-
اجتماع خليجي حول الاتصالات وتقنية المعلومات - Worldnews.com
President Bush announces the start of the ground war in Kuwait, ... Joyce Riley pretends to be in love with Peter Kawaja to steal gulf war syndrome Evidence ... article.wn.com/.../WNAT3d1dab1d9b9227d689a52bfc496470a1/ -
WELCOME - 2010
-
This website honors veterans of the Vietnam War and Operation Desert Storm in specific but includes all those who served from WWI forward believing we (America) had the right to engage in mortal combat to preserve our freedoms. That was a valid argument for going to war prior to and up to, the Gulf War/Desert Storm in 1991.
-
With the openness of the internet today and with so much information which is available to anyone with half a functioning brain, and most decidedly post 9-11 coming forward with all the lies exposed on the web, no one signing up to the Armed Services has any excuse from GOD. No - I'm not getting religious, if you are in the military today, no matter what branch, you must follow orders. If you are in, you must follow Orders and
I do NOT discourage anyone from obeying a Direct Order.
-
It is YOUR DECISION if you are in the Service today and you decide to stay there, you enjoy special benefits when not called up - so when you are called to leave America, your family needs to suck it up about those foreign enemies if you come back in a body bag or do not come back at all, yet they and I will grieve for you.
-
To the parents of young men and women - you have NO RIGHT or cause to hate anyone in a foreign country who may injure or kill your son or daughter because we are in THEIR COUNTRY as invaders, injuring and killing their sons and daughters and they did not invade America. Perhaps you should Support Our Troops, bring them home alive - now, before one more is lost.
-
Should anyone invade America ( MEANING FOR YOU BRAIN DEAD or DUMBED DOWN UNEDUCATED OR THOSE OF YOU RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS WHO THINK YOU ARE MORE SPECIAL AND RIGHTEOUS THAN OTHERS BECAUSE YOU CALL YOURSELF CHRISTIAN ) if an enemy is on our soil fighting us, killing us, WE have the right to defend our land, our families, and we are Righteous before GOD and our Commanders to kill as many of the OPPRESSOR-INVADERS in order to preserve our Freedoms! So do other people, it is as simple and clear as this people.
To any veteran even if you served recently, and the homeless - if you need help, food, somewhere to live, any-thing, my door is open, contact me: peterkawaja@agwva.org I may not agree with what is being done in the name of We, The People (of America) but I will not turn my back on a brother.
And to my detractors, Intel stooges and jack booted thugs, fools, minions, and religious zealots - kiss me where the sun doesn't shine and loose my website link - don't bother coming back nor writing to me. The sign at the perimeter of my property is clear: TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.
Friends and friendly's, neighbors, and "real" American Law Enforcement - stop on down, Donuts & Coffee served 24/7. Stay a while, we'll chat in peace and throw some burgers on the fire, wash it down with a Bud Lite. Every person has a right to their opinions and beliefs, SO DO I !
GOOD DAY TO YOU ALL - WELCOME TO AGWVA
-
This website and myself in specific honors my deceased wife, Eileen Kawaja, who died so I could live. I also celebrate and honor my father and his father and their family, the Lebanese and Arabic peoples, and respects all nationalities globally equally.
It is with great sadness I live to see the destruction of the free world, and the crumbling and falling into the dark sewers, the greatness of America which is almost totally gone. I am appalled at the stench from the Congress who at the behest of their masters - the Money Lenders of Old are bringing the most devastating destruction to our great nation and the world.
To the Arabic peoples and my relatives who live in America, Canada, England, around the world, and in The Middle East - be proud of who you are and the great contribution to humanity which we have brought and freely shared with all. If you fled from your country to come live in America, understand you went from the frying pan into the fire, for the very evil seed which placed the corrupt dictatorship government in your country into power and supplied his armies with weapons to enslave you are the same bastards from the shadow government who control the corrupt despicable US Congress.
The US history books and especially the claimed Christian Bible has been edited by "creatures from below" who Jesus called: sons of the devil. Every ailment we are facing in America is directly attributable to the US Congress, and the President, who is their talking head puppet.
-
Cancer Cure (?) from Johns Hopkins- READ this first, click here
-
Vaccine Induced Diseases - Vaccine Expert: Dr. Rebecca Carley www.drcarley.com
-
From the 1930s through the 1970s, the U.S. Navy used hundreds of asbestos-contaminated products in all of its vessels, which led to hazardous asbestos exposure among thousands of veterans. More > http://www.asbestos.com/
-
I can also RECOMMEND Dr. Ede Koenig - RADIANT HEALTH INSTITUTE
as I saw for my own eyes people coming to her with terminal cancer, and one of them who was in Hospice but family gave him once last chance and sent him to Dr. Ede. The cancer was protruding from the body and it was hard to look at. People who showed up in wheelchairs and I helped wheel them in, but within 13 days they walked out on their own and well. The same for me, for I went to live with Dr. Ede after being poisoned in 1995 and lived and worked under her, helping to do new patient paperwork, computer work, testing urine samples, working the Hyperbaric Chamber and making sure enough oxygen was administered and anything else including going through her 13 day program myself, as I was very sick when I went there. I believe her program gave me a second chance at living again, and which made me strong. It was Dr. Ede who tried to call me at 2:30 in the AM on the day I was shot with an ET Weapon in Franklin NC. All the way in Squaw Valley, she woke up and felt something was wrong and tried to reach me -this was told by her years ago when we did Short Wave Radio Shows from her Institute. That time of 2:30 is very important as it is the same time my wife bled out to death in 1991. If you have a loved one who is sick with any DIS-EASE and has run out of options, I suggest you contact Dr. Ede. -
Eating Healthy Tips
TID-BITS
Census of Augustus Caesar
Luke 2:1 There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
This would probably be the census referred to in Luke 2:2. The decree from Caesar Augustus that 'all the world should be taxed' necessarily involved taking a census of who there was to be taxed. The statement 'all the world' in Luke obviously reflects the arrogance of the Roman rulers who considered themselves masters of the world, although they never conquered all of it.
PK: YES THEY DID conquer the world or have been on that CRUSADE conquering nation after nation, colonizing – via The “UN”- HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ala the Pope (see the Papal Bull 1567). Americans think they are free but are living in an open air prison as slaves on the plantation who are unaware they are slaves of THE SERPENT PEOPLE.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans'
Illnesses Special Report .... H. Peter Kawaja Larry
Kay Jack M. Keller Charles C. Kelley John R. Kelly ...
www.gulflink.osd.mil/gwvi/appi.html
Humans vs. the environment - A thought experiment
Protecting the environment isn't a "liberal" idea; it's everybody's
business. Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, the
environment provides life support for us all, and if we fail to
recognize that, we are truly doomed as a civilization.
