Filed under: Politics, small news | Tags: 5773, IMMORAL LAWS, Political correctness, THE YEAR IN GEMATRIA
“ Who think to make my people forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers forgot my name for Baal.” (Jer. 23:27)
ׂ= 5773 (in original
Sounds like “Duck dynasty” , American courts forbidding quoting ,the Holy bible.
to free speech
Let us set the record straight here and NOW as to the Biblical position on homosexuality and the “Gay” rights issues.
Its really pretty simple and any reasonable person can only come to one conclusion :
THE BIBLE CLEARLY states, “You shall not lie with a male as with
a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus) 18:22
THE BIBLE CLEARLY, “If a man lies with a male as
with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death,
their blood is upon them.” Leviticus 20:13
Such behavior is prohibited and is even considered an abomination in the eyes of God.
The story in the Bible of Sodom and Gomorrah lets us know what God thinks about
homosexuality. Indeed, it is from this story that the term Sodomy came to represent homosexual behavior. This story in Genesis tells us that the cities inhabitants encircled Lot’s house and demanded that he send out his guests to be homosexually raped. Gay-rights organization or individual, at this point are not calling for the legalisation of of such behavior nor do they publicly call for, or condone violent homosexual gang rape, not yet at least.
In Biblical Sodom it was normal and accepted as the way of life. This just shows how far this degradation can go.
As far as Gay marriage , marriage is a Biblical institution and we already know what the Bible says about Homosexuality. Besides this, since marriage is a Biblical institution Government has no place being involved here.
Filed under: Politics
Ex-Libyan Justice Minister: Qaddafi could use biological and chemical weapons
Galil, who quit his post several days ago following the outbreak of violence, voiced a warning to the world: “At the end when he’s really pressured, he can do anything. I think Gaddafi will burn everything left behind him.”
Galil cited the fight over Tripoli as a case in which the danger of biological or chemical warfare was particularly acute. On Thursday, anti-regime protesters secured cities near the capital yesterday and were heading for Tripoli. In response the army has been moving soldiers into the capital all morning. According to this video, demonstrators have taken a government building.
The world’s eyes are now on Tripoli. NATO has just scheduled an emergency meeting for Friday afternoon in the wake of Libyan government violence.
As I’ve said, Qaddafi is not Mubarak. There’s no limit to how bad this could get. The international community is well-advised to intervene NOW.
Filed under: Politics
The Palestinians and their supporters focus exclusively on the “occupation” of their so called land. They do this to obscure some basic facts.
Israel’s presence in the territories began in 1967 as a direct result of the aggressive actions of Israel’s neighbors that forced Israel into a war of self-defense. 1967 Arab-Israeli War or the Third Arab-Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and June 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt [known then as the United Arab Republic (UAR)], Jordan, and Syria.
The land is Disputed, not “Occupied”, Territory
The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.
Legality of Israel’s Presence in the Territories
Despite persistent claims by the Palestinians and their supporters, occupation is not, in and of itself, illegal. It does not violate international law. Rather, international law attempts to regulate situations of occupation. Political motivations lie behind the claim that Israel’s presence in the territories is illegal. Israel’s presence in the territories is not illegal.
UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted following the Six Day War, places obligations on both sides (as does Resolution 338, adopted following the 1973 Yom Kippur War). 242 does not call for unilateral withdrawal from “the territories”, territories gained as a result of the 1967 war. The resolution deliberately restricts itself to calling for Israel’s withdrawal “from territories” while recognizing the right to live within secure and recognized boundaries.
Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the, as the Arab regimes claim.
Terrorism Cannot be Justified
Incessant references by Palestinian spokespersons to “the occupation” are used to delegitimize not only Israel’s presence in the territories, but also to justify terrorism.
Terrorism – the intentional, politically motivated use of violence against civilians and other non-combatants – is clearly beyond the pale of international law. Suicide bombings are a crime against humanity, and no political goal can ever justify the use of terrorism.
Israel’s presence in the territories continued after 1967 as the Arab regimes refused to negotiate with Israel despite continuous and genuine Israeli offers of peace. For close to a quarter century, the Palestinians refused to abandon terrorism and conduct peaceful negotiations.
