painted in only black and white. I mingled with a small crowd of Satanic sympathizers and the curious. Leather jackets, tattoos and pentagrams were in abundance.

During the ritual, a speaker played an excerpt from a speech by Baptist pastor Dr. Jeff Owens, in which Owens warned his congregation, “Satan does not want you to do what he wants you to do. Satan wants you to do what you want to do.” (Other eyewitness accounts of the ritual can be found here and here.) Owens had been warning that Satan uses people’s pride and selfish desires against them, but the ritual imposed its own interpretation onto his message: To TST, Satan represents moral autonomy and personal responsibility.

Blackmore eventually appeared from beneath a hood and took to a podium to deliver what can only be described as a “satanic jeremiad.” She warned that Christian theocrats were taking over America and that those present – atheists, satanists, fans of heavy metal and punk music – were allowing it to happen: “There’s too much apathy and not enough resistance!”

She told the audience, “We do not seek followers, but collaborators.”

Afterward I spoke with some young people from the crowd. One explained that he was attracted to Satanism because “It’s about knowledge,” not dogma.

Another, Jonathan – who identified as a witch – seemed the most likely to be sympathetic to TST’s politics. He said that when he attended high school in Virginia Beach, his classmates targeted him for openly identifying as a Pagan. Someone even pretended to be him and called in bomb threats to his school. The events attracted the attention of Detective Don Rimer, a notorious “occult crime expert,” who confiscated all of Jonathan’s books on witchcraft as evidence. There was an attempt to forcibly commit Jonathan to a mental institution.

I asked Jonathan if he thought TST was really a religion.

“Definitely,” he said, “Some people treat Christianity as a hobby. But no one thinks it’s not a real religion.”


As the event wound down, I was able to interview Blackmore. Like Marx, Blackmore saw her revolution as inevitable: the Christian Right would naturally drive people to rebel against it.

She told me that she’d recently met a French journalist who said that nothing like TST could happen in France. The French model of laicité – a much more ingrained version of America’s professed separation of church and state – leaves nothing to rebel against. By contrast, TST wants to challenge the popular belief that America is a “Christian nation.”

Many TST members and allies I spoke to described strict Christian upbringings. In Blackmore’s assessment, progressive cities like Austin are paradoxically the most apathetic about resisting the Christian Right because people in progressive cities feel they are unaffected by religion-influenced laws. Blackmore saw “The Witch” as an opportunity to get more people involved and hasten their political revolution.

But Jonathan pointed out that this dialectic can swing both ways: revolution begets counterrevolution. For example, in the 1970s, the New Christian Right formed, in part, as a response to the perceived excesses of the 1960s.

Likewise, there is a risk that an openly satanic presence in American politics will energize the very forces TST opposes. Right wing news sites such as and LifeSiteNewshave given TST heavy coverage precisely because their rhetoric can be used as fodder for antiabortion activists.

Conservative voices have claimed TST “proves” what they have said all along – that God is with them and their political opponents are literally demonic.

In many ways, TST is the heir to the “New Left” of the 1960s and such figures as Abbie Hoffman and Allen Ginsberg. Events like the “exorcism” of the Pentagon in 1967 demonstrated an understanding of ritual and semiotics: the strategic use of religious symbols could change what the Pentagon represented to the public.

But the New Left also intentionally straddled the line between prank and sincerity in order to draw media attention to their cause. It is contested today what effect the New Left actually had toward the goal of ending the Vietnam War and it is similarly unclear what effect TST might have on America’s political center of gravity.

Nonetheless, millennials now outnumber baby boomers. They’re a more diverse generation than their predecessors, and major changes to the political landscape seem inevitable.

Still, supporters like Jonathan remain skeptical of TST’s true viability.

“It’s not that they’re wrong,” he said, “But this is Austin, and look how many people came out? And how many people here are actually going to do anything?” source




Judgement Day – Will The US Turn It’s Back On Israel At Friday’s UN Vote?



By Kade Hawkins                                                                            April 19, 2016


Israel is preparing to defend itself before the United Nations Security Council as several anti-Israel resolutions are expected to be introduced over the coming months.

These resolutions could prove to be some of the most dangerous yet as analysts speculate whether President Obama might be preparing not only to “abandon” Israel by refusing to veto such resolutions but could even be contemplating supporting such resolutions.

Such actions would be unprecedented in US/Israel relations but some believe Obama has been emboldened by his actions in Iran and Cuba, and that the Palestinian cause could be his final act of legacy to “bring peace” to the Middle East.

“There will be a great temptation to do something in the final year. “For a president who came out faster and more aggressively on the Middle East than any of his predecessors, there is a gnawing sense of incompletion and perhaps even failure,” Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, told the New York Times last month.

The State Department confirmed as much last week when it announced that it will consider taking its concerns over Israel’s settlement activity, as well as a general stall in negotiations toward a final-status solution with the Palestinians, to the United Nations Security Council.

The last round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks broke down some two years ago, and the Palestinians have struggled to attract international attention as the world focuses on the Syrian civil war, the migrant crisis in Europe and the U.S. presidential election.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas now believes he can take advantage of attending the signing ceremony on Friday at the UN for the climate agreement reached in Paris.  Dozens of international politicians are planning to attend the April 22 ceremony and it presents the perfect platform for Abbas to re-launch his diplomatic assault on Israel.