To help explain this, I've put together a simple thought experiment. It
begins with three undeniable truths about humans and the
environment:
Truth #1 - The Earth's resources are limited.
This should be self-evidence, but some people still don't get it. The
Earth's resources -- oil, forests, water, energy, and so on -- are
finite. They do not exist in infinite quantities. If they did, they
would obviously be larger than the Earth itself (and would, in fact,
fill the universe). But they don't fill the universe. They are contained
within the boundaries of planet Earth, and therefore they are
limited.
Of course, many of Earth's resources can be either regenerated or
recycled, but that only happens over time -- usually a long time.
In the case of oil, it's hundreds of thousands of years. For fossil
water it's much the same. The rate at which modern human civilization is
using up these resources is orders of magnitude faster than the rate at
which they can be naturally regenerated. This holds true for oil, water,
topsoil, forests and more.
Truth #2 - Each person living in modern civilization consumes some
amount of the Earth's limited resources.
This should also be self-evident: People consume resources. When you
drive your car, you're obviously consuming limited natural resources.
When you buy a car, you're consuming many other natural resources
(all the elements that went into making a car), too. This is true even
when you buy a solar panel.
Every time you turn on a light switch, or open a package of food, or
swallow a piece of food, you are consuming some amount of the Earth's
limited resources.
The sum of your consumption is called your "ecological footprint," and
your ecological footprint is much larger than the immediate space you
might call your home. The things you consume in your home require the
resources of a much larger area far outside your home.
A human child born in America today, for example, will consume 45,000
pounds of metal in their lifetime (through the products they purchase).
That's 45,000 pounds of metal that must be mined, processed, transported
and manufactured into consumable products, and metal mining is a very
dirty business, by the way, even if that metal goes into making clean
energy devices such as wind turbines.
Truth #3 - Humans are altering the environment
You can't argue with this (although some people ridiculously try). Human
activity is altering our environment in a huge way, from the massive
deforestation of the planet to the release of gases into the atmosphere.
We've poisoned the rivers, destroyed natural habitat, polluted the
oceans (Gulf of Mexico, anyone?) and altered the chemical composition of
the atmosphere. These are undeniable scientific truths. No sane person
can reasonably argue that human beings have not radically altered the
environment of our planet over the last 200 years.
If you visited North America 200 years ago, for example, you wouldn't
even have recognized it as the same continent dominated by human beings
today. A few hundred years ago, North America was teeming with life,
with huge old-growth forests, pristine rivers and abundant plains. Today
it is relatively dead, having been over-developed, over-paved and
over-population to a point so extreme that our ancestors would largely
consider it "dead".
Truth #4 - Humans really like to have babies
This is also self-evidence: People like to procreate. Every family, it
seems, wants children, and those children want their own children, too.
In general, human beings want to procreate without limitation. This, of
course, leads to an explosion in population growth. We've seen this
explosion over the last two hundred years as the Earth's population has
grown from less than one billion people in 1800 to nearly seven billion
today.
Human beings do not consider their impact on the global population when
they procreate. The decision to have children is made privately,
selfishly, without regard to the impact on the planet. One more child
seems like no big deal from the point of view of a couple that wishes
for another son or daughter, but multiplied by billions, these decisions
to procreate en masse lead to overpopulation, which leads to
over-consumption of the planet's limited resources.
The Easter Island effect
Now let's work our little thought experiment. Given the four simple truths described above, it is only a matter of time before the continued procreation of human beings collides with the reality of limited resources, causing a crisis of unsustainability.At some point, in other words, the continued expansion of human beings will destroy so much of the natural environment (and use so many natural resources) that there will not be enough resources available to support the continuation of the existing population.
I call this the "Easter Island effect," in reference to the way in which the natives of Easter Island chopped down all their trees to build ever-larger monuments to themselves, and in doing so they destroyed their entire ecosystem and soon perished. The entire human civilization is now pulling an Easter Island on a global scale.
Our two choices
Given that the unlimited expansion of the human population must inevitably use up key resources required to sustain human life, it stands to reason that there are only two choices for how we human beings can choose to deal with the situation:Choice #1 - We can acknowledge the ecological impact of human beings on our planet and make conscious choices to live within the bounds of sustainable balance with our planet (i.e. keeping our population size relatively stable by limiting runaway population growth, reducing our ecological footprint, respecting the natural environment that supports life on our planet, etc.).
Choice #2 - We can continue our mindless population expansion and resource exploitation while ignoring any long-term consequences. This is the definition of stupidity, and yet it is precisely the path that modern human civilization is now choosing. It also seems to be the chosen path of "anti-environmentalists" -- people who resist the idea that we need to protect the environment at all.
Sadly, human civilization has decided to go with choice #2. I believe the future of modern civilization is now set. Population expansion and resource depletion will soon collide with the limitations of our planet and result in a cataclysmic collapse of our civilization. We human beings are pulling off the Easter Island scenario, but with more than just trees: We're doing it with oil, water, soil and habitat. We are destroying the only planet that can keep us alive, and there now appears to be no stopping this self-destructive tendency of the human species.
I have personally seen no evidence that the current human species is capable of long-term, sustainable balance with any ecosystem. It lacks the intelligent foresight necessary to anticipate such outcomes and make adjustments well in advance of them coming true. Some people among us even argue against environmental protection, not realizing they are essentially arguing for their own self-destruction.
Other who are more thoughtful argue only against the fear of a world government enforcing environmental regulations at the expense of losing personal freedoms. This is a legitimate concern, and I happen to agree with these concerns. "Protecting the environment" can all too easily become a slippery mantra for world domination over individual freedom. The best way to avoid losing freedom while saving our environment is through education of the public that urges people to make better decisions without turning them into criminals if they fail to make those decisions.
Can humanity save itself?
Saving human civilization from its own ignorance is no easy task. It will require intelligent, forward-thinking business leaders who see the long-term picture and who genuinely care about the future. Yet sadly, there is no such thing. Business leaders are, by definition, focused on the next fiscal quarter, not the next century. They will ALWAYS mortgage our collective future to increase their immediate profits.There is almost no such thing as a successful business person who is simultaneously an effective steward of our planet's natural resources. The simple act of generating more business -- in any business -- always results in more consumption because our entire economic system is based on consumption. It's even true about internet businesses, by the way. Every bit and byte you consume over the internet has an indirect environmental cost due to the electricity consumption of the CPUs delivering that content to you as well as, more importantly, the enormous cooling demand in data centers that spend fortunes just cooling all the computers running there.