Even after the Palestinians decided to join the peace process in the early 1990s, no permanent resolution of the dispute could be reached due to Palestinian terrorism and their unwillingness to reach reasonable compromises.
Israel, as a democracy, has no desire to control the lives or future of the Palestinians. Israel – which has made extensive territorial concessions to the Palestinians since 1993 – has always been willing to make great sacrifices in the name of peace.
The Arabs prefer to avoid taking responsibility for their role both in creating and perpetuating the situation in the territories. Distortions of international law are part and parcel of Palestinian attempts to delegitimize Israel while justifying the unjustifiable – terrorism.
International Law and Occupation
Palestinian spokespersons and their supporters have expended great efforts to advance their claim that a state of occupation is – by definition – illegal. This ingenuous claim not only ignores international law, but also by its very repetition at every opportunity, attempts to create new international norms.
The claim that any occupation – no matter the reasons for its establishment or its continued existence – is illegal is not consistent with the principles of international law. The international legal system does not outlaw occupation. Rather it uses international conventions and agreements to regulate such situations.
Many states hold onto territory taken in a war – particularly a war of self-defense – until a peace treaty is negotiated. In fact, many situations of dispute exist today around the world in which one side continues to hold territory that another claims. A key difference in the situation regarding the West Bank and Gaza Strip is that Israel has attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the status of these disputed territories ever since they came into Israel’s possession.
Claims of illegality are politically motivated as neither international law nor the agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority support this baseless allegation.
The Jordanian and Egyptian Occupations
The Jewish presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip ended only with the 1948 War of Independence. Conquering these territories in a war of aggression aimed at destroying the nascent State of Israel, the Jordanians and Egyptians totally eliminated the Jewish presence in the West Bank and Gaza, forbidding Jews to live there and declaring the sale of land to Jews in those areas a capital offense.
It is worth noting that Jordanian and Egyptian rule came about as the result of their illegal invasion of 1948, in open contempt and rejection of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which would have partitioned the British Mandate territory into a Jewish State and an Arab State. For this reason, the Egyptian and Jordanian seizures of the territories were never recognized by the international community.
The fact that there were no established sovereigns in the West Bank or Gaza Strip prior to the Six Day War means that the territories should not be viewed as “occupied” by Israel. When territory without an established sovereign comes into the possession of a state with a competing claim – particularly during a war of self-defense – that territory can be considered disputed.
A War of Self-Defense
The fact that Israel fought a war of self-defense in the Six Day War in June 1967 was recognized by the world’s democracies at the time. It was that defensive war against Arab aggression that resulted in Israel’s taking control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Calls for Annihilation
Prior to the start of the Six Day War, a continuous flow of statements by Arab leaders and official media sources left no doubt as to their intentions – not only did the Arab states intend to attack Israel, they meant to destroy it.
# “We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel.” (Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser, 26 May 1967)
# “The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.” (Egyptian Radio, “Voice of the Arabs”, 18 May 1967)
# “I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” (Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad, 20 May 1967)
# “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified… Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.” (Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref, 31 May 1967)
The Arab threats to destroy Israel in the period preceding the war were made when Israel did not control the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Threat to Israel’s Existence
Given the strength of the opposing armies and the physical size of the country in 1967, Israel had every reason to fear these threats. It was a small state, surrounded by heavily armed and hostile neighbors. In its pre-1967 boundaries, Israel was only 15 kilometers (9 miles) wide at some places. The armies of Israel’s enemies in the West Bank and Gaza were stationed a mere 18 km. (11 miles) from Tel Aviv, 35 km. (21 miles) from Haifa, 11 km. (7 miles) from Ashkelon and only meters from Israeli neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
These threats were not empty rhetoric. Hostile actions by Israel’s neighbors left little doubt as to either the seriousness of their intent or their ability to carry out a massive assault on Israel.
In the weeks before the war, a coalition of Arab states – including Egypt, Syria, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Iraq, Algeria and Kuwait – united against Israel. As Egyptian President Nasser said on 30 May 1967, “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation…. the critical hour has arrived.” War frenzy was sweeping through the Arab world.