A draft resolution by the Palestinian Authority distributed to UN members last week calls for the immediate resumption of peace talks with Israel and a final status agreement within a year, as well as a complete halt to all Israeli settlement activity “in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem”. It also singles out Israeli settlers for accountability of their “illegal actions”.

Israeli Primie Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has already condemned the UN draft, accusing Abbas of “taking a step that will push negotiations further away.”

For a resolution to pass it needs nine votes from the council’s 15 members. If more than nine votes are received, one of its five permanent members — the US, the UK, China, France and Russia — could still veto the resolution.

China, Russia, Egypt, Malaysia, Senegal, Venezuela and France are already firmly believed to be in the Palestinian camp vis-à-vis the draft resolution. Britain, Angola, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Ukraine and Uruguay are also expected to support the Palestinian proposal based on previous voting patterns and endorsement of the “illegal settlement” position adopted by most of the world. The US remains the only hope for Israel to have the resolution vetoed.

Despite the US vetoing a similar resolution in 2011, it was made clear that the US does not disagree with the resolution’s content but merely take issue with using the Security Council as a tool to advance the stalled peace process.

“Our opposition to the resolution before this council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity,” Susan Rice, then the US’s ambassador to the UN and today Obama’s national security adviser, declared at the time. “On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”

And while she ultimately stood alone in voting against the Palestinian resolution, she concluded her remarks by making plain that Washington agrees with the world about the “folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”

It is this belief by the United States government that led retired ambassador and former deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry, Gideon Meir, to argue that the arrival of judgment day, when the US turns to the UN Security Council on the Middle East conflict, was just a matter of time.

“I predicted that this would happen. There is a pattern of behavior for the US administration. The Obama-Netanyahu relationship is not straightforward. Obama will not harm Israeli security by way of the US economic security package. But Obama wants to leave a legacy of peace. Where can he do this? Only at the UN. He will go to the UN because there, in his world view, he will not be harming Israel but rather will be helping it. This view is shared by the majority of liberal American Jews,” Meir said.

Obama will face an uphill battle for supporting such a resolution as 394 out of 435 House members endorsed a letter to US President Barack Obama urging him not to support or allow action at the Security Council on the matter and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has warned against any “funny” moves at the UN, arguing that such actions would run counter to peace.

If this resolution passes, it will be the first time Israeli communities built on land it conquered in the 1967 war, and which the Palestinians claim for statehood, will be condemned as being contrary to international law. It is unclear what the practical ramifications of such a resolution passing would have on Israel.

If Israel fails to oblige the world by stopping it’s “settlement building” will it face further resolutions introducing international sanctions?  Is it possible it could face a blockade or even military action, similar to how the US enforced UN resolutions regarding Iraq’s possession of Kuwait?  Perhaps Russia, Iran and other nations will do the UN bidding this time instead of a US backed coalition.

Even if this resolution does not pass it would appear only a matter of time before one does and then we will have what many Bible prophecy experts have been expecting… a world truly united against Israel over the possession of Jerusalem and the right of the Jews to the land God promised them.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah (West Bank) and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. Zechariah 12:2-3

Perhaps it is no coincidence that Friday’s resolution vote will come the evening before Passover begins. Passover serves as a reminder to the Jewish people that it is God alone who will preserve and protect them, not the United States.

High Traitor German Chancellor Merkel Is Panicking Because The German People Have Turned Against Her So She Is Now Saying She Will Punish Refugees Who Do Not Assimilate


By Andrew Bieszad on April 15, 2016 in General

Another case of too little, too late.

Now it is true there are many people who caused this “refugee” invasion and who need to face a long term in prison for their treason. Merkel is one of them- she is one of the most outspoken and public faces who not only allowed for this crisis to happen, but then doubled down and began prosecuting her own people for disagreeing with her and then censoring the horrendous rapes, violence, and anti-social behavior these “refugees” bring with them in order to justify her suicidal actions.

Some people say that murder is a capital crime and should be punished as such- what is to be said for a person who may have been able to rape and murder an entire, 2000+ years old civilization in the name of some ephemeral ideas about “tolerance” and “diversity?”

Merkel belongs in jail for life at the very least for what she has done. 

As Wikipedia notes under the definition of “high treason“:

High treason is criminal disloyalty to one’s government. Participating in a war against one’s native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state are perhaps the best known examples of high treason. High treason requires that the alleged traitor have obligations of loyalty in the state he or she betrayed, but this will usually be satisfied by being present in the state at the time of the offence, or being a citizen of the state if abroad. Foreign spies, assassins, and saboteurs, though not suffering the dishonor associated with conviction for high treason, may still be tried and punished judicially for acts of espionage, assassination, or sabotage, though in contemporary times, foreign spies are usually repatriated in exchange for spies of the mentioned nation held by another nation. High treason is considered a very serious – often the most serious possible – crime, by the civil authorities. A conviction, by a Canadian court, for high treason, results in a mandatory life sentence (albeit with the possibility of parole after 25 years).