The fact that our economic activity is fundamentally based on consumption rather than conservation demonstrates why humanity is doomed to destroy itself. After seeing the failure of so many environmental summits, I'm convinced of it. I don't see any possible way that human beings will suddenly gain the intelligence and foresight necessary to live in balance with our natural world. Not without a crisis to teach everybody a few lessons, anyway. But even the Gulf Coast disaster isn't fundamentally changing the way business leaders think about consumption. They think it's just an "oil problem" not a global problem with the business models that drive our world into a self-destructive cycle of mindless consumption.
What may be coming in the next few years
When the population continues to expand and most of the world's resources are wiped out, the human population will plunge into a time of great darkness. The loss of life will be immense -- perhaps as much as a 90% reduction in the planetary population. Ecosystems will fail, crops will fail and civilization itself will be brought to its knees. It won't take much to crash the current global system. Once the power grid is down for as little as 5 days, there's almost no bringing civilization back -- at least not modern civilization as we know it.Once the population is drastically reduced, the natural environment will have a chance to recover. Plants and animals will re-populate areas once lost to high-density human populations. And once the abundance returns, humans will again have the abundance necessary to re-populate, too. Hopefully future generations of human beings will learn from our present mistakes and not pursue the same path we did -- the path of endless consumption of the planet's resources to the point of destruction.
On a long time scale, you will likely see human population rising, then crashing, then rising again from the ashes of a collapsed civilization. This is the ebb and flow of the future of life on Earth. You might even call it a "natural" cycle of human population expansion, then collapse, followed by expansion and yet more collapse. It's very similar to the way a virus invades a human body and multiplies until it kills the very host that once gave it life. In terms of big-picture behavior, humans are much like a virus on our planet.
This cycle of destruction and rebirth could be balanced out, though, by a sufficiently intelligent species gifted with sufficient foresight to see what's coming and make early adjustments to avoid the population collapse. Our current human species, sadly, is not sufficiently intelligent to do so.
The corporate greed machine
I hadn't really accepted this outcome as reality until just recently. I've always maintained a more optimistic attitude, thinking that we could find innovative ways to reverse climate change, reduce consumption, educate people and invent new technologies to clean up the planetary messes we've made. But I can now see that we're up against corporate monsters that are relentlessly pushing for our collective destruction.They're destroying our seeds and genes (for profit, no less), our soils, rivers, oceans and lands. They're corrupting our minds with pro-business propaganda and our bodies with their chemicals poisons. And they absolutely will not stop until every last exploitable resource on the planet has been used up and sold to a consumer. When our world is dominated by Monsanto, DuPont, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, weapons manufacturers, junk food giants and chemical companies, there's not much hope for meaningful change that could set humanity on a new course of conservation and protection of life.
Sadly, there is no stopping the great corporate greed machine. It will keep rolling forward, aiming for more growth, more consumption and more exploitation until the very last drop of oil is squeezed out of the tar sands and every last tree is slashed to make room for cattle ranching.
A profit-based economic model cannot coexist with environmental protection because the two concepts are opposites. Big Business depends on endless growth, expansion, exploitation and consumption. But the environment can only be protected by consuming less. And that's not even in the vocabulary of today's business executives. The idea of consuming less is the antithesis of corporate profit and expansion.
Have you ever seen a Coca-Cola ad that urged you to "drink less Coke"?
That's why as long as corporations rule our world (and make no mistake, they already do), there is no saving the environment. Ergo, there is no saving ourselves from a complete civilization blowout that will eventually see the near-destruction of our natural world... with the collapse of the human population to soon follow.
The thought experiment - SimEarth
Imagine you're playing a software game called SimEarth. (Such a game actually exists, I believe, but I'm not referring to any real game. This is a fictional exercise.)In this SimEarth game, you get 1 point for every year that one human being is alive on planet Earth. The simulation runs for 1000 years and begins in the year we know as 1500 A.D.
In the game, just as in the real world, the survival of human beings depends on the people having access to food, water, shelter, safety and other essentials. When the game begins, you have a blank slate SimEarth planet with enormous untapped resources of fossil oil, fossil water, old-growth forests, abundant ocean life and incredible biodiversity on land and sea. The human population is relatively small, perhaps only a few million people.
As the game progresses and the years tick by, you start earning more and more points by allowing the human population to multiply. At one point, you turn on the invention of the combustion engine coupled with the discovery of oil, and then things really begin to accelerate: Food production suddenly multiplies, making food resources incredibly cheap and abundant, leading to a population explosion.
As the points keep racking up, you watch as your SimEarth world becomes increasingly taken over by humans. The old growth forests are cut down and replaced with farm lands and cattle ranches. The once-abundant populations of wild animals are replaced by concrete highways and housing developments. Fossil water supplies drop sharply and oil drilling rigs pump out a heavy portion of the planet's remaining oil resources.
Your points are really accelerating now as you watch the human population blow past four billion people, then five, and then six. At that point, on-screen statistics begin to flash red, warning you that world's oil, water, food, soil and ocean health are all reaching critical levels of deficiency. Although you're earning big points from all the human activity, the environmental cost of supporting all those people is now threatening the ecological stability of the planetary ecosystem.
It is at this point you realize that, to beat the high score, you need to keep your human population alive at some level for the next 500 years, and yet the planet's resources are running out, reaching depletion in just 50 years or less. What should you do?
You decide to just watch and see what happens. With your eyes fixated on the screen, the years tick past. Twenty-five years further into the simulation, the oil runs out, thrusting your simulated societies into an energy crisis. Without cheap, plentiful oil, food production grinds to a halt. Mass starvation takes hold in just one year, leading to disease and the unleashing of a global pandemic. Over the next five years, the human population suffers a massive, catastrophic die-off, plummeting to less than a billion people. Your once-awesome score now looks pitiful: Human civilization crashed and you'll never win the simulation now. Game over.
This is the outcome facing modern human civilization... and it's no game. The possibility is very real. Unless something drastic is done to find a balance between human consumption (which is directly tied to population) and the natural environment that supports us all, our population is going to crash, too. It is a simple matter of biology.