Egypt Tightens the Noose
On 15 May 1967, the Egyptians began to move large numbers of troops and armored vehicles into the Sinai Peninsula, ending a ten-year period during which the Sinai was free of hostile forces. While Egyptian troops massed along Israel’s border in the south, the Syrian army prepared for war on the Golan Heights in the north. Nasser demanded that the UN Secretary-General withdraw UNEF – the United Nations Emergency Force peacekeepers – from the Sinai, where they had been stationed since 1956. Secretary-General U Thant complied with considerable haste, thus breaking an international promise to Israel. UNEF ceased to function on 19 May, removing the last barrier to the Egyptian war machine. The State of Israel was alone and encircled by armies whose leaders had vowed to bring about its annihilation.
Israel’s Defensive Response
In response, Israel began to call up its reserve forces. Having only a small standing army, Israel had to rely on its reservists to repulse any attack. This mobilization of Israel’s doctors and teachers, farmers and shopkeepers carried a heavy economic and social burden. Israelis began digging trenches in preparation for aerial attacks and shelling. Yet Israel’s leaders chose to wait three long weeks before reacting militarily, in the hope that war could be avoided and a peaceful solution to the crisis could be found.
The situation continued to deteriorate sharply. On 22 May, Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran, closing off Eilat, Israel’s only Red Sea port, to Israeli ships and Israel-bound foreign vessels. Israel was now cut off from trade with Asia and East Africa. Most significantly, Israel was denied access to its main supplier of oil. President Nasser was fully aware that Israel would regard the closure as an act of aggression.
This move violated the right of innocent maritime passage, in clear contradiction of international law. Traditionally, under international law, a blockade is considered an act of war. Moreover, Egypt’s actions violated the 1957 declaration of 17 maritime powers at the UN, that stated that Israel had the right of transit through the Straits of Tiran, as well as the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.
The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was a clear-cut act of aggression. No country can stand by while a major port has been arbitrarily and maliciously blockaded, in violation of international law, particularly when vital shipments – including oil – are at stake. Had Israel responded by attacking Egypt immediately after the imposition of the blockade, this measure could only have been regarded as a justified reaction to Egypt’s act of war.
Israel Searches for a Diplomatic Solution…
However, despite the blockade, the daily diet of threats and the hostile military activity, Israel continued to wait. Israel’s leadership wanted to exhaust every prospect for a diplomatic solution before reacting. Unfortunately, while there was a great deal of international sympathy for Israel’s plight, there was little tangible assistance.
…But is Forced to Respond Militarily
Israel was left with few options. It had been surrounded by approximately 465,000 enemy troops, more than 2880 tanks and 810 aircraft. Given its small geographical size and the relative strength of the opposing armies, had Israel waited for the expected invasion to begin before acting, the results could have been catastrophic for its very survival.
Invoking its inherent right of self-defense, a basic tenet of international law that is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt on 5 June 1967.
Israel’s Message of Peace
Israel had no desire to see the fighting spread to its eastern or northern fronts. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent out a message of peace to Israel’s neighbors: “We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us. Even now, when the mortars speak, we have not given up our quest for peace. We strive to repel all menace of terrorism and any danger of aggression to ensure our security and our legitimate rights.”
Further Arab Aggression
The Syrians responded by bombardments with artillery fire and with long-range guns.
In the east, Jordan was convinced by Egypt that the planes appearing on the radar screens were Egyptian aircraft on their way to attack Israel, and not Israeli planes returning from a strike on the Egyptian Air Force. On 5 June, Jordan began ground movements and shelling across the armistice lines, including in Jerusalem and on Israel’s main airport near Tel Aviv. Despite the attack, Israel sent another message of peace, this time through representatives of the UN. Still, the Jordanian attack persisted.
This may have been one of the most crucial decisions of the war. Had Jordan listened to Israel’s messages of peace instead of Egypt’s lies, the Hashemite Kingdom could have remained neutral in the conflict, and eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank would have remained in Jordan’s possession. However, when the attack on western Jerusalem continued, Israel defended itself and united its capital, divided since 1949. The capture of the Old City of Jerusalem gave Jews access to their holiest sites for the first time in 19 years, while freedom of worship and access to holy sites were now guaranteed to all.