The population problem no one dares speak of
There's no way around this sobering thought: Population is the problem. There are too many people consuming too much stuff. It cannot be sustained -- especially not at the very high rates of consumption our western world has grown used to.To solve this dilemma, you can either reduce the population over time (through one-child policies, for example) or reduce consumption (through a variety of means), but you've got to do something. In no way do I support the idea of a one-child policy, by the way. I don't support government intervention in our private lives, and I don't support governments mandating personal limits on our carbon consumption. But then again, if something radical doesn't change, it's fairly obvious that the human population is simply going to keep expanding until key resources are all dried up. And that, of course, will result in a devastating crash of the human population.
So there you have it: The price for our expansionistic, high-consumption lifestyles today is eventually going to be the blowout of human civilization in the future, followed by a sharp population crash. The only thing that can really stop it is forced government population control, a global pandemic, or some other widespread disaster that kills off a huge percentage of the world population. None of these seem particularly desirable.
Or, perhaps, the world could be saved with a sudden burst of global education that teaches people to think about the long-term consequences of their own actions, but I'm not betting on that happening anytime soon. Even really smart people in first-world nations still burn up oil and use up resources as if there were no consequences.
Education alone cannot save human civilization from destroying itself. Smart people are not necessarily ecologically-aware people. In fact, you could argue that the most highly-educated people on the planet are precisely those who are consuming the greatest natural resources. (Poor, uneducated populations don't consume much for the simple reason that they cannot afford to.)
There's no way around it: We are on a track headed straight for our own destruction. A planet-wide collapse is coming sometime this century.
If you think I'm wrong, I'd like to hear from you. I hope I'm wrong, and I'm looking for a reasoned argument that can offer a solution to our population problem -- preferably without resorting to government-run population control initiatives or forced one-child policies.
Seriously: How can the human species now save itself from its own destruction? Even free energy technologies aren't the answer, as they don't solve the problems of running out of fossil water, topsoil, natural habitat or rare earth metals used in industrial processes. Free energy will only cause the human population to explode even more rapidly, worsening the current problem of over-population.
I challenge every person reading this to do the math. Run the numbers yourself. Look at the limited resources on our planet and compare them with the per-capita consumption facts associated with modern-day consumers. Then consider what happens when the population keeps expanding... and add to that the desire for poorer nations to "achieve" the consumption rates of first-world nations like the USA.
If you do the math, you'll quickly see it doesn't add up. The projects all come to a screeching halt in the next hundred years (if not sooner). The population growth rates still under way lead to a literal dead end, given current rates of consumption.
This may not be a popular topic to write about. Most people prefer to pretend this problem doesn't exist (much like the U.S. national debt). But it is, in reality, the single largest problem facing the future of human civilization: How do we find a way to live in balance with our natural environment while sustaining a steady population... without turning our world into a population control police state?
I personally cannot think of any acceptable solution to this problem that does not involve some sort of massive population control measure... and that solution is, itself, unthinkable.
Above article from:
http://www.naturalnews.com/029056_environmental_protection_population_control.html
The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.
Posted Friday, Feb. 19, 2010, at 10:00 AM ET
It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets
aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus
stumbled into the emergency room at New York City's Bellevue
Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept
telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat.
Before hospital staff realized how sick he was—the alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptom—the man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season.
Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government.
Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.
Although mostly forgotten today, the "chemist's war of Prohibition" remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was "our national experiment in extermination." Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that's due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.
I learned of the federal poisoning program while researching my new book, The Poisoner's Handbook, which is set in jazz-age New York. My first reaction was that I must have gotten it wrong. "I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did you?" I kept saying to friends, family members, colleagues.
I did, however, remember the U.S. government's controversial decision in the 1970s to spray Mexican marijuana fields with Paraquat, an herbicide. Its use was primarily intended to destroy crops, but government officials also insisted that awareness of the toxin would deter marijuana smokers. They echoed the official position of the 1920s—if some citizens ended up poisoned, well, they'd brought it upon themselves. Although Paraquat wasn't really all that toxic, the outcry forced the government to drop the plan. Still, the incident created an unsurprising lack of trust in government motives, which reveals itself in the occasional rumors circulating today that federal agencies, such as the CIA, mix poison into the illegal drug supply.
During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: "Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified." Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. "Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?" asked Nebraska's Omaha Bee.
The saga began with ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States.* High-minded crusaders and anti-alcohol organizations had helped push the amendment through in 1919, playing on fears of moral decay in a country just emerging from war. The Volstead Act, spelling out the rules for enforcement, passed shortly later, and Prohibition itself went into effect on Jan. 1, 1920.
But people continued to drink—and in large quantities. Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. By the decade's end, some 30,000 existed in New York City alone. Street gangs grew into bootlegging empires built on smuggling, stealing, and manufacturing illegal alcohol. The country's defiant response to the new laws shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.
Rigorous enforcement had managed to slow the smuggling of alcohol from Canada and other countries. But crime syndicates responded by stealing massive quantities of industrial alcohol—used in paints and solvents, fuels and medical supplies—and redistilling it to make it potable.
Well, sort of. Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable. The U.S. government started requiring this "denaturing" process in 1906 for manufacturers who wanted to avoid the taxes levied on potable spirits. The U.S. Treasury Department, charged with overseeing alcohol enforcement, estimated that by the mid-1920s, some 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were stolen annually to supply the country's drinkers. In response, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge's government decided to turn to chemistry as an enforcement tool. Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s. Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix. Others used bitter-tasting compounds that were less lethal, designed to make the alcohol taste so awful that it became undrinkable.
To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly.
By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisons—kerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be added—up to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly.
The results were immediate, starting with that horrific holiday body count in the closing days of 1926. Public health officials responded with shock. "The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol," New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. "[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible."
His department issued warnings to citizens, detailing the dangers in whiskey circulating in the city: "[P]ractically all the liquor that is sold in New York today is toxic," read one 1928 alert. He publicized every death by alcohol poisoning. He assigned his toxicologist, Alexander Gettler, to analyze confiscated whiskey for poisons—that long list of toxic materials I cited came in part from studies done by the New York City medical examiner's office.
Norris also condemned the federal program for its disproportionate effect on the country's poorest residents. Wealthy people, he pointed out, could afford the best whiskey available. Most of those sickened and dying were those "who cannot afford expensive protection and deal in low grade stuff."
And the numbers were not trivial. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor. Furious anti-Prohibition legislators pushed for a halt in the use of lethal chemistry. "Only one possessing the instincts of a wild beast would desire to kill or make blind the man who takes a drink of liquor, even if he purchased it from one violating the Prohibition statutes," proclaimed Sen. James Reed of Missouri.
Officially, the special denaturing program ended only once the 18th Amendment was repealed in December 1933. But the chemist's war itself faded away before then. Slowly, government officials quit talking about it. And when Prohibition ended and good grain whiskey reappeared, it was almost as if the craziness of Prohibition—and the poisonous measures taken to enforce it—had never quite happened.