The Post-War Period and Resolution 242
On 10 June 1967, at the end of six days of fierce fighting in which 776 Israeli soldiers lost their lives, a cease-fire was reached. Previous cease-fire lines were now replaced by new ones – the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and a large part of the Golan Heights had come under Israel’s control as a result of the war. Syria could no longer use the Golan Heights to launch artillery bombardments on Israeli homes below. The passage of ships to Israel through the Straits of Tiran was ensured. Israel now had defensible borders, and the imminent threat to its very existence was no longer.
Hopes for Peace
When the Six Day War ended, Israelis believed that a new era was beginning, one that would bring peace to the region. Hoping to translate military gains into a permanent peace, Israel sent out a clear message that it would exchange almost all the territory gained in the war for peace with its neighbors.
Furthermore, Israel gave strong indications of its deep desire to negotiate a solution, including through territorial compromise, by deciding not to annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip. This is important evidence of Israel’s intent given both the strategic depth these areas offered and the Jewish people’s age-old ties to numerous religious and historical sites, especially in the West Bank.
But Israel’s hope for peace was quickly dashed. The Arab states began to rearm and, at the August 1967 Arab League meeting in the Sudan, adopted as their political position “the three nos,” principles by which the Arab states were to abide, namely, “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.” The Khartoum Summit’s hard-line position forestalled all chances for peace for years. As Israel’s then Foreign Minister Abba Eban said, “This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.”
242: A Misrepresented Resolution
Since 1967, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 has played a central role in the peace process. It may well be one of the most important UN resolutions regarding the conflict – however, it is also one of the most misrepresented.
The Palestinians often depict the resolution as a simple document whose principal goal is a unilateral and complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories as a precondition for ending the conflict. In reality, the resolution is a balanced and measured instrument whose goal is “the fulfillment of Charter principles” by the “establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
“Territories” vs. “The Territories”
As a rule, the Palestinians and their supporters misstate the resolution by claiming that 242 calls for Israel’s withdrawal from “all” the territories, although this is neither the language used in the resolution nor the intent of its framers.
Resolution 242 calls upon Israel to withdraw “from territories” occupied in the recent conflict”, not “from all the territories” or even “from the territories”. The use of the phrase “from territories” was deliberately chosen by the members of the Security Council after extensive study and months of consultations, this despite considerable pressure from the Arab States to include the word “all”. As then US Ambassador Arthur Goldberg would explain in 1973, these notable omissions “were not accidental…. the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal.”
Secure Borders According to 242
It should be noted that Resolution 242 recognizes the need, indeed the right, for “secure and recognized boundaries.” By declining to call upon Israel to withdraw to the pre-war lines, the Security Council recognized that the previous borders were indefensible, and that, at the very least, Israel would be justified in retaining those parts of the territories necessary to establish secure borders. As then UK Ambassador Lord Caradon would later state, “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”
The principal UN Security Council resolutions, including 242 (and 338, adopted after the 1973 Yom Kippur War), address all sides of the conflict, and not just Israel. Despite this, Palestinian spokespersons only refer to Israel’s responsibilities under the resolution, ignoring joint responsibilities as well as obligations incumbent on the Arab side, although these clauses form an integral part of the resolution. Among the clauses of 242 clearly aimed at the Arab states, or expressing joint obligations, are:
* “a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security;”
* “termination of all claims or states of belligerency;”
* “respect and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area;”
* respect and acknowledgement of “their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
* “freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;”
* “guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.”
Clearly Israel was not expected to withdraw without the Arab regimes fulfilling their obligations – principally to renounce the use of force and make peace with Israel – and Israel’s withdrawal is certainly not a prerequisite to its fundamental right to live in peace.
Additionally, Resolution 338 – which is invariably coupled with 242 – calls upon the parties to begin negotiations aimed at “establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East”. Taken together, these two resolutions express the Security Council’s determination that peace should be reached through non-violent negotiations between the parties.