Correction, Feb. 22, 2010: The article originally and incorrectly said that the 18th Amendment banned the sale and consumption of alcohol. It banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol, not consumption. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
Blankets with Smallpox were given to Indians to kill them by US gov. So is US guilty of biological warfare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
There are many more instances of the US Government using WMD to kill its own people - of course, you still believe the lies from Operation Desert Storm and refuse to consider what Peter Kawaja exposed.
History of Smallpox Vaccination:
An English physician, Edward Jenner observed that dairymaids with a relatively mild disease called cowpox were immune to smallpox. On May 14, 1796, Jenner infected James Phipps with serum taken from a dairymaid, Sarah Nelmes. After being infected with the cowpox, Phipps survived repeated attempts to infect him with smallpox.
Despite Jenner’s vaccination procedure, smallpox still took its toll over the next hundred years; 800,000 Russians died from smallpox during the eighteen hundreds (Bray). By 1840, smallpox vaccination in Britain was free for all infants. Vaccination was made compulsory by an Act of Parliament in the year 1853; again in 1867; and still more stringent in 1871. Deaths from smallpox in the first 10 years after the enforcement of Vaccination was 33,515, and from 1864 to 1873 the figure more than double to 70,458 deaths (see, Compulsory Vaccination in England by William Tebb).
The mortality rate in vaccinated infants was so high that many mothers did all they could to not vaccinate their babies. Eighty-eight years after Jenner's first use of serum (lymph) for vaccination, William Tebb wrote, “ The lymph used [for vaccination] was of unknown origin, kept in capillary glass tubes, from whence it was blown into a cup into which the lancet was dipped. No pretence of cleaning the lancet was made; it drew blood in very many instances.....no one can estimate the number of healthy, innocent children, as well as adults, who are inoculated with syphilis or other foul disease…An article in the Glasgow Herald for March 4th, 1878 stated: it is, indeed, a most serious matter to find that the deaths from the 15 diseases have increased in England and Wales from 124,799 in 1847, to 217,707 in 1875, whilst the population has only risen from 18 millions to less than 23 millions (see, Tebb Article).”
Vaccination in America:
Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse introduced vaccination to the United States in 1800. Due to contamination and lack of preservation, the vaccines were often infected with bacteria, which sometimes resulted in sickness or death. An article in the New York Times for June 19th, 1880, stated,
“A former surgeon of an immigrant steamer informs me that it is the usual custom of steamship surgeons to get a large supply of vaccine virus at one time, and use it until it is gone, however long. This will serve to account for the serious and fatal cases of septic poisoning following Vaccination, so common in the United States, according to the information communicated by correspondents, and also for the various efforts now being made in several States to get the Vaccination Laws abolished.”
How effective was vaccination?:
...Not only had poor sanitation and nutrition lain the foundation for disease, it was also compulsory smallpox vaccination campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that played a major role in decimating the populations of: Japan (48,000 deaths), England and Wales (44,840 deaths, after 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated), Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, India (3 million -- all vaccinated), Australia, Germany (124,000 deaths), Prussia (69,000 deaths -- all re-vaccinated), and the Philippines. The epidemics ended in cities where smallpox vaccinations were either discontinued, or never begun, and after sanitary reforms were instituted (Smallpox Vaccination).
PHARISEE WATCH
(http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=161 )
Part II: The Source
of the Problem in the Mid East
Charles E Carlson
Original release July 4, 2002
The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America
when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In ringing
tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength and spirit.
He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of morality... even
with the abundant church attendances he observed in America. De
Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this familiar quote:
America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be
good, she will cease to be great.
De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have
known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its
churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.
First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful
young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to
commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an
attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the
traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author Gordon
Ginn calls The final Apostasy, began with a small very
wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream, and
the American churches stood in its way.
The World Zionist Movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves,
had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though most
were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not any land
would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that American
Christians called "the Holy Land." But if these Zionists read Democracy
In America or any of the journals of any of America's churches, which no
doubt they did, they could not help but know that Jerusalem was not
theirs to have. As self-proclaimed Jews, they were, according to the
Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ and most of his early
followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion. America's traditional
churches in the 19th Century would never stand for a Jewish occupation
of Jesus' homeland.
World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its
religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was
an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Scofield. A
much larger tool was a venerable, world respected European book
publisher--The Oxford University Press.
The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and
promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's role
was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting
Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and
on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield,
a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man
for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible,
and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling
"bible" in America and has remained so for 90 years.
The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation,
subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a
revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James
Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new worship
icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist, but
which was already on the drawing boards of the committed, well-funded
authors of World Zionism.
Scofield's support came from a movement that took root around the turn
of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it
considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of
these "reformers" were later to serve on Scofield?s Editorial
Committee.
Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of whose
credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His mentor
was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated with the
Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical trips to the
US selling what is today called "Darbyism."
It is from Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian
Zionist theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of the
Scofield Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield?s interest in
Darbyism was shared by Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to
Oxford University. 

The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield
Reference Bible" from the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and
Scofield stated he received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford's
advertisers and promoters succeeded in making Scofield?s bible, with its
Christian Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in
Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has
been published in at least four editions since its introduction in 1908
and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but worshiped
in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the first media
icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance to the Zionist
penetration of American Christian churches has been the fast growth of
national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study Fellowship and
Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students from not only
evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from Catholic and mainline
Protestant churches and non-church contacts. These invariably teach
forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their theory, to various
degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.
Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases
recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge Southern
Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World Zionism's crowning
achievement. Our report on Southern Baptist Zionism, entitled "The Cause
of the Conflict: Fixing Blame." (161)
Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby and
others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James Edition.
Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom of
about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of the KJE
becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of readers,
students become increasingly dependent on the modern language footnotes.
Scofield's notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together as
though all were written at the same time by the same people. This is a
favorite device of modern dispensationalists who essentially weigh all
scripture against the unspoken and preposterous theory that the older it
is,
the more authoritative. In many cases the Oxford references prove to be
puzzling rabbit trails leading nowhere, simply diversions. Scofield's
borrowed ideas were later popularized under the labels and definitions
that have evolved into common usage today--"pre-millennialism," "dispensationalism,"
"Judeo-Christianity," and most recently the highly political movement
openly called "Christian Zionism."
Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the
questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It
reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a political
animal with the charm and talent for self-promotion of a Bill Clinton.