Israel’s Willingness to Compromise
The disputed status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, combined with the refusal of the Palestinians to sign peace agreements with Israel that would define the final borders, means that the precise status of the territories has yet to be determined. And in the negotiations to determine the future status of these disputed territories, Israel’s legitimate claims, and not just the Palestinian positions, must be taken into account.
Despite the Jewish people’s historic and religious connection to these territories, in order to achieve peace Israel has always been willing to compromise. Israel has no desire to rule over the Palestinians in the territories and Israel’s yearning for peace is so strong that all Israeli governments have been willing to make major sacrifices to achieve this goal. Still, the ongoing terrorism has caused many Israelis to doubt whether the Palestinians are truly interested in peace and whether some of the concessions that Israel was prepared to make two years ago are possible.
For negotiations to succeed, a responsible and moderate Palestinian leadership must emerge, one that has abandoned for all time the goal of destroying Israel and one that actively fights terrorism. Until that happens, Palestinian terrorism will continue to destroy innocent lives and Palestinian extremism will undermine the chance of peace for both Palestinians and Israelis.
The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard. Jews have lived in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza Strip continuously for 4000 years since Biblical times and throughout the centuries since then. Jewish sovereignty there spanned 1000 years and those areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Many of the most ancient and holy Jewish sites, including the Cave of the Patriarchs (the burial site of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), are located in these areas. Jewish communities grew in Gaza during the 11th century and other areas, such as Hebron (where Jews lived until they were massacred in 1929), were inhabited by Jews throughout the four hundred years of Ottoman rule and much before. Additional Jewish communities flourished under the British Mandatory administration that replaced the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
The Palestinians often contend that the Jews are foreign colonizers in territory to which they had no previous connection. Indeed, much of the Arab world considers all of Israel – and not just the disputed territories – as a foreign entity in the region. Such claims disregard the continuous ties of the Jewish people with their age-old homeland and the deep bond of the people of Israel to its land, both in biblical and later periods.
These claims also serve to perpetuate the myth that a Palestinian state existed in the area prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. In fact, no independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in the area known as Palestine.
This is based on a article by Charles Krauthammer
Filed under: Politics
The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.
On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.
He has already been arrested by Egyptian security in connection with the demonstrations and his identity is being protected by The Daily
Here is the secret document sent from the US Embassy in Cairo to Washington disclosing the extent of American support for the protesters behind the Egypt uprising.
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 CAIRO 002572 SIPDIS FOR NEA/ELA, R, S/P
AND H NSC FOR PASCUAL AND KUTCHA-HELBLING E.O. 12958: DECL:
12/30/2028 TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, KDEM, EG SUBJECT: APRIL 6 ACTIVIST ON HIS
U.S. VISIT AND REGIME CHANGE IN EGYPT REF: A. CAIRO 2462 B.
CAIRO 2454 C. CAIRO 2431 Classified By: ECPO A/Mincouns
Catherine Hill-Herndon for reason 1.4 (d ). 1. (C) Summary and
comment: On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed
satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 \”Alliance of
Youth Movements Summit,\” and with his subsequent meetings with USG
officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how
State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his
return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling
for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional
meetings. xxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the GOE will never undertake
significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians need to replace the
current regime with a parliamentary democracy. He alleged that
several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten
plan for democratic transition by 2011; we are doubtful of this claim.
xxxxxxxxxxxx said that although SSIS recently released two April 6
activists, it also arrested three additional group members.
read the rest of this document here
The crisis in Egypt follows the toppling of Tunisian president Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali, who fled the country after widespread protests forced him from office.
The disclosures, contained in previously secret US diplomatic dispatches released by the WikiLeaks website, show American officials pressed the Egyptian government to release other dissidents who had been detained by the police.
Mr Mubarak, facing the biggest challenge to his authority in his 31 years in power, ordered the army on to the streets of Cairo yesterday as rioting erupted across Egypt.
Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters took to the streets in open defiance of a curfew. An explosion rocked the centre of Cairo as thousands defied orders to return to their homes. As the violence escalated, flames could be seen near the headquarters of the governing National Democratic Party.