Scofield's background reveals a criminal history, a deserted wife, a
wrecked family, and a penchant for self-serving lies. He was exactly the
sort of man the World Zionists might hire to bend Christian thought--a
controllable man and one capable of carrying the secret to his grave.
(See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield).
Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed his
original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views.
Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian
Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics.
We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our own
examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction,
focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions
and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to
Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations have
further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian
worship of the State of Israel beyond what Scofield would have dreamed
of. This unChristian anti-Arab theology has permitted the theft of
Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against the
Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian mass
media evangelists or most other American church leaders. We thank God
for the exceptions.
It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition
deifies--makes a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did not even
exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This writer
believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race hatred
promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the Gulf War
nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have occurred, and a
million or more people who have perished would be alive today.
What proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to
control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that were
planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel was
created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words tell us
that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to misguide
Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of America.
There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much about
the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in a close
and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York lawyer whose
firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and most powerful
World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the unbreakable thread
that connected him with Scofield. They shared a password and a common
watering hole--and it appears that Untermeyer may have been the one who
provided the money that Scofield himself lacked. Scofield's success as
an international bible editor without portfolio and his lavish living in
Europe could only have been accomplished with financial aid and
international influence.
This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work of
Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues to
the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads
connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it
would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is significant
that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after Scofield's
death, Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death of its original
author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has gone through
several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added to the 1967
edition, and some of Scofield's most significant notes from the original
editions were removed where they apparently failed to further Zionist
aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the title, "The New Scofield
Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I. Scofield." It's anti-Arab,
Christian subculture theology has made an enormous contribution to war,
turning Christians into participants in genocide against Arabs in the
latter half of the 20th century.
The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the
Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the content of the
notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These notes
are the subject of this paper.
Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967, at the time of the
Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to the
King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the Palestinians'
land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the Arab
Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and
outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:
"FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE
JUDGMENT." (page 19-20, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our emphasis
added)
This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief
Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism. But
these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition of
the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American churchgoers
and
students and is used by their leaders as a source for their preaching
and teaching.
There is no word for "anti-Semitism" in the New Testament, nor is it
found among the Ten Commandments. "Sin," this writer was taught, is a
personal concept. It is something done by individuals in conflict with
God's words, not by "nations." Even Sodom did not sin--its people did.
The word "judgment" in the Bible always refers to God's action. In the
Christian New Testament, Jesus promises both judgment and salvation for
believing individuals, not for "nations."
There was also no "State of Israel" when Scofield wrote his original
notes in his concocted Scofield Reference Bible in 1908. All references
to Israel as a state were added AFTER 1947, when Israel was granted
statehood by edict of the United Nations. The Oxford University Press
simply rewrote its version of the Christian Bible in 1967 to make
antipathy toward the "State of Israel" a "sin." Israel is made a god to
be worshiped, not merely a "state." David Ben-Gurion could not have
written it better. Perhaps he did write it!

The Oxford 1967 Edition
continues on page 19:
"(2) GOD MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE OF BLESSINGS THROUGH ABRAM'S SEED
(a) TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL TO INHERIT A SPECIFIC TERRITORY FOREVER"
"(3) THERE IS A PROMISE OF BLESSING UPON THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND NATIONS
WHO BLESS ABRAM'S DESCENDANTS, AND A CURSE LAID UPON THOSE WHO PERSECUTE
THE JEWS." (Page 19, 1967 Edition Genesis 12:1-3)
This bequeath is joined to an Oxford prophesy that never occurs in the
Bible itself:
"IT HAS INVARIABLY FARED ILL WITH THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERSECUTED THE
JEW, WELL WITH THOSE WHO HAVE PROTECTED HIM." and "THE FUTURE WILL STILL
MORE REMARKABLY PROVE THIS PRINCIPLE"(footnote (3) bottom of
page19-20Genesis 12:3)
None of these notes appeared in the original Scofield Reference Bible or
in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel DID NOT EXIST in 1945,
and according to the best dictionaries of the time, the word "Israel"
only referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe, which is
consistent with the Bible text. See "Israel," Webster's New
International Dictionary 2nd (1950) Edition.
All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being
really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects and furthers the
goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of creating
an environment where opposing the State of Israel is considered
"anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate crime" punishable by
law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian Zionist churches
of America.
Only someone with these goals could have written this footnote.
The State of Israel's legal claims to Arab lands are based on the United
Nations Partitioning Agreement of 1947, which gave the Jews only a
fraction of the land they have since occupied by force. But when this
author went to Israel and asked various Israelis where they got the
right to occupy Palestine, each invariably said words to the effect that
"God gave it to us." This interpretation of Hebrew scripture stems from
the book of Genesis and is called the "Abrahamic Covenant". It is
repeated several times and begins with God's promise to a man called
Abraham who was eventually to become the grandfather of a man called
"Israel:"
"[2] AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION, AND I WILL BLESS THEE, AND
MAKE THY NAME GREAT; AND THOU SHALL BE A BLESSING:"
"[3] AND I WILL BLESS THEM THAT BLESS THEE, AND CURSE HIM THAT CURSETH
THEE: AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED." Genesis
12:3, King James Edition.
It is upon this promise to a single person that modern Israeli Zionists
base their claims to what amounts to the entire Mid-East. Its logic is
roughly the equivalent of someone claiming to be the heir to the John
Paul Getty estate because the great man had once sent a letter to
someone's cousin seven times removed containing the salutation "wishing
you my very best." In the publication, "Sherry's War," We Hold These
Truths provides a common sense discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant and
how millions of Christians are taught to misunderstand it.
It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the lack
of logic in Scofield's theology, which has led followers of Christ so
far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various Bible references
given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But we will resist the
temptation to do this, because others have already done it quite well
and more importantly because it leads us off our course.
It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past as Canfield has
done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable pathological
liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is not in
Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent people
who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual war.
Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these
1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the text
of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to support the
Zionist State of Israel in its war against the Palestinians and any
other wars it may enter into. In this purpose, Zionism has completely
succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more recently labeled ?Christian
Zionists,? have remained mute during wars upon Israel's enemies in
Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. It is past time to
stop the spilling of more blood, some of it Christian blood.