Police fired rubber bullets and used tear gas and water cannon in an attempt to disperse the crowds.
At least five people were killed in Cairo alone yesterday and 870 injured, several with bullet wounds. Mohamed ElBaradei, the pro-reform leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was placed under house arrest after returning to Egypt to join the dissidents. Riots also took place in Suez, Alexandria and other major cities across the country.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, urged the Egyptian government to heed the “legitimate demands of protesters”. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she was “deeply concerned about the use of force” to quell the protests.
In an interview for the American news channel CNN, to be broadcast tomorrow, David Cameron said: “I think what we need is reform in Egypt. I mean, we support reform and progress in the greater strengthening of the democracy and civil rights and the rule of law.”
The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr Mubarak’s regime. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East.
In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for “regime change” to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year.
The memo, which Ambassador Scobey sent to the US Secretary of State in Washington DC, was marked “confidential” and headed: “April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt.”
It said the activist claimed “several opposition forces” had “agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections”. The embassy’s source said the plan was “so sensitive it cannot be written down”.
Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an “unrealistic” plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington. The embassy helped the campaigner attend a “summit” for youth activists in New York, which was organised by the US State Department.
Cairo embassy officials warned Washington that the activist’s identity must be kept secret because he could face “retribution” when he returned to Egypt. He had already allegedly been tortured for three days by Egyptian state security after he was arrested for taking part in a protest some years earlier.
The protests in Egypt are being driven by the April 6 youth movement, a group on Facebook that has attracted mainly young and educated members opposed to Mr Mubarak. The group has about 70,000 members and uses social networking sites to orchestrate protests and report on their activities.
The documents released by WikiLeaks reveal US Embassy officials were in regular contact with the activist throughout 2008 and 2009, considering him one of their most reliable sources for information about human rights abuses.
The parsha begins ”You stand this day all of you before Yhv”h Elohech”a”. The sages say the day referred to here is Rosh Hashanah.
As every word of the Torah is precious. One can find so much meaning to its voice. Its written ” Not with you alone will I make this covenant and this oath; But with him who stands here with us this day before Yhv”h Elohech”a and also with him who is not here with us this day” (29:13-14). The Torah is Eternal as hinted by ” also with him who is not here with us this day”.
Its further written ”you will enter into covenant with Yhv”h Elohech”a, and into his oath, which the Yhv”h Elohech”a makes with you this day. That He may establish you today for a Nation to himself ”. This is what it is to be the Nation of Israel. The nation of GOD. Who here makes a covenant with us. Concerning this Covenant a few verses later GOD reminds us ”It should come to pass, when one hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, Yhv”h will not spare him (18-20). But now standing in front of the Jewish people are noble men but they are not educated in Divine wisdom-Torah Knowledge. Many even naked of knowledge of Torah law. Only with knowledge is one given free choice. One would not know that the creator has forbidden growing two different types of plants close together unless one read this in the Torah. Then we know what to do. Without this knowledge there is not free choice. Without knowledge of the Torah one ends up with a different kind of life, so the generations changed. Most of us have heard stories of our religious ancestors. But a lack of Torah knowledge can rip away faith in the Divine God, the giver of the Law from generations. Creating a Jewish culture with different values not necessarily focused concerning piety, holiness, or respect for Torah, which is their heritage. Jewish youths found delight and closeness to God meditating on the Midrash (Ancient Jewish spiritual texts). When the House of learning Torah was the community gathering place. Today instead they gather at basketball games and parties. Yet the mitzvoth are not profane or ordinary, but they are Holy purifying and sanctifying the Jewish people revealing Godliness and also in all worlds. In a generation where every one wants to be part of the fad and fashion and no one wants to be left out. It is difficult to live as an individual with the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the one God and one people. Thus there is intermarriage, indifference and assimilation. Yet there are those that see GOD as omnipotent and believe it is under his laws, values and concepts we must love. Others can be found among our people that do not believe in a God that is effected by man. It will be between these and those that the future of the Jewish people and The State of Israel will be decided. Will Jerusalem be a reflection of the Heavens of Holiness; this cannot be accomplished by secularism alone, nor by impassionate religion resulting from spiritual starvation, creating a comfortable convenient Judaism. Which is something like playing ” Charade ”. The parsha concludes saying ” love Yhv”h Elohech”a, and that you may obey his voice, and that you may cleave to him; for he is your life, and the length of your days; that you may live in the land which Yhv”h swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”
So let us all , as in this parsa accept upon ourselves the kingship of GOD this RoshHashanah, and become the nation of Israel spoken of here in our parsha so that we may see the words in our parsha fulfilled ”. And Yhv”h Elohech”a will put all these curses upon your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you.” (7:30) With the arrival of our righteous Mashiach quickly in our days.
Filed under: Politics
I was shown this article it seems to compliment the Info I have uncovered
Moscow, Russia – A Russian government official bragged that Barack Obama was a KGB operative and that his presidency had been planned since birth, an American physicist and government contractor reports.
Tom Fife, an American computer networking specialist and international businessman, reported the alarming facts about the Kremlin’s connection to Barack Obama. The boast from a Communist Party official reportedly occurred during a business trip to Russia, 16 years before Barack Obama was ushered into the presidency of the United States.
“It was like an elastic band snapping all the way from 1992,” Fife shakily admitted, upon recall of the exact moment he realized the Communist official had been telling the truth. “It was a very, very scary feeling.”
Fife, a physicist and computer engineer, had been traveling to Russia for a joint venture with a state-owned company when the shocking revelation was revealed to him. After several business meetings, Fife and his partner were invited to the company owner’s home at the end of the journey for a farewell dinner.
The owner’s wife was a Communist Party official and was “climbing two ladders”, as Fife puts it, one ladder being the KGB and the other being the traditional Russian society and business ladder. As the evening wore on, the female Communist official became increasingly agitated over a perceived slight and her emotions spilled over.
“You Americans like to think you’re so perfect!” she snarled. “Well, what if I told you that very, very soon you’re going to have a black president… and he’s going to be a Communist!”
The KGB operative was not finished. As she had now dropped this bombshell on the entire gathering, she felt compelled to continue.
“His name is Barack,” she sneered. “His mother is white and his father is an African black. He has gone to the best schools, he is what you would call ‘Ivy League’.”
Fife recalls being stunned and shocked at the words flowing from the Communist’s mouth as she continued to rattle off an incredibly precise set of details about this Communist operative who was to supposedly become president of the United States.
The Communist official then stated that he was from Hawaii, but would very soon be elected to the Chicago state legislature. This has turned out to be an eerily prescient prediction, as Barack Obama was not elected State Senator until 1996, a full 4 years afterwards, as he took Alice Palmer’s seat.
In 1992, Obama had recently graduated from Harvard Law School and accepted a position as a Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
Perhaps the most shocking revelation is how deep the Soviet Communist network has embedded itself into American political and educational culture. A quick review of Obama’s political “career” shows a track that was inexplicably greased, from his tuition payments at Columbia and Harvard, to a position at UOC Law School, to his eventual electoral “victories” at the Illinois State Senate, United States Senate, and U.S. Presidency.
Barack Obama’s parents ostensibly met in a Russian language class. This could have been where his mother was recruited by Barack Obama Sr, who could have already been working undercover for the KGB.
In order to brainwash the child from an early age, they surrounded him with diehard Communists and fellow KGB agents, such as Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist Party USA official. The Soviet KGB directly funded the CPUSA. This would fit directly into what the Russian Communist said about ‘Barack’, boasting “He has been raised to be an atheist and a communist.”
“He will be a blessing for world communism,” Fife recalled her saying, after getting over the initial shock of hearing the current president was a KGB agent.
The creepy prediction stayed with the physicist upon his return to the United States, although he paid it no mind until he began to hear of an swiftly rising political star named Barack Obama. When Fife learned that this same Barack was running in the 2008 presidential election, everything snapped into place and he knew he had to tell someone.
Today, Fife admits that it deeply disturbs him and that he has never been able to shake the ominous feeling of foreboding about what comes next, now that the KGB official’s prediction has come true.