Now, for evidence of the intent of the Zionists deception of Christians,
let us examine some Scofield's notes that have been altered or removed
by Oxford after his death. In 1908 Scofield wrote in 1908:
"THE CONTRAST, 'I KNOW THAT YE ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED' - 'IF YE WERE
ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN' IS THAT BETWEEN THE NATURAL AND THE SPIRITUAL
POSTERITY OF ABRAHAM. THE ISRAELITISH PEOPLE AND ISHMAELITISH PEOPLE ARE
THE FORMER; ALL WHO ARE 'OF THE PRECIOUS FAITH WITH ABRAHAM,' WHETHER
JEWS OR GENTILES, ARE THE LATTER (ROM 9, 6-8; GAL, 4-14.) SEE 'ABRAHAMIC
COVENANT' GEN. 15, 18, NOTE)." ( Scofield's 1945 edition, page 1127,
note to John 8:39)
Compare that with the Oxford note substituted in the 1967 Edition:
"8:37 ALL JEWS ARE NATURAL DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, BUT ARE NOT
NECESSARILY HIS SPIRITUAL POSTERITY, CP Rom 9-6-8, Gal 3: 6-14" (Note
(1) P1136, Oxford 1967 Edition, note to Jn 8:37.)
How, pray tell, can "all Jews" be "natural descendants of Abraham," a
Chaldean who lived some 3000 years ago? Persons of all races are Jews
and new Jews are being converted every day from every race. One might as
well say all Lutherans are the natural descendants of Martin Luther; or
that all Baptists come from the loins of John the Baptist. This note
could only have been written by an Israeli patriot, for no one else
would have a vested interest in promoting this genetic nonsense. Shame
on those who accept this racism; it is apostate Christianity.
The original Scofield note was far out of line with traditional
Christianity in 1908, and should have been treated as heresy then. Yet
Scofield had failed to go far enough for the Zionists. Scofield clearly
recognized what the book of Genesis states, that the sons of Ishmael are
co-heirs to Abraham's ancient promise. Did not Scofield say "the
Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people are...the natural posterity
of Abraham"? The Oxford Press simply waited for Scofield to die and
changed it as they wished.
And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists who
rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?
The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider Arabs
in general and the Prophet Mohammed in particular to be direct
descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son and older half-brother of
Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as "Israel." Many Arabs
believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham's promise,
and they correctly believe that present-day Israelis have no Biblical
right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also speaks of
Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter how
Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent Christians
from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.
The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in
the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect, substituted
the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish
people," as Scofield originally wrote it. The Israelitish and
Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the Zionists want to claim
the Arabs? part of the presumed birthright right now! Read it again;
"All Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily
his spiritual posterity."
And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford book. On the same
page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note referring
to the New Testament book of John 8:37.
"(2) 8:44 That This Satanic Fatherhood Cannot Be Limited To The
Pharisees Is Made Clear In 1jn3:8-10" (note SRB 1967 Edition, P1137 to
John 8:44)
Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus is
speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his
day, and to no one else:
"Ye are of your father the devil and the lust of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speakest a lie, he speakest of
his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44 King James
Ed.)
Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what
Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they
inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred
text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It seems
the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but they do
not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by themselves.
Now here's the text of the verse to which Oxford refers in order to try
to solve this problem:
"He that commiteth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from
the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he
might destroy the work of the devil." (1Jn3:8.King James Edition)
Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers in a speech about
avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford's argument that Jesus was not
talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he called them
"Sons of Satan" in John 8:44. It is a different book written at a
different time to a different audience. This is typical Christian
Zionist diversion.

To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must
read the rest of John 8, not something from another book.
Furthermore, John 8:44 is only one of some 77 verses where Jesus
confronted the Pharisees by name and in many cases addressed them as
"satanic" and as "vipers." Oxford simply ignores most of these
denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes at all, and the Christian
Zionists go along without question.
These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have
shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful religious
subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls them, or the
dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or the
Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe
themselves. Today's Mid-East wars are not caused by the predisposition
of the peoples, who are no more warlike than any human tribes. Without
the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is carried out by
this subculture--the most vocal being the celebrity Christian
evangelists--there would be no such wars, for there is not enough
support for war outside of organized Zionist Christianity.
Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church, England is perhaps the most
dedicated new scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly
known as Christian Zionism. He has quipped, "Judging Christianity by
looking at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British
by watching Benny Hill."
Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is Benny
Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting
inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was
speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the
American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star
Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing,
"We are on God's side," speaking of Palestine. He shouted, "This is not
a war between Jews and Arabs. It is a war between God and the Devil."
Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a blood war in
which the Israelis are "God" and the Palestinians are "the Devil."
Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who
have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in
unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many of
Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from his
knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from whom he
seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian Zionists--do
not shrink at his words, because they have been conditioned to accept
them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept Christian persecution,
even burning alive, under Nero. Several evangelists in attendance
affirmed their agreement with Hinn - "the line between Christians and
Muslims is the difference between good and evil."
An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the
fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James Dobson
and hundreds more. Yet Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not as
shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist
Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of conservative
religious thought. Land may have stopped short of branding all Muslims
as devils, but he attacked their leader and Prophet and stated that,
according to Baptist Bible interpretation, the Palestinian people have
no legal rights to property in Palestine. (See our discussion of
Southern Baptists entitled "The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame".)
The more politically conservative and libertarian the speaker expressing
hatred for Islam, the more shocking the statement sounds. One example is
Samuel Blumenfeld, a veteran textbook author and advocate of home
education. His attack on Islam in a story entitled "Religion and
Satanism" in the April 2002 conservative, Calvinist Chalcedon Report
leaves little room for civil liberties and freedom of thought. He
writes, "Islam is a religion ruled by Satan," and asks, "Can anyone
under the influence of Satan be trusted?? Blumenfeld shows poor judgment
and a lack of morality when he allows phrases such as "willing agents of
Satan," "another manifestation of Satanism" and "the willingness of
Muslims to believe blatant lies," to spill from his pen.
How can anyone interpret these words by Land, Hinn, Blumenfeld, and yes,
our own President, as anything less than race hatred? Who would make
such generalized and transparently false statements against any other
minority except Muslims?
About 100 million American Christians need to recover their true faith
in Christ Jesus, who never denounced any individual on account of his
group. Jesus even tried to save the Pharisees, and only denounced them
when they showed themselves to be deceivers. There is not a word in the
New Testament that urges any follower of Jesus to murder one child in
Iraq or condemn Palestine to death. Race hatred is a Zionist, not a
Christian, strategy.
Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy in the entire
history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its leaders:
they have already brought the blood of untold numbers innocent people
down upon the spires and prayer benches of America's churches.