“It never leaves you, having someone tell you that they’ve engineered the takeover of your country,” he admits. “It’s really quite scary.”
It reads: “SOS America/ Problem in Israel = Mafia KGB Russit take power! deception fraud lie USA! I have big fakt! Big play KGB! Goal
America!” with a picture of Barack and Michelle Obama with the text “Boker Tov” (Good Morning) below them and a facsimile of what
appears to be an identity card for one “Birshtein Efim”.
There is a man here in Israel who for a long time now
has been putting up posters he has made.
They show his Israeli picture ID on them.
He says he was KGB, sent to Siberia labor camp
as he made the wrong enemies in Russia.
He came to Israel years ago.
The Posters are always warning that Obama is KGB
The top of the poster says
He writes in Russian English and Hebrew
It looks quite serious
I find it strange he puts his Israeli picture ID on them.
Could it be true
This guy puts these up everywhere constantly ?
he seems “frantic”
not sure what to make of it
Russian Mafia – Politicians – Mogilevich and Birshtein
(1) Background Note:
The man behind the TSE-300 listed company, YBM, is the Russian Mafia mobster Semyon Mogilevich, described as the “Most Dangerous Mobster in the World”. YBM was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange for fraud, after reaching a market capitalization of CDN$900 million. Former Liberal Premier of Ontario was on the Board of Directors of YBM. Mogilevich was also involved in the US$15 billion money laundering investigation at the Bank of New York. Mogilevich is linked to many other Russian Mafia mobsters and is banned from several countries. Mogilevich and his mobster colleagues were present at a Russian Mafia summit meeting in Tel Aviv, Israel on Oct 10 – 19, 1995 which was hosted by Boris Birshtein.
Birshtein (via Seabeco) made significant financial contributions to Leonid Kuchma’s 1994 presidential campaign, after Olexander Volkov joined the Kuchma team in 1994. Volkov was a “business partner” with Birshtein and became one of the mafia oligarchs in Ukraine. Volkov is under investigation in Belgium and Switzerland for money-laundering, and millions of dollars in bank accounts in the UK, Germany, Monaco, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the US have been frozen. Media reports claim that through Volkov, industries in Ukraine have “been carved up among sometimes unsavoury insiders connected to the Kuchma administration.”
I could find nothing on Efim Birshtein, This man share the same last name and it is not a common name.
This is a really long article
I found more of his posters recently
Very strange stuff.
This next poster was
Bigger, to big to scan as
One piece so I have cut it
Up into pieces.
I tried to verify a few of the things he mentioned
this is what I have found
General of the Russian Federal Security Bureau and his wife assassinated in Moscow\
The assassination of Anatoli Trofimov, the former chairman of the Russian Federal Security Bureau for Moscow and the Moscow region, was conducted because of political reasons. The statement was released from Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, who had been granted political shelter in Great Britain.
”I do not believe that General Trofimov has been killed because of his commercial activities. No Russian businessman will venture to kill a FSB general in today’s Russia,” Litvinenko said.
The Moscow department of the Internal Affairs administration believes, however, that Anatoli Trofimov’s assassination is most likely connected with the general’s commercial activity, RIA Novosti reports. Litvinenko believes that such an assumption is absolutely wrong. “Trofimov was against the war in Chechnya, although he never announced it publicly. In addition, he was against Putin’s appointment on the position of the FSB director,” the former FSB officer said in an interview with the Echo of Moscow radio station
The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) (Russian: ФСБ, Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации; Federal’naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii) is the main domestic security agency of the Russian Federation and the main successor agency of the Soviet-era Cheka, NKVD and KGB.
The FSB is involved in counter-intelligence, internal and border security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance. Its headquarters are on Lubyanka Square, downtown Moscow, the same location as the former headquarters of the KGB.
The Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK) was the predecessor of the FSB. A bill calling for the reorganization, expansion and renaming of FSK passed both houses of the Russian parliament and was signed into law on 3 April 1995, by Boris Yeltsin. It was made subordinate to the Ministry of Justice by presidential decree on 9 March 2004. These events marked the creation of the FSB.