WHTT asks every Christian to share this article with pastors and church
leaders, especially lay leaders. We ask every Muslim and Jew who reads
it to do the same. You might wish to suspend giving money to any
organizations that preach Zionist race hatred in any form, especially
under the cover Jesus Christ. And lastly, We Hold These Truths invites
your informed comments and questions. -Copyright 2002, WHTT, may be
reproduced in full with permission.
This story is part of the script for soon to be released film,
The Tragedy and the Turning, Part I The Cause of our Conflicts
http://eshop.whtt.org/eshop.php?id=22
Toward the Strait Gate,
Charles E. Carlson, Director
We Hold These Truths
Project Strait Gate
PO Box 14491
Scottsdale, AZ, 85267
http://www.whtt.org
Reports and vigil events
http://whtt.org/straitgate/index.php?id=14&news=1
480 947 3329
The Cause of the Conflict Part 1: Fixing Blame
Charles E. Carlson Jul 07, 2002
The terrible war
between
Israel
Palestine
Naming the guilty parties is easy
because they have come forward publicly to name themselves. The
guilty are neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli people. At the
root of the problem is a race-hate cult that has emerged under
American Zionist leadership. Without this unholy alliance there
would have been no uprisings, because the
Ralph Reed, Chairman of the
Georgia Republican Party and former executive director of Pat
Robertsons Christian Coalition, and Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder
of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, have become
co-chairmen of a new anti-Islamic hate group called the "Stand for
Rabbi Eckstein describes "Stand
for
The "Stand for
According to a report by Adella
M. Banks of the Religious News Service, the new SBC president,
Reverend Jack Graham, pastor of
Here is the text of the statement by Jerry Vines, outgoing president of the SBC: "Islam is founded by Mohammed, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, and his last one was a nine-year old girl." (emphasis added) So said Reverend Vines.
After his June 11 election, Dr. Graham said he believes successors statement is "accurate." Mr. Graham did not make it clear why having a harem, one wife being a child, is proof of either pedophilia or demon-possession in the 9th century. Baptists also read the Book of Genesis as if it were written today, as we will see.
Perhaps Dr. Graham is judging
the Islamist prophets marriage and sexual practices by his own
congregation in
Richard L. Land, a
Harvard-educated spokesman for the SBC, obviously thinks Southern
Baptist ethics do not preclude slandering another religion, if that
religion is an enemy of
In its condemnation of
Mohammed, the Southern Baptist leadership did not mention the
well-known rules for pederasty set out in
Outgoing President Vine expressed what must be taken as the official Southern Baptist view. His choice of words, "pedophile" and "demonic," is slanderous and seems designed to deliberately provoke anger among Muslims. Reverend Graham affirmed Vines comment, but later soft-peddled by stating "we realize there are differences in religions but every person has the right to worship in adherence to the confines and dictates of his heart." Obviously Dr. Graham cannot believe both of his statements. Hatred of Islam is Baptist policy, and it leads not to a call for political action, but to war on Islam.
The SBCs own leadership explains the heretical use of scripture that demands it go to war against Islam on the side of Rabbi Eckstein and his fellow Israeli Patriots. Richard L. Land, a permanent fixture as head of the powerful Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission stated:
"God made an
unconditional covenant (with the present day state of
These are not just hot words
from a cold pulpit; they were delivered at a June 10 press briefing
at the Southern Baptist Convention at the
Land continued: "Supporting
Can anyone doubt the meaning of
Dr. Lands words? He has said that the state of
When the Baptists allow
Ariel Sharon embraces the
Celebrity Christians fondly as "Christian Zionists," but he makes no
secret of his own heathenism. Recently
Whatever became of the
"Christian Right"? Dr. Land provides a childish explanation which he
no doubt expects every Baptist to understand from the footnotes of
his Scofield or McArthur Study Bible. These are the incredible words
Dr. Land has publicly proclaimed: "God has blessed
them (referring to Arabs), and He will continue to
bless them everywhere but
Lands logic is explained in the
heretical footnotes of Oxford University Presss own
dispensationalist bible, custom written in 1962 and named the
Scofield Study Bible (to be discussed in detail in our next
edition). The Southern Baptist Convention has apparently dropped the
true and uncorrupted bible as its standard of truth; it now relies
on footnotes printed in a book published by one of the most
anti-Christian publishers one could find. Dr. Land quotes almost
word-for-word from the
The SBC interprets the ancient
Hebrew Scriptures found in Genesis as if they were written in 1948.
The reason for this is that the Oxford Press rewrote the Baptists
favorite Bible in 1962 to accommodate the creation of the state of
Dr. Land wants us to believe
that while God blessed both the sons of Abram, one was given land
and the other none. Furthermore, he wants us to believe he has
divine knowledge of which of the sons is the founder of which living
tribe, and moreover he want us to believe he knows which families
today are descended from each of the two sons. He gets his
information from an
Worst of all, based upon Dr.
Lands (and Rabbi Ecksteins) interpretation of these footnotes, we
are supposed to decide who lives and who dies in the
Had Oxford University Press known they could get away with it in 1962; they might have inserted a footnote about Prophet Mohammed that made him out to be a "demon-possessed pedophile." After all, Mohammed was born well before 1962, so why not put him in too?
The SBCs outrageously racist words make this writer personally ashamed to have once been a Baptist Deacon. Drs. Graham, Vine and Land and many others all clearly tell us they are prepared to commit genocide on the Palestinian people, members of the Arab race. Perhaps it is less painful to watch them die if their Prophet is considered a pedophile and a devil.
Dr. Land wills that the Arabs
should leave. He makes no concession for the Christian Arabs in
Not a single Israeli of any
religion can prove himself to be in direct lineage to someone three
thousand years ago. This is also true of the rest of us, no matter
how tidy the family records.
In
Dr. Land and his allies would,
of course, approve of this raid, because they believe the Israelis
are of Jacobs seed and the Arabs are of Ishmaels. But they have no
shred of evidence for either belief, except in the footnotes of the
Oxford Bible and its several prosperous imitators. Does Dr. Land
have a special "dispensation� to protect Mr. J s
children, when the rest of the Arabs have to hit the "highway?" Does
he really believe Israelis from
Anticipate our final issue in
this series:
How Thieves Corrupted the Bible by Adding the
READING AND LISTENING:
The
Final Apostasy
- by Gordon Ginn Ph.D. Is your church apostate,
would you know it if it were? A book that reveals the untold
historical and documented ex-post facto changes made in the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament...after Christ. These changes have
effected what all of us believe, from the Reformation to Day911.
Ginn shed light on the turmoil in the
"Sherrys War" -
How Judeo-Christians mix and match scripture verses and use of extra
text out of context to promote the
Part II: http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